Skip to main content
. 2018 Jan;108(1):120–127. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.304136

TABLE 3—

Exposure to Marijuana Advertising by Characteristics of Respondents in Online Surveys: Oregon, Fall 2015 and Spring 2016

Characteristic Exposed to Marijuana Advertising, Weighteda % (95% CI) Pb
Total 54.8 (52.4, 57.1)
Gender (n = 3874)c .73
 Male 55.2 (51.4, 58.8)
 Female 54.3 (51.3, 57.3)
Age group (n = 3885), y .08
 18–24 52.1 (41.8, 62.2)
 25–34 57.0 (50.7, 63.0)
 35–54 58.8 (54.8, 62.7)
 55–64 53.8 (49.5, 58.0)
 ≥ 65 48.7 (45.2, 52.3)
Race/ethnicity (n = 3845)d .60
 Non-Hispanic White 54.2 (51.9, 56.5)
 Non-Hispanic African American 45.3 (27.4, 64.6)
 Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native 56.9 (38.3, 73.7)
 Non-Hispanic Asian 45.8 (29.6, 62.9)
 Non-Hispanic multiple races 70.3 (51.4, 84.1)
 Hispanic 55.0 (43.9, 65.6)
Education level (n = 3885) .16
 < high school graduate 56.1 (43.1, 68.3)
 High school graduate or GED 51.6 (47.0, 56.2)
 Some college 52.6 (49.5, 55.6)
 College graduate 60.1 (56.7, 63.4)
Home ownership (n = 3865)e .32
 Own 56.5 (53.8, 59.1)
 Rent 51.9 (47.1, 56.7)
 Other arrangement 51.7 (39.8, 63.4)
Marital status (n = 3885) .01
 Married or domestic partnership 57.5 (54.7, 60.4)
 Never married 55.4 (50.2, 60.6)
 Divorced, widowed, separated 47.2 (41.8, 52.7)
Metro resident (n = 3885) .08
 Metro area resident 56.8 (53.6, 59.9)
 Not metro area resident 52.6 (49.0, 56.1)
Marijuana use status (n = 3885) .39
 Never user 53.0 (49.4, 56.5)
 Former user or experimenter 54.9 (51.3, 58.4)
 Current user 57.6 (51.6, 63.5)
Marijuana store in neighborhood (self-report; n = 3885) < .001
 Yes 63.4 (59.4, 67.3)
 No 52.9 (49.6, 56.1)
 Don’t know 42.4 (36.1, 48.9)
Presence of marijuana store (registered dispensary; n = 3885) < .001
 Yes 56.5 (54.1, 58.9)
 No 32.5 (24.2, 42.0)

Note. CI = confidence interval; GED = general education diploma. Online surveys were conducted in November 2015 and April–May 2016.

a

Data were weighted on the following factors: gender, age, race/ethnicity, education level, home ownership, marital status, and metro area residency.

b

P value on the basis of Pearson χ2 comparing exposure to marijuana advertising across subgroups.

c

Removed responses of “transgender” (n = 11) for analysis because of small sample size.

d

Race/ethnicity was missing for 40 respondents.

e

Removed “don’t know” responses from denominator for analysis (n = 19).