Marijuana companies are the main lobbyists for the legalization of its use in the US

The main lobbyists for changes in the current US legislation are companies whose activities are aimed at regulating the use of the hemp plant for medical and recreational purposes. Those. companies exploiting various properties of plants lobby primarily their own interests, completely ignoring the requests of other market participants, as well as end consumers, including blocking the possibility of regulating the cultivation of plants in households.

On the pages of the specialized electronic edition of national hemp growers, with a certain regularity, the question is raised that it is necessary to make such changes to the current legislation of our country that will create favorable conditions for the development of national companies exploiting various exclusive characteristics of the hemp plant, as well as end consumers who need to be granted the right for self-cultivation of industrial cannabis of a therapeutic orientation in households, or to use for this purpose the mechanism of social clubs widespread throughout the world. In this regard, it will be interesting to get acquainted with the official information on financing lobbying aimed at amending US legislation and an attempt to draw independent conclusions about why the proposed amendments to the current legislation of our country are in the interests of exclusively foreign pharmaceutical companies to the detriment of the national consumer and commodity producer.

Marijuana companies provided almost all of the money for medical and recreational cannabis legalization initiatives in the midterm elections last November in five US jurisdictions, a dramatic reversal in funding trends from a decade ago. when the main sponsors of hemp reform in various states were public organizations, as well as individual investors.

According to funding reports, adult drug legalization campaigns in Arkansas, Maryland, Missouri, and North and South Dakota have raised a total of almost $20 million. Financial activity reports for these types of legalization lobbying campaigns show at least $19.05 million, or 95% of the total, came from sources identified as businesses associated with the cultivation, processing, or sale of psychoactive cannabis. At the very least, data on lobbying spending to promote the legalization of psychoactive cannabis use reflects the growing financial weight of the approximately $33 billion US marijuana industry.

 Almost all of the donations to the campaign to legalize medical and recreational cannabis in the five US states came from marijuana companies.

This shift in funding trends for legalization lobbying companies signifies new priorities: established medical cannabis companies are pushing for restricted license markets, in contrast to past lobbying campaigns where voters were asked to treat marijuana like alcohol.

In turn, civil society organizations such as the MPP and the Drug Policy Alliance , which led the movement to legalize recreational cannabis use in Colorado and Washington a decade ago, are putting their efforts into regulating new markets, including the legalization of the legal use of psychedelics . and decriminalization of other drugs.

Attention needs to be paid to the fact that as players in the marijuana industry move towards restricted license markets, they are losing support from activists who want criminal justice reform, regulation of home growing, and social justice provisions coming along with legalization laws . .

“It is no coincidence that we are seeing more industry efforts (marijuana companies) to regulate the medical and recreational use of psychoactive cannabis and ordinary taxpayers in more places reject legalization measures. Voters are concerned about the details of bills on legalization... When the lobbyists include market monopolists, they propose to amend the current legislation “for themselves”. The lesson learned from lobbying is to abandon the idea of bribery or deception of voters, aimed at monopolizing the market by financing an electoral initiative,” says Shalin . Title , a former Massachusetts cannabis regulator who has become a vocal critic of what she sees as the excesses of the psychoactive cannabis industry .

Change of lobbying priorities for legislative initiatives

Ten years ago in Colorado and Washington, and in 2016, when voters in four more states on both coasts, including California, legalized recreational marijuana, the bulk of the funding for the successful change in the then-current regulatory framework came from established non-profit organizations such as as "MPP", " Drug Policy Alliance ", "American Civil Liberties Union", as well as a number of other public organizations in the United States. It should be noted that the previous legalization lobbying campaigns were aimed primarily at activists who attracted financial resources to promote the thesis about the need to amend the legislation.

Among the prominent sponsors of this kind of lobbying activities, the chairman of “ Progressive Auto Insurance ” Peter Lewis, financier George Soros, and Facebook investor Sean Parker, who was the main sponsor of the 2016 California campaign.

Decade-old lobbying campaigns focused primarily on treating marijuana like alcohol. They did not focus on social justice components (such as removing marijuana-related crimes from criminal records), nor did they focus on more sensitive issues such as license restrictions, taxation, and so on.

Industry leaders, individuals

In four of the five states where legalization initiatives were taken last November, almost all of the money was spent on lobbying campaigns that are directly related to the various segments that exploit the properties of psychoactive cannabis in these US jurisdictions.

Amount of resources devoted to the legalization of the use of medical and recreational cannabis in five US states 

Specifically, according to published data in Arkansas, marijuana companies spent $13.95 million out of a total of $13.98 million to fund state legal changes. In Missouri, the psychoactive cannabis industry contributed at least $ 3 . 98 million out of a total of $4.2 million. In Maryland, the marijuana industry accounted for $385,983 out of 389,478. In North Dakota alone, where advocacy groups “ New Approach PAC” and “MPP” contributed at least $398,529, and questions were raised about individual cultivation. However, even there, well-known marijuana companies contributed financial resources to the lobbying campaign for at least $195,000 out of a total of nearly $600,000.

On a separate note, in states where the marijuana industry has taken the lead in changing the law, individual actors who were once considered essential to successful grassroots campaigns have contributed extremely little financial resources. For example, in Arkansas, five donors donated $25,900, of which $25,000 was from one individual and $500 from another individual. In Maryland, 12 donors wrote checks ranging from $10 to $500, although the last contributor wrote a check and identified himself as someone connected to the cannabis industry . Only in South Dakota, where New Approach and MPP were heavily involved in lobbying activities, was there anything resembling grassroots fundraising. There, campaign funding reports showed that 39 individual donors contributed $53,697.

“We came to the industry for investment because this segment is the biggest recipient of economic benefits from investment in legalization. Now this industry is not so much focused on advocates fighting for their health or human rights as it is on the fight against prohibition. Businesses have emerged that are fighting for future revenues or booming markets,” says Eugene Monroe, chairman of the MD Can 2022 campaign, which lobbies for legalization in Maryland.

And often this kind of approach in the philosophy of making changes to the law gives priority to business considerations to the detriment of the goals of social justice or the interests of consumers. For example, in 2015, Ohio voters rejected a legalization measure that would have enshrined a limited-market oligopoly in the state constitution. Cannabis activists in Arkansas have accused lobbying groups of introducing legal changes that would ban domestic cannabis cultivation, ensuring that a limited number of existing medical marijuana cultivators get a first chance at selling their products to the recreational market.

Commentary of the specialists of the Association “Ukrainian Industrial Hemp”

I would like to especially focus on several theses, "highlighted" by our American colleagues. At the moment, the main lobbyists for amending the current US legislation are companies whose activities are aimed at regulating the use of the hemp plant for medical and recreational purposes. They specialize in the cultivation, processing or sale of cannabis with a high content of psychoactive tetrahydrocannabinol. Accordingly, "the one who pays, he orders the music." Those. companies exploiting various properties of plants lobby primarily their own interests, completely ignoring the requests of other market participants, as well as end consumers, including blocking the possibility of regulating the cultivation of plants in households.

And now you just need to analyze which state structure is the initiator of the latest project to amend the current legislation of our country and, having carefully read the text of the bill lobbied for adoption, once again make sure that it was developed in the interests of foreign pharmaceutical companies in the first place and does not with the aim of meeting the needs of the national patient/consumer, and even more so of the Ukrainian manufacturer.

< Previous article   Next article >