“As stakeholders and regulators sit down to discuss the framework of legalizing marijuana in America, they should not invite smelly Joe Camel to join them.”
By Shaleen Title of the Parabola Center for Law and Policy
Next week, state marijuana officials from around the U.S. will gather in Annapolis, Maryland for one of the year’s most consequential–yet lowest-profile–meetings in all of drug policy.
The Cannabis Regulators Association’s (CANNRA) annual “external stakeholder” conference is the largest, most national meeting held behind closed doors between the major marijuana associations, and the government officials who supervise their industry.
I was a member of the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission and it’s not inherently bad for regulators to hold discussions in private. Regulators need to have frequent discussions with licensees, and other stakeholders in order to get feedback on more efficient and sensible regulation.
It’s important to ask who is included in this discussion as it’s an invitation-only event.
The second year in a line, I was shocked to discover that the organizers had reserved a coveted seat at the table for CPEAR, the Coalition for Cannabis Policy, Education, and Regulation.
Behind that bland name, which is perhaps meant to be forgotten, are two of the most evil corporations in American history: Altria and the new member Reynolds American. CPEAR includes a group of industry representatives, including convenience stores, the primary retailers for tobacco products and Molson Coors.
Reynolds and Altria, the two largest manufacturers in the United States of cigarettes that are still the number one cause of cancer and have killed millions of Americans. Tobacco companies are notorious for their reckless disregard of public health. This is especially relevant in the context of cannabis regulation.
They also have tried to avoid accountability, avoid regulation and subvert policymaking that is based on good faith by funding junk science or supporting front groups in order to advance their own interests.
Recent tobacco company investments in the vape market have led to an exponential increase in youth tobacco use, which experts claim is reversing decades of progress made in reducing tobacco consumption. This decline was one of the major factors that helped lower the death rate in the United States, thanks in part to public health campaigns and education.
Public health regulations in marijuana and preventing youth use are more than just talking points. These are the pillars that support every cannabis regulation regime in place today in the United States. The tobacco companies cannot be invited to weaken these laws with their well-known playbook of fake research and manipulation through front groups.
It is for this reason that I will not attend any CANNRA event or any marijuana policy event where such bad actors are present. The marijuana regulators are public servants. Tobacco companies have repeatedly shown us through their actions that they will act against the interests of the public. They should be believed.
CANNRA leadership has responded to my objections, that the group should be “neutral”, and invite all “cannabis-industry groups…regardless their funding.”
This is a fundamentally absurd position. Should policymakers be forced to sacrifice private time spent with Exxon Mobil or Shell to appear “neutral”, on the subject of climate science,? OxyContin makers on opioid overdoses? To Facebook about tech monopolies
CANNRA has the right to choose which groups they invite, as a result of the limited number spots available. On what basis is the question?
It is important to note that tobacco companies do not have a license for the marijuana industry. They are not legitimate investors, but at best they could be potential profiteers.
CANNRA said they “do not give any attendees any special privileges, platforms or sponsorships from any industry-based groups.” They are right and I agree that it is important for public officials to not show corporate favoritism.
CANNRA fails to recognize that attending the conference is a privilege. The association extends a deservedly undeserved umbrella to credibility and legitimacy by inviting Big Tobacco. This is unfairly extending it over the deadly and irrelevant tobacco industry. Fairness doesn’t require that we let every rich bystander shout themselves in the conversation. CANNRA should realize that for tobacco companies, being acknowledged and debating their position is a huge win.
Altria has also pledged to “move beyond smoking”. Good for them. Maybe a pivot towards cannabis could diversify Altria’s revenue and include less deadly sources of cash. Altria wants to compensate for its tobacco losses, but that’s their problem, not CANNRA. And it’s certainly not the basis of good drug policy.
When regulators and stakeholders are seated to discuss the framework of legalizing marijuana nationwide, they cannot pull up a seat for old Joe Camel. We know the ending to that movie.
Shaleen Title, former cannabis regulator for Massachusetts and founder and director of Parabola Center for Law and Policy (a non-profit drug policy think tank), is an expert in the field of marijuana regulation.
Congressional Lawmakers approve spending bill that would continue blocking marijuana sales in D.C.
The article Big Tobacco shouldn’t be welcome at Marijuana Regulators’ Closed-Door Meeting first appeared on Marijuana Moment.
