Cannabis Retail Staff (“Budtenders”) Attitudes Towards Cannabis Effects on Health and Experiences Interacting with Consumers – Washington State, USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cannabis legalization in Washington State has increased the availability, consumption, and potency of cannabis products for adults. Public health education promoting safe use for adult consumers has lagged behind these trends. This study assesses the potential of cannabis retail workers (budtenders) to engage in responsible use education with adult consumers at point of sale. Focus groups explored how budtenders perceive their professional role, including educating consumers about cannabis over intoxication, storage, and risks of use before driving and during pregnancy. Transcripts were analyzed to develop a coding scheme, which was then applied with an iterative review by the research team. Budtenders identified three main professional roles: creating a good experience for customers; being compliant with the state law and regulations, and educating customers on products. Budtenders did not believe their job involved discussing use during pregnancy or while driving or safe storage. They prioritized customers' autonomy over education on these topics, and they did not necessarily consider these behaviors to be harmful. Budtenders are committed to keeping minors outside stores and educating consumers on how to avoid over intoxication and exposure to cannabis contaminants. Future research could build on this to develop point-of-sale education to reduce cannabis use risks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".