Data Methodology

Every data decision at CannabisResource is guided by four non-negotiable principles:

License data is sourced directly from state cannabis regulatory agency public databases. We track active, suspended, revoked, and expired licenses across all 38 legal markets.

Ownership mapping methodology:

• Corporate parent identification via SEC EDGAR beneficial ownership filings (Schedule 13D/G, proxy statements);
• State license applications cross-referenced against registered agent databases;
• DBA (doing business as) name resolution via state business registries;
• Manual verification for private companies using court records and state filings.

Market share calculations represent the percentage of active licenses held by the top 5 license holders in each state. This is a proxy metric — it does not directly measure revenue share or sales volume.

Violation and enforcement data is sourced from state regulatory agency enforcement action databases, administrative hearing records, and public notice publications. We track:

• Administrative violations (labeling, testing, record-keeping);
• License suspensions and revocations;
• Civil penalties and fines;
• Criminal referrals (where publicly disclosed);
• Product recalls and market withdrawals.

Severity classification: Critical (public health risk, license revocation), Moderate (significant regulatory violation, civil penalty), Minor (administrative non-compliance, warning issued). Classifications are based on the regulatory agency's own severity designations where available.

Federal lobbying data is sourced from the Senate Office of Public Records (SOPR) via the OpenSecrets.org database, which aggregates Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) filings. State lobbying data is sourced from individual state ethics commission disclosure portals.

• Federal figures represent total reported lobbying expenditures per LDA filings;
• State figures are aggregated from available state disclosure databases (coverage varies by state);
• Figures are updated quarterly following LDA filing deadlines;
• Indirect lobbying (grassroots campaigns, trade association dues) is not captured in these figures.

Wholesale market pricing data is compiled from multiple sources and represents national ranges, not transaction-specific prices:

• Licensed wholesale marketplace transaction data (anonymized, aggregated);
• State-published price reports where available (e.g., Oregon OLCC quarterly reports);
• Operator-submitted benchmarking data (minimum 10 submissions required per data point);
• Third-party market research publications (Cannabis Benchmarks, BDSA).

Pricing ranges represent the 10th–90th percentile of reported transactions. Outliers are excluded. Data is updated weekly. Prices are national averages and will vary significantly by state, quality tier, and market conditions.

The Scientific Library indexes peer-reviewed research from PubMed/NCBI. Our evidence classification system:

Study summaries are written by our editorial team and reviewed for accuracy. They are interpretations of the cited research and do not replace reading the primary source. Dosing information is drawn from study protocols and is not medical advice.

The Product Truth Index scores products based on submitted Certificates of Analysis (COAs) from ISO 17025-accredited laboratories. Our scoring methodology:

• Potency Accuracy (40 pts) — label claim vs. COA result. ±5% = full score; ±10% = partial; >10% variance = flag;
• Contaminant Testing (30 pts) — full panel (pesticides, heavy metals, microbials, residual solvents) = full score; partial panel = partial;
• Terpene Verification (15 pts) — terpene profile tested and reported;
• Lab Independence (15 pts) — COA from lab with no financial relationship to the brand.

Products scoring below 50 are flagged. Products with detected contaminants above state action limits are marked Critical. We do not accept COAs submitted directly by brands without independent verification.

CannabisResource Investigations and Policy Analysis content follows the standards of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics:

• Seek truth and report it — minimize harm, act independently;
• All factual claims require at least two independent sources or documentary evidence;
• Subjects of investigations are contacted for comment before publication;
• Opinion and analysis are clearly labeled and separated from factual reporting;
• Conflicts of interest are disclosed. Staff may not hold financial positions in cannabis companies.

We correct errors promptly and transparently. When a factual error is identified:

• Corrections are reviewed within 48 business hours of submission;
• Verified corrections are applied with a correction note on the affected page;
• Significant corrections to investigations or data reports are noted prominently;
• We do not silently edit published content — all material changes are documented.

To submit a correction: use our Contact form and select "Data Correction" as the category. Include the specific data point, page URL, and a primary source link.

CannabisResource is operated by {ENTITY_NAME} as an independent public interest platform. We are funded exclusively by:

• Foundation grants from journalism and public health organizations;
• Individual reader contributions;
• Data licensing to academic institutions and public health agencies (non-commercial use only).

We do not accept advertising, sponsored content, affiliate fees, or funding from cannabis operators, investors, lobbyists, or trade associations. Our editorial decisions are made independently of all funding sources.

Questions about our funding or independence? Contact us at [email protected].