Labeling cannabis products correctly is going to be an important part of the cannabis industry’s success. Without proper cannabis labeling, opponents will be able to point to cannabis as the culprit anytime there’s an issue, especially with edibles. That has already been the case in Colorado. A man killed his wife in Colorado, and since he had eaten cannabis edibles prior to the incident, mainstream media placed the blame solely on cannabis and not on any other factors such as prior mental health issues.
In another case, a man fell off a balcony in Colorado, and since he had eaten cannabis edibles prior to the incident, the media pounced on the opportunity to blame cannabis. The media portrayed these unfortunate incidents as ‘overdoses,’ when in actuality there were many factors that cause the incidents to happen. Opponents have pointed to these events as examples of how the industry is failing to maintain safety. these opponents are quick to say there’s next to no labeling requirements, the irony being they are the same people that fought hard to prevent cannabis leaves from being included in labeling requirements, which I feel would have cleared up things quite a bit.
Washington State will have very strict labeling requirements. Per The Spokesman Review:
“Washington already has stricter labeling and packaging rules, Smith said, and isn’t considering any changes. Unlike in Colorado, marijuana candies cannot be sold in clear packaging easily confused with regular candies. They must be in opaque wrappers with poison control guidance, and the package cannot contain more than 100 milligrams of THC, which would be 10 individual doses. Those doses must be clearly marked, so the label will say if each candy or cookie represents one dose, as is often the case.”
The fact is the cannabis industry wants labeling standards. The industry wants it’s customers to know exactly what they are getting, and how strong the product is. Solid labeling requirements will minimize the chances of the media and industry opponents falsely placing blame on the product, which has been the case with prior incidents.