Menu
Washington DC
DC Dispensaries
DC Weed Reviews
DC Medical Reviews
How to Buy Weed in DC
I-71 Information
History of Legal Weed in DC
DC Medical Marijuana Guide
Virginia
Find the BEST weed in...
Advocacy Organizations Call on Meta to End Censorship of Cannabis and Psychedelic Communities
Jul 1, 2025
TG Branfalt
Ganjapreneur
[image: |]
In a letter to Meta Platforms, Inc., the parent company of Facebook and
Instagram, a group of cannabis and psychedelic advocacy organizations, led
by Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), called on the company to end
what it describes as “ongoing and disproportionate censorship of content
related to cannabis, psychedelics, and harm reduction.”
“Accounts committed to public education, legal and policy advocacy,
research dissemination, and harm reduction services — including those of
licensed healthcare professionals, nonprofits, and legal businesses — have
been routinely shadowbanned, deplatformed, or had their posts removed with
little explanation or recourse, despite operating in full compliance with
local laws. This suppression is not merely an inconvenience; it is a form
of digital marginalization.” — SSDP, in the letter
The groups argue the censorship of cannabis and psychedelics continue amid
accelerating overdose deaths and mental health crises, and call on Meta to
“end discriminatory bans and shadowbans,” “establish clear, transparent,
and consistent content policies that distinguish between promotion of the
sale of illegal substances and legitimate drug education and advocacy,”
“create a dedicated appeals and accountability process specific to
drug-related content that includes community stakeholders and
subject-matter experts,” and “engage in regular dialogue with the
psychedelic, cannabis, and harm reduction communities to better understand
our work and co-create equitable guidelines for content moderation.”
In all, 81 organizations, consisting of students, educators, researchers,
advocates, entrepreneurs, and community leaders, joined the letter, calling
Meta’s policy “censorship of science, public health, legal, and public
policy discourse” and describing the policy as “not an act of neutrality.”
“As the cultural and legal landscapes around these issues evolve,” the
letter states, “so too must your policies.”













