A company called MariMed makes special treats with a plant that some people use for fun or medicine. They want to sell these treats in many different places, but each place has its own rules about how the treats should be made and what they can have inside. This makes it hard for the company to make sure their treats are always good and safe everywhere. The boss of MariMed says this is a very confusing and frustrating situation for them and other companies like them. Read from source...

- The title is misleading and sensationalist. It does not accurately reflect the main points of the article, which are more about the challenges of state regulations than the edibles strategy itself. A better title could be "How State Regulations Complicate Cannabis Edibles Strategy".
- The author uses informal and colloquial language, such as "f—ed-up situation", "it's insanity every day", and "we are farmers, retails, co-packers". This undermines the credibility of the article and makes it sound more like a personal opinion than a professional analysis.
- The author does not provide enough context or background information about the cannabis industry, the state regulations, or MariMed's products and services. For example, he does not explain what potency caps are, why they exist, or how they affect the consumers and the producers. He also does not mention any other factors that might influence the edibles strategy, such as consumer preferences, market demand, competitors, etc.
- The author focuses too much on the negative aspects of the situation and does not offer any solutions or recommendations. He also does not acknowledge any potential benefits or opportunities that might arise from the state regulations or the fragmented markets. For example, he does not mention how MariMed could leverage its brand name, reputation, or partnerships to overcome the challenges or exploit the gaps in the market.
- The author uses quotes from a single source, Howard Schacter, who is the chief commercial officer for MariMed. He does not provide any counterarguments or alternative perspectives from other stakeholders, such as consumers, regulators, competitors, etc. This makes the article seem biased and one-sided.