As cannabis legalization expands globally, understanding how legalization policies are translated into retail practice has become increasingly important. Existing research has largely focused on public health outcomes, governance arrangements, and market performance, providing limited guidance for examining the retail systems through which legal cannabis is distributed. This study introduces the Comprehensive Cannabis Retail Framework (CCRF), an analytical tool for examining the regulatory, economic, social and technological influences shaping legal cannabis retail environments. The CCRF was developed through an abductive theory-informed process, integrating environmental theory of retail institutional change and the Canadian Public Health Association's public health approach to cannabis legalization. The framework was subsequently refined through application across three Canadian studies: a quantitative content analysis of cannabis-related news media, a qualitative framing analysis of the same dataset, and a qualitative case study involving licensed and prospective cannabis retailers in Newfoundland and Labrador. Framework refinement resulted in four interconnected domains, nine constructs, and 37 variables, encompassing regulatory and legal, market and economic, social, and technological dimensions of cannabis retail systems. The CCRF is intended as an analytical framework rather than a causal, predictive or evaluative model. By conceptualizing cannabis retail systems as a distinct analytical level within cannabis policy research, the framework provides a structured approach for examining how legalization objectives are operationalized within regulated markets. Although developed using Canadian evidence, the framework offers a preliminary foundation for comparative and cross-jurisdictional research and warrants further testing across diverse regulatory environments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wright-Brown et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: