# Cannabis use and dependence among festival attendees: results from the French OCTOPUS survey

Sarah Chaaban, Marion Istvan, Benoit Schreck, Pauline Laigo, Morgane Rousselet, Marie Grall-Bronnec, Stéphanie Pain, Caroline Victorri-Vigneau

► To cite this version:

Sarah Chaaban, Marion Istvan, Benoit Schreck, Pauline Laigo, Morgane Rousselet, et al.. Cannabis use and dependence among festival attendees: results from the French OCTOPUS survey. BMC Public Health, 2024, 24 (1), pp.992. 10.1186/s12889-024-18496-9. hal-04546123

HAL Id: hal-04546123

https://hal.science/hal-04546123

Submitted on 15 Apr 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Cannabis use and dependence among festival attendees: results from the French OCTOPUS survey

Sarah Chaaban, Marion Istvan, Benoît Schreck, Pauline Laigo, Morgane Rousselet, Marie Grall-Bronnec, Stéphanie Pain, Caroline Victorri-Vigneau

► To cite this version:

Sarah Chaaban, Marion Istvan, Benoît Schreck, Pauline Laigo, Morgane Rousselet, et al.. Cannabis use and dependence among festival attendees: results from the French OCTOPUS survey. BMC Public Health, 2024, 24 (1), pp.992. 10.1186/s12889-024-18496-9. hal-04546123

HAL Id: hal-04546123

https://hal.science/hal-04546123v1

Submitted on 15 Apr 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
RESEARCH

Open Access

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

# Cannabis use and dependence among festival attendees: results from the French OCTOPUS survey

Sarah Chaaban¹, Marion Istvan¹,², Benoit Schreck²,³, Pauline Laigo¹, Morgane Rousselet¹,²,³*, Marie Grall-Bronnec²,³, Stéphanie Pain⁴,⁵ and Caroline Victorri-Vigneau¹,²

**Abstract**

**Background** Chronic use of cannabis is associated with an increased risk of psychosocial, mental and physical health impairments. Sociohealth institutions reach a very limited proportion of cannabis users in need of treatment. Using data collected from festival attendees, this study aimed to estimate the prevalence of dependent cannabis users and to characterize cannabis dependence.

**Methods** We used data from the cross-sectional OCTOPUS survey carried out at 13 music events in the French department of Loire-Atlantique between July 2017 and July 2018. 383 participants aged 18 or older underwent a face-to-face interview about their basic sociodemographics, tobacco use, alcohol use and past-year substance use. Using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV) criteria, we estimated the prevalence of dependent cannabis users and characterized their dependence.

**Results** More than two-thirds of participants reported that they had used cannabis in the past 12 months. Among 194 regular cannabis users (at least monthly), 63.4% were dependent. At least 40% of regular users reported health and/or social consequences of cannabis use. Compared to nondependent cannabis users, dependent cannabis users were more likely to be stimulant users and hallucinogen users.

**Conclusions** Dependent cannabis use is common among festival attendees, especially among stimulant or hal-lucinogen users. Festival settings may be important arenas for i) implementing efficient harm reduction measures to prevent dependence and ii) providing information on care structures and promoting the use of care to dependent users. In addition, healthcare professionals should be aware of trends in polysubstance use among dependent can-nabis users.

**Keywords** Cannabis, Festival attendees, Cannabis dependence, DSM-IV criteria, Addictovigilance, Party scene

<footnote>*Correspondence:
Morgane Rousselet
morgane.rousselet@chu-nantes.fr
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article</footnote>
RESEARCH

Open Access

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

# Cannabis use and dependence among festival attendees: results from the French OCTOPUS survey

Sarah Chaaban¹, Marion Istvan¹,², Benoit Schreck²,³, Pauline Laigo¹, Morgane Rousselet¹,²,³*, Marie Grall-Bronnec²,³, Stéphanie Pain⁴,⁵ and Caroline Victorri-Vigneau¹,²

**Abstract**

**Background** Chronic use of cannabis is associated with an increased risk of psychosocial, mental and physical health impairments. Sociohealth institutions reach a very limited proportion of cannabis users in need of treatment. Using data collected from festival attendees, this study aimed to estimate the prevalence of dependent cannabis users and to characterize cannabis dependence.

**Methods** We used data from the cross-sectional OCTOPUS survey carried out at 13 music events in the French department of Loire-Atlantique between July 2017 and July 2018. 383 participants aged 18 or older underwent a face-to-face interview about their basic sociodemographics, tobacco use, alcohol use and past-year substance use. Using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV) criteria, we estimated the prevalence of dependent cannabis users and characterized their dependence.

**Results** More than two-thirds of participants reported that they had used cannabis in the past 12 months. Among 194 regular cannabis users (at least monthly), 63.4% were dependent. At least 40% of regular users reported health and/or social consequences of cannabis use. Compared to nondependent cannabis users, dependent cannabis users were more likely to be stimulant users and hallucinogen users.

**Conclusions** Dependent cannabis use is common among festival attendees, especially among stimulant or hal-lucinogen users. Festival settings may be important arenas for i) implementing efficient harm reduction measures to prevent dependence and ii) providing information on care structures and promoting the use of care to dependent users. In addition, healthcare professionals should be aware of trends in polysubstance use among dependent can-nabis users.

**Keywords** Cannabis, Festival attendees, Cannabis dependence, DSM-IV criteria, Addictovigilance, Party scene

<footnote>*Correspondence:
Morgane Rousselet
morgane.rousselet@chu-nantes.fr
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article</footnote>
# Introduction

## Cannabis: a widespread substance leading to substantial health impairments

Cannabis is a plant that has been cultivated and used for recreational and medicinal purposes for many centuries. Its major psychoactive component is Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) [1]. THC interacts with the endocannabinoid system and acts as a partial agonist at cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2. In Europe, cannabis is currently the most widespread psychoactive substance used. The prevalence of cannabis use is estimated to be five times that of other psychoactive substances [2]. A recent report estimates the prevalence of European adults who have consumed cannabis in the past year to be around 8% and even 18.2% among the younger (15–24 years old) [3]. A non-negligible portion uses cannabis on a daily or near-daily basis. The authors note that the level of use and trends varies by country. Policies and regulation of cannabis detention and consumptions differs between European countries, but do not explain the difference in prevalence. For instance, cannabis is illegal in France, and yet, France has the highest prevalence of cannabis consumption in Europe followed by Spain and Denmark. According to the European Drug Report and the French Health Barometer, lifetime cannabis use increased from 44.8 to 47.3% in the French adult population (aged 15–64) between 2017 and 2021 [2, 4]. Moreover, despite a slight reduction compared to previous years, the prevalence of daily cannabis users in France remained relatively high in 2021 (1.7%) [4].

Cannabis is often perceived as a harmless psychoactive substance. This belief may partly be explained by the low risk perception that users have of the drug and its increased availability on the drug market [2, 5]. Nevertheless, cannabis consumers can experience adverse consequences. The European report of 2023 states that cannabis is reported to be responsible for almost a third of all drug treatment admissions in Europe [3]. Short-term side effects of cannabis use are associated with psychiatric effects (such as anxiety, disorientation and derealization) and/or physical impairments (such as dry mouth, increased blood pressure and tachycardia) [6]. In general, these disorders are well tolerated, and intoxication remains non serious [7–9]. In contrast, chronic use of cannabis may frequently lead to substantial health impairments, including somatic disorders, cognitive and psychiatric dysfunctions or even cannabis abuse or dependence [6, 10]. Concerning somatic disorders, the most severe and documented risks are effects on cardiovascular system including tachycardia, coronary syndrome, strokes, arteritis, cardiomyopathies sometimes even for occasional use of cannabis [11–14]. Concerning psychiatric disorders: amotivational syndrome (lack

of motivation, interest or enthusiasm in pursuing and engaging in activities) is associated with long-term cannabis use [6]; involvement of cannabis is suspected in schizophrenia [15] and cannabis-induced psychosis [16]. Concerning risk of dependence, 22.1 million people worldwide meeting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV) diagnostic criteria making cannabis dependence the most prevalent drug use disorder according to the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2016 [17].

## Cannabis use disorders: a public health concern

Worldwide, extensive epidemiological surveys have been conducted to estimate the prevalence of cannabis abuse or dependence in the general population. The results from these studies have been inconsistent, in large measure as a result of methodological differences, use of various cannabis use disorder screening tools, cultural variation, year of data collection or THC content [18–21]. For example, in a systematic review on the prevalence of cannabis use disorders (CUDs), the diagnosis of dependence varied from 3.5 to 40.9%, and the pooled estimated prevalence of cannabis dependence was 13% [18]. In France, the most recent data on cannabis use disorders are from the 2017 French Health Barometer, which showed that 25% of past-year cannabis users were at high risk of problematic use or dependence [22]. In festival settings, data on cannabis use disorders are scarce. One Danish study estimated the prevalence of cannabis dependence among party attendees and showed that out of 143 past-year cannabis users, 15% screened positive for cannabis dependence according to the Severity of Dependence Scale [23]. Due to the high prevalence of cannabis use, more research is needed to assess the risks associated with its consumption, especially since high-THC content products, which are known to be associated with higher rates of dependency, have become widely disseminated [2].

## Festival attendees: a population of young consumers

The regulars of urban events, like music festivals, has allowed a diversification of psychoactive substances available at urban music festival [24]. Substances reported to be used in festival and music events include mainly cannabis, stimulants such as MDMA/ecstasy or cocaine, and hallucinogens such as LSD, mushrooms or ketamine [25–27]. With its recreational properties, cannabis has been found to be particularly popular among party attendees, with a high prevalence of use regardless of the country or the type of festival or musicevents [28, 29]. Different factors have been associated to psychoactive substances consumptions such as age, sex, lifestyle, employment and also festivals and their music style [30]. Stimulants,
# Introduction

## Cannabis: a widespread substance leading to substantial health impairments

Cannabis is a plant that has been cultivated and used for recreational and medicinal purposes for many centuries. Its major psychoactive component is Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) [1]. THC interacts with the endocannabinoid system and acts as a partial agonist at cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2. In Europe, cannabis is currently the most widespread psychoactive substance used. The prevalence of cannabis use is estimated to be five times that of other psychoactive substances [2]. A recent report estimates the prevalence of European adults who have consumed cannabis in the past year to be around 8% and even 18.2% among the younger (15–24 years old) [3]. A non-negligible portion uses cannabis on a daily or near-daily basis. The authors note that the level of use and trends varies by country. Policies and regulation of cannabis detention and consumptions differs between European countries, but do not explain the difference in prevalence. For instance, cannabis is illegal in France, and yet, France has the highest prevalence of cannabis consumption in Europe followed by Spain and Denmark. According to the European Drug Report and the French Health Barometer, lifetime cannabis use increased from 44.8 to 47.3% in the French adult population (aged 15–64) between 2017 and 2021 [2, 4]. Moreover, despite a slight reduction compared to previous years, the prevalence of daily cannabis users in France remained relatively high in 2021 (1.7%) [4].

Cannabis is often perceived as a harmless psychoactive substance. This belief may partly be explained by the low risk perception that users have of the drug and its increased availability on the drug market [2, 5]. Nevertheless, cannabis consumers can experience adverse consequences. The European report of 2023 states that cannabis is reported to be responsible for almost a third of all drug treatment admissions in Europe [3]. Short-term side effects of cannabis use are associated with psychiatric effects (such as anxiety, disorientation and derealization) and/or physical impairments (such as dry mouth, increased blood pressure and tachycardia) [6]. In general, these disorders are well tolerated, and intoxication remains non serious [7–9]. In contrast, chronic use of cannabis may frequently lead to substantial health impairments, including somatic disorders, cognitive and psychiatric dysfunctions or even cannabis abuse or dependence [6, 10]. Concerning somatic disorders, the most severe and documented risks are effects on cardiovascular system including tachycardia, coronary syndrome, strokes, arteritis, cardiomyopathies sometimes even for occasional use of cannabis [11–14]. Concerning psychiatric disorders: amotivational syndrome (lack

of motivation, interest or enthusiasm in pursuing and engaging in activities) is associated with long-term cannabis use [6]; involvement of cannabis is suspected in schizophrenia [15] and cannabis-induced psychosis [16]. Concerning risk of dependence, 22.1 million people worldwide meeting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV) diagnostic criteria making cannabis dependence the most prevalent drug use disorder according to the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2016 [17].

## Cannabis use disorders: a public health concern

Worldwide, extensive epidemiological surveys have been conducted to estimate the prevalence of cannabis abuse or dependence in the general population. The results from these studies have been inconsistent, in large measure as a result of methodological differences, use of various cannabis use disorder screening tools, cultural variation, year of data collection or THC content [18–21]. For example, in a systematic review on the prevalence of cannabis use disorders (CUDs), the diagnosis of dependence varied from 3.5 to 40.9%, and the pooled estimated prevalence of cannabis dependence was 13% [18]. In France, the most recent data on cannabis use disorders are from the 2017 French Health Barometer, which showed that 25% of past-year cannabis users were at high risk of problematic use or dependence [22]. In festival settings, data on cannabis use disorders are scarce. One Danish study estimated the prevalence of cannabis dependence among party attendees and showed that out of 143 past-year cannabis users, 15% screened positive for cannabis dependence according to the Severity of Dependence Scale [23]. Due to the high prevalence of cannabis use, more research is needed to assess the risks associated with its consumption, especially since high-THC content products, which are known to be associated with higher rates of dependency, have become widely disseminated [2].

## Festival attendees: a population of young consumers

The regulars of urban events, like music festivals, has allowed a diversification of psychoactive substances available at urban music festival [24]. Substances reported to be used in festival and music events include mainly cannabis, stimulants such as MDMA/ecstasy or cocaine, and hallucinogens such as LSD, mushrooms or ketamine [25–27]. With its recreational properties, cannabis has been found to be particularly popular among party attendees, with a high prevalence of use regardless of the country or the type of festival or musicevents [28, 29]. Different factors have been associated to psychoactive substances consumptions such as age, sex, lifestyle, employment and also festivals and their music style [30]. Stimulants,
LSD or cannabis have been the most reported psycho-
active substances in techno scene [25, 31–33]. Other
styles of music are emerging in dedicated festivals, such
as the Dub, reggae’s subgenre. There are very few stud-
ies which have been conducted about consumption of
psychoactive substances at a reggae festival and even less
so in dub music festivals [34], so cannabis consumption
in this kind of music festival is unknown. Palamar et al.
found that American students who had attended a rave
party had a higher prevalence of past-year cannabis use
(56.3%) than non-attendees (31.7%) [35]. Feltmann et al.
interviewed frequent attendees of electronic dance music
events and found that 51% of participants had consumed
cannabis during the past year [36]. Another study among
1365 subjects conducted at a music festival in Australia
demonstrated that 84% of the party attendees had used
cannabis in the past month [37].

This population is all the more interesting because
it is a population of young consumers who do not seek
care [38]: they are generally young and heathy, thus not
iunder medical supervision. It is therefore very difficult
to evaluate consumption and its consequences. The lack
of knowledge about the negative consequences with drug
use in this population have also been highlighted by Felt-
man et al. [36]. The OCTOPUS survey [39] was designed
by the French regional addictovigilance center of Pays de
la Loire to improve knowledge on illicit drug use by col-
lecting data on party attendees’ consumption. The main
purpose of this work was to estimate the prevalence of
dependent cannabis users and to characterize cannabis
dependence among festival attendees using data from the
OCTOPUS survey.

**Materials and methods**

Procedure

OCTOPUS is a cross-sectional survey set up by the
French regional CEIP-A of Pays de la Loire and funded
by the Regional Health Agency of Pays de la Loire. Addic-
tovigilance is defined as a specific French health vigilance
method intended to monitor medicinal or illicit psycho-
active substance abuse or dependence and is composed
of 13 drug dependence evaluation and information
centres (Centres d'Evaluation et d'Information sur la
Pharmacodépendance - Addictovigilance - CEIP-A).
Addictovigilance fulfils three main roles: (i) to collect and
assess cases of problematic drug consumption (through
the mandatory reports of health professionals and mul-
tiple epidemiological tools related to drug use disorders),
(ii) to inform healthcare professionals about potential
substance dependence and (iii) to conduct research [40].
Consequently, addictovigilance contributes to the protec-
tion of public health by providing information and imple-
menting harm reduction measures [41].

The survey was monitored by a multidisciplinary com-
mittee of pharmacologists specialized in addictology
and social workers involved in harm reduction measures
associated with drug use and management of addiction
prevention or treatment.

Participants

Participants were randomly recruited from 13 various
music festivals (electronic, dub and eclectic music) tak-
ing place in the French department of Loire-Atlantique
between July 2017 and July 2018. The inclusion criteria
were being at least 18 years of age, being present at the
site of the event and understanding the questionnaire.
The festivals where the participants were recruited were
emblematic of the region: there is a large dub festival
that is among the largest in Europe, and the electronic
music scene is also well represented in the regional music
landscape.

Data collection

Data collection was undertaken by trained volunteer
interviewers at music festival sites before 1:00 a.m. using
face-to-face interviews. The data collected included soci-
odemographic characteristics, past-year substance use
(tobacco, alcohol and illicit substances) and harm reduc-
tion knowledge.

In this work, we focused on past-year cannabis
users (i.e., use of cannabis at least once in the previous
12 months), and we analysed the following variables:

- The music style of the festival;

- Sociodemographic data (sex, age, region of residence, employment status, household type and education);

- The presence of long-term disease(s) and long-term medication treatment(s) [42];

- The frequency of tobacco use, alcohol use and binge drinking (i.e., 6 or more drinks on one occasion); and

- Past-year illicit drug use (classified into one of the following subgroups: stimulants, hallucinogens, sedatives or new psychoactive substances (NPSs)) and characteristics of illicit drug use (name, setting of use, type, route of administration, frequency of consumption, anteriority of consumption, last consumption, mode of obtaining, effects sought, adverse events and DSM-IV criteria for dependence).

Ethics

The study was conducted in accordance with the 1964
Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. Informed
consent was collected from each participant during
the interview. According to French regulation, ethical
approval was not required as the survey is not within the
LSD or cannabis have been the most reported psycho-
active substances in techno scene [25, 31–33]. Other
styles of music are emerging in dedicated festivals, such
as the Dub, reggae’s subgenre. There are very few stud-
ies which have been conducted about consumption of
psychoactive substances at a reggae festival and even less
so in dub music festivals [34], so cannabis consumption
in this kind of music festival is unknown. Palamar et al.
found that American students who had attended a rave
party had a higher prevalence of past-year cannabis use
(56.3%) than non-attendees (31.7%) [35]. Feltmann et al.
interviewed frequent attendees of electronic dance music
events and found that 51% of participants had consumed
cannabis during the past year [36]. Another study among
1365 subjects conducted at a music festival in Australia
demonstrated that 84% of the party attendees had used
cannabis in the past month [37].

This population is all the more interesting because
it is a population of young consumers who do not seek
care [38]: they are generally young and heathy, thus not
iunder medical supervision. It is therefore very difficult
to evaluate consumption and its consequences. The lack
of knowledge about the negative consequences with drug
use in this population have also been highlighted by Felt-
man et al. [36]. The OCTOPUS survey [39] was designed
by the French regional addictovigilance center of Pays de
la Loire to improve knowledge on illicit drug use by col-
lecting data on party attendees’ consumption. The main
purpose of this work was to estimate the prevalence of
dependent cannabis users and to characterize cannabis
dependence among festival attendees using data from the
OCTOPUS survey.

**Materials and methods**

Procedure

OCTOPUS is a cross-sectional survey set up by the
French regional CEIP-A of Pays de la Loire and funded
by the Regional Health Agency of Pays de la Loire. Addic-
tovigilance is defined as a specific French health vigilance
method intended to monitor medicinal or illicit psycho-
active substance abuse or dependence and is composed
of 13 drug dependence evaluation and information
centres (Centres d'Evaluation et d'Information sur la
Pharmacodépendance - Addictovigilance - CEIP-A).
Addictovigilance fulfils three main roles: (i) to collect and
assess cases of problematic drug consumption (through
the mandatory reports of health professionals and mul-
tiple epidemiological tools related to drug use disorders),
(ii) to inform healthcare professionals about potential
substance dependence and (iii) to conduct research [40].
Consequently, addictovigilance contributes to the protec-
tion of public health by providing information and imple-
menting harm reduction measures [41].

The survey was monitored by a multidisciplinary com-
mittee of pharmacologists specialized in addictology
and social workers involved in harm reduction measures
associated with drug use and management of addiction
prevention or treatment.

Participants

Participants were randomly recruited from 13 various
music festivals (electronic, dub and eclectic music) tak-
ing place in the French department of Loire-Atlantique
between July 2017 and July 2018. The inclusion criteria
were being at least 18 years of age, being present at the
site of the event and understanding the questionnaire.
The festivals where the participants were recruited were
emblematic of the region: there is a large dub festival
that is among the largest in Europe, and the electronic
music scene is also well represented in the regional music
landscape.

Data collection

Data collection was undertaken by trained volunteer
interviewers at music festival sites before 1:00 a.m. using
face-to-face interviews. The data collected included soci-
odemographic characteristics, past-year substance use
(tobacco, alcohol and illicit substances) and harm reduc-
tion knowledge.

In this work, we focused on past-year cannabis
users (i.e., use of cannabis at least once in the previous
12 months), and we analysed the following variables:

- The music style of the festival;

- Sociodemographic data (sex, age, region of residence, employment status, household type and education);

- The presence of long-term disease(s) and long-term medication treatment(s) [42];

- The frequency of tobacco use, alcohol use and binge drinking (i.e., 6 or more drinks on one occasion); and

- Past-year illicit drug use (classified into one of the following subgroups: stimulants, hallucinogens, sedatives or new psychoactive substances (NPSs)) and characteristics of illicit drug use (name, setting of use, type, route of administration, frequency of consumption, anteriority of consumption, last consumption, mode of obtaining, effects sought, adverse events and DSM-IV criteria for dependence).

Ethics

The study was conducted in accordance with the 1964
Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. Informed
consent was collected from each participant during
the interview. According to French regulation, ethical
approval was not required as the survey is not within the
scope of application of the French Public Health Code, according to both articles R1121-1 and L1123-6 [43, 44]. Indeed, for the OCTOPUS survey, only anonymous data in the context of the regulated purposes of the addiction vigilance system were collected.

## Outcomes

The primary outcome was the prevalence of cannabis dependence among regular users and the characteristics of dependence.

Dependence was assessed among regular users, i.e., participants who had used cannabis at least monthly in the last 12 months.

According to the DSM-IV, dependence is defined by at least three positive dependence criteria from 0 to 7 using the following items: tolerance; withdrawal; the substance is taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than intended; persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use; great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain, use the substance or recover from its effects; important social, occupational or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of substance use; and the substance is continued despite the knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance.

## Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics are expressed as numbers and percentages for categorical variables. The prevalence of dependent cannabis users was calculated as the number of cannabis users with a dependence out of the number of regular cannabis users and out of the total number of cannabis users. Fisher's exact test or the chi-square test was used to compare the characteristics between dependent cannabis users and nondependent cannabis users.

Statistical analyses were performed using SAS® software version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc).

## Results

### General description

A total of 243 past-year cannabis users (63.4%) were included in our work out of the 383 subjects of the OCTOPUS survey.

### Characteristics of cannabis users

The characteristics of past-year cannabis users are presented in Table 1. The majority of them (45.7%) were recruited at electronic music festivals, 33.7% at eclectic music festivals and 20.6% at dub music festivals. Past-year cannabis users were mainly males (68%) and under 30 years of age (73%). Nearly three-quarters (71.1%) were from the Pays de la Loire region. More than half of

cannabis users were employed (58.8%), 28.8% were students, and 9.7% were unemployed. Few cannabis users reported comorbidities (12.4%) or regular medication treatment (9.6%).

Almost all of the cannabis users reported tobacco and alcohol use (90 and 98%, respectively), and a third reported binge drinking at least four times per month. Cannabis users also consumed stimulants (68.3%), hallucinogens (34.2%), sedatives (5.8%) and NPSs (5.8%). Cocaine and ecstasy/methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) were the most commonly used illicit substances among cannabis users (55.1 and 45.3%, respectively) (Supplementary material Table S1).

### Characteristics of cannabis consumption

Table 2 displays the characteristics of past-year cannabis consumption of the 243 past-year cannabis users. A total of 258 occurrences of past-year cannabis consumption were reported by the respondents. There were more cannabis consumption events than cannabis users: indeed, 15 participants reported differences in cannabis consumption characteristics. For each one, only two consumption events were reported. Out of the 15, 12 participants reported consumption through different routes of administration (oral and inhalation). 3 participants reported two different type of cannabis (cannabis oil / cannabis herb; cannabis herb/ cannabis resin).

Cannabis herb (79.5%) and cannabis resin (20%) were the most common cannabis types consumed. Almost all cannabis consumption (90.6%) was by inhalation, while the oral route was less prevalent (9.4%). More than half of cannabis consumption occurred daily (55.8%), and 78.5% occurred within the last 48 hours preceding the festivals. Two hundred and fifteen cannabis consumption occurred at least monthly and therefore were considered regular [45]. Cannabis was mainly obtained through friends (47.9%) and dealers (27.7%). The most frequently sought sensations were “calming” (76.1%) and “euphoria” (22%). Psychological and somatic adverse events occurred in 31.3 and 30.4% of cannabis consumption events, respectively.

### Cannabis dependence

#### Prevalence of cannabis dependence

The 215 regular consumption events corresponded to 203 participants (as indicated above one participant could have two consumption events). Due to missing data dependence could be assessed for 194 regular cannabis users. The prevalence of 3 or more positive DSM-IV dependence criteria was 63.4% among regular users (123/194), corresponding to 50.6% of total users (123/243).
scope of application of the French Public Health Code, according to both articles R1121-1 and L1123-6 [43, 44]. Indeed, for the OCTOPUS survey, only anonymous data in the context of the regulated purposes of the addic-tovigilance system were collected.

## Outcomes

The primary outcome was the prevalence of cannabis dependence among regular users and the characteristics of dependence.

Dependence was assessed among regular users, i.e., participants who had used cannabis at least monthly in the last 12 months.

According to the DSM-IV, dependence is defined by at least three positive dependence criteria from 0 to 7 using the following items: tolerance; withdrawal; the substance is taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than intended; persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use; great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain, use the substance or recover from its effects; important social, occupational or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of substance use; and the substance is continued despite the knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance.

## Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics are expressed as numbers and per- centages for categorical variables. The prevalence of dependent cannabis users was calculated as the number of cannabis users with a dependence out of the number of regular cannabis users and out of the total number of cannabis users. Fisher's exact test or the chi-square test was used to compare the characteristics between depend- ent cannabis users and nondependent cannabis users.

Statistical analyses were performed using SAS® software version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc).

## Results

### General description

A total of 243 past-year cannabis users (63.4%) were included in our work out of the 383 subjects of the OCTOPUS survey.

### Characteristics of cannabis users

The characteristics of past-year cannabis users are pre- sented in Table 1. The majority of them (45.7%) were recruited at electronic music festivals, 33.7% at eclectic music festivals and 20.6% at dub music festivals. Past- year cannabis users were mainly males (68%) and under 30 years of age (73%). Nearly three-quarters (71.1%) were from the Pays de la Loire region. More than half of

cannabis users were employed (58.8%), 28.8% were stu- dents, and 9.7% were unemployed. Few cannabis users reported comorbidities (12.4%) or regular medication treatment (9.6%).

Almost all of the cannabis users reported tobacco and alcohol use (90 and 98%, respectively), and a third reported binge drinking at least four times per month. Cannabis users also consumed stimulants (68.3%), hal- lucinogens (34.2%), sedatives (5.8%) and NPSs (5.8%). Cocaine and ecstasy/methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) were the most commonly used illicit sub- stances among cannabis users (55.1 and 45.3%, respec- tively) (Supplementary material Table S1).

### Characteristics of cannabis consumption

Table 2 displays the characteristics of past-year can- nabis consumption of the 243 past-year cannabis users. A total of 258 occurrences of past-year cannabis con- sumption were reported by the respondents. There were more cannabis consumption events than cannabis users: indeed, 15 participants reported differences in cannabis consumption characteristics. For each one, only two con- sumption events were reported. Out of the 15, 12 par- ticipants reported consumption through different routes of administration (oral and inhalation). 3 participants reported two different type of cannabis (cannabis oil / cannabis herb; cannabis herb/ cannabis resin).

Cannabis herb (79.5%) and cannabis resin (20%) were the most common cannabis types consumed. Almost all cannabis consumption (90.6%) was by inhalation, while the oral route was less prevalent (9.4%). More than half of cannabis consumption occurred daily (55.8%), and 78.5% occurred within the last 48 hours preceding the festivals. Two hundred and fifteen cannabis consumption occurred at least monthly and therefore were consid- ered regular [45]. Cannabis was mainly obtained through friends (47.9%) and dealers (27.7%). The most frequently sought sensations were “calming” (76.1%) and “eupho- ria” (22%). Psychological and somatic adverse events occurred in 31.3 and 30.4% of cannabis consumption events, respectively.

### Cannabis dependence

#### Prevalence of cannabis dependence

The 215 regular consumption events corresponded to 203 participants (as indicated above one participant could have two consumption events). Due to miss- ing data dependence could be assessed for 194 regular cannabis users. The prevalence of 3 or more positive DSM-IV dependence criteria was 63.4% among regular users (123/194), corresponding to 50.6% of total users (123/243).
<table><caption>**Table 1** Characteristics of past-year cannabis users (N = 243 subjects)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>N = 243</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Sociodemographic data</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Music style of the festival, n (%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Electronic</td><td>111 (45.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Eclectic</td><td>82 (33.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Dub</td><td>50 (20.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Sex, n (%) <sup>(1)</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>165 (68.2)</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>77 (31.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Age (years), n (%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>18–24</td><td>100 (41.1)</td></tr><tr><td>25–29</td><td>78 (32.1)</td></tr><tr><td>≥ 30</td><td>65 (26.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Region of residence, n (%) <sup>(1)</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pays de la Loire</td><td>172 (71.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Bretagne</td><td>24 (9.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Other regions</td><td>46 (19.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Employment status, n (%) <sup>(2)</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Employed</td><td>140 (58.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Student</td><td>67 (28.2)</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployed</td><td>23 (9.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Volunteer/civic service</td><td>8 (3.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Education, n (%) <sup>(1)</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Higher education</td><td>150 (62.0)</td></tr><tr><td>High school/baccalaureate diploma</td><td>64 (26.4)</td></tr><tr><td>First stage of primary or secondary education</td><td>28 (11.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Household type, n (%) <sup>(2)</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Living alone</td><td>104 (44.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Living as a couple</td><td>57 (24.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Living with other people</td><td>43 (18.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Living with parents</td><td>30 (12.8)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Health data</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Long-term disease, n (%) <sup>(1)</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>30 (12.4)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>212 (87.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term medication treatment, n (%) <sup>(2)</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>23 (9.6)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>216 (90.4)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 1** Characteristics of past-year cannabis users (N = 243 subjects)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>N = 243</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Sociodemographic data</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Music style of the festival, n (%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Electronic</td><td>111 (45.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Eclectic</td><td>82 (33.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Dub</td><td>50 (20.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Sex, n (%) <sup>(1)</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>165 (68.2)</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>77 (31.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Age (years), n (%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>18–24</td><td>100 (41.1)</td></tr><tr><td>25–29</td><td>78 (32.1)</td></tr><tr><td>≥ 30</td><td>65 (26.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Region of residence, n (%) <sup>(1)</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pays de la Loire</td><td>172 (71.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Bretagne</td><td>24 (9.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Other regions</td><td>46 (19.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Employment status, n (%) <sup>(2)</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Employed</td><td>140 (58.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Student</td><td>67 (28.2)</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployed</td><td>23 (9.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Volunteer/civic service</td><td>8 (3.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Education, n (%) <sup>(1)</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Higher education</td><td>150 (62.0)</td></tr><tr><td>High school/baccalaureate diploma</td><td>64 (26.4)</td></tr><tr><td>First stage of primary or secondary education</td><td>28 (11.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Household type, n (%) <sup>(2)</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Living alone</td><td>104 (44.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Living as a couple</td><td>57 (24.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Living with other people</td><td>43 (18.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Living with parents</td><td>30 (12.8)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Health data</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Long-term disease, n (%) <sup>(1)</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>30 (12.4)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>212 (87.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term medication treatment, n (%) <sup>(2)</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>23 (9.6)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>216 (90.4)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 1** (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>N = 243</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Consumption data</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Tobacco use, n (%) <sup>(1)</sup></strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Festive</td><td>24 (9.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes, frequency unknown or &lt; 5 cigarettes per day</td><td>38 (15.7)</td></tr><tr><td>5 to 10 cigarettes per day</td><td>84 (34.7)</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 10 cigarettes per day</td><td>71 (29.4)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>25 (10.3)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Alcohol use, n (%)</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Festive</td><td>96 (39.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes, frequency unknown or &lt; 1 glass per day</td><td>68 (28.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes, &gt; 1 glass per day</td><td>74 (30.4)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>5 (2.1)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Binge drinking*, number of times per month <sup>(2)</sup></strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>≤ 1 time</td><td>63 (26.4)</td></tr><tr><td>2 to 4 times</td><td>85 (35.6)</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 4 times</td><td>72 (30.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes, frequency unknown</td><td>19 (7.9)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Stimulant use, n (%)</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>166 (68.3)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>77 (31.7)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Hallucinogen use, n (%)</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>83 (34.2)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>160 (65.8)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Sedative use, n (%)</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>14 (5.8)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>229 (94.2)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>NPS** use, n (%)</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>14 (5.8)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>229 (94.2)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Figure 1 presents the quantitative distribution of DSM-IV dependence criteria for regular cannabis users (n = 194). As indicated above, 63.4% of regular cannabis users had a DSM-IV score greater than or equal to 3, and 47.9% had a DSM-IV score between 3 and 5. The proportion of users with a score of 6 or 7 ranged from 6.7 to 8.8%.

**Characteristics of dependence**

The frequency of positivity for each DSM-IV criterion for dependence is presented in Fig. 2. The most highly endorsed DSM-IV criteria were “tolerance” (68.8%) and “desire or efforts to cut down on use” (63.4%), followed by “substance used more than intended” (47.0%) and “withdrawal” (46.6%) (Fig. 2). Social consequences and health problems were reported for 42.0 and 37.6% of cannabis

<footnote>* Consumption of 6 or more drinks of alcohol during a single occasion</footnote>

<footnote>** NPS: New psychoactive substance</footnote>

<footnote>Missing data: (1): < 1%, (2): 1 to 5%</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 1** (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>N = 243</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Consumption data</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Tobacco use, n (%) <sup>(1)</sup></strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Festive</td><td>24 (9.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes, frequency unknown or &lt; 5 cigarettes per day</td><td>38 (15.7)</td></tr><tr><td>5 to 10 cigarettes per day</td><td>84 (34.7)</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 10 cigarettes per day</td><td>71 (29.4)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>25 (10.3)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Alcohol use, n (%)</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Festive</td><td>96 (39.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes, frequency unknown or &lt; 1 glass per day</td><td>68 (28.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes, &gt; 1 glass per day</td><td>74 (30.4)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>5 (2.1)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Binge drinking*, number of times per month <sup>(2)</sup></strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>≤ 1 time</td><td>63 (26.4)</td></tr><tr><td>2 to 4 times</td><td>85 (35.6)</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 4 times</td><td>72 (30.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes, frequency unknown</td><td>19 (7.9)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Stimulant use, n (%)</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>166 (68.3)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>77 (31.7)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Hallucinogen use, n (%)</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>83 (34.2)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>160 (65.8)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Sedative use, n (%)</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>14 (5.8)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>229 (94.2)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>NPS** use, n (%)</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>14 (5.8)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>229 (94.2)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Figure 1 presents the quantitative distribution of DSM-IV dependence criteria for regular cannabis users (n = 194). As indicated above, 63.4% of regular cannabis users had a DSM-IV score greater than or equal to 3, and 47.9% had a DSM-IV score between 3 and 5. The proportion of users with a score of 6 or 7 ranged from 6.7 to 8.8%.

**Characteristics of dependence**

The frequency of positivity for each DSM-IV criterion for dependence is presented in Fig. 2. The most highly endorsed DSM-IV criteria were “tolerance” (68.8%) and “desire or efforts to cut down on use” (63.4%), followed by “substance used more than intended” (47.0%) and “withdrawal” (46.6%) (Fig. 2). Social consequences and health problems were reported for 42.0 and 37.6% of cannabis

<footnote>* Consumption of 6 or more drinks of alcohol during a single occasion</footnote>

<footnote>** NPS: New psychoactive substance</footnote>

<footnote>Missing data: (1): < 1%, (2): 1 to 5%</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 2** Characteristics of past-year cannabis consumption (N = 258 consumption events; N = 243 subjects)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>N = 258</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Cannabis type, n (%)</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cannabis herb</td><td>163 (79.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Cannabis resin</td><td>41 (20.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Cannabis oil</td><td>1 (0.5)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Route of administration, n (%) <sup>(1)</sup></strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Inhalation</td><td>232 (90.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Oral</td><td>24 (9.4)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Frequency of consumption, n (%) <sup>(3)</sup></strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Experimentation</td><td>1 (0.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Daily</td><td>130 (55.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Weekly</td><td>53 (22.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Monthly</td><td>32 (13.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Quarterly</td><td>4 (1.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Annually</td><td>13 (5.6)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Anteriority of consumption, n (%) <sup>(2)</sup></strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>≤ 1 year</td><td>3 (1.2)</td></tr><tr><td>1 to 3 years</td><td>5 (2.0)</td></tr><tr><td>3 to 5 years</td><td>29 (11.4)</td></tr><tr><td>5 to 10 years</td><td>88 (34.6)</td></tr><tr><td>≥ 10 years</td><td>129 (50.8)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Last consumption, n (%) <sup>(1)</sup></strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 48 hours</td><td>201 (78.5)</td></tr><tr><td>≤ 1 week</td><td>18 (7.0)</td></tr><tr><td>≤ 1 month</td><td>20 (7.8)</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 1 year</td><td>17 (6.7)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Mode of obtaining, n (%) <sup>(3)</sup></strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Friends</td><td>116 (47.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Dealer</td><td>67 (27.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Purchased without any information</td><td>17 (7.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Culture</td><td>16 (6.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Donation</td><td>11 (4.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Others</td><td>49 (20.2)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Effect(s) sought, n (%) <sup>(2)</sup></strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Calming</td><td>194 (76.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Euphoria</td><td>56 (22.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Lettinggo</td><td>17 (6.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Clairvoyancy</td><td>14 (5.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Empathogenic</td><td>10 (3.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Stimulation</td><td>7 (2.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Getting high</td><td>5 (2.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Derealization</td><td>4 (1.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Chemsex</td><td>1 (0.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Other effects</td><td>21 (8.2)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Cannabis adverse event(s), n (%) <sup>(3)</sup></strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Psychological</td><td>67 (31.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Somatic</td><td>65 (30.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Asthenia</td><td>25 (11.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Badtrip</td><td>9 (4.2)</td></tr><tr><td>Isolation</td><td>6 (2.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Cravings</td><td>3 (1.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Other symptoms</td><td>21 (9.8)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Missing data: (1): < 1%, (2): 1 to 5%, (3): > 5%

users, respectively. The least endorsed DSM-IV criterion was “excess time obtaining/using the substance” (31.3%).

## Characterization of dependent cannabis users

Differences between dependent cannabis users and non-dependent cannabis users are summarized in Table 3. Compared to nondependent cannabis users, dependent cannabis users were more likely to be stimulant users (p=0.0003) and hallucinogen users (p=0.014). The percentage of cannabis-dependent users seemed higher among participants who attended electronic and dub music festivals, but the p-value was not significant (0.094). (p=0.094).

## Discussion

### Review of major findings

In this study, we used data from the OCTOPUS survey to estimate the prevalence of dependent cannabis users and characterize dependent cannabis use among festival attendees.

Our results demonstrated high numbers of past-year cannabis users (63.4%) in the sample of party attendees. According to the DSM-IV criteria, almost two-thirds of the 194 regular cannabis users screened positive for dependence. Most previous studies reviewed found a lower prevalence of cannabis dependence in large representative samples of the general population [18, 46, 47] or in festival settings [23]. In contrast, only one study among nearly 35,000 Canadian participants found that 82.5% of past-month cannabis users were problematic users as determined by the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening tool [48]. These discrepancies may be due to methodological differences, such as the use of various cannabis use disorder screening tools, year of data collection or THC content.

In our comparative analysis, factors associated with cannabis dependence included past-year use of stimulants or hallucinogens. Our findings are consistent with those in the literature in which polysubstance use among cannabis consumers increased the likelihood of cannabis dependence [49–51]. Different theories have been proposed to explain these correlations. From a pharmacological view, cannabis may be used to manage the unpleasant effects induced by the use of other substances [49, 52]. From a psychosocial view, gateway drug theory suggests that lifetime cannabis use may increase exposure to other illicit substances [52, 53]. Other reasons that could partly explain these associations include greater accessibility of illicit drugs, personality traits and social determinants [49, 50].

We found that the most prevalent DSM-IV criteria for cannabis dependence were related to physical
<table><caption>**Table 2** Characteristics of past-year cannabis consumption (N = 258 consumption events; N = 243 subjects)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>N = 258</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Cannabis type, n (%)</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cannabis herb</td><td>163 (79.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Cannabis resin</td><td>41 (20.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Cannabis oil</td><td>1 (0.5)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Route of administration, n (%) <sup>(1)</sup></strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Inhalation</td><td>232 (90.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Oral</td><td>24 (9.4)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Frequency of consumption, n (%) <sup>(3)</sup></strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Experimentation</td><td>1 (0.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Daily</td><td>130 (55.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Weekly</td><td>53 (22.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Monthly</td><td>32 (13.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Quarterly</td><td>4 (1.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Annually</td><td>13 (5.6)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Anteriority of consumption, n (%) <sup>(2)</sup></strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>≤ 1 year</td><td>3 (1.2)</td></tr><tr><td>1 to 3 years</td><td>5 (2.0)</td></tr><tr><td>3 to 5 years</td><td>29 (11.4)</td></tr><tr><td>5 to 10 years</td><td>88 (34.6)</td></tr><tr><td>≥ 10 years</td><td>129 (50.8)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Last consumption, n (%) <sup>(1)</sup></strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 48 hours</td><td>201 (78.5)</td></tr><tr><td>≤ 1 week</td><td>18 (7.0)</td></tr><tr><td>≤ 1 month</td><td>20 (7.8)</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 1 year</td><td>17 (6.7)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Mode of obtaining, n (%) <sup>(3)</sup></strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Friends</td><td>116 (47.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Dealer</td><td>67 (27.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Purchased without any information</td><td>17 (7.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Culture</td><td>16 (6.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Donation</td><td>11 (4.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Others</td><td>49 (20.2)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Effect(s) sought, n (%) <sup>(2)</sup></strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Calming</td><td>194 (76.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Euphoria</td><td>56 (22.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Lettinggo</td><td>17 (6.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Clairvoyancy</td><td>14 (5.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Empathogenic</td><td>10 (3.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Stimulation</td><td>7 (2.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Getting high</td><td>5 (2.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Derealization</td><td>4 (1.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Chemsex</td><td>1 (0.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Other effects</td><td>21 (8.2)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Cannabis adverse event(s), n (%) <sup>(3)</sup></strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Psychological</td><td>67 (31.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Somatic</td><td>65 (30.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Asthenia</td><td>25 (11.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Badtrip</td><td>9 (4.2)</td></tr><tr><td>Isolation</td><td>6 (2.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Cravings</td><td>3 (1.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Other symptoms</td><td>21 (9.8)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Missing data: (1): < 1%, (2): 1 to 5%, (3): > 5%

users, respectively. The least endorsed DSM-IV criterion was “excess time obtaining/using the substance” (31.3%).

## Characterization of dependent cannabis users

Differences between dependent cannabis users and non-dependent cannabis users are summarized in Table 3. Compared to nondependent cannabis users, dependent cannabis users were more likely to be stimulant users (p=0.0003) and hallucinogen users (p=0.014). The percentage of cannabis-dependent users seemed higher among participants who attended electronic and dub music festivals, but the *p*-value was not significant (0.094). (p=0.094).

## Discussion

### Review of major findings

In this study, we used data from the OCTOPUS survey to estimate the prevalence of dependent cannabis users and characterize dependent cannabis use among festival attendees.

Our results demonstrated high numbers of past-year cannabis users (63.4%) in the sample of party attendees. According to the DSM-IV criteria, almost two-thirds of the 194 regular cannabis users screened positive for dependence. Most previous studies reviewed found a lower prevalence of cannabis dependence in large representative samples of the general population [18, 46, 47] or in festival settings [23]. In contrast, only one study among nearly 35,000 Canadian participants found that 82.5% of past-month cannabis users were problematic users as determined by the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening tool [48]. These discrepancies may be due to methodological differences, such as the use of various cannabis use disorder screening tools, year of data collection or THC content.

In our comparative analysis, factors associated with cannabis dependence included past-year use of stimulants or hallucinogens. Our findings are consistent with those in the literature in which polysubstance use among cannabis consumers increased the likelihood of cannabis dependence [49–51]. Different theories have been proposed to explain these correlations. From a pharmacological view, cannabis may be used to manage the unpleasant effects induced by the use of other substances [49, 52]. From a psychosocial view, gateway drug theory suggests that lifetime cannabis use may increase exposure to other illicit substances [52, 53]. Other reasons that could partly explain these associations include greater accessibility of illicit drugs, personality traits and social determinants [49, 50].

We found that the most prevalent DSM-IV criteria for cannabis dependence were related to physical
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Distribution of DSM-IV dependence scores for regular cannabis users within the last 12 months (N = 194)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Proportion of positivity of DSM-IV criteria for dependence (N = 194 users)</figcaption></figure>

dependence (i.e., “tolerance” and “withdrawal”). Based on a recent meta-analysis of observational studies, cannabis withdrawal syndrome (CWS) appears to be common and concerns nearly half of regular or dependent cannabis users [54]. Similarly, “tolerance” was found to be one of the most highly reported criteria [55–57]. One reason that could probably explain these high rates is that tolerance and CWS are physiologic responses to chronic use regardless of sociodemographic and environmental determinants [57]. Regarding social and health consequences, we found that nearly 40% of regular cannabis users reported such consequences, which was higher than those in other previous studies [55, 57].

However, these discrepancies are not surprising regarding the heterogeneity in the study design, and a multitude of external factors, such as social environment, personal motivations or underlying diseases, can be associated with the appearance of negative consequences.

### DSM-IV versus DSM-5 criteria

In this study, we used the DSM-IV criteria for the assessment of cannabis dependence, although the DSM-5 criteria have already been published. The DSM-IV separates diagnoses of substance abuse and substance dependence using a checklist of seven criteria for the latter. One of the most notable changes in the DSM-5 concerns the
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Distribution of DSM-IV dependence scores for regular cannabis users within the last 12 months (N=194)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Proportion of positivity of DSM-IV criteria for dependence (N=194 users)</figcaption></figure>

dependence (i.e., “tolerance” and “withdrawal”). Based on a recent meta-analysis of observational studies, cannabis withdrawal syndrome (CWS) appears to be common and concerns nearly half of regular or dependent cannabis users [54]. Similarly, “tolerance” was found to be one of the most highly reported criteria [55–57]. One reason that could probably explain these high rates is that tolerance and CWS are physiologic responses to chronic use regardless of sociodemographic and environmental determinants [57]. Regarding social and health consequences, we found that nearly 40% of regular cannabis users reported such consequences, which was higher than those in other previous studies [55, 57].

However, these discrepancies are not surprising regarding the heterogeneity in the study design, and a multitude of external factors, such as social environment, personal motivations or underlying diseases, can be associated with the appearance of negative consequences.

### DSM-IV versus DSM-5 criteria

In this study, we used the DSM-IV criteria for the assessment of cannabis dependence, although the DSM-5 criteria have already been published. The DSM-IV separates diagnoses of substance abuse and substance dependence using a checklist of seven criteria for the latter. One of the most notable changes in the DSM-5 concerns the
<table><caption>**Table 3** Comparison of characteristics between dependent and nondependent regular cannabis users (N = 194 regular users)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Dependence</th><th colspan="2">Regular cannabis users (N = 194)</th><th rowspan="2">P</th></tr><tr><th>Yes (n = 123)</th><th>No (n = 71)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Music style of the festival, n (%)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Electronic</td><td>59 (48.0)</td><td>28 (39.4)</td><td rowspan="3">0.094</td></tr><tr><td>Eclectic</td><td>35 (28.5)</td><td>31 (43.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Dub</td><td>29 (23.5)</td><td>12 (16.9)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Sex, n (%)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="2">0.293</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>83 (67.5)</td><td>53 (74.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>40 (32.5)</td><td>18 (25.3)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Age (years), n (%)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="3">0.160</td></tr><tr><td>18–24</td><td>55 (44.7)</td><td>25 (35.2)</td></tr><tr><td>25–29</td><td>39 (31.7)</td><td>24 (33.8)</td></tr><tr><td>≥ 30</td><td>29 (23.6)</td><td>22 (31.0)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Region of residence, n (%) <sup>(1)</sup></strong></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="3">0.743</td></tr><tr><td>Pays de la Loire</td><td>90 (73.8)</td><td>54 (76.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Bretagne</td><td>10 (8.2)</td><td>7 (9.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Other regions</td><td>22 (18.0)</td><td>10 (14.1)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Employment status, n (%) <sup>(2)</sup></strong></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="3">0.540</td></tr><tr><td>Student</td><td>34 (28.6)</td><td>18 (25.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployed</td><td>13 (10.9)</td><td>5 (7.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Employed</td><td>72 (60.5)</td><td>48 (67.6)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Education, n (%) <sup>(1)</sup></strong></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="3">0.894</td></tr><tr><td>Higher education</td><td>73 (59.8)</td><td>41 (57.7)</td></tr><tr><td>High school/baccalaureate diploma</td><td>34 (27.9)</td><td>22 (31.0)</td></tr><tr><td>First stage of primary or secondary education</td><td>15 (12.3)</td><td>8 (11.3)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Household type, n (%) <sup>(2)</sup></strong></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="4">0.314</td></tr><tr><td>Living alone</td><td>53 (45.3)</td><td>26 (38.2)</td></tr><tr><td>Living as a couple</td><td>22 (18.8)</td><td>21 (30.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Living with other people</td><td>27 (23.1)</td><td>14 (20.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Living with parents</td><td>15 (12.8)</td><td>7 (10.3)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Long-term disease, n (%)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="2">0.513</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>16 (13.0)</td><td>7 (9.9)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>107 (87.0)</td><td>64 (90.1)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Long-term medication treatment, n (%) <sup>(1)</sup></strong></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="2">0.846</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>11 (9.0)</td><td>7 (9.9)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>111 (91.0)</td><td>64 (90.1)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Tobacco use, n (%) <sup>(1)</sup></strong></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="2">0.541</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>110 (90.2)</td><td>62 (87.3)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>12 (9.8)</td><td>9 (12.7)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Alcohol use, n (%)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="2">0.358</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>121 (98.4)</td><td>68 (95.8)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>2 (1.6)</td><td>3 (4.2)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Binge drinking***, number of times per month <sup>(2)</sup></strong></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="4">0.504</td></tr><tr><td>≤ 1 time</td><td>30 (24.8)</td><td>21 (30.0)</td></tr><tr><td>2 to 4 times</td><td>42 (34.7)</td><td>28 (40.0)</td></tr><tr><td>> 4 times</td><td>37 (30.6)</td><td>17 (24.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Any</td><td>12 (9.9)</td><td>4 (5.7)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Use of at least one stimulant, n (%)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="2">0.0003</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>95 (77.2)</td><td>37 (52.1)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>28 (22.8)</td><td>34 (47.9)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 3** Comparison of characteristics between dependent and nondependent regular cannabis users (N = 194 regular users)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Dependence</th><th colspan="2">Regular cannabis users (N = 194)</th><th rowspan="2">P</th></tr><tr><th>Yes (n = 123)</th><th>No (n = 71)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Music style of the festival, n (%)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Electronic</td><td>59 (48.0)</td><td>28 (39.4)</td><td rowspan="3">0.094</td></tr><tr><td>Eclectic</td><td>35 (28.5)</td><td>31 (43.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Dub</td><td>29 (23.5)</td><td>12 (16.9)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Sex, n (%)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="2">0.293</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>83 (67.5)</td><td>53 (74.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>40 (32.5)</td><td>18 (25.3)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Age (years), n (%)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="3">0.160</td></tr><tr><td>18-24</td><td>55 (44.7)</td><td>25 (35.2)</td></tr><tr><td>25-29</td><td>39 (31.7)</td><td>24 (33.8)</td></tr><tr><td>≥ 30</td><td>29 (23.6)</td><td>22 (31.0)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Region of residence, n (%) <sup>(1)</sup></strong></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="3">0.743</td></tr><tr><td>Pays de la Loire</td><td>90 (73.8)</td><td>54 (76.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Bretagne</td><td>10 (8.2)</td><td>7 (9.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Other regions</td><td>22 (18.0)</td><td>10 (14.1)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Employment status, n (%) <sup>(2)</sup></strong></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="3">0.540</td></tr><tr><td>Student</td><td>34 (28.6)</td><td>18 (25.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployed</td><td>13 (10.9)</td><td>5 (7.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Employed</td><td>72 (60.5)</td><td>48 (67.6)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Education, n (%) <sup>(1)</sup></strong></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="3">0.894</td></tr><tr><td>Higher education</td><td>73 (59.8)</td><td>41 (57.7)</td></tr><tr><td>High school/baccalaureate diploma</td><td>34 (27.9)</td><td>22 (31.0)</td></tr><tr><td>First stage of primary or secondary education</td><td>15 (12.3)</td><td>8 (11.3)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Household type, n (%) <sup>(2)</sup></strong></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="4">0.314</td></tr><tr><td>Living alone</td><td>53 (45.3)</td><td>26 (38.2)</td></tr><tr><td>Living as a couple</td><td>22 (18.8)</td><td>21 (30.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Living with other people</td><td>27 (23.1)</td><td>14 (20.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Living with parents</td><td>15 (12.8)</td><td>7 (10.3)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Long-term disease, n (%)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="2">0.513</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>16 (13.0)</td><td>7 (9.9)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>107 (87.0)</td><td>64 (90.1)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Long-term medication treatment, n (%) <sup>(1)</sup></strong></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="2">0.846</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>11 (9.0)</td><td>7 (9.9)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>111 (91.0)</td><td>64 (90.1)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Tobacco use, n (%) <sup>(1)</sup></strong></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="2">0.541</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>110 (90.2)</td><td>62 (87.3)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>12 (9.8)</td><td>9 (12.7)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Alcohol use, n (%)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="2">0.358</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>121 (98.4)</td><td>68 (95.8)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>2 (1.6)</td><td>3 (4.2)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Binge drinking***, number of times per month <sup>(2)</sup></strong></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="4">0.504</td></tr><tr><td>≤ 1 time</td><td>30 (24.8)</td><td>21 (30.0)</td></tr><tr><td>2 to 4 times</td><td>42 (34.7)</td><td>28 (40.0)</td></tr><tr><td>> 4 times</td><td>37 (30.6)</td><td>17 (24.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Any</td><td>12 (9.9)</td><td>4 (5.7)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Use of at least one stimulant, n (%)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="2">0.0003</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>95 (77.2)</td><td>37 (52.1)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>28 (22.8)</td><td>34 (47.9)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 3** (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Dependence</th><th colspan="2">Regular cannabis users (N = 194)</th><th rowspan="2">P</th></tr><tr><th>Yes (n = 123)</th><th>No (n = 71)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Use of at least one hallucinogen, n (%)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.014</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>53 (43.1)</td><td>18 (25.3)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>70 (56.9)</td><td>53 (74.7)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Use of at least one sedative, n (%)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>7 (5.7)</td><td>5 (5.6)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>116 (94.3)</td><td>67 (94.4)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Use of at least one NPS, n (%)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>8 (6.5)</td><td>4 (5.6)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>115 (93.5)</td><td>67 (94.4)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

combination of substance abuse and substance dependence diagnoses to create a single category of substance use disorder triggered by any two or more of 11 criteria, with six or more indicating a severe case [58]. Few studies have assessed the concordance between DSM-IV and DSM-5 for dependence diagnosis and found that correspondence was excellent, even though the psychometric properties for cannabis were not as good as for other substances [59–61]. In our opinion, the DSM-IV is better suited to measure cannabis dependence in festival settings since it has fewer criteria than the DSM-5 and thus is quicker to conduct.

According to the DSM-IV criteria, almost two-thirds of the 194 regular cannabis users scored 3 or above and thus screened positive for dependence. With the use of the DSM-5, we would expect a higher prevalence, as substance use disorder is defined by at least two positive criteria. Indeed, in our study, 77% of cannabis consumption events corresponded to a DSM-IV score of at least 2.

## Study implications

In France, the monitoring of abuse and dependence related to psychoactive substances is mainly based on spontaneous reporting by healthcare professionals. According to the last national epidemiological survey exploring the adverse events of recreational cannabis use reported to the French addictovigilance network between 2012 and 2017 (n=2217), the most common effect was dependence, ranging from 10.1 to 20.3% over the study period. Men were mostly involved (76%), and a history of substance abuse (stimulants, opioid drugs, hallucinogens and depressant drugs) was reported in 35% of cases [62]. Nevertheless, a limitation of this health surveillance system is that it only includes reports of individuals who attend sociohealth institutions. Recreational drug users constitute a hard-to-reach population for the French

addictovigilance network [63–65] because they rarely attend sociohealth institutions except in cases of acute intoxication. However, we found in our study that at least 40% of regular users reported negative consequences, such as social or health consequences, reflecting the need for care and support.

## Harm reduction strategies

In general, strategies for preventing the adverse effects of chronic cannabis use are based on school and community substance use prevention programs [66, 67]. The target population is mainly young people, as evidence suggests that early initiation of cannabis use during adolescence might precipitate negative outcomes in adulthood [68]. In light of our findings, festival settings may be important arenas for i) implementing efficient harm reduction measures to prevent dependence and ii) providing information on care structures and promoting the use of care for dependent users. It is essential to communicate the possible negative consequences of chronic cannabis use, as this use is often trivialized.

In addition, healthcare professionals should be aware of trends in polysubstance use among problematic cannabis users since it may increase the risk of negative health-related consequences. However, as many users consume cannabis at home, there is a need to find other ways to target cannabis users and inform them of the possible chronic risks. Digital interventions such as addiction prevention websites, chat-based interventions, and mobile applications could be promising tools for ensuring a broader population health approach and reducing problematic cannabis use [65].

## Strengths and limitations

The main strength of our study was the access to a “hidden population” of cannabis users, and to our

<footnote>*** Consumption of 6 or more alcoholic drinks during a single occasion</footnote>

<footnote>Missing data: (1) < 1%, (2): 1 to 5%</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 3** (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Dependence</th><th colspan="2">Regular cannabis users (N = 194)</th><th rowspan="2">P</th></tr><tr><th>Yes (n = 123)</th><th>No (n = 71)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Use of at least one hallucinogen, n (%)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.014</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>53 (43.1)</td><td>18 (25.3)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>70 (56.9)</td><td>53 (74.7)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Use of at least one sedative, n (%)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>7 (5.7)</td><td>5 (5.6)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>116 (94.3)</td><td>67 (94.4)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Use of at least one NPS, n (%)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>8 (6.5)</td><td>4 (5.6)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>115 (93.5)</td><td>67 (94.4)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

combination of substance abuse and substance dependence diagnoses to create a single category of substance use disorder triggered by any two or more of 11 criteria, with six or more indicating a severe case [58]. Few studies have assessed the concordance between DSM-IV and DSM-5 for dependence diagnosis and found that correspondence was excellent, even though the psychometric properties for cannabis were not as good as for other substances [59–61]. In our opinion, the DSM-IV is better suited to measure cannabis dependence in festival settings since it has fewer criteria than the DSM-5 and thus is quicker to conduct.

According to the DSM-IV criteria, almost two-thirds of the 194 regular cannabis users scored 3 or above and thus screened positive for dependence. With the use of the DSM-5, we would expect a higher prevalence, as substance use disorder is defined by at least two positive criteria. Indeed, in our study, 77% of cannabis consumption events corresponded to a DSM-IV score of at least 2.

## Study implications

In France, the monitoring of abuse and dependence related to psychoactive substances is mainly based on spontaneous reporting by healthcare professionals. According to the last national epidemiological survey exploring the adverse events of recreational cannabis use reported to the French addictovigilance network between 2012 and 2017 (n=2217), the most common effect was dependence, ranging from 10.1 to 20.3% over the study period. Men were mostly involved (76%), and a history of substance abuse (stimulants, opioid drugs, hallucinogens and depressant drugs) was reported in 35% of cases [62]. Nevertheless, a limitation of this health surveillance system is that it only includes reports of individuals who attend sociohealth institutions. Recreational drug users constitute a hard-to-reach population for the French

addictovigilance network [63–65] because they rarely attend sociohealth institutions except in cases of acute intoxication. However, we found in our study that at least 40% of regular users reported negative consequences, such as social or health consequences, reflecting the need for care and support.

## Harm reduction strategies

In general, strategies for preventing the adverse effects of chronic cannabis use are based on school and community substance use prevention programs [66, 67]. The target population is mainly young people, as evidence suggests that early initiation of cannabis use during adolescence might precipitate negative outcomes in adulthood [68]. In light of our findings, festival settings may be important arenas for i) implementing efficient harm reduction measures to prevent dependence and ii) providing information on care structures and promoting the use of care for dependent users. It is essential to communicate the possible negative consequences of chronic cannabis use, as this use is often trivialized.

In addition, healthcare professionals should be aware of trends in polysubstance use among problematic cannabis users since it may increase the risk of negative health-related consequences. However, as many users consume cannabis at home, there is a need to find other ways to target cannabis users and inform them of the possible chronic risks. Digital interventions such as addiction prevention websites, chat-based interventions, and mobile applications could be promising tools for ensuring a broader population health approach and reducing problematic cannabis use [65].

## Strengths and limitations

The main strength of our study was the access to a “hidden population” of cannabis users, and to our

<footnote>*** Consumption of 6 or more alcoholic drinks during a single occasion</footnote>

<footnote>Missing data: (1) < 1%, (2): 1 to 5%</footnote>
knowledge, no similar study has been undertaken
recently in France. In addition, data collection was
standardized, as all the interviewers were trained in the
data collection tool. Festival attendees were recruited
from many different music events but restricted to
one geographic area (Pays de la Loire region), which
prevents us from generalizing our results. However,
according to the last data of the French Health Barom-
ter, past-year cannabis use in the French region of
Pays de la Loire was quite similar to the national level
(10.2 and 11%, respectively) [4]. Moreover, well-known
limitations of self-reported data collection could also
be underlined, such as social desirability bias or recall
bias. However, we think that the status of the inter-
viewers (volunteers trained in addiction care or harm
reduction strategies) may have reduced the likelihood
of inaccurate reporting.

Conclusion

In conclusion, cannabis dependence was frequent in
our study among festival attendees, and we also high-
lighted a high rate of regular users reporting social or
health consequences. We also found an association
between the use of stimulants or hallucinogens and
cannabis use dependence. In light of our findings, fes-
tival settings may be important arenas for implement-
ing efficient harm reduction measures and preventing
the development of dependence among cannabis users.
In addition, healthcare professionals should be aware of
trends in polysubstance use among dependent cannabis
users.

**Supplementary Information**

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18496-9.

**Supplementary Material 1.**

Acknowledgements

We would like to warmly thank Vincent Eudeline, Jean-Emmanuel Guillet, Manon Guillo and Laurent Babonnaud who represented associations involved in harm reduction and addiction prevention (OPPELIA addiction prevention and care association, Techno + Nantestechno community health association and AIDES Nante sassociation for the support and accompaniment of people / HIV/AIDS and hepatitis prevention and risk reduction initiatives) and partici- pated to the recruitment and assessment of participants in music festivals.

Authors' contributions

CVV and SP design the work. SC, MI, PL, BS and MGB participate to the acquisi-
tion and analysis. All authors participate to the interpretation of the data
for the work. SC, MI and MR wrote the main manuscript text and all authors
revised critically for important intellectual content. All authors approved the
version to be published.

Funding

This work was supported by the French regional health agency of Pays de la
Loire. [grant number ARS-PDL/DPPS/DPSP/2018/25/PDL].

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Informed consent was collected from each participant during the interview.
According to French regulation, ethical approval was not required as the
survey is not within the scope of application of the French Public Health Code,
according to both articles R1121-1 and L1123-6. Indeed, for the OCTOPUS
survey, only anonymous data in the context of the regulated purposes of the
Addictovigilance system were collected.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Author details

¹Centre d'Evaluation et d'Information sur la Pharmacodépendance-Addic-
tovigilance (CEIP-A), Service de Pharmacologie Clinique, Nantes Université,
CHU Nantes, F-44000 Nantes, France. ²Nantes Université, Univ Tours, CHU
Nantes, CHU Tours, INSERM, MethodS in Patients-centered outcomes
and HEalth Research, SPHERE, F-44000 Nantes, France. ³UIC Psychiatrie et
Santé Mentale, Nantes Université, CHU Nantes, F-44000 Nantes, France. ⁴Cen-
tre d'addictovigilance, Service de Pharmacologie Clinique, CHU de Poitiers,
86000 Poitiers, France. ⁵Laboratoire de Neurosciences Expérimentales et
Cliniques, INSERM U-1084, Université de Poitiers, 86000 Poitiers, France.

Received: 28 November 2023 Accepted: 1 April 2024

Published online: 09 April 2024

**References**

1. Grotenhermen F. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of cannabi-
noids. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2003;42(4):327–60.

2. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. European Drug Report 2021 : Trends and Development [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/media/publications/documents/13838/2021.2256_FR_02_.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar 2024.

3. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. European drug report 2023 [Internet]. LU: Publications Office; 2023 [cited 2024 Mar 12]. (European drug report ... (Online)). (Online)). Available from: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2810/161905.

4. Le Nézet O, Spilka S, Lahaie E, Andler R. Les usages de cannabis en popu-
lation adulte en 2021 [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.ofdt.fr/
BDD/publications/docs/eftxo12cc.pdf.

5. Galván G, Guerrero-Martelo M, Vásquez De la Hoz F. Cannabis: A Cogni-
tive Illusion. Rev Colomb Psiquiatr. 2017;46(2):95–102.

6. Karila L, Roux P, Rolland B, Benyamina A, Reynaud M, Aubin HJ, et al. Acute and long-term effects of cannabis use: a review. Curr Pharm Des. 2014;20(25):4112–8.

7. Palamar JJ, Acosta P, Le A, Cleland CM, Nelson LS. Adverse drug-related effects among electronic dance music party attendees. Int J Drug Policy. 2019;73:81–7.

8. Schmid Y, Scholz I, Mueller L, Exadakylos AK, Ceschi A, Liechti ME, et al. Emergency department presentations related to acute toxicity following recreational use of cannabis products in Switzerland. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020;206:107726.

9. Barratt MJ, Hughes CE, Ferris JA, Winstock AR. Australian music festival attendees who seek emergency medical treatment following alcohol and other drug use: a global drug survey data report. Melbourne: Social and Global Studies Centre, RMIT University; 2019.

10. Hall W, Degenhardt L. The adverse health effects of chronic cannabis use. Drug Test Anal. 2014;6(1–2):39–45.

11. Aryana A, Williams MA. Marijuana as a trigger of cardiovascular events: speculation or scientific certainty? Int J Cardiol. 2007;118(2):141–4.
knowledge, no similar study has been undertaken
recently in France. In addition, data collection was
standardized, as all the interviewers were trained in the
data collection tool. Festival attendees were recruited
from many different music events but restricted to
one geographic area (Pays de la Loire region), which
prevents us from generalizing our results. However,
according to the last data of the French Health Barom-
ter, past-year cannabis use in the French region of
Pays de la Loire was quite similar to the national level
(10.2 and 11%, respectively) [4]. Moreover, well-known
limitations of self-reported data collection could also
be underlined, such as social desirability bias or recall
bias. However, we think that the status of the inter-
viewers (volunteers trained in addiction care or harm
reduction strategies) may have reduced the likelihood
of inaccurate reporting.

Conclusion

In conclusion, cannabis dependence was frequent in
our study among festival attendees, and we also high-
lighted a high rate of regular users reporting social or
health consequences. We also found an association
between the use of stimulants or hallucinogens and
cannabis use dependence. In light of our findings, fes-
tival settings may be important arenas for implement-
ing efficient harm reduction measures and preventing
the development of dependence among cannabis users.
In addition, healthcare professionals should be aware of
trends in polysubstance use among dependent cannabis
users.

**Supplementary Information**

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18496-9.

**Supplementary Material 1.**

Acknowledgements

We would like to warmly thank Vincent Eudeline, Jean-Emmanuel Guillet, Manon Guillo and Laurent Babonnaud who represented associations involved in harm reduction and addiction prevention (OPPELIA addiction prevention and care association, Techno + Nantestechno community health association and AIDES Nante sassociation for the support and accompaniment of people / HIV/AIDS and hepatitis prevention and risk reduction initiatives) and partici- pated to the recruitment and assessment of participants in music festivals.

Authors' contributions

CVV and SP design the work. SC, MI, PL, BS and MGB participate to the acquisi-
tion and analysis. All authors participate to the interpretation of the data
for the work. SC, MI and MR wrote the main manuscript text and all authors
revised critically for important intellectual content. All authors approved the
version to be published.

Funding

This work was supported by the French regional health agency of Pays de la
Loire. [grant number ARS-PDL/DPPS/DPSP/2018/25/PDL].

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Informed consent was collected from each participant during the interview.
According to French regulation, ethical approval was not required as the
survey is not within the scope of application of the French Public Health Code,
according to both articles R1121-1 and L1123-6. Indeed, for the OCTOPUS
survey, only anonymous data in the context of the regulated purposes of the
Addictovigilance system were collected.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Author details

¹Centre d'Evaluation et d'Information sur la Pharmacodépendance-Addic-
tovigilance (CEIP-A), Service de Pharmacologie Clinique, Nantes Université,
CHU Nantes, F-44000 Nantes, France. ²Nantes Université, Univ Tours, CHU
Nantes, CHU Tours, INSERM, MethodS in Patients-centered outcomes
and HEalth Research, SPHERE, F-44000 Nantes, France. ³UIC Psychiatrie et
Santé Mentale, Nantes Université, CHU Nantes, F-44000 Nantes, France. ⁴Cen-
tre d'addictovigilance, Service de Pharmacologie Clinique, CHU de Poitiers,
86000 Poitiers, France. ⁵Laboratoire de Neurosciences Expérimentales et
Cliniques, INSERM U-1084, Université de Poitiers, 86000 Poitiers, France.

Received: 28 November 2023 Accepted: 1 April 2024

Published online: 09 April 2024

References

1. Grotenhermen F. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of cannabi-
noids. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2003;42(4):327–60.

2. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. European Drug Report 2021 : Trends and Development [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/media/publications/documents/13838/2021.2256_FR_02_.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar 2024.

3. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. European drug report 2023 [Internet]. LU: Publications Office; 2023 [cited 2024 Mar 12]. (European drug report ... (Online)). (Online)). Available from: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2810/161905.

4. Le Nézet O, Spilka S, Lahaie E, Andler R. Les usages de cannabis en popu-
lation adulte en 2021 [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.ofdt.fr/
BDD/publications/docs/eftxo12cc.pdf.

5. Galván G, Guerrero-Martelo M, Vásquez De la Hoz F. Cannabis: A Cogni-
tive Illusion. Rev Colomb Psiquiatr. 2017;46(2):95–102.

6. Karila L, Roux P, Rolland B, Benyamina A, Reynaud M, Aubin HJ, et al. Acute and long-term effects of cannabis use: a review. Curr Pharm Des. 2014;20(25):4112–8.

7. Palamar JJ, Acosta P, Le A, Cleland CM, Nelson LS. Adverse drug-related effects among electronic dance music party attendees. Int J Drug Policy. 2019;73:81–7.

8. Schmid Y, Scholz I, Mueller L, Exadakylos AK, Ceschi A, Liechti ME, et al. Emergency department presentations related to acute toxicity following recreational use of cannabis products in Switzerland. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020;206:107726.

9. Barratt MJ, Hughes CE, Ferris JA, Winstock AR. Australian music festival attendees who seek emergency medical treatment following alcohol and other drug use: a global drug survey data report. Melbourne: Social and Global Studies Centre, RMIT University; 2019.

10. Hall W, Degenhardt L. The adverse health effects of chronic cannabis use. Drug Test Anal. 2014;6(1–2):39–45.

11. Aryana A, Williams MA. Marijuana as a trigger of cardiovascular events: speculation or scientific certainty? Int J Cardiol. 2007;118(2):141–4.
12. Castle DJ, Murray R. Marijuana and madness: psychiatry and neurobiology. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2004. p. 218.

13. Desbois AC, Cacoub P. Cannabis-associated arterial disease. Ann Vasc Surg. 2013;27(7):996–1005.

14. Jouanjus E, Raymond V, Lapeyre-Mestre M, Wolff V. What is the current knowledge about the cardiovascular risk for users of Cannabis-based products? A systematic review. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2017;19(6):26.

15. Shrivastava A, Johnston M, Terpstra K, Bureau Y. Cannabis and psychosis: neurobiology. Indian J Psychiatry. 2014;56(1):8–16.

16. Pauselli L. Chapter 8 - Cannabis-induced psychotic disorders. In: Compton MT, Manseau MW, editors. The complex connection between Cannabis and schizophrenia [internet]. San Diego: Academic Press; 2018. p. 183–97 [cited 2024 Mar 14]. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128047910000082.

17. Degenhardt L, Charlson F, Ferrari A, Santomauro D, Erskine H, Mantilla-Herrara A, et al. The global burden of disease attributable to alcohol and drug use in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. Lancet Psychiatry. 2018;5(12):987–1012.

18. Leung J, Chan GCK, Hides L, Hall WD. What is the prevalence and risk of cannabis use disorders among people who use cannabis? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Addict Behav. 2020;109:106479.

19. Chung T, Cornelius J, Clark D, Martin C. Greater prevalence of proposed ICD-11 alcohol and Cannabis dependence compared to ICD-10, DSM-IV, and DSM-5 in treated adolescents. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2017;41(9):1584–92.

20. Hines LA, Freeman TP, Gage SH, Zammit S, Hickman M, Cannon M, et al. Association of High-Potency Cannabis use with Mental Health and Substance use in adolescence. JAMA Psychiatry. 2020;77(10):1044.

21. Freeman TP, Craft S, Wilson J, Stylianou S, ElSohy M, Di Forti M, et al. Changes in delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) concentrations in cannabis over time: systematic review and meta-analysis. Addiction. 2021;116(5):1000–10.

22. Spilka S, Richard JB, Le Nézet O, Janssen E, Philippon A, Shah J, et al. Les niveaux d'usage des drogues illicites en France en 2017. Tendances. 2018;128:8.

23. Hesse M, Tutenges S. Dependent cannabis users at a music festival prevalence and correlates. Drugs: Educ Prev Policy. 2011;18(6):433–7.

24. Observatoire français des drogues et des tendances addictives. Usagers, marchés et substances : évolutions récentes (2018–2019) - Tendances 136 - décembre 2019 - OFDT [Internet]. [cited 2024 Mar 14]. Available from: https://www.ofdt.fr/publications/collections/tendances/usage/rs-marches-et-substances-evolution-recentes-2018-2019-tendances-136-decembre-2019/.

25. Mohr ALA, Friscia M, Yeakel JK, Logan BK. Use of synthetic stimulants and hallucinogens in a cohort of electronic dance music festival attendees. Forensic Sci Int. 2018;282:168–78.

26. Erickson TB, Aks SE, Koenigsberg M, Bunney EB, Schurgin B, Levy P. Drug use patterns at major rock concert events. Ann Emerg Med. 1996;28(1):22–6.

27. Moore K, Miles S. Young people, dance and the sub-cultural consumption of drugs. Addiction Research & Theory - Addict Res Theory. 2004;1(12):507–23.

28. Lim MSC, Hellard ME, Hocking JS, Spelman TD, Aitken CK. Surveillance of drug use among young people attending a music festival in Australia, 2005-2008. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2010;29(2):150–6.

29. Hesse M, Tutenges S. Music and substance preferences among festival attendants. Drugs Alcohol Today. 2012;12(2):82–8.

30. Van Havere T, Vanderplasschen W, Lammertyn J, Broekaert E, Bellis M. Drug use and nightlife: more than just dance music. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2011;27(6):18.

31. Fox J, Smith A, Yale A, Chow C, Alaswad E, Cushing T, et al. Drugs of abuse and novel psychoactive substances at outdoor music festivals in Colorado. Subst Use Misuse. 2018;53(7):1203–11.

32. Palamar JJ, Keyes KM. Trends in drug use among electronic dance music party attendees in new York City, 2016-2019. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020;1(209):107889.

33. Miller P, Curtis A, Jenkinson R, Droste N, Bowe SJ, Pennay A. Drug use in Australian nightlife settings: estimation of prevalence and validity of self-report. Addiction. 2015;110(11):1803–10.

34. Legleye S, Beck F. Sociabilités, styles musicaux et usages de substances psychoactives à 18 ans. Psychotropes. 2003;9(3–4):11–35.

35. Palamar JJ, Griffin-Tomas M, Ompad DC. Illicit drug use among rave attendees in a nationally representative sample of US high school seniors. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;152:24–31.

36. Feltmann K, Elgán TH, Strandberg AK, Kvillemo P, Jayaram-Lindström N, Grabski M, et al. Illicit drug use and associated problems in the nightlife scene: a potential setting for prevention. IJERPH. 2021;18(9):4789.

37. Jenkinson R, Bowring A, Dietze P, Hellard M, Lim MSC. Young risk takers: alcohol, illicit drugs, and sexual practices among a sample of music festival attendees. J Sex Transm Dis. 2014;14(2014):1–6.

38. Hoareau E. L'impact de la réduction des risques dans les espaces festifs techno. Psychotropes. 2007;13(2):27–48.

39. Istvan M, Bresdin V, Mainguy M, Laigo P, Grall-Bronnec M, Eudeline V, et al. First results of the French OCTOPUS survey among festival attendees: a latent class analysis. Harm Reduct J. 2023;20(1):43.

40. Victorri-Vigneau C, Hardouin JB, Rousselet M, Gerardin M, Guerlais M, Guillou M, et al. Multicentre study for validation of the French addictovigilance network reports assessment tool. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;82(4):1030–9.

41. Micallef J, Mallaret M. Les 25 ans des centres d'évaluation et d'information sur la pharmacodépendance-addictovigilance. Therapies. 2016;71(4):375–8.

42. Assurance maladie. Définition de l'ALD [Internet]. [cited 2024 Mar 15]. Available from: https://www.ameli.fr/loire-atlantique/medecin/exercice-liberal/prise-charge-situation-type-soin/situation-patient-ald-affection-longue-duree/definition-ald.

43. Article L1123-6 - Code de la santé publique - Légifrance [Internet]. [cited 2023 Dec 12]. Available from: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000037504414.

44. Article R1121-1 - Code de la santé publique - Légifrance [Internet]. [cited 2023 Dec 12]. Available from: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000043723460.

45. Santé publique France. Les usages de cannabis en population adulte en 2021 [Internet]. [cited 2024 Mar 15]. Available from: https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/presse/2022/les-usages-de-cannabis-en-population-adulte-en-2021.

46. Compton WM, Han B, Jones CM, Blanco C. Cannabis use disorders among adults in the United States during a time of increasing use of cannabis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;204:107468.

47. Degenhardt L, Glantz M, Bharat C, Peacock A, Lago L, Sampson N, et al. The impact of cohort substance use upon likelihood of transitioning through stages of alcohol and cannabis use and use disorder: findings from the Australian National Survey on mental health and wellbeing. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2018;37(4):546–56.

48. Bonner WIA, Andkhoie M, Thompson C, Farag M, Szafron M. Patterns and factors of problematic marijuana use in the Canadian population: evidence from three cross-sectional surveys. Can J Public Health. 2017;108(2):e110–6.

49. Hayley AC, Stough C, Downey LA. DSM-5 cannabis use disorder, substance use and DSM-5 specific substance-use disorders: evaluating comorbidity in a population-based sample. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2017;27(8):732–43.

50. Millar SR, Mongan D, O'Dwyer C, Smyth BP, Perry JJ, Galvin B. Relationships between patterns of cannabis use, abuse and dependence and recent stimulant use: Evidence from two national surveys in Ireland. Troup LJ, editor. PLoS One. 2021;16(8):e0255745.

51. Butterworth P, Slade T, Degenhardt L. Factors associated with the timing and onset of cannabis use and cannabis use disorder: results from the 2007 Australian National Survey of mental health and well-being: predictors of cannabis use and CUD. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2014;33(5):555–64.

52. Parrott AC, Milani RM, Gouzoulis-Mayfrank E, Daumann J. Cannabis and ecstasy/MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine): an analysis of their neuropsychobiological interactions in recreational users. J Neural Transm. 2007;114(8):959–68.

53. Secades-Villa R, Garcia-Rodríguez O, Jin CJ, Wang S, Blanco C. Probability and predictors of the cannabis gateway effect: a national study. Int J Drug Policy. 2015;26(2):135–42.

54. Bahji A, Stephenson C, Tyo R, Hawken ER, Seitz DP. Prevalence of Cannabis withdrawal symptoms among people with regular or dependent use of
12. Castle DJ, Murray R. Marijuana and madness: psychiatry and neurobiology. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2004. p. 218.

13. Desbois AC, Cacoub P. Cannabis-associated arterial disease. Ann Vasc Surg. 2013;27(7):996–1005.

14. Jouanjus E, Raymond V, Lapeyre-Mestre M, Wolff V. What is the current knowledge about the cardiovascular risk for users of Cannabis-based products? A systematic review. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2017;19(6):26.

15. Shrivastava A, Johnston M, Terpstra K, Bureau Y. Cannabis and psychosis: neurobiology. Indian J Psychiatry. 2014;56(1):8–16.

16. Pauselli L. Chapter 8 - Cannabis-induced psychotic disorders. In: Compton MT, Manseau MW, editors. The complex connection between Cannabis and schizophrenia [internet]. San Diego: Academic Press; 2018. p. 183–97 [cited 2024 Mar 14]. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128047910000082.

17. Degenhardt L, Charlson F, Ferrari A, Santomauro D, Erskine H, Mantilla-Herrara A, et al. The global burden of disease attributable to alcohol and drug use in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. Lancet Psychiatry. 2018;5(12):987–1012.

18. Leung J, Chan GCK, Hides L, Hall WD. What is the prevalence and risk of cannabis use disorders among people who use cannabis? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Addict Behav. 2020;109:106479.

19. Chung T, Cornelius J, Clark D, Martin C. Greater prevalence of proposed ICD-11 alcohol and Cannabis dependence compared to ICD-10, DSM-IV, and DSM-5 in treated adolescents. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2017;41(9):1584–92.

20. Hines LA, Freeman TP, Gage SH, Zammit S, Hickman M, Cannon M, et al. Association of High-Potency Cannabis use with Mental Health and Substance use in adolescence. JAMA Psychiatry. 2020;77(10):1044.

21. Freeman TP, Craft S, Wilson J, Stylianou S, ElSohy M, Di Forti M, et al. Changes in delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) concentrations in cannabis over time: systematic review and meta-analysis. Addiction. 2021;116(5):1000–10.

22. Spilka S, Richard JB, Le Nézet O, Janssen E, Philippon A, Shah J, et al. Les niveaux d'usage des drogues illicites en France en 2017. Tendances. 2018;128:8.

23. Hesse M, Tutenges S. Dependent cannabis users at a music festival prevalence and correlates. Drugs: Educ Prev Policy. 2011;18(6):433–7.

24. Observatoire français des drogues et des tendances addictives. Usagers, marchés et substances : évolutions récentes (2018–2019) - Tendances 136 - décembre 2019 - OFDT [Internet]. [cited 2024 Mar 14]. Available from: https://www.ofdt.fr/publications/collections/tendances/usage/rs-marches-et-substances-evolution-recentes-2018-2019-tendances-136-decembre-2019/.

25. Mohr ALA, Friscia M, Yeakel JK, Logan BK. Use of synthetic stimulants and hallucinogens in a cohort of electronic dance music festival attendees. Forensic Sci Int. 2018;282:168–78.

26. Erickson TB, Aks SE, Koenigsberg M, Bunney EB, Schurgin B, Levy P. Drug use patterns at major rock concert events. Ann Emerg Med. 1996;28(1):22–6.

27. Moore K, Miles S. Young people, dance and the sub-cultural consumption of drugs. Addiction Research & Theory - Addict Res Theory. 2004;1(12):507–23.

28. Lim MSC, Hellard ME, Hocking JS, Spelman TD, Aitken CK. Surveillance of drug use among young people attending a music festival in Australia, 2005-2008. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2010;29(2):150–6.

29. Hesse M, Tutenges S. Music and substance preferences among festival attendants. Drugs Alcohol Today. 2012;12(2):82–8.

30. Van Havere T, Vanderplasschen W, Lammertyn J, Broekaert E, Bellis M. Drug use and nightlife: more than just dance music. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2011;27(6):18.

31. Fox J, Smith A, Yale A, Chow C, Alaswad E, Cushing T, et al. Drugs of abuse and novel psychoactive substances at outdoor music festivals in Colorado. Subst Use Misuse. 2018;53(7):1203–11.

32. Palamar JJ, Keyes KM. Trends in drug use among electronic dance music party attendees in new York City, 2016-2019. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020;1(209):107889.

33. Miller P, Curtis A, Jenkinson R, Droste N, Bowe SJ, Pennay A. Drug use in Australian nightlife settings: estimation of prevalence and validity of self-report. Addiction. 2015;110(11):1803–10.

34. Legleye S, Beck F. Sociabilités, styles musicaux et usages de substances psychoactives à 18 ans. Psychotropes. 2003;9(3-4):11–35.

35. Palamar JJ, Griffin-Tomas M, Ompad DC. Illicit drug use among rave attendees in a nationally representative sample of US high school seniors. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;152:24–31.

36. Feltmann K, Elgán TH, Strandberg AK, Kvillemo P, Jayaram-Lindström N, Grabski M, et al. Illicit drug use and associated problems in the nightlife scene: a potential setting for prevention. IJERPH. 2021;18(9):4789.

37. Jenkinson R, Bowring A, Dietze P, Hellard M, Lim MSC. Young risk takers: alcohol, illicit drugs, and sexual practices among a sample of music festival attendees. J Sex Transm Dis. 2014;14(2014):1–6.

38. Hoareau E. L'impact de la réduction des risques dans les espaces festifs techno. Psychotropes. 2007;13(2):27–48.

39. Istvan M, Bresdin V, Mainguy M, Laigo P, Grall-Bronnec M, Eudeline V, et al. First results of the French OCTOPUS survey among festival attendees: a latent class analysis. Harm Reduct J. 2023;20(1):43.

40. Victorri-Vigneau C, Hardouin JB, Rousselet M, Gerardin M, Guerlais M, Guillou M, et al. Multicentre study for validation of the French addictovigilance network reports assessment tool. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;82(4):1030–9.

41. Micallef J, Mallaret M. Les 25 ans des centres d'évaluation et d'information sur la pharmacodépendance-addictovigilance. Therapies. 2016;71(4):375–8.

42. Assurance maladie. Définition de l'ALD [Internet]. [cited 2024 Mar 15]. Available from: https://www.ameli.fr/loire-atlantique/medecin/exercice-liberal/prise-charge-situation-type-soin/situation-patient-ald-affection-longue-duree/definition-ald.

43. Article L1123-6 - Code de la santé publique - Légifrance [Internet]. [cited 2023 Dec 12]. Available from: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000037504414.

44. Article R1121-1 - Code de la santé publique - Légifrance [Internet]. [cited 2023 Dec 12]. Available from: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000043723460.

45. Santé publique France. Les usages de cannabis en population adulte en 2021 [Internet]. [cited 2024 Mar 15]. Available from: https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/presse/2022/les-usages-de-cannabis-en-population-adulte-en-2021.

46. Compton WM, Han B, Jones CM, Blanco C. Cannabis use disorders among adults in the United States during a time of increasing use of cannabis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;204:107468.

47. Degenhardt L, Glantz M, Bharat C, Peacock A, Lago L, Sampson N, et al. The impact of cohort substance use upon likelihood of transitioning through stages of alcohol and cannabis use and use disorder: findings from the Australian National Survey on mental health and wellbeing. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2018;37(4):546–56.

48. Bonner WIA, Andkhoie M, Thompson C, Farag M, Szafron M. Patterns and factors of problematic marijuana use in the Canadian population: evidence from three cross-sectional surveys. Can J Public Health. 2017;108(2):e110–6.

49. Hayley AC, Stough C, Downey LA. DSM-5 cannabis use disorder, substance use and DSM-5 specific substance-use disorders: evaluating comorbidity in a population-based sample. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2017;27(8):732–43.

50. Millar SR, Mongan D, O'Dwyer C, Smyth BP, Perry JJ, Galvin B. Relationships between patterns of cannabis use, abuse and dependence and recent stimulant use: Evidence from two national surveys in Ireland. Troup LJ, editor. PLoS One. 2021;16(8):e0255745.

51. Butterworth P, Slade T, Degenhardt L. Factors associated with the timing and onset of cannabis use and cannabis use disorder: results from the 2007 Australian National Survey of mental health and well-being: predictors of cannabis use and CUD. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2014;33(5):555–64.

52. Parrott AC, Milani RM, Gouzoulis-Mayfrank E, Daumann J. Cannabis and ecstasy/MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine): an analysis of their neuropsychobiological interactions in recreational users. J Neural Transm. 2007;114(8):959–68.

53. Secades-Villa R, Garcia-Rodríguez O, Jin CJ, Wang S, Blanco C. Probability and predictors of the cannabis gateway effect: a national study. Int J Drug Policy. 2015;26(2):135–42.

54. Bahji A, Stephenson C, Tyo R, Hawken ER, Seitz DP. Prevalence of Cannabis withdrawal symptoms among people with regular or dependent use of
cannabinoids: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open.
2020;3(4):e202370.

55. Pellegrino AJ, Duck KD, Kriescher DPJ, Shrake ME, Phillips MM, Lalonde TL, et al. Characterizing symptoms of Cannabis use disorder in a sample of college students. J Drug Issues. 2020;50(4):524-37.

56. Blanco C, Ogburn E, Pérez de los Cobos J, Lujan J, Nunes EV, Grant B, et al. DSM-IV criteria-based clinical subtypes of cannabis use disorders: results from the National Epidemiological Survey on alcohol and related conditions (NESARC). Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008;96(1-2):136-44.

57. Santaella-Tenorio J, Levy NS, Segura LE, Mauro PM, Martins SS. Cannabis use disorder among people using cannabis daily/almost daily in the United States, 2002-2016. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;205:107621.

58. MacCoun RJ. The puzzling Unidimensionality of DSM-5 substance use disorder diagnoses. Front Psychiatry [Internet]. 2013;4 [cited 2022 Oct 15];
Available from: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyt.2013.
00153/abstract

59. Compton WM, Dawson DA, Goldstein RB, Grant BF. Crosswalk between DSM-IV dependence and DSM-5 substance use disorders for opioids, Cannabis, cocaine and alcohol. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013;132:387.

60. Goldstein RB, Chou SP, Smith SM, Jung J, Zhang H, Saha TD, et al. Nosologic comparisons of DSM-IV and DSM-5 alcohol and drug use disorders: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on alcohol and related conditions—III. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2015;76(3):378–88.

61. Livne O, Shmulewitz D, Stohl M, Mannes Z, Aharonovich E, Hasin D. Agreement between DSM-5 and DSM-IV measures of substance use disorders in a sample of adult substance users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021;10(227):108958.

62. Bouquet E, Pain S, Eiden C, Jouanjus E, Richard N, Fauconneau B, et al. Adverse events of recreational cannabis use reported to the French addictovigilance network (2012–2017). Brit Jnl Clinical Pharma. 2021;87(10):3925–37.

63. Miller PG, Sønderlund AL. Using the internet to research hidden popula-
tions of illicit drug users: a review. Addiction. 2010;105(9):1557–67.

64. Stetina BU, Jagsch R, Schramel C, Maman TL, Kryspin-Exner I. Explor-
ing Hidden Populations: Recreational Drug Users. Cyberpsychology:
J Psychosoc Res Cyberspace [Internet]. 2008;2(1) [cited 2022 May 15];
Available from: https://cyberpsychology.eu/article/view/4208

65. Hoch E, Preuss UW, Ferri M, Simon R. Digital interventions for problematic Cannabis users in non-clinical settings: findings from a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Eur Addict Res. 2016;22(5):233-42.

66. Champion KE, Newton NC, Barrett EL, Teesson M. A systematic review of school-based alcohol and other drug prevention programs facilitated by computers or the internet. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2013;32(2):115-23.

67. Ariza C, Sánchez-Martínez F, Pérez A. School-based Cannabis prevention programs. In: Handbook of Cannabis and related pathologies [Internet]. Elsevier; 2017. p. 1074–85 [cited 2022 Aug 7] Available from: https://link.nghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780128007563001290.

68. Spechler PA, Allgaier N, Chaarani B, Whelan R, Watts R, Orr C, et al. The initiation of cannabis use in adolescence is predicted by sex-specific psychosocial and neurobiological features. Eur J Neurosci. 2019;50(3):2346–56.

**Publisher’s Note**

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub-
lished maps and institutional affiliations.
cannabinoids: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open.
2020;3(4):e202370.

55. Pellegrino AJ, Duck KD, Kriescher DPJ, Shrake ME, Phillips MM, Lalonde TL, et al. Characterizing symptoms of Cannabis use disorder in a sample of college students. J Drug Issues. 2020;50(4):524-37.

56. Blanco C, Ogburn E, Pérez de los Cobos J, Lujan J, Nunes EV, Grant B, et al. DSM-IV criteria-based clinical subtypes of cannabis use disorders: results from the National Epidemiological Survey on alcohol and related conditions (NESARC). Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008;96(1-2):136-44.

57. Santaella-Tenorio J, Levy NS, Segura LE, Mauro PM, Martins SS. Cannabis use disorder among people using cannabis daily/almost daily in the United States, 2002-2016. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;205:107621.

58. MacCoun RJ. The puzzling Unidimensionality of DSM-5 substance use disorder diagnoses. Front Psychiatry [Internet]. 2013;4 [cited 2022 Oct 15];
Available from: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyt.2013.
00153/abstract

59. Compton WM, Dawson DA, Goldstein RB, Grant BF. Crosswalk between DSM-IV dependence and DSM-5 substance use disorders for opioids, Cannabis, cocaine and alcohol. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013;132:387.

60. Goldstein RB, Chou SP, Smith SM, Jung J, Zhang H, Saha TD, et al. Nosologic comparisons of DSM-IV and DSM-5 alcohol and drug use disorders: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on alcohol and related conditions—III. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2015;76(3):378–88.

61. Livne O, Shmulewitz D, Stohl M, Mannes Z, Aharonovich E, Hasin D. Agreement between DSM-5 and DSM-IV measures of substance use disorders in a sample of adult substance users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021;10(227):108958.

62. Bouquet E, Pain S, Eiden C, Jouanjus E, Richard N, Fauconneau B, et al. Adverse events of recreational cannabis use reported to the French addictovigilance network (2012–2017). Brit Jnl Clinical Pharma. 2021;87(10):3925–37.

63. Miller PG, Sønderlund AL. Using the internet to research hidden popula-
tions of illicit drug users: a review. Addiction. 2010;105(9):1557–67.

64. Stetina BU, Jagsch R, Schramel C, Maman TL, Kryspin-Exner I. Explor-
ing Hidden Populations: Recreational Drug Users. Cyberpsychology:
J Psychosoc Res Cyberspace [Internet]. 2008;2(1) [cited 2022 May 15];
Available from: https://cyberpsychology.eu/article/view/4208

65. Hoch E, Preuss UW, Ferri M, Simon R. Digital interventions for problematic Cannabis users in non-clinical settings: findings from a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Eur Addict Res. 2016;22(5):233-42.

66. Champion KE, Newton NC, Barrett EL, Teesson M. A systematic review of school-based alcohol and other drug prevention programs facilitated by computers or the internet. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2013;32(2):115-23.

67. Ariza C, Sánchez-Martínez F, Pérez A. School-based Cannabis prevention programs. In: Handbook of Cannabis and related pathologies [Internet]. Elsevier; 2017. p. 1074–85 [cited 2022 Aug 7] Available from: https://link.nghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780128007563001290.

68. Spechler PA, Allgaier N, Chaarani B, Whelan R, Watts R, Orr C, et al. The initiation of cannabis use in adolescence is predicted by sex-specific psychosocial and neurobiological features. Eur J Neurosci. 2019;50(3):2346–56.

**Publisher’s Note**

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub-
lished maps and institutional affiliations.