Columnists
October 17 looms
I just can’t get excited about the new pot legislation that extends people’s right to voluntarily downgrade their sobriety level.
I accept, however, that you can’t legislate against the human condition—we’ve already gone through that with alcohol—so recognizing widespread marijuana use as a fact seems to be sensible. But I won’t be doing any cartwheels on October 17, the date upon which pot becomes legal; just as I have never celebrated April 20, the date upon which pot freedom advocates around the world light up. And it sure has sucked a lot of time and energy from the public agenda. What does interest me a little is how marijuana will weave into our social fabric once it is legalized. For instance, just as it has become the norm to offer wine with dinner when you have guests, will you now be expected to offer a joint to all concerned after dessert as well? And will you be expected to bring your hosts a replacement dose, all nicely wrapped up in a gift bag, to replenish their inventory?
You will be forbidden from smoking pot in a public place, but you will be allowed to smoke it in a private residence—which includes a porch, balcony or backyard. That makes it entirely conceivable that if the wind blows the wrong way, I could download some of my neighbour’s fumes and have nothing to complain about. I guess that’s the price of tolerance.
And just what will be considered acceptable behaviour in public? Suppose you are at a funeral, and some speaker has just raised a telling point about the virtues of the deceased. For some reason, this strikes the person in front of you as incredibly funny, and she bursts out in a fit of giggles. Is this behaviour to be tolerated merely because she has allayed her grief with a dose of legal cannabis?
Is it now going to be acceptable for Ian Hanomansing to read the national news with a big goofy grin on his face because it is legal for him to put himself in that position? Can employers insist on testing for marijuana use, and fire those who test positive? If so, how are Ontario Cannabis Store employees supposed to have obtained the experience that qualifies them for the job?
What also interests me is the extent to which the corporate world sees opportunity in the legislative change. You can’t open the business section of the paper these days without some new tale of corporate intrigue involving buyouts, takeovers and mergers as everyone jockeys for the position of Big Dog in the marijuana business.
I fear the barrage of commercial tie-ins to which we will shortly be subjected. For instance, it won’t initially be legal to sell marijuana-infused food. But what is to stop some entrepreneur from offering a ‘marijuana flavoured’ potato chip having a chemically derived taste but no actual cannabis? One company is already selling a pretend marijuana-flavoured chocolate covered toffee called “Cannabis Crunch.” And if the chip makers can make a ketchup flavoured chip, an ersatz pot chip should be a piece of cake. What will come after that: breakfast cereals? Will there have to be a special ‘adults only’ section in Foodland to cater to potheads?
Some companies are playing to the phenomenon that marijuana consumption triggers food cravings. For example, Hershey Canada has just introduced a special edition chocolate bar known as the “Oh Henry 4:25.” It doesn’t contain any marijuana, real or simulated, and thereby sidesteps cannabis rules; but it is nonetheless squarely aimed at the marijuana user. “Specially formulated for the intense hunger that hits five minutes after 4:20,” says the pitch in a thinly disguised reference to April 20. To leave no doubt about its intentions, Hershey launched the special bar at a make-believe pot dispensary. (It is entirely coincidental that Hershey Canada’s former plant in Smiths Falls is now a large marijuana factory).
The company explains that it sees the forthcoming legalization as a “huge cultural moment.” “We didn’t want to be on the periphery; we wanted to be part of the event,” says its senior director of marketing. But that marketing-speak is exactly what I’m railing against. I don’t see October 17 as a “huge cultural moment.” I see it as a date upon which we reluctantly acknowledge our collective frailty, and give a whole bunch of people a new opportunity to cash in. It should pass quietly; but I suspect it won’t.
Comments (0)