Introduction
For over a century, the struggle for cannabis and hemp reform has been marred by a paradox: while progress is made in public discourse, real, meaningful change is often stalled by powerful interests that selectively control the pace of reform. From the early 1900s to the present, this controlled oppression has been wielded by various organizations and corporations, some of which publicly advocate for cannabis rights while privately ensuring that only a few benefit from the evolving legal landscape.
This article exposes how large corporations, industry lobbies, trade associations, medical organizations, and advocacy groups manipulate cannabis and hemp policies to maintain dominance, excluding marginalized communities from the economic and health benefits. These entities create barriers to full legalization and market access, protecting their interests while perpetuating the status quo. Controlled oppression thrives on deception, masking itself as progress while upholding the very systems it claims to challenge. To break free from this manipulation, we need heightened awareness, sincerity, and discernment—the ability to see through false reform efforts and recognize who truly serves the people versus those protecting their own interests. Without this clarity, we risk being misled by those who merely appear to advocate for change.
1. Large Cannabis Corporations & Industry Lobbies
Entity: Canopy Growth Corporation
Evidence: As one of the largest cannabis companies in the world, Canopy Growth has significant sway over cannabis policy. Their lobbying efforts favor strict regulations and expensive licensing, making it difficult for smaller, independent businesses to compete. This has fostered monopolistic practices, stifling broader economic access to the industry, particularly for minority and underrepresented groups.
Controlled Oppression: Canopy’s influence ensures that the legal cannabis market is dominated by a select few, stalling broader reform efforts that would benefit marginalized communities.
2. Hemp Associations Supporting Limited Industrial Use
Entity: National Industrial Hemp Council (NIHC)
Evidence: The NIHC has been instrumental in advocating for industrial uses of hemp, such as textiles and grain, but has shown reluctance in advancing legislation that would legalize cannabinoid-rich hemp varieties. By focusing on narrow industrial applications, NIHC has contributed to delaying the full economic potential of hemp, particularly in health-related industries like CBD production.
Controlled Oppression: The focus on selective industrial uses restricts the potential benefits of hemp, limiting access to its therapeutic and economic advantages.
3. Medical Cannabis Organizations That Exclude Full Legalization
Entity: Americans for Safe Access (ASA)
Evidence: ASA has been at the forefront of medical cannabis advocacy, but its exclusive focus on medical-use frameworks has been criticized for neglecting the broader push for full legalization. By promoting restricted, state-controlled medical-only markets, ASA has left non-medical users criminalized and restricted the growth of a truly open cannabis market.
Controlled Oppression: ASA’s advocacy for a limited, medical-only approach stalls broader reform, maintaining pharmaceutical-style gatekeeping and preventing access to adult-use markets.
4. Cannabis Trade Associations Focusing on Oligarchy Interests
Entity: California Cannabis Industry Association (CCIA)
Evidence: The CCIA has backed policies that favor large-scale cannabis operators, supporting high licensing fees and regulatory frameworks that are difficult for smaller businesses to navigate. This has led to accusations that CCIA helps monopolize California’s cannabis industry, excluding social equity applicants and smaller growers from thriving in the market.
Controlled Oppression: The CCIA’s influence limits market access for marginalized communities, ensuring that only wealthy, well-established businesses benefit from the legal cannabis industry.
5. Controlled State-Legal Markets
Entity: New York’s Conditional Adult-Use Recreational Dispensary (CAURD) Program
Evidence: New York’s CAURD program was established to prioritize social equity applicants, but in practice, it has been criticized for favoring a limited number of operators, particularly large cannabis firms. The convoluted licensing processes and delays in the rollout of the program have created a slow and overly controlled market that benefits a small group of well-connected companies.
Controlled Oppression: By favoring large operators, the CAURD program has delayed market access for smaller players and equity applicants, stalling broader economic inclusion.
6. Nonprofits & Advocacy Groups With Hidden Corporate Agendas
Entity: Drug Policy Alliance (DPA)
Evidence: Although the DPA has made substantial contributions to cannabis reform, it has been criticized for aligning with corporate donors, potentially steering its policy efforts in ways that benefit elite stakeholders. This corporate influence has led to claims that DPA’s reform strategies slow down full legalization efforts, benefiting wealthy interests while leaving grassroots movements behind.
Controlled Oppression: By serving corporate donors, DPA may delay comprehensive reform in favor of a more controlled, gradual process that protects elite interests.
7. Cannabis Policy Institutes Focused on Scientific Exclusivity
Entity: National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
Evidence: NIDA, a federal agency, has historically restricted cannabis research, focusing predominantly on the potential harms of cannabis while neglecting studies on its medicinal benefits. NIDA’s tight control over cannabis research has stalled the scientific exploration of its therapeutic potential, slowing down reforms based on positive scientific findings.
Controlled Oppression: NIDA’s focus on harm-based research has delayed recognition of cannabis as a legitimate therapeutic option, contributing to policy stagnation and continued prohibition.
8. Social Media Influencers and Marketing Firms
Entity: MedMen Enterprises (and associated influencers)
Evidence: MedMen, once a leading cannabis company, used influencers and marketing campaigns to promote a luxury-focused cannabis lifestyle, targeting affluent consumers. This commercialized vision of cannabis catered to the wealthy while excluding broader societal participation. MedMen’s prioritization of image over substance has also been revealed through their financial and legal troubles.
Controlled Oppression: By promoting an elitist view of cannabis, MedMen has contributed to a narrative that sidelines urgent reform efforts and justice concerns in favor of commercialization.
Summary of Defendants
Canopy Growth Corporation: For lobbying that favors monopolies in the cannabis industry, excluding small operators.
National Industrial Hemp Council (NIHC): For advocating selective industrial hemp uses, stalling broader cannabinoid legalization.
Americans for Safe Access (ASA): For promoting restricted medical cannabis frameworks that delay full legalization.
California Cannabis Industry Association (CCIA): For backing policies that benefit large operators and stifle competition from smaller growers and social equity applicants.
New York’s CAURD Program: For creating a slow and controlled market that favors select operators and excludes smaller players.
Drug Policy Alliance (DPA): For serving corporate donors and slowing the pace of full legalization.
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA): For controlling cannabis research and delaying the recognition of its therapeutic potential.
MedMen Enterprises: For promoting a luxury-focused cannabis lifestyle, sidelining justice issues and inclusive reform.
Conclusion
Controlled oppression in the cannabis and hemp industries has existed for over a century, with powerful entities manipulating the pace of reform to serve elite interests. From industry monopolies and narrow definitions of hemp to biased research agendas and corporate-backed advocacy groups, these defendants have contributed to slowing the full liberation and enfranchisement of cannabis and hemp rights. The fight for true reform is not just against prohibitionists but also against those who support selective, oligarchic change that leaves out marginalized communities.
To achieve genuine cannabis and hemp reform, it is crucial to dismantle these gatekeeping structures and prioritize inclusive, community-based approaches that ensure the benefits of cannabis and hemp are accessible to all such as our Emergency Community Measure which can be found here!
Comments