The Combating Violent and Dangerous Crime Act, introduced earlier this month by Senator Chuck Grassley and his Republican colleagues, aims to tackle various crime-related issues. But within its scope lies a provision that directly targets cannabis edibles.
By amending the Controlled Substances Act, the bill seeks to impose harsh penalties on the marketing of “candy-flavored” drugs, including cannabis, to minors. While ensuring cannabis products don’t appeal to children is a goal most would agree on, this legislation raises serious concerns about its implications for the marijuana community.
What we’re looking at here isn’t about child safety alone; it’s about the selective demonization of cannabis while other industries, such as alcohol, go largely unchecked for practices that are arguably just as problematic. This provision in the bill sets a dangerous precedent of overregulation aimed at cannabis businesses.
Are Cannabis Edibles Truly a Threat, or Convenient Scapegoats?
At the heart of the passed provision is the claim that cannabis edibles, because of their resemblance to candy or other sweet treats, pose a unique risk to children.
Specifically, the bill aims to crack down on “candy-flavored controlled substances,” citing cases of accidental ingestion among children. There’s no denying that products looking like Nerds or Skittles being packaged irresponsibly should be addressed. But here’s where the logic falters.
Cannabis businesses in legal markets are already required by law to abide by strict packaging and labeling standards. From child-resistant packaging to clear display of THC content, legal cannabis companies are generally doing their part to ensure these products are not appealing or accessible to minors.
A study in California in 2022, for example, found nearly 100 percent compliance with ID-check requirements among legal dispensaries.
What’s more, the language of the bill does not distinguish between legal and illegal markets. Responsible companies that operate above board could still find themselves in the crosshairs of this legislation. Law-abiding cannabis companies should not have to pay the price for the actions of bad actors in the illicit market.
The Candy Hypocrisy in the Combating Violent and Dangerous Crime Act
If the root concern is that “candy-flavored” substances may appeal to minors, why has alcohol been given a free pass? Today, alcohol companies market products like hard seltzers, wine coolers, and flavored vodkas that are candy-like in essence.
Drinks such as “Cotton Candy Vodka” or “Sour Apple Schnapps” aren’t exactly subtle in their appeal to sweet-toothed drinkers. And yet, they are marketed openly and widely without facing similar restrictions.
The hypocrisy couldn’t be more apparent. Alcohol poses significant risks, causing tens of thousands of deaths each year and contributing to widespread underage drinking.
Yet, the adult beverage market normalizes these candy-flavored concoctions without facing a fraction of the outrage that cannabis consistently receives.
The result is clear: there’s a double standard at work. Society continues to stigmatize cannabis as a major threat, while industries like alcohol face far less scrutiny despite engaging in similar or riskier practices.
Unintended Consequences for Consumers and Businesses of the Combating Violent and Dangerous Crime Act
Cannabis edibles are much more than “candy”; they are essential for certain consumers. For many medical cannabis patients, edibles provide a smokeless option for relief and treatment. Banning candy-like flavors under broad and vague terms could reduce accessibility to key medicinal products that are both effective and palatable.
If the Combating Violent and Dangerous Crime Act were to pass, it could inadvertently punish legitimate users by limiting the range of products available to them.
Additionally, this legislation risks slowing innovation and creativity in the cannabis industry. Edibles make up a significant portion of legal marijuana sales due to their discretion and convenience.
For companies, abandoning market-tested and consumer-valued products would significantly harm their finances, especially for smaller businesses that depend on edibles as a primary revenue stream.
Bigger Picture
While protecting children is an important goal, overreach in cannabis regulation does little to advance that cause. Instead, it reinforces the idea that cannabis is uniquely dangerous and requires excessive regulations, even as far more harmful substances receive lenient treatment.
The conversation about marijuana regulation needs to evolve beyond outdated stigmas and start focusing on logic and data-driven policymaking.
Rather than enforce measures like those in the Combating Violent and Dangerous Crime Act, we should focus on education, tighter regulations for illegal markets, and holding all industries to consistent standards.
By doing so, we can build a more equitable landscape where legislation no longer disproportionately targets cannabis businesses under the guise of “public safety.”
