ArticleAddictive behaviors2026
Cannabis retailers' marketing practices and compliance with state regulations: a 2025 point-of-sale audit in 5 U.S. cities.
Article in Addictive behaviors, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cannabis retail surveillance is crucial to inform regulations and enforcement efforts. This point-of-sale audit study examined marketing practices and compliance with age verification rules, required signage, and marketing restrictions among 161 cannabis retailers in 5 US cities in states authorizing nonmedical cannabis retail (Los Angeles [LA], California; Las Vegas [LV], Nevada; Denver, Colorado; Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington) in summer 2025. Descriptive and bivariate analyses characterized retailers overall and across cities. Overall, 84.5 % of retailers requested age verification upon entry (range: Seattle = 43.3 % to LV = 100 %); 8.1 % never verified (range: LV/Denver = 0 % to Seattle = 26.7 %). All 5 states required pregnancy-related warning postings/brochures, observed in 64.6 % (less often in LA = 30.8 % and LV = 46.9 %). Nevada and Oregon required signage prohibiting on-site consumption, observed in 51.6 % overall (LV = 81.3 %, Portland = 86.7 %). California and Washington required signage indicating negative impacts on children/youth, posted in 42.2 % (LA = 20.5 %; Seattle = 80.0 %). All 5 states restricted youth-oriented packaging, found in 24.2 % (more often in Denver = 53.3 % and LV = 40.6 %). Other targeted populations (based on advertisements/promotions) included veterans/military (12.4 %), senior citizens (9.3 %), LGBTQ+ (8.7 %), and racial/ethnic minorities (7.5 %). Colorado, Oregon, and Washington prohibited health claims in advertising, found in 65.8 % (Denver = 40.0 %, Portland = 40.0 %, Seattle = 70.0 %). California, Colorado, and Washington restricted outdoor business signage, identified at 36.6 % overall (LA = 18.2 %, Denver = 7.7 %, Seattle = 40.0 %). California, Oregon, and Washington restricted discounting, identified in 93.8 % (LA = 92.3 %, Portland = 96.7 %, Seattle = 86.7 %). Further, 39.8 % promoted online ordering, 33.5 % curbside delivery, pick-up, or drive-through options, and 13.7 % home delivery. Given compliance-related issues with many regulations (e.g., required signage, prohibitions on youth-oriented marketing, health claims), states' cannabis retail regulations and enforcement must be strengthened.
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.