Categories
Uncategorized

Cannabis Sales and Live Events, pt 2

In my last post, I laid out some broader visions for any successful system that permits cannabis sales at live events: Positive, Safe, No Minor Use, Responsive/Agile, and Risk-Based. In this post, I want to lay out a more concrete vision of what those values might look like for a successful sales environment at a venue. In a later post, I will begin to explain what rules need to change and what new rules need to be developed in order to create this vision, but for now, I think it’s still useful to brainstorm and imagine what the Promised Land should look like.

Safe – There’s loads more to be discussed about this, but: trying cannabis products for the first time is always a more tenuous affair– not because cannabis is “dangerous”, but because we still do not know very much about how every individual will react to cannabis and THC. For every public venue that is conducting sales, there needs to be plans to accommodate people that are experiencing unpleasant effects, both for their own sake and for others. Some ways that venue cannabis sales can be made safe include:

  • Tiers of potency – As we currently operate in most states, limits on potency are most-often treated as baselines/floors for potency. If a jurisdiction limits edibles/beverage consumption to 10mg THC per serving, most lines will release options that are exactly 10mg. For the purposes of public safety, however, I think it’s quite reasonable to require that a public venue offer a variety of potencies and options for people. 2mg, 5mg, and 10mg beverage options, or even better– offer types of cannabis products that have different ratios of THC to CBD, like 1:2 or even 1:5. Limited options with higher potency is a recipe for increased unpleasant experiences, and also a recipe for decreased sales.
  • Chill-out area/Sequestration – for some people, cannabis may cause anxiety or panic, especially in a public space. For the purposes of public safety and for ensuring maximum enjoyment for others, having a well-advertised and accessible “cool-down zone” will be a smart idea. This doesn’t need to be an extravagant accommodation– think something akin to a tobacco smoking section at a stadium, located somewhere outside the general flow of traffic and oftentimes outside the direct audience for a show.
  • Effective cross-fading prevention – “Cross-fading”, otherwise known as consuming cannabis and alcohol in the same session, is something that venues should look to effectively prevent. Although there are many people who claim to be able to handle both substances at the same time, public policy and safety would suggest that permitting cross-fading at a public venue is only a recipe for problems. How a venue ensures that people don’t consume cannabis and alcohol simultaneously is a question of protocols and practices. Perhaps the most straight-forward system would involve different colored bracelets for customers– the cannabis retail spots will give a green wristband to every person who purchases cannabis at the game, and alcohol retail can offer red wristbands. Employees of each space should be trained on the venue policy, and on ensuring that no one who has been served one substance is permitted to cross over and purchase the second substance at the same event.
  • CBD – A little preface: there is much to still be properly determined about CBD’s ability to address anxiety in individuals, and the most honest assessment of the field would say that there are way too many promises made about CBD. That said, there have been multiple studies that point towards CBD being a promising option for anxiety, and no evidence so far that CBD has potential for abuse or negative indicators of toxicity. Contrary to some beliefs, CBD does not “cancel out” the effects of THC, but it does seem to reduce anxiety. As a precautionary measure, venues should strongly consider also offering CBD-only products alongside the THC products (and I would suggest offering them at a discount to THC). Venue officials should also consider carrying CBD products in the cool-out area.

No Minor Use – This is pretty straightforward in theory, but will need some fleshing out.

  • Well-publicized zero tolerance policies – It’s simply not enough to presume that the public will know and abide by a venue’s policies, and its standards for removal. A venue should happily promote the cannabis products that they offer, but should also be consistent in communicating to people the seriousness with which the venue looks at under age use. Make clear to everyone that anyone found giving THC products to underage people will be asked to leave the venue, immediately, with no refund. Publicize the contact info for audience reporting. Repeat this info before, during, and after games and concerts. Thank the audience for participating in making sure that the entire audience has a good and safe time.
  • Effective Customer Identification as a Cultural Value – Much like alcohol, complying with laws around customer age verification will apply here. Also, much like alcohol compliance, cannabis compliance is the produce of a culture, rather than a moral challenge for each salesperson. From leadership down to the floor staff, a venue must communicate that preventing under-age sales is important and worth focusing on.
  • Potentially: a season ban on consuming cannabis products for anyone that is caught distributing cannabis to minors. Removal from the stadium or venue might be effective in some cases, but I’m also interested in the idea of a venue creating a Do Not Serve list for the rest of a year as a proper consequence for open violators.

Risk-Based – Rather than blanket policies that apply to all venues and arenas, live event sales should be effective and applicable to each space. Venue operators should be expected to continuously reevaluate their cannabis sales practices with an eye towards effectively addressing potential harms where they are found. What this looks like:

  • Recognizing the particular type of audience that a venue tends to attract – If you are a concert venue that often has all-ages or 18+ shows, you have different risk profiles and challenges than an art gallery that occasionally offers experimental art/music performances. If you are a venue that hosts both professional sports and large concerts, preventing minor use of cannabis will be different than a small indoor venue that focuses on jazz ensembles and private parties. Venues must be aware of how they serve products, where risks could occur, and address the risks as they are, not as a legislator might assume them to be.
  • Objective and data-driven policies – Hypotheticals can be helpful (heck, this blog post is based in hypotheticals!), but they can also create unintentional blind spots. As has been demonstrated often in the first decade of licensed cannabis sales, rulemakers and legislators can create onerous and ineffective regulations when they operate based off of gut logic, fears, or worries. Risk-based cannabis regulations take action based off of objective data, and are more effective for doing so. Venues should proactively survey their own practices, and work with local enforcement and regulators to ascertain what is actually happening, and take steps to address the actual harms where they occur.

Responsive/Agile – Cannabis sales at venues will take a wide variety of forms and designs, new risks will occur where no one anticipated them, and having a hard or fixed mentality will only cause further problems. Both venues and regulators must respond to harms where they arise, and be willing to adjust their practices to meet new problems. Perhaps most importantly, a responsive regulatory system will reward compliant/noble actors, and sanction hardened rule-breakers. If a venue is proactive in meeting concerns and conducting safe sales, regulators and legislators should be looking to promote and appreciate the behavior, and use the example as a method to encourage other actors to adopt similar practices. Regulators should be researching and promoting best practices for live event cannabis sales as the regulators encounter them. By framing the issue as one of agility and responsiveness, we can move past the old-fashioned antagonism between regulator and operator, and work towards everyone recognizing that successful cannabis sales are a team effort.

Positive – Incorporating cannabis sales into live events is, I believe, a positive step for society. But even if I didn’t believe that, it’s important for a regulatory system to act as if cannabis sales are a positive addition, and work hard to welcome it as such. Half-measures are a precursor to unsatisfied customers, sloppier compliance, and frustration with the venue experience. Positive cannabis regulations will be looking towards ways to improve operations, rather than restrain or cage cannabis into a smaller offering. Cannabis products should be offered alongside other venue fare, and consuming cannabis responsibly at a venue should be viewed as a great success, rather an unfortunate accommodation. I’m generally agnostic on the idea of in-venue cannabis advertisements– I think I’m fine with a prohibition on billboards or advertisements encouraging cannabis consumption in the public eye (or where young people in the audience may encounter them), and with understated signage and siting being used to make clear where cannabis can be purchased within the venue.

So, there’s a glimpse at some of the ways that live cannabis sales can be created to uphold pro-social values and behavior. I realize that there are many within the cannabis industry who would like an easier system that allowed a wider array of activities, and like any business owners, many in cannabis think that less regulations equates with better regulations. I politely disagree with these people – introducing licensed cannabis to our world is a challenge, and there are issues to address and regulate against. We desperately need cannabis to re-enter polite society, and demonstrate that cannabis isn’t synonymous with breaking rules and self-centered behavior– all of us have an interest in this stuff working well. This is why I ask so much of cannabis operators and activists, and expect to hold us to higher standard. I firmly believe we can meet that safe standard, but it takes a serious attempt and well-meaning folks to become involved.

Next time: an overview of the impediments to live event cannabis sales, and a sketch of some of the laws and regulations that will need to change in order to create this scenario.

Categories
Cannabis Policy

Some Thoughts on Regulating Cannabis Sales at Live Events

I want to start a little ongoing series of thoughts about integrating cannabis products and cannabis sales into venues that host events like sports and concerts. I want to keep this more abstract for several concrete reasons:

  1. We are just starting to see licensed cannabis groups working their way with cannabis consumption in public venues. In Illinois this weekend, the “Miracle at Mundelein” is a prime example of an inaugural attempt– no cannabis sales in the consumption space, but you can purchase products at the dispensary across the street– but it’s a very hodgepodge affair. The state regulators aren’t deeply involved, and the on-site regulations and requirements are an ad-hoc mixture of local rules and state laws. Trying to speak concretely about “public cannabis sales” writ large is useless at this point, we’re only getting started, and each state is its own challenge.
  2. Almost every state’s laws and licensing schemes for cannabis are designed against sales of cannabis at public venues. The laws are designed to control the sales of cannabis– to limit the sales to licensed facilities and dispensaries, and prohibit all other cannabis sales to customers that take place outside of a licensed dispensary. This was done by legislators at the behest of many in the licensed cannabis industry, at least initially. License holders pay large amounts for their privilege, and are generally against the idea of creating more places to buy licensed products, which undercuts their own sales.
  3. Every state’s cannabis laws are different. Their own peculiar licenses, their own requirements for acquiring licenses, and their own landscape of regulatory requirements for licensed operators. There are of course similarities between states, but there is absolutely no uniformity or consistency across jurisdictions.

Given these facts, there’s no single strategy or set of changes that a person could recommend, it’s just too thorny and contingent on other circumstances.

I want to invert the framing of this challenge: rather than talk about all the things that need to be modified or changed from our current position in any state’s system, I want to focus on the destination, where we’re trying to get to. If we can start developing a consensus on what safe Public Cannabis Sales might look like, my hope is that we can more easily agree on what needs to change in each jurisdiction.

So for today, I want to highlight some principles or values that an effective Public Cannabis Sales system should enforce and support, and that all stakeholders (communities, regulatory agencies, licensed operators) should be able to rally behind:

  • Safe – Everyone should be interested in people using cannabis in a safe environment, and cannabis should only be permitted to be sold in a safe manner. There’s no need to grant the privilege of cannabis sales to a facility or operator that doesn’t take safety seriously– if someone’s so uncaring as to be unsafe, there’s always going to be another willing operator who can meet the requirements of public safety.
  • No Minor Use – Everyone should be interested in preventing underage cannabis use and sales, especially the cannabis industry. There’s already significant evidence that developing brains shouldn’t consume THC, and little room for the idea that it’s good or even non-harmful for young people to consume cannabis. Even if there are many people in the modern cannabis industry who don’t realize it, they have a long-term interest in preventing young people too: people who start smoking later in life tend to consume more than the people who started too early! Keeping young people from smoking or vaping weed is an effective way to preserve your future customer base.
  • Risk-Based – Rather than fear based regulations, or stigma-based laws, our system for Public Cannabis Sales should be both based on measurable evidence and on a forward-looking mindset of anticipating problems where they actually are occurring. The first decade of cannabis regulation has shown quite clearly that legislators are unable to fully anticipate the risks and challenges of a regulated industry, and have both over-legislated and under-legislated in particular areas. Public cannabis sales, if anything, are even more important to get right than licensed site sales. We need a system that is consistently compared against on-the-ground reality, and willing to be audited and updated to better address risks where we discover them. We also need a system that is willing to let go of old fears that have been proven to be low-risk.
  • Responsive and Agile – Public Cannabis Sales’ issues are not strictly limited to the site of an event and the holders of the license– there are surrounding communities and households that are just as much impacted by sales and customer behavior, as well as on-site employees and public transit workers servicing the event. A successful system for regulated public sales will need to have built into it a standard of responsiveness and adaptability, as well as public standards of being answerable to community-based input. Annual assessments by a third party would possibly be the pipe-dream for creating a responsive regulatory stance.
  • Positive – We are not trying to banish cannabis to the shadows anymore, and we should be aiming for cannabis’s inclusion to be as positive as we can make it, rather than deny its very existence or potential inclusion. This doesn’t mean pushing cannabis into places without consent, but it means allowing the market for public cannabis to grow towards a demand-based amount in public. Sales of cannabis shouldn’t be unlimited,of course, but instead only limited when informed by evidence of public risk. (See: Risk-Based, above). Having legislators set standards for public use based on their personal levels of taste/distaste for cannabis is an inconsistent plan, and a recipe for more head-aches. Not Positive!

I’m definitely going to have more thoughts on this later, but hopefully we can at least start getting more policy-minded folks involved with the question. This isn’t an issue that should be solved by a closed room of agency regulators, industry lobbyists, and public health partisans, and I think crafting an effective solution to public cannabis sales will have huge impacts to everyone, both inside and outside of the industry.

As a final thought: over the weekend I went to an outdoor concert featuring Run The Jewels, Wu-Tang Clan, and Deltron 3030 (rap nerd flex!). It was a great show, even if it’s always kinda funny to watch these poor sea-level rappers struggle to breathe. As you can imagine, there was a massive amount of weed smoked in this amphitheater, for hours straight. Also, given that these acts have fans from 30 years ago, the age range in the crowd was from teenagers to 60somethings. In terms of a strict reading of current regulations, this concert was an enforcement mess, and thousands of people congregated to break a clear legal requirement. And yet….outside of the usual concert injuries (people falling down the steps while drunk, a fight or two in the back between drunk people)… no one who attended that concert or was in the surrounding areas was harmed by the illegality. After the show, and after my mind cleared, I kept coming back to the idea of consent– how the context of consent mattered to determining the amount of social harm to be mitigated.

Does attending a Wu-Tang concert mean an implicit consent to be exposed to secondhand cannabis smoke? Obviously by the strict letter of the law, no, it doesn’t. But in the realer world of experience, I think it’s safe to say that there was an implicit consent. I know that for myself, there was a full-minded awareness that the show would include that environmental condition. Did the working staff and vendors of the amphitheater have the same level of consent? Obviously not. But rather than presume to speak for the employees, I will instead say: I would love some surveys and data about live event staff’s views and perspectives on working events that are all-but-assured to include secondhand cannabis smoke.

Once I figure out how to get comments working on this here dang blog, I’ll open them up below for your thoughts or feedback. In the meantime, don’t hesitate to ping me on Twitter (@wisetendersnob) or BlueSky (@snowdenst), I’d love to hear other perspectives, especially from folks with experience working as vendors and staff for cannabis-heavy events as they currently occur.