Table 3.
State Level Accuracy of Cannabis Retailer Location Information from Webservices and Government-Maintained Registries1
| State | Webservice (n=611)2 | Government-Maintained Registries (655)3 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sampled Obs. n | Correct Location Information n (%) | Incorrect Location Information n (%) | Cannot Determine n (%) | Sampled Obs. n | Correct Location Information n (%) | Incorrect Location Information n (%) | Cannot Determine n (%) | |
| AK | 10 | 10 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 9 | 9 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| AZ4 | 17 | 14 (82%) | 1 (6%) | 2 (12%) | – | – | – | – |
| CA | 97 | 79 (81%) | 17 (18%) | 1 (1%) | 105 | 103 (98%) | 1 (1%) | 1 (1%) |
| CO5 | 93 | 78 (84%) | 11 (12%) | 4 (4%) | – | – | – | – |
| CT | 9 | 7 (78%) | 2 (22%) | 0 (0%) | 9 | 9 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| DC | 6 | 3 (50%) | 2 (33%) | 1 (17%) | 5 | 5 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| DE | 5 | 5 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 4 | 4 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| FL | 16 | 12 (75%) | 3 (19%) | 1 (6%) | 9 | 9 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| HI | 6 | 6 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 7 | 7 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| IL | 7 | 5 (71%) | 1 (14%) | 1 (14%) | 9 | 7 (78%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (22%) |
| LA | 1 | 1 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 8 | 8 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| MA | 12 | 12 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 4 | 4 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| MD | 11 | 7 (64%) | 4 (36%) | 0 (0%) | 10 | 10 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| ME | 13 | 8 (62%) | 5 (38%) | 0 (0%) | 8 | 7 (88%) | 1 (12%) | 0 (0%) |
| MI | 14 | 9 (64%) | 4 (29%) | 1 (7%) | 8 | 8 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| MN | 9 | 6 (67%) | 1 (11%) | 2 (22%) | 8 | 8 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| MT4 | 8 | 4 (50%) | 3 (38%) | 1 (12%) | – | – | – | – |
| ND | 2 | 2 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 7 | 7 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| NH | 4 | 4 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 5 | 3 (60%) | 2 (40%) | 0 (0%) |
| NJ | 6 | 6 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 6 | 5 (83%) | 1 (17%) | 0 (0%) |
| NM | 6 | 5 (83%) | 1 (17%) | 0 (0%) | 9 | 9 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| NV | 7 | 6 (86%) | 1 (14%) | 0 (0%) | 17 | 17 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| NY | 5 | 4 (80%) | 1 (20%) | 0 (0%) | 8 | 7 (88%) | 1 (12%) | 0 (0%) |
| OH | 8 | 5 (62%) | 3 (38%) | 0 (0%) | 10 | 9 (90%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (10%) |
| OK | 73 | 55 (75%) | 18 (25%) | 0 (0%) | 96 | 89 (93%) | 7 (7%) | 0 (0%) |
| OR | 91 | 78 (86%) | 9 (10%) | 4 (4%) | 134 | 127 (95%) | 6 (4%) | 1 (1%) |
| PA | 9 | 5 (56%) | 4 (44%) | 0 (0%) | 10 | 7 (70%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (30%) |
| RI | 3 | 2 (67%) | 1 (33%) | 0 (0%) | 3 | 3 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| VT | 8 | 3 (38%) | 5 (62%) | 0 (0%) | 5 | 5 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| WA | 55 | 43 (78%) | 11 (20%) | 1 (2%) | 142 | 136 (96%) | 5 (4%) | 1 (1%) |
Location is calculated for observations which were confirmed to be operating cannabis retailers
Three observations in the phone survey were excluded due to the call being dropped before the location question was reached and further attempts were not able to reestablish a connection with either a person or a dial-based menu
Two observations in the phone survey were excluded due to the call being dropped before the location question was reached and further attempts were not able to reestablish a connection with either a person or a dial-based menu
Registry request was denied after multiple attempts including formal FOIA request.
Data oversight in government-maintained registry resulted in no data from CO.