I do. I'd like to make a number of distinctions.
One that's important from the start is the distinction between an authorization versus a prescription. It's important to note that medical cannabis is not prescribed like a prescription drug. It doesn't have a DIN, a drug identification number. It's authorized by a physician, meaning that effectively, the patient is given permission to use it, but it's not actually prescribed.
I also want to make the distinction that the products that exist in the medical marketplace in some cases are very distinct. They're pills. They're oils. They have non-psychoactive ingredients. But in other cases, they are also high-THC flower products that look indistinguishable from the recreational marketplace. Making a bright line between the two is possible in some cases but not in others.
I think that the use of tax policy makes a lot of sense in terms of making some of these distinctions, but I think that the point raised around unintended consequences and incentivizing people to pursue medical authorization has to be taken seriously too. It may be there could be greater precision that certain, very clearly medical products that are only medical, for example, unambiguously, would be appropriate and others might not be. This is difficult with tax policy but a nuance would be needed because there could be unintended consequences.