Misled by media: Cannabis awareness or cannabis hysteria?

BY SEAN SEURATTAN

As you read these very words, your brain perceives them according to learned behaviours and cognitive patterns. All forms of media including this publication use these behaviours to convey information to their consumers. As with all things, there are both positive and negative effects to the use of these methods of communication. Cannabis has generally only ever been allowed into mainstream media with negative connotation. Media engines have used it to fuel fear and conformity in order to drive their own profit margins and popularity in the name of safety.

While previously claiming moral high ground against cannabis, its legalization has dramatically changed the topography regarding society’s view about it. This in turn has forced how multimedia chooses to use and portray this topic. To our benefit, it can be done to raise awareness and combat decades of misinformation about how cannabis can help us along with the MINIMAL potential risks we must be conscious of. To our detriment, mass media seems to only be using cannabis to forward its own financial and political goals.

First and foremost, we must all recognize that most media including: films, television, print, online and even music is a FOR PROFIT industry. Aside from the purchase of the actual media itself, most income is formed through advertising. Armed with that information, we must all view media through a much more stringent lens. Not to be excluded from this are news publications and broadcasts, which often tout themselves as unbiased to these monetary influences. While they project a façade of altruism in simply reporting information, absolutely nothing makes it currently onto their broadcasts without financial gain either directly or indirectly.

With just above a century of experience, marketers have learned to use mass media in the most insidious ways. They can form or reform opinions about products, services and even lifestyles through: images, text and sounds without being obvious. Cannabis was long on the downside of this practice until it was determined that it could be legally profitable. Now, we are slowly beginning to see cannabis emerge from being completely taboo, to being lightly accepted; however, media gatekeepers are still attempting to maintain their hold on what is accepted and how.

Perhaps news outlets make the largest and most egregious indiscretions, because it is widely assumed that everything they report on is true and unbiased. While some are far more trustworthy than others, none are above suspicion. Through the guise of safety, every major news outlet in Canada uses cannabis to evoke fear or influence retail.

Think to yourself; have you ever seen anything about cannabis in the news since legalization that didn’t have to do with the SALE of “legal” cannabis, and those who financially benefit (corporations)? How about the danger of “illicit” cannabis and those who financially benefit from its elimination (police associations and politicians)?

We have already seen first-hand how both these groups work in concert to ensure their perpetual income. In the early days of legalization, we witnessed news media gladly showcase police raids on unlicensed dispensaries during their “Project Claudia” campaign. This spectacle was used to emphasize the unnecessary need for increased police budgets, and to ensure an inviting environment for incoming corporate market entrants.

We as consumers must be able to differentiate whether the information we are given is helpful or is being used to manipulate us. We must be conscious of what we see about cannabis in movies and television. We must be aware of what music involving cannabis gets promoted. We must question why some vices like sugar or alcohol can be widely advertised but cannabis cannot. We must further investigate what news outlets report on regarding cannabis and why they do so.

Cannabis awareness is critical to destroying negative and corruptive stigma. Canada is primed to be a positive beacon for how cannabis benefits and risks are perceived, but we must collectively decide how we accept this communicated information.