Several weeks ago in the San Diego Union Tribune, Tiffany Devitt accurately described the problems associated with the lack of regulations on hemp products in the U.S. in her piece, Here’s how a policy loophole is leading to more poisonings from unregulated THC. It is true that in states where medical and adult-use cannabis programs exist, cannabis is generally subject to a good number of regulations intended to protect consumer safety, whereas hemp products are subject to hardly any at all.
However, Devitt — who is the Chief of Regulatory Affairs for March and Ash, one of the largest dispensary chains in San Diego — has also lobbied against the City’s Cannabis Social Equity and Economic Development (SEED) plan, which would expand the number of cannabis business permits available for applicants harmed most by the War on Drugs.
According to the City’s Social Equity Assessment released last October, minorities in San Diego are “underrepresented among cannabis-related executive positions,” but overrepresented among cannabis-related arrests. Creating additional opportunities for participation in the cannabis entrepreneurial landscape is a matter of economic justice for this population.
In an example of the way that March and Ash has pushed back against the proposed SEED amendments, the company sent attorneys to City Council meetings on multiple occasions to “raise concerns” about a plan that would promote competition in the cannabis marketplace. In a purely hypothetical situation, this would be akin to Rite Aid lobbying against the opening of independently-owned pharmacies in the neighborhoods they operate in. Of course they don’t want increased competition. But any attempt to sow doubt about these new permits represents an inherent conflict of interest and should be carefully scrutinized.
If Devitt and Co. were truly committed to removing the public health dangers associated with the illicit cannabinoid market, they would eagerly support the expansion of the legal, regulated market. However, this poses a direct threat to the cannabis business monopoly that dominates the mostly-male, mostly-white legal cannabis market that currently exists in San Diego. In cartel-like fashion, they have sued the Sheriff’s Department for not cracking down enough on illicit market retailers, the existence of which also threatens their bottom line.
A better alternative would be to lower the barriers to entry into the regulated cannabis market — barriers that currently bar many would-be entrepreneurs from participation in this landscape. Focusing our efforts on expanding access to capital resources, technical assistance, etc. for social equity applicants is the right thing to do for communities harmed by the War on Drugs and is also a benefit to public health and the community at large.
