fbpx

Ep.213: Steve DeAngelo & Amy O’Gorman Jenkins

Cannabis Economy Podcast
Ep.213: Steve DeAngelo & Amy O'Gorman Jenkins

Ep.213: Steve DeAngelo & Amy O’Gorman Jenkins

Steve DeAngelo, Harborside & Amy O’Gorman Jenkins, Legislative Advocate

Steve DeAngelo returns to hammer home the fact that there is one issue and one issue alone on which the American people agree- cannabis reform and to that end…in a true master class on activism, Steve shares how exactly to express your concerns on cannabis reform to your local elected officials….and loved ones for that matter. Steve also takes some time to share some history which we very much appreciate. But Amy first shares that as a lobbyist, you don’t need to be a posterior. She shares her background in the state legislature of California as well as the league of California cities where she experienced that a lot of work does in fact get done at the local and state level…but that most people don’t understand that introducing or changing policy is all very incremental.

Transcript:

Speaker 1: Steve de Angelo and Emile Gorman Jenkins, amy shares that as a lobbyist, you don't need to be a posterior. She shares her background in the state legislature of California as well as the League of California cities where she experienced that a lot of work does in fact get done at the local and state level, but that most people don't understand that introducing or changing policies, all very incremental. Steve de Angelo then returns to hammer home the fact that there's one issue and one issue alone on which the American people agree, cannabis reform. And to that end in a true masterclass on activism, Steve Shares how exactly to express your concerns on cannabis reform to your local elected officials and loved ones for that matter. Steve also takes some time to share some history, which we very much appreciate. Welcome to cannabis economy. I'm your host Seth Adler. Check us out on social with the American economy to ends in the word economy. Amy O'gorman, Jenkinson Steve de Angelo,

Speaker 2: so are most lobbyists. Kind of a louder or more quiet now. It it. It really, it really, it's, it's just an issue of personal taste. And I, I tend to have a softer approach. I think it's more effective at builds goodwill. Um, you know, you don't need to go in guns blazing when you want to get something done, you want to go in and respect to, you're talking to and who you're working with. And once you establish that rapport, you know, you don't need to be an asshole, you don't need to be. No, you don't need to be an asshole. No, you don't even need to be aggressive, you don't even really need to be aggressive provided that you have the trust in the goodwill and, you know, frankly, I think, I think I have it right. Dig In for two years and I love it.

Speaker 2: So you've been doing lobbying for two years and I've registered lobbyist for two years. And before that though, I mean you were in the, uh, the, the, the, the mechanics of local and state law, state a government which is live with those of the lawmakers. Right. What's it like in there? Well, it depends. I went in, I actually started in the state legislature. I left the state legislature, went out and started working for the League of California cities. Well, let's before we get to the California cities, but it depends what I first learning lesson is that the legislature was the end all be all. That was a step down. Local government representatives have just as big egos a state legislator and you have to approach them all the same, the same sort of tender love and care. And so how, let's just do a approach. The, uh, the legislator, whoever it is, no matter what level.

Speaker 2: So you know, is this person like an artist? Is this person like a, like a CEO? What kind of person? This is a person onto himself. This is a whole new animal I would imagine. Right? So what, what kind of person usually are you dealing with? Understanding that were brought brushing with a broad brush painting with a broad brush painting with a very broad brush, but I think you have to assume all of them have a very healthy ego. Healthy. He's very, very healthy ego. What makes every legislator unique is that despite that healthy ego, they all come in with very, very different perspectives. So the thing I always advise anybody is know your audience before you walk in the door because the last thing you want to do is speak out of turn or express an opinion on an issue that's contrary to theirs.

Speaker 1: Steve de Angelo and Emile Gorman Jenkins, amy shares that as a lobbyist, you don't need to be a posterior. She shares her background in the state legislature of California as well as the League of California cities where she experienced that a lot of work does in fact get done at the local and state level, but that most people don't understand that introducing or changing policies, all very incremental. Steve de Angelo then returns to hammer home the fact that there's one issue and one issue alone on which the American people agree, cannabis reform. And to that end in a true masterclass on activism, Steve Shares how exactly to express your concerns on cannabis reform to your local elected officials and loved ones for that matter. Steve also takes some time to share some history, which we very much appreciate. Welcome to cannabis economy. I'm your host Seth Adler. Check us out on social with the American economy to ends in the word economy. Amy O'gorman, Jenkinson Steve de Angelo,

Speaker 2: so are most lobbyists. Kind of a louder or more quiet now. It it. It really, it really, it's, it's just an issue of personal taste. And I, I tend to have a softer approach. I think it's more effective at builds goodwill. Um, you know, you don't need to go in guns blazing when you want to get something done, you want to go in and respect to, you're talking to and who you're working with. And once you establish that rapport, you know, you don't need to be an asshole, you don't need to be. No, you don't need to be an asshole. No, you don't even need to be aggressive, you don't even really need to be aggressive provided that you have the trust in the goodwill and, you know, frankly, I think, I think I have it right. Dig In for two years and I love it.

Speaker 2: So you've been doing lobbying for two years and I've registered lobbyist for two years. And before that though, I mean you were in the, uh, the, the, the, the mechanics of local and state law, state a government which is live with those of the lawmakers. Right. What's it like in there? Well, it depends. I went in, I actually started in the state legislature. I left the state legislature, went out and started working for the League of California cities. Well, let's before we get to the California cities, but it depends what I first learning lesson is that the legislature was the end all be all. That was a step down. Local government representatives have just as big egos a state legislator and you have to approach them all the same, the same sort of tender love and care. And so how, let's just do a approach. The, uh, the legislator, whoever it is, no matter what level.

Speaker 2: So you know, is this person like an artist? Is this person like a, like a CEO? What kind of person? This is a person onto himself. This is a whole new animal I would imagine. Right? So what, what kind of person usually are you dealing with? Understanding that were brought brushing with a broad brush painting with a broad brush painting with a very broad brush, but I think you have to assume all of them have a very healthy ego. Healthy. He's very, very healthy ego. What makes every legislator unique is that despite that healthy ego, they all come in with very, very different perspectives. So the thing I always advise anybody is know your audience before you walk in the door because the last thing you want to do is speak out of turn or express an opinion on an issue that's contrary to theirs.

Speaker 2: And that has been, I think, the biggest lesson I've learned over the years in your foot in it, these republic officials so you can know their stance on everything and you must know their stance on their resume and you must, but sometimes you don't always know. And, and you know, in the case of, um, we're, we're, we're approaching a brand new session. We've got a whole host of freshmen legislators coming in. We've been so heavily engaged in 64, we're going to be doing a lot of work to develop those relationships. So that will be a lot of learning in the next couple of months. Treading lightly is what you'll be doing is treading lightly. Right? So as a staffer for a state in the State House, what were you doing? Give us a sense, well, I'm in the final, my final three years in the state Senate, I was the chief of staff for a gentleman, Senator Lou Korea.

Speaker 2: He was, I'm an Orange County Democrats. So for those that know Ca California politics, that is somewhat unique and I'd known him for 18 years right now, him 18 years. And uh, so I left the Senate as a chief. I actually started as an intern 20 years prior. So, and how, I mean, how slowly and how much little work gets done. Right? And I want you to be contrarian. Obviously I'm setting this up for you to be, you know, well, I think, I think actually a lot of work gets done and the state legislature I think, and, and same as local government. I mean it's, it's kind of where the rubber meets the road, unlike the federal government, you know, I see. And I worked on bills over the years that I see that I still see the impacts of including the EMC Rsa. So I actually think a lot gets done, but I think the one thing that most people don't understand is that you do have to go in with the mindset that this isn't, this is incremental and there are some things that take far longer than maybe we would think necessary.

Speaker 2: In the case of EMC Rsa, there were a lot of things that happened to build and get that to a point where, let's go all the way back when, where was it born? Well, um, it was, it started with, um, with, with the activist community, the cannabis activist community. Um, nate Bradley was one, there were a number of others and uh, they found, um, strategically I think maybe they had the wrong approach, but it was the necessary approach I think going forward and that they started with a very progressive author from San Francisco. Um, there wasn't a lot of work. I'm respectfully to build a lot of coalitions and communicate with nontraditional allies. And so that continued, those bills were introduced every year and every year they died. And then fast forward to 2014. And this is really interesting. Um, I came upon this issue from the public safety local government side where they decided to get proactive because they started to see the tide changing and they said, you know, they approached me and said maybe we need to proactively, I'm author of licensing and regulatory bell.

Speaker 2: And so we had an Orange County Democrat, the most conservative, most conservative county, the most conservative Democrat in the legislature. And I think that's, that's something we would all agree on in Sacramento. I'm authoring a licensure and regulatory framework for medical cannabis. And it was really the, that bill really moved the goal post and what it was sb 12, 62. And I think what made that movement different was not just the author himself, but the fact that it was being sponsored by the League of cities, the California police chiefs association. And then, you know, Lo and behold, I came upon the California Cannabis Industry Association and we started developing a very robust stakeholder process. First time ever. And the bill actually passed out of the Senate before it went to the assembly with no opposition and bipartisan support. So, so as far as the legislature was concerned, everybody was on board bought, that was after how many years?

Speaker 2: It was years and years, easily. Yeah, years and years and years. And in fact, you know, it was, it was the league in the cal chiefs in prior years had opposed all of these bills outright. So it was really the first time they were willing to step up to the plate and, and really consider proactively what a framework should look like. And there was a lot of dissension among the cannabis industry about even working with me because I was carrying a league police chiefs. Yes. Um, so that was, that was certainly a huge challenge. And, and having to overcome that, it took many, many months before I really got the industry to the table. But frankly that's how they got the industry to the table, you know what I mean in, in a big way. Right. Because we've spoken with nate. So we're talking to you now because we want both perspectives, right?

Speaker 2: Um, I think it was really the fact that this bill was moving, it was clear that, that, that this was going to happen. Yeah. We were all aware that, um, back then it was just a recreational measure was how it was being characterized at a recreational measure was likely going to be on the 2016 November ballot. And I think the legislature felt like they wanted to say, and they wanted to be able to shape some of that policy in lieu of having that policy written for them that they would in effect have to implement. What were some of the changes that have happened all along the way? Kind of the bigger changes that you remember? Um, bigger changes. I think really it was, um, you know, the, the, the ballot measure being eminent. It was the fact that we had all parties talking to each other for the first time ever.

Speaker 2: A lot of dialogue. Um, we had, um, a seasoned legislator who represented a largely conservative area that was willing to talk about this. And I think the message also really began to resonate that were California, for heaven's sake, have to do this. We are the most heavily regulated state in the nation. And yet we have the most thriving, unregulated, you know, segment of, of cannabis and the cannabis industry in our state with absolutely no regulations. How could that possibly be, right? So no, right. So the, and then right at the end, right before it was passed, there was a change, you know, in that last week, last two weeks, now this is me from afar, right? I'm not a California is, that's fast forward. So this 12 slash 62 ultimately died. It died in 2014, but it was the blueprint. So what happened was all of a sudden it was okay as a legislator to author a bill about cannabis.

Speaker 2: Sure. And so we saw a number of legislators step up to the plate. They used 12. 60 two is a framework. They use the prior Romiano bill, another bill as, as, as another possible avenue for a regulatory framework. And um, but again, 2014 is really when that goal posts moved. And then 15 was when the policy was really further developed and you just had everybody finally coming in. Right? So, and then there we had it and they had it, you know, what I loved was when it went from mom Rsa to Emc Rsa. Yes. And that was, uh, that was a moment in time, wasn't it? It was a moment in time. It was a moment in time because this isn't marijuana, it's cannabis. Cannabis, because marijuana is a, that there's racial tendencies, there's racial overtones to that word. We don't even use it in this industry. Why would we, you know.

Speaker 2: Well, and the fact that everybody embraced it. It was a trailer bill and it was a, it was passed in June of this year, SB eight, three, seven. And yes, it took everything and took everything in statute and change it from marijuana to cannabis. Okay. So, uh, I asked nate, nate this, I asked you the same question, uh, from a lobbying perspective, you know, constituents, how much can they do and what precisely can they do at this point to affect change to prop 64 now that it has been passed. So to affect change in terms of amending it or to help further promoted both. Okay. So we're still trying to figure out what can be changed in 64 now from the cannabis industry perspective or at least CCIS perspective we like, we like it for the most part. There are some things in there that need further clarification and so we're trying to figure out, you know, how and in what ways, what, what the path is to, to, um, identify and clarify some of our outstanding questions.

Speaker 2: But for the most part, we like this framework and we do believe there is a provision in it that says you can't automate and this, um, this proposition, unless it is in furtherance of the intent of the proposition. So we like that too because we're not dealing with cross licensure restrictions like we see in the EMC Rsa. So a lot of the major sticking points for industry, um, that were included in EMC RSA are really resolved in prop 64. So now what we're looking at is this reconciliation process and that's going to be a huge discussion point in the legislature. I jumped from one to the other, um, because is there still a, an option of changing EMC RSA? My understanding is no because we're taking care of that with prop 64. No, ab mcrs say creates a medical framework and, and obviously prop 64 is the adult use framework.

Speaker 2: So really the, the statute does respect and, and, and, and um, you know, identify clearly those two models, but what the regulators are essentially saying right now and this could change is that, you know, as they're trying to develop regulations for both frameworks, we've got differences in ownership definitions and cross licensure really what we should be talking about when we're looking at the distinctions between a medical product and an adult. An adult use recreational product is the product itself. And so I think, you know, there's a real drive to try to reconcile the differences in the legislature in each of those and and legally from what I have been told and what I understand and what I have assessed is that really it'll be EMC RSA for the most part having to be reconciled or folded into the prop 64 framework which we love, which we love, right?

Speaker 2: Because both are imperfect, but EMC RSA was more imperfect, but you know, there is that caveat where there's a lot of folks that are really, really passionate about the medical framework, a lot of interest groups that have a vested interest in maintaining that framework. So it will be a huge fight in the legislature this year. Great. Which is going to be very exciting. We're going to be bring cameras. It's going to be amazing. I hope you do. Right. You do. I think we should do the three final questions with you. I think that's important. What has most surprised you in cannabis? The diversity of the industry and how quickly it's changing. Yeah. Yeah. It's not all the same person, Huh? It is not the same person, it is not the same people. When I think about the constituents that were coming in and talking to me as a chief of staff in 2014 and the, um, the suits and ties and the, and the members of the California cannabis industry that I see now, it's markedly different.

Speaker 2: That's believable. What has most surprised you in life? You never know where it's going to take you. I, if someone had told me I was going to be a cannabis lobbyists, the Ed as the pot girl as they characterize me in Sacramento, I would've never believed it. Right. Are you, uh, uh, you know, we're. What is your relationship with the plant? Before all of this? Was there any relationship at all or. I went to UC Santa Cruz, so I grew up in Sonoma county, so I was very aware of some of the issues and concerns that were coming out of the Emerald Triangle area in the early stage of more than in passing. You kind of knew the drill. Okay, great. A little bit on the soundtrack of your life, amy. Oh dear. Name. One track, one song that's got to be on there. I thought you were gonna. Ask Me this question so you're going to laugh and I feel a bit of noxious, but when I'm really pissed off in the legislature or if I have a major success, I always play girl on fire by Alicia keys.

Speaker 1: Uh, this girl is on fire. Okay, fair enough. That's fantastic. I, Amy, I really appreciate your time. You are first lobbyists perspective, so I hope to speak to you again as we, uh, as we go here.

Speaker 2: How about that? Alright. Alright, thank you.

Speaker 1: This episode is also supported by Eden labs. Even labs is the fastest, highest yielding botanical extraction of distillation on earth. COAC Bradick says that our health depends on what we consume, how it's prepared for our consumption and the environment. Eaton is a modern ethno botanical based company that continually innovates efficient systems for the highest purity and quality products. The company was founded from an intense curiosity on the effects of botanicals on human health and wellbeing. The focus since 1994 has been on pure medicinal or nutritional extracts. Visiting labs.com. For more detail,

Speaker 3: my first thought to you was, which is more surprising, eight out of nine wins, or Donald Trump being the president of the United States of America?

Speaker 4: Well, actually neither a nor trump, uh, surprises me. Uh, I've known since I started this work 42 years ago, that the day that cannabis was legal would come for one really simple reason. This plant is just too valuable to human beings were to remain illegal forever. Absolutely certain the day would come. I actually thought that we come a lot sooner than it did.

Speaker 3: Oh, okay. So the slate as far as Steve's could say, well this is

Speaker 4: like I, I started working on this and, and when I started working at it in the 19 seventies, we had a string of successes in 1978. Jimmy Carter, president of United States endorsed nationwide decriminalization. And we had 14 states at that point. I think they've had decriminalized cannabis. And we thought we thought we'd hired the back when we were there. And then Ronald Reagan came in and everything was, was rolled way, way back. So I have a little bit of a different perspective on, on this thing and uh, I, I, I, there was, there have been more than once that I thought, I thought we were close that we learned

Speaker 3: so. So that's eight out of nine.

Speaker 4: While you're not surprised about last surprised about eight and nine because I knew the day was coming. I didn't know exactly when the day was coming, but I absolutely knew that this day would come. So 809 didn't surprise me. Trump didn't surprise me again because I have this, I'm at the age now where I've got some perspective on these things and I lived through Nixon, I saw the American people elected Nixon and elect him in the middle of Watergate. I saw them elect Reagan and then reelect Reagan in the middle of Iran Contra and then I sold them elect George W Bush and reelect him in the middle of the Iraq war. So I don't have a whole lot of faith in the ability of the American people to distinguish between, you know, an effective leader and a fascist.

Speaker 3: Okay. And so that is, that is the appeal, I think, for the folks that did vote, a vote forum. It's that strong leader. That's what the exit poll said. I'm looking for a strong leader. Um, you know, you, you, you call them a fascist. I think that that's a, there's at least fascial tendencies, right?

Speaker 4: Yeah. I mean, as, as far as I'm concerned there, most of the presidents that have served during my lifetime had been fascists most, most of that. So that would include some Democrats. I guess it would. I, well, yeah, I don't think that Obama was a fascist, but I, but I do think that there were certainly fascistic tendencies in the Clinton administration. This is, that they are the people that tripled the size of the federal prison system, right? So, uh, they were no angels, but you know, particularly, uh, Ronald Reagan and George W dot Bush, Nixon, severe official stick tendencies in that. One of the first things that, that, that all of those administrations did was revive and empower the deep security state. And this is my biggest fear with the trump administration. It's not their policy towards cannabis, which I think is going to be a states rights policy, so I don't see them moving us forward at the federal level, but neither do I see them making any concerted attempt to roll us back at the federal level and certainly not at the state level, but what does concern me is that he's going to give the CIA free rein.

Speaker 4: He's going to blur a and probably just about completely eliminate the line between foreign espionage and domestic espionage, all sorts of movements, especially movements around rights for people of color are going to be subjected to intense surveillance and not just their gala. It's the kind of disruption and sabotage that we saw during the Nixon administration with cointelpro law and order president even sending it. Well, yes, he's promised this repeatedly, said he was going to bring back waterboarding and more so to me, that is profoundly fascistic behavior. Absolutely. So, you know, we're going to get to, to cannabis, but while we're still here in presidential politics, what I, what I find most striking, it was shocking to me. I don't necessarily have the same perspective. Um, or length of perspective that you do, but um, it was shocking. Okay, fine. Once I got through that, um, and no matter what your political stripe started to be shocking.

Speaker 4: No one was expecting it, um, at least for the, the wind that night, um, whether you're not surprised by it as a different thing, but what I see is 50 percent of the people didn't vote. Twenty five percent of the people did vote for her. Twenty five percent of the people did vote for him. So there's three kinds of people in the country basically. Right. And my immediate kind of realization was none of those three types of people are talking to each other in an actual, you know, um, effective or efficient kind of way. We don't have political discourse anymore, you know, actual productive political discourse between the three camps. Do you agree? Do you disagree with? I would say that's true except for one issue. And there is one election cycle. I wish there was a striking and powerful by partisan vote or consensus.

Speaker 4: And that was the issue of cannabis reform. So if you look at the results of what you find is first of all, eight out of nine initiatives nationwide, one we one by decent margins and almost every case. Sure. And we won in places like North Dakota and Arkansas. Seventy one percent win in Florida. That means that millions and millions of trump voters also also voted in favor of cannabis reform. So this is a plant that brings people together. This is an issue that, that, that people agree on from the left coast to the right coast of Canada and Mexico and everywhere in between.

Speaker 3: Yeah. And, and, um, you know, you kinda mentioned those states and uh, we said before that, uh, no matter if you're a republican or a Democrat, cannabis gets more votes than you. We figured we would get to 60 percent in, in Florida, but two to 71 percent. I've been saying I don't even agree with myself, 71 percent of the time, but Montana and North Dakota and Arkansas. So this is now really becoming apparent not only to Austin watch these things and realize that Washington and Colorado both had more votes. You know, in a, for cannabis then, um, any candidate, any Senate candidate in the presidential candidate now it's very obvious because we really did have a, you know, just a staunch divide between the two candidates. But there was one thing that came out, which is, okay, wait a second, we're all behind this cannabis thing. So I mean, you're not surprised by that. How much do you think it helps the dialogue? It helps the conversation where when Montana, North Dakota and Arkansas are, our staff said, yes, of course we passed this. It wasn't even difficult, you know, fine, 71 percent in Florida, but now we're talking about states that no one had considered before. Outside of the industry is my point.

Speaker 4: So I think wins in states like Arkansas, like North Dakota, really deeply conservative red states is very significant and very powerful because it, it, it demonstrates like nothing else can. The wide agreement amongst American voters on this issue, we've seen it in public opinion polls over and over again. Eighty percent plus in favor of medical cannabis. Sixty percent in favor of adult use cannabis. But somehow that message just doesn't get through to all of our elected representatives. And so we have see this disparity in cannabis reform between states that have an initiative process in states that do not have an initiative initiative process, meaning we need to wake up the elective representatives, uh, we need to let them know that they have more to lose from opposing cannabis reform than embracing cannabis reform or put differently if they want to, political when they're going to embrace chemistry forum where there's nothing like elections to drive that message home to candidates into elective representative. So I think that these results are, are really, really significant.

Speaker 3: So that goes to what you've been doing for a while. Right? You know, I'm Steve, the activist has been around for quite some time. And so what would you suggest if I'm listening to you right now, um, that I. do you know if I am in Arkansas or better yet, if I'm in California and I supported prop 64 or I didn't because I didn't love the language within it. What do I do now? How do I actually engage my elected officials? As you say, what do I do? How do I affect change from a personal standpoint? Well, you know,

Speaker 4: it's over and over again and and, and nobody who hasn't done it can really believe it, but the most effective thing that you can do is go visit your elected representative, go down there, go down there in person, asked for a meeting. You may or may not get a meeting with your elected representatives. All of your elected representatives, including those who have offices in Washington, will have local offices. Everybody from your city council all the way up to the president of the United States. Right? And, and, but particularly with your Congress people and your senators, you can request a meeting at the local office. You will probably end up meeting with a staff member rather than the elected representative. But those visits count for a lot.

Speaker 3: How so how are they digestive? Because you've sat in that chair, so from the other side,

Speaker 4: so there's a multiplier effect. They figured that for every person that cares enough to actually come into the office and sit down and talk, there's probably thousands of them out there who shared that opinion, not that many people actually walk into somebody's office, so if you get 100 or 200 people in the course of a month who are going to an elected representatives office and saying the same thing, that has major, major impact. If you can't make it down to the office, then a letter or an email or even a phone call, all of those things can have a direct contact with your elected representative who is your representative is a really, really powerful thing and I think that people underestimate how powerful it could be. And, and you can make it a regular activity. You don't just have to do it once, right? You can check in with them every month. Oh, you know, I just was, he and I talked last month. I was just checking in. Did the senator have any time to look into the issue? Did they check out those materials that I sent you a, uh, and you keep those conversations going. So that's one powerful thing that you can.

Speaker 3: And just on that real quick, do you, um, I would imagine a guy, like you said, some meeting, but you know, on the ground level, the grassroots level, it's not necessary to set a meeting is what you're saying. No, you can, can

Speaker 4: said no, you have to call for me. They do. Okay. You call your, you called it constituent affairs section of your elected representatives office and say I am a constituent of representative so and so, and I'd like to come in and express my concerns on the topic of cannabis reform and they'll make an appointment. He will come down and you might get 20 minutes, you might get 30 minutes. You probably not going to get more than that. It might even be 10 or 15, but it doesn't even really matter what happens in that meeting as long as you present coherently and respectively, right? Aggregate in the aggregate. If, if we can send 100, 200, 300 people into an elective representatives in the course of a month, that's going to have a profound effect, a really profound effect. So that's one thing. Another thing is, is to find people in your family or in your circle of acquaintances who are on the other side and win them over.

Speaker 4: Again, this might not be one conversation. It might be supplying them with books, it might be taking them to events, it might be having multiple conversations with them, uh, but, but direct contact with people is, is really, really powerful. And then there's a whole range of other wider activist work that, that people can do. But anybody who cares about cannabis can do, can do the two things that I just described. It does not take much time. Then you can engage with any one of the many activist advocacy groups. You can donate money to them. Uh, you can, uh, find if there's an initiative process in your state, you can work in getting an initiative going there. Uh, there's a, uh, a wide variety of ways to participate. Just putting information out, right? There's an incredible thirst for accurate information about cannabis now. So put a blog site up and push out some of that information and make some youtube videos, expressing your views, push them out to people. There's a great thirst for information about cannabis right now is.

Speaker 3: So your point of view is more voices is better in cannabis.

Speaker 4: Oh yeah. The look, and this is a movement and the only reason that we've gotten here today is because thousands and thousands and thousands of people have raised their voices and had been determined that this didn't happen because there's like one or two organizations. The wave their magic wand. This is the work of many thousands of people over many, many years. And we need everybody to raise their voice.

Speaker 3: We named checked a Jack Herrera. I think the first time we spoke, um, since that conversation, I've spoken to a number of people who spoke, who have spoken about your living room, uh, you know, kind of hunkering down with Jack and actually plotting out, you know, how we're going to do all this. You know, as we talk about activism and as you say, there's many things you can do, which is George join organizations, activist organizations, and get onto the street and do your thing. Bring us into the living room if you would write, you know, I think what they were going across the country, they finally was it.

Speaker 4: So this is 1980. So there we go. Washington DC. There you go. A place called the house. This is a nine bedroom, beautiful Victorian House on the outskirts of Washington dc that we turned into kind of an underground hostile. So, uh, whenever activists came through for almost any issue, they would come and they would crash at that house and you know, we had parking places for school buses and you know, we put tents in the backyard and it was very, it was a very cool place. So Jack shows up in 1987. He's waving this sheaf of papers above his head. He comes barreling up my front stairs. It's like Steve, Steve here, do you have to read this? You have to read this. They have to make legal now. They have to make it legal read, read, and I'm like, okay, Jack, hang on. You're essentially sit down.

Speaker 4: I take a look at what he's got and start reading it, read it. I get more and more excited. Little while later I'm jumping up and down going, Jack, Jack, you're right. They have to make it legal. Now they have to make it legal and that was the first bare bones manuscript of what became the emperor. Wears no clothes. Unbelievable where we learned this in history because all we knew was that you smoke pot and you got hot. Yeah, sure. And then Jack digs up this amazing last history of cannabis and teaches us about all of these industrial uses and the medical uses of cannabis and this whole thing. Just. It was amazing to us and incredibly validating for us because we'd known intuitively what a good plant this was, but to get that information was just. It was validating and empowering and so the first thing we wanted to do was share the information and get it out there and the first step was to get Jack's manuscript in a coherent form and so that took several months and we got it, got it published in a, in a, in a good book for him.

Speaker 4: It was readable and, and, and while while we had been working to publish it a we it jacket going down to the Smithsonian Museum and he toured the Smithsonian Museum and he came back, absolutely outraged. He said, there's hands all over this place, but they don't admit it, right? It natural fibers are home, spawn you. And, and so he writes this letter to the director of the Smithsonian Museum, chastising him right. And the director actually writes back and he writes this letter back and he says, there are some parts of American history we don't feel we need to highlight to children. Interesting. Interesting. Thinking about hemp, like it's slavery. Yes. Well, yeah, I mean talking about it like it's pornography or senate or something, right? We can't let them know this information. So of course, Jack and I took that as a personal challenge and it was about two weeks later that the first half museum went up, uh, directly across the street from the Smithsonian Museum.

Speaker 4: It was an old army mash 10. Um, uh, it was, uh, we had a few miserable little things made out of hemp that we could gather up and find that. And there wasn't much back in the late eight short. Sure. We were on display. They were on display. We did get a copy of the hemp for victory film that the Department of, of agriculture a and for world war two and as pathetic as this little museum was. And, and this is like winter time, we got a space heater in there, like trying to keep it warm, right? We had all these people lining up and coming through the museum and all of this interest in and they just responded like we had responded like, wow, this, like it changes everything. Right? And, and, and so unfortunately the museum died when the space heater got stolen and that, that part didn't last too long.

Speaker 4: It was kind of difficult to do in the middle of December in, in, in DC, but the response we got inspired us to go on the road, so an old comrade with my bandmates and I organized the first tour and this was 15 or 20 dates at universities across the Midwest and we rolled in with Jack and the van and the reconstituted hemp museum, a couple of rock and roll bands, a knee, a van, and we would roll into universities and basically preach the gospel account and show people that are pathetic little museum. And in, um, in a Champagne Urbana, Illinois University of Illinois, uh, a young woman named Debbie Goldsberry. I was going to ask, it wasn't debbie there she was. And this was on the very first hemp to where I think about midway through the tour and Debbie was our local organizer. And at the end of the event she got on the bus and rolled out of town when she was with you.

Speaker 4: She was with us and Debbie went on to really build him to her into this amazing nationwide organization that brought a whole new generation of activists into the movement and educated really millions of people about the medical and industrial uses of hemp. And uh, you know, she obviously she keeps going. Um, I got a chance to sit down with her and her mother by the name of Barbara Blazer, which you can't make up. Yeah, that's great. I didn't know that. So, so, so there you go. Let a couple of questions here before we get to prop 64 because I really want to talk about what we're going to do now. You know, it's after election day, now it's time to work. Um, where do you come down on A. Yes, they're growing industrial hemp in Colorado yesterday. Growing industrial hemp in Kentucky. We have a cbd laws that don't include thc, this kind of splitting up of the plants.

Speaker 4: Where do you come down on that as far as fighting for a legislation and regulations to support anything illegal? Or do we, are you for, you know, whole plant? Nothing but nothing. But the whole plan, like where do you come down on all that? Well, you know, from a philosophical difficult point of view, I think that the entire cannabinoid spectrum is of great value to human beings. That is something that should be celebrated and promoted and research then developed. Certainly not prohibited. Sure. That said you have to tell your political strategy to the individual conditions that you find in the places that you are and I'm not going to tell people who are organizing in places like Georgia that they should not try to get access to cbd and that's certainly not the strategy that I would deploy in California. And there would be a step backwards, a step forward and I certainly would never be happy stopping with something like just a cbd of law.

Speaker 4: But I think that from my point of view, anything that is a step forward, I am going to support. And there's only been, for example, one cannabis initiative and the whole history of cannabis initiatives that I would not have voted for it had I been able to vote in the election. And that was the responsible Ohio. Oh, show initiative created a oligopoly that controlled the cannabis treat there with that sole exception, I have supported every single initiative that's, that's ever run. And even during this election cycle in California, my position was if, if it gets on the ballot and it's pro cannabis reform, then I vote for it. The important thing is we don't stop, don't stop until the last cannabis prisoner, no matter where they are, anywhere on the planet walks out of their self and nobody else ever goes back again. That has to be the, that is the ultimate goal, but we can't not take steps along the way you get.

Speaker 4: Perfect. Wonderful. Thank you for clarifying that. Um, because I'm sure that there are some folks that are listening to this that might be surprised to hear that point of view, but I, you know, hey, every step forward is a step forward. Let's take each step forward that we can. Well, look, I, I, I still don't love prop 64. Prop 64 is a piece of legislation and in a democratic society, almost any piece of legislation is going to be a compromise between different stakeholder groups and, and, and those of us who were still living in a democracy instead of a dictatorship or total chaos need to be okay with that. And what that means is that in most pieces of legislation, uh, there's going to be something that we, like, there's gonna be some stuff. We're just kind of okay with neutral and there's gonna be some stuff we don't like and we all have to be mature about that and live with that.

Speaker 4: And that's the way that I feel about prop 64. There's stuff in there that I love, like taking away the felony exclusion that exist in the state medical cannabis licensing regulations. I think that's absolutely wonderful thing. There's fixes some of the EMC RSA stuff, right? If fixes some of this stuff right? But on the other hand, there's things in there that I find deeply, deeply problematic and one of them is the fact that that localities can prohibit local municipalities and counties can prohibit the cultivation and production of cannabis goods and the distribution of cannabis. Good. So we have a situation where 57 percent, almost of the people of the state of California voted in favor of happening legal cannabis. But you can have a city council or a county council somewhere that takes that right away from the voters. And I think that's really ugly. You don't like that. And that makes sense because that's one person versus 50 percent, 57 percent of the populace. So how does the difference between a county initiative and a statewide initiative? There you go. Um, we've been doing the county initiative thing. We're up to statewide. So let's continue what you know

Speaker 3: as, as far as it being statewide. Um, as far as it now coming into, you know, it's going to be January first 2018. Here we go with all this. So we do have a year. It is now kind of in quotations. The day after election day, how much still, how much work is there still to do, how much work was done with prop 64 and how much can it change? In other words, I've been told that it's only about a third of the work. That is the initiative that you vote on. Two thirds of what actually happens happens after election day. You know, whatever the percentage is, what, what, what do we do now, how do we get to work on this thing?

Speaker 4: So there's, there's a huge amount of work that has yet to be done. So let's talk first about prop 64 does right away because what it does right away as allow adult California is to possess up to an ounce of cannabis outside the home, outside the home, grow up to six plants, cannabis inside your own property, out of sight of any other property. You can keep the yield from those plants with however much it is. So even if it's more than an ounce on the property, but you can only take an ounce at a time off of the problem. Right? Okay. So that's what's legal now. It is, it is, it is not legal for adults to come into cannabis dispensaries and buy cannabis yet we hope that's the next step without a recommendation, without a recommendation. Right. Um, we hope that's the next step though because prop 64 does authorize a local jurisdictions to authorize dispensary's medical cannabis stressors to serve adults once the legislature approves that.

Speaker 4: So we're waiting on the legislature right now and it, it's true that you know, when any, there's a few stages in the implementation of any law. So in the case of initiative, the initiative is, is written and then there's going to have to be implementing regulations that will take the objectives and goals of that initiative and express exactly how they're going to be put into effect. Now in the case of prop 64, it has a lot of detail in it about what's supposed to happen, but it's still only a fraction of what's needed. And so from, from the voters, it goes to the legislature and then from the legislature it will go to a variety of regulatory agencies. So the next step is going to be for the legislature with the advice of those regulatory agencies to reconcile the medical cannabis regulations with the adult use loan, those conflict with each other in some very, very significant ways and there's being distribution, one of those being mandatory distribution and there's some, some pretty powerful groups aligned on on either side of those issues.

Speaker 4: So we're looking ahead to a nother brisk but debate in the legislature on these issues. The so prop 64 does a lot of things from my perspective that to fix the existing medical cannabis regulations, but it also gives the legislature the power to change the provisions of prop 64 with a 51 percent vote, except for the tax provisions. So the stage is set for another struggle in the legislature between myself and big alcohol and the law enforcement organizations. They undoubtedly are going to try to roll back on one of the really great things about prop 64, which is that allows people with cannabis convictions to get cannabis licenses. That's something that the law enforcement agencies are very, very much opposed to. Yeah. And so we all have to fight about mandatory distribution, will have a fight over the felony issues, we will probably have a fight over ownership provisions.

Speaker 4: There's ownership divisions that were put in effect that were designed to starve the industry of investment capital, uh, and uh, and so we'll have a struggle over over those as well to make sure that, you know, now that we have a legal for profit industry that investors are actually allowed to invest in it so we can grow the businesses that we're going to need to serve the market. There you go. And, and, and what about things like percentage of money coming from tax revenue going to education. So kind of clarifying where we want that to go as far as education, um, you know, a certain percentage going to law enforcement, um, versus a communities disproportionately affected by the war on drugs. You know, the, the, the, the language is, is interesting and nuanced. Um, and feel specific, but it feels like it could be much more specific.

Speaker 4: So if I care about those things, but what do I do call those legislatures? They call those folks in, in an office that you're talking about. Um, and when you say it's you versus them, I'm, I'm the view type of thing. Is that what it is or know? So prop 64 that has designations in it for the tax revenue. There are certain things that are supposed to be done with that tax revenue amongst them is that a significant chunk of that revenue is supposed to go into communities that have been disproportionately affected by the war on cannabis. Now that disproportionate community helped to, you know, that that phrase to help communities disproportionately affected by the war on cannabis, that takes it a whole lot and it's going to have to be translated and it's gonna have to be translated specific standards and specific programs. So the, the, the folks who are going to be handling that will, will to a certain degree. Being legislators is certainly talking to your elected representatives is a good thing to do. Uh, but also the regulatory agencies that are, that are going to be involved. And, uh, those are, there's, there's a number of them, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Consumer Affairs, uh, both are going to have, have really significant roles. The Board of equalization will have some role, so, and each of them do have public, you know, a

Speaker 3: time for public commentary,

Speaker 4: right? They do. And you know, the, the new agencies, the bureau for medical cannabis regulation has been going around the state holding informational forums on the new licensing, teaching people about the various different categories, answering questions that folks have. So if, if anybody really wants to engage in that process, the first step would be to go to the bureau of medical cannabis regulation website and check the schedule of those meetings. I believe they're ongoing and if not they have a public communications officers. You can inquire with them about your particular area of interest in which regulatory agency they may maybe focusing for the regulators in your, uh, you know,

Speaker 3: experience. Obviously if I'm a legislator, obviously if I need votes I'm going to have to listen to the constituents. What about the regulators? Those aren't elected officials really, you know.

Speaker 4: So the regulators, the regulators, basic mandate is to implement whatever regulations, the legislators, right? However, when legislators are writing writing regulations, they usually consult with the regulatory agencies and the regulatory agencies, given them some guidance in writing those, those regulations. So that's one way the regulatory agencies have influenced and discretion. Another way they have influences is the interpretation of the regulation. So once the legislature writes and approves the regulations, then the agencies interpret them. And there's always, you know, whenever you have a written document and words on a page, there's various different ways that those words can be interpreted though, loosely or tightly, broadly or narrowly. And, and, and so the difference between that interpretation can be very profound in terms of the effect on a business or the effect on a particular, uh, other stakeholder in the cannabis community. Uh, so those kinds of conversations have conversations with those folks can be powerful from that point.

Speaker 3: So what we're talking about is we the people, right? I mean, how powerful it. We just had an election where it feels like I'm a, one of the message holders said that you, you know, your voice isn't being heard. How powerful is the voice of we the people?

Speaker 4: Well, we had an election cycle here. If you look at the entire election cycle, uh, including Bernie Sanders, sure, a, where you had two candidates at opposite ends of the political expression, a spec where you had two candidates at opposite ends of the political spectrum with the same message, right? Which is, which is the, is the people are not being heard that the elites are running roughshod over them. And uh, and that was a message that, that clearly resonated with, with, with both sides of the political spectrum. So it, it, one of the things that is most gratifying me about this time that I'm living through is there's just been a great acceleration in the pace of social change and social reform. Sure. The growth of the Internet, the growth of, of what I call it, the smartest generation, this generation of young people. It was just incredibly able to go out and collect information and synthesize it into, into new ideas and push it out to each other and then take action. Right? These things have really greatly accelerated the pace of social change and social reform. Uh, when I was a kid it would take me like days and the University of Maryland library stacks to catch the government and ally and you can do it now in a few minutes. So technology is empowering people and it's a lot harder for the government to tell lives. It's a lot easier for people to uncover those lives and it's easier for us to organize against them.

Speaker 3: You mentioned that and that's clearly the case there. There is also however, somewhat of a post fact based thing going on here that um, you know, facts aren't getting the same kind of respect that they used to. What are your thoughts on that? That's a bigger topic, but clearly something that. I mean, you know, a candidate a said something, candidate b said something, one of those things is a fact. One of them is not. And, uh, they're being dealt with the same way, you know, um, where's the respect for facts? What are your thoughts on where we're going there?

Speaker 4: Well, you know, what is fact and what is truth and you know, and in every society there is a generally agreed upon consensus reality. So let's talk about that consensus reality enough for there to be a consensus reality that most people in society by into there has to be some level of trust in the sources that are reporting facts. So if there's not some shared commonality in what the sources of facts are and, and what sources are trusted, then you're going to have divisions. And that's what we have in this country now. And that's partially an outgrowth of the same kind of technological change that I was talking about because there so many different sources of information right now. People can dial in the source that they believe and, and then they get a stream of quote unquote facts that tends to support what they already believe. This is the reason that the Democrats were so shocked when they lost this lighter. You go the reason that the New York Times totally and completely missed the boat you go

Speaker 3: and, and, and every prognosticator in every poll, you know, all of the polling units are mostly from a, you know, from media sources and if, you know, you've got a, a supportive, uh, if you've got followers, have the support of a candidate that doesn't trust the media sources that are calling them to pull them, obviously that's going to be way off. And so that sets up this kind of shocking quote unquote thing. Um, in retrospect, you're right, it should not have been shocking. This obviously was happening here

Speaker 4: and, and I'll tell you why it was one of the reasons that cannabis has been different this election cycle is because people have a direct experience with the plant now in many, many places, right? They have a direct experience. It's not a mediated reality. Okay? It's not a message to reality. It's something that they've had direct experience with. So just, uh, how do you get across this divide, right? Got To cross this divide where, where we're just living into different realities. Can Deed we're going to have to talk to each other. Okay. We're going to have to to stop just being tuned into our own channels and sit down and talk with each other. Right? So like one of the things that I've wanted to do for a long time, it's got a bunch of cops in the room with a bunch of cannabis people in a room.

Speaker 4: There's no agenda. We're not trying to persuade each other. We're not trying to reach agreement on something. We're just sharing what the world looks like from our point of view. We're not trying to be mean to each other. No, not trying to score political points. We're just saying, look man, this is kinda how it is for me. How's it for you? And trying to really listen to each other. Black people need to do that with white people. Women need to do that with men. Republicans and trump voters need to do that with Democrats and Clinton voters. Okay? Yeah. Um, we need, we need everybody in between, you know, and you know, what, you know, it's really, really good at encouraging harmonious dialogue by various different sorts of people. We have this amazing plant that's incredible with doing that. It's incredible at like actually helping people become the people that they really want to be at. Being more gentle with each other, with each other and finding a way to peacefully resolve disputes. And we just, I, I think that we're here, we're, there is a lot of hope this election cycle because that plant has just been embraced by the voters of the United States

Speaker 3: without question. And, and on the way out here, I kind of want to get your sense of if we've got 28 medical states now, you know, we've got, we're over the halfway mark, um, you know, adult uses of real thing now. It's not just a couple of states, it's the entire, you know, side of the country and more, um, you know, w w, what do you think these next few years to, uh, do as far as you know, the progression. Um, and then ultimately, you know, when do we get to kind of everybody does have medical, um, and you know, many are considering adult use. What's your timeline now? Understanding our new administration coming in and, and where we're going with the punches generally.

Speaker 4: I, I continue to see, I think that we're going to continue to see a more states legalize medical cannabis through the legislatures. I think that in states that have an initiative process that have already moved towards medical cannabis that you're going to see increasing moves towards adult use. I think in a few cases we may and in the course of the next few years, the one or two states that actually legalize adult use cannabis and via the legislature, um, uh, I don't see much progress at the federal level during the trump administration, not so much because of trump, but more because of, of, of the people that he will have around him and the need he's going to have to rely on those people. But I also don't see them trying to roll back progress at the states. Why don't you see that role back happening? Okay. There's, there's a few reasons.

Speaker 4: Number one, Donald Trump has made repeated statements on the campaign trail that he was going to treat cannabis as, as, as a states rights issue. So this is something that he's made a promise on. He's spoken out in public to love that 10th amendment safe, uh, and, and to you look at the election results, millions and millions of trump voters voted in favor of cannabis reform and you look at some of the internal dynamics of what's going on in the Republican Party and, and who trump's allies were. So in this regard, Dana Rohrabacher is very important because he's the architect of the states' rights policy on cannabis and it's the major crowning achievement of his career. Uh, he was also one of the earliest republicans to come out for trump in the house of representatives. So strange I've spoken to that man, fiercely defended a trump after the Hollywood access tapes came out. And that's the kind of thing that counts a lot more to Donald Trump personal loyalty shirt on, especially in a clinch like that than some abstract political principle.

Speaker 4: So I don't see Donald trump being terribly inclined to go to war with Dana Rohrabacher on this issue that most of his, or at least a very sizeable chunk of his constituency agrees with, with Dana on. Yeah. No. Alright. So, so that's federal kind of homeostasis. That's fine. That's great. Um, and you say a little bit of progress, uh, over over the next four years. I mean as far as kind of nearly every state having medical, how close are we to that, do you think? Based on Montana, North Dakota, Arkansas at this time? Well, there's medical when there's medical and so we have medical laws that are, that we're really putting into place more as a stopgap measure to make sure that better laws were put into place. So I would have to do more of an analysis that I have on, on all of those 20 laws to, to tell you how many of them I would really consider to be real laws, but look, more and more evidence comes out every day.

Speaker 4: Demonstrating the cannabis in all likelihood is the most valuable therapeutic substance on the planet. And, and what's been happening now is as access to medical cannabis becomes more widespread and people have a personal experience of either being healed by the plant or having a friend or a relative or a coworker who was healed by the plant, we pick up more and more public support, so think about what is going to happen now that the seniors in Florida have access to medical cannabis, the most rapidly growing demographic in cannabis use to senior citizens and there's a really good reason for it. If you take a look at a list of the most common senior medical conditions and you take a look at the list of the things that cannabis is most efficacious for, it is essentially the same pretty well. Millions and millions of Florida's seniors are going to be consuming cannabis.

Speaker 4: Their lives are going to change massively for the better. They. Many of them vote in other states. Many of them are politically active. Many of them are fairly well off. Most of them have family members. They have friends. They talk to people and, and, and as that process happens, not just in Florida, but every other medical cannabis state, it inevitably is going to seep into other states and, and, um, I don't think that it would take more than 10 years at the outside to see decent, I would say decent medical cannabis access in every state in the country. Yes. Including Texas. Oh, there you go. Live. There you go. Take that 1980. So you know that we're up to the final question because I've asked you the other questions before and I asked you this same question every time. I do believe that you've given me St Stephen as your song of choice each time.

Speaker 4: So if I may press you for on the soundtrack of your life named one track, one song that's got to be on there besides Saint Stephen, what might that be? Oh, that would be wild. And free by whom? By ziggy Marley and Woody Harrelson. Excellent. Okay. And so here we go. Um, hemp can save the world. Cannabis will set you free, right? Is saving the world. Cannabis is. I mean, if you just look at what's happening with the, all of the visions that Jack had years and years and years ago are coming true with air. They're coming real. We're seeing the beginnings of a real industry in this country. I know a project that's happening in North Carolina that's going to be employing hundreds of vets and this is going to be revitalizing North Carolina's textile industry, which has been going into decline for years. So, you know, here we are replacing toxic raw materials, uh, creating jobs, creating tax revenue, doing exactly what we said we need to know this information that's come out in the last couple of years about the effect of cannabis on a fatal opioid overdose is huge in medical cannabis states.

Speaker 4: So there's a 25 percent reduction across the board and it had up to 17,000 lives just on that one. One aspect of cannabis that we have saved over the course of the last 20 years. So we are, we are changing the world. But what's happening now is what's happening now is, is, is a lot of people and the legacy cannabis community or having a really difficult time seeing people from the mainstream community come in and embrace cannabis and a lot of folks, the old guard, new guard, that type of thing, right? Yeah. And a lot of folks are, are a legacy people. And I'm, I am a legacy person. I certainly understand that the sentiment, um, uh, are, are viewing this almost as you know, the end of everything that they've, that they've ever worked for it, right? I looked at it really, really differently. We didn't get into this thing in the beginning to carve out to industry for ourselves and be rich.

Speaker 4: We got into it because we liked the way this plant felt and we knew that it helped us be more like the people that we wanted to be. And we figured that if everybody was more like the people they wanted to be, we'd be living in a better world. So we were doing it not to make money but to change the world. Right? So that's, that still has to be the objective. The objective has to be to get this plant into the hands of every single human being on the planet because every single one of us has an endocannabinoid system. Every single one of us has a human right to this, to this plant, right? There's not enough hippies in the emerald triangle, or even in all of California or even all of the United States of America, to take this plant all the way around the world and put it into the hands of every person.

Speaker 4: There is, however, a global apparatus that has been developed to produce products and move them around the world and get them into the hands of people. And it operates fairly efficiently. It's called the corporate global economy. So from my point of view, what we've done is we have rolled this amazing Trojan horse right into the heart of the portrait rural. They're now opening the poorest and eagerly taking the gifts out there, unwrapping it, and we have corporations who are going to begin pushing cannabis out all around the world. That's fabulous. That's, that's our greatest triumph, right? As their greatest strength, what has been the objective all along to change the world, the more people use this plant and have access to it, the more affordable this plant is, the more rapidly we see the kinds of changes that we need in this world. It's like, look at what's happening.

Speaker 4: We've got, you know, people blowing themselves up and killing each other for the most ridiculous of reasons. So if there's ever a time that the world needed this plant now, it would be now, it would be now Steve de Angelo. It keeps on getting better, my friend and you know, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll deal with the setbacks, will deal with the hurdles, will jump right over him and get to the next day. Oh yeah, no, we're, we are, we're, we are in such a great place now. You know, it's really struggling. I'll just leave you with this last slot 10 years ago, and I started saying that cannabis is not a harm to be grudgingly tolerated, but a benefit to be positively promoted. Indeed. People would kind of either roll their eyeballs at me or look at me kind of quizzically and not quite get it right now I come to a conference like the one that we're at and I hear everybody saying that, right? It's like the idea that cannabis is actually a positive benefit to people's lives is now widespread in deep and that's just a huge sea change and it's going to carry us forward. There you go. Onto the future, out of the shadows, into the light, the end of the industry. Steve de Angelo. Thank you so much, Steve de Angelo,

Speaker 1: very much appreciate Steve Time. As always, very much appreciate a Mel Gordon Jenkins time. Good to talk to a lobbyist and good to talk to an activist and a. those two things go together like peanut butter and jelly, like a white and bryce and cold denies so thanks to both of them. Thanks to you, very much appreciate you 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.