fbpx

Recent Media

Bagaimana Kebijakan Regulasi Mata Uang Kripto yang Tepat?

Mata uang kripto, atau yang juga akrab disebut cryptocurrency, saat ini menjadi salah satu medium investasi dan transaksi yang mengalami peningkatan yang sangat pesat. Saat ini, kita bisa membeli berbagai produk mata uang kripto dengan sangat mudah melalui banyak sekali platform yang tersedia di dunia maya.

Tidak sedikit pula mereka yang mendapatkan banyak keuntungan dari investasi di produk-produk mata uang kripto. Keuntungan tersebut didapatkan dalam jangka waktu yang relatif sangat cepat, karena nilai dari mata uang kripto tersebut mengalami peningkatan yang sangat cepat dibandingkan dengan berbagai instrumen investasi lainnya.

Selain itu, banyaknya mata uang kripto yang bergerak sangat bebas tanpa adanya intervensi dari otoritas atau institusi negara juga menjadi daya tarik tersendiri bagi banyak orang untuk menggunakan instrumen tersebut untuk melakukan transaksi. 

Dengan bebasnya pergerakan dan peredaran mata uang kripto, maka nilainya tidak bisa dimanipulasi oleh institusi pemerintahan yang berkuasa.

Dengan semakin banyaknya pengguna mata uang kripto, saat ini kita bukan hanya bisa menggunakan mata uang kripto untuk membeli berbagai produk-produk virtual seperti poin game, tetapi juga mencakup barang-barang nyata hingga kebutuhan kita sehari-hari. 

Tidak hanya itu, beberapa negara juga sudah melegalkan mata uang kripto sebagai legal tender, sebagaimana mata uang nasional yang diterbitkan oleh pemerintahan di negara tersebut.

El Salvador misalnya, belum lama ini menjadi negara pertama yang secara resmi menjadikan mata uang kripto, seperti bitcoin dan berbagai mata uang kripto lainnya, sebagai legal tender. 

Tidak hanya El Salvador, negara-negara lain juga perlahan-lahan mulai menjadikan mata uang kripto sebagai legal tender, diantaranya adalah Panama dan Ukraina (cnbc.com, 9/9/2021).

Tetapi, tidak semua pemerintahan bersedia untuk mengikuti langkah yang diambil oleh El Salvador, Panama, dan Ukraina. 

Tidak adanya peran institusi pemerintah dalam peredaran dan pengaturan mata uang kripto membuat tidak sedikit pemerintahan di berbagai negara di dunia menaruh kecurigaan yang besar terhadap produk ini. 

Beberapa langkah yang diambil tidak main-main, mulai dari melarang mata uang kripto digunakan sebagai alat transaksi yang sah, hingga melarang seluruh kegiatan yang berkaitan dengan mata uang kripto.

Lantas, bila demikian, bagaimana kita seharusnya menyusun kebijakan yang tepat terkait dengan kebijakan mata uang kripto?

                                              *

Perkembangan mata uang kripto saat ini seakan merupakan hal yang hampir mustahil dapat dibendung. Untuk itu, sangat penting bagi pemerintahan di berbagai negara di seluruh dunia untuk mampu membuat serangkaian aturan dan kebijakan regulasi yang tepat terkait dengan produk mata uang kripto ini.

Beberapa waktu lalu, lembaga advokasi konsumen internasional, Consumer Choice Center (CCC), menerbitkan makalah kebijakan yang membahas mengenai bagaimana pemerintahan negara-negara di dunia dapat menyusun regulasi yang masuk akal dan tepat terkait dengan mata uang kripto (Consumer Choice Center, 2021).

Makalah tersebut dalam pembukaannya memaparkan bahwa, sejak diperkenalkan pada tahun 2008, sektor mata uang kripto sudah mencapai nilai hingga 2 triliun dollar. Hal ini mencakup penambangan, pasar mata uang kripto, blockchains, dan lain sebagainya.

Meskipun membawa banyak manfaat, seperti memudahkan kita mengirim uang ke luar negeri, sebagai instrumen investasi, dan lain sebagainya, tetapi kita juga tidak bisa menutup mata dari berbagai potensi kejahatan dan juga penipuan yang terjadi melalui berbagai produk-produk mata uang kripto.

Untuk mencegah terjadinya hal tersebut, dan di sisi lain juga bisa mendapatkan manfaat yang luar biasa melalui mata uang kripto, CCC mengadvokasi beberapa kebijakan penting yang harus dapat diambil oleh pemerintah.

Kebijakan pertama yang sangat penting dan tidak bisa dilupakan adalah kebijakan yang berfokus untuk mencegah terjadinya penipuan dan kejahatan. Hal ini tentu sangat penting untuk mencegah penyalahgunaan mata uang kripto. 

Dengan demikian, yang harus menjadi sasaran bukan produk mata uang kripto itu sendiri, melainkan berbagai penyalahgunaan yang dilakukan dengan menggunakan mata uang kripto tersebut.

Kebijakan kedua adalah pemerintah harus memiliki posisi netral terkait dengan perkembangan teknologi. Pemerintah dalam hal ini jangan sampai menjadi hakim yang memutuskan teknologi kripto apa yang menjadi pemenang yang bisa digunakan dan mana yang kalah. Konsumen lah yang harus menjadi penentu utama melalui mekanisme pasar yang bebas,

Kebijakan ketiga yang sangat penting adalah adalah adanya kebijakan pajak yang masuk akal untuk produk-produk kripto. 

Untuk itu, para regulator juga jangan sampai melihat mata uang kripto hanya sebagai alat untuk spekulasi, tetapi juga sebagai teknologi yang memiliki potensi besar untuk membawa manfaat yang sangat luas bagi konsumen dan masyarakat.

Kebijakan keempat adalah adanya kepastian hukum bagi produk-produk kripto. 

Dengan adanya kejelasan hukum, maka kebijakan tersebut akan membuka pintu yang luas bagi perusahaan dan inovator yang bergerak di sektor mata uang kripto untuk memiliki rekening bank, mendapatkan asuransi, dan berbagai hal lain sebagaimana usaha lainnya. Dengan demikian, inovasi akan semakin meningkat.

Keempat kebijakan inilah yang harus dapat diambil oleh berbagai para pengambil kebijakan di seluruh dunia agar regulasi mata uang kripto yang masuk akal dapat tercapai. Hal ini berlaku juga tidak hanya di luar negeri tetapi juga di Indonesia.

Sebagaimana negara-negara lain di seluruh dunia, fenomena berkembangnya penggunaan mata uang kripto, baik sebagai instrumen investasi atau transaksi, juga terjadi di Indonesia. 

Berdasarkan data dari Bank Indonesia, pada bulan Maret tahun ini, setidaknya ada sekitar 3,5 juta – 4 juta pengguna mata uang kripto di Indonesia (iNews.id, 7/10/2021).

Angka 3,5 juta – 4 juta orang tentu bukan merupakan angka yang sedikit, dan berpotensi besar terus meningkat dari waktu ke waktu, mengingat sangat besarnya jumlah penduduk Indonesia dan akses internet yang semakin meluas.

Untuk itu, adanya kebijakan regulasi mata uang kripto yang masuk akal dan tepat merupakan langkah yang harus segera diambil oleh para pembuat kebijakan di Indonesia.

Dengan demikian, bila Indonesia mampu menyusun kebijakan tersebut, negara kita akan dapat mendapatkan banyak manfaat dari teknologi mata uang kripto, dan inovasi teknologi ini juga akan semakin meningkat.

Originally published here

Flying in Canada is silly expensive — time to open Air Canada and WestJet to competition

Increasing competition wouldn’t just save consumers money on flights, it could lessen the need for taxpayer-funded support of the hard-hit tourism and hospitality sectors

Have you looked at domestic flight prices recently? If you haven’t, you may experience a jolt of sticker shock. According to recent  reports , the average Canadian domestic flight has increased by almost $100 — or 21 per cent — compared to 2019. It was already ridiculously expensive to fly within Canada. Now, it’s practically sky-high robbery.

While it’s common to find domestic U.S. flights and even flights between major European cities for $100 or less, Canadian domestic flight prices often start in the mid-$300s and only go up from there. Worse yet, flying internationally is routinely cheaper than it is within our own borders. I travel annually from Toronto to New Brunswick to visit family, and the bill almost always comes in higher than it would if I booked a flight to Morocco, France, Rome, or basically anywhere with palm trees and warm oceans.

Read the full article here

La Prohibición de la Carne Es lo que Ocurre cuando el Alarmismo Climático se Impone

En febrero del 2020, 243 personas de la London School of Economics aprobaron una moción del sindicato de estudiantes para introducir la prohibición de la carne de vaca para todos sus 11.000 estudiantes, convirtiéndose en la tercera universidad del país en hacerlo. Y fue el ejemplo perfecto de cómo el alarmismo descarado sobre el cambio climático causa enormes problemas a todo el mundo. Sentir que se está poniendo un granito de arena para ayudar al mundo a resolver sus problemas más acuciantes se ha convertido, al parecer, en algo más importante que respetar la libertad fundamental de elegir.

Sin embargo, la única manera de hacer frente al cambio climático es aceptar esto último. Los estudiantes son los consumidores del mañana, y se merecen la misma elección de consumo.

Hay algo pretencioso en que una minoría intente imponer sus puntos de vista a todos los demás mediante prohibiciones, especialmente cuando se trata de cuestiones de mercado. En estos casos, siempre deberíamos preguntarnos cómo es que un grupo de personas que probablemente nunca hemos conocido puede saber lo que es correcto para mí.

Esta lógica penetra en un amplio espectro de regulaciones de estilo de vida, desde fumar tabaco y cannabis hasta el azúcar. En el contexto del cambio climático, socava la responsabilidad individual a un nivel muy básico al implicar que nosotros, como individuos, no nos preocupamos lo suficiente por el medio ambiente como para ayudar a reducir las emisiones de CO2.

En realidad, para bien o para mal, es difícil no hacerlo. Gracias a Greta Thunberg, a las extensas campañas mediáticas y a los acuerdos ecológicos que llegan de todas partes, el cambio climático se ha convertido en un tema de gran preocupación en todo el mundo, especialmente en Europa y Estados Unidos que, a diferencia de China, no son los mayores contaminantes mundiales. Todos estamos de acuerdo en que debemos intentar reducir las emisiones de carbono. Sólo diferimos en la forma de hacerlo.

La naturaleza humana tiene tendencia a ser impaciente. Se ha hecho popular pensar que si aprobamos una prohibición, el problema desaparecerá de la noche a la mañana. Es decir, se supone que si prohibimos la carne de vaca en el campus, todos los estudiantes dejarán pronto de comer carne y tomarán conciencia del clima. Este planteamiento puede tener cierto éxito a corto plazo a costa de la elección del consumidor, pero a largo plazo no es sostenible ni ayuda a salvar el planeta.

En cambio, adoptar soluciones innovadoras es un camino mucho más gratificante. El desarrollo de sustitutos de la carne es un ejemplo de ello.

En las últimas décadas hemos asistido a increíbles avances en el ámbito de la agricultura, que han contribuido a hacer más sostenibles la agricultura y el consumo. El potencial de la ingeniería genética se descarta a menudo debido a las afirmaciones de seguridad alimentaria no probadas y a los riesgos asociados a la alteración de la agricultura.

Sin embargo, hay muchas pruebas científicas que desmienten la creencia de que los alimentos editados genéticamente son menos seguros que los cultivados de forma convencional. Eliminar todos los productos cárnicos ahora significa rendirse ante los desafíos que tenemos por delante.

También es crucial educar a los estudiantes sobre los sustitutos de la carne y su propensión a ayudar a mitigar el cambio climático. La retórica popular no científica junto con las restricciones de mercado existentes (actualmente, los productos que contienen OGM están etiquetados como tales) pretenden alejarnos de los productos más innovadores.

El marketing y la promoción son fundamentales para dispersar la información sobre los productos, y tanto los productos con OGM como los que no lo son deben ser tratados por igual. Concienciar a los estudiantes sobre los beneficios de la modificación genética garantizaría que, como consumidores, hicieran elecciones alimentarias basadas en la ciencia.

Prohibir la carne de vaca en el campus de una institución educativa respetable es un paso atrás. El Reino Unido puede hacerlo mucho mejor. Debemos acoger la innovación y ofrecer a los consumidores la posibilidad de alejarse de los alimentos convencionales, no prohibiéndolos, sino fomentando el desarrollo de sustitutos de la carne.

Hacer de niñera a los estudiantes es fácil; animarles a convertirse en consumidores responsables y conscientes de la importancia de su libertad de elección es más difícil, pero es la clave.

Originally published here

FDA’s Authorization Of Vuse Solo Is A Bittersweet Victory For Vapers

On October 12th, the Food and Drug Administration authorized the marketing of the Vuse Solo device — a type of e-cigarette — and its tobacco-flavored e-liquid pods, both produced by R.J. Reynolds. The authorization marks the first-ever decision in favor of vaping by the FDA. Preceded by over a million rejections of authorization requests from smaller companies, the FDA’s Vuse Solo decision is both a reason for celebration and reflection. 

The good news is that the FDA finally recognized that harm reduction is a central feature of e-cigarettes. The rationale for approving Vuse Solo products was that “tobacco-flavored products could benefit addicted adult smokers who switch to these products.” So e-cigarettes were found to be consistent with the protection of public health. Yay! It only took the FDA two years of onerous reviews and bureaucratic chaos to get there, proving once again that FDA authorization is much more about a company’s ability to navigate red tape over science. 

Building and submitting a market authorization application takes an average of 1,713 hours to compile and could cost several million dollars per product. That presents a challenge for all vaping companies, but the bureaucratic burden has been insuperable for the smaller ones. None of them has managed to pass the FDA’s test, and the grounds for that are scientifically unjustified.

The FDA has used e-cigarettes’ supposed “appeal to young people” as a justification for PMTA rejections. However, smoking rates among minors have been dropping in the US, despite the FDA’s, CDC’s, and Michael Bloomberg’s determination to twist the latest National Youth Tobacco Survey results to their advantage. Between 2019 and 2021, the use of electronic cigarettes among teens more than halved: 27.5% to 11.3%. 

Contrary to the FDA’s misleading reports, only 3.1 percent of high school students and less than 1 percent of middle school students use vapor products daily. Recent studies found that vape flavor restrictions make teens take up smoking. 

Not to mention that reducing accessibility to vaping products negatively impacts adult smokers who are stripped of the opportunity to switch. Using flavors has been associated with a 2.3 times higher likelihood of quitting than the use of tobacco-flavored cigarettes. To protect public health, the FDA should ensure that a vast majority of products are available on the market.

The FDA made the historic e-cigarettes marketing approval process all about resources, while it should have been about smokers and harm reduction. E-cigarettes are safe, and now that the FDA recognized it in the case of one company, the trend should get replicated across the board, regardless of size and standing.

Originally published here

David Clement On Big Talker discussing “One Size Fits All” regulations

Our North America Affairs Manager David Clement was a guest on Mornings With Joe Catanacci on the BigTalker 106.7FM discussing our “One Size Fits All” Doesn’t Fit At All campaign.

Check out “One size fits all” Doesn’t fit at all policy note

Three years on, we need to relax cannabis regulation

Moving away from the ‘one size fits all’ approach would help make Canada’s legal cannabis market more consumer-friendly Author of the article:

Three years ago Sunday (October 17, 2018), Canada legalized adult-use recreational cannabis. The Trudeau government deserves credit for making this happen, as most Canadians had for some time believed that the consequences of prohibition outweighed whatever negatives would arise from legalization. That said, the Cannabis Act is now three years old, and it needs to be amended to make the legal cannabis market more consumer- and patient-friendly.

A good first step would be to remove “CBD” products from the Cannabis Act altogether. CBD stands for “cannabidiol,” a chemical found mainly in hemp, which itself is low in THC. On its own, CBD has a variety of medicinal and wellness uses. CBD is used to treat seizures, joint pain and inflammation, and as a sleep aid. Because CBD products are not psychoactive and have a significantly lower risk profile they shouldn’t be regulated the same as cannabis products containing THC. Any CBD product with a THC concentration of less than 0.3 per cent (the U.S. legal standard) should be treated as a natural health product. Moving away from the “one size fits all” approach would help make Canada’s legal cannabis market more consumer-friendly in a number of ways.

First, it would exempt CBD products from the heavy-handed marketing, branding and packaging restrictions set out in the Cannabis Act. Regulating cannabis like tobacco rather than alcohol was a huge mistake, given the differences in risks between the two products. But treating CBD products like tobacco is downright silly.

Beyond chipping away at the paternalism built into the Act, exempting CBD would dramatically increase consumer access. The markets for CBD wellness products and beverages, including sports drinks, likely would expand significantly, especially if these products could be sold outside of licensed cannabis retailers, which in many provinces are in short supply. Even in Ontario, which has opened up retail access, some cities — Oakville is one — have maintained their cannabis retail ban. Under a looser regulatory regime, CBD products would be beyond the reach of nanny-state local councilors.

On the industry side, removing CBD products from the Cannabis Act could help reduce the current glut of over one billion grams of cannabis. Freeing the CBD market from the Act would allow producers with too much cannabis on their hands to simply extract the THC and make CBD products.

Reform of the Act should also address the excise tax system for cannabis. Medical cannabis should be exempt, period. We don’t have extra taxes for other medicines. Why this one? Removing the tax may also have the benefit of encouraging medical patients to purchase legal medical cannabis, rather than be pushed into growing their own with a Health Canada permit, an avenue that has regularly been found to be supplying the illicit market.

For recreational users, the $1/gram excise tax should be replaced with a floating percentage. The minimum excise of $1/gram artificially inflates prices, limits the availability of discount brands, and hurts the craft cannabis industry. More competition on price would obviously benefit consumers, but it would also help chip away at black market sales, which are still running at $750 million a year.

Finally, the act should be amended so that the rules for cannabis marketing and promotion are the same as those for alcohol. A legal cannabis brand should be allowed to sponsor events, advertise more broadly, creatively brand its packages, use spokespeople or endorsements, and provide discounts and other inducements for sales — all of which are allowed for alcohol.

To their credit, some provinces have done what they can to make their legal cannabis market more consumer friendly. Ontario, for example, has made significant progress in expanding retail access, and has just committed to permanently legalizing curbside pickup and delivery for cannabis retail stores. These changes at the provincial level are in large part why legal cannabis sales surpassed illegal sales for the first time in the third quarter of 2020.

The provinces seem to be committed to expanding consumer access. With the Cannabis Act now three years old, it’s time for the federal government to step up, too.

Originally published here

Why the EU and US shouldn’t follow the green groups advice on PFAS

The European Commission has committed to phasing out man-made chemicals called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS. Initially, the European Chemicals Agency was expected to submit its restriction proposal for firefighting foams this month, but the deadline has now been extended until January 2022. For other uses, the deadline is also2022.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the US Congress is attempting to achieve similar goals through the PFAS Action Act, which is now waiting for a final vote in the Senate. Unsurprisingly, the ban was pushed for by green groups, who tend to confuse hazard with risk, and favour the “ban them all” approach.

PFAS can be found – but not limited to – in household items and other consumer products, medical equipment, food packaging, and firefighting foam. Their popularity can be explained by their unique qualities, such as chemical resistance and surface tension lowering properties. PFAS’ effectiveness has made them hard and costly to replace.

“Forcibly removing these chemicals from the production process, especially because they present very little risk to humans, will drastically disrupt supply chains and inflate costs”

At the same time, the use of PFAS has been linked with various adverse effects, such as infertility, thyroid and liver diseases, when improperly dumped into the water supply. These concerns are justified and shouldn’t be understated or misrepresented. However, as with pretty much everything, it is the amount of exposure that counts towards a risk-based assessment, as opposed to complete hazard avoidance. Because there are more than 4700 chemicals that fall into the PFAS group, and they all carry different levels of risk and hazard, we have to be careful not to put them all in the same basket.

The European Union aims to divide these chemicals into two groups: essential and non-essential, but eventually all are sought to be banned. That said, PFAS have already been largely phased out from being used where they are not necessary. A 2018 Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls by the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry says that “Industrial releases have been declining since companies began phasing out the production and use of several perfluoroalkyls in the early 2000s.”

There is no guarantee that phasing out PFAS will make us safer. Both EU and US banned bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical found in plastics, in baby bottles on the premise that it carries health risks for kids. However, BPS and BPF that are typically used as substitutes have been found to be anything but harmless. In fact, even low exposure to BPS had a significant impact on the embryos’ development.

A complete ban on PFAS being used also doesn’t necessarily mean that these man-made chemicals will cease to be produced, it just means that other countries like China will likely ramp up their production. And given how necessary PFAS can be for both medical equipment, and consumer goods, an EU or US ban would be quite problematic.

For example, some of these chemical compounds are vital for contamination-resistant gowns and drapes, implantable medical devices, stent grafts, heart patches, sterile container filters, needle retrieval systems, tracheostomies, catheter guide wire for laparoscopy and inhaler canister coatings. To declare all these chemical compounds hazardous, without evaluating the risk associated with each use, puts lifesaving medical technologies in jeopardy and patient safety at risk.

“Policymakers on both sides of the pond should take a risk-based approach towards the regulation of PFAS rather than falling prey to green activists’ calls for complete avoidance”

On the consumer product side, as cell phones and 5G technology continue to grow and require faster speeds at smaller sizes, these compounds are involved in everything from producing semiconductors to helping cool data centres for cloud computing. Forcibly removing these chemicals from the production process, especially because they present very little risk to humans, will drastically disrupt supply chains and inflate costs for the 472 million Europeans who currently use a smartphone.

Policymakers on both sides of the pond should take a risk-based approach towards the regulation of PFAS rather than falling prey to green activists’ calls for complete avoidance. Although some of these chemicals might need to be banned, or restricted, banning them all might end up leaving us with even worse alternatives that might take a greater toll on our health and wellbeing. These chemicals need a very rigid and detailed regulatory approach, but one that avoids the “one size fits all” lens.

Originally published here

John Oliver’s Misguided Rant About Man-Made Chemicals

British showman and comedian John Oliver, known for his punchy and thorough rants on public policy, has set his sights on a new target: man made chemicals, known as PFAS. In his now viral rant, Oliver explains how PFAS chemicals are problematic for human health and wants all of these chemicals to be declared hazardous by law. This is, in fact, what Congress is attempting to do via the PFAS Action Act, which has passed the House and is waiting for a final vote in the Senate.

While Oliver’s rant does accurately explain some of the serious problems these man-made chemicals present, especially if dumped into waterways and contaminating the water supply, there is a lot that the late night show host misses in regards to how, or why, these chemicals should be regulated.

It is important to note that these chemicals have been largely phased out from being used where they are not necessary. A  2018 Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls by the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry says that “Industrial releases have been declining since companies began phasing out the production and use of several perfluoroalkyls in the early 2000s.” In addition to that, a CDC report shows that since 2000, “mean blood levels of PFOS have declined approximately 84 percent and mean blood levels of PFOA have declined about 70 percent,” and recent reports are showing that bodies of water contain only trace amounts of PFAS, and they have been steadily declining. These are all positive developments, and should be celebrated. 

The issue with the “one size fits all” approach, advocated by Oliver and being pushed by Congress, is that this fails to appropriately address the hazards and risks presented by each of the 5000chemicals that fall under the classification of PFAS. This is an important distinction, because the risk that PFAS presents for human health largely depends on how humans are exposed to these chemicals. 

The most popular example is when, decades ago, the man-made chemical C8 was dumped into waterways, causing an array of health issues and substantial lawsuits. This is of course problematic, never should have happened, and should never happen again. That said, the use of other man-made chemicals, which would be classified as hazardous if Congress proceeds down this path, are vital for medical technologies and consumer products, and are used in a way that presents very little, if any, threat to human health.

For example, some of these chemical compounds are vital for contamination-resistant gowns and drapes, implantable medical devices, stent grafts, heart patches, sterile container filters, needle retrieval systems, tracheostomies, catheter guide wire for laparoscopy and inhaler canister coatings. To declare all these chemical compounds hazardous, without evaluating the risk associated with each use, puts lifesaving medical technologies in jeopardy and patient safety at risk. In fact, Congressman Larry Bucshon, who was a heart surgeon, criticized the PFAS Action Act for failing to include a revision that would exempt PFAS use in medical devices, stating that the bill in its current form would jeopardize access to life-saving drugs.

Another major disruption that would occur if the act proceeds as written is it would significantly jeopardize the domestic smartphone market, used by the vast majority of  Americans everyday. As cell phones and 5G technology continue to grow and require faster speeds at smaller sizes, these compounds are involved in everything from producing semiconductors to helping cool data centers for cloud computing. Forcibly removing these chemicals from the production process, especially because they present very little risk to humans, will drastically disrupt supply chains and inflate costs that will hurt low-income people the hardest.

It should be said that lawmakers and late night talk show hosts (yes even them) must realize that regulations are enacted based on risk, and risk is the hazard a substance presents multiplied by the exposure to it. Banning PFAS from being used in the production process for smartphones is akin to banning mercury from being used in thermometers because it is harmful when ingested, or banning chlorine from being used in pools because it is harmful if you ingest it. 

Some bans/restrictions might very well be needed and justified but banning an entire category of evolving products won’t serve the consumer. A more appropriate response would be to evaluate these chemicals and substances based on the risk they present and how they are used, rather than lumping them all together and risk enacting bad policy that will have a myriad of consequences. 

Originally published here

Ontario set to make cannabis delivery, curbside pick-up permanent

“Through the pandemic, licensed cannabis retailers have proven that we can operate home delivery in a safe and secure manner.”

A new proposal from the Ontario government, the Supporting People and Businesses Act, would allow private cannabis retailers to offer delivery and curbside pick-up permanently.

Retailers were permitted to offer delivery and pick-up services during the pandemic and advocates have argued that the success of the temporary measures proves it’s a viable and safe option for consumers.

The decision to grant these options during the pandemic helped cannabis retailers stay afloat and limit layoffs, according to Raj Grover, the president and CEO of High Tide, a retail-focused cannabis company.

Read the full article here

Scroll to top