Month: July 2019

On alcohol reform, state lawmakers have finally started to listen

Yaël Ossowski is deputy director at the Consumer Choice Center, which advocates for consumer choice and freedom. He’s speaking in general, but, clearly, North Carolina may well be the unavoidable target for his comments.

“In many southern states and beyond, alcohol-control laws are some of the most byzantine and backward on the books. Indeed, many have not changed in the 86 years since the end of Prohibition.

“These laws treat adults like children, stunt economic growth, deprive consumers of better choices, and drastically increase costs for everyday people who just want a drink at the end of a hard day’s work.”

Read more here

An EU departure tax would fly in the face of reason

While the Conservative leadership race dominates the news in the UK, the European Union is continuing to regulate as usual. At a recent European Council, the Netherlands proposed an EU departure tax, which would add a levy of €7 (£6.25) to every flight departing from an airport inside of a member state. The tax has the support of France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden and Finland, but could be opposed by Malta and Cyprus. Both islands would be hurt by higher taxes on air travel, since travelling from, say, Stockholm to Malta by boat is probably not the most convenient of options.

French Finance Commissioner Pierre Moscovici has argued that before such a tax can even be countenanced, the EU needs to remove the right for countries to veto any EU-wide tax initiatives. Instead, he proposes a system of qualified-majority voting, which would fundamentally strengthen the EU’s ability to push through significant legislative change in the face of opposition. Such changes are afoot, and make the likelihood of the Netherlands proposed tax becoming law in the future.

Having a passenger tax isn’t a new idea. In fact, Air Passenger Duty already exists in the UK, Italy, Germany, France, Sweden and Austria. In the UK, the reduced rate for air travel in the lowest class available is £13 (standard rate at £26). Flights over 2,000 miles have a reduced rate of £78 and a standard rate of £172. This is up from 2007, when the tax was doubled from £5 to £10 for European destinations. There have subsequent increases, even though research from Oxford University suggests that high-income groups would rather absorb the tax than change their travel habits, showing that the Air Passenger Duty is clearly regressive, hitting the poorest hardest.

Such regression is exacerbated by the fact that the EU departure tax would be applied uniformly to all citizens of all countries across the Union. The disparity in wealth (or GDP per capita) of Germany or Luxembourg compared to the likes of Bulgaria or Moldova is dramatic. And yet under this tax a venture capitalist in Frankfurt and a construction worker in Sofia would pay the same levy whenever they boarded a plane.

Over recent decades affordable flying has democratised the act of travelling. Locations that were previously unattainable for lower middle class and low-income households are now viable tourist destinations. This has benefited both the tourists themselves and the places they travel to, helping to regenerate calcified towns and cities.

But what about the environment? As ever, technology is leading the way to a brighter, greener future, with the aviation industry developing new and better technologies to clean up air travel. Airbus’ new A321XLR. for example, has 30% less kerosene consumption per passenger, while adding 30% more range than the currently used A321neo. That should be to nobody’s surprise: both the aviation sector and airlines do not have any incentive to use more kerosene than they have to.

The European Union is going down the road of abstinence instead of innovation. The United Kingdom should go in the opposite direction, and trust engineers and scientists to solve the transportation and environmental challenges of the future, while maintaining affordable travel for all. The first step towards doing that post-Brexit would be to abolish the regressive Air Passenger Duty.

Read more here

Brexit Can Be A Success, But Only If We Do It In The Right, Liberal Way

The Consumer Choice Center’s Maria Chaplia outlined the senseless thinking behind protectionism recently, writing:

“Imagine you’ve been on a team with the same people for decades. You are well aware of the capabilities of your colleagues, and you are on good terms with your boss. More importantly, you have developed a working schedule for yourself, and have been sticking to it deliberately – repeating the same tasks day by day without attempting to improve the quality of their performance. You have been doing fine, just like everyone else on your team.

One morning, your boss announces that there is a new employee or group of employees from abroad joining the team. Naturally, every well-established tribe is suspicious or even hostile towards newcomers, especially if it’s not accustomed to dealing with changes. You and your colleagues will, therefore, try to find a way to persuade your boss to change their mind. After all, why hire someone new, or why alter anything at all, if you and your consumers are doing fine?

On their first day, the newcomers carefully examine your workplace and conclude that your team’s productivity and attitudes are completely outdated and have been far behind world progress for years. Added to that, they find out that the prices you charge are much higher than those in countries where they come from, and that your consumers are of course unaware of that. Their impression is that your boss has been consistently covering for you in order to “protect” you from competition. They are determined to change it: they suggest more innovation, lower prices to the benefit of consumers, and the elimination of the fine mentality.”

Read more here

Deimantė Rimkutė: Tavo (ne)privatumas 5G interneto amžiuje Skaitykite daugiau:

Galbūt iš pirmo žvilgsnio ši frazė gali būti priimta nerūpestingai: „na, ir kas?“ Žinoma, gal ir nieko blogo. Juk būtent dėl to gauname pasiūlymus, kurie kur kas aktualesni. Surinkti duomenys suteikia galimybę paslauga džiaugtis nemokant papildomos naudojimosi kainos. Tačiau lazda turi du galus; didėjantis duomenų surinkimo kiekis atneša ir tam tikras rizikas.

Žmogų apibrėžia ne vien jo asmens kodas, jis yra savimi, nes turi tam tikrą identitetą. Asmeniniai duomenys neatskiriama to dalis, jie atskleidžia žmogaus charakteristiką ir ją iliustruoja. Ši informacija gali būti itin vertinga tiems, kurie turi nebūtinai pačius geriausius tikslus. Dar visai neseniai viešoje erdvėje nuskambėjo JAV prezidento Donaldo Trumpo rinkimų ar Brexito kampanijos technologiniai sprendimai. Surinkti duomenys gali padėjo paveikti rinkimų rezultatus.

Platesniame kontekste per didelis produkto ar paslaugos individualizavimas gali pradėti kurti tam tikrus informacijos „getus“, kai gauname tik tam tikrą specifinę informaciją, kuri mums patinka, o ne tą, kurią galbūt taip pat reikėtų žinoti. Taip pat kiekvieną dieną tarptautinėje erdvėje girdima apie naujas tapatybės vagystes bei finansinius nusikaltimus. Atsakomybė dažnai krenta „paslaugos“ davėjui. Blogiausia, kad verslas ne visada pasirūpina savo vartotojų apsauga ir sukuria galimybę įsilaužėliams patekti į „duomenų namus“ per galines duris.

Tokie incidentai yra įrodymas, kad vartotojų duomenų saugumas ir privatumas nėra pakankamai apsaugotas ir trūksta jau dabar galiojančios teisės mechanizmų įgyvendinimo efektyvumo bei papildomų teisinių priemonių. Protingos politikos atsakas – neišvengiamas. Taigi, kyla klausimas, kaip tobulinti jau esamą tvarką?

Blogiausia, kad verslas ne visada pasirūpina savo vartotojų apsauga ir sukuria galimybę įsilaužėliams patekti į „duomenų namus“ per galines duris.

Sprendimai

Nėra vieno sprendimo, kuris užtikrintų duomenų apsaugą. Tačiau galimos skirtingos politikos pasiūlymų kombinacijos. Neseniai atliktame Consumer Choice Center tyrime buvo išskirti trys esminiai elementai: griežtesnė teisinė atsakomybė, papildomi sertifikavimo kriterijai bei draudimai, susiję su kilmės šalimi.

Pažeidimai įvyksta, nes, dažnu atveju, atsakingi asmenys nesielgia taip, kaip nurodyta teisės normose. Nors jau šiandien egzistuoja keli mechanizmai, kurie turėtų tai užtikrinti, akivaizdu, kad jie nėra efektyvūs arba užtektinai nekonkretūs. Tiek ES, tiek nacionalinės elektroninio saugumo taisyklės paprastai konkrečių priemonių nereikalauja apart „tinkamų priemonių“.

ES lygmenyje turėtų būti priimamos papildomos taisyklės, kurios užtikrintų vartotojų apsaugą programinės įrangos naudojimo, pardavimo ar perpardavimo kontekste, kai tai susiję su duomenų apsauga. Svarbu, kad visi papildomi techniniai standartai būtų neutralūs, visai kaip ir pati technologija, neturėtų būti reikalaujama naudoti specifinius tam tikrus paslaugų produktus, nes tai sukeltų kliūtis naujiems rinkos žaidėjams, inovacijų plėtrai.

Taip pat svarbu įsivesti tam tikras saugumo lubas ir grindis, mechanizmą, kuriuo vadovaujantis atsakomybė būtų sumažinta arba pašalinta. Jau dabar egzistuoja ES Kibernetinis aktas, remiantis jo nuostatomis galima būtų sukurti papildomus reikalavimus.

Nors jau šiandien egzistuoja keli mechanizmai, kurie turėtų tai užtikrinti, akivaizdu, kad jie nėra efektyvūs arba užtektinai nekonkretūs.

Anksčiau paminėti draudimai pagal kilmės šalį turėtų būti paskutinė priemonė. Dėl tam tikrų priežasčių galima manyti, kad kai kurios ES vyriausybės daro teisinį ar neteisėtą spaudimą privačioms įmonėms, skatindamos įtraukti programinės įrangos pažeidžiamumą, kuris gali būti panaudotas vyriausybių atstovų. Tai vėliau gali būti naudojama kaip didmeninių draudimų pagal kilmės šalį pateisinimo priežastis. Tokio tipo draudimas tikėtinai naudingi vartotojams nebus. Antra vertus, nerandant kito veiksmingo sprendimo ir nerandant aiškių sprendimų, šis pasiūlymas galėtų būti priimtinas.

Asmens duomenų, privatumo srities reglamentavimas turėtų būti grindžiamas ne vien ekonominėmis laisvėmis, bet ir tam tikra žmogaus teisių apsauga. Juk Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucija įtvirtina asmens teisę į privatumą ir orumą. Akivaizdu, kad didėjant asmens duomenų reikšmei, ši sritis reikalauja tinkamesnio reglamentavimo, kuris užtikrintų žmogaus teises, tačiau taip pat ir nesužlugdytų inovacijų plėtros.

Originally published here

Quick and smart fixes for Canada’s cannabis mess

Curbing the black market for cannabis is something that everyone should endorse, regardless of their view on legalization.

It is far better to have consumers purchasing cannabis legally, as opposed to having them buy the product illegally, from sources possibly tied to organized crime. Unfortunately, new data from Statistics Canada shows that the price gap between the illegal market and the legal market is getting worse.

In the past three months, the price of a gram of cannabis purchased illegally has fallen from $6.23 to $5.93. Over that same time period, the average price of a gram of legally purchased cannabis rose from $10.21 to $10.65. A price difference of $4.72 is a huge problem, especially for those of us that want legalization to succeed, and the black market stamped out.

As such, there are largely two factors that determine whether or not the legal market will outshine the black market. The first, and most obvious, is the price, while the second is consumer access.

In order for consumers to be encouraged to buy cannabis legally, especially if they were buying cannabis prior to legalization, pricing in the legal market needs to be competitive with black market prices. Excise taxes, sales taxes, additional regional taxes, and onerous production regulations and fees quickly drive up the price of legal cannabis.

The illegal market, not having to comply with these taxes, fees, and regulations, gets the upper hand, but it doesn’t mean that the legal market won’t ever be able to compete.

There are some simple changes that can be made to drive down legal prices. In regards to excise taxes, the federal government could amend the tax formula to eliminate the minimum tax amount and simply tax cannabis on its wholesale value. Getting rid of the $1/gram minimum (combined federal and provincial) would immediately allow for discount products to hit the shelves, which could attract price-sensitive consumers.

The Federal government could also change the production regulations for licensed producers. Pivoting the industry to a food-grade, as opposed to pharmaceutical grade, regulatory regime would immediately help lower costs, which would be passed on to consumers via lower prices.

The second major factor is access.

The legal market needs to be as accessible, or more accessible, than the black market. This is increasingly true for cannabis consumers who were buying the product illegally prior to legalization. In order to break the purchasing pattern of those consumers, the legal market has to have something to offer that the black market doesn’t.

Changes to access largely falls on provincial governments, as they are the government bodies that handle online availability, storefront licensing, and consumption rules.

Provinces could expand consumer access by increasing and uncapping the number of storefronts, and utilize the private sector where possible. Provinces like Ontario should immediately uncap their licensing process so that the amount of storefronts available to consumers reflects what the market can bare.

As supply increases domestically and catches up to demand, it will be important for consumers to have access to that new supply through readily available storefronts. Uncapped licensing, with private stores where possible, allows for that change to be as dynamic and consumer-centric as possible, which is a big win in regards to access.

In addition to increasing storefronts, provinces across Canada should follow the lead of Manitoba and allow for private cannabis e-commerce and delivery. Consumers in Winnipeg can actually get same-day delivery from licensed dispensaries, something that is illegal in Ontario. Allowing for dispensaries to deliver, or for regulated third parties to deliver, significantly increases consumer access to the point where it can be as accessible as black market dealers.

The last, and arguably most impactful change to consumer access would be to make commercial consumption legal. By the end of the year, new non-smokable cannabis products will hit the market, including beverages and edibles. Consumers should be able to consume those products in commercial settings like bars, restaurants, lounges, and clubs.

Provinces should amend their current liquor licensing procedures to include cannabis products, and consumers should be able to purchase those products like they do beer, wine, or spirits. Expanding cannabis access to commercial settings would quickly provide consumers with something that the illegal market never could: a controlled and permitted space to consume. Treating these new cannabis products like alcohol and allowing commercial sale and consumption would considerably increase consumer access by creating regulated access points in every community.

Smart cannabis policy is a policy that puts the consumer first when creating rules and regulations. If the government fails to draft policies with consumers in mind, the black market will continue to thrive. Addressing how our current regulatory regime inflates prices, and dampers access would go a long way towards actually making legalization a success.

The entire world is watching how we regulate cannabis. Let’s do it right for Canada’s sake.

Originally published here


Les publicités changent, et il faut s’en réjouir

En tant que consommateur, vous sentez-vous manipulé par la publicité ? Ou bien est-ce un moyen efficace, voire distrayant, de vous offrir ce que vous voulez ?

Nous avons fait des progrès dans l’évolution du secteur de la publicité. Les Egyptiens utilisaient le papyrus pour faire des messages de vente et des affiches murales, tandis que le Moyen Age nous faisait passer aux crieurs publics et aux panneaux publicitaires.

Même les marques de commerce sont plus anciennes que beaucoup ne le pensent. La première marque remonte à 1 300 av. J.-C., dans ce qui est l’Inde aujourd’hui.

La publicité est à la fois un reflet de la réalité et une exagération vulgaire des attentes des consommateurs : elles sont flashy, elles sont grossières, elles mettent en scène des musiciens et des acteurs. Certaines publicités sont tellement divertissantes que les téléspectateurs font en sorte de les regarder, et elles génèrent des clics massifs sur des plateformes vidéo telles que YouTube.

La télévision terrestre est un bon exemple de la manière dont certains services ne sont financés que par la publicité depuis longtemps.

Avec l’apparition de la publicité en ligne, nous avons vu des journaux entiers changer de modèle d’affaires. Le Guardian – qui n’est pas exactement le défenseur du capitalisme moderne au Royaume-Uni – recueille plus d’argent en ligne qu’en version imprimée. Pas étonnant, car la publicité en ligne est meilleure pour les annonceurs et les consommateurs.

La publicité ciblée indique à l’entreprise qui affiche l’annonce si elle est réellement visionnée et cliquée, quelque chose que vous ne pouvez garantir d’aucune façon à la télévision ou à la radio. Sur la plateforme vidéo YouTube, l’entreprise explique que vous ne payez votre annonce que si les gens choisissent de la regarder :

“Par exemple, lorsque quelqu’un choisit de visionner votre publicité TrueView pendant au moins 30 secondes ou s’engage avec votre publicité  comme cliquer sur un call-to-action overlay, une carte ou une bannière d’accompagnement.”

Cela s’applique certainement à moi-même : en tant qu’amateur de bière artisanale, les publicités Google et Facebook m’informent constamment sur les dernières sorties de bière. Pourquoi devrais-je m’énerver ? J’utilise un service en ligne gratuit, et en retour je suis informé des produits que j’aime.

Quelle manipulation ?

Il serait étrange de prétendre que c’est pire qu’autrefois, quand on me montrait des choses que je n’achète pas, comme des produits d’hygiène féminine ou des pneus de voiture neufs.

Il y a aussi une supposition commune que la publicité est une forme de lavage de cerveau, nous bombardant constamment avec des choses que nous ne voulons pas. Elle pose la vieille question : peut-on faire acheter à quelqu’un quelque chose qu’il ne veut pas acheter ?

Le juriste américain Cass Sunstein, qui était administrateur du Bureau de l’information et des affaires réglementaires sous l’administration Obama, a publié un essai intitulé “Fifty Shades of Manipulation“, dans lequel il qualifie le marketing conventionnel de manipulation. Il écrit par exemple :

“Il est important de reconnaître que dans le domaine commercial, la manipulation est répandue ; elle fait partie de l’entreprise de base.”

Oui, lorsque des entreprises font de la publicité sur des bienfaits pour la santé de leurs produits, qui ne peuvent être prouvés, elles induisent intentionnellement leurs clients en erreur. Cependant, c’est loin d’annoncer un produit comme étant cool, rafraîchissant, confortable ou à la mode.

Doit-on définir le simple fait qu’un produit est décrit par le producteur comme “bon”, comme une manipulation ? Car, selon ce même critère, je me sentais également manipulé par le fait que Sunstein qualifie un livre qu’il a lui-même édité de “pertinent” (ce qu’il a fait sur Twitter).

Vous ne pourriez vendre une bougie à personne pour remplacer les ampoules électriques, mais vous pouvez faire de la publicité positive pour vos produits. Bien sûr, la publicité fonctionne, sinon cela ne servirait à rien.

Cependant, l’hypothèse selon laquelle il est mauvais d’avoir des services basés sur la publicité est une pensée rétrograde. De nombreuses carrières, y compris celles de journalistes free-lance, ont été rendues possibles grâce à la publicité moderne. De nombreux consommateurs sont heureux d’avoir des publicités ciblées spécifiques en ligne plutôt que de s’ennuyer avec leur téléviseur.

La publicité change parce que nous changeons en tant que consommateurs.

Read more here

MERCOSUR: More opportunities for the EU

EU-Mercosur agreement will significantly boost trade between the EU and the Mercosur bloc. By giving the Mercosur bloc a preferential access to the European food market, the deal would allow European consumers to enjoy a greater choice of beef, poultry, sugar, and honey at a lower price. The EU-Mercosur FTA is undoubtedly a big win for consumer choice.

Attempts to block it on the grounds of climate change not only undermine the significance of this opportunity but also fail to realise the benefits following from this new trade relationship. These are numerous on both ends and include exports too. Duties on exports of wine and industrial goods from the EU would be reduced, meaning that the deal would give European exporters a considerable access to the Southern Common Market.

This should be kept in mind when considering voices against the deal: the EU would pass on the opportunity to grow, foster a closer relationship with a fast-growing foreign partner, and, most importantly, to bring cheaper products to consumers in the 4 Mercosur countries.

Moreover, in terms of much-feared agricultural imports, the deal would define a number of food imports that can be imported tariff-free or at a lower rate. Free trade agreements do not mean an unrestricted flow of goods from abroad. They aim to expand trade while retaining some regulations and keeping in mind potential challenges for domestic producers brought about by foreign competition.

Farmers should adapt to reality

Though these fears raised by farmers across the EU are highly exaggerated. For instance, in 2017, the EU produced about 15.0 million tonnes of poultry meat. Under the EU-Mercosur FTA, only 180,000 tonnes of poultry from the Mercosur would be allowed to be imported tariff-free. The numbers and rates are different and do take into consideration the state of food production in the EU. Therefore, seeing the deal as a dark hour for the agricultural sector in the EU is rather unjustified.

For the Mercosur countries, the historic deal with the EU would open the door to many other trade agreements across the world. Concluding a big trade agreement with such an important player in the field of international trade as the EU would attract other countries to the Mercosur and increase its bargaining power for future trade negotiations. Additionally, the deal would also encourage investments as well as boost consumer choice and enhance international cooperation.

Overall, the EU-Mercosur deal is an exciting opportunity for the EU to put the interests of European consumers first and to send a powerful pro-trade, pro-cooperation message to the world.

Read more here

Winter is Coming for Consumers

Imagine you open your Netflix or Amazon Video App one day to only stare at a black screen. Imagine you want to rewatch the amazing series Friends or live once more through the long night of Game of Thrones but your government shut down most entertainment options in your country.

This is a situation hundreds of millions of Brazilians are currently facing. A well-intended law from 2011 that tried to prevent market concentration in the TV market might now lead to the rather opposite consequences of what it intended. Due to the ban of TV channels being allowed to own and produce content, business models such as streaming services but also the vertical integration of content and channels. 

Brazilian consumers will be the ones who lose in this situation. If this law, which was made in a pre-streaming and pre-vertical integration world, does not get repealed many great shows, movies, and even sports events like the Champions League might disappear from Brazilian TV and tablet screens.

That’s why we launched the campaign #ChegaDeBarreiras or#NoMoreBarriers which has already reached over 800,000 Brazilians through social media. This week we took the campaign to the next level when I and our Brazilian Affairs Manager Andre Freo met with over 20 Congressmen, Senators, and regulators in Brasilia to discuss our campaign. The overwhelming majority of these policy makers support our campaign. Read more at chegadebarreiras.org

This month Bill Wirtz, Luca Bertoletti, and I spent a week in Strasbourg to meet the new European Parliament with a whooping 60-something of newly elected Members of the European Parliament. We discussed our EU-focused projects BrandsMatter!#HandsOffMyCheapFlights, and Consumer Privacy in the Age of 5G with two dozen of MEPs from most parts of the Union. The next two weeks we will also be busy in Brussels with meetings with MEPs and the EU Commission. The good news is that we will be supported our new Brussels-based consumer rockstar Maria Chaplia, who is our new European Affairs Associate.

Over in Berlin, I had the opportunity to share our views on consumer privacy and trans-Atlantic collaboration with US Ambassador Richard Grenell.

You will also hear more about our ongoing #FreeTrade4US campaign. Fighting for freer trade and defeating new proposed tariffs is unfortunately a busy affair these days. We started promoting the EU-Mercosur FTA on both sides of the Atlantic and work on helping this important trade deal over the finishing line (or the 40+ finishing lines if one counts every legislature it has to be ratified by).

Over in Ontario, Canada our omnipresent David Clement has advocated for a long time for a liberalization of the beer sales monopoly in his home province. The provincial government decided to partially liberalize the sale of beer and move away from having merely one monopolist selling liquid hops. This got us a shoutout by the provincial government – who would have thought governments will ever quote us 😉

Competition is not only good for consumers but also within consumer advocacy groups: Following Ontario’s beer policy, North Carolina increased the amount of beer craft breweries are allowed to distribute without a middleman. Our Yael Ossowski has been advocating for a more consumer friendly alcohol policy in his home state for years and has been finally heard.

The CCC is growing and we fight for your choice as a consumer across the globe – Stay tuned for more exciting news about supersonic travel, borderless wires, our plans for Davos2020, GMO-fish, a digital consumer economy, and Argentinian steaks (see below) for everyone!

Thank you for following our work!

Fred Roeder

Legal weed is a lot more expensive than your dealer: Statistics Canada

“The data from Stats Can is troubling, because it shows that the legal market is getting less competitive over time,” said David Clement, the North American affairs manager at Consumer Choice Center. “Luckily there are some simple solutions that could be enacted to help the legal market compete when it comes to price. The federal government could quickly get rid of the minimum tax amount, and simply tax cannabis on its wholesale value. This would immediately allow for discount products to hit the shelves, which will put downward pressure on prices.”

In addition to changing the excise tax formula, Clement said the government could change production regulations that are holding back industry efficiency.

“Shifting production regulations to be in line with food-grade rules, as opposed to pharmaceutical-grade restrictions, would go a long way in terms of reducing costs, which are passed on to consumers through lower prices,” he said.

Read more here

The price isn’t right for legal pot says consumer group

“It’s time to re-evaluate the taxes on cannabis,” according to a Toronto-based North American consumer affairs group.

The Consumer Choice Center said the growing gap in price between legal cannabis and illegal pot shows that it’s time to re-evaluate cannabis taxes.

Earlier this week, Statistics Canada released data on the price differences between illegal and legal cannabis. It found that over the past three months, the price of a gram of cannabis bought illegally has fallen from $6.23 to $5.93 but over that same time, the average price of a gram of legally purchased cannabis rose from $10.21 to $10.65.

“The data from StatsCan is troubling, because it shows that the legal market is getting less competitive over time,” said David Clement, manager of the Consumer Choice Center.

He said there are some simple solutions that could be enacted to help the legal market compete when it comes to price. Clement said the federal government could get rid of the minimum tax amount, and simply tax cannabis on its wholesale value, which would immediately allow for discount products to hit the shelves and decrease prices. He added the government could also change production regulations to make the industry more dynamic. Clement said shifting production regulations to be in line with food-grade rules, as opposed to pharmaceutical-grade restrictions, would go a long way in terms of reducing costs, which are passed down to consumers through lower prices.

Read more here

Scroll to top