Search

Introduction: The price of cannabis has major implications for public health, public safety, social equity, and government revenues. This article examines prices and sources of purchased dried cannabis flower among consumers facing different state laws in the United States. Methods: Repeat cross-sectional survey data were collected from the International Cannabis Policy Study in 2019 and 2020. U.S. respondents were recruited through online commercial panels, ages 16-65, and purchased dried flower in the past year ( n =9766). Weighted binary logistic regression models examined legal purchasing in states that had legalized recreational cannabis. Results: Compared with respondents in states with recreational stores, respondents living in "illegal," "medical," and "recreational" states without stores were associated with paying a higher unit price of dried flower (+20.5%, +23.6%, +27.4%, respectively; all p <0.05). The majority of respondents in states with recreational stores last purchased from stores/dispensaries (2019: 66.6%; 2020: 62.0%) and the odds of purchasing legally was greater with each additional year after stores opened (adjusted odds ratio=1.48, 95% confidence interval: 1.37, 1.60). Conclusions: Cannabis prices and purchase behaviors are strongly influenced by its legal status and presence of stores. After states legalize for recreational purposes, it takes multiple years for the legal market to become established as the number of retail stores increase and prices decrease. The findings demonstrate that consumers use sources that they are legally allowed to access, suggesting an increased number of physical retail stores and online delivery services could expand uptake of legal sources in states with recreational cannabis laws.

Purpose: Adult-use cannabis markets are operating in multiple US states and abroad. Sales and licensing data for alcohol and tobacco are often used to understand consumption patterns and evaluate policy changes. Cannabis market data may provide similar insights, although these newly legal markets are complex and evolving, and the state data structures can differ. This study describes variations in market indicators and discusses the utility of cannabis market metrics from a public health perspective., Methods: We collected data from 5 early-adopting adult-use cannabis states: Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Washington. Analyses focused on licensed retail outlets and retail sales revenues (pretax). Monthly data were collected from the opening of each state's adult-use market through June 2022. Joinpoint software was used to assess state trends and identify points of inflection in trends. Average sales per retailer for June 2019 and June 2022 were compared. Also described are retailers and revenue per population for 2022., Findings: All states showed 4 distinct periods of growth in retail licensee numbers. The greatest increases typically occurred in the first 3 to 4 months. Growth rates slowed to <1% per month for Colorado, Oregon, and Washington at months 25, 24, and 34, respectively. The number of cannabis retailers per 100,000 residents in June 2022 ranged widely, from 16.8 in Oregon to 3.0 in Massachusetts. Colorado, Oregon, and Washington each showed 4 distinct trend periods in adult-use retail sales: early rapid growth lasting <1 year, subsequent varied growth periods, and then declining sales in the most recent months, following early coronavirus disease 2019 period increases. Sales in Alaska and Massachusetts displayed more stable, consistent growth patterns. Sales per state resident for July 2021 to June 2022 also ranged widely, from $382.97 in Alaska to $180.94 in Washington., Implications: We found some consistencies and some variations in both point-in-time measures and trends in states' adult-use cannabis markets. Differences may relate to varied state policies and general contexts (eg, economies). Market data can be useful for public health monitoring, including understanding the effects of policies intended to protect health and safety. States providing publicly accessible cannabis market data create opportunities for such use. Our results underscore the importance of considering individual state regulatory frameworks and implementation timelines in studies of cannabis legalization., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None declared., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Whereas the 20th century could be largely characterized as the age of cannabis prohibition, the 21st century may ultimately be known as the era of cannabis legalization. Although several countries and subnational jurisdictions have relaxed laws to allow cannabis to be used for medical purposes, the policy landscape shifted dramatically in 2012 when voters in Colorado and Washington passed ballot initiatives to allow cannabis to be sold to adults for nonmedical purposes. Since then, Canada, Uruguay, and Malta have legalized nonmedical cannabis, and >47% of the US population live in states that have passed laws allowing commercial production and for-profit retail sales. Some countries are now implementing pilot programs for legal supply (eg, the Netherlands, Switzerland), and others are seriously contemplating changing their laws (eg, Germany, Mexico). This commentary offers 9 insights from the first 10 years of legal cannabis for nonmedical purposes, with the goal of informing policy discussions in places considering, implementing, or revising their approach to cannabis legalization: (1) cannabis prices are declining in places with commercial regimes and this matters for several outcomes; (2) noncommercial models are being implemented and seriously considered in some places; (3) policy discussions about cannabis taxes are evolving; (4) the number of cannabis products available in commercial regimes is proliferating; (5) emerging research on higher potency cannabis products raises some public health concerns, but there is still a lot to learn; (6) social equity is playing a larger role in many legalization debates; (7) it takes time to move consumers to the legal market; (8) data collection about cannabis consumption is getting better, but there is much work to do; and (9) ongoing methodological advances should improve our understanding of cannabis policy changes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Interest None., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cannabis policy is developing faster than empirical evidence about policy effects. With a panel of experts in substance use policy development and research, we identified key cannabis policies and their provisions enacted by U.S. states; rated their theoretical efficacy in a restrictive form for reducing problematic use and impaired driving in the context of a recreational cannabis market as judged by experts; and rated the strength of evidence for each policy., Methods: Using a modified Delphi approach, 9 panelists rated the comparative efficacy of 18 state cannabis policies for reducing youth use of cannabis, excessive cannabis use among the general population, and cannabis-impaired driving. Each outcome was rated separately using a Likert scale, and panelists also rated the strength of evidence supporting each efficacy rating. Investigators provided descriptions of each policy so that the nine panelists had similar conceptions of each policy., Results: State monopoly (state owns all production, manufacturing, wholesale, and retail operations) was rated as the most effective policy for all three outcome areas. Restrictions on retail physical availability, taxes, retail price restrictions, and retail operations restrictions were also highly rated for all three outcomes. Policies regulating cannabis businesses and products were judged more effective than policies targeting consumer use and behavior. Panelists reported there was little or no direct evidence from the cannabis policy literature for most of the included policies., Conclusion: These ratings can facilitate research as well as policy-making decisions. A relatively small number of policies were judged to be highly effective across all three domains, indicating that for the most part adult excessive use, youth use, and impaired driving can all be reduced with the same set of policies; these policies tended to target the behaviors of businesses rather than consumers. The low levels of direct evidence available to inform policy ratings, as reported by the policy panelists, makes clear the need for ongoing and sustained cannabis policy research., Competing Interests: Declarations of Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background and Aim: In Uruguay, residents age 18 and older seeking legal cannabis must register with the government and choose one of three supply mechanisms: self-cultivation, non-profit cannabis clubs or pharmacies. This is the first paper to measure the association between type of legal cannabis supply mechanism and traffic crashes involving injuries., Design: Ecological study using ordinary least squares regression to examine how department-level variation in registrations (overall and by type) is associated with traffic crashes involving injuries., Setting: Uruguay., Cases: 532 department-quarters., Measurements: Quarterly cannabis registration counts at the department level and incident-level traffic crash data were obtained from government agencies. The analyses controlled for department-level economic and demographic characteristics and, as a robustness check, we included traffic violations involving alcohol for departments reporting this information. Department-level data on crashes, registrations and alcohol violations were denominated by the number of residents ages 18 and older., Findings: From 2013 to 2019, the average number of registrations at the department-quarter level per 10 000 residents age 18 and older for self-cultivation, club membership and pharmacy purchasing were 17.7 (SD = 16.8), 3.6 (SD = 8.6), and 25.1 (SD = 50.4), respectively. In our multivariate regression analyses, we did not find a statistically significant association between the total number of registrations and traffic crashes with injuries (β = -0.007; P = 0.398; 95% CI = -0.023, 0.01). Analyses focused on the specific supply mechanisms found a consistent, positive and statistically significant association between the number of individuals registered as self-cultivators and the number of traffic crashes with injuries (β = 0.194; P = 0.008; 95% CI = 0.058, 0.329). Associations for other supply mechanisms were inconsistent across the various model specifications., Conclusions: In Uruguay, the number of people allowed to self-cultivate cannabis is positively associated with traffic crashes involving injuries. Individual-level analyses are needed to assess better the factors underlying this association., (© 2022 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Background and Aims: There is little information on consumption patterns across the diverse range of cannabis product types. This paper examines trends in consumption patterns in Canada and the United States (US) between 2018-2020., Design: Repeat cross-sectional surveys were conducted as part of the International Cannabis Policy Study online survey in 2018 (n=27,024), 2019 (n=45,426), and 2020 (n=45,180)., Setting: Respondents were recruited from commercial panels in Canada and US states that had and had not legalized non-medical cannabis (US 'legal' and 'illegal' states, respectively)., Participants: Respondents were male and female participants aged 16-65 years., Measurements: Data on frequency and consumption amounts were collected for nine types of cannabis products, including dried flower and processed products (e.g., oils and concentrates). Consumers were also asked about mixing cannabis with tobacco. Socio-demographic information was collected., Findings: Dried flower was the most commonly used product, although use in the past 12 months declined between 2018 and 2020 in Canada (81% to 73%), US legal (78% to 72%) and illegal states (81% to 76%; p<0.05 for all). Prevalence of past 12-month use increased for virtually all other product forms, although prevalence of daily use remained stable across years. In 2020, edibles and vape oils were the most commonly used products after flower. Use of non-flower products was highest in US legal states, although similar trends were observed in all jurisdictions. Males were more likely to report using processed products, and vape oils were the most commonly processed product among 16-20-year-olds. Daily use of cannabis flower increased in US legal and illegal states, and average joint size increased across all jurisdictions over time., Conclusions: Dried flower remains the dominant product in Canada and the US; however, use of processed cannabis products has increased, with the largest increases observed in legal cannabis markets., Competing Interests: Declarations of Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: A number of jurisdictions are considering or implementing different options for cannabis law reform, including New Zealand. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) helps facilitate the resolution of complex policy decisions by breaking them down into key criteria and drawing on the combined knowledge of experts from various backgrounds., Aims: To rank cannabis law reform options by facilitating expert stakeholders to express preferences for projected reform outcomes using MCDA., Methods: A group of cannabis policy experts projected the outcomes of eight cannabis policy options (i.e., prohibition, decriminalization, social clubs, government monopoly, not-for-profit trusts, strict regulation, light regulation, and unrestricted market) based on five criteria (i.e., health and social harm, illegal market size, arrests, tax income, treatment services). A facilitated workshop of 42 key national stakeholders expressed preferences for different reform outcomes and doing so generated relative weights for each criterion and level. The resulting weights were then used to rank the eight policy options., Results: The relative weighting of the criteria were: "reducing health and social harm" (46%), "reducing arrests" (31%), "reducing the illegal market" (13%), "expanding treatment" (8%) and "earning tax" (2%). The top ranked reform options were: "government monopoly" (81%), "not-for-profit" (73%) and "strict market regulation" (65%). These three received higher scores due to their projected lower impact on health and social harm, medium reduction in arrests, and medium reduction in the illegal market. The "lightly regulated market" option scored lower largely due its projected greater increase in health and social harm. "Prohibition" ranked lowest due to its lack of impact on reducing the number of arrests or size of the illegal market., Conclusion: Strictly regulated legal market options were ranked higher than both the current prohibition, and alternatively, more lightly regulated legal market options, as they were projected to minimize health and social harms while substantially reducing arrests and the illegal market., Competing Interests: Declarations of Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: To expand on epidemiologic studies examining associations between the legalization of recreational cannabis and use among young adults, we examined the associations between licensed and unlicensed cannabis outlet density and cannabis outcomes., Methods: A total of 1097 young adults aged 21 and older living in Los Angeles County were surveyed before licensed recreational cannabis outlets opened (Time 1: July to December 2017) and after (Time 2: July 2018 to June 2019). Using a database of open licensed and unlicensed cannabis retailers to calculate individual-level cannabis outlet density measures, we examined associations between outlet density within a 4-mile radius of participants' residences with Time 2 outcomes of any past-month use, daily use, intentions to use, quantity used, consequences, and cannabis use disorder (CUD) symptoms., Results: After controlling for demographic factors and cannabis outcomes at a time point prior to their opening (Time 1), licensed cannabis outlets were associated with young adults' cannabis use, heavy use, and intentions, and unlicensed outlets were associated with young adults' heavy cannabis use and CUD symptoms., Conclusion and Scientific Significance: This study expands beyond studies of outlet prevalence to find that, after controlling for outcomes 1 year prior, licensed and unlicensed outlets were associated with young adults' cannabis outcomes. The current study is among the first to find associations between cannabis use outcomes and density of cannabis outlets among young adults using data from two time points: preopening and postopening of recreational cannabis retailers. Findings can inform policies around the density and placement of cannabis outlets. (Am J Addict 2020;00:00-00)., (© 2020 American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.)

Aims: To (1) assess trends and variation in the market share of product types and potency sold in a legal cannabis retail market and (2) estimate how potency and purchase quantity influence price variation for cannabis flower., Design: Secondary analysis of publicly available data from Washington State's cannabis traceability system spanning 7 July 2014 to 30 September 2016. Descriptive statistics and linear regressions assessed variation and trends in cannabis product variety and potency. Hedonic regressions estimated how purchase quantity and potency influence cannabis flower price variation., Setting: Washington State, USA., Participants: (1) A total of 44 482 176 million cannabis purchases, including (2) 31 052 123 cannabis flower purchases after trimming price and quantity outliers., Measurements: Primary outcome measures were (1) monthly expenditures on cannabis, total delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration and cannabidiol (CBD) concentration by product type and (2) excise tax-inclusive price per gram of cannabis flower. Key covariates for the hedonic price regressions included quantity purchased, THC and CBD., Findings: Traditional cannabis flowers still account for the majority of spending (66.6%), but the market share of extracts for inhalation increased by 145.8% between October 2014 and September 2016, now comprising 21.2% of sales. The average THC-level for cannabis extracts is more than triple that for cannabis flowers (68.7% compared to 20.6%). For flower products, there is a statistically significant relationship between price per gram and both THC [coefficient = 0.012; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.011-0.013] and CBD (coefficient = 0.017; CI = 0.015-0.019). The estimated discount elasticity is -0.06 (CI = -0.07 to -0.05)., Conclusions: In the state of Washington, USA, the legal cannabis market is currently dominated by high-THC cannabis flower, and features growing expenditures on extracts. For cannabis flower, both THC and CBD are associated with higher per-gram prices, and there are small but significant quantity discounts., (© 2017 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Background: The average amount of marijuana in a joint is unknown, yet this figure is a critical quantity for creating credible measures of marijuana consumption. It is essential for projecting tax revenues post-legalization, estimating the size of illicit marijuana markets, and learning about how much marijuana users are consuming in order to understand health and behavioral consequences., Methods: Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring data collected between 2000 and 2010 contain relevant information on 10,628 marijuana transactions, joints and loose marijuana purchases, including the city in which the purchase occurred and the price paid for the marijuana. Using the Brown-Silverman drug pricing model to link marijuana price and weight, we are able to infer the distribution of grams of marijuana in a joint and provide a Bayesian posterior distribution for the mean weight of marijuana in a joint., Results: We estimate that the mean weight of marijuana in a joint is 0.32g (95% Bayesian posterior interval: 0.30-0.35)., Conclusions: Our estimate of the mean weight of marijuana in a joint is lower than figures commonly used to make estimates of marijuana consumption. These estimates can be incorporated into drug policy discussions to produce better understanding about illicit marijuana markets, the size of potential legalized marijuana markets, and health and behavior outcomes., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The cannabis policy landscape is changing rapidly. In November 2012 voters in Colorado and Washington State passed ballot initiatives to remove the prohibition on the commercial production, distribution, and possession of cannabis. This paper does not address the question of whether cannabis should be legal; it instead focuses on the design considerations confronting jurisdictions that are pondering a change in cannabis policy. Indeed, whether or not cannabis legalization is net positive or negative for public health and public safety largely depends on regulatory decisions and how they are implemented. This essay presents eight of these design choices which all conveniently begin with the letter "P": production, profit motive, promotion, prevention, potency, purity, price, and permanency.

Aims: No modern jurisdiction has ever legalized commercial production, distribution and possession of cannabis for recreational purposes. This paper presents insights about the effect of legalization on production costs and consumption and highlights important design choices., Methods: Insights were uncovered through our analysis of recent legalization proposals in California. The effect on the cost of producing cannabis is largely based on existing estimates of current wholesale prices, current costs of producing cannabis and other legal agricultural goods, and the type(s) of production that will be permitted. The effect on consumption is based on production costs, regulatory regime, tax rate, price elasticity of demand, shape of the demand curve and non-price effects (e.g. change in stigma)., Results: Removing prohibitions on producing and distributing cannabis will dramatically reduce wholesale prices. The effect on consumption and tax revenues will depend on many design choices, including: the tax level, whether there is an incentive for a continued black market, whether to tax and/or regulate cannabinoid levels, whether there are allowances for home cultivation, whether advertising is restricted, and how the regulatory system is designed and adjusted., Conclusions: The legal production costs of cannabis will be dramatically below current wholesale prices, enough so that taxes and regulation will be insufficient to raise retail price to prohibition levels. We expect legalization will increase consumption substantially, but the size of the increase is uncertain since it depends on design choices and the unknown shape of the cannabis demand curve., (© 2011 The Authors, Addiction © 2011 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Background: Marijuana contains multiple cannabinoids. Most attention is given to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) which produces euphoria and in some cases anxiety and panic reactions. Research suggests that another cannabinoid, cannabidiol (CBD), may offset some of these effects. Thus, there is growing interest in the health consequences of the THC to CBD ratio for marijuana., Methods: Using data from over 5000 marijuana samples in California from 1996 to 2008, we examine changes in the median THC-level, median CBD-level, and median THC:CBD-ratio., Results: The median THC-level and median THC:CBD-ratio have dramatically increased for seizures in California, particularly north of the Mexican border., Conclusion: Research on the consequences of the THC:CBD ratio should continue, especially as more attention is devoted to thinking about how to regulate marijuana for medical and recreational use. Researchers should also consider the lack of uniformity in the chemical composition of marijuana when evaluating its health effects., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Jurisdictions considering or implementing alternatives to cannabis supply prohibition will confront several decisions that will influence health, safety, and social equity outcomes. This essay highlights 14 of these design considerations, which all conveniently begin with the letter P: 1) Production, 2) Profit motive, 3) Power to regulate, 4) Promotion, 5) Prevention and treatment, 6) Policing and enforcement, 7) Penalties, 8) Prior criminal records, 9) Product types, 10) Potency, 11) Purity, 12) Price, 13) Preferences for licenses, and 14) Permanency. For each factor, the paper explains why it is important, describes the various approaches, and highlights how some of the jurisdictions that have legalized have addressed these choices. The primary audiences are decision makers considering alternatives to prohibiting cannabis supply and analysts making projections or conducting evaluations of these changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims Prohibitions on producing, distributing and selling cannabis are loosening in various jurisdictions around the world. This paper describes the diversification of cannabis supply laws and discusses the challenges to and opportunities for learning from these changes. Methods We document changes in cannabis supply laws that de jure legalized cannabis production for medical and/or non-medical purposes (excluding industrial hemp) in Australasia, Europe, North America and South America. We also highlight challenges to evaluating these legal changes based on our experiences studying cannabis laws and policies in the United States. Findings As of August 2016, two countries have passed laws to legalize large-scale cannabis production for non-medical purposes at the national (Uruguay) or subnational level (four US states). At least nine other countries legally allow (or will soon allow) cannabis to be supplied for medicinal purposes. Most of the changes in cannabis supply laws have occurred since 2010. The data available in most countries are inadequate for rigorously evaluating the changes in cannabis supply laws. Conclusion The evidence base for assessing changes in cannabis supply laws remains weak. Efforts should focus upon collecting information about quantities consumed and market transactions as well as validating self-report surveys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims In 2014 the legislature of Vermont, USA passed a law requiring the Secretary of Administration to report on the consequences of legalizing marijuana. The RAND Corporation was commissioned to write that report. This paper summarizes insights from that analysis that are germane to other jurisdictions. Method Translation of key findings from the RAND Corporation report to the broader policy debate. Results Marijuana legalization encompasses a wide range of possible regimes, distinguished along at least four dimensions: which organizations are allowed to produce and supply the drug, the regulations under which they operate, the nature of the products that can be distributed and taxes and prices. Vermont's decriminalization had already cut its costs of enforcing marijuana prohibition against adults to about $1 per resident per year. That is probably less than the cost of regulating a legal market. Revenues from taxing residents' purchases after legalization could be many times that amount, so the main fiscal cost of prohibition after decriminalization relative to outright legalization may be foregone tax revenues, not enforcement costs. Approximately 40 times as many users live within 200 miles of Vermont's borders as live within the state; drug tourism and associated tax revenues will be important considerations, as will be the response of other states. Indeed, if another state legalized with lower taxes, that could undermine the ability to collect taxes on even Vermont residents' purchases. Conclusions Analysis of possible outcomes if Vermont, USA, legalized marijuana reveal that choices about how, and not just whether, to legalize a drug can have profound consequences for the effects on health and social wellbeing, and the choices of one jurisdiction can affect the options and incentives available to other jurisdictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Drug policy strategies and discussions often use prevalence of drug use as a primary performance indicator. However, three other indicators are at least as relevant: the number of heavy users, total expenditures and total amount consumed. This paper stems from our efforts to develop annual estimates of these three measures for cocaine (including crack), heroin, marijuana and methamphetamine in the United States. Methods The estimates exploit complementary strengths of a general population survey ( National Survey on Drug Use and Health) and both survey and urinalysis test result data for arrestees ( Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program), supplemented by many other data sources. Results Throughout the 2000s US drug users spent in the order of $100 billion annually on these drugs, although the spending distribution and use patterns changed dramatically. From 2006 to 2010, the amount of marijuana consumed in the United States probably increased by more than 30%, while the amount of cocaine consumed in the United States fell by approximately 50%. These figures are consistent with supply-side indicators, such as seizures and production estimates. For all the drugs, total consumption and expenditures are driven by the minority of users who consume on 21 or more days each month. Conclusions Even for established drugs, consumption can change rapidly. The halving of the cocaine market in five years and the parallel (but independent) large rise in daily/near-daily marijuana use are major events that were not anticipated by the expert community and raise important theoretical, research, and policy issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Drug use is often measured in terms of prevalence, meaning the number of people who used any amount in the last month or year, but measuring the quantity consumed is critical for making informed regulatory decisions and estimating the effects of policy changes. Quantity is the product of frequency (e.g., number of use days in the last month) and intensity (amount consumed per use day). Presently, there is imperfect understanding of the extent to which more frequent users also consume more intensively.Methods and Data: We examine cannabis flower consumption reported in three similar online surveys fielded in times and places where cannabis was and was not legal. These convenience samples returned enough valid responses (n = 2,618) to examine consumption across different frequencies of use via analyses of measures of central tendency, data visualizations, and multivariate regressions. Additional calculations incorporate data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.Findings: Respondents who reported using daily (i.e., 30 days in the past month) consumed almost twice as much per day of use on average as did those reporting less than daily. We find only modest increases in intensity among those using less than daily, but then a substantial increase (p< 0.001) for those who use daily. Most respondents report that on heavy or light use days their consumption differs from a typical day of use by a factor of 2 or more, but only about 25% of days were described as heavy or light. We estimate those using cannabis 21+ days a month account for 80% of consumption vs. 71% of the days of use.Discussion: Daily cannabis users consume more intensively than others, including near-daily users. When possible, survey questions should move beyond the presence or absence of use and number of days used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper combines complementary attributes of web and general population surveys to estimate cannabis consumption and spending in Washington State. It compares those estimates to legal sales recorded by the state's seed-to-sale tracking system, and thus exploits a rare opportunity to contrast two independent estimates for the same cannabis market. This sheds light on the question of whether nontrivial amounts of black market sales continue even after a state allows licensed production and sale. Prevalence of past-month use is estimated from the 2015/16 U.S. National Survey on Drug Use and Health, adjusted for under-reporting. Estimates of consumption and spending per user broken down by age, gender, and frequency of use are developed from RAND's 2013 survey of cannabis users in Washington State. Supply side estimates come from the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board's seed-to-sale tracking system. They are expressed in terms of spending, equivalent-weight of flowers, and THC, with THC for edibles imputed using a machine learning technique called random forests. For the period July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017, Washington's seed-to-sale data record sales from licensed cannabis stores of $1.17B and across all products an amount of THC that is equivalent to roughly 120–150 MT of flower. Survey responses suggest that amounts spent and quantities consumed are larger than that, perhaps on the order of $1.66B and over 200 MT, respectively. A perfect match is not expected because of sales to tourists, residual black market activity, production for medical purposes, and diversion across state lines. Nonetheless, the results suggest that three years after state-licensed stores opened, there remained considerable consumption of cannabis supplied outside of the licensed system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Voters in eight U.S. states have passed initiatives to legalize large-scale commercial production of cannabis for non-medical use. All plan or require some form of "seed-to-sale" tracking systems, which provide a view of cannabis market activity at a heretofore unimagined level of detail. Legal markets also create a range of new matters for policy makers to address.Data: Publicly available data were obtained on approximately 45 million individually priced items purchased in the 35 million retail transactions that took place during the first two and a half years of Washington State's legal cannabis market. Records include product type (flower, extract, lotion, liquid edible, etc.), product name, price, and potency with respect to multiple cannabinoids, notably THC and CBD. Items sold can be traced back up the supply chain through the store to the processor and producer, to the level of identifying the specific production batch and mother plant, the firm that tested the product, and test results.Method: Data visualization methods are employed to describe spatial-temporal patterns of multiple correlated attributes (e.g., price and potency) broken down by product. Text-analytic methods are used to subdivide the broad category of "extracts for inhalation" into more homogeneous sub-categories. To understand the competitiveness of the legal cannabis market in Washington we calculate the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI) for processors and retailers.Results: Cannabis prices fell steadily and proportionally at the processor and retailer levels. Retail and wholesale price maintained a roughly 3:1 ratio for multiple product types after some initial fluctuations. Although a wide range of edibles are sold, they account for a modest share of consumer spending; extracts for inhalation are a larger and heterogeneous market segment. The HHI indicates the cannabis market is highly competitive at the processor level, but less so for retail markets at the county level.Conclusions: Washington's state-legal cannabis market is diverse and rapidly evolving in terms of pricing, products, and organization. Post-legalization, researchers and policy makers may need to think in terms of a family of cannabis products, akin to how we think of new psychoactive substances and amphetamine-type stimulants, not a single drug "cannabis." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Various surveys now ask respondents to describe their most recent purchase of illicit drugs, as one mechanism through which market size can be estimated. This raises the question of whether issues surrounding the timing of survey administration might make a sample of most recent purchases differ from a random sample of all purchases. We investigate these issues through a series of questions which ask about the three most recent purchases, and about drug use. Methods Data were drawn from 688 respondents in the Melbourne Injecting Drug User Cohort Study across the period 2008-2013 and 2782 respondents to the Washington Cannabis Consumption Study in 2013. Responses to questions about the most recent purchases were compared to larger subsets of all recent purchases. Results For heroin, methamphetamine and cannabis no differences were found between the amount spent by participants on their most recent purchase and the average amount spent on three or more recent purchases. There were also no differences concerning the locations and types of deals, and the duration between consecutive cannabis purchases was the same for first and second most recent, and second and third most recent. Conclusions Asking about the most recent purchase appears to be an economical way to learn about purchases more generally, with little evidence of substantial variation between the most recent purchase and other recent purchases reported by participants. In spite of consistent findings across our two surveys, further replication of the work reported in this paper involving other populations of users is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]