Yes. I can comment on this.
For the pharmaceuticals the situation is clear, because there are expert groups like the FDA or Health Canada that will evaluate the benefits risk. It is also true that these risks, when it's done, when the product comes to the market, may evolve with pharmacovigilance and as side effects occur in populations. That is something that needs to be done at the beginning, but also repeatedly over time.
The issue with cannabis is that it's not a product that can be patented, because it's a natural plant, so there has been limited interest by pure pharmaceuticals to do research on it. That's why we have much less research done on the cannabis product, as compared to cannabinoid, in the form of pharmaceuticals.
We now have cannabinoids that are on the market. Those products have been shown to have a good benefits ratio, and that's why they get approval and are approved for human use.
I think the issue, as you pointed out, is that with cannabis it is in smoked form, so that if you put this product to the same standard as a pharmaceutical, it will never get approved because there is so much toxicity from the inhalation route. Then the benefits risk becomes immediately not in favour of the product. That's why I think the enteric routes of delivery are critical here.