The Illusion of Support: Performative vs. Genuine Advocacy
By: Theresa Yarbrough

In any advocacy movement, accountability and transparency are key—holding individuals responsible based on their actions and their impact on policy and business, rather than personal identity. In Georgia’s cannabis reform movement, many advocates publicly claim to support hemp businesses, yet their actions silently favor corporate marijuana interests. This performative support creates a false sense of solidarity, while behind closed doors, policy decisions actively restrict independent hemp businesses and disrupt the supply chain—leading to an industry controlled by large-scale corporate operators.

✔ Public Praise, Private Restriction – Some stakeholders celebrate hemp’s role in cannabis reform, while simultaneously backing policies that weaken its market viability.

✔ Industry Gatekeeping – Instead of fighting for balanced cannabis policies, certain groups push legislation that benefits corporate-backed marijuana while blocking hemp-driven opportunities.

✔ Strategic Silence on Harmful Regulations – Despite knowing that SB 494 cripples hemp businesses, many advocates remain quiet or hesitant to oppose it, fearing industry backlash.

Legislative Incentives: How Policy Influences Advocates

The push for corporate cannabis expansion through SB 220 offers lawmakers a politically favorable position, allowing them to frame progress as a victory while subtly ignoring the negative impact legislation has on hemp businesses. Incentives—such as business grants, licensing advantages, and lobbying influence—make it tempting for advocates to align with corporate-backed cannabis policies rather than push for equal industry protections.

✔ Lawmakers Choose Easy Wins – Supporting state-sanctioned corporate marijuana is viewed as a safer legislative move than openly backing broader hemp industry protections.

✔Regulatory Favoritism  – SB 220 strengthened corporate marijuana, yet SB 494 crippled hemp-derived cannabinoids, showing how legislation privileges certain sectors at the expense of others.

✔Corporate Influence Shapes Advocacy Goals – With big-money interests pushing for dominance, independent hemp advocates struggle to secure fair representation in policy discussions.

The Long-Term Consequences of Industry Division

If Georgia’s cannabis movement continues to support corporate-backed policies over independent hemp, the long-term results will be disastrous for small businesses and consumer choice. Once corporate marijuana monopolizes the industry, future cannabis policy decisions will be dictated by profit-driven interests rather than fair access for all.

🚨 Hemp’s Survival Depends on Unified Advocacy – If advocates continue supporting restrictions on hemp, the industry could collapse entirely, leaving cannabis reform in the hands of corporations.

🚨 A Monopolized Market Hurts Consumers – Without independent hemp retailers, consumers will lose access to diverse, affordable cannabis products, facing higher prices and limited options.

🚨 Once Control Is Lost, It’s Hard to Reclaim – If Georgia allows corporate interests to dominate, the window for reversing restrictive policies will close, making true cannabis freedom impossible.

Call to Action: Advocates Must Push for Fair Industry Reform

✔ Hold Lawmakers Accountable – Challenge legislators who claim to support hemp while pushing policies that restrict its growth.

✔ Demand Equal Market Access – Ensure both hemp and corporate marijuana businesses can operate without unfair regulatory bias,
✔ Reject Short-Term Gains for Long-Term Losses – Advocates must refuse incentives that prioritize corporate interests over true cannabis reform.

By exposing performative advocacy, Georgia’s cannabis movement can shift its focus toward genuine progress, ensuring hemp businesses thrive alongside corporate expansion—rather than being sacrificed for it.

The Danger of Prioritizing One Sector Over Another

Georgia’s cannabis movement should focus on comprehensive industry growth, not on favoring corporate-backed marijuana at the expense of hemp businesses. While incentives may seem beneficial in the short term, they create a fragmented market that ultimately hurts small businesses, consumers, and long-term legalization efforts.

✔ Market Fairness Over Corporate Interests – Favoring medical cannabis expansion while restricting hemp creates monopolies, stifles competition, and leaves independent businesses behind.

✔ Regulatory Disadvantages Grow Over Time – Once corporate marijuana dominates, small business hemp retailers will struggle to reclaim their market share, and future cannabis opportunities may be corporate-controlled.

✔ A United Cannabis Industry Is Stronger – By fighting for fair hemp policies alongside corporate marijuana expansion, Georgia can ensure equal opportunity and consumer choice rather than Georgia’s current state-driven monopoly.

Why Grassroots Advocates Feel Betrayed

Longtime activists who have fought for cannabis reform for decades now see this division as a betrayal of their core mission. Supporting SB 220 (corporate marijuana expansion) while allowing SB 494 to crush hemp retailers undermines the efforts of those who worked tirelessly to achieve fair cannabis access for all—not just corporate-backed industries.

🚨Years of Advocacy Ignored – Activists fought to destigmatize cannabis and expand access, yet SB 494 rolls back progress for hemp businesses.

🚨 Legislation Should Strengthen, Not Divide – Industry leaders must push for policies that protect ALL cannabis sectors, not just corporate-backed medical programs.

🚨 Choosing Profit Over Progress Hurts Everyone – Accepting short-term incentives in exchange for industry fragmentation weakens Georgia’s cannabis market for years to come.

Moving Forward: Advocates Must Rally Around a Unified Vision

✔ Push for Fair Cannabis Regulation – Advocate for policies that support both hemp and corporate cannabis, ensuring balanced market opportunities.

✔ Reject the “Divide and Conquer” Strategy – Lawmakers must not pit industries against each other—advocates should stand together for a thriving, unified cannabis future.

✔ Educate the Public & Legislators – Ensure policymakers understand the consequences of favoring one sector over another, and mobilize voter awareness.

I hope this helps you understand how assisting in the growth of  corporate-backed marijuana you’re helping squash  our state’s hemp businesses. This is shortsighted and self-serving. I encourage advocates to stay focused on true industry progress.