Rhee Joshua U, Padon Alisa A, Silver Lynn D, Li Lingling, Nguyen Ethan N K, Paredes Jacob, Timberlake David S
Department of Population Health and Disease Prevention, Program in Public Health, College of Health Sciences, University of California, Irvine.
Public Health Institute, Oakland, CA.
Cannabis. 2025 Feb 1;8(1):95-108. doi: 10.26828/cannabis/2024/000234. eCollection 2025.
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 ( = 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, (1, = 249) = 7.69, < .01. Retailer websites frequently displayed "clean" labels ( = 200, 80.32%), followed by positive state claims ( = 198, 79.52%), physical health claims ( = 166, 66.67%), and mental health claims ( = 146, 58.63%). Significantly more storefront retailers displayed physical health claims, (1, = 249) = 7.52, < .01, and health warnings than non-storefront retailers, (1, = 249) = 4.13, = .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.
本研究调查了加利福尼亚州的店面和非店面大麻零售商是否遵守在线年龄限制要求，以及网站营销做法是否存在差异。
随机选择了134家店面和115家非店面持牌零售商的网站。对零售商类型与网站营销、年龄限制方法以及在各个购买阶段的年龄限制情况进行了双变量关联测试。
在进入时设有年龄限制的200个（80.3%）网站中，182个（91%）采用了一种无效方法，即用户点击“是”或“否”来确认年龄。此外，49个（19.68%）网站在进入时没有年龄限制。在结账时要求出示照片身份证明的网站中（n = 100，40.16%），97%的网站允许用户上传无关图像后继续操作。与非店面零售商相比，显著更多的店面零售商在进入时采用了联合年龄限制、强制账户注册以及结账时的年龄限制，χ²(1, N = 249) = 7.69，p <.01。零售商网站经常展示“纯净”标签（n = 200，80.32%），其次是积极的州声明（n = 198，79.52%）、身体健康声明（n = 166，66.67%）和心理健康声明（n = 146，58.63%）。与非店面零售商相比，显著更多的店面零售商展示了身体健康声明，χ²(1, N = 249) = 7.52，p <.01，并且展示健康警告的店面零售商也更多，χ²(1, N = 249) = 4.13，p =.04。
大多数大麻零售商遵守年龄限制要求；然而，所采用的方法很容易被规避。青少年能够轻松且不受限制地访问大麻零售商网站可能会增加对大麻的积极态度并鼓励使用。
