As of October 9th 2020, Massachusetts had approved a total of 689 licenses to businesses selling marijuana for recreational purposes, and received 904 completed applications to from sellers wanting to operate in over 160 municipalities.

As of October 9th 2020, Massachusetts had approved a total of 689 licenses to businesses selling marijuana for recreational purposes, including 268 retail establishments. The local Cannabis Control Commission has received 904 completed applications to operate in over 160 municipalities, and 77 dispensary locations have commenced operations in the state.

The commission has even created an entire regulatory market for the substance, however it has faced some issues. In the past two fiscal years, as of June 2020, the state has collected $122 million in taxes, this was less than expected due to the late start of the industry, and the disruptions caused by the current pandemic.

“Despite state programs and initiatives to propel disenfranchised groups, the progress has largely benefited white and male operators. Of the 901 applicants for which there are data, only 42 identified as women-owned, 73 identified as minority-owned. Over 700 — 78% — did not identify as being in a disadvantaged business group,” explained an article on the Boston Business Journal.

The worst state in terms of vape laws

In contrast, according to the Consumer Choice Center’s (CCC) United States vaping index, Massachusetts tops the list as the country’s worst state with regards to vaping regulations. Last December, H4183 was approved by a vote of 127 to 31, and set in place a harsh 75% tax and flavour ban across Massachusetts. The bill also allows the police to seize vehicles in which they find untaxed vaping products.

With regards to flavoured vaping products, use is still allowed in a handful of state licensed “smoking bars.” However, this is not very useful since vapers use e-cigarettes to substitute regular cigarettes during regular day activities, such as after a meal, when driving to/from work, and during work breaks. To these individuals (which make up the majority of vapers) allowing use in smoking bars is futile.

“Massachusetts is far behind all the other states because of its flavour ban and its exorbitant taxation on vaping products,” said David Clement, North American affairs manager for the CCC. “Our research indicates Massachusetts’ policies deter adult smokers from turning to vaping, which could vastly improve and prolong their lives.”

US STUDY: EVALI OCCURRENCE LESS COMMON IN STATES WITH LEGALIZED MARIJUANA

Originally published here.

In the age of modernization, not every product can suit its consumer and not every consumer feels heard. Pro-consumer activism is an issue at the core of the millennial generation, and a unique way to allow for innovation’s creativity to reach the hands of willing clients. 

The Consumer Choice Center advocates on behalf of lifestyle freedom and innovation, to ensure that policy takes consumer choice into account.

Find out more about where the consumer voice is lacking and how to make sure it’s heard.

Listen here or find us on your favorite podcast app.

#80 Great.com Talks With… The Consumer Choice Center

During Berlin’s anti-Uber demonstrations, a small collective of activists put together a mini-protest to support Uber’s ingenuity and show solidarity for its innovative vision. Slowly, a few more individuals joined their counter-protest, establishing their belief that consumers aren’t being taken into account. In this episode, we spoke with Yael Ossowski, Deputy Director of Consumer Choice Center, a grassroots organization fighting for the rights of everyday consumers.

Consumer Choice Center’s involvement relies on resources, understanding and broader interest

With so many divisive issues plaguing society today, one has to choose what is worth fighting for, and how to go about fighting for it. Linking onto consumer-driven policy demands such as alcohol modernization, free trade agreements and cannabis legalization, amongst others, takes the focus off of business and brings it back to the user. Yael Ossowski  explains that the reduction of state monopolies will allow citizens to have more purchasing power in their interactions with local and international economies.

Listen to the whole interview to find out how you can get involved in the fight towards a prioritized consumer. You can also subscribe to Consumer Choice radio which has a new show every week and sign up to be a member. Many consumers feel that their agency is restored knowing that their rights are fought for worldwide.

Episode Transcript

[00:00:00] 

Every day you and I get bombarded with negative news. And just like our bodies become what we eat, our minds become the information that we consume. If you want to stay positive, it’s so important that you also listen to stories that inspire you and uplift you in this podcast. We interviewed leading experts dedicated to solving the world’s most pressing problems. And if you stick around, I promise you will not only be as informed as if you watch the news, you will be uplifted, inspired, and I’m more positive energy in your life. Welcome to great.com talks with. 

[00:00:44] 

Hi and welcome. Today great.com talks with Yael Ossowski, who is the deputy director of Consumer Choice Center.org, and if you haven’t heard of them before, they are a global grassroots movement for consumer choice. And if you haven’t done so already, you definitely want to press subscribe on YouTube or on your podcast app, because today we’re going to talk about many different topics, anything from how to make tech better for the consumers to alcohol modernization, to maybe even cannabis regulation, depending on how much we can do in 20 minutes. But I am really excited to speak with Yael today. So, Yael. Hey, thank you. Welcome. Thank you for taking the time to speak with us here. Thank you so much. I mean, it’s a pleasure to be on. Right. So what is the Consumer Choice Center? What is your purpose? 

[00:01:39] 

Consumer Choice Dinner was an idea of many of us who had been in student activism for many years, some of us were in journalism, some of us were economists, or some of us dealt a little bit with policy regulation. And we saw that there was a kind of growing move against awesome innovations that were happening. And our origin story kind of goes back to the taxi protests in Berlin over the Uber app many years ago. And the idea was that the invention of Uber and Uber being let loose on the streets of Berlin and throughout Germany was putting taxi drivers immediately out of work and therefore needed to be halted. That was the dominant narrative in the newspapers and most of the politicians speeches. But there really wasn’t any concentration on the people that Uber specifically benefited the most, which were normal consumers, you or I, or anyone who’s ever downloaded the app or used it. And again, doesn’t have to be Uber. It can be Lyft in the United States, or we have Bolt in Estonia and throughout the EU. And that’s when really we wanted to stand up. So a few of my colleagues put together signs, put together a nice little mini protest and stating the taxi monopoly is so yesterday and stating that consumers actually love having these innovations. And it picked up a lot of media coverage and it was put onto the German news wire. And all of a sudden just a bunch of kids with placards and slogans were able to kind of change a little bit of the debate in Germany on tech innovation. 

[00:03:17] 

And then we started thinking about this issue when it comes to many other different innovations. And we think of Airbnb, for instance, and we think of people who are able to rent out their homes. We started thinking about when it comes to alcohol modernization, when it comes to general taxation on things that you or I enjoy. And we started seeing that there’s a room in this area for people who would like to advocate for consumers, especially millennials, who actually really enjoy great innovations. There’s obviously a lot of things that we care about and we want to make sure that there are smart regulations on. But also we have to make sure that the next great innovations that are going to make our lives better and improve them can come to force. So that’s why we focus a lot on health and science, particularly a lot of things around tariffs on things like medicines, increasing competition when it comes to health care as well, I think is very important in many different situations. So we just kind of put this together as an idea, started out with just a couple of people. And now we span the United States, European Union, parts of South America, and we have colleagues in Indonesia and people working in Malaysia as well. So very much now, a global effort, many different consumer issues, not your normal consumer group, I would say, but we’ve been able to grow and be successful. And now it’s great fun to be doing what we’re doing, you know, doing this as a job. 

[00:04:39]

Wow. It’s so cool with the idea of protesting for innovation. So help me to understand who is funding this? Where is the money coming from? What is the incentive for you guys to do it, except for one thing, to bring these products to the market? 

[00:05:00] 

Yeah, I mean, it was very difficult in the beginning because of the different areas. You know, we came from the five one see three United States nonprofit model where you deal with a lot of private contributors, people who might like it, or a lot of foundations who generally might like work that you do. So we started doing that. It did prove a little bit successful. And then as we started growing, we started seeing that there actually were a lot of partnerships that we could establish either with associations or other foundations. So it started off really just kind of as a pet project. I mentioned that a lot of us were student activists. You know, we were training young people on mainly classical liberal issues, everything from economics to social policies. And it was sort of in that that we started to build momentum and then we were able to actually have some very good partnerships. So now we do have a growing member base of people who subscribe. We have different associations and companies who have also given to us. For us, the mission has always been very clear. We’re not there to support monopolies. We’re not there to support any specific companies. It’s about the principle. And a lot of it comes from the notion of many economists of the 1970s and 80s. You know, it’s not about being pro-business. That’s actually the terrible attitude for people to have. You need to be pro-consumer. And the way to be the best pro consumer activist is to make sure that the playing field is very level and that we allow innovation to come through. So we partner with a lot of great groups. We have a lot of that on our website. It depends on the country. It depends on the things that we’re doing. But. Overall, we’re very happy to be able to do this as a private initiative and hopefully grow for the future. 

[00:06:45] 

I can imagine that there are a lot of modern Uber examples that there are as many different topics where you could potentially be involved. So how are you reasoning there? Are you putting all your eggs in one basket or do you try to get involved in all of these topics? How do you choose the topic? 

[00:07:04] 

Yeah, that’s an important question. And it really depends on a) where our resources are, b) our understanding of the topic, and c) just really broader interest. There are a lot of different things that are very present and necessary and important in, let’s say, the European Union that are of absolutely no concern in the United States or Canada. So Canada specifically, I’ll use an example. It’s a nation where I was born. Our colleague, David Clements, our North American affairs manager, works there. And it’s many different Canadian issues. There are things like agricultural subsidies and supply management. And that’s something that is a pressing problem for Canadian consumers because it increases the price of grocery bills generally. And that’s just something that we’ve stuck to. And David has written papers on it. He’s testified and governments, something like the cannabis issue is, is something that’s very pressing. And really how we try to choose is where do we know we can be effective? Where do we know that the consumer voice is lacking? I think that’s very important. And I think the cannabis debate about legalization, about regulation, about the differences between CBD and hemp and THC, the voice of the consumers was missing. It wasn’t there. So oftentimes we would hear about the way to legalise cannabis, either from just old legacy activists or different groups who would oppose it, and not necessarily for consumers who are going to be concerned about what’s the percentage of THC, what’s the percentage of CBD, what are the rules on labeling, what are the rules on being able to have different stores in the different jurisdiction? And I think these are the types of questions that we start to ask whenever we approach a topic and where we’re going to have a lot of impact. 

[00:08:47] 

It meshes with our impact on media being able to get our publications and our articles into mainstream news articles in various languages. I think that’s important. I think being able to partner with different groups, we have many different organisations that are also, we would call them pressure groups or activist groups that we work with on various issues, whether it be airlines and ensuring cheap flights or trying to defend modern agriculture. There’s a lot of different groups that are already doing this work. So what we do is actually partner with them and try to represent the voice of consumers who want that type of innovation. So it changes from day to day, but it also matters a lot on our staff and what we’re able to do and what we’re interested in and what we’re able to push. So that’s always a very important consideration. 

[00:09:37] 

You said before this interview that you have an interest in tech. So what are you trying to accomplish there to benefit consumers, consumers at this point? 

[00:09:46] 

Yeah, I think a lot of the ongoing conversations about technology and the regulation thereof specifically focused in the European Union and the United States. If we start with the EU, there’s a lot of focus on creating the European Google or Facebook or Apple or whatever, and it’s always about just trying to figure out how to essentially tax or break down the American companies and not necessarily in creating the very good incentives that would allow for any different competitors to these companies to exist. If we just look at many of the barriers that are put together by various parliamentarians in Brussels or the EU Commission, and granted, this is not something that most consumers think about or focus on or necessarily know about, because most of our national media in Europe don’t focus on it. I think that’s something that has not really been told. That’s why I use the example of Estonia before. It is a country that is doing a lot of great things for innovation there. Residency program is amazing. The amount of capital that they have actually partnered with many different investors from around the world to try to put together companies and great investments. There’s so many great things that have come out of that. We can just think of companies like TransferWise. And in Sweden, obviously you have things like Spotify which are doing a great job and actually growing around the world. I think that’s an issue in the United States. There everything becomes political. I grew up in the United States, so I know how things go now and everything turns into kind of a left-right sparring match. And it seems as if technology companies right now, we’re very much not ignorant of politics, but sort of ran alongside politics and now it’s all mixed in. 

[00:11:32] 

So whether it’s Twitter or Facebook or any of these companies, there are now huge considerations. If a company would like to perhaps delete a particular news article or remove a certain personality, that’s going to be very problematic. And I think where many people go wrong is they go full board and say, well, that’s why we need to break these companies up, that’s why we need to ensure that they can never hold on to X or Y data. But we never ask, why are these companies so big, why are these companies so innovative? It’s because consumers love them. They’ve been able to use them. We all have our gripes. We all have our own sort of tales to tell about social media or targeted advertising. But these things deliver great dividends for consumers. I know they’ve improved the lives of many people that make things a lot easier, especially during the pandemic. Many people who live in other countries now are able to connect with others. I mean, this is something that was not possible many years ago, even 10, 15 years ago. Yes. You had Skype, also an Estonian invention, but you didn’t have all the great video softwares that we have now and all the rest. And I think there’s too much of a focus on how do we break these guys up? How do we make sure they can get down to size? And it’s really about are the consumers really benefiting? And I think overall, if you look at it, they are and they do have the options to use alternatives. And that’s something that we’re very, very passionate about because we’re not there to support, again, one company or one service. It’s about protecting the right of consumers to have that ability to choose. 

[00:13:05] 

And that makes a lot of sense. So if you had a magic wand, you can swing it and change one policy to benefit consumers but change what you make globally. 

[00:13:16] 

I think right now it’s free trade. I think we need to have more free trade. It’s no secret that during the Donald Trump era in the United States, it was a very problematic time for trying to pass additional trade deals. I think having some kind of broader international cooperation and trade would make things a lot better and would definitely reduce the cost of things if people did not have to pay customs to the level that they do. I think that would actually significantly improve many of our lives. If we look at globalization, if we look at free trade, I mean the amount of people who’ve been lifted out of poverty in the last few decades where we have had freer trade, that’s actually one of the most powerful policies we’ve ever had. And no one really did it on purpose. No one said, OK, we’re going to do this so that we can make sure we don’t have poor people anymore. Everyone did it in their own self-interest, and that’s provided dividends for many countries. I mean, there’s a reason why South Korea is this huge tech powerhouse is the reason that Ireland is this amazing, innovative country that invites so many international companies. And it’s the reason why so many more of us are connected. And even though we’re in different countries now, we can use the Internet and all these platforms to connect. I do think trade is probably the one that if I have that magic wand, I would make sure we had freer trade around the world. 

[00:14:35] 

Yeah, I can imagine what would happen globally if we make that change, just look at the United Kingdom. 

[00:14:43] 

I mean, they were forced to go to square one. And Liz Truss, who’s I believe the secretary of state of trade, she’s been flying around the world basically every week signing new trade deals, which is, you know, for Brexit was many things for many people, but certainly for entrepreneurs. They probably felt as if they didn’t know what the future would be and consumers as well and people living there who might be from other countries. So it’s good to see that a country is willing to open up trade and to talk about how trade helps people rather than hurts them. 

[00:15:14] 

Mm hmm. You mentioned the word alcohol modernisation previously. What would make alcohol policies more modern? 

[00:15:26] 

Whether it would depend on the country depends on the context I grew up in the rural south, sort of the Bible Belt, so definitely a lot of different things, but where we’ve seen a lot of issues with alcohol. It comes down to prices and it comes down to regulations and specifically state monopolies are kind of old news, we don’t necessarily have these state monopolies anymore because then the government has an interest in selling more alcohol and getting a certain amount of tax. And it’s just not generally as efficient. And you might just say, oh, well, that just impacts drinkers. Well, you know, it’s restaurants. Whenever they open back up, it’s catering, it’s weddings, it’s all

kinds of events. We have to have more competition in these spaces. So I do think getting rid of state monopolies is going to be a big one. And that meshes with the model that is being proposed for cannabis legalization in many areas is they want to follow the old alcohol control model. So I find that is very problematic. And we’re just talking about raising prices for people. And when we look at the trade wars that happen between the United States and the European Union, you know, it was that great Kentucky bourbon that had tariffs slapped on it. Prices went up. People are still willing to pay for it. So then they lose more of their disposable income to buy the same products they got yesterday. 

[00:16:49] 

That’s definitely a consideration. And then the more that we sort of have these crazy regulations and we see this parallel with also the new innovation of vaping, as soon as there are all these regulations that make it more impossible to access these products, people turn to black markets and we focus a lot on black markets when it comes to cannabis, but we don’t focus in other areas because it’s not as present. But black markets are definitely something that are usually very dangerous. Not black markets necessarily online are going to be as dangerous, but you can get your credit card stolen. And if we want to have people buying cigarettes or something off the street like happened to Eric Garner in New York many years ago, choked out by the police, this is the kind of stuff that we don’t want in a black market, and that’s why we need legal markets. And the more that we can make sure that black markets and illegal markets don’t rise up as exists today with cannabis, that empowers things like the Mexican cartels, that’s going to be better overall. So I know that’s that’s a lot to throw in there, but just some things that we’re thinking about and why I think the alcohol question, it’s not just about getting your wine bottle. It’s really a bigger question about how we allow consumers to choose. 

[00:18:06] 

I really wish we had more time to explore the question of alcohol and cannabis. But at the same time, we’re coming up towards the end of this into so if a consumer is listening to this now and I say, yeah, I want more rights, I want lower prices, maybe I even want to get involved somehow, what can they do to make good choices and to support your organization as well? 

[00:18:29] 

Well, probably the biggest wealth that people could bring to us is information about what’s happening in your locality in a place like South Africa. We partner with a lot of local activists when during the pandemic, they outlawed all alcohol, all tobacco, all vaping, everything, which is an insane move in a pandemic when we could say. But I think in that case, we were able to partner with local activists who saw the issue coming. We’re able to put together our team. We gave them resources. That’s the kind of stuff that we really love. So if you have issues like this related to consumer choice in your jurisdiction, your area, alert us to that. We’re very present on all the social media as we have our radio show that goes out once a week. We’re very happy to talk about this and partner with people so that they can see exactly what the issues are and how we can help improve it. So there’s that. You can also support us. We’re a charity. We’re trying to do the best we can. So those are at least two of the best ways, I think, to support us. 

[00:19:32] 

Yael Ossowski, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with great.com today. This was really interesting. And again, I wish we had more time together. And for you listening, if you enjoyed us, if you would like to bring this conversation to more people so consumers get more of a choice and better opportunities, please consider subscribing to this interview in YouTube or your podcast app that will help us get through algorithms. Some more people can hear this conversation and start taking action. Thank you so much for listening and we’ll see you in the next episode. 

As we approach the year’s end, it’s time to reflect and predict. What a long strange trip it’s been. I think I can say that given that I’m entering my 13th year of focusing exclusively on the cannabis industry. They say this industry ages you in dog years.

It all began to go warp speed in December of 2009, when we prevailed on the groundbreaking Cannamart v. Centennial case in Colorado. For the first time, a court enjoined a local government from shutting down a marijuana dispensary. 

This time last year when planning for 2020 I’d gathered market data, analyzed trends, and closely scrutinized industry behavior across the board. Given the Hoban Law Group’s positioning, it’s somewhat “easy” to accumulate perspective because of the vast cannabis industry network our firm services. We have an inside joke at HLG: we like to say we sit at the center of the pizza pie. 

We predicted 2020 would be a flat year in terms of revenue and growth at our firm.  Overall, this was going to be a time of regrouping for the cannabis industry – not a rebuild per se, but a retool. Our attorneys and advisors had discussed the same with many of our clients as they prepared for the year ahead.  

The time had come for cannabis industry operators to ensure a buttoned-down business plan, a focus on the fundamentals, and the requirement of wise corporate governance. There was a growing need for increased emphasis on business integrity and ethics, operational efficiencies, regulatory compliance, and production quality for any industrial hemp farm or cannabusiness to see success in 2020 and beyond.  It was no secret that raising capital investment would be tough, and more than likely we’d see an uptick in consolidation.

While that may have been somewhat accurate, no one could have foreseen what this year threw at us —- a pandemic, tremendous social unrest across the U.S and around the world, global economic decline, and a political divide so increasingly deep that most people cannot even see across it to begin to acknowledge, let alone understand, the other side. 

For some context, 2019 was not a cakewalk for the cannabis industry, either. We’d seen a tremendous movement toward the growth of an interconnected global cannabis economy and the nascent stages of an international supply chain.  

Cannabis stocks gained early in 2019, encouraging a false sense of continued growth. By late spring, we began to see major fractures in many of the Canadian funders and operators. Of course, cash began to wane. Then, regulatory troubles for several of these companies revealed even greater inadequacies surrounding their structure and function, leading to illegal marijuana production facilities and FDA warning letters surrounding CBD products.  These developments bogged down the entire sector. Cannabis stocks took a major hit, causing substantial leadership changes for many cannabis companies – CannTrust, Canopy Growth, etc. However, as we’ve explored, this is natural in an emerging industry. 

The supply chain servicing many of these companies was ineffective or nonexistent. We also saw the Vape Crisis, as vape-related health issues seem to be never-ending. 2019 brought unprecedented registered acres of hemp, but also diminishing reliable distribution outlets, increased regulatory uncertainty, and a corresponding glut in the hemp and hemp-derivative market. Overall, the year was a mixed bag. 

In retrospect, 2020 rolled out surprisingly well. In January, Illinois affected the legalization of marijuana. The state remains a very promising marketplace and set the table for many others that moved forward with commercial cannabis regulations of their own. That same month I traveled to Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum — thanks in large part to Saul Kaye’s foundation and his annual CannaTech events series, as well as events sponsored by the European-based Consumer Choice Center. We discussed and debated how cannabis, and particularly industrial hemp, were consistent with the goals set forth during the 2020 Forum: think sustainability, carbon-capture in farming, plant-based economies, and the medicinal applications of cannabis. This was perhaps the largest world stage ever where cannabis was so prominently displayed. 

At the time, COVID-19 was just a blip on the radar. I returned from Switzerland on January 27, 2020, and witnessed hundreds of people wearing masks at the Zurich airport. I’d never seen this before outside of Southeast Asia; COVID was becoming real. Within weeks, international travel was restricted and I had to “retrieve” my daughter who was studying in the Netherlands after her academic program was abruptly shut down. Economic uncertainty loomed as lockdowns and stay-at-home mandates became the global norm.  

The cannabis industry has faced uncertainty before and has, by-and-large, continued to thrive despite all the challenges of this year. The demand from patients and adult-use cannabis consumers has risen to unprecedented levels during the pandemic. Sales have increased dramatically, and Colorado saw its largest cannabis revenue numbers on record. 

Cannabis was deemed an essential business in numerous jurisdictions around the United States and the world. Consider this — from gateway to essential in the relative blink of an eye. Cannabis was even touted as a viable therapeutic for COVID. By the summer, governments around the world began to view cannabis legalization and regulation as a tool for economic recovery. Many even speculated that cannabis may be recession proof, leading public policy makers, investors, and the like to pay even closer attention to the industry.       

It turns out that this has been a landmark year for the cannabis industry, if not the most successful ever. What does 2021 hold? For now, we’ll just have to pack it up and see what tomorrow brings. The future looks bright as we continue to move toward that light at the end of the tunnel.

Originally published here.

“When we talk about the issue of plastics, we are really talking about poorly managed litter.”

In June 2019, Prime Minister Trudeau announced that Canada would be banning certain single-use plastics. From his perspective, we needed to act to get these plastics out of the environment. On its face, wanting to get plastics out of the environment is a fairly noble goal.

A year later, the government announced its intention to use the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) to give these bans legal muster. The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change explained that the government would be declaring Plastic Manufactured Items (PMI) to be toxic and added to Schedule 1 of CEPA. Only then would the government have the legal authority to ban single-use plastics. 

Let’s be clear about one thing. Exactly no one thinks plastic should end up in the environment. Every piece of litter that isn’t collected has its energy and value forever lost when it cannot be recovered and reclaimed and made into something else. 

Indeed, it is because of innovation that we now have ways to better reuse plastics than ever before.

Through recovery and chemical depolymerization, we can turn every piece of discarded plastic back into the same molecules it started from. These transformations aren’t hypothetical. They already exist across Canada. In Alberta, a processing plant takes 14,000+ plastic grain feed bags and recycles them into resin pellets. Those pellets can in turn be transformed into everything from bumpers to barbie dolls. Banning certain plastic items sidesteps those initiatives and denies the scientific innovations that make them possible.

While we can debate the merits or efficacy of bans, what we really should be doing is debating if using CEPA is appropriate. 

CEPA is a criminal law statute. It derives its legal authority from the section 91 of the Constitution, which assigns the right to punish criminal behavior and actions to the federal government. Plastic is not a criminal object. Quite the opposite in fact, it is essential for keeping our food safe and our front-line healthcare workers protected. It isn’t the plastic that is the problem – it’s the person who dumps their trash into the ravine, or the guy who throws his empty water bottle on the side of the highway who is the problem.  The criminal law is about regulating behavior. CEPA could criminalize littering, but it should not criminalize the litter itself. 

Take, for example, how we deal with water management. The behaviour of dumping waste into waterways is regulated (as it should be), but the waste itself is not criminalized. It’s backwards to criminalize the item, when it is the disposal of that item which is actually the problem.

Criminalizing the item, as opposed to the behavior, ignores that plastic is really only a problem when it is disposed of improperly by consumers, or when municipal waste management programs break down. Beyond that, plastic is often essential. It is essential to several parts of the economy to reducing food waste, and is essential to reducing emissions from the transportation sector. When we talk about the issue of plastics, we are really talking about poorly managed litter.

The federal government’s logic seems to be that if we ban certain items, people will stop littering. That certainly isn’t logical at all. The person who dumps their garbage into the ravine is going to do so regardless of whether or not they get plastic cutlery with their take-out order. While the environmental fate of different disposable receptacles varies, the behavior won’t be changed until there is an incentive for that individual to take proactive steps to recover that material.

Rather than using CEPA, which is the wrong act, used the wrong way, the federal government should instead look at the Save Our Seas Act in the US as a framework for what would be appropriate in Canada. The act – which has bipartisan approval – focuses on the core question of plastic waste, which is plastic collection and repurposing. The life-cycle approach to dealing with plastic waste is a far superior way of managing waste. This approach actually focuses on reducing plastic waste in our environment, as opposed to simply banning items and falsely declaring plastic toxic. 

David Clement is a columnist for the Western Standard and the North American Affairs Manager with the Consumer Choice Center

Originally published here.

Pandemi COVID-19 yang masih terjadi hingga saat ini merupakan salah satu pandemi terbesar yang pernah dialami umat manusia, setidaknya dalam 100 tahun terakhir. Pandemi ini, yang melanda seluruh negara-negara di dunia, telah menimbulkan korban jiwa hingga lebih dari 1 juta jiwa di seluruh dunia, dan menginfeksi setidaknya lebih dari 70 juta penduduk dunia.

Dampak dari pandemi ini tidak hanya terjadi pada kesehatan publik, namun juga pada kegiatan ekonomi. Resesi dan penurunan pertumbuhan ekonomi terjadi di banyak negara. Hal ini disebabkan banyak sektor ekonomi, khususnya yang bergerak di bidang jasa seperti rumah makan dan perhotelan, tidak bisa beroperasi akibat dari berbagai restriksi yang diberlakukan oleh berbagai pemerintah sebagai upaya untuk menanggulangi dampak dan penyebaran dari virus Corona.

Selain itu, banyak konsumen yang memutuskan untuk menyimpan uangnya dan tidak melakukan konsumsi seperti tahun-tahun sebelumnya sebagai upaya untuk mempersiapkan dampak yang tidak menentu dari pandemi ini. Hal ini menyebabkan banyak kegiatan usaha di seluruh dunia terpaksa harus mengalami kebangkrutan dan menutup usahanya.
Dampak dari banyaknya berbagai usaha yang gulung tikar ini tentu juga menyebabkan peningkatan angka pengangguran yang luar biasa. Berbagai pekerja menemukan dirinya kehilangan pekerjaan karena tempat mereka bekerja terpaksa harus tutup karena pandemi ini.Tidak bisa dipungkiri, menyelesaikan pandemi COVID-19 merupakan tugas terbesar yang saat ini harus bisa kita lakukan untuk menyelamatkan banyak jiwa dan memulihkan kembali roda perekonomian. Di akhir tahun 2020 ini, akhirnya kita menemukan secercah harapan untuk melakukan hal tersebut, yakni melalui vaksin yang efektif, sudah berhasil ditemukan oleh beberapa perusahaan farmasi besar dunia.

Adanya vaksin ini merupakan hal yang sangat penting agar kita bisa menyelesaikan pandemi yang telah menginfeksi puluhan juta orang di seluruh dunia ini. Tanpa adanya vaksin, maka segala upaya yang dilakukan oleh berbagai pemerintah untk menanggulangi dampak persebaran virus Corona tentu tidak dapat optimal, dan bukan tidak mungkin justru akan membawa ekonomi ke jurang resesi dan krisis yang lebih dalam karena berbagai kegiatan usaha tidak bisa beroperasi.

Setelah vaksin berhasil ditemukan, tugas besar lain yang harus mampu kita lakukan adalah mendistribusikan vaksin tersebut kepada miliaran penduduk dunia. Bila aspek kesehatan sudah bisa kita atasi melalui imunitas, maka langkah penting selanjutnya yang harus kita lakukan adalah memulihkan kembali roda perekonomian untuk membuka jutaan lapangan kerja dan meningkatkan kesejahteraan.

Memulihkan ekonomi yang diporak-porandakan oleh pandemi COVID-19 tentu bukan sesuatu yang mudah. Kita harus dapat memaksimalkan seluruh potensi dan sumber daya ekonomi yang kita miliki untuk membangun kembali ekonomi kita, dan agar orang-orang yang menjadi korban kehancuran ekonomi akibat dari pandemi ini dapat kembali bekerja dan melakukan kegiatan sehari- hari seperti sedia kala.

Salah satu pilar yang sangat penting untuk memaksimalkan seluruh potensi dan sumber daya ekonomi yang kita miliki adalah perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual. Perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual merupakan aspek yang sangat penting untuk inovasi yang akan meningkatkan pertumbuhan ekonomi, yang merupakan hal yang tidak bisa dipisahkan dari pemulihan ekonomi.

Pandemi COVID-19 yang saat ini terjadi memberi kita pelajaran menganai pentingnya inovasi, terutama di bidang teknologi informasi. Berkat adanya berbagai inovasi di bidang teknologi informasi, seperti video call melalui internet misalnya, jutaan orang di seluruh dunia masih bisa melakukan pekerjaan dan kegiatan belajar mereka di tempat tinggal kita masing-masing. Dengan demikian, mereka tidak harus datang ke kantor atau sekolah dan membahayakan diri mereka denan bertemu banyak orang di ruangan tertutup (USA Today, 7/9/2020).

Perkembangan yang didorong oleh inovasi di bidang teknologi ini, di masa pandemi, bukan hanya telah membantu pekerjaan kita, namun juga membantu kita meluapkan kerinduan kita kepada keluarga, teman-teman, dan orang-orang yang kita kasihi. Jutaan orang di seluruh dunia tidak bisa bertemu dengan orang tua, saudara, dan sahabat-sahabat mereka secara personal karena pandemi ini. Berkomunikasi secara virtual dengan orang-orang yang kita kasihi tentu bukan cara komunikasi yang ideal. Namun, sedikit banyak, hal tersebut dapat membantu meluapkan kerinduan kita kepada mereka.

Perkembangan teknologi yang didorong oleh invoasi juga bukan merupakan hal yang akan berhenti dan melambat ketika pandemi ini berakhir. Inovasi ini justru menjadi fondasi dari pertumbuhan ekonomi di masa depan. Di Amerika Serikat misalnya, hal ini sudah dibuktikan melalui naiknya berbagai saham perusahaan-perusahaan teknologi besar seperti Amazon, Facebook, dan Google (Financial Times, 30/10/2020). Untuk itu, perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual, untuk mendukung riset dan pembangunan yang akan mendorong inovasi adalah sesuatu yang sangat penting (Ponsip.com, 8/9/2020).

Ekonomi dunia saat ini bertumpu pada inovasi dan kreativitas di bidang pengembangan berbagai teknologi yang terbarukan. Hal ini tentunya membuat teknologi memainkan peran yang sangat penting untuk mendorong pemulihan ekonomi yang telah hancur sebagai dampak dari pandemi ini. Hal ini diakui oleh Menteri Riset dan Teknologi Republik Indonesia, Bambang Brodjonegoro (Merdeka.com, 10/11/2020).

Sebagai penutup, perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual merupakan salah satu pilar terpenting untuk mendorong inovasi yang akan meningkatkan pertumbuhan ekonomi. Pentingnya perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual ini kian penting untuk mendorong inovasi agar ekonomi kita kembali pulih setelah porak-poranda oleh pandemi COVID-19.

Originally published here.