You Shall Not Pass? The Design of Age Gates in an Emerging Cannabis Market

Madson, Michael J.

doi:10.1177/00472816221104497

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although age-gating has been used by other industries (e.g., alcohol), its effectiveness has been questioned by researchers (Barry et al, 2021;Madson, 2022;Williams et al, 2015;Williams & Ribisl, 2012). This should sound the alarm for regulators, policymakers, parents, and industry alike on the need to implement a more effective system to prevent minors from accessing online cannabis marketing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Age-Gating and Marketing Differences Between Storefront and Non-Storefront Cannabis Retailers

Rhee,

Pardon,

Silver

et al. 2024

Cannabis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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 (n = 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 (X2 (1, N = 249) = 7.69, p < .01). Retailer websites frequently displayed “clean” labels (n = 200, 80.32%), followed by positive state claims (n = 198, 79.52%), physical health claims (n = 166, 66.67%), and mental health claims (n = 146, 58.63%). Significantly more storefront retailers displayed physical health claims (X2 (1, N = 249) = 7.52, p < .01) and health warnings than non-storefront retailers (X2 (1, N = 249) = 4.13, p = .04). Conclusions: 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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cavazos-Rehg et al (2019) found that among randomly selected retailer websites across the U.S., 75% had no form of age-gating in 2016. In contrast, Madson (2022) found that 90% of retailer websites in Arizona, where age verification is required (Ariz. Rev. Stat.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%