Does anyone think that maybe LP are being told to limit the thc or something to that effect? Wasn't there something that went around not too long ago about gov wanting to limit amount and quality? Just can't remember what that was ?
One thing you can take for granted is that that discussion is never far from the table. There are good practical reasons for that, despite what they tell you.
Richard Branson, the big UN "decrim" advocate, wants it regulated to "60's potency", of 2% THC. He also wants to produce it.
Now imagine yourself as an LP, with a turn key million dollar business. You don't know the first thing about it, other than producing a quality product consistently is beyond your means or ability. It would push production costs up dramatically and results are not assured. You'd also be in a highly competitive field making the extent of the effort required not worthwhile.
So in response, you flex your lobbyist abilities, early on in the game, and get regulations that fall in your favor. If weed were regulated to 2% THC, (or even 9), not only do you set the scene for low operating costs in a very low maintenance type setup, but with the stroke of a pen you've felled all of your potential competition from ever existing as a threat at all. Profit will then simply be a numbers game.
So yeah, it always comes up from time to time and in strange places. It will NEVER go away so long as there's a notion of corporations growing for people who are not allowed to for themselves. So we see it with the veterans here again. They're at 9% max because I think 2% was ruled inadequate with PPS, who also had to up their minimal offerings to 9%. It's like min wage. It would be lower if only they could.
But discussions such as these remove focus from the fact that if you're growing weed to a minimal standard, you're growing it at minimal quality, and that can't constitute as being reasonable medical access. Studies, which health canada uses and makes available for doctors and anyone else, have found that the healthiest means of consumption, is not vaporizing or anything else. It's simply the most potent weed you can get, where you end up consuming less for it.
These arguments become impossible to make though as so called medical activists flaunt excess in extremes and only ever treat it as a party favor, lacking any respect for it or anyone who needs it whatsoever. When seen in that light, then the answer becomes "these people need cages", and fucked notions like a limit on potency start to seem reasonable. So to them I say, yet again, good job, frauds.
In this case, it's just easier to fuck the vets with their privilege. Nobody will be standing up for them, they can barely stand for themselves, and they're already isolated as nobody else has their weed usage covered. Their situation is akin to being in prison and not being free to refuse their "treatment". Once they've made the vets comfortable with that notion, it'll expand across the MMPR, and you can imagine most of them would LOVE not having the burden of the expectation for quality pot from them.
BTW, it's worth noting, that their weed was previously only ever supplied and covered with stock from PPS. So the were already subjected to an inadequate limit of 2%, and then 9%. The MMPR could have improved that for them.