Potency Wars – The mainstream media’s new front on marijuana legalization

It is not the first time I have written on this subject and I am pretty sure it will not be the last. A new war is brewing in the cannabis industry and it is no longer about legality.

It’s all about potency!

Some lawmakers – people who have obviously never smoked cannabis and are proud of the fact – are pushing for “reasons” to limit the effectiveness of THC in legal products.

Don’t worry, I’ll cover these reasons a little below – but these lawmakers believe they are doing “a service to society.”

I will also make a short list of the politicians who are at the forefront of this movement in the hopes “when you are in their representation area” to:

  1. Call them up and grumble about their stupid ideology using the reasoning in this article.

  2. Not voting for them or voting for someone who does not hold onto that ideology

You see, cannabis is the “will of the people” and the government has worked tirelessly to suppress that will. Now that they can’t put the spirit back in the bottle, they are trying to “regulate it to death.”

Unfortunately, their over-regulation has only driven consumers onto the black market, which is counterproductive to the overall legalization effort.

First, let’s take a closer look at the problem at hand.

Why are politicians trying to limit THC?

Officially – because “security”. They look at shaky scientific studies that take small sample groups and create “vastly altered conditions” to prove their points.

These studies are funded primarily with the idea of ​​”finding the negative aspects of cannabis”. You can read this piece by Jessica Mkceil which sums that fact up pretty well. Read the article here.

Representative Lauren Davis, a member of the Washington State House of Representatives, is one of those lawmakers “working” to limit THC.

“I don’t think anyone thought what would happen if … industry, science and business and the motivation to make a profit came to Washington state,” she said. source

Fortunately, the industry has pushed back, and as of now, none of these issues have occurred except in one state where Flower was capped at 30% and focused at 60%.

Who are some of the politicians who are trying to do this?

We mentioned Rep. Laura Davis earlier, but here are a few more.

Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) And John Cornyn (R-Texas) are calling on Congress to limit THC nationally. Representative Yadira Caraveo from Colorado also wants to limit THC.

In Florida we have Sen. Ray Rodrigues and Rep. Spencer Roach.

I’m sure there are more of them out there, but this is just the tip of the iceberg, the noisiest of the whole group. If you find any other agent looking to restrict THC please reach out to me @reginaldreefer on Twitter and I will definitely add them to this list.

In fact, if I can get a full list I would love to write a specific article about it … so come on, help me.

As politicians debate these issues, what do consumers think?

To get the pulse of the market, I went to Reddit to see what users had to say.

Here are a few snippets:

It should come in different strengths so that people can choose what to consume. We sell alcohol on proofs from almost beer 0.5% to Everclear at 190 proof. There’s no reason weeds should be any different.

It is important to have a clear label that neither exaggerates nor glorifies the potency.

– r / kodemage

This is a valid point. We do not see the same level of control over the “potency of alcohol” and consider that alcohol is involved in 40% of all violent crime [source] Still, we see absolutely no attempt to limit alcohol levels.

I mean if the total alcohol was 0.1% how much violent crime would we reduce? Oh, does that sound idiotic? That’s because it is!

Here is another Redditor that weighs:

I swear these damn politicians can’t keep their hands off the controls. Legalize it and leave it alone. Let other regulators mandate clear labeling and quality assurance. Stop trying to stack laws over things that people can make their own decisions about.

R / Redstonedmonkey

Over-regulation will undoubtedly put consumers looking for a potent pot back on the black market.

And when we consider that this is what happens with the 2019 vaping disease, it would be more “harmful” to users than it would be if it were available in the market where safety and quality assurance play a role.

Anyone can take butane and extract cannabis oils – the problem is, not everyone can do it safely. The mere fact that limiting THC would instantly create more DIY extraction facilities in urban areas is a recipe for disaster.

But of course the politicians who are thinking about limiting cannabis don’t think like cannabis users – and therefore cannot foresee these unforeseen consequences.

Why politicians who have never smoked should not obey the rules

I’m not saying the cannabis market should be regulated by stoners – that would be a bad idea. However, politicians who have never consumed should not make unilateral decisions for consumers without having input from consumers themselves.

Most of these politicians speak to “health professionals” who are concerned about public health. From this perspective, their cause is noble.

The problem is, it’s not an accurate representation of real life either.

When researchers look for pathological side effects, they focus solely on the negative manifestations of their hypothesis.

They don’t look at the data in the cannabis user population. They always compare it to society as a whole.

Based on this information, they then come to the conclusion, “Well, we have to protect X, Y or Z from this disease!”

However, if they just looked at the data within the cannabis community, they would see that the vast majority of consumers are self-regulating. There is the exception, but most people are already consuming moderately with no need for an upper limit on THC.

However, a direct limit on THC means:

  1. Stop the push to see how much THC a plant can actually produce

  2. Stop innovation

  3. Restriction of freedom of choice for adults

  4. Creation of a highly lucrative black market bag

  5. Making products high in THC more dangerous to consumers.

If politicians ever simply consulted cannabis users on these issues, they would realize that their concerns affect only a very small segment of the population – and that more regulation actually makes things more dangerous.







Post a comment:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *