By Jamie L Pearson, Founder of New Holland Group

When the New York Times editorial board published its opinion piece on cannabis last week, the industry response was predictable: outrage, defensiveness, accusations of bad faith, and much pointing out of their selective interpretation of the data. My knee-jerk reaction was all of that too, but what I really wanted to understand was the “back room” motivation behind the piece.

It helps to start with what an editorial board actually does. They are not reporters or industry analysts. The Times editorial board sees itself, in its own words, “as a forum for long-range opinion shaping, grounded in institutional values and debate.” The editorial board’s role “is to supply the wide-ranging debate about big ideas that a diverse democracy needs.” In short, the board articulates positions on major questions because it sees itself as the experts who should be influencing public policy. Love it or hate it, when any issue moves from moral debate to regulatory design, like exactly where we are in cannabis, an opinion piece from the NYT editorial board is a sign of maturation.

For decades, cannabis lived in the conversations surrounding legalization, criminal justice, access, and legitimacy. The media treated it as a civil liberties issue. That chapter is closing, and we’re moving into the governance chapter. The question is no longer “Should cannabis be legal?” The question is, “How should it be structured, regulated, and integrated into public systems?”

This shift inevitably changes tone. Every emerging industry goes through a similar arc of evolution from reform to expansion to commercialization to governance. Cannabis is entering the governance phase, which is confusing because we’re still in federal prohibition.

Nevertheless, the NYT piece was about governance, which means they moved their internal conversation from “if” to “when & how”. This is institutional normalization. The timing of the opinion piece makes sense. Federal rescheduling discussions are underway. States are refining their frameworks. Europe, particularly Germany under CanG, is carefully watching U.S. outcomes as it calibrates its own approach.

The NY Times piece raised caution about cannabis commercialization. It’s the old adage “be careful what you wish for” because now that cannabis is substantial enough to warrant long-term regulatory thinking, we have a bunch of people with very little understanding of our industry publishing their opinions – to guide public policy.

Looking at the motivation showed me what’s important. Ten years ago, this piece would have been impossible. The industry wasn’t mature enough to warrant a governance debate. Today, we are large enough and economically relevant enough to invite scrutiny. And we really need a strategically coordinated response.

What this piece did was shine a light on the dirty little secret of the cannabis and hemp industries. We don’t have our collective shit together. We’re building the airplane while in flight and reacting to, rather than driving the discussions. What we need is industry leadership to guide governance conversations. There are individuals and organizations trying to do this, but so far, efforts have been fractured by egos.

Which organization or thought leaders are best equipped to lead this charge? Friends in the industry, I really want to hear your thoughts. The uncomfortable truth is we lack unified messaging around what cannabis should ultimately become in society, and we lack the unity as an industry to figure it out.

Should cannabis resemble ibuprofen? Readily available, sold everywhere, highly regulated to be safe when used as directed?

Or like alcohol? Readily available, age-gated, highly regulated for potency and purity?

Or is physicians’ oversight necessary? Or something in between?

What would a strategically coordinated response look like?

We have an opportunity to lead with data rather than defensiveness, clarify the distinction between regulated and illicit markets, strengthen public health partnerships, prove our operational rigor, and be at the table when standards are created. Crying foul at the editorial is missing the whole point.

Industries that respond to scrutiny with transparency and discipline become more resilient. Industries that react emotionally reinforce skepticism. We asked to be taken seriously, and now we’re being scrutinized. That tracks.

Are there more cannabis emergency room cases? Yes, of course, because waaaay more people are using cannabis than ever before. But did anyone die? The NYT missed that part altogether.

Most of the data they referenced in their “America has a problem” piece is evidence of the simple fact that America is using cannabis and A LOT of it. The piece was designed to stoke a debate about governance and what’s next. Instead, our industry’s responses were all focused on tearing down the contents of the article.

Most Americans have state-sanctioned access to cannabinoid-based alternatives to legal pharmaceuticals, alcohol, and tobacco. This means we (quasi) successfully changed the lack of access, and our industry has blossomed (i.e., commercialized). Commercialization led to governance, which invites scrutiny and outside influence. Are we ready?

The NYT piece can be seen as a watershed moment. It is a battle cry to unite and meaningfully participate in answering the “when and how” questions. They are upon us. If we don’t, that work will be left to the ill-informed.

History offers precedent. When alcohol prohibition ended, regulatory frameworks did not appear overnight. They evolved over time as society moved from debating access to debating structure. The alcohol lobby became sophisticated, organized, and influential.

The cannabis lobby can too.

Don’t get mad. Get informed, or better yet, show up and raise your inside voice.