Rede Group - Public Health + Youth Prevention Marijuana Summit - 2021 - Delta-8 THC and Other THC Isomers
(September 28, 2021) - Summary

Cannabis regulators from multiple states---including the leadership of CANNRA---discussed public health concerns and ways to regulate delta-8-THC and other novel cannabinoids.

Here are some observations from the Tuesday September 28th Public Health + Youth Prevention Marijuana Summit hosted by Rede Group.

My top 3 takeaways:

• Cannabis regulatory officials from five states, including several members of the Cannabis Regulators Association (CANNRA) leadership, introduced themselves and provided background on the topic of “Delta-8-THC and other THC Isomers: Public health considerations and policy approaches.”
  • Gillian Schauer, CANNRA Executive Director, moderated the panel and offered a background on the subject, establishing that the “two most famous cannabinoids'' of the cannabis plant were tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). “Until recently, if you talked about THC most people would’ve assumed that you were talking about delta-9-THC,” she observed, as the compound was “the focus of how policy [has] been crafted across the country.” Noting “a surge in articles about delta-8-THC,” Schauer described the tone of a Rolling Stone article on the compound as “a less potent cousin of the famed delta-9-THC.”
    • She described isomers as molecules with “the same formula, but a different arrangement of the atoms,” something that “does matter a fair bit in terms of how the molecule acts with the body.” Schauer talked about how THC isomers were “also psychotropic, so that means impairing, but to a lesser degree than delta-9, perhaps” and that according to the World Health Organization (WHO), delta-8-THC was “about 50 to 75% as potent as delta-9.” She indicate delta-8-THC was only found in nature in “very small quantities,” and the isomer delta-10-THC could be “happening as a post-harvest reaction, or something. But the bottom line is these are not present in the cannabis plant” in significant levels “naturally.”
    • Schauer stated the isomers hadn’t been “present on the market” in a “meaningful way” until passage of the 2018 federal Farm Bill legalized hemp and CBD production. “CBD can be synthetically converted into delta-8, delta-9, or delta-10-THC using chemistry,” she said, so the legalization of hemp created “a gray area of legality, largely outside of regulatory control” as the only cannabinoid with a set limitation was delta-9-THC. An interim final rule on “Implementation of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018” issued by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in August 2020 stated that “all synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols remain schedule I controlled substances” - but “failed to define what synthetically derived means.”
    • Products with these isomers were increasingly available, promoted online as “a high without the mental side effects” and inclusive of “medicinal claims.” She indicated the items had also been sold “in some state regulated marijuana markets as well.”
    • A legislative “boom” on the compounds was underway, said Schauer, centered on impairing effects, addressing minimal regulations around hemp, and bolstering “consumer awareness. There are issues with packaging, labeling, warnings, those regulations for hemp look, again, very different than cannabis.” She pointed to poison center reports mentioning delta-8-THC, such as West Virginia cases where the substance was “mistaken for a product like CBD” and another where children “required an intensive care unit admission after exposure.” Schauer said these reports had been included in a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) health advisory from September 14th which claimed 660 cases involving delta-8-THC had been reported to poison control centers nationwide, and “40% were pediatric” cases.
    • Schauer stated that “youth access is another public health issue” as some items were found online and in stores carrying hemp products which did not enforce the “scrutiny” faced by adults buying legal cannabis products.
    • Additionally, there were concerns about “processing and testing” for “contaminants and byproducts,” she told the group, mentioning the U.S. Cannabis Council (USCC) “tested 16 different delta-8 products” purchased from the legal hemp marketplace, finding all contained delta-8-THC and “some contained delta-9.” Lead and other metals were detected, Schauer said, as well as “residual solvents in a majority of the products” and compounds of “unknown identification.” She sketched a parallel with the wave of vaping associated lung injuries (VALI) in 2019 “from largely unregulated products from illicit or informal sources,” worrying that THC isomers were new products where, similarly, “there’s not oversight.”
    • To avoid “whac-a-mole,” she advised regulators to look at products sold outside the regulated market as well as other “novel cannabinoids coming from hemp” that might be “outside of the regulatory authority for many state regulated cannabis programs.” Schauer also suggested monitoring “the quantity of delta-9 in THC products,” as some items could end up “more impairing...than products that they’re legalizing in their adult use marketplace” as part of possible policy approaches. 
    • Schauer gave similar remarks to the Washington State House Commerce and Gaming Committee (WA House COG) on October 21st.
  • Andrew Brisbo, Michigan Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MI MRA) Executive Director and CANNRA Second Vice President, said his state had “moved to redefine, fundamentally, what marijuana is in Michigan” using the “same definition across all of our laws...and include all isomers of THC.” He stated the goal was “regulating it, not prohibiting it,” though approved products had yet to become available. MI MRA staff were looking at testing requirements and considering “THC content” in all “end state products,” instead of regulating the source material.
  • Norman Birenbaum, State of New York Director of Cannabis Programs and CANNRA President, said his state’s planned policy was to “mirror, as much as we can,” hemp and delta-8-THC product regulation with medical and adult use cannabis policies. “And anything that falls outside these new regulatory structures is really prohibited,” he added, “so, if it’s not naturally occurring in the plant, it is prohibited within our new license structure.”
    • On November 2nd, the CANNRA website was updated to indicate Brisbo had replaced Birenbaum as President of the organization; Birenbaum was listed as the Immediate Past President..
  • Steve Marks, Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (OLCC) Executive Director and CANNRA Member at Large, said his state legislators had created a system “similar to” Michigan including “the ability to regulate all of the intoxicants from cannabis plants, not just marijuana.” He said that “some hemp producers wanted to bring in D8 product” but OLCC staff “didn’t know what we were being asked to regulate,” leading to several concerns. Marks indicated that Schauer was one of the experts who offered testimony and a presentation on delta-8-THC to the Oregon State House General Government Committee at a “blown up hearing about these products” on March 25th. Regulators “ended up putting in place a way to age-prohibit that,” he stated, and “set concentration limits...and now those products have to be lab tested.” In addition, the OLCC was granted the power to “determine which intoxicants go to the open market, and which are sold at our retail [to persons] aged 21 only.”
  • Kara Cronkhite, Nevada Cannabis Compliance Board (NV CCB) Inspection and Audit Division Chief, said “we were unique in that we already had all isomers of THC, including delta-8, in our definition of THC.” She said lawmakers had also revised “the definition of ‘marijuana’ to include any product or commodity made using hemp which exceeds that maximum THC concentration of 0.3%.” Officials in the state had also defined “synthetic cannabinoid,” she remarked, and would set the THC level based on “all the isomers of THC for any hemp-derived products.” Cronkhite concluded by noting continuing work with members of the Nevada State Board of Pharmacy “to add a maximum allowable limit of THC-per-package for hemp-derived products.”
  • Kathy Hoffman, Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) Policy and Rules Manager, told attendees that Washington state officials took a “three pronged, iterative approach consisting of policy and rule development to inform future legislation that we’re currently working on” for the 2022 legislative session.
    • She explained the limited authority the agency possessed to regulate THC isomers as the statutory definition for THC “refers only to delta-9-THC.” Hoffman said that concerns about THC isomers hit a “peak” when it was “too late in the session to offer any new legislation or tag onto any legislation in progress.” Instead, a policy statement was released by agency staff, she said, conveying that “D8 cultivated within our licensed facilities can be added to products allowed within our regulated system, but D8 derived or extracted from hemp or other sources could not be.” This framed agency rulemaking so that WSLCB staff could “create a framework for our board to evaluate THC compounds other than delta-9,” stated Hoffman.
    • Stakeholder engagement had centered “around the cannabis plant chemistry,” she commented, resulting in an interpretive statement “concerning allowable practices for marijuana processors and all of this was used to inform our draft conceptual rules” and the proposed request bill “to expand our authority to regulate all impairing THC products.”
      • See the third draft of the agency request bill released on November 1st, as well as a summary of its provisions and a one pager.
      • Hear what agency leaders shared with the Washington State House Commerce and Gaming Committee (WA House COG) on October 21st.

• The panelists fielded both presubmitted and participant questions on policymaking around THC isomers as well as existing and potential regulations at the state and federal levels. 
  • “How can we make policy in the absence” of “rigorous science” establishing “safety profiles” for particular cannabinoids?
    • Marks talked about the difficulty in regulating the compounds, and followed “a process informed by consumers and what they want...looking at all the available, but very limited, science around cannabinoids and their interaction with the human body and health.” He suggested some safety tests were based on “the detection level that most machines could find pesticides at” and even if they didn’t “protect all human safety,” the efforts could “reduce harm and risk.” Marks said that when looking at delta-8-THC “information on the internet,” regulators “couldn’t quite tell how psychoactive it might be” until talking to “some of our growers and providers” who looked at products and claimed, “in that concentration, that’ll get you high.” He added that OLCC staff were also concerned with product ingredients and attempted to “open source” what materials were being used so that policymakers could “move off” compounds or ingredients “as we find ‘em more dangerous.”
    • Brisbo found the “need to be reactive” to be unique to cannabinoid regulation, as most other products “had to be demonstrated to be safe first” whereas “we’re forced to deal with the opposite.” He described Michigan as having a “friendly” business atmosphere, and expected “someone...will fill in that place in the market.” Brisbo found regulators were “oftentimes trying to play catch up,” making it “critical that we stay engaged with industry” as they “can tell us what’s coming next.” He aimed to “keep policy ahead of product development and some of those risks.”
  • “How should states be regulating psychotropic compounds from hemp given the varied regulatory approaches that we’ve seen between hemp and cannabis?”
    • Birenbaum responded that various state governments were moving towards “as much parity as possible through the regulations and standards that are put in place.” Concordance between those regulations would be “really, really important,” he believed, as would “comparable regulatory authority.” Suggesting some state agencies would have a “hands off approach” to hemp and “a very, very robust regulatory structure in authority” for medical or adult use cannabis, Birenbaum observed, “it’s gonna be really, really difficult to have parity even if, on paper, you have some similar standards.” He also thought consumers needed education that “these products are going to react somewhat similarly, even though one you may see in a gas station or convenience store” and another producer was in a “specifically designated distribution channel” involving warning signage and age checks. Birenbaum saw “consolidated regulatory authorities over both products” and increasing consistency in oversight as “better for the industry, for public health, and consumers.”
    • Cronkhite reported that in addition to the NV CCB, the Nevada Department of Agriculture (NDA) regulated hemp as a crop, “but the minute it’s no longer a crop they don’t actually regulate it anymore.” The Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health (NV DPBH) would begin to regulate “CBD and hemp-derived products” she explained, but some regulatory questions still had to be answered. Cronkhite said officials in the state valued “flexibility” and used “a review process for all menu items, we review every single ingredient,” and evaluated how products were made and used by consumers. Her agency’s staff avoided “blanket statements” on ingredients or processes, instead relying on internal protocols “that we can change as information changes.” One protocol limited “terpenes in inhalable products due to safety reasons” such as appealing to children, Cronkhite indicated, and recently enacted synthetic cannabinoid definitions allowed for “flexibility with the whole delta-8-THC issue.” She said following discussions (“including with you, Dr. Schauer”), staff determined it “was important to have some avenue available if there’s a way to produce delta-8 safely.” Cronkhite told the group her state’s focus was on products using cannabinoids from cannabis plants, describing the precise way regulators “also had to specify that this does not prohibit a decarboxylation of [tetrahydrocannabinolic acid] THCA, we didn’t want to ban all extracts altogether by that definition.” Schauer called this approach “more work for you all,” but agreed it allowed flexibility “for anything coming onto the market.”
      • Read the NDA Frequently Asked Questions on hemp, a handout on CBD in Food Products.
  • “Are you aware of any states that are looking to tax THC and CBD hemp products in a similar way to how cannabis is taxed?”
    • Birenbaum responded that New York officials considered “synthetic or non-naturally occurring cannabinoids from the plant” in their tax plan “based off of cannabis concentration.”  This amounted to a tax on the “total THC in the product, and we included delta-8 into that,” he said, believing it to be both a matter of safety and promotion of “a stable industry.” Birenbaum suggested in-state cannabis production would be limited “if someone else can just source their delta-8 or their CBD and then isomerize it into delta-8 at a much lower cost” without being “factored into the price or the tax mechanism.”
    • Marks said Oregon policymakers still had to address how hemp materials would be “tracked and traced” similar to how cannabis production was.
      • Cannabis tracking in Oregon utilizes Metrc, learn more from their Guide for Tracking Hemp for Sale at Recreational Marijuana Retailers and the Sampling and Testing Metrc Guide.
    • Brisbo said “broadening the tax base” by being “inclusive as to the products that are subject to existing taxes” was one way for lawmakers to raise revenue without raising tax rates, summarizing the move as “more inclusive” than the “existing marijuana excise taxes.”
  • “What are the implications of a state-by-state approach to this policy issue, and how does that impact public health and safety as opposed to having a federal approach?”
    • Marks celebrated the “rich mosaic of state frameworks,” ranging from those that “don’t want marijuana products” to states like Oregon with “a long, infamous, and famous history of producing cannabis,” but considered officials shared a view that “bringing the systems under control [was] vitally important.” He raised the issue of interstate transportation for legal cannabis commerce as “where the harmony needs to be” between differing state standards. Marks said the 2018 Farm Bill had a significant impact in his state as it “allowed unlimited transportation” of hemp crops, yet the plant was “indecipherable” from cannabis. He hoped officials would “consolidate how we regulate that,” as well as testing and processing standards regardless of whether an end product went “to the innocuous market” or “the intoxicating market.” While federal law allowed “CBD oil to go out of the state,” processed products could potentially “show up on the internet in a secondary, illegal THC market that's proliferated specifically because of the lack of controls in the Farm Bill.”
    • Brisbo felt that without consistent federal regulation, state governments had started “piggy backing off each other and hoping the previous state got it right” without much evaluation. This was especially true “if a state takes an approach that industry is comfortable with,” he said, “they’ll grab ahold of that and then start trying to take it to other states.” Brisbo favored state regulators using federal infrastructure “wherever it's possible” while being mindful of limitations in what an agency was authorized to do. Creating “paths for research” was one way to keep cannabis business interests from “just rushing ahead,” he stated, and hopefully lead to approaches that were “focusing on...harm reduction.” Brisbo found it was “often misperceived that we are creating a cannabis market. No, the cannabis market is there,” and officials were trying to “catch up” with “a regulatory infrastructure.” He noted a “prohibitionist approach in any capacity has to be partnered with some level of enforcement” or officials were effectively “allowing it to continue in an unregulated fashion.”
    • Birenbaum believed that if state leaders “do not have common metrics and mechanisms to monitor results based off of these disparate policies then we’re really just searching in the dark.” Noting that many public health and accreditation systems “typically also comes from the federal government,” he said those authorities kept cannabinoid policy “at an arms length,” which had implications for consumer and public health.
  • “Is there discussion at the federal level to regulate delta-8 and other intoxicating versions of cannabinoids?”
    • Brisbo replied that federal authorities were “still wrangling about what to do with cannabis overall.” He found the situation was becoming “more nuanced and challenging,” and commented that the discussion around national legalization would have “to look at these differences that are coming up at the state level.” Brisbo had encountered “good information” from the CDC, “but I don’t see any real federal policy reform focusing on that level of nuance as of yet.”
    • Marks noted that “when you deschedule marijuana it becomes what? It’s not federally defined marijuana anymore, it becomes cannabis, right?” He said this would be a “whole different problem” as the wider public hadn’t considered details like “universal symbols” and product requirements between states. Marks said state officials regulating their own markets had “pretty broad autonomy” but federal involvement hadn’t been “helpful” to date. He noted a federal system had to feature enforcement on “the illegal, illicit, created market that’s out there.”
    • Birenbaum added that there was “growing interest at the federal level,” saying New York officials received “a lot of interest by the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] about why we made certain decisions” in hemp policy. He concurred there was a “growing appetite for them to take action through existing regulatory structures” for medical claim making and labeling. Birenbaum mentioned a memo on “food and beverage products that have cannabinoid hemp” in them, saying he expected it would be a “very long time” until there were federal regulatory structures “dedicated to this.” Schauer highlighted the response from CANNRA members regarding a federal discussion draft bill had called for “parity in regulation across cannabis and hemp.”
  • “You’ve each talked about approaches your state has taken here, do you feel like you’ve solved this issue in your state? What do you see on the horizon and what else do you think your state needs to do?”
    • Brisbo’s “short answer [was] no, we have not solved the problem” but had taken “good steps forward.” In talking with “counterparts in other states,” and despite his state’s “good, sensible, reasonable approach to regulate products, say, like delta-8,” he’d found Michigan was already “behind” as cannabinoids like hexahydrocannabinol (HHC) were not considered in their rules. “And if we simply go after HHC then they’ll add another molecule and it’ll be something different,” remarked Brisbo. Saying he’d tried to “bring the authority to our agency to be able to almost schedule cannabis-derived substances,” he’d encountered challenges to providing MI MRA, “an administrative agency, the authority to make something illegal and subject to criminal penalties.” Such powers were “generally not our lane,” according to Brisbo, “even though we are the experts in this space in our state.” He predicted that cannabis business interests would get “more entrenched and more powerful” making it “more challenging over time.”
    • In Birenbaum’s view, a jurisdiction would not “ever get ahead of this unless you have an extraordinarily rigorous and robust regulatory framework where someone cannot bring a product to market until it’s...already approved by the department.” He said New York authorities would require anyone who “imports products into the state” to have a “distributor license, or permit,” something he cautioned was still “an ad hoc tool after-the-fact.”
    • Marks believed Oregon officials were “close,” and had “the box, so all intoxicants in cannabis can come to us.” He commented that he was “worried about the fundamentals,” saying OLCC staff was “really good at doing standards” but their ability to hold labs in the state to those standards or even “prove that the standards we have are being implemented in the market is woefully inadequate.” Marks pointed out that “you can’t test for everything, you gotta pick your priorities there, you gotta make it economically possible to move these products on the market, and testing [and] packaging” rules. He hoped to improve Oregon testing practices and “credentialing.”
    • Cronkhite agreed it was unlikely state regulators would “ever completely solve the issue,” as cannabis was an “ever changing industry.” She said NV CCB staff continued to work with other state agencies but “every day I see something I hadn’t considered.” Cronkhite explained that officials were moving into educating retailers “selling these hemp-derived products.” While there were not licensed cannabis shops on the Las Vegas Strip, she noted, “we get calls all the time ‘I bought this product on the strip and it didn’t get me high, they told me it would get me high.’” This was because “CBD shops and...souvenir shops, they’re posing as dispensaries,” Cronkhite reported, leaving local and state authorities to step in.
    • Hoffman was doubtful regulators will “ever get on top of this” since the cannabis sector was “expanding faster than regulation can keep up with it.” She said policymakers in Washington were looking at other states’ rules and their own data in making “legislation that we hope will be as forward thinking as we can be.”
  • Schauer asked Birenbaum for thoughts “on how we could be creating more thoughtful policy” around online sales, as states “not addressing the online landscape leaves a big gap especially when it comes to youth access.”
    • Birenbaum hadn’t seen any agency “with the regulatory tools right now,” as many states still “have issues” related to online tobacco sales. He mentioned the ban on mailing vapor products through the U.S. Postal Service under the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act), stating “then we saw a bunch of the private carriers follow suit.” Birenbaum believed addressing this would require the federal government, or “some type of coordination amongst all the states that I don’t know is feasible.”
      • Learn more about the U.S. Postal Service PACT Act Information and Forms.

• Several questions centered on how public health advocates could get a “seat at the table” for policy development and the impact of emerging cannabinoid products on youth.
  • “What can public health officials do” to engage with cannabis regulators as “an important stakeholder?”
    • Hoffman’s central advice was “to get involved.” She described WSLCB staff as taking a “participatory approach” in rulemaking that engaged “our entire authorizing environment” inclusive of public health advocates. “And I think when delta-8 came on the scene we recognized” that the diversity of stakeholders expanded “to include a whole lot of other individuals besides industry and the people we usually talk to,” Hoffman remarked. She noted the use of deliberative dialogues on cannabis plant chemistry included experts from across “the spectrum of the authorizing environment” whose perspectives were “rooted in science and data.” Hoffman felt the “rich conversation,” including public health representatives, had informed their legislative draft on cannabinoid regulation. She summed up her suggestion to “reach out to your regulators...if our table isn’t big enough we’ll make it bigger.”
    • Cronkhite said a “big decision” made following cannabis legalization in Nevada was “to hold everything to medical standards.” She argued that this allowed for regulators to “maintain that level of control that we had” for medical cannabis production and distribution. This proved useful during the “eVALI outbreak” in 2019, she added. Cronkhite also emphasized hiring “specialized inspectors,” noting her own background as “an environmental health specialist.” She explained her agency had a team to “do nothing but inspect the labs,” and who had training in “chemistry, microbiology” and “decades of laboratory experience.” Cronkhite said this allowed for NV CCB staff to have “a really good idea what our labs are doing” so officials could find “and correct any laboratory issues quickly.” Inspectors for other cannabis facilities had backgrounds as “registered environmental health specialists” she noted, possessing varied public health expertise. Cronkhite’s final point was that their Cannabis Advisory Commission was empowered to “ensure robust public and stakeholder participation when we study more nuanced issues.”
  • Schauer asked panelists to “give the audience some insight on exactly what goes into preventing youth access in the adult use market.”
    • Marks commented that OLCC didn’t have a large role in youth prevention “other than prohibiting...minors into the retail[ers] and purchasing items.” He said there was public messaging for both adults and youth on how cannabis was “limitedly legally available” and credited Colorado officials for their work “looking at children and youth access.” Marks added that the “minor decoy program” at OLCC first found “a lot of our regions sucked pond water” but officials “changed our penalties at the top, shamed the industry” and saw improvement, reaching “about a 90% compliance generally,” better than the alcohol sector.
      • Read the University of Colorado Institute of Behavioral Science 2018 report “Cannabis Legalization and Youth: Developing Clear Messages in an Evolving Policy Climate.”
    • Schauer added that one benefit of limiting access to “stores that are dedicated to sell adult use cannabis” was “mandatory ID checks at the door.” She added that compliance in restricting youth access to cannabis retail shops in “states that have published data is quite high.” Schauer hoped this helped people “understand that adult-use cannabis hasn’t been structured like tobacco.”
    • Hoffman noted Washington regulators saw high compliance as well, which Schauer felt was an argument in favor of adult-use cannabis markets.
      • Take a look at compliance statistics shared in a September 2020 WSLCB presentation and hear Director of Enforcement and Education Chandra Brady’s update, including youth compliance, from October 13th.
      • See an update on prevention efforts in Washington state with data on youth cannabis behavior from December 2020.
  • “Any ideas about how to talk about delta-8 or these novel cannabinoids with youth, or share concerns that you might have?”
    • Brisbo indicated that MI MRA “had a $40 million a year budget and we got a whopping $10,000 a year to devote to educational campaigns.” He said they were looking at educating on “terminology” due to a “changing landscape” around the terms “cannabis versus marijuana versus hemp.” Brisbo described a focus “on the way people utilize these terms” and rather than trying to “get people to use the terminology that we use in law...focus the other direction and update our laws to use the terms as they’re commonly understood.” He’d begun visiting tobacco shops, even though MI MRA didn’t regulate them, as “a way to stay on the leading edge of what’s coming next” - and he’d first encountered delta-8-THC products there. Some shops were “turning their attention to Kratom,” Brisbo remarked, “you really have to go where they are to inform your perspective as to what’s coming next.”
    • Hoffman mentioned a delta-8-THC “factsheet” produced by the Washington Healthy Youth Coalition and that staff regularly shared information they’d received on the compound in board caucus meetings “as soon as we get it” as one way of informing the public.
    • Schauer commented that “we need better labeling and packaging” for hemp items so they don’t “appeal to youth,” and would be recognized by consumers if there was “anything impairing in it.”
    • Birenbaum explained that New York had proposed regulations that covered packaging and “total THC disclaimers” but understood “there’s only so much we can do” as the items remained readily available outside the state. He commented that there would be a “universal symbol for hemp products” so consumers could “more easily identify it, understand that there is CBD in it” or other cannabinoids. This also allowed product tracing if someone had a bad reaction or an item was found outside of the state, Birenbaum added.
    • Marks said there was an ongoing investigation in Oregon into a company that allegedly “swapped one batch of hemp CBD products with a batch of THC products, got them labeled wrong” and OLCC staff had to use their “track and trace system to figure out where they were in retail, [then] to execute a recall.” He felt that even “when you have a good system” there could still be a “mistake at the company level.” Schauer said the story underscored the need to have a “hemp recall system” and a universal logo for the products.
  • Schauer shared an attendee comment on engaging “youth and young adults as messengers to highlight that the industry can be predatory towards young people and be driven by profits similar to how the tobacco industry has been predatory towards youth.” 
  • “In [a] self-reported survey, youth reported that they use marijuana because it’s safer than other substances, do you have any suggestions on how to deal with this?”
    • Schauer said the first step needed was “data monitoring,” and that such monitoring of cannabis as a commodity was “woefully inadequate” leaving no information on how “youth are accessing delta-8, delta-9, CBD, something else, where they’re accessing it from.” This understanding was important to “be able to plan prevention programs,” she told the group, as minors reporting a perception of “very low risk with cannabis” made prevention messaging difficult. Because medical applications for cannabis had been “widely” circulated in the media, Schauer thought it created a “complicated messaging scenario for youth,” especially if minors didn’t consider “the potential harms” of cannabis, “particularly on the developing brain.” She said it was important to “do formative work with your community to understand where that perception is coming from, what messaging would give youth more information about the unknowns around cannabis.”
    • Brisbo shared his view that terminology and distinguishing between THC and CBD products were “lead in questions” that could alter what officials learned when engaging with youth. Schauer mentioned that researchers at the University of Waterloo had released an International Cannabis Policy Study (ICPS) in February 2021 which found “even in people that say that they use cannabis frequently, they’re not able to say if they’re using THC or CBD or how much or what the difference is, and that’s concerning” when trying to craft effective youth prevention messaging.
      • WSLCB staff established a sole source agreement with the University of Waterloo on September 1st, “to provide cannabis research data services” based on a “cohort survey conducted annually with participants aged 16–65 years living in...each of three jurisdictions: US states that have legalized non-medical cannabis, US that have not (US ‘illegal’ states), and Canada.” The agency would pay researchers $45,000 towards “data collection and surveillance for Washington State” in their 2021 survey. A timetable of the deliverables in the Statement of Work for the contract indicated that the report “will provide final descriptive statistics of all measures/outcomes in the Washington State...and all analyses conducted.”

Information Set