Editor’s note: This commentary is by Kurt White, who is a social worker and drug and alcohol counselor who lives in Newfane, and works at the Brattleboro Retreat as the director of ambulatory services; he also holds an appointment as adjunct assistant professor at Smith College School for Social Work and is president of the Vermont Association of Addiction Treatment Providers.
[I] am deeply concerned about the prospect of legal marijuana. I am not someone who is confused about the difference between opioids and cannabis, or thinks that cannabis use is heavily associated with crime, or that it is lethal in overdose. I also know that alcohol and tobacco are legal substances that cause significant harms – greater harms than cannabis – and so many people feel that continued prohibition is unfair, inequitable and out of touch with the reality that cannabis is very popular in Vermont. I am aware of all this and share some of these concerns.
But I am a clinical social worker, drug and alcohol counselor, program supervisor and community member who has been strongly influenced by 15 years of work with Vermont’s most vulnerable populations: addicted individuals, young people, those struggling with poverty and disenfranchisement, the homeless and those on the cusp of losing everything. I have been listening to views on both sides of this matter, but I think I have a unique viewpoint on this matter and may be able to contribute a few points that have not yet been a part of the public dialogue.
Most individuals, even supporters of the present bill, will admit that legalization will have some negative impacts; this is well known, and even independent studies have shown this to be true. This will stem primarily from an increase in use that will result from legalization. I am concerned that these costs of legalization will not be shared equitably among all, but will be borne disproportionately by the most vulnerable Vermonters.
Prohibition of cannabis is not about locking people up, it’s about preventing companies from advertising their product and about preventing more and more people from picking up the use of this substance.
In recent years, people have begun to describe marijuana in very benign and favorable ways – as something natural, green, harmless. We should remember that marijuana is a powerful psychoactive substance that has a myriad of effects on the brain, only some of which are fully understood. One known risk of use is that individuals can develop addiction (compulsive use despite negative consequences) to marijuana. As permissiveness around use increases, so does use of the drug itself. As more people use, more will get addicted to it. The percentage of people who do get addicted to cannabis is about the same as the percentage who get addicted to alcohol: 11-15 percent. This fact is especially concerning in Vermont, as rates of use are already extremely high in this state, especially among young people.
Many people believe that there is no such thing as addiction to marijuana. This is a misconception: addiction to marijuana is real. Marijuana affects the reward systems in the brain in ways that cause some people, especially those who are more vulnerable to developing addiction, to use more and more of the substance, even when it causes problems for them. There is also a withdrawal syndrome from marijuana which makes it more difficult for heavy users to stop using. Likewise, there are real negative effects that people experience from using the substance in a compulsive manner. I have seen addicted families who buy marijuana before providing for themselves and their children; I have seen teenagers and young adults “drop out” of school, relationships and life because of an increasing obsession to use more and more; I have seen individuals go to great lengths to get marijuana once their supply has run out; I have heard individuals describe accidents caused by “stoned” drivers and of teenagers coming to school high. These are just some of the very real social consequences of marijuana.
My second concern has to do with the marketing of marijuana. It is critical to understand that the market for marijuana consumption is driven entirely by very heavy users of the drug, many of whom become addicted. The “casual user” is an insignificant force in creating “demand” for the product. The people who sell it know this already: their best customers are the repeat customers, and the repeat customers who use heavily are the ones that keep them in business. Right now, those who distribute marijuana outside of dispensary settings can’t market their product except through word of mouth. If Vermont legalizes marijuana, for-profit companies will be able to advertise its use and consumption, and otherwise market it to individuals. Knowing that their profits depend on creating increasing numbers heavy users of the drug (many of whom will become addicted), these companies will have every incentive to market the product to those who are most likely to become addicted. This stands to be a repetition of the marketing disasters of “big alcohol” and “big tobacco”: companies hawking their wares to people who are more vulnerable to becoming addicted. Vermont is better than this, and should prevent it. Right now, the only way to prevent this is to keep the substance illegal, but decriminalized. It would be naïve to think that, when big money is involved, companies won’t find ways to market to teenagers and new “markets” just as they always have for tobacco and alcohol.
There is a common misconception about the difference between legalization and decriminalization. I support decriminalization, and it’s already the law in Vermont. Vanishingly few individuals in this state are going to jail for using. Prohibition of cannabis is not about locking people up, it’s about preventing companies from advertising their product and about preventing more and more people from picking up the use of this substance.
If Vermont legalized marijuana, the people who will suffer most will be our youth, our teenagers and young adults, as well as our families who are already disenfranchised by poverty, mental illness, other addictions or isolation. Our legislators have an obligation to protect these individuals, and I urge them to do so and consider them when casting their votes in the coming weeks.
