My first thought when I saw this was of all the people and corporations investing in CBD and whatnot. Most corporations seem to be using adtech and social media (which are really the same) to perform mass manipulation. When that’s combined with all the crazy financial tools people can make a lot of money.
I think if lawmakers actually wanted people using drugs for the effects then drugs would be legal, I would argue they instead want the ability to arrest and incarcerate people at will.
I would personally find it more likely that these tweets are part of the ramp up phase of trying to attract real followers to then spread other messages. These are the sort of tweets that I would imagine are fairly popular with a certain segment and lead to the retweets and followers that give bots more reach.
The market for cannabis is so undeveloped and unstable that it seems unlikely that such marginal market growth tactics would see as much return as they do in more established markets.
People are getting savvy to bots (used here to mean all variety of inauthentic social media accounts). The one-track tweets approach doesn't cut it anymore, you need a modicum of authenticness. That's why we are seeing Deepfake profile pics and much more effort going into fleshed out bot accounts, getting friends and followers, and multifaceted story feeds.
It's a classic infiltration technique. Get in, silently grow your roots under the radar, before deploying the payload.
What lawmakers want isn't some single coherent thing; you're talking about a profession perhaps most famous for getting in fights with each other. Some politicians may want draconian drug laws because they're involved with the prison industry or prison workers union, while other politicians with different interests might want drug legalization for reasons like those described in the grandparent comment. The distribution of politicians across this policy continuum may change quickly, or slowly. Not all change is quick.
Here is my pet theory: many politicians have historically opposed cannabis use because they believed cannabis use makes people lazy and believe widespread use of cannabis could suppress economic productivity. This is the sort of believe that could be challenged with evidence to the contrary; currently several states have legal cannabis and in doing so are putting many beliefs to the test. If/When fears relating to economic suppression are dispelled, some politicians who once opposed it may decide they no longer care.
> Here is my pet theory: many politicians have historically opposed cannabis use because they believed cannabis use makes people lazy and believe widespread use of cannabis could suppress economic productivity.
1. Corporate interests want to reduce hemp use for oil and material to help their dino oil products
2. People buyin that its bad
3. Politicians use it as a way to think people are bad
4. One generation later and the reason is whatever is most expediant.
I believe that 80+% of politicians today that oppose legalization do so genuinely because they grew up being told it was bad and a gateway drug. And they're too ignorant to consider the Nixon quote or that their government has always been bought and paid for to maintain a status quo
I think if lawmakers actually wanted people using drugs for the effects then drugs would be legal, I would argue they instead want the ability to arrest and incarcerate people at will.