As the United States moves closer to the widespread legalization of cannabis, we find ourselves at the intersection of a cultural and economic shift. Amid this transformation, one critical question has been thrust to the forefront: Is the current path of cannabis legalization an example of cultural appropriation that merely serves economic commodification?

In recent news, the Biden administration announced plans to complete a marijuana scheduling review by the end of 2023. This review may pave the way for the rescheduling of cannabis and could significantly impact the legal and economic landscape of the cannabis industry. While this progress is laudable, it’s essential to scrutinize the underlying forces shaping this transition.

The path to cannabis legalization, some argue, seems less about correcting historical wrongs and more about capitalizing on a lucrative market. In this sense, critics contend that we are witnessing a form of cultural appropriation. The traditional and cultural uses of cannabis are being co-opted and commodified to serve the interests of government revenue and business profits. The current system, these critics suggest, amounts to a form of “corporate cannabis” that prioritizes profit over the needs and rights of consumers.

Moreover, this system, critics point out, is dependent on the very prohibition laws that created the problem. Governments have used prohibition laws to construct the market, and now they appear to be using legalization laws to control and profit from it. This transition has been facilitated by the enforcement of strict licensing requirements, which often favor established businesses and wealthy individuals over small-scale growers and sellers.

It’s worth noting that these trends have real-world consequences. The prohibitive costs associated with entering the legal cannabis market often exclude those most affected by the War on Drugs, further entrenching social and economic disparities. Moreover, consumers are forced to pay higher prices due to taxes and regulatory costs, leading some to question whether this form of legalization is genuinely in their best interest.

However, this perspective doesn’t tell the whole story. Proponents of the current path argue that the revenue generated from the cannabis industry is essential for state economies and can be used to fund social programs. Additionally, they point out that the legal cannabis industry creates jobs, drives economic growth, and contributes to a decrease in illicit market activity.

The debate over cannabis legalization is complex and fraught with tension. But at its heart is a fundamental question about the kind of society we want to live in. As we move towards a future where cannabis is likely to be legal and widely accessible, it’s crucial that we carefully consider these issues. Only then can we hope to create a cannabis industry that is both economically viable and socially just.