Repositioning Cannabis: A Policy, Public Health, and Economic Discussion

Less than a decade ago, cannabis was still criminalized and stigmatized—confined to the margins of public health, policy, and commerce. Today, it sits at a crossroads.

We are in the midst of a pivotal shift. What began as a social justice and medical access movement is evolving into something more familiar: regulated, if still unusual, consumer-packaged goods (CPG).

To understand how cannabis fits into today’s policy discourse—and where it could go—we first need to understand where it’s been.

From Shadows to Shelves

Cannabis has spent most of our modern history in the shadows. It survived the war on drugs, persisted through public stigma, and built a resilient, deeply rooted underground culture. Despite this, advocates fought hard to create and expand safe access to cannabis—free from the risk of criminal prosecution.

That advocacy paid off.

The first step was granting limited medical access, which allowed patients—under the supervision of a prescribing practitioner—to use cannabis for approved health conditions. This required regulation, which in turn led to small-scale legal cultivation and production. As the program developed, Health Canada took the lead in shaping a new regulatory framework that would formalize a nationwide medical access system.

A Market Born with Boundaries

In 2018, the Cannabis Act came into effect, creating the framework we know today. Its two primary goals were clear: protect public health and safety and replace the illicit cannabis market with a legal, regulated alternative.

But this is where we need to pause.

Health Canada took charge of regulating federal production, distribution, and medical access. Their mandate? To protect public health by ensuring access to legal, quality-controlled cannabis products.

Equally important is what Health Canada did not take responsibility for:

• Health Canada did not envision a commercially competitive playing field where the legal market would be positioned to outcompete the existing illicit one. Key competitive factors—such as pricing, convenience, and product selection—remain heavily tilted in favour of the illicit market. Consider this: a consumer choosing between a single 10 mg legal edible available only via “Click & Collect” versus a same-day delivery pack of 10 unregulated 100 mg gummies that are available from a non-age-gated website. The outcome is predictable—and illustrative. 
• Nor was the regulatory framework ever meant to promote increased cannabis consumption—it was designed to serve existing demand, not to encourage new use. This can be difficult to reconcile, especially considering that legalization originated through medical access. Even as evidence mounts around cannabis being a safer alternative to certain prescription drugs or alcohol, the promotion of cannabis—beyond acknowledging its existence—remains off limits, even in the context of harm reduction.

In other words, the legal cannabis industry wasn’t designed to stimulate new demand—unlike most CPG sectors that rely on marketing and innovation to grow their customer base and boost consumption. Instead, its purpose was to convert existing demand into a safer, regulated environment. Yet it was also expected that private businesses would step in, invest heavily, and operate within a complex regulatory framework—all while being told that market growth was not the goal. That’s a tall order and one that breaks from the typical rules of how markets function. 

The Fragile Foundation

Cannabis advocates and enthusiasts celebrated legalization as the beginning of everything they had imagined. The early days felt like a gold rush: chaotic, hopeful, and full of potential.

Legalization represented an evolutionary leap in the cannabis timeline. The biggest hurdle—criminalization—was gone. Businesses were popping up across the country. Then came edibles, extracts, topicals, and a wave of innovation.

The warning signs were there—rapid expansion, inflated expectations, and unsustainable growth that was bound to hit a wall. 

The market became saturated. Prices dropped. Competition intensified. Health Canada, overwhelmed by the rapid growth, faced growing criticism for failing to enforce compliance. When the regulator did attempt to act—for example, by closing a loophole related to ‘ingestible edibles’—it was met with legal action. These challenges created a chilling effect, reinforcing a fear of regulatory overreach and making Health Canada increasingly hesitant to intervene.

The result was an absent regulator operating within a highly restrictive “nanny-state” framework: present enough to impose restrictions but too risk-averse to adapt, lead, or meaningfully enforce. These conditions reward the bold and aggressive, while compliance-minded players are left to regulate themselves into irrelevance.

And the illicit market? It didn’t fold or transition. It stayed active—and even thrived—in an environment that had become more permissive.

Meanwhile, legal businesses were forced to compete not only with each other but also with the still-operating illicit players. Health Canada, either unable or unwilling to evolve alongside the industry, failed to offer the guidance or certainty needed by compliance-minded operators struggling under an unworkable regulatory regime. As a result, many companies turned to CCAA protection. While poor business decisions often played a role, advocates increasingly pointed to a broader reality: the system itself was unsustainable for the industry at large. 

Putting It in Perspective

Cannabis policy remains a niche topic in political circles, often overlooked or poorly understood by decision-makers at the highest levels. The era of Justin Trudeau campaigning on cannabis legalization is long behind us. To understand where cannabis fits into today’s political and policy discourse, we need to zoom out and take stock of the broader landscape.

The world is in the middle of a toxic drug crisis, and the opioid epidemic is claiming lives. Canada’s leadership has been destabilized following the prorogation of parliament, the resignation of a fallen Prime Minister, the appointment of a central banker as an unelected Prime Minister during a period of unprecedented and escalating tension with our largest ally and trading partner, the US. Add to this series of unfortunate events a global economic crunch and existential questions about national sovereignty.

In that mix, is the plight of the legal cannabis industry anywhere near the top of the list?

Absolutely not. In this environment, there is little political will to debate packaging colours or even tax policy when Canadians are demanding certainty about their livelihoods, their safety, and their future. 

Where Does Cannabis Fit as a Priority?

This is where I argue—it doesn’t, at least, not as cannabis.

As a regulated consumer product, cannabis now sits within much broader public policy conversations. It’s time to reframe how we think and talk about it—not in isolation, but as part of a wider system.

Here are some shared public policy questions worth considering:

• Is cannabis a medicine? What makes something a medicine? Does it require a prescription? Can it be used preventively? At what point in someone’s health journey should interventions be made to be most effective?
• Can our public health system afford to oversee preventive and alternative therapies? And more importantly, can it afford not to? Should we continue waiting for people to become sick before responding with expensive, complex treatments when proactive strategies may be more affordable and effective overall?
• What does “recreational use” really mean? Should adults have the freedom to use products with known risks? And should our publicly funded systems be expected to carry the burden when those risks materialize?
• How old is an adult? Is there a consistent standard? At what age can someone vote, drive, drink, enlist in the military, or make informed health decisions? These inconsistencies open up deeper questions about age-based rights and responsibilities that current systems struggle to reconcile.
• What level of risk is acceptable for legal sale? Should products be subject to safety studies before hitting the market? If so, how much evidence is enough? Keep in mind that most novel cannabis products currently don’t require pre-market safety studies—studies that can take years and cost millions, which is part of what drives high pharmaceutical prices.
• How much are consumers willing to pay for safety and oversight in a legal market? And who ultimately foots the bill for enforcement and managing negative outcomes related to the illicit market?
• If a product exists in the illicit market, should a legal alternative be available? Can the legal market be competitive on price, accessibility, and product range? And if legal options don’t exist—for instance, affordable edible cannabis—do we have adequate enforcement tools to control the illicit alternatives?

These questions aren’t unique to cannabis. They go to the heart of how we regulate all kinds of products—and the tensions that exist between consumer rights, public safety, and regulatory responsibility.

It’s Time to Move On

Times are hard. But cannabis needs to move past the internal debates and take its place in the broader conversation.

Cannabis can’t afford to remain siloed. It operates within a broader regulatory and economic system that intersects with public health, consumer safety, and market resilience.

We are already confronting the same questions in other sectors: alcohol, tobacco, vaping, opioids, and even junk food. Each reflects a shared challenge—how do we regulate risk in a world of expanding choices and limited understanding? Add to this the cautious mindset of regulators contending with rising healthcare costs and the fallout of unintended consequences from nicotine replacement therapies and opioid “safe supply” programs. Their hesitation is understandable—but avoidance only deepens the problem.

It’s time to move past ideological debates and focus on outcomes. What kind of society are we trying to build? How do we balance innovation with protection—for parents and their children, practitioners and patients, regulators and the public?

This isn’t theoretical—policy must be practical. A rigid, zero-risk model that can’t be implemented doesn’t protect the public; it simply postpones necessary, real-world solutions.

If we want responsible business engagement, we have to create space for it. A framework that excludes opportunity won’t inspire participation. This isn’t the Field of Dreams—and expecting success while erecting barriers at every step isn’t just naive, it’s self-defeating.

In Canada’s mixed-market economy, progress depends on policy environments that do more than invite participation—they must actively reward innovation and investment. Without them, we risk cementing dysfunction—and giving opportunists free rein to exploit the very gaps good policy should close.

A Forward Look

It’s time for cannabis to be less about cannabis—and more about its role in a modern policy landscape. The industry must move beyond appeals for special treatment rooted in past injustices and recognize that evidence-based regulations aimed at protecting the public aren’t negotiable simply because others choose to ignore them. Industry leadership must focus on shared priorities that enhance consumer protection while easing unnecessary burdens—recognizing that the long-term viability of the legal framework depends on a sustainable, mutually beneficial relationship between industry and the public.

It’s not too late for an industry that has come so far, so fast, to take what it has learned and help shape a future where the legal framework serves all Canadians. This means offering safe, regulated products to informed adults while fulfilling its role in actively displacing illicit markets and protecting youth through controlled access.

Cannabis has always mirrored broader societal debates—a reflection of shifting values, blurred regulatory boundaries, and our cultural discomfort with risk. Now is the time to turn that reflection into direction and use cannabis as a proving ground for smarter public policy.

If we get cannabis policy right, it won’t just benefit one industry—it will set a precedent for smarter, more adaptive regulation that meets the needs of Canadians in a rapidly evolving consumer landscape.