Population-level surveillance of substance use rarely captures both prevalence and harm simultaneously — making this nationally representative Mexican dataset notable for what it reveals about who uses cannabis and how intensely. While headline prevalence remains low, the concentration of harm among frequent users points to a pattern that public health systems need to anticipate, not just observe.
Drawing on the 2025 National Survey on Drug, Alcohol, and Tobacco Use (Encodat), researchers estimated that approximately 1.3 million Mexicans between the ages of 12 and 65 reported current cannabis consumption, representing a national prevalence of 1.4%. Within that active-user population, nearly half — 49.2% — reported weekly or daily use, a frequency threshold often associated with dependence risk and neurological adaptation. More strikingly, 26.6% of current users self-reported physical or emotional problems they attributed to cannabis use, either affecting themselves or third parties. The survey methodology relied on self-report across a broad age range, enabling estimation of use intensity rather than simple binary exposure.
These findings arrive at a moment when Mexico is navigating a contested legal landscape around cannabis, making rigorous epidemiological baselines especially consequential. The 1.4% prevalence figure sits well below rates seen in the United States (roughly 15–20% past-month use) or Canada post-legalization, but the proportion of high-frequency users within Mexico's active-user group is epidemiologically meaningful. Research consistently links daily or near-daily cannabis use with elevated risk of cannabis use disorder, cognitive effects in adolescents, and anxiety or mood disturbances. The 26.6% harm rate among current users suggests that problem use is not marginal even where overall prevalence is modest. A key limitation is the reliance on self-reported harm, which may underestimate stigmatized consequences or overrepresent acute episodes. Single-country cross-sectional data also precludes causal inference. Overall, this is a useful confirmatory baseline — incremental rather than paradigm-shifting — but essential for calibrating prevention resources toward high-frequency users rather than population-wide campaigns.