Dataset Information

Locating Medical and Recreational Cannabis Outlets for Research Purposes: Online Methods and Observational Study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:An increasing number of states have laws for the legal sale of recreational and medical cannabis out of brick-and-mortar storefront locations. Given the proliferation of cannabis outlets and their potential for impact on local economies, neighborhood structures, and individual patterns of cannabis use, it is essential to create practical and thorough methods to capture the location of such outlets for research purposes. However, methods used by researchers vary greatly between studies and often do not include important information about the retailer's license status and storefront signage. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to find methods for locating and observing cannabis outlets in Los Angeles County after the period when recreational cannabis retailers were granted licenses and allowed to be open for business. METHODS:The procedures included searches of online cannabis outlet databases, followed by methods to verify each outlet's name, address, license information, and open status. These procedures, conducted solely online, resulted in a database of 531 outlets. To further verify each outlet's information and collect signage data, we conducted direct observations of the 531 identified outlets. RESULTS:We found that 80.9% (430/531) of these outlets were open for business, of which 37.6% (162/430) were licensed to sell cannabis. Unlicensed outlets were less likely to have signage indicating the store sold cannabis, such as a green cross, which was the most prevalent form of observed signage. Co-use of cannabis and tobacco/nicotine has been found to be a substantial health concern, and we observed that 40.6% (175/430) of cannabis outlets had a tobacco/nicotine outlet within sight of the cannabis outlet. Most (350/430, 81.4%) cannabis outlets were located within the City of Los Angeles, and these outlets were more likely to be licensed than outlets outside the city. CONCLUSIONS:The findings of this study suggest that online searches and observational methods are both necessary to best capture accurate and detailed information about cannabis outlets. The methods described here can be applied to other metropolitan areas to more accurately capture the availability of cannabis in an area.

SUBMITTER: Pedersen ER

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7066509 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Locating Medical and Recreational Cannabis Outlets for Research Purposes: Online Methods and Observational Study.

Pedersen Eric R ER Firth Caislin C Parker Jennifer J Shih Regina A RA Davenport Steven S Rodriguez Anthony A Dunbar Michael S MS Kraus Lisa L Tucker Joan S JS D'Amico Elizabeth J EJ

Journal of medical Internet research 20200226 2

<h4>Background</h4>An increasing number of states have laws for the legal sale of recreational and medical cannabis out of brick-and-mortar storefront locations. Given the proliferation of cannabis outlets and their potential for impact on local economies, neighborhood structures, and individual patterns of cannabis use, it is essential to create practical and thorough methods to capture the location of such outlets for research purposes. However, methods used by researchers vary greatly between ...[more]

PMID: 32130141

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere has been a precipitous decline in authorizations for medical cannabis since non-medical cannabis was legalized in Canada in 2018. This study examines the demographic and health- and medical cannabis-related factors associated with authorization as well as the differences in medical cannabis use, side effects, and sources of medical cannabis and information by authorization status.MethodsIndividuals who were taking cannabis for therapeutic purposes completed an online survey in early 2022. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of demographic and health- and medical cannabis-related variables associated with holding medical cannabis authorization. The differences in medical cannabis use, side effects, and sources of information by authorization status were determined via t-tests and chi-squared analysis.ResultsA total of 5433 individuals who were currently taking cannabis for therapeutic purposes completed the study, of which 2941 (54.1%) currently held medical authorization. Individuals with authorization were more likely to be older (OR ≥ 70 years vs. < 30 years, 4.85 (95% CI, 3.49-6.76)), identify as a man (OR man vs. woman, 1.53 (1.34-1.74)), have a higher income (OR > $100,000/year vs. < $50,000 year, 1.55 (1.30-1.84)), and less likely to live in a small town (OR small town/rural vs. large city, 0.69 (0.59-0.81)). They were significantly more likely to report not experiencing any side effects (29.9% vs. 23.4%; p < 0.001), knowing the amount of cannabis they were taking (32.1% vs. 17.7%; p < 0.001), obtaining cannabis from regulated sources (74.1% vs. 47.5%; p < 0.001), and seeking information about medical cannabis from healthcare professionals (67.8% vs. 48.2%; p < 0.01) than individuals without authorization.ConclusionsThese findings offer insight into the possible issues regarding equitable access to medical cannabis and how authorization may support and influence individuals in a jurisdiction where recreational cannabis is legalized, highlighting the value of a formal medical cannabis authorization process.

Project description:Cannabis related online searches are associated with positive attitudes toward medical cannabis, particularly when information is obtained from dispensaries. Since pain is the main reason for medicinal cannabis use, information from dispensary websites has the potential to shape the attitude of pain patients towards cannabis. This is relevant because cannabis has demonstrated efficacy in neuropathic pain with low tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations (< 5-10%), in contrast to potent cannabis (>15% THC), which is highly rewarded in the recreational realm. The role of CBD in pain is not clear, however it has gained popularity. Thus, we hypothesize that the potency of medical cannabis that is advertised online is similar to the cannabis advertised for recreational purposes, which would potentially create a misconception towards medical cannabis. The current lack of knowledge surrounding advertised potencies in the legal cannabis market limits the ability to generate clear policies regarding online advertising to protect patients that are willing to use cannabis for their condition. Thus, we evaluated the advertised THC and CBD content of cannabis products offered online in dispensaries in the United States to determine products' suitability to medicinal use and compare the strength of products offered in legal medical and recreational programs. We recorded THC and CBD concentrations for all herb cannabis products provided by dispensary websites and compared them between or within states. Four Western states (CA, CO, NM, WA) and five Northeastern states (ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) were included. A total of 8,505 cannabis products across 653 dispensaries were sampled. Despite the clear differences between medicinal and recreational uses of cannabis, the average THC concentration advertised online in medicinal programs was similar (19.2% ±6.2) to recreational programs (21.5% ±6.0) when compared between states with different programs, or between medicinal and recreational programs within the same states (CO or WA). Lower CBD concentrations accompanied higher THC products. The majority of products, regardless of medicinal or recreational programs, were advertised to have >15% THC (70.3% - 91.4% of products). These stated concentrations seem unsuitable for medicinal purposes, particularly for patients with chronic neuropathic pain. Therefore, this information could induce the misconception that high potency cannabis is safe to treat pain. This data is consistent with reports in which THC and CBD in products from legal dispensaries or in nationwide products from the illegal market were actually measured, which indicates that patients consuming these products may be at risk of acute intoxication or long-term side effects. Our study offers grounds to develop policies that help prevent misconceptions toward cannabis and reduce risks in pain patients.

Project description:BackgroundAustralia has had a framework for legal medicinal cannabis since 2016, yet prior online surveys in 2016 and 2018 indicated that most consumers continued to use illicit medical cannabis products. Regulatory data indicate an increase in the prescription of medicinal cannabis since 2019, and this survey examines consumer experiences of prescribed and illicit medical cannabis (MC) use in Australia.MethodsA cross-sectional anonymous online survey was administered September 2020 to January 2021. Recruitment via social media, professional and consumer forums, and medical practices. Participant eligibility: ≥ 18 years; used a cannabis product for self-identified medical reason(s) in the past year, and resident in Australia. Outcome measures included consumer characteristics, conditions treated, source and patterns of MC use, and perspectives on accessing MC.ResultsOf the 1600 participants (mean age 46.4 ± 14.3 years, 53% male), 62.4% (n = 999) reported using only illicit and 37.6% (n = 601) used prescribed MC in the past year. MC was used on a median of 28 (IQR: 12, 28) of the past 28 days and cost $AUD 74 ± 72 weekly (median = $40, IQR: $7, $100). Prescribed participants were more likely to treat pain conditions than those using illicit MC (52% v 40%, OR = 1.7, 1.3-2.1) and less likely to treat sleep conditions (6% v 11%, OR = 0.5, 0.3-0.8), with mental health conditions also a common indication in both groups (26%, 31%). Prescribed MC was consumed predominately by oral routes (72%), whereas illicit MC was most commonly smoked (41%). Prescribed MC was 'mainly THC' (26%), 'equal THC/CBD' (40%), 'mainly CBD' (31%) and 'uncertain' (3%), while 34% of those using illicit MC were 'uncertain' of the cannabinoid profile. Cost and difficulties finding medical practitioners to prescribe remain significant barriers to accessing prescribed MC, and few (10.8%) described the existing model for accessing prescribed MC as 'straightforward or easy'.ConclusionsThere has been a notable shift from illicit to prescribed MC by many consumers compared to prior surveys. Consumers using prescribed MC reported a range of advantages compared to illicit MC, including safer routes of administration, and greater certainty regarding access and composition of products.

Dataset Information

Locating Medical and Recreational Cannabis Outlets for Research Purposes: Online Methods and Observational Study.

Publications

Locating Medical and Recreational Cannabis Outlets for Research Purposes: Online Methods and Observational Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets