Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Since the Government of Canada legalized non-medicinal cannabis use/consumption on October 17, 2018, licensed private cannabis retailers have faced numerous challenges. These challenges negatively impacted retail operations and potentially undermined public health and safety. We aimed to identify these challenges to inform policy decisions.

Methods

We conducted a quantitative news media content analysis using Nexis Uni and Eureka databases to identify articles from Canada's highest-circulating newspapers and CBC News website from 2017 to 2022, referencing at least one barrier to private cannabis retailers. We screened and extracted data using Covidence and deductively coded the data using our newly developed comprehensive cannabis retail framework and inductively as new themes emerged. The barriers identified in the media were quantified through descriptive analyses.

Results

The search yielded 9,371 articles, of which 307 relevant articles were included. The main findings revealed that the barriers most commonly reported by the media were related to government regulations, supply chain, and competitors. The salience of these barriers also changed over time. These barriers were most frequently mentioned in the Globe and Mail, Calgary Herald, Toronto Star, and the National Post.

Conclusion

Our framework was suitable for describing the data and identifying several media-portrayed barriers to private cannabis retail operations in Canada and how they differed in salience over time. However, a more in-depth understanding of the barriers from retailers’ perspectives may further support the government's policy agenda of achieving public health and safety. The results from this study may also serve as a baseline measure to evaluate Canada's cannabis retail market and provide new insights into the growing body of literature about the cannabis retail market.

Keywords

barriers cannabis retail market Canada news media content analysis

Background

In 2018, Canada introduced the Cannabis Act to protect public health and safety by controlling the adverse effects of cannabis use. Although there are recognized health risks linked to cannabis use, including physical and mental health concerns, as well as potential long-term effects such as adolescent brain development issues, psychiatric disorders, and cannabis dependency, the government has had to weigh these considerations with the challenges associated with unregulated use (Canadian Centre on Substance Use & Addition, 2019; Fischer et al., 2022; Hasin & Walsh, 2020). Research has shown that cannabis products from the unlicensed market may contain harmful substances, such as heavy metals and pesticides, which can lead to adverse health outcomes for consumers (Dryburgh et al., 2018; Eykelbosh, 2020). For instance, a 2021 study found a high prevalence of contaminants, including pesticides, bacteria, fungi, lead, and arsenic, in cannabis samples from the unlicensed market (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, 2021). Additionally, a report from the New York Medical Cannabis Industry Association found the presence of contaminants such as Escherichia coli, salmonella, and pesticides in cannabis products from the unlicensed market in New York, as well as misleading labels and youth-targeted branding (New York Medical Cannabis Industry Association, 2022). These findings underscore the importance of regulatory oversight to ensure product safety. As such, the Act aims to reduce cannabis consumption among youth, keep profits out of the pockets of criminals, and allow adults safe access to legal cannabis (D. of J. Government of Canada, 2021). The success of these goals relies on the ability of the federal, provincial, and territorial governments to effectively regulate the legal cannabis market and implement regulations that benefit all stakeholders involved in the production, distribution, sale, and possession of cannabis for non-medical purposes (D. of J. Government of Canada, 2021; Wesley & Murray, 2021). Under this legal framework, provinces and territories have the ability to set their own objectives, rules, and regulations, choosing a retail model that is state-run (characterized by government ownership, control, and operation), privately run (independently owned and managed), or hybrid (a mix of both state- and privately run models) (Table 1). Most provinces and territories (8 out of 13) have chosen models that involve some private retail, which makes up 85% of Canada's cannabis retailers and 65% of legal sales in 2019 (Government of Canada, 2019).

Table 1.

Provinces and Territories Cannabis Retail Model.

Government operated	Private	Hybrid
Quebec New Brunswick Nova Scotia Prince Edward Island Northwest Territories	Manitoba Nunavut Saskatchewan	Alberta British Columbia Newfoundland & Labrador Ontario Yukon

While the cannabis industry has faced numerous challenges, privately operated retailers’ challenges are primarily centered on the regulatory requirements for opening and operating a retail store and competition from the unlicensed market. Most, if not all, jurisdictions have experienced a shortfall in sales, which has been attributed to provincial and municipal regulations, unlicensed market competition, accessibility, and supply chain issues (B.C. Chamber of Commerce, 2020; CBC News, 2019; Financial Post, 2019). Some reports suggested that strict regulation was the main factor contributing to the challenges faced by private cannabis retailers (Brownell, 2019; CBC News, 2019; Deloitte, n.d.; Financial Post, 2019; MacDonald, 2019). These regulations included limitations on the number, type, and location of stores, set hours of operation, restrictions on marketing and promotional activities, and a cap on the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) permitted in certain cannabis product types (Health Canada, 2019; Ontario Public Health Association, 2021). Wesley and Murray (2021) described these regulations as a demarketing approach aiming to decrease legal sales demand and encourage responsible consumption. They suggested that this approach may temporarily improve public health, but in the long run, it may harm public safety and prevent government agencies from reaching their goals of eliminating the unlicensed market (Wesley & Murray, 2021). As the National Post reported, these “well-intentioned requirements are actually barriers to long-term success” (National Post, 2021a).

The Government of Canada's justification for tightly regulating the cannabis retail market was to reduce potential health risks for consumers (Canadian Centre on Substance Use & Addiction, 2020; Health Canada, 2016). High levels of THC can lead to adverse effects such as intoxication, anxiety, and psychosis (Canadian Centre on Substance Use & Addiction, 2020; Health Canada, 2018; Matheson & Le Foll, 2020). However, the desire for higher THC products, which were either unavailable or too costly from licensed stores, may have led some consumers away from the legal market, possibly undermining public health and safety (Kaplan, 2021). As highlighted by the Cannabis task force in 2016, excessive regulations might lead to the resurgence of the illegal market, while inadequate restrictions could pave the way for an uncontrolled and potentially harmful legal market (Health Canada, 2016). They argued that a competitive licensed market regarding price, product variety, consumer education, and safe and reasonable product access is necessary to displace the unlicensed market (Health Canada, 2016).

Access to safe cannabis products through a legally regulated market is critical for minimizing potential harm associated with cannabis use. To protect public health and eliminate the unlicensed market in Canada, it is crucial to find a balance between strict regulations and providing easy access to legal and regulated products (Myran et al., 2019). Publicly run cannabis stores can assist in this effort, but the high demand for cannabis products in Canada may exceed the capacity of publicly run stores to meet this demand. For example, a study examining social media tweets about the Ontario Cannabis Store found that Canadians expressed widespread dissatisfaction with the government-controlled retail model in Ontario. This discontent stemmed from delays in product delivery due to higher-than-expected demand, limited physical stores, and restrictive purchasing options, preventing consumers from accessing their preferred cannabis products (Aversa et al., 2021). Private operators may be an organizational and sector solution to mitigate the discontent. However, if private cannabis retailers are unsuccessful in addressing this overall discontent within the regulated industry, this could lead to a shortage of legal, regulated cannabis and a possible resurgence of the unlicensed market where the products are unregulated and could harm consumers (Docherty, 2019; Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health, 2018). Given these potential risks, understanding the barriers private retailers face when opening and operating a retail store within this new market is crucial. This understanding is important for safe consumption, minimizing potential health risks, and contributing to the overall success of a well-regulated cannabis market.

The limited scientific research on the cannabis retail market since legalization highlights the importance of other sources of information, such as media coverage. Abundant media coverage of various cannabis-related topics has significantly impacted public perception and policy decisions (CBC News, 2019; Financial Post, 2019; National Post, 2021a). This extensive media coverage can serve as a valuable tool for various stakeholders, including cannabis retailers by raising awareness of their concerns and bringing attention to the most important issues, potentially influencing government policy. Through a news media content analysis, we aim to identify the specific barriers private cannabis retailers faced in Canada. This study will contribute to the scholarly understanding of the regulated cannabis industry in Canada, media dynamics, and the challenges private retailers face. It may also provide insights for policy impact assessment and the development of successful business strategies.

Theoretical Underpinnings and Conceptual Framework

The media has an essential role in society where it has the power to shape how the public and policymakers perceive the causes and solutions to public issues by selectively presenting and framing information, thereby setting an agenda for public discussions (Cook et al., 1983; Nimegeer et al., 2019). Soroka (2002) described an agenda as the ordering of issues based on their salience or importance, while Cook et al. (1983) depicted agenda setting as the “process by which problems become salient as political issues meriting the attention of the polity” (p. 17). First-level agenda-setting theory posits that the media creates salience by the number of news stories devoted to a specific topic, thereby creating an agenda effect (Anantram, 2020). The agenda-setting effects may differ due to the diverse nature of issues, but news media seems to exert a very strong agenda-setting effect as they are often viewed as a trusted source of information among the public (Soroka, 2002). Therefore, “news media are a key component of agenda-setting effect” (Luo et al., 2019), where media content can influence public discourse, playing a crucial role in getting public officials or policymakers to respond to public issues.

How the media covers political issues, such as the cannabis retail market, plays a crucial role in shaping how people understand and interact with the market. Evidence from media studies shows that media messages are not neutral but reflect the interests and preferences of government and other powerful actors in society, which can be influenced by conservative or liberal ideologies, impacting public support or opposition (Grossman, 2022; Savigny & Temple, 2010). According to Grossman (2022), the media plays a crucial role in shaping the strategies of political and collective actors, guiding politicians in monitoring news for reactions, assisting opposition forces in shaping political conflicts, and enabling powerful actors, particularly governments, to exert substantial influence through gatekeeping mechanisms. However, since news media often decides which issues receive more attention and which ones are less highlighted, it often leads to diverse interpretations, influencing shifts in public opinions and policy directions (Aversa et al., 2023; Cook et al., 1983; Nimegeer et al., 2019). For instance, the way cannabis is depicted in Canadian news has changed. It has shifted from traditionally negative representations to a more balanced perspective, highlighting aspects such as the specifics of legalization while diminishing the emphasis on crime (Aversa et al., 2023). This shift has led to a significant rise in societal acceptance and endorsement of more progressive attitudes toward cannabis (Aversa et al., 2023).

Similarly, a 2019 study suggested that the public's attitude toward cannabis shifted in a positive direction when the media predominantly framed it as a medical issue, gradually altering the perception of its harmfulness overtime (Felson et al., 2019). Additionally, the increased media framing of cannabis as a medicinal substance in Denmark has created a shift in its cannabis policy from its historical portrayal of cannabis as an illicit substance to the implementation of a medical cannabis pilot program in 2018 (Søgaard et al., 2021). This change, influenced by media coverage, citizen testimonials, and political proposals, highlights the significant influence of framing in altering both public perception and governmental priorities regarding cannabis use in Denmark (Søgaard et al., 2021). These studies illustrate that the way cannabis is presented and discussed can significantly impact policy decisions. While public and policymakers’ perspectives may not consistently drive policy changes, the likelihood of such changes increases significantly when journalists and government officials collaborate (Cook et al., 1983).

This collaboration underscores the multifaceted factors influencing cannabis policy decisions, highlighting the need for a framework that aims to balance public health and safety with the success of retail operations to effectively evaluate the cannabis retail market. To address this gap, we developed a framework called the comprehensive cannabis retail framework (CCRF), integrating concepts from the Canadian Public Health Association's public health approach to legalization, regulation, and restriction of access to cannabis and the environmental theory, a classification of the theories of retail institutional change (Brown, 1987; Canadian Public Health Association, 2017). The Canadian public health approach to cannabis focuses on regulating the cannabis retail market to ensure safe access to cannabis products through interventions that promote and protect health, reduce harm, and prevent adverse effects (Canadian Public Health Association, 2017). These interventions include a strict regulatory framework of how cannabis can be sold, where stores may be located, how stores must be operated, and who can sell cannabis (D. of J. Government of Canada, 2021). The general consensus was that cannabis-related risks could be reduced by implementing strict regulations and managing these risks through the health system (Canadian Centre on Substance Use & Addition, 2020; Crépault, 2018; Potter & Weinstock, 2019). However, a public health approach prioritizes public health and safety over retailers’ profitability and ignores the factors influencing retailers’ success and sustainability (Brown, 1987).

On the other hand, the environmental theory of retail institutional change emphasizes the role of the retail environment in shaping retail changes and suggests that retail institutions, including cannabis retail operations, must adapt to various environmental factors to succeed (Brown, 1987; Ekwochi, 2020). That is, the environment in which a business operates is crucial to its success, and to survive change and competition, it must evolve by adapting or adjusting to environmental change (Brown, 1987; Ekwochi, 2020; Kent & Omar, 2003). The environmental theory of retail institutional change primarily focuses on factors in the macro- and micro-environments, such as economic, political, legal, social, demographic, cultural, and technological factors, as well as influences from competitors, suppliers and customers, labor markets, and financial institutions (Brown, 1987; Kent & Omar, 2003).

The retail market's success depends on adapting to these factors, which may also affect the ability of cannabis retail operations to be successful and may prevent the government from achieving its objectives of protecting public health and safety and displacing the unlicensed market. However, a limitation of the retail environmental theory of retail institutional change is that it does not consider decision-makers as a factor (Brown, 1991; Roth & Klein, 1993). It does not consider “what decisions are made and why” (Roth & Klein, 1993). Relating to the cannabis retail market, decision-makers (e.g., policymakers and retailers) are essential since they determine how stores’ outcomes change in the environment (Roth & Klein, 1993).

Consequently, it is necessary to develop a comprehensive cross-discipline conceptual framework, including concepts from the public health approach to cannabis and the environmental theory of retail institutional change. This framework helps categorize the barriers private cannabis retailers faced and facilitate the study's data analysis. It may provide a more nuanced, adaptable, and practical approach to understanding and addressing the multifaceted challenges associated with cannabis retail market, enabling effective policy decisions (Figure 1). The public health variables in the CCRF represent the government's policies, specifically the retail market regulations and law enforcement that were implemented to protect public health and safety. These policies affect the retail market since they were designed to help achieve Canada's legalization goals. The retail environmental factors listed in the CCRF describe the macro- and micro-environment and represent the success factors for the cannabis retail market (Figure 1). The combined public health and environmental variables and constructs in the framework may also be used as themes.

Figure 1.

Comprehensive Cannabis Retail Framework.

For this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of the CCRF by using the combined constructs and variables as a priori themes for the coding and analysis of the data we collected. While the CCRF is designed specifically for this study, it could also prove helpful in future cannabis studies and for assessing the impact of different governments’ cannabis policies on businesses. The formulation of the conceptual framework resulted in the identification of nine main categories, along with multiple sub-categories that make up the constructs and variables of the study. The constructs include government rules and regulations, legal factors, economic factors, demographic factors, technological factors, competitors, supply chain, socio-cultural factors, and consumers. Figure 1 displays the CCRF used in the study.

Methods

In this study, we utilized the CCRF as a tool to comprehensively and systematically document the media-portrayed barriers to private cannabis retailers (both prospective and licensed) in Canada and determine how the salience of these barriers changed over time. The CCRF provided a structured approach to understanding the complex relationships between various factors influencing the cannabis retail market. To identify these issues, we performed a quantitative news media content analysis involving a systematic and structured process of identifying specific words, themes, and concepts within a given text. This enabled us to accurately describe, quantify, and analyze the relevant texts and make meaningful inferences about the messages contained within them (Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, 2022). A summary of the methodology is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Methodology summary.

Figure 3.

Flowchart of the selection processes and output.

Data Selection and Search Strategy

We used Nexis Uni and Eureka databases to access articles published from January 2017 to March 2022 from popular Canadian news sources (Figure 2). We chose this timeframe to establish a baseline understanding of the challenges surrounding private cannabis retailers in the period preceding legalization, particularly since some prospective retailers were in the process of applying for retail licenses leading up to that time. Recognizing the editorial position of widely circulated newspapers in Canada, we selected a purposive sample reflective of diverse political views. These include two national newspapers, CBC News articles, and eight high-circulating newspapers from provinces and territories that operate under a private or hybrid cannabis retail model (Table 1). Understanding the different editorial perspectives helps us to account for political biases and gain a more thorough understanding of the multifaceted nature of the challenges faced by cannabis retailers. We determined the editorial positions of these newspapers using the most up-to-date information on the Media Bias/Fact Check News website (Media Bias/Fact Check News, 2023). These news sources were selected because they have high-circulation counts and provide local and national coverage (World Atlas, 2019). For example, the National Post and Globe and Mail newspapers are among the most popular newspapers in Canada and provide national coverage of over 400,000 daily circulations combined, while CBC News is rooted in every region of Canada, providing local and national news (CBC News, 2012; World Atlas, 2019). We excluded provinces that only use a public retail model because the challenges faced by these provinces differ from those that use a private or mixed retail model.

Articles were included if they referenced at least one barrier to private cannabis operations in Canada. Nexis Uni and Eureka databases are practical research tools for accessing news sources, indexed journal articles, and publications from scholars, professionals, and subject matter experts (University of Waterloo, 2022). Nexis Uni includes a comprehensive set of articles from a wide range of news sources during the time period examined. Since Nexis Uni did not cover Atlantic Canada and the territories, we used Eureka as a complement to identify barriers to private cannabis operations in those areas. Eureka database provides full-text access to thousands of news sources covering a wide range of topics, including those relevant to the cannabis retail market (University of Windsor, n.d.). These databases are easy to use, allowing us to conduct this research efficiently.

Screening Process

Citations underwent a two-level screening process using Covidence, “a systematic review production tool for title/abstract screening, full-text screening, data abstraction, and quality assessment” (University of North Carolina, 2022). Two reviewers (TWB and MB) first screened the titles of each article against the inclusion/exclusion criteria, followed by a full-text screening of the context of each article selected from the title screening. A third reviewer (JD) resolved articles found to be in conflict after the two initial reviewers completed the title screening.

Data Extraction and Analysis

We manually extracted descriptive characteristics (e.g., title, date, source, jurisdiction) and all relevant quotes coded using a deductive–inductive approach for each included article. Relevant concepts from the CCRF were used as a priori themes (constructs) and sub-themes (variables). Emerging ideas were coded using an inductive approach. The study used two coders to ensure validity and reliability. The primary reviewer (TWB) coded all the articles, while a second reviewer (JD) independently coded 11% (n = 34) of a random selection of the articles to determine inter-coder reliability (McHugh, 2012). The inter-rater agreement between the two coders was measured using Cohen's kappa (Cohen's κ) coefficient. Cohen's κ is used to determine whether the level of agreement between two raters is significantly higher than what would be expected by random chance alone (Cohen, 1960). As a general guide, Cohen's κ may be interpreted as values below or equal to 0.20, indicating little to no agreement, 0.21–0.40 as fair, 0.41–0.60 as moderate, 0.61–0.80 as substantial, and 0.81–1.00 as almost perfect agreement (Cohen, 1960). The inter-coder agreement between the two coders was 0.464, indicating a moderate agreement between the raters (Cohen, 1960).

This moderate Cohen's kappa agreement score can be attributed to the complexities in our coding procedures, where multiple people who collected the data may have interpreted the phenomena differently (McHugh, 2012). Given how we categorized our themes and sub-themes, such as assigning coding to predefined categories, it can introduce complexities to achieving a high level of agreement (Kirilenko & Stepchenkova, 2016). However, our finding indicates that the coders generally agreed on the identified themes, which is unlikely due to chance, thus serving as a reliable moderate agreement in this study (Cohen, 1960). We conducted a quantitative analysis, including a descriptive analysis of the manifest content or “surface meaning” of the text. The descriptive analysis of the themes shows the trends and frequencies of barriers that retailers reported facing in each province and territory between January 1, 2017 and March 26, 2022. We focused on the article as a unit of analysis rather than the number of times a barrier was mentioned. Some articles included multiple barriers that were categorized under different themes, which may indicate different levels of significance, but the specific impact and relevance of these barriers are beyond the scope of the current study. Our analysis quantifies the themes by year, provinces and territories, and news media. We present the results of key domains in frequencies and percentages.

Results

We identified 9,371 articles, of which 307 relevant articles were included after removing duplicates and applying inclusion criteria (Figure 3).

Figure 4.

Distribution of retailers’ barriers by news media sources.

Findings From the Descriptive Analysis

Twenty-five percent of the articles came from the Globe and Mail, 22% from the Calgary Herald, and 15% from the Toronto Star, as shown in Table 2. Additionally, 75% of the articles were published in 2018 and 2019, while 22% were published in 2020 and 2021, per Table 3. Editorially, six of the media sources we examined were considered Conservative (Right-Leaning), including the Globe and Mail and the National Post, while CBC News and Toronto Star were the only two sources that were considered Liberal (Left-Leaning). Winnipeg Free Press was the only source that provided balanced viewpoints when reporting (Centrist). The political orientation of Yukon News and Nunavut News was unknown.

Table 2.

Description of the Sample.

Source	Coverage	Editorial position	No. of articles	% of news articles
Globe and Mail	National	Conservative/Right	77	25
The Calgary Herald	Alberta	Conservative/Right	67	22
Toronto Star	Ontario	Liberal/Left	47	15
National Post	National	Conservative/Right	30	10
Vancouver Sun	British Columbia	Conservative/Right	27	9
The Leader-Post	Saskatchewan	Conservative/Right	20	7
CBC News	National	Liberal/Liberal	16	5
The Telegram	Newfoundland and Labrador	Conservative/Right	10	3
Winnipeg Free Press	Manitoba	Centrist	9	3
Yukon News	Yukon	Unknown	2	1
Nunavut News	Nunavut	Unknown	2	1
Total			307	100

Table 3.

Description of the Sample by Year.

No. of percentages of articles by year
2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	Total
4	112	119	37	32	3	307
1%	36%	39%	12%	10%	1%	100%

Summary of Themes and Barriers Identified in the News

Using the CCRF, we identified six major themes and 12 sub-themes that we looked for while coding. The framework provides a logical structure for organizing and interpreting the data and captures some of the retailers’ challenges discussed in the media. The study also identified three emerging themes, one major theme (Real Estate), and two sub-themes: excessive regulations and lease and rental. The vast majority of the media-portrayed barriers mentioned were those related to government rules and regulations (80%), supply chain (34%), and competitors (19%) (Table 4).

Table 4.

Summary of Retailers’ Barriers Mentioned in the News.

Themes and subthemes	n = 307 (%)	Barriers
Government rules and regulations	246 (80%)
Retail licensing	83 (34%)	Moratorium and capping of retail licenses (n = 35) Retail licensing process (n = 27) Lack of specific regulations for Indigenous communities (n = 11) Retail licensing rules (n = 10)
Retail location	52 (21%)	Limited availability of authorized retail stores (n = 19) Municipality/community opting out of (or delaying) having retail stores (n = 23) Proximity to school, daycare, hospital, other retail stores restrictions (n = 6). Zoning regulations (n = 4)
Excessive regulations	52 (21%)	Restrictive policies and requirements in getting started and operating a retail store (e.g., consumption space prohibition, online sales and delivery ban, store security and financial requirements, product restriction) (n = 52)
Promotion, marketing and advertising	26 (11%)	Promotion, marketing and advertising restrictions (n = 21) Product concealment requirements (n = 5)
Taxation	13 (5%)	High excise, vape, and provincial sales tax (n = 11) Lack of municipal incentives for retail stores facilitation (e.g., no business tax) ( n = 1) Provincial wholesale levy (n = 1)
Product quality	10 (4%)	Perceived Inferior quality of legal products ( n = 10)
Packaging and labeling	10 (4%)	Excessive packaging (n = 6) Packaging restrictions (n = 2) Lack of automation in affixing excise stamps (n = 2)
Supply chain	105 (34%)
Logistics and inventory management	85 (81%)	Inadequate/oversupply of cannabis products (n = 67) Logistical issues, including delays in delivery, shipping, and distribution (n = 10) Shipping, curbside pick-up, and delivery issues due to COVID-19 (n = 6) Delays in excise stamps (n = 2)
Private/public authorized producers	20 (19%)	Health Canada regulations (n = 8) Limited producers (n = 6) Provincial wholesale monopoly, e.g., lack of product diversity/availability (n = 4) Difficulty to sell brands resulting in unsold inventory (n = 2)
Competitors	59 (19%)
Unlicensed market	51 (86%)	Limited access to legal products/markets (n = 9) Consumer loyalty to the unlicensed market (n = 8) Difficulty transitioning to the legal market (n = 8) Inadequate law enforcement (n = 8) Lack of convenience in the legal market (e.g., online sales/delivery) (n = 6) Lack of product variety/differentiation (n = 5) Established unlicensed market (n = 4) Slow roll-out of legal stores (n = 3)
Other licensed stores	8 (14%)	Oversaturation of retail stores in specified locations (n = 7) Competition for authorized retail space (n = 1)
Economic factors	41 (13%)
Retail price	29 (71%)	Non-competitive prices (n = 24) Consumer price sensitivity (n = 2) Pricing restrictions (n = 3)
Banking and finance	12 (29%)	Ability to raise capital for start-up costs (n = 7) Ability to access financial services (n = 5)
Consumer	6 (2%)
Consumer preference	6 (100%)	Consumer demand for high THC products (n = 7)
Real estate	7 (2%)
Lease and rental	7 (100)	Property owners’ refusal of retail cannabis stores (n = 5) Finding the right location (n = 1) Inflated rental costs (n = 1)

Barriers by News Media Coverage

The top three newspapers that mentioned barriers to retailers were the Globe and Mail (46%), Calgary Herald (32%), and the Toronto Star (27%) (Figure 4).

Barriers by Editorial Position

The analysis reveals significant disparities in the perceived challenges faced by retailers according to newspapers’ editorial position. Conservative media consistently reported higher instances of perceived barriers across all major themes, accounting for approximately 75%. In contrast, sources aligned with the liberal views account for 21% of the reported barriers and are predominantly centered on government rules and regulations, supply chain, competitors, and economic factors. Centrist accounts for fewer reported barriers, mostly related to government rules and regulations and competitors (Figure 5) .

Barriers by Province and Territory

The data indicate that a significant portion of the reported barriers discussed in the news were linked to private cannabis retailers in Ontario and Alberta, accounting for 52% of the overall total. In contrast, Nunavut, Yukon, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Manitoba only accounted for 4% of the barriers mentioned. Approximately 24% of the barriers were reported as having a national scope. The results also reveal that the barriers faced by private retailers vary by province and territory. For example, issues related to government rules and regulations were more commonly reported in Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta, while competitors were a concern for retailers in all provinces and territories, except for Newfoundland and Labrador, and Yukon. In Newfoundland and Labrador, issues related to supply chain and government rules and regulations were reported an equal number of times, while Yukon's media-reported barriers were solely related to government rules and regulations (Figure 6).

Figure 5.

Distribution of retailers’ barriers by editorial positions.

Barriers by Stakeholders

The analysis of retailers’ barriers by stakeholders reveals diverse perceptions among different groups. Licensed and prospective retailers reported the highest percentage of barriers (57%) across major themes, while other industry players and community representatives reported the least (1% and 3%, respectively). Subject experts, including professors and researchers, reported the second-highest percentage of barriers (18%), followed by media and government representatives (11% and 10%, respectively). Despite varying reporting across stakeholders, barriers related to government rules and regulations and the supply chain remain consistent, except for community representatives who reported no supply chain-related barriers. All stakeholders reported competitor-related barriers except for other industry players, who reported none, while barriers related to consumers were only reported by licensed and prospective licensed retailers (Figure 7).

Barriers by Year

Over time, there was a shift in the media-portrayed barriers identified. In 2018 and 2019, barriers related to government rules and regulations and supply chain were more salient in the media. The barriers related to economic factors and competition were consistently mentioned every year following legalization, while consumer preference and barriers related to real estate were less prominent (Figure 8).

Figure 6.

Distribution of retailers’ barriers by provinces and territories.

Figure 7.

Distribution of retailers’ barriers by stakeholders.

Figure 8.

Comparison of barriers to cannabis retailers by year.

Discussion

Using the CCRF, we identified and described six significant themes from national and provincial news media sources from 2017 to 2022 and illustrated how the salience of these themes varied over time. Our study found that all six themes exhibited various degrees of salience at different times. However, barriers related to government rules and regulations, supply chain, and competitors were most prominent in the news articles we identified.

Government Rules and Regulations

Government rules and regulations emerge as an important theme, accounting for 80% of the media-portrayed barriers identified in our study. Among these, the majority (56%) were discussed by licensed and prospective retailers, primarily in conservative media outlets, with the highest media coverage occurring between 2018 and 2019. Specifically, the most salient issues associated with this theme were those related to retail licensing, retail location, excessive regulations, promotion, marketing, and advertising. These results suggest that retailers are affected by the tightly regulated market and support previous studies that indicate that strict rules hamper cannabis retailing (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 2022; Wesley & Murray, 2021). Consistent with the narratives in the articles we identified, a possible explanation is that in the early days of legalization, several provinces experienced a plethora of policy hiccups, including a slow retail licensing process, the capping and moratorium of licenses, and the refusal of municipalities and residents to have retail outlets in communities (Calgary Herald, 2019; Globe and Mail, 2019; The Toronto Star, 2018b; Vancouver Sun, 2019). For example, in 2018, Alberta imposed restrictions on retail licenses in response to supply difficulties and, in 2019, rejected several retail applications that were in close proximity to another store, school, daycare, or healthcare facility (Calgary Herald, 2018; The Calgary Herald, 2019). In contrast, Ontario implemented a lottery system, limiting the number of licenses available to retailers, and several municipalities delayed or opted out entirely of having a retail location (The Toronto Star, 2018a, 2019c; Vancouver Sun, 2018). Subsequently, both provinces lifted the restrictions on the number of retail stores, resulting in a surge of new retail stores, with Ontario seeing a two-fold increase in the number of retail stores per capita within 6 months of removing these limitations (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 2022; Edmonton Journal, 2022; Myran et al., 2022). These policy decisions may have resulted in a shift from an initial scarcity of cannabis stores to an oversaturation in some provinces, specifically Ontario, which changed from its initially planned, more restrictive public model to a hybrid one. This regulatory shift delayed the opening of private retail stores, resulting in insufficient stores (Government of Canada, 2019), and now the province has seen an oversaturation of retail outlets in some areas (The Toronto Observer, 2022).

Oversaturation hurts legal retailers, particularly small retailers (“mom and pop”), possibly threatening their survival (National Post, 2021b; The Globe and Mail, 2021; The Toronto Star, 2021). Regarding public health and safety, there is debate in the literature about the influence of the number of retail locations. For example, Armstrong argues that capping retail locations may pose serious public health and safety concerns, as limiting access to safe products may encourage consumers to purchase from the unlicensed market, leading to possibly more crime and health problems (Armstrong, 2021). However, a recent study found that the prevalence of cannabis use and customer harm increased as retail outlet concentrations increased (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 2022). Another study indicated that oversaturation increased consumption, potentially heightening public health and safety risks (Barrass & Jesseman, 2021). The complex interplay between retail density, consumption, and public health necessitates further research to comprehensively understand the implications of oversaturation in affected areas.

Another issue facing retailers is the restriction on promotion, marketing, and advertising. The Cannabis Act stipulates that promoting cannabis, cannabis accessories, or any related services, including sharing information about the price or distribution of cannabis in a way that could attract young people, is prohibited. This policy was in an effort to protect public health and not promote cannabis consumption as desirable, keeping in line with tobacco regulations. According to one Canadian study, fully branded cannabis products were considered more enticing to consumers, particularly youths, than those with plain packaging or merely a brand logo (Goodman et al., 2019). Making cannabis use more visible to the public could promote consumption (Barrass & Jesseman, 2021). At the same time, other literature argues that overly restrictive marketing and packaging rules prevent companies from developing a distinct brand, resulting in a more complex and costly environment for companies and consumers (Canadian Chamber of Commerce, 2019; Foster et al., 2021). Although these restrictions may help reduce harm, they make it difficult for retailers to build brand loyalty and for consumers to differentiate legal from illegal products (Ontario Cannabis Store, 2022). Tightening these restrictions is crucial to reducing youth's exposure, access, and attraction to specific products (Barrass & Jesseman, 2021; Goodman et al., 2019). However, relaxing restrictions on licensed retailers may allow them to build a stronger relationship with their customers and create a distinct brand that can compete with the unlicensed market. This can help the government achieve its goal of displacing the unlicensed market while promoting safe and responsible cannabis consumption.

Supply Chain

The second most significant theme was supply chain, consisting of logistics and inventory management and provincial and territorial authorized producers. Per our analysis, 81% of the media-reported barriers associated with supply chain are those related to logistics and inventory management, specifically, inadequate or oversupply of products and delays in delivery, shipping, and distribution. Our findings indicated that conservative leaning newspapers predominantly highlighted these issues, including viewpoints from various stakeholders such as licensed and prospective retailers (56%), subject experts (14%), and government officials and media representatives (13% respectively). However, our analysis has also shown that these issues were more salient in the news in the first 2 years of legalization than in subsequent years, suggesting that the shortages in several provinces during that time may be responsible (The Globe and Mail, 2019; The Leader-Post, 2018; The Toronto Star, 2019b; The Vancouver Sun, 2018). During this period, producers reported having several regulatory challenges, including Health Canada's rigorous and slow process of issuing the various licenses to operate and for approving certain products, as well as delivery and distribution issues (Calgary Herald, 2020; Globe and Mail, 2018; National Post, 2018; Toronto Star, 2019). These findings align with an earlier study that examined several tweets and discovered that Twitter users attributed cannabis shortages to stringent legislation restricting the number of producers and growers permitted in Canada (Aversa et al., 2021). Previous studies also confirm that producers could not ship products because excise stamps were unavailable or difficult to apply to products (Canadian Chamber of Commerce, n.d.; Foster et al., 2021; National Post, 2018). As Foster et al. (2021) claim, the excise stamp process is ineffective and places financial and administrative burdens on producers.

As a consequence of these supply challenges, retailers faced product shortages related to delivery, shipping, and distribution delays, resulting in some stores’ temporary and permanent closures or reduced hours of operation (The Telegram, 2018; The Toronto Star, 2019a; Vancouver Sun, 2018). Interestingly, our study found that the oversupply of products may have replaced these earlier challenges, creating new ones. According to more recent reports, the problem was due to an imbalance between supply and demand, leading to product overproduction (Business of Cannabis, 2021; The Toronto Star, 2022). In response, some retailers have been selling cannabis at discounted prices to remain competitive and profitable, which is unsustainable in the long run (Globe and Mail, 2022). While lower prices can attract customers and prompt them to switch from unlicensed to licensed markets, they can also have negative effects on the profits of certain retailers (Davidson and Company LLP, 2022; The Toronto Star, 2022). In particular, if retailers experience prolonged periods of negative profit margins, they may face the risk of losing their retail licenses and be required to decrease the value of their goodwill (i.e., their reputation, customer base, or brand recognition) on their financial statements (Davidson and Company LLP, 2022). Ongoing monitoring of these supply chain dynamics is required to ensure a sustainable and balanced retail market.

Competitors

Another key finding from our research is the issue of competitors. The oversaturation of retail stores in some places has created greater competition among licensed retailers, negatively impacting some of them. Meanwhile, competition from the unlicensed market has been more prevalent in the news since legalization. Our findings revealed that discussions on issues relating to competitors were mostly featured in conservative newspapers with retailers and prospective retailers contributing to 53% of the discourse, followed by subject experts at 25%. Our investigation identifies several reasons why the unlicensed market was a concern for retailers. The top salient issues were limited access to licensed products, consumer loyalty to the unlicensed market, inadequate law enforcement, and difficulty transitioning to the licensed market. Our results come as no surprise, as the unlicensed market continues to make up about 35% of consumer purchases in the first quarter of 2022, even though there has been significant progress since cannabis was legalized in 2018 (Statistics Canada, 2022). In 2018, approximately 51% of users stated that they had obtained cannabis from an illegal source, and a year later, 42% of consumers still favored the unlicensed market (Public Safety Canada, 2020; Statistics Canada, 2021). Other research has also found that store location, convenience, price, and quality of cannabis can influence whether people turn to unlicensed retailers for their cannabis purchases (Deloitte, 2021; Goodman et al., 2022). According to a previous report, in 2020, only 40% of consumers in British Columbia purchased cannabis legally due to a lack of retail outlets, a limited selection of products, and higher prices (Public Safety Canada, 2020).

Previous studies further suggest that price has been a significant driver in the continued success of the unlicensed market. For example, a recent study examining factors that affect consumer cannabis purchases found that the high cost of legal products was a significant concern for participants, especially for more experienced and frequent users (Donnan et al., 2022). Statistics Canada found that in the fourth quarter of 2019 in Canada, legal cannabis was sold at CAD 10.30 per g, which was 55% more expensive than illegal cannabis, which was being sold at CAD 5.73 per g (Statistics Canada, 2020). Furthermore, a Deloitte report indicates that 76% of consumers bought from the unlicensed market because of lower prices (Deloitte, 2021). These studies support our findings that the price disparity between the licensed and unlicensed markets is a major challenge for retailers. Although recently, due to oversaturation, many stores have lowered their prices to stay competitive and have narrowed the price gap, pricing remains a key advantage for the unlicensed market (Deloitte, 2021; Long, 2022).

However, as the sector grows, with lower pricing and more retail locations, consumers are now less devoted to the unlicensed market and are more inclined to move to the legal market (Goodman et al., 2022). Also, the COVID-19 pandemic has created a new window of opportunity. Some provinces have revised or are revising their cannabis laws and regulations to allow for private online sales and delivery by licensed retailers, which has already been established for public retailers in various locations (AGLC, n.d.; Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, 2022; The Calgary Herald, 2020). For example, Ontario recently allowed private retailers to deliver cannabis products through Uber Eats, an online food ordering and delivery platform (Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, 2022; Sabaghi, 2022). Similar initiatives may enhance the ability of private licensed retailers to better compete with the unlicensed market in Canada.

Overall, our findings demonstrate that there are variations in the representation of media coverage of these barriers across different provinces and territories, stakeholders, and editorial stance. The majority of the barriers discussed in the news were from retailers’ perspectives. Such findings provide an understanding of retailers’ firsthand experiences of the operational challenges in the industry and suggest that they play an active role in shaping the narrative surrounding their issues in the public and the media. Our study also found that most barriers were reported in Ontario and Alberta and very few in Newfoundland and Labrador, Manitoba, Yukon, and Nunavut. While not surprising, the low media coverage in these provinces may be due to a lack of interest from media outlets, limited resources, political considerations, or other local concerns taking priority. For example, the Globe and Mail and Calgary Herald, known for their conservative stance, highlighted the highest reported barriers, possibly influencing the prevalence of reported barriers in Alberta and Ontario, suggesting potential political bias in their coverage against the ruling party. In contrast, Manitoba is considered a centrist and often have a balanced perspectives when reporting, which may explain the lower frequency of reported barriers in that province. However, the low media coverage in these regions means that these findings may not be generalized across Canada. As such, future research may be needed in these jurisdictions to determine the retailers’ actual barriers.

Additionally, media coverage of these barriers varied over time, suggesting that various issues produce different agenda-setting outcomes (Soroka, 2002). More specifically, news coverage associated with the themes identified in our study went through a period of increase and decrease in salience since legalization. The possible rationale for this wax and wane in media attention may be driven by certain dramatic cannabis events happening at a particular time. We think this is due to changes in the nature of barriers facing retailers, perhaps due to changes in government policy. The basis of this assumption is that the enthusiasm for the formation of a new policy framework, such as the cannabis industry, is correlated with an increase in media attention, explaining why 75% of the articles we explored were between 2018 and 2019 (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993). For example, some issues associated with government rules and regulations may be linked to the policy roll-out of the nascent market, creating heightened media concerns with the implementation of specific policies and regulations governing the cannabis industry. However, as our results indicated, some of these issues decline in salience over time. This suggests that they may have been solved or are considered old news and therefore do not warrant the media's attention. As McCombs (2005) concludes, agenda-setting effects are substantially smaller when exposure is low, and the lack of coverage may imply the problem has been fixed.

Nevertheless, it could also be due to the media's own agenda or other external factors. If that is the case, the variation in media coverage may itself be a factor influencing policy changes by affecting how policymakers prioritize addressing these barriers. Issues that receive more media coverage are more likely to be considered important and potentially influence policy change (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993; Guo et al., 2012). Identifying these barriers is an important step in the policy change process. Our analysis supports the need for retailers’ most significant barriers to be addressed in order to protect public health and safety and displace the unlicensed market. These issues warrant the attention of policymakers and emphasize the significance of tapping into the direct experiences of industry players to better understand the opportunities and challenges of the cannabis retail market in Canada.

Limitations and Future Directions of the Study

Quantitative content analysis collects and analyzes data, identifying trends, patterns, and relationships within a dataset. As a result, this method of analysis may be subject to interpretation bias as we may have missed essential contexts or nuances that cannot be easily quantified. One approach to mitigate this concern is combining it with other research methods, such as surveys, discourse analysis, and interviews, to provide a more comprehensive analysis (McCombs & Shaw, 1972; Metag, 2016; Xu, 2020). However, we are confident in the results of our study due to our thorough, systematic approach, which enhances the validity and reliability of the results.

The generalizability of this study is limited due to two sources of selection bias. First, only articles that mentioned at least one barrier in the title were included in full-text screening, which may have resulted in excluding articles discussing barriers not mentioned in the title. Second, the articles’ selection criteria resulted in an overrepresentation of results from certain provinces and underrepresentation in others. Future research should directly examine newspapers from distinct provinces and territories instead of solely depending on databases. Moreover, our study showed that most of our selected news sources have political predispositions that could have influenced the collected data. Although we have attempted to minimize this bias by incorporating news media sources from various political perspectives, we found that most media outlets were Conservative.

Another limitation of our study is related to our novel conceptual framework (CCRF). While our framework was instrumental in identifying and analyzing the barriers to private cannabis retailers, we were not able to test it empirically as not all themes were applicable to this study. The framework should be empirically tested in a more diverse context to enhance its robustness and applicability, thereby mitigating the current limitation and offering a more validated foundation for future research in this domain.

Concerning future research directions, this study is part 1 of a two-part study, which identified the barriers to private cannabis retailers that are discussed in the news. Part 2 of this study will explore the news media narratives to gain a better understanding of how news media framed these barriers. It aims to offer insights into private retailers’ experiences and potential policy implications.

Conclusion

Our research represents a rigorous analysis of the media-portrayed barriers private licensed and potential cannabis retailers face in Canada. To our knowledge, this study is the first to provide a descriptive analysis of the barriers to private cannabis retail operations in Canada through a news media content analysis. Utilizing our conceptual framework, we identified several salient barriers to private cannabis retailers, including those related to government regulations, supply chain, and competitors, and have underscored the importance of addressing these barriers to protect public health and safety and displace the unlicensed market. Our findings have significant implications for policymakers, offering insights into the cannabis retail market and serving as a valuable resource for future researchers. This study may also guide governments in effectively deregulating or decriminalizing other controlled substances while minimizing these barriers.

In light of these findings, policymakers may want to consider implementing stricter controls over the concentration of retail stores in oversaturated areas. This could involve imposing licensing moratoriums or passing additional legislation to ensure a more balanced distribution of retail stores (Maynard, 2021).

Furthermore, federal and provincial/territorial governments may consider revising some promotional restrictions to enable licensed retailers to provide accurate product information, educate consumers on safe cannabis use, and help consumers differentiate legal products from illegal ones (Ontario Cannabis Store, 2022). Such measures could aid in achieving harm reduction goals and fostering brand loyalty among consumers.

Additionally, small cannabis retailers across provinces may consider forming co-operatives to address supply and demand imbalances. This collaborative effort may improve competitiveness through pooled resources, improving product sourcing and pricing (Co-operatives First, 2022).

However, to have a more significant impact on the policy agenda, further research is required in this field, using qualitative research methods that are interpretive, evaluative, and designed to understand retailers’ perspectives. Specifically, a direct exploration of retailers’ experiences is needed, as is an examination of the factors that enable the cannabis retail market to set the agenda for policy change and refinement.

Finally, as we did not assess whether these barriers influence policy decisions, further research is needed to determine whether federal, provincial, and territorial governments respond to the varying levels of media attention on retailers’ barriers and their potential effect on the study population. Additionally, since cannabis producers play a significant role in the cannabis retail market and can affect private cannabis retailers directly and indirectly, future studies should be conducted to examine the barriers faced by cannabis producers to fully understand the cannabis retail market in Canada.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

A special thank you to Sandy Brennan, Web Content Manager at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, for her valuable feedback on a draft of this paper.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We declare that this manuscript is original, has not been published before, and is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. There are no known conflicts of interest associated with publication. However, this research has received joint funding from the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The award file number for the funding is 20200938.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Canadian Institute of Health Research/Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA) (grant number 20200938).

Consent for Publication

We declare that this manuscript is original, has not been published before, and is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.

ORCID iDs

Tanisha Wright-Brown

Lisa Bishop

Jennifer Donnan

Author Biographies

Tanisha Wright-Brown is a PhD candidate at the Memorial University School of Pharmacy, whose main research interest centers on the cannabis retail market in Canada. Her work investigates the barriers and facilitators to operating a retail cannabis outlet in Canada and whether the government's cannabis policy goals are being met. In 2020, she completed MSc in Medicine (applied health services research) with a research focus on natural disaster resilience and empowerment. She also holds a BSc in business management and has over 16 years of combined professional experience in policy, research, finance, and logistics.

Michael Blackwood is an MSc student in pharmacy at Memorial University, and part of the Cannabis Health Evaluation and Research Partnership (CHERP) team. He completed a Bachelor of Basic Medical Sciences with a major in pharmacology from The University of the West Indies and a certificate in retail pharmacy assistant from Sheridan College. His research interest is in cannabis policy evaluation, with a present research focus on the impact of non-medical cannabis legalization on risk perception in Atlantic Canada. Other research areas include cannabis and driving, and barriers to operating cannabis retail outlets in Canada.

Thomas Cooper is a professor in strategic management at the Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador as well as being an advisor/consultant to the private, public, and not-for-profit sectors. His research, advisory, and teaching interests include risk management and strategic planning.

Elizabeth Schwartz studies municipal politics and public policy, with particular emphasis on local environmental and climate change policy. Her current research projects examine rural transportation policy and municipal climate change policy in Canada.

William Newell received an MSc in international retail marketing from the University of Surrey, and a PhD in management from Aarhus University. He is currently an assistant professor with the business program at the Grenfell Campus, Memorial University. His research interests lie in how businesses collaborate to shape new markets.

Lisa Bishop is a pharmacist and associate professor with the School of Pharmacy and clinical assistant professor with the Discipline of Family Medicine at the Memorial University of Newfoundland. Her research interests are in the areas of mental health, substance use, opioid stewardship, and cannabis health and safety. She is currently co-leading a cannabis policy evaluation project for Newfoundland and Labrador and has a particular interest in protecting youth health and safety by improving their cannabis health literacy.

Maisam Najafizada is an assistant professor of public/population health and health policy in the Community Health and Humanities Division, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland. His research interests are health policy, primary health care programs, health systems strengthening, systems thinking, and knowledge translation.

Jennifer Donnan is a pharmacist and assistant professor with the School of Pharmacy at the Memorial University of Newfoundland. Her research focuses on improving cannabis policy to optimize public health and safety. Some of her research involves examining cannabis purchase behaviors and choices, improving access to support for medical cannabis consumers, and improving youth cannabis health literacy through harm reduction education strategies.

References

AGLC (n.d.). Online legal cannabis in Alberta. AGLC. Retrieved March 31, 2023, from https://aglc.ca/cannabis/online-legal-cannabis-alberta

Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (2022). Information bulletin—supporting cannabis retailers: Curbside pick-up and delivery to become permanent on March 15. Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario. https://www.agco.ca/bulletin/2022/information-bulletin-supporting-cannabis-retailers-curbside-pick-and-delivery-become

Anantram

(2020). Media salience as a key advocacy strategy: Concept and measurement. 4.

Armstrong

M. J.

(2021). Cannabis store openings in Canada only slightly affected the number of users. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/cannabis-store-openings-in-canada-only-slightly-affected-the-number-of-users-169055

Aversa

Cleave

Jacobson

Hernandez

Dizonno

Macdonald

(2023). Rollin’ papers: Newspaper coverage of cannabis legalization in Canada. Newspaper Research Journal, 44(2), 154–173. https://doi/full/10.1177/07395329231157765

Aversa

Jacobson

Hernandez

Cleave

Macdonald

Dizonno

(2021). The social media response to the rollout of legalized cannabis retail in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 61, 102580, ISSN 0969-6989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102580 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969698921001466).

Barrass

Jesseman

(2021). On-premise cannabis use: Public health and safety considerations. 6.

Baumgartner

F. R.

Jones

B. D.

(1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. University of Chicago Press.

B.C. Chamber of Commerce (2020). Enabling BC cannabis economy. https://bcchamber.org/policy/enabling-bcs-cannabis-economy/

10.

Brown

(1987). Institutional change in retailing: A geographical interpretation. Progress in Human Geography, 11(2), 181–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913258701100202

11.

Brown

(1991). The wheel of retailing: Still Rollin’ after all these years. In Proceedings of the conference on historical analysis and research in marketing (Vol. 5, pp. 179–198).

12.

Brownell

(2019, September 19). Puff Luck: Provincial pot websites have hugely uneven supply and selection. Macleans.Ca. https://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/provincial-pot-websites-supply-analysis/

13.

Business of Cannabis (2021, April 27). How to analyze the cannabis oversupply in Canada. Business of Cannabis. https://businessofcannabis.com/2021/04/26/how-to-analyze-the-cannabis-oversupply-in-canada/

14.

Calgary Herald (2018). Supply constraints could mean no more cannabis stores licences for up to 18 months: AGLC. In The Calgary Herald (Alberta). NexisUni.

15.

Calgary Herald (2019). Even if licence moratorium was lifted, few new cannabis stores are ready to open: AGLC. In The Calgary Herald (Alberta). NexisUni.

16.

The Calgary Herald (2019). More than 200 cannabis stores approved in Calgary; city says market’s the limit. In The Calgary Herald (Alberta). NexisUni.

17.

Calgary Herald (2020). “To be expected”: Patience urged over limited supply of cannabis edibles. In The Calgary Herald (Alberta). NexisUni.

18.

The Calgary Herald (2020). AGLC is ready to take its chances with its new online gaming portal. In The Calgary Herald (Alberta). NexisUni.

19.

Canadian Centre on Substance Use & Addition (2019). Clearing the smoke on cannabis: Regular use and mental health. https://www.ccsa.ca/sites/default/files/2019-05/CCSA-Cannabis-Use-Mental-Health-Report-2019-en.pdf

20.

Canadian Centre on Substance Use & Addition (2020). Cannabis (Canadian drug summary). Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction. https://www.ccsa.ca/cannabis-canadian-drug-summary

21.

Canadian Chamber of Commerce (2019). 190220-SubmissionToHealthCanadaOnCannabisEdiblesDerivativesTopicals.pdf. https://chamber.ca/wp-content/uploads/publications/documents/Chamber&per;20French&per;20Site/190220-SubmissionToHealthCanadaOnCannabisEdiblesDerivativesTopicals.pdf

22.

Canadian Chamber of Commerce (n.d.). Addressing regulatory barriers affecting the cannabis industry.

23.

Canadian Public Health Association (2017). A public health approach to the legalization, regulation and restriction of access to cannabis. https://www.cpha.ca/public-health-approach-legalization-regulation-and-restriction-access-cannabis

24.

CBC News (2012, January 31). About CBC News. CBC News. CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/about-cbc-news-1.1294364

25.

CBC News (2019, August 29). Cannabis black market takes $1.2 M hit as NLC drug unit begins. CBC News. CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/nlc-bust-drug-enforcement-unit-1.5264409

26.

Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (2022). Regulating the legal cannabis market: How is Canada doing? 16.

27.

Cohen

(1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104

28.

Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health (2022). Content analysis method and examples. Columbia Public Health. https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/content-analysis

29.

Cook

F. L.

Tyler

T. R.

Goetz

E. G.

Gordon

M. T.

Protess

Leff

D. R.

Molotch

H. L.

(1983). Media and agenda setting: Effects on the public, interest group leaders, policy makers, and policy. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 16–35. https://doi.org/10.1086/268764

30.

Co-operatives First (2022). The weed pool. Co-Operatives First. https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/client_stories/the-weed-pool/

31.

Crépault

J.-F.

(2018). Cannabis legalization in Canada: Reflections on public health and the governance of legal psychoactive substances. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 220. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00220

32.

Davidson and Company LLP (2022). Cannabis north of the border: Shifting consumer preferences and oversupply issues could lead to write-downs and impairment charges. Davidson and Company LLP. https://davidson-co.com/newsevents/cannabis-north-of-the-border/

33.

Deloitte (2021). Seeding new opportunities: Listening to Canada’s cannabis consumer. Deloitte Canada. https://www2.deloitte.com/ca/en/pages/consumer-business/articles/listening-to-canadas-cannabis-consumer.html

34.

Deloitte (n.d.). Retail industry highlights—Cannabis retailing: A look at the cannabis industry post-legalization. 29.

35.

Docherty

(2019). The uncertain legacy of cannabis legalization. Policy Options. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/december-2019/the-uncertain-legacy-of-cannabis-legalization/

36.

Donnan

Shogan

Bishop

Najafizada

(2022). Drivers of purchase decisions for cannabis products among consumers in a legalized market: A qualitative study. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 368. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12399-9

37.

Dryburgh

L. M.

Bolan

N. S.

Grof

C. P. L.

Galettis

Schneider

Lucas

C. J.

Martin

J. H.

(2018). Cannabis contaminants: Sources, distribution, human toxicity and pharmacologic effects. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 84(11), 2468–2476. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.13695

38.

Edmonton Journal (2022, November 3). “Tides are shifting”: Alberta cannabis retailers consider cap on new shops. Edmontonjournal. https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/tides-are-shifting-alberta-cannabis-retailers-consider-cap-on-new-shops

39.

Ekwochi

E. A.

(2020). Effect of business environment on the activities of cooperative societies in Aninri local government area in Enugu south local government area of Enugu state, Nigeria. IAA Journal of Scientific Research, 6(1), 91–112.

40.

Eykelbosh

(2020). Contaminants in black market cannabis: Consumers need answers. National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health. https://ncceh.ca/content/blog/contaminants-black-market-cannabis-consumers-need-answers

41.

Felson

Adamczyk

Thomas

(2019). How and why have attitudes about cannabis legalization changed so much? Social Science Research, 78, 12–27. ISSN-0049-089X. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.12.011

42.

Financial Post (2019). Supply issues blamed as N.L. loses first private, regulated cannabis store. Financial Post. https://financialpost.com/cannabis/supply-issues-blamed-as-n-l-loses-first-private-regulated-cannabis-store

43.

Fischer

Robinson

Bullen

Curran

Jutras-Aswad

Medina-Mora

M. E.

Pacula

R. L.

Rehm

Room

van den Brink

Hall

(2022). Lower-risk cannabis use guidelines (LRCUG) for reducing health harms from non-medical cannabis use: A comprehensive evidence and recommendations update. International Journal of Drug Policy, 99, 103381, ISSN 0955-3959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103381

44.

Foster

Ruffolo

Moulton

Burns

(2021). Legal cannabis under review: How Canada can fix the Cannabis Act, drive growth, and ease regulations. https://www.lexpert.ca/legal-insights/legal-cannabis-under-review-how-canada-can-fix-the-cannabis-act-drive-growth-and-ease-regulations/362344

45.

Globe and Mail (2018). Provinces warn of cannabis shortfalls in shipments; Low crop yields, lack of packaging materials and issues with supply chains to leave consumers with less choice on Oct. 17. In The globe and mail (Canada). NexisUni.

46.

Globe and Mail (2019). A year after legalization, Ontario’s lack of pot shops hinders industry. In The globe and mail (Canada). NexisUni.

47.

The Globe and Mail (2019). Opinion; Canadians left in haze over cannabis supply; six months after legalization, Ottawa insists there’s enough weed even though its own data say otherwise. In The globe and mail (Canada). NexisUni.

48.

The Globe and Mail (2021). Cannabis retailers test smaller “express” stores to reduce overhead costs as competition soars. In The globe and mail (Canada). NexisUni.

49.

Globe and Mail (2022). Cannabis industry defies inflation as producers slash prices amid fierce competition and glut of supply. Globe and Mail. https://advance-lexis-com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/document/?pdmfid=1516831&crid=7c32ca3e-76b5-4587-866e-a1342c7926ea&pddocfullpath=&per;2Fshared&per;2Fdocument&per;2Fnews&per;2Furn&per;3AcontentItem&per;3A65BY-J0S1-JCRP-C01B-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=303830&pdteaserkey=sr0&pditab=allpods&ecomp=szznk&earg=sr0&prid=a71ff2e1-ac64-4c16-b16f-b4ac8d6e9a33

50.

Goodman

Leos-Toro

Hammond

(2019). The impact of plain packaging and health warnings on consumer appeal of cannabis products. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 205, 107633. ISSN 0376-8716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.107633

51.

Goodman

Wadsworth

Hammond

(2022). Reasons for purchasing cannabis from illegal sources in legal markets: Findings among cannabis consumers in Canada and U.S. States, 2019–2020. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 83(3), 392–401. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2022.83.392

52.

Government of Canada

S. C.

(2019, December 11). The Retail Cannabis Market in Canada: A Portrait of the First Year. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-621-m/11-621-m2019005-eng.htm

53.

Government of Canada

D. o. J.

(2021, July 7). Cannabis Legalization and Regulation. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/cannabis/

54.

Grossman

(2022). Media and policy making in the digital age. Annual Review of Political Science, 25(1), 443–461. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-103422

55.

Guo

H. T.

McCombs

(2012). An expanded perspective on agenda-setting effects. Exploring the third level of agenda setting. Revista de Comunicación, 11, 51. ISSN 1684-0933.

56.

Hasin

Walsh

(2020). Cannabis use, cannabis use disorder, and comorbid psychiatric illness: A narrative review. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10010015

57.

Health Canada (2016, December 2). A framework for the legalization and regulation of cannabis in Canada [policies]. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/laws-regulations/task-force-cannabis-legalization-regulation/framework-legalization-regulation-cannabis-in-canada.html

58.

Health Canada (2018, March 6). Cannabis health effects. Health Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/services/health/campaigns/cannabis/health-effects.html

59.

Health Canada (2019, December 12). Proposed regulations for additional cannabis products [Regulations]. Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/resources/regulations-edible-cannabis-extracts-topicals.html

60.

Kaplan

(2021). Cannabis has been legal for almost three years. So why don’t we want to get high off Ottawa’s supply?; While more Canadians are now buying their cannabis products from legal sources, the non-licensed market still takes up more than 40 per cent of sales. Breaking News from Globe and Mail. https://advance-lexis-com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/document?crid=f6963387-37f8-4d27-a86d-5a94312445d0&pddocfullpath=&per;2Fshared&per;2Fdocument&per;2Fnews&per;2Furn&per;3AcontentItem&per;3A62FY-F2J1-F06S-34PX-00000-00&pdsourcegroupingtype=&pdcontentcomponentid=302564&pdmfid=1516831&pdisurlapi=true

61.

Kent

Omar

(2003). Retailing (1st ed.). Palgrave London. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-0-230-37410-2

62.

Kirilenko

A. P.

Stepchenkova

(2016). Inter-coder agreement in one-to-many classification: Fuzzy kappa. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0149787. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149787

63.

The Leader-Post (2018). Pot foes to blame for shortage, PM says; Municipal Level. In The leader-post (Regina, Saskatchewan). NexisUni.

64.

Long

(2022, June 8). Cannabis retailers increasingly discounting their products. MJBizDaily. https://mjbizdaily.com/marijuana-retailers-increasingly-discounting-their-products/

65.

Luo

Burley

Moe

Sui

(2019). A meta-analysis of news media’s public agenda-setting effects, 1972–2015. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 96(1), 150–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699018804500

66.

MacDonald

(2019). Cannabis retailer in Newfoundland and Labrador says red tape hindering business. SaltWire. https://www.saltwire.com/atlantic-canada/business/local-business/cannabis-retailer-in-newfoundland-and-labrador-says-red-tape-hindering-business-346923/

67.

Matheson

Le Foll

(2020). Cannabis legalization and acute harm from high potency cannabis products: A narrative review and recommendations for public health. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 594979. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.591979

68.

Maynard

(2021). Moratorium for Toronto Cannabis shops? Cannabis Retailer. https://cannabisretailer.ca/2021/moratorium-for-toronto-cannabis-shops/

69.

McCombs

(2005). A look at agenda-setting: Past, present and future. Journalism Studies, 6(4), 543–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700500250438

70.

McCombs

M. E.

Shaw

D. L.

(1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/267990

71.

McHugh

M. L.

(2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031

72.

Media Bias/Fact Check News (2023, December 11). Media bias/fact check. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

73.

Metag

(2016, October 26). Content analysis in climate change communication. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. Retrieved 12 Aug 2024 from https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.486; https://oxfordre.com/climatescience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-486.

74.

Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (2021, June 9). Testing finds contaminants in illegal cannabis. BC Gov. News. https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2021PSSG0050-001115

75.

Myran

D. T.

Brown

C. R. L.

Tanuseputro

(2019). Access to cannabis retail stores across Canada 6 months following legalization: A descriptive study. Canadian Medical Association Open Access Journal, 7(3), E454–E461. https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20190012

76.

Myran

D. T.

Staykov

Cantor

Taljaard

Quach

B. I.

Hawken

Tanuseputro

(2022). How has access to legal cannabis changed over time? An analysis of the cannabis retail market in Canada 2 years following the legalisation of recreational cannabis. Drug and Alcohol Review, 41(2), 377–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.13351

77.

National Post (2018). Marijuana shortages abound in Canada in just second week of legalization. In National post (f/k/a The Financial Post) (Canada). NexisUni.

78.

National Post (2021a). Deregulate cannabis three more ways. In National post’s financial post & FP investing (Canada). NexisUni.

79.

National Post (2021b). Pot shops Toronto’s favourite retail tenant; Cannabis. In National post’s financial post & FP investing (Canada). NexisUni.

80.

New York Medical Cannabis Industry Association (2022, November 30). Investigative report reveals public health and economic consequences of New York’s unregulated pop-up cannabis market. New York Medical Cannabis Industry Association. https://www.protectnymedmar.com/news/2022/11/30/ecoli-heavy-metals-copyright-infringement-and-100-percent-failure-rate

81.

Nimegeer

Patterson

Hilton

(2019). Media framing of childhood obesity: A content analysis of UK newspapers from 1996 to 2014. BMJ Open, 9(4), e025646. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025646

82.

Ontario Cannabis Store (2022). Opportunities to improve the Canadian Federal Cannabis Framework: Perspectives from the Ontario Cannabis Store.

83.

Ontario Public Health Association (2021). The Public Health Implications of Legalization of Recreational Cannabis Industry.

84.

Potter

Weinstock

D. M.

(2019). High time: The legalization and regulation of cannabis in Canada. McGill-Queen’s University Press. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,url,uid&db=e000xna&AN=2024430&site=ehost-live&scope=site

85.

Public Safety Canada (2020). Cannabis Black Market. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlmntry-bndrs/20200930/026/index-en.aspx

86.

Roth

V. J.

Klein

(1993). A theory of retail change. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 3(2), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969300000013

87.

Sabaghi

(2022). Uber Eats partners up with leafly to deliver marijuana in Toronto. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dariosabaghi/2022/10/18/uber-eats-partners-up-with-leafly-to-deliver-marijuana-in-toronto/

88.

Savigny

Temple

(2010). Political marketing models: The curious incident of the dog that doesn’t bark. Political Studies, 58(5), 1049–1064. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00830.x

89.

Søgaard

T. F.

Nygaard-Christensen

Frank

V. A.

(2021). Danish cannabis policy revisited: Multiple framings of cannabis use in policy discourse. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 38(4), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/14550725211018602

90.

Soroka

S. N.

(2002). Issue attributes and agenda-setting by media, the public, and policymakers in Canada. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14(3), 264–285. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/14.3.264

91.

Statistics Canada (2020, January 23). The Daily — StatsCannabis data availability: Crowdsourced cannabis prices, fourth quarter 2019. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/200123/dq200123c-eng.htm

92.

Statistics Canada (2021, April 21). Looking back from 2020, how cannabis use and related behaviours changed in Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-003-x/2021004/article/00001-eng.htm

93.

Statistics Canada (2022). Detailed household final consumption expenditure, Canada, quarterly. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3610012401

94.

The Telegram (2018, November 15). Pot industry facing a slow burn? The Telegram (St. John’s, NL), Vol. 140 No. 190 (Vol. 140 No. 190), B2.

95.

The Toronto Observer (2022, January 28). Cannabis shops struggle to finding success in oversaturated market. The Toronto Observer. https://torontoobserver.ca/2022/01/28/cannabis-shops-struggle-to-finding-success-in-oversaturated-market/

96.

The Toronto Star (2018a). Cities try to put brakes on rush to weed legalization; Municipalities fighting to delay the opening of pot retail stores. In The Toronto star. NexisUni.

97.

The Toronto Star (2018b). Opting out of cannabis shops aids black market, experts say; Ontario municipalities weigh big decision. In The Toronto star. NexisUni.

98.

The Toronto Star (2019a). How Alberta emerged as Canada’s unexpected pot capital, one year post-legalization. In The Toronto star. NexisUni.

99.

The Toronto Star (2019b). Marijuana shortage could last up to three years in Canada; store closures, withheld licences, falling stock values all linked to dearth of product. In The Toronto star. NexisUni.

100.

Toronto Star (2019). Cannabis stores due to open face licensing and supply delays; With April 1 just days away, no stores yet cleared to open: “We’ll wait and see,” Fedeli says. In The Toronto star. NexisUni.

101.

The Toronto Star (2021). MPP pushing to limit number of cannabis retailers in given areas; multiple shops popping up on same blocks, finding themselves with a glut of competition. In The Toronto star. NexisUni.

102.

The Toronto Star (2022, July 2). The Faceoff: Too many pot shops not enough customers. Competition hurts market share as Fire & Flower and High Tide both post net losses, but High Tide has large revenue gains. Thestar.Com. https://www.thestar.com/business/2022/07/02/the-faceoff-too-many-pot-shops-not-enough-customers-competition-hurts-market-share-as-fire-flower-and-high-tide-both-post-net-losses-but-high-tide-has-large-revenue-gains.html

103.

The Toronto Star, T. (2019c). Pot shop lottery winners race to be ready by April 1 deadline; 25 owners licensed in Ontario to sell weed scramble under tight timeline to open doors. In The Toronto star. NexisUni.

104.

University of North Carolina (2022). LibGuides: Covidence: About Covidence. https://guides.lib.unc.edu/Covidence/about

105.

University of Waterloo (2022). Research guides: Biomedical Engineering: Research Databases. https://subjectguides.uwaterloo.ca/c.php?g=695672&p=5053237

106.

University of Windsor (n.d.). Leddy Library: Eureka. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from https://secure.livechatinc.com/

107.

The Vancouver Sun (2018). Some cannabis suppliers fall short amid surging demand across country. In The Vancouver Sun (British Columbia). NexisUni.

108.

Vancouver Sun (2018). B.C. cannabis sales still face challenging logistics; operations head says bureaucracy means government pot operation not so nimble. In The Vancouver Sun (British Columbia). NexisUni.

109.

Vancouver Sun (2019). B.C. selling less legal pot than most provinces. In The Vancouver Sun (British Columbia). NexisUni.

110.

Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health (2018). Cannabis is no ordinary commodity: Public health considerations for municipalities on cannabis retail outlets. WDG Public Health. https://wdgpublichealth.ca/reports/cannabis-no-ordinary-commodity-public-health-considerations-municipalities-cannabis-retail

111.

Wesley

J. J.

Murray

(2021). To market or demarket? Public-sector branding of cannabis in Canada. Administration & Society, 53(7), 1078–1105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399721991129

112.

World Atlas (2019, June 4). The most popular daily newspapers in Canada. World Atlas. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-popular-daily-newspapers-in-canada.html

113.

(2020). Constructing the refugee: Comparison between newspaper coverage of the Syrian refugee crisis in Canada and the UK—Man Xu, 2021. Current Sociology, 69(5), 660–681. http:///doi/10.1177/0011392120946387

Examining the Barriers to Licensed Private Cannabis Retailers in Canada: A Quantitative Content Analysis of Canadian News Media Coverage

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Background

Theoretical Underpinnings and Conceptual Framework

Methods

Data Selection and Search Strategy

Screening Process

Data Extraction and Analysis

Results

Findings From the Descriptive Analysis

Summary of Themes and Barriers Identified in the News

Barriers by News Media Coverage

Barriers by Editorial Position

Barriers by Province and Territory

Barriers by Stakeholders

Barriers by Year

Discussion

Government Rules and Regulations

Supply Chain

Competitors

Limitations and Future Directions of the Study

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Consent for Publication

ORCID iDs

Author Biographies

References