Kim Anzarut, CEO and founder of Allay Consulting | Photo courtesy of Kim Anzarut
Continue the discussion in Part II for more perspectives on what’s next in the cannabis industry after the election.
Would it be safe to say that support for or opposition to cannabis does not fall neatly down party lines? For example, Kentucky, which is represented by people like Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, grows a lot of hemp. Then again, Republicans generally prefer to leave it up to the states. Can you discuss some of political nuances behind support or opposition to federal cannabis legalization or the very least, rescheduling?
Kim Anzarut: Support for cannabis policy has shown it doesn’t fit neatly into a single party ideology. There are prominent Republican voices, like those in Kentucky, advocating for the hemp industry due to its economic benefits. Meanwhile, many Democrats prioritize cannabis reform as a social justice issue, but the GOP’s state-centered approach often aligns with supporting cannabis at the local level. That said, bipartisan support is growing as both sides see value—whether from a financial, agricultural, or criminal justice standpoint—in federal reform or rescheduling cannabis. No matter who wins the election federal legalization is inevitable and we all need to be ready for it.
Susan Audino: I think cannabis is but a mere tool of the politicians, just like many other “issues”! And I’m sure nobody on this read or thread would disagree! I think federal legalization is certainly in the future, but I think they will need to learn from mistakes made by states and also by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) before actually lifting the ban. The USDA has struggled with things like definitions, interpretations, data, and specifications. These struggles have been at the administrative level and then exploited for monetary gain.
I think it’s rather interesting that the republicans who want to move legalization to the discretion of the states, are the same people who want to also remove federal freedom to the discretion of the states (For example, abortion or Roe v. Wade).
Susan Audino, PhD, founder of S.A. Audino & Associates, LLC | Photo courtesy of Susan Audino
Zacariah Hildenbrand: Yes, I believe that cannabis legalization/prohibition is a bipartisan issue where both sides can assess/appreciate the health benefits and economic implications.
David Vaillencourt: Support for or opposition to cannabis doesn’t fit neatly along party lines. While conservatives remain less supportive than liberal constituents, that gap is narrowing. According to the latest Pew research poll, a historic 88% of Americans now support legal cannabis for adult or medical purposes.
Federal legalization, however, remains contentious. Many politicians, particularly on the right, claim cannabis should be “left up to the states,” but this stance overlooks the economic and regulatory challenges imposed by federal prohibition. State markets are classified as high-risk, limiting access to banking, insurance, and standard business deductions. Furthermore, the 2018 Farm Bill loophole has enabled the proliferation of intoxicating cannabinoid products sold nationwide, emphasizing the urgent need for federal oversight.
At the federal level, cannabis regulation remains highly partisan, as demonstrated by the voting patterns on bills like the SAFE and SAFER Banking Acts. The distinction between “hemp” and marijuana is a particularly thorny issue. Senator Mitch McConnell, a proponent of industrial hemp, has remained staunchly opposed to marijuana legalization. Yet, with over $20 billion in intoxicating products circulating outside state-regulated markets, purportedly derived from “hemp,” McConnell’s silence on the matter is telling.
Where is there common ground on the question of cannabis, if any?
Zacariah Hildenbrand, PhD, research Professor at the University of Texas at El Paso, the principal founder of Inform Environmental, a partner of Medusa Analytical, and a director of the Curtis Mathes Corporation | Photo Couresy of Zacariah Hildenbrand.
Anzarut: Common ground on cannabis often revolves around economic and public safety benefits. Most legislators, regardless of party, see the potential in tax revenue, job creation, and agricultural expansion. Public safety is another area of agreement—both parties want a legal framework that mitigates illicit market risks and ensures that consumers are getting safe, cGMP Certified products. This shared goal could help establish a foundation for regulatory standards, which is crucial for the industry’s future.
Audino: Common ground – widespread use for effects across wide array of maladies or for general recreational purposes. Nobody can deny the interest in the products and effects of using them. Nobody can deny the financial incentive for getting a wide variety of products available to the widest consumer base.
Hildenbrand: From a societal perspective, I believe that it is now well understood that cannabis represents a far safer alternative to opioids for pain management. Additionally, I believe that hemp/cannabidiol (CBD) movement has enlightened a ton of folks to the medicinal benefits this plant possesses, specifically for epileptic and terminally-ill patients.
David Vaillencourt, founder and CEO of The GMP Collective, Chairman of the Board for S3 Collective, and Vice-Chair of ASTM International Committee D37 on Cannabis Standards | Photo Courtesy of David Vaillencourt
Vaillencourt: On the surface, cannabis appears divisive, but a key area of bipartisan agreement is the commitment to public health and safety. Efforts to close the Farm Bill loophole, which allows unregulated intoxicating products, have garnered broad support. Every member of Congress has received reports from constituents detailing adverse events linked to unregulated cannabinoids, underscoring the shared concern for consumer safety.
How do you think the results of this election will impact the rescheduling of cannabis? How might priorities change under new executive leadership? How might the previous Trump admin inform policy for cannabis in this term?
Anzarut: Election results will undoubtedly shape the trajectory of cannabis rescheduling. With Trump’s re-election, Trump might continue to leave cannabis policy largely to the states but could lean toward rescheduling if it proves to be a popular move that aligns with GOP support for states’ rights. On the other hand, new leadership could prioritize rescheduling or even push for full legalization to align with social equity and justice reform efforts. Either way, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) are being directed to reevaluate cannabis’ current status, which will set the stage for the inevitable regulatory overhaul.
Audino: Without getting into a political discussion, I do not think a Trump administration is going to move the dial very much. I think there has been some shift toward opening more doors and furthering discussion, but I’m not convinced there is a “switch” to be turned on (or off).
Hildenbrand: It’s difficult to project how cannabis legalization will be handled by the president-elect but I believe his decision making on the issue will be exclusively driven by economics and the potential for tax revenue generation.
Vaillencourt: Predicting the impact of this election on cannabis rescheduling is challenging due to many variables. Rescheduling falls under the DEA, and although progress is underway, we’ve seen delays—like the Administrative Law Judge hearing being pushed from December to the spring.
Trying to forecast what a Trump administration might do is like picking stocks based on a fortune cookie: amusing but unreliable. That said, there is reason for cautious optimism. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Health and Human Services (assuming he is confirmed by the Senate) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.), supports natural medicine and criticizes the FDA’s rigidness. Additionally, we saw Trump endorse Florida’s Amendment 3 to legalize adult-use cannabis. Whether this signals a genuine shift or a strategic move to outmaneuver DeSantis is anyone’s guess.
About the Interviewees
Kim Anzarut, CQA, CP-FS is the CEO and founder of Allay Consulting.
Susan Audino, PhD, is a chemist and independent consultant to chemical and biological laboratories. She is the founder of S.A. Audino & Associates, LLC, and co-founder of Saturn Scientific, LLC.
Zacariah Hildenbrand, PhD, is a research Professor at the University of Texas at El Paso, the principal founder of Inform Environmental, a partner of Medusa Analytical, and is a director of the Curtis Mathes Corporation (OTC:CMCZ).
David Vaillencourt is the founder and CEO of The GMP Collective, Chairman of the Board for S3 Collective, and Vice-Chair of ASTM International Committee D37 on Cannabis Standards.
With the recent 2024 presidential election behind us, the future of cannabis still has many unknowns moving forward and questions still to be discussed. In this roundtable discussion with four knowledgeable industry leaders, we explore the nuanced political landscape of cannabis legalization and rescheduling in the context of the election. We discuss what drives support or opposition from both sides of the aisle, the complexities of balancing state and federal priorities, and more. Join us in the first part of a compilation of responses from Kim Anzarut, CQA, CP-FS, CEO of Allay Consulting; Susan Audino, PhD, founder of S.A. Audino & Associates, LLC; Zacariah Hildenbrand, PhD, research Professor at the University of Texas at El Paso; and David Vaillencourt, CEO of The GMP Collective. Read More
