Are THC Potency Caps Really Necessary?

Concerns about high-potency cannabis products have prompted calls for increased regulation, particularly potency caps for THC. Common suggestions include a cap of 15% THC for flower and 25-30% for concentrates.  For example, Uruguay currently sets it a 9%, which is similar to the weed that Gen X and older Millennials may remember from the 1990s, so 15% is still pretty generous.  Twenty-One Debunked does NOT oppose such efforts, and would much rather that than other types of restrictions.  But the real question is, are such caps really necessary?

A new British study casts doubt on that seemingly commonsense assertion.  Among young adults in their late teens and early 20s, the researchers failed to find any correlation between cannabis potency and dependence, depression, or psychosis-like symptoms, after adjusting for confounders.  Yes, really.

(Other recent studies on both sides of both major oceans find that the "Reefer Madness 2.0" fears in general are largely if not entirely unfounded as well.)

That said, there is also a good case for "bringing back mids" as well.  We know that too-potent weed (over 20% THC, up to even 40% sometimes), and especially concentrates (up to 90% THC), may be too much for inexperienced and/or very occasional users to handle.  Usually most users can easily self-titrate their dose when smoking or vaping (but not eating!) cannabis so they don't get too stoned, but when it is extremely potent it becomes that much more difficult.

So what is best to do then?  Simply tax cannabis based on potency, that is, by milligram of THC, and perhaps a discount for the amount of CBD it contains as well.  Current high taxes based on gross weight alone not only notoriously incentivize the persistence of black markets, but they also perversely incentivize very high potency products as well, almost to the exclusion of lower potency products.  That is especially true when leaf/trim is overtaxed as well, as that incentivizes the extraction of concentrates from such material rather than simply selling it as-is.  Untaxing leaf/trim (or trivially taxing it) would go a long way toward rebalancing the cannabis market. And overregulation that makes licenses to legally sell cannabis so ridiculously hard to get (New York, I'm looking at YOU!) needs to be fixed as well.

Remember, all of this is for a plant that is literally about as easy to grow as BASIL. Look at the prices per weight of dried basil at the store or Google it.  Then compare the prices by weight of even the cheapest weed before legalization, and also the prices for the cheapest weed right after and then years after legalization.  Notice the stark disequilibrium here?  And the headfake?  Free markets (which don't currently exist for cannabis anywhere) are clearly excellent at solving such disequilibria.  Just saying. 

So what are we waiting for?

UPDATE:  A good op-ed debunking the "Reefer Madness 2.0" mass hysteria can be found here.

The Law of Eristic Escalation Revisited

Or, "Politics In One Lesson"

There is an eternal law of nature that at once explains just about everything, and even makes politics possible to finally understand. It is called The Law of Eristic Escalation:

Imposition of Order = Escalation of Chaos

By that, it pertains to any arbitrary or coercive imposition of order, which at least in the long run, actually causes disorder (chaos) to escalate.  Fenderson's Amendment further adds that "the tighter the order in question is maintained, the longer the consequent chaos takes to escalate, BUT the more it does when it does."  Finally, the Thudthwacker Addendum still further adds that this relationship is nonlinear, thus rendering the resulting escalation of chaos completely unpredictable in terms of the original imposition of order.

We see the real world consequences of this in everything from Prohibition to the War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs to zero tolerance policies to Covid lockdowns to sexual repression and so much more.  And, of course, especially in the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age.  Any short-term benefits that these arbitrary and coercive impositions of order may provide is entirely outweighed when they inevitably backfire in the long run.  Miron and Tetelbaum (2009), Asch and Levy (1987 and 1990), and Males (1986) illustrate this very nicely in the case of the 21 drinking age.

Perhaps that is why most bans on various things have historically had a track record that is quite lackluster at best.  Ironically, bans tend to give more power to the very things that they seek to ban.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, you finally understand politics.