The Association Between Sociodemographic Factors and co-Use of Cigars or Cigarillos with Cannabis
aCenter for Tobacco Research, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
bDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA
cDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
CONTACT Lei Xu Lei.Xu@osumc.edu Center for Tobacco Research, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.Abstract
Background:
Cigar/cigarillo smoking and cannabis use frequently co-occur, reflecting overlapping patterns of substance use and shared risk factors. However, little is known about how co-use of cigars/cigarillos and cannabis is associated with sociodemographic factors, as well as preferences for cannabis forms and spending patterns among co-users.
Methods:
We analyzed data from the second wave of a national longitudinal survey of U.S. adults who reported recreational cannabis use in January 2025 (N = 1,524). The survey included detailed information on past-30-day cigar/cigarillo use, enabling comparisons between cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-users and cannabis-only users. We compare these two groups by applying logistic regression to examine sociodemographic correlates and product-specific cannabis preferences, and OLS regression to evaluate differences in total cannabis spending.
Results:
Overall, 8.26% of recreational cannabis adult users also smoke cigars/cigarillos. Compared with White, non-Hispanic cannabis users, Black, non-Hispanic users are five times (p < 0.001) more likely to smoke cigars/cigarillos. Compared with cannabis users with less than high school education, those with some college or a bachelor’s degree are less likely to smoke cigars/cigarillos. Cigar/cigarillo smoking among cannabis users is associated with higher use of flowers (OR = 2.16, p < 0.05) and pre-rolls (OR = 2.05, p < 0.01). Cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-users report significantly $72 higher monthly cannabis expenditures than cannabis-only users.
Conclusions:
Adult cannabis users who are Black, non-Hispanic and have less than an associate degree are more likely to smoke cigars/cigarillos. Cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-users are more likely to consume smoking forms of cannabis such as flowers and to spend more on cannabis, suggesting possible increased risks of harm and addiction associated with co-use.
Background
Co-use of cannabis and cigars/cigarillos is a common pattern of substance use in the United States and may include concurrent use of both products on different occasions as well as simultaneous use on the same occasion (Chu et al., 2023; Cohn et al., 2018; Fairman & Dutra, 2025) A particularly prevalent form of simultaneous use is blunt smoking, whereby cannabis flowers are smoked inside hollowed-out cigar wrappers (Chu et al., 2023; Hindocha & McClure, 2021; Kong et al., 2018; Nguyen et al., 2024; Peters et al., 2016; Timberlake et al., 2007). Although blunt use may be categorized as co-use of cigars/cigarillos and cannabis, some survey respondents may not consider or report blunt use as cigar/cigarillo use, resulting in inconsistent measurement and underreporting (Hindocha & McClure, 2021). This may occur because blunts are often perceived primarily as a form of cannabis consumption rather than tobacco use, particularly after the tobacco filler is removed and replaced with cannabis. Nevertheless, surveillance data show that both co-use and blunt use of cannabis and cigars/cigarillos are prevalent in the US (Pike Moore et al., 2025). In 2011–2012, 20.6% of adults who used cannabis in the past 30 days also reported cigar use (Schauer et al., 2016). Similarly, in 2015–2019, 51.5% of past 30-day cigar adult smokers reported blunt smoking (Jensen et al., 2025).
Both cannabis use and cigar/cigarillo smoking carry health risks. Cannabis use is associated with impaired cognitive functioning, cannabis use disorder, and adverse mental health outcomes, while smoking cannabis contributes to respiratory harm (Gobbi et al., 2019; Gowin et al., 2025; Hasin et al., 2015; Meier et al., 2012; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Committee, 2024). As combustible tobacco, cigar and cigarillo smoking pose health risks comparable to cigarette smoking. Co-use may therefore expose individuals to compounded harms, particularly when both substances are smoked (Meier and Hatsukami, 2016; Smith et al., 2020; Timberlake et al., 2007). Furthermore, blunt smoking can expose users to residual nicotine present in cigar wrappers, potentially reinforcing tobacco dependence (Bélanger et al., 2013; Pike Moore et al., 2025; Schauer et al., 2017). Compared with other tobacco products (e.g. cigarettes and e-cigarettes), cigar/cigarillo smoking is associated with higher odds of co-use with cannabis and lower odds of quitting tobacco, suggesting a particularly high-risk behavioral profile (Strong et al., 2018).
Evidence suggests bidirectional associations between cigar/cigarillo use and cannabis use, whereby use of one product is associated with current and subsequent use of the other (Cohn & Chen, 2022; Ramo et al., 2012; Ross et al., 2020). However, the potential gateway or reinforcing effects of multiple substance use remain insufficiently understood in the context of cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-use (Agrawal et al., 2012; Badiani et al., 2015; Degenhardt et al., 2010). These dynamics are particularly relevant in a rapidly evolving marketplace offering diverse cannabis products with varying potency and modes of administration (Pacula & Smart, 2017). Prior research shows that young adults, non-Hispanic Black individuals, Hispanic individuals, and populations of low SES—groups with high prevalence of cigar/cigarillo smoking, also demonstrate higher odds of smoking cannabis rather than using noncombustible administration modalities (e.g. vaping via devices like vape pens, intaking through edibles, drinks, or oral products like capsules). The shared combustion methods may reinforce co-use behaviors and contribute to elevated health risks (Agrawal & Lynskey, 2009; Diaby et al., 2025; Quader et al., 2025). Consistent with this pattern, evidence on tobacco-cannabis co-use and blunt use shows higher prevalence among males, youths, racial/ethnic minority groups, individuals of lower socioeconomic status, and sexual minority populations (Pike Moore et al., 2022; Ramo et al., 2012; Schauer et al., 2017). Meanwhile, although cigarette smoking has declined in the U.S., reductions in cigar/cigarillo smoking have been less pronounced, and blunt smoking has continued to increase (Glasser et al., 2025). These trends underscore the need for greater research attention to the co-use of cigars/cigarillos and cannabis.
Economic determinants, including spending patterns, are also likely to influence both the co-use of cigars/cigarillos and cannabis and the effectiveness and implementation of related regulations. Compared with cigarettes, cigars and cigarillos offer features such as smaller pack sizes, lower prices, and a wide variety of flavors, making them attractive alternatives for maintaining combustible tobacco use (Chen-Sankey et al., 2024; Committee on Patterns of Use and Health Effects of “Premium Cigars” and Priority Research, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice, Health and Medicine Division, & The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022; Delnevo et al., 2017). Qualitative studies further indicate that adolescents and young adults consider cheap cigarillo/cigar brands to be primarily for blunt use (Kong et al., 2018). Quantifying spending patterns among individuals who co-use cigars/cigarillos and cannabis can therefore elucidate whether such co-use behaviors exacerbate or mitigate financial constraints on users, particularly those from low SES and minority populations who may already experience economic disadvantage. Evidence from prior regulatory efforts targeting cigarettes and sugar-sweetened beverages also suggests that perceived financial burdens on vulnerable populations can pose barriers to policy adoption or contribute to policy reversal.
This study aims to fill these gaps by examining sociodemographic disparities in cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-use among adult cannabis users, and by comparing cannabis product preferences and spending patterns between co-users and cannabis-only users. Using data from a national longitudinal survey of adult cannabis users, we provide, to our knowledge, the first comprehensive analyses of these dynamics in a representative adult sample. By addressing gaps in knowledge on disparities, product preferences, and economic behaviors, this research advances our understanding of cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-use, updates the evidence base to reflect the current marketplace, and informs ongoing policy debates.
Methods
Data and setting
We drew on a nationally representative sample of non-institutionalized U.S. adults from the IPSOS Knowledge Panel who reported cannabis use. Eligibility requirements included: (1) being at least 21 years old, (2) residing in the United States, and (3) reporting recreational cannabis use within the past 30 days. The final analytic sample consisted of 1,525 participants, of whom 747 reported using cannabis for both recreational and medical purposes and 778 reported exclusive recreational use. The survey gathered detailed information on cannabis consumption patterns, co-use with other substances (including cigars/cigarillos), and sociodemographic characteristics such as age and education. To ensure national representativeness of adult cannabis users, survey weights are provided by Ipsos who constructed them based on the 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) data.
Respondents also reported their cannabis expenditures by product type. Cannabis product types included flower (dried cannabis for smoking), prerolls (ready-made joints or blunts), edibles (cannabis-infused foods or beverages), prefilled cartridges (vape cartridges containing cannabis oil), concentrates (high-potency extracts such as wax or resin), topicals (cannabis-infused creams or lotions), and an “other” category for products not captured in these groups. These data enabled us to estimate cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-use prevalence, examine sociodemographic correlates of cigar/cigarillo use among cannabis users, analyze associations with cannabis product preferences, and evaluate differences in cannabis spending.
Measures
Sociodemographic correlates of cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-use
The outcome variable was cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-use. In the survey, participants self-reported their past 30-day cigar/cigarillo use, which was coded as a binary indicator (1 = any use; 0 = none). Explanatory variables included a consistent set of sociodemographic characteristics. These covariates captured age in years, sex (female, male as reference), race (Black, non-Hispanic; Other, non-Hispanic; Hispanic; 2+ Races, non-Hispanic; White, non-Hispanic as reference), annual household income ($10,000–$24,999, $25,000–$49,999, $50,000–$74,999, $75,000–$99,999, $100,000–$149,999, $150,000 or more, less than $10,000 as reference), education (High school graduate, Some college or associate’s degree, Bachelor’s degree or higher, no high school diploma as reference), employment status (Working part time, Not working, Working full time as reference), and metropolitan status (Living in a metropolitan area, Living in non-metropolitan area as reference, based on standard geographic classifications) (Bureau, 2026).
Product-specific cannabis expenditures and cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-use
The outcome variables are product-specific categorical cannabis expenditures. In the survey, respondents reported both their past 30-day total monthly expenditures on cannabis and the percentage across product type, including flower, prerolls, edibles, prefilled cartridges, concentrates, topicals, and other products. From these reports, we generated binary indicators of product-specific spending (1 = any positive expenditure reported for a given product type in the past 30 days; 0 = none) to examine variation across product categories. The primary explanatory variable was cannabis–cigar/cigarillo co-use (1 = any past 30-day use; 0 = none). All models controlled for the same set of sociodemographic variables described above.
Total monthly cannabis expenditure and cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-use
The outcome variable is total monthly cannabis expenditure, measured as a continuous variable (U.S. dollars) based on self-reported past 30-day spending. The primary explanatory variable was cannabis–cigar/cigarillo co-use (1 = any past 30-day use; 0 = none). The same sociodemographic covariates described above are used as control variables. Controlling for these factors ensured that observed associations between cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-use and cannabis expenditures were not driven by underlying demographic or socioeconomic differences. We evaluated multicollinearity among these predictors using variance inflation factors (VIFs), and all VIFs were well below accepted thresholds (maximum VIF = 5.34), indicating no evidence of problematic collinearity.
Analytical methods
We conducted three sets of regression analyses to address the study objectives. First, we used a logistic regression model to examine sociodemographic correlates of cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-use among adult recreational cannabis users. The dependent variable was cigar/cigarillo use (yes/no), with age, gender, race and ethnicity, education, income, employment status, and metropolitan residence entered as covariates. The selection of covariates is consistent with prior studies examining tobacco and cannabis use behaviors (Ma et al., 2025a, 2025b; Xu et al., 2025).
Second, we evaluated the association between cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-use and product-specific cannabis expenditures. For each product category—flower, prerolls, edibles, prefilled cartridges, concentrates, topicals, and other products—we estimated a separate logistic regression model with the binary outcome indicating any positive spending on that category in the past 30 days. Each model included cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-use as the key explanatory variable, controlling for the same sociodemographic covariates.
Finally, we analyzed total monthly cannabis expenditure using a linear ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model. Total monthly cannabis spending was constructed as a continuous variable in U.S. dollars from self-reported monthly cannabis expenditures and served as the dependent variable. The model specification included cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-use as the primary explanatory variable and adjusted for the same sociodemographic controls.
All analyses incorporated survey weights to account for the sampling design and ensure national representativeness. The robust standard errors were used and we reported odds ratios with confidence intervals in the result tables.
Results
Table 1 presents the summary statistics for the variables used for analyses in our analytic sample of 1,524 individuals. Cannabis–cigar/cigarillo co-use among cannabis users is relatively uncommon, with 8.26% of respondents reporting current co-use and 91.74% reporting no co-use. Based on survey weights, cannabis–cigar/cigarillo co-use corresponds to an estimated 126,000 adults nationwide. Cannabis product use is heterogeneous and skewed toward traditional forms: flower (62.07%) and edibles (50.40%) are most prevalent; prefilled cartridges (37.33%) and pre-rolls (24.37%) are also common, whereas concentrates (14.13%), topicals (6.31%), and other products (2.27%) are comparatively rare. Panel B indicates substantial dispersion in spending, with mean total cannabis expenditures of $136.76 (SD = 190.30), consistent with a right-skewed distribution of purchasing intensity. Table 1 also provides detail on the sociodemographic and economic composition of the sample, showing a predominantly White, non-Hispanic, metro-based population with diverse income and education levels. Additional descriptive comparisons of product-type use and expenditure between co-users and non–co-users are presented in Appendix Table A6.
Table 2 presents the logistic regression results examining sociodemographic correlates of cannabis–cigar/cigarillo co-use among U.S. adult recreational cannabis users (N = 1,524). Compared with White, non-Hispanic cannabis users, Black, non-Hispanic users have more than five times higher odds of also using cigars/cigarillos (OR = 5.34, p < 0.001). Compared with individuals without a high school diploma, cannabis users with some college or an associate degree (OR = 0.33, p < 0.01) and those with a bachelor’s degree or higher (OR = 0.20, p < 0.01) have significantly lower odds of cannabis–cigar/cigarillo co-use. Age is significantly associated with lower odds of co-use (OR = 0.98, p < 0.05), while gender, income, employment, and metropolitan status are not statistically significant predictors. Table A4 presents sensitivity analyses that incorporate state-level variation and cannabis legal status. The results are highly consistent with the primary findings reported in Table 2.
Table 3 reports logistic regression results on associations between sociodemographic characteristics and preferences for seven major cannabis product categories, including flowers, edibles, prerolls, prefilled cartridges, topicals, concentrates, and other cannabis products. Co-use of cigars/cigarillos is significantly associated with higher odds of using flowers (OR = 2.16, p < 0.05), prerolls (OR = 2.05, p < 0.01), topical use (OR = 2.10, p < 0.05), but shows no significant differences for concentrates or other products. Detailed estimates for demographic and socioeconomic characteristics are shown in Tables A1 and A2. Black, non-Hispanic users show higher odds of choosing flowers (OR = 2.62, p < 0.001) but lower odds of selecting edibles (OR = 0.60, p < 0.01) and prefilled cartridges (OR = 0.61, p < 0.05). Age is negatively associated with preroll (OR = 0.98, p < 0.001), prefilled cartridge (OR = 0.98, p < 0.001), and concentrate use (OR = 0.97, p < 0.001), while women are more likely than men to choose edibles (OR = 1.74, p < 0.001) and topicals (OR = 2.17, p < 0.01). Table A5 shows that the inclusion of state-level variation yields estimates that are highly consistent with those reported in Table 3. The positive associations between cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-use and preferences for flower, preroll, and topical products remain statistically significant, while associations with other cannabis forms remain non-significant.
Respondents with a bachelor’s degree or higher are more likely to choose edibles (OR = 2.75, p < 0.001) but less likely to prefer flowers (OR = 0.47, p < 0.05) and concentrates (OR = 0.36, p < 0.01). Compared with those working full-time, participants who were not working had significantly higher odds of choosing prerolls (OR = 1.49, p < 0.05), but no differences for flowers, edibles, or prefilled cartridges. Those working part-time did not differ significantly from full-time workers across the four products. For flower use, higher household income is associated with lower odds of preference compared to respondents with income below $10,000. In contrast, higher income increases the odds of preferring edibles but reduced the odds of preferring concentrates. No significant associations are observed for metro versus non-metro residence.
Table 4 presents regression results examining cannabis expenditure in relation to cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-use and sociodemographic characteristics. Cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-use is associated with approximately $73 higher cannabis expenditure compared with cannabis-only use (b = 72.83, p < 0.01). Detailed estimates for demographic and socioeconomic characteristics are provided in Table A3. Income shows a generally negative association, with the largest and most significant reduction observed for households earning $75,000–$99,999 (b = −77.38, p < 0.05). Compared with White non-Hispanic respondents, Black non-Hispanic (b = 72.17, p < 0.01) and Hispanic respondents (b = 42.55, p < 0.05) report significantly higher cannabis expenditure. Higher education levels are consistently linked to lower spending, with the strongest negative association among those with a bachelor’s degree or higher (b = −95.46, p < 0.001). Age is negatively associated with cannabis expenditure (b = −0.91, p < 0.05). Employment status also matters: part-time workers (b = −47.13, p < 0.01) and those not working (b = −32.78, p < 0.05) spend less compared with full-time workers. Gender and metropolitan residence are not significantly associated with expenditure.
Discussions
Our study provides new evidence on the co-use of cigars/cigarillos and cannabis among U.S. adult recreational cannabis users. We found that approximately 8% of adult cannabis recreational users in the U.S. also reported cigar/cigarillo use, with pronounced sociodemographic disparities. Although the prevalence of cannabis–cigar/cigarillo co-use is modest, the weighted estimate indicates that this subgroup represents more than 126,000 adults nationally, which reflects a meaningful population burden given the elevated cigar/cigarillo exposure.
Black, non-Hispanic adult cannabis users were significantly more likely to engage in cannabis–cigar/cigarillo co-use. Adult cannabis users with lower educational attainment also had significantly higher likelihood of co-use. These patterns parallel long-standing disparities in cigar use or cannabis/tobacco co-use observed in national surveillance (Corey et al., 2014; Delnevo et al., 2017; Diaby et al., 2025; Richardson et al., 2013; Schauer et al., 2016; Strong et al., 2018). Moreover, consistent with earlier studies that emphasized higher rates of co-use of cannabis and tobacco among young adults, our results show that younger ages are associated with higher odds of cigars/cigarillos and cannabis co-use (Glasser et al., 2025; Ross et al., 2020). Considering the compounded risks of cannabis and cigar/cigarillo use, the sociodemographic disparities observed in the co-use behaviors underscore the need for targeted prevention and cessation programs that address both nicotine and cannabis, particularly within Black communities, among younger adults, and among adults with lower educational attainment.
Our findings suggest that co-use of cigars/cigarillos and cannabis are associated with higher odds of using flowers and pre-rolls (i.e. joints), which are also often consumed via smoking (Bélanger et al., 2013; Kong et al., 2018; Peters et al., 2016; Pike Moore et al., 2025; Schauer et al., 2017; Timberlake et al., 2007). These preferences provide corroborating quantitative evidence to the existing qualitative information that common administration modality plays a significant role in product or form choices among cannabis and tobacco users (Ross et al., 2020; Schauer et al., 2016). This finding also highlights that cigar/cigarillo and cannabis users are at elevated risks due to consuming both products through smoking, which lead to a large number of adverse health consequences. Together, these results underscore the importance of targeted prevention strategies that address substance use among co-users of cigars/cigarillos and cannabis.
We also found that cannabis–cigar/cigarillo co-users reported significantly higher cannabis expenditures than cannabis-only users, after adjusting for socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. This spending pattern is consistent with prior evidence linking tobacco involvement with greater cannabis consumption intensity (Ramo et al., 2012; Schauer et al., 2015; Timberlake et al., 2007). We also discovered that compared with White, non-Hispanic cannabis users, Black, non-Hispanic and Hispanic cannabis users spend more on cannabis. Considering the high co-use and blunt use rates among Black, non-Hispanic and Hispanic populations, co-users of these race/ethnicity backgrounds face significantly higher financial burdens due to substance use compared to others. Therefore, addressing co-use of cigars/cigarillos and cannabis among these groups will have significant positive impacts not only on their health but also overall wellbeing and financial status (McClure et al., 2025; Sanchez et al., 2025; Smith et al., 2024).
This study has several limitations. First, the survey did not specifically ask about blunt use and as a result the estimated co-use prevalence may not fully capture simultaneous use or blunt use and underestimate the co-use prevalence. Second, the cross-sectional design of our survey restricts our ability to draw causal inferences. Future longitudinal analyses are needed to establish temporal relationships between cigar use and cannabis behaviors. Third, although the sample is nationally representative of adult cannabis users for recreational use, findings may not generalize to younger populations or medical cannabis users. Fourth, expenditure measures are based on self-reported past 30-day spending and product distribution, which may be subject to recall bias and introduce measurement error. Finally, while we adjusted for respondents’ state of residence to capture broad geographic differences, the dataset does not include detailed state-level cannabis or tobacco policy measures. As a result, future studies may incorporate detailed cannabis and tobacco policy measures to better account for state-level regulatory variation that may influence co-use behaviors and spending patterns.
In conclusion, this study advances the evidence base on the cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-use by identifying sociodemographic disparities, documenting product preferences, and quantifying spending differences. These insights not only update prior descriptive findings but also carry implications for both tobacco and cannabis regulatory frameworks. Future research should focus on developing targeted interventions for co-users of cigars/cigarillos and cannabis, who are more likely to consume substance via smoking and spend more on substance than others. By doing so, scholars and policymakers can better anticipate and mitigate the compounded risks associated with co-use in a rapidly evolving substance use landscape.
Funding
This study was supported by the OSUCCC Cancer Control and Prevention Program Pilot study. The original data collection was funded National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) (grant number: R01DA053294), which was designed to assess the impact of cannabis taxes on consumption.
Data availability statement
The dataset used in this analysis is proprietary survey data provided by Ipsos Knowledge Panel and cannot be publicly shared due to licensing restrictions.
Appendix Group
Appendix
| Odds ratio | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
| Flower | Edible | Preroll | Prefilled | |
| Demographics | ||||
| Age | 1.006 | 1.007 | 0.978*** | 0.977*** |
| (0.005) | (0.005) | (0.005) | (0.005) | |
| Gender (ref: Male) | ||||
| Female | 0.774 | 1.736*** | 1.239 | 1.009 |
| (0.105) | (0.222) | (0.182) | (0.133) | |
| Race/Ethnicity (ref: White, Non-Hispanic) | ||||
| Black, Non-Hispanic | 2.636*** | 0.600** | 1.324 | 0.610* |
| (0.614) | (0.118) | (0.317) | (0.135) | |
| Other, Non-Hispanic | 1.026 | 0.968 | 0.653 | 0.877 |
| (0.406) | (0.387) | (0.306) | (0.398) | |
| Hispanic | 0.838 | 0.924 | 1.381 | 1.501* |
| (0.170) | (0.171) | (0.286) | (0.288) | |
| 2+ Races, Non-Hispanic | 0.935 | 1.163 | 1.795 | 1.736 |
| (0.356) | (0.386) | (0.592) | (0.510) | |
| Education (ref: No high school diploma or GED) | ||||
| High school graduate (high school diploma or the equivalent GED) | 1.162 | 0.871 | 0.838 | 0.929 |
| (0.415) | (0.253) | (0.251) | (0.275) | |
| Some college or associate’s degree | 0.821 | 1.579 | 0.952 | 1.064 |
| (0.287) | (0.455) | (0.282) | (0.310) | |
| Bachelor’s degree or higher | 0.522 | 2.766** | 1.041 | 1.112 |
| (0.189) | (0.837) | (0.329) | (0.343) | |
| Socioeconomic status | ||||
| Income (ref: less than $10,000) | ||||
| $10,000 to $24,999 | 0.590 | 1.054 | 1.238 | 0.891 |
| (0.244) | (0.346) | (0.448) | (0.287) | |
| $25,000 to $49,999 | 0.535 | 0.818 | 1.544 | 0.640 |
| (0.214) | (0.245) | (0.506) | (0.194) | |
| $50,000 to $74,999 | 0.412* | 1.253 | 1.562 | 0.813 |
| (0.166) | (0.385) | (0.528) | (0.247) | |
| $75,000 to $99,999 | 0.658 | 1.213 | 1.207 | 0.836 |
| (0.271) | (0.394) | (0.444) | (0.273) | |
| $100,000 to $149,999 | 0.401* | 1.348 | 1.104 | 0.703 |
| (0.162) | (0.431) | (0.402) | (0.229) | |
| $150,000 or more | 0.302** | 1.917* | 1.173 | 0.841 |
| (0.125) | (0.631) | (0.424) | (0.276) | |
| Employment (ref: working full-time) | ||||
| Working part-time | 0.818 | 1.083 | 1.083 | 0.708 |
| (0.170) | (0.209) | (0.236) | (0.148) | |
| Not working | 0.881 | 0.883 | 1.508* | 0.898 |
| (0.163) | (0.147) | (0.297) | (0.153) | |
| Metropolitan (ref: non-metro) | ||||
| Metro | 0.992 | 1.022 | 1.198 | 1.131 |
| (0.202) | (0.194) | (0.255) | (0.221) | |
| Cannabis use purpose (ref: medical & recreational) | ||||
| Recreational use | 0.582*** | 0.969 | 1.086 | 0.679** |
| (0.081) | 0.126 | (0.166) | (0.092) | |
| Constant | 5.278** | 0.319** | 0.368* | 2.212 |
| (2.779) | (0.136) | (0.166) | (0.938) | |
| Observations | 1524 | 1524 | 1524 | 1524 |
| Odds ratio | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | |
| Topical | Concentrate | Other | |
| Demographics | |||
| Age | 1.006 | 0.973*** | 1.009 |
| (0.009) | (0.007) | (0.014) | |
| Gender (ref: Male) | |||
| Female | 2.005* | 1.216 | 1.097 |
| (0.549) | (0.231) | (0.434) | |
| Race/Ethnicity (ref: White, Non-Hispanic) | |||
| Black, Non-Hispanic | 0.897 | 0.758 | 0.886 |
| (0.299) | (0.230) | (0.510) | |
| Other, Non-Hispanic | 1.565 | 0.476 | 0.827 |
| (1.094) | (0.303) | (0.920) | |
| Hispanic | 0.995 | 1.503 | 0.760 |
| (0.380) | (0.374) | (0.481) | |
| 2+ Races, Non-Hispanic | 1.406 | 1.260 | 1.070 |
| (0.717) | (0.509) | (0.815) | |
| Education (ref: No high school diploma or GED) | |||
| High school graduate (high school diploma or the equivalent GED) | 0.446 | 0.416** | 1.026 |
| (0.216) | (0.148) | (0.490) | |
| Some college or associate’s degree | 0.592 | 0.609 | 0.754 |
| (0.282) | (0.216) | (0.349) | |
| Bachelor’s degree or higher | 0.460 | 0.396* | – |
| (0.245) | (0.157) | – | |
| Socioeconomic status | |||
| Income (ref: Less than $10,000) | |||
| $10,000 to $24,999 | 1.092 | 0.877 | 0.489 |
| (0.657) | (0.362) | (0.464) | |
| $25,000 to $49,999 | 0.778 | 0.938 | 0.585 |
| (0.433) | (0.360) | (0.444) | |
| $50,000 to $74,999 | 1.366 | 1.131 | 1.001 |
| (0.770) | (0.442) | (0.722) | |
| $75,000 to $99,999 | 1.017 | 0.642 | 0.579 |
| (0.650) | (0.278) | (0.553) | |
| $100,000 to $149,999 | 0.707 | 0.405 | 0.260 |
| (0.434) | (0.188) | (0.236) | |
| $150,000 or more | 1.277 | 0.848 | 0.237 |
| (0.750) | (0.369) | (0.205) | |
| Employment (ref: working full-time) | |||
| Working part-time | 0.835 | 0.986 | 1.151 |
| (0.332) | (0.268) | (0.761) | |
| Not working | 0.836 | 0.978 | 1.792 |
| (0.269) | (0.240) | (0.863) | |
| Metropolitan (ref: non-metro) | |||
| Metro | 1.604 | 0.838 | 0.618 |
| (0.571) | (0.214) | (0.296) | |
| Cannabis use purpose (ref: medical & recreational) | |||
| Recreational use | 0.524* | 0.614* | 1.016 |
| (0.144) | (0.122) | (0.417) | |
| Constant | 0.058*** | 1.591 | 0.043** |
| (0.041) | (0.840) | (0.043) | |
| Observations | 1524 | 1524 | 1436 |
| (1) | |
|---|---|
| Cannabis expenditure | |
| Demographics | |
| Age | −1.032** |
| (0.358) | |
| Gender (ref: Male) | |
| Female | −2.949 |
| (11.257) | |
| Race/Ethnicity (ref: White, Non-Hispanic) | |
| Black, Non-Hispanic | 73.112** |
| (24.652) | |
| Other, Non-Hispanic | 6.616 |
| (21.045) | |
| Hispanic | 40.477 |
| (20.953) | |
| 2+ Races, Non-Hispanic | 19.816 |
| (20.878) | |
| Education (ref: no high school diploma or GED) | |
| High school graduate (high school diploma or the equivalent GED) | −39.227 |
| (27.967) | |
| Some college or associate’s degree | −55.045* |
| (27.327) | |
| Bachelor’s degree or higher | −85.431** |
| (29.429) | |
| Socioeconomic status | |
| Income (ref: less than $10,000) | |
| $10,000 to $24,999 | −29.632 |
| (37.177) | |
| $25,000 to $49,999 | −44.614 |
| (36.141) | |
| $50,000 to $74,999 | −55.140 |
| (37.645) | |
| $75,000 to $99,999 | −73.561 |
| (37.865) | |
| $100,000 to $149,999 | −38.440 |
| (40.117) | |
| $150,000 or more | −43.332 |
| (39.178) | |
| Employment (ref: working full-time) | |
| Working part-time | −45.322** |
| (14.170) | |
| Not working | −39.676** |
| (13.153) | |
| Metropolitan (ref: non-metro) | |
| Metro | −1.943 |
| (20.226) | |
| Cannabis use purpose (ref: medical & recreational) | |
| Recreational use | −55.659*** |
| (12.938) | |
| Constant | 312.278*** |
| (44.927) | |
| Observations | 1521 |
| Odds ratio for cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-use | ||
|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | |
| Demographics | ||
| Age | 0.980* | 0.982* |
| (0.962, 0.997) | (0.966, 0.999) | |
| Gender (ref: Male) | ||
| Female | 0.692 | 0.732 |
| (0.422, 1.135) | (0.449, 1.190) | |
| Race/Ethnicity (ref: White, Non-Hispanic) | ||
| Black, Non-Hispanic | 6.127*** | 5.543*** |
| (3.358, 11.178) | (3.256, 9.434) | |
| Other, Non-Hispanic | 4.104 | 2.906 |
| (0.889, 18.954) | (0.802, 10.532) | |
| Hispanic | 2.016 | 1.766 |
| (0.968, 4.196) | (0.861, 3.620) | |
| 2+ Races, Non-Hispanic | 1.365 | 1.092 |
| (0.362, 5.148) | (0.288, 4.141) | |
| Education (ref: no high school diploma or GED) | ||
| High school graduate (or the equivalent GED) | 0.702 | 0.689 |
| (0.322, 1.527) | (0.321, 1.480) | |
| Some college or Associate’s degree | 0.326** | 0.362* |
| (0.144, 0.737) | (0.161, 0.816) | |
| Bachelor’s degree or higher | 0.217** | 0.233** |
| (0.078, 0.601) | (0.089, 0.610) | |
| Socioeconomic status | ||
| Income (ref: Less than $10,000) | ||
| $10,000 to $24,999 | 0.943 | 0.880 |
| (0.354, 2.515) | (0.351, 2.206) | |
| $25,000 to $49,999 | 0.981 | 1.031 |
| (0.396, 2.430) | (0.430, 2.475) | |
| $50,000 to $74,999 | 0.737 | 0.782 |
| (0.281, 1.931) | (0.319, 1.917) | |
| $75,000 to $99,999 | 1.324 | 1.313 |
| (0.450, 3.895) | (0.439, 3.928) | |
| $100,000 to $149,999 | 0.420 | 0.437 |
| (0.096, 1.844) | (0.102, 1.870) | |
| $150,000 or more | 0.727 | 0.565 |
| (0.228, 2.318) | (0.191, 1.676) | |
| Employment (ref: Working full-time) | ||
| Working part-time | 1.229 | 1.054 |
| (0.625, 2.416) | (0.568, 1.954) | |
| Not working | 0.807 | 0.802 |
| (0.394, 1.651) | (0.397, 1.618) | |
| Metropolitan (ref: Non-Metro) | ||
| Metro | 1.056 | 0.887 |
| (0.542, 2.056) | (0.468, 1.684) | |
| Cannabis use purpose (ref: Medical & Recreational) | ||
| Recreational use | 0.878 | 0.906 |
| (0.531, 1.449) | (0.556, 1.477) | |
| Constant | 2.214 | 0.895 |
| (0.132, 37.122) | (0.206, 3.889) | |
| Observations | 1318 | 1524 |
| Odds ratio | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
| Flower | Edible | Preroll | Prefilled | |
| Cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-use | 2.211** | 1.082 | 2.912*** | 1.217 |
| (1.217, 4.016) | (0.677, 1.727) | (1.716, 4.943) | (0.744, 1.991) | |
| Observations | 1516 | 1520 | 1479 | 1514 |
| (5) | (6) | (7) | ||
| Topical | Concentrate | Other | ||
| 2.176* | 1.138 | 0.767 | ||
| (1.076, 4.402) | (0.614, 2.109) | (0.147, 3.992) | ||
| Observations | 1370 | 1421 | 980 | |
| Co-users | Non co-users | |
|---|---|---|
| Flower (%) | 83.33 | 61.82 |
| Edibles (%) | 39.17 | 52.71 |
| Prerolls (%) | 35.83 | 21.87 |
| Prefilled (%) | 37.50 | 33.19 |
| Topicals (%) | 13.33 | 5.70 |
| Concentrates (%) | 17.50 | 12.25 |
| Other (%) | 1.67 | 2.49 |
| Cannabis expenditure ($) | 239.67 | 119.10 |
| Key variables | |
|---|---|
| Frequency (%) | |
| Cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-use | 120 (8.26%) |
| Cannabis use (past 30-day use) | |
| Topical | 96 (6.31%) |
| Preroll | 350 (24.37%) |
| Prefilled cartridge | 511 (37.33%) |
| Flower | 968 (62.07%) |
| Edible | 787 (50.40%) |
| Concentrate | 193 (14.13%) |
| Other | 37 (2.27%) |
| Mean (SD)/frequency (%) | |
| Cannabis expenditures | 136.76 (190.30) |
| Sociodemographic characteristics | |
| Age | 42.86 (15.01) |
| Gender | |
| Male | 846 (57.44%) |
| Female | 678 (42.56%) |
| Race and ethnicity | |
| White, non-Hispanic | 1051 (65.39%) |
| Black, non-Hispanic | 192 (13.62%) |
| Other, non-Hispanic | 32 (2.38%) |
| Hispanic | 189 (14.06%) |
| 2+ Races, non-Hispanic | 60 (4.54%) |
| Household Income | |
| Less than $10,000 | 81 (4.88%) |
| $10,000 to $24,999 | 160 (8.23%) |
| $25,000 to $49,999 | 278 (17.62%) |
| $50,000 to $74,999 | 258 (17.11%) |
| $75,000 to $99,999 | 189 (11.95%) |
| $100,000 to $149,999 | 254 (16.70%) |
| $150,000 or more | 304 (23.51%) |
| Education | |
| No high school diploma or GED | 88 (6.29%) |
| High school graduate | 361 (25.65%) |
| Some college or associate’s degree | 498 (33.96%) |
| Bachelor’s degree or higher | 577 (34.10%) |
| Employment | |
| Working full time | 820 (59.16%) |
| Working part time | 217 (13.93%) |
| Not working | 487 (26.92%) |
| MSA Status | |
| Metro | 1328 (87.50%) |
| Non-metro | 196 (12.50%) |
| Cannabis use purpose | |
| Recreational use | 822 (55.57%) |
| Medical & recreational | 702 (44.43%) |
| (1) | |
|---|---|
| Odds ratio for cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-use | |
| Demographics | |
| Age | 0.982* |
| (0.966, 0.998) | |
| Gender (ref: Male) | |
| Female | 0.746 |
| (0.458, 1.215) | |
| Race/Ethnicity (ref: White, Non-Hispanic) | |
| Black, Non-Hispanic | 5.383*** |
| (3.169, 9.145) | |
| Other, Non-Hispanic | 2.487 |
| (0.744, 8.312) | |
| Hispanic | 1.589 |
| (0.770, 3.279) | |
| 2+ Races, Non-Hispanic | 0.950 |
| (0.244, 3.707) | |
| Education (ref: No high school diploma or GED) | |
| High school graduate (or the equivalent GED) | 0.652 |
| (0.303, 1.406) | |
| Some college or associate’s degree | 0.333** |
| (0.303, 1.406) | |
| Bachelor’s degree or higher | 0.206** |
| (0.078, 0.542) | |
| Socioeconomic status | |
| Income (ref: less than $10,000) | |
| $10,000 to $24,999 | 0.893 |
| (0.373, 2.139) | |
| $25,000 to $49,999 | 1.047 |
| (0.459, 2.384) | |
| $50,000 to $74,999 | 0.791 |
| (0.333, 1.880) | |
| $75,000 to $99,999 | 1.225 |
| (0.434, 3.458) | |
| $100,000 to $149,999 | 0.434 |
| (0.109, 1.727) | |
| $150,000 or more | 0.516 |
| (0.185, 1.439) | |
| Employment (ref: working full-time) | |
| Working part-time | 1.123 |
| (0.600, 2.099) | |
| Not working | 0.755 |
| (0.390, 1.465) | |
| Metropolitan (ref: non-metro) | |
| Metro | 0.800 |
| (0.420, 1.526) | |
| Cannabis use purpose (ref: medical & recreational) | |
| Recreational use | 0.859 |
| (0.529, 1.395) | |
| Constant | 0.530 |
| (0.160, 1.752) | |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flower | Edible | Preroll | Prefilled | |
| Cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-use | 2.130* | 1.084 | 2.051** | 1.181 |
| (1.190, 3.813) | (0.689, 1.706) | (1.240, 3.394) | (0.732, 1.903) | |
| Observations | 1524 | 1524 | 1524 | 1524 |
| (5) | (6) | (7) | ||
| Topical | Concentrate | Other | ||
| Cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-use | 2.028* | 1.051 | 0.640 | |
| (1.032, 3.985) | (0.566, 1.950) | (0.144, 2.839) | ||
| Observations | 1524 | 1524 | 1436 | |
| (1) | |
|---|---|
| Cannabis expenditure | |
| Cannabis-cigar/cigarillo co-use | 71.524** |
| (20.156, 122.892) | |