Cannabis Policy Input: Responsibility > Ideology In policy debates, it’s unfortunate when ostensibly serious organizations publish unserious things. Case in point: a recent Parabola Center study titled “American Values and Beliefs About Marijuana Legalization” Though I don’t ascribe to most of their positions, I recognize that our sector needs organizations like PC to counterbalance business voices. To be taken seriously, however, the PC should want to put forth credible views and be seen as a responsible stakeholder. This study does neither. In fact, it could help produce the opposite outcome: increased polarization and the creation of bad public policy. My critique revolves around the study’s poor methodology and conclusions > Not representative of Americans The PC surveyed only 404 Americans, who were not representative by class, age or race/ethnicity. The study’s questions (which were not published) were clearly biased and skewed to getting specific results. > Shallow, misguided and partisan conclusions The study is replete with imprecise, ideological platitudes that are not actionable and do not contribute to a responsible discussion. These problematic conclusions include: “….policies championed by large businesses….. have led to large profits for those industries, pushed out small business owners, and negatively impacted vulnerable communities. These industries, along with others with financial interests, are trying to exert influence on upcoming policy changes.” - Large profits. Where? - Everyone has a right and obligation to influence policies, including funders, related sectors and MSOs. - Like it or not, surviving in legal cannabis favours more capitalized and sophisticated players. - Emerging industries naturally evolve towards oligopolistic structures. This outcome is not necessarily good or bad. “Good marijuana policies will …. promote economic justice, and prevent exploitation of workers in the cannabis industry….Good policies will also prevent large, private businesses from exerting too much influence on a burgeoning industry.” - Define ‘economic justice’? Are all cannabis workers being ‘exploited’? - What is a ‘large, private business’ and ‘too much influence’? - Shouldn’t good policy also foster a healthy industry that delivers solid returns for investors? “public education can be used to decolonize U.S. cannabis policy by educating people about corporate capture and promoting policies that benefit small businesses...” - Using wokey, anti-capitalist terms like ‘decolonize’ and ‘corporate capture’ is alienating and self-defeating. - Small [sic] businesses are also self-interested corporations with no monopoly on virtue or good business performance. If we want cannabis policies that benefit all, we need to bring sensible, moderate solutions to the debate.

Posted by Mitchell Osak at 2024-06-03 16:30:18 UTC