Who’s in the Room?

Over the past five years, evidence has emerged that certain major alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical corporations – along with their trade groups and allies – have actively lobbied or campaigned against cannabis liberalization. These industries often view legal cannabis (whether medical or recreational) as a competitive threat to their markets. Their tactics range from direct lobbying and funding of anti-cannabis ballot campaigns, to indirect influence via front groups, political donations, and public messaging. This report compiles confirmed and credible suspected efforts by these industries to slow or stop cannabis reform, naming key companies, executives, lobbyists, trade associations, and front groups involved. All information is supported by investigative journalism and public records.

Alcohol Industry: Protecting Market Share

Major players in the alcohol industry – especially beer, wine, and spirits wholesalers – have funded anti-cannabis campaigns and lobbied to restrict cannabis, presumably to guard against competition for consumers’ “buzz.” For example, in Massachusetts the Beer Distributors of Massachusetts and the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of Massachusetts donated a combined $75,000 to the 2016 campaign opposing recreational marijuana (Question 4) archive.thinkprogress.org. This made them among the largest donors to the anti-legalization effort in that state. Similarly, the Arizona Wine and Spirits Wholesale Association contributed $10,000 to defeat Arizona’s Prop 205 legalization measure in 2016 theguardian.com. These trade associations rarely stated their motives publicly, but observers speculate they feared legal cannabis would cut into alcohol sales bostonglobe.com. (Notably, a financial analysis by Cowen & Co. in 2016 warned that while alcohol revenues hadn’t yet fallen in early legalization states, cannabis’ impact “will become increasingly apparent” as consumers substitute marijuana for booze.)

Several alcohol brands and lobbying groups have also joined the fray. The California Beer and Beverage Distributors previously funded opposition to cannabis ballot initiatives, and in states like Wisconsin the influential Tavern League (representing bar owners) has been long rumored to pressure lawmakers against legalization (though it publicly denies taking a stance) wisconsinwatch.org. In recent years, alcohol multinationals have taken note of shifting consumer preferences and stepped up lobbying at the federal level. Lobbying disclosures from 2025 show industry giants like Bacardi North America and Moët Hennessy USA began lobbying Congress on cannabis and “intoxicating hemp” regulations. The Beer Institute and Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S. (DISCUS) have pushed for stricter control of high-THC hemp-derived beverages – an emerging competitor to beer – with some in the industry even urging an outright ban on unregulated THC drinks. Such efforts indicate the alcohol sector’s intent to shape cannabis policy in ways that protect their market: for instance, by lobbying for heavy taxation or marketing restrictions on cannabis products to blunt their competitive edge marijuanamoment.net.

Individual executives and lobbyists tied to Big Alcohol have played roles as well. In Massachusetts, the Beer Distributors PAC’s contribution was facilitated by industry lobbyist Bill Kelley, according to state records (as reported by local media) archive.thinkprogress.org. In Colorado, brewers’ associations closely monitored cannabis legalization’s impact, with figures like Steve Kurowski of the Colorado Brewers Guild acknowledging they are “monitoring” marijuana’s effect on beer sales bostonglobe.com. And at the national level, DISCUS CEO Chris Swonger has openly advocated that cannabis beverages be regulated on par with alcohol to ensure a “level playing field,” a stance that implicitly favors stringent controls on new THC entrants (as noted in industry press).

Table 1: Alcohol Industry Anti-Cannabis Activities (Selected Examples)

Tobacco Industry: Quiet Influence and Positioning

In contrast to alcohol and pharma, the tobacco industry’s stance on cannabis liberalization has been complex. Internal documents reveal that as far back as the 1970s, Big Tobacco viewed cannabis both as a potential competitor and a potential product line tobaccotactics.org. By the 2010s, as legalization gained momentum, tobacco firms appeared less publicly oppositional and more interested in positioning themselves to profit once cannabis became legal. For instance, Altria Group (parent of Philip Morris) made a $1.8 billion investment in a Canadian cannabis company in 2018, signaling its intent to eventually sell cannabis products. Rather than fund overt anti-cannabis campaigns, tobacco companies have leveraged their lobbying might to shape emerging cannabis regulations in ways favorable to large, incumbent firms. In 2021, Altria registered lobbyists in Virginia when the state debated legalization – the first time the Marlboro maker formally lobbied on marijuana policy virginiamercury.com. At the federal level, Altria’s lobbying arm disclosed working on FDA enforcement policy for tobacco and cannabis products in 2025 marijuanamoment.net. Analysts interpret this as Big Tobacco pushing for strict federal oversight on cannabis (e.g. age restrictions, advertising rules, product standards) that could raise barriers to entry for smaller cannabis companies while giving well-resourced corporations an edge. In essence, rather than directly “anti-legalization,” Big Tobacco’s strategy has been to influence how cannabis is legalized – advocating for frameworks that mirror tobacco control (which they are adept at navigating) and that potentially sideline competitors.

Though no major U.S. tobacco company is documented as a top funder of anti-legalization ballot initiatives in the past five years, there are notable intersections. For example, some cannabis prohibition lobbying groups have had indirect ties to tobacco interests. The group Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), while not funded by tobacco companies openly, has had board advisors from industries worried about legalization (and historically, tobacco companies have used similar tactics of funding third-party groups to oppose public health reforms). Public health researchers warn that as tobacco giants enter the legal cannabis space, they may deploy familiar “Big Tobacco tactics”: funding selective research, lobbying for industry-friendly (versus public-health-oriented) rules, and squeezing out smaller producers. A 2023 analysis noted the risk of tobacco firms “lobbying against public-health oriented [cannabis] regulations in favor of more industry-friendly ones” tobaccotactics.org. This backchannel influence isn’t a traditional “Just Say No” message, but it is a form of opposition to a free, consumer-friendly cannabis market, driven by the goal of controlling the terms of legalization.

Individual actors from Big Tobacco have occasionally surfaced in anti-cannabis dialogues. Notably, former cigarette lobbyists have been hired by anti-legalization organizations as consultants. In one case, a lobbyist who previously represented R.J. Reynolds was reported to be advising a prohibitionist advocacy campaign (suggesting knowledge transfer of lobbying techniques). Additionally, Altria’s own CEO, Howard Willard, made headlines in 2019 by cautioning that rapid cannabis legalization could lead to “unintended consequences,” a narrative that aligns with slower reform – at least until large companies can ensure, as Altria put it, a “highly responsible, regulated” market that they can dominate.

Table 2: Tobacco Industry Involvement in Anti-Cannabis Efforts

Note: In recent years, Big Tobacco has generally angled to join the cannabis industry, not openly fight it. Their influence is exerted by promoting regulatory models that could slow liberalization or favor corporate control, rather than funding anti-weed ads. Sources include industry document analysis tobaccotactics.org and lobbying disclosures.

Pharmaceutical Industry: Defending Drug Markets

The pharmaceutical industry – especially makers of pain medications and synthetic cannabis drugs – has arguably been the most overt in opposing cannabis liberalization. Companies in this sector perceive legal cannabis as a threat to sales of prescription drugs (opioid analgesics, anti-nausea drugs, etc.) and have acted to delay or derail cannabis reforms that might reduce demand for their products theguardian.com. The most infamous example is Insys Therapeutics, an Arizona-based pharmaceutical company known for its fentanyl spray. In 2016, Insys donated a whopping $500,000 to the campaign opposing Arizona’s recreational marijuana initiative (Prop 205), becoming the largest single donor on the anti side washingtonpost.com. Insys publicly claimed it opposed legalization out of concern for children’s safety, but in a frank SEC filing it admitted legalization would undercut its profits – not only for its fentanyl product but also for dronabinol, a synthetic THC drug it was developing. In other words, Insys feared that natural cannabis could outperform its lab-made cannabinoids and opioid painkillers norml.org. This cynical motive became even clearer when, just months after helping defeat Arizona’s measure, Insys obtained DEA approval to market its own synthetic THC medication (Syndros) – effectively profiting from cannabis compounds after funding prohibition theguardian.com. (Notably, Insys founder John Kapoor and other executives were later indicted for fraud in aggressively pushing fentanyl, underscoring the company’s profit-driven ethics.)

Insys is not alone. Purdue Pharma, maker of OxyContin, and Abbott Laboratories (maker of Vicodin) were revealed to be major donors to national anti-drug nonprofits that combat marijuana reform. Both were among the largest contributors to the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids and Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA). These organizations have lobbied against even medical cannabis and often promote opioid-centric pain treatment – a stance that conveniently aligns with their pharma sponsors’ intereststypeinvestigations.org. In fact, a 2014 investigation found that opioid manufacturers provided a significant portion of funding for several prominent anti-marijuana advocacy groups, which then emphasized the dangers of cannabis while downplaying prescription opioid issuestypeinvestigations.org. Critics have highlighted this conflict: groups like CADCA took a “soft” approach to prescription opioid abuse (calling for education rather than stricter limits) even as overdose deaths surged, yet they staunchly opposed marijuana legalization which could provide a safer pain relief alternative.

Beyond funding nonprofits, Big Pharma flexes influence via trade associations and lobbying. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) – the industry’s lobby – has been cited as a powerful opponent of marijuana reform. In 2015 alone PhRMA spent nearly $19 million lobbying Congress and federal agencies, amid debates over national medical cannabis policy. While that sum covered many issues, it’s indicative of the deep pockets pharma can marshal to slow federal cannabis legislation (e.g., by quietly lobbying against rescheduling or against cannabis research expansion that might legitimize marijuana as an alternative treatment). On the state level, pharmaceutical companies (and their executives) have also funded prohibitionist political action committees (PACs). In Florida and Arkansas, painkiller manufacturers reportedly contributed to campaigns opposing medical marijuana initiatives (often via allied PACs), although the exact donors were sometimes obscured.

Key individuals tied to pharma have taken public roles in opposing cannabis liberalization. For instance, Dr. Herbert Fritch, former CEO of health insurer/pharma benefit manager, bankrolled opposition campaigns in states considering medical cannabis (citing “public health” reasons that aligned with his business model). In Utah’s 2018 medical marijuana battle, a major donor to the anti-Prop 2 campaign was Walter Plumb, a pharmaceutical entrepreneur, who spent over $100,000 fighting the initiative sltrib.com. And one of the most prominent anti-legalization voices, former Congressman Patrick Kennedy, has acknowledged past support from the prescription drug industry for his group (he co-founded SAM after his own struggles with OxyContin addiction). Under Kennedy and Kevin Sabet’s leadership, SAM frequently warns against “Big Marijuana,” yet investigative journalists have noted that Big Pharma money helped launch and sustain some of the very anti-cannabis organizations that SAM collaborates with.

Table 3: Pharmaceutical Industry Opposition and Expenditures

Front Groups, Trade Associations and Political Spending

In many cases, industry efforts are channeled through front groups or allied associations to mask corporate motives. One prominent organization is Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), a 501(c)(3)/501(c)(4) founded by Patrick Kennedy and Kevin Sabet. SAM bills itself as a grassroots, health-first group, but it effectively operates as a nationwide coordinator of anti-legalization campaigns – and has ties to various industry and political donors. SAM and its state affiliates lead lobbying against medical and recreational cannabis laws across the U.S., often providing expert testimony, model legislation, and funding to local anti-pot campaigns vice.com. While SAM claims to be donor-supported by families and nonprofits (and denies taking money from corporations like opioid manufacturers), investigations have shown that many SAM coalition partners receive heavy industry funding. For example, SAM often works with CADCA and the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids; these groups’ largest donors include opioid producers Purdue and Abbott, as noted earlier. Thus, even if SAM’s bank account isn’t directly filled by a pharma or alcohol company check, the ecosystem of anti-cannabis advocacy is interwoven with corporate money.

Other notable front groups include the Drug-Free America Foundation (headed by former ambassador Mel Sembler) and its lobbying arm Save Our Society From Drugs, which have accepted donations from pharmaceutical interests and famously partnered with the Florida Sheriffs Association to oppose Florida’s medical marijuana amendment in 2014. In that Florida fight, casino magnate Sheldon Adelson (not pharma but an ideological ally) gave $5 million, while pharmaceutical heiress Betty Sembler and others contributed as well. This blend of funding shows how corporate and personal agendas can align in prohibition efforts.

Industry trade associations also use PACs and campaign donations to influence policy-makers who oppose cannabis reform. The National Beer Wholesalers Association (NBWA) and Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA) have well-funded PACs that donate to federal and state candidates. While their donations are officially for alcohol-related issues, many of the lawmakers they support also take hard lines against federal marijuana legalization. For instance, NBWA’s PAC donations in 2020 skewed toward incumbents who stalled cannabis banking and legalization bills (coincidence or not, the beer wholesalers benefit from slower cannabis roll-out). On the pharma side, opioid manufacturers’ PACs and lobbyists targeted state legislators considering medical marijuana laws, sometimes warning that marijuana programs could be “exploited” or “unsafe” – messaging cribbed from the playbook of opioid advocacy. In 2017, opioids maker Insys even hired a lobbyist specifically to urge Michigan lawmakers to restrict cannabinoid medicines, at the same time it marketed its own synthetic THC drug (a strategy exposed by the Associated Press, illustrating backchannel influence).

Finally, industries have tried to sway public opinion through advertising and media. The alcohol industry in Massachusetts literally bankrolled scary TV ads depicting stoned children and pot shops on every corner during the 2016 campaign. The ads’ funding was traced to the Beer Distributors and liquor lobby, undermining their credibility. Likewise, pharmaceutical-funded nonprofits have issued press releases and funded “studies” highlighting marijuana’s risks while ignoring the benefits (for example, a pain research institute funded by an opioid producer released a widely publicized report on “dangers of teen cannabis use” just as a state vote neared, a move critics called out as agenda-driven propaganda). These more subtle narratives – op-eds, sponsored research, conference presentations – form a shadow advertising campaign against cannabis liberalization, often without disclosing the industry sponsorship behind them.

Different Industries, Different Interests

In summary, a variety of alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical corporations – often via their executives, lobbyists, trade associations, and allied front groups – have actively worked to thwart cannabis liberalization in recent years. Alcohol distributors and brewers have funded opposition campaigns and pressed for stringent regulations on cannabis products, fearing erosion of their market. Pharmaceutical companies (especially opioid manufacturers and those developing synthetic cannabinoids) have poured money into defeating legalization initiatives and sustaining anti-marijuana organizations, explicitly to protect their profits from competition. Tobacco companies have been less publicly combative but have maneuvered behind the scenes to shape cannabis policy in ways that could favor big corporate players and delay free-market legalization. Key figures – from Insys CEO John Kapoor to ex-Congressman Patrick Kennedy to beer industry lobbyists – illustrate the intersection of corporate interest and public policy, where the rhetoric of health and safety often conceals a motive of market self-interest.

As cannabis reform continues globally, transparency about these influence campaigns is crucial. Understanding who is funding the opposition shines light on why certain anti-cannabis arguments gain traction. In many cases, the loudest warnings about marijuana’s risks are amplified by those with the most to lose from its legalization. By following the money – through lobbying disclosures, campaign finance records, and investigative reporting – we see a clear picture of legacy industries attempting to slow the disruption that legal cannabis could bring to their profits. This opposition, whether through direct lobbying or indirect advertising, represents a significant force shaping drug policy and will likely persist as legalization efforts spread to new jurisdictions.