Budtender Perceptions and Knowledge of Cannabis and Mental Health: A Preliminary Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Legal cannabis dispensary employees ("Budtenders") are a significant resource for cannabis users. Current research indicates that cannabis use may adversely impact mental health. Public perception, however, is often inconsistent with this evidence, leading to increased use and disproportionate harm towards individuals with mental health disorders. This underscores the need for a deeper understanding of how Budtenders may influence these perceptions. This preliminary cross-sectional survey assessed Budtender perceptions and knowledge of cannabis use and its implications for mental health. Method: = 46) from legal cannabis dispensaries (Ontario Cannabis Stores) across the Greater Toronto (Canada) Area to participate in a 15-minute online survey. The survey collected non-identifying demographic data and responses about perceptions, education and customer interactions surrounding cannabis and mental health. Results: = 46) of cannabis' influence on mental health vary significantly based on symptomatology assessed, and often diverge from evidence-based knowledge. Notably, 54.6% of Budtenders rated cannabis as having a beneficial effect across the outcomes assessed, with sleep and depression most frequently perceived as beneficial. Customers inquired about the mental health effects of cannabis at 21% of cannabis store visits. There was considerable variability in the sources from which Budtenders derived their knowledge. Conclusions: This study underscores significant gaps between Budtender perceptions and scientific evidence regarding cannabis use and mental health. Determining the impact of these perceptions is crucial for developing targeted, evidence-based educational interventions to mitigate the risks associated with recreational cannabis use.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".