> ie medical marijuana lobbyists would probably say that they are looking to "change or block US and EU regulation/legislation that would impede growth for medi

> ie medical marijuana lobbyists would probably say that they are looking to "change or block US and EU regulation/legislation that would impede growth for medical marijuana." But "growth as in growing marijuana" is qualitatively different than "growth as in self-replicating paperclips that grow until they destroy the entire earth." :) I kid, but in reality I don't think the medical marijuana proponents are even after "growth" in the sense Amazon used it-- i.e., to capitalize on any opportunities to gain a stronghold in any relevant markets where medical marijuana could conceivably be used to the advantage of the medical marijuana lobby. They just want medical marijuana to be available at all for the obvious cases where it eases suffering. And at least every proponent I've talked to wants there to be sane safeguards/regulations in place and studies to make sure the benefits outweigh the costs. In fact, even the recreational marijuana lobby decided to vote against and defeat a prop in some state where a tiny group of "growth-as-in-paperclips" hopefuls were attempting to monopolize marijuana growth/distribution. (Ohio maybe?) Anyway, medical marijuana lobby seems to have made growth-as-in-business subsidiary to a second level of reflection, whereas in GP's Amazon quote the implication is that all other concerns are subsidiary to growth-as-in-business.