No Bright Colors, but Pot Candy Still Legal in Washington State

Comments

1

LCD is a worthless rubber stamp that should be eliminated. Should wiped that worthless tax drain off the books for good when liquor was privatized. All the salaries for the LCD cutouts could go to useful public services.
Seriously, name one thing the LCD does, or does well, or has accomplished EVER?
They ALWAYS have to be told how fucking stupid they are.

2

Phew, at least most chocolate is off the hook.

No bright colors is kind of a buzzkill though. Will we be stuck with options like: murky green, old blood red, and navy blue? Why should adult pot users have to suffer because the sugar industry got children to associate bright colored fun shapes with yummy yummy, "kid-friendly" sugar. I know this won't convince anybody with authority, but maybe a bad edible experience would be just the thing to get kids unhooked from candy...

3

@2 Black licorice, butterscotch tan, and circus peanut flesh tones. You know, everyone's favorites.

4

Imagine a world where we fret over adult obesity in the same manner as kids and infused edibles. Without even resorting to Google, I'll bet there are more adults in Seattle suffering negative effects of overeating NORMAL candy than kids accidentally getting high. If forbidding bright colors is good for kids - why stop there? All brightly colored, heavily sugared food must be baby shit brown - imagine how much less people will eat! It would be more effective than the sugar tax - in fact, all soda in Seattle must look like someone with the runs filled the bottle.

Why on earth has no one thought of this before?

5

Leave it to the LCB to come up with the an overly complex solution to a fairly simple problem.

The problem isn't the coloring, it's the packaging. Make the packaging and containers opaque and kids won't be attracted by what looks like candy simply because they can't see it. Out of sight, out of mind.

No charge, LCB.