fbpx

Ep.172: Keith Stroup, NORML Introview w/David Brown, Lift

Cannabis Economy Podcast
Ep.172: Keith Stroup, NORML Introview w/David Brown, Lift

Ep.172: Keith Stroup, NORML Introview w/David Brown, Lift

If you got into the cannabis industry after 1970 you haven’t been in for as long as Keith Stroup the co-founder of National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws- NORML.  46 years hence, Keith sits down to discuss the roots of marijuana as a symbol of the anti Vietnam war movement. But first, David Brown joins us to discuss the upcoming Lift Expo in Vancouver. Recorded before this years conventions we touch on the 68 and 72 conventions with some pretty impressive name dropping along the way. Keith Stroup preceded by David Brown. And if you’re still reading, listen in to find out why Keith has to clarify that former US Secretary of State and VP Nominee “Ed Muskie never did a hallucinogen.”

Transcript:

Speaker 1: Keith stroup

Speaker 2: if you got into the cannabis industry after 1970 you haven't been in for as long as Keith Strong, the Co founder of the National Organization for the reform of marijuana laws, norml 46 years, hence, keep sits down to discuss the roots of marijuana as a symbol of the anti Vietnam War movement. And then so much more. But first, David Brown joins us to discuss the upcoming lift expo in Vancouver. Welcome to cannabis economy. I'm your host Seth Adler. Check us out on social with the handle can economy. That's two ends of the word economy. If to more direct communication or would like to support the show, feel free to send me an email and engage at [inaudible] dot com reported before this year's convention. We touch on the [inaudible] 68 and 72 conventions with some pretty impressive namedropping along the way. Key Strop proceeded by David Brown.

Speaker 3: So, you know, we've got David Brown a back again. David, uh, you're on the run. So thanks for giving us a few minutes.

Speaker 4: Not a problem. Thanks Avenue.

Speaker 3: Of course. So, you know, thanks so much for having me up at Lyft Expo in Toronto, you know, coming off of that, uh, what kind of feedback did you, did you get from, uh, from the show, from folks that attended

Speaker 4: really positive feedback on our turnout was 10,000 people over two days, which was just incredible. We had some of the feedback I got was from the producers who were there who, because of the regulations are, are prevented from interacting with their clients in any way other than over the phone. And so it was the first time any of these producers were able to actually interact with a large amount of their clients and patients in that way. And so that was probably the best feedback I thought that we were able to connect producers and patients, but you know, people from all around the industry all around the world were able to reconnect. And I think that was a very positive thing too, that, that same venue in the past had been a different name but a similar, uh, expo. And so I think, you know, the community saw the need for it and was really happy to see lift, step up and take on that role and then hosts so many people in Toronto.

Speaker 3: So as you know, has gone into the annals of history, uh, since then, um, you know, this legalization, a paper came out this discussion, I think it's called the discussion paper that you sent over to me. I read through it. I found it interesting. Uh, what, what did you take away from it?

Speaker 4: I think it's hard to give it in a nutshell. It's a complex paper.

Speaker 3: It's from the government of Canada by the way, right?

Speaker 4: The government of Canada, I would say anyone who reads it, they need to read it two or three times to really absorb all of it. It gives us, once you can start to read between the lines, it gives some good. I'm a telegraph, a bit of their intentions, while at the same time leaving open to other possibilities. Know the government has always said they want to take a very strict approach, but they also do acknowledge some of the problems with that. Strict approach in terms of controlling the market. And so that's helpful to see that they at least acknowledged it. They acknowledged it in that paper. Um, so for example, they talk about, you know, re retail outlets and the need to tightly restricted retail outlets, but in the same vein, they also say, you know, would we restrict them too tightly? We're just going to end up with another black market and it's a fascinating paper. Anyone who wants to understand what's going on up here in Canada and, and you know, in my opinion, Canada is really kind of leading the way for, for, for uh, federal, uh, regime. And so people should, you know, really learn about what the strict approach will look like.

Speaker 1: Keith stroup

Speaker 2: if you got into the cannabis industry after 1970 you haven't been in for as long as Keith Strong, the Co founder of the National Organization for the reform of marijuana laws, norml 46 years, hence, keep sits down to discuss the roots of marijuana as a symbol of the anti Vietnam War movement. And then so much more. But first, David Brown joins us to discuss the upcoming lift expo in Vancouver. Welcome to cannabis economy. I'm your host Seth Adler. Check us out on social with the handle can economy. That's two ends of the word economy. If to more direct communication or would like to support the show, feel free to send me an email and engage at [inaudible] dot com reported before this year's convention. We touch on the [inaudible] 68 and 72 conventions with some pretty impressive namedropping along the way. Key Strop proceeded by David Brown.

Speaker 3: So, you know, we've got David Brown a back again. David, uh, you're on the run. So thanks for giving us a few minutes.

Speaker 4: Not a problem. Thanks Avenue.

Speaker 3: Of course. So, you know, thanks so much for having me up at Lyft Expo in Toronto, you know, coming off of that, uh, what kind of feedback did you, did you get from, uh, from the show, from folks that attended

Speaker 4: really positive feedback on our turnout was 10,000 people over two days, which was just incredible. We had some of the feedback I got was from the producers who were there who, because of the regulations are, are prevented from interacting with their clients in any way other than over the phone. And so it was the first time any of these producers were able to actually interact with a large amount of their clients and patients in that way. And so that was probably the best feedback I thought that we were able to connect producers and patients, but you know, people from all around the industry all around the world were able to reconnect. And I think that was a very positive thing too, that, that same venue in the past had been a different name but a similar, uh, expo. And so I think, you know, the community saw the need for it and was really happy to see lift, step up and take on that role and then hosts so many people in Toronto.

Speaker 3: So as you know, has gone into the annals of history, uh, since then, um, you know, this legalization, a paper came out this discussion, I think it's called the discussion paper that you sent over to me. I read through it. I found it interesting. Uh, what, what did you take away from it?

Speaker 4: I think it's hard to give it in a nutshell. It's a complex paper.

Speaker 3: It's from the government of Canada by the way, right?

Speaker 4: The government of Canada, I would say anyone who reads it, they need to read it two or three times to really absorb all of it. It gives us, once you can start to read between the lines, it gives some good. I'm a telegraph, a bit of their intentions, while at the same time leaving open to other possibilities. Know the government has always said they want to take a very strict approach, but they also do acknowledge some of the problems with that. Strict approach in terms of controlling the market. And so that's helpful to see that they at least acknowledged it. They acknowledged it in that paper. Um, so for example, they talk about, you know, re retail outlets and the need to tightly restricted retail outlets, but in the same vein, they also say, you know, would we restrict them too tightly? We're just going to end up with another black market and it's a fascinating paper. Anyone who wants to understand what's going on up here in Canada and, and you know, in my opinion, Canada is really kind of leading the way for, for, for uh, federal, uh, regime. And so people should, you know, really learn about what the strict approach will look like.

Speaker 3: It doesn't necessarily have to be your opinion. You're the only federally regulated a system has grows that is operating with the exception of, uh, the Netherlands. A Uruguay still has yet to harvest. So I don't feel like you're being unfair by saying that you're leading the way. All right? So, um, that's what the reality is. We'll wait to see what happens as far as, uh, the rewrite on MMPR, um, you know, nothing there yet, but we'll come back to you on that in the meantime though. You're already starting. Yeah, exactly. You're already starting to, uh, write down the road from that organize lift expo in Vancouver. Thanks for inviting me back again. What should folks expect?

Speaker 4: Yeah. Another very exciting events with lots of people were going to add another 30 or 40 sneakers on our stage. We have another 100 hundred 20 vendors set up people from not only all across Canada, but the west coast of the United States especially. We have a big, a big draw here from people in Washington, Oregon, Colorado. Um, and people from all over the world. A of. I'm in charge of putting together the speakers and we have some really incredible discussions coming together with people from the pharmacy world. People from the liquor control world, people in the dispensary world. Um, several physicians. We have a panel with parents who are dealing with, you know, Piedad helping their children manage issues like seizures with Canada. So we're really trying to cover the gamut of all the current hot topics and the allard rewrite, which will be coming out in late August. We're kind of leaving things open so that we can also discuss that because one of the big expectations from that is some level of personal production being allowed.

Speaker 3: And so we talked about it looks like six plants, but who knows is basically your point, right?

Speaker 4: Yeah. I mean we can, you know, that number gets floated around a lot and honestly I think that it's probably a lot of weight to it, but no one really knows. Um, you know, they, people can interpret what they hear from, you know, from their friend who heard from their friends. But at the end of the day I'm, the Heller case was not that specific. The judge did not say you have to do this. He simply said you have to, you know, increase access and affordability. But the case was built around patient's right to produce their own. And that obviously addresses access and affordability. But you know, there's going to be, the devil will be in the details, is will people have to buy their genetics from illegal government sources? Um, will they be, you know, locally regulated, you have to have fire inspector come in and these are all the tiny little details they can that just loves to obsess over

Speaker 3: or at least, uh, the government. Yes. Right.

Speaker 4: A cautious or conscious society.

Speaker 3: Cautious. That's it. All right. Well, um, that's fantastic for tickets were to folks go, uh, if they want to make their way up there and date certain as well as that

Speaker 4: September 17th and 18th in Vancouver, Vancouver Convention Center, they can go to [inaudible] dot ca dot CEO, which is already new branded url and they can find out about everything lift related there including art expo series. And Yeah, you will be leading at least two panels. So we're looking forward to having you again, elite lead a great discussion and I encourage, encourage a lot of people from the states to come on up or we're doing a lot of other ancillary events. We're doing a dispensary to her on Friday. Uh, people can learn about what's going on up here. There's a week long cannabis business conference the week before us, there was a gay long lab testing workshop to get people to understand what pharmaceutical standards are. So it's a full week of learning about candidates and in Canada and cannabis and the changing global environment. So anyone who, you know, it's a quick day drive the quick plane ride, I would encourage come on up a visit, Vancouver, it's lovely this time of year and learn all about cannabis

Speaker 3: aside from everything that you said as far as just that city, it's worth making the trip just for the city.

Speaker 4: Vancouver is beautiful in Vancouver in September. I will hopefully have some sunshine or summer came late this year. So hopefully we'll still have the convention center is right on the water. It's a beautiful city, like I say, will be doing a dispensary to her, uh, to, you know, people can really understand the hardest city and it'll be a lot going on. There'll be several after parties and things like that. So it should be a very good time.

Speaker 3: Excellent. Forgive me if. I don't remember if I've asked you for a song off of the soundtrack of your life, if there's one track or one song on there. As a final question for you, what would be today's. Oh really? I'll let you down. You just. Rick rolled me. David Brown. Thank you so much. Take care.

Speaker 2: This episode is also supported by incredibles biomedically. Correct. Medically, correct. Producers of incredibles are focused on quality and consistency because they want you to rely on the product medicinally. They see you as receiving the direct benefit of their medicinal mindset, whether they're taking incredibles for qualifying condition. We're doing so recreationally either way medically correct, knows that you're getting therapeutic value from incredibles. Colorado based incredibles are now available in a growing list of locations. If you're looking for high quality, consistent infused cannabis products and extracts go to. I love incredibles.com.

Speaker 5: So,

Speaker 2: so, uh, so here we are. Keith, it's Keith stroup. Now how do you pronounce your last name? My family has always called drop, right? Is it

Speaker 6: rhymes and stuff, but I don't care. Some people call the stroop or Straub. I have no ego in it. It's no problem, I mean I've heard all three iterations, but you, you pronounce it struck. Yes, yes. But. And you, I'm sure you've been known to mispronounce it as, but I'm sure I have. Yeah, it's basically what I'm stone. There you go. Alright. So you know, you and normal are inextricably linked. Right? So you know, 2016, we were joking on the way over here and a little bit different than 20 years ago. Right. Whale and for us actually a different in 45 years ago because we started normally in 1970 unbelief. So you understand that when we started normal gallop had just done their first pole to test to support for marijuana legalization and only 12 percent of the entire public supportive is 88 percent of the people were opposed to what we were trying to do right now.

Speaker 6: And that's in 1970. Yes. With all the hippies. That's. That may have been part of the reason, but I'm not even positive that we were aware of how unpopular position was. I assume we must've been, but to now. Now it sounds scary to me if somebody said, Keith, take this project on only 12 percent of the people's Court, I would say, man, I'm too old to start down that path. But uh, at the time I had been radicalized by the war in Vietnam and the threat or being drafted, and because of that we began to question a lot of things about our government. And one thing most of us had started smoking marijuana when we were in either college or law school when you would go to the antiwar demonstrations of marijuana smoking was incredibly prevalent. And even among older Americans who didn't smoke, they just passed it down the line to other people.

Speaker 6: It was seen as a symbol to suggest I don't approve of my government. So interested. So marijuana smoking was in extra blades connected to the Anti War Vietnam movement. That's amazing. It was a, it was a symbol. Absolutely assemble. Um, I had started smoking marijuana when I was a freshman at Georgetown law school. Sixty five pounds. But I did it as kind of a private thing with a few friends until about 68 at the antiwar demonstrations, and I realized, Jesus Christ, man, this is almost like burning a graph card and the park you. You'd light up a joint. It just showed that you did not approve of the war in Vietnam. So when, when I joked about even with the hippies, your, your point is, is, is real. In other words, the movement, if you will, a was seen as you know, the counterculture and right. There's no doubt marijuana legalization was seen as a fringe activity or a fringe issue.

Speaker 6: A most serious politicians thought it beneath them to even deal with it. I think not so much that they didn't think there was some merit, but it was more they didn't think it was possible to change or not in the short run. So they turns out they were right. They were right. And so I think what they were trying to do is to get us to focus on things that were more achievable in the next five years, such as what were they well ending. The war was ending the draft shortly after that, um, and uh, the women's movement was coming along with very important about that time now was new. The reason I came up with a name normal frankly is that almost every public interest group that came along was National Organization for women or Nae National Association of Abortion Rights League or whatever it was. I came up with normal.

Speaker 6: I don't know, I wasn't very original, but I also, of course, I like the double entendre. The fact that we are suggesting that smoking marijuana is normal indeed now it's come full force where I actually see people write articles and they talk about the normalization of marijuana smoking. I love that. And Yeah, because keeps thinking to himself. Yeah. I had this in 1970. I had the people that you started writing about it. Right. So you mentioned Georgetown Law School were. Where'd you grow up? I grew up in southern Illinois. I went to the, uh, actually a coal mining part of the state. Very poor part of the state. My mother's side of the family. My grandfather was a coal miner. My great grandfather was a coal miner, so and on my father's side they were farmers, but they were dirt farmers, so I was at the bottom of the economic ladder in a very poor part of Illinois.

Speaker 6: Wow, okay. And being a coal miner's son, did you run into Loretta Lynn by any chance? Well, I, I knew about her as I got a little older, but back then, no, all I remember growing up seeing my father, my grandfather, my great grandfather's coal mining hats hanging on the wall. So that's a marked memory and, and I've always been proud of it, you know, I'm a, I am a proud working class kid. Sure. Uh, I was fortunate in that I got to go to a decent public university and then I went to Georgetown law school and most people of my economic status don't have that opportunity. So I look at it and realize how fortunate I was to get away from that. I'm sure 90 percent of the kids that grew up in that environment never got more than 30 miles away from where they were born and they. There were no job opportunities, so unbelievable. All right, so what, what school did you go to? A University of Illinois as an undergraduate. A champagne or abandoned in Georgetown law school at the time they were the fighting aline. I write. Yes. They've changed that now. Oh, I don't know that. It's probably politically incorrect now. So Georgetown law school, you become a Hoya.

Speaker 6: Saxa is actually the expression. Oh really? It stands for some, it's a Latin phrase and I forget exactly what it stands for. Something like literally translated this. That is. Or it's nothing. It means nothing. It means you spent too much time in a law library. Right. I was going to say, well, it could also be a cannabis thing, you know this, that is absolutely no question. So, so when were you kind of turned on philosophically and intellectually in terms of cannabis? You kind of mentioned it in general, right? In the composite. Was it during law school or in law school? I was turned on a literally the first couple of times on a ski trip up in Pennsylvania if some close in seven springs or someplace and I was there with a couple of high school buddies that were also going to Grad school in the DC area and when I'm brought along a couple of joints and I remember the first time we smoked it a, we didn't think we got high because he often don't the first time, but we get a lot and I remember ordering some food to the room and and I remember the second day we couldn't wait to get off of the slopes so that we could smoke that other joint so we must have enjoyed it, but it was not a major part of my until the antiwar movement.

Speaker 6: So by the time I graduated college and I was really threatened with the draft and I was attending antiwar demonstrations. Fact I had a house at 21st and then right downtown in DC and back then before the Internet, there was a place where you could post your house. If you could accept antiwar demonstrators could sleep on your floor in it. Every demonstration we'd have eight or 10 or 12 strangers sleeping on the floor. It was wonderful because we all shared. We were part of the community of antiwar activist. Yeah. And you'd go to those demonstrations and Ge, many Christmas there was passing joints back and forth. So it was sometime in that phase that I think I got serious about marijuana right there. Okay. Before we get to 1970, it seems to be a good time to talk about 1968. So we're making our way into July here in 2016.

Speaker 6: And you know, Bernie's a not quite out of the race yet, but, uh, it, that feels different than it did since all the primaries are over. Absolutely. Um, so it feels less kinetic as far as the energy. Um, but still it seems like something can happen at the, uh, uh, you know, uh, well I think he's had at the convention he's had a positive impact without question the Democratic Party. And that's what we should look at indeed. If we only look at who wins and loses. Look, Hillary lost last time, but she was a good sport and Obama's been a great president. I think Hillary will be a good president, but clearly hillary has taken several stamps. Is including marijuana that are further to the left because a burning because of burden. No question but, but speaking and again, making that tie between 19, 68, the convention seems like it should be smooth.

Speaker 6: Let's hope. Yeah, absolutely. I will tell you that the 68 convention I did not attempt. You didn't go, but because it was in Chicago, I know and it was hideous. I mean, you know, we all watched it on TV and uh, several friends of mine were lawyers like Michael Kennedy and Michael Tigar who represented the Chicago eight. Subsequently the Chicago seven. It was a kind of a, and that's how Abbie Hoffman and all those extra Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin for, for all of the radical lawyers that had been radicalized by a war, they didn't like. It changed their lives forever. And I was a little late, but I was part of that generation. I ended up doing, in my early years representing draft evaders because I had been one myself, and if you were somebody just out of law school and somebody was coming graft age, the first time they were looking for was a lawyer to help them figure out a way to stay out of Vietnam.

Speaker 6: And by the way, I will say this to the next convention, Seventy two where we nominated George Mcgovern. Sure. Uh, that was a fabulous convention in terms of the shape that handled my future life. I met Hunter Thompson for the first time. I was smoking a joint under the bleachers. I met Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin for the first time. I was standing in the Crown Hotel, which was charged with governance hotel. We were passing out normal literature, being straight coats and ties. All of a sudden I'm smelling marijuana and somebody hands me a joint and it's Abbie Hoffman. I got to take it. It's not often. I mean, do you remember the conversation or oil? It wasn't much of one other than he. He passes me a joint and I looked at it and I said, well shit, I got to take it. So I took it and passed it on.

Speaker 6: I will tell you this with Hunter Thompson, I was sitting in the bleachers the first night of the convention and I smelled marijuana and they had a section on the bleachers for those who were not delegate. I looked down and I see this kind of gawky awkward look and guide that I'd see pictures of being in the rolling stone was the elbows and knees and he clearly smoking a joint. So I found my way down beneath the bleachers. Stuck out my hand to introduce myself side. It just started a new lobby called normally here, here you want a joint, you want to do it. We started a friendship that lasted until the day of his death 10 years ago. Uh, one other one tom facade. The man who founded High Times magazine, most people don't remember it because he, he died or killed himself 10 years later, but he had a, they had a thing at the Democratic convention in [inaudible] 72.

Speaker 6: They called the people's Park Park and to get all the demonstrators away from the convention so they didn't have a problem like they had in Chicago. They gave us our own park, but it was like two or three blocks away from convention and you couldn't get near that convention but to add your own. But when you went to the park, if you were told immediately, if you want pot, go to the people's poetry and you went over to this corner tree and this guy turned out to be Tom for side who later in 1994 found that high times magazine. We were good friends. He would lower a bag of pot on a string with a clip and you would send a $20 bill back the dirty. I'm looking at that up the tree. Yeah, it's in the money up. He had sent the pot then. That's not bad.

Speaker 6: Is Not a bad distribution system. Well, you know, we didn't have a lot to work with. That's exactly. That's exactly. And they wouldn't. They wouldn't touch anybody if you stayed in the park. I think you could have sold pot. Well, he did sell pot openly. They what they wanted to do, they didn't care what we did as long as they stayed in the park and didn't buy starbucks. That's it. That's right. Now I got to ask you about hunter s Thompson though. You said you're good friends. You know, this is one of the epic American writers without a doubt. The most interesting friend I've ever had. And, and I think the most talented writer I've ever known. Um, he was crazy. He just like he wrote and just like he's seen. So that was the, that was him. Oh yes. I would go out to aspen for the rest.

Speaker 6: He very shortly after I met him, I invited them to join the normal advisory board and he was on it until the end of his death. And he came to the first three or four norml conferences. And uh, you know, I remember one time he was sitting on a panel. I had Christie hefner because I had funded by Hugh Hefner to have her daughter, his daughter, Christie, and a hunter and myself on this panel. And Craig Kupita. Susan was with high times magazine and everybody was talking about how great progress we're making. Hunter stands up and says, how dare you be celebrate Tory. I don't have any weed. Where the hell is a week? Well, the truth is he had a two ounces of cocaine in his room. He had all kinds of marijuana. The ether, if people started throwing joints towards the stage. I mean that was just hunter.

Speaker 6: I literally used to go out to ask about once every two years I had an excuse. I always had some work to do, but I really went out there because I wanted to spend a couple of evenings at hunter's house. There we go. Farm. It was the most fascinating time in my life and to even today. Just last week, I was in Aspen for our legal seminar, his widow and nita allows normal to bring the lawyers out to Al Farm. She's kept the house like a museum like was when hunter was alive. For a lot of hunter fans, man, the chance to be right where hunter was a. It really is a special thing. I keep thinking I'm going to see him walk around the corner. It's possible. Right. Last question, because I am a fan as far as just you as a friend explained the difference between what is perceived as anger.

Speaker 6: When you think about hunter s Thompson and what might be righteousness and if it's not right, just this, what's the right word? Well, yeah, I never thought of hunter as being angry, although I understand that his language was awfully harsh and stuff. He really was a genius with words and he was looking to provoke different responses. I mean, for example, in fear and loading on the campaign trail, he had ed Muskie, a dropping acid at some campaign event, or maybe it was a pod or something and Musky never did a hallucinogen. So with hunter you always had to decipher what he was saying, what part was real because there was an element of truth in all of us. And what part was just hunter's imagination versus message, I guess. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. And his message always was be brave. Don't take shit from the establishment and if anybody tells you no, that means yes, I take that as a yes.

Speaker 6: Yeah. Alright. So here we go. Nineteen 70. You think to yourself, a national organization must be set up to reform marijuana laws. And so I'm going to do that. It was that simple. Well, almost that simple. Um, I had, I had worked for a commission that was established because of Ralph Nader. Ralph was a consumer advocate that came to DC, wrote the book unsafe at any speed about corvairs and before Ralph, I don't think most of us had ever heard of a public interest lawyer. Lawyers represented clients help them get rich or whatever. Well, but either protected them from jail or helping me. What Ralph a demonstrated was very, uh, there's an option of using your legal skills and what you learned in law school to impact public policy. Not to get rich or not to get your clients. So having. I stayed out of Vietnam because I worked for the national commission on product safety for two years and had what was called the critical skills to from it.

Speaker 6: It was a bullshit thing, but it meant that it supposedly, my work for the presidential commission was more important than my going to Vietnam. So I worked at 16th and Kay and rice in DC the minute that commission was over, I was too old to be drafted. I was 29 and so, uh, I had a choice to do whatever I wanted and I realized, man, I love this public interest law, but the issue that I really cared about by then I'd become a regular marijuana smoker. I want to legalize pot. I'm not interested in unsafe products. So, uh, I started normal because of my work with Ralph Nader without questioning native. I was going, no, no, he's heard it many times. But, but he, he never smoked in his life. And Ralph and so straight. He put you to sleep. I will, absolutely. But the original native certainly doesn't seem relaxed to.

Speaker 6: No, no. The original Nader's raiders, you know, we used to have four young law graduates come to town. I got to be friends with all of them and all of them smoke weed. So I would spend my weekends during those first couple of years getting stoned out of my gourd with the Nader's raiders, but, uh, the, the real impact was it taught me to use my law degree for some higher calling than just to get rich. Interesting. And so that is how we get normal now. How long was it that it was just one guy and one were the first test? It was never one. It was two to start with an associate of mine at the Product Safety Commission name Larry Shot. His father in law was Senator Vance Harkey from Indiana, which is why he had the job at the commission and he and I agreed to start normal and we did now for a long time.

Speaker 6: It was run out of my basement in my house at 21st and the end downtown, uh, after about a year I rented the place a block away and worked out of there and then moved to another couple of blocks away as well and begin to build up a staff. But no, no, we started slow. Um, and mainly it was, I'm not sure normal would have ever made it as an ongoing organization, but for another presidential commission called the National Commission on marijuana and Drug Abuse, Richard Nixon had the past, the controlled Substances Act of 1970. The prior federal drug act had been held unconstitutional because of Tim leary's challenged if it had been busted come out of Mexico and 50 pounds of marijuana and had some good lawyer anyway. So there were a few months where there was no federal act, but there were 50 state laws. So it wasn't like there was a free zone.

Speaker 6: In any event, when they passed the controlled Substances Act, almost all of which is hideous, a terrible penalties. Marijuana schedule one with heroin and stuff like that. We're still working on that. Yeah, we are. We still in still in schedule one, but Ed Koch from New York about people who was a congressman then and he was a progressive liberal congressmen and I'd gotten to know him and add put provisions in the control substance. In fact, to establish a study on marijuana, he called it the national commission on marijuana and drug abuse. Now nobody thought much would come of it because Nixon was going to a point nine members and he hated marijuana, tried to battle card. The congress was going to pick four from their sales and we just assumed they were going to stamp the status quo and say marijuana causes reefer madness or whatever. Well, surprise, surprise during the course of that year, some of those commissioners were very serious minded.

Speaker 6: The one I really appreciated was from Ucla and, uh, Tom Ungerleider was his name. He was a phd and Tom Arrange to have a private sessions where the commissioners who had never seen someone smoke a marijuana cigarette and were, they weren't sure, did marijuana really make it crazy that make you commit crime? They never seen it. No idea. They had private meetings where they invited adults, middleclass people in to smoke marijuana and let the commissioners talk to them, see how they felt, see how the acted as a result, when they came out with a recommendation after the first year, they said eliminate all penalties for the private possession and use of small amounts of marijuana and eliminate penalties for the sharing of marijuana for no remuneration among adults because they learn. That's how we did it. Back then when marijuana was illegal, you didn't just hoard your marijuana, you brought a couple of joints and shared it with friends of your friends would bring one and share it with you.

Speaker 6: So it turned out being a great recommendation and the commission went out of business. They had no provisions to implement those laws. Normal spit the next 10 years going around the country, getting those laws passed. We passed them in 11 states between our Oregon in [inaudible], 73 in Nebraska in [inaudible], 78. So I'm not sure normal would have lasted as an organization, but for that commission. Interesting. Because that, that was the next 10 years of work. They gave a serious work to do. All of a sudden we weren't seen as outliers. We were seeing is people that we're talking about a presidential commission and implementing. Yes. Uh, so that's the seventies. Um, you know, we'll talk about Nebraska and other time. Yeah. Uh, but here come the eighties. Tough time. We, the last victory statewide victory we had was Nebraska and 78. We didn't win another statewide victory for eight years.

Speaker 6: That's a long time in politics. It's amazing. I tell you, by the end of that 18 years, we were down to two employees that normal, that there, it was almost nonexistent, but we did manage. They tried to repeal those laws. We managed to keep them from being repealed, but we didn't win another state by victory. And when we did finally surface, yeah, it was a 96 California and this time it was the medical use of marijuana people out there to their credit, Dennis Peron and others are bright enough to realize that, uh, if, if the country isn't yet ready to say it's okay to smoke marijuana for fun, they surely must recognize that if it'll help an ms patient or a cancer patient or age patient, they ought to be allowed the habit. And so for the next several years we worked on medical marijuana until 2012 when we finally had the support to go for full legalization.

Speaker 6: That's it. Don't use this. We call it now. It's no longer recreation. That's it. Yeah. And we're going to talk about all this, but I do want to zero in, uh, on, on the eighties. And then president Reagan. It was tough. Yeah. Talking truly about, you know, he devastated normal. The organization he did for sure I'll pay. For example, a friend of mine at the time was Ed Bradley and CBS News, 60 minutes and stuff. And, and had always done these programs from to very favorable. And by the way, ed was a friend of hunters. We all smoked marijuana together, so it was no surprise. It did seem like a cool dude. He was indeed. Well in fact, they even owned the place out by hunter and asked me, well, what happened at some point is there was a program CBS was doing with it Bradley. And all of a sudden it's about the parents groups.

Speaker 6: It wasn't, it wasn't focusing on the lives we're destroying by treating otherwise, law abiding citizens as criminals rather. It was focused on, well, what does this mean for the kids? Are we sending the wrong message to kids? And we didn't take that seriously at first because it seemed us, none of us were saying kitchen spoke. We've so far, far outside of the realm of what you were retired. Why would I even find so? So we ignored them. Boy, was that a mistake? The next thing I know, there's a CBS special followed by two or three more. It's Nancy Reagan. Just say no. What about the kids? And uh, it was, uh, it was an unhealthy environment. It was, it wasn't a, it wasn't an environment in which people are interested in listening to reason. It was simply protect the kids, whatever it takes to protect it.

Speaker 6: You know, I used to make this argument if adults are not allowed to do anything that's inappropriate for kids, we can't have sex, get married, drive cars, you know. I mean there's a whole range of things that we wouldn't be allowed to do, but it didn't. I didn't convince many people, oh, you didn't win that. No. So, so and, and the polling showed later, we didn't know at the time, but when you look back at the Gallup polling, we only had 12 percent support and we started, it worked up to about 20 percent by the late eighties I think when as high as 24 percent drop back down around 20 percent. Then starting in [inaudible] 78, 79 80 and stayed down there until night in the seventies. It grew. Then it came back down in the aid as of Nivea. Started edging back up sharply edging. But it's.

Speaker 6: The wind has been to our back ever since ever since. So about five years ago, for the first time we started getting national polls showing more than 50 percent support for full legalization. Now we have several polls showing 60, 61 percent sure who and what's important about that is only 14 percent of the public smoked marijuana. 80 six percent are non smokers, so you must realize we don't win this issue unless we win the hearts and minds of the nonsmokers. There was a polling group out of DC called the third way, a couple three years ago that dug a little deeper into the nonsmokers, but who support legalization and what they found were the majority of them are not pro pot. They're anti prohibition. They concluded that prohibition causes more harm than the drug itself, but if you tried to turn them on, for example, you're not going to forget it.

Speaker 6: Or if he tried to convince them, it's great to get high. That's a losing argument. That doesn't. Yeah. A everyone's not getting gay married. It doesn't support gay marriage. That's exactly right. And for those stoners are smokers who think the goal should be to turn on America, you're absolutely wrong. That is not the goal. The goal is to make sure the majority of Americans continue to understand prohibition is a failed public policy. When did you realize in the nineties you kind of brushed? Uh, we, we brushed up against it, the, the, the, the kind of, the realization of what cannabis could do as medicine. Uh, it, it all came about, you know, kind of out there in California. So I started in [inaudible] 96. There we go. Yeah. When Florida passed out, our California passed that I think we knew for. I'll tell you, the first time I heard about it, Bob Randall was the first legal marijuana smoker in America.

Speaker 6: He lived in the district of Columbia. He suffered from Glaucoma, which was one of the earlier conditions that some people use marijuana for. And he came to normal and explained the situation to me and he was growing marijuana on his balcony and I was saying, Bob, man, you got to be careful, you know, that's not going to likely be a good defense, but he didn't want to go blind. So he went ahead and did it and sure enough he got busted. He had a good lawyer who raised an affirmative defense of medical necessity. The trial court went for it and he became the first American to be allowed to legally use marijuana as a medicine route. Once we realized we had that, there was really no turning back. Yeah. And. And now Glaucoma's not even the major reason. There are other prescription drugs that they claim are probably more effective for glaucoma, but there's nothing more effective for ms or for Parkinson's are far chromes are far HIV aids.

Speaker 6: I mean it's a miracle drug, no doubt about it. When did that realization of those conditions start to hit you over the. By the time California passed. So in the nineties when all that education. That's right. And w like most groups we just simply went with it. We didn't work on full legalization during the nineties. We just went with medical use because, well you just got knocked down in the eighties, what are you going to find? Medical. And we knew that at every state that adopted medical use, there were family and friends in neighboring states who were saying, why can't my son or daughter get help, or my wife or my husband? So we knew that we were winning more than just those handful of states. We were changing minds and others. Secondly, we knew that once a nonsmoking American realize that marijuana was a real medicine, not just an excuse to get hot.

Speaker 6: You can't think of it any longer as reefer madness. It doesn't cause you to go insane and commit crime if it also cures your cancer, our cares, your glaucoma are healthier. Your Ms, you know, by the way, with ms and Parkinson's and crones for example, the one thing those diseases all share, it's a deterioration of the nerve in there are now several research projects show it doesn't just help the symptoms, it regenerates the damaged nerve endings. I mean eventually either whole marijuana are an ingredient for marijuana, will likely be the cure for those diseases. So once we began to see that, we realized, oh my, we're on a ride here. Here's something now. Now the goal was how do we switch that because we didn't want to get in a box canyon where it's fine to smoke if you're sick and a doctor says, because that's not the right to smoke.

Speaker 6: We were about the right to privacy, the right for the government to leave us alone. We didn't think the government had any business knowing whether we smoke our why we smoke, so normal always took the position. Let's keep the medical issue separate from full legalization. There were lots of medical advocates at the time, including Dennis Prone California, who who actually deserves credit for drafting that first initiative. He went to the New York Times the morning after that passed and said all use his medical use. In other words, he was saying all of you who smoke and be protected. That is not. That was not our political goal, and so there was a split for a while between the west coast and the east coast because we wanted to win the right to smoke marijuana. They just wanted to be left alone. Have you come back around on that kind of wellness approach to wail?

Speaker 6: I fully admit that I think marijuana smoking is a positive experience when it's used in the right setting. I don't consider that wellness in a medical sense, but I think some people who argue that Duke. Okay. What I think is this, if I have to write a speech or for example, when I was working on my talk here, I locked myself in my Home Office at. I get wiped out the stoned out of my mind in front of my computer and I write down every thought that comes to my mind and some of them are coming so fast. I almost get write them down and then the next morning when I'm straight, I read them and I throw out maybe 10, 15 percent that laugh at myself. I think you stoner law, what was that about? But about 85 percent. What I think is why did I have to get stoned to see that insight?

Speaker 6: I should have been able to have that insight simply because, uh, I've been working in this field for 50 years. I should've been able to figure that out. What's the answer? Well, the answer is marijuana is a very positive experience when used in the right setting and so I don't consider that medical use, but I understand when people talk about wellness, yes, if I'm going to give a speech or if I'm going to publish a paper, I guarantee you during the early phases, the first version of that, I'm going to be stoned out of my mind because I think it makes me more creative. It, it lets you see. You have no limits. It's almost like you're not afraid to fail. You'll think of something that may seem silly. Write it down anyway, may or may not be you. You won't overrule yourself. That's right.

Speaker 6: Whereas otherwise I think we're trained by our schooling that we think in boxes and you never want to go outside that box because they'll think you're silly or they won't take them seriously. What marijuana does is allow you to escape those boxes. So, uh, we're, we're going in boxes, we're doing seventies, eighties, nineties. Let's do the next 12 years, right? The first 12 years of the decade because then we'll get into kind of the old adult use. And everything. Um, what, what were the big changes for normal in going from the nineties to the next to that first decade? Well, for one thing, once medical use in California happened, there were a whole series of states that began to take it seriously, but very quickly, our critics, we're looking at California and when you would watch the evening news, they wouldn't show an ms patient or an aids patient lined up to get their medical marijuana.

Speaker 6: They'd show a bunch of teenagers who were leaving a pot shop and sitting right out front selling pop each other. They weren't, there was, there was one story about a woman who wore high heels and she got a recommendation because her heels hurt for medical marijuana. It was a joke. They showcase the worst. Yeah, it was a joke. And so it made it, it made the legitimate uses of marijuana looked like they were a flim flam. They looked like they were excused to get high when they never word the real winds were always legitimate. And again, it had to do with the fact that California had no regulations. Uh, it was an honor system. And it was kind of an honor system among feeds. So what happened was almost every state after California adopted a few more in California, they had fewer diseases. Say California had language that said they listed eight or 10 diseases or conditions.

Speaker 6: And then they said are any other condition for which the doctor thinks that may be helpful. How pot docs thought it was for every. Right. That was a stupid bit of language. I know it wasn't medical at all. Well, do you think that that helped it along though? Just, uh, no, I, I think it might have helped it in California get adopted, but for every state after that, it hurt us interest in every. Even our sponsors in states where we would identify the person to introduce a medical use bill in his statement introducing it, he'd say this is nothing like California because they don't want to let everybody saw on evening news. So you finally got to where her, when you got to New Jersey, you couldn't grow your own for the first date. A DC, you couldn't grow your own medical, uh, New York account flour, no flour.

Speaker 6: There's now a couple of states where you can't, no flour. All of those restrictions I think would never have occurred, but for the, the, the joke, the California medical law, they came or who was presented us. Yes. I don't mean it. Gotcha. But the media. Yeah, and so and so. I think it hurt us for about a decade, but I will say this, regardless of what people thought about medical marijuana after they got used to it in the state, they no longer saw it as an evil substance and so then you could start to talk about the advantages of allowing adults to smoke if they want to. Don't treat them like why would you treat him like a criminal? They don't create crime. Say they're married, they have jobs, they pay taxes, they contribute to their communities in a positive manner. So those are arguments we had always made that they didn't sell very well until people have been softened up by the medical marijuana concept.

Speaker 6: So I, I see it as being an absolutely necessary step between prohibition and legalization. In fact, I'm looking for the first state and there will be one soon that goes straight from prohibition to legalization. Just gets the medic because truthfully, if you've got legal marijuana, why pay a pot doc? He does it. It's the same marijuana. He can go into a marijuana shop and buys marijuana. Well, I mean Oregon got real close to that. They got damn code. And, and by the way I think in Oregon and maybe Washington to well, Washington's kind of going backwards a little bit better. Roll their medical marijuana into full legal. That's happening. Any data and, and I think that's smart. The only area where you still need medical marijuana would be for minors were like dravet syndrome have seizures. Obviously the parents have to give consent and you have to have a special medical program.

Speaker 6: They're not going to open up recreational to 12 year olds or six year old, but that's a small program. Uh, what, there, we could go down that hallway. I'm not going to because we have so many more years to cover here. So, so, you know, many of the folks that we've spoken to about what was the change, you know, from we're focused on medical too, you know, what we're going to do, this adult use thing. Uh, was Barack Obama being voted in as president? Oh, I think without question that helped, uh, the, the fact that a man is bright, brightened successful as Barack Obama. He didn't exactly brag about his marijuana smoking. Not once he was president, but he bragged about it in a book he wrote before he was president when he was senator, when he was a member of the shroom gang. They called it in Hawaii.

Speaker 6: And also also saying, did you inhale? Yes, I did. That was where it. Whereas Bill Clinton tried, they, oh, I didn't a please bill that you didn't do us any favors. But even Obama, the first time or two, he was asked about the question. He made a joke. He laughed about it and that insulted us who were smokers. So I couldn't identify with a lot of my contemporaries who said, wait a minute. It's not a joke. It's a real question. How do you feel about marijuana legalization and he would say something like, oh, I can't remember the question now. He was joking about it. He learned fairly quickly. There were serious constituency out there comprised of about half of the population who have smoked at sometime in their life and roughly 35, 36 million within the last year. So by his second term, oh no, and he talked about marijuana. It was very good stuff.

Speaker 6: That was serious stuff and the biggest favor he, he or any president could ever have given us. Instead of having the Department of Justice go in and shut down the legalization systems in Colorado, Washington, the first two states, and almost without question the supremacy clause would have given him that option. Oh sure. Now understand this. No state is required to mimic federal drug laws, so he couldn't have forced those states to pass laws, making it illegal. Ben Sasse Nouns, but he could've come after. He could have struck down licensing of cultivators. He could have struck down licensing of dispensary's and what you would have been left, which would have been just a simple decriminalization law. We would have never had the raw data that we now have four years of, which is incredibly important to other states. Well, I mean we had a. I had the great pleasure of speaking with a former US deputy attorney general Jim Cole who wrote the Cole memo.

Speaker 6: Yes indeed. Great memos. Exactly. And His. His general point is if it is a regulated system and the regulations are working, but for these seven, please don't do these seven things and please keep being regulated. There's no need for us to dedicate our resources. By the way, I think most of us would agree with the points he was making sure he was saying things. For example, you've got to make reasonable efforts to keep marijuana out of the hands of adolescent and we agree. Yep. You've got to make reasonable efforts to keep it from going to states where it's still illegal. We agreed. So I mean the, the, the limitations imposed for common sense limitation. Absolutely. So what he did, and he couldn't have done it without holder and Obama saying, okay, I'm sure they gave us four years to to gather real data to show that when you legalize marijuana and regulate it, the sky doesn't fall.

Speaker 6: In fact, quite the contrary, you have lower rates of adolescent use, you have no increase in Dui ids and you eliminate the arrests. You know, we were doing. There's another one, tax revenues. Well yeah, that's all right. Once you get, once you get beyond the morality in tax revenue, I always think of that. I'm old enough to remember when the only place you could gamble legally was vegas and then they went to Atlantic city. Right now all the other states knew that money was just waiting, but it was considered sinful by a big portion of their, their consensus. So as long as it was considered sinful, oh no, we can't legalize it. Well, you know, now I think every state in the country has at least scratch off gambling in Mississippi for example, you still can't gamble on land, but they have riverboats and set out on the Mississippi and never leave the dock and you can gamble there.

Speaker 6: So I think we're going through that same phase right now with marijuana. There are some states, I'm sure Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, where right now they would say, I don't care how many millions of dollars in tax money, it's sinful or it's whatever, but once they see states next to them, like everybody next to Colorado, Kansas for example, they're seeing a Colorado raise $200,000,000 a year. It's almost double what they were anticipating. Some of that money's coming from their citizens who are driving across the state line and spend their money there. So I think we are going through the same phase that gambling went through and it, it we, we made those arguments years ago, but nobody was listening. They weren't saleable because marijuana was evil. So marijuana seems isn't legal anymore. Getting back to your first point of public polling, which puts it a well, what we like to say here is a, whether you're a democrat or Republican, cannabis gets more votes than you do.

Speaker 6: That's right. That's right. Basically about 60, 61 percent. I don't see anybody else getting that. So, so, so you've got that. If, if this whole thing started in 1970, maybe a little bit before, but you know, a organization organizationally speaking, 1970, where are we in 2016? Are we in the ninth inning as far as Keith is concerned? Are we in the second inning? No, no, no. I think we're in the ninth. I'll tell you when social change. Finally, it's such a big country that to get social change started on any issue of gay marriage, marijuana legalization, man, it's a struggle and when it first starts it'll pick up a little, but then it picks up more and then it picks up more. So I think what you're seeing now is we think we're going to win four and maybe five states with full legalization this November by voter initiative.

Speaker 6: Yep. That'll give us, if we want all five, we'd have nine states and the district of Columbia, sometime when you get around 20 states, we when Congress, and by the way, we don't when Congress, by them telling every state they have to legalize marijuana, that's not what they did at the end of alcohol prohibition. What they did lead by the state of New York, by the way, they were the first ones. New York first said to an alcohol prohibition they sent to the feds were not going to spend our money closing speakeasies. If you guys want to come in and force your law, you go right ahead, but we're not enforced for it. Of course I don't have a police force to do that and they don't for marijuana either. In four or five other states followed suit and within about six years what the federal government did, they backed out of the picture and said, states are free to do what they want.

Speaker 6: Go for it. If you want to keep your laws and lock up your kids, go far. If you want to legalize it, experiment with different methods. That's precisely what you're going to see with marijuana and that's what we should do. That's the brandeis estates states are laboratories of experimentation. That's what they were intended to. Louis Brandeis, yes. Alright. Former Supreme Court justice. Yes, that's right. And he recognized a long time ago that one of the geniuses of our system, you can experiment with new ideas on the state level. You've got 50 different laboratories if, if you make a mistake, so they fixed one state, you don't have to start off and screwed the country up and then learn. So what we're doing now is demonstrating that yes it works well and when you get about 20 percent, 25 percent, you'll get congress. There we go. Let's, let's kind of end where we started with 1968.

Speaker 6: If the Democratic convention isn't going to be the Democratic convention, is the Republican convention going to be the Democratic convention? It was chaos and 68 being someone that knows it from being. They're not, not in Chicago, but you know, we were all impacted by [inaudible] 68 and in particular by the trials of the antiwar demonstrators. After that, what do you think is gonna happen here, but at this whole thing? I think philly will be a mess, right? I mean, I live in DC, but I. I have no interest in being in Philadelphia. I think there'll be riots and I think there'll be demonstrators. I think the police will probably over respond. You know, what will it'll be 68 all over again? I hope not, but I expect it and because of Donald trump now, but not because of the Republican, you know of the Republicans when they had 18 candidates, all but three of them took the easy way out on this.

Speaker 6: They said, I don't like marijuana, but I believe it states. Right? So I'm going to leave him alone. That's all we want. I don't give a shit what they think about their Awana just leave us alone. The state level there. Well, that's what Hillary said, that Bernie pushed her a little further where she said, well, now she favors medical and probably. Oh, and states' rights. You definitely said say it's right. There we go. So I don't think there'll be any kind of a fight it the Democratic Party over this or convention, but at the Republicans, because of Donald Trump and his believers, I have to think it will become an issue. I don't know exactly how someone will light a joint up someplace and they'll make a big deal and beat the guy with billy clubs and you know. Right. Maybe if the billy club guys, they light up a joint tone them down.

Speaker 6: Arlo Guthrie's approach. All right. So, so we're, we're up to the final three questions. I'm going to tell you what they are and then I'll ask you them in order. Okay. First question is, what has most surprised you in cannabis and done a lot of talking about that, but if you can crystallize it, if you will. Yup. Yup. Second is what has most surprised you in life that's a little bit more difficult. And then finally on the soundtrack of Keith's life, one track, one song that's got to be on there, but first things first, what has most surprised you in Canada? Uh, well the first and second are almost the same for me. Okay. I am surprised that I have dedicated most of my life to working on this single issue. Yeah. Uh, when I started smoking I had no idea that it was going to be a mission or a profession or anything like that.

Speaker 6: I thought I was getting high with my friends on a skate trip. Yeah. So, uh, I, I am surprised the degree to which I've been enamored of the issue. I see it as far more important than just getting high. When I speak, I usually make the point to people and I'm only incidentally talking about marijuana. I'm really talking about personal freedom. That gets me excited. So I don't think I saw that connection early on. I just saw it as leave me alone, let me smoke marijuana. Once I got into it, I realized no, it's much more important issue than getting high so that, that certainly surprises me. I'm surprised I live long enough to see it happen. I thought I would in the seventies I was asked once in the 70 by some press how long I thought it would take and I guess I felt I was naive and young and I thought I had to give an answer, so I said 1978 and I have friends today who still teach me, of course, Keith, you said 78 and I'm sticking with it any day now.

Speaker 6: So, uh, so I, uh, I realized at some point, oh, this is a much longer fight than we had thought. There you go. And I knew it was going to win. As I say, demographically we knew the young kids were coming along, going to replace us old timers. Sure. But I wasn't at all certain. I would love to see. I mean, I thought it might be another 10 years. You don't know how. So it, it's been a wonderfully pleasant surprise to live, to see it actually start to happen now. I don't think I'll live to see it completed. You know, full adult use every state. Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma. No, no, no, no. I don't want to live that old. That's too long. That's too long. Anyway. Uh, all right. So final question then on the soundtrack of your life named one track one song that's got to be on there.

Speaker 6: Well, I will have to say the musicians that I guess most of it get behind when we're young and we're listening to music and I always was a biggest fan of Joe Cocker. Oh, look at that. Mad Dogs and Englishman. Yeah, I just thought that was the most fabulous double album that I had ever had in my life. Oh yeah. In terms of individuals I've known I have, I didn't know Joe. I just loved this music. A Willie Nelson. Willie has been a dear friend since I met him in [inaudible] 74. Um, Willie and I smoked with the Carter boys when Jimmy Carter was president and on the roof. Uh, he did. It was reported I was with them, I must admit I wish it would've been, but it was. So you were not on the and out on the roof, but you're verifying that he was. Oh yes. For the White House.

Speaker 6: And I'm verifying that Willie and I and in the corner boys smoked dope many times during one of the Carter boys being a former president. Jimmy Carter. Well, yes. Former president Jimmy Carter, and especially his son chip. Uh Huh. He was a real stoner. So, uh, we had a lot of good times during Carter's years and I would actually write out whenever willy would be playing anywhere near DC. The White House staff would charter a bus and drive out. And I had friends on the staff. They would invite me and I'd go ride with the White House staff out to the concert and after the concert, chip Carter and I would go with Willie back to his hotel and smoke dope. There we go. There we go. So I mean, is there a song in there or is that good enough? No, I don't guess there is a song. I ain't know if I really. There were a number of really good marijuana. Let's go get stoned. For example. I'd have to say if I had to pick country joe and the fish. Yeah, I think it was country joe and the fish. I think that was one of my favorite. Let's go get stolen now. Which by the way, I think it's about that time in the day. Rob. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. My pleasure.

Speaker 2: There you have Keith Strop. What a life. Huh? I mean that guy started way back when and uh, and just keeps going. So thanks to Keith for everything that he's done for the industry as well as the interview. Also appreciate David Brown reinviting us to lift expo in Vancouver, checkout a lift.co to get your tickets. And thanks of course for listening.

Read the full transcript:

Become a member to access to webinars, quarterly reports, contributor columns, shows, excerpts, and complete podcast transcripts

Become a Member

Already a member? Login here.

Subscribe now to get every episode.

Cannabis Economy is a real-time history of legal cannabis. We chronicle how personal and industry histories have combined to provide our current reality.