“We need candidates who understand that true cannabis reform means a concrete plan to create an equitable industry and to free cannabis prisoners.”
By KC Klens and Shaleen Title, Parabola Center for Law and Policy
As the 2024 election approaches, presidential candidates are scrambling to appear “cannabis-friendly.” For the first time, cannabis is popular enough to warrant election-season attention from both parties. But both campaigns are missing a crucial point: Most Americans oppose corporate cannabis monopolies.
Earlier this week, Kamala Harris endorsed marijuana legalization for the first time as the Democratic nominee, repeating an old favorite line: “People should not be going to jail for smoking weed.”
This view was groundbreaking, say, 15 years ago. But in 2024, candidates don’t get a gold star just for recognizing the obvious. Of course no one should go to jail for “smoking weed,” and nearly no one does—the number of federal offenders sentenced for simple possession of marijuana is relatively small and has been declining steadily for a decade, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. But the Last Prisoner Project estimates that, more broadly, over 40,000 people are locked up for cannabis. What’s the candidates’ plan to free them?
With 24 states plus D.C. having legalized marijuana, it’s time for candidates to focus on what’s best for millions of cannabis consumers and hundreds of thousands of workers, not just big companies’ CEOs and shareholders.
Voters care about equitable legalization that benefits consumers and workers, not wannabe cannabis monopolies. Recent research by our organization, Parabola Center for Law and Policy, revealed insights into Americans’ views on cannabis legalization, going beyond the well established fact that they don’t support prohibition. In partnership with RTI Institute, we found that 68 percent of American adults cared about social equity in cannabis policy—tied with ending arrests as their top concern. Less than one-third of those surveyed believed that cannabis legalization should benefit large corporations, including pharmaceutical, alcohol, and tobacco companies.
This aligns with broader attitudes. According to new polling by Public Policy Polling, 80 percent of Democrats think that the government should be doing more to take on corporate monopoly power. A separate survey by the market research company YouGov in 2023 found that 67 percent of those surveyed support antitrust laws across industries.
Meanwhile, Republican nominee Donald Trump was the first presidential nominee this cycle to endorse marijuana legalization. Trump, who has sometimes criticized corporate greed (and whose administration originally brought the landmark monopoly case against Google), missed a major opportunity. Instead of criticizing big tobacco, alcohol and pharma’s involvement in marijuana legalization—a popular stance—he supported Florida’s Amendment 3. This measure, primarily funded by cannabis giant Trulieve, would legalize possession for adults over 21 and give extraordinary market advantages to current medical marijuana operators.
Trump’s change of heart came shortly after a meeting with Trulieve CEO Kim Rivers. Trulieve has been no stranger to controversy, from multiple alleged efforts of union busting to the tragic death of employee Lorna McMurrey at a now-closed Massachusetts facility, which resulted in a combined $364,500 in fines from both federal and state authorities.
But these fines pale in comparison to the $92 million that Trulieve has thrown at the campaign behind Amendment 3. As Rivers stated in an earnings call last year, “the adult use opportunity in Florida is the most significant near-term catalyst for Trulieve.” The company’s “outsized market share of 40 percent eclipses the next three closest competitors,” she told investors.
Along with the other medical licensees, Trulieve would be allowed to sell recreational marijuana if Amendment 3 passed. Florida’s legislature could license additional adult-use businesses; however, it wouldn’t be required to. The opposition campaign has frequently referred to the amendment as “the monopoly amendment,” which led Trulieve to file a defamation lawsuit. A fact-check by Politifact suggests that “oligopoly” would be a better description than “monopoly”—a market dominated by a few sellers rather than one.
Whether it creates a monopoly or an oligopoly, the potential dominance by a funder of a measure like Amendment 3 raises serious concerns about market fairness and consumer choice. Amendment 3 lacks provisions for social equity, home cultivation, or restrictions on industry consolidation. The measure’s passage would permanently alter the Florida medical market, impacting patients and workers and creating broad implications for future cannabis policymakers.
Readers should question dubious claims by Rivers that Florida’s single-subject rule prevents Floridians from cultivating their own cannabis—a right enjoyed by consumers in most states with legal cannabis, many of which have similar single-subject rules. A close read of the Supreme Court of Florida’s advisory opinion earlier this year suggests that allowing adults to grow their own marijuana may even be more logically and naturally related to the possession of marijuana than allowing businesses to distribute it.
Trump, often described as easily manipulated, initially released a lukewarm and meandering statement on Amendment 3. But soon after, he followed up with a second statement far more clearly aligned with corporate marijuana interests. The new statement supported Amendment 3 while backing key marijuana oligopoly priorities like federal rescheduling and SAFE banking.
Contrary to some politicians’ assumptions, pandering to cannabis corporations may not be an effective strategy for garnering votes on cannabis issues. This disconnect is striking: Voters want legalization, but not at the expense of social equity or by creating monopolies that only benefit large corporations.
Ironically, the Republican governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, who opposes Amendment 3 and won his last election in a landslide, has criticized the potential for a “Big Weed cartel” and supported the right for people to “grow in their backyard.” While his motivations may be questionable, his valid critiques highlight the flaws in this particular approach to legalization.
The 2024 election is crucial for cannabis policy. Voters deserve more than lip service and corporate-driven initiatives. We need candidates who understand that true cannabis reform means a concrete plan to create an equitable industry and to free cannabis prisoners. The candidate who can authentically articulate this vision won’t just be pandering; they’ll be leading a long-overdue transformation of our nation’s cannabis laws. Isn’t it time our politicians caught up with the people they claim to represent?
KC Klens is a leadership trainee of Parabola Center for Law and Policy and a resident of Florida. Shaleen Title, the organization’s founder, is a former cannabis regulator and a resident of Massachusetts.
“We need candidates who understand that true cannabis reform means a concrete plan to create an equitable industry and to free cannabis prisoners.” By KC Klens and Shaleen Title, Parabola Center for Law and Policy As the 2024 election approaches, presidential candidates are scrambling to appear “cannabis-friendly.” For the first time, cannabis is popular enough Read More
