Let’s Make Clean Cannabis A Public Health Priority

Let’s stop trying to justify fundamentally ridiculous “safe levels” for inhaled pesticide exposure and use a simple proven taxation approach to make contaminated cannabis very expensive and unprofitable and to make clean cannabis very affordable and profitable for growers and retailers.

Using Tax-Based Incentives as Market Forces

By shifting our Cannabis pesticide regulatory strategies from compliance & standards-based models to a tax-based harm reduction framework we can rely on market forces and free choice rather than enforcement and penalties to accomplish the goal of making healthy, natural Cannabis available to all. 

I propose using a model that reflects Pigouvian tax principles, where harmful external costs are disincentivized through pricing mechanisms. A Pigouvian tax is a tax imposed on activities that generate negative external costs, in this case meaning the costs to society of chronic disease from inhaled pesticide exposure that aren’t reflected in the market price of conventionally regulated but still often heavily contaminated Cannabis. 

The idea is to “internalize” those external costs by making the producer or consumer pay for the costs to society that will result if they choose to produce or consume the higher-priced “cost-internalized” product.

By using the market forces of progressive taxation and targeted incentives to promote and support demand for pesticide-free Cannabis, states can act independently of the Federal government to: 

• Reduce widespread public exposure to chronically inhaled pesticides from contaminated Cannabis, and
• Promote economically sustainable and environmentally sound Cannabis cultivation practices
• Create broad-based economic opportunity for small-scale pesticide-free Cannabis growers. 
• Reduce the economic advantage of tax-avoidance currently available to “black-market” growers

Background and Rationale

Cannabis legalization has outpaced the development of effective, equitable, science-based public health regulations that address pesticide contaminant exposure. 

No safe levels of chronic low-level exposure by inhalation have ever been established for any of the individual pesticides that are allowable in any state-licensed Cannabis, much less for chronic low-level exposure by inhalation to any of the combinations of insecticides, fungicides and herbicides that are known contaminants of both regulated and unregulated Cannabis.

All state regulatory frameworks rely on the outdated and makeshift regulatory approach of using “comparable” references to establish pesticide residue safety thresholds. The Cannabis thresholds that have resulted in every state are based on limited scope, methodologically inappropriate, and unverifiable toxicological data, often modeled after food safety standards that do not in any way account for (1) chronic(2) multi-pesticide (3) combustion or vaporization (4) inhalation exposure, critical exposure factors that taken together are unique to Cannabis and Tobacco users.

Even glancing at the processes used, it becomes clear that state residue safety thresholds for inhaled pesticides are poorly constructed guesswork without scientific or medical validity. In Oregon, for example, a state that “led the way” in legalizing Cannabis, there was not a single medically qualified person on the 2015 panel that set the pesticide standards that remain in place today, and these standards are still without any medical or public health input. This isn’t simply methodological criticism – Cannabis consumers are going to pay for this kind of regulatory incompetence and narrowmindedness with illness, suffering and death later in their lives, probably never suspecting the role of state Cannabis regulators in their fate. It’s very much like government regulators preaching about smoking-related disease for 75 years and never mentioning, much less regulating the pesticides that are, at a minimum, preventable contributing factors..

State Cannabis residue thresholds are modeled specifically on EPA tobacco standards, which are in turn based strictly on regulating agricultural pesticide usage on Tobacco growing in fields and in warehouses, and not at all on regulating consumer exposure to pesticide residues in what are completely unregulated Tobacco products.

That means that unlike Cannabis, Tobacco products are not inspected or regulated for pesticide residues, nor are those 100% preventable residues reported in any way to the public, so there are no comparable pesticide residue standards applicable to inhalable Tobacco products for state Cannabis regulators to reference.

Finally, the current burden of standards compliance falls disproportionately on small-scale, largely non-corporate Cannabis growers, who must pay the same testing fees as large corporate growers without receiving any incentive for their reduced harm products. This creates a perverse counterincentive to harm reduction where pesticide-free Cannabis is made more expensive than contaminated alternatives by market forces that are the direct result of poor and uninformed regulatory choices.

Policy Objectives

1. Reduce exposure of consumers and their children to harmful pesticide residues in cannabis.
2. Promote and favor environmentally-sound, economically sustainable, pesticide-free cultivation through strong targeted economic incentives.
3. Level the playing field and even tilt it toward small and responsible growers willing to accept the hard work and economic risk that goes with producing pesticide-free cannabis.
4. Promote public health more effectively using a market-driven harm reduction model rather than the default use of ineffective and demonstrably discriminatory standards setting and enforcement.

Proposed Taxation Framework

1. Progressive Excise Tax Based on Pesticide Residue Levels

• Tier 1: No detectable pesticide residues – 0% excise tax; state business and personal tax credits; possible subsidies.
• Tier 2: Trace levels of low-toxicity pesticides – 15% excise tax
• Tier 3: Moderate residues or flagged compounds – 50% excise tax
• Tier 4: High-risk or banned pesticides – most prohibited from sale; others taxed at 100%+

2. Testing Fee Rebates

• Full rebates on lab testing fees for batches that test pesticide-free.
  • Encourages voluntary testing and reduces financial barriers for clean growers.

3. Clean Cannabis Certification and Retail Incentives

• State-backed “Clean Cannabis” label for qualifying products.
  • Retailers with a high percentage of certified products receive sales tax credits and promotional grants.

4. Licensing and Application Incentives

• Expedited licensing and reduced fees for growers who commit to verifiable pesticide-free practices.
• Priority access to state-funded grants or technical assistance programs.

Legal and Economic Justification

• Progressive taxation is a well-established tool for correcting market failures and promoting equity.
• Pigouvian taxes have been used effectively in some countries and jurisdictions to reduce the degree of harm from harmful products while preserving consumer choice.
• A harm reduction approach to cannabis regulation is supported by public health experts and aligns with recommendations from the National Academies of Sciences and the American Public Health Association.

Implementation Considerations

• States should partner with independent labs to ensure testing integrity.
• An ongoing public education campaign should accompany rollout to inform consumers and retailers.
• Data collection and ongoing evaluation will be essential to refine tax tiers and incentives. However the baseline tax exemptions and credits for pesticide-free Cannabis production should be made permanent from the outset.

Conclusion

This proposal offers a market-based, public health-oriented alternative to traditional cobbled-together cannabis regulation based on inaccurate and unscientific assumptions of comparability with food and tobacco pesticide regulations and science. By aligning economic incentives with desired public health outcomes, states can reduce pesticide exposure for cannabis smokers/vapers and their children, support and empower responsible growers, and enable consumers to make healthier choices for themselves that also directly impact their present and future children.