This Policy Proposal has been designed for Australia with the hard learned lessons from other jurisdictions in mind. Ensuring faux claims of perceived manageability are addressed. Not only has there been considerable consultation with health, legal and policy professionals, but with the voice of the vast silent majority of non-substance users being heard. Informing and being informed by this majority demographic who have been kept in the dark on this now heavily engineered and dangerous psychotropic toxin.
Australians deserve best practice safety, health and wellbeing policy.
Alcohol and Tobacco are still the greatest contributors of harm to the public health and safety arena. Adding another psychotropic toxin to the currents of trade will only amplify and add to these growing community harms.
Once a substance is trivialised, normalised, decriminalised, legalised then commercialised – harms will increase and the human cost in short and long-term harms, not least to the emerging generation will be incalculable.
All that will be achieved is the greater accessibility, availability and acceptability of a now addictive and demand sustaining substance. Add to
that, commercialisation – you now have another thriving addiction for profit industry decimating public and community health, with impunity. This is completely contrary to good public health, safety and productivity.
This document will demonstrate that the Penington Institute modelling of vast sums of money to be garnered by the Victorian Government from tax revenues and increased employment will be far outweighed by the health and social costs presented by cannabis legalisation, and that the Penington document is culpably silent on the very real demonstrable costs that far outweigh its touted benefits.
The ‘Perfect Permission’ model of legalised substances has not removed the criminal dealer from the market place, and will not do so in Australia. If the argument is applied that ‘enforcement will ensure the regulated market will not be undermined or black market cannabis continues’, then we could argue that could be done now, whilst the substance is still technically illegal. It is all about political will.
The question then becomes not whether a substance can be policed, but whether there is the political will to police it in the best interest of public health, safety and wellbeing.
A major new study has uncovered a deeply concerning connection between cannabis use and dramatically rising cancer rates amongst adolescents and young adults (AYAs) in North America. This comprehensive study, analysing data from 2000 to 2019, provides compelling evidence that cannabis exposure may be accelerating breast and testicular cancer incidence in young people at an unprecedented rate.
The Scope of Rising Cancer Rates in Young People
The statistics paint a troubling picture. In the United States, breast cancer diagnoses in females aged 20-34 increased by a staggering 26% between 2000 and 2019, rising from 3,622 new cases to 4,868 cases annually. Similarly, testicular cancer in males aged 15-39 saw a 21% increase, climbing from 5,111 to 6,181 new cases per year.
What makes these figures particularly alarming is the acceleration pattern observed in the data. Breast cancer rates in young women showed a dramatic surge after 2010, with the annual percentage increase jumping from 0.61% during 2000-2010 to 1.73% during 2010-2019—a staggering 182% acceleration. This timeline corresponds directly with the progressive legalisation of cannabis across various American states.
Cannabis Legalisation and Cancer Incidence: A Disturbing Correlation
The research examined cancer registry data from 22 states representing nearly half the US population, categorising regions based on their cannabis legalisation status. The findings reveal a stark difference between areas that had legalised cannabis and those that had not.
In states that legalised cannabis, breast cancer rates in young women increased at 1.3% annually, compared to just 0.7% in non-legalising states. For testicular cancer, the disparity was even more pronounced. Legalising states showed continuous increases of 1.2% annually throughout the study period, whilst non-legalising states experienced no significant increase until 2011, followed by a much smaller rise thereafter.
By 2019, cancer incidence rates had become notably higher in cannabis-legalising jurisdictions. Breast cancer increased by 26% in legalising regions compared to 13% in non-legalising areas, whilst testicular cancer rose by 24% versus 17% respectively.
Cannabis Use and Cancer Risk: The Biological Connection
The research provides compelling evidence for a biological mechanism linking cannabis exposure to cancer development. Both breast and testicular tissues contain endocannabinoid receptors, particularly cannabidiol receptor 1 (CB-1), which interact directly with cannabis compounds. This creates a pathway through which cannabis can potentially trigger carcinogenic processes.
Furthermore, cannabis acts as an endocrine disruptor, interfering with luteinising hormone and gonadotropin receptors present in both breast and testicular tissue. This hormonal disruption may create conditions conducive to cancer development, particularly in young people whose reproductive systems are still developing.
The study found that triple-negative breast cancer—the most aggressive form—showed the strongest correlation with cannabis legalisation, with rates increasing by 5.6% annually in legalising states compared to 2.5% in non-legalising regions.
International Evidence: Canada’s Experience
Canada’s experience provides additional concerning evidence. Following nationwide cannabis legalisation in 2018, Canada has experienced even more dramatic increases than the United States. Breast cancer in young Canadian women aged 20-34 increased by 35% between 2000 and 2019, whilst testicular cancer in males aged 15-39 surged by an extraordinary 83%.
The research reveals that cannabis use disorder prevalence in Canada is highest amongst 15-24 year olds, with cancer incidence peaks occurring 5-15 years later in life—suggesting a concerning latency period between cannabis exposure and cancer development.
THC Potency: An Escalating Threat
Modern cannabis products pose an amplified risk due to dramatically increased THC concentrations. The study found strong correlations between rising THC potency and cancer incidence rates, with correlation coefficients of 0.85 for breast cancer and 0.94 for testicular cancer.
Today’s cannabis contains THC levels far exceeding those of previous decades, potentially explaining the acceleration in cancer rates observed in recent years. This increased potency may be particularly concentrated in legalising jurisdictions where cannabis industries focus on developing high-THC products.
Demographic Patterns and Vulnerable Populations
The research identified concerning demographic patterns in cannabis-related cancer risk. Among ethnic groups, breast cancer correlations with cannabis legalisation were strongest in non-Hispanic white and black females, whilst testicular cancer correlations were most pronounced in Hispanic and Native American males.
These patterns reflect known cannabis usage demographics, with the research noting that cannabis use among female adolescents in the United States is highest among non-Hispanic whites, aligning with the observed cancer trends.
Time to Cancer Development: A Rapid Threat
Perhaps most alarming is the speed at which cannabis appears to trigger cancer development. The age patterns observed suggest that cannabis-induced cancers may develop within 5-10 years of exposure, with most cases occurring within 5-15 years. This rapid timeline contradicts assumptions that cancer development requires decades of exposure to carcinogenic substances.
For young people beginning cannabis use in their teens or early twenties, this means potential cancer diagnoses could occur during what should be their healthiest years, with devastating consequences for their future health and wellbeing.
Treatment Outcomes: Cannabis Compounds the Problem
Beyond increasing cancer risk, cannabis use may also compromise treatment effectiveness once cancer develops. Research on metastatic breast cancer patients found that cannabis users experienced significantly shorter progression-free survival (3.4 versus 13.1 months) and overall survival (6.4 versus 28.5 months) compared to non-users.
These findings suggest that cannabis not only increases cancer risk but may also reduce the chances of successful treatment, creating a double jeopardy for young people who use these substances.
Public Health Implications and Prevention
The evidence presented demands urgent reconsideration of cannabis policies and public health messaging. With adolescents and young adults representing the highest cannabis-using demographic—18-25 year olds show the highest usage rates in the United States—targeted prevention efforts are crucial.
The research challenges common misconceptions about cannabis safety, particularly the notion that it represents a “natural” or “harmless” alternative to other substances. The data clearly demonstrates that cannabis use carries serious long-term health consequences that can manifest relatively quickly in young users.
The Need for Immediate Action
This study provides the strongest evidence yet linking cannabis use and cancer risk in young people. The timing patterns, biological explanations, and consistent results across both countries all point to serious health risks that need immediate attention.
Too many young people, parents, teachers, and politicians still think cannabis is harmless – something popular culture has made worse. But the evidence shows that using cannabis as a teenager or young adult can lead to cancer in just a few years, not the decades we might expect.
The best way to protect young people from these serious health problems is prevention. When people understand the real risks of cannabis use, they can make better choices about their health and their future. (Source: WRD Newsacademia.edu)
The convergence of early initiation, increasing product potency, and widespread availability has reshaped the contemporary cannabis landscape, heightening concerns about its impact on adolescent mental health. Translational research combining longitudinal human neuroimaging and animal models provides compelling evidence that cannabis use—particularly with high-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) products and frequent use—can disrupt adolescent brain development and behavior. This vulnerability is especially relevant to trajectories leading to psychosis, schizophrenia, and cannabis use disorder, while also elevating risks for anxiety and depression. Although not all adolescents who use cannabis will experience adverse outcomes, a susceptible subset may face lasting consequences. These risks underscore the urgent need for targeted public education and innovative clinical research to mitigate cannabis-associated harms. Encouragingly, emerging neurobiological findings suggest that not all cannabis-induced brain changes persist into adulthood. Epigenetic mechanisms implicated in the long-term effects of THC exposure further indicate that some neural and behavioral alterations may be reversible. Given the high plasticity of the adolescent brain, this evidence points to a critical window for prevention and early intervention strategies capable of altering the course of cannabis-related psychopathology and supporting more resilient developmental outcomes. (Source:Publication: American Journal of Psychiatry Volume 182, Number 7; https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.20250444)
This film offers a candid and intimate look at cannabis-induced psychosis through the eyes of young people who lived it, revealing the silent epidemic that’s tearing apart families, and the long path to recovery. Cannabis-Induced Psychosis: A Silent Epidemic pulls back the curtain on a crisis that too often goes unnamed. Told through the voices of young people who’ve lived through psychosis and the parents who tried to hold them together, the film offers an unflinching look at how high-potency THC can fracture lives and upend futures. Families walk us through the hardest moments of their lives as they watch their kids unravel, search for help, and face a system with few answers.
Doctors offer clinical insight, while the young people themselves reflect on what it felt like to lose touch with reality and how they found their way back.
Landmark JAMA Psychiatry study demolished scientific case for downgrading marijuana’s legal status
A devastating analysis published in JAMA Psychiatry tore apart the Biden administration’s case for cannabis rescheduling, revealing how political pressure trumped scientific rigour in one of America’s most consequential drug policy decisions.
The comprehensive report, authored by Harvard Medical School’s Dr Bertha Madras and Heritage Foundation legal scholar Paul Larkin, exposed how the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) abandoned decades of established medical standards to recommend moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act.
Ignoring the Evidence
The authors revealed that HHS systematically ignored mounting evidence of cannabis harms whilst creating entirely new, legally unprecedented criteria to justify rescheduling. Most strikingly, the agency downplayed the alarming reality that cannabis use disorder (CUD) affected up to 30% of users, with rates amongst young people reaching epidemic proportions.
“The prevalence of CUD amongst adolescents and young adults (16.5%) is converging with alcohol use disorder (16.4%),” the study noted, highlighting data showing that daily cannabis use had increased fifteen-fold since 1992. Even more concerning, by 2022, America recorded more daily cannabis users (17.7 million) than daily alcohol users (14.7 million) for the first time in history.
Medical Consensus? What Medical Consensus?
Perhaps most damning was the revelation that only approximately 2% of America’s patient-care physicians actually recommended cannabis to their patients. Of the 29,500 clinicians authorised to recommend medical marijuana, just over half held proper medical degrees—the rest included dentists, physician assistants, and other healthcare workers operating far outside their expertise.
The study exposed how cannabis recommendations often lacked basic medical protocols: “Cannabis recommendations often lack details on dose, frequency, composition, route of administration, THC content, tapering, or product quality, unlike FDA-approved prescriptions.”
Cherry-Picked Comparisons
HHS’s argument that cannabis had “low abuse potential” relied on comparing it to alcohol—a substance explicitly excluded from the Controlled Substances Act. This bizarre comparison ignored cannabis-specific harms including psychosis, schizophrenia, cognitive impairment, and the debilitating cannabis hyperemesis syndrome that sent thousands to hospital emergency departments.
The authors noted that assuming causality, “one-fifth of cases of schizophrenia amongst young males might be prevented or delayed by averting CUD.”
State Programmes: Politics, Not Medicine
The report dismantled claims about widespread medical acceptance by revealing the chaotic reality of state cannabis programmes. Geographic variation in authorising clinicians ranged wildly—from 0.8 per 1,000 patients in Oklahoma to 109 per 1,000 in Mississippi—suggesting the creation of “weed mills” analogous to the prescription opioid “pill mills” that fuelled America’s overdose crisis.
Many states allowed cannabis recommendations for virtually any condition without physical examinations or diagnostic tests. By 2021, states had approved cannabis for 105 different conditions, most lacking quality research support.
The Science Didn’t Stack Up
On the crucial question of medical efficacy, the study revealed that 24 meta-analyses examining cannabis for chronic pain—the most common reason for medical recommendations—had failed to endorse its use. The International Association for the Study of Pain explicitly stated there wasn’t “enough high-quality human clinical safety and efficacy evidence” to endorse cannabis for pain management.
For anxiety and PTSD—the second and third most common qualifying conditions—”no high-quality studies exist showing cannabis is effective,” the authors reported.
Youth at Risk
The analysis emphasised how rescheduling would have sent dangerous signals to young people at a critical developmental stage. With 53% of new cannabis users starting before age 21, and minors developing CUD at twice the rate of adults, the timing couldn’t have been worse for policy changes that might normalise cannabis use.
A Policy Crossroads
The study’s conclusions were clear: “The criteria and evidence HHS used to recommend reclassifying cannabis to Schedule III are flawed. If the DEA agrees, it will contradict past federal health concerns and ignore emerging data on rising use, disordered use, and negative health effects.”
Dr Kevin Sabet, a former White House drug policy advisor, emphasised the stakes: “We cannot allow policy to be driven by commercial interests and political momentum while ignoring public health. The evidence in this paper makes it clear that rescheduling marijuana would undermine decades of prevention efforts.”
As the Drug Enforcement Administration considered HHS’s recommendation for cannabis rescheduling, this landmark analysis offered a critical framework for evidence-based decision-making. The question was whether scientific integrity would guide the future of America’s drug policy or if political pressures would take precedence.
The authors issued a stark warning: rescheduling “could undermine FDA authority and compromise the integrity of our drug approval process and pharmaceutical supply.”
In an era of growing policy polarisation, this analysis stood out as a rare source of clear, evidence-based guidance on one of the most significant public health decisions of our time. (Source: WRD News – JAMAWRD News – JAMA)
World Federation Against Drugs (W.F.A.D) Dalgarno Institute is a member of this global initiative. For evidence based data on best practice drug policy in the global context.
The Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc. is to reduce the use of illegal drugs. We work to achieve this mission by conducting research, promoting ideas that are affordable and scalable...
Drug Free Australia Website. Drug Free Australia is a peak body, representing organizations and individuals who value the health and wellbeing of our nation...
(I.T.F.S.D.P) This international peak body continues to monitor and influence illicit drug policy on the international stage. Dalgarno Institute is a member organisation.
The National Alliance for Action on Alcohol is a national coalition of health and community organisations from across Australia that has been formed with the goal of reducing alcohol-related harm.
RiverMend Health is a premier provider of scientifically driven, specialty behavioral health services to those suffering from alcohol and drug dependency, dual disorders, eating disorders, obesity and chronic pain.
This Policy Proposal has been designed for Australia with the hard learned lessons from other jurisdictions in mind. Ensuring faux claims of perceived manageability are addressed. Not only has there been considerable consultation with health, legal and policy professionals, but with the voice of the vast silent majority of non-substance users being heard. Informing and being informed by this majority demographic who have been kept in the dark on this now heavily engineered and dangerous psychotropic toxin.
The statistics paint a troubling picture. In the United States, breast cancer diagnoses in females aged 20-34 increased by a staggering 26% between 2000 and 2019, rising from 3,622 new cases to 4,868 cases annually. Similarly, testicular cancer in males aged 15-39 saw a 21% increase, climbing from 5,111 to 6,181 new cases per year.
Landmark JAMA Psychiatry study demolished scientific case for downgrading marijuana’s legal status
