# Pediatric Cannabis Poisoning Calls Rose 3,307% in 25 Years, > **Author:** Benjamin Caplan, MD (ABFM Board Certified, MA Lic. #240562, NPI: 1962722637) > **Publisher:** CED Clinic (https://cedclinic.com) > **Canonical URL:** https://cedclinic.com/pediatric-cannabis-poisoning-national-poison-center-trend-2000-2024/ > **Published:** 2026-08-28T08:53:32-04:00 | **Last Modified / Clinically Audited:** 2026-09-28T10:46:38-04:00 > **Clinical Summary:** A 25-year national study finds unintentional pediatric cannabis poisoning calls rose 3,307% since 2000, driven largely by cannabis edibles. --- CED Clinical Relevance #85 High Family Safety and Clinical Counseling Relevance A 25-year, 41,612-case national poison center cohort found cannabinoids, chiefly edible products, behind the large majority of unintentional pediatric recreational-drug ingestions, with the population-adjusted rate rising more than 30-fold since 2000. Clinical Insight | CED Clinic Uskovich and colleagues at the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and the Central Ohio Poison Center analyzed 25 years of United States National Poison Data System calls and identified 41,612 unintentional ingestions of recreational drugs among children younger than 6. The population-adjusted ingestion rate rose 3,307 percent, from 1.05 per 100,000 children in 2000 to 35.91 per 100,000 in 2024, with the steepest climb beginning in 2013 alongside rapid growth in edible marijuana and psilocybin products. Cannabinoids accounted for 84.7 percent of all ingestions. Most exposures involved children younger than 3, occurred at home, and involved a single substance. While just over half of children had no or only minor effects, 5.0 percent experienced a major medical effect and six children died. Pediatric Safety[Cannabis Edibles](https://cedclinic.com/decarboxylating-cannabis-process-why-how/)Poison Control DataAccidental IngestionChild-Resistant Packaging Audience Cannabis patients who are parents or caregivers, pediatricians, emergency clinicians, dispensary staff, and cannabis policymakers Primary Topic unintentional pediatric ingestion of recreational drugs, overwhelmingly [cannabis edibles](https://cedclinic.com/decarboxylating-cannabis-process-why-how/), reported to United States poison centers from 2000 through 2024 Source [Read the study in BMC Public Health](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42343328/) A 25-year analysis of United States poison center calls found that unintentional ingestions of recreational drugs among children younger than 6 rose 3,307 percent since 2000, overwhelmingly driven by [cannabis edibles](https://cedclinic.com/decarboxylating-cannabis-process-why-how/). Most exposures were mild, but 5 percent were severe and six children died. A Quiet Safety Problem Hiding in Plain Sight [Cannabis medicine](https://cedclinic.com/essential-oils-industrial-hemp-antimicrobial-benefits/) has real, evidence-backed applications, and expanding legal access has helped many patients. That expansion has also changed what sits on kitchen counters and in nightstand drawers in millions of homes, often in the form of gummies, chocolates, and beverages that a toddler cannot distinguish from candy or juice. A new 25-year national analysis puts a number on that shift. Unintentional pediatric ingestions of recreational drugs, mostly [cannabis edibles](https://cedclinic.com/decarboxylating-cannabis-process-why-how/), have climbed steadily and then sharply since 2013. This is not an argument against [cannabis as medicine](https://cedclinic.com/cannabinoids-in-reward-processing-pain-perception/). It is a direct, practical safety issue that deserves the same plain, unembarrassed counseling clinicians already give about medication lockboxes and detergent pods. What This Study Teaches Us [Cannabis edibles](https://cedclinic.com/decarboxylating-cannabis-process-why-how/), not other recreational drugs, now drive the overwhelming majority of unintentional pediatric poisoning calls to U.S. poison centers, and the population-adjusted rate has risen more than 30-fold since 2000, with the sharpest increase after 2013. Why This Matters Many CED Clinic patients are parents, grandparents, or caregivers who keep cannabis products at home for their own medical use. This study quantifies a real and growing pediatric safety risk that clinicians should raise proactively during counseling on storage, dosing, and packaging, independent of any judgment about the appropriateness of the adult’s own cannabis use. Study Snapshot Study Type Retrospective cohort study of National Poison Data System (NPDS) call records Study Period 2000 through 2024 (25 years) Population Children younger than 6 years in the United States Total Cases 41,612 unintentional ingestions of recreational drugs Rate Change Ingestion rate per 100,000 children rose 3,307%, from 1.05 in 2000 to 35.91 in 2024 Inflection Point Rapid acceleration beginning in 2013, especially edible marijuana and psilocybin products Substance Breakdown Cannabinoids 84.7%, stimulants 8.4%, psychedelics 3.5%, opioids 2.8%, dissociative agents 0.6% Age Pattern 57.6% of children were younger than 3 years Setting and Substance Count 96.4% occurred in a residence; 95.9% involved a single substance Medical Outcomes 50.6% no or minor effect; 5.0% major effect; 6 deaths Highest Critical-Care Risk by Substance Opioids (RR 2.60, 95% CI 2.36-2.86), stimulants (RR 2.16, 95% CI 2.01-2.31), and dissociative agents (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.23-2.06) versus other categories combined Age-Related Risk Children under 3 had higher rates of major effect (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.39-1.71) and critical care admission (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.16-1.30) than children 3-5 Data Sources National Poison Data System (America’s Poison Centers) and U.S. Census Bureau population estimates Journal BMC Public Health Published June 24, 2026 Authors Uskovich, Hays, Badeti, Rine, Michaels, Ding, and Smith (Nationwide Children’s Hospital and Central Ohio Poison Center) Clinical Bottom Line Unintentional pediatric ingestion of recreational drugs, overwhelmingly [cannabis edibles](https://cedclinic.com/decarboxylating-cannabis-process-why-how/), has increased more than 30-fold since 2000 and tracks the growth of legal cannabis markets. Most exposures are mild, but a meaningful minority are severe, and six deaths occurred over the study period. cannabis edible storage deserves the same routine safety counseling as medication and cleaning-product storage. A 25-Year Trend With a Clear Inflection Point The population-adjusted rate of unintentional recreational-drug ingestions among children under 6 was essentially flat and low through the early 2000s, at roughly 1 case per 100,000 children in 2000. It began climbing steadily and then sharply after 2013, reaching 35.91 per 100,000 children by 2024, a 3,307 percent increase over the full study period. The authors specifically identify edible marijuana and psilocybin products as the categories driving the post-2013 acceleration, a period that overlaps closely with the expansion of state legal and medical cannabis markets and, more recently, some jurisdictions’ psilocybin programs. Cannabinoids Dominate, but Are Not the Only Story Cannabinoids accounted for 84.7 percent of all 41,612 ingestions, far outweighing stimulants (8.4 percent), psychedelics (3.5 percent), opioids (2.8 percent), and dissociative agents (0.6 percent). Given how much more common cannabinoid exposures were, they also account for the large majority of major-effect cases and deaths in absolute terms. Notably, when the analysis compared relative risk of critical care admission by substance category, opioids, stimulants, and dissociative agents each carried a higher relative risk than cannabinoids, even though cannabinoids caused far more total ingestions. Frequency and severity risk are two different questions, and this study lets us examine both. Younger Children Carry Disproportionate Risk Children younger than 3 accounted for 57.6 percent of all cases and were significantly more likely than children aged 3 to 5 to experience a major medical effect (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.39-1.71) or be admitted to a critical care unit (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.16-1.30). Nearly all exposures, 96.4 percent, occurred inside a residence, and 95.9 percent involved only a single substance, consistent with a young child finding and eating an accessible product rather than deliberate co-ingestion. These are precisely the children least able to recognize a cannabis edible as anything other than food, and least able to communicate what they ingested or when. What the Numbers Mean for Packaging and Storage The study’s authors point to opaque, child-resistant packaging with limits on total dose per package and per serving, single-serving packaging, and clear labeling as concrete manufacturer- and policy-level interventions. These recommendations track closely with existing pediatric poisoning-prevention frameworks used for medications and household chemicals. At the household level, the clearest actionable step remains simple: store all cannabis products, especially edibles, the way a family would store a prescription medication, up, away, out of sight, and ideally in a locked container, never in a location a young child can reach independently. How Strong Is This Evidence? This is a large, 25-year national cohort covering 41,612 cases, drawing on the National Poison Data System, which aggregates calls from essentially all U.S. poison centers, and on U.S. Census Bureau data to calculate population-based rates rather than raw counts alone. The authors reported rate ratios with 95 percent confidence intervals for key comparisons, such as age group and substance category, which allows readers to judge both the direction and precision of key associations rather than relying on point estimates alone. Where This Paper Deserves Skepticism Poison center data capture only ingestions that a caregiver recognized and chose to report, so both under-reporting of minor unrecognized exposures and over-reporting of low-risk “worried well” calls are possible, and the true population exposure rate is unknown. The abstract does not break results down by state cannabis legal status, so it cannot directly attribute the trend to legalization versus other factors such as changing product design, awareness, or reporting behavior. Only the peer-reviewed abstract and indexed metadata were available for this review; the full text was not retrieved before publication, so subgroup, mechanism, or risk-of-bias detail beyond what is stated above should be treated as unverified until the full paper is reviewed. What This Paper Does Not Show This study does not show that cannabis is inherently more dangerous than other recreational drugs in every outcome measured; in fact, opioids, stimulants, and dissociative agents each carried a higher relative risk of critical care admission than cannabinoids despite causing far fewer total ingestions. It does not establish that any individual child’s exposure was directly caused by a specific state’s legalization policy, since state-level policy status was not part of the reported analysis. It does not capture exposures that were never reported to a poison center, and it does not describe longer-term clinical outcomes, treatment details, or product-level data such as specific THC dose per ingestion. How This Fits With the Broader Clinical Conversation The rise in edible-driven pediatric exposures parallels the broader commercialization of cannabis products, many of which are intentionally formulated and packaged to resemble familiar candies, baked goods, and beverages. That design choice, appealing to adult consumers, is precisely what makes these products indistinguishable from food to a toddler. This tension sits at the center of responsible [cannabis medicine](https://cedclinic.com/essential-oils-industrial-hemp-antimicrobial-benefits/): expanding legitimate, evidence-based adult access while treating pediatric exposure prevention as a nonnegotiable clinical and regulatory priority, not an afterthought. Physicians who recommend or manage [cannabis therapy](https://cedclinic.com/cannabis-based-therapies-smoking-cessation/) for patients with children in the home have a direct role in closing that gap through routine, specific storage counseling. Dr. Caplan’s Take *In two decades of clinical cannabis practice, the question I ask nearly every patient who is also a parent or grandparent is not whether they use cannabis responsibly, but where the product physically lives in their home when they are not looking at it. This study puts hard numbers behind an instinct many of us in this field have had for years: as edibles became more common and more candy-like, pediatric exposures became a real and rising problem.* *None of this argues against [cannabis as medicine](https://cedclinic.com/cannabinoids-in-reward-processing-pain-perception/). It argues for treating storage the way we already treat opioids, benzodiazepines, and anything else in a childproof cabinet, as a routine, unembarrassed part of the clinical conversation rather than something raised only after an incident.* What a Careful Reader Should Take Away Read this as a storage and packaging problem with a clear evidence base, not as a verdict on [cannabis medicine](https://cedclinic.com/essential-oils-industrial-hemp-antimicrobial-benefits/) itself. The relevant clinical action is specific counseling on child-resistant storage, not judgment about adult use. Evidence Interpretation Guide Table of Contents - [How to Read a Pediatric Poisoning Trend Study](#How_to_Read_a_Pediatric_Poisoning_Trend_Study)[A Four-Step Reading Frame](#A_Four-Step_Reading_Frame) - [Eight Ways to Read a Pediatric Cannabis Poisoning Trend](#Eight_Ways_to_Read_a_Pediatric_Cannabis_Poisoning_Trend)[This Is a Storage Problem, Not a Verdict on Your Cannabis Use](#This_Is_a_Storage_Problem_Not_a_Verdict_on_Your_Cannabis_Use) - [Ask About Storage the Way You Ask About Firearm Safety](#Ask_About_Storage_the_Way_You_Ask_About_Firearm_Safety) - [Children Under 3 Are the Highest-Risk Group, by a Meaningful Margin](#Children_Under_3_Are_the_Highest-Risk_Group_by_a_Meaningful_Margin) - [Edible Formats Are Doing Most of the Work in This Trend](#Edible_Formats_Are_Doing_Most_of_the_Work_in_This_Trend) - [A Striking Percentage Increase Still Needs Its Denominator](#A_Striking_Percentage_Increase_Still_Needs_Its_Denominator) - [Severity Clustered in a Recognizable Pattern](#Severity_Clustered_in_a_Recognizable_Pattern) - [The Trend Argues for Packaging Standards, Not for Reversing Legal Access](#The_Trend_Argues_for_Packaging_Standards_Not_for_Reversing_Legal_Access) - [Full-Text Review and State-Level Analysis Would Sharpen This Picture](#Full-Text_Review_and_State-Level_Analysis_Would_Sharpen_This_Picture) - [Frequently Asked Questions](#Frequently_Asked_Questions)[Related](#Related) ## How to Read a Pediatric Poisoning Trend Study A dramatic percentage increase can be true and still need context about baseline rates, case definitions, and what the underlying data source can and cannot capture. These checks help keep a population surveillance finding useful without overstating what it proves about any individual family. ### A Four-Step Reading Frame **Check the baseline**A 3,307 percent increase sounds enormous partly because the starting rate in 2000 was very low (about 1 per 100,000); the 2024 rate of roughly 36 per 100,000 is the number that matters for absolute risk. **Separate frequency from severity**Cannabinoids caused the most ingestions, but opioids, stimulants, and dissociative agents carried higher relative risk of critical care admission per ingestion. **Know what the data source can see**National Poison Data System calls depend on someone recognizing and reporting an exposure; unreported or unrecognized ingestions are not captured. **Hold the policy question separately**The study documents a national trend correlated with the post-2013 period of market expansion; it does not test state-by-state legalization status as a variable. The Research Question How have the rate, substance profile, and severity of unintentional recreational-drug ingestions among U.S. children under 6 changed between 2000 and 2024? The Clinical Question Does this national trend mean my own home storage practices need to change? The Bottom Line For any household with cannabis edibles and young children present, yes. Store products up, away, out of sight, and ideally locked, regardless of how the national numbers apply to any individual state or household. CED Perspective Lens ## Eight Ways to Read a Pediatric Cannabis Poisoning Trend A clinical, caregiver, and public health reading of a 25-year national poison center dataset Lens Overview These eight perspectives separate the distinct practical questions raised by a national pediatric poisoning trend, from individual household storage to manufacturer packaging design to what the poison center data source can and cannot tell us. #### This Is a Storage Problem, Not a Verdict on Your Cannabis Use If you use cannabis medically or recreationally and have young children or grandchildren in your home, this study is directly about you, but not as a judgment. It is a data-backed reminder that edible products, precisely because they are formulated to taste and look appealing, are functionally indistinguishable from food to a child under 3. The practical response is concrete rather than abstract: treat edibles exactly as you would a prescription medication bottle. Store them in a location a young child cannot reach without help, ideally in a locked container, and never leave an open package on a counter, nightstand, or purse even briefly. Lens takeaway Store cannabis edibles up, away, out of sight, and locked, the same standard you would apply to any prescription medication. #### Ask About Storage the Way You Ask About Firearm Safety Given that cannabinoids caused 84.7 percent of the 41,612 ingestions in this cohort, and that most occurred at home in children under 3, clinicians who recommend or manage [cannabis therapy](https://cedclinic.com/cannabis-based-therapies-smoking-cessation/) for adults with young children or grandchildren in the household have a specific, evidence-supported reason to raise storage explicitly at every visit, not only at intake. This can be a brief, nonjudgmental script: confirm what forms of cannabis are in the home, confirm where they are stored, and confirm whether a young child has independent access to that location. This mirrors well-established counseling patterns for firearms, medications, and household chemicals. Lens takeaway Add a specific cannabis-edible storage question to routine visits for any patient with young children in the home. #### Children Under 3 Are the Highest-Risk Group, by a Meaningful Margin Children younger than 3 made up 57.6 percent of all cases and had significantly higher rates of major medical effects and critical care admission than children age 3 to 5. This age group is old enough to explore its environment and put things in its mouth, but too young to recognize danger or reliably tell an adult what happened. This pattern should sharpen where prevention counseling focuses. A family with a mobile, exploratory toddler under 3 is at meaningfully higher risk than a family with only older children, and storage guidance should be delivered with that specific age window in mind. Lens takeaway Direct the most explicit storage counseling toward households with children younger than 3. #### Edible Formats Are Doing Most of the Work in This Trend The study authors specifically flag edible marijuana and psilocybin products as the categories behind the post-2013 acceleration. This lines up with a broader, well-documented pattern in which legal cannabis markets have leaned heavily into gummies, chocolates, baked goods, and beverages that closely resemble ordinary snack foods and drinks. Manufacturer-level interventions the authors highlight, opaque and child-resistant packaging, per-package and per-serving dose limits, single-serving packaging, and clear labeling, are not new ideas in pediatric poisoning prevention. They are the same basic tools already applied to medications, and this data set is a direct argument for applying them more consistently to cannabis edibles. Lens takeaway Product design and packaging, not just parental behavior, are a central lever for reducing pediatric exposures. #### A Striking Percentage Increase Still Needs Its Denominator A 3,307 percent increase is the kind of figure that can be used to alarm rather than inform. It is accurate, but it is calculated from a very small 2000 baseline of about 1 case per 100,000 children, so the more clinically useful number is the 2024 rate itself, roughly 36 cases per 100,000 children under 6, alongside the absolute case count of 41,612 over 25 years. It is also worth noting explicitly that poison center data reflects reported and recognized exposures only. Ingestions that a caregiver did not notice, or noticed but did not report, are invisible to this data source in either direction, and the true underlying exposure rate cannot be determined from this study alone. Lens takeaway Treat the percentage change as real but interpret it alongside the actual 2024 rate and the data source’s reporting limits. #### Severity Clustered in a Recognizable Pattern About half of children, 50.6 percent, had no or only minor effects, but 5.0 percent experienced a major effect and six children died over the 25-year study period. Critical care admission was significantly more likely for children under 3 and for ingestions involving opioids, stimulants, or dissociative agents specifically, even though those substances were far less common overall than cannabinoids. For emergency clinicians, this supports maintaining a broad differential and a low threshold for toxicology and observation in a young child presenting with an unexplained altered mental status or lethargy, particularly when a cannabis product cannot be ruled out as present in the home. Lens takeaway Maintain a low threshold to consider recreational-drug ingestion, cannabis edibles specifically, in young children with unexplained altered mental status. #### The Trend Argues for Packaging Standards, Not for Reversing Legal Access The timing of the post-2013 acceleration alongside cannabis market expansion is a real and worth-noting association, but this study does not test state-level legalization status directly, so it cannot be used to claim that legal access itself, rather than product design, marketing, or awareness, is the specific driver. The more directly supported policy response is the one the authors themselves propose: opaque and child-resistant packaging, serving and package dose limits, single-serving formats, and clear labeling requirements, applied consistently across legal cannabis markets rather than varying widely by state. Lens takeaway Use this evidence to support stronger, consistent edible packaging and labeling standards rather than to argue against legal cannabis access. #### Full-Text Review and State-Level Analysis Would Sharpen This Picture This review relied on the peer-reviewed abstract and indexed study metadata; the full paper was not available for detailed review of methodology, exact case definitions, or state-level subgroup data at the time this article was written. A closer read of the full text would help confirm details such as exact THC dose data where available and any state-by-state breakdown. Future research that links this national trend to specific state legalization timelines, packaging-regulation changes, and product-level THC content would help clarify how much of the increase reflects policy, product design, or reporting behavior, and would sharpen exactly which interventions are working where they have already been tried. Lens takeaway Watch for follow-up studies linking this trend to specific [state policy](https://cedclinic.com/will-the-coronavirus-force-states-to-legalize-marijuana/) and packaging-regulation timelines. Join the Conversation Have a question about how this applies to your situation? [Ask Dr. Caplan](https://benjamincaplan.com/ask-dr-caplan) Want to discuss this topic with other patients and caregivers? [Join the forum discussion](https://cedclinic.com/interact/discussion-forums/) [https://cedclinic.com/contact/](https://cedclinic.com/contact/) Physician-Led, Whole-Person Care A doctor who takes the time to truly understand you. Personal care that starts with listening and is guided by experience and ingenuity. Health, Longevity, Wellness One-on-One Cannabis Guidance Metabolic Balance [Leave a Message](https://cedclinic.com/contact/) [Metabolic Care](https://cedclinic.com/metabolic/metabolic-how-it-works/) [Medical Consulting](https://cedclinic.com/book/) [Cannabis Care](https://cedclinic.com/book/) [https://cedclinic.com/contact/](https://cedclinic.com/contact/) Share this Evidence Watch [X](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Pediatric+Cannabis+Poisoning+Calls+Rose+3%2C307%25+in+25+Years%2C+National+Data+Show&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcedclinic.com%2Fpediatric-cannabis-poisoning-national-poison-center-trend-2000-2024%2F) [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcedclinic.com%2Fpediatric-cannabis-poisoning-national-poison-center-trend-2000-2024%2F) [BlueSky](https://bsky.app/intent/compose?text=Pediatric+Cannabis+Poisoning+Calls+Rose+3%2C307%25+in+25+Years%2C+National+Data+Show%20https%3A%2F%2Fcedclinic.com%2Fpediatric-cannabis-poisoning-national-poison-center-trend-2000-2024%2F) [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/drcaplan/) [Substack](https://doctorapprovedcannabis.substack.com/) [RSS](https://cedclinic.com/feed/) Source: [Uskovich K, et al. Unintentional ingestion of recreational drugs among young children, 2000-2024. BMC Public Health. 2026.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42343328/) Related Reading at CED Clinic Continue exploring the evidence [THC Sodas Beside Chocolate Milk: Kids in ICU as Mainstream Retail Ignores Laws](https://cedclinic.com/thc-sodas-beside-chocolate-milk-kids-in-icu-as-mainstream-retail-ignores-laws/) Earlier CED coverage of THC beverages shelved alongside conventional drinks illustrates the retail-design risk this national dataset quantifies. [Read the retail safety report](https://cedclinic.com/thc-sodas-beside-chocolate-milk-kids-in-icu-as-mainstream-retail-ignores-laws/) [New York Child Cannabis Poisonings Are Climbing: What the New State ER Report Means](https://cedclinic.com/pediatric-cannabis-poisoning-increase-new-york-er-report/) A state-level emergency department report on rising pediatric cannabis poisonings offers a regional complement to this 25-year national trend. [Compare the state-level data](https://cedclinic.com/pediatric-cannabis-poisoning-increase-new-york-er-report/) [Missouri: Marijuana Can Be Extremely Dangerous, Even Deadly, for Small Children. Store All …](https://cedclinic.com/missouri-marijuana-can-be-extremely-dangerous-even-deadly-for-small-children-store-all/) Practical storage guidance for families with cannabis products at home, consistent with the prevention steps this study’s authors recommend. [Read the storage guidance](https://cedclinic.com/missouri-marijuana-can-be-extremely-dangerous-even-deadly-for-small-children-store-all/) ## Frequently Asked Questions What did this new study find about pediatric cannabis poisoning? A 25-year U.S. poison center study found unintentional ingestions of recreational drugs among children under 6 rose 3,307 percent from 2000 to 2024, with cannabinoids, mostly edible products, accounting for 84.7 percent of the 41,612 cases identified. How many children were affected? The study identified 41,612 unintentional ingestions of recreational drugs among children younger than 6 reported to United States poison centers between 2000 and 2024. Which age group is most at risk? Children younger than 3 accounted for 57.6 percent of cases and had significantly higher rates of major medical effects and critical care admission than children ages 3 to 5. Is cannabis really the main substance involved? Yes. Cannabinoids accounted for 84.7 percent of all ingestions, far more than stimulants (8.4 percent), psychedelics (3.5 percent), opioids (2.8 percent), or dissociative agents (0.6 percent). Were these exposures serious? Just over half of children, 50.6 percent, had no or only minor effects, but 5.0 percent experienced a major medical effect, and there were six deaths over the 25-year study period. Why did cases increase so sharply after 2013? The study authors point to rapid growth in edible marijuana and psilocybin products beginning around 2013, a period that overlaps with expanding legal cannabis markets, though the study did not directly test state legalization status as a cause. Does this mean cannabis is more dangerous than other recreational drugs? Not necessarily by every measure. While cannabinoids caused the most total ingestions, opioids, stimulants, and dissociative agents each carried a higher relative risk of critical care admission per ingestion than cannabinoids. What should parents and caregivers who use cannabis do? Store all cannabis products, especially edibles, the way you would store a prescription medication: up, away, out of sight, and ideally in a locked container that a young child cannot access independently. What packaging changes do the study authors recommend? They recommend opaque, child-resistant packaging with limits on total dose per package and per serving, single-serving formats, and clear labeling to reduce the risk of accidental ingestion by young children. Where did this data come from? Researchers analyzed 25 years of calls to the National Poison Data System, maintained by America’s Poison Centers, and used U.S. Census Bureau data to calculate population-based ingestion rates. ### Related --- ### Verification & Medical Governance - **Lead Clinical Author:** Benjamin Caplan, MD - **Credentials:** Board Certified in Family Medicine (ABFM), Founder & CMO CED Clinic & CED Foundation, Author of *The Doctor-Approved Cannabis Handbook* (Penguin Random House). - **Clinical Scale:** 350,000+ lifetime evaluations overseen; 81,008-patient Real-World Evidence Registry (`~/.ced_rwe_vault.db`); 125,000+ peer-reviewed study literature observatory (`http://localhost:8768/api/explorer/terminal`). - **License Verification:** Commonwealth of Massachusetts License #240562 (https://checkahealthlicense.mass.gov/). - **NPI Registry:** 1962722637 (https://npiregistry.cms.hhs.gov/provider-view/1962722637). - **Ethics & Data Privacy:** Clinical registry observations adhere strictly to HIPAA Safe Harbor de-identification (45 CFR § 164.514(b)) and criteria for secondary research exemption under 45 CFR § 46.104(d)(4).