Reading Tea Leaves/Decoding Government Tactics in Cannabis Policy

The trajectory of cannabis policy can be better understood when viewed through the lens of two distinct concepts: gaslighting and the Hegelian dialectic. Both can be observed in the dynamics between governments and activists, particularly in the realm of cannabis policy. While they operate on different principles, understanding their nuances can offer insights into the challenges faced by activists and patients advocating for cannabis reform.

Gaslighting in the Cannabis Movement

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation where an entity, in this case, the government, seeks to sow seeds of doubt in targeted individuals or groups, making them question their own memory, perception, or reality.

Key Features in the Cannabis Context:

• Denial: Governments might deny the medicinal benefits of cannabis, even when confronted with scientific evidence.
• Trivializing: The concerns of medical cannabis patients or the evidence presented by activists might be belittled or dismissed.
• Withholding: Information about the potential benefits of cannabis might be suppressed or not acknowledged. (No Signs of the "Letter" from HHS on rescheduling recommendation, making a joke of "4:20" and no formal release.)

Example: Despite numerous studies highlighting the medicinal benefits of cannabis, some governments continue to classify it as a Schedule I drug , implying it has no medicinal value.

Understanding the Hegelian Dialectic

Developed by German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, the Hegelian dialectic describes a process of change and development through a pattern:

• Thesis: An initial state or condition.
• Antithesis: A reaction or opposition to the thesis.
• Synthesis: A resolution between the thesis and antithesis.

Cannabis Policy Through the Lens of the Dialectic

• Thesis: Cannabis as a Schedule I Substance, seen as having a high potential for abuse with no accepted medical use.
• Antithesis: The push for descheduling, with more states legalizing cannabis and emerging research on its benefits.
• Synthesis: Rescheduling to Schedule II or III , a compromise that acknowledges the medical potential of cannabis and might allow for more research. (Note: currently, even descheduling would not open up research, not without more law changes than solely the CSA.)

AND, why schedule III is STILL not potmageddon .

What Actually Matters and Why?

While the world celebrated President Biden's directive for HHS to review the scheduling of cannabis, (only to balk at getting what they asked for) a more insidious development went largely unnoticed. Under the guise of "Research," a bill was signed into law with the unfortunate backing of lawmakers, which, contrary to its name, poses significant barriers to cannabis research.

Many now fear the pharmaceutical industry's potential influence on the cannabis sector due to recommendations to remove cannabis from its current restrictive scheduling. However, where was this skepticism when actual prohibitionists, under the radar, championed and successfully passed an anti-research "research" bill? This legislation ensures that cannabis remains subject to stringent research restrictions, irrespective of its scheduling or even if it's descheduled entirely.

Shane Pennington's article, "I Was Wrong About the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, " goes deep into the ramifications of the "Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, H.R. 8454." This act, signed into law by President Biden in December of the preceding year, was initially criticized by Pennington. However, upon further reflection, he realized he had overlooked a pivotal aspect of the Act concerning its influence on the administrative process of reevaluating cannabis's scheduling status under federal law.

H.R. 8454 amended 21 U.S.C. 823, which had previously set stringent requirements for substances classified under Schedule I, thereby complicating cannabis research. Before this Act, moving cannabis to Schedules II-V would have relaxed these research constraints. But H.R. 8454 shifted the landscape. It introduced specific research provisions for marijuana, ensuring that the regulatory burdens on cannabis research remain unchanged by any potential rescheduling. These provisions apply to "marijuana," no matter its scheduling classification. Consequently, even if cannabis is rescheduled to II-V, or removed entirely from the CSA -- the rigorous research requirements persist.

Pennington underscores that these new stipulations are even more restrictive than their predecessors, further hampering cannabis research.

Viewing this through the lens of the Hegelian dialectic:

• Thesis: Cannabis research was initially obstructed due to its Schedule I classification.
• Antithesis: There is a movement to alleviate research restrictions by potentially rescheduling cannabis to Schedules II-V or descheduling.
• Synthesis: H.R. 8454 was introduced, which, while seemingly addressing the problem, in fact, reinforces the research restrictions, regardless of cannabis's scheduling status.

This scenario illustrates the government's and partner prohibitionist partner's ability, using the Hegelian dialectic, to seemingly negotiate the public into a more favorable position. However, in reality, it establishes an even more restrictive environment.

It serves as a stark reminder to remain focused on the tangible actions and policies of known entities, such as the government and specific policymakers, rather than being diverted by intangible adversaries or perceived threats.

It is also a common bait and switch maneuver. The Government can play both prohibitionist and cannabis activists off one another is it gives and takes. "The house always wins," comes to mind.

Comparing Gaslighting and the Hegelian Dialectic in the Cannabis Context

• Purpose: Gaslighting aims to control the narrative and maintain the status quo, while the Hegelian dialectic describes societal evolution and change.
• Outcome: Gaslighting can lead to confusion and self-doubt, whereas the Hegelian dialectic can lead to progress, even if it's incremental.

Historical Examples of Government Tactics

1. The "Reefer Madness " Campaign: In the 1930s , the U.S. government launched a propaganda campaign against marijuana, portraying it as a dangerous drug leading to insanity and criminal behavior. This campaign was a classic example of gaslighting, as it created a false narrative around cannabis, leading many to doubt its safety and benefits.
2. The Alcohol Prohibition Era: The U.S. government's ban on alcohol in the 1920s can be seen through the lens of the Hegelian dialectic. The widespread consumption of alcohol was the thesis, the ban was the antithesis, and the eventual repeal of the ban with regulations was the synthesis.
3. The War on Drugs : Launched in the 1970s, this campaign criminalized drug use and disproportionately targeted minority communities. Despite evidence suggesting that a health-centered approach would be more effective, the government continued its hard-line stance, a classic case of gaslighting.

Empowering Us, the Citizenry

As citizens, it's essential to stay informed, critically analyze information, and engage in open discussions. By understanding tactics like gaslighting and the Hegelian dialectic, individuals can better navigate the complexities of policy reform and advocate for meaningful change. We won't feel helpless if we are informed.

Conclusion

Cannabis activists, patient, and business owners regularly confront multifaceted challenges, which become more comprehensible when viewed through the prisms of gaslighting and the Hegelian dialectic.

By discerning these underlying dynamics, the cannabis community is better equipped to navigate the intricate landscape of international drug policy.

In an era marked by transformation and ambiguity, it's imperative to seek understanding before succumbing to emotional reactions. You just might be playing into one of the oldest tricks otherwise. We can do better.

If you found this article insightful, please share and comment. Let's grow understanding and meaningful discussions!

Further Reading:

1. The Aesthetics of Creative ActivismBy: Nicholas Holm & Elspeth Tilley

The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Volume 81, Issue 2, June 2023, Pages 131–140, https://doi.org/10.1093/jaac/kpad015

Published: 29 May 2023

https://academic.oup.com/jaac/article/81/2/131/7185629

This does not mean though that we ought to (necessarily) abandon art as a means to change the world. Instead, we need to think harder about art and action. We need to interrogate how the potential and mechanisms of art’s politics may have changed in the context of a changing world. Simply because Van Gogh’s Sunflowers once (possibly) challenged institutional orthodoxy and helped imagine new ways of seeing and being, does not mean that they continue to do so in our current conjuncture. What do creative activism and the politics of aesthetics look like two decades into the twenty-first century? (Holm & Tilley, 2023)

1. Civil Disobedience Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

First published Thu Jan 4, 2007; substantive revision Wed Jun 2, 2021

From the Boston Tea Party to Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March, and from suffragists’ illegally casting their ballots to whites-only lunch counter sit-ins, civil disobedience has often played a crucial role in bending the proverbial arc of the moral universe toward justice. But what, if anything, do these acts, and countless others which we refer to as civil disobedience have in common? What distinguishes them from other forms of conscientious and political action?

On the most widely accepted account, civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies (Rawls 1999, 320). On this account, people who engage in civil disobedience operate at the boundary of fidelity to law, have general respect for their regime, and are willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions, as evidence of their fidelity to the rule of law. Civil disobedience, given its place at the boundary of fidelity to law, is said on this view to fall between legal protest, on the one hand, and conscientious refusal, uncivil disobedience, militant protest, organized forcible resistance, and revolutionary action, on the other hand. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 2021)

?