Anti-Cannabis Groups Give Millions to Fight Legalizations

In response to rapid legalization and the funding that is now backing it, an anti-cannabis group is now actively funding the fight against legalization.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the organization is called Smart Approaches to Marijuana, and was founded by politicians who feel that legalization is moving too fast.

Their current project is to oppose Proposition 64 in California, a measure that would allow recreational cannabis for those 21 and over with a 15 percent sales tax imposed.

“If there is one thing we agree on with legalization advocates, it’s that California is important,” Kevin Sabet, one of the group’s founders and former drug policy advisor to the Obama Administration, told the LA Times.

The group plans to fund those who oppose legalization initiatives in key states like California, Maine, Nevada, and Massachusetts. They feel this is necessary because of how much more funding legalization efforts have than anti-legalization efforts. In California, Sean Parker, former president of Facebook, gave $2.5 million towards legalization, and over $6.7 million has been raised total in support of legalization. Meanwhile, anti-legalization campaigns have only managed to raise $125,000.

“[Legalization] is putting our children at risk and has exposed children from communities of color to more racial discrimination than before,” stated Patrick Kennedy, nephew of John F. Kennedy, who also lends support to the movement.

Supporters of the legalization efforts in California claim that “Proposition 64 finally creates a safe, legal and comprehensive system for adult use of marijuana while protecting our children,” as sated in their official ballot argument.

The irony of this showdown is that as cannabis continues to raise even more money, the side of legalization will have even more funding to work with. Even Smart Approaches to Marijuana admit that they won’t be able to match their opponent’s campaign because of lack of money. Ultimately, it appears that a financial fight for continued prohibition is useless, as the industry has already generated so much revenue.