“The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Weed”: How Consumers in Four Different Policy Settings Define the Quality of Illicit Cannabis

With proliferating efforts to regulate the quality of cannabis on legalized markets, and recent discussions about drug quality assessment by darknet buyers, it seems timely to explore definitions of the quality of cannabis among consumers. An inductive analysis of in-depth interviews with people who had used cannabis in the past 12 months was conducted, which focused on the respondents’ subjective definitions and assessments of the quality of cannabis. The data are drawn from convenience samples in four localities (Florida [United States], Czechia, Spain, and New South Wales [Australia]) where cannabis was illegal or decriminalized. The findings suggest that the respondents across all four localities used a range of visual and sensory indicators to assess the quality of cannabis. For many respondents, these were independent indicators of the quality of cannabis suggesting that cannabis was not merely an “experience” good. For others, visual and sensory assessments were used as indirect indicators of quality in that they represented the effect of the cannabis. The desired effect was more complex than simple potency (strength) and several respondents preferred mild and not-sedating cannabis. Across the four localities, the respondents also included “proxy” indicators of the safety of cannabis in their definitions of quality. In other words, high-quality cannabis was defined as not causing excessive intoxication or physical harm. Altogether, cannabis was a specific “credence” good when its quality was seen as a result of cultivation techniques, production location, or producers’ (profit) motivations - depending on the locality. These findings suggest that cannabis policies that regulate the cultivation process can be relevant to people who use cannabis. Given that consumers take the safety of cannabis into consideration when assessing its quality, their involvement in the development of quality standards is warranted. Consumer-led self-regulation should also be considered in policies that seek to regulate cannabis supply.