ABSTRACT
Introduction The 2018 Farm Bill unintentionally allowed the proliferation of derived intoxicating cannabis vape products (DICVPs), raising concerns about associated health risks. To inform public health prevention efforts, this study analyzed the product attributes and marketing features of DICVPs in an online retail environment.
Methods In 2023, we extracted information on product attributes and descriptions of 490 DICVPs from two online retail websites with high web traffic. In 2024, two trained coders thematically coded product descriptions for their product characteristics and marketing features.
Results Overall, 95 unique brands and 26 unique intoxicating cannabinoids were identified. The most frequent marketing features were overall vape product design and use (99.0%), including vaping satisfaction, discreetness, convenience, and use instructions. Regulation and compliance messages (91.6%) were also prevalent, including lab testing for additives and/or chemicals, health warnings, hemp-derived labels, references to the 2018 Farm Bill, and FDA approval statements. Other prominent themes included: flavor and sensation claims (79.6%, i.e., flavor variety, fruit flavors); psychoactive effect claims (43.3%, e.g., potency or expected user experience); product quality claims (38.4%, e.g., “quality,” “natural,” “purity”); and other positive effect claims (33.9%, e.g., mood enhancement, relaxation).
Discussion The DICVP online marketplace is highly fragmented with a variety of brands and intoxicating compounds. Common marketing strategies promoting appealing flavors and positive vaping experiences may increase product use interest among young people. Features related to product legality and quality may reduce perceived barriers and risks of using products. Continuous monitoring of the DICVP marketplace is needed to inform policymaking.
INTRODUCTION
Since the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill (the Agriculture Improvement Act), which excluded hemp (≤0.3% delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC]) from the U.S.’s list of controlled substances (1), many new types of derived intoxicating cannabis products (DICPs) are being sold widely throughout the U.S. market (e.g., delta-8 THC, delta-10 THC) (2–6).
Studies have found that DICPs have proliferated across the country and come in various forms, the most common of which are edibles (e.g., gummies, desserts, beverages) and vape products (e.g., cartridges, pods, or disposables) (2–5). DICPs are widely sold in gas stations, convenience stores, smoke/vape/head shops, and online, often in ways that are both accessible and attractive to young people (2–4,7,8). Consistent with concerns regarding youth access and appeal, national data from 2023 shows that one in nine 12th graders (11.4%) reported using delta-8 THC in the past year (9). This is likely an underestimation of DICP use, considering the dozens of other DICPs beyond delta-8 THC (2–4,10).
Similar to traditional cannabis products, DICPs may result in acute health effects, including anxiety, lethargy, and impaired coordination (11). Regular and long-term use of DICPs, just like traditional cannabis, may lead to cannabis dependence as well as psychosis and other mental health illnesses (11). Use of DICPs also carries its own risks unique to those of traditional cannabis. Due to their largely unregulated status, DICPs frequently feature misleading or inaccurate labeling and are often not tested for potency or contamination (12,13). Reports indicate some have been tainted with heavy metals, and they have been linked to thousands of incidents of accidental ingestion, some of which required medical attention, especially among young individuals (11). At the same time, the availability and use of higher potency cannabis products, including DICPs, have been on the rise, which is concerning because high-potency cannabis products and younger age are both primary risk factors for developing cannabis dependence and cannabis-induced psychosis (14). Therefore, stricter DICP-related regulations and restrictions are needed to protect public health.
Derived intoxicating cannabis vape products (DICVPs) are a commonly sold form of DICPs in brick-and-mortar and online stores (2–5). DICVPs resemble the appearance of traditional nicotine vape products and may be especially attractive to young people due to the highly convenient and discreet nature of product use. In addition, almost all DICVPs sold in the marketplace come in fruit and candy flavors, which research indicates is one of the most appealing product attributes for using nicotine vape products among youth and young adults (15– 17). Evidence also shows that the potency of cannabis concentrates inhaled through vaping is substantially higher than for flower cannabis products (18,19), potentially increasing the risk of dependence or negative effects. Cannabis vaping also has a more rapid onset than other products (e.g., edibles, capsules), which might cause users to experience immediate adverse and psychoactive effects (20).
There is a lack of systematic understanding of the product attributes and marketing strategies used by the industry to promote DICVPs. Investigating product attributes is crucial because these attributes—such as potency, price, and type of intoxicating cannabinoid(s)—can significantly impact perceptions, behavior, and health outcomes (21,22). Examining the marketing features—such as flavor, product design, risk, and benefit claims—of these products can shed light on their potential appeal to young people (15–17). Marketing features such as appealing flavors, sleek and discreet device design, reduced harm claims, and social and mood enhancement benefits can make DICVPs seem to be more attractive and healthier to use for young consumers (23). Examining the presence of regulation-related claims may further provide insights into how consumers may perceive the legality, safety, and risks of using the products.
The current study used information from two highly visited DICP retail websites to describe product attributes and marketing features of DICVPs (2). Online retail was particularly important for this investigation due to the inadequate age verification practices for selling these products to minors and the wide availability of DICVP marketing and sales throughout the country (24,25).
METHODS
Data Source and Measures
We recorded information on product attributes and descriptions of the DICVPs sold on two prominent U.S.-based cannabis websites, Element Vape (elementvape.com) and Premium Delta-8 and CBD (delta8resellers.com) between May and August 2023. In April 2023, both websites had a high volume of web traffic, with 2.1 million visits to Element Vape and 547,500 visits to Premium Delta-8 and CBD (2). Detailed information about why the two websites were chosen and the procedure of recording the information is documented elsewhere (2). Specifically, we recorded the information related to the product attributes of each DICVP (n=490), including brand name, vape product modality, pack size, price, and the type(s) of intoxicating cannabinoid(s), such as Delta-8 THC. We also recorded product descriptions for each DICVP.
Coding Procedure
In June-August 2024, we conducted a content analysis of the information recorded to capture product attributes and descriptions of the DICVPs from the two websites using a deductive and inductive approach. The deductive approach involved leveraging existing research on cannabis product marketing features and empirical evidence of outcome expectancies for using cannabis and vape products (13,26,27). The inductive approach involved conducting a qualitative review of the product descriptions to develop and generate additional codes related to DICVP marketing features. Codes were not mutually exclusive. Since all DICVPs examined in the study were flavored, we did not include flavor-related codes to describe product attributes.
However, we did generate a series of flavor-related codes for marketing features. Three trained coders from the research team first reviewed the codebook and tested the codes by independently coding a sample of the product descriptions for marketing features. The research team then met to discuss and confirm the final codes. Inter-rater reliability was established through two rounds of double coding using a sub-sample (n=50 each round) of product descriptions. Discrepancies were resolved and the codebook was refined through discussion during team meetings. After the second round of double-coding, we reached an average inter-rater reliability of Krippendorff’s alpha >0.8 across codes (28). Discrepancies in coding were further discussed to improve reliability. The remaining product descriptions were then randomly split between coders for content coding. The final codebook of marketing features consisted of six categories covering 29 codes (see Table 3 for all marketing feature codes and definitions).
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics (percent, mean, and standard deviation [SD]) were generated using Stata v.18. Institutional Review Board approval was not required because this study utilized publicly available data and was not considered human subject research under 45 CFR 46.102(d).
RESULTS
Product Attributes
The 490 DICVPs (29.2% cartridge and 70.8% disposable) were from 95 unique brands (Table 1). The 10 most common brands were Delta Extrax (6.1%), Cake (5.9%), Looper (4.5%), Honeyroot (4.1%), Mellow Fellow (3.9%), Binoid (3.9%), TRE House (3.3%), Modus/Medusa (3.1%), Exhale (2.9%), and URB (2.9%).
There were 26 different intoxicating cannabis compounds contained within these 490 DICVPs (Table 2). The most common compound was Delta-8 THC (67.8%), followed by THC-P (39.0%), HHC (20.2%), Delta-10 THC (16.3%), THC-A (13.9%), Delta-9 THC (12.0%), THC-H (11.2%), THC-B (10.2%), THC-JD (9.0%), and THC-X (7.1%). Most of the products (62.9%) were blends, containing two or more intoxicating cannabinoids. The average number of intoxicating cannabinoids in each DICVP was 2.4 (range 1 to 8, SD = 1.5).
Most DICVPs were offered in a pack size of one (94.9%), and few came in packs of two (4.5%) or three (0.6%). Retail prices for the DICVPs ranged from $7.99 to $69.95, with an average price of $24.22 (SD = $8.10). The average price was $22.2 for cartridges (SD = $9.9) and $26.5 for disposables (SD = $7.9).
Product Marketing Features
Table 3 presents the frequencies of product marketing features in the DICVP descriptions, along with the definitions and examples. The most common marketing feature was vape product design and use (99.0%), defined as characteristics or features of product design and any aspects related to the user vaping experience. This included product design (97.6%, e.g., product color, shape), vaping satisfaction (28.2%, e.g., “leaving you satisfied after each hit”), discreetness/convenience (28.0%, e.g., “discreet,” “easy to use,” “on the go”), and use instructions (12.2%, e.g., how to power up the product).
Regulation and compliance, defined as warning statements or claims about the product being compliant with cannabis laws or regulations, appeared in 91.6% of the descriptions. Specifically, this included messages that the product was lab tested for additives and/or chemicals (62.5%, e.g., “tested by third-party labs, this product is free of impurities and toxins”), health warnings (51.2%, the California state warning about health effects from using cannabis products), the claim that the product was derived from hemp (45.3%, “made from USA grown hemp”), the 2018 Farm Bill (32.7%, “these cartridges are 2018 Farm Bill compliant, containing less than 0.3% delta-9 THC”), and non-FDA approval statements (6.3%, “these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA”). During coding, we found that all identified health warnings were from California and specific to Delta-9 THC products.
Flavor and sensation claims, defined as specific flavor names and general flavor or flavor sensation references describing the taste of the products, were noted in 79.6% of product descriptions. This included flavor variety (62.9%, e.g., claim that the product comes in a variety of flavors), fruit flavors (38.2%, e.g., “strawberry,” “watermelon”), general flavor descriptions (30.2%, “big flavor,” “delicious”), other flavor (29.4%, flavor that does not fall under fruit flavor categories, e.g., “mint,” “cake,” “cookies”), and flavor sensations (28.2%, terms that describe the tastes, smells, and textures of a flavor, e.g., “sweet,” “spicy”). It is worth noting that although we did not code product strains, some strain names may overlap with flavor names, such as “wedding cake” and “gelato.” Many flavors with trademark names of desserts and snacks were also identified during coding, including “Fruity Pebbles,” “Gushers,” “Hubba Bubba,” “Thin Mint Cookies,” and “Double Bubble.”
Psychoactive effects (43.3%) were defined as descriptors, claims, or instructions related to the psychoactive properties or effects of a product. Specifically, this included product potency descriptors (35.3%, keywords such as “powerful,” “potent,” and “strong”), psychoactive effects on the user (14.7%, e.g., feeling high, buzzed, or stoned), and user instructions on managing psychoactive effects (9.0%, e.g., the number of puffs that one should be starting with). Product quality claims (38.4%) highlighted the products’ ingredients or standards that may communicate low risks of harm to consumers. These claims commonly included the keywords “natural” (16.5%, e.g., “flavored with all-natural terpenes”), “quality” (12.5%, e.g., “the highest quality distillate available”), “purity” (10.6%, e.g., “highly potent”), “premium” (10.2%, e.g., “contains 3 grams of premium hemp-derived Delta 8 distillate”), and “organic” (8.8%, e.g., “has high-end organic terpenes”). Lastly, other effects from product use (33.9%) included content that promoted positive mood and feelings (24.5%, e.g., happiness, euphoria), relaxation and tension reduction (19.6%, e.g., relaxed, chill, calming effect), focus/creativity (5.3%, e.g., better focus, concentration, creativity), positive health effects (4.1%, physical health benefits [e.g., pain, cancer], mental health benefits [e.g., anxiety, depression, sleep benefits], and socialization effects (2.2%, e.g., closeness with others, improves friendships).
DISCUSSION
This is one of the first studies to systematically examine the product attributes and marketing features of a large sample of DICVPs sold by online retailers with a high volume of web traffic. Similar to the overall DICP marketplace (2), the market of DICVPs is highly fragmented, as we documented more than 95 brands and 490 products being marketed and sold on these two websites. The most common brand, Delta Extrax, only comprised 6% of the products included in the study. It is also worth noting that more than 60% of the examined DICVPs are Delta-8 THC, for which youth use prevalence and negative health consequences have increased in recent years (9,29,30). The variety of types of intoxicating cannabinoids also signifies the diversity of the marketplace. The fact that most use a blend of cannabinoids may further add challenges to understanding the potential health implications of use. This fragmented market concentrated with small brands and diverse products may increase challenges for regulatory and enforcement efforts and may overwhelm and confuse consumers, potentially leading to product misuse or health risks.
We found that the most frequently promoted marketing features were those describing overall vape product design and use that were not specific to cannabis products. This information mostly included appealing aspects of vape products, which highlighted the “fun, coolness, and high technology” aspects of the product, as well as the “satisfying vaping experience” and the “discreetness and convenience of vaping.” Viewing this information may prompt those who have used nicotine vapes to transition to (or use dually) cannabis/DICP vapes due to the shared vaping experience. We also found specific instructions for vape device use, which may increase the perceived easiness of product use for young individuals who are new to vaping devices (31). Overall, viewing information about vaping experience and use instructions may reduce the perceived barriers to DICVP use, inviting new consumers to experiment with products.
We also found a large proportion of marketing features related to regulation and compliance, which described that the products were lab-tested for additives and chemicals, the health warnings (all from California and specific for Delta-9 THC products), and the legality of the products under the 2018 Farm Bill. However, it may be challenging for consumers to interpret and verify the provided information, including whether these products were actually lab-tested and whether these labs are accredited or not. Cautions were also raised related to the increasingly falsified lab testing results used by the cannabis industry (32). In addition, viewing information stating the products are lab-tested and legal under the Farm Bill may increase the perceived legality and safety of these products, which may promote use, especially among those in states where traditional cannabis is illegal (6,33). Warnings related to the health risks of cannabis use – all from California Prop 65 and specific to Delta-9 THC – were only found in the descriptions of about half of the products. Evidence has shown that warning labels on cannabis products communicate risks to consumers and have the potential to educate consumers about cannabis harm (34). State laws like the ones in California may help consumers make informed decisions about the risks of product use. However, the fact that these warning messages are specific to Delta-9 THC may reduce the effectiveness of the messages given the diversity of cannabinoids documented in DICPs. This may also lead people to believe these other intoxicating cannabinoids are safer than Delta-9 THC. More research on the health consequences of DICP use is needed to inform warning and preventive messaging.
Flavor and sensation claims, a commonly found marketing strategy in this study, may enhance consumer preferences and curiosity about using DICVPs. Extensive literature on nicotine vape product marketing has shown that flavor-related descriptors (especially fruit flavors), flavor choices, and flavor sensation-related claims are among the most appealing marketing features in their advertisements among young individuals, and that those features often generate an increased willingness to try the products shown in the advertisements (15,35– 37). This may be especially true given artificial flavors from the e-cigarette industry are used for cannabis vapes (38). Although some of the identified flavor names may overlap with product strain names, it conveys youth-friendly taste and aroma that may instigate product curiosity from this group. In addition, we identified a series of trademark names of popular dessert and snack products for describing product flavors, raising concerns that these flavor names may entice young people to try DICVPs. Although local regulations on traditional cannabis and DICVPs have not started restricting product flavors, many jurisdictions prohibit traditional cannabis product marketing that targets minors (39). Studies are needed to examine whether and how DICVP marketing strategies with youth-appealing flavor names and sensation claims may prompt product use.
Promoting psychoactive effects was also a commonly used marketing strategy for DICVPs. Such claims may increase consumers’ intentions to use these products, as achieving a “high” is a widely recognized motivation for cannabis use (40). Other purported positive effects identified—such as mood enhancement, improved socialization, and increased focus or creativity—align with well-established cannabis use expectancies in the literature (41,42). According to the means-end approach in advertising theory, marketing product features highlighting the functions and benefits of product use can shape motives and expectations related to product use, effectively driving interest in use (43). Finally, we found a small number of descriptions stating unfounded or misleading health effect claims (e.g., reducing stress and anxiety) to describe the positive benefits of DICVP use. To prevent deceptive advertising practices, ongoing monitoring of health-related claims for DICVPs – and DICPs overall – is needed (44).
We also found an extensive number of claims indicating product quality, including using descriptors of “natural,” “quality,” “purity,” “premium,” and “organic.” According to the evidence from tobacco marketing literature, some of these descriptors may reduce perceived harm and risks from product use and promote use intentions (45–49). This may also create the “health halo” effect, observed in tobacco and food industry marketing (50), where consumers may overestimate a product’s healthiness based on ingredient claims suggesting the quality or cleanness of the products. Research on how these marketing claims related to high product quality may affect risk perceptions of DICVP use is especially needed because the public has increasingly considered cannabis (and vape products) to be “healthy” and “harm-free” (51,52) — a belief that will become even more common as cannabis products become further normalized.
Strengths and Limitations
This study used product descriptions from highly visited online retail websites to gather key insights into the existing retail market environment for a large number of DICVPs. However, this study only collected data from two websites, making it unrepresentative of the broader retail market, including brick-and-mortar stores, and it did not examine consumer purchasing habits or product use patterns. Because of the rapidly evolving nature of the DICVP marketplace, continuous monitoring of product attributes and marketing features is needed. Furthermore, our analysis did not examine marketing features shown on product packages, which can also contain youth-appealing features such as cartoons and anime, fruit and candy images, and vibrant colors that may generate product use interest among young people. Lastly, our study did not include cannabis strains as a product attribute due to the high variety of strain names found from the websites. Some strain names “Girl Scout Cookies” and “Gelato” may overlap with product flavor names and be perceived as flavors by the consumers. Since cannabis strains may produce distinct aroma and health effects (53, 54), future studies should further examine the scope of DICVP strains listed on retail websites.
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the current online retail market for DICVPs, highlighting its variety of brands, intoxicating compounds, and marketing features that may appeal to younger or novice consumers. The rapid diversification of this market necessitates continuous monitoring, with future research needed to explore consumer purchasing patterns and use behaviors. Such data are essential for guiding policy, public health practices, and further research efforts related to DICVP marketing. Future research aimed at examining the behavioral effects of these marketing features is greatly needed to understand the most impactful marketing tactics to inform policymaking for reducing product youth appeal.
Footnotes
Funding source: Dr. LoParco is supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (F32DA060612). The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Disclosure: Dr. Kong has served as a paid expert consultant in litigation against the tobacco industry.