As cannabis legalisation gains traction in Australia, decades of entrenched stigma remain a stubborn obstacle. Tasmanian Botanics CEO Dan Howard argues that retiring the term 'recreational user' would be a meaningful first step.
In recent months, debate over the potential legalisation of cannabis in Australia has grown steadily louder.
The Greens, at both the federal level and in New South Wales, have tabled bills to legalise adult use, while the Legalise Cannabis Party has pushed coordinated legislation across three states to permit small quantities for personal use.
Those are encouraging developments, yet there is a real risk that these bills will run into the same wall of opposition and the same stigma that has unfairly demonised cannabis and its users for decades.
That cycle has to end.
Adult use, not recreational
Cannabis stigma shows up in many forms, and the word 'recreational' is one of the most persistent. I dislike that term. It bothers me when people say, "well that person is a rec user."
Sometimes the word gets used to draw a line between illicit consumption and those who legally obtain medicinal cannabis through their GP, but it is just as often applied as a label for anyone who looks or sounds a certain way. The word carries heavy 'stoner' baggage.
People consume all sorts of different active substances for all sorts of different reasons. Maybe you have a double espresso in the morning to help you focus, many might enjoy a glass of wine or a couple of beers in the evening after a long day at work to reduce their stress levels or relax.
None of that draws the same social judgment that cannabis does, even though cannabis fills a similar role and is arguably less harmful.
If a product is safe and consumed responsibly by an informed adult, who am I — or anyone, for that matter — to determine what does or does not count as an acceptable use?
If someone is dealing with anxiety or struggling to sleep at night, should they not have the freedom to use a safe, regulated product that brings them relief?
If it makes someone feel better, does that not make it therapeutic? We normalise half bottle of wine every night – but demonise two puffs on a vape pen before bed.
The fact that someone has not taken a pharmaceutical product or received a formal diagnosis does not make the benefits they experience any less real.
I'll tell you this, if they told their GP 'I'm highly anxious' or 'I have trouble sleeping' they'd have a prescription for benzodiazepines/sedatives and other psychoactive medication faster than you could blink.
People who use cannabis for anything other than conditions like cancer or MS tend to get written off as stoners or 'recreational' users. That framing is simply wrong.
Educating doctors
Another thing that needs to change is the tendency to tell patients and doctors what a medicine should look like. The focus should shift to educating healthcare professionals about what medicine could look like.
We carry fixed assumptions about how medicine should appear because that is what we have been conditioned to expect over many years.
Pharmaceutical veterans in the cannabis industry spend considerable energy telling people what they ought to want — that cannabis should come in a white pill, a soft gel capsule, or a wafer.
But I'm not in the market to dictate what people should want, or what their medicine should look like. That's a big pharma mentality.
It's my job to listen to what patients and doctors want and fill those needs. What are doctors prescribing? What types of products are meeting patient needs? That's what we'll listen to at Tasmanian Botanics. And at the moment that product is predominantly flower.
The argument is that a more pharmaceutical-looking product will help grow and legitimise the market as more doctors will prescribe it. But how can it grow the market if that's not what is proving to be effective treatment for patients? What is more legitimate than improved patient outcomes?
There are already enough formats of medicinal cannabis to cover the main routes of administration, being oral consumption and pulmonary absorption.
In general, softgel capsules containing cannabis oil will not work better than an oral solution of cannabis oil. Yes, there are emulsions that improve onset time and bioavailability, but that's building a better mousetrap when we should be focused on proving this is a mouse worth catching.
And just because it looks like a pill doesn't mean it will make you qualify for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
As an industry, the priority should be simplifying how cannabis is understood and driving the message that cannabis can significantly improve consumer outcomes, both on its own and alongside conventional western medicine.
At Tasmanian Botanics, we are focused on growing and manufacturing products that provide the effective therapeutic benefits that Australians want, that is high quality and affordable.
If we do that — and we are — doctors will prescribe it and people will buy it. We're addressing the needs of the market, and helping people gain access to cannabis that enables them to lead a better life.
If Australians decide that responsible adults should have easier access to cannabis, that is a step in the right direction.
