Canadian voters will decide on Monday whether Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party will retain control of the federal government, or if one of several competing parties will get a chance to take over.
The result of the election could have a variety of implications for marijuana policy about one year after the country legalized cannabis—a reform move that Trudeau campaigned on in 2015.
But it’s not just marijuana positions that separate the parties, as broader drug policy issues have also exposed differences in the direction Canada may take depending on which party controls the House of Commons.
Here’s a breakdown of where each party and their respective leaders stand on drug policy.
Liberal Party: Justin Trudeau
During his first campaign for prime minister, Trudeau pledged to legalize cannabis nationwide if elected—and while it didn’t materialize as quickly as he’d anticipated, marijuana prohibition was officially ended for adults in October 2018.
But while the prime minister scored points with advocates for making good on his promise, he’s disappointed others with the specifics of its implementation and for repeatedly declining to give his support to broader drug decriminalization efforts.
Trudeau was asked in February 2018 whether his administration would consider lifting criminal penalties for opioid possession as a means to combat the drug crisis. He responded that the policy is “not a step that Canada is looking at taking at this point.”
“It’s not part of the plan,” Trudeau, who admitted to using cannabis while serving in the House of Commons, said. “There are many steps we can and have taken.”
He made similar comments when he was asked about the same issue the previous year, stating that the country “is not looking at decriminalization or legalization of any other drugs other than what we’re doing with marijuana.”
The reasoning, Trudeau said, is because “there’s a lot of other tools that we are using right now instead.”
“We are going to focus on getting the control and regulation of [the] marijuana regime right, and that’s quite a handful right now,” he said. “We’re not looking at any other steps.”
Trudeau’s views on the issue don’t necessarily align with those of his party, however. Liberal delegates voted in favor of a resolution that sought to remove criminal penalties for drug offenses at a convention last year, hoping to put the policy on the party’s campaign platform for this upcoming election.
“The Government of Canada should treat drug abuse as a health issue, expand treatment and harm reduction services and re-classify low-level drug possession and consumption as administrative violations,” the measure stated.
Following the vote, however, Trudeau said at a press conference that “it’s not part of our plans.”
The party did ultimately adopt a formal platform backing certain harm reduction policies such as safe consumption sites and stipulating that first-time non-violent drug offenders should be diverted to drug treatment court in order to “help drug users get quick access to treatment, and to prevent more serious crimes.”
During a debate with Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer last month, decriminalization came up again. While Trudeau initially said it wasn’t on the party’s agenda “at the moment,” he later clarified in a press scrum that “we will not be further decriminalizing any drugs other than cannabis.”
Bill Blair, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice, said in April 2018 that the government had “no plans to legalize or decriminalize any other drugs” besides marijuana.
But despite opposition from the administration, some Liberal lawmakers have been undeterred. MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith introduced a bill in July that would repeal sections of federal drug law that concern possession, effectively decriminalizing the controlled substances.
And the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, which is controlled by the majority Liberals, issued a report in June recommending the government “work with provinces, territories, municipalities and Indigenous communities and law enforcement agencies to decriminalize the simple possession of small quantities of illicit substances.”
Conservative Party: Andrew Scheer
All but one member of the Conservative Party, including Scheer, voted against legalizing marijuana last year. However, if elected to the majority, Scheer said lawmakers wouldn’t seek to overturn the law.
“We will maintain…the fact that cannabis is legal, we are not going to change that and we do support the idea of people having those records pardoned” for prior cannabis offenses, he said in June.
Scheer asked about position on cannabis. Says he won’t change legal status but will spend on research on effects and prevent children from getting it.
— Adam Hunter (@AHiddyCBC) June 25, 2019
While he’s pledged to uphold the legal marijuana program, the Conservative leader said during a debate with Trudeau that he’d use funds for cannabis tax revenue to increase enforcement against the illicit market. Scheer also accused the prime minister of promoting a “secret agenda” to decriminalize and legalize “hard drugs.”
The party also pushed advertisements on Facebook that falsely accused the Liberals of seeking to “legalize hard drugs.”
“This is yet another example of Conservatives copying the American right-wing playbook, spreading false information to scare and mislead voters,” Liberal Party spokesperson Joe Pickerill said in response to the ads.
Conservative Senators visited Washington, D.C. to meet with then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions in April 2018. The purpose of the trip, according to a press release, was to investigate the “predictable consequences of legalization for Canadians traveling to the United States” by discussing the matter with the anti-marijuana official.
Though Scheer and other Conservative lawmakers have derided drug policy proposals from the Liberals, their official party platform does stress the need to craft drug laws that treat addiction as a public health issue.
“To help more Canadians recover from addiction, we will revise the federal government’s substance abuse policy framework to make recovery its overarching goal,” the platform states. “We will reorient the Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy towards ensuring that every addict has the opportunity to recover from their addiction and to lead a drug-free life and that all policies that fall under the Strategy have recovery as their objective.”
Conservatives also voiced support for expanding drug treatment facilities, funding education campaigns that encourage young people to avoid illicit substances and partnering with school districts and other institutions to clean up used needles.
New Democratic Party (NDP): Jagmeet Singh
All NDP lawmakers present for the vote on the cannabis legalization bill supported it. The party has not shied away from broader drug decriminalization, and members have emphasized the need to promote restorative justice in Canada’s marijuana program.
“New Democrats believe that there is much more we can do to save lives and support those struggling with opioids,” the party’s platform reads. “In government, we will declare a public health emergency and commit to working with all levels of government, experts and Canadians to end the criminalization and stigma of drug addiction, so that people struggling with addiction can get the help they need without fear of arrest, while getting tough on the real criminals—those who traffic in and profit from illegal drugs.”
The platform voiced support for expanding overdose prevention facilities and investigating the role of pharmaceutical companies in the opioid crisis and ensuring that the public is compensated if the industry is found culpable.
“We will also proactively expunge criminal records for Canadians convicted of minor cannabis possession,” NDP said. “With cannabis now legal in Canada, too many people are still burdened with criminal records for simple possession—records that mean real hardships that affect their employment opportunities and their ability to travel. These records for minor cannabis possession will be completely erased, allowing people to get on with building their lives.”
Singh has repeatedly proposed decriminalization as a solution to the country’s drug problems.
“I can tell you from personal experience, but I can also show you—and I’m sure you all know that there’s a preponderance of evidence when we look at those folks that are being charged with personal possession of a controlled substance people that are being arrested and incarcerated, these are folks that are struggling with issues of mental health of addiction and poverty,” Singh said in November 2017. “To me poverty, mental health and addictions don’t sound like criminal justice problems. They sound to me like a social justice problem that should be dealt with like a social justice problem.”
“That’s why I’m calling for the decriminalization of all personal possession offenses when it comes to drugs, to make a difference in the lives of people and actually bring real change,” he said.
During a debate as Singh was competing to become leader of NDP, he emphasized his decriminalization proposal.
“I would call for the immediate decriminalization of all personal possession offenses when it comes to drugs. Period,” he said.
NDP has also been critical of the rollout of Canada’s legal marijuana law, with the party writing in September that “Justin Trudeau’s Liberals had plenty of time to get this right” and it’s “not enough,” referring to the limited number of pardons for cannabis convictions that the government had issued.
Justin Trudeau's Liberals had plenty of time to get this right. This is not enough. The NDP is going to keep fighting for criminal records for Canadians convicted of minor cannabis possession to be expunged.https://t.co/jh55LJmpbe
— NDP (@NDP) September 9, 2019
“The NDP is going to keep fighting for criminal records for Canadians convicted of minor cannabis possession to be expunged,” they said.
NDP MP Don Davies unsuccessfully tried to get unanimous consent for a measure to “immediately provide pardons for those burdened by criminal records for cannabis offenses that will soon be legal” shortly after the legalization bill passed.
“For some people in Canada, and in some places, pot has been effectively legal for years,” Singh said in October 2018. “But depending on who you are, the color of your skin, and where you live, there’s a different set of rules.”
With #CannabisLegalization let's remember that pot has been effectively legal for some Canadians for years while others, predominately Indigenous & racialized ppl, are still being punished by criminal records affecting their daily lives. Let's delete these records once & for all: pic.twitter.com/wdXBiJCui7
— Jagmeet Singh (@theJagmeetSingh) October 16, 2018
A private member bill introduced by NDP MP Murray Rankin to expunge criminal records for cannabis possession was rejected by Liberal lawmakers in May despite agreement that minority communities have been disproportionately impacted by federal drug laws.
In May, NDP urged their Liberal colleagues to answer questions about the impact of medical cannabis taxes on patients.
“The Liberal tax on medical cannabis is unfair and damaging to the health of patients. It shows that the Liberal government is out of touch with the reality of people,” NDP Deputy Leader Alexandre Boulerice said. “So far, my questions to the Minister have gone unanswered. But this time, I hope that he will finally justify the stance taken by the Liberals.”
“Medical cannabis must be treated just like other prescription drugs. Its price must be reviewed and untaxed in order to allow patients to treat themselves properly,” Boulerice said. “Some patients are forced to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars each month to get their medication. This is wrong!”
Green Party: Elizabeth May
May voted for the cannabis legalization bill, and the Green Party platform backs decriminalizing all drugs, pledging to “address the opioid crisis as a health-care issue, not a criminal issue, by declaring a national health emergency.”
“Drug possession should be decriminalized, ensuring people have access to a screened supply and the medical support they need to combat their addictions,” it says.
The platform includes several provisions aimed at reforming the current legal marijuana regime.
“A year into the legalization of cannabis, the flaws in the regulatory framework for cannabis production and sale are evident and a reform agenda is emerging,” the party said, adding that the government’s regulatory approach “treats the production of cannabis as uniquely dangerous” and that’s contributed to the ongoing presence of an illicit market.
To combat the issue, Green Party said it would lower the federally set price of marijuana to be more competitive with illicit sellers, eliminate “excess plastic packaging” requirements, remove excise duties and sales tax on medical cannabis products, allow outdoor cultivation, impose organic production standards and allow CBD to be marketed as a natural health supplement.
“Security requirements mean growers must use more energy and water and deal with diseases and pests that thrive in greenhouses, increasing costs and hobbling their ability to meet production expectations,” the platform says.
Other policies the party supports include expanding funding of community-based organizations that test drugs for safety and increase the availability of the overdose reversal medication naloxone.
“We must stop treating drug addiction as a criminal issue and start treating is as a health-care issue,” May said in a press release last month announcing her party’s support for decriminalization. “This is a national health emergency.”
“The opioid crisis is a national tragedy that is devastating communities and families across Canada,” she said. “We have to abandon old notions of the ‘war on drugs’ and join the battle that really matters—the fight to save Canadian lives.”
“It’s hard to stand up as a national party leader and say it’s time to decriminalize all illicit drugs,” May said during a press conference. “It’s what we have to do.”
“We have to take emergency steps in an emergency situation, and it’s far too dangerous to allow people, whether they’re living on the streets or living at home with their parents…to have illicit drugs that are not thoroughly screened for fentanyl contamination,” she said.
Bloc Québécois: Yves-François Blanchet
Members of the Bloc Québécois, which is primarily focused on advocating for Quebec sovereignty, voted against the marijuana legalization bill.
The party’s leader, Blanchet, doesn’t appear to have extensively discussed cannabis or drug policy issues.
Former Bloc Québécois Party Leader Martine Ouellet was more outspoken about the need for reform and said in 2017 that the country should nationalize a legal cannabis market.
“With the legalization…it creates a brand new market and [it] is a market that is currently occupied by criminal organizations,” she said. “The choice we have, do we want it to go from criminal organizations to private firms, big corporations, or if we want these profits to go from criminal organizations to all citizens?”
Ensuring that individuals provinces have the jurisdiction to allow or ban home cultivation for personal use was reportedly a key policy the party supported.
People’s Party of Canada (PPC): Maxime Bernier
Bernier, voted against the cannabis legalization bill as a Conservative lawmaker but said that he would not reverse it if elected. However, he pledged to remain watchful of the industry.
“In the longer term, my main worry is to make sure that we see the illegal market significantly reduced and ideally disappear,” he said through a spokesperson. “That was one of the key justifications for cannabis legalization.”
“If [the illicit market] stays large, we would look at regulatory and tax changes to ensure the legal market is better served,” he said. “We do not have any specific proposal for now. Same thing for edibles.”
According to Burnaby Now, Bernier has said that he’s in favor of marijuana legalization in principle and that the country should review the impact of safe consumption sites.
When running as for the leadership of the Conservative Party in 2016, Bernier welcomed an endorsement from Marc Emery, the so-called “Prince of Pot” who has since faced allegations of sexual misconduct. Emery said at the time, “I don’t even know what his position on marijuana is and I don’t care because for me Maxime Bernier represents a long-term future on all the issues” during a radio interview.
— Maxime Bernier (@MaximeBernier) September 14, 2016
Days before Bernier formally launched the PPC last year, Emery told The Toronto Star that he “totally” endorses the candidate’s policies.
“I’ve never seen anything I disagree with,” Emery said.
Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson, a PPC candidate, said earlier this year that the party does not have an official stance on cannabis policy but expressed personal opposition to legalization.
What To Expect
Analysts expect voter turnout to be down for the Liberals, as enthusiasm for Trudeau continues to suffer amid controversy over revelations that he wore blackface and brownface. That’s presented an opportunity that some of the lesser parties such as the Greens intend to take advantage of, with May urging voters to elect enough of her party members to the House of Commons to prevent the Liberals from winning an outright majority.
That situation would mean that “the Greens and other smaller parties would hold the balance of power, possibly even including the Bloc Québécois,” The New York Times reported.
But regardless of the outcome, what appears certain is that Canada’s legal marijuana law will survive no matter which party holds power, though the specifics of how the program will continue to roll out could depend on the electoral results.
A bigger question is whether the country will build on the momentum of cannabis legalization and pursue broader drug policy reforms such as decriminalization or if that movement will stall under unsupportive leadership.
Photo courtesy of Christopher Policarpio.
Supreme Court Justices Discuss Marijuana Policy During Immigration Case Arguments
A Supreme Court hearing on Tuesday concerning the fate of a program protecting immigrants brought to the U.S. as children featured a brief conversation about federal marijuana enforcement policy.
Justices questioned the difference between what President Trump’s administration did—issuing memos ordering the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to be wound down—and what the Obama administration did when his Justice Department told prosecutors not to pursue marijuana cases in states that legalized it.
During the discussion about prosecutorial discretion, Justice Samuel Alito asked if courts have jurisdiction to review or overturn instances where prosecutors make a policy change for a “certain category of drug cases,” by declining to pursue those that involved “lesser amounts of drugs.”
An attorney representing the so-called “Dreamers,” Theodore Olson, said he didn’t think it would be.
But Olson said the comparison wasn’t valid because the DACA program “invited [Dreamers] into the program, provided other statutes which have not been challenged by the government, provided benefits that were associated with that decision, and individuals relied upon that for five years.”
In other words, while the Justice Department has historically issued guidance and allowed for prosecutorial discretion for issues such as drug crimes, DACA rises to a different standard, in part because of the benefits it provided to hundreds of thousands of eligible immigrants.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, sought clarification about the “limiting principle” that the attorney was using to distinguish DACA from other prosecutorial discretion decisions.
Olson said it’s “a composite of principles” and a “categorical determination involving a substantial number of people.”
“Let me just stop you there, though, because if it’s categorical and a large number of people, I can think of a lot of prosecutorial decisions involving drug cases, the treatment of marijuana in our society today under federal law—perhaps it would be cocaine, five kilograms,” Gorsuch said in the exchange, which was first noted by Politico. “Whatever is in the attorney general memo affects lots of people on a categorical basis every day.”
The justice appeared to cite the Obama-era Cole memo as an example. That guidance, which was rescinded by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions in early 2018, advised prosecutors to use enforcement discretion and not target state-legal cannabis programs despite ongoing federal prohibition.
“There’s an entire industry in a lot of states involving marijuana that would argue they’re relying on memos issued by the attorney general that we will not enforce marijuana laws, for example,” Gorsuch said.
“I think that is completely different,” Olson contended. “They are not invited to participate into a program, to reveal the business that they’re in, to come forward, to take advantage of benefits.”
Gorsuch countered that cannabis businesses “have a lot of economic interests at stake” and would argue that “billions of dollars are at stake [and] we’ve relied on the attorney general’s guidance memos.”
Groups Push Congress To Let D.C. Legalize Marijuana Sales
More than a dozen advocacy organizations sent a letter to House and Senate leadership on Wednesday, urging them to allow Washington, D.C. to implement a regulated marijuana market.
While D.C. voters approved an initiative legalizing low-level possession and home cultivation of cannabis in 2014, congressional lawmakers have attached riders to spending legislation each year since that have blocked officials in the nation’s capital from using local tax dollars to enact a retail sales component.
“It is critical that Congress support D.C.’s right to home rule and the ability to spend local tax dollars as they deem fit, especially in regard to the regulation and taxation of marijuana,” the groups—including Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), ACLU of D.C., NORML and Competitive Enterprise Institute—wrote.
In its latest spending bill for Fiscal Year 2020, the House Appropriations Committee stripped the rider from the chamber’s version of the legislation, and Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), who has sponsored the measure in years past, didn’t attempt to reinsert it. That bill passed the House in June.
But in the Senate version, the rider remained intact, meaning that it will come down to negotiators on a bicameral conference committee to decide which version is sent to President Trump’s desk.
“Current law has interfered with the District’s efforts to regulate marijuana, which has impacted public safety,” the reform groups’ letter states. “Without the ability to regulate marijuana sales, the grey market for marijuana flourishes despite the need and want of the District leadership and residents alike to establish a regulatory model.”
“Such a model would free up law enforcement resources to focus on reducing violent crime,” it continues. “It would also allow legitimate entrepreneurs to start businesses, create jobs and spur economic development.”
The National Cannabis Industry Association, Sentencing Project, Northwestern University School of Law, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, R Street Institute and Law Enforcement Action Partnership, among other organizations, also signed the letter.
We joined 17 other organizations in sending this letter today to House and Senate leadership.
Here’s what we believe: It is time for Congress to support DC’s right to self-determination and lift the rider prohibiting them from regulating marijuana. https://t.co/RdGRbvELSl pic.twitter.com/lE6Er3A0X6
— The Leadership Conference (@civilrightsorg) November 13, 2019
“Under these conditions—where marijuana is essentially decriminalized, but there is no legal access for adult use—D.C. has been left with a complicated grey market that is both unsafe and a far cry from the racial and economic justice promises of the Initiative 71 campaign,” Queen Adesuyi, DPA’s policy manager for national affairs, said in a press release.
“It’s time that Congress get its hands off of D.C. and allow D.C. Council, Mayor Muriel Bowser, and other relevant D.C. stakeholders to deliver on the promises of equity and justice for those disproportionately impacted by racially-biased enforcement of marijuana laws,” she said.
Bowser, who is a champion of D.C. statehood and cannabis reform, announced in May that she was sending a bill to the District Council that would provide for the retail sale of marijuana in the city. She’s repeatedly implored lawmakers to remove the rider preventing the local government from fully following through on the will of voters.
Congress: Keep your #HandsOffDC and #RemoveTheRider preventing us from establishing a safe & equitable cannabis regime for adult use. Together, with Congresswoman @EleanorNorton, we fight for the rights of 702,000 disenfranchised DC residents.
— Mayor Muriel Bowser (@MayorBowser) October 8, 2019
“Keep your #HandsOffDC and #RemoveTheRider preventing us from establishing a safe & equitable cannabis regime for adult use,” she wrote in October, linking to a petition. “Together, with Congresswoman [Eleanor Holmes Norton], we fight for the rights of 702,000 disenfranchised DC residents.”
Another area of interest for cannabis reform advocates as it concerns the appropriations process centers on the possible expansion of a rider shielding state marijuana laws from federal interference. Since 2014, Congress has enacted such a policy that only covers medical cannabis policies, but this year the House approved a version that would cover adult-use marijuana programs as well. However, the Senate bill contains only the current medical-focused language, meaning that it will be up to conference committee negotiators to decide.
While the current continuing resolution providing funds for federal agencies is set to expire on November 21, lawmakers are discussing another stopgap funding measure that would push the deadline to December 20.
Read the full letter on the D.C. marijuana rider below:
Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan.
Marijuana Prohibition Is Delaying Federal Response To Vaping Crisis, CDC Says
Marijuana’s ongoing illegal status under federal law is delaying health officials’ response to the rise in vaping-related lung injuries and deaths, a top official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said on Wednesday.
During a hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) mentioned that her state is the only one in the country that hasn’t experienced reports of lung injuries due to vaping, adding that Alaska has a voter-approved legal cannabis market.
“In our state, retail marijuana is commercialized, it’s tested by our state laboratories,” the senator said. “Is the CDC providing any information to state regulatory bodies—whether it’s Alaska or other states that have legalized—on testing these products for these compounds that are our concern?”
She followed up to ask if there are “any barriers preventing federal officials from working with our state marijuana labs on this topic.”
CDC Principal Deputy Director Anne Schuchat replied that the agency is in touch with state health departments, many of which are involved in regulating the cannabis industry, and that they provide guidance. However, because marijuana remains a federally controlled substance, she said there “are some challenges with shipment of specimens [for testing] because of the scheduling of drugs.”
“I think it’s just delaying it, I don’t think it’s stopping it,” she added.
Watch the marijuana exchange at 1:54:22 into the video below:
But as numerous lawmakers stressed throughout the hearing, there’s no room for delays, as more than 2,000 Americans have experienced lung injuries from vaping and almost 40 have died. CDC recently announced that an analysis of lung fluid samples from 29 patients in 10 states turned up evidence indicating that adulterated vape cartridges containing vitamin E acetate may be the cause.
And over the last six months, there have been 2,051 Americans hurt and 39 have died – including two in Tennessee – from vaping-related lung illnesses, many from vaping with THC, the derivative of marijuana that makes people high.
— Sen. Lamar Alexander (@SenAlexander) November 13, 2019
Schuchat emphasized during a separate House hearing last month that while most vaping cases seem connected to THC-containing products, the vast majority have been obtained from illicit sources that wouldn’t be subject to the same testing standards as those enforced in regulated state markets.
She made similar remarks earlier this month during an appearance on C-SPAN and suggested that federal regulation of THC products could mitigate vaping injuries.
Still, there was a case in Oregon where a man who purchased vaping products from a licensed dispensary later fell ill and died—though officials said it’s not clear whether there’s a direct link at this point. In any case, the CDC official’s point about delays due to shipping complications arising from prohibition raises concerns at a time when data is urgently needed.
Also during the Senate hearing, Mitch Zeller, director of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products, was asked by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) whether the agency has “jurisdiction over THC products and, if so, what is the authority?”
“I think on a case-by-case basis, when it comes down to the facts, if we were to take an action because of the presence of THC, it would be because the investigation has continued—because we’re going after the supply chain here,” Zeller said. “How did these products get onto the market in the first place?”
The official noted that as a regulatory agency, FDA is not in the business of going after individuals for personal possession or use of THC products; rather they have “investigators on the ground to try to get at how did they get into the chain of distribution and commerce in the first place.”
“If we can identify the responsible party—because with THC we’re talking about an illicit compound so it’s not like someone is going to step forward and say, ‘yeah I did it’—If we can find the responsible party, if we can do the product analysis that shows that the THC is present, with or without these oils that seem to be making it worse, then in theory we could use authorities that we have under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,” he said.
“We could act, depending upon the facts, under Food and Drug authorities,” he said.
The comment was quickly applauded by prohibitionist group Smart Approaches To Marijuana, which has argued that recent vaping issues represent an example of why cannabis legalization efforts should be halted.
During a Senate hearing, a representative from the @FDA admits the agency has the authority to crack down on THC supply chains in response to the #PotVapingCrisis.https://t.co/Ft6l0ifEib pic.twitter.com/BVZYGO7cox
— SAM (@learnaboutsam) November 13, 2019
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) shared a different perspective, siding with reform advocates who say that calls to prohibit vaping products in response to the crisis are misguided because that policy change could exacerbate the problem by bolstering illicit sales and leaving consumers less protected against contaminated products.
“It seems to be primarily deaths and horrific medical problems from vaping illegal products,” the senator said. “What we’re going to do in response to that is make more vaping illegal. It seems kind of counterintuitive. It seems if you make more things illegal, maybe you get more people vaping illegal products and you have more problems.”
Photo courtesy of Senate HELP Committee.