Moral Panics and Anti-Consumer Cannabis

In a previous post, we tried to explain the rise and role of a group we called the New Prohibitionists. As described here, they embrace Prohibition 2.0, which is a wonderful example of Stan Cohen’s worry that many reforms simply result in the development of new forms of intervention and control justified by the same old ideologies.

The first issue is the moral panic around consumer cannabis, which exaggerates the dangers and minimizes the costs of alternative approaches.

Cannabis Moral Panics

The original concept of moral panic was introduced in the early 1970s by Stan Cohen and Jock Young. It referred to a situation in which “folk devils” were presented by the media as engaged in activities that represented a significant threat to society. To defend social stability and cohesion, authorities and others in power need to do “something.“ While subject to important critiques and disputes, moral panics persist, bolstered by social media and the outrage media machine. This is in part due to their ability to serve as a reminder to a society (or subsections of societies) of what is right and who is wrong. Their primary function is to reaffirm “normative contours” and thereby strengthen social cohesion. A variety of cannabis moral panics has been observed. These include racialization, criminalization, popularization, and medicalization. 

In the era of cannabis liberalization, we have identified a fifth. Where people who use cannabis were once the devils, now it is cannabis businesses that are “evil” by seeking to profit from vice, addiction, and a range of presumed mental health disorders. Concerns center on public safety risks such as road accidents associated with driving while high, public health worries about cannabis “overdoses,” and the adverse impacts on the developing brain (e.g., psychosis; schizophrenia). Demonizing cannabis businesses in this way may result in the status quo whereby cannabis may be legal but is not easily accessible, or where it may be legal and available but expensive and/or of lower quality when compared to illicit cannabis.

Is Commercial Cannabis “Too Scary”?

Conservative interest groups and even drug policy “reformers” have emerged as new moral entrepreneurs. They work with jurisdictions to reduce public safety models of cannabis governance by expanding public health approaches in worrying ways. It often means supporting policies that limit access and constrain consumer cannabis. A key feature of any moral panic is the disproportionate danger that is a part of the portrayal. Smarter Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) provides a useful example. They state that their:

…primary focus is educating the public about the harms of marijuana legalization—a policy that has consistently placed corporate profits and addiction ahead of public health. We provide information on the harms of such policies to interested parties for use in messaging, and educate federal and state legislators on the benefits of a science-based marijuana policy.

The idea that legal cannabis has “consistently” placed corporate profits ahead of public health is certainly provocative. It isn’t true.

Another specific anti-corporate cannabis message is presented by Transform, an erstwhile progressive drug reform organization. They suggest cannabis policy must:

… guard against excessive corporate influence — which will generally, if not inevitably, preference profit maximisation over public health or social justice, and is only concerned with externalities where profits are threatened. 

These threats require “constraining corporate power” and supporting “…state monopolies over parts or all of the market” to prevent “corporate monopolies.” This approach appears to be designed to avoid mistakes based on “the history of both alcohol and tobacco regulation.” Transform specifically identifies Canadian policies which have led to “the establishment of several multinational cannabis producers valued in multiple billions of dollars” as a risk.

As the kids say, this take hasn’t aged well.

TLDR: Nah

In the U.S., a chain of cannabis stores, MedMen, once described as the “Apple store of weed” and valued as high as $1.7 billion as a public company, is near “financial collapse.” They are hardly alone. Indeed:

MedMen is just the latest of the onetime cannabis darlings to face a reckoning as the industry bubble of five years ago deflates due to excessive debt, falling marijuana prices, competition from illegal sellers, and high taxes. The reality, as in any retail business, is that opening stores is expensive and taking on debt is risky—even as an increasing number of states legalize pot sales.

It sounds like the focus on public health has constrained the profits of the legal market - not the other way around. Getting the policy right is essential if illicit markets are to be displaced. This is not what critics of commercialization, like SAM and Transform, advocate. For SAM, the answer to “Big Cannabis” is “No Legal Cannabis.” For Transform, the answer appears to “State Cannabis.”

In Canada, despite the fear-mongering about cannabis multinationals, the most profitable cannabis operations are owned by the provinces, including the Ontario Cannabis Store, the SDQ in Quebec, the LDB in British Columbia, and Cannabis NB in New Brunswick. Thus, it is not private companies that represent the biggest threat to a sustainable licit cannabis market in Canada. Instead, it is the government that, through regulation and direct ownership, has limited smaller producers. Canada requires “structural changes” if commercial cannabis is to be sustained. There are signs Canada’s federal government recognizes this.

Another panic-infused approach is to frame legal cannabis as an environmental threat.

Legal Cannabis and the Environment

Kevin Sabet, President and CEO of SAM, has frequently argued legal cannabis presents a “huge problem for the environment.” Other lawmakers, like Representatives Earl Carter (R-GA) and Doug Lamborn (R-CO), have written to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and stated their concern about the “energy and resource-intensive nature” of legal cannabis cultivation. In addition, they wrote:

…we have reservations regarding marijuana cultivation’s subsequent emissions and believe more research is needed on this industry’s rapidly growing demands on our country’s energy systems, along with its effects on our environment.

It seems clear growing cannabis on an industrial scale has adverse environmental impacts. Tying corporate control of cannabis to environmental degradation is rhetorically useful. Transform cites secondary research to present numerous environmental concerns. These include worries about the regulation of water consumption and land use, as well as energy consumption, suggesting cannabis is a usually “thirsty” crop that will adversely impact water resources. 

Are these critiques fair?

At the risk of stating the obvious, illegal and unpermitted growers wreak far more environmental damage than regulated cannabis operations. The practice of linking issues that have emerged because of older illegal cannabis grows with newer, more regulated cannabis operations is disingenuous. Concerns around reclamation, pollution, stewardship, and sustainability have led to a shift in thinking about legal cannabis production. Environmental concerns are increasingly incorporated through regulatory frameworks in California, Massachusetts, and Canada. More must be done, of course.

The future of commercial cannabis policymaking will involve better specifying how large-scale producers can offset any environmental damage associated with cannabis growth while ensuring that smaller-scale producers are not regulated out of the market. This will require balancing state and federal requirements, developing socially responsible guidelines, and encouraging investors and consumers to support cannabis companies that take environmental risks seriously and transparently report their activities.

This cannot be achieved if there is no legal cannabis market.

Legitimate Concerns

This is not to say there are no problems where commercial cannabis exists. Until recently, in the Canadian province of Alberta, cannabis stores had to “black out” exterior windows until some used this cover to engage in criminal activities, placing cannabis workers at risk. This was a needlessly foolish policy made by those with limited understanding of the market they seek to regulate. Other issues are a function of under-regulation. In California, personal data is collected when you buy cannabis. While cannabis businesses suggest they will only use your personal information, with your consent, across the state, these practices vary. In Oregon, concerns about privacy were initially tied to the continued Federal prohibition of cannabis. Senate Bill 863 prohibits Oregon cannabis retailers from keeping or sharing customers' personal information. However, this law is also useful in an era of the non-consensual use of personal data. It requires cannabis businesses to destroy customer data from their databases within a month.

However, challenges remain. The use of data for marketing without consent is a problem, as are inconsistencies around cannabis advertising. Just because some North American jurisdictions have struggled to find the right balance between respecting cannabis laws while providing a non-stigma-laden, and dare we say, enjoyable cannabis purchasing experience does not mean it can’t. Consumers deserve better.

Dubious claims about the dangers of corporate cannabis to justify anti-consumer policies come with their own baggage. These risks should be acknowledged. For example, feeding these moral panics constrains the ability of jurisdictions to protect craft growers, support social equity businesses, and invest in local rather than multinational, cannabis markets. These are the very policies that are more likely to cater to cannabis users and protect them from unregulated and contaminated cannabis. Responsible regulation of cannabis means respecting the voices of people who use cannabis and crafting policy based on their insights, not in spite of them. The alternative is to lean into paternalism. We turn to the issues associated with this approach next week.