ArticlePloS one2025
Insights from the ground: A qualitative investigation of retailer perspectives of the challenges and opportunities in the legal cannabis market in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cannabis tourism in transition: operators' perspectives on regulatory change and governance in Bangkok, Thailand.Journal of cannabis research · 2026Article
- Cannabis policy priorities and public health: a survey of elected officials in California.BMC public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe legalization of recreational cannabis in Canada has resulted in varying regulatory and market environments across provinces and territories. These differences shape how retail markets develop and how retailers perceive their opportunities, challenges, and roles in advancing public health objectives. In Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), cannabis retail operates within a distinctive framework shaped by centralized distribution, licensing requirements, and pricing regulations. This qualitative study explores how licensed and prospective retailers perceived the factors influencing the cannabis retail market in NL.
methodsSemi-structured virtual interviews were conducted with nine licensed and nine prospective cannabis retailers in NL. A thematic analysis, using Wright-Brown et al.'s Comprehensive Cannabis Retail Framework and Ritchie and Spencer's framework analysis, was conducted. Both deductive and inductive coding were applied to identify framework-aligned and emergent themes.
resultsLicensed retailers reported challenges such as restrictive advertising rules, high taxation, and supply chain inefficiencies, which they viewed as constraints on profitability and growth. At the same time, access to quality products, positive customer relationships, and informal mentorship networks were seen as enablers of success. Prospective retailers identified high licensing fees, limited access to opportunities, and financing difficulties as significant barriers to entering the legal market.
conclusionThis study highlights how NL's cannabis retail system, designed to balance public health protection with market development, may inadvertently limit participation and business sustainability. The study illustrates how regulatory design can shape retailer experiences and market dynamics, underscoring the need to assess whether current regulations are achieving their intended outcomes. While focused on NL, these findings offer valuable insights for other jurisdictions with similar regulatory models, emphasizing the importance of aligning policy design with retailers' experiences to foster a more inclusive, sustainable, and public health-oriented cannabis retail sector.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.