CannaBaer

On 2/3/2022 at 1:17 PM, Totemic said:

Interesting research. Where the government is involved I'm sure all of us have plenty to say. I'll always take the opportunity to raise my insignificant opinions. 

I feel our governments approach or any other governments approach for that matter on cannabis is just too much of everything.

They are burying the plant and tieing it up in legislation and red pink and any color tape they can find. This is not freeing the plant. 

Before 1922 there was zero law around this plant in south africa, and there is no reason why it can't go back to exactly that. Cannabis should be entirely removed from all written law. 

Interestingly enough, there were laws relating to cannabis earlier than 1922, but in the form of crop taxation (which is how the prohibition game started out). It would be a veritable shit show if we removed cannabis completely from written law. We have laws because we cannot regulate ourselves autonomously, it would be lovely (this anarchist's dream), but alas practically unpackable, and indefinitely so, methinks.

That being said, I'd definitely appreciate an interview if you are keen. I would definitely like to hear more on your views. My contact details are available in OP.

Most growers say the same thing, they will keep doing what they are doing regardless of regulations. Inevitably some consumers do want surety that the products they are consuming adhere to certain standards, and government is always in the business of regulation. I think the two need to meet somewhere, but legacy stakeholder engagements seem few and far between with regards to government attempting to learn form legacy gowers and legitimising their existing supply chains. No matter who you are though, if you want to sell your garden variety tomatoes to the grocer, you need to prove that you are following GAP and GMP standards, so naturally cannabis will be regulated within the same framework. It is part of consumer protection frameworks. I do like the idea of people growing their own cannabis, I do the same. But I am generally reluctant to use cannabis from an unknown source (enter my later adolescent phase, haha). Case in point PGRs are really bad, there is a reason they are generally regulated in most countries with regards to produce.

That being said, the market will saturate quickly, and this will be done via corporate routes. The market can only sustain so many 30-100 million rand grow ops, of which a few are already completed, and a couple more are underway. The government goes for massive return over a short period, not sustainable investment in SMEs over a longer period, generally speaking. This kind of model definitely doesn't invest in socio-economic sustainability, but rather flash profits, which (not to be cynical, just realistic) all too often disappears without a trace, and where there is a trace, little to no accountability. Sad to say, but the 'market' is already lost to those who historically have access, and the few newcomers that manage to squeeze in early.

On 2/3/2022 at 3:06 PM, ORGANinc. said:

A rationale? I think to broad a term. The government is unapologetic about their open-ness to regulation. In their minds they’ve been too open haha. 
 

I love the active stance though, the country is filled with people asking questions, and rightly so. 
 

Which ever way it goes, they always stick to the status quo. The Medicines Act. If every decision made is dependent on the wrong foundation. Then we not making progress. 

Considering what I have learned thus far, major players are definitely shaping policy by means of influence, or shear will power in the case of smaller entrepreneurs. It's a mixed bag, but only those that go at it early with everything they have and then some will likely get a sustainable share in the market, and then you have to keep a good game going, because competition is fierce. It's how policy/lobbying generally works, no matter what the phenomenon. If one considers the history of policy, power and smarts dictate no matter which economic system you observe.

18 minutes ago, Ill_Evan said:

Great to see, which institution is this via?

 

I am in agreement here. Frankly, any regulated system our government attempts to enforce will be largely skewed in favour of established corporations or individuals with large capital.

We are most definitely going in the right direction in regards to personal freedoms regarding the plant, I do feel that within the next 5 years at the very least nobody will be arrested for anything cannabis related on a personal level. 

Anybody skilled enough to produce cannabis and wishes to do so for personal financial upliftment should be allowed, and y'know what? They will do so now and after whatever legislation is established.

It is not the cannabis industry that must catch up to government, but much rather the opposite. 

Studying through Unisa. Surprisingly amazing anthropology department, hence continuing my master's studies in anthropology there. My honour's focused on cannabis research as well, but on the topic of public perception, stigma and control.

Hi there!

I am currently doing my MA in anthropology at Unisa, focusing on cannabis policy in South Africa. The process entails interviews (and participant observation where possible) with stakeholders form a diverse intersection of the South African cannabis context including, growers, sellers, govt policy makers, entrepreneurs, NGO's, representatives of indigenous knowledge systems. If you would like to participate and make a contribution to the research in the form of an interview, please send an email to cannabis.res.dev@gmail.com, and we can set up a meeting.

See the attached informed consent form for more information on study parameters.

Most interviews will likely be done over a digital platform like Zoom/Skype for the sake of convenience.

Also, participate in the poll, it's anonymous.

I look forward to hearing your perspective on cannabis policy in South Africa.

Kindest regards,

Etienne

Study participant informed consent form.pdf