Seems like a bad idea - that no one asked for or needed.

Its basically powdered gateway theory.

If this is where the 'cannabis product innovation' they wank on about (at those awful industry investment conferences) leads us, we can live without it.

In response to some of the
comments...
Cannabis powder's been
around for ages (I remember
seeing it on sale in Amsterdam in
the 90s). Nasal cannabis spray for medical use has also been around for a while (pretty sure ive teeeted
about it previously.
1/

Yes theres some concerns about risks ans concerntrates - & i think its reasonable to use regulation (as one of a menu of policy tools) to nudge people towards lower potency products and safer consumption behaviours - like we (sometimes) do with alcohol for example
2/

I dont have any problem with concerntrates per se but think sensible regulation is needed. Likewise if people want to put cannabis or any drug up their nose, or anywhere else - id say give them them the knowledge to make sensible choices and leave them too it.
3/

The issue I have with this product specifically is that its clearly being marketed as a cocaine/amphetmine-like product. Its not stigmatising of cannabis or stimulants to think that may not be that clever.
4/

Ive just co-authored a book on stimulant legalisation/regulation https://transformdrugs.org/publications/how-to-regulate-stimulants-a-practical-guide
One of the themes of the book is to encourage use of safer products, behaviours and using environments - while avoiding criminalisation or stigma.
5/

We were really clear about the risks of commercialisation & profit seeking actors distorting policy priorities so proposed legal access but with pretty strict regulation for pills and powder form drugs (less for less potent coca products etc) - see mock up.
6/

With canna-bumps' the mkting
is squarely aimed at stimulant
culture. Why?
Snorted stimulants are (generally) more risky than cannabis. Why confect a link to unrelated higher risk behaviours?
Isnt doing the opposite more sensible? (Same goes for cocaine energy drink branding)
7/

And why seek to create/encourage a new behaviour - id assume (but i obviously dont know as theres littlemor no research on this product or snorting thc powder more generally) is probabky more risky than vaping or edibles which can Im sure get you to the same place.
8/

Im pretty confident the answer to that question is *money*, rather than any more nobel health or policy goal. Hence the intemperate tone of my original tweet.

Its the marketing that bugs me - not pharma style-concerntrates or snorting them (although im no fan of either)
9/

As some commented - the optics are also just terrible. BS like this is a gift to our opponents.

So to reiterate; it just seems like a bad idea.

10/10