Costs of cannabis testing compliance: Assessing mandatory testing in the California cannabis market
Most U.S. states that have regulated and taxed cannabis have imposed some form of mandatory safety testing requirements. In California, the country's largest and oldest legal cannabis market, mandatory testing was first enforced by state regulators in July 2018, and additional mandatory tests w...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2020-04, Vol.15 (4), p.e0232041-e0232041 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0232041 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | e0232041 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 15 |
| creator | Valdes-Donoso, Pablo Sumner, Daniel A Goldstein, Robin |
| description | Most U.S. states that have regulated and taxed cannabis have imposed some form of mandatory safety testing requirements. In California, the country's largest and oldest legal cannabis market, mandatory testing was first enforced by state regulators in July 2018, and additional mandatory tests were introduced at the end of 2018. All cannabis must be tested and labeled as certified by a state-licensed cannabis testing laboratory before it can be legally marketed in California. Every batch that is sold by licensed retailers must be tested for more than 100 contaminants, including 66 pesticides with tolerance levels lower than the levels allowable for any other agricultural product in California. This paper estimates the costs of compliance with mandatory cannabis testing laws and regulations, using California's testing regime as a case study. We use state government data, data collected from testing laboratories, and data collected from lab equipment suppliers to run a set of Monte Carlo simulations and estimate the cost per pound of compliance with California's new cannabis testing regulations. We find that cost per pound is highly sensitive to average batch size and testing failure rates. We present results under a variety of different assumptions about batch size and failure rates. We also find that under realistic assumptions, the loss of cannabis that must be destroyed if a batch fails testing accounts for a larger share of total testing costs than does the cost of the lab tests. Using our best estimates of average batch size (8 pounds) and failure rate (4%) in the 2019 California market, we estimate testing cost at $136 per pound of dried cannabis flower, or about 10 percent of the reported average wholesale price of legal cannabis in the state. Our findings explain effects of the testing standards on the cost of supplying legal licensed cannabis, in California, other U.S. states, and foreign jurisdictions with similar testing regimes. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0232041 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2394190077</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_c0e5b83d0f414f7da4195d398abf2447</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2394190077</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c526t-a957d602d3e59debd6a246a67799cb5bd6eab2c3f35a59dd354acdc7f587300f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkstuEzEUhkcIREvhDRCMxIZNgq_jMQukKgJaqVI3sLbO-JI6eOxgT5D69jjNNLSoK9vH3_nPRX_TvMVoianAnzZplyOE5TZFu0SEEsTws-YUS0oWHUH0-YP7SfOqlA1CnPZd97I5oRVnosenjV6lMpU2uVZDjDD40k62TD6uW53GbfAQtf3cnpdiS9lHR4gGppRvj5yP7XRj2xUE71KOHv5JjZB_2el188JBKPbNfJ41P799_bG6WFxdf79cnV8tNCfdtADJhekQMdRyaexgOiCsg04IKfXA69vCQDR1lEMFDOUMtNHC8V5QhBw9a94fdLchFTXvpyhCJcMSISEqcXkgTIKN2mZfG7xVCby6C6S8VpAnr4NVGlk-9NQgxzBzwkDV4IbKHgZHGNtrfZmr7YbRGm3jlCE8En38E_2NWqc_SmAhe0GqwMdZIKffu7pMNfqibQgQbdod-pZIEIYq-uE_9Onp2IHSOZWSrTs2g5Hae-Y-S-09o2bP1LR3Dwc5Jt2bhP4FNFDBew</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2394190077</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Costs of cannabis testing compliance: Assessing mandatory testing in the California cannabis market</title><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Valdes-Donoso, Pablo ; Sumner, Daniel A ; Goldstein, Robin</creator><contributor>Sane, Renuka</contributor><creatorcontrib>Valdes-Donoso, Pablo ; Sumner, Daniel A ; Goldstein, Robin ; Sane, Renuka</creatorcontrib><description>Most U.S. states that have regulated and taxed cannabis have imposed some form of mandatory safety testing requirements. In California, the country's largest and oldest legal cannabis market, mandatory testing was first enforced by state regulators in July 2018, and additional mandatory tests were introduced at the end of 2018. All cannabis must be tested and labeled as certified by a state-licensed cannabis testing laboratory before it can be legally marketed in California. Every batch that is sold by licensed retailers must be tested for more than 100 contaminants, including 66 pesticides with tolerance levels lower than the levels allowable for any other agricultural product in California. This paper estimates the costs of compliance with mandatory cannabis testing laws and regulations, using California's testing regime as a case study. We use state government data, data collected from testing laboratories, and data collected from lab equipment suppliers to run a set of Monte Carlo simulations and estimate the cost per pound of compliance with California's new cannabis testing regulations. We find that cost per pound is highly sensitive to average batch size and testing failure rates. We present results under a variety of different assumptions about batch size and failure rates. We also find that under realistic assumptions, the loss of cannabis that must be destroyed if a batch fails testing accounts for a larger share of total testing costs than does the cost of the lab tests. Using our best estimates of average batch size (8 pounds) and failure rate (4%) in the 2019 California market, we estimate testing cost at $136 per pound of dried cannabis flower, or about 10 percent of the reported average wholesale price of legal cannabis in the state. Our findings explain effects of the testing standards on the cost of supplying legal licensed cannabis, in California, other U.S. states, and foreign jurisdictions with similar testing regimes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232041</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32324781</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Biology and Life Sciences ; Cannabis ; Certification testing ; Computer simulation ; Contaminants ; Costs ; Engineering and Technology ; Failure rates ; Heavy metals ; Laboratory tests ; Licenses ; Licensing ; Manufacturers ; Medical marijuana ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; People and places ; Pesticides ; Physical Sciences ; Regulation ; Regulations ; Social Sciences ; Solvents ; Testing laboratories</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2020-04, Vol.15 (4), p.e0232041-e0232041</ispartof><rights>2020 Valdes-Donoso et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2020 Valdes-Donoso et al 2020 Valdes-Donoso et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c526t-a957d602d3e59debd6a246a67799cb5bd6eab2c3f35a59dd354acdc7f587300f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c526t-a957d602d3e59debd6a246a67799cb5bd6eab2c3f35a59dd354acdc7f587300f3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5855-9742</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7179872/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7179872/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79343,79344</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32324781$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Sane, Renuka</contributor><creatorcontrib>Valdes-Donoso, Pablo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sumner, Daniel A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goldstein, Robin</creatorcontrib><title>Costs of cannabis testing compliance: Assessing mandatory testing in the California cannabis market</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Most U.S. states that have regulated and taxed cannabis have imposed some form of mandatory safety testing requirements. In California, the country's largest and oldest legal cannabis market, mandatory testing was first enforced by state regulators in July 2018, and additional mandatory tests were introduced at the end of 2018. All cannabis must be tested and labeled as certified by a state-licensed cannabis testing laboratory before it can be legally marketed in California. Every batch that is sold by licensed retailers must be tested for more than 100 contaminants, including 66 pesticides with tolerance levels lower than the levels allowable for any other agricultural product in California. This paper estimates the costs of compliance with mandatory cannabis testing laws and regulations, using California's testing regime as a case study. We use state government data, data collected from testing laboratories, and data collected from lab equipment suppliers to run a set of Monte Carlo simulations and estimate the cost per pound of compliance with California's new cannabis testing regulations. We find that cost per pound is highly sensitive to average batch size and testing failure rates. We present results under a variety of different assumptions about batch size and failure rates. We also find that under realistic assumptions, the loss of cannabis that must be destroyed if a batch fails testing accounts for a larger share of total testing costs than does the cost of the lab tests. Using our best estimates of average batch size (8 pounds) and failure rate (4%) in the 2019 California market, we estimate testing cost at $136 per pound of dried cannabis flower, or about 10 percent of the reported average wholesale price of legal cannabis in the state. Our findings explain effects of the testing standards on the cost of supplying legal licensed cannabis, in California, other U.S. states, and foreign jurisdictions with similar testing regimes.</description><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Cannabis</subject><subject>Certification testing</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Contaminants</subject><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Engineering and Technology</subject><subject>Failure rates</subject><subject>Heavy metals</subject><subject>Laboratory tests</subject><subject>Licenses</subject><subject>Licensing</subject><subject>Manufacturers</subject><subject>Medical marijuana</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>People and places</subject><subject>Pesticides</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Regulation</subject><subject>Regulations</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Solvents</subject><subject>Testing laboratories</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNptkstuEzEUhkcIREvhDRCMxIZNgq_jMQukKgJaqVI3sLbO-JI6eOxgT5D69jjNNLSoK9vH3_nPRX_TvMVoianAnzZplyOE5TZFu0SEEsTws-YUS0oWHUH0-YP7SfOqlA1CnPZd97I5oRVnosenjV6lMpU2uVZDjDD40k62TD6uW53GbfAQtf3cnpdiS9lHR4gGppRvj5yP7XRj2xUE71KOHv5JjZB_2el188JBKPbNfJ41P799_bG6WFxdf79cnV8tNCfdtADJhekQMdRyaexgOiCsg04IKfXA69vCQDR1lEMFDOUMtNHC8V5QhBw9a94fdLchFTXvpyhCJcMSISEqcXkgTIKN2mZfG7xVCby6C6S8VpAnr4NVGlk-9NQgxzBzwkDV4IbKHgZHGNtrfZmr7YbRGm3jlCE8En38E_2NWqc_SmAhe0GqwMdZIKffu7pMNfqibQgQbdod-pZIEIYq-uE_9Onp2IHSOZWSrTs2g5Hae-Y-S-09o2bP1LR3Dwc5Jt2bhP4FNFDBew</recordid><startdate>20200423</startdate><enddate>20200423</enddate><creator>Valdes-Donoso, Pablo</creator><creator>Sumner, Daniel A</creator><creator>Goldstein, Robin</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5855-9742</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200423</creationdate><title>Costs of cannabis testing compliance: Assessing mandatory testing in the California cannabis market</title><author>Valdes-Donoso, Pablo ; Sumner, Daniel A ; Goldstein, Robin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c526t-a957d602d3e59debd6a246a67799cb5bd6eab2c3f35a59dd354acdc7f587300f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Cannabis</topic><topic>Certification testing</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Contaminants</topic><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Engineering and Technology</topic><topic>Failure rates</topic><topic>Heavy metals</topic><topic>Laboratory tests</topic><topic>Licenses</topic><topic>Licensing</topic><topic>Manufacturers</topic><topic>Medical marijuana</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>People and places</topic><topic>Pesticides</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Regulation</topic><topic>Regulations</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Solvents</topic><topic>Testing laboratories</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Valdes-Donoso, Pablo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sumner, Daniel A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goldstein, Robin</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Proquest Nursing & Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Valdes-Donoso, Pablo</au><au>Sumner, Daniel A</au><au>Goldstein, Robin</au><au>Sane, Renuka</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Costs of cannabis testing compliance: Assessing mandatory testing in the California cannabis market</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2020-04-23</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>e0232041</spage><epage>e0232041</epage><pages>e0232041-e0232041</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Most U.S. states that have regulated and taxed cannabis have imposed some form of mandatory safety testing requirements. In California, the country's largest and oldest legal cannabis market, mandatory testing was first enforced by state regulators in July 2018, and additional mandatory tests were introduced at the end of 2018. All cannabis must be tested and labeled as certified by a state-licensed cannabis testing laboratory before it can be legally marketed in California. Every batch that is sold by licensed retailers must be tested for more than 100 contaminants, including 66 pesticides with tolerance levels lower than the levels allowable for any other agricultural product in California. This paper estimates the costs of compliance with mandatory cannabis testing laws and regulations, using California's testing regime as a case study. We use state government data, data collected from testing laboratories, and data collected from lab equipment suppliers to run a set of Monte Carlo simulations and estimate the cost per pound of compliance with California's new cannabis testing regulations. We find that cost per pound is highly sensitive to average batch size and testing failure rates. We present results under a variety of different assumptions about batch size and failure rates. We also find that under realistic assumptions, the loss of cannabis that must be destroyed if a batch fails testing accounts for a larger share of total testing costs than does the cost of the lab tests. Using our best estimates of average batch size (8 pounds) and failure rate (4%) in the 2019 California market, we estimate testing cost at $136 per pound of dried cannabis flower, or about 10 percent of the reported average wholesale price of legal cannabis in the state. Our findings explain effects of the testing standards on the cost of supplying legal licensed cannabis, in California, other U.S. states, and foreign jurisdictions with similar testing regimes.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>32324781</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0232041</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5855-9742</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2020-04, Vol.15 (4), p.e0232041-e0232041 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2394190077 |
| source | Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Biology and Life Sciences Cannabis Certification testing Computer simulation Contaminants Costs Engineering and Technology Failure rates Heavy metals Laboratory tests Licenses Licensing Manufacturers Medical marijuana Medicine and Health Sciences People and places Pesticides Physical Sciences Regulation Regulations Social Sciences Solvents Testing laboratories |
| title | Costs of cannabis testing compliance: Assessing mandatory testing in the California cannabis market |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T16%3A07%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Costs%20of%20cannabis%20testing%20compliance:%20Assessing%20mandatory%20testing%20in%20the%20California%20cannabis%20market&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Valdes-Donoso,%20Pablo&rft.date=2020-04-23&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=e0232041&rft.epage=e0232041&rft.pages=e0232041-e0232041&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0232041&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_plos_%3E2394190077%3C/proquest_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2394190077&rft_id=info:pmid/32324781&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_c0e5b83d0f414f7da4195d398abf2447&rfr_iscdi=true |