Introduction: The legalization of recreational cannabis in Canada has increased accessibility and acceptability leading to increased consumption. Pharmacists are trained as medication experts and can play a key role in supporting customers through harm reduction and safe medical cannabis use decisions. However, the Cannabis Act, nor professional standards of practice, outline any role for pharmacists in dispensing or helping their patients navigate cannabis related decisions, outside of assessment for use. The purpose of this study was to identify pharmacists' perceived roles in providing cannabis related care.   
Methods: This mixed methods study combines a survey (n=345) with qualitative semi-structured interviews (n=18) conducted with Canadian pharmacists. Participants were recruited through the Canadian Pharmacists Association and online pharmacy forums. Descriptive statistics were used for survey data, while thematic analysis was conducted on interview transcripts. Data was integrated to understand pharmacist’s roles and how they could be implemented in practice. 
Results: Pharmacists surveyed believed that they should have a role in dispensing (78.4%) and counselling (79.9%) medical cannabis. Almost half (47%) believed they had a role counselling for recreational use. Qualitative findings helped to contextualize these roles and how to operationalize them further. The following themes were identified: regulations; education and clinical guidance; operational challenges; and harm reduction.  
Conclusion: Pharmacists are an accessible healthcare provider with medication expertise and can support patients with cannabis related care. However, there are barriers to providing care that need to be overcome before pharmacists can fully embrace these roles.

Introduction/Background:  The legalization of non-medical cannabis increased accessibility for those wanting to explore medical and well-being uses, but many consumers are reluctant to speak to healthcare providers. Legal retail store employees are both unqualified and not legally allowed to provide in-depth health and wellness information to clients. This leaves a gap in the access to in-person delivery of cannabis harm reduction information, which pharmacists may fill if they are adequately trained.

Methods: Seven focus group sessions were held with 22 participants as part of a mixed-methods project and were analyzed using manual coding in conjunction with CoLoop.ai. The semi-structured questions explored what contributes to consumers’ willingness or unwillingness to engage with a pharmacist to support cannabis-related decisions and what might encourage them to seek guidance from pharmacists. Participants were required to be over the age of 18, live in Canada, and have previously consumed cannabis.

Results and Analysis:  Participants ranged in age from 29-75 years of age (M=53.5). Participants cited several barriers to consulting pharmacists, including pharmacists’ perceived lack of knowledge, fear of stigma, the transactional nature of pharmacy interactions, and accessibility and convenience issues. Participants suggested that improving expertise, quality, relevance of information, accessibility, convenience, and reducing stigma could encourage them to seek information from pharmacists.

Conclusions and Implications for Policy, Practice, or Additional Research: The findings highlight the need for enhanced cannabis training for pharmacists and improved accessibility of stigma-free and reliable information for consumers. These insights can inform policy changes, educational initiatives, and further research to support pharmacists in translating cannabis knowledge and best practices to consumers, ultimately enhancing their health and safety.

Background: In jurisdictions that have already legalised cannabis only 62% of domestic growers indicated in a global survey that their grows were compliant with the law. Research is needed to design a cannabis regulatory environment that would encourage higher levels of compliance with the law.

Objective: To study the policy preferences of domestic cannabis growers regarding cannabis production under a (hypothetical) legal cannabis model.

Method: We surveyed 11,479 small-scale cannabis growers (ICCQ V2) from 2020 to 2021. We analysed (descriptive statistics, regressions and cluster analysis) a subsample of 6,296 respondents who lived in 13 jurisdictions that had not legalised recreational cannabis (at the time) and one jurisdiction that had legalised recreational cannabis using R.

Results: Growers’ preferred policy would allow for unlicensed private grows of cannabis by adults, while selling cannabis would necessitate a license (59%). Paid employment was associated with increased support for this policy (63%). Lower levels of support for this policy were associated with selling own-grown cannabis (46%) and contact with police for cannabis cultivation (48%). Growers indicated that large pricing gaps between a legal and black-market cannabis price increased the likelihood of illegal growing activity.
Conclusion: An inclusive regulatory model that allowed for private domestic grows of cannabis, alongside legal cannabis sold at a price that is not substantially higher than black-market cannabis, would likely be met by high levels of compliance by people who are currently growing their own cannabis and not involved in distribution.