fbpx

Ep.205: Keith Stroup, NORML & Betty Aldworth, SSDP

Cannabis Economy Podcast
Ep.205: Keith Stroup, NORML & Betty Aldworth, SSDP

Ep.205: Keith Stroup, NORML & Betty Aldworth, SSDP

Keith Stroup returns to share his thoughts on cannabis legalization in the wake of the election. We get Keith’s take on the state of affairs in each of the state that held votes in November. We dive in on Arkansas specifically and spend some time discussing that conservative southern state and what that means for the southern states which surround it. We talk about what happened to Montana’s old law before this new vote. And Keith shares that North Dakota shared him more than any other state. Based on his 40+ years of activism, he takes us through why he’ essentially bullish on the new administration not getting in the way of the cannabis movement and industry. But Betty Aldworth first joins us with an update from SSDP.

Transcript:

Speaker 2: Keith Stroup and Betty Aldworth, Keith stroup returns to share his thoughts on cannabis legalization in the wake of the election. We get kids to take on the state of affairs in each state that held votes in November. We dive in on Arkansas specifically and spend time discussing that conservatives, southern state, and what that means for the southern states, which surrounded. We talk about what happened to Montanas old law before this new vote, and Keith shares that North Dakota surprised him more than any other state. Based on his 40 plus years of activism. He takes us through why he's essentially bullish on the new administration, not getting in the way of the cannabis movement and industry, but Betty Aldworth first joins us within update from SSDP. Welcome to cannabis economy. I'm your host Seth Adler. Check us out on social with the hand mechanic economy. That's two ends in the word economy. Key Strop proceeded by Betty, so Betty Aldworth SSDP.

Speaker 1: My goodness. Thank you so much for for some more time.

Speaker 3: Oh, it's always my pleasure to chat, Seth. I really appreciate the opportunity to talk with your audience about what's up with SSEP and how we're approaching our work.

Speaker 1: Well, so yeah. Um, that is absolutely what we want to talk about. What's up with SSDP and how you're approaching your work, because when last we spoke, you were focused on ballot initiatives and of course it takes a village betty, but eight out of nine passed, so at least something that you were doing worked. Can we agree?

Speaker 3: Oh, for sure. You know, we really had the grassroots arm of things and most of these places managed by SSDP in the sense that we were doing a huge amount of voter outreach, um, and uh, GMTV with Youth voters in particular and you know, we are, um, uh, in, in our work, we are heavily focused on this big message about what an incredible failure prohibitionist and how critically important it is that young people are engaged in the political process. We're going to come back to that in a minute now. How strange that is a in this particular moment, but I would like to make one note that I think really illustrates for us the impacts that we were able to have, which is that in Maine where we didn't have a presence on the ground like we did in so many other states, we actually placed more calls through our phone bank than the margin of victory. So we had 3000 and something conversations with main voters about their plans to vote about, about the failures of prohibition broadly. And the margin of victory in Maine last I saw was something like 2,600 votes. So that's a really unusually concrete measure of the impacts that we were able to have

Speaker 1: and I love it. And let me once again, for the umpteenth time and for what will be my message. Thank you. Thank you for your work. As always. So, um, as far as moving forward, you know, if you could kinda give us a sense of what traditionally your work would be coming off of an election. Um, and how that might be different considering the fact that we've got some surprises, you know, including this potentially incoming prospective attorney general that is not necessarily a part of the movement, uh, is, uh, you know, everything about anything that he has said it would be exactly. Just not necessarily a, this is so, um, so just first, you know, what traditionally would you do coming off an election? How would you kind of change the, you know, the, the way that you're kind of utilizing, um, our, our SSD peers,

Speaker 3: you know, a lot of our work happens at the campus and state level. We do and that's ongoing year round no matter where we are in the presidential election cycle. Right? That's a, you know, we're, we're always working on campus policy change. We're always working on that state level or local level policy change. We've always got volunteers out there distributing syringes with our harm reduction partners or you know, having conversations about cannabis in their communities or whatever it might, whatever the piece of work might be most interesting for our students. Um, and really the departure for us was the engagement in, um, in the election, so that work will continue on going now typically post election things are a little more simple both in terms of what we expected to have happen, but also in terms of the electives with whom we are working. And I think that in, you know, in most of that work it's uh, you know, especially at the state level that continues a pace.

Speaker 2: Keith Stroup and Betty Aldworth, Keith stroup returns to share his thoughts on cannabis legalization in the wake of the election. We get kids to take on the state of affairs in each state that held votes in November. We dive in on Arkansas specifically and spend time discussing that conservatives, southern state, and what that means for the southern states, which surrounded. We talk about what happened to Montanas old law before this new vote, and Keith shares that North Dakota surprised him more than any other state. Based on his 40 plus years of activism. He takes us through why he's essentially bullish on the new administration, not getting in the way of the cannabis movement and industry, but Betty Aldworth first joins us within update from SSDP. Welcome to cannabis economy. I'm your host Seth Adler. Check us out on social with the hand mechanic economy. That's two ends in the word economy. Key Strop proceeded by Betty, so Betty Aldworth SSDP.

Speaker 1: My goodness. Thank you so much for for some more time.

Speaker 3: Oh, it's always my pleasure to chat, Seth. I really appreciate the opportunity to talk with your audience about what's up with SSEP and how we're approaching our work.

Speaker 1: Well, so yeah. Um, that is absolutely what we want to talk about. What's up with SSDP and how you're approaching your work, because when last we spoke, you were focused on ballot initiatives and of course it takes a village betty, but eight out of nine passed, so at least something that you were doing worked. Can we agree?

Speaker 3: Oh, for sure. You know, we really had the grassroots arm of things and most of these places managed by SSDP in the sense that we were doing a huge amount of voter outreach, um, and uh, GMTV with Youth voters in particular and you know, we are, um, uh, in, in our work, we are heavily focused on this big message about what an incredible failure prohibitionist and how critically important it is that young people are engaged in the political process. We're going to come back to that in a minute now. How strange that is a in this particular moment, but I would like to make one note that I think really illustrates for us the impacts that we were able to have, which is that in Maine where we didn't have a presence on the ground like we did in so many other states, we actually placed more calls through our phone bank than the margin of victory. So we had 3000 and something conversations with main voters about their plans to vote about, about the failures of prohibition broadly. And the margin of victory in Maine last I saw was something like 2,600 votes. So that's a really unusually concrete measure of the impacts that we were able to have

Speaker 1: and I love it. And let me once again, for the umpteenth time and for what will be my message. Thank you. Thank you for your work. As always. So, um, as far as moving forward, you know, if you could kinda give us a sense of what traditionally your work would be coming off of an election. Um, and how that might be different considering the fact that we've got some surprises, you know, including this potentially incoming prospective attorney general that is not necessarily a part of the movement, uh, is, uh, you know, everything about anything that he has said it would be exactly. Just not necessarily a, this is so, um, so just first, you know, what traditionally would you do coming off an election? How would you kind of change the, you know, the, the way that you're kind of utilizing, um, our, our SSD peers,

Speaker 3: you know, a lot of our work happens at the campus and state level. We do and that's ongoing year round no matter where we are in the presidential election cycle. Right? That's a, you know, we're, we're always working on campus policy change. We're always working on that state level or local level policy change. We've always got volunteers out there distributing syringes with our harm reduction partners or you know, having conversations about cannabis in their communities or whatever it might, whatever the piece of work might be most interesting for our students. Um, and really the departure for us was the engagement in, um, in the election, so that work will continue on going now typically post election things are a little more simple both in terms of what we expected to have happen, but also in terms of the electives with whom we are working. And I think that in, you know, in most of that work it's uh, you know, especially at the state level that continues a pace.

Speaker 3: Um, yes, the governor's uh, became a much more conservative and much more socially conservative. But for the marijuana question in particular, you know, with, with the ballot initiatives coming in and way that they did and with it, you know, an already indicated an increased interest from state legislatures in terms of advancing some more reforms. I, you know, I think that the marijuana work is going to continue to be very compelling and interesting and moving forward at the state level regardless of what happens at the federal level unless. And that's a huge. Unless, and this is going, this is really a quite surprising and quite different for us, which is that, you know, we are looking again at a hostile administration at a, an a president elect who, who is quite unpredictable, um, and uh, appointees to critical cabinet positions who are outright opponents of many things that we care about.

Speaker 3: And so, you know, it's not just sessions, it's also price at hhs and we can expect further appointments of, you know, folks who are going to be turning back to dial, not just on marijuana policy but on all of the other things that are peers care about including civil rights, social justice, harm reduction, access to mental health treatment and substance misuse, treatments. Um, you know, all of these pieces are, are under threat in ways that I don't think anyone really imagined were possible. So we are going to be applying a great deal of grassroots pressure to, um, you know, federal elected officials to ensure that they are helping defend these advances that we've been making. And we're working with our allies and partners, um, to, you know, make sure that sessions in particular and other members of the trump administration, that's the first time I've said that out loud, uh, other, other members there are able to, um, understand, you know, that these can, the cannabis industry has become a critical part of the infrastructure of these states providing tens of thousands of jobs and, you know, loads of tax revenue and helping ensure that what is a vibrant market, whether or not it's regulated is regulated in generating tax revenues and, and, you know, jobs with health insurance.

Speaker 1: Yeah. So, you know, obviously this is, this has thrown a wrench in the works, uh, you know, to say the least. You've just said much more than that. Um, you know, as far as, you know, pushing the boulder up the hill, the Sisyphean task that you've always had or are you, what's your sense on, on, uh, getting reengaged or engaged on the kind of hyper local level? Um, you know, what I've noticed is that not only, um, obviously have things, are things going to change on a federal level now, but they have been changing on the local level. Um, what are your thoughts on that and you know, what kind of SSB SSDP can, can do to maybe affect change at that hyperlocal level.

Speaker 3: Yeah. So this isn't really interesting nexus, I think for SSDP in particular, which is that, you know, young people are clearly exhibiting a belief and interest in the power of local level change. Um, and if you sort of look at all of the indicators of civic action and civic engagement, we are seeing that young people believe that they can make change at the local level even though they have little to no faith in, um, in federal, uh, federal politics, federal governance. So there is that, that exists and that's something that we've been working with for a long time. And obviously, you know, we're a grassroots organizations that's been bubbling up for us for quite some time and particularly in the last handful of years in the context of black lives matter movement and, and, uh, other intersecting movements that are making a lot of change at that local level. And you know, those, those folks who are newer to the cannabis space are not going to remember that just, you know, three or four years ago, we focused exclusively on state level change because we knew that federal policy change wasn't going to happen without the states having made these reforms themselves and then pressuring the federal government to make that same change and really forcing the change upward

Speaker 1: good mission. What good was it to argue for federal change when you couldn't show as an example? Anything else?

Speaker 3: Right, exactly. Yeah. So if we're, if we look at the, at the end of alcohol prohibition, we've largely modeled a strategy for the end of cannabis prohibition and the same kind of tactics we reform at the state level. States have, you know, the responsibility and the right to manage drugs on the controlled substances act as they see fit. And so they are, you know, like this is a state responsibility. States have to take it on, same with alcohol and state said we're done enforcing federal prohibition, you know, almost 80 years ago now. And um, and with alcohol and, and you know, those days that are saying the exact same thing now with cannabis. And so we're back to the office the last handful of years, we've had a federal apparatus that's more open to the kinds of changes that we're making. No matter what, um, you know, the, the states do still have the responsibility to manage cannabis as they best see fit. And while there are many federal mechanisms that might be employed to control that, including perhaps reengaging the dea and enforcing federal law and marijuana or more subtle mechanisms as well. Like continuing with the state level change is going to be critical to protecting the reforms that we've made and continuing to advance her forms on cannabis.

Speaker 1: Yeah, no. And of course point taken on state. What I'm talking about is county level or township level, you know, like hyper, hyper local.

Speaker 3: So in Michigan what we've seen is that like a city or a county municipal level change where cities have decriminalized, um, and that has led to a really vibrant conversation that will ultimately lead to Michigan legalizing, um, but doesn't really great example of a state where local level change has created sort of a heightened conversation around marijuana policy reform and it will become the first state in the midwest to make marijuana legal because of that change. And I think that that's a really great model to look at. And then there's so much that we can do in terms of protecting users from prosecution, like lowest law enforcement priority, uh, bills, uh, decriminalization and things like that that are, you know, it, it feels like we're bouncing back to 2006 in some ways when we're talking about these things

Speaker 1: necessarily though, you know.

Speaker 3: Sure. Right. Yeah. We're at a point where like, we really need to turn back to what were we doing 10 years ago, what were we doing 20 years ago, and how do we build to get ourselves to this moment in 2016 where eight states medicaid reform, uh, you know, chose before I'm at the ballot box in, you know, on one day it didn't come out of nowhere. I came out of a, a decades long conversation that we've been having and all of these, you know, small reforms, these teaspoons, a teaspoon after teaspoon, teaspoon in a huge ocean, um, that, that ultimately added up to now you, all of these states, we quarter of Americans living in places where marijuana is legal.

Speaker 1: Yeah. No, it's, it's amazing. And, uh, and I take your point, I hear you on the fact that not only are you moving forward, but you're also covering your tracks, you're also making sure to double down on the work that you've done for the past 10 years. So, uh, you've, you've got two jobs, one is your old job and one is your current job. Is that about right?

Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, listen, SSDP was founded in under a hustle administration to fight some really nasty status quo issues and we, we know this landscape, we know this landscape really well and frankly for some of us in the reform movement, the, uh, the, you know, it felt kind of weird to be so socially acceptable.

Speaker 1: Right? I got one. Why is everybody, why is everybody being so nice to us?

Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly. So we've got a fight ahead of us, not just on cannabis policy but in so many other things and uh, and I think that there's, I think that, you know, we know how to fight, we're comfortable with it and we're ready.

Speaker 1: Okay, great. Um, so I'm just on SSD P.org and I can see how I can support the network by contributing. I can become a member. There's a ton of stuff I can do right here. So SSDP.org, that's the best resource.

Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely. And also, you know, we're going to be launching a bunch of actions in the next, uh, you know, days and weeks in order to ensure that we can, no pressure, the Obama administration to issue as many clemencies as possible. That's a process that can be expedited as we anticipate that it certainly won't be continued, um, you know, in the next administration, uh, we are also going to be doing a lot of grassroots mobilization work around the appointments of sessions and price. And so I hope that folks will check out Ssep.org and join us in our actions.

Speaker 1: Absolutely. Betty. Uh, thank you. Uh, once again, I guess it's, it's time for the final question, um, which is, uh, the soundtrack question, you know, on the soundtrack of your life, one track, one song that's got to be on there today and it, uh, you know, if it's got something to do with today, great. But, uh, it can always be, you know, something, it's just a song that you like, whatever, whatever you got. What, what do you think in these days? What are you thinking today?

Speaker 3: Yeah, I've been feeling real punk rock lately. Sad. Uh, and, you know, talking about a throwback. It's a bikini kill has been on the soundtrack of late and rebel girl is my song today.

Speaker 1: Look at that, look at that. And because, you know, betty aldworth walks around and everybody says, oh my God, look at that. That's the wonderful, Nice Betty Aldworth, which is true. Um,

Speaker 2: but, you know, don't cross Betty Aldworth, you know, that's, that's the rebel girl underneath is what I'm saying.

Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah. One of the, you know, one of the advantages that I bring to this work uniquely is my ability to, um, uh, to, to look like a soccer mom and uh, and also represents a pretty radical student vision [inaudible] vision. So, uh, that's, uh, yeah, that's, that's sort of where I'm at right now and I'm feeling it. So thanks for the opportunity to chat about it and got excited about a lot we can do to build our movement and make sure that we're ready for a friendly administration. Next. Keep things moving.

Speaker 2: You got it. All right. I'm looking forward to when we next chair airspace. All right. Travel safe. Until then. Thanks so much. Operating in security in the cannabis industry since 2009 Canada security America has become one of the largest total solution security companies in the U. S with new management, new leadership, and new ownership. CSA provides everything from systems and monitoring to armor, transportation for movement of cash as well as security arm guards. The three essential elements of security for any cannabis business. CSA provides the highest level of quality service in Colorado, Oregon, Arizona, California, Washington, and Nevada. Go to Canada. Security Dot com slash [inaudible] economy for more information. So I walked in, Keith, and you said you've got an election hangover. I sure do. I think like most people that the most progressive

Speaker 4: was any way in this country. Um, the outcome of the presidential election was certainly a disappointment and I think that's an understatement. In fact, I'm old enough to remember living through the Richard Nixon years, so I assume I'll make it to the, uh, Donald Trump years as well, but he's the biggest idiot I've ever seen running for public office for any level. And I am absolutely horrified that a majority of our country voted for that man right now. Truthfully, it wasn't a majority. He Won. The electoral college should, did not win the popular vote. We have another a second time. We've witnessed that in the last few decades. Yup. Last couple of decades. Right? Um, but nonetheless, it was an extraordinary night for those of us who focus on legalizing marijuana. I mean, we've never had a, an election in which we won so many victories. We had a total of nine marijuana voter initiatives on the ballot for the more for medical use, fiverr for full legalization and we won eight out of nine.

Speaker 4: Man, that's about 90 percent. That's, that's almost running the table. We went from a situation in which five percent of the United States lived in a state or states that had legalized marijuana to where now more than 20 percent of the entire country live in legalization state. And you can just imagine the impact that has on our ability to begin to move congress and, and make some of the other changes that we still have to make. Also to have those medical use victories were in southern states and as Florida there, right? I've definitely count Florida and Count Arkansas. And uh, prior to now frankly the only southern states that had dipped their toe in medical marijuana had these silly ass cbd only. No THC, non smokeable. I mean most of them didn't help a single patient. They were simply feel good legislation for the individual legislators. See, now why I liked talking to you is because we immediately understand your point of view.

Speaker 4: No, no one listening now has any, uh, kind of, uh, you know, worry about where is Keith coming from? We know exactly where Keith is coming from. All right, so let's, let's start with eight out of nine. You know, we'll get to Arizona. I mean, California. Let's just knock them down one by one. California was the big one. Oh, it's the big enchilada. There's no doubt about that. As long as I've been working on a political issues, California has been the state that mostly matters. It has 12 percent of the population of the entire country has the sixth largest economy in the world. Um, and uh, most of us thought California was going to be the first state to legalize. No, of course you came. Uh, they came within two points back in 2010. Right? But man, it is magnificent to see California come onboard for legalization.

Speaker 4: And I think it really is the end of the game for our opponents, whether they realize it or not. Uh, we're on a downhill trajectory right now. There's no stopping us, a 60 to 63 percent of all adults in the country support full legalization. And that's extraordinary when you realize that only 14 percent of the country's smoke marijuana. Yeah. So we're winning because we have won the hearts and minds of a majority of the nonsmokers in the country. So I don't see any way that our opponents reverse this trend. So it's really a matter now I think of five or six or seven years to work it all out to get marijuana legalized in all 50 states. Yeah. And, and I, I want to kind of stay, um, regionally and then go into the big picture. I hear what you're saying about, you know, we're now on the other side of the hill.

Speaker 4: If you do look at a map, which a lot of us have been doing the past few months, if not a couple of days is uh, you know, from Alaska all the way down the entire west coast. Oh yeah. Uh, you know the, there. Yeah, there you have it folks. It's friendly territory on the left coast, including Nevada. And that's where I want to bring up Nevada and Arizona. The Arizona Law says the one, uh, one loss, you mentioned it. Sheldon Adelsons a money I would imagine went to work there. Well, it definitely did go to work there and it worked. There is my point. It didn't work though. So in Nevada, Massachusetts. It's interesting to get to Massachusetts. Yeah. Sheldon Adelson. Hiddleston is one of those sorts of evil men who has more money than sense and for whatever reason, you know, he's made his money off selling alcohol and gambling.

Speaker 4: But nonetheless, he objects to marijuana. Excuse me, talk about arbitrary. But nonetheless, uh, you know, uh, he's been putting millions of dollars into these races, but it apparently didn't help him in Nevada because we won despite that. Um, and frankly I have a feeling that even, even Sheldon Adelson is gonna Begin to question whether that's really where he wants to put his money and coming election. Sure. Well, he did put some in in Massachusetts. You put a million in Massachusetts, I think he put a million five in Arizona. Um, but, uh, in Massachusetts we won handily. And by the way, Massachusetts, a great state to look at almost every single state wide elected official oppose those are initiatives. Absolutely the only exception was the senate president, but the mayor of Boston approach as opposed to the governor or the State Attorney General, uh, posted yet. Well, one other thing that the cardinal actually, uh, I forget his name in Boston, but he contributed 850,000 of the church, a dollars of the churches' money.

Speaker 4: Really to defeat that marijuana initiative. I had not heard that. Yeah, it was shocking. I mean, a friend of mine wrote me and he said, Keith, he knew I was raised on a farm as a southern Baptist and he said Keith always knew the baptist, opposed alcohol, but I didn't know the Catholics oppose marijuana. Well, I don't think most Catholics knew they oppose marijuana either. I can't imagine what caused him to make that, that contribution. But either way he wasted a lot of people's money in doing it. In retrospect, it certainly seems that way. Yeah. Um, so, so, so there's Massachusetts, um, you know, uh, and there's, we just have done the um, the adult use. We haven't done a main yet. Oh Man, don't forget is still kind of, is why it's not quite in my brain yet. Right. As of this morning, I checked the latest November 10th, November 10th in New York Times keeps updating their list.

Speaker 4: They've now have 98 percent of the vote has been tallied. We still have slightly less than one percent lead, but it looks like it's been slightly less one percent frankly for their whole time. So I think we're gonna win main now so that, that will be a great victory. And again, a Adelson I think contributed a million bucks there as well. Um, you know, there, there was no understanding of this man and why he puts his money where he puts it. Um, again, Maine was a place where the governor, I mean, of course they have an idiot governor anyway, and he's a, he's a, he makes statements that remind you of Harry anslinger and he, he recorded a video and put it up on Youtube, which he claimed children were dying in Colorado, the cause of legal marijuana, which is just impossible. I was happy to say that.

Speaker 4: Uh, uh, our friend and uh, a board member, Rick Steves, the PBS travel guide to Rick, did a three day tour in both Massachusetts and Maine. He made $100,000 personal contribution to each campaign. And when he saw that absurd video that the governor and Maine had made, he actually made a very well produced video to respond to it and put it up on Youtube and got over a million hits on it, which was helpful. Oh yeah, no doubt about it. I think rick is perhaps the single most effective advocate in a country right now. We have his credibility as a lot advocates. That's a, that's a big statement. I'm telling you. Rick Steves has that a boy scout image. People love him and oftentimes are absolutely astounded to find out that he's an advocate for legalizing marijuana. He's not just in a supporter, he's a strong advocate.

Speaker 4: Notes his money behind his politics. So, uh, I think rick might have played a helpful role in both of those states. Okay. So, so let's get down to, uh, to Florida. You know, I'm 71 percent of, uh, uh, of, of folks that voted, voted for a legal cannabis. I've been saying, I don't even agree with myself. Seventy one percent of the time. I think you're right. By the way, if, if someone would have asked me whether any state could get 71 percent, I say no, not yet. Maybe maybe in five more years. We'll get up that high. But, you know, it may have been a I. What it looks like is a built on their near success two years ago is you remember they had to get 60 percent. The wham. They got 58 percent last time. And uh, apparently there were a lot of people.

Speaker 4: Maybe they resented that out of state money. Uh, the last time around Sheldon Adelson put in four point five or something like that, million dollars into Florida, which was a remarkable amount of money, enormous amount of money, and probably made the difference and are winning and losing. Well, this time it didn't make the difference and we won overwhelming. I, I suspect that's going to for a long, long time be the high water mark in terms of approval. I'm like, you, uh, I don't think you could pick a, a hundred marijuana smokers and get them to agree on something for 71 percent of the time. That's definitely true. That's definitely true. Um, you know, just listen to backlogged episodes of this show and we kind of agree sort of. Um, uh. All right, so that's, that's Florida. Where do you want to go next? Go. Arkansas. Arkansas was fascinating for a couple of reasons.

Speaker 4: First off, they had two competing medical marijuana initiatives, you know, they also came close to winning two years ago. Uh, and that was unexpected. So this time they had two competing initiatives and uh, which seemed like a sure, a defeat or a strategy for defeat because of fear would be even our own supporters might pick one over the other. Right. Well, as it turns out, one of them was disqualified at the last minute, but it still appeared on the ballot by the way. Yeah. Um, and if they both would have been allowed to count, I mean, if they would have been allowed to count the votes for both of them, I suspect that the one that was thrown off the ballot would have probably won because it was the, the, uh, more encompassing medical marijuana. It, it covered more conditions and diseases and allowed home cultivation where this one doesn't, etc.

Speaker 4: But regardless, the fact is Arkansas is that conservative southern state that governor, uh, absolutely a former head of dea. I mean he hates medical marijuana and uh, whether he likes it or not, he's going to have to live with it Because it is now the law in Arkansas. There we go. The law in Arkansas wayland and opens up the whole south forest. Sure. I mean, there's no doubt about it that if you can win an Arkansas, you might now be ready to win in Tennessee and Kentucky and Georgia and north and South Carolina. Well, Kentucky is growing. WhAt the most or second most amount of hemp in the country. Oh yeah. They're really into him. But of course they always were. Remember back, back before marijuana was made illegal. The center of the hemp industry was Tennessee and Kentucky, right? Yeah. so, uh, those are, uh, maybe, you know, states to come, Montana a, you're moving up to.

Speaker 4: Yes, that's right. Well, Montana had us worried because, you know, Montana passed, uh, a decent medical marijuana law several years ago, but because of some excesses of the, under that law, there was a guy, for example, who was going around giving a pot doc who is going around giving medical recommendations by way of skype. He wasn't even seeing the patients. He wasn't asking for medical records. Well, there was such a backlash in the state legislature because of that, because that feels wrong. It sounds wrong. Well, indeed. I mean, if you're gonna treat it as a medicine and I think you really do have an obligation to meet and examined the patient and look at his medical records. Most of us would agree with that at any event, uh, the legislature as a result of that just gutted the law that had been in effect. So, uh, the way it was now that the number of patients was down to just a few hundred in the entire state, they have essentially gone back to the law they had the first time.

Speaker 4: So that's a, that's a great step. And none of us were quite certain we could win that one because I hadn't seen any polling. And the other state where we didn't see any polling was North Dakota, who in the hell ever heard of them? I've even qualifying a marijuana initiative for the ballot in a state like North Dakota. But they did, they did it without any outside money. I, you know, I really admire them and sure enough they ended up winning it as well. Uh, at that, that one probably surprised me more than any other. Well there. And you know, when we talk about Arkansas and North Dakota and Montana, these are not states, you've been doing this since 1970. When was the last time you were in North Dakota with the normal message? You know, I'm not even sure I've ever set foot in that. So as far as the ball moving and now getting to your point about being on the other side of the hill.

Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean it sounds like even you are extremely surprised. I, uh, I was hoping that we would win four out of the five legalization. I thought we might be lucky to win two out of the for medical use because I didn't expect Wyoming or North Dakota. RIght? Well, as it turns out, of course I was right. We won four out of five of the full legalization, but we want all of the medical use. And frankly it wasn't that I had any great insight about Arizona, for example. It was simply that the latest polling showed they had like 50 point four percent in favor naps. Awfully slim margin of error going into an election. And sure enough, it, it ended up not being enough. Now we didn't lose badly. The latest I saw it was 48 to 52 percent, so I would expect in two years they'll come back and pass it.

Speaker 4: That's next time. Well, you can only win elections with 48 percent you. Oh yeah, that's true. Presidential election. It depends on the electoral college. So let, let's get, get back to that because now you know, now that we do have these legal states, we have been working with a model of, you know, state legalization state by state, by state. Um, it has mostly for the most part been a and it's certainly burgeoned, uh, over the past few years under the obama administration. Yep. So, so now we go into new territory and we knew going into this election that the really the most public adversary of a cannabis was chris christie a second, uh, you know, and then a second to him would have been giuliani. Giuliani. Yeah. So these are people that are, are certainly a figure to be prominent in a trump administration or the trump administration.

Speaker 4: I guess we should get used to saying, saying that, um, you know, uh, sure she won the popular vote. He won the electoral college. Let's just move on to the point that this is what it's going to be now as far as, um, the cole memo are concerned. That's from the obama administration was the deputy attorney general writing a letter to, um, you know, his, uh, attorneys general and saying her as us attorney us attorneys, excuse me, uh, saying, um, you know, if these things are intact, if they have a good, uh, you know, regulatory framework and they're not doing x, y, and z, I'm like cross border trade and putting it in the hands of kids and all that stuff. Leave it alone. Um, that can change, you know, january 28, let's say it was a discretionary policy. Let me first say that I think most marijuana smokers failed to realize the gift that obama gave us because what he did by holding the department of justice back and allowing the states to experiment and actually implement those laws, he gave us an opportunity to establish a track record we could demonstrate and we can now demonstrate that when you legalize marijuana, the sky doesn't fall.

Speaker 4: In fact, what happens is your economy booms. You create tens of thousands of new jobs. You raised hundreds of millions of dollar in tax money when to states badly need. So in essence it went from a theoretical argument about, you know, we used to say if you legalize marijuana, it's going to improve things. Our opponents would say the sky's going to fall, but it, none of us had any data will. Now we do. And we do only because obama chose to have his department of justice stand back and allow the states to experiment. Now, having said that, I think all of a sudden nervous by about what you mentioned, the fact that a governor, christie would have any role to play in this administration. And, and by the way, because of bridge gate, he may not, you know, the fact that his close allies were disconnected criminally, maybe too much for even Donald Trump to put them in the cabinet.

Speaker 4: But you know, who knows. Secondly, rudy giuliani, when the, during the time he was mayor of New York, uh, marijuana risk skyrocketed. He was into that broken windows theory where if you don't respond harshly to every minor offense, somehow the world is going to, you know, fall, fall, fall apart. So, uh, those two guys scare me to death. But I will say this, during the cAmpaign, there was no question about it. Both hillary and donald made it clear they would continue the obama doctor and they would not allow the federal government to interfere with states at which to experiment with legalization. Now we all know Donald Trump can change on a dime. He often changed two or three times a day during the campaign, but on that issue, he didn't. And so, uh, I am in lighT of the, a eight victories we had. And in light of the fact that in every single one of those states, marijuana polled higher than either one of the presidential candidates, I don't think Donald Trump wants to take that on.

Speaker 4: My guess is That he is going to follow through and maintain the same doctrine that obama had. And if he does, that's all we need from. I'm sure we'll take it from. Absolutely. Why. Why fight that battle is, is your point. And, and yes, of course, uh, you know, with cannabis on the ballot, we've been saying it for years now, no matter if you are a democrat or a republican, cannabis williams. Yeah, that's exactly right. Cannabis gets more votes than you. That's right. So, um, you know, uh, let's hope that, uh, uh, you know, he heed your advice. I guess I'll also get, you know, keep in mind I have no inside information that's for certain, but he has, is the number of kids. And I have to think that somewhere in that mix there is some familiarity with, with marijuana smoking. They say no. So la, all they always say november of bill clinton didn't inhale. They always used to say no, and that's, that's kind of one of the things that I definitely want to talk to you about is, you know, that that used to be what it was if you were a politician, if

Speaker 5: you were political figure, if you were a public figure. no, I don't do that, you know, unless you were a certain specific type of public figure. Um, no I don't do that. No, I, uh, I, I never have a down to as ridiculous. I didn't hit, um, uh, versus, uh, the sign here in normal headquarters, uh, mike bloomberg saying, yeah, I did and I enjoyed it too. That's right. um, so what I would love to do, you know, we don't know what's gonna happen with any president, incoming president, uh, let alone a guy that really does seem to change his mind a lot. So all we can do is kind of look at past republican administrations, past recent revolving administration. So we've got george w, bush, ronald reagan, george hw bush as well, but let's just count him with reagan and nixon. You already brought up nIxon out of those three, you know, george w, nixon, reagan, who seems, which, which administration on its way in, you know, we just went through the campaign. Which administration does it feel most like to you? Someone that has lived through all three of them.

Speaker 4: Certainly not nixon. Nixon was hateful and, and, uh, arrogant and scheming and uh, literally, uh, he was, you know, he was going to appoint. Raymond shaffer is a federal judge. The former governor of Pennsylvania chaired the marijuana commission, but he was so upset when the commission recommended that you end criminal penalties for marijuana smoking, that I guarantee you a raymond schaefer was never made a federal judge. But in the private recorded conversations, I mean, it was clear that a nixon nixon considered his opposition to marijuana to be one of the major things in his whole philosophical base. I don't think that that was true with the bushes. I certainly don't think it was with the second bush. And I don't think it will be with donald. I mean, as much as I find it hard to identify with Donald Trump in any way. The reality is he lives downtown manhattan midtown.

Speaker 4: It's a sophisticated environment. He lives in where marijuana smoking is no big deal. Whether he and his family engage in it or not, they sure as hell. I'll have friends who do got it. So, uh, I, I don't have a feeling that we're facing a sort of harry anslinger type of president and republicans has always claimed they favor states' rights and that's one of the bases. Why during the campaign he said he was going to follow the same policy obama did because he thought it was really an issue that was better decided by the states. Now we all know that eventually, hopefully within four or five years, we need to force congress or have enough support in congress to have the federal government back out of the way. This should not be something that depends on who's the president. We need to chAnge the federal law.

Speaker 4: So the states absolutely have the right to do what they want to with marijuana policy, but we're not going to have that kind of support yet. I think we'll make some progress in the next year or two, but it'll probably be on issues like to 80 and I think a legitimate marijuana businesses will finally be able to take credit cards and have bank accounts and all those kinds of things. Yeah, they should, but I don't think we'll be able to remove the criminal penalties on the federal level against marijuana for, I'd say four or five years, but I don't think it'll be much longer than that, so. So if from my best scenario, if we have to live through one term of trump will discontinue to focus primarily on the state level so that when we next get a more progressive president in office, which I hope is in four years, then I think then we can back the federal government out of the picture.

Speaker 4: Right. Well because we're already over half, as far as medical is concerned, we've got the entire west coast of. Of the continent. well, in your part of the content, you've got 60 percenT of the entire adult population. I mean, those figures are astronomical when you realize when we started normal, only 12 percent of the country favor legalization. Gallup adjust on their first 12 percent in the gallup did the first poll asKing the american public their position on this issue in 1969. Prior to that, they didn't even think of a serious enough to ask the question. So when we started working on this issue, I'm 88 percent of the public were opposed to what we were trying to do. Well today, four and a half decades later between 60 and 63 percent of the public agree with us. So, uh, I don't think many politicians really want to run counter to that, that momentum.

Speaker 4: And it's clear for everyone to see. I mean, there's two biG stories have come out of this election. That's the nationwide one is trump upsets hillary a. Number two is marijuana wins almost every place. Yeah. So I, I do not imagine that many individual politiciaNs are going to want to fight that, that momentum. While I, I like hearing you say that as far as a to 80 versus kind of criminal penaltieS. I think that, that, that is what, you know, kind of most people feel as far as the separation of those two. Why is that though? Why? Why Can we see this at? But we can't see that. Well, I think, uh, for republicans in congress in particular, they have always been pro business. They certainly recognize that no legitimate business should have to run on a cash basis. It invites corruption, underpayment of tax has all kinds of crime, all kinds of things.

Speaker 4: So even today, I mean, there have been efforts made that include dana rohrabacher and other republicans Where they have already focused on proposals to let's fix the business side of things now. So my, my sense as well, that's not my priority. My priority would be let's stop arresting smoKers. Let's stop defining smokers as criminals. But I understand that that's not where the republicans generally are yet. So let's, let's take the ground that we have the support to gain over the next couple of years. Yeah. And we'll come back, as I say, eventually what we need to do is eliminate criminal penalties altogether under federal law. So the states are free to do what they want, which is exactly what we did when we ended alcohol prohibition. The congress did not dictate to the states that you must legalize alcohol. They simply got out of the Way and said those states that want to maintain criminal prohibition for alcohol can do it, but those want to experiment with legalization can do that. And as people probably know, there are still dry counties in some parts of Alabama and Mississippi and Arkansas, etc. And that'll be the way with marijuana. I am certain there will be some southern states, probably Mississippi, Alabama, Oklahoma, that they may continue to have state criminal penalties against marijuana for five or 10 years. That's all right. I mean they get to make that decision, but eventually looking a little further down the road, I have no doubt, but what allstate's will eventually legalized marijuana just as they have alcohol. Right.

Speaker 5: Okay. so you do see this obviously, um, you continue to see this in the way of, of something that was certainly surprising. And so it kind of, the next kind of a couple of questions, I want to just talk to you as somebody that is alive longer than I am. How have you, what w, what parallel can you make between no matter who you, who, anyone supported in the election, this was not expected, uh, this was not expected and in any way, and we're already seeing a articles about the seismic shift. The seismic change that, uh, is, is, uh, expected and anticipated. Can you give us a parallel to another point in time where you have experienced this?

Speaker 4: Well during the seventies in terms of proposals to decriminalized, that is to remove criminal penalties for possession of small, small amounts of marijuana and for marijuana use following the marijuana commission from 73 when Oregon first adopted decriminalization to 78. We picked up 11 states in thOse five years. And let me tell you, we had a lot of momentum going for us. And that's the closest thing that I've seen in terms of a momentum for drug law reform. Now I'll tell you a, a course. a more modern metaphor would be the gay rights movement are the gay marriage movement. Uh, I Think in the last six, seven years the progress made on the gay marriage issue and the progress made on marijuana legalization have almost tracked exactly. Sure. And when you think about it, what they have in common is they both involve personal freedom. So even at a time when not everybody in America, personal freedom is the most important concept.

Speaker 4: Obviously they're all kinds of different views about that. The reality is the majority of the country does seem to have embraced that concept in both of these instances. I think that's a very positive sign. I, I trust that discontinues on and on. I'm sure it will for marijuana and gay rights, but I mean there are other, there are other areas of our culture where we should respect people's personal privacy to a greater degree than we currently do. We certainly should not allow the government to be a stopping a car for a traffic offense and then searching the passenger compartment without a search warrant because they say they smelled marijuana. Come on, get out. If you don't have a search warrant, you don't have any Business searching for her. So I think there are a number of ways in the criminal justice system where, uh, we probably will make some significant gains over the next few years.

Speaker 4: Well, but that is where maybe the overlay happens with some of the things that trump has said, which include the fact that he wants to be law and order president. The fact that, um, you know, african americans are living in hell. The fact that he wants to deport all the illegal immigrants, it doesn't sound like, um, you know, I tolerate if he pulls you over a tolerant guy. Exactly. If he pulls you over, it doesn't sound like he's going to stop checking the glove compartment. It sounds like there'll be more of that. well, except that he doesn't get to determine that those decisions are made by the court. So they'Re not generally made legislatively. They're made by judicial decision in, in every state. Makes it a slight, slightly differently than the state next to them. So already in the district of columbia, they have said that the smell of marijuana, because you can possess up to two ounces of marijuana here even publicly, you can have it in the seat of your car.

Speaker 4: So when the cop pulls you over what our chief of police instructed them, if you think it looks like it may be more than two ounces, you can seize it and weigh it, but if it isn't more than two ounces, you give it back to them. And number two, the smell of marijuana no longer gives you probable cause to search because you can't tell from the smell whether they have more or less than two ounces. I. And I think there's one other state that has made that. In fact, by the way, I think the new 64 in California included it in the initiative because yeah, that's one ounce in it, but at least I think it eliminated the smell as a justification for a problem with us. So that's where I think we will continue to make gains in those areas where regardless of what the president wants to eat doesn't make those decisions.

Speaker 4: Okay, interesting. And so, you know, um, it sounds like you've been a state's rights guy, you know, all along because in, in within the nixon and ford administrations is when you made, you know, the last amount of progress that, that would rival this amount of playlists. InTeresting. I'm old enough that when I came of age, state rights was a dirty word. It was a justification for a, for segregation and for keeping black people oppressed. And uh, and so, uh, I, I still find it a little bit uneasy to argue for states' rights to justify letting states legalize marijuana because there's a dog whistle and yes, indeed there is. That's not always going to be something we want or you'll have some of those states and not just in marijuana policy but in some other areas that are going to want to go off the deep end.

Speaker 4: And so I don't think that a state has a right to do anything they want. And by the way, they don't under our system, if the supreme court thinks they've gone too far, they can always sTep in and say, no, no, no, you can't go there. But uh, for, for the last, I guess, eight, 10 years, there's no doubt that the state based strategy that the legalization movement has followed. It's the only choice we had. We simply didn't have enough support in congress to try to change change thing federally. I mean, we all tried, but we weren't maKing much progress. Right? So what all you can do when you're trying to impact public policy is to try to identify those areas where you may have the support to take a small step forward. It, it really has to do with incremental ism. Most true believers, and we certainly have a lot of them in the marijuana legalization field.

Speaker 4: Sure would like to change very dramatically all in one big step. I mean, there were friends of mine in Massachusetts for example, that opposed that legalization bill because they favored the tomato model, you know, under which you treat marijuana like tomatoes, you can grow as much as you want. Give it away, sell it, give it the kids. That wouldn't matter. Well, that might. That might make sense. If we had not just come out of 80 years of criminal prohibition, if it were starting without the biases that came as a result of that, yeah, I might favor the tomato model myself, but if we held out for the tomato model, we might, it might take us 10 or 15 years to get that and we're still arresting people at the rate of something like 650,000 people a year for marijuana. So, uh, I am a true believer in incrementalism.

Speaker 4: Not because I liked that, but I think that's the only way social policy changes. Well then then, let me ask you this because you did a state your, your feelings on cbd laws and when you talk to people like a page figgis, charlotte's, charlotte's web, charlotte's mother, uh, she certainly a proponent and, and arguing for a, for those laws. Why, where in lies the rub as far as what you just said versus your opinion on the whale. It's, by the way, I, uh, perhaps I overstated it. I will tell you that I actually do think that it is a small step forward for a state like Texas or Oklahoma or any of those difficult states for cultural issue. Even if the only thing you get is a, I believe it's Texas that has, I forget what you say, but I think it's taxes that says, uh, you, it's non smokeable.

Speaker 4: It's high cbd low thc and the only category for which it can be recommended is for a dravet syndrome epilepsy for children. Right. Well, you know, that might've helped the 20 people in the state of Texas except there's no legal market for it in Texas, so you have to go to someplace like Colorado by it and smuggle it back in. So I thought those laws were primarily to make the legislators feel good. We're not primarily designed to help patient what's happening. However, I still think it's a step forward because what happens is once a state begins to except marijuana in to any degree, even that small apart industrial hemp, whatever, that's right. Over the next two or three years, people began to say, well, you know, this doesn't seem as evil as I thought it was, so maybe we should take a look at full medical are once you get full medical, well, if it helps all those seriously ill patients may be.

Speaker 4: There's no reason to maintain penalties against recreational use. I mean that seems to be the pattern that's been successful for our movement. So I'm staying with it. In other words, I would be delighted to reach a point and I think we will within the next two, three years where we may get some state that is willing to go all the way from prohibition to legalization in one step, just like we have not. We have not yet reached that point. We have always had to go with an a lot of states. We go from prohibition to decriminalization from the criminalization of medical use and then finally from medical use to full legalization. Right. I would love it if we could begin to shorten that process, but hey, if we have to do it in four steps, we'll do it in four steps. And, and so I'm glad that you clarified really your point a about a cbd laws is if there's no market there, if I can't see it in market, there are multiple flowers and, and I think it's misleading.

Speaker 4: In other words, what they have done is they passed a law that they get a few headlines in the local press that make legislators look where do you get the flowers? But then we have the people calling our office saYing, where do I get. Yeah, it's legal. Yeah, it'S legal if you want to go to cal the Colorado or Washington or Alaska, Oregon. But how exactly to do, do you get that back to Texas? It's legal if you want to have it. It's not legal if you want to get it. That's right. That's right. Um, so, you know, you have to get it to have it right. But, and by the way, it also is interesting. I think all of this, the, the need to go step by step is a result of prohibition. Sure. You any time, well, unless you been a 85 years or something, your whole life has been under marijuana, criminal prohibition and most americans start off with the presumption that if, if we've arrested 30 million people during that time and if it's been illegal for for 80 years, there must be something wrong with it.

Speaker 4: yeah. So we start off with a heavy burden to try to overcome that. Now. Fortunately, the demographics work in our favor, the people most impacted by the reefer madness mentality of the thirties and forties and fifties. They're my age and older and frankly most of them don't count anymore. There are either no longer with us or they're no longer active and they've been replaced by generations of people. Whether they smoke pot or not, it's just no big deal to them. They, they don't understand. The millennials can't understand why it was ever legal in the first place. Yeah. So bringing back reagan, I grew up, you know, under just say no. Um, so, you know, I'm gen x, so I got a little bit of it, but after Me it's like, yeah, what I don't. What was the problem? Yeah, what is the issue here? It is truly a generational thing and of course when we knew for a long time, long before we started winning, we could see the polling for the younger generations and we used to laugh here at normal that our strategy for winning was if necessary, we'll outlive our opponents.

Speaker 4: And I think largely that's exactly what's happened. Well, I want to give you a chance here because you know, obviously, uh, it's, it's celebratory in that manner, but you did say to me, I don't remember if the mics were on yet or not, but he said, I have this hangover. I've got on the one side. It was a great night for, for, for us. And on the other side, not such a great night for the country was. Were those your words? I don't want to put on number. No, I think that's a prettY well and reflect my feelings up generally to that. Generally, if, if you had a night where you had nine marijuana initiatives on the ballot and eight of them passed, I mean, I'm telling you, I'd be up drinking champagne all night. It was the most successful political day we've ever had in history ever yet.

Speaker 4: I, I, I couldn't really enjoy it the way I would have expected to because I had this cloud of, of concern and doubt and angst about what in the world are we looking at for the next four years. HoW could our country, uh, elect a man who had said and done the things that he said and did during the campaign? Uh, it seemed to me to represent a new low standard for, for leadership in this country. So, uM, yes, I, I, I saw what happened as a, an enormous step backwards politically for the country. Uh, and I think, well, for example, supreme supreme court appointees. I mean, I don't even want to guess who he will appoint. And because he has control of the senate as well, he'll probably get most of them confirm. So they're going to be lots of ways over the next four years were issues that I care about are going to be moving in the wrong direction.

Speaker 4: I fear, I don't think that's true about marijuana, but again, you know, as much as I liked to get high and as much as I love the legalization movement, that's not the only important issue that we all deal with. so, uh, I would have felt much better if I could have been celebrating a hillary clinton victory along with these eight marijuana victories. But, uh, but yet we find a key drop here in 2016 a capitalist mentioning markets. We've got to have a market and a state's rights guy. Right. Could you speak to 1970 keys drop? Is that like a real thing? Yeah, I think in 1970 I was, uM, I would, you know, I had been radicalized by the war in Vietnam and the threat of being drafted, um, and I was young and naive and idealistic. And frankly, those are almost necessary qualities if you're going to do much when you're a young person.

Speaker 4: I mean, if, if I was as jaded then as I am now, I wouldn't have, I would've never started normal. I would have probably gone off and tried to get rich practicing law or something. And by the way, I'd never did figure out how to do that. Well, maybe sometime in the next four years. Right now I think. I think by now what I'd really like to do is start a ride off into the sunset, but I want to do it with some of the best marijuana in a world and I'm lucky in that I have access to some of the best marijuana in the world. You absolutely do. Even here in dc and actually you know, to. You spoke to the dc market, where are we now that a. Well, it's an interesting in between here, we have legal medical use including medical dispensaries. We have six medical dispensary and I think eight licensed growers, but we also have legal recreational use, but because congress put a writer on the dc appropriations bill and sometimes people forget we're not a state, so congress has to approve everything.

Speaker 4: Our city council to us, taxation without representation, that's exactly it. It's on our license plate. The city council very much a majority, very much want to establish a license, a retailers for recreational marijuana. They understand that. It's kind of silly to say it's okay to smoke, but you've got to buy it on the black market or grow your own and even if you grow your own, you got to buy the seeds on the black market. Right. So we're. We're in a kind of in between situation, but I would guess within a year, year and a half that will be resolved. I expect that we will be able to get rid of that writer on the dc appropriations bill. Well, from your mouth to their ears. I guess. Let's see what happens. I've asked you the final three questions before and I will ask you once again for a song for your soundtrack, for the soundtrack of your life.

Speaker 4: Name, name of track, a song that's got to be on there. You've done it before and give us a give us one for today. Oh, you know, I gotta have you caught me unaware there a song? Yeah. Uh, it doesn't have to be completely relevant for isely this day. I, I guess, uh, get up, stand up, uh, you know, stand up for your rights. That seems, that seems to be, uh, to be about as close to where we are with marijuana. That the one good change with of this progress is that most marijuana smokers are now becoming more comfortable coming out of the closet. And that's always helpful. Uh, for far too long, we were perceived as being deviant or if even if we had the courage to come out of the closet, we might lose their job and we couldn't support our families. So I would encourage all the people that are like me celebrating these victories, that if you're in a position where you can do it, uh, it's time to talk to your friends and your neighbors and the people who go to church with and let them know that you're a responsible marijuana smoker than nonsmokers in this country.

Speaker 4: Have nothing to fear from those of us who smoked marijuana. All right, so you've been playing the long game for 46 years. Yeah. So I guess you'll continue to play the long game, right? Yeah, as long as they'll allow me to stay here in the corner office and not bother anybody. Uh, you know, I, I thought a few years ago I might actually, let's step aside and, and quit doing this work altogether, but um, I missed the action. I love coming into the office everyday. I think most people perhaps don't enjoy going to work as much as you do if you work at normal. Sure. Um, but I really do enjoy it and it is totally exhilarating now that we're winning, you know, I mean, I actually enjoyed the struggle even when we were losing. Sure, but I like it a lot more now that we're winning. And so if you're playing the long game, we're not in a bad place and it's getting better all the time.

Speaker 4: Is that about right? Oh, I'd say, uh, I really want social change starts to happen. It generally increases the speed of change increases. And you saw that at this last election nobody would have. I think suggested we would win eight out of nine, a zero people I expect it will continue to grow at the pace of change will continue. I really think that we could have congress totally backed out of the picture. In other words, change federal law, uh, within five, six years. And, uh, I think we could probably in the practice of arresting marijuana smokers in all 50 states within six or seven years, that doesn't mean that in this political climate, that doesn't mean they'll all have dispensary's, but I think, but I think they will finally concede that it doesn't make sense to treat a responsible marijuana smoker like a criminal. we're close to winning that one, even in this political event, in this climate. That's right. Case drop. I love it. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Always. My pleasure. Sorry. And there you have keith

Speaker 2: strap. So generally, you know, positive is what I got from keith. He thinks this train has left the station. uh, however, uh, betty, uh, went ahead and balanced us out to begin with because she says that, uh, we are renewing the vibe from a year's gone for henceforth. What? Thanks 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.