Tobacco model shouldn’t apply to cannabis

Task force recommendations on marketing of marijuana are too restrictive, Marc Solby says.

Spring has sprung and along with crocus blooms, Canadians are eagerly awaiting the legislation to create and govern the recreational cannabis market. In April 2016, Health Minister Jane Philpott announced a deadline of spring 2017 to bring in legislation. That time is now.

We hope that the government is developing legislation that is bolder and more practical than the cautious and naïve recommendations issued nearly four months ago by its task force looking at the issue. The task force, with its emphasis on law enforcement, failed to imagine and embrace a legal, recreational market. Instead, it chose an approach that is needlessly restricting and controlling. It seeks to create a market to sell cannabis, but wants to sell the least amount possible, essentially trying to suck and blow at the same time.

The report cautiously categorizes marketing elements such as product packaging and advertising under the heading “Minimizing Harm.” They rightly belong under a heading akin to “responsibly developing the market.” The team treats cannabis in a slightly more restrictive way than tobacco. In summary, it calls for:

A dedicated retail outlet, but not the liquor store (including provincial ones) because a high-traffic location like that might encourage the purchase of cannabis and might promote co-usage with alcohol;

Plain packaging with only basic information (more restrictive than current tobacco regulations);

Restricted sponsorship, endorsement and branding similar to tobacco (i.e. none);

Limited promotion (advertising) to adult-only locations, similar to tobacco.

The working group has misjudged the harm presented by the use of cannabis. Without getting into duelling academic studies, most evidence indicates that occasional, recreational use of cannabis by adults does no harm, particularly if the user avoids smoking it. Most experts agree it is quite a bit less harmful than alcohol and far less harmful and addicting than tobacco.

The recommendations also fail to consider the economic reality of the marketplace. The federal government invited people to risk their capital and start businesses as “Licensed Producers and Sellers” of medical marijuana; roughly 40 companies now hold licences and hundreds of applicants are in the queue. These emerging brands and companies will almost certainly carry forward into the recreational market or suffer significant losses. How does the regulator justify depriving these investors of their right to build their brands through marketing and advertising? The government is naïve to simultaneously exploit the invisible hand of capitalism and lock it into handcuffs.

It is reasonable to have controls on promoting cannabis to minors, but the government’s own estimates indicate that one-third of all 18-to24-year-olds consume cannabis at least once a year. They anticipate that 4.3 million Canadians over 18 will use cannabis upon legalization. There is no practical reason to deny these consumers their robust marketplace of brands; certainly, not the fear of attracting minors, which can be managed through simple guidelines, as with alcohol.

Roughly 70 per cent of Canadians support legalizing marijuana, in part to dampen organized crime, and because of the wasted investment trying to prohibit it. Destroying the illegal market will be a considerable challenge. We sink ourselves when we try to eliminate the “plain brown envelope” by selling cannabis in a plain brown envelope.

The task force sidestepped both its mandated responsibility and the economic opportunity presented by recreational marijuana. Instead it stuffed it into an ill-fitting package called “tobacco” and applied the maximum marketing restrictions available. It’s preposterous to do it under the banner of “minimizing harm” to youth.

Canada has a rare opportunity to be a global leader in the production, marketing and trade in cannabis. We have already begun exporting our products, skills and knowledge to other countries. To continue this windfall, our regulation needs to overcome the residual fear of prohibition. Canadians are ready to evolve; is their government?