4 minute read
Policy Influencers
Responsibilities from Recycled Conversations, Reducing the Unspoken Tension
BY JESSICA STEINBERG
The cannabis calendar leaves little time for socializing, and probably less time for sleeping. Trying to keep with the latest trend is a better bet than trying to post the most relevant hashtag for the most recent event, seminar, workshop, or conference.
The proliferation of cannabis events has led to the duplication of related content. We’re still asking questions that were answered at a conference the week before: ‘What’s the latest on “Novel Foods” in the EU?,’ ‘When will adult-use be regulated in the UK?,’ and ‘How are doctors being trained?’ While these dialogues are productive, they are not revolutionary.
The multiplication of events is fostering conversations that have already been had with people who are already converted.
I know there is not an oratory problem. Meanwhile, people, or parts of society, are listening without hearing anything. Maybe it’s a European issue because the cannabis space is a close-knit community, so we see the same people at the same place and have the same conversation.
But the reality is that the global cannabis scene is a relatively small space, which has paved the way to recycle cannabis-related topics at cannabis-specific events.
I’ve seen the same presentation by various leaders in various parts of the world. I’m all for reducing and reusing, but I struggle to hop on board when that recycled content isn’t contextualised.
If a renowned idea from a panel or presentation generated reform, then I would be keen to challenge my above statements. However, rather than moving forward toward progress, I continue to notice rising tensions.
Namely, tension between the corporatized ‘green rush’ and patient-led revolution, and between the converted crowd of believers and the people who don’t regard one word of truth told from those preachers.
Although widely dismissed, this is a tug-ofwar between ‘the patients’ and ‘the profiteers.’ To some eyes, this invisible hand pulls out the grassroots from corporate, and to some, this tension is so visible that it is causing a riff.
I think about the crossover between the cannabis movement and the cannabis market and how the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Sometimes events are separated by a medical and policy focus, and by a business and investment focus. Sometimes these camps are not divided, and that’s when the clash of civilizations is most apparent.
I had been to multiple cannabis events per week throughout the summer. When August 4 th came around for CANNTalks (i.e. ‘Curating a New Normal,’ the cannabis version of TED Talks), I was curious to experience the tension and recycling issue yet again.
Such conversations cultivated a platform for a grassroots feel, a level of authenticity, which was met with high-level expertise from a fresh perspective.
There was a particular moment that captured this forum well. Dr. Derek Tracy, a consultant psychiatrist, clinical director, member of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs in the UK and part of Oxleas NHS Foundation, had a tough crowd to please. Being ‘that guy’ that adopts an unpopular view (i.e., acknowledging that cannabis may cause some form of harm), he expressed himself through fact and experience.
Following his talk, Dr. Tracy hosted a panel between Dr. Chandni Hindocha and Dr. Callie Seamen about the barriers to cannabis research (both academically and commercially). There was a moment when the two women paused after sharing a genuine concern to the obstacles to conducting research. Dr. Tracy then admitted to understanding something he had yet to realize. A moment of shared and changed perspective.
That is the power of creating a dialogue rather than recreating what already exists.
The latter is something I explored during my presentation at CANNTalks.
I engaged with the audience noticing some familiar faces and some new ones too. There were some folks I recognized as pioneers and others that I’d refer to as professionals. Despite the allocated categorization, everyone in the room, I noted, ‘is a policy influencer.’ Clarification was added that a ‘policy influencer’ is not a policymaker nor an advocate or activist.
As members of society, whether that is society at large or this society, we like to call the ‘cannabis community,’ we are all policy influencers. This approach is taken from my Ph.D. at the Center for Socio-Legal Studies at Oxford.
We assume that law influences society and, likewise, society influences law. Law is more than a rule, and it is more than a piece of legislation. Legality changes and society shifts (note that they can be read in reverse order, too).
In this regard, we are influencers, and with that power comes great responsibility.
When I hear industry members boast about ‘creating an industry with XYZ value’ I struggle. Rather than creating a new industry that launches forward-thinking into the 21 st century and utilizes the technological advancements available, we seem to be following the structures of 20 th -century models. Are we creating or recreating an industry?
As policy influencers in society with the opportunity to generate change, we have a responsibility to, at the very least, be aware of this. I like to break it down like this:
We interact with the outside World (capital ‘W’ world). We also communicate with our inside world (lower case ‘w’ world). Through both avenues, some policies live on, in both paper form and figurative form.
At the risk of geeking out further on anthropology and providing too much academic criticism, it’s best to leave thought to provoke ongoing conversations.
The legal cannabis market is the ultimate example of nature turning into culture (e.g., a sub-culture, counter-culture, and mainstream culture). How can we, as individuals, and as a society, influence the way nature moves, shifts and shapes into a culture? What are structures we, as policy influencers, are (re)creating?
