Synthetic Marijuana: Assessment of Usage, Motivation and Associated Risks in Adolescent Substance Users

Abstract

Objectives: Use of Synthetic and designer products, including synthetic marijuana (SM), among adolescents poses a major risk to public health. Little is known about the motivating factors of synthetic substance use in adolescents. This study examined the motivations, predictors, perceived risks and benefits, and differences with SM versus natural marijuana among adolescents. Methods: Between April 2016 and May 2018, a convenience sample of adolescents receiving substance use treatment from a local counseling center completed an anonymous survey to assess the use of natural and synthetic marijuana use, the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire to assess levels of current psychiatric symptoms and the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences-Positive Scale to assess symptoms of psychosis. Results: A total of 80 adolescents (age range of 14-18 years; 71% male; 53% Caucasian) completed the study. Of these, 39 (49%) reported natural marijuana use (natural marijuana users) and 41 (51%) reported both synthetic and natural marijuana use (dual users). The most commonly reported reasons for using SM were its low cost and reduced risk of detection. Participants who were familiar with SM and reported a desire to avoid detection on drug tests were likelier to use SM (all P < .05). Dual users reported more benefits and risks associated with SM use when compared to natural marijuana users ( P ⩽ .05). The use of SM also heightened the perceived medical risks of natural marijuana, including seizures and respiratory issues ( P < .05), compared with natural marijuana users. While dual users self-reported more conduct ( P = .009) and externalizing problems ( P = .024) when compared to natural marijuana users, there were no group differences in psychotic symptoms, nor correlations with the frequency of synthetic or natural marijuana use and psychotic symptoms except that persecutory ideation correlated with the frequency of natural marijuana use during the past 12 months ( rp = 0.28, P = .04). Conclusions: These results suggest that reports of cost savings, and lack of detection on urine drug screens are common reasons for SM use in adolescents despite being aware of the risks of using SM. Perceived benefits of using synthetics and other novel substances appear diverse, and merit further exploration as a better understanding of what motivates adolescents to use specific novel substances may guide prevention and treatment efforts.