The sky didn't fall: On legalization and lessons learned.

Cannabis legalization has mostly been a success. But there are also lessons to learn.

I now enjoy a good scrum with reporters. But the first scrum I really remember was 7 years ago today, when we officially legalized cannabis.

In the end, I was both right and wrong. Right that no one would care to ask the question about cannabis use 5 years later. Wrong to suggest the 5 year timeline, because only a year or two later we’d already reached that same conclusion.

7 years later now, and it’s hard to believe we ever criminalized the substance at all.

With the benefit of that experience, though, there are a few lessons to learn.

Lesson #1: Conservatives are consistently wrong about drug policy.

Here are some choice quotes from Conservatives in the lead up to cannabis legalization:

• Marilyn Gladu: “…this legislation would put marijuana in the hands of children…so little Johnny can put some in the toaster oven and smoke it up…” (no, I don’t know how Marilyn expects Johnny to smoke from a toaster oven. I do know that her poetry would make Ginsberg cringe)

• Ed Fast: “I am absolutely confident that Bill C-45…would become a massive public policy failure…”

• Bob Soroya: “This is just pushing it down the throats of all Canadians…” (I don’t know if we’re still talking about little Johnny)

• Stephen Harper: “misguided and reckless”

• Peter Kent: “It’s virtually the same as putting fentanyl on a shelf within reach of kids.” (I like Peter, but this may have been the wildest statement among wild statements)

Garnett Genuis and I even had a whole episode of Political Blind Date on the topic:

Some Conservatives, like Scott Reid, have been consistently supportive of cannabis law reform on the basis of their firm belief in individual liberty (Poilievre’s desire to make Canada the freest country in the world does not apparently apply here). But we mostly saw an evolution in political thinking on the right when past Conservative politicians started to make money in the cannabis industry, hypocrisy be damned.

Now, thankfully, the Conservative leadership has at least implicitly acknowledged they were wrong, making it plain that they don’t intend to recriminalize cannabis (yes, there are exceptions).

Lesson #2: there’s room to improve the rules as we balance economic impact with public health considerations.

Legal cannabis production and sale has made a huge dent in the illegal market since 2018. Billions of dollars that were otherwise flowing to organized crime now support Canadian entrepreneurs and workers. The sector now represents a significant annual GDP contribution (direct + indirect) of $13 billion, helping to support 200,000 jobs.

And yes, we can recognize and support these positive economic impacts at the same time as we maintain a public health approach.

From a public health perspective, that means continuing to limit commercial advertising and further advancing education, particularly about potential effects on developing brains.

From an economic standpoint, we should recognize that this is a serious and credible industry deserving of our attention and support.

That means ensuring cannabis producers aren’t forgotten in government programs, especially when it comes to exports but also those that serve the ag sector.

It means reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens. An obvious example is one we promised in the 2024 Fall Economic Statement - to move towards a national excise stamp - even more obvious now as we look to harmonize and remove trade barriers.

And it means reforming excise taxation more broadly. 7 years ago, the government imposed a $1 minimum tax on every gram, thinking perhaps that a gram = $10 on the black market. Not only did this ignore the reality of bulk pricing at the time, it now means that excise taxation alone makes it difficult for cannabis producers to survive.

With the economic opportunity here at home, and increasingly abroad, we should fix that mistake.

And, a smaller point on subject of tax reform, let’s not forget that medical cannabis is improperly subject to both excise and GST/HST taxation, which do not apply to other prescribed products by health professionals.

Lesson #3: different substances carry very different potential harms, so of course there should be different policy approaches.

In January, a Conservative MP visited my riding outside an event where I endorsed now Prime Minister Mark Carney, declaring that I’m a “radical drug advocate.” For my part, I’ve always thought prohibition was radical drug policy.

The Conservative Party even saw fit to put out a press release making the same argument. I actually appreciated it in a way, because it meant that a staffer/volunteer took the time to listen to and read a number of things I’ve said and written about drug policy over the years. Perhaps they were convinced in the end that we should treat substance use as a health issue, not a criminal justice one.

Unfortunately, the renewed “war on drugs” rhetoric isn’t just cartoonish, it also has serious potential consequences. When it has informed real policies, as it did for decades, those consequences could be measured in lost lives and liberty, squandered judicial and police resources, and exacerbated social and health challenges.

Last year, uninformed as ever, Poilievre conflated legalization efforts with opioid deaths, calling out “the Prime Minister’s disastrous legalization and liberalization of drugs.”

It’s important that we distinguish different policy approaches.

On the subject of cannabis, for example, I was clear at the time that cannabis has potential harms (mental health in youth, impaired driving, etc.), but that it is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. And while I argued that we should treat Canadians as responsible adults when it comes to cannabis, I also argued for a public health approach that would limit commercial advertising (unlike the brazen alcohol and gambling ads we see all over the place).

We completely ignore a public health approach when it comes to alcohol, of course. Despite pouring out a bottle, widespread alcohol availability is the only priority Ford seems to have realized successfully.

More to the point, a public health approach won’t be the same for all substances, because of different effects and potential harms.

Take caffeine and and codeine, for example.

Caffeine is legal and permissively regulated with mg limits and warnings about consumption for both quantity and vulnerable groups, like kids and pregnant women. Codeine, on the other hand, is tightly regulated via medical prescription. Different substances = different regulatory models.

Or take psilocybin and heroin.

Psilocybin would likely benefit from a model closer to cannabis legalization and regulation. On the medical side, there are positive healthcare uses and the current special access program doesn’t work effectively to provide meaningful patient access. On the recreational front, we see illegal stores operate with some impunity and Canadians would benefit from quality control and a safely regulated marketplace.

Heroin, on the other hand, falls more clearly in the tightly regulated via a medical prescription model. And treatment on demand and safe/supervised access to reduce harms will collectively help to save lives.

Whether it’s an eating disorder or substance use disorder, we should aim to get people the help they need, not push them away from that very help by punishing them. In other words, we should treat substance use as a health issue, not a criminal justice one.

All of that’s to say, cannabis regulation teaches us that we can move successfully away from the failure of prohibition. It doesn’t, however, offer a useful framework for all other substances.