Asking the right question matters

In the early parts of the 20th century, cannabis was hit by powerful forces.  It was stigmatized by racism.  For example, drug-crazed Chinese immigrants were said to be influencing youth in Vancouver.  At the same time, new industries were besmirching cannabis to encourage a better market share for competing products such as textiles, rope and analgesics.  Then our earlier leaders simply penciled “cannabis indica (Indian hemp) or hasheesh” into the margins of a piece of discriminatory legislation; cannabis was never fully debated in the House of Commons before being criminalized.  Once cannabis was criminalized, it became easy for manufactures to quickly replace all cannabis products, including hemp, from store shelves.  Big Cotton, the petrochemical and pharmaceutical industries definitely benefited and society also benefited from the growth of these industries.  Yet, with decades of reflection, we now know the great damage these industries have generated from years of mass production.  Of course, when thinking of legalizing recreational cannabis, after decades of misinformation, an environment was ripe where government had to create laws to keep us safe.  Such is society’s relationship with government.

During their first term, as the Trudeau government traveled down the harm reduction path of creating recreational cannabis laws, they somehow forgot cannabis was actually helping a large part of the population.  Did his government apply any learning from the system's 20-year experience of regulating medical cannabis? I think not. Pharmacists are still prevented from working with medical cannabis and now it is easier for medical cannabis patients to buy their medicine from recreational stores.  I have met some very fine and knowledgeable bud tenders, but I do not expect them to know the various prescription drug contraindications for cannabis. They are not pharmacists and government understands this fact too. One of the ways of making recreational cannabis safer is to censor bud tenders from speaking to the benefits of cannabis.  While medical cannabis is only officially obtained through on line stores, other cannabis products, some claiming health benefits, are actually sold beside cash registers at highway gas stations.  I am left to ponder how exactly the results of the government research makes society safer.

When I was a graduate student, I learned a practical lesson on how to choose the correct question for research. My first project sponsor was a government agency and due to the political nature of the project, I was asked to research a very specific question.  When I took the question to my professor, I was informed research is best done using a positive statement.  He suggested the political nature of my question would limit my research and to pass his course, I would need to change my question.  Changing the question lost the relationship with a government sponsor. This was a very hard but practical lesson learned.  I did graduate. My second project used a better question for a different sponsor.  The results of the research opened up a body of knowledge my first question would never have uncovered.

This experience taught me how government sponsored research is often coloured by ideology, because conclusions have political ramifications. Prohibition propaganda has influenced peoples’ understanding of cannabis, which influences government decisions. I believe it was easier for Trudeau to research future laws, knowing three generations viewed cannabis as something bad, something criminal.  When I reflect back on my academic experience above, I see how a politically motivated question only narrows the available literature which then narrows the inevitable conclusions found through the research. But to maintain a relationship with the electorate, it was easier for Trudeau to start the process with a question people would understand such as, “how should government keep Canada safe from cannabis.”  Do you see how this is a negative question? This type of question takes the researchers on a journey of exploration ensuring government focuses on the bad parts of cannabis.

I have a long history with cannabis. I have actively interviewed cannabis experts who continue to teach me how this plant can foster society into a better place.  I know people who have been using cannabis as their medicine for more than 30 years.  And in the last 45 years, I have also shared a reefer or two with a few friends.  Like most cannabis proponents, I was happy when cannabis was recognized as medicinal, I was equally encouraged when government stated they were legalizing recreational cannabis. Today, I am not so excited, I am more disappointed.  I think government has spent too much time maintaining relationships than doing good research.

While focusing on keeping us safe from recreational cannabis, government simply forgot those who know cannabis best.  While early opportunities were given to big business, those who fostered the use of medical cannabis into society were forgotten.   For example, cannabis is still not considered a medicine by our government.  Before prescription and over-the-counter medicines can be sold in any space, the substance must first be issued a Drug Identification Number (DIN) by Health Canada. Once the substance is authorized for sale, Health Canada provides the DIN under the Food and Drug Regulations, which now allows the manufacturer an opportunity to market their medicine in Canada.  Cannabis has not been issued a DIN, so by definition, cannabis is not a classified drug.  Which is ridiculous, yet, true. This simple fact has ramifications throughout all corners of the cannabis space. This is the primary reason medical cannabis is not managed by pharmacists.  It means no store front can sell medical cannabis, which is why medical cannabis is accessed by mail order only.  It means cannabis companies cannot market their products.  It means packaging information found on labels may not always have accurate consumer information.  Although medical cannabis has been part of our social fabric for a couple of decades, it is still not treated as a medicine.

I am not sure what I expect from government. I agree their job is to keep us safe and the cannabis portfolio came with heavy baggage so I congratulate our Prime Minister for getting cannabis legal.   As his government begins their reflection on the Cannabis Act, I hope they rephrase their question to something more positive such as, “how has society benefited from the legalization of cannabis.”  If we approach cannabis this way, then maybe more jurisdictions will consider the importance of allowing consumption lounges.  How safe is it for those apartment dwellers, with nowhere to go, to hide behind dumpsters when consuming their medicine?  For this to happen, cannabis has to be seen as “something helpful.”  I say the current laws and regulations are flawed, due to asking the wrong question.  I hope, in the process of reflection and review of existing regulations, the government starts asking better questions. Maybe the next question will focus on the positive nature of cannabis.  Perhaps I am an optimist.