Trust, education, and the systems around Ohio cannabis
Last week, we looked at harm reduction as something personal—learning about a product, noticing a habit, asking honest questions, taking a break when needed and making the next safer choice. As important as that personal work is, making an informed decision also depends on whether the world around us makes room for reliable information, honest questions and meaningful support.
This brings us to the next layer of harm reduction: how Ohio’s cannabis culture, legal market and public policies shape what people believe and the choices they feel able to make. This is not a claim that cannabis is harmless, that every adult should use it, or that it can replace medical care, recovery support, or personal accountability. It asks whether the systems surrounding cannabis provide people with reliable guidance—or leave them navigating fear, stigma, marketing and punishment on their own.
Harm reduction begins before someone purchases cannabis. It begins with what they have been taught, the information they can find and the questions they feel comfortable asking. Because dispensary employees may be a consumer’s first source of guidance, the legal market carries a serious responsibility to provide clear, fact-based information and to distinguish honest education from a confident sales pitch.
Trust is the Starting Point
For decades, prohibition-era messaging portrayed cannabis consumers as irresponsible, dangerous, or beyond help. Cannabis enforcement costs people jobs, housing, education, custody, freedom, and years of their lives. Now that cannabis is increasingly normalized and commercialized, consumers face a different concern: marketing that encourages them to buy before they fully understand what they are buying. Neither fear nor hype builds trust.
Jessica N. Humphreys, BSN, is the founder of CannaLife, a cannabis-focused platform connecting creators, consumers, businesses and the industry. Her background in nursing and cannabis education brings both healthcare and consumer perspectives to the harm-reduction conversation. She described the problem this way:
“We do not repair this history by replacing prohibition-era fear with industry hype, miracle claims or another rigid, top-down narrative.”
Humphreys argues that trust comes from transparency, humility, and consumer empowerment. Research should be easy to find and explained in plain language, including what the data show, what they do not show, and where uncertainty remains. Doctors and scientists belong in this conversation, she says, but informed patients, consumers, advocates, and educators also matter, especially when they can translate evidence into information people can use.
This is not an argument against expertise, but for expertise that people can understand and apply. A first-time consumer, patient, caregiver, or Ohio resident trying to follow the law needs more than a product label, warning, or marketing slogan. Each person needs enough context to understand their options, recognize the limits of available information, and decide what the next safer and more supported step looks like.
Support Before Punishment
U.S. Air Force veteran and retired Ohio law-enforcement officer Tim Johnson brings a particularly unusual perspective to the conversation about harm reduction. Johnson spent roughly two decades working in law enforcement, including narcotics and other investigations. Today, he is founder and president of Cannabis Safety First and Frontline Strategies and works as a legislative policy adviser on drug-policy reform, criminal-justice reform, public-safety reform and law-enforcement reform.
Tim also previously served as a national speaker on drug-policy and criminal-justice reform with LEAP, where he says he testified before general assemblies in five states. That experience gave him a view of cannabis policy and reform shaped not only by his advocacy, but by years spent working inside the criminal justice system.
On Stigma
That experience also shaped how Johnson talks about stigma. He says he does not blame ordinary people for beliefs about cannabis that were reinforced for decades through government messaging and misinformation. Instead, he challenges people to reconsider those beliefs as new information becomes available and older claims are questioned.
Johnson describes harm reduction as “more of a criminal justice reform avenue.” The principle that guided much of his answer was even simpler: “You can’t penalize or punish addiction out of an addict.”
Johnson is not arguing that impaired driving should be excused or that substance use never has consequences. His point is that punishment alone does not address the reasons someone is struggling. People need avenues for medical, psychological, and social support — avenues that can make it less likely they will lose a job, a home, a family, or their freedom while trying to get through a substance-use problem, he says.
Additionally, Johnson sees cannabis as one possible part of a supported path away from substances that have created greater risks in a person’s life. For some people, he believes that may include using cannabis while trying to manage cravings associated with a more dangerous or addictive substance. That possibility is not as simple as it sounds—it is complex and deserves thoughtful, careful messaging.
Not an “Exit Drug” for Everyone
That does not mean cannabis is an “exit drug” for everyone, or that cannabis should be presented as a universal addiction treatment. Cannabis may play a role in one person’s harm-reduction strategy while being unhelpful or inappropriate for another person. It is not a substitute for medically appropriate withdrawal support, counseling, recovery services, or emergency care.
The important point is that harm reduction starts with a person’s real baseline, not with a one-size-fits-all ending.
It also requires recognizing that cannabis itself can become problematic for some people. Cannabis use disorder is a real clinical concern, and the possibility of dependence or withdrawal should not be minimized simply because cannabis carries less stigma in some settings. At the same time, the word “addiction” should not be used as a label that shuts down the conversation. People deserve accurate information about dependence, problematic use, withdrawal and recovery without being reduced to a stereotype.
That is why a good harm-reduction conversation has to leave room for less use, a tolerance break, a different kind of support, or stopping entirely. The goal is not to defend every cannabis decision. The goal is to reduce preventable harm while giving people a real path forward.
Education is Harm Reduction
Tim Johnson’s wife, Wendy Johnson, is also a cannabis advocate and speaker on harm reduction. The couple spoke recently in Portsmouth, Ohio on separate panels about what consumers actually need to know as Ohio’s cannabis market develops. Their perspectives are different, but they repeatedly arrive at the same conclusion: people need reliable information before they can make informed decisions.
Tim’s concern is that Ohioans often hear plenty of stories about why people use cannabis without getting enough practical information about the product itself — what it contains, how it may affect them, what it can and cannot reasonably promise, and when a question belongs with a qualified health professional rather than another person’s personal experience.
The couple encourages consumers to look beyond THC, CBD and other cannabinoids and read the product’s complete ingredient list. Non-cannabinoid ingredients can matter, too, particularly for consumers with allergies, sensitivities or other health concerns. Ingredients such as soy, peanut oil or MCT oil may be important information for a consumer even though they are not part of the cannabinoid profile.
That matters because a dispensary employee may be one of the first people a consumer asks for help. Budtenders can be incredibly useful sources of product knowledge, but working in a dispensary does not automatically make someone an expert in medical care, dosing, drug interactions, or an individual patient’s health needs.
A consumer should not have to sort through a hundred conflicting social-media opinions to answer basic questions about a cannabis product.
Tim’s advice was simple: “Educate yourself about the product and the law.” That includes understanding how much you are taking, how you are taking it, how quickly effects may appear, how long those effects may last, and what circumstances may make a particular product or dose inappropriate for you. And, as the familiar harm-reduction principle goes, start low and go slow.
improvement and then keep learning.
Cannabis Education Belongs in Healthcare
For the Johnsons, that responsibility extends beyond individual consumers. Tim argues that science-backed cannabis education belongs in healthcare, the judicial system, higher education, cannabis businesses, public policy and the industry itself. His larger point is that legalization cannot depend on consumers alone knowing how to navigate a complicated system; the institutions surrounding them need accurate information, too.
Wendy raised the same issue from the patient side.
“A medical card,” she said, “does not automatically give someone the knowledge to treat themselves effectively with cannabis.”
Wendy says education should begin long before someone walks into a dispensary. She believes colleges and health-education programs should do more to teach students about the endocannabinoid system and the basic science behind cannabinoids. Public education should then continue outside the classroom, giving consumers practical information about potential benefits, risks, limitations, uncertainty, and when professional medical guidance is appropriate.
Her short version was even more direct: “Public safety starts with educating.”
That education also has to move beyond the vocabulary people inside the cannabis industry already understand.
Terms such as potency, cannabinoids, routes of administration, onset, and dosing can sound simple to industry professionals while remaining confusing to a first-time consumer. Knowing that a product contains a certain amount of THC, for example, does not automatically tell a new consumer how strongly it may affect them, how quickly they may feel it, or how long they should wait before taking more.
Consumers need information they can Actually Use
That means explaining the route of administration and expected onset, helping people understand dose rather than simply staring at a THC percentage, discussing storage and accidental exposure, explaining impairment, and identifying situations where medications, health conditions, pregnancy, age, or other personal factors may require additional caution or professional guidance.
It also means explaining the limits of what cannabis can promise.
A product may have a compelling story behind it without having strong evidence for every claim made about it. Personal experiences can be meaningful, but one person’s experience is not automatically a guarantee for the next person. Good education helps consumers understand the difference.
And product education cannot be separated completely from legal education.
Ohio consumers also need to understand the rules that affect where cannabis can be possessed or used, what can happen when cannabis is taken into another jurisdiction, how cannabis can intersect with employment and housing, and what activities remain prohibited even in a legal market.
Knowing what is in a product without understanding the rules surrounding it can still leave someone exposed to preventable consequences. Knowing the law without understanding the product can leave someone equally unprepared.
The point is not to make every consumer an expert.It is to give people enough trustworthy information to recognize what they know, recognize what they do not know, and know when it is time to ask for qualified help.
When Policy Becomes Part of the Harm
Wendy Johnson sees harm reduction in a wider way: reducing the damage that criminalizing drugs has already done to society. During our conversation, she pointed to the debate around Senate Bill 56 as an example of a question Ohio needs to keep asking — when a policy adds penalties, narrows choices, or treats a person first as an offender rather than as a whole person, does it actually reduce harm, or does it simply move that harm somewhere else in the person’s life?
For Wendy, the downstream consequences are not abstract. A cannabis-related charge or policy consequence can affect a person’s work, housing, education, military status, family stability, or access to care. Although the details vary by law and by case, Wendy’s message is worth taking seriously — public safety cannot be measured only by what happens at the moment of enforcement. It also has to be measured by what happens to people and communities afterward.
Her husband, Tim, made a related point about the limits of legalization itself. “Legalization is not legalization until we are free from prosecution,” he said. Tim’s concern is that legal cannabis programs still operate within regulatory systems where violating certain rules can carry civil or criminal consequences. For him, that makes the boundaries between legalization, regulation and criminalization an important part of the harm-reduction conversation.
Whether someone agrees with every part of that argument or not, it raises an important harm-reduction question: what is a policy actually accomplishing?
That is a necessary discussion because harm reduction is not only about changing an individual’s behavior. It is also about asking whether the rules and systems surrounding that person make the situation safer, more stable, and easier to navigate — or whether they create additional consequences without addressing the underlying problem.
Cannabis Information as a Tool
But asking better questions about cannabis policy only gets us so far. People also need to understand the information those policies, products, and health decisions put in front of them.
Carolyn Burica, a cannabis patient educator and education specialist with a background in teaching, writing, and patient consultation, approaches harm reduction from a practical question: once people receive all of this information, where do they go with it, and what do they actually do with it?
That question gets to the heart of consumer education. Accurate information does not automatically become useful education. People have to be able to understand it, trust it, and connect it to decisions they are actually facing.
That is especially important with cannabis, where consumers can encounter information from dispensary employees, social media, friends and family, healthcare professionals, researchers, advocacy organizations, and product marketing. Those sources do not always agree, and they do not all carry the same level of expertise.
Knowing how to sort through those differences is part of harm reduction. A personal experience may give someone a useful question to ask, while a healthcare decision may require clinical guidance. A dispensary employee may know a great deal about the products being sold, while a question about medications or an individual health condition may belong with a qualified healthcare professional.
A consumer does not need to become a cannabis scientist to make an informed decision. They need enough reliable information to understand what they are considering, what they can reasonably expect, where the limits of that information are, and when it is time to ask someone with additional expertise.
That is what makes information a harm-reduction tool. The value is not simply in having more of it. The value is being able to understand it well enough to use it.
Making the Next Safer Choice
For now, the work is more basic than picking a side.
It means being willing to say that cannabis can help some people and create problems for others. It means acknowledging that a person can use cannabis responsibly, develop a problematic relationship with it, take a break, reduce their use, or decide that stopping altogether is the better choice.
It means listening to a patient’s experience without turning that experience into proof. It means respecting research without pretending that every question has already been answered. It means recognizing the difference between knowing what is in a product and knowing how that product may affect a particular person.
And it means being careful about the consequences that come after a cannabis decision — whether those consequences involve a bad experience, a misunderstood product, a policy violation, a medical question, or a criminal-justice system.
Maybe that is what makes harm reduction harder than picking a side.
There is no single outcome that works for everyone. There is only the next decision, the information available to make it, and the opportunity to make that decision a little safer.
Take our MedicateOH community consumer survey: The Consumer Voice
Subscribe to the MedicateOH Ohio Cannabis Column: Subscribe
Connect with Dawson on LinkedIn: Linkedin.com/in/dawson-holtzclaw-138530406
Submit a question, experience, story, resource, or research idea: dawson@medicateoh.com
