Evidence of meeting #65 for Health in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cannabis.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:50 p.m.
Professor of Marijuana Law and Policy, University of Denver, As an Individual
I know that in the first year we were shocked by the prevalence of edible and infused products. They were initially about half. I don't know how it has changed since then, but the original regulations were really written with smokable flowers in mind. When I talked about this iterative process initially, that was one of the things where right away we had to create equivalences between smokable flowers and edible and infused products and begin regulating the appearance and labelling of edible products. It was a much bigger market segment than we anticipated, and my sense is that if you include oils and other vaporizing, it's still probably more than half.
2:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Colorado Department of Revenue
I mentioned in my prepared remarks how important collaboration is to us as a state. I would also acknowledge that transparency is of equal importance to us, so we actually produce an annual report that delineates all kinds of different statistics. That is one of the statistics available in the report.
2:50 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Okay, I'll check that.
Mr. Garza, approximately what percentage of product in your state is consumed as edibles, in non-smokable form?
2:50 p.m.
Director, Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board
It's interesting that it really hasn't changed a lot over the last three years since the first retail stores opened. About 68% of what's consumed today is bud and flower. It was about 72% for the first year, and then about 12% edibles and infused products, and also the concentrates. The vaping has gone up. However, it doesn't appear to be the same experience in Colorado. It's interesting that even among medical patients we're seeing the same use, basically flower and bud. I think that's quite different from the other states.
2:50 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Okay.
Regarding Colorado, I understand that after you introduced it, you had some initial issues with edibles that you subsequently had to correct with single serving and labelling of things. How is that working now? In terms of the edible market, are you able to make those products available to your citizens in a safe and properly regulated manner?
2:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Colorado Department of Revenue
We are, and it has significantly changed from when we first rolled it out. In my prepared remarks and some of the background information you'll see pictures of packaging and information along those lines.
Candidly, when it was first rolled out and legalized, we did not have a standardized serving size. We did not have a requirement for scoring on our different edible products. You would have people who were uneducated about the marketplace coming in and consuming a cookie of this size when it was intended to be 10 different serving sizes. I don't know about you, but I enjoy cookies, and when I have them, I usually eat the whole thing. So that was obviously not well thought out in advance.
2:55 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Hartman, I think it should be readily apparent that I enjoy cookies.
I'm going to stop you there if I could for just a moment.
2:55 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Kamin, in the text of your submission you wrote:
First, it's important to realize that for any regulatory regime to work, as much marijuana production as possible must be funnelled into the licensed and regulated market.
Would that include edibles and concentrates?
2:55 p.m.
Professor of Marijuana Law and Policy, University of Denver, As an Individual
Yes.
I think that's absolutely right. I want to be clear about what that meant. Of the production, as much must be channelled. The goal is to get as much as possible.
2:55 p.m.
Professor of Marijuana Law and Policy, University of Denver, As an Individual
I think that's absolutely right. We had controversy about whether we should allow high potency oils, things that are 90 plus percent THC. People sort of recoil from that number.
Ultimately, we ended up not banning those products, as some states have. In part, this was because we were concerned that if they weren't available on the legal market, they would be available on the black market, and producing them on the black market, using butane or other extraction formats, was leading to explosions all over Colorado. The idea was to make that product available and to require people to use expensive CO2 extraction, instead of a more dangerous product at home.
September 12th, 2017 / 2:55 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
You've anticipated where I'm going. Has the legalization of those products in your view helped reduce the black market?
2:55 p.m.
Professor of Marijuana Law and Policy, University of Denver, As an Individual
I think it absolutely has. I think that being able to buy sort of predictable products that are tested for both potency and contaminants greatly reduces a number of the potential harms.
2:55 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. St-Maurice, I have a few moments left.
You said that badly managed legislation would be problematic, and I agree with you. What do you see as the flaws in Bill C-45?
2:55 p.m.
Regional Director, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
The primary flaw in my opinion is the requirement of having no criminal record, specifically in regard to cannabis. Excluding people who have previously been arrested for cannabis is excluding the majority of members of the population who are interested and involved in this market. If we want to eliminate the black market, we don't want to do that by trying to brush them under the carpet, which is what we've been doing for 100 years. It hasn't worked. We need to integrate them.
We need to find a place in this new market for them to be able to do it, and do it according to regulation. These people don't want to be criminals. They want to be part of society. This is exactly what the whole fight for legalization is about, to legitimize these people.
We find ourselves banging at the gates of the palace door. In being legalized, we actually end up excluded and pushed further back into the black market. We need some sort of reconciliation or reparation, and we need room for those people to be able to be involved. They are good people. We're not talking about organized crime here. We're talking about mom and pop people who do it out of a passion for the product, people who know the clientele, know the product, and can do an excellent job.
I think the government is losing out on an enormous amount of resources and human capital by excluding these people off the bat. Who are the people? These people are only criminals because it's illegal. Once it's legalized, technically, they're not criminals. If you decided to use cannabis before legalization, you're out, but if you decide to use it the day after, suddenly, you're in.
It's paradoxical and nonsensical, in my opinion.
2:55 p.m.
Director, Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board
Mr. Chairman, if I may, I wanted to add that we do have a point system in Washington with respect to someone's criminal background. We're looking for an egregious pattern of illegal activity or criminal activity. We have that same point system for licensees for alcohol. I think, to the gentleman's point, there is an effort to take a look at that record. A felony that happened before the last 10 years.... We look individually at each applicant.
I think we want to respect and recognize the issue that he just spoke of, which is that you are trying to bring the black market out and make them legal. I didn't want to suggest in my remarks that we don't allow any criminal activity or any record. We have a point system. Again, we're looking for a pattern of criminal activity over a period of time.
Thank you.
3 p.m.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
Thank you very much, and thank you very much for your testimony.
I have in front of me a letter from the State of Colorado to the Honourable Jefferson Sessions dealing with, I think, some questions that were obviously asked of you. One of the points that really jumped out at me was that the most recent national survey on drug use and health showed that between 2013-14 and 2015-16, the period in which adult use marijuana business opened their doors, youth marijuana use declined by 12%. I contrast that to the Canadian experience during that exact same timeframe when it increased by 1%, and slightly more amongst female users.
I guess there are three potential factors in here. One that I also see in the letter is that $22 million in marijuana tax revenue was appropriated for use in public education campaigns. You're clearly doing more on public education. There are strong regulatory provisions governing marijuana sales to youth, including age verification, and prohibitions on advertising packaging and whatnot that would be attractive to youth. Then, presumably, there is the exclusion of, or more restrictions on the black market providers.
I know it's probably all three that have made a difference in those youth utilization rates. Do you have any sense if there was a magic bullet in those three, one that you really felt was effective in stopping youth use of marijuana?
3 p.m.
Executive Director, Colorado Department of Revenue
I wish I could give you a stronger answer. Unfortunately, I do not.
3 p.m.
Professor of Marijuana Law and Policy, University of Denver, As an Individual
Yes, I would say the same.
I think it would be unexpected to hope that youth usage rates drop significantly as a result of legalization. Regulation will mean greater availability, it will mean that it's taken out of the black market, and the black market is hopefully destroyed, so—
3 p.m.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
Just on the black market, I heard you say, in answer to Mr. Davies' question, that the black market was reduced. Do you have any sense of the proportion? It was obviously 100% before legalization.
3 p.m.
Professor of Marijuana Law and Policy, University of Denver, As an Individual
Yes, and I know they did a good study of this in Washington, so that's the picture—
