The study investigated whether California storefront and non-storefront cannabis retailers are adhering to online age-gating requirements and whether differences in website marketing practices exist. Websites of 134 storefront and 115 non-storefront licensed retailers were randomly selected. Bivariate associations were tested between retailer type and website marketing, age-gating methods, and presence of age-gating at various purchase stages. Among the 200 (80.3%) websites with age-gating when entering, 182 (91%) employed an ineffective method where users click either "Yes" or "No" to confirm their age. Moreover, 49 (19.68%) websites lacked age-gating when entering. Amongst those requiring photo identification during checkout (n = 100, 40.16%), 97% allowed users to proceed after uploading an irrelevant image. Significantly more storefront retailers employed combined age-gating at entry, mandatory account registration, and age-gating during checkout than non-storefront retailers, X 2 (1, N = 249) = 7.69, p < .01. Retailer websites frequently displayed "clean" labels (n = 200, 80.32%), followed by positive state claims (n = 198, 79.52%), physical health claims (n = 166, 66.67%), and mental health claims (n = 146, 58.63%). Significantly more storefront retailers displayed physical health claims, X 2 (1, N = 249) = 7.52, p < .01, and health warnings than non-storefront retailers, X 2 (1, N = 249) = 4.13, p = .04. Most cannabis retailers comply with age-gating requirements; however, methods employed are easily circumvented. Youths' easy and unrestricted access to cannabis retailer websites may increase positive attitudes about cannabis and encourage use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rhee et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: