.png)
Over the past couple weeks, in my Cannabis and Communications undergraduate class at Stockton University, we compared and contrasted the messaging between two documentaries, Grass in Greener and Chronic State.
The two perspectives explored in these two films are starkly different; so are the primary messages. We explored the positioning of each, paying particular attention to when valid and verifiable support and evidence was used as well as when it was absent.
After watching Chronic State, we headed to the Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) website to review the resources that the organization shares to further their mission, which is to:
"to educate citizens on the science of marijuana and to promote health-first, smart policies and attitudes that decrease marijuana use and its consequences."
To learn more about SAM, we made our way to the FAQs page. The first question reads:
Why do you oppose marijuana legalization when alcohol – a more dangerous drug – is already legal?
We reviewed the 9-sentence FAQ response line-by-line. Needless to say, based on our collective responses (some listed below) that emerged after deconstructing each line, we all ended up having more questions than answers, especially after having reviewed other parts of the website.
1. Alcohol is not legal because it is safe; it is legal because most of Western civilization has used the drug for thousands of years.
What is actually being conveyed here?
Is alcohol intentionally being called a drug?
By following this logic, wouldn’t the same status apply to cannabis?
2. By contrast, marijuana has always been used by a small minority of the population.
According to who?
Is use of the word minority here intentional?
Where is the data to back up this claim?
3. Drug laws keep rates of use down, thereby lowering the negative consequences for communities.
Where is the data to back up this claim?
Who maintains this position?
Was data regarding the failed war on drugs reviewed prior to this assertion?
4. Alcohol and tobacco – two legally available drugs – provide a good example, since Americans use them far more frequently than illegal drugs.
A good example of what?
What is actually being conveyed here?
What is the relevance of this statement?
5. Alcohol is in and out of your system within 24 hours; marijuana’s effects last much longer.
What is actually being conveyed here?
What support regarding “marijuana’s effects” lasting “much longer” supports this claim?
Is the conclusion that we are being encouraged to reach, based on this statement, that alcohol is inherently safer than cannabis?
6. Research has found that marijuana abusers self-report far worse outcomes than alcohol users, including more problems at home, work, or school and more mental health problems.
Where is the research and evidence to support this claim?
Why are sweeping generalizations, not fact-based evidence, relied on so heavily here?
Again, iIs the conclusion that we are being encouraged to reach, based on this statement, that alcohol is inherently safer than cannabis?
7. Evidence also finds that people often use alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco together.
Where is the research to support this point?
Also, what is the relevance of this unsubstantiated claim?
What is actually being conveyed here?
8. Rarely do users substitute alcohol for marijuana.
Where is the research to support this point?
What is actually being conveyed here?
Also, what is the relevance of this unsubstantiated claim?
9. In fact, rates of alcohol sales continue to rise in states that have legalized marijuana.
Also, what is the relevance of this unsubstantiated claim?
Is this inferring that there is a causal relationship?
What research has been conducted to verify this position?
A really quick glance at this first question on the SAM FAQ page might not raise any eyebrows. However, when deconstructing what’s being conveyed here with an analytical eye, the information that’s being shared here - as a “legitimate” source that aims to "to educate citizens on the science of marijuana and to promote health-first, smart policies” - is dangerous and problematic. This is just one question/answer set of many, in which evidence and data are absent. In lieu of valid, verifiable information, there are unsupported claims, bias-driven opinions, and irresponsible messaging.
The nagging questions that me and my heavy heart are left with after reviewing a site like this one have to do with responsibility and intention:
Who is responsible for monitoring information about cannabis, to ultimately ensure that true information is available for anyone seeking it?
What are the outcomes when someone consumes this content and passively accepts it as truth, despite completely lacking substance? Just how much damage does this type of ongoing propaganda cause?
How is this combatted?
It soothes my heart to know that our work at ES, driven by a mission “to help New Jerseyans make informed decisions when it comes to cannabis by ensuring access to accurate and relevant information and resources” combats this type of fraudulent, seemingly malicious, messaging. We exist to actually educate, not indoctrinate.
Contact Elucidation Strategies to learn more about cannabis education and consulting services.
Comments