top of page

Video

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) might have helped lead the push to legalize marijuana in the state—but that advocacy didn’t exactly come from a place of extensive personal experience. In fact, beside a “complicated” trip to the Grand Canyon involving cannabis, Newsom’s THC teetotaling was so “rigid” in his youth that even his father poked fun at him.

During an interview with Politico, and in a recent memoir he’s been promoting, the governor recognized that he became a somewhat unlikely champion of marijuana reform given his nearly lifelong abstinence. But when he considered the harms and waste of the drug war, he decided to make it part of his political legacy to advance the issue, in part by backing California’s Proposition 64 in 2016 to enact adult-use legalization.

“During my last term as lieutenant governor, it occurred to me that if I wanted to shape matters beyond the reach of my office, I needed only to grab the levers of California’s initiative process,” he wrote in his new book, Young Man In A Hurry. That included supporting Proposition 63 to place restrictions on large-capacity gun magazine clips and require background checks to buy ammunition, as well as Proposition 64 to end marijuana prohibition.

“Californians who had no idea what I did for a living were now referring to me as the ‘guns and weed dude,'” Newsom, who was one of the first high-profile politicians to endorse legalization even years before voters chose to enact the reform, wrote.

With an expansive email list that became “one of the largest political databases in the country,” the then-lieutenant governor recruited experts to help draft a white paper “making the case for legalizing cannabis” and then convened a blue-ribbon committee “to help raise funds and gather signatures.”

“Our messaging for both propositions appealed to common sense,” he said. “California already had been the first state to legalize the medicinal use of cannabis two decades earlier. Why not take it one step further?”

“Tens of thousands of Californians, the great majority Black and brown, were arrested each year for nonviolent marijuana felonies,” he said. “We were wasting the resources of cops and judges and taking up space in jails and prisons for cannabis, not to mention pulling families apart and worsening racial inequality.”

But as far as his own personal experience with marijuana is concerned, Newsom told Politico that the only time he partook in cannabis was a “complicated story” that occurred during a visit to the Grand Canyon. He was vague on the specifics of the expedition, then pivoted to his role in advancing Proposition 64.

“By the way, I legalized it in California. That was my initiative,” he said.”It was the great irony. I was the worst spokesperson. I remember—I’m sort of smiling now reflecting on that.”

Except that one toke down at the grand canyon…. https://t.co/6KkXSfcAJZ

— Jonathan Martin (@jmart) March 25, 2026


The governor also wrote in his book about another marijuana-adjacent story that happened when he was in Madrid at 19 years old. A straight-edge Newsom said he was watching Pink Floyd’s The Wall in a private movie room one night when “someone next to me rolled half a dozen joints and generously passed them around.”

“I had gotten through my first nineteen years without ingesting a mind-altering drug—so rigid that even my father poked fun at me—and I wasn’t going to start then,” he said. “I used the excuse of not caring much for the movie to head back to my room at the Ritz Hotel. This was our Madrid trip in a nutshell.”

Newsom’s father was evidently a bit more open to experimenting with drugs, at least in a clinical setting. The book describes how, in the late 1950s, the late William Newsom was financially struggling and took advantage of an opportunity to Palo Alto Mental Health Facility where they were paying $200 per day “for any brave soul willing to submit to experiments that Dr. Russel Lee was conducting with the drug LSD, which was barely known and still quite legal.”

“My father accepted the offer to spend two days under the influence of the psychedelic, during which time he was prompted by the doctors to recite the poems of Gerard Manley Hopkins and other ‘tactile’ verse and to document any relevant insights from the drug on a tape recorder,” Newsom wrote. “It was not long thereafter that my father divined a fork in the road: a career teaching literature to college students or a career practicing the law. Out of no special ardor, he picked the latter.”

In his book and in the Politico interview the governor also discussed an incident in which he came home to discover his foster brother and some friends smoking cannabis out of a pipe from an indigenous tribe that his uncle gave to him as a gift.

“This was the nearest thing I had to a sacred possession. It was hand carved out of fine wood, inlaid with granite, and decorated with eagle feathers, beads, and bear fur,” he wrote. “Suli had grabbed it off the fireplace mantle, where I had it on display.”

“What the hell are you doing?” Newsom asked his foster brother, who responded, “We’re smoking dope, man. Getting high.”

“I snatched the pipe out of his hands and ran into the bathroom,” the governor wrote. “I tried cleaning the resin from the bowl, but the stain already had become part of the wood. I must have washed and scrubbed the pipe twenty times before I judged it clean enough to return to the mantle.”


Newsom, the term-limited governor who is widely believed to be planning a run as a 2028 Democratic presidential candidate, has continued to defend the state’s marijuana law—and he recently leaned into the issue after President Donald Trump mistakenly called him “president of the United States” during Oval Office remarks in which the incumbent otherwise disparaged the Democrat. Playing into the gaffe, Newsom said legalizing marijuana was among the “many big announcements” his White House was making.

The governor similarly called for legalization in a separate post mocking Trump during a federal government shutdown last year, pledging to enact the reform as “leader of the free world.”

—Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.—

Over his tenure as governor, Newsom has been somewhat selective about the types of drug policy reform bills he’s been willing to sign into law.

For example, in October, Newsom vetoed a bill that would have allowed certain marijuana microbusinesses to ship medical cannabis products directly to patients via common carriers like FedEx and UPS, stating that the proposal “would be burdensome and overly complex to administer.”

Newsom did sign a bill earlier that month aimed at streamlining research on marijuana and psychedelics.

In September, the governor also signed a measure into law to put a pause on a recently enacted tax hike on marijuana products.

Meanwhile, California officials recently awarded nearly $30 million in grants for marijuana-focused academic research projects.

Image element courtesy of Gage Skidmore.

 
 
 

A Hawaii House committee has approved a Senate-passed bill that would create a psychedelics task force responsible for studying and making policy recommendations on providing access to breakthrough therapies such as psilocybin and MDMA.

The House Health Committee advanced the legislation from Sen. Chris Lee (D), with new amendments, in a 9-0 vote on Friday. The measure, which had cleared the Senate in a unanimous vote of 24-0 earlier this month, next heads to the House Finance Committee before potentially going to the floor.

The bill would create a Mental Health Emerging Therapies Task Force that would be tasked with spending two years reviewing the current scientific literature, supporting additional clinical research and “developing policy recommendations for safe, ethical, and culturally-informed implementation” of a psychedelics therapy program.

“The legislature finds that addressing the mental health crisis affecting the residents of the State, particularly among veterans, first responders, and trauma survivors, is urgent,” the bill, SB 3199, states. “Suicide continues to be a leading cause of preventable death, and the State must explore all safe and effective treatment options supported by scientific evidence.”

Noting that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has already designated psilocybin and MDMA as breakthrough therapies in the treatment of serious mental health conditions, which could lend to future rescheduling under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the Hawaii legislation says the state “must proactively prepare public health, clinical, and research systems for safe and equitable implementation.”

The state Department of Health said in testimony to the House committee that it supports the bill, noting that in light of FDA’s action on psychedelics, “it is prudent for Hawaii to evaluate research readiness, regulatory implications, workforce development, and culturally informed implementation pathways” in advance of any federal rescheduling of the substances.

The governor’s Office of Wellness and Resilience said the bill “resents an important opportunity to begin to prepare a planful pathway for individuals in need of access to potentially life-saving treatments for trauma and other longstanding mental health challenges.”

“A growing body of research demonstrates that breakthrough therapies (such as MDMA and psilocybin-assisted therapies) show significant efficacy and positive clinical outcomes in treating post-traumatic stress disorder, substance use disorders, end-of-life anxiety in terminally ill patients, eating disorders, treatment-resistant depression, and additional conditions,” it said.


Members of the task force would have to include representatives of the state Department of Health (DOH), the attorney general’s office, the Office of Wellness and Resilience (OWR), the University of Hawaii’s medical school and more.

As drafted, DOH would have overseen the task force, but the latest committee amendment makes the John A. Burns School of Medicine (JABSOM) at the University of Hawaii the responsible entity, and designates JABSOM’s appointee as chair of the panel.

The House committee additionally adopted amendments suggested by Department of Law Enforcement, to state that its Narcotics Enforcement Division—and not the Board of Pharmacy—would be responsible for changing state scheduling of psychedelics following any federal reclassification, and changing deadline for such action from 90 days to 30 days.

Members also moved to note in the bill report that the State Health Planning & Development Agency has expressed concerns that psychedelics are illegal under federal law and that task force should proceed cautiously.

Finally, the panel made technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style.


If enacted, it appears the bill would build upon prior work conducted by a separate psychedelics task force that convened for the first time in 2023, with a similar goal of exploring pathways for therapeutic access into FDA-approved breakthrough drugs like psilocybin.

—Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.—

Meanwhile, although Hawaii senators recently approved a bill to legalize low-dose and low-potency marijuana, the legislation didn’t advance through required steps before a key deadline, and so is dead for the year.

A separate marijuana legalization bill that contained provisions making the reform contingent on changes to federal law or the state Constitution, SB 2421, was deferred for action. Both Senate and House panels additionally deferred action on a measure to allow for the sale of certain hemp-derived cannabinoid products.

Those actions comes after key House lawmakers signaled that cannabis legalization proposals would not be advancing in the 2026 session, citing a lack of sufficient support in their chamber.

Earlier this month, a Hawaii Senate committee separately passed legislation to allow patients to immediately access medical cannabis once their registrations are submitted, instead of having to wait until their cards are delivered as is the case under current law.

Image courtesy of CostaPPR.

 
 
 

Massachusetts lawmakers weighing a ballot proposal to roll back the state’s voter-approved marijuana legalization law had some pointed questions for a spokesperson representing the anti-cannabis campaign, with several signaling skepticism about the motivations behind the repeal measure and its implications for consumers and businesses.

At a hearing before the Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions on Monday, members took testimony from both sides of the issue as they fulfill state election law that requires the legislature to review proposed ballot initiatives for potential action. If they decline to act on the initiative, the campaign will need to collected a final batch of signatures to secure placement on the November ballot.

Wendy Wakeman, a spokesperson for the ballot referendum committee sponsoring “An Act to Restore A Sensible Marijuana Policy,” gave opening remarks defending the measure, arguing that the marijuana law approved by voters in 2016 has had a “negative effect on public health, public safety and public comfort and convenience.”

“The upshot is that legalization of marijuana has not been a net positive for the citizens of our state,” she said, arguing that increases in THC potency over the years poses a public health risk, that marijuana use has been inadequately studied and that “the costs [of legalization] outweigh the benefits.”

The initiative under review wouldn’t revert the state back to blanket prohibition; rather, it would repeal the commercial sales components of the market while still allowing adults 21 and older to possess up to an ounce of cannabis for personal use.

Possession of more than one ounce but less than two ounces would be effectively decriminalized, with violators subject to a $100 fine. Adults could also continue to gift cannabis between each other without remuneration.

Sen. Barry Finegold (D) was among the committee members who indicated they aren’t on board with the measure, asking Wakeman how she squares the proposal with the fact that legalization soundly passed under a ballot process that allows “the will of the people” to directly influence public policy—a guiding principle he said “we forget so much about.”

The senator also asked what Wakeman would tell “all the people that invested all this capital into these businesses and what happens to them.”

The campaign spokesperson replied they were “very tough, very good questions.” With respect to the first query, she said the measure represents another opportunity for voters to reassess the merits of the law and whether “this was a good idea.”

“I’m not asking your chamber to decide, so we’re going back to the voters again,” she said. “The second question is very difficult. I know many people have invested a lot of money in building the marijuana business, and I have a lot of respect for anybody who’s building a business in this climate. I just believe that the costs outweigh the benefits.”


Sen. Cindy Friedman (D) pressed Wakeman on data she presented that was framed as evidence that public support for legalization is declining “as we live with pot shops and open pot smoking in the state.”

The senator noted that the datapoint didn’t appear to be Massachusetts-specific, which Wakeman acknowledged, adding that she “went through the data quickly, because data is a funny thing in this debate” given what she described as broadly inconsistent data about cannabis issues.

“Why doesn’t the [ballot] question then become ‘the state will investigate and do research and look into this,’ which the state has not been able to do much of,” Friedman said. “Why isn’t that your ballot question?”

Wakeman said “you’re certainly welcome to do that as a state senator,” but she wasn’t involved with the referendum committee from the beginning and couldn’t “speak directly” to the reason the initiative didn’t seek to further study the issue rather than move straight to repealing a core component of the existing law.

“I can tell you that this is the question. There are more than 100,000 people in Massachusetts who believe we should roll back the recreational availability of marijuana,” she said, referring to the number of people who signed ballot petitions for the measure.

Another member of the joint committee posed a different question to the spokesperson: If possessing and gifting marijuana between adults would still be legal under the measure—without a regulated sales component—wouldn’t that reinstitute a policy gap that’d benefit the illicit market by driving demand for unregulated products?

“I don’t know the gift thing, but it doesn’t change the criminalization,” Wakeman said, adding that the potential impact of repealing commercial sales on the illicit market is a “great question” that she declined to answer.

She was also unable to directly address questions about the sources of funding behind the anti-cannabis measure and similar proposals that have been pursued in other states such as Maine and Arizona this election cycle that are tangentially affiliated with the national prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and its 501(c)(4) arm SAM Action.

She said in a response to another senator that she does believe “the vast majority of people who use cannabis can do so safely,” but that “doesn’t mean that we should ignore the fact that a very large portion of the population is affected in a way that’s so negative that it outweighs the benefit of having it freely accessible.”

“So, in your opinion, the majority of people can use it safely without issue—but you’re saying the ills of a very small minority of people is what outweighs legal use by adults?” the senator asked.

Wakeman said that, upon reflection, “I’ve become more uncomfortable with that statement” on the relative rates of safe versus unsafe cannabis use.

“I just don’t think we know. The research on cannabis use is scant. We can all agree on that,” she said. “My friends here will agree, and I will agree. I believe it. We haven’t lived in a culture that allowed the drug and its use to be studied, and that is a problem that makes everything we do surrounding marijuana really flawed.”

Not everyone agrees with that point, the senator pointed out, saying he feels marijuana use “has been well-studied,” and the research was part of what “was contemplated when [legalization] originally passed.”

Asked whether there could be remedies to certain of the issues Wakeman raised around grow operator regulations and THC potency, the spokesperson said she’s “not an expert on that.”

As far as the illicit market is concerned, she said it’s “obviously not” going to make it safer to buy unrelated products versus those tested for retail sale in the regulated space, but she contended that legalization is associated with its own set of issues such as “extended usage” that’s “skyrocketed” under the state-level reform.

Opponents of the initiative who testified at the hearing, meanwhile, defended voters’ decision to replace prohibition with regulations, accusing the repeal campaign of pursuing an anti-cannabis agenda despite polls showing continued public support and the commercial market effectively transitioning consumers away from illicit economy.

To that point, a Bay State Poll from the University of Hampshire’s States of Opinion Project that was released earlier this month found that a majority of Massachusetts adults oppose the marijuana sales and cultivation repeal initiative.

The survey came months after cannabis activists filed a complaint with the State Ballot Law Commission under the Secretary of State’s office, alleging that petitioners with the anti-cannabis campaign used misleading tactics to convince voters to support its ballot placement.

The commission rejected the complaint in January, however, and said advocates who challenged the ballot measure raised “unsupported allegations” about the propriety of the signature gathering process that they said warranted official scrutiny.

In any case, separate polling has found that nearly half of those who signed the marijuana sales repeal petition felt misled, with many claiming that the measure was pitched to them as a proposal to address unrelated issues such as public education and expanded housing.

The anti-marijuana coalition has denied any wrongdoing in the signature collection process and waved off the survey results.

An association of state marijuana businesses had separately urged voters to report to local officials if they observe any instances of “fraudulent message” or other deceitful petitioning tactics.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s (D) office—which cleared the campaign for signature gathering in September—has stressed to voters the importance of reading the summary, which is required to go at the top of the signature form, before signing any petitions.

The Massachusetts legislature received the initiative for consideration earlier this month when the 2026 session kicked off. Now that the state election commission has issued its ruling on the complaint, lawmakers have until May 5 to act on the proposal. If they choose not to enact it legislatively, the campaign would need to go through another round of petitioning and get at least 12,429 certified signatures by July 1 to make the November ballot.

Meanwhile, the head of Massachusetts’s marijuana regulatory agency recently suggested that the measure to effectively recriminalize recreational cannabis sales could imperil tax revenue that’s being used to support substance misuse treatment efforts and other public programs.

To that point, Massachusetts recently reached another marijuana milestone, with officials announcing last month that the state has surpassed $9 billion in adult-use cannabis purchases since the market launched in 2018.

Massachusetts lawmakers also recently assembled a bicameral conference committee to reach a deal on a bill that would double the legal marijuana possession limit for adults and revise the regulatory framework for the state’s adult-use cannabis market.

In December, state regulators also finalized rules for marijuana social consumption loungues.

—Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.—

CCC recently launched an online platform aimed at helping people find jobs, workplace training and networking opportunities in the state’s legal cannabis industry.

State lawmakers have also been considering setting tighter restrictions on intoxicating hemp-derived products and a plan to allow individual entities to control a larger number of cannabis establishments.

Also in Massachusetts, legislators who were working on a state budget butted heads with CCC officials, who’ve said they can’t make critical technology improvements without more money from the legislature.

Massachusetts lawmakers additionally approved a bill to establish a pilot program for the regulated therapeutic use of psychedelics. And two committees have separately held hearings to discuss additional psilocybin-related measures.

Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images.

 
 
 

Global SEO Keywords

marihuana, cannabis, cáñamo, CBD, aceite de CBD, bálsamo de CBD, marijuana, hemp, weed, CBD oil, CBD balm, canapa, erba, olio di CBD, balsamo CBD, chanvre, herbe, huile de CBD, baume CBD, Marihuana, Cannabis, Hanf, Gras, CBD Öl, CBD Balsam, maconha, cânhamo, erva, óleo de CBD, bálsamo CBD, hennep, wiet, CBD olie, CBD balsem, hampa, gräs, CBD olja, CBD balsam, hamp, græs, gress, CBD olje, hamppu, ruoho, CBD öljy, CBD balsami, konopie, konopie indyjskie, olej CBD, balsam CBD, konopí, CBD olej, CBD balzám, konope, CBD balzam, marihuána, kannabisz, kender, fű, CBD olaj, CBD balzsam, canabis, cânepă, iarbă, ulei CBD, марихуана, канабис, коноп, CBD масло, CBD балсам, μαριχουάνα, κάνναβη, χασίς, λάδι CBD, βάλσαμο CBD, kanabis, konoplja, trava, CBD ulje, CBD olje, kanapės, kanapės indinės, CBD aliejus, CBD balzamas, marihuāna, kaņepes, CBD eļļa, CBD balzams, marihuaana, kanep, CBD õli, CBD palsam, kannabis, qanneb, żejt CBD, balsam CBD, marijúna, hampur, CBD olía, CBD smyrsl

Disclaimer

Jacob Hooy CBD Lip Balm is free from parabens and artificial colorants and contains no toxins or heavy metals, supporting natural body care. Our products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease, medical condition, or symptom. The information provided on this website is for informational purposes only and must not be considered medical advice, nor a substitute for professional diagnosis, treatment, or guidance provided by qualified physicians, healthcare professionals, or pharmaceutical specialists. Nothing on this website should be interpreted as a recommendation, prescription, or therapeutic claim.

Difresh Spain is an online retail store registered under IAE Group 652.3, specializing in the retail trade of perfumery, cosmetic products, and personal hygiene and care items. NIF: Y3526859-F. E-mail: info@cbdvending.eu - WhatsApp: +34662918154 - Factory adress: Calle Albardín 13, Nave B07, 50720, La cartuja baja, Zaragoza, España. All prices include VAT and free shipping across all European Union countries.

© 2026 - www.cbdvending.euPrivacy Policy

bottom of page