There’s no easy road map for marijuana regulation

There are many big decisions to be made, Neil Boyd writes.

I first encountered cannabis in the spring of 1970 at the tender age of 18, inhaling what was said to be blond Lebanese hashish at my friend John’s home (his parents were out of town). I definitely noticed an impact, but decided the next morning that I didn’t like the effect — it was all a huge mistake, and I would never go down that road again. I became something of a teenage proselytizer, even urging my sisters to divest themselves of all music that appeared to celebrate this pernicious conduct.

Little did I know that this “herb” would soon become a focus of my professional life, when two years later I received a summer scholarship from the LeDain Commission. My survey research incorporated the Rokeach dogmatism scale and established that those who were in favour of lessening penalties for cannabis possession were less dogmatic than those opposed — not a particularly surprising finding.

Some 44 years later, Canada is about to tax and regulate the production, distribution and possession of cannabis. The prime minister has made it very clear that there are two objectives that are key to his government’s approach — eliminating the illicit trade in the drug, and keeping it out of the hands of youth. This second goal is achievable through strict regulation of sale, improved public education, and a much better understanding of both the costs and the benefits of this highly malleable substance.

But how to regulate cannabis? For most people and in most circumstances, this is a drug that is less damaging to physical health than either alcohol or tobacco, and less damaging to our social fabric than alcohol.

But it’s equally clear that laissez-faire advertising for the promotion of cannabis is inconsistent with public health. Let’s not forget magazine advertisements from the 1950s — “more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette” — or relatively recent television productions from breweries, linking their product with a surprise tattoo (an apparent consequence of an evening of somewhat excessive consumption).

The goal of eliminating the illicit market in cannabis, with its untaxed income and occasional violence, is compelling. There are three potential ways to make this a reality. First, Canadians could be allowed to grow their own cannabis, as long as they are not offering it for sale and not imposing on their neighbours with respect to odours or any other related nuisance.

Second, the systems of distribution should not be unnecessarily exclusive. While it may well be reasonable to distribute cannabis through Canada’s pharmacies, it would also be reasonable to distribute the drug through appropriately regulated storefront dispensaries.

Third, public health demands that cannabis be distributed in a manner that provides consumer protection, and an increased base of consumer knowledge. Those who buy cannabis in dispensaries or pharmacies should know of its THC and CBD potencies, and have guarantees that it has been tested to a strict laboratory standard that excludes pesticides, moulds, bacteria and other contaminants.

At the same time, we cannot ignore the realities of intersecting federal, provincial and municipal law. Many Canadian municipalities may choose not to licence retail sales of cannabis, and it is difficult to imagine how they could be forced to do so. The downside of such an approach, however — limiting sales to pharmacies — may be that it might encourage the continuation of an illicit market within these locations.

What about the line that we draw between medical and recreational use? There are some very obvious examples of purely medical use — low-THC and high-CBD cannabis applied as tinctures and creams, for example. But most self-described medical users find both pleasure and relief from pain in their use of the drug. In fact, the three most commonly cited reasons for use are relief from pain, reduced anxiety, and improved sleep (maybe not conceptually different from a glass of red wine or a beer at the end of a long day of work).

As we move forward, we will need more research on the social and medical benefits of a range of strains, and on the corresponding risks of use, but that should be able to happen more easily now, as we move toward a regime of legality. The 18-year-old boy who lectured his sisters about the dangers of cannabis is no longer a dogmatic opponent of much-needed change.