A large international genetic study released today strengthens the view that biology plays a meaningful role in who uses cannabis and who may develop problematic use. Researchers analyzed genetic data from more than 130,000 participants to identify regions of the genome associated with cannabis use and how often people use the drug. The work points to two specific genes, CADM2 and GRM3, as being related to lifetime cannabis use and frequency of use, respectively. Beyond those findings, the study reports dozens of additional gene signals and a broad pattern of genetic overlap with traits tied to psychiatric health, cognition, and physical well-being. The central message is clear: genetics helps shape early cannabis-related behaviors, which may influence who ends up facing cannabis use disorder, even as environment, policy, and personal choices steer the ultimate outcomes.
The researchers conducted a genome-wide association study, or GWAS, leveraging genetic data and survey responses from about 131,895 participants. Respondents reported whether they had ever used cannabis and, for users, how often they used it. The analysis found that lifetime cannabis use was linked to CADM2, a gene involved in brain cell signaling and connectivity, while frequency of use showed associations with GRM3, a gene connected to neuronal communication and long-term brain plasticity. In addition, the secondary analysis uncovered around 40 more genes associated with lifetime use and four more with their use frequency, nearly a third of which had not been linked to cannabis traits before. Taken together, these signals underscore the polygenic nature of cannabis use, meaning many genes each contribute a small effect rather than a single determinant.
Crucially, the study mapped these genetic signals to broader health patterns. Individuals with a higher genetic predisposition for cannabis use tended to share genetic links with more than 100 other traits, spanning psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia, ADHD, anxiety, and depression; cognitive traits like executive function and risk-taking; and physical health concerns including diabetes, chronic pain, and heart disease. There were also genetic associations with increased risk for tobacco use and certain infectious and autoimmune diseases. This constellation of connections suggests that cannabis use and its potential progression to disorder do not occur in a vacuum but sit at the intersection of brain biology, behavior, and physical health.
For many readers, the most pressing takeaway is not inevitability but trend: genetics helps explain why some people try cannabis and why others may escalate to problematic use, yet it does not seal anyone’s fate. “Cannabis use exists on a continuum,” one of the study’s lead authors noted, emphasizing that examining early-stage behaviors can illuminate how risk unfolds long before problem use becomes evident. The scientists stress that, at present, there are no approved drug therapies to treat cannabis use disorder, but these genetic insights could guide future prevention and intervention strategies and help identify potential therapeutic targets.
In Thailand, as in much of the region, cannabis policy and public health practice are in flux amid rising visibility of cannabis products and changing attitudes toward use. The Thai health system faces the challenge of balancing access to medical cannabis with safeguards against nonmedical use, while schools, families, and communities navigate what is appropriate for youth and young adults. The new genetics-based findings offer both a caution and an opportunity for Thai policymakers and health professionals. On the caution side, they remind us that individual variation matters; a one-size-fits-all approach to prevention is unlikely to be effective. On the opportunity side, they bolster the case for targeted prevention strategies that consider family dynamics, school environments, and community norms — all of which sit at the heart of Thai culture.
From a clinical vantage point, the study reinforces several important messages for Thai healthcare providers and educators. First, it underscores the importance of early screening for risk factors that might foreshadow cannabis use progression, especially among youths with behavioral or cognitive challenges. Second, it highlights the potential value of integrated care approaches that address mental health, substance use, and physical health together rather than in silos. Third, it emphasizes privacy and ethical considerations in genetic information use, a sensitivity that aligns with Thai cultural emphasis on family harmony and respect for elders, and the need to protect individuals and communities from stigma.
Experts outside Thailand have long cautioned that genetics explains only part of the picture. Environment, social context, access to education, peer influences, and policy environments shape how genetic risk translates into behavior. In Thailand, this means that robust public health infrastructure, clear regulatory frameworks for medical and recreational cannabis, and strong school and family supports are essential to translating genetic knowledge into beneficial outcomes. The study’s authors themselves stress that genetics informs risk, not destiny, and that a person with several risk genes is not doomed to misuse cannabis; conversely, someone with lower genetic risk can still develop problems if exposed to adverse conditions. For Thai families, this underlines the enduring importance of open dialogue, supportive parenting, and access to trustworthy information about substance use.
Looking to the future, the research opens avenues for more precise prevention science and perhaps new therapeutic strategies. In the long run, clinicians might use polygenic risk information to tailor prevention programs or to identify individuals who would benefit from early, non-stigmatizing interventions. For Thailand, such advances could dovetail with existing public health goals: reducing substance-related harms, enhancing mental health resources, and strengthening preventive education in schools and communities. But any real-world application will require careful consideration of privacy, consent, and equity, ensuring that genetic findings do not widen disparities or stigmatize individuals or communities.
Historically, Thai society has valued the family as a primary unit of care and decision-making, with religious and cultural traditions guiding health behaviors. Buddhist ethics emphasize compassion, mindful living, and avoidance of harm, which align with a public health emphasis on prevention and harm reduction. In temples and community centers across the country, health promotion efforts often hinge on trusted local figures and elders who can translate scientific insights into actionable, culturally resonant practices. The new genetics-based findings can be framed within this social fabric as a driver for preventive education, rather than a justification for labeling or blaming individuals who use cannabis.
As Thailand contemplates policy and practice, one clear recommendation emerges: invest in comprehensive, multilingual education and prevention programs that acknowledge genetic risk while empowering families to support healthier choices. Schools can integrate age-appropriate information about brain development, impulse control, and the non-medical risks of early cannabis use into health curricula. Communities can offer family-based workshops that provide practical strategies for reducing risk, such as promoting safe recreational alternatives, building social connectedness, and encouraging help-seeking behavior without stigma. Health systems should ensure accessible mental health and addiction services, including culturally sensitive counseling and youth-focused outreach, so that those who experience problematic use can receive timely, nonjudgmental care.
In sum, the latest research adds a crucial human dimension to the public health conversation: cannabis use and potential addiction arise from a blend of genetic predisposition, brain biology, and life experiences. Thai readers can draw two practical conclusions. First, knowledge about genetic risk should fuel proactive, empathetic engagement within families and schools, not fear or blame. Second, policymakers and practitioners should seize the moment to align medical cannabis policies with robust prevention, mental health support, and ethical use of genetic information. By weaving science, culture, and community care together, Thailand can respond to this evolving field with policies and programs that protect youth, support families, and advance public health in a way that honors Thai values.