Pubdate: Fri, 19 Dec 2014
Source: National Post (Canada)
Copyright: 2014 Canwest Publishing Inc.
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/wEtbT4yU
Website: http://www.nationalpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/286
Author: Chris Selley
Page: A16
Referenced: http://mapinc.org/url/tOLJWy6n

TWO SIDES OF THE SAME LEAF

'Anti-marijuana ad's dubious claim a scary hit with parents," was
CBC's online headline to a potentially good-news story for the federal
Conservatives on Thursday. According to focus group results released
by Harris-Decima, it seems Health Canada's portentous new anti-pot
advertisement, which shows a brain-shaped bong gradually filling up
with more and more smoke and icky residue, packs a punch. Its various
ostensibly startling claims - that "marijuana is on average 300% to
400% stronger than it was 30 years ago"; that "smoking marijuana can
seriously harm a teen's developing brain" - touched a nerve with some
parents.

It may not be the most nuanced or informative advertisement. At one
point the words "decreased IQ" float across the screen, and as CBC
reporter Dean Beeby noted, different researchers have come to
different conclusions on the link between marijuana use and cognitive
development. But that's of no concern to the tough-on-drugs Tories.
The more frightened parents are of marijuana, the more dubious they
might be of the Liberals' pledge to legalize and regulate its sale -
that's clearly the Conservatives' thinking, at least, given their
relentless messaging on that point.

It might work. But the focus group results inform a case Justin
Trudeau can make for his reforms as much as they inform the
Conservatives' case to stick with prohibition.

"Some of the messages tested were particularly helpful, since they
provided powerful and credible information that was also new for a
number of parents," Harris-Decima reported. Those messages included
"the fact that THC levels are far higher today," that "40% [of
Canadian youth] have been in a car driven by someone under the
influence of marijuana" and a potential link between marijuana use and
"schizophrenia, psychosis, [and] lower IQ" - the latter of which was
especially effective, apparently, "when coupled with the notion that
teen brains are more vulnerable and that effects can linger."

All of these claims, or at least their relative importance, are
matters of debate. Yes, pot is more powerful; but studies show people
smoke less of it. (Would you drink as much gin on an evening out as
you would beer?) Yes, a 2007 Health Canada study found 40% of Canadian
youth had been a passenger in a car whose driver had used marijuana in
the previous two hours - but that doesn't speak to level of
impairment. And as CBC pointed out, the research on neurological
effects is varied.

But election campaigns aren't about leaders hurling research studies
at each other. They're about narratives, and these "particularly
helpful" messages can easily be repurposed for the
legalization-and-regulation side of the debate.

Pot is stronger than in decades past; its strength, furthermore, is
unknown - or at least not guaranteed - to the average consumer, as are
its origin and purity. Now then, are there analogous products in the
Canadian marketplace? Well, natch: Alcoholic beverages and cigarettes,
which are required by law to list their contents and strength. The
sale of these products is also tightly regulated by Canada's
provinces, with an eye to keeping them away from children.

Of course kids will still get their hands on pot in a legalized
regime, as cynics complain. But they get their hands on liquor today,
and there is no clamour to ease up on restrictions. Indeed, those who
oppose less restrictive alcohol retail regimes constantly appeal to
parental fears over access and availability.

Well, guess what? "Most [focus group] participants =C2=85 attributed
marijuana use to the following influences: peer pressure; curiosity;
availability; pop culture/media; and stress," Harris-Decima reports.
"There was a sense that marijuana use is more common today than when
parents were teens," and that it was "perceived to be more readily
available to youth." (My italics.)

If I were a Liberal adviser, I'd be heartened: These look like
potential winning conditions for a legalization-and-regulation pitch -
one that can pithily turn the standard prohibitionist arguments on
their head. Worried about your kids getting pot? Maybe we should treat
pot like booze. Worried that your kids might be riding with smoking
drivers? Only half as many reported riding with drinking drivers.
Maybe we should treat pot like booze. Worried about pot frying your
kids' brains? Alcohol is no friend to developing brains either. Maybe
we should treat pot like booze.

And if they aren't winning conditions for legalization per se, they
may at least be conditions under which flailing defences of the status
quo start to look sillier and more juvenile than what Conservatives
want Canadians to believe is a reckless proposal to try something
else. The pitch is simple, intuitive and based on a proven market
concept. If it's not something Mr. Trudeau wants front and centre,
it's at least something he should be able to sound clear, confident
and well-informed in defending.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt