Cannabis Retailers Cluster in Low-Income and Minority Neighborhoods Across 18 States
Census tracts with higher socioeconomic deprivation and greater concentrations of low-income Black or Hispanic residents had 2.0-2.5 times the odds of having a cannabis retailer.
Quick Facts
What This Study Found
Across 18 legalized states, 11% of census tracts had at least one recreational cannabis retailer. Tracts with the greatest concentration of low-income Black or Hispanic residents had 2.0-2.5 times the odds of retailer presence compared to more advantaged tracts, even after adjustment.
Key Numbers
5,586 retailers across 18 states; 11% of census tracts had at least 1 retailer; 2.0-2.5x higher odds in most disadvantaged tracts.
How They Did This
Cross-sectional analysis of 5,586 geocoded recreational cannabis retailers from 2023 state agency lists across 18 states. Used multilevel logistic and negative binomial regression with neighborhood deprivation index and index of concentration at the extremes.
Why This Research Matters
Cannabis legalization was partly justified by reducing racial disparities in enforcement. If retailers then cluster in disadvantaged communities of color, it raises questions about whether legalization is replicating existing patterns of unequal exposure to substance retail.
The Bigger Picture
This pattern mirrors historical patterns with alcohol and tobacco retailers. Equity provisions in cannabis legislation were meant to address this, but retail clustering in disadvantaged areas suggests market forces may override policy intentions.
What This Study Doesn't Tell Us
Cross-sectional design captures a single point in time as markets are still maturing. Cannot determine causation or direction of effects. State-level variation in licensing and zoning rules not fully accounted for.
Questions This Raises
- ?Are equity-focused cannabis licensing policies effectively preventing retailer clustering in disadvantaged areas?
- ?Does cannabis retail density in a neighborhood affect local consumption patterns?
Trust & Context
- Key Stat:
- 2.0-2.5x higher odds of retailers in most disadvantaged tracts
- Evidence Grade:
- Large cross-sectional analysis using validated deprivation indices across 18 states, though causal inference is limited.
- Study Age:
- 2025 publication with 2023 retailer data
- Original Title:
- The Unequal Geography of Recreational Cannabis Retailers in the U.S.
- Published In:
- American journal of preventive medicine, 69(2), 107643 (2025)
- Database ID:
- RTHC-06812
Evidence Hierarchy
Frequently Asked Questions
Are cannabis stores more common in low-income neighborhoods?
Yes, this study of 5,586 retailers across 18 states found census tracts with higher socioeconomic deprivation had significantly more cannabis retailers. The most disadvantaged areas had 2.0-2.5 times the odds of having a retailer.
Does cannabis retail location affect racial equity?
This study found tracts with the greatest concentration of low-income Black or Hispanic residents were significantly more likely to have cannabis retailers, raising concerns about equitable distribution of cannabis commerce.
Read More on RethinkTHC
Cite This Study
https://rethinkthc.com/research/RTHC-06812APA
Kephart, Lindsay L; Rees, Vaughan W; Giovenco, Daniel P; Subramanian, Sankaran V. (2025). The Unequal Geography of Recreational Cannabis Retailers in the U.S.. American journal of preventive medicine, 69(2), 107643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2025.107643
MLA
Kephart, Lindsay L, et al. "The Unequal Geography of Recreational Cannabis Retailers in the U.S.." American journal of preventive medicine, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2025.107643
RethinkTHC
RethinkTHC Research Database. "The Unequal Geography of Recreational Cannabis Retailers in ..." RTHC-06812. Retrieved from https://rethinkthc.com/research/kephart-2025-the-unequal-geography-of
Access the Original Study
Study data sourced from PubMed, a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
This study breakdown was produced by the RethinkTHC research team. We analyze and report published research findings without making health recommendations. All interpretations are based solely on the published abstract and study data.