“We need candidates who understand that true cannabis reform means a concrete plan to create an equitable industry and free cannabis prisoners.”
By KC Klens and Shaleen Title, Parabolic Law and Policy Center
As the 2024 election approaches, presidential candidates are desperate to appear “cannabis-friendly.” For the first time, cannabis has become popular enough to warrant the attention of both parties during an election season. But both campaigns are missing something important. That means most Americans oppose corporate monopolies on cannabis.
Earlier this week, Kamala Harris became the first Democratic candidate to support legalizing marijuana, repeating her old refrain: “People shouldn't go to jail for smoking weed.”
This idea was revolutionary, say, 15 years ago. But in 2024, candidates won't earn a gold star just by recognizing the obvious. Of course, no one goes to jail for “smoking weed,” and almost no one actually goes to jail. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the number of federal offenders convicted of simple possession of marijuana is relatively small and has been steadily declining for a decade. But more broadly, the Last Prisoner Project estimates that more than 40,000 people are incarcerated for cannabis. What are the candidates' plans to free them?
With 24 states and Washington, D.C., legalizing marijuana, candidates are not just asking CEOs and shareholders of large corporations to decide what's best for millions of cannabis consumers and hundreds of thousands of workers. It's time to focus on crab.
Voters don't want a monopoly on cannabis, but instead care about fair legalization that benefits consumers and workers. A recent survey by our organization, the Parabola Law and Policy Center, reveals insights into Americans' views on marijuana legalization, going beyond the established fact that Americans do not support prohibition. Masu. In partnership with the RTI Institute, we found that 68 percent of American adults are concerned about social equity in cannabis policy, and eliminating arrests is their top concern. Less than one-third of those surveyed believed that legalizing marijuana would benefit large corporations, including pharmaceutical, alcohol and tobacco companies.
This is consistent with broader attitudes. A new poll by Public Policy Polling finds that 80% of Democrats think the government should do more to take away corporate monopoly power. Another survey conducted in 2023 by market research firm YouGov found that 67% of those surveyed supported antitrust laws across industries.
Meanwhile, Republican candidate Donald Trump is the first presidential candidate this term to support marijuana legalization. Mr. Trump, who has occasionally criticized corporate greed (and whose administration initially filed a landmark monopoly lawsuit against Google), missed a major opportunity. Instead of criticizing the involvement of big tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceutical companies in marijuana legalization (a common position), he supported Florida's Third Amendment. Funded primarily by cannabis giant Trulieve, the bill would legalize possession for adults 21 and older, giving medical marijuana an unusual market advantage today. operator.
Trump's change of heart came shortly after a meeting with Trulieve CEO Kim Rivers. Trulieve is facing a combined $364,500 lawsuit from federal and state authorities as a result of multiple union-busting allegations that resulted in the tragic death of employee Lorna McMurray at a now-closed Massachusetts facility. He is no stranger to controversy, including being fined.
But these fines pale in comparison to the $92 million Trulieve has spent on campaigns behind the Third Amendment. As Rivers said on an earnings call last year, “the adult-use opportunity in Florida is the most important near-term catalyst for Trulieve.” The company's “staggering 40% market share outpaces the next three closest competitors,” she told investors.
If Amendment 3 were to pass, Trulieve, like other medical licensees, would be allowed to sell recreational marijuana. The Florida Legislature could authorize additional adult-use businesses. However, this is not necessary. Opponents frequently refer to the amendment as a “monopoly amendment,” prompting Trulivet to file a defamation lawsuit. Fact-finding by PolitiFact suggests that “oligopoly” is a better term than “monopoly” (a market dominated by a small number of sellers rather than a single company).
Whether it creates a monopoly or an oligopoly, the potential control by funders of measures like the Third Amendment raises serious concerns about market fairness and consumer choice. The Third Amendment lacks provisions regarding social equity, home cultivation, and limits on industry consolidation. Passage of this bill will forever change Florida's healthcare market, impacting patients and workers, and having far-reaching implications for future cannabis policymakers.
Readers should question Rivers' questionable claim that Florida's single-subject rule prevents Floridians from growing their own cannabis. This right is one enjoyed by consumers in most states where cannabis is legal, many of which have similar single-subject rules. A close reading of the advisory opinion issued by the Florida Supreme Court earlier this year shows that allowing adults to grow their own marijuana is more logical and natural than allowing businesses to distribute it. It has even been suggested that it may be connected to marijuana possession.
President Trump, often described as easily manipulated, initially issued lukewarm and meandering statements regarding the Third Amendment. But soon after, it issued a second statement that was much more clearly aligned with the company's cannabis interests. The new statement upheld the Third Amendment while upholding key priorities of the marijuana oligopoly, such as rescheduling the federal government and SAFE banking.
Contrary to the assumptions of some politicians, pandering to cannabis companies may not be an effective strategy to garner votes on cannabis issues. This discrepancy is remarkable. Voters want legalization, but they don't want it to come at the expense of social equity or create a monopoly that only benefits big corporations.
Ironically, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican who opposes the Third Amendment and won a landslide in the last election, criticized the possibility of a “marijuana cartel” and warned that people “cannabis in their backyard.” We support the right to grow. Although his motives may be questionable, his valid critique highlights the flaws in this particular approach to legalization.
The 2024 election is critical for cannabis policy. Voters deserve more than lip service and corporate-led initiatives. We need candidates who understand that true cannabis reform means a concrete plan to create an equitable industry and free cannabis prisoners. Candidates who can truly articulate this vision are not just pandering. They will lead the way in long-overdue changes to our nation's cannabis laws. Isn’t it time for our politicians to catch up with the people they claim to represent?
KC Krenz is a leadership trainee at the Parabolic Law and Policy Center and lives in Florida. The organization's founder, Charlene Title, is a former cannabis regulator and resident of Massachusetts.
Companies supporting Florida's marijuana legalization ballot measure sue state Republican Party over 'false and misleading' claims to voters
Marijuana Moment is made possible by support from our readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.
