Gretchen Gailey: Cannabis Industry Has No Idea How DC Works, Why Rescheduling Is Delayed

Listen Now

Gretchen Gailey: Maybe we need to make sure somebody doesn't get reelected. You know, maybe we need to stab them in the back, push them down the stairs, and say, "We're the reason they fell," and take credit for it, and put a little fear behind cannabis. Bryan Fields: Gretchen, you spent 20-plus years on Capitol Hill. What does the industry still fundamentally misunderstand about how Washington actually works? Gretchen Gailey: Honestly, everything. This industry does not know where to begin with Washington whatsoever. They truly believe that if they show up once a year during a fly-in, if they throw a few bucks at somebody right before a major vote is going to come down, that it's actually going to move the needle. This industry does not understand the sustained presence you must have in Washington to actually get anything done. Washington is such an incremental town, and I know nobody wants to hear that in this industry. Everyone gets upset when it's like, "All right, we're going to pass SAFE, then we're going to do states, then we're going to do this or that," and they're just like, "No, I want everything all at once." Well, we all saw where the CAOA went. The MORE Act failed. These types of bills don't get done. You need to do incrementalism and you need to suck it up. And that's just how it is, because number one, these folks won't even give us banking — I don't know why anyone thinks they want to give us full legalization. That is not how this industry is going to get regulated, and it's not going to happen until someone is showing up every single day in their faces talking about this and won't go away. Politicians are scared when they think they're not getting reelected. I am amazed by all the people in this industry — such radicals, who went to the woods to grow their cannabis 40 years ago, thumbing their nose at the man, "we're going to sell illegally, do whatever we want" — and I'm amazed how scared these people are of Washington. Anytime a politician says, "sit back, be quiet, we'll take care of this," everyone's like, okay. I've talked to people, and when I say maybe we need to get a little feisty — maybe we need to make sure somebody doesn't get reelected, maybe we need to stab them in the back, push them down the stairs and say we're the reason they fell, and take credit for it, and put a little fear behind cannabis — everyone's like, "No, no, no, they're so kumbaya." And I'm like, are you out of your minds? It is time to get dirty and it's time to get nasty. I'm amazed at how scared this industry is of doing that. It's not like they've done us any favors being nice. I do not understand at all why this industry refuses to try and rock the boat in Washington. It blows my mind. Bryan Fields: Unpack that a little further — the fear. Do you think executives need to be involved, lobbyists? How would something like that work, and how can they take a cohesive approach to attacking that? Gretchen Gailey: I think we need to take an all-of-the-above approach to real fear. Yes, executives need to be involved. They need to show up. You need the little guy to show up. You need to show these people that yes, there's a thousand cannabis folks employed in your district, and if you don't take care of us, we are all voting you out. We are going to find our own candidate to run against you. We need to be putting up viable candidates who actually care about cannabis — not the guy who just wants to smoke a joint for his political commercial and that's his only policy. We need cannabis-friendly people. We need to support the politicians who are out there being our friends. One of my favorite examples — and frankly she's not running again, and shocker, she didn't get any support from us — Cynthia Lummis is not running again. She was a co-sponsor of SAFE in the Senate, from Wyoming, which doesn't have anything to do with cannabis, but she was out there pushing for us. Ask her this year, "Would you co-sponsor SAFE again?" No. It was a thankless, worthless job — nobody wants it. We do not support these people. Why? She's a Republican woman from Wyoming — why would we support her? This industry, it just boggles my mind. We need to be supporting politicians who are on our side. We need to be doing media. We need to be doing massive education campaigns — for the millions of dollars thrown into elections trying to get adult-use legalized, they need to be put into campaigns educating people on what this plant is, what it does. People don't understand it, and I think that's a huge hurdle here in Washington. I'm still explaining, years later, the difference between THC and CBD. They don't understand what's going on with hemp, they don't understand the intoxicating side. There's so much because these folks are just not exposed to it. Meanwhile, we're telling them to write all the laws to take care of us when we give them zero guidance. I've been in meetings with 20 chiefs of staff and said, "Hey, raise your hands — who has been to a dispensary?" Nobody. "Who has been to a grow?" No one. No one in this industry is inviting them to their businesses, saying, "Hey, please come see what I'm doing." The best thing we can do, beyond bringing patients who say they need it, is businesses that use it — and I'm not talking about an MSO, I'm talking about a small dispensary. I work with a woman up in New Jersey, Dr. Eliza Bivar Rodriguez. She had a dispensary in Jersey City facing all sorts of problems. We bring her down here and she talks about how she just spent 70 grand to buy a safe because she can't bank. And they're like, "What?" She tells them what her security bills are, and they're like, "That's preposterous." It's like, yeah, you guys won't give me SAFE banking, so this is what I have to do. Don Murphy, my partner, had to get a mortgage refinanced trying to figure out his retirement — because he talked about cannabis. When we told Senator McCormick that Don could not get a mortgage, his mind was blown. Nobody is bringing these stories or talking to these folks about it, and they just don't understand how the industry is being impacted. Everyone on the Hill looks at cannabis and thinks it's just a reason to get high and have fun. Nobody looks at it as medicine, as a viable business, as a real contributor to society. And that's on us, because we have not educated them as to why it should be a major part of building the blocks of America. You want to make America great again, you need to get in with pot, I'm sorry. It could do infrastructure, it could do energy, it could do all sorts of stuff. I'm not a crazy person who thinks cannabis is going to save the world, but it can fix a lot of problems if we could embrace it and really try to educate folks on what it can do. Bryan Fields: So I want to push back a little bit, because I know people are actively on the Hill. They are trying to do those things, but there are so many different messages, and there are a lot of complications. The hemp, the cannabis — those are nuanced and really complicated. And I can only imagine some of these politicians who are up there in age, right, closer to their 60s and 70s than their 30s and 40s — those people don't understand a lot of these concepts, and new facts are really difficult for them. They grew up in a world where cannabis was the devil's lettuce, and it's really hard to change their opinion. So even the best education might be really difficult. I can only imagine explaining to my grandparents, "Hey, I know for 50 years you were told cannabis was going to throw you in prison, but now it's actually a viable business." My grandma's mind would be absolutely blown — she'd be like, "Bryan, you're just getting high and that's what's changing your mind." So what about if those people just had to die off? Is that what we need — hopefully just a generational die-off? Gretchen Gailey: It couldn't hurt. Honestly, when I got into cannabis years ago working for New Frontier Data, I told my mom, and she was like, "Mary Jane?" I was like, "Yes, Mom." She's like, "Are there benefits?" I said, "Yeah, it's a real job." And she just said, "Okay, well, don't mention it at church." It was so foreign to her. And yes, when I say we need sustained presence on the Hill, there are folks who come in — but they come in for a fly-in, as lobbyists for a particular business. I'm a Republican, I like capitalism, I have no problem with folks lobbying for what makes sense for their businesses. However — and no pun intended — we can't get into the weeds with these people on this stuff. We need very basic regulations. That's where our foundation needs to be. We need banking. We need uplisting. We need safe products for consumers. We need to be looking at this plant to be regulated under the Department of Agriculture. Why? It's a plant, it's a commodity, it should be treated that way. We need the basic guardrails of setting up an industry before we're getting into the weeds on concentration limits or specific carve-outs. That is what is screwing us up. Stop — not helpful. Don't go in trying to get a carve-out for your specific little beverage niche to make this work. No — we need rescheduling. We need to say, "Hey, the president did this three months ago, why haven't we seen anything? Why aren't you guys prepared? You guys told the FDA two years ago to start regulating CBD — why aren't you pissed off that you don't have those regs yet?" This is where we need to put our focus — getting the most basic guardrails in place so we can start to build a real industry. Until we have the foundation, we don't have anything. I don't understand why we're trying to pick out curtains when we haven't built a basement. It's insane to me. Bryan Fields: I think the reason is they're running these businesses and they understand the nuance of how difficult that is, and for them to lobby on behalf of the industry is a totally different fight than arguing in a specific state where they're entrenched, saying, "Here are the elements most important today for my business." So going back to your Wyoming example — the Republican senator who pushed for cannabis — what would have been beneficial for her? Would it have been funding support? I don't know the current status of cannabis in Wyoming, but I'd imagine it's not as influential as California, Michigan, or Florida. What was her stance, and what could the industry have done to make it positive for her? Gretchen Gailey: Because she is a smart, practical Republican — they do exist. She understood that banking was necessary. How can we pretend we're doing things on the up-and-up when we're hiding our money in the hills? It's like, hello, you want transparency, make us bank. Let's look at different ways to tax it, let's regulate it. She understood that, and I don't understand why more politicians don't get that the fastest way to transparency, and to making sure we have an industry that's on the up-and-up, is to actually regulate it. I don't know why they allow us to just continue in this free-for-all. Bryan Fields: Why do you think that is? Gretchen Gailey: Because, like you said, they're older and at one point they were taught cannabis was the devil's lettuce, and they cannot get beyond that. Most politicians of an older generation only come around on cannabis when they've been touched by someone who needs it medically — that's the only thing that brings them about. Jobs numbers don't do it, taxes don't do it, they just don't. They have this moral code — like this is a horrible product, we can't be taking money from that. I think that's a huge reason adult use hasn't passed in Pennsylvania. I'm a Pennsylvania girl — these people are, even though we're hundreds of years removed, so puritanical. You could barely buy beer in Pennsylvania on a Sunday until a few years ago. They get these ideas in their heads and cannot break free of them. That's why education is so important — to help them understand it can provide relief for an ailment, that there are good, hardworking businesses. When you get legalization, that's when you start getting rid of the illicit market, when you have a safer community. You want to protect the kids? Put it all in a dispensary, stop letting kids get access at a corner store where they can buy any old vape product. Every complaint the other side has against us is actually against the illicit industry, not the regulated industry, and that's what we need to be pushing on. Bryan Fields: I'm just going to ask some dumb questions here. If this is a state-led story, can't the states allow certain protections for these companies? It seems like the emphasis keeps getting pushed back to the states, and the states decide how it goes. So maybe there can't be federal oversight because of the state situation, but can't states do things to alleviate these problems — banking aside? Gretchen Gailey: No. And if we ever want to have interstate commerce, we cannot leave it up to the states. One of my previous clients was US Pharmacopeia, USP — they put together regulations and standards for medications. They're basically the right-hand to the FDA, the scientists who decide that the Tylenol you're buying in California is the same as the Tylenol you're getting in New York. That's what this industry needs — people need to know that what they're buying is safe, replicable product they can get anywhere. Friends ask me all the time, "I bought this here, is it any good?" I don't know. I don't know who you bought it from, I don't know what's in it. We all know the lab space is questionable at best. You need a federal arm to provide those basic guardrails so you can have interstate commerce, and then build upon that. I'd love the States Reform Act 2.0, introduced by Dave Joyce — it basically gives states the right to choose what type of industry they want. Full-blown adult use? You get to keep that. Just want to be medical? Fine. Don't want pot at all? Fine, be prohibitionist — but you still have to allow it to be transported through your state on the highway system. It's just basic states' rights, and I don't know why common sense is so foreign in Washington. And back to something — you're talking about businesses regulating for what they need right now. Our number one problem is stupidity. Number two, we only care about today. Nobody is looking 50 years down the road to a real, sustainable industry. Everyone is just trying to survive to tomorrow. I get it — but if we had federal regs in place, survival wouldn't be as crucial. You'd have access to the SBA for loans, you'd have banking, you'd have all these things that could help us become a normal, sustainable industry. But if we keep putting band-aid on band-aid, we're never getting out of this hole. At some point we need to say this state-by-state model does not work, and prepare to actually grow and have a real business. I love MSOs — you're supplying so much of the industry, employing people, putting money into lobbying — I appreciate that. But if you built a business in 20 different states with no idea how you'll ever transition to interstate commerce, that's on you. Figure it out. If people can figure out how to make hemp intoxicating, you can figure out how to make your businesses work, relying on the free market. I'm so sick of trying to fix a problem so one guy can eat lunch tomorrow. We need to build an industry that takes care of this country — medicine for patients, infrastructure, energy. I've totally drunk the Kool-Aid on what this plant could do, and I want us to realize its capabilities. Bryan Fields: To push back — you asked for incremental steps, and now you're saying these guys have to go back and say, "I know we laid out a states plan, but it's not working, we have to figure out a better approach." So we throw all the cards back in the middle? The MSOs are going to struggle with that given the infrastructure they've built, and politicians will have to rewire their brains — they thought the market was working. Changing direction again seems harder. But states have opened up markets, employed jobs — Washington hasn't done anything. So do you think Washington has to come in on top and say the state model isn't working, we need a better way? Gretchen Gailey: Yes. This is where I still think incrementalism will work. First we need rescheduling, because Congress won't move without it. Once that's in place, you go to SAFE. So many people think SAFE doesn't matter — it does, a lot, to small independent operators. It may not matter to the big boys who've already figured out banking, but it matters to the little guy, and I'd love to see Main Street cannabis thrive, not just corporate consolidation. Then states rights — build basic guardrails so you can transition to a sustained industry and get to interstate commerce. Get banking, get rid of 280E, that's a good jumping-off point. Then we start getting regs in place, and we need to look at consumer products completely differently. Right now everything is tested before it hits the shelf — no other industry in America operates that way. We need real-time tools monitoring the process step by step, like other industries do, instead of waiting for a lab to certify at the very end, which can force a whole batch to be tossed for fluctuations that don't matter. Groups like USP already have standards for heavy metals, contaminants, potency levels — nobody at the FDA is paying attention to what they already built. We need Washington to push and say, "These guys have this, why aren't we using it?" The resources exist and need to be implemented. It's a plant, it needs to be regulated like a plant. Our farmers need to be treated like any other farmer in America. If you put band-aid on band-aid on every little parameter, Washington will never untangle this ridiculous ball of wax. We need the fundamentals. Bryan Fields: Do you think it's because they feel like if they present the full approach, it'll be too complicated for some of these politicians to grasp? Gretchen Gailey: It's not that complicated — no. I'm not expecting us to turn politicians into scientists explaining cannabinoids. They shouldn't be the ones making those decisions anyway — I'd never suggest a politician should decide anything on the medicinal or science front. They don't know jack. But they need to say, "Hey FDA, you're supposed to be the experts, how do I regulate this?" Look at proposals like the MORE Act — one thing they're all looking for is a real roadside driving test for cannabis. Is anyone actually working on this? Hopefully that's what a commission the president might convene this summer would address. It's a complete waste of money for companies to go in asking for specific little provisions until the basics are in place — it's not going to happen. Bryan Fields: Where do policymakers trying to understand cannabis get their information from now? Gretchen Gailey: Google, honestly. They ask around. I worked on the Hill many years ago — I was 31 and I was ancient, everyone who works there is fresh out of school. You'd think a younger generation advising these folks would help us, but they lack a lot too — especially on the business side, and some are too altruistic about how this could happen. I'd go into offices and say, "I want to be a resource for you, what questions do you have?" and they'd say, "What do you want?" I'm like, nothing, let's just talk pot. I worked with Senator Wyden's group on financial services in the Senate — they gave us different scenarios on how they wanted to tax cannabis, and we provided a report: here's how it breaks down at this number, this number, this number — you make the decision. That's 100% what this industry could easily be doing — giving them data and real-life stories about how policies affect people. Kyle Sherman, CEO of Flowhub, is great at this — he built a database collecting stories to help people understand the financial problems from lack of SAFE banking. We need holistic approaches like that, because numbers alone don't get it done — they need something they can wrap their heads around. Don not being able to get a mortgage, they understand. Argue with them about 280E and it's like, "What? That's an IRS tax code," and their eyes roll back — nobody wants to talk about the IRS. Bryan Fields: So it's not really a capital-constraint problem — it's more of a coordination problem. Gretchen Gailey: Well, it's both. The amount of money this industry spends on lobbying is pathetic. And lobbying gets such a bad rap — it's not the days of Abramoff, bribing politicians. I wish it were that easy. We need real education campaigns and to be donating and working with different politicians. I say unless this industry shows up with 40 to 50 million a year, don't even bother — you're not moving the needle unless you look at it from other angles, which is kind of what we've been trying to do with Project Champion. Project Champion is a group I formed with Ricky Williams, Jim McMahon, and Kyle Turley, who wanted to use their celebrity for good. All we push for is legalization for medical access. We're not getting deep into the weeds on specific policy — we're just trying to get something across the finish line. These guys recognize their names carry weight, their social followers, their earned press. I can easily get them onto Fox or CNN talking about an issue. We saw it this summer with Mike Tyson doing stuff with Fox. That's what moves the needle in this administration — if it's not in the news, the president doesn't pay attention. Trump is the most engaged president I've ever seen on pop culture, and he wants to be at the forefront of it, so why aren't we shoving cannabis back in his face? That's where you can make moves with very little money. Bryan Fields: Let's talk about Donald Trump. He signed the executive order — I double-checked the date, December 17th, feels very long ago now — and we still haven't gotten any action. What's our current stance, what's going on, why hasn't it happened? Gretchen Gailey: A lot goes into a major policy change, and this would be one. I believe the president signed that executive order with every good intention. But you're opening a can of worms, and the number one player in that can of worms is the DEA, who hates us, and they're the ones working on the final rule with Attorney General Pam Bondi to make it happen. I can see them dragging their feet, not making it a top priority — and you can understand why when you've got the Epstein files, we've just started a war, every possible problem arising before they get to this. I don't think it's the president not caring. One thing Anthony Varrell and I from The Dales Report agree on — we never agree on anything — is that cannabis is popular but not important. We don't rise to the top of major issues that have to get done in this country. When you can't even get the DOJ to release the Epstein files they've been ordered to release months ago, you think they want to look good putting out a final ruling on cannabis? You've got Kristi Noem headlines left and right — there are just so many other issues taking precedent over dealing with us. Bryan Fields: So how do we make it more important? Gretchen Gailey: Hello, Project Champion — same thing. We have to be in their faces, we have to care, we have to be throwing this back at them: "Hey President Trump, you promised us this, where is it? Your bestie Howard Lutnick is probably jumping up and down wondering where it's at." They promised a Medicare plan for March 15th working with CBD — I really don't know how that's supposed to happen when they never came up with CBD regs to begin with. We need to be reaching out to Dr. Oz, who's in charge of Medicare, reaching out to the president, reaching out to Bondi. I have so many ideas on how to ram cannabis down people's throats — that's what I do every day in the media and on the Hill. There are various ways we need to be pushing our voices forward, and this industry just seems to sit back and say, "It'll happen, just wait, it's coming." Bryan Fields: But access is not influence — it's different, right? Gretchen Gailey: No, not at all. Are you kidding me? Plenty of people can get in the door and talk to these folks, and senior advisers will say, "It's happening tomorrow, it's coming," and then you leave the room, and great, they told you what you wanted to hear — "we got him out of here." I've been to the White House with my guys, meetings set up, they knew we were coming to talk about cannabis and rescheduling — this was last summer — and walking in the room, I felt like people were thinking, "Who invited this crowd? You want to talk about what?" It's not that hard to get into the room, and I think plenty of people want things to happen, but the major hurdle in this administration particularly is that it operates top-down. So much comes from President Trump and his orders and what he sees as the next priority. If he's not saying, "Pam, where's my memo, get on it, I want this today or you're fired," it's not happening — even though he drafted an executive order. These folks are so concerned about their employment that they won't jump until they're absolutely told to. I'm not making this up — everyone gives Kristi Noem grief for her $220 million ad campaign. There's no way she spent that without the president knowing. What got her in trouble is that it made him look bad — riding a horse in front of Mount Rushmore, cosplay, waving the flag — because she didn't stick to the main talking points. Washington does not operate at all anymore like it has for the past 200 years. Some folks would say that's a great thing, and I don't have a problem with it, but it makes things unpredictable, and we can't keep operating the way we always have. We need to be out there taking it to the administration. When they do Rolling Thunder — the huge motorcycle rally in Washington every Memorial Day, hundreds of thousands of vets rolling around all day — why are we not rolling out vets with cannabis and pushing that as an issue? We need to look at every opportunity possible. Next week is the Congressional Football Game — half of Washington's never heard of it, I know about it because my old boss used to play in it. It happens every other year, members of the House and Senate playing against Capitol Police, flag football, the NFL brings out coaches to help teach the teams, and it's always for charity — the Capitol Hill Police Fund and Boys and Girls Club. I said, I work with a bunch of football players — what if my guys showed up for two days straight talking to members on these teams? Everyone thinks it's so easy to do this. You do not get unfettered access to 20 members of Congress for two days unless you're paying a lot of money for a PAC trip and only getting three or four guys in front of you. You don't get that access unless you're Ricky Williams or Jim McMahon. Jason Wild from TerrAscend isn't getting down on the sideline with these members of Congress. Neither is Kim Rivers — maybe if she gave them a couple million. My guys get access, so I said, all right, we can do this — we were going to geofence the DOJ and the White House to push rescheduling campaigns, and try to get back into the White House to push on rescheduling too. The amount of money I was trying to raise for a week of lobbying here with these guys — twenty grand — and I got so much hemming and hawing from the industry. Why does this matter? If you can't see that being in front of 20 members of Congress — guys on House Judiciary, Appropriations, Veterans Affairs, Financial Services, Ag Committee, Energy and Commerce, every committee you could want — becoming their new best friends for two days to talk about pot isn't worth it, I don't know what to tell you. Bryan Fields: Was there any cost for them to attend, or was the twenty grand just for the geofencing and ads? Gretchen Gailey: The other cost is just getting him here. I love Ricky, but he lives in the middle of nowhere in Northern California — buying him a plane ticket last minute costs at least a thousand bucks. So yeah, basic expenses to have the guys here, plus the ads and things we're pushing. That was the basics. But when we're blowing $160 million in Florida, are we seriously arguing over 20 grand? Bryan Fields: But that $160 million was a very deliberate bet to try to flip a five- or six-billion-dollar market, right? Florida had the chance to be a juggernaut, and if it flipped, there was the opportunity for massive returns. It's hard to argue with that math. Gretchen Gailey: Are you kidding me? Do you know how poorly that money was spent? You couldn't even get 50% of the vote in Miami-Dade County — that is not an effective campaign. Bryan Fields: I'm not disputing the effectiveness, I'm saying the intention behind the spend — the upside — was what was attractive to a few major players, the ones who spent the money. Gretchen Gailey: Correct. I'm looking at the future of this industry — I'm not looking at the future of one business. Bryan Fields: That's fair. But I think sometimes people make that decision internally — "I'm one person, I could try to influence what's best for the industry, but what's most important right now is making sure my business survives and I alleviate the roadblocks I face currently." Whether that's the right long-term approach, we can agree to disagree. Gretchen Gailey: You don't think any of those challenges could be alleviated by working with Congress? Bryan Fields: Maybe. This administration is the first time we're going full-blown ahead just working with the administration — first time ever — and we've made some progress. Gretchen Gailey: Sustained change comes from Congress, from making real laws. The president had to write an executive order asking the AG to reschedule when Congress could have just done it. And you wouldn't have to do this at all. But we don't want to put any effort into talking to Congress — explain that to me. Bryan Fields: My pushback would be that I don't think Congress currently has the capacity to understand the nuances of the industry, and unfortunately those people need to be removed. I think your approach is better — that we need to be the ones holding the knife, stabbing them in the back, being the reason they're gone. How that works out, I'll leave to you. Gretchen Gailey: I'd love to take down a few politicians. I have no problem. Bryan Fields: Anyone in particular? Gretchen Gailey: Oh, yes, there's lots — where would I even begin? Ricketts, he sucks, though he says some great quotes — hard person not to think is a good quote machine. Tim Scott — not a bad guy, but doesn't want to talk about banking at all in the Senate, and I'm like, well, Chairman, you need to care about this. It just doesn't matter to him. I mentioned Eliza before — she was having difficulty getting her license in Jersey, over two years waiting for the state to approve it, and she was on her last leg, looking at selling her house. She was at the final step — basically a checklist — and asked, "Where's my paperwork so I can open my doors?" And they said it would take about 90 days. She's like, I'm out of business in a month. She'd spent over two years paying rent on a facility she could never open. So I said, Eliza, this is not Cory Booker's purview, but we're going to make it his problem. She came down to DC, we tracked down Cory Booker, got him in the hallway, stuck a camera in his face, and she explained who she was and how she was going to be in the poorhouse in three weeks because he wouldn't pass SAFE Banking. If she were in any other business, she'd have gotten a business loan — she's a prior business owner, owns her home, has a PhD, is a former vet, every bank's dream client for a business loan — but she can't get one because she's in cannabis. We had video of her and Booker discussing this. I'm not saying anything specific happened, but within two days she had that checklist signed off and her license to open her doors. It matters, and people don't get that, but that stuff matters, and these people don't want to look like they're not doing anything — we need to be in their faces showing them what has to get done. People give Cory Booker a lot of grief, me included, but I've also found him to be one of the most helpful lawmakers I've dealt with over the past 12 years — always willing to have the conversation, figure it out, get you to someone who'll make it happen. In 2019, I ran the first-ever cannabis viewing under the Capitol dome — I'd seen a documentary out in California, Weed the People, by Ricki Lake, about early medical refugees getting kids with cancer the medicine they needed in Colorado, way before anyone had legalized. I was bawling watching it, and I thought, Washington needs to see this. I asked Ricki if I could try to get it in front of lawmakers, and she said, knock yourself out. A year or so later I was working for KCSA in New York, and I told them about this promise I'd been trying to keep on my own, and they said, we'll get behind you. We found sponsors, had a whole day, brought in kids from the movie who'd survived years later, brought their families, had Senator Daschle speak and help make it happen. But two days before, I got a call from the Capitol architect's office — they run events and approvals in the Capitol complex — asking, "You're showing a movie about what?" I said, cannabis, kids with cancer. They said no. I said, this was already approved months ago. They said, not happening. I called Cory Booker: "What do I do?" He said, this is a Senate rules issue, let me call my friend on Senate Rules, Amy Klobuchar. Her office got involved, we were going back and forth with lawyers and Senate Rules trying to figure out how to get a movie shown in the Capitol about cannabis — this is 2019. Literally the night before, around midnight, I got the call that Speaker Pelosi had agreed to let us still show the movie. Thank God, because I had a hundred people sitting in DC hotel rooms waiting to show up on the Capitol's doorstep in about eight hours. It was ridiculous that we had to jump through those hoops the moment someone realized we wanted to talk about pot — these are the same people we're trying to get to regulate and educate us, and I couldn't show them a movie. They'd all seen Reefer Madness, but a movie about kids with cancer surviving because of this medication, with Harvard doctors saying it's working? I highly recommend Weed the People — makes me cry every time. Bryan Fields: We'll link it up on the show. That's a great way to end. So Gretchen, for our listeners who want to get in touch and learn more, where can they find you? Gretchen Gailey: They can find me everywhere. Project Champion is at projectchampion.org. If you want to look me up on social media, I'm very basic — everything is Gretchen Gailey, @GretchenGailey. I don't hide, so for all the haters coming for me, I'm easy to find. Bryan Fields: Thanks for taking the time, this was a lot of fun. Gretchen Gailey: Of course.