How U.S. Cannabis Legalization Will Shape Global Influence ft. Hirsh Jain

Listen Now

Hirsh Jain: If the United States is the leader there, then it will continue to retain what we call soft power in global affairs — where people do things not because we're pointing a missile at them, but because they recognize our moral authority. I think it's unfortunate that we are sometimes so shortsighted, so focused on the different crumbs of this pie, that we don't look at the bigger picture — what might this world look like a decade from now? Bryan Fields: What's up guys, welcome back to another episode of The Dime. I'm Bryan Fields, and with me as always is Kellen Finney. This week we've got a very special guest, Hirsh Jain, founder of Anunda Strategy. Hirsh, thanks for taking the time, how are you doing today? Hirsh Jain: I'm doing excellent, thank you so much Bryan and Kellen for having me today. Stoked to dive in. Bryan Fields: Kellen, how are you doing? Kellen Finney: I'm doing really well, really excited to talk to Hirsh. It's really cool to have him on the show — I've heard whispers of how intelligent and thoughtful he is in terms of driving strategy from a geopolitical standpoint within the industry, so I'm excited to pick his brain. It's awesome to have a fellow West Coaster back on the pod. How are you, Bryan? Bryan Fields: I think it's important to recognize — yes, Hirsh may live on the West Coast, but at the end of the day your roots come from where you go to school and where your heart lies. So Hirsh, a little East Coast/West Coast battle — where are you putting your loyalty? Hirsh Jain: My answer is the West Coast. I grew up in the Bay Area in California, listening to Bay Area West Coast rap in the 90s — Too Short, E-40, Mac Dre — so I'm from the West Coast. But I've lived in Boston and New York and love those cities too. I listen to your show a lot, and every time you ask this question I'm surprised nobody brings up the Biggie song 'Going Back to Cali,' where he says if he had to choose a coast he'd choose the East, but then explains the merits of the West Coast — this is a family-friendly show so I won't quote him directly. I'm kind of the inverse: if I had to choose a coast it's the West Coast, but I love the East Coast too. Bryan Fields: A perfectly impartial answer with a Biggie quote. So we've got a lot to talk about today — global economics, strategy, and then we'll get back to the United States. Before we get into that, can you give a little background on yourself and how you found your way into cannabis? Hirsh Jain: Totally. I'm from California, so cannabis has been a big part of my life for a long time — earlier than it should have been. I think that's true for a lot of us. I went to college at UC Berkeley, where I joined the campus public defenders' office as the cannabis lead, defending students accused of cannabis violations by the university. Back then, if you got caught with even a small amount of cannabis in California, your financial aid could be revoked and you could get kicked out of school. That gave me my first interest in the intersection of cannabis and criminal justice. After graduating from Berkeley, I moved to Boston for law school at Harvard, where I fell in love with the city. I designed a curriculum oriented around the War on Drugs, which was unusual at the time, and got to study under great race and criminal justice scholars like Charles Ogletree, a mentor to Barack Obama, and Lani Guinier, one of the great Black lawyers of her generation and the first Black woman tenured at Harvard Law School. After law school, before working in cannabis, I worked at McKinsey in New York for a few years, then decided I was a Californian and moved back to San Francisco. I got lucky and joined Airbnb during its hyper-growth phase, building out their policy team — negotiating major policy agreements around the world, including living in Japan to help pass Airbnb-related laws there. Watching the cannabis legalization movement, I had a hypothesis that the skills I used at Airbnb — understanding legal and regulatory dynamics in a heavily decentralized, locally-regulated new economy — would apply to cannabis. When Prop 64 passed in California in 2016, I knew I had to get into the space. I've been working in cannabis for seven years now with Anunda Strategy, helping brands, retailers, and investors navigate the complex regulatory environment. I also serve on the board of Cal NORML, which has passed patient rights legislation in California, and I'm vice chair of the Cannabis Chamber of Commerce. Bryan Fields: It's clear how your experience at Airbnb helped you see that there would be a path here, even without knowing exactly where it would go. So let's talk global landscape — does the U.S. recognize its ability to influence global cannabis policy, or does it not realize the opportunity it has to lead this industry? Hirsh Jain: I think we're not paying enough attention to how much ability we have to set the global agenda on drug policy. For the past century, the United States has set the agenda on drug policy — it was our embrace of the War on Drugs that stifled the cannabis plant across the world. My family is from India, and going back generations has a deep medicinal history with cannabis in the deserts of Rajasthan — but when my parents were born, the U.S. was exerting pressure globally and stamped out that tradition in India too. Now we have the opportunity to set the agenda for the better. Cannabis is an international phenomenon — Canada has it federally legal, Mexico is moving toward legalization, we see growth across Western Europe, and even in unexpected places like Thailand and Japan, which is historically very anti-cannabis but is now considering CBD. The U.S. has an opportunity to leverage its embrace of cannabis legalization in geopolitical affairs — not just to influence other countries to follow suit, but also in the broader struggle between democracies and autocracies, like Russia, China, and Iran, which will likely continue to exhibit hostility toward the cannabis plant. Embracing cannabis will make our citizens healthier — we already see alcohol and nicotine being replaced — and will let the U.S. more fully embrace its ideals around freedom, drawing a contrast with countries that won't embrace those ideals. I envision a world where the U.S. is allied with other democracies, like India, partly through embracing plant medicine, which will figure prominently in a 21st-century global health framework. Kellen Finney: Embracing legalization federally is easy to say, but we have to untangle massive international narcotics treaties intertwined with Europe and other countries. Should resources be focused domestically — pushing toward Schedule III and cleaning up our own house — before untangling these treaties, or should it happen step by step, together? Hirsh Jain: Both things you mentioned matter. International treaties make it difficult to unwind the drug war, that's true. But think about Schedule III — there's been a lot of criticism of its limitations, and I share some of those criticisms, but the U.S. has the most respected public health authority in the world. When U.S. public health authorities suggest cannabis has medicinal value, the rest of the world begins to listen. Codifying the science behind cannabis's medicinal applications has the potential to influence the rest of the world. A lot of what's happening internationally is downstream of the state-by-state legalization effort here — I don't think Germany would have moved recently if it weren't preceded by a decade of U.S. legalization and normalization. So yes, it's both — we need a wider lens. We can keep fighting each other over pieces of the pie domestically, or we can think about how we influence what the world looks like a decade from now. Bryan Fields: So in simple terms — it seems cannabis is a state-led story, and to push global policy we'd need federal oversight. Do we need federal legalization domestically before we can influence global policy, or can it remain state-led with state representatives influencing global policy? Hirsh Jain: State-led stories translate into federal stories. Think about gay marriage — state after state legalized it starting in the mid-2000s, met with federal intransigence, until around the 32nd state legalized it and the Supreme Court finally intervened and made it the law of the land. Federal action is needed, but it's downstream of state action — that's why it's exciting we're at 24 states today and could be at 27 soon, which makes federal action more likely. Second, it doesn't need to be prescriptive so much as symbolic — people around the world follow U.S. culture and values. If the U.S. can incorporate a functioning cannabis system into its consumer and health insurance systems, and that leads to measurable declines in health spending and opioid overdoses, the transition worldwide will happen naturally as citizens demand the same of their own countries. Kellen Finney: Do you think our cultural influence globally will outweigh the foundational infrastructure Canada is laying with export/import treaties with Europe, similar to how the U.S. dominates iPhone/tech culture adoption even without making all of it? Hirsh Jain: I think that's right. Canada has gotten a head start and is most engaged internationally, particularly with Western Europe — that should be a wake-up call for the U.S. not to get lapped. We want to be the ones leading this revolution, because it's coming. That said, the U.S. has so much greater economic might than Canada, and Canada's trade is so dependent on the U.S., that ultimately I see the U.S. being the dominant international player — but none of this is given. In California, many assumed this ecosystem would just develop on its own without thoughtful public policy, and we haven't reached our full potential. The same could happen nationally unless we think intelligently about building a coherent system. Bryan Fields: That's the part that worries me most — politicians making outrageous statements even though 70% of Americans favor legalization, and it seems the 30% who don't are the ones in charge. What group will lead the geopolitical influence from cannabis — an existing group, or does a new one need to form? Hirsh Jain: There will always be politicians spouting reefer madness, but progress at the state level dramatically changes attitudes, just like histrionic claims about gay marriage became unacceptable a few years later. Demographically, it's young people driving this change — I see 24-year-old Republicans running for the Pennsylvania state legislature on legalization platforms. Those are the people who will replace current officeholders and drive change. Bryan Fields: Is there a current group in Washington that would take on that influence role, or is this a new position a future president would create — like a 'plant medicine czar'? Hirsh Jain: This isn't on anyone's radar right now — but it's the vision I believe in. Bryan Fields: It's a sick title, by the way — is it the 'czar' part you like? Hirsh Jain: Honestly, it is. Kamala or Donald, I'm available — let me know. Bryan Fields: What is soft power, again, just quickly? Hirsh Jain: It's basically a way of influencing other nations that doesn't involve threats or military force. Hard power refers to military might; soft power refers to ideals and virtues that get other people to come along. The U.S., for all its faults, has historically done a good job coalescing other nations around shared ideals. Bryan Fields: Is there any fear that the pharmaceutical, tobacco, or alcohol industries don't want cannabis to become this economic force that brings countries together? Hirsh Jain: That's been debated — some pinpoint pharma and tobacco behind every political misstep in cannabis, claiming secret machinations; others, like Jason Wild of TerrAscend, who used to work in pharma, dismiss that as fanciful, since cannabis is a small part of the bottom line. It's hard for me to say how real the threat is, but cannabis is clearly substituting for alcohol, nicotine, and pharmaceuticals, changing American habits and likely impacting those industries' economics. Kellen Finney: There's a positive turn to that too though — think of a country like Japan, extremely strict on cannabis. Cultural stigma change isn't a light switch, and companies like GW Pharmaceuticals with epilepsy/CBD treatments have done a lot to shift cultural stigma. Could there be a positive argument for a company like Pfizer entering with brand loyalty and trust in that space? Hirsh Jain: I agree entirely. You have to meet people where they are — whether that's a pharmaceutical product designed to mitigate alcohol addiction, or a beverage product that's not the traditional way to consume cannabis. I know these industries — tobacco, pharma, alcohol — get a bad rap for good reason, since their products have killed a lot of people. But I find it curious that people see it as inherently evil for these entities to engage with cannabis. If an alcohol company sees people drinking less and decides to sell hemp beverages, is that necessarily evil? I understand these industries have done harmful things, but the notion that only a 'pure' group should have access to cannabis and outsiders should be kept out always strikes me as a bit odd — and interestingly, both people like Sam [presumably a critic] and folks on the far left of cannabis make similar arguments about big tobacco using cannabis as a smokescreen. Bryan Fields: I love the idea of the U.S. being the global leader in pushing legalization. What would be the first step if you were in charge — approaching countries to gauge their appetite, or something different? Hirsh Jain: A lot of this is leading by example. With the War on Drugs, we coerced other nations — 'we hate this plant because of our own racial politics, so you better hate it too.' I don't see us doing the reverse through coercion. Instead, we admit we were wrong — the federal government already admitted it lied about cannabis for 50 years — and use our scientific institutions to build global consensus around cannabis's medical utility, then make room for it commercially, as a deeply capitalist society. This isn't distant — if Florida legalizes, millions of visitors from South America and other countries will be able to buy cannabis legally there, which helps dispel myths. It's leading by example, not government officials talking to each other. Bryan Fields: Couldn't an easy start be agreements with Mexico and Canada? Hirsh Jain: That's a very practical answer. The U.S., Canada, and Mexico are probably the most advanced continent on cannabis. Looking south, countries in South America have ideal cultivation climates — it's not hard to imagine the Western Hemisphere embracing cannabis. Kellen Finney: I was going to say, like Colombia — we had breeder Steve on and he was running a giant living library down there, so there's a lot of activity happening. What existing regulatory/trade infrastructure — tariffs, terminology for crude oil grades, etc. — would need to be built after legalization to enable trade? Hirsh Jain: We're probably years away from meaningful commerce between the U.S. and other countries. We can't even figure out interstate commerce domestically, so international trade will be harder in the near term, and tariffs can become politically charged. I'm probably not informed enough to say exactly what those trade agreements might look like, but that's the direction we're heading. Bryan Fields: Those would be cool agreements to negotiate though. Hirsh Jain: Yeah, totally. Bryan Fields: Let's talk about the United States — there's still a lot of progress to go, with some deep red states on the ballot. Can you give our listeners a breakdown of what's coming? Hirsh Jain: We have 24 adult-use states today, with up to five ballot initiatives this November — three adult-use and two medical. We could go from 24 to 27. The three adult-use measures are Florida, South Dakota, and North Dakota. I'm optimistic all three will pass — North Dakota will be close but pass, South Dakota should pass by a healthy margin, and Florida, despite needing a 60% threshold, I still think will pass. Six years ago, in October 2018, there were only eight adult-use states — we've tripled that to 24, showing how the pace of change is accelerating. There are also two other measures, in Nebraska and Arkansas, complicated by allegations of fraudulent signature collection that could invalidate results even if they pass — I think those claims are largely groundless. Just as 32-33 states legalizing gay marriage led the federal government to step in, every state matters here too. Missouri, Ohio, and Florida have been the principal players in this red-state wave — all deeply conservative, well-sized states bordering multiple prohibition states. Florida is the culmination of that wave, given its accessibility to the entire Deep South. Kellen Finney: It's understated how important that shift in the Deep South is, given how dangerous it's historically been to drive across those states with cannabis. Can you speak to the cultural impact if Florida goes? Hirsh Jain: It'll be huge. Florida is a state of 23 million people, like California, full of all kinds of people, not just Miami and South Florida. The Florida Panhandle is one of the most conservative regions in the country, historically not electing a Republican for nearly a century after the Civil War, and it borders Georgia and Alabama, with Pensacola about 90 minutes from Louisiana. These border regions are culturally identical to each other. When bordering states open up, we first see a law enforcement conversation — officers realizing arresting people for legally purchased cannabis doesn't make sense — then a tax conversation as politicians see lost revenue, and finally citizens themselves become more comfortable, as we've seen in Kansas following Missouri's legalization. Kellen Finney: It's crazy we have five measures on the ballot — even if some don't pass, it's still massive progress in a short amount of time. Hirsh Jain: Exactly — six years is a very short time in this context. Florida is probably the state most people would point to given its unique place in right-wing consciousness, its population, and its industry potential. But looking to next year, I'm watching Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Indiana. Pennsylvania — we've talked about legalization there for a long time and I think next year's the year. Indiana is fascinating because Mike Braun, the current senator likely to become governor, has taken a remarkably pro-cannabis position for such a conservative figure, showing how the GOP is shifting. Indiana is surrounded by legal states — Ohio, Illinois, Michigan — with most residents 45 minutes or less from a dispensary. Wisconsin is interesting because it's historically the most gerrymandered state in the country, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently ruled the maps illegal, requiring fair redistricting — which could let Democrats take the legislature, similar to how Minnesota legalized after Democrats gained control there. Bryan Fields: How do you stay clued in on all these state-level policies, given how complex and fast-moving they are? Hirsh Jain: It's a combination of passion, interest, and aptitude. At Airbnb, I had to understand how thousands of cities worldwide approached similar issues differently — from Shanghai to Mumbai to Japan, where inviting a stranger into your home was culturally unusual. I find cannabis one of the most fascinating movements of my lifetime, so I read as much as I can — you could spend eight to ten hours a day reading about policy and market developments worldwide. If you're not interested, it's hell; if you care about cannabis, it's exciting, and you start to see patterns emerge across geographies. Bryan Fields: Does the hemp versus cannabis distinction throw a wrench into any of these plans? Hirsh Jain: That's a fascinating topic. On one hand, the proliferation of intoxicating hemp products, like in Texas, makes cannabis prohibition seem nonsensical. On the other, some hemp products aren't properly regulated, and the American character is a bit schizophrenic — we move toward criminal justice reform, then see a crime spike and swing back. There's still latent stigma against cannabis waiting to express itself, and it would only take an incident akin to the vape crisis to trigger backlash. My friend Jordan Wellington describes this as shifting the Overton window — building comfort that cannabis legalization won't negatively impact people and their families. Unregulated hemp products risk moving us backward. Also, the hemp industry has taught the cannabis industry that restrictive sales channels alone won't drive the adoption we want — not everyone wants to smoke, and dispensaries can feel stressful for newcomers. We need to meet people where they are, in familiar formats like low-dose beverages, which I believe can expand the total addressable market and build broader comfort with cannabis. Kellen Finney: From a prediction standpoint — hemp-derived products essentially deliver Delta-9 in accessible, non-stigmatized formats, driving positive cultural adoption. But the manufacturing processes converting CBD to these molecules could have contaminants or oversight issues, risking a public health crisis similar to vape gate. In five years, do you think this gets sorted out, or does a health crisis force a reckoning? Hirsh Jain: The legal distinction between hemp and marijuana, drawn at 0.3% THC (possibly rising to 1%, with different thresholds in Europe), doesn't really make sense and is on borrowed time — I envision a unified regulatory framework treating the plant the same. On manufacturing byproducts, that's where it gets tougher for me — I'm not a chemist, and I find myself reading competing claims about whether synthetic processes are harmful. This is why we need a functioning public health authority in this country, since many current public health leaders continue to recycle disproven claims about cannabis, like 'cannabis use disorder,' which by similar criteria could apply to 80% of the country's caffeine drinkers. Kellen Finney: That question came from a friend who sees the cannabis industry at a turning point similar to big tobacco, which added harmful additives that contributed to its eventual reputational demise — are there regulatory frameworks that could prevent a similar outcome for cannabis? Hirsh Jain: I agree with the premise — when you fall out of public favor, you get further restricted, so it's incumbent on the industry to put guardrails around these things. I didn't know until recently that tobacco itself wasn't inherently evil — it was the manufacturing process that made it more problematic — which lends credence to avoiding the same mistake with cannabis products. Bryan Fields: Whose responsibility is it to incorporate a public health narrative about the positive aspects of cannabis? Hirsh Jain: It's all of ours, as a community, to make the empirical case that cannabis substitutes for deadly toxins we already sell without issue — much of our food and pills are effectively poison, so it's disingenuous for public health officials to fixate on cannabis. Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML, writes thoughtful rebuttals within days whenever a dubious scientific claim about cannabis surfaces. For example, Leana Wen, former Baltimore health commissioner and professor at George Washington University, recently wrote in the Washington Post that cannabis use could increase heart attack risk by 40% — an essentially false claim that people like Armentano, Peter Grinspoon, or Dr. Kaplan typically rebut. We rely on public health officials to give us neutral, truthful advice; when a government lies about one thing, people start suspecting it's lying about other things too, which erodes trust for future public health crises. Bryan Fields: Amen — that's happening way too much these days. Slightly switching gears — dream smoking session, three people, dead or alive? Hirsh Jain: Louis Armstrong, Barack Obama, and Bayard Rustin. Rustin was probably the most important American activist of the 20th century — deputy director of the 1963 March on Washington, and a mentor to Dr. King who introduced him to Gandhian concepts of nonviolence. Having traveled to India, met Gandhi, and adopted his philosophy before mentoring Dr. King, Rustin's credos of nonviolence were essential to how the Civil Rights Movement played out. Bryan Fields: Tell me something that is true that nobody agrees with you on. Hirsh Jain: We have a responsibility to be very tough on regulators in cannabis. It's the obligation of American citizens to hold public officials accountable, and because the industry is so insular, there's sometimes a reluctance to do that — approaching regulators like a teacher's pet in hopes of a future favor is a misguided approach. Bryan Fields: What question do you wish more people asked you? Hirsh Jain: How did you figure out what you wanted to do with your life — but we already covered that. Bryan Fields: Prediction time, Hirsh — could the U.S. leverage cannabis legalization to build strategic alliances internationally, and if so, which countries would you target? Hirsh Jain: Yes — I'd use it to fortify alliances across Western Europe and their public health authorities, across the Western Hemisphere and parts of South America, and most crucially with India, the world's other largest democracy, as a bulwark against authoritarian countries, given the significant cultural cross-pollination between our countries. Kellen Finney: I agree — India and Western Europe are critical, and I'd add Africa. There's a lot happening in countries like South Africa and Nigeria, with real political headway possible amid the broader battle between democracy and the technocratic autocracy China is trying to brand itself as. Bryan Fields: The obvious answer is yes, and I'd start with Mexico and Canada — our neighbors, with existing massive trade agreements, offering an easy, low-hanging-fruit opportunity to test strategies before rolling them out to other countries. Bryan Fields: Hirsh, for our listeners who want to get in touch and learn more, where can they find you? Hirsh Jain: You can find me on Twitter and Instagram under the handle Anunda Strategy — A-N-U-N-D-A Strategy — or on my website, anundastrategy.com, where you can find my email. Bryan Fields: Awesome, we'll leave it all in the show notes. Thanks for taking the time, this was a lot of fun. Hirsh Jain: This was great, guys, thank you so much.