Objective: Washington State legislators have attempted to regulate high delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cannabis to reduce cannabis-related harms. Historically, industry actors of other health-compromising products have influenced governments' adoption of evidence-based regulation policies. A better understanding of the industry rhetoric can be used by public health advocates to develop counterarguments and disseminate alternative narratives that protect the public's health. We analyzed the arguments used by cannabis industry actors opposing regulations to de-incentivize the availability and use of high-THC products in Washington State.
Method: We analyzed 41 testimonies transcribed from 33 cannabis industry actors in 3 public bill hearings and one legislative work session that occurred between 2020 and 2023. Using a deductive thematic analysis, informed by industry actors' arguments opposing regulation of alcohol, tobacco, and high-sugar beverages, we developed a codebook to analyze and identify themes within cannabis industry rhetorical strategies.
Results: We identified three main rhetorical strategies used by cannabis industry actors to oppose THC content regulation: threaten, distract, discredit. The most frequently used rhetorical strategy was threats to economic benefits, public health, and the will of the people. The other two most apparent strategies were distracting from the bill's focus by introducing a tangential topic and discrediting the science that supported regulation of cannabis products with high THC concentration or its advocates.
Conclusions: Cannabis industry actors have leveraged several arguments used by industry actors of other health-compromising products to undermine initiatives to advance public health. They have also adapted rhetoric from other industries to the unique conditions of the cannabis regulatory landscape.