Colombian President Gustavo Petro opened a controversial new front line by proposing to U.S. President Donald Trump more than just a trade adjustment: he asked that “the export of cannabis be legalized like any other good, given its exclusion from the UN list of dangerous substances,” through a post on X.
Las guerras que Colombia vive desde hace 5 décadas, primero urbana hasta 1993, después rural, se deben al consumo de cocaína en EEUU; aunque han habido aportes de gobiernos estadounidenses a la paz de Colombia, han sigo exigüos y nulos en los últimos años.
Se ha construido una… https://t.co/R2SGZEnDfU
— Gustavo Petro (@petrogustavo) October 20, 2025
The idea is not limited to marijuana as an agricultural product, but rather, Petro ties it to a broader plan to transform Colombia’s rural economy: eliminating tariffs, opening long-term contracts for farmers in crop substitution areas, and attracting agro-industrial investments that will help farmers relocate “to fertile lands near cities and not adopt the jungle as a form of survival.”
For advocates of cannabis reform, the situation paints an intriguing picture: the proposal to bring a marginalized crop out of the underground, carve out a legitimate place for it in international trade and empower growers. But is it viable? What risks does it entail?
‘Colombia Provides the Money and the Deaths, the US Provides the Consumption’
The proposal comes in a context of diplomatic rift with the US. Trump accused Petro of being an “illegal drug leader” and announced, in a threatening tone, the suspension of aid and tariffs for Colombia — a country he repeatedly misnamed ‘Columbia.’
In response, Petro not only proposes the legalization of cannabis, but also shifts blame for Colombia’s conflict onto foreign consumption: “Colombia puts up the money and the deaths, and the US provides the consumption.”
This shift flips the traditional narrative—no longer ‘Colombia produces, the US consumes’—instead demanding the opening of legal markets to replace illicit ones, and make regulation part of the plan. He also called to “scientifically study whether prohibition is truly necessary, or whether instead a model of responsible, state-regulated consumption would be more effective.”
For cannabis reform advocates, this proposal can be seen as a historic demand: rural workers as protagonists, legal exports as an option, and public health as the focus. But the path is fraught with diplomatic, commercial, and regulatory hurdles.
Petro’s proposal has two powerful facets: on the one hand, it opens the door to viewing cannabis not as a stigma but as an economic, social, and political opportunity. On the other hand, it plunges headlong into a fierce battle: that of agricultural sovereignty, that of trade treaties, and the US role in the international War on Drugs.
Ultimately, if successful, it could pave the way for a new Latin American model for agro-industrial regulation: the countryside as the driving force, trade with the US as the platform, and cannabis as a legitimate product. If it fails, it could trigger harsher authoritarian drug-war crackdowns, strain alliances, and deepen global stigma.
