No, as long as you are applying with a marijuana-friendly company. Some companies don't require an exam at all. Other companies don't test for THC. Make sure the agent you work with knows which companies are best for your particular situation. If you don't have an agent, I work with the leading marijuana-friendly companies and will make sure you apply with the best company for you.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission is responsible for the requirements for child safety in packaging in the US.  This relates to all products from household chemicals to pharmaceuticals and is specifically defined in the Poison Prevention Packaging Act (PPPA) of 1970.  The EPA regulates pesticides and other chemicals that require child resistant packaging.  The actual test requirement is specifically defined for child safety (testing children) and senior friendly (testing seniors).  The full test can be found by looking up 16. CFR 1700.20 in the Federal Register.

You will not find marijuana listed in the federal regulation for products requiring child resistant packaging.  The reason is that marijuana is still federally illegal and the CPSC does not have any involvement.  Since the CPSC standard is the only standard used in the US for testing and certifying a package to be child resistant.  Most cannabis state regulators defer to this standard in their specific state regulations.  

Compliance in the beginning was just a "four letter word" and still is in new markets. Early on, we saw the word "compliance" become a buzzword as enforcement took down major players in older markets like Colorado. Everyone, all of a sudden - overnight - became "compliant" or claimed to be. Operators still act like they care about proactive compliance, but few actually manage it well or fully unpack the buzzword.

We've evolved by realizing we can't lead everyone to the waters and expect them to drink and to be selective about which clients we help position as leaders for everyone else to follow. This has allowed us to not waste our time or client's money since you can't work with people who don't truly care about doing the boring and tedious work necessary for long term success and risk mitigation.

These days, we've evolved the conversation beyond the buzzword and reactionary culture to one that values proactive compliance management of processes, people, and macro and micro areas of compliance. We've made it easier to understand and simple for clients to choose their level of protection over the long run. We are a part of their every day struggle to comply and help them achieve compliance objectives and protect themselves.

The future looks like cGAP, cGMP, and ISO standards and international commerce in which we're positioned as global leaders for success.

Greetings anonymous. We hear that the likely impact of medical cannabis on big pharma amounts to roughly 1% of their industry sales (e.g. pretty insignificant), but we also hear that they are spending heavily on lobbying efforts against legalizing medical cannabis. I often liken the issue to rechargeable batteries for average home use. When they first came on the scene, the battery companies fought hard against their proliferation, but eventually realized that it was easier to join than fight, and started making their own rechargeable batteries. Most believe that, following federal legalization, big alcohol, tobacco and pharma will enter the industry, instead of continuing to fight to protect much more dangerous opioid and similarly addictive products. But in the meantime yes, it appears they are seeking to delay, limit or prevent the growth and legalization of medical cannabis.