Competition Bureau: Higher THC Limits – Cannabis | weed | marijuana

Competition Authority to Health Canada: Increasing THC Limits.

That’s what the ironically called “Competition Bureau” recommends to Health Canada and the “expert panel” responsible for reviewing the law.

(The head of this “panel of experts” is the author of one of Trudeau’s whitewashed election reports, which cast doubt on the effectiveness of the cannabis law review process.)

The Bureau’s report sets out the obvious: to increase consumer choice and eliminate the black market.

The competition bureau’s call for higher THC limits and reduced regulations is an eye-opener in an industry dominated by “public health” narratives.

But Canadians invest over $55 million each year in this living oxymoron of a department. The conclusions of this report are clear. They are basic economics of cannabis.

Competition Bureau: Three recommendations

The Competition Bureau’s report to Health Canada makes three recommendations:

1. Review the cannabis licensing process and other regulations to ensure costs are not hampering competition
2. Adjust THC limits for edible cannabis to meet consumer demand and compete with the illicit market
3. Consider easing restrictions on cannabis advertising, packaging and labeling.

The Bureau adds the caveat: “These recommendations must be carefully balanced against other important public policy objectives, including public health and safety.”

And that only Health Canada and “other subject matter experts” can determine “how best to implement these guidelines” while protecting the “health and safety” of Canadians.

Of course, no “subject matter expert” can single-handedly solve Hayek’s knowledge problem or Mises’ computation problem.

What is the optimal THC level in foods? Which license terms are unnecessary? What marketing restrictions should Health Canada lift? And by how much?

It is better to leave these questions to our civil and civil law institutions than to the political bureaucracy.

Considering the federal government can’t even supply potable tap water to First Nation reservations, the minute details of cannabis regulations should be the least of their worries.

Competition Office: Other obstacles

The Competition Bureau’s report to Health Canada proposes the above recommendations. These are within the scope of the statutory review.

The other two recommendations fall outside the scope of the review but are important considerations nonetheless, the Bureau said.

The first concerns excise duties.

Despite the secular nature of the Canadian state and Justin Trudeau’s WEF-inspired push to recreate Canada in a ‘post-national’ image, the cultural ethos of the populace is still overwhelmingly Christian.

And nowhere is this more evident than in our dealings with permissible “sins” like sex work, gambling, or alcohol.

Cannabis is an “addictive” gateway drug that needs to be overly taxed and regulated by the authorities. For your own good, of course.

But even if excise taxes on cannabis can be argued for, the way the government collects them is nonsensical. As the Bureau reports, 66% of cannabis licensees owe significant debt to the Canada Revenue Agency.

If the CRA decides to call in this outstanding debt, it will be the end of cannabis in Canada.

The Competition Office recommends changes, but we recommend the complete abolition of taxes.

Not just on cannabis. On everything. Someone who claims any part of your property without consent is a criminal. The “social contract” be damned.

Is a lack of standardization a problem?

The other obstacle the Competition Office cites is the need for industry standardization. They emphasize how the government controls production, and then each province takes its own approach to wholesale distribution and retail sales.

Because of this, navigating the various industry guidelines can be difficult. Regulatory complexity is bad for business.

While some think a “one size fits all” package from Ottawa would be the solution, it would only create new problems.

arguments for competition

The competition bureau’s call for higher THC limits comes with a detailed report detailing how they reached those conclusions.

For example, under the heading “Making the Case for Competition” they write:

Competition is the engine of Canada’s economy. It increases Canada’s productivity and benefits Canadian businesses and consumers alike. Competition drives business efficiency and innovation and encourages companies to bring new and innovative products and services to market. This in turn provides consumers with competitive prices and product choices.

We couldn’t have said it better ourselves. But why should this apply to the cannabis industry and not the cannabis regulation industry? Why doesn’t the Competition Office apply this logic to so-called “public” services?

The best way to implement the Competition Bureau’s recommendations is to get the state out of the regulatory services industry.

Market-based incentives lead to more humane and optimal outcomes. A free market for regulatory services may seem complex as there would be no national or regional standardisation.

But in reality, the pursuit of profit leads to greater efficiency and innovation. Profit and Loss are signals that indicate consumer demand.

A decentralized and competitive environment prevents the concentration of power in the hands of a single regulator. This means businesses can partner with agencies that offer bespoke, flexible plans that adapt and work to their unique needs and goals.

Free market regulators would develop specialized expertise and offer tailored solutions, leading to greater efficiencies.

Not to mention that free market regulators are based on voluntary exchanges. That is, mutually beneficial connections based on consent.

Regardless of whether a system is economically superior, the moral arguments against government intervention are valid.

The competition office is right. But we didn’t need a bloated, contradictory government agency telling us that.