Log In


Reset Password
Opinion Editorial Cartoons Op-Ed Editorials Letters to the Editor

Marijuana edibles

Total ban was a reach, but policies should be stringent

When Colorado voters approved the recreational sale of marijuana in 2012, Amendment 64 clearly included not just marijuana, but also marijuana products “that are intended for use or consumption, such as, but not limited to, edible products, ointments and tinctures.” That language is now firmly ensconced in the Colorado Constitution, and the state is working to catch up with its implications vis-à-vis edible marijuana products in particular. Crafting regulations for these products is a complex but necessary task that would best serve the state by erring on the side of stringency.

A 22-member working group convened by the state’s Marijuana Enforcement Division is slogging through the effort, triggered by House Bill 1366, which requires that marijuana-infused products be clearly marked as such. That is a considerable problem currently, with abundant baked goods, candies and sodas readily available in Colorado’s retail marijuana outlets. Once those products leave the store, they are at risk of falling into the hands of the unaware. Further, with potency levels unclear or poorly understood by consumers, edibles’ effects can be difficult to gauge. For these complications and the significant underlying concern that children can mistakenly consume marijuana-infused products, one work group member proposed a strict limitation on edible products – only tinctures and lozenges – and doing away with the wide array of treats.

Coming as it did from the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, the proposal is understandable. It would have virtually eliminated the enticement that cookies and candies adorned in colorful packaging present, while still offering marijuana consumers a nonsmoking option. Doing so would have likely run afoul of Amendment 64’s language, though, and as such, sets the far boundary for the group’s work.

Whether the proposal, floated by CDPHE’s Jeff Lawrence, would have affected how readily or often children come into possession of marijuana-infused edibles was up for debate among the work group this week, members expressed concern that a ban would simply move the snacks underground. That is certainly a possibility, but the larger issue is whether it would pass legal muster. Failing that, the group should focus on strict packaging requirements that make clear just how potent the treat inside is and how much should be consumed per serving. Whatever the group can do to dress down marijuana goodies, it should, but eliminating them altogether is very likely out of the question without voter input.

Critics of strict labeling requirements say that keeping kids away from marijuana products is parents’ job and that is true, just as it is for alcohol, inappropriate movies and junk food. That task is made more difficult, though, when forbidden items are sugar-rich goodies, packaged in manner that appeals to children. The chances of kids crossing paths with such products and not knowing better than to eat them escalate if labeling does not adequately inform them of what they possess.

While the state has until January 2016 to implement any new rules around edible marijuana products, it would behoove the work group to move things along more expeditiously. Labeling and potency information on these products need meaningful improvement.



Reader Comments