If the General Assembly takes up Gov. Tom Wolf’s call, Pennsylvania could become the 12th state to legalize recreational cannabis. They should absolutely follow through. But it won’t end there.© Provided by Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Legalizing cannabis is a no-brainer. Any negatives from legalization pale in comparison with the costs of prohibition. The failed war on drugs has criminalized otherwise peaceful citizens, torn minority communities apart and locked up far too many of our friends, family and neighbors. We know the cost.

But legalization in itself isn’t virtuous. State legislators must ensure that legislation does not end up causing even more problems. We need only look at other states, as well as our friendly neighbor to the north, to understand why smart cannabis legalization is necessary.

To begin, it has been suggested that Pennsylvania use its model of state retail of alcohol — namely through the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board — as a template for selling cannabis products. Though Harrisburg legislators are tempted, this would be an outright disaster.

The state should lean on the private sector and avoid treating cannabis like alcohol. It is well known that Pennsylvania’s alcohol retail market is one of the most archaic and anti-consumer markets in the country, one that artificially raises prices, causes massive inconvenience and pushes thousands of Pennsylvanians to buy alcohol out-of-state. We especially saw this during the pandemic. That’s hardly an example to emulate.

In states where it is legal, cannabis retail is offered by licensed private businesses rather than state monopolies. Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, now has only private retail storefronts and is proceeding to have a retail market where licenses are uncapped. That means there can be better competition, a more responsive market and better customer service than in a state store.

A licensed private retail market would be wise for Pennsylvanians, as it would allow the market to determine the number of stores available to consumers, rather than a bureaucracy in Harrisburg.

The legal market would be dynamic enough to respond to consumer demand, an important factor in prying consumers away from the illegal market. Stopping the black market would help raise the tax revenue Mr. Wolf intends to offer to minority communities and small businesses in need of assistance post-COVID-19.

Added to that, Pennsylvania should ensure that taxation and regulation of cannabis products are reasonable and fair.

Though Colorado and Washington have raised an impressive amount of revenue since legalization, California — with higher-than-average taxation, counties that don’t allow legal shops, and a myriad of red tape governing who can grow and sell — has one of the largest cannabis black markets in the country. Nearly 80% of cannabis consumed in the state remains in the illegal market, depriving the state treasury of much-needed revenue, but also locking out entrepreneurs who could otherwise operate successful dispensaries and contribute to their communities.

Another issue is which products will be legal to sell and use.

Canada, the largest industrialized country to legalize cannabis, mandated that only dried cannabis and oils be made legal on day one. That meant harm-reducing alternatives, such as beverages or edibles, were not available for sale until the next year. Giving the green light on product variety would benefit consumers and the retailers who are permitted to sell legal products, and would help the legal market compete against illegal alternatives.

If the General Assembly acts, there will be a lot of temptation to treat cannabis as nothing more than a cash crop for government coffers. But if legislators want to help benefit the minority communities who have been hurt by prohibition, future consumers and prospects for raising enough revenue to ease the pain caused by the pandemic, they would be wise to enact a smart cannabis policy.

David Clement and Yael Ossowski are North American affairs manager and deputy director, respectively, at the Consumer Choice Center, a global consumer advocacy group.

Originally published here.

State should ensure that taxation and regulation of products are reasonable and fair.

If the General Assembly takes up Gov. Tom Wolf’s call, Pennsylvania could become the 12th state to legalize recreational cannabis. They should absolutely follow through. But it won’t end there.

Legalizing cannabis is a no-brainer. Any negatives from legalization pale in comparison with the costs of prohibition. The failed war on drugs has criminalized otherwise peaceful citizens, torn minority communities apart and locked up far too many of our friends, family and neighbors. We know the cost.

But legalization in itself isn’t virtuous. State legislators must ensure that legislation does not end up causing even more problems. We need only look at other states, as well as our friendly neighbor to the north, to understand why smart cannabis legalization is necessary.

To begin, it has been suggested that Pennsylvania use its model of state retail of alcohol — namely through the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board — as a template for selling cannabis products. Though Harrisburg legislators are tempted, this would be an outright disaster.

The state should lean on the private sector and avoid treating cannabis like alcohol. It is well known that Pennsylvania’s alcohol retail market is one of the most archaic and anti-consumer markets in the country, one that artificially raises prices, causes massive inconvenience and pushes thousands of Pennsylvanians to buy alcohol out-of-state. We especially saw this during the pandemic. That’s hardly an example to emulate.

In states where it is legal, cannabis retail is offered by licensed private businesses rather than state monopolies. Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, now has only private retail storefronts and is proceeding to have a retail market where licenses are uncapped. That means there can be better competition, a more responsive market and better customer service than in a state store.

A licensed private retail market would be wise for Pennsylvanians, as it would allow the market to determine the number of stores available to consumers, rather than a bureaucracy in Harrisburg.

The legal market would be dynamic enough to respond to consumer demand, an important factor in prying consumers away from the illegal market. Stopping the black market would help raise the tax revenue Mr. Wolf intends to offer to minority communities and small businesses in need of assistance post-COVID-19.

Added to that, Pennsylvania should ensure that taxation and regulation of cannabis products are reasonable and fair.

Though Colorado and Washington have raised an impressive amount of revenue since legalization, California — with higher-than-average taxation, counties that don’t allow legal shops, and a myriad of red tape governing who can grow and sell — has one of the largest cannabis black markets in the country. Nearly 80% of cannabis consumed in the state remains in the illegal market, depriving the state treasury of much-needed revenue, but also locking out entrepreneurs who could otherwise operate successful dispensaries and contribute to their communities.

Another issue is which products will be legal to sell and use.

Canada, the largest industrialized country to legalize cannabis, mandated that only dried cannabis and oils be made legal on day one. That meant harm-reducing alternatives, such as beverages or edibles, were not available for sale until the next year. Giving the green light on product variety would benefit consumers and the retailers who are permitted to sell legal products, and would help the legal market compete against illegal alternatives.

If the General Assembly acts, there will be a lot of temptation to treat cannabis as nothing more than a cash crop for government coffers. But if legislators want to help benefit the minority communities who have been hurt by prohibition, future consumers and prospects for raising enough revenue to ease the pain caused by the pandemic, they would be wise to enact a smart cannabis policy.

David Clement and Yael Ossowski are North American affairs manager and deputy director, respectively, at the Consumer Choice Center, a global consumer advocacy group.

Originally published here.

Ontario’s marijuana wholesaler is expanding its expedited delivery service to London, the only city in Southwestern Ontario where the new service is available.

But critics of the Ontario government’s cannabis delivery monopoly are questioning why pot shops aren’t allowed to offer the same service.

Ontario Cannabis Store (OCS), the government-run pot wholesaler and delivery service, has rolled out its express delivery service to seven more cities across the province. Orders placed will be delivered within three days at no cost.

“OCS is pleased to continue increasing access to legal cannabis for Ontario adults and making it easy for consumers to choose legal,” spokesperson Joanna Hui said in an email.

OCS is the only legal option for cannabis delivery in the province, but it has drawn fire for being too slow and expensive.

Ontario briefly let cannabis retail stores offer delivery and curbside pickup — a move the industry had long demanded — in April amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

But the temporary emergency order was lifted in July, despite protests from many of the brick-and-mortar stores, which argued the services let them compete with the black market.

The Friendly Stranger at 1135 Richmond St. was the only London pot shop to offer both delivery and curbside pickup.

Company president James Jesty said the government wants to maintain a monopoly on pot delivery in Ontario.

“I fully think that we should be able to do delivery,” said Jesty, whose company struck a partnership deal to open the store near Western University’s gates. “We’re still in COVID, we’re still being asked to stay home.”

Money was spent hiring drivers and renting vehicles to set up the Friendly Stranger’s delivery service, which was free for orders over $50, he said. “When they took it away from us, it really didn’t make a lot of sense.”

David Clement, North American affairs manager for the Consumer Choice Centre, said only letting OCS deliver pot products hurts consumers by leaving them with no other options.

“COVID-19 has really rallied people to support local businesses,” said Clement, whose centre has lobbied provinces to let retailers offer same-day delivery. “That same concept would apply to cannabis retail.”

OCS offers same-day delivery in more than a dozen cities, mostly in the Greater Toronto Area.

Last month, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO), the province’s marijuana regulator, pledged to increase the pace of pot shop approvals from 20 to 40 a month, starting this fall.

In London, where seven marijuana retailers now operate, another 15 are in the final approval stage.

Originally published here.

Ontario pot shops are angry that as of today the province is putting an end to delivery and curbside pickup. The stores were allowed to offer both services under a temporary emergency order during the pandemic. Nicole Martin reports, there are worries this decision will lead to more demand on the black market.

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Tornar a entrega de Cannabis permanente e não temporária seria um grande passo em frente para o mercado jurídico.

Uma das maiores críticas à legalização canadense da Cannabis é que suas regras complicadas e opções limitadas de varejo não podem competir com o mercado clandestino. O que ajudaria? Permitir que as entregas de Cannabis aos varejistas continuem após a pandemia.

Também melhoraria bastante o sistema de entrega monopolizado que existia antes do Covid-19 afrouxar alguns regulamentos de distribuição. Por exemplo, antes da pandemia, a Ontario Cannabis Store (OCS) era incapaz de fazer a entrega no mesmo dia via Canada Post . Quando o OCS tentou oferecer a entrega no mesmo dia contratando um serviço de terceiros, o varejista on-line provincial só poderia oferecê-lo para selecionar áreas e logo interrompeu a opção por causa da alta demanda.

A medida temporária que permite o recolhimento na calçada e a entrega em domicílio pelos varejistas não é perfeita e como em qualquer política do governo, o percalço está nos detalhes.

Por um lado, há uma disposição de que o entregador deve ser um funcionário do varejista. Essa é uma restrição desnecessária que limita significativamente a expansão. Os varejistas não estão equipados com capital nem conhecimento para operar uma frota de veículos. Isto se destaca quando a demanda aumenta. Eles devem ser capazes de contratar esse serviço como qualquer outra empresa.

Em segundo lugar, o governo Ford deve permitir que serviços de terceiros sejam usados por revendedores licenciados, sem a necessidade de uma licença para essa função. Tudo o que Ontário precisa fazer é seguir o exemplo de Manitoba, que permite isso. Fazer essa alteração oferecerá benefício ao consumidor, permitindo que empresas de serviços de tecnologia entrem no mercado, dando aos varejistas legais uma vantagem sobre o mercado ilegal.

Eliminar a necessidade de funcionários e permitir que empresas de tecnologia não licenciadas atendam às lojas expande as opções que os varejistas têm para levar produtos aos clientes. Eles poderiam terceirizar completamente sua entrega por meio de terceiros com uma licença de entrega de maconha ou trabalhar com outros aplicativos de entrega, como os restaurantes.

A província pode exigir que os motoristas não licenciados tenham seu certificado CannSell, que é semelhante ao Smart Serve para álcool. O CannSell custa US$ 64,99 e forneceria aos motoristas o conhecimento necessário para detectar deficiências e proteger o acesso a menores.

Para a implantação, a província poderá legalizar esse tipo de entrega amanhã e conceder aos motoristas um período de carência de 30 dias para concluir o CannSell. Quando a província anunciou que os restaurantes podiam entregar álcool com pedidos de comida, eles fizeram exatamente isso, dando aos motoristas de entrega de comida um mês para obter o Certificado de Serviço Inteligente.

Tornar a entrega de Cannabis permanente e não temporária seria um grande passo em frente para o mercado jurídico em Ontário. Isso beneficiaria significativamente os varejistas. Mais importante, porém, beneficiaria os consumidores ao expandir e aprimorar suas opções.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org