Censorship is hurting the Canadian cannabis industry, leaving it unable to fix its damaged reputation, writes Corinne Doan
The purpose of the Cannabis Act is to protect public health, safety and restrict access to minors. The architects of the Act believed this would be achievable by restricting communication. The Act has a meticulously detailed section dedicated to numerous promotion prohibitions. Highlights are prohibitions on information regarding price, or endorsements. Communications cannot be depicted by a person, character, animal, real or fictional. And my personal favourite, it is prohibited to communicate any health benefits related to cannabis. The extensive communications prohibitions equate to CENSORSHIP.
Censorship is the counterbalance to freedom of speech. It suppresses speech considered harmful. The purpose is to prevent distasteful ideas from consciousness. Therefore, if something is censored, it has a negative connotation. An example would be when the War Measures Act was used to limit speech from militant political opposition during the 1970 October Crisis. In contrast to an armed militant group are the censorships posed on cannabis—a plant. Keep in mind, until the mid-1990s Canadians faced imprisonment and a $300,000 fine for disseminating any cannabis related information. Deliberate misdirection and extreme suppression of information pressured society to believe an enormously misguided idea. Fear and ignorance fueled with stigma and oppression unfairly damaged cannabis credibility. For a communications professional, this would be considered a crisis.
Cannabis in the midst of a communication crisis
A communication crisis is an issue creating a negative impact on reputation. Managing damaged credibility can be achieved with proactive engagement with stakeholders. A safe, transparent environment for dissemination of information and feedback over time cultivates understanding. Therefore, it’s reasonable to conclude a communication policy embracing an open safe environment would be accommodated in the Cannabis Act. Oddly, that is far from the case. Stifling cannabis censorship is thriving to the point it could be challenged if stakeholders are being deprived democratic rights.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental criterion for democracy. In Canada, freedom of speech is protected in section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Also, The Charter permits enforcement of “reasonable” limits. Communication boundaries are necessary to protect the rights of others for public health and security. Likewise, communication creates a foundation to learn and build goodwill. Hence, it should be questioned, are the limits placed on cannabis communications reasonable?
The plant survived a century of prohibition because its medicinal purposes were recognized. Cannabis is less toxic with less side effects than many synthetic drugs (note, I did not use the word ‘healthy’). Capitalism and politics relented and reversed stances on prohibition when potential revenue was identified. However, censorship has hindered the progress of the Canadian cannabis industry because it is not able to sufficiently address its damaged reputation.
|