Vars buying Cannabis

__________________________

📍 Verified store!

📍 Guarantees! Quality! Reviews!

__________________________

▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼

▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲

Vars buying Cannabis

These datasets underpin the analysis presented in the agency's work. Most data may be viewed interactively on screen and downloaded in Excel format. All countries. Topics A-Z. The content in this section is aimed at anyone involved in planning, implementing or making decisions about health and social responses. Best practice. We have developed a systemic approach that brings together the human networks, processes and scientific tools necessary for collecting, analysing and reporting on the many aspects of the European drugs phenomenon. Explore our wide range of publications, videos and infographics on the drugs problem and how Europe is responding to it. All publications. More events. More news. We are your source of drug-related expertise in Europe. We prepare and share independent, scientifically validated knowledge, alerts and recommendations. About the EUDA. Key findings and threat assessment. Global context. Trafficking and supply. Retail markets. Criminal networks. Actions to address current threats and increase preparedness. The affordability of drugs is a measure that incorporates drug purity or potency and accounts for differing national economic conditions, as quantified in the price level indices see Groshkova et al. Using affordability as a measure allows a more sophisticated comparison of retail drug markets across countries and over time. Source: The source data for this graphic is available in the source table on this page. Meanwhile the retail price of resin products has, on average, remained stable during the same year period. Several developments already raised in this report have likely contributed to the increase in resin potency. These include the introduction of new cannabis strains and new cultivation and resin extraction techniques in Morocco see Section Cannabis resin production outside the EU. In addition, it is also possible that the amount of high-potency cannabis resin produced in Europe is increasing. These recent trends seem to confirm a finding reported in the previous edition of this report EMCDDA and Europol, , namely that cannabis resin may have become a more attractive product to some consumers in the EU, especially for those who seek high-potency cannabis products. Data on the prevalence of cannabis use, expressed in estimated numbers of users during the last year, may be viewed as an indicator of the location and approximate size of retail markets. Historically, cannabis has been the most used illicit drug in Europe, with currently around 84 million adults in the European Union aged , or As is the case with other drugs, the majority of cannabis users in Europe are males, who on average are twice as likely to report use as females. Overall, the prevalence of cannabis use in Europe appears to have remained stable over the past decade, although prevalence of use has increased in some of the countries that already had the highest rates of use, such as Croatia, Czechia, the Netherlands and Spain. Recent trends based on data from 15 countries that have conducted surveys on last-year cannabis use since indicate that levels of use have increased in four countries, remained stable in six countries and decreased in five countries. However, it appears to have affected patterns of use, with more frequent herbal cannabis users consuming more and infrequent users consuming less, on average. This trend was less marked for cannabis resin see Section How cannabis products are retailed in Europe. The most recent data available on last-year use indicate that the largest retail markets for herbal cannabis and cannabis resin continue to be located in western and southern Europe. Young adults make up the majority of last-year cannabis users in Europe, representing an estimated Germany and Spain follow, with 3. In terms of estimated total numbers of cannabis users, Czechia and Poland appear to be the largest retail markets in the Eastern part of the EU, with an estimated 0. It is estimated that around 3. Cannabis prevalence data do not discriminate between the different products used. These proportions are indicative as the EWSD is not representative of the entire European population. In wastewater analysis, cannabis use is estimated by measuring its main metabolite, THC-COOH, which is the only suitable biomarker found so far, although it is excreted in low percentages Causanilles et al. There are several challenges and uncertainties in the wastewater analysis of THC-COOH, related to factors such as the analytical measurements and poorly understood excretion rates Bijlsma et al. In addition, this type of analysis is not able to discriminate between the different cannabis products consumed. Overall, research to develop alternative biomarkers is needed and caution is required when interpreting trends based on THC-COOH loads in wastewater. A stable or decreasing trend in the THC-COOH loads was observed for almost all of the 23 cities with available data for the period. In countries with multiple study locations, no marked differences were found in the THC-COOH loads when comparing large and small cities. Wastewater analysis can also detect fluctuations in patterns of illicit drug use across the week. In summary, the wastewater data indicate that, unlike the use of other drugs, such as cocaine EMCDDA, a , the European cannabis market is relatively stable overall since THC-COOH is present in both large and small urban areas and evidence of use is distributed evenly over the week. A further data source pointing to overall stability in the cannabis market is that of treatment demand for cannabis use problems. Based on the data available from 25 countries, the numbers entering specialised drug treatment for cannabis problems in Europe remained stable between and On average, clients entered treatment for cannabis problems every year during those four years. Similarly, an average of 58 people a year entered treatment for the first time in their lives during that period, with a 1. However, the number of treatment entrants declined noticeably in This is indicative of how the COVID pandemic affected treatment provision and demand as well as the monitoring of these services across Europe. While the numbers entering treatment increased slightly in , they still remained below the levels. The lack of rebound in treatment entries for cannabis problems in to pre-pandemic levels may be related to several factors. As a consequence, help-seeking and the ability to access services remained subdued. In addition, services continued to operate within strict infection prevention conditions, which reduced treatment capacity and intake. The data available may also mask a greater use of tele-medicine during this period, which was not captured by the treatment demand indicator. Finally, there may have also been a natural reduction in treatment demand due to reduced use of cannabis during the pandemic among some groups. Note: Trends in first-time entrants are based on data from 25 countries. Only countries with data for at least five of the six years are included in the trends analysis. Missing values are interpolated from adjacent years. Because of disruptions to services due to COVID, data for and should be interpreted with caution. Missing data were imputed from values for the previous year for Spain and France and Germany Since the total number of herbal cannabis seizures in Europe has exceeded those involving resin, and this continued to be the case in This appears to confirm that herbal cannabis is more widely consumed than cannabis resin in Europe. The majority of seizures of the two main cannabis products reported in Europe, namely herbal cannabis and cannabis resin, are probably confiscated on retail markets since they involve amounts of grams or less. In a context of consistently high drug availability at the retail level, a finite, but constant, level of law enforcement resources deployed to police illicit cannabis markets has likely influenced the relative stability in numbers of seizures. It is therefore probable that if more, or less, law enforcement resources were available to police these retail markets, seizure trends would vary commensurately. Both of these figures are underestimates since no data are available for from countries that usually report large numbers of seizures, such as France and Germany. By comparison, the total number of cocaine seizures, the second largest drug market in Europe, was estimated at 71 in Europe that same year. These countries thus have a substantial impact on overall seizure trends in Europe. Some of the overall reduction in cannabis seizures may be due to fewer police resources being focused on enforcing drug laws at the retail level in , as officers were mobilised to enforce COVID restrictions. In addition, prolonged lockdown periods likely drove many cannabis users and dealers out of public spaces. Although the use of herbal cannabis is fairly long-standing in these countries, the comparatively low prevalence of use in most countries and their generally smaller population sizes result in retail markets that are much smaller than those in the relatively more affluent and populated western and northern parts of Europe see Figure Indexed trends in number of seizures of cannabis resin and herbal cannabis in 11 eastern EU countries, Trends in numbers of seizures of cannabis resin and herb in these 11 central and eastern European countries present a somewhat different picture from the rest of Europe, characterised by less stability and an overall increase for both products, at least until A similar pattern can be observed in Europe as a whole. However, in the case of cannabis resin seizures, the pattern in the east of the EU differs markedly from the overall European picture, which shows numbers of resin seizures having risen back to nearly pre-pandemic levels in Overall, these trends seem to indicate that cannabis retail markets in the eastern part of the EU are growing, unlike those in most of the rest of Europe. However, the impact of COVID in eastern Europe, particularly on resin, seems to be stronger and longer lasting than in the rest of the continent see Figure Indexed trends in number of seizures of cannabis resin and herbal cannabis in 11 eastern EU countries, Cannabis oil has long been a marginal product on European consumer markets, with the total number of European seizures rarely reaching more than per year since reporting began in These five countries may therefore be viewed as emerging retail markets for cannabis oil in Europe, although several other countries with high prevalence of cannabis use do not report seizures of oil. These findings, together with an increase in the quantity of oil seized see Section Cannabis trafficking and supply: record quantities seized in , could indicate that cannabis oil is slowly gaining popularity among some European consumers. Some of the comparatively newer cannabis consumer products, such as butane hash oil BHO , rosin or cannabis wax, that have become available in Europe in recent years see Figure Cannabis: taxonomy of products traditional and modern are probably manufactured by consumers themselves from their own cannabis crops or from herbal or resin material purchased from dealers. However, some of these products may also be the result of commercial manufacturing in Europe and elsewhere. For instance, there have been seizures of such products at European postal hubs and airports, in parcels and on flights from Canada and the United States. Some of these products have also been seized in the United States on their way to Europe. These seizures usually involve small amounts, weighing a few hundred grams or less, although larger quantities are seized occasionally. For instance, in , a total of almost 58 kilograms of cannabis wax from the United States was seized in Germany. In , some 4. Other products such as edibles and e-cigarette liquids appear to have emerged in Europe more recently. They tend to be manufactured more professionally, often in third countries. The development of novel cannabis consumer products has been particularly dynamic and fast-paced in countries where cannabis has been regulated for recreational use, especially Canada and some parts of the United States. A broad range of products containing semi-synthetic cannabinoids, such as HHC, are available from online shops in some EU countries. Cannabis edibles are foods that are infused with cannabinoids Barrus et al. They can mimic popular brands of foods, particularly sweets and other snack products see Photo Examples of edibles containing THC seized in Sweden in and Box Cannabis marketing methods in France: learning from licit business enterprises. Commercial edibles appear to have become increasingly popular in some North American jurisdictions following cannabis policy changes. While they are usually subject to strict regulations aimed at reducing the potential harms and risks associated with their use, counterfeit, unlicensed and illegal cannabis edibles have nevertheless appeared on North American cannabis markets Health Canada, They are sold on darknet markets, through social media see Section Online distribution of cannabis products and at street level. Of particular concern are recent German federal police reports indicating an increase in the availability of THC-infused edibles, some of which are sold in packages mimicking branded sweets see Boxes Edibles: increased risks of poisoning and Cannabis marketing methods in France: learning from licit business enterprises. Based on the data currently available, it is difficult to estimate the size of the European market for cannabis edibles, or their manufacturing locations and trafficking routes. In particular, North America appears to be an important source. E-liquids liquids used in electronic vaping devices containing concentrates of phytocannabinoids, semi-synthetic cannabinoids and synthetic cannabinoids appear to have become available and increasingly popular among European consumers over the past few years. Included in this category are products containing synthetic cannabinoids mis-sold as containing THC or CBD, which can pose a high risk of poisoning because of their high potency EMCDDA, b, c see Box e-Liquids containing synthetic cannabinoids detected in France. Similar to many other recently emerging cannabis consumer products, cannabis e-liquids and associated products were initially developed in North America, where they are now widely available and popular, particularly among young people Lim et al. In the United States, in the summer of , there was an outbreak of e-cigarette or vaping use-associated lung injury EVALI related to counterfeit products containing deltaTHC, most probably due to contamination with vitamin E acetate. This outbreak resulted in the deaths of at least 68 people and thousands of hospitalisations across the country CDC, ; Duffy et al. However, insufficient information is available to adequately assess the potential toxicity of newer products containing semi-synthetic cannabinoids Meehan-Atrash and Rahman, Most of these appear to have been smuggled in from North America see Box Seizures of cannabis liquids and oils destined for Europe. Cannabis is bought, sold and traded in a variety of ways across Europe using both offline and online methods. Offline methods include the use of dealers in open, semi-open and closed settings. Open markets can be street-based markets May and Hough, ; Skliamis and Korf, while semi-open markets are often located in clubs and other quasi-private settings Tzanetakis, In closed markets business is conducted on a trust basis Potter, Online methods include purchases facilitated via the surface web, social media channels and the darknet. These could be considered semi-open settings, whereby no established relationship is usually required, but buyers have to subscribe or register with channels and platforms to gain access. In online methods, monetary transactions and deliveries may take place without any face-to-face contact, as is especially the case with purchases over the darknet. Sometimes, however, online methods simply facilitate the contact between buyers and sellers, for example via social media, and the exchange of money and drugs might still take place in person Mounteney et al. Evidence indicates that cannabis is relatively frequently shared within peer groups, sometimes without any monetary exchange or in a non-commercial or non-profit manner. This also extends to cannabis resin. Similarly, a study among cannabis coffeeshop visitors in Amsterdam from seven different European countries 4 , investigating how participants usually acquired cannabis in their home countries, found that, in the past 12 months, While the social supply of cannabis seems to be relatively prevalent in the EU, research indicates that the sources from which users acquire their cannabis vary between countries. However, the proportion of participants who reported buying from friends and street dealers differed greatly between the seven countries included in the study. Twenty-one EU countries and Switzerland. The source data for this graphic is available in the source table on this page. Smaller numbers also reported using edibles 8 and cannabis oil 5 Some of these respondents provided detailed information enabling analysis of how herbal cannabis and cannabis resin are retailed in Europe. This finding supports other research indicating the growth of internet-based methods for purchasing drugs Barratt et al. However, the use of these methods appears to differ significantly between countries in Europe Skliamis and Korf, It should be noted that the results of the EWSD cannot readily be generalised to any larger populations. Significant differences among European countries were also apparent in the use of different delivery methods see Table Delivery methods for herbal cannabis and cannabis resin. At the aggregate level, for the 7 EWSD respondents reporting how they usually buy cannabis resin, and how it is delivered to them, the results are broadly similar to those of herbal cannabis see Figures In the last 12 months, how did you usually buy cannabis resin hashish? At the country-level, however, some differences are observable see Table Sources of acquisition for herbal cannabis and cannabis resin. Delivery methods were shown by the EWSD to be fairly consistent between cannabis resin and herbal cannabis at the aggregate level see Figure In the last 12 months, how was the cannabis resin hashish usually delivered to you? As already indicated, a range of sources of acquisition and delivery methods are used for herbal cannabis and cannabis resin in Europe see Tables Sources of acquisition for herbal cannabis and cannabis resin and Delivery methods for herbal cannabis and cannabis resin. The data appear to point to distinct retail markets for herbal cannabis and cannabis resin, both in Europe as a whole and within individual countries, although caution is required when comparing these data, due to small sample sizes in some countries and also because of the relatively small sample size for resin. Nevertheless, the findings suggest that it is important to analyse the herbal cannabis and cannabis resin markets separately Vuolo and Matias, Data from eight darknet markets gathered in Cannazon, Alphabay, ASAP, Cypher, Dark0dereborn, Royal, Versus and World showed a total of 13 unique listings 5 sale offers for cannabis products reported as being shipped from an EU country in To put this in context, while not directly comparable, in a similar scanning exercise conducted in , 10 listings were found for cocaine and 1 for methamphetamine. This includes high-THC products such as concentrates e. However, caution is needed in interpreting these data as neither the number of transactions nor the number of individual sellers can be extrapolated from the number of listings alone. Nonetheless, listings provide a useful indicator of the activity on darknet markets. The typical quantity most frequently observed value of herbal cannabis offered was 5 grams 1 listings , followed by 10 grams 1 and 1 gram The typical price per gram was EUR 14 in 74 listings of 1 gram. In , bulk listings of herbal cannabis were observed see Table Quantity and price details of bulk herbal cannabis listings shipping from EU, The typical quantity of cannabis resin offered in was 5 grams , followed by 10 grams and 1 gram The typical price per gram was EUR 15 in 20 listings of 1 gram. There were 64 bulk listings of cannabis resin observed in However, due to the limited price data available for analysis, caution should be exercised when interpreting these findings. A small proportion of the listings on darknet markets in included cannabis concentrates and edibles. Social media platforms are frequently used to promote and sell cannabis products see forthcoming EU Drug Markets: Drivers and Facilitators , section on Social media and instant messaging apps. Cannabis products have been found to feature prominently on Facebook, where they represent the majority of the drug content advertised for sale, as seen in Denmark, Iceland and Sweden Demant et al. Overall, social media platforms appear to be frequently used to promote drug sales, sometimes using creative photo or video editing or other marketing techniques Geoffroy, ; Paolini and Lepoivre, ; MCP, ; see also Box Cannabis marketing methods in France: learning from licit business enterprises. Cannabis influencers, that is, individuals promoting cannabis products to their followers on social media platforms, have become particularly active on Instagram. While most cannabis influencers appear to be male, there are indications that female influencers are becoming more active on social media Bakken and Harder, This may be part of a broader push towards commercialising cannabis and attempting to sell licensed and unlicensed products to a mainstream audience, in addition to influencing ongoing policy debates. Estimating the size of illicit drug markets is inherently difficult and cannabis is no exception. Nevertheless, because cannabis is the drug most frequently used in Europe and its use generally has a higher level of social acceptance compared to other illicit drugs, there are comparatively more comprehensive and robust data relating to its use. These data enable a more accurate estimation of the size of the illicit market for cannabis. However, this market is becoming increasingly complex due to the emergence of new products, for which data are limited. Thus, any estimate of the size of the illicit cannabis market is restricted to herbal cannabis and cannabis resin. Using the methodology established by the EMCDDA b , it was estimated that cannabis products account for the largest share of the overall illicit drug retail market in the EU, with an estimated value in of at least EUR Out of this total, the illicit market for herbal cannabis was estimated to be worth at least EUR 8. In comparison, the illicit cannabis resin market was estimated to be worth at least EUR 2. This estimate is based on the number of users and their patterns of use, the amount used per year and the average price paid at the retail level. This method, often called a demand-side approach, however, is prone to underestimation due to the misreporting and under-reporting of use Udrisard et al. The basic model used in the estimation process can be expressed in the following simple arithmetic form:. The estimated number of cannabis users was calculated based on prevalence data from general population surveys GPS and categorised according to frequency of use see Box Links between frequency of use and sources of acquiring cannabis. Separate estimates were generated for cannabis resin and herbal cannabis, and, given the high numbers of cannabis users, it was possible to obtain information on the amounts of each product used by different types of users. Individuals were categorised into four different groups according to frequency of cannabis use, as follows:. Taken together, these data were used to estimate the illicit retail market size for herbal cannabis and cannabis resin respectively. There are limitations to this method. For example, for some variables where no data were available, it was necessary to impute values. This included instances when a country had no price data, in which case a simple average of the values for the other countries was used, and when prevalence data was not available for , instead of which the latest available data were used. Occasionally, EU Member States construct their own market size estimates for drugs that are particularly relevant at the national level. For example, Czech authorities have developed an estimate for the market size of methamphetamine, the most prevalent synthetic stimulant used in the country. Based on the latest available data, this illicit cannabis market had an estimated annual turnover of EUR 1. Such national estimates are useful to contextualise the overall EU estimate. In a literature review conducted for this analysis Udrisard et al. Europe featured as a region of focus in two of the studies and nine of the studies looked at cannabis alone. The majority used a demand-side approach, while two employed a supply-side methodology see Box Supply-side approaches to estimating the size of illicit drug markets , and three used a combination of both. As already highlighted, estimating cannabis consumption using wastewater is challenging, and more research is needed in this area, which may improve the use of this method in the future Causanilles et al. Ten of the studies employing the demand-side approach augmented user numbers by drawing on general population surveys and complementary sources to account for under-represented user populations. These include, for example, teenagers aged 15 and under, people with high-risk patterns of use, such as opioid users, or prisoners and homeless populations, all of whom may be excluded, to varying degrees, from GPS but can represent a significant number of cannabis users. All of the demand-side attempts to estimate illicit drug market sizes suffer from under-reporting, whereby people report no use or less frequent use, or do not respond to a representative survey, such as a GPS. Among the 15 papers using survey data, seven applied correction factors for under-reporting in order to provide new prevalence rates Udrisard et al. Data on quantities used also present issues that require a degree of interpretation and making assumptions. For example, while two studies asked questions about how many cannabis joints were smoked, neither asked about the typical amount of cannabis contained in one joint. To fill such data gaps, information on quantities used can be collected via non-representative surveys that specifically target people who use drugs. This is the basis for using data from the European Web Survey on Drugs to develop an EU-level estimate of the illicit cannabis market. It is notable that while some studies considered the issue of cannabis sharing and how this impacted on their market size estimates, it was concluded that there was no real evidence of a global overestimation. While estimates were not revised to account for this potential issue, researchers have strongly recommended further research in this area Udrisard et al. The study conducted for estimating the size of illicit drug markets in the EU concluded that there remains a strong suspicion that demand-based estimates, especially for the drugs most used in Europe, underestimate the real size of these markets Udrisard et al. Nevertheless, the expert consultation that was part of the study confirmed that there are very few alternatives to demand-based approaches for drug market estimates. Overall, further research is needed in this area. Further information is available online. However, respondents from these partner countries are not included in the analysis presented in this report. Consult the list of references used in this module. Homepage Quick links Quick links. GO Results hosted on duckduckgo. Main navigation Data Open related submenu Data. Latest data Prevalence of drug use Drug-induced deaths Infectious diseases Problem drug use Treatment demand Seizures of drugs Price, purity and potency. Drug use and prison Drug law offences Health and social responses Drug checking Hospital emergencies data Syringe residues data Wastewater analysis Data catalogue. Selected topics Alternatives to coercive sanctions Cannabis Cannabis policy Cocaine Darknet markets Drug checking Drug consumption facilities Drug markets Drug-related deaths Drug-related infectious diseases. Recently published Findings from a scoping literature…. Penalties at a glance. Frequently asked questions FAQ : drug…. FAQ: therapeutic use of psychedelic…. Viral hepatitis elimination barometer…. EU Drug Market: New psychoactive…. EU Drug Market: Drivers and facilitators. Statistical Bulletin home. Quick links Search news Subscribe newsletter for recent news Subscribe to news releases. This make take up to a minute. Once the PDF is ready it will appear in this tab. Sorry, the download of the PDF failed. Table of contents Search within the book. Introduction Introduction Key findings and threat assessment Key findings and threat assessment Global context Global context Production Production Trafficking and supply Trafficking and supply Retail markets Retail markets Criminal networks Criminal networks Actions to address current threats and increase preparedness Actions to address current threats and increase preparedness. Search within the book Operator Any match. Exact term match only. Main subject. Target audience. Publication type. EU Drug Market: Cannabis — main page. On this page.

Cannabis prices on the dark web

Vars buying Cannabis

Official websites use. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Main St. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original author and source are credited, the original sources is not modified, and the source is not used for commercial purposes. The legal landscape surrounding purchasing cannabis without a medical cannabis card i. Cannabis purchasing behaviors are related to subsequent use and experiencing greater cannabis-related negative consequences. However, purchasing behaviors of individuals who use cannabis without MCC are understudied. Focus groups followed a semi-structured agenda, and were audio recorded and transcribed. Two coders applied thematic analysis to summarize topics pertaining to cannabis purchasing attitudes and behaviors. Focus groups occurred in and in Rhode Island, when purchasing and use of cannabis without MCC was decriminalized but still considered illegal. Thematic analysis revealed three key themes related to cannabis purchasing behaviors: 1 regular purchasing routines i. Participants reported saving money and using more cannabis when buying in bulk. Purchasing behaviors were found to vary and were perceived to be affected by individual-level e. Future research should consider how factors e. Keywords: buying marijuana, cannabis purchase, qualitative methods, marijuana purchase task, focus groups. The past decade has seen a rapid increase in the legalization of cannabis use and purchasing i. In the United States U. Zellers et al. Higher prevalence of cannabis use is of concern to public health because it has been associated with several deleterious outcomes, including increased risk for cannabis-related emergency department and urgent care visits Wang et al. Individuals who purchase cannabis use it more frequently relative to those who do not purchase cannabis but obtain it from other sources, such as their friends Osilla et al. Purchasing cannabis is also associated with experiencing more cannabis-related negative consequences, more time spent with people who use cannabis, and is prospectively associated with higher likelihood of developing any substance use disorder Osilla et al. However, purchasing behaviors of people who use cannabis without a medical cannabis card MCC , and factors affecting purchases, are understudied. Legalization of recreational cannabis use is also associated with more favorable social norms surrounding use Wallace et al. Cannabis legalization also facilitates rapid expansion of new dispensaries and allows for people to cultivate their own cannabis plants, resulting in increased access to cannabis. Indeed, the burgeoning legal retail marketplace has, in effect, decreased the price of illicit cannabis Anderson et al. From to — a time period when widespread recreational cannabis legalization was starting to occur — there was an increase in the rate of people endorsing buying and growing cannabis versus getting it for free and sharing it Azofeifa et al. During the same time period, the number of people who reported that cannabis was fairly easy or very easy to obtain also increased Azofeifa et al. Given that increased access to cannabis e. Further, although the illicit market remains the primary source of cannabis in the U. Prior research has shown that purchasing factors, such as source i. Results from a recent study in Canada indicated that living in closer proximity to legal cannabis retail outlets was associated with a higher likelihood of purchasing dried flower Wadsworth et al. Similar patterns were observed in Washington state in a longitudinal study of over 85, individuals between and Everson et al. Although rates of current cannabis use and frequency of use did not significantly change immediately following legalization, significant increases were observed following greater access to retailers i. Taken together, evidence indicates that certain purchasing factors like accessibility and source may affect certain cannabis use behaviors e. In the U. Use of cannabis for medical purposes is also now legal in most states in the U. Legalization of cannabis for medical use is followed by increased access to cannabis overall, in part via dispensary diversions, where people with a medical card resell cannabis to others Reed et al. Even though cannabis remains federally illicit and several U. Moreover, policies that are ostensibly intended to deter use have had little effect in decreasing actual purchasing and use. Rather, these policies have engendered a detrimental impact on society by increasing involvement with the criminal legal system Lenton, Indeed, there has been a significant increase in the number of people who support a fine as the maximum legal penalty for cannabis possession of an ounce or less versus harsher punishments e. Correspondingly, cannabis purchasing is still occurring at high levels in many areas where it remains illegal. Relevant laws in one state also influence purchasing behaviors of individuals in neighboring states. Taken together, more research is needed to better understand how perceived legal consequences are related to purchasing behaviors of persons who use cannabis without MCC. Recent years have also seen an increase in cannabis potency i. In places where use of cannabis for recreational purposes is legal, retail sales indicate an increased demand for cannabis extracts, which are over three times more potent than traditional cannabis flower e. While increased access to cannabis is expected following legalization, concomitant increases in cannabis use may be especially concerning, in part, because of the increased potency of the cannabis that is being purchased and used. High-potency cannabis concentrates are implicated in the increasing cannabis use disorder CUD rates Meier, and more severe CUD symptoms Freeman et al. From these perspectives, contextual factors that might impact, and are related to, cannabis purchasing include the shifting legal landscape and changing policies relevant to cannabis. Growing legalization has also been accompanied by the rapidly expanding cannabis industry, changes in cannabis potency, and overall availability of cannabis. Thus, previous research has characterized cannabis purchasing in various contexts, including designer and commercial markets Sifaneck et al. Although much remains unknown about factors affecting cannabis purchase decisions, the existing research indicates that perceived quality and price influence cannabis purchase choices, such that consumers seek the lowest-cost cannabis to avoid reducing consumption Donnan et al. However, less is known about cannabis purchased without MCC from various sources, particularly within the shifting legal landscape and changing policy contexts that engender reduced stigma and increased cannabis availability. Prior studies have employed qualitative methods to investigate sources of cannabis e. Understanding purchasing behaviors surrounding cannabis used without MCC is especially important because purchasing behaviors are related to use patterns and negative consequences, and this information could inform future interventions and policy decisions. Individuals who reported using cannabis without MCC were recruited from Rhode Island and Massachusetts via advertisements on flyers and social media to participate in qualitative focus group interviews about their cannabis use and purchasing behaviors. Focus groups were conducted, in part, to inform the design of a larger experimental laboratory cannabis administration study Aston et al. Focus groups were conducted in , with participants from Rhode Island, during which time, cannabis use without MCC was considered illegal, but was decriminalized. Cannabis use with MCC was legal, and at the time of data collection Rhode Island had three medical cannabis dispensaries. Based on this context, and given that there were no other main avenues for purchasing cannabis use without MCC, the most likely source for purchasing cannabis for people without MCC in the state of Rhode Island was via nonmedical providers. Rhode Island, and neighboring states, Massachusetts and Connecticut, legalized cannabis without MCC after these data were collected, at the end of , , and , respectively. A total of 31 individuals participated in 5 in-person focus groups, with participants per group. Before focus group discussions, participants first completed self-report measures of their demographic background and cannabis use. Focus groups followed a semi-structured interview guide, sessions were audio recorded, and on average lasted approximately an hour. Sample questions are in Table 2. Do you buy for yourself or do you typically buy for someone else in addition to yourself? Significant other, friend? Audio recordings of each focus group discussion were transcribed verbatim. Debriefing discussions were held following each focus group. Using the semi-structured interview agenda, a qualitative coding structure was developed. The coding structure was refined through an iterative process to incorporate topics that emerged in the discussions. Codes were then entered into NVivo software for thematic analysis to identify key topics Guest et al. Data mining tools were used to identify relevant themes of interest e. Transcripts were thematically analyzed, first using descriptive coding followed by conceptual coding. First, all codes pertaining to cannabis purchasing behaviors were reviewed descriptively. Intensive coder discussion, coder adjudication, and simple coder consensus were used to resolve discrepancies and used to indicate agreement Colditz et al. Secondary coding was implemented for relevant conceptual content to facilitate synthesis and organization of codes by the first and second authors. Discrepant codes were subsequently brought into concordance through discussion. All codes pertaining to cannabis purchasing were reviewed again, towards categorization, integration, synthesis, and conceptualization of topics Saldana, The final set of codes was then reviewed by the first four authors, and summarized to identify key themes, which are reported here. Representative quotations were selected and presented to illustrate the general idea of each theme. Sample descriptive characteristics are presented in Table 1. Reported mean age was Participants were of relatively diverse racial identity, with the majority identifying as White The rest of the participants identified as African American Three main topics were queried during focus group discussions regarding: 1 regular purchasing routines for cannabis used without MCC, 2 economic factors, and 3 contextual factors perceived to influence cannabis purchasing behaviors. Each theme, along with subthemes and exemplar quotes, is further described below, with a complete list presented in Tables 2 and 3. Participants were asked about the frequency and schedule with which they habitually purchased cannabis, the amount i. Most participants reported buying a consistent amount per purchase i. However, there was still considerable variability in the amount per purchase between participants. A little more. You know? There was a wide range in the dollar amount participants paid for cannabis, with one participant saying:. In contrast, participants reported comparable prices for how much they paid per unit of their cannabis purchases, indicating consistent pricing. Participants were queried about factors that affected the cost of i. Factors related to cost included cannabis quality and strain i. Similar to factors perceived to affect the cost of cannabis, participants noted the importance of cannabis quality in their purchasing decisions and indicated that they were more likely to purchase cannabis that was perceived to be of better quality. Another said,. Participants discussed the importance of easy access to cannabis in their purchasing decisions. Participants who resided near their supplier i. Availability of free cannabis and types of cannabis were also perceived as important factors. Participants indicated that they would purchase more cannabis if it were readily available from others. As noted, use of cannabis without MCC was decriminalized, but still considered illegal, at the time focus groups were conducted. The current study used qualitative focus group data to assess cannabis purchasing behaviors among individuals who frequently used cannabis without MCC. Specifically, identifying common factors perceived to influence purchasing and use behaviors can inform future cannabis prevention, intervention, and policy decisions. Participants reported relatively consistent purchasing routines despite not having set schedules. Participants also reported a consistent price structure when purchasing cannabis e. This finding is consistent with results from a recent systematic review Donnan et al. Likewise, recent research indicated that adolescents and young adults perceived cannabis obtained from legal versus illegal markets to be of higher quality, and safer to use and purchase Amlung et al. Indeed, cannabis obtained illegally i. Thus, enacting policies that seek to regulate, rather than punish, cannabis markets and implement quality and safety standards may appeal to consumers and reduce the sale and use of illegal cannabis. Alternatively, informational campaigns that emphasize safety standards and convey the quality of legal cannabis products relative to alternative, illegal ones may also affect purchasing behaviors and diminish the illegal marketplace. Regarding economic factors, participants reported, as expected, that their financial circumstances dictated much of their purchasing behaviors. Participants also explained how bulk purchasing decreased the unit cost, which parallels traditional patterns of consumer demand for other commodities e. Notably, participants also reported that when they purchased more cannabis than normal, they tended to increase their use as well, also mirroring patterns observed with alcohol and tobacco Bray et al. A better understanding of germane factors that affect purchasing behaviors may also help identify who is at elevated risk for negative outcomes. As noted, legalization of recreational cannabis use leads to increased frequency of cannabis use Zellers et al. Thus, it is important to ascertain whether bulk purchasing facilitates the types of heavier use patterns that lead to the development of CUD or increased severity of CUD symptoms. Equally important, future research should attempt to identify factors specifically related to bulk purchasing. Moving forward, an important public health consideration will be to engage a wide-range of stakeholders e. Policy efforts could include strategies to regulate bulk purchasing and discounting among licensed cannabis purveyors. Particularly at retail outlets, the effectiveness of price policies such as limiting bulk discounting, and discounting in general, is supported by empirical evidence from federal and state-level tobacco control efforts Tobacco Control Legal Consortium, The maximum purchase amount allowed per customer varies across states with legal access to cannabis, and there is a need to evaluate how maximum purchase amounts, or policies that limit bulk discounts, may influence consumer purchasing and use patterns Pacula et al. Certain states e. Policy changes related to purchasing high quantities of THC, such as additional taxes on high THC-content cannabis products, may be considered to reduce public health risks. Further research is needed before considering full policy implications of such efforts and current results. Yet, current results indicate that it is important to consider factors that may encourage bulk purchasing e. For instance, policies may address the amount and type of information budtenders are able to share with customers at medical dispensaries or on reputable websites. On the other hand, strategies from other commodity purchasing environments e. Especially in the context of cannabis dispensaries, future research should examine how product placement, pricing, and labeling influences cannabis purchasing behaviors and the extent to which these factors can be leveraged to reduce patterns of behavior associated with harmful outcomes. Regarding contextual factors, cannabis was decriminalized in Rhode Island and Massachusetts in and , respectively. Participants in the current study universally reported being unconcerned about potential legal consequences involving cannabis. This finding replicates earlier, nationally representative data suggesting that the perceptions of serious legal consequences from using and possessing cannabis have declined over time Azofeifa et al. As legislation continues towards widespread decriminalization, decreased criminal penalties, and expanded record clearing for lower-level cannabis offenses in the U. National Conference of State Legislators. Cannabis policy and legislation has thus far largely focused on its sale, possession, cultivation, distribution, and purchase, including setting limits and punishments for possessing different amounts of cannabis, creating guidelines on who can grow cannabis, and where sales can take place. Although cannabis legalization advances important social justice goals Hajizadeh, , much remains to be done to address racial disparities in cannabis use outcomes, such as experiencing cannabis-related negative consequences and involvement with the criminal legal system. One potential driver of such disparities may be purchasing behaviors. Characterizing purchasing behaviors of persons who use cannabis without MCC, as we have sought to do in the current investigation, may be a first step in identifying potential explanations for disparities in rates of experiencing certain cannabis-related negative legal consequences. The current study has limitations. Focus groups were conducted, in part, to inform a larger study involving laboratory cannabis administration, and thus excluded adults over 50 years of age due to potential cardiovascular risks from smoking cannabis and individuals with a diagnosis of affective, psychosis, or panic disorders. Thus, future research should examine purchasing behaviors of older adults and individuals with mental health conditions. Participants reported, on average, using cannabis five days a week. Purchasing behaviors may vary among those with different use patterns e. Further, given that focus groups were conducted when purchasing cannabis without MCC was not legally permitted, implications for cannabis purchasing behaviors in other contexts may be limited. Although legality of recreational cannabis use is increasing, these data are still informative as cannabis without MCC is still not legal in much of the U. Given the context of where and when the focus groups were conducted i. Other sources of cannabis without MCC likely included growing cannabis, receiving cannabis for free i. Further, because participants primarily used flower cannabis, much of the focus group discussions were on purchasing flower cannabis. As noted, at the time when focus groups were conducted in Rhode Island, it was difficult for people without MCC to purchase other kinds of cannabis e. Thus, it is unclear whether pre-pandemic purchasing behaviors generalize to purchasing behaviors after the onset of the pandemic as direct-to-consumer delivery services for cannabis have increased exponentially Fertig et al. Additional research is also needed that explores how purchasing behaviors may differ based on sociodemographic characteristics e. Lastly, although beyond the scope of the current investigation, contextual factors may also interact with other correlates of substance use outcomes, including individual level factors e. Taken together, findings from this study indicate that consumers believe several economic and contextual factors influence how they purchase cannabis. Accordingly, policymakers and public health agencies should invest in public education campaigns about the legal and health impacts of cannabis use, and implement policies that deter purchasing behaviors that facilitate greater consumption e. Further, enacting better policies that regulate the sale, manufacturing, and marketing of cannabis used without MCC and that establish quality and safety standards may appeal to consumers and shift their purchasing behaviors away from illicit cannabis markets. All funding sources had no other role in study design or manuscript preparation other than financial support. Conflict of Interest Statement: All authors list no conflicts of interest. As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Find articles by Nioud Mulugeta Gebru. Find articles by Elizabeth R Aston. Find articles by Benjamin L Berey. Find articles by L Morgan Snell. Find articles by Robert F Leeman. Find articles by Jane Metrik. Collection date Probes: Do you have a schedule? Do you plan ahead? How much marijuana do you usually purchase? Probes: Why? Regular purchasing routines 1. Purchasing frequency 1. Purchasing schedule 1. Amount per purchase About how much do you spend each time you buy marijuana? Probe: Why? Economic factors affecting cannabis purchasing behaviors 2. Factors affecting cost 2. Effects of price increases Tell me about your relationship with your supplier. Probe: Would you buy from elsewhere? Contextual factors affecting cannabis purchasing behaviors 3. Quality of cannabis 3. Legal concerns. Open in a new tab. A little more…. I would say once a week. I know what I want. Kinda fluctuates. Amount per purchase 1 Eighths, pretty much always. An eighth or a Q or something. Just kidding. Bills and—…So, like, today I get a 20, but Friday I might get a quarter. And I was like whoa, okay. Time to step back. Depends how much money I have. Might spend 10 on a gram, 40 on a eighth. But usually, when my boyfriend and I are both working, we buy a quarter or maybe a little more a week. So - I spend 15 on a gram, 40 on an eighth, 20 for 1. Because you figure four days a week, so. It gets kind of excessive, especially in the medical marijuana market. And he tries to have us watch TV with him and shit. And…the supply and demand \[sic\] completely changes at that point. But since the supply goes up it lowers the cost cuz you can get it from anywhere and everywhere…. The demand is always going to be the same-same demand, I mean you can change that a little bit by changing the supply. And out here, so I used to drive to—my friend lives in \[redacted location\]. I used to drive to \[redacted location\], go get my weed, and then go home. But it never varies a lot. All right, you got that same stuff? Usually by quality. But the best dude that I have charges an ounce for his premium top-quality shit. So, probably four times a week. For sure 22 Where you gonna keep it? Some—one of my friends will get—like if I can get three or four different types at the same time, depending on what she has, and then I have another friend. Just tell me to go home. I really do. I always have it on me. Similar articles. Add to Collections. Create a new collection. Add to an existing collection. Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again. Add Cancel. How often are you buying marijuana? Amount per purchase. About how much do you spend each time you buy marijuana? Economic factors affecting cannabis purchasing behaviors. Effects of price increases. Tell me about your relationship with your supplier. Contextual factors affecting cannabis purchasing behaviors. Cannabis-related variables. Theme: Regular purchasing routines. Every day, unless I buy a quarter for the week. If I had unlimited money, I could probably do,—a comfortable thing would be an eighth every day. But usually just once a week. It might be different amounts every day, but definitely every day. Pretty regular. Anywhere from a gram to a quarter…. A quarter ounce. It depends on the day…Sometimes when I hit the lottery or no. Usually if I—when I buy bigger amounts I find that I smoke more. Theme: Economic factors affecting cannabis purchasing behaviors. Depending how much money you have, honestly…. Depends on what you get, you know? It depends on how much money I got at the beginning of the week. Sometimes for some dealers it might be the strain. Prices in general have gone way down in just the last two years…. I feel like those prices would be if you know the person. Before, it was 50 \[for an\] eighth. Theme: Contextual factors affecting cannabis purchasing behaviors. The only time I buy more than once a week \[is\] if someone calls or I know they might have something special, I might try them for a sample—- to see how it smokes. I want to get a 20 bag. Well, currently as of right now, I know somebody who I can get medical for free right now, pretty much. Yeah, for me I used to at least buy at least two grams a week. For sure. Well, me and my roommate, we split it, so…four times a week we smoke. Not really \[a concern\], to be honest. Drinking is worse…. I think of weed different.

Vars buying Cannabis