The clear majority of respondents did not think cannabis growers manage timberlands sustainably and a similar percentage felt the same about ranchlands. Eighty-five percent of respondents regarded cannabis growing as negatively affecting wildlife and 87% regarded it as negatively affecting stream flow . Eighty-four percent thought cannabis growing leads to soil erosion and 70% thought it increases fire hazard. Seventy-eight percent believed that cannabis production in ranchlands and timberlands leads to habitat fragmentation and the same percentage suggested that the economic value of cannabis incentivizes the subdivision of large parcels. Fifty percent of landowners felt that their property value had increased due to cannabis production while 40% were neutral on that question. Eighty-three percent of respondents thought that Humboldt County was a safer place before cannabis and 76% of respondents perceived new cannabis growers as less responsible than cannabis growers who have been in the county for years. About half of respondents believed that increased cannabis legalization will be good for Humboldt County. Fifty-seven percent of respondents were not yet willing to accept that cannabis is a leading industry and that people should support it. Fifty-four percent of respondents believed that Humboldt County would be better off in the future without cannabis. Most landowners included in the survey reported having observed changes in grower demographics in the last decade. Most felt that the number of small cannabis growers is decreasing. Sixty-one percent felt that the number connected to organized crime is increasing and perceived that there is an increasing number of green rush growers in their communities. Most respondents were concerned about organized crime, while only 48% were concerned with green rush growers and 18% with small growers. Overall, resident and absentee owners expressed similar views on most issues. Of the survey’s 59 statements on experiences and perceptions, pots for cannabis plants statistically significant differences between the two groups appeared for only eight statements.

Absentee owners were more likely to report that their surface water resources had been impacted by growers; that their fences or infrastructure had been destroyed by growers; that their safety had been threatened by growers and that they had been threatened by growers on public land. Absentee owners were also more likely to be concerned that growers were taking over public land. They were less likely to agree that growers manage timberland sustainably and that cannabis production decreases their property values. With this study, we aimed to better understand the experiences and perceptions of traditional agricultural producers — the families who, in most cases for several generations, have made a living off their land, all the while watching changes occur in the social, economic and environmental dynamics that surround cannabis. This survey’s documentation of social tensions may not come as a surprise to those who have lived in Humboldt County . Even after many decades of cannabis cultivation, traditional agricultural producers have not warmed to the people or practices involved in the cannabis industry. Indeed, changes in the social fabric of the cannabis industry have only perpetuated and intensified existing tensions. As this survey shows, concerns about “small growers” are minimal now — those growers have become part of the community, and one-third of respondents agreed that they know growers whose values align with their own. What was novel 40 years ago is now a cultural norm. Today’s concerns center instead on the challenges of current cannabis culture: environmental degradation and the threat of major social and economic change. Respondents mostly agreed that growers today are less reasonable than those who have been in the county for many years. As one respondent wrote, “Growers are a cancer on Humboldt County.” This distrust highlights the challenges that, in rural areas, can often hinder community-building and mutual assistance mechanisms, which are often needed in isolated communities.As the survey shows, approximately 40% of respondents have been impacted indirectly by the cannabis industry, and some respondents have directly profited through cannabis production themselves. Interestingly, just over half the respondents chose not to say whether they grow cannabis, hinting at the possibility that, even for traditional agricultural producers, cannabis has presented an opportunity to supplement income and cover the costs of landownership. However, the broader economic growth attributed to the cannabis industry is not always viewed favorably, and a majority of respondents agreed that Humboldt County would be better off in the future without cannabis.

Some respondents claimed that the industry has increased the cost of labor and that, in many cases, it can be difficult to find laborers at all because the work force has been absorbed by higher-paying cannabis operations. Likewise, many respondents agreed that land values have increased because of cannabis. But for landowners whose property has been passed down through generations, and who have little intention of selling, increased land values translate into increased taxes and difficulty in expanding operations, both of which can be limiting for families who are often land-rich but cash-poor. One respondent wrote, “Yes, the price of land has gone up… but this is a negative. It increases the inheritance tax burden, and it has become so expensive that my own adult children cannot afford to live here.” In Humboldt County’s unique economic climate, it’s difficult for most landowners to decide whether the opportunities the cannabis industry provides are worth the toll that they believe the industry takes on their culture and community — it’s not a simple story. As one respondent noted, “If I had taken this survey 40 years ago, my response would have been very different. With Humboldt County’s poor economy, everyone is relying on the cannabis industry in one way or another.” Our survey provides an important baseline from which such changing attitudes can be measured. Our results should be seen in the context of larger trends involving population and agricultural land in Humboldt County. At the time we were preparing our survey, property records indicated that slightly more than 200 landowners in the county owned at least 500 acres; these individuals made up our survey population. Past research, however, has documented that cannabis was likely grown on over 5,000 distinct parcels in Humboldt County in 2016 . Our survey respondents, because of their large holdings, may be unusually exposed to cannabis growers physically because their larger properties may have more contact with cannabis growers. At the same time, these respondents might be better able to survive economically in a Humboldt County without cannabis. It is unclear if the experiences and perspectives of many Humboldt County smaller landowners would be similar to those of these large landowners. For many in Humboldt County, the impacts of cannabis production on property and the environment are a central concern. Respondents mentioned problems involving shared roads and fences, illegal garbage dumping and contamination, deforestation, fire hazards, feral dogs and impacts on wildlife and domestic livestock. One respondent wrote that “Growers leave a mess, steal water, tear up roads, let guard dogs damage neighbors’ property, including livestock, poison wildlife, increase soil erosion and threaten people.” In many ways, it seems that land ethics are at the center of the concerns that traditional agricultural producers harbor about the new wave of cannabis growers. Though respondents remarked on cannabis growing’s direct impacts on the environment, they also largely agreed that the cannabis industry is causing fewer young people to enter traditional farming careers — and that growers are taking over working lands. It is unknown if the rates at which successive generations stay in the family business are lower in Humboldt County than in rural communities less influenced by cannabis.

For families who have managed and lived off these lands for decades — most of them for more than 50 years — these shifting stewardship ethics threaten their immediate environment as well as their very identity. Medical cannabis use was illegal throughout the US until 1996, and recreational use was illegal until 2012. As of August 2021, 18 US states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Northern Marianas Islands had passed laws permitting recreational and medical cannabis and 17 states permitted only medical cannabis . Supporters’ reasoning for legalization includes arguments about therapeutic benefits, redirecting law enforcement to violent crimes, personal freedom, tax revenues, product regulations, and harmlessness . Both recreational and medical legalization increase cannabis use . In Colorado, the first state to legalize adult-use cannabis in 2012, past 30-day cannabis use increased among those aged 18–25 from 26.8% in 2011 to 34.4% in 2018 . The regulated cannabis market in Colorado registered $10 billion in sales between 2014, when adult-use sales began, and 2020, when sales reached $2.19 billion . Cannabis smoking, overwhelmingly the most common form of cannabis consumption , exposes users to many of the same toxins contained in tobacco smoke, including particulate matter , polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, gasses, and volatile organic compounds . Cannabis use is associated with more frequent chronic bronchitis episodes, airway injury, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke . Secondhand cannabis flood table smoke also poses a risk to nonsmokers . Commercial determinants of health research, which studies the commercial drivers of poor health outcomes, has identified mechanisms of influence that the tobacco, food, and alcohol industries employ to promote products in ways that compromise public health . Tobacco, alcohol, and gambling companies, for example, hire lobbyists to influence policy, connect with front groups and allied industries to oppose regulation, and build relationships with policymakers through political donations . Tobacco, alcohol, and food interests orchestrate lobbying across industries and transnationally to promote policies favorable to consumption. The cannabis industry has a similar interest in maximizing profits by creating a favorable regulatory environment. Cannabis corporations share links with the alcohol and tobacco industries. Tobacco companies Altria , Imperial Brands , and British American Tobacco , have all made significant investments in cannabis, a long-anticipated development . Constellation Brands, maker of Corona beer, has also made investments in Canopy Growth, a Canadian cannabis corporation . Tobacco and alcohol interests have openly formalized a cannabis-focused political association as members of the Coalition for Cannabis Policy, Education, and Regulation, a lobbying group that lists Altria, Constellation Brands, and Molson Coors Beverage Company as members.

Employing tactics used by the tobacco industry for decades , cannabis companies are also vested in major sports through sponsorship of athletes and leagues in the USS . Considering the health risks involved with cannabis use and the conflict between public health and the commercial interests of these industries, systematic analyses of cannabis industry influence on policy making are essential. There has been little study on the topic despite several calls for research . Although there have been popular media reports on cannabis industry lobbying expenditures, we identified no systematic analyses that assessed cannabis lobbying over time or identified connections between the cannabis industry and affiliates. Cannabis products are legal in multiple states, while remaining illegal at the federal level. Even though federal law technically supersedes state law, gaps in enforcement have been carved out by the federal government to allow for state legalization of adult-use and medical cannabis . As a result, it remains to be seen whether cannabis industry efforts to influence policy are comparable to other industries for which recreational consumption has historically been legal. In this study we sought to describe cannabis industry lobbying in the Colorado state legislature, which dictates product standards, licensing requirements, and other policies relevant to cannabis sales. We hypothesized that the cannabis industry would use strategies similar to those of other similar industries including relying on hired lobbyists , obscuring industry funding, working with related industries, and building national networks to support policies likely to increase consumption . We focused on Colorado because it was the first state to legalize recreational cannabis in 2012, making it possible to assess whether cannabis industry lobbying activities have become comparable to other industries in nature and scope over time. Because of the complexity of relationships between the cannabis industry, lobbyists, and government officials, we supplemented the quantitative analyses with a case study illustrating cannabis industry tactics to influence the Colorado legislature. Colorado requires lobbyists to file reports on their activities with the Secretary of State, even if they are a salaried employee of the business they represent.