The federal Task Farce recommends labelling for THC and CBD levels, something that’s already being done in most cases.
It’s as if private farmers, vendors and extractors have no personal incentive, no moral qualms about intentionally hurting themselves or their customers.
There is a general understanding of THC and CBD levels. Objective labelling practices are valuable for all commercial parties, the smooth transaction of market processes permit a universal THC standard.
All you gotta do is let people come to the market freely. Think of it like a literal farmers market. It’s a friendly auction where prices are discovered and individuals trade freely amongst themselves without predatory “regulators” governing their every move.
Human beings don’t respond to large homogeneous plans; we make infinite amounts of our own interlocking plans. “Unregulated” and “unlicensed” commerce creates it own workarounds by establishing consent-based laws, historically through the common-law system.
In a democratic state, there isn’t much for the ruling party to do except loot the taxpayer. Paid cheerleaders for the state are rewarded with new tasks for the dependent administration, and so, when writing the rules on cannabis, the Task Farce recommends a 5 milligram standard.
The report recommends edibles “standardized, [in] single servings, with a universal THC symbol.”
Replacing prohibitory chaos with regulatory aggression, the idea of self-regulated markets isn’t even on the radar.
Perhaps the United Nations will adopt Canada’s statist THC gold standard. Maybe Canadians will then become smug about how “we” always set an example for the world to follow.
But what’s good about a maximum amount of THC per serving and per product?
I’m curious to see if there’s a maximum dose. It’s probably not what the Liberals will write into law, but it could be done. At what point does anybody lose their colour and pass out? Depends on your tolerance, I suppose.
Now, moving onto creating a “flexible legislative framework that could adapt to new evidence on specific product types, on the use of additives or sweeteners, or on specifying limits of THC or other components” — These are all great research projects for the private sector.
Consumers pay for what they want, and entrepreneurs doing research and development successfully will be rewarded with profit.
That is, profit until their methods become standardized and additional innovation and ingenuity is required to stay ahead.
A “flexible legislative framework” is analogous to a central planning of the cannabis industry.
Producers outside the framework may be starved of capital through various market interventions, including police raids.
Will mixing cannabis with “tobacco, nicotine or caffeine” warrant the criminal code? What about ignoring the regulations for cannabis concentrates?
Rules are diverse, and so, depending on how far the illicit market deviates from the norm, the more likely they’ll be punished harshly.