Cross-sectional survey reveals delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol use varies by state marijuana regulations, indicating regulatory gaps may influence consumption.
Delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol has gained popularity since the passage of the 2018 U.S. Farm Bill. The absence of federal laws and varying state regulations governing delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol have allowed manufacturers to evade restrictions placed on marijuana products. This study examined delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol use across different state marijuana and delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol policies. A cross-sectional, web-based survey of 1,523 U.S. adults was conducted in October-November 2023. Responses were weighted to represent the national adult population. Inverse-probability-of-treatment weights balanced covariates across policy groups; adjusted risk ratios and 95% CIs were estimated in 2025 for state (1) marijuana policy (prohibited, medical only, recreational) and (2) delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol policy (prohibited, regulated, unregulated). Approximately 7.7% (95% CI=6.5, 9.1) of U.S. adults reported using delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol in their lifetime. The prevalence of delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol use was lower among adults in states permitting recreational marijuana use (5.5%; adjusted risk ratio=0.48, 95% CI=0.33, 0.70) and lower in states permitting medical use only (8.5%; adjusted risk ratio=0.73, 95% CI=0.46, 1.14) than in states prohibiting all marijuana use (10.9%). Adults in states that regulated (3.9%; adjusted risk ratio=0.33, 95% CI=0.20, 0.55) or prohibited (4.5%; adjusted risk ratio=0.47, 95% CI=0.28, 0.78) delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol sales reported lower rates of delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol use than adults in states with unregulated markets for delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol (10.5%). Delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol use is more common where marijuana remains prohibited and less common where delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol sales are regulated or prohibited. State-level restrictions targeting delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol appear to reduce use, suggesting that closing regulatory gaps could limit consumption of these products.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Satybaldiyeva et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: