Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 369

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Variation in cannabis potency and prices in a newly legal market: evidence from 30 million cannabis sales in Washington state

Open access
Smart, Rosanna, Caulkins, Jonathan P., Kilmer, Beau, Davenport, Steven, Midgette, Greg·2017·Addiction

Abstract

Aims: To (1) assess trends and variation in the market share of product types and potency sold in a legal cannabis retail market and (2) estimate how potency and purchase quantity influence price variation for cannabis flower. Design: Secondary analysis of publicly available data from Washington State's cannabis traceability system spanning 7 July 2014 to 30 September 2016. Descriptive statistics and linear regressions assessed variation and trends in cannabis product variety and potency. Hedonic regressions estimated how purchase quantity and potency influence cannabis flower price variation. Setting: Washington State, USA. Participants: (1) A total of 44 482 176 million cannabis purchases, including (2) 31 052 123 cannabis flower purchases after trimming price and quantity outliers. Measurements: Primary outcome measures were (1) monthly expenditures on cannabis, total delta‐9‐tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration and cannabidiol (CBD) concentration by product type and (2) excise tax‐inclusive price per gram of cannabis flower. Key covariates for the hedonic price regressions included quantity purchased, THC and CBD. Findings: Traditional cannabis flowers still account for the majority of spending (66.6%), but the market share of extracts for inhalation increased by 145.8% between October 2014 and September 2016, now comprising 21.2% of sales. The average THC‐level for cannabis extracts is more than triple that for cannabis flowers (68.7% compared to 20.6%). For flower products, there is a statistically significant relationship between price per gram and both THC [coefficient = 0.012; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.011–0.013] and CBD (coefficient = 0.017; CI = 0.015–0.019). The estimated discount elasticity is −0.06 (CI = −0.07 to −0.05). Conclusions: In the state of Washington, USA, the legal cannabis market is currently dominated by high‐THC cannabis flower, and features growing expenditures on extracts. For cannabis flower, both THC and CBD are associated with higher per‐gram prices, and there are small but significant quantity discounts.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/add.13886

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 47 references

Cited by

See all 369

Metadata

Authors
Smart, R., Caulkins, J. P., Kilmer, B., Davenport, S., & Midgette, G.
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-07-04
Volume
112
Issue
12
Pages
2167-2177
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W2619558297
Cited by
369
References
47
FWCI
21.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Variation in cannabis potency and prices in a newly legal market: evidence from 30 million cannabis sales in Washington state. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/add.13886
The paper
Smart, R., Caulkins, J. P., Kilmer, B., Davenport, S., & Midgette, G. (2017). Variation in cannabis potency and prices in a newly legal market: evidence from 30 million cannabis sales in Washington state. Addiction. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13886

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.