This paper reports on cannabis users' perceptions of state authorities' claims about cannabis and of the makers of those claims to investigate the legacy of fear‐based cannabis deterrence policies. The study is conducted in the under‐researched post‐Soviet European Latvia and draws on data from 27 semi‐structured interviews with cannabis users. This paper uses symbolic interactionism and grounded theory to demonstrate how constructed meanings can lead to unintended interactions; namely, the findings indicate that the participants recall that extraordinary claims about cannabis, in which its effects are likened to those of heroin, by authority figures did little to deter them from trying cannabis. Instead, participants construct claim makers as unobjective and lacking knowledge when it comes to cannabis and other illicit substances. Users may translate this lack of knowledge and objectivity into a decreased motivation to interact with state‐funded information or services. The participants link the lack of pragmatism regarding cannabis claims to both the legacy of the Soviet Union's regime, which the current leading experts had been exposed to, and vested interests. In conclusion, given the ever‐increasing digitalization of our societies that provides easy access to alternative information sources, this paper argues that state authorities' claims about cannabis should be limited to pragmatic and evidence‐based information to avoid the estrangement of their target populations.