With attempts to limit cannabis potency underway in Mass, marijuana advocates say THC caps similar to those in other states could harm businesses and patients
In the Review and Assessment of the Massachusetts Adult- and Medical-use Cannabis Industries published by the state’s Cannabis Control Commission in February, data points to an upward trend in the potency of regulated marijuana products. Per one metric, “Reported THCA results trended upward from April 2021 to December 2023, from a median value of 20.2% in 2021 to 24.1% in 2023.”
The situation is complicated, and doesn’t mean that all products in the Bay State are getting stronger. While flower is testing higher and higher, often into the 30% range for Total Active Cannabinoids (TAC), for example, edibles still can’t be more than 5 mg per serving. Nevertheless, hysteria and fear over high-testing products appear to be hitting previously unseen levels in the commonwealth.
Earlier this year, partly in response to the aforementioned state report, Wrentham state Rep. Marcus Vaughn introduced legislation to curb stronger cannabis products. It’s a shift in the conversation around potency, which up until now has largely centered around the critical issue of lab testing fraud. As a result of customers and therefore producers seeking high THC scores, many of the state’s Independent Testing Laboratories have reported existential pressure to bend their results upwards.
This other fight over potency, however, is much simpler, with apparent prohibitionists attempting to cap permissible THC amounts. Earlier this month, advocates for such measures testified on Beacon Hill before the Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy, with others submitting similar comments in writing. House Bill 191 would prohibit marijuana flower with potency in excess of 30% THC and vapes that exceed 5 mg THC per metered serving or with potency exceeding 30%. The proposal also includes several other measures aimed directly at producers.
Critics of the bill say that the reasoning and scientific evidence behind such proposed changes are weak, and argue that those looking to set potency limits are just old school cannabis opponents in new clothing. Industry advocates also say these efforts can hurt patients as well as struggling businesses that already have to manage costly and stringent compliance around things like daily purchase limits, for example. But none of that is stopping some outspoken parties from trying to set the clock back on Mass marijuana.
How they wrote a bill to limit THC potency in Massachusetts
In a statement to TJM, Rep. Vaughn explained that he took initiative after seeing similar bills in other New England states pass.
“We developed the THC potency limits in H.191 based on public health research and guidance from other states such as Connecticut and Vermont,” he wrote. “High THC levels have been linked to increased risk of marijuana-induced psychosis, especially among young users. We’ve heard from parents, educators, and healthcare professionals who support these safeguards to protect public health.”
Vaughn’s bill would also prohibit “concentrated forms of marijuana products which fail to clearly provide metered, or otherwise measured, standard delivered servings of 5 mg THC.” Presumably, that could throw a wrench in the sale of high-potency tinctures. Furthermore, the proposal takes aim at marijuana products with added sweeteners and any inhalable cannabinoid product containing “non-cannabis-derived substances, including flavors, non-cannabis terpenes, and/or chemicals that alter a legal THC product’s consistency, texture, or viscosity.”
Theresa Hodgins addressed the joint cannabis committee this month, speaking in favor of a Senate bill to rein in potency plus a measure regarding product labeling, among others. “Cannabis can be addictive and the higher potency, the more addictive,” Hodgins, a concerned parent, told lawmakers. “I’ve been delivering this type of testimony for six years and so far the Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy has done nothing to protect our children and public health.”
Hodgins encouraged the committee to support the bills, one of which would lead to “meaningful warning labels, which warn about cannabis abuse disorder and cannabis induced psychosis.” “People need to know the risk and there should be a potency cap on all of these products,” she added.
Revisiting regulations in an age of higher cannabis potency
Dr. Stephanie Forschner, an assistant teaching professor in the URI College of Pharmacy and the director of the school’s certificate program in cannabis studies, said as THC concentrations in today’s cannabis flower and products rise, it is important to revisit the research on adverse effects which were mostly completed on products with much lower potencies.
“Just a decade ago, the average THC percentage in cannabis flower was about 11%,” Forschner told Talking Joints Memo. “As THC potency increases, the science hasn’t kept up. … We do know that the effects of THC are dose dependent. For example, while lower doses of THC have been shown to reduce anxiety, higher doses have the opposite effects.”
Higher doses, Forschner added, can result in anxiety, dysphoria, and paranoia. “Tolerance, severity of withdrawal symptoms, and development of cannabis use disorder are all strongly tied to the potency and frequency of cannabis consumption,” she said.
Not all researchers agree about those dramatic conclusions. At the aforementioned hearing, Dr. Jeff Rawson, a chemist and president of the Institute of Cannabis Science (and TJM contributor), submitted testimony calling potency limits “ill-conceived.”
“One of these proposed limiting the concentration of THC in cannabis products to 10% and the other to 30%, but neither of these is reasonable,” Rawson said. “Potency limits are based on misconceptions about the historic concentration of THC in cannabis, misunderstandings of how people have consumed cannabis historically and currently, and misunderstandings about how they affect different consumers. The harmful effects of THC for some individuals are based on the physiology of those individuals, not the concentration, and this should be an individual choice. Kids don’t get their weed from dispensaries, they use the internet.”
In an interview with TJM, Rawson called the proposed bills a “mish mash” of regulations that read more like an attempt at prohibition.
“I don’t think this is a serious effort at legislation because how would you limit the potency of your products while not using diluents,” Rawson said. “This might sound reasonable for uninitiated consumers, but either one of these bills regarding cannabis potency would have a severe negative impact on the industry and producers. If you’re capping flowers at 10%, you’re outlawing nearly all the flower that’s on the market currently.”
Bolstering the black market through increased regulation
Connecticut legislators recently introduced a bill that would set higher taxation rates for higher potency products. And in Vermont, a 30% THC cap on retail cannabis flower has led to retailers having to reconfigure the way they do business.
In all of these cases, Avis Bulbulyan, the CEO of Siva Enterprises in California, said he believes potency limits run counter to the needs of medical patients.
“There is no evidence that potency limits deter a customer from purchasing more of the same product to achieve the potency they were seeking,” Bulbulyan told TJM. “The general argument made by [bill] proponents is that products are too potent and adverse effects are being seen. What the proponents fail to understand is that it’s just as simple for a customer to consume several low dose products to achieve the same result as consuming the same product in a single higher dose. … These limitations increase product packaging costs by dividing a product that would normally be contained in one package into multiple packages.
“Furthermore, potency limits create additional limitations in the legal market’s fight against the black market.”
If one of the Massachusetts bills moves forward, Bulbulyan said the end effects of consumption would remain the same, but with additional cost to the consumer.
“No one knows better what a customer wants or what a customer can benefit from than the customer,” he said. “Businesses cater to the needs of their customers. Many brands have low-dose options for customers that want low-dose offerings. These regulations don’t provide anything the free market doesn’t already provide the customer. … These regulations limit product offerings and force purchasing habits onto the customer without anyone asking for it.”
Debate over “misguided” potency cap continues
Ornella Quinn said she has noticed rising public harms since cannabis was legalized in 2016. In her testimony at the State House earlier this month, the Worcester County resident and parent pointed to support for potency caps from the American Medical Association and Massachusetts Medical Society, and said better labels are also necessary.
“The science is clear, high potency marijuana is highly addictive and significantly increases the risk for psychosis, depression, and other very serious mental disorders,” Quinn told the commission
There is some understanding from the industry side, though only up to a certain point. Dr. Brooke Worster is the chief medical officer at Ethos Cannabis, a multi-state operator with pot shops in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Ohio. She told TJM that with an increasing manipulation of the cannabis plant to boost THC levels, as well as the ability to concentrate extracted material to a very nearly 100% THC potency, there is apparent risk of triggering concerning side effects in some.
“There’s very little to no medical/health/wellness benefits seen with these astronomically high levels of THC,” Worster wrote in an email. “We see more risk of psychosis, vomiting, as well as cardiovascular side effects with long term detrimental effects in vulnerable populations like young adults using high potency cannabis.” She added that “while there is no hard and fast ‘line in the sand’ that we can draw on THC potency, we do need to have more dialogue around safe limits and more importantly education surrounding what we know and don’t know about the benefits and risks of high or very high potency THC.”
Worster spoke of the importance of clear labeling, standardized testing, and transparency in composition of all cannabis-based products to lower risk among all users, but said a potency cap is misguided.
“Simply placing THC caps will not fix the lack of laboratory testing standards,” the Ethos med officer wrote. “The priority should be enhancing lab standards, accrediting testing facilities, and enforcing stricter audit protocols. Patients and consumers deserve accurate data and safe products. …
“While potency limits on THC in products should be looked at, that alone won’t fix the safety concerns with poor lab testing standards.”
