By Miyabe Shields, Ph.D.

A Future We Should Be Questioning

Imagine it’s the end of 2055, just 30 years from today, and the most accessible option for the general public to get Cannabis or cannabinoid products is through a prescription from a medical physician and billed with health insurance. Giant corporations control the supply, quality, and distribution of these products and are only held accountable by legal restrictions and governmental oversight. While this future isn’t problematic by itself, imagine we are still fighting for full descheduling. Imagine who controls the narrative and market around Cannabis. And imagine the additional barriers and restrictions that would be created to keep the power and resources in the hands of those same giant corporations.

Do we really think this is going to create the best version of this medicine?

Can we trust giant corporations and the federal government with our health?

And what personal freedoms are we going to give up in exchange for this kind of access?

What We Gained, What We Lost

Now let’s rewind time and go back 30 years, the end of 1995, before the first medical Cannabis law was enacted. In hindsight, we can see how many positive changes there have been for this community. But it’s a somewhat false gratitude. Because this huge increase in access and safety only applies to some, and it highly depends on geographic location and uncontrollable societal privileges.

We’ve made significant changes to how we cultivate, process, and further manufacture products - leading to new products both good and bad. We’ve changed the genetic makeup of this plant medicine and we’ve barely dedicated the proper resources to studying how this affects its overall medicinal properties. Everything comes with its pros and cons, and our focus on testing, safety, and regulation has had a direct impact on the products, its effects, and the community.

Do we really think the legal industry is creating the best version of this medicine now?

Can we trust all the operators who are able to deliver a COA with our health?

And what have we already given up in exchange for this kind of access?

Cannabis Is Political, Whether We Like It or Not

Finally, we’ll come back to the present and think about this past year, because it has been a difficult one for so many of us. Like it or not, Cannabis is political. And many community advocates are intersectionally affected by other political upheavals that make the ground we stand on feel very uncertain.

As the individual state markets expand or contract depending on their age and local regulations, the hemp industry is experiencing an insane rollercoaster of regulation at the federal level. Both of those problems have the same simple fix: deschedule Cannabis. But instead, it’s apparent we will now undergo an onslaught of legal and administrative changes that will affect both markets; and many of us can predict who has the ability to navigate such a huge shift in policy and operations.

Schedule III Is Not a Neutral Change

The Schedule III changes will have massive consequences on day-to-day operations and future projections. In an industry where small businesses were already struggling to gain a significant foothold, it will be a problem. Rescheduling Cannabis is going to create many policies and precedents that will take years to fully understand and come to full implementation.

Cannabis has been Schedule I for the past 54 years and it’s a tragedy for public health. How do we know that rescheduling won’t restart this clock, solidifying government infrastructure and oversight into place that would be incompatible with fully descheduling or take years of legal lobbying to change?

When Medicine Becomes a Gatekeeper

In the turmoil of this new and additional fight, a large subsector of Cannabis could fall into a pharmaceutical framework, which demands that individual consumers be fully dependent on the system to obtain their medicines. That same pharmaceutical world spends big money each and every year on the political lobbying that has kept our industries in check these past few decades.

Their control over the scientific narrative of Cannabis has been clearly depicted by the mainstream media’s biased coverage of negative scientific research over positive. This focus on fear-mongering can easily be turned into an effective marketing campaign for pharmaceutical Cannabis to be the only “safe and trusted” source, forcing producers to work within a system that will be unsustainable for many.

Who Gets to Define Cannabis?

We cannot let the pharmaceutical framework define what is “safe and trusted.”

We cannot let the pharmaceutical framework define what is “best.”

And we cannot let the pharmaceutical framework define Cannabis.

Medical Advocacy Is the Line in the Sand

Medical advocacy will be more important now than ever to protect the plant and the patients from pharmaceutical profitability. The general public including a vast majority of our governance are all woefully uneducated and we cannot rely upon their good-will to do their own research. We already know what research is currently being spoon-fed to them.

Our community will need to be louder than Big Pharma.

Are we ready?

About Miyabe Shields, Ph.D.

Dr. Miyabe Shields, a Ph.D. scientist, began their academic journey in pharmaceutical sciences, receiving recognition from the International Cannabinoid Research Society for their predoctoral research on the endocannabinoid system. After co-founding a Cannabis research startup post-PhD, they delved into rare extract and formulation research, exploring heat-transformed cannabinoids. Miyabe transitioned to community education through social media and podcasts, reaching over 6 million people. Shifting away from industry roles, they now advocates for the holistic benefits of Cannabis and psychedelics. Additionally, she co-founded the Network of Applied Pharmacognosy (NAP) to disseminate real-world applications of nature's synergies by analyzing data and communicating research and educational information to the public.

Click the Learn More Button