That said, this is an easy post because it has already been written. The background is this...one day an old friend who I have known since my summer camp days, alerted to me to a somewhat negative post about Dixie products, written by a fairly reputable, yet conservative author/journalist named David Frum. Hat tip to @fisherqt for the twit-tip...and on a unrelated sidenote, it was this tweet that allowed me to enjoy reconnecting with an old friend.
Anywho--I reached out to him to ask if he was interested in discussing his views with me. Turns out, he was. Below is a rather prolific email exchange between Frum and me that I felt was a great summary of many sides of this issue-as told by someone who favored legalization and is living it and someone who fears it is simply the next step toward the end of times. Truthfully, I was honored to have had so much of his time and thoughts--when I began the discussion with him I didnt realize exactly who he was. Turns out..he's kind of a big deal. The bones of our discussion were very much related to a subsequent article for Commentary Magazine which had begun to write before we began our exchange. I emailed him after it posted, and I told him I that while I disagreed with most of it, I felt it was pretty eloquent.
So, it's long...but take a look at the below thread and let me know your thoughts. I dont believe there is a "winner" in this debate necessarily, but these are the some of the issues. Read it from the bottom up of course.
Joe
A few quick things:
1 I
just wanted to thank you for your passionate and articulate responses. I
completely understand your position, I respect it, and I thank you for taking
the time to share it with me. I know how busy you are…and the respect you
command within the world of the written word.
2 How
would you feel if I was to take this email thread, wholesale, and post it to my
blog? I just think its an interesting examination of the debate and I think you
have some great points. If you’d rather not-I completely understand.
3 I apologize
in advance for the length of the below…
Now, per the below…I think we are at the point to agree to
disagree. I think what lies at the crux is the fact that you are
operating from preconceived notions, prejudices and assumptions. I agree with
your first point—but I don’t see us working to fix the issues. As a country, as
a community, as a global economy…the system is broken irreparably. Now, that’s
not to say it is a reason for chaos and anarchy, or that I want to contribute
to the demise. But it IS to say that if we were working on the real issues
(inequality of pay, education, etc.), legalization would seem much less
threatening to you is my guess. And again-that’s where there is a bit of a
redistribution in that we are taking these tax dollars and applying them to
schools. Which, IMHO, is very germane to the social issues you mention below.
But, as for your later
points… I want to take a few of them individually for response:
· We have a legal market for prescription drugs
AND an illegal market for them
This is true. However, I
cant walk into a store to purchase Vicodin. I have to have a drs. Prescription.
Thus, the black market can continue to thrive because there is limited access. Additionally, its important to note that most physicians (and society in
general) would agree that opiates are far more addictive and harmful than
marijuana. Are you suggesting that we should eliminate prescription
medications that have the potential for abuse?
·
The under-18s you wish to keep marijuana away
from (neurologically, the cut-off age should be 25) are getting their marijuana
from the over-18s legally permitted to buy.
Agree that it should be at
least under 21 (with the exception of legitimate and documented medical
purposes)…and guess what? That is the law. I am not in the business of
enforcing the law, but I can tell you that if someone over the age of 21 sells
or gives marijuana to someone under the age of 21 (and yes, I know the
neurological studies you refer to about the development of the brain, esp. in males,
until 25), then they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. So, we
cant have it both ways. We cant say that the war on drugs should continue, but
then argue that we cant keep it out of the hands of the under-21 crowd.
Im also not sure what you mean by a surplus due to the higher potency?
There are basic economics of supply and demand at play, regardless of potency.
·
For years, advocates of legal marijuana denied
that pot was a “gateway” drug. Yet here you are arguing just the opposite
This
point somewhat confounded me. Im not sure how I was arguing that it IS indeed a
gateway drug. My point was simply that a drug dealer is going to push other
more addictive, higher value drugs on a young person whereas a legal, regulated
store will not. The truth is that alcohol is more a gateway drug than anything
else. Its not the drug that becomes the gateway. There is NO evidence that
people who consume marijuana are more/less likely than anyone else to go on to
harder drugs. The idea that the marijuana consumer is always looking for a
bigger, better, different high simply isn’t true. Unless we say its like the
beer drinker who eventually learns that he/she likes wine and then vodka. I
know plenty of MJ consumers who would never dream of consuming meth or heroin.
The rest of your points I will simply address on the whole—which
is that your information and perceptions are outdated. IT is not simply a drug
for those under 30. A significant part of our target, and future markets skew
much older (35+)and the baby boomer generation is one of the faster growing
segments. You also seem to have the perspective that one automatically becomes
“addicted” to marijuana with its use. The younger they start, the more they
consume. I can tell you that there are many recreational users (myself
included) who use it on an occasional basis as it can be pretty fun and
relaxing. I first tried it in college, like most people—many of whom either
never use it later in life or who use it occasionally. There simply is no
evidence to support your claim (NOTE: My social worker wife did point out that earlier use increases the chance for addiction after reading my note to Frum. Score one for Robyn). Which
leads to the next point—not sure why you assume that people who use MJ are
likely to drink more. Please share that data with me because my (mostly
anecdotal) evidence points to the fact that more frequent MJ users are actually
less likely to use/abuse alcohol.
You also note this all as being “my harms” that will be
incurred. I/we don’t force people to enjoy our product. And just like the
pervasive alcohol companies, we encourage safety and moderation. Idiots will be
idiots. Unsafe drivers who make poor decisions will be unsafe drivers who make
poor decisions. Its not the MJ that creates that scenario. There are
plenty of people who use this product responsibly. Plenty. I think all of your
prejudice is grounded in a bit of a reefer madness assumption about the
downfall of society. This plant has redeeming medicinal qualities, it can be
used recreationally and enjoyably. It is less addictive than alcohol. I could
go on and on. But I have yet to see any proof that shows it to be the case that
Colorado is falling apart as a result of legalization. If anything, we are
thriving. We are creating jobs. We are developing a great tax base for
education. We don’t have stoned zombies walking the streets.
I urge you to shrug off you antiquated assumptions and take a
hard look at the evidence. You suffer from the delusion that MJ is a
Schedule I drug, more harmful than cocaine, meth, heroin etc. and it simply
isn’t true. And again, its important to remind you that we didn’t invent MJ. It
has existed for a looong time.
But again—this simply might be where we have to agree to
disagree.
From: DavidFrum
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 6:59 AM
To: Joe Hodas
Subject: Re: Dixie Follow Up
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 6:59 AM
To: Joe Hodas
Subject: Re: Dixie Follow Up
I don’t know how much you want to hear from me about all
this, but 2 points:
1) Yes, marijuana abuse is only a symptom of larger social
problems. So are credit card abuse, gun homicides, obesity, and so on. If we
knew how to treat the underlying social problems of poverty, racism and its
after-effects, the decline of the two parent family, deindustrialization, the
anomie of the suburbs, the loss of personal meaning in a secularizing society,
etc etc etc we’d surely do that. But just as doctors successfully treated
infection before they knew the causes of infection, so we don’t have to wait to
fix our daunting social problems to mitigate their effects. If we can’t teach
everyone financial literacy, at least we can halt the marketing of predatory
mortgages. We may be stumped by the family breakdown caused by declining wages
of less-skilled men, but at least we can deny guns to wife-batterers.
Same goes w marijuana. Perhaps if we achieved some heroic
and as yet unspecified social overhaul, it might be less dangerous to allow the
marketing of mind-altering and dependency-inducing drugs. In the meantime,
given the society we actually happen to have, the marketing of such drugs is a
formula for nothing but trouble.
2) The argument that legalization somehow erects a higher
wall against illegal drugs is belied by experience. We have a legal market for
prescription drugs AND an illegal market for them, and the legal market is the
illegal market’s most important source of supply. So it is for legal marijuana,
as we’re already seeing in Colorado. The under-18s you wish to keep marijuana
away from (neurologically, the cut-off age should be 25) are getting their
marijuana from the over-18s legally permitted to buy. And by the way the new
high-intensity products your company markets creates a much greater
psychoactive surplus for sale to minors. Your own website talks about the
ability of vapor pens to get people high instantly and keep them high for hours
on a very small quantity of product. Meanwhile, the drug cartels will continue
to exist until such time as heroin, cocaine, and meth are legalized.
Final grimly humorous note: For years, advocates of legal
marijuana denied that pot was a “gateway” drug. Yet here you are arguing just
the opposite: that precisely because pot is a gateway, legalization will
somehow quarantine the pot market from the market for harder drugs. We already
know however that marijuana and alcohol aren’t substitutes for each other:
people who smoke more also drink more. And I fear we will discover, as
legalization expands the population of marijuana-dependent teens and
20-somethings, that legalization has increased the target market for harder
drugs proportionally.
As your own market research surely shows you, marijuana is a
drug for the young: half of people who ever try marijuana quit by age 30. The
earlier they start, the more they use. I don’t doubt that marijuana will be a
lucrative business if allowed. So were cigarettes in their day. But the social
harms are very large, and the money your company earns is taken, in great
measure, from the taxpayers who must bear the costs your harms incur: more car
accidents, lower graduation rates, reduced incomes, more drug treatment costs,
and so on.
The $40 m taxes your industry pays the state of Colorado
will not begin to cover those costs, as the governor has indicated.
You may say that it’s a better deal than putting people in
prison. I’ll agree with that. But to veer from mass incarceration to mass
marketing is an over-correction even worse than the original bad policy.
On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:59 PM, Joe Hodas <JHodas@dixieelixirs.com> wrote:
Well, I cant argue that its more powerful (compared to 20 yrs
ago at least...). But, in terms of profiting from those most likely to succumb…
I have to take exception there. And you are not likely to buy these augments
but….I think that we, once again, are looking for a scapegoat (Ie-marijuana)
for what ails our country. MJ might be a symptom, but the societal challenges
you refer to would (and do) exist with or without legal marijuana. Now, against
that backdrop, consider this--$40M in tax revenue will go straight to
education, no ifs ands or buts. New schools. Better equipment, enrichment courses,
etc. And that will benefit those who you refer to as “at risk” below.
Secondly—that 18 yr old kid, in a state where MJ is illegal, likely will still
get his/her hands on it, but will also end up serving a prison sentence for
possession—taking him/her WAY off course. More so than in a state where it is
legal and more easily accessed. And of course, I don’t have to tell you that
incarceration is disproportionately affecting men of color. Finally—when
these products are retailing at $50 or so, Im not saying at risk kids wont
access it, but, these products are priced for those with disposable income.
Last soap box piece—if someone gets a professionally
manufactured product, from a licensed, tracked store—they aren’t then likely to
get “sold” on crack, meth etc. that a drug dealer likely would. Thereby getting
them into much more damaging, and addictive drugs. And we (state and industry), are working hard on the tracking system so that we can track all they way back
to the store and possibly the purchaser.
From: DavidFrum
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 3:34 PM
To: Joe Hodas
Subject: Re: Dixie Follow Up
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 3:34 PM
To: Joe Hodas
Subject: Re: Dixie Follow Up
But now it’s more chemically powerful, more readily
accessible, & more attractively marketed.
Parenting matters a lot, I agree. Your kids will be fine,
thanks to the love and care of their two highly educated, affluent, &
committed parents. If they make mistakes along the way, you’ll be there to
cushion the consequences and set them on the right path. That does not describe
everybody’s kids. And from subprime mortgages to junk food to the new marijuana
industry, it just seems a shame that so many in the American upper class gain
their economic security by putting snares in the path of those most likely to
succumb and least likely to recover.
On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:28 PM, Joe Hodas <JHodas@dixieelixirs.com>
wrote:
But david—we didn’t invent marijuana. It existed before. And
adolescents used it before. Parenting and prevention is still parenting and
prevention.
From: DavidFrum
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 3:27 PM
To: Joe Hodas
Subject: Re: Dixie Follow Up
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 3:27 PM
To: Joe Hodas
Subject: Re: Dixie Follow Up
Yes, I write a lot about this subject.
I heard about the vapor pens from Colorado high school
principals who have suddenly begun confiscating a lot of them.
I read your personal story on your blog, and I appreciate
that you are wrestling with your conscience about your industry. Childproofing
won’t deter adolescents, unfortunately.
David Frum
On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:13 PM, Joe Hodas <JHodas@dixieelixirs.com>
wrote:
Hi
David-
Thanks
for the note. A buddy of mine forwarded me your tweet…and I felt compelled to
reach out. To be honest—vape pens are really not what we do. We are actually an
edibles company. Granted, that probably doesn’t change the conversation much.
But, as a father of three kids (5, 10, 12) I feel really strongly about this
issue. In fact, I just attended a press conf. from the Governor today talking
about childproof packaging etc.
If you ever have a desire to hear about things from the inside of the industry, I would be happy to chat.
Thanks David. Appreciate it.
If you ever have a desire to hear about things from the inside of the industry, I would be happy to chat.
Thanks David. Appreciate it.
Joe
No comments:
Post a Comment