Promoting Wellbeing in the Context of Cannabis Legalization: Beyond Persuasion

Introduction: Cannabis was quietly added to the list of prohibited substances in Canada in 1923. At the time there was very limited awareness of it in the country and no obvious health or social problems to be addressed. Today it is the most commonly used illicit substance, and the federal government’s intention to legalize it in 2018 has resulted in lots of debate. Almost all of this debate is framed within an evidence-based discourse – attempting to establish the truth of various propositions. This positivist frame provides an inadequate base for a significant policy shift (Stone, 2002).

Methods: The approach taken draws on three critical streams of thought. Aristotle’s distinction between theoria and praxis has been variously reframed (e.g., Weber, 1920, 1921; Habermas 1984). Whereas instrumental patterns of communication are strategic and manifest in the attempt to get others to conform to set goals, communicative rationality is expressed in an open, reciprocal, two-way process of dialogue that seeks to nurture appropriate norms of living in society (Bohm, 1996; Buber, 1970; Freire, 2000; Gadamer, 2004; Huberman 1984; McKee, 2003; Taylor, 1994). The former deals with the how (engineering) while the latter addresses the what-why nexus (ethics). A second stream flows from the concept of health promotion (see Ottawa Charter, 1986) that broadens the definition of health (cf. Aristotle’s distinction between biological health and wellbeing, see Buchanan, 2000) and appeals to a socio-ecological understanding of human action. A third stream is drawn from inquiry-based education. While most health education has been based on the science of persuasion, our work draws on the principles of liberal or progressive education and constructivism within a pluralistic context (Dewey, 1916; Bruner, 1973; Gadamer, 2001). Professional learning resources and learning strategies and tools reflecting all these various streams have been developed for and tested in classroom settings as well as campus and community settings.

Results: Impact is being measured in terms of increase in mutual understanding, sense of belonging, community participation and the diversity of normative stories in the community. At this point, data is collected from teachers and facilitators reporting significant stories. These stories suggest this approach engages participants and has led to some significant breakthroughs in mutual understanding, sense of belonging and readiness to participate.

Conclusions: Dialogue and inquiry provide promising ways to engage students and community members in processes that increase mutual understanding and connection and are likely to provide a more adequate foundation for the formation of social norms and behavioural regulation related to cannabis.