Analysis of industry testimony in Washington State found cannabis companies use three main strategies to oppose THC potency limits: threatening economic consequences, distracting from the issue, and discrediting the supporting science.
People interested in cannabis policy, industry influence, and the politics of potency regulation.
3 main industry strategies: threaten, distract, discredit
What the researchers found
Three rhetorical strategies dominated industry opposition to high-THC regulation: threatening (economic harm, public health consequences, undermining voter will), distracting (introducing tangential topics), and discrediting (attacking the science or its advocates). The most common was economic threats.
Why it matters
Understanding industry opposition tactics helps public health advocates develop effective counterarguments. The parallels with tobacco and alcohol industry rhetoric suggest cannabis industry lobbying follows predictable patterns that can be anticipated and addressed.
The numbers in context
41 testimonies from 33 industry actors analyzed. 3 public bill hearings and 1 work session examined. Time period: 2020-2023. Three main rhetorical strategies identified.
How the study worked
Deductive thematic analysis of 41 testimonies from 33 cannabis industry actors across 3 public bill hearings and one legislative work session in Washington State between 2020 and 2023. The codebook was informed by documented strategies from alcohol, tobacco, and sugar-sweetened beverage industries.
What this study cannot tell us
Only examined Washington State hearings. Industry testimony is public-facing and strategic, so it may not reflect private lobbying efforts. The deductive framework was based on other industries, potentially missing cannabis-specific strategies.
How to read the evidence
Qualitative analysis of public testimony. Evidence grading does not apply to this type of policy research, but the systematic analysis provides useful documentation of industry tactics.
When this study was published
Published in 2024 analyzing testimony from 2020-2023.
The bigger picture
As more states and countries consider cannabis potency regulations, knowing how the industry pushes back is valuable. The finding that cannabis companies borrow directly from Big Tobacco and Big Alcohol playbooks provides a roadmap for health advocates preparing for these debates.
Questions still open
- Are these same rhetorical strategies appearing in other states considering potency limits? How effective are these tactics at influencing legislators? What counterarguments have been most successful at overcoming industry opposition?
Common questions
How does the cannabis industry fight potency limits?
Are these the same tactics used by tobacco companies?
Read the original research
Threaten, Distract, and Discredit: Cannabis Industry Rhetoric to Defeat Regulation of High-THC Cannabis Products in Washington State.
Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs, 85(3), 322-329
Citation
Carlini, Beatriz H; Kellum, Lyndsey B; Garrett, Sharon B; Nims, Lexi N. (2024). Threaten, Distract, and Discredit: Cannabis Industry Rhetoric to Defeat Regulation of High-THC Cannabis Products in Washington State.. Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs, 85(3), 322-329. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.23-00277