Dear Editor,
The call for a regulated medicinal cannabis program in American Samoa is framed as both an economic solution and a harm-reduction strategy. While the tone is measured and well-intentioned, the argument relies on assumptions that do not fully withstand scrutiny—particularly when applied to the unique legal, cultural, and public health realities of our island.
1. Revenue Expectations Are Overstated for Small Island Economies
Proponents often cite tax revenue from U.S. states with medical cannabis programs, yet those comparisons overlook scale. States that report meaningful revenue do so with millions of residents, large tourism flows, and expansive healthcare infrastructure. American Samoa’s population size, limited medical system, and restricted market would drastically limit revenue potential.
Moreover, regulation is expensive. Licensing, enforcement, medical oversight, testing, compliance, and law-enforcement training all carry ongoing costs. In small jurisdictions, these costs frequently match or exceed projected revenue, leaving taxpayers with little net gain. Expecting cannabis revenue to significantly fund police, education, or infrastructure risks diverting attention from more reliable fiscal reforms.
2. Medicinal Cannabis Is Not a Proven Solution to Methamphetamine Abuse
The suggestion that medicinal cannabis could meaningfully reduce methamphetamine use oversimplifies addiction science. Meth addiction is driven by poverty, trauma, availability, and lack of treatment services—not by the absence of cannabis access.
While some studies explore cannabis as an adjunct in recovery, there is no conclusive evidence that introducing medicinal cannabis into a community with limited treatment infrastructure reduces meth abuse at the population level. In fact, polysubstance use is common, and cannabis availability can normalize substance dependence rather than reduce it, particularly in communities already struggling with addiction.
Replacing one substance problem with another—even a “less harmful” one—does not address the root causes of addiction.
3. Medical Oversight Capacity Is Limited
A medicinal cannabis program assumes a robust healthcare system capable of evaluation, monitoring, follow-up, and enforcement of medical criteria. American Samoa already faces shortages of physicians, mental-health professionals, and addiction specialists.
Without sufficient oversight, a “medical” program risks becoming de facto legalization, undermining the very safeguards proponents claim to support. This outcome has occurred in multiple jurisdictions where medical programs expanded faster than regulatory capacity.
4. Tourism Claims Are Highly Speculative
The idea of cannabis-adjacent “wellness tourism” is particularly tenuous. American Samoa’s tourism brand is built on culture, faith, family, and natural preservation—not medical tourism infrastructure.
Additionally, federal law still classifies cannabis as illegal. Any cannabis-based tourism concept would raise serious federal compliance issues, risk reputational harm, and complicate travel, shipping, and law enforcement in a U.S. territory. These risks far outweigh uncertain tourism benefits.
5. Cultural and Social Impacts Are Minimized
Policy decisions cannot be separated from cultural context. American Samoa places strong emphasis on fa’a Samoa, family authority, church leadership, and youth protection. Introducing medicinal cannabis—even with regulations—would inevitably shift social norms and perceptions, particularly among young people.
Communities already struggling with alcohol misuse should be cautious about adding another psychoactive substance into daily life. Once normalized, policy reversals become nearly impossible, regardless of unintended consequences.
6. Better Alternatives Exist
If the goals are public safety, economic stability, and addiction recovery, there are more direct and evidence-based approaches:
• Strengthening addiction treatment and mental-health services
• Investing in vocational training and job creation
• Improving enforcement against meth trafficking
• Expanding healthcare access without introducing new substances
These strategies address root problems without risking new ones.
Conclusion
This is not an argument rooted in fear or punishment, but in prudence. A regulated medicinal cannabis program is presented as a balanced solution, yet in practice it carries uncertain economic returns, unresolved public health risks, limited oversight capacity, and deep cultural implications.
Before opening the door to cannabis policy, American Samoa must ask whether the promised benefits are realistic—or whether we are being offered a shortcut to problems that demand deeper, harder work. True progress lies not in substituting substances, but in strengthening families, healthcare, education, and opportunity.
Respectfully,
A Concerned Citizen
