ACMT Position Statement: Addressing Pediatric Cannabis Exposure
In recent years, the use of medicinal cannabis has expanded, and cannabis has been decriminalized or legalized in many states. In addition to these changes in cannabis policy, there has been significant increase in the types, number, and potency of available products. Due to these changes in policy and availability, inadvertent cannabis exposures in children have been on the rise, leading to significant adverse events. ACMT believes stakeholders should implement measures to prevent pediatric cannabis poisonings.
For the purposes of this statement, we consider children to be individuals < 12 years of age. This position statement is not intended to address either the intentional use of cannabis by adolescents or prescription cannabidiol. We consider “exposure” to be contact between a person and a cannabis product. We characterize any adverse event due to exposure as “poisoning.”
Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit drug in the USA . In recent years, many states have...
Sources of Funding
Compliance with Ethical Standards
While individual practitioners may differ, these are the positions of the American College of Medical Toxicology (ACMT) at the time written, after a review of the issue and pertinent literature.
Conflicts of Interest
- 1.Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration. Results from the 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed Tables. Rockville: Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality; 2017. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-DetTabs-2016/NSDUH-DetTabs-2016.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2019.Google Scholar
- 3.Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration. Highlights of the 2011 Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) findings on drug-related emergency department visits. The DAWN Report. 2013. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/DAWN127/DAWN127/sr127-DAWN-highlights.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2019.
- 11.Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32(4):1008–15.Google Scholar