The differences in price ranges we report here should not be interpreted as measures of price dispersion, because we are not observing maximum and minimum prices for exactly the same products at different retailers and thus are not comparing “apples to apples,” as is traditionally required to measure price dispersion.However, concrete differences in product attributes — such as potency or grow type for minimum-priced or maximum-priced cannabis — may also vary between retailers, and may correlate with price differences , even if price differences between agricultural products do not necessarily correlate with sensory characteristics.For instance, the minimum price for one-eighth ounce of flower at a particular retailer might represent a price for outdoor-grown cannabis with a THC concentration of 15%, whereas the minimum price for one-eighth ounce of flower at another retailer might represent a price for indoor-grown cannabis with a THC concentration of 20%.By analogy, if one were to collect minimum and maximum prices for all wine at retailers around California, the minimum-maximum range could not be used to measure price dispersion in a traditional sense; in order to measure dispersion, one would have to compare, for instance, the price of the same Kendall-Jackson Chardonnay at different stores.For our research, comparing prices for identical products across retailers would not have been feasible, given the Weed maps format and our data collection methods.Our approach here, in reporting cannabis price ranges, is to make no assumptions about quality and assume that minimum and maximum prices are simply prices for different types of products.It would be interesting, in future work, to explore dispersion by collecting and comparing data on standard product types across retailers.Beyond requiring product standardization, an analysis of cannabis square pot price dispersion with respect to geographic areas would also likely require a larger data set than ours.Hollenbeck and Uetake comment that regulatory barriers to entry can facilitate the exercise of monopolistic behavior by retailers.

Dispersion measures, as proxies for competition, might help illuminate regulatory impacts.As more tax and sales data are released by government agencies, it might soon become possible for researchers to collect data sets of sufficient size and precision for dispersion to be measured.Table 2 shows average minimum and maximum prices over the course of the 21-month data collection period for the three product types that we studied, along with the number of observations in each period.In the last four rounds of data collection , we generally observe only relatively slight differences in both average prices and upward or downward movements among the three retailer groups.Both statewide and within the seven-county sample, average minimum and maximum prices for one-eighth ounce of flower and for 1 ounce of flower differed by 2.5% or less, but averages differed by up to 8.8% for 500-milligram cartridges.In table 3, we report prices over the 21-month period for the non-attrited sample of the original retail store locations whose prices we collected in October 2016.These retailers may not be representative of overall state averages, particularly after the substantial attrition from the original group of retailers that we observed beginning in November 2017.However, this set of observations avoids potentially confounding factors introduced by the changing sample composition over time.Table 3 shows substantial attrition from the original seven-county sample of 542 retailers that listed prices on Weed maps in October 2016.By July 2018, 21 months after the first round of price collection, only 74 non-attrited retailers from the original sample remained active on Weed maps or Leafly.Local police crackdowns and municipal bans in some counties surely contributed to this 86% attrition rate, which should not be interpreted as representative of statewide attrition from Weed maps or evidence of the general rate of business closures.What is more interesting, perhaps, is the basic observation that only 270 licensed cannabis retailers were listed on Weed maps in all of California in July 2018, whereas in November 2017, near the end of the unregulated market, about 2,500 California cannabis businesses operated without the need for a license.This observation suggests, at least, that many medicinal cannabis retailers that had been operating legally in 2017 had not yet obtained licenses and entered the new legal market as of mid-2018.

Figures 1, 2 and 3 show average minimum and maximum prices for one-eighth ounce of flower, 1 ounce of flower and 500-milligram oil cartridges for each round of data collection, both for legally marketed cannabis and for the 20-county unlicensed sample.In the 2016 and 2017 price data, before mandatory licensing, regulation and taxation, we observe relative stability in California cannabis price ranges for all three product types.In 2018, after licensing, regulation and taxation, we observe three patterns.First, we observe falling prices for all products between February and May 2018, which may be related to retailers’ need to liquidate untested inventory that would become illegal as of July 2018.Second, we observe generally rising prices between May and July 2018, which may be related to the introduction of mandatory testing rules.However, because of the limitations and uncertain representativeness of the Weed maps sample, as well as changes to our sampling methods in different rounds, we do not have a basis for inferring a causal relationship between testing rules or other regulatory events and our minimum and maximum price averages.Third, we observe rising maximum prices for 500-milligram oil cartridges over our last four data collection rounds.At all retailers statewide that listed prices on Weed maps or Leafly, we observed a 33% increase in maximum prices from November 2017 to July 2018.Table 2 shows that the latter pattern can be observed, with some variation, in prices both in the original seven counties and in all of California.We do not know to what extent the maximum price increases for cartridges might be attributed to the introduction of new, higher-end products with differentiated sensory or functional attributes as the market has evolved; to differentiated packaging attributes; to price increases generated by increased high-end demand; to supply-side factors; or to other market effects.In general, the price patterns we observe demonstrate little evidence of seasonality, even though wholesale cannabis prices are known to vary seasonally because of the annual outdoor harvest and consequent increase in outdoor cannabis supply in the fall and winter months.We collected eight rounds of price data from the legal California retail cannabis market during a 21-month period of regulatory transition, as cannabis was being decriminalized, legalized and regulated in stages.Given the differences between the data sets we collected and the unknowns about Weed maps that we have discussed above, readers should be especially cautious in interpreting the movements we observe as “trends.” We instead describe them as “patterns.” In general, one surprising result from our price data sets over time may be the relative lack of overall price movements in California cannabis prices, with the exception of rising maximum prices for cannabis oil cartridges in 2018.

The data we report in this paper provides one source of unique information on the retail prices of cannabis flower and oil during the state’s period of transition to a regulated market environment.We hope that our data may useful to economists and other researchers who need to make basic assumptions about characteristics of the cannabis market.We did not collect price data for numerous products now available on the legal cannabis market in California, including edibles, waxes and topicals.The market has also changed in important ways since mid-2018.Many other basic reports on price data beyond ours are still needed to understand the economics of California’s rapidly changing cannabis market.Sexual harassment continues to endure as a public health problem through its persistence in everyday life, but especially in the workplace.Recently, thanks to efforts of the #Me Too movement, issues of sexual harassment and assault in the workplace have become significantly more visible in the public sphere.As defined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission , sexual harassment is defined in terms of “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment” and “when such conduct has the purpose or effect unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance,trim tray or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment”.The EEOC also notes that sexual harassment in the workplace is classified as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964 as it is a form of sex discrimination.Workplace sexual harassment is further distinguished into two categories.First, quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs when a supervisor with the ability to impose rewards or disciplinary actions onto employees uses their position to coerce victims to oblige them with sexual favors.Second, a hostile work environment harassment exists when an employee regularly experiences sexual harassment because co-workers and/or supervisors frequently engage and allow such behaviors to occur in the workplace.Lastly, with the advancement of social media and virtual communication, sexual harassment does not require in-person interactions as harassment can occur virtually.Although men and women are both victims of sexual harassment, women are most often burdened by such behavior.Studies indicate 15% of men experience sexual harassment at their work compared to one in four women who report experiencing some form of sexual harassment in the work place and in 2018, 84% of charges alleging sexual harassment while at work were filed by women.

Additionally, men more often perpetuate sexual harassment against women.The United States Merit Systems Protection Board regularly conducts a survey to capture instances of sexual harassment among employees in the federal government.Their most recent report indicates men are perpetuators of sexual harassment in the workplace in 68% of all cases.Yet, despite a greater prevalence of female victimization by males, it is important to remember men can still experience harassment perpetuated by either men or women.In addition to understanding the prevalence of sexual harassment, it is important to be aware of how harassment is perpetuated in order to understand the severity and frequency of such behavior.Behaviors that constitute sexual harassment can range from nonverbal behaviors such as staring, verbal harassment including jokes and remarks of a sexual nature to unwanted physical contact and assault.The most common forms of sexual harassment reported by employees include unwanted verbal asides as well as nonverbal behaviors including sexually suggestive looks and gestures of a sexual nature.Other commons forms of sexual harassment experienced in the workplace include showing explicit material and persistently pressuring someone for a date.Although least reported, intense instances of assault and coercion are often acted out by supervisors as opposed to co-workers or customers.For instance, negative psychological outcomes spurred by sexual harassment include stress, lower self-esteem and depression.Regardless of the severity of the incident, frequent experiences with harassment at work can negatively affect a victim’s psychological well-being and attitudes surrounding their job.For example, in more severe cases of sexual harassment, one in ten women develop symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.A longitudinal study investigating sexual harassment experienced by young adults at work found that such experiences early in one’s career can have long term effects such as depressive symptoms in adulthood among male and female victims.Such findings indicate that the mental health consequences of sexual harassment are not only immediate but can have a long lasting impact on victims.Specifically, researchers propose that the stress caused by harassment can affect not only work, but other domains in one’s life such as family relationships and friendships.Therefore, stress proliferation serves as a mechanism for linking sexual harassment to an increased risk of depression among victims.In addition to effects on psychological well-being, sexual harassment also negatively affects an organization via a worker’s ability to fulfill their work responsibilities.The aftermath of such an experience can affect a worker’s ability to function in the very environment where they experienced and are at further risk of harassment.Sexual harassment can cause female workers to become withdrawn from their job, through their avoidance of tasks and refusal to show up to work altogether.Studies have also found that harassment by supervisors leads to lower employee satisfaction with their job, supervisors, promotions as well as lower job commitment by both male and female workers.Trauma and stress invoked by harassment can also cause workers to become distracted on the job and increases the risk of accidents occurring.Harassment in the workplace significantly increases employee turnover, despite mediation of work satisfaction, particularly in studies focused on female workers.As women are forced to leave their jobs because of harassment, they experience financial stress in the form of career disruption and wage loss.