Yes, Psychedelics Is the Next Cannabis

Given that the emergent plant medicine / psychedelics sector is quickly becoming the new object of attraction for both investors and entrepreneurs alike, many have compared it to the rise (and fall) of the allure of legal cannabis. The question of whether psychedelics is the next cannabis has a multitude of answers, depending on your frame of reference. I would like to answer it in the affirmative, but definitely not the positive.

If the journey to cannabis legalization has taught us anything, it’s that we should regard little in the evolving area of psychedelic drug policy as certain. The class of substances itself differs from cannabis on many key points, and the perception of medical use of psychedelics in the public eye is far less evolved than that of cannabis.

It is startling how quickly psychedelic legalization, a movement with so much transformative potential, is flowing into the mold of capitalism like wet cement. The most striking example is a recent advisory appointment to a psychedelic company in Holland.

Before we look at how the current situation portends poorly for an equitable future in psychedelics however, we first have to look at how the cannabis industry ended up where it is today. The best way to start is looking at how it began, and medical cannabis began in Canada with patients and compassion clubs. Despite the focus on commercialization and profit that characterized much of the legal medical regime since 2014, patients took the government to court starting around the turn of the millenium and successive court cases expanded the access that was available. It’s worth noting that the original medical cannabis authorizations were carried out through a process known as Section 56 Exemptions , which are now being sought for end-of-life care with psilocybin and are likely to be successful by the same legal principles that granted patients access to medical cannabis.

Canada’s current problems with equity in cannabis are rooted in the events that transpired in 2013 when Stephen Harper’s Conservatives dissolved the patient-centric MMAR medical regime and replaced it with the commercialized MMPR, which initially took away patients right to grow for themselves until yet another court case reinstated it. Legalization is largely based on the same basic format that shaped the MMPR, which gave no consideration for equity to those disproportionately impacted by prohibition. Instead, the program was tilted in favour of those who had access to sufficient capital to afford the absurdly high regulatory barriers to entry. An important lesson for others to take from Canada on equity and social justice is that it must be codified into your legalization regime, otherwise the natural tendencies of markets to prioritize profit will take hold.

The early days of cannabis legalization were heavily focused on buzzwords. Press releases jumped from one phrase to another, when ‘late-stage applicant’ could no longer fetch investor dollars, it was a race to see who could boast of the biggest ‘funded capacity’. The illicit market has had its own share of buzzwords, from derogatory terms such as ‘mids’ to more positive ones, such as ‘fire’, ‘quads’, and ‘medical grade’.

Medical grade was often used as the highest classification of quality of the products on offer. Whether that description was accurate, however, really depended on the integrity of the seller. Curiously, the legal cannabis market has its own ‘medical grade’ term, EU-GMP. EU-GMP certification became another buzzword, promising investors access to lucrative export contracts where EU-GMP standards were required in jurisdictions like Germany. As recreational sales became a reality, the legal market adopted buzzwords for that too.

These words soon gave way to bingo card memes for cannabis press releases and conferences, prominently featuring the phrases mentioned here and some others such as ‘premium’, ‘disruptive’ and ‘full-spectrum’. These phrases are now often used to describe current psychedelic opportunities, which might even be more of a tall order than it was for cannabis given many of these products have yet to be created or tested. If you were to examine the websites of some emerging ventures, you might think you had been transported back in time to the boom of the cannabis industry and might just win something with one of those cannabis industry bingo cards.

Cannabis legalization also gave way to two kinds of celebrities : Media celebrities that turned to cannabis as their latest business venture, and political celebrities famous for opposing legalization while in political office that had sudden changes of heart after they left office. Celebrity endorsements are really nothing new to the world of cannabis. Although theoretically prohibited in Canada, companies soon found loopholes that allowed products like Seth Rogen’s ‘Houseplant’ to hit the legal market. This has also begun with psychedelics, with celebrities either starting to share stories of their personal experiences or being appointed as executives with psychedelic companies.

I wish to draw attention to the second type of celebrity, that of the ex-politico. Their value is similar to that of the media celebrity: Where Martha Stewart might leverage contacts in the consumer packaged-goods industry, an ex-politician will leverage their list of important names and phone numbers as well as skills in navigating regulatory hurdles that they may have very well helped to create. In return, they are often lavishly compensated while the misery they helped create continues on.

In the US, both American politicians like John Boehner and Canadian household names like Brian Mulroney started to make their new occupations as cannabis industry executives and board members. In Canada, it seemed that former law enforcement suddenly became enamoured with the lucrative potential of cannabis. The most notorious, until now, was probably Julian Fantino, who once compared cannabis to murder.

The psychedelic industry has sadly also chosen to demonstrate a startling lack of an ethical compass in choosing another former drug warrior, Tony Clement, to reward with a generous share package in exchange for political contacts and expertise. Mr.Clement was a former Conservative health minister in Canada in the government of Stephen Harper, and helped to wage a protracted battle against harm reduction measures that have now been replicated across the country.

The phrases ‘Supervised Consumption Site’ and ‘Supervised Injection Site’ refer to a method of harm reduction that is an evolution of needle exchanges that came to the public eye during the AIDS pandemic. People who use drugs are able to attend a site, and consume while supervised by medical staff. No substances are provided to them, and the site can legally operate under a Section 56 exemption. Depending on the site, also available are community supports, referral to rehabilitation programs, and counselling.

Despite the ire that SCS draw from populist organizations and politicians, the concept of a place that supervises consumption of a drug is as old as the first public houses that appeared in the late 17th century. Rather than being the untested experiments they are often characterized as, SCS combine principles we have learned both from the integration of alcohol with society and how needle exchange programs helped to lower the death toll during a pandemic.

Insite is a consumption site located in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside (DTES). Started as a pilot program, it operated under a Section 56 exemption from September 2003 to July 2008, at which time Conservative health minister Tony Clement refused to renew the exemption. A lengthy court battle resulted, the end result being that Insite was able to continue operating as the portions of the CDSA that prohibited its existence were found to be unconstitutional.

It was not merely Clement’s refusal to grant the exemption, but his gaslighting of the Canadian public during the ordeal that should give the psychedelic industry pause. Clement did something that drug warriors often do : Cite the need for more research, and then make more research impossible. The DEA is famous for this tactic in their efforts to stymie cannabis legalization in the US, and Clement was no different. He cited the need for more research, and on the very same day cut all future research to the tune of 1.5 million dollars. Additionally, this is saying nothing of how currently existing research was ignored.

Testimony from Donald Macpherson, the drug policy coordinator for the city of Vancouver, indicated a startling amount of evidence for the efficacy of supervised consumption sites. Over 60 peer-reviewed published studies were available, but dismissed by the government. Weeks before the judgement in the Insite case was rendered, the Conservatives tabled the ‘Safe Streets and Communities Act’, which included draconian mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences. Given this timing, it is very likely that no amount of evidence would have satisfied Mr.Clement as voluntarily allowing Insite to continue operating would have run contrary to the drug policy objectives of the Conservatives.

When asked why they now support something like legalization they previously vehemently opposed, former politicians often reply with ‘their thinking has evolved’. This is usually true when it comes to the profit motive, as being out of office they are now able to leverage expertise and experience in exchange for various forms of monetary value. I am far more skeptical as to whether any of the thought processes that led to their prohibitionist attitudes have changed, and a recent exchange from Mr.Clement is very strong evidence that it hasn’t.

Caryma Sa’d, a Toronto-area lawyer and advocate recently posted a comic to her instagram, suggesting that if Tony Clement were to consume some psilocybin he might have to answer some uncomfortable questions. In a now-deleted comment on this post, Mr.Clement was quick to levy accusations of hypocrisy.

In his tenure as health minister, Tony Clement never met the clients of Insite, or made any effort to understand the tremendous benefit that measure of harm reduction made in their lives. Despite this, he had no qualms about judging them and harm reduction in general, or continuing the ‘war on drugs’ that has become one of the biggest policy failures in modern memory.

As I have referenced Clement’s behaviour on Instagram, it would be an oversight not to mention a large reason why Clement left political life. After being ‘catfished’ and financially extorted by an online entity that he sent sexually explicit material to on Instagram, a scandal erupted that saw Clement removed from the Conservative caucus and had the end result of him not running for re-election. Despite the critiques against politicians I have levied here, and the cynicism that the general public may have for them, it seems that the ethical standards for politicians tower above those of some emerging psychedelic enterprises.

Society’s current discourse also points to troubling realities in cannabis and psychedelics in another way, that of the lack of equity when it comes to those who have been disproportionately harmed by prohibitionist drug policy. As we critically examine practices like colonialism and capitalism in our communities, it seems rather obscene that the architects of the drug war are among the first to profit.

Among psychedelic executives and board members, we see many familiar names from the cannabis industry. Bruce Linton is arguably best described as the media darling of business and stock publications, and was for a long while the face of the legal cannabis industry. He played a role in bringing Mr.Clement into the psychedelic industry, and is himself now an investor in multiple psychedelic ventures. It is troubling that the senior leadership, executives, and board members of psychedelic companies seem to mirror those of the cannabis industry : Overwhelmingly lacking the BIPOC voices who have either been harmed by the drug war or whose communities plant medicines originated in. It’s hard to imagine a more stark example of the intersection of colonialism and capitalism than what the psychedelic industry seems to be headed for : Privileged, wealthy insiders and investors profiting from materials and knowledge plucked from Indigenous communities.

On the subject of plant medicine in general, gentrification is something that has become entrenched within cannabis and is beginning to emerge with psychedelics. The ‘THC is bad, CBD is good’ narrative has been codified into taxation regimes, regulations, and legalization laws. Similarly, psychedelic CEO’s and investors are quick to emphasize they want nothing to do with recreational legalization, deride present-day cultural events such as music festivals and equate ‘responsible consumption’ with microdosing. This is a carbon copy of comments from cannabis executives prior to legalization in Canada, deriding recreational usage and attempting to place a ‘medical halo’ around their products in comparison to the black market.

Given the overwhelming evidence that psychedelics is the next cannabis in a very negative way, can we still change the trajectory of this industry? The answer lies in the turbulence of current events. Unrestrained capitalism, or capitalism without regard for ethics leads to people like Tony Clement becoming wealthy driving drug policy in a giant circle. You may be tempted to dismiss the ethical compass as some misguided form of idealism, given that the first duty of a corporation is to generate value for its shareholders, but this is just avoiding the real issue of the relative immaturity of both the cannabis and psychedelic industries.

The boom era of cannabis was often compared to the ‘dot com’ period in the tech industry, and this comparison is equally applicable to psychedelics. Mature by comparison, the tech industry has moved far beyond equity as an afterhought. Equity is prioritized in hiring practices, workplace policies, and executive / board appointments. Rather than the aspirational goals we see in cannabis and psychedelics, diversity and inclusion metrics are tangible and factor into investor considerations alongside the financial performance of the company. The tech industry has nowhere near the debt to marginalized communities that cannabis and psychedelics do, yet seems to be doing far better in repaying it. It is rather ironic that Tony Clement is also active in the tech industry, given that his time in government only served to deepen the aforementioned debt.

It’s rather hard to say who the bad and good actors are in psychedelics at this point, so do we yet have an answer to the question of ‘can we change the path of the industry?’ I would argue that this answer is the same whether an industry is one day old or one hundred years old : Will we place a high value on ethical conduct and ensuring there are meaningful consequences for bad actors? Or will we just shrug our shoulders and say ‘that’s just capitalism.’

from Hacker News https://ift.tt/3nwzfSZ