As cannabis industry flexes lobbying muscle on Beacon Hill, public health message stalls

A rare weekday day game last month brought the families to Fenway Park to see the Red Sox take on the Texas Rangers.On their walk past the sausage stands and peanut hawkers outside the stadium, they saw something else: ads for a cannabis delivery company plastered on trash cans.That has Amy Turncliff worried about the message those ads send to the children and teens walking by, "This is why we don't allow tobacco advertising on billboards, that it reduces perception of harm, reduces perception of disapproval and can increase use," she said.Turncliff is a scientist and activist who has been sounding the alarm about the risks of teen and young adults using cannabis, especially high-potency cannabis, for years.The risks are hardly theoretical. Doctors and other clinicians who treat young people in addiction tell 5 Investigates that the majority, if not all, of their patients are affected by cannabis-related problems, including psychosis, depression, anxiety and other serious disorders.So to Turncliff, the cannabis advertising around Fenway Park is just one sign that state regulators and lawmakers have failed to install public health guardrails since legalization in 2016."More evidence that our state isn't taking public health and youth prevention seriously," she said.Tightening regulations around advertising is just one of her priorities. Potency limits, stronger warning labels and public awareness campaigns about the risk to young cannabis users are others.Years of lobbying for these changes have largely gone nowhere, though, and her frustration was evident when she spoke to the Legislature's Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy at a hearing last month."How many parents am I going to have to apologize to on behalf of the state before we actually take some action?" she said.But she's up against stiff opposition from industry supporters who have openly ridiculed the concerns. For example: at a 2021 legislative hearing, an attorney who works in the industry told lawmakers, "We have a lot of what I would describe as pearl-clutching medical folks who are announcing these dangers because of increased potency. I'm sorry, but THC is biologically incapable of killing a human being, so what are you actually protecting here?""Are you a bunch of soccer moms, pearl clutching, saying, 'No marijuana?'" 5 Investigates' Mike Beaudet asked Turncliff."No," she replied. "The public has a right and a need to know what the risks are."But in the battle for public minds, Turncliff and the loose public health coalition she is part of find themselves vastly outgunned.They're up against an industry that just last year sold $1.65 billion in cannabis products in Massachusetts. The industry is also spending to influence public policy.5 Investigates' review of lobbying disclosure records showed that the industry paid Massachusetts lobbyists $7.2 million in the last five years to try to sway the outcome of laws and regulations in their favor.By comparing data of campaign donations to lists of license holders, we were also able to identify $409,000 in donations made to politicians in Massachusetts in the last five years. That figure is far from the total spent by the industry as it does not account for donations made by the consultants, lawyers and lobbyists and others working to further the cannabis industry but who aren't employed by a license holder.State Rep. Marcus Vaughn, R-Wrentham, has filed several public health-related cannabis bills on Beacon Hill, including ones that would limit THC potency and strengthen warning labels.He's well aware of the power of the industry and its lobbyists."Do you think they could be successful in stopping these bills from passing?" Beaudet asked."That's obviously a possibility. Some of them carry a lot of weight and a lot of money," he said.Vaughn said he's not opposed to cannabis in general, but is in favor of more public health-related legislation."It helps a great deal of people with certain ailments, but on the other end, those products, we need to have some control over them and make sure it's safe for public consumption," he said.While the legislature can pass laws about cannabis, the task of regulating the day-to-day workings of the industry falls to the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission.Turncliff and others are frustrated with what they see as a lack of interest in public health priorities at the Commission, even though one of the five commissioners is required by law to have a background in public health, mental health, substance use or toxicology.5 Investigates interviewed that commissioner, Kimberly Roy, along with Commission Executive Director Travis Ahern. Roy was appointed by Gov. Charlie Baker in 2021, who cited her role overseeing a school substance use prevention program while she worked as the director of external affairs for the Worcester County Sheriff's Department."Should the commission be doing more to educate people about the potential risks?" Beaudet asked."We've requested for the past four years $1.5 million to continue push forward this information to make sure ... that the ways in which youth may be getting access from somebody in their household who purchased it legally, why it is so important that they're locking up that product and really hammer those issues home. So, we would love to do more, we try to do as much as we can with the resources we have," Ahern said."The state is getting more money than ever from cannabis sales, but it's cutting funding for public awareness?" Beaudet asked."Public awareness has not been within our funding request for the past five years," Ahern said, meaning the funds were not provided by the legislature."We would love to have more funding to update our website. It hasn't been updated in many years. We just don't have the resources or the funding for public awareness to be able to do that, quite frankly," Roy said."Would it be that hard to update some language?" Beaudet said."Well, that's what we're going to have to look at," Roy replied.Watch more from our interview with the Cannabis Control Commission.We also discovered it's not uncommon for commission employees or commissioners to leave their job regulating the cannabis industry to then go work for the cannabis industry.An executive director, two commission attorneys, commissioners, a director of investigations and others went from working at the Cannabis Control Commission to working for cannabis companies, according to their LinkedIn profiles or other publicly-available material."Is the Cannabis Control Commission too close to the industry?" Beaudet asked."If at the end of the day you're looking at advocates who are saying that they don't want cannabis to be legal at all, and we're looking at the industry saying that the Cannabis Control Commission is too stringent, well then, we're probably doing something right," Ahern said."What about the optics, former commission staffers, former commissioners now working for the industry. Is that concerning?" Beaudet asked."It has not been a concern of mine so far," Ahern replied."Why not?" Beaudet asked."It doesn't really come into play," he said."Is it an indication of the closeness of the commission and the industry?" Beaudet asked."I think it's an indication of subject matter expertise," Roy replied.Roy also pointed out that the state forbids public employees including Cannabis Control Commissioners or commission employees from coming before the board for a year after leaving public employment.Turncliff's frustrations date back to 2019, when she and more than 30 other scientists sent a "Statement of Concern" to policymakers warning that they were not taking the public health risks to young people into account as they set up the framework for legalized marijuana in Massachusetts."We're now six years later, and I am unfortunately very confident that there are more cases of cannabis-induced psychosis than there were then," she said."You and others warned?" Beaudet asked."I did," she said."Was anyone listening?" Beaudet asked."That's such a good question. I feel like the answer to that is no," Turncliff replied.