Issue #34 April 2024

[This issue includes a modified and updated excerpt from “Buzz Kill: The Corporatization of Cannabis”.  NOW AVAILABLE at https://blackrosebooks.com/products/buzz-kill-michael-r-devillaer or at your local independent bookstore. They could really use the support.

In the previous issue I wrote about drug dependence, which is only one of several ways in which drug problems can manifest. That issue of the newsletter was already long enough, so I did not add what I think is an important addendum to the messages of that issue. I provide it in this issue.

While dependence is a common type of drug problem, it is not as common as many people might assume. A study from Münster, Germany showed that only about half of alcohol-impaired drivers could be characterised as alcohol dependent. Research done in Toronto Canada found a similar result and noted that many of those charged were not just risk takers when it came to impaired driving but took risks in many aspects of their lives. So, what accounts for the other half of harmful alcohol-related incidents that do not involve dependence? In two words – imprudent decisions.

Sometimes people, who are not dependent, will use a drug to the point of impairment of their vision, reaction time, fine and gross motor co-ordination, and prudent judgement – which can all lead to accidents leading to physical injury to oneself or to others. It is not necessarily a case of pre-existing diminished control over one’s consumption of the drug as we see with dependence. The harm arises through a single or a sequence of imprudent decisions – decisions that can be influenced by the manner in which drug industries or popular culture influence our thinking about drugs. Someone who decides to drive to a bar and likely drink to the point of impairment may not be suffering from impaired control of their consumption. They may be acting out of a lack of judgement and imprudent decision-making that began before acute drug-induced impairment came into play.

Decisions made immediately after ingesting high doses of a drug can also obviously be harmful. Sitting at home having several alcoholic drinks and/or ingesting a large amount of THC is one thing. Doing that, and then deciding to drive a car, operate a chainsaw, or borrow money from “DFord’s EZ Loans & Frakchur Clinic”, is quite another. Every year, around the world, similarly imprudent decisions, made by non-dependent individuals, lead to many incidents of injury, death, or financial peril.

People who use drugs are not the only ones who make imprudent decisions with harmful consequences. Legislators and regulators also make imprudent decisions with regards to regulating drug industries and protecting people from the ambitions and excesses of these industries. Too often, governments prioritize political expediency over long term protection of people. Here’s a disturbing example.

In 2018, Canada’s Globe and Mail reported on an interesting turn of events for a study to assess the impact of including health warning labels on beverage alcohol bottles in Whitehorse, Yukon. Some of the warnings provided information on lower risk drinking practices. Others provided information on the link between alcohol and cancer. The study was disrupted when the labels on cancer risk were banned by the Yukon Liquor Corporation. The details of this story became public only when The Globe and Mail accessed them through an Access to Information request. The documents supplied details of communications between the Yukon Liquor Corporation and alcohol industry lobby organizations: Beer Canada, Spirits Canada, and the Canadian Vintners Association. The lobbyists claimed the content of the labels was “false” and “alarmist.” One described the study as “fatally flawed (in both design and execution)”, while another questioned the objectivity of the research team.

The research project was designed by a team of alcohol research experts from Canada and the United States and was led by researchers at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research (CISUR) at The University of Victoria. The study had the support of several public health authorities in Canada. The link between alcohol and six distinct types of cancer has international verification from the World Health Organization, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the American Society of Clinical Oncologists.

The study was reinstated only when the labels linking alcohol and cancer were removed. The president of the Yukon Liquor Corporation said the decision to drop the cancer warning label was to avoid “protracted litigation” with alcohol manufacturers.

The implications for cannabis legalization are two-fold:
1) In what ways will imprudent decisions made by cannabis users result in harm to themselves or others? How often will this happen?
2) Will governments also make imprudent decisions with regards to the regulation of the cannabis industry – sacrificing their duty of care for the sake of political convenience?

The Yukon Liquor Corporation is now also responsible for cannabis.

Mike DeVillaer
Hamilton Ontario Canada
April 29 2024