Part of a comment on the last post, about novice users, was this: “The industry should not take a knee-jerk stance against regulation.”
The problem is that Colorado’s marijuana industry does reflexively object to, and actively fight, restrictions and changes to the way they’ve been doing things in the medical marijuana arena. When it comes to regulations, the marijuana industry ignores the fact that most retail (recreational) users are novice users and/or are from out of state. (Most regular recreational pot users in Colorado have medical cards.)
Colorado’s retail marijuana code currently requires that no more than 100 mg of active THC be in each individually-wrapped package of retail edibles (no more than ten 10mg servings of active THC can be in one individually-wrapped package). This limit was difficult to get to, because the industry fought it.
There are no limits on THC amounts per package of medical edible. So the industry objected to initial attempts to limit the amounts of THC per retail package to 10 mg. 100 mg was a compromise that the industry was not terribly happy with. They’d have to change their packaging! That costs money! (Along with trying to increase user numbers, this reaction is a natural part of capitalism.) So they fought, but eventually compromised at 100 mg, 10 times the amount proposed by non-industry groups involved in writing the legislation.
The proposed new lower limit of 10 mg makes much more sense, and it looks as if that will go forward and become law. It’s sad that sensible limits can only be achieved after tragedy. (Of course, a piling-up of tragedies is how we ended up with seatbelts being required by law to be provided in all cars.)
Capitalism doesn’t work for all the people in a country unless there are regulations to protect consumers, who don’t have the special knowledge that the people in the industry have. Unlike people in the marijuana industry, and experienced users, novice users have no knowledge of what might happen if they eat an entire pot cookie. Maureen Dowd ate one-quarter of her pot chocolate bar. There was no labeling on the candy to suggest that would be too much.
Businesses, especially when they have investors to answer to, do not do things that cut into their profits unless required to by law – even when public safety is an issue. So the industry fights changes and restrictions. Industry always has.
Colorado’s marijuana industry absolutely owes more to its novice-user consumers, even though that might cut into their profits. They owe consumers clear labeling, they owe consumers sensible THC amounts per package, they owe consumers some respect. Novice users in this industry should not be ridiculed for mistakes made due to lack of understanding, due to lack of explanation, especially when it’s the industry itself who pushes users in the direction of edibles.
Budtenders often recommend edibles instead of flower products to novice users, especially those who don’t smoke tobacco. There were no widespread stories like Maureen Dowd’s in the early days of 2014, when Colorado’s retail marijuana shops first opened, but, because of flower product inventory concerns in January, many retail pot shops pushed edibles pretty hard to consumers. With inventory concerns, employees of the store were not eager to share their knowledge that smoking is the easiest way to consume pot without overconsuming.
Again, more users, new users, are all part of the marijuana industry’s plan. It’s time for the marijuana industry and its fans to stop ridiculing the people who call for more safety measures to protect people such as the new users that this industry will soon come to rely on in order to remain profitable.
Regulate It 
Joe Katz
/ June 13, 2014I think that this post is basically correct in all of its essentials. (As a supporter of legal cannabis, I would use a different tone of course.)
Although I think that Mauren Dowd was uncommonly silly in her cannabis experience, I think that the baseline rules should protect people like her. I would support a single-serving rule for cannabis edibles. In general, the edible experience is so different (more intense, worse) than the smoking experience that I think rules should subtly encourage the former over the latter.
I am also willing to believe that the marijuana industry wants new users and more users. Frankly, when it comes to adults, I don’t much care. If we can reason together about how to have relatively smaller proportion of problem users, that would be ideal. The studiously moderate analyst Mark A.R. Kleiman would like a self-registry for pre-commitment to lower amounts. (E.g., I would tell the “system” [database] that I am allowed to buy no more than, e.g., 0.5 oz per month because I have a hard time controlling myself.)
Regulation is made harder when some pot sellers have the idea that certain parties like S.A.M. are basically looking to repeal A64 via a plethora of insurmountable hurdles. This is exactly akin to supporters of abortion rights who (correctly) believe that some abortion regulations are created with the end goal of simply making abortion unavailable.
regulateit
/ June 13, 2014Thanks for the great reply.