Tracy Harvey (00:05):
Back in 1998, there's a Globe and Mail article suggesting that the industry was worth 3 billion and really they're crediting the industry for helping people to survive. It allowed people to live because they lost their jobs to forestry or whatever the prominent industry was. And BC really has leaned on natural resources for decades. And so cannabis filled that gap.

Graham Lee (00:30):
You're listening to the Wide Health Podcast produced by the Ontario Agricultural College of the University of Guelph, where we look to answer big questions in agriculture, food, and the environment through casual conversations rooted in research. Hey Jordan, how's it going?

Jordan Terpstra (00:45):
Hey Graham! Not too bad. How are you doing today?

Graham Lee (00:47):
Pretty good. We're getting up early in the morning to put a little intro together for the Tracy Harvey episode.

Jordan Terpstra (00:56):
We talked to Tracy, I guess it was a couple of weeks ago now. We're recording our intro now for that. So why don't you tell me a little bit more about Tracy and why we were talking to her?

Graham Lee (01:06):
Yeah, so Tracy is a PhD student with the University of Guelph's Rural Studies program. She's also an instructor at Selkirk College in the mountains of British Columbia and her PhD focuses on legacy cannabis producers in rural BC and how it interacts with rural communities. So super interesting stuff.

Jordan Terpstra (01:25):
Yeah. I'd say it's, it's been one of my favorite episodes that we've done in the past little while. I think it's, it's kind of cool because people kind of forget that people were taking part in growing cannabis. And that was part of, of supporting rural communities, especially in BC. So the legalization of cannabis really changed those things. It was kind of fun to dive into that conversation with Tracy. Did you have a highlight without giving too much away? Did you have a highlight from the conversation?

Graham Lee (01:50):
Yeah. Everything was super interesting, but I loved when she talked about kind of the Narcos of the north. People smuggling in cannabis to the U.S. in backpacks and stuff and exchanging it for money and other sorts of contraband. It's all crazy.

Jordan Terpstra (02:10):
I think we've given our listeners enough of a sneak peek, so let's get back into the episode. All right. How's it going with Tracy?

Tracy Harvey (02:16):
I'm good. Thanks. How are you? Good.

Graham Lee (02:18):
Good. So let's jump right into it. We know that the legalization of recreational cannabis happened in 2018 on the 17th of October. But what was it like before then in BC? What was the market like? And just the general atmosphere.

Tracy Harvey (02:35):
Well, do you want a little bit of history?

Graham Lee (02:37):
Yeah, that'd be great.

Tracy Harvey (02:38):
Cause things changed over time and across BC, for sure. It undulated that industry. It was sort of classic to a natural resource industry that had it sick, like booms and busts, and cannabis was no different. So it generally started in the 1960s and '70s, when draft Dodgers who were fleeing the Vietnam war came to regions, like the Kootenays and also Gulf islands and remote places on the coast. So that's sort of kick-started the industry, but it was small. People grew for themselves, traded, bartered with it. And it really took off in the 80s. Particularly when our natural resource industries hit a permanent downturn. So mines closed, forestry operations, closed fisheries, you know, went downhill. And that's when cannabis, the commercial side of it, really expanded in the '80s.
And people talk about the glory days of the '80 and early '90s, when they would grow outdoor, terrible product and get $3,500 a pound; it was lucrative. That continued for a little bit until the tragic events of 9/11. So September 11th, 2001, things changed for that industry when the border shut because most of the product was going south to the U S and people were backpacking it themselves, literally in backpacks, floating it in canoes, floating it in hollowed out logs. And it was really easy to make a hundred thousand dollars with a journey like that in one go, but 9/11 changed things for that market. To get it across the border, it involves planes, helicopters, logging trucks with hollowed out logs and bigger operations. And usually that was when organized crime, was people speculated, was involved with that, which makes sense being larger, more organized activities required to get across the border.
So the industry sort of constricted in the early aughts people talk about, so the early 2000s, but the resourceful industry found new routes. They started to ship across Alberta, up to the oil sands in Alberta, and also across to Ontario and Quebec. It sort of took off again. It dropped to inconceivable prices in the early aughts to about $2,000 a pound. As I said, there was reason to grow. People were able to make a living again and then it sort of constricted again. People suggest around 2013 and so medical legalization also happened in that time in 2001, which is when our grain market started to grow quite slowly at first and then more rapidly because there's three different legislative changes during that time until recreational legalization. So that really affected the market.
But in 2013 was when the legislation changed so that the personal growing was no longer accepted or the small scale growing. But instead large organizations known as licensed producers could only grow, and people speculate, and there are some incriminating news articles actually that point to evidence that some of these large license producers were actually shipping, they're like selling their poor product through the back door and that flooded the illicit market. So prices went down again. People got out. But then things started to pick up again, closer to legalization, especially with the ACNPR, which was the last medical legislation that passed that allowed personal growing again. So the grain market was fueled by 120 licensed producers, who are medically licensed, 300,000 client registration, so people who could buy products through those producers, and there's 25,000 small personal medical licenses in Canada at that time.
And it's kind of crazy because in the seven months leading up to legalization, that number of personal medical licenses just went on this trajectory just grew like crazy. So people were kind of getting in, they felt a sense of protection with that license. And often people were growing more than there are a lot of numbers and selling that to the dispensaries or through the MOMS. And those also allegedly helped the market flourish, like the retail storefronts, the brick and mortars before legalization, all the dispensaries, I know Ontario had plenty of them as well, but in Vancouver alone, there was over a hundred dispensaries. Nelson, part of my study area here in the Kootenays, they had seven dispensaries. And so they generally took a medical stance and had municipal approvals. So they're paying municipal taxes. They're paying GST.
And so they are they're considered for the most part legitimate businesses. And that really helped the market survive along with the MOMS, which are called the mail order marijuana sites. So the online order sites, which are still helping the market, the illicit market survive. To answer your question, what was it? Back in 1998, there's a Globe and Mail article suggesting that the industry was worth 3 billion and they're crediting the industry for helping people to survive. It allowed people to live because they lost their jobs through forestry or whatever the prominent industry was. And BC really has leaned on natural resources for decades. And so cannabis filled that gap. That source wasn't backed up. I read that article. There was no reference to where that number came from. Although generally in the decade before legalization, there are reports consistently suggesting industries worth $2 to $7 billion in BC alone. So comparable to the wine industry in BC.

Graham Lee (08:01):
Wow. That's interesting talking about all the other ways of smuggling in the marijuana into the U S. You see all those Narcos documentaries and whatnot from Mexico and it's heavily dramatized and whatnot, but the Northern story is never told.

Tracy Harvey (08:18):
Yeah, that's right. Well, and that's also part of it too. That greatly affected the trade between these partners. Cannabis was going south to the U.S. because it was really illegal in the U.S. and in the late '90s and even early 2000s, and then 2012 was when some U.S. states came on board with recreational legalization, but that was the main market. There was a period of time in the late '90 and early 2000s when product was going south, cannabis was going south, and it's equal weight in cocaine was coming up north.
So people weren't getting paid in cash, they were getting paid in cocaine. And that was a major for the industry as well because drug problems escalated. There was no cash being made, but people had plenty of cocaine on their hands. That also actually affected the industry as well. Also interesting part of the history that marijuana was worth the same amount, or cannabis, excuse me, worth the same amount as cocaine. People even talk about the late '90s when gold prices dipped and cannabis was worth more than gold at one point. When gold was worth $200 an ounce and cannabis was worth $3,500 a pound. So pretty crazy.

Graham Lee (09:26):
Yeah. So I'm born in 2000. Was cannabis not very illegal in Canada prior to 2000? Or how was it regarded?

Tracy Harvey (09:37):
Good question. I mean, it's, sure was illegal. It was 2001 when medical legalization came and that sort of changed things. There's a bunch of several higher court orders that brought us to medical legalization. So I would say that, that did change the framing of it. I mean, even law enforcement, although they generally didn't have great things to say about people in the cannabis industry or the cannabis industry in general, and I'd say that's an institutional thing. That law enforcement has been groomed and trained to protect society and drugs are a menace, right? So, law enforcement didn't buy into that, but they didn't necessarily pursue charges in the cannabis space because it all got thrown out in court. Nothing held up in court because client or patient rights ruled. In that way, there was tolerance. There was acceptance. It was less legal. And in fact, people talk about the UFOs is coming from Ontario, the unemployed from Ontario, coming to BC in the late '90s because it was really illegal in Ontario. So yes, there was more leniency in BC.

Graham Lee (10:42):
Yeah. I certainly noticed that growing up, the overall attitude towards cannabis was, it's illegal and it's a bad drug and whatnot, in my neighborhood at least. And I know, but in BC, there's all the classic sayings of BC bud and whatnot and it was very famous on the map. In general, it was accepted part of the community, would you say in BC?

Tracy Harvey (11:12):
Well, it varies, right? Depending on where you go. I would say again, in the Kootenays and the Nelson area, as well as in the Gulf islands, [La Scie 00:11:22] is another classic area for cannabis production. It was generally accepted in those areas because people had no other way to survive. When these natural resource industries just hit a major permanent downturn. Not to mention, when some of our small communities in the Kootenays, people suggest 50% of the population was involved in producing cannabis. So it was ubiquitous. It was everywhere. So that contributed to sort of this acceptance and leniency and also view on what cannabis people were like. Not to mention, if you think about the roots of how cannabis production started right? Back with the draft dodgers in the '60s and '70s, these people with alternative ideologies, right?
They didn't agree with fighting the war. They were about peace, not war. That sort of mindset was a dominant frame in the Kootenays and in other areas of BC, which helped to accept cannabis as a means of life. And also in the Kootenays, particularly in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Duke of Boors came, who were a pacifist religious sect from Russia. That also contributed to this alternate ideology, right? They call them these, off the record refugees, if you will, who came to the remote regions, like the Kootenays and the Gulf islands. It all sort of was part of the reason why there was less stigmatization against cannabis and more acceptance, but it wasn't universal. Still even today, the city of Delta, they are trying to ban cannabis facilities. They're very worried, particularly that they're taking over their agricultural spaces, and so instead of growing vegetables, people are growing pot, and of course, that has its problems.

Graham Lee (13:11):
So could you talk a bit about your research and what you're trying to uncover with your research?

Tracy Harvey (13:16):
Sure. I did want to touch back on that though, at some point, if you don't mind, or maybe I will now, is that okay, Graham? Sorry. Well, because I'm just thinking about another question you had asked or actually a point you made was that you growing up, I think my interpretation was that cannabis was bad, or at least people growing cannabis were part of a bad group of people, organized crime was involved. And I'd say that, unfortunately, we're primarily influenced by media who really portrayed that message because media was driven by the views of law enforcement. There's two influential authors, Susan Boyd and Connie Carter. They did a study over 15 years of media representations and that's what they found is that majority of media was influenced by law enforcement who really drove that message home. That these were bad people.
They were not mom and pop operations. 70% of cannabis was ruled under organized crime. And that was partly to support their funding requirements. It was also I think an institutional thing. They were trained and groomed to fight drug production, especially looking back then, when drug use was a crime. It still is, but we're changing our perception about that. Now drug use is looked at as more of a health problem rather than a criminal problem. So I would say that that influence was the primary influence that Canadians were receiving, right, through media, that these were bad people. Anyway, so that's what was different in the Kootenays, I think is that there was just such a population.
And the interesting things for our history, like in 1971 or '72, the La Dain Commission came out recommending decriminalization of cannabis. That got ignored. And then 2002, there's a Senate special report saying that the harms of criminality related to cannabis were greater than the harms of use, and that got ignored. And so all along, it's been a political thing. We've known for a long time that it hasn't been as bad as the evils that are associated with it, but there just wasn't the political will to do anything about it until I guess Trudeau came into power.

Graham Lee (15:21):
So, let's delve into your research. What exactly were you researching?

Tracy Harvey (15:24):
Well, I still am, but I'm looking at the implications of legalization to rural historically producing regions of BC. And I'm focusing on the Kootenay region as my case study. So I want to know how legalization, recognizing this has been a big industry for a lot of these rural places in BC for the last 20, 30 years. I want to know what the implications of legalization are, or have been, according to two stakeholder groups. So I hypothesized that the two groups most effected by legalization were the cannabis sector, or anyone participating in cannabis, and then government, so the people that now face with regulating cannabis. So I introduced, or excuse me, interviewed people from both groups through a qualitative sort of interview process to understand their experiences and perceptions about legalization and whether they were involved in policy-making and decision-making.

Graham Lee (16:18):
So you're interviewing legacy producers as well. Could you describe what a legacy producer is?

Tracy Harvey (16:24):
Yes, so I've sort of moved away from that term, but legacy producer, as far as I refer to them, is anyone who was operating in cannabis prior to legalization. So it doesn't necessarily mean that they had a long history, but they were operating prior to legalization. I've since sort of changed the reference to cannabis participants to call them pre-legalization cannabis participants, or prohibition-era cannabis participants, which is a bit more descriptive.

Graham Lee (16:51):
And is it hard to get in contact with these people or are they still active members of the cannabis community these days?

Tracy Harvey (16:58):
That's a good question. I mean, I would say in some ways, it's been a journey and in some ways it's been challenging and I've walked out of some meetings with my tail tucked between my legs. Because I am an outsider to the industry, I was never participating in it myself. I actually pitch my idea locally and then got connected with the marijuana mayor, who is Brian Taylor, he's Grand Forks mayor. He's doing his fourth non-consecutive term as mayor, but he's also a cannabis activist. And so he publicly talks about cannabis and he was the first person that I talked to and he got me started. He introduced me to some people, and then I started to go to events and I made connections. There's some local groups that were forming. And so I started to develop some connections that way.
And then there was an event. It was in April of 2019, so it was after legalization and it was a cannabis symposium in Nelson over 200 people came and they asked me to speak. And so I spoke about my research at that event and that's where my credibility kind of increased and people trusted what I was doing. They saw the value in my work, and I think that really opened some doors to that community. That's why I started of got introduced to the community and connected.
And then I used a snowball sampling approach to connect with people. So I met with a person, we had an interview. And then I asked, "Do you have anyone that you'd recommend who may be interested and available to speak with me?" and so it went from there. So I was sort of able to get introduced to people who were a few degrees of separation away from me that I otherwise wouldn't have access to because it is quite a secretive industry and people are very private. And, you know, the other thing is, even though cannabis is one industry, it's very diverse. It's not homogeneous at all. There's little pockets of different groups of people. So this allowed me to get into know a few different pockets and few different groups of people in different areas.

Graham Lee (18:54):
And on the government side, was it the same results, would you say? How did they feel about being interviewed and talking on the record about their decisions on cannabis?

Tracy Harvey (19:07):
Thank you. I mean, I did interview government at the local level. I reached out people at provincial level and at the federal level, and I will say the local level, I had much higher response. And you're right, part of it is the trust. What is your purpose behind this research? What are you trying to do and who are you? And so again, I participate in a lot of local events. So I presented at the local association of... it was a local government convention. I presented my work, along with a panel of speakers. It allowed me to share what I was doing and gain some credibility within the government sector. And then also word of mouth. So generally I'd say it was also easier to identify government representatives because they're on government websites, but I used the same snowball sampling approach to also to make sure I had a good cross section.
I didn't want to just talk to people who were pro-cannabis. I want to talk to people who didn't agree with cannabis or didn't agree with legalization or who had concerns with it. I tried to make sure that I had a diverse group, and I really largely achieved that by asking for recommendations. Who you recommend I speak with? And even when I speak with a cannabis participants, sometimes I'd ask, "Do you have any government participants that I need to speak to?" And so they'd make some recommendations and it was really interesting. I actually got some great names that I wouldn't have necessarily thought of through that mechanism. The majority of government participants I talked to, acknowledged the cannabis industry, the illicit cannabis industry, only one person didn't. They chose to decline comment. And I mean, that makes sense because admitting to illicit cannabis productions, basically admitting to money laundering, which is a huge crime, right?
So in the Kootenays, the government group really did support this industry or at least, accept and tolerate because it was a way of life. Whereas other municipalities, even in BC there, the cannabis industry is still fighting with them. There's local government problems. So there's lack of acceptance. There's lack of tolerance. They don't necessarily want to support the growth of the industry. Whereas in the Kootenays, they want to see this industry transition to the legal regime. It's very unique that way and kind of neat. On that note, I just want to tell, let's say that it's through this research, I've been called everything from a government narc. People from the industry thought I was a government narc and then people from government called me the pot researcher. And so I've had all sorts of unflattering labels during this project. So it's toughened my skin, but it's also allowed me to... I think when you get through that adversity, right? It almost is better in the end.

Graham Lee (21:40):
You're an outsider on both sides, I guess.

Tracy Harvey (21:42):
No, you're right. Absolutely.

Graham Lee (21:44):
And thus far, what have been the overall trends in the Kootenay regions, or have there been any?

Tracy Harvey (21:51):
Trends with regards to what?

Graham Lee (21:54):
Perception of the legalization movement? Has it succeeded and failed?

Tracy Harvey (21:58):
Sure. Thank you. I mean, it's mixed. I would say, generally, people are not happy with it, legalization and the rollout. Although a handful of early movers, just accepted the legislation and they went for it and they're doing quite well. And so those people have actually... some of them have separated themselves from the criminal complainers, from the illicit market and they want nothing to do with them. They don't want to fight. They just want to go with this opportunity to produce cannabis legally and then other people are really fighting. They're really upset about the legislation is against their moral obligation, their moral stance. Why should I fold up my moral structure and follow the government's that I don't agree with. And also if you consider that this was an industry that was de-centralized for the most part, I would say that organized crime did not control it in the Kootenays.
Although there was that level of influence in terms of bulk buying, but people have a lot of autonomy over their day-to-day operations and a lot of people were doing it. It was this decentralized autonomous system. And now with legalization, the federal government who's very remote, right, has come in and said, "This is the way you're doing it. You can move aside hippies, we'll take it from here." And so that's the problem is that they really discounted this group of people, although they did consult with the cannabis sector, there's evidence of that. Some people that I interviewed had an opportunity to participate in the decision-making, but they largely left this group of people out, at least, at the local level. And they also largely left the local government participants out as well. So a lot of the decision-making was done at higher levels, like provincial and federal levels.
And so our local government participants were largely upset because they knew cannabis was fueling the economy. It was part of the socioeconomic fabric. And it was legalization was very disruptive, right? People got out of cannabis. Yeah. Legalization is just still not available or accessible to a lot of people, like the legal regime, I should say. So a lot of people are upset, but then there's like I say, there's diversity. There's some people who are running with it. They're doing quite well. Some people who have a micro license still are hypothesizing they can make $800,000 a year legally, which is a decent wage.

Graham Lee (24:18):
By all means, that seems like a decent wage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is going to be a new program implemented, right? The craft cannabis license?

Tracy Harvey (24:31):
Well, that's interesting that you say that. There is a micro-licensing class, so there's already the small class. It actually was introduced at the time of legalization. Although that sort of in the talks that wasn't initially going to be allowed and then through the talks with... this does show that the industry was involved. They also were originally not going to allow any outdoor production. It was only going to be indoor, which is just crazy. But I think that that was for security reasons, but indoor also brings a high carbon footprint. Also, it just doesn't make sense from a competitive standpoint, if you're doing processed flour. Raw flour, on the other hand, I can see the benefit of indoor because you can control all those variables and make this beautiful product in the end. The micro class has been around.
It's just that it's still largely inaccessible. It still is only available for well-financed people or high net worth individuals, for the most part. I mean, there have been people who have gotten a legal micro-license for $15,000, so it can be done, but I don't even know. So those are small outdoor farms, but I haven't actually heard that they've had much success in selling that product. So it's one thing to get licensed and another thing to actually be successful in the market. But what Health Canada is doing right now, is they're undergoing a micro-strategy. They're trying to make the program more available. They did put one of the representatives in the Vancouver office. They came out and consulted with people in the Kootenays to understand the barriers and limitations of the legal market. And so they're saying that they're trying, but I would say that that's largely been a failure. We haven't seen much impact from that strategy, although maybe there's still more to come.

Graham Lee (26:09):
And from what you've seen, have you noticed that the grain market is still thriving or is it starting to peter out?

Tracy Harvey (26:16):
That's such an interesting question. And so I'll tell you initially with legalization, the grain market was doing better than ever because legalization, especially in BC and Ontario was much the same, very few brick and mortar retail stores, right? So cannabis, although legal was hard to access, what was accessible was expensive and the product was allegedly quite poor in quality. So the illicit market was flourishing. And then with COVID-19 coming that even allowed it to take off even further, people were turning to cannabis, I guess, during the difficult times. So the illicit market initially was doing better than it had in 10 years. People were saying they were fetching higher price per pound, like $2,000 per pound. Grow rooms were getting bought out before they were even taken down. And they said they hadn't seen this feeding frenzy in years. So people were doing very well, but more recently. So now we're two years. What are we? Yeah, we're two years plus post legalization, the wheels are falling off the bus. Outdoor pounds are going for 150, a pound. Indoor high quality products going for $400. Yeah. Allegedly again. So-

Graham Lee (27:30):
My eyebrows are going up.

Tracy Harvey (27:31):
There's no money to be made. Well, arguably in the illicit market, although there's still the MOMS, the mail order marijuana sites, and there still is international shipping. Although again, that probably involves more organized bodies of people. So there are still people participating. There probably always will be right. There'll be people who stick it out, but I'd say a lot of the small players are starting to drop out now. And I think that the effects on our rural communities particularly will potentially be devastating because the uptake in the legal system has been quite slow.

Graham Lee (28:06):
And so I suppose in the legal system right now, you have to be at least a medium-scale producer. So what do you think these small-scale producers will turn to?

Tracy Harvey (28:17):
Well, just to sort of back up, you can be a small-scale producer in the legal system. So you can get a micro license class and have a facility that's 200 square meters or less, I guess if you want. But that's a good question. I mean, you know, one of the really positive and exciting things that's happened in the Kootenays is through our community futures, central Kootenay, they've been very successful and I'm happy to say that my research helped to contribute to their funding requests, but they'd been very successful in securing almost a million dollars in funding from our provincial government to undertake a cannabis business transition initiative. And so the focus is to actually... so they got a few cannabis coaches in place to help coach people through the application process to get legalized. And then they've also been doing seminars and events and helping to educate people about all sorts of details.
And so there's about 50 people participating in that program, but allegedly there were 2000 growers in the Kootenays prior to legalization. So it's still only a sort of a drop in the bucket, but that number is really hard to confirm. We don't really know the real number of cannabis producers prior to legalization, but it does sound it's only a fraction of the number of original players who are now looking to move over. I'd say, it's also combination. Like I said, some people are just opposed to legalization. It's just against the moral structure, they're opposed to the way that government has implemented legalization. And some people just know that what they were doing before isn't going to fly in the legal regime. Right? Like I even have pictures of myself at some sites, there are D facilities. And I look at the floor, the floor was a dirt floor;filthy cement floor, and corrugated steel or the thing was made out of stuff.
You can't clean. Like it just wouldn't happen. So a lot of people also know that what they did before won't work. And even though they can change that, is it worth it, you know, the costs, the arduous regulation process, you know? So I would say a lot of people are starting to turn elsewhere, but I was going to say, the other thing is because this is qualitative research, it's just interesting to hear people talk about their communities. And a lot of people have said, you know, things have gotten skinnier.
Unfortunately there's more disenfranchised looking people in the neighborhoods without like cannabis, as weird as it sounds, it employed the misfits. It gave a home to the unemployable. And now those unemployable, the tremors and the people who worked for 20-25 bucks on the table, now they've got nowhere to go. And so that is my worry. People talked about it anecdotally, but II don't have true numbers to show that there might be a higher level of disenfranchisement and just more disenfranchised people in the Kootenays, well certain pockets of the Kootenays, where cannabis production was particularly prevalent.

Graham Lee (31:11):
And in general, those people won't be particularly happy if they have to switch over to a job that's more corporate infrastructure, I suppose?

Tracy Harvey (31:18):
Well, they might not even have the ability, that's the thing, right? They just might not be employable. Some people talk about how some people in the cannabis space, unfortunately didn't have skills to read and write, for example. I wouldn't say that was the common, but like I said, it employed these myths misfits who weren't necessarily employable by the corporations.

Graham Lee (31:39):
So, I have a follow-up question. I guess just when it comes to your research, obviously, you're thinking about these rural communities. Is that kind of the goal you mentioned how some of your research helps with that grant writing? Is it just kind of to be able to support these communities to get through this transition of once thriving way of making... a thriving way of life is now really changing? So is that your goal is just to support that transition?

Tracy Harvey (32:07):
Entirely. So the federal government put out the task force report outlining how legalization should unfold in 2016. And I read that report, front to back, twice. And then I was like, "Oh my gosh, this is going to have potentially dramatic effects on the Kootenay region where I live. And other regions that, like what is legalization going to mean to these regions? How is it going to impact these people?" And for me, my master's subject was very different, but I looked at another local phenomenon, right? Another concern for the area. And so for me, it was about doing what I could for our regional overall wellbeing. What can I do? How can we understand this? How can we bring it to light and whatnot. So, yes, I would say that that is one of my goals is just to help the region survive and flourish.

Graham Lee (32:55):
And did you have any troubles in undertaking this research?

Tracy Harvey (32:59):
Well, I would say, yes. To some degrees, for sure. So when I first pitched my idea in 2017, I pitched it to my employer at Selkirk college, and it was very tenuously received. People weren't, "Oh, okay. That's interesting. But no, I don't, I don't know. Do you really want to do that? Legalization might not necessarily happen." Actually, I guess it was 2016, I first pitched the idea. It wasn't great support. I actually left feeling quite deflated. Where I got the wind beneath my wings was actually our Dean, well, she's now a director of research at Selkirk College, but she connected me with Guelph, the University of Guelph, because I was looking at legalization like a rural issue. And she said, "Hey, you should connect with their [said read 00:33:47] program.
See if anybody's interested in this research. And that's exactly what I did. And that was what allowed me to take off. So I connected with actually my current advisor, Ryan Gibson, and he loved the idea. And so it was amazing because like I said, here in BC, the support was really quite weak. But then when I took it to potential advisor at the University of Guelph for this PhD program, they loved the concept. But the interesting thing is, I tried to apply for my ethics approval to interview people and work with human participants. And so in 2017, when I first tried to apply for that, or early 2018, ethics wouldn't touch it because cannabis was still illegal. And then as soon as legalization happened, then I got the approval, essentially the week later. So even though, the ironic thing is, people could still be participating elicitly even though it's legalized. People still could be talking about elicit behavior that they could still be penalized for, but legalization just opened up the doors prior to that. People were very reluctant to engage in this topic.

Graham Lee (34:46):
And now of course, Guelph also does quite a bit of research in cannabis crop development and whatnot. So things have certainly changed. And while some people may say, it's slow, at least it's happening, right?

Tracy Harvey (35:01):
Exactly. Big change is slow.

Graham Lee (35:03):
Just wrapping up here. What advice would you give for any people who are looking to enter into this type of research?

Tracy Harvey (35:12):
Oh, like qualitative research or research in the cannabis space?

Graham Lee (35:17):
Yeah, research in the cannabis space in general?

Tracy Harvey (35:20):
Well, that's such a wide sort of open-ended question. I think probably being humble would be one of the most important things that you can do. Also, being non-assuming, having an open mind and being accepting. I think one of the biggest problems with legalization is the government is new. This new form of politics has come in, right? Like I said, there's this decentralized, sort of autonomous system happening before now, the government's coming in at the federal level, controlling everything saying, "You must do it this way or you're out." That really goes against the cannabis culture; although the cannabis culture was not necessarily uniform, it meant different things to different people.
But people had different ideologies. People had alternative of life. They were against the standard way of life and the norms, right? And so I think they want to be valued for that. They don't want to be all of a sudden told that you have to now fit into this square box. And so if you can go in with an open mind and kind of meet people where they're at, you'll probably have a lot more success than, than thinking that people need to be a certain way or conform or whatever. Not that a researcher necessarily would, but I think it's about meeting people where they are at.

Jordan Terpstra (36:32):
And if I can just... I'm just actually curious. Do you find that, because I have spoken with other individuals who are looking at research cannabis from a plant science perspective. Do you find as you're going through this, because you're probably on the leading edge of some of this research, do you find that you're just uncovering more questions and so much potential for future research when it comes to the intersection of cannabis and rural communities?

Tracy Harvey (36:56):
Well, that's exactly it, there's still so many unknowns, right? But with regards to plant science, I mean, that's certainly different than rural communities, but that's all part of it. People still want to know what are the longterm effects? What are the risks? What are the, et cetera and so forth. So it is exciting because obviously more and more research has been done and we're going to answer those questions as we go. I think it is the tip of the iceberg. We're just getting started to understand cannabis fully. And so legalization is a big help for that to enable all this research.
If I may give a shout out, I would love to give a shout out to the 56 participants that I interviewed because without them this project would not be possible. And then I also interviewed an additional 13 participants outside the study area to contextualize the Kootenays. So in the Gulf islands, Sunshine Coast, Fraser Valley, and even in Humboldt and Mendocino counties in California, I interviewed a few people. So I want to give a shout out to all the participants because they sacrifice their time, well they shared their time and their information. And anyway, this research wouldn't be possible. So thanks for the opportunity.

Graham Lee (38:07):
Well, Tracy, thank you very much for being here with us and sharing the bleeding edge research that the University of Guelph provides.

Tracy Harvey (38:16):
My pleasure.

Graham Lee (38:16):
And thank you everyone for listening. It's through conversations like these that cannabis will become more normalized and understood. So that's good. Thank you everyone.
The Wide Health Podcast is published by the Ontario Agricultural College of the University of Guelph. It is produced by Stephanie Crack and Jordan Terpstra. Recording and edited by Jacob Isaac and Kyle Richards. The host is me, Graham Lee. If you liked what you heard, be sure to leave us a review and subscribe. Thanks for listening.