Embedded within the finalized appropriation is a late addition: a pioneering directive to allocate $630,000 to the state’s Psilocybin Treatment Equity Fund, newly established under New Mexico’s Medical Psilocybin Act.

Confirmation of the funding represents a big step forward in the state’s efforts to integrate psychedelic-assisted therapies into its broader behavioral health infrastructure. And the formal allocation of state funds to pay for psychedelic treatments for patients on low incomes is seen as a world first.

“To ensure all New Mexicans who qualify for the program would have access to it, not just those with financial resources.”

State Senator Jeff Steinborn (D) was one of the legislative champions of the 2025 legalization of psilocybin for medical purposes. He emphasized that the state’s financial support is what will ultimately dictate the efficacy and fairness of the entire enterprise.

“I’m excited that New Mexico has taken the next step in support of our Medical Psilocybin Treatment Program,” Sen. Steinborn told Filter following the budget’s approval. “An important part of our state law was the creation of an equity fund, to ensure all New Mexicans who qualify for the program would have access to it, not just those with financial resources. Through this funding provided by the legislature and governor, as well as additional investment in research into end-of-life anxiety, we are working to launch the best evidence-based program possible.”

In addition to the equity fund allocation, the budget authorizes a supplementary $300,000 earmarked for clinical research at the University of New Mexico into treating end-of-life anxiety with psilocybin—the hallucinogenic compound found in certain mushrooms.

New Mexico will be a critical testing ground for medical access to psychedelics as it navigates the challenges of implementation. Its schedule is ambitious. In December 2025, state health officials announced concrete plans to launch the program by the end of 2026. This means rolling out the regulatory and clinical framework a full year ahead of the initially imposed legislative deadline.

When the program opens its doors to patients, New Mexico will become the third state to launch a state-regulated psilocybin program after Oregon and Colorado. However, while Oregon and Colorado have adopted models that allow for supported adult use and broader therapeutic access outside of strict medical confines, New Mexico’s program will be fundamentally clinical and medicalized. It’s designed to provide highly supervised treatment for specific, severe qualifying medical conditions—including major treatment-resistant depression, severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), chronic substance use disorders, and specialized end-of-life care.

The journey to secure the $630,000 for the fund was neither guaranteed nor simple. A coalition worked to pressure lawmakers.

But in the United States, a medicalized model immediately raises questions around whether people will be able to access it on the basis of need, rather than ability to pay. That’s what the Psilocybin Treatment Equity Fund is intended to address.

The journey to secure the $630,000 for the fund was neither guaranteed nor simple. When the 2026 legislative session convened in Santa Fe in January, the process began without any proposed money for the fund in either the executive or legislative budget recommendations. The omission threatened to leave the equity provisions of the Medical Psilocybin Act as an unfunded mandate, potentially delaying access for the state’s most vulnerable populations.

In response, a coalition of statewide psychedelic community members, health care providers and other advocates worked to pressure lawmakers. The coalition drafted and circulated a formal petition and letter to state legislators, urging them to ensure the funding was provided. Their efforts paid off.

Denali Wilson, director of strategy support for the Healing Advocacy Fund in New Mexico, characterized the budget allocation as a monumental victory for patient advocacy and an indicator of the state’s commitment to equitable health care.

The legislature’s decision “sends a clear message: This new model is intended to be accessible to the communities it is designed to serve.”

“Full funding of the Treatment Equity Fund marks the beginning of a bold new chapter in state-led health innovation,” Wilson told Filter. “As the nation’s first medically integrated psilocybin program, New Mexico is setting a model the rest of the country will be watching closely—particularly when it comes to affordability, access and equity.”

The legislature’s decision, she continued, “sends a clear message: This new model is intended to be accessible to the communities it is designed to serve. Ensuring that ability to pay is not a barrier to accessing life-saving services is essential to the program’s success.”

Wilson added that the late addition to the budget underscores the power of civic engagement in shaping emergent health policies.“Community members and advocates rallied to highlight the need, and our lawmakers and Governor responded,” she said. “We are grateful to the governor and the legislature for their leadership, and especially thank Senators Jeff Steinborn, Jay Block, Nicole Tobiassen, and Martin Hickey, and Representative Stefani Lord for their support of equity and research.”

The infusion of state dollars into the psychedelic therapy framework is largely made possible by New Mexico’s unique economic positioning. It manages significant, continuous oil and gas revenues through a series of state-run trust funds. State lawmakers have the discretionary authority to allocate portions of these funds to invest in education, infrastructure, state services and public health initiatives. In this unprecedented instance, legislators have directed a fraction of that fossil fuel revenue toward establishing sustainable psilocybin-assisted therapy services.

“Psilocybin will be an important new tool to relieve anxiety and depression in patients facing end of life.”

The program’s focus on end-of-life care has also drawn national attention. Attorney Kathryn Tucker, advocacy director for the National Psychedelics Association, serves as co-counsel behind an ongoing legal petition to formally reschedule psilocybin under the federal Controlled Substances Act—currently under review by the US Department of Health and Human Services. Tucker applauded New Mexico’s move to provide compassionate care.

“Great to see the funding come through for the New Mexico Medical Psilocybin Act,” she told Filter, adding that in her opinion, the legislation “is a great model for other states.”

Tucker, who also serves as a special advocacy advisor for the National Psychedelics Association, highlighted the intersection between psilocybin therapy and existing palliative care laws. “New Mexico is among the states that allows Medical Aid in Dying,” she noted, “empowering terminally ill people to obtain medications prescribed by their physician to advance the time of death. Regardless what one thinks of MAID, all agree no one ought to choose it due to unrelieved suffering. Psilocybin will be an important new tool to relieve anxiety and depression in patients facing end of life.”

Beyond the immediate public health implications, policy experts argue that funding psilocybin therapy is a sound  economic strategy for state governments burdened by the spiraling costs of conventional mental health treatments. Conventional approaches to treatment-resistant depression and severe PTSD may involve decades of prescription medications, intensive outpatient programs and hospitalizations—costs often absorbed by state-funded Medicaid programs.

“New Mexico just made a smart bet, and it starts with getting the math right. The framing that psilocybin therapy is too expensive has failed to compare it to anything.”

Sam Chapman, founder and executive director of the Center for Psychedelic Policy, suggested that New Mexico’s initial financial investment will yield massive downstream savings.

“New Mexico just made a smart bet, and it starts with getting the math right,” he told Filter. “The framing that psilocybin therapy is too expensive has failed to compare it to anything. Compare it to the tens of billions of dollars states are spending on medication cycles, repeated hospitalizations, and chronic treatment that produces modest outcomes, and the calculus inverts completely.”

“Psilocybin therapy isn’t a luxury alternative,” Chapman continued. “It’s about becoming the most cost-effective intervention in the behavioral health toolbox. New Mexico sees that, and the states that do the math early are the ones that stand to lead the country on behavioral health for the next decade to come.”

Despite the optimism surrounding the budget signing and the macroeconomic arguments for psychedelic medicine, local organizers caution that the state appropriation is only the first piece of a much larger financial puzzle. The practical, day-to-day operations of a medical psilocybin clinic involve significant overheads—including the high costs of licensing, securing specialized clinical spaces and compensating highly trained facilitators, who must sit with patients for treatment sessions that can last upwards of six hours.

“The overall impact will depend on the cost of facilitating treatment for participants, which remains largely unknown at this time.”

Deborah Thorne, founder of Sol Tryp—a Las Cruces-based nonprofit organization dedicated to “promoting psychedelic healing, methods, teachings, research, and reciprocity”—said that while the budget allocation is crucial, the real-world costs of treatment for vulnerable populations are still difficult to quantify.

“The $630,000 Treatment Equity Fund will provide an important initial contribution to the program,” Thorne told Filter, noting the complexity of the upcoming rollout. However, she warned that “the overall impact will depend on the cost of facilitating treatment for participants, which remains largely unknown at this time.”

Because state funds alone may not be sufficient to subsidize the full scope of patient needs once the program opens in December 2026, Thorne stressed the ongoing need for private and philanthropic support. “It is essential that nonprofits and community advocacy organizations continue to engage in fundraising and resource development efforts to help ensure the program’s long-term sustainability,” she said.

As New Mexico Department of Health regulators spend at least the next nine months finalizing the specific rules, licensing requirements, and safety protocols for the psilocybin program, many medical, legal, and public policy eyes will be fixed on Santa Fe. The nature of the Psilocybin Treatment Equity Fund rollout could determine whether psychedelic therapy remains an exclusive option for the wealthy, or become a standard, accessible cornerstone of public health.

Photograph by Alan Rockefeller via Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 3.0

The post New Mexico Will Fund Psychedelic Treatment for Patients on Low Incomes appeared first on Filter.

Most testimony heard by the Senate General Government Committee—which is expected to vote on the proposal next week—was in sharp opposition to the measure, SB 56, from state Senator Stephen Huffman (R).

“SB 56 is not the tidying-up of a citizen-initiated statute,” the ACLU of Ohio stated in written testimony. “Instead, it is a rebuke of the people and businesses that drafted the initiative, voted for it, worked tirelessly to implement it, and generated (so far) $319 million of adult-use sales.”

The ACLU urged lawmakers not to rush the bill, writing: “Your constituents deserve the chance to fully weigh [in] on an important issue they passed so resoundingly before it is demolished by politicians.”

Of 43 pieces of written testimony submitted ahead of the February 18 hearing, only one was filed in support. A separate hearing on the measure in January, however, consisted mostly of testimony by proponents.

In its initial form, the 147-page bill would have raised the state’s excise tax on marijuana products from 10 percent to 15 percent, and also changed how taxes are redistributed to local governments. But those tax provisions were removed under a substitute version of the measure approved by the committee at the February 18 hearing.

Another change in the substitute expands a buffer zone between marijuana retailers from half a mile to one full mile, which Chair Sen. Kristina Roegner (R) said was a request from both the state’s Division of Cannabis Control and existing businesses.

“SB 56 would create a legal minefield that re-criminalizes innocuous conduct” and “eliminates the cannabis social equity and jobs program, and non-discrimination protections.”

A committee vote on SB 56 was tentatively expected to happen the same week, but Roegner said on February 18 that the panel would instead reconvene for further consideration of the measure sometime the following week.

Under other, remaining provisions of Huffman’s bill, adults would be able to grow only up to six plants for personal use, rather than the current 12. It would also decrease the THC content cap from 90 percent to 70 percent.

Further, the proposal would limit the number of dispensaries to 350, while requiring all licensed retailers to serve both adult-use consumers and medical cannabis patients. The state Division of Cannabis Control (DCC) would also no longer be required to establish rules allowing for marijuana deliveries and online purchases.

Cannabis reform advocates have blasted the measure as a rejection of the voters’ will.

“SB 56 would create a legal minefield that re-criminalizes innocuous conduct, including sharing cannabis, smoking or vaping in one’s backyard, and having edibles in a car that were ever opened,” wrote Marijuana Policy Project’s director of state policies, Karen O’Keefe, adding that the bill also “lowers potency caps, eliminates the cannabis social equity and jobs program, and eliminates non-discrimination protections to ensure responsible cannabis consumers are not denied child custody, medical care including lifesaving organ transplants, and benefits.

O’Keefe’s testimony called details of the proposal “needlessly onerous” and “nonsensical,” noting that a passenger on a boat who vapes or smokes marijuana would face a mandatory three-day minimum jail sentence that could extend as long as six months. And she pointed out that due to its proposed restrictions on sharing, “Spouses would need to have ‘his and her[s]’ cannabis! Imagine being prohibited from sharing a bottle of wine with friends and family.”

“The people spoke when they approved Issue 2 [in 2023],” O’Keefe said. “SB 56 dramatically scales back the freedoms, protections, and commitment to justice that voters approved. It replaces them with an air of suspicion, trip wires and re-criminalization.”

O’Keefe told Marijuana Moment in a separate email on February 18 that “SB 56 is a slap in the face to Ohio voters, 57 pecent of whom approved legalization.”

“It dramatically scales back the freedoms, protections, and commitment to equity and justice that voters approved,” she said. “It replaces adult-use legalization with trip wires of re-criminalization, prohibiting everything from passing a joint to vaping on your own porch.”

“As Elected Officials, you have a Duty to execute the Will of the People. You are Public Servants, not a Monarchy or Aristocracy.”

Simon Dunkle IV, the executive director of Ohio NORML, told lawmakers that “you can’t correct what you don’t know about” and wrote that “as Elected Officials, you have a Duty to execute the Will of the People. You are Public Servants, not a Monarchy or Aristocracy.”

Testimony from some critics has already resulted in changes to the bill. Removing the bill’s previous changes to tax distributions, for instance, appear to be in response to outcry from local governments, who broadly opposed Huffman’s proposal as filed.

Kent Scarrett, executive director of the Ohio Municipal League, which represents more than 730 cities and villages, wrote in testimony for the hearing that while the group appreciates SB 56’s efforts to expand local government authority to ban or limit the number of cannabis businesses in a jurisdiction, municipalities are concerned by its proposed changes to revenue distribution. He called on lawmakers to reject the bill.

“We urge the Legislature to maintain funding for communities that host marijuana facilities,” he wrote, “so these municipalities can prioritize where the need is greatest in their community and work to make the greatest impact.”

The Ohio Mayors Alliance, which did not take a position on the measure, similarly pointed to concerns about the Host Community Fund, which collects 36 percent of state tax revenue from marijuana and routes it to local communities.

“To eliminate that revenue sharing fund with local communities that have acted in reliance on the existence of that fund would be fundamentally unfair,” the group said.

While the increased excise tax rate appears to have been removed in the latest version of SB 56, Governor Mike DeWine (R) has separately indicated plans to double the double the current tax rate via the budget process, raising it to 20 percent.

Sen. Bill DeMora (D) said during an earlier committee hearing in late January that the proposal effectively amounts to legislators telling voters: “Screw you, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You passed it with an overwhelming majority in the state, but we know better than they did what they were voting on.”

Huffman, the bill sponsor, said the legislation is not meant to “do away with the ballot initiative.”

“It’s to work around the edges to make it better,” he said.

“We must not let these groups accomplish through backroom deals what they couldn’t accomplish at the ballot box. The will of the majority of Ohio’s voters must be respected.”

Certain Democrats have so far indicated a willingness to finesse the cannabis law, but they’ve said Huffman’s proposed changes to provisions around issues such as home cultivation are a bridge too far.

Sen. Casey Weinstein (D), for example, has said there’s “definitely bipartisan support for protections in marketing to keep kids safe and sensible limitations on where you can use cannabis,” but not for undermining fundamental components of what voters approved.

The bill’s introduction comes as Ohio’s GOP House speaker seems to have changed his tune on the state’s marijuana law, walking back his previously stated plan to undermine provisions of the voter-approved initiative such as home cultivation rights.

Conflicts between Senate and House Republican leadership near the end of the last session played a key role in stalling amendment proposals. It’s unclear if the chambers will be able to reach consensus this round, especially as the market continues to evolve and consumers adapt to the law.

Speaker Matt Huffman (R), who previously served as Senate president, said that while he continues to oppose the reform measure voters passed, he doesn’t believe anyone in the legislature “realistically is suggesting that we’re going to repeal the legalization of marijuana.”

“I’m not for it. I wasn’t for the casinos coming to Ohio, either. But there’s lots of stuff that’s part of the Constitution and the law that are there that I don’t like,” he said.

To that end, the speaker indicated he’s no longer interested in pursuing plans to broadly undermine the cannabis law, despite having backed legislation as a Senate leader last session that would have decreased allowable THC levels in state-legal cannabis products, reduced the number of plants that adults could grow at home and increased costs for consumers at dispensaries.

Initially, changes backed by Matt Huffman in 2024 would have eliminated home cultivation rights entirely for Ohio adults and criminalized all cannabis obtained anywhere other than a state-licensed retailer.

While some Democratic lawmakers have previously indicated that they may be amenable to certain revisions, such as putting certain cannabis tax revenue toward K-12 education, other supporters of the voter-passed legalization initiative are firmly against letting legislators undermine the will of the majority that approved it.

NORML recently launched a letter-writing campaign urging Ohio residents to tell their state representatives to “keep your hands off Issue 2.”

“Even before the ink on the new law is dry, some lawmakers are calling on the legislature to amend or even repeal parts of the law. Prohibitionist groups are similarly encouraging lawmakers to take legislative action to thwart the will of the people,” NORML wrote. “We must not let these groups accomplish through backroom deals what they couldn’t accomplish at the ballot box. The will of the majority of Ohio’s voters must be respected.”

Meanwhile, as 2024 came to a close with the new marijuana legalization law in effect, Ohio officials announced the state saw adult-use cannabis sales exceed $242 million.

As the 2025 session gets underway, lawmakers are also expected to consider key changes to the state’s hemp laws. In November, legislators took testimony on a proposal that would ban intoxicating hemp products in the state. Stephen Huffman, the sponsor of the marijuana revision bill, introduced that proposal after Gov. DeWine called on lawmakers to regulate or ban delta-8 THC products.

Separately, despite legalization of adult-use cannabis in Ohio, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs’s (VA) Cincinnati health center issued a reminder in summer 2024 that government doctors are still prohibited from recommending medical cannabis to veterans—at least as long as it remains a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law.

Photograph via Picryl/Public Domain

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on Twitter and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post “Slap in the Face” to Voters—Ohio Bill Takes Aim at Marijuana Legalization appeared first on Filter.

Some of the contracts offered by Payne and his partners reportedly guaranteed them 90 percent of profits and majority control of the social equity applicant’s business—with a $1 million penalty if the microbusiness partner walks away. Legal experts who reviewed one of the contracts for the Independent described it as potentially predatory. And there are concerns that that such contracts may violate state law, which requires a microbusiness to be “majority owned and operated” by the eligible person.

Social equity applicants contracted with Payne won six out of 24 dispensary licenses issued by the state on July 24.

Many other states have their own cannabis social equity programs, intended to redress some of the injustices inflicted on communities by marijuana prohibition. As legalization has spread to 24 states and Washington, DC, so has a demand that Black, Brown and other entrepreneurs from communities that have borne the brunt of marijuana arrests get a fair shot in the legal industry.

“There is a gaming of the system that was designed to provide support and an opportunity for people that were harmed by the War on Drugs.”

But many social equity applicants lack startup funds and face severe hurdles to opening their doors, without adequate state support. That’s when signing a highly unfavorable deal with a bigger player may become the only option. In this way, the issue of wealthy operators exploiting these programs for their own gain has become widespread.

“There is a gaming of the system that was designed to provide support and an opportunity for people that were harmed by the War on Drugs, but now we see a situation where these folks are in the line of more harm,” Mike Lomuto, board chair of the Minority Cannabis Business Association, told Filter.

Lomuto has examined similar cases in legal cannabis markets around the country. “It’s a little frustrating to see this happen yet again, not only in Missouri,” he said.

Lomuto just held a conference call with organizers about a separate scandal in New York. There, a planned $200 million social equity fund set up by the state to help cannabis businesses acquire and open storefronts has been suspended by Governor Kathy Hochul (D). Local reporting revealed troubling connections with a private equity firm that was offering loans with excessively high interest rates, threatening to overburden social equity businesses in debt. “It certainly seems predatory,” said state Senator Liz Krueger (D), a longtime champion of marijuana legalization.

Part of the problem, Lomuto said, is when activists, entrepreneurs and the media focus heavily on how many business licenses are issued in each state and who gets them. While getting a license is of course a difficult step, it’s really just the first step. Actually opening for business requires many additional and costly steps, which too many license recipients cannot complete alone.

“They’re not able to find the investment or real estate , which is what leads that person to make deals with someone that doesn’t have their best interests in mind.”

“The reality is most folks are not [following through on] those licenses in the first place,” Lomuto said. “We have looked at success in terms of how many licenses are held in the first place by a social equity licensee. What we need to look at is what is success in terms of that person’s exit, whether it’s taking on investor or selling the business entirely … They won the lottery and got the initial license but they’re not able to find the investment or real estate to start the business, which is what leads that person to make those deals with someone that doesn’t have their best interests in mind.”

As another example, Arizona—which legalized marijuana in 2020—has also faced similar concerns. According to a 2023 investigation by the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting, in at least four cases, people who obtained a social equity cannabis license ended up losing it in legal battles with their business partners.

These instances included social equity owners being forced to take on millions of dollars in debt, partnering up with strangers to run their business, and having their license taken away by an arbitration council after refusing to sign a business agreement.

The investigation found that the biggest marijuana companies in the state funded hundreds of social equity license applications hoping to get an ownership stake in the future businesses. And when the state held a lottery for 1,300 applications, 10 out of the 26 licenses granted were to applicants connected to the major marijuana companies. All 10 of those social equity licensees are no longer part of those partnerships.

States’ rules and scrutiny regrading cannabis social equity programs can certainly improve. But in many ways, the extra hurdles—and scandals—associated with legal cannabis businesses are the result of its unique status as a drug: legal in dozens of states but still a Schedule I controlled substance federally.

“Descheduling would solve so many of the problems we’re seeing.”

That federal status makes it harder for businesses to get loans or work with major banks, forcing some dispensaries to operate cash-only (the issue has improved over the years, but not been fixed yet). Another problem is that dispensaries cannot deduct business expenses, because Section 280E of the federal tax code prevents such deductions for any business that “trafficks” a Schedule I or II drug.

President Biden’s efforts to reschedule marijuana to Schedule III would at least solve this problem. But descheduling marijuana and removing it from the Controlled Substances Act entirely would be far more helpful, according to Lomuto.

“Descheduling would solve so many of the problems we’re seeing,” he said. “The 280E relief would be dramatic for businesses. The other thing is you could get Small Business Administration loans. The SBA is one of the biggest funders in the entire world for small businesses.”

“It would also be a massive signal to other traditional lending institutions that they are okay doing business with cannabis,” Lomuto concluded. “That leads to more access to capital, so these predatory deals with high interest rates wouldn’t be the only ones available.”

Photograh via State of Connecticut

The post Social-Equity Cannabis Licenses Being Exploited by Bigger Businesses appeared first on Filter.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D) is aiming to get cannabis dispensaries open in early 2025. As Minnesota Public Radio reported, the state’s newly created Office of Cannabis Management is currently working with a contractor to develop an online licensing application system. In a January interview with MPR, Walz reaffirmed the projected deadline to open dispensary doors, adding that a goal is “to get the illicit stuff off the street” in favor of regulated products.

In the big picture, the OCM aims to license 381 dispensaries statewide, and to reserve at least 51 percent of licenses for “social equity” applicants. The multiple criteria for social-equity eligibility include having been convicted on a marijuana charge; living in an area with high rates of marijuana arrests or poverty; or being a military veteran.

But a new bill would offer more prioritization to social equity applicants in this process, making significant changes to 2023’s legalization measure. Bill 4782 is being proposed by Representative Zack Stephenson (D) and Senator Lindsey Port (D), two lawmakers who also led the legalization effort.

The bill also makes clear that a license applicant would not need to buy or rent a commercial property before obtaining a license.

Under Bill 4787, people who qualify would get a head start with the first set of licenses. They could apply for and receive temporary dispensary licenses later in 2024, enabling them to plan and build their businesses prior to beginning sales in 2025. Having evidence that they will be able to move forward with their plans could help these business owners to fundraise from other investors. The bill also makes clear that a license applicant would not need to buy or rent a commercial property before obtaining a license.

At the same time, the bill would somewhat expand what qualifies as a social equity business. Under current law, 100 percent of a business must be owned by people who meet the social equity criteria. The proposed bill would lower that to 65 percent, again raising the possiblity of outside investment.

The bill, introduced March 7, mirrors a number of proposals put forth by the OCM during a public presentation on January 30. Interim OCM Director Charlene Briner described a wishlist to “expedite the 2025 market launch and provide early advantages to social equity participants,” while preventing a “licensing bottleneck,” as Marijuana Moment reported.

This included both issuing temporary licenses to social equity applicants in 2024, and lowering the ownership requirement, as a way to let applicants raise funds by selling stakes in their businesses. Briner also cited financial hardship for many would-be cannabis businesses in other states as a reason not to require applicants to rent a property before obtaining a license.

Debate over points-based versus lottery systems has arisen around the country.

The new bill would additionally change the process for awarding licenses from a “points” system, based on applicants’ scores for meeting different criteria, to a “lottery” system, where the state randomly selects from the pool of eligible applicants.

Under Minnesota’s existing points system, all applicants can score on measures like labor fairness, environmental protection and security, but social equity applicants get an extra 20 points.

However, debate over points-based versus lottery systems has arisen around the country as more states legalize. According to an analysis by New York State Cannabis Connect, most states have used a points system in recent years, while notable examples of lottery systems include Illinois, Connecticut and Washington. Lottery systems vary according to how high a bar is required for entry.

“As cannabis has shown to be a profitable industry, competition is high … However, the lottery process may not always be the best option for the social equity goals of state legislation on cannabis,” NYS Cannabis Connect staff wrote. “Any effect on equity would depend on how the lottery system is designed, how the criteria is adopted, how many lotteries will be held, and how many licenses will be issued in each one.”

They also noted that lottery licensing processes have invited legal challenges in different states. For example, Illinois has been sued multiple times over difficulties facing social equity applicants in its new market. New York State has seen separate lawsuits and even a temporary court injunction over claims that its lottery licensing system discriminated against out of state applicants or veterans.

On the other hand, points systems have also brought up lawsuits against jurisdictions—New Jersey, Missouri, and the city of Pasadena, California are among many governments that have faced court battles over their cannabis license scoring processes.

Other grants are intended to help applicants to better understand rules and regulations; to grow their businesses and hire people; and to support professional training.

But what about Minnesota’s two existing medical marijuana companies, LeafLine Labs and Vireo Health/Green Goods? Another change proposed by the new bill, and by the OCM, is to “streamline” the cannabis supply chain by allowing any cannabis cultivator to sell to both adult-use and medical products, which is not allowed under current law. First-mover advantage to medical companies over startups has been controversial in other states. But the measue may help ensure that Minnesota has an adequate supply of cannabis before stores open, when its two medical companies already have established grow operations.

Besides priority licensing, social equity applicants could benefit from other provisions of the 2023 legalization bill. Separate from the OCM, the state’s economic development agency will offer three different programs granting cash awards and loans: Cannabis Industry Startup Financing Grants ($3 million annually), Cannabis Industry Navigation Grants ($1 million annually), and Cannabis Industry Training Grants ($2 million annually).

As the programs’ names imply, these grants are intended to help applicants to better understand the rules and regulations of the cannabis market; to grow their businesses and hire people; and to support professional training. Separately, the state will also launch its CanRenew and CanGrow programs, which will award additional grants and loans to support farmers and other goals.

Photograph (cropped) by Cannabis Tours via Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 4.0

The post Minnesota Lawmakers Seek Fairness in Its Coming Cannabis Market appeared first on Filter.

The measure also expresses the “sense of the House” that President Joe Biden should direct administration officials to lobby the United Nations and its Commission on Narcotic Drugs to “deschedule cannabis from the international drug control treaties, expunge and forgive legal penalties relating to certain low-level marijuana offenses, and treat cannabis as a legal commodity,” effectively ending the near-global prohibition of marijuana.

The Realizing Equitable and Sustainable Participation in Emerging Cannabis Trades (RESPECT) Resolution was introduced by Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) on January 11, along with six other cosponsors, all Democrats. It encourages states and local governments “to adopt best practices and take bold steps” to enact a number of reforms around marijuana designed to address disparities in participation in legal marketplaces and to “address, reverse, and repair the most egregious effects of the War on Drugs.”

“Any legislation Congress puts forth on cannabis must incorporate both economic and reparative justice.”

The resolution says that people and communities “that have been most harmed by marijuana prohibition are benefitting the least from the legal cannabis marketplace” and other emerging reforms.

“Any legislation Congress puts forth on cannabis must incorporate both economic and reparative justice,” Lee said in a press release, calling cannabis equity long overdue. “This bill ensures that disenfranchised communities will be able to benefit equally in the emerging legal and regulated industry.”

Among the best practices encouraged in the legislation are fundamental reforms that currently contradict federal laws on the books, such as eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use and possession as well as ensuring public benefits, such as housing, cannot be denied to someone due to a cannabis conviction.

It calls for the creation of automatic expungement or record-sealing processes around cannabis convictionss, resentencing processes for those convicted on charges for which penalties have been reduced or removed, as well as the elimination of “suspicion-less drug testing for non safety-sensitive employment positions.”

The nine-page resolution also endorses specific state and local licensing policies to prioritize longtime residents, people from low-income households, formerly incarcerated people, those with past drug-law violations and individuals living in areas that are heavily policed. It urges “policies and regulations that truly prevent large companies and wealthy investors from obtaining significant revenue generated by license holders who have been prioritized for ownership.”

Broadly, it tells state and local governments to adopt laws and regulations to “that will allow small cultivators to thrive in the legal market.”

“It is especially critical that legalization fully addresses the harm unleashed on communities of color.”

In the press release, Blumenauer noted the current turning point in the country, where marijuana is now legal for adults in nearly half of all states as well as Washington, DC, and several territories.

“As more states move to legalize cannabis, the imperative for the federal government to act grows even greater,” he said. “It is especially critical that legalization fully addresses the harm unleashed on communities of color. We must ensure there is equitable access to the growing multi-billion-dollar cannabis industry.”

Among some of the legislation’s identified best practices, it encourages that licenses be obtained at the local level according to rules that meet minimum standards set by states, adding that the process should avoid “arbitrary caps on licenses” and prioritize “an industry more representative of the local market.” License and application fees, it says, ought to cover only the cost of a regulatory system’s implementation and administration.

Other steps in support of equitable licensing, it says, include eliminating broad felony restrictions for license applicants, explicitly prohibiting previous cannabis convictions as justification for denial of licenses, and otherwise focusing licensing restrictions to people “with criminal convictions that are relevant to the owning and operating of a business,” determined on a case-by-case basis for both owners and employees.

A lineup of drug policy reform organizations endorsed the measure at its reintroduction, including the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), NORML, the Better Organizing to Win Legalization (BOWL) PAC and the Minority Cannabis Business Association.

“We are proud to support this resolution that both codifies the harms that have been perpetuated at home and abroad, but also outlines where we go from here.”

Maritza Perez Medina, DPA’s director of federal affairs, said the RESPECT Resolution illustrates “what is necessary to achieve justice and equity.”

“The war on marijuana has caused massive damage to our communities for decades. We are proud to support this resolution that both codifies the harms that have been perpetuated at home and abroad, but also outlines where we go from here,” she said.

In addition to recommendations on regulating legal markets, the legislation encourages tax revenue from marijuana sales be used with equity in mind. It advises setting aside portions for communities—most frequently people of color—who “have been most affected by cannabis arrests and the drug war,” while other money should go to establish small business investment funds “to support people of color entering into the legal cannabis industry.”

“For too long, this country weaponized the criminalization of marijuana with surgical precision against people of color,” said Justin Strekal, BOWL PAC’s founder, “and it’s time to collectively right those past wrongs. While marijuana policy alone cannot undo the totality of the harms of systemic racism, it would be a travesty to allow cannabis reform to not include these type of reparative justice provisions.”

“It is necessary to remain focused on making whole those who have suffered most under these harmful policies.”

NORML’s political director, Morgan Fox, emphasized that legalization’s goal is broader than merely ending prohibition of a plant.

“As we get closer to ending our nation’s disastrous experiment with cannabis prohibition, it is necessary to remain focused on making whole those who have suffered most under these harmful policies,” he said. “Beyond ensuring that members of disproportionately impacted communities have fair and equitable access to the opportunities created by regulated cannabis markets, we must continue to look for more ways to invest in those communities and to directly remedy the harms visited on individual cannabis consumers for past or current use.”

Lee and Blumenauer first introduced the RESPECT Resolution in June 2018. “We need to address the systemic exclusion and discrimination at play,” Lee said at the time. “Otherwise, we will be prolonging and encouraging the injustices of the past—where brown men spend their lives in prison for cannabis, while white communities get rich off the industry.”

Lee has been a voice for marijuana equity in Congress, once in 2019 introducing three pieces of cannabis-related social justice legislation in a single day, including the second iteration of the RESPECT Resolution.

As more states have legalized marijuana, critics have warned against regulations that allow large businesses to dominate the market, often at the expense of opportunities for the very communities that bear the brunt of the drug war. More states have also begun building equity principles and programs into legalization bills and targeting grant money to overpoliced areas, in part in response to growing calls that people harmed by prohibition should directly benefit from the policy change.

Blumenauer, meanwhile, announced in October that after nearly three decades in Congress, he won’t seek reelection this year. He told Marijuana Moment the following month that he intends to make the most out of his remaining time in office, saying he still has hope the Biden administration will heed the will of voters and take bold action to end cannabis criminalization.

Blumenauer said the stage is set for another “productive year” in federal marijuana reform.

“This can be done administratively,” the lawmaker said. “If I were Joe Biden trying to get right with young voters—particularly young voters of color—and to somewhat atone for being on the wrong side of the failed War on Drugs, in a single stroke this would do it.”

Amid an ongoing federal rescheduling review, meanwhile, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) told Congress in a letter recently that the agency reserves “the final authority” to make any scheduling decision on marijuana, regardless of what the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommends.

Reports arose last August that HHS had recommended DEA reschedule marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act, reportedly to Schedule III, the result of a rescheduling review request from Biden in 2022.

As for other federal cannabis legislation, there’s been frustration over delayed US Senate consideration of a bipartisan bill to safeguard banks that work with state-legal marijuana businesses. The Secure and Fair Enforcement Regulation (SAFER) Banking Act cleared the Senate Banking Committee in September 2023, but it didn’t make it to the floor despite leaderships’ repeated pledges to expeditiously advance the legislation.

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on Twitter and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post Congressional Resolution Demands Cannabis Equity, Push for UN Reform appeared first on Filter.

Enforcement powers won’t change the fact that many unlicensed businesses are still incentivized to sell cannabis, with consumers clearly willing to buy it. But rapid expansion of the legal market in 2024, following numerous delays, might change the picture.

Assemblymember Jenifer Rajkumar (D) introduced the Stop Marijuana Over-proliferation and Keep Empty Operators of Unlicensed Transactions (SMOKEOUT) Act on December 29. It would empower municipalities not only to shut down any business believed to be selling illicit cannabis, but to seize their merchandise and even their property. Currently, only the state’s Cannabis Control Board has the authority to close unlicensed dispensaries.

Selling unregulated cannabis products would become a Class A misdemeanor under the bill, although it doesn’t specify any criminal penalties like fines or jail time. However, the campaign against unlicensed stores has already resulted in arrests in different jurisdictions—not something the architects of legalization wanted to see.

“The [bill] grants all municipalities across our Great State the authority to order the closure of unlicensed cannabis retailers and seize all merchandise, swiftly ending the blight of illegal smoke shops once and for all,” a description for the legislation reads.

The bill’s summary puts the number of unlicensed stores currently operating in New York City alone at 1,500.

As justification, the text claims these stores are undermining the legal market by selling product at lower prices than is possible for legal stores. It also claims that unlicensed shops hold large quantities of illicit products and loose cash, making them targets for robberies; it cites almost 600 reported robberies of smoke shops in 2022, more than four times the year prior, and five fatal shootings at the shops in 2023.

Small businesses in New York have sold cannabis products on the down-low since long before legalization. Bodegas, delis, grocery stores and smoke shops were all sometimes involved, as I can confirm from experience. But this activity seems to have increased significantly since legalization was enacted in April 2021, with fears of criminal penalties reduced and more businesses willing to risk operating without the license now required by state law. The bill’s summary puts the number of unlicensed stores currently operating in New York City alone at 1,500, based on an estimate by state officials.

To date, state agencies have taken the lead on trying to police these stores. Governor Kathy Hochul’s (D) 2024 fiscal year state budget gave expanded power to the Office of Cannabis Management and the state taxation department to go after stores, fine and close them, working with courts. Stores can now face up to $20,000 in daily fines for non-compliance, be fined for unpaid taxes, have their products seized, and be evicted from commercial property. The budget provides $5 million to hire 37 new cannabis officials to help with enforcement.

In addition, a new law took effect in 2023 that tries to shut down dispensaries by leaning on landlords. Police will send letter to a commercial landlord they believe is renting to an illicit dispensary; a landlord who fails to take action to evict such a tenant could face tens of thousands in fines.

Hu emphasized that the focus should be on making businesses comply with the law, but not criminalizing people.

Wei Hu, attorney founder and partner of MRTA Law, told Filter he sees the SMOKEOUT Act as a positive step, but hopes that cities, police departments and residents can work together to make sure they consider the specific impact of each store on its local area before taking any action. (Full disclosure: Hu holds a New York retail cannabis dispensary license.)

“Legacy shops affect different neighborhoods differently,” he said, referring to unlicensed vendors who have been operating since before legalization. “What is a public nuisance in certain areas might be the only means of access in other locations. [You should] give localities the option to prioritize and enforce [in a way that] reflects the needs of the community. If you’re in an area with no shops and your only access is a non-licensed operator, it should be less a pressing priority than in the Lower East Side where there is a legal option, and you have 25 unlicensed stores surrounding it.”

Amid what looks like an escalating crackdown, Hu emphasized that the focus should be on making businesses comply with the law, but not criminalizing people.

“It has to be civil enforcement only,” he said. “No one gets arrested for selling untaxed cigarettes, or spends jail time for bootlegging alcohol. These are civil penalties. I hope that enforcement will stay in civil forfeiture and civil penalties. No one should be in jail for cannabis. If they’re selling and not paying taxes, then that’s tax fraud.”

Unanticipated obstacles have contributed to this situation, such as multiple lawsuits.

All this is happening at a time when New York is steadily opening more legal dispensaries, although the process has been far slower than legalization proponents would have wished. It took about 18 months after legalization before the first store opened, in lower Manhattan at the end of 2022. Throughout 2023 dozens more legal stores opened statewide, and there are now 43 of them—still a very low number for a large, populous state with high demand.

Unanticipated obstacles have contributed to this situation. For many months, issuing of dispensary licenses has been slowed or halted because of multiple lawsuits alleging New York’s process is unfair or discriminatory. Most recently in December, the New York Supreme Court settled two of those cases, one brought by a group of military veterans seeking licensure, and another by medical marijuana companies which operated before full legalization. State cannabis officials are hoping to approve hundreds more dispensary licenses in 2024.

Of course, none of this is unique to New York. All states that have legalized cannabis still have some form of illicit or legacy market. The cannabis economy is old and established throughout the country; vendors aren’t willing to stop if they have difficulty obtaining a legal license, and when their prices are low enough to keep attracting business. Rules and regulations mean that legal, licensed cannabis businesses have to meet higher testing and purity standards, rent or acquire property, pay workers and security, and pay taxes and other fees—expenses that can make it prohibitively expensive for small businesses to enter the industry, and which are reflected in retail prices for those who do make it.

There’s a racial justice element to this too, when legacy vendors include many people of color and immigrants, and the legal industry in many places has become white-dominated. New York is among the states to have responded by incorporating significant social equity provisions into legalization models, prioritizing communities targeted by prohibition for dispensary licenses. But such measures can only do so much in the face of market forces and financial barriers to entry, and rollout takes time.

Politicians and news reports have focused heavily on the potential risks that unlicensed stores pose to the public—flagging, for example, a 2022 study that found 40 percent of samples from 20 unlicensed stores in New York City contained harmful compounds like E. coli, lead or salmonella. Elected officials have complained about incidents like fires, in addition to armed robberies and shootings.

Hu hopes the landscape will shift. He predicts that by the end of 2024, up to 400 legal dispensaries will be open.

Hu admitted there are valid reasons why people may choose to shop at these stores—like having no legal option close by. He hopes that licensed stores, including those owned by social equity applicants, will succeed in capturing the market. But to do this, he said, they have to realize they are appealing to a different segment of customers and work to convince other buyers to make the switch—by offering, for example, a wider range of products at different price points with guaranteed potency and quality.

“People who have bought legacy sources will still feel comfortable doing that,” he said. “For the licensed market, it will attract new customers who were never legacy. But also, we have many legacy consumers who now want lab-tested cannabis—whether to know the exact strain that they’re paying for, or for the purity of concentrates and extracts. You can always smell flower and differentiate quality by scent and feel; it’s harder to do so with concentrates.”

For now, the shortage of legal dispensaries in New York gives plenty of reason for unlicensed stores to keep selling, despite the threats, and for consumers to keep buying. But with more legal dispensaries expected to open up this year, consumers will have more options and Hu hopes the landscape will shift. He predicts that by the end of 2024, up to 400 legal dispensaries will be open statewide.

Image of cannabis dispensary in Union Square by Eden, Janine and Jim used via Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0

The post SMOKEOUT Act Aims New Crackdown at Unlicensed NY Cannabis Stores appeared first on Filter.

“I was virtually paralyzed from the neck down, suffering from muscular dystrophy,” he explained. “Throughout my time, I was a total care patient. For 10 years I had to be dressed, undressed, bathed, receive assistance with feeding, wheelchair movement—I had to be turned from side to side every two hours at night to ease respiratory complications.”

None of this held Stevens back after his release in 2001. Back in his hometown of New York City, he quickly found himself in the midst of a movement to end the state’s drug war, playing his part in repealing the very laws that led to his sentence. Now, he’s running a marijuana edibles company—selling to the adult-use market, but with a focus on supplying people like himself with disabilities. And rather than keeping the profits, the company is redistributing them to Black and Brown communities like his own.

“I was incarcerated on a 15-to-life sentence for a low-level, nonviolent drug offense, with people who commit murder and rape receiving less time.”

The Rockefeller laws, passed in 1973 by New York Governor (and future vice president) Nelson Rockefeller (R), imposed lengthy mandatory-minimum prison sentences for a range of felony drug charges. In the worst sense, these laws were innovative—advancing the kind of severe punishments that many other states later adopted. President Nixon may have declared the “War on Drugs” in 1971, but it was lawmakers like Rockefeller, working in state houses around the country, who gave the drug war the muscle to lock people away for years or decades. Even today, far more people are incarcerated for drugs in the 50 different state prison systems than in the federal system.

For decades, as VICE describes, a coalition of New York community activists demanded an end to the Rockefeller laws. Finally in 2009, the state legislature and Governor David Paterson (D) reached an agreement to repeal much of the framework behind them—ending mandatory minimums for possession, use and low-level sales charges. Analyzing outcomes of these reforms in 2015, the Vera Institute for Justice concluded that they substantially reduced racial disparities in sentencing, among other impacts.

In 2021, New York took a further step toward undoing the damage by legalizing marijuana. Stevens is now transitioning from community advocate to entrepreneur as he launches his own cannabis brand. Frustrated with New York’s slow rollout, he’s focusing first on selling in Massachusetts, another legal-cannabis state. His company involves Khaliah Ali, daughter of legendary boxer Muhammad Ali, and Jason Flom, a music industry executive responsible for breaking the likes of Katy Perry, as advisers.

Despite this success, Terrence Stevens is not about to forget how he reached this point. I had the chance to ask him about his life story: surviving prison despite woefully inadequate health care, transitioning back to society, becoming an advocate against the Rockefeller laws, and what he’s doing now. As he sometimes fought for breath during our conversation, the courage and determination that have enabled him to achieve so much, after all he’s endured, shone through. Our interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Alexander Lekhtman: Did you have muscular dystrophy before you went to prison?

Terrence Stevens: Yes, I was diagnosed at 14. This condition is a chemical breakdown in signals between the spinal area and brain, where the muscles are not functioning. It gets worse with time—as a result I am a total care patient. It’s a devastating disease.

I was in my late 20s when I was sentenced. I was incarcerated on a 15-to-life sentence for a low-level, nonviolent drug offense, with people who commit murder and rape receiving less time than me.

Which prisons did you do time in?

I started out at Wende. From there I went to Elmira, then I was transferred to Green Haven Correctional Facility. It had a special unit for wheelchair people, because I needed such intensive care. I spent the majority of my time there because it was closer to NYC and my family.

How was the care you got at Greenhaven?

It was substandard and inadequate in the beginning. Prisons weren’t built to house people in my condition. The bathroom doorways were too small for my wheelchair, the water fountain was too high, the prison yard was riddled with potholes and uneven pavement.

They changed many conditions in the prison but it took a lot of advocating. For nine years I was being treated by doctors who had no specialty in my disease process, before they finally took me to get treated by a muscular dystrophy specialist. As a result my condition got worse—my spine kinda curves to the left, I have a compressed lung and I have severe scholiosis which causes breathing complications.

“I fought to get out of prison, and then once out, I jumped into another fight.”

How did you get out? 

The nightmare was over when I received executive clemency in 2001 thanks to [the advocacy of] my mom, and the late Judge Jerome Marks—he was a great advocate for ending for these laws.

I think the prison gave me $35 when I was released. But I was fortunate enough to have a unique circle of supporters and donors who helped me navigate myself back into mainstream society.

How did you become involving in drug policy reform advocacy? And what was happening at that time?

It was amazing coming out and landing right at the forefront of the Rockefeller drug-law movement. I fought to get out of prison, and then once out, I jumped into another fight.

People were putting pressure on the governor and legislators to reform the Rockefeller drug laws. People were upstate, just rotting away being warehoused in these maximum-security state prisons when they probably could benefit from treatment more.

I met up with organizations like Drug Policy Alliance and Mothers of the Disappeared, and I began organizing. I devoted a large part of my life to advocating for drug law reform, and trying to prevent other individuals, whether disabled or able-bodied, from getting caught up in these laws.

I spoke at events, press conferences. I went around the schools, participated in some documentaries. We staged rallies to convince the right people with the power to change drug laws.

We succeeded in reforming the laws and giving judges a bit more discretion than they did when their hands were tied. Because of that, we brought thousands of people home in New York state.

What do you think changed in public opinion about drugs during this time?

I think society started realizing the majority of people held under these laws were [just people who use drugs, often people with substance use disorder]. They use and get caught with drugs, and they could benefit by going into treatment as opposed to incarceration—and even taxpayers get a bigger bang for their buck this way. People were seeing addiction and drug use as more a public health matter.

What was your next step after that?

I founded a nonprofit, In Arms Reach. It catered to the needs of children and youth who are impacted by incarceration. We provided them tutoring and mentoring. They benefited from after-school programs, getting help with their homework, and having positive role models to help them navigate through life.

What did you teach them, and what did you learn from them?

I think children suffer from being away from their parents. There’s a lot of stigma, isolation, insecurity, and low self-esteem. Just being there to help them through those life challenges was a good experience for me.

I think it was inspiring for the kids to see someone in my physical condition have an impact in the community like I have, to supervise and take a leadership role in this program.

“It’s time to  work on empowering individuals who suffered from the drug war and do more to give back.”

How did you go from working with kids to starting a cannabis company?

I wasn’t really a smoker because I don’t like the way the flower changes my mood swings. But I was doing some research one day and I heard Montel Williams, who has multiple sclerosis, and he found relief through cannabis. I said, I want to try this and see if it would help my MD.

I’m glad I did because it proved to be very helpful for my anxiety, muscle stiffness, and my pain and suffering. It puts me at ease. I tried the edibles and at first it was too strong. So we had to work on finding the right blend that would treat my condition and prevent mood swings.

Initially I was somewhat fearful of trying cannabis because it changes my mood, but people really need to try it because I immediately learned there are so many benefits from it. From supporting cancer to alleviating anxiety, relaxing your muscles. It helps me sleep now.

You now run your own company called Ironsdyz, with an edible gummies product. Your motto is “Good Weed, Good Deed.” The website states you’re “committed to addressing this unintended imbalance of the current cannabis ecosystem,” and that the company “recycles ALL PROFITS from cannabis sales back to individuals and communities harmed by the drug war.” Can you explain? 

I never imagined that the majority of all real cannabis profits are going to people whose skin does not look like mine. You have a tiny percentage of profits that are owned by people of color. Yet Black and Hispanics make up a disproportionate total of the prison population and arrests, so there’s a real disservice there. Then you have a situation where the number of physically challenged people in leadership roles in cannabis is at an all-time low, with respect to colored folks even lower. It’s time to  work on empowering individuals who suffered from the drug war and do more to give back.

There’s a lot of money being made but not much being given. We are making sure people who are harmed by the drug wars are getting some benefits from legalization of cannabis. We hope that by launching this brand, we can’t necessarily change a life but at least [can] lighten the load.

What’s key about the model is simply all profits will go to those who were left behind. We take out funding for salaries and operating expenses and what we need to push the company forward. Anything outside that goes out the door.

We connected with a cannabis company in Massachusetts called Freshly Baked. It’s a small company but they have a big heart. The founders are a husband-and-wife team, disabled veterans, suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder; they took us under their wing by not charging us for manufacturing the cannabis.

At this point, 24 states and Washington, DC, have legalized adult-use cannabis. We’re seeing more states—on paper—commit to “social equity” in awarding licenses and training support to small business owners who were targeted by prohibition. But it’s often an empty promise: As Fortune estimated in 2022, less than 2 percent of marijuana businesses nationwide were Black-owned. What are your thoughts on improving this?

There’s a major problem with “social equity.” You have cannabis officials giving out these licenses but they really are providing no support for individuals. It’s one thing to get the license but another to keep your business running. A lot of the bigger multi-state operators are coming in, taking control and wiping the small guys out. A lot of our efforts will be on creating policy where social equity can be honored.

I would like to sponsor some legislation where cannabis businesses are mandated to stock at least 10 percent of their products from social equity producers.

Where does the money you give away go to?

It’s the small things that have the biggest impact. The money goes to people’s kitchen cabinets, or for groceries. I knock on doors and give money directly away. Our team consists of just two people. We’re not going to do anything conventional—we will not fund a large nonprofit.

First we’re doing small gifts, capped at $500. We’re doing a random act of kindness to let someone go out and buy a Thanksgiving dinner, or something for their self, no strings attached. Their money, whatever they want to do with it. The only string we attach is, please play it forward. Do something kind for someone else and let us know.

Mothers of the Disappeared was one of the first groups that hit the pavement when we were fighting the Rockefeller drug laws. We will be reaching out to some of those disappeared and forgotten victims and extending some help to them. And we will support small, grassroots organizations on the ground in communities doing real work.

People can contact us at info[@]ironsydz.com to ask for help.

Photograph of Terrence Stevens (center) with friends and colleagues, courtesy of Stevens 

The Influence Foundation, which operates Filter, previously received a restricted grant from the Drug Policy Alliance to support a Drug War Journalism Diversity Fellowship.

The post He Fought Rockefeller Laws That Cost Him 10 Years. Now He Sells Cannabis. appeared first on Filter.

During discussion at the sixth annual Cannabis Opportunities Conference—part of the Diasporic Alliance for Cannabis Opportunity’s (DACO) Black Cannabis Week—policymakers, most of whom are Black, stressed the importance of building social equity into the legal market.

“This is going to be a multibillion-dollar industry,” said state Senator Sharif Street (D), who hosted the event. “We need to make sure that we’re inclusive … We need to make sure that folks can participate at every level of this industry.”

While medical marijuana is legal in Pennsylvania, lawmakers in the state are gearing up for a push to legalize cannabis more broadly. Street and a GOP senator partnered on legislation filed in July that would legalize marijuana for adults 21 and older. He and others said it’s also possible that separate, standalone bills will be introduced to address specific issues.

“No bill will move with my name on it until I know we’re not repeating the mistakes of equity in name only.”

Pennsylvania Representative Donna Bullock (D), one of two House lawmakers who circulated a cosponsorship memo about the policy proposal in January and a cosponsor of the legalization bill, said during the roundtable that including a robust equity program is the only way legislation will win her support.

“No bill will move with my name on it until I’m comfortable that we actually answer those questions,” said Bullock, who has previously spoken out against the dominance of large, multistate cannabis companies. “No bill will move with my name on it until I know for sure we’re not repeating the mistakes of equity in name only.”

“If you think you’re gonna get me with just some expungements, you got it wrong,” she added.

Under Street’s bill introduced in July, people who’ve been disproportionately impacted by cannabis criminalization and who meet certain income requirements would be eligible for social and economic equity business licenses. But the September 22 discussion made clear that some lawmakers would like to see those provisions made stronger.

“This is our reparations. Let’s get busy.”

“I think sometimes some people get scared to say ‘Black,’” Rep. Darisha Parker (D) said. “If we’re going to really do this for a legislative perspective, then all of us in the state need to make sure that we’re actually doing it, making sure that we’re actually supporting the individuals for this social equity bill that we’re going to be putting forward.”

“This is our reparations,” she added. “Let’s get busy.”

Some issues, such as access to capital or local control over approving cannabis businesses, have the potential to influence who controls the new industry, Parker noted, explaining that lawmakers are “still taking inventory” to see what’s worked in other states and what hasn’t.

Echoing that sentiment, Street said that in Pennsylvania, “we’re usually not the first to get anything done, but we’d like to be the first to get it right.”

Bullock said it’s more important to get legalization right than to get it done. “We’ve had … a hundred years of getting this wrong. I’m not in a rush to get it wrong again.”

Also present at the event were advocates and experts from other states who spoke about their experiences with legalization.

“If you don’t get equity in first, you’re not going to get it.”

New York Assembly Majority Leader Crystal Peoples-Stokes (D), who served as lead sponsor of the state’s 2021 legalization law, said it’s crucial that equity programs be put into operation before legalization.

“If you don’t get equity in first,” she said, “you’re not going to get it.”

Shekia Scott, cannabis business manager for the city of Boston, said that nearly seven years after Massachusetts legalized, “I feel like we’re still at a point where we’re chasing equity.”

“Even in Pennsylvania,” she said, “where things are not fully legalized for the adult-use market, you’re going to be chasing equity if you don’t start with it.”

Dasheeda Dawson, the founding director of Cannabis NYC, New York City’s municipal marijuana agency, said the “evolving language of cannabis equity” has been the biggest change she’s observed in the space over the past decade.

“We never really demanded the respect in language,” Dawson recalled. “We’d be on the legislative floor and we’d hear it constantly called ‘the black market.’”

“This term ‘legacy,’ or this term ‘traditional’ or ‘previously existing,’ was really meant to change the way our mindset is when we think about people who have participated in this market,” she said.

“While it’s beautiful to listen to you all discuss social equity, we don’t even have liberty in the South for a lot of our people.”

One panelist, Gary Chambers, who earlier this year ran to represent Louisiana in the United States Senate (and notably smoked a blunt in a campaign ad), remarked on the novelty of hearing other officials talk about the importance of social equity while his own state continues to criminalize cannabis.

“While it’s beautiful to listen to you all discuss social equity,” he said, “we don’t even have liberty in the South for a lot of our people.”

While Parker said at one point that legalization might take a while, there are nevertheless signs of support in the capital. Governor Josh Shapiro (D) is on the side of enacting cannabis reform, and in March proposed to legalize and tax adult-use marijuana as part of his 2023–2024 budget.

The prospects of enacting legalization also increased after Democrats took control of the House in last year’s election. Republicans maintained control of the Senate, but certain GOP members, such as Sens. Dan Laughlin and Mike Regan, are backing the reform.

In February, Laughlin sent a letter to state law enforcement, urging officials to take steps to protect gun rights for cannabis consumers, particularly medical marijuana patients.

Street, who is sponsoring the newly filed legalization bill, took some advocates by surprise recently by joining other senators in urging a federal court not to authorize a safe consumption site in Philadelphia, while supporting a proposal to ban the overdose prevention centers statewide.

Meanwhile, legislation filed in May by Rep. David Delloso (D) would legalize marijuana sales exclusively through state-run stores. The bill is similar to a measure Delloso filed last session.

Screenshot of panelists via Sen. Sharif Street/Facebook

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on Twitter and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post “Our Reparations”—Black PA Lawmakers Demand Equity in Legalization appeared first on Filter.

An attorney for people who hold conditional licenses under the program is fighting back, telling Filter that the delay is causing them “irreparable harm” and could derail the whole legalization rollout. Other experts also worry about the implications.

In March 2021, the New York State legislature and then-Governor Andrew Cuomo approved full cannabis legalization through the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA). The first adult-use dispensaries began sales in December 2022, though progress in opening up more stores has been slow.

From the beginning, cannabis justice advocates—with some allies in state government—sought to ensure that in legalizing, New York would begin to right the wrongs of prohibition. For this reason, the law contains “social equity” provisions. These are designed to prioritize and support people from communities disproportionately impacted by criminalization, and other marginalized groups, in entering the new industry.

New York has “improperly limited eligibility” and “indefinitely postponed licensing of hundreds of additional dispensaries necessary to satisfy consumer demand.”

In 2022, the state launched its “conditional adult-use retail dispensary” (CAURD) licenses. These are reserved for people with some history of marijuana arrests or jail time. They have to have been New York residents when arrested, and must also have at least 10 percent ownership in a business that has been profitable for at least two years. All dispensary licenses issued to date have been limited to people who meet these criteria; other people, under the rules, will have to wait until later to apply.

On August 2, four plaintiffs—Carmine Fiore, William Norgard, Steve Mejia and Dominic Spaccio—filed a suit against the New York State Cannabis Control Board and Office of Cannabis Management. They allege that in issuing CAURD licenses, New York has “improperly limited eligibility for this special, yet legally impermissible, license category,” and “indefinitely postponed the licensing of hundreds of additional dispensaries necessary to satisfy consumer demand.”

The suit asks the court to rule that the licensing process is unconstitutional and in violation of state law, and to stop the state from awarding or processing any further conditional licences. The plaintiffs had planned to open their own dispensary under New York’s social equity provisions. All four are service-disabled veterans—a category specifically named in the state’s cannabis equity plans, but not included in the current licensing round.

On August 7, the New York State Supreme Court issued a temporary injunction, suspending license review for five days. Then, following a hearing on August 11, the court issued a temporary restraining order for two weeks. All parties will return to court during that time, before the judge makes a final decision.

In support of their case, the plaintiffs cite MRTA provisions which state that New York “shall create and implement a social and economic equity plan and actively promote applicants from communities disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition … by prioritizing consideration of applications by applicants who are from communities disproportionately impacted by the enforcement of cannabis prohibition or who qualify as a minority or women- owned business, distressed farmers, or service-disabled veterans.” They also cite language in the law requiring “fifty percent of adult-use cannabis licenses to social and economic equity applicants and ensure inclusion of” groups including military veterans.

“The plaintiffs are arguing: We’re disabled veterans and under article 4 of the MRTA, we ought to get priority in the application process as social equity applicants, and under article 4 the provision says that when the application window opens it will open to all people,” David C. Holland, a New York-based marijuana law attorney, told Filter. Holland’s firm represents several conditional dispensary licensees but is not a party to the lawsuit.

The state’s defense, Holland explained, is that it has broad discretion to address inequalities in making decisions on how to structure the licensing process.

“The state in response said: Under Article 2, it says the state can create permits as needed, and basically there’s a fundamental emergency or crisis that additional license groups or permit types can be created by the Cannabis Control Board to be able to fill gaps,” he said, “and therefore the CAURD program is in keeping with the restorative justice approach of the preamble of the MRTA, saying they want to help people that have been impacted by the drug war.”

“They already have money invested into building their business after they got their provisional [licenses]. For them not to be able to open is irreparable harm, they’re losing money every day.”

Wei Hu, an attorney at MRTA Law, shared with Filter a document he is submitting to the court on August 15. Hu is representing 11 business owners who were awarded conditional dispensary licenses throughout the state, and is asking for “emergency intervention to redress the unique and irreparable harm” caused by the temporary restraining order. While his clients are not a party in the lawsuit, Hu is asking the court to let them “intervene” because they are directly affected by it.

Hu argues that nothing in state law specifies that all equity licenses must be issued at the same time. He notes that of the several hundred CAURD licenses issued statewide, seven have gone to military veterans who qualify as justice-involved. Hu argues that conditional license holders, who are already paying significant costs as they prepare to open for business, will be most harmed by the court order.

“They have been preparing to open their stores, using their life savings, in order to fund all the buildout costs, construction costs, hiring,” he told Filter. “They’re switching jobs, they’re already paying leases. They already have money invested into building their business after they got their provisional [licenses]. For them not to be able to open is irreparable harm, they’re losing money every day.”

“The public interest is not served by a rollback of the dispensaries that have already opened,” Hu continued. “We need more dispensaries, not less. We need this program to move forward … What happens when you slow the rollout? It decreases confidence in this market, it delegitimizes it. People will go to the illicit or legacy stores, and it will slow down the transition and possibly thwart this entire regulated adult-use market.”

An estimated several hundred unlicensed cannabis dispensaries continue to operate throughout the state, attracting negative attention from politicians, regulators and law enforcement. By comparison, just 18 legal dispensaries have so far opened for business. A delay in state-issued licenses would likely give many residents a reason to keep visiting unlicensed stores—unless officials shut them down.

Other cannabis advocates worry about the impact of the injunction on New Yorkers harmed by the drug war.

“It took so long to finally roll out the CAURD program, and it is really unfortunate when a lot of folks I know were awarded licenses, and [began] the process to start building out their dispensaries, they’re all in limbo right now,” Emily Ramos Rodriguez, co-founder of ¡High Mi Madre!, told Filter. Ramos Rodriguez lobbied for the MRTA, and has helped produce cannabis events and education in New York City. “The CAURD program is the only initiative right now that [the state] has put together for people who have been directly impacted to get a license and actually make reparations from the War on Drugs.”

“It set in motion those people who have said, ‘Let me file litigation and see if I can’t strongarm the state into giving me greater opportunity to get a license.’”

This is not the first lawsuit New York state has faced over its cannabis equity program. Kenneth Gay, the principal of Variscite Inc, previously sued the state in federal court, arguing that he was unfairly excluded from obtaining a dispensary license—he had a prior marijuana conviction—because he was a Michigan resident. In November 2022, a federal judge issued a partial injunction blocking the state from issuing licenses in several regions of New York. But the lawsuit was ultimately settled in May: Gay received a guarantee from the state that he would be awarded a general (non-equity) adult-use dispensary license when the state begins handing those out. Neither side admitted any wrongdoing or liability.

Holland worries about the precedent set by this decision.

“That set in motion those people who have said, ‘Let me file litigation and see if I can’t strongarm the state into giving me greater opportunity to get a license,’” he said. “As a result of [the judge’s August 7 injunction], I’d be highly surprised if we didn’t see more lawsuits filed between now and August 25, when [this case] starts up again.”

Image of cannabis dispensary in Union Square by Eden, Janine and Jim used via Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0

The post Lawsuit Casts Doubt on New York’s Cannabis Social Equity Program appeared first on Filter.

On July 19, the New York Cannabis Control Board voted to approve 212 new adult-use cannabis dispensary licenses, bringing the total issued to 463 statewide, as Spectrum News 1 reports.

But to date, just 16 legal adult-use dispensaries are open in the country’s fourth-largest state, with 20 million residents and the nation’s biggest city. Most of the licences awarded are “conditional”—meaning the license holder has to complete additional steps before they can get a “final” license and open their doors. So far, licenses have been reserved for people with some history of marijuana-related arrests or convictions.

Meanwhile, at least hundreds of stores selling cannabis without a license reportedly operate throughout the state. And on July 17, state Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal (D), representing parts of upper Manhattan, wrote an open letter to state cannabis officials. Addressing Christopher Alexander, executive director of the Office of Cannabis Management, and Tremaine Wright, chair of the Cannabis Control Board, he blasted what he portrayed as widespread illicit stores in his local neighborhood.

“Given the serious issues caused by these stores, I urge OCM and [the Department of Taxation and Finance] to continue to act quickly and aggressively to shut down these unlicensed stores,” he wrote. “The scale of these unlicensed stores is staggering, with over 100 stores identified in Hell’s Kitchen alone. As I have expressed previously, these stores are deceptive to consumers, hazardous to public health, cheating on their taxes, undermining the State’s equity-based and legal cannabis rollout, and have little incentive to inspect IDs to ensure they are not selling to minors.”

Hoylman-Sigal cited two incidents at separate stores—an armed robbery and shooting, and a fire—in arguing that the businesses are endangering residents. He attached a list of stores compiled by him and other Hell’s Kitchen residents.

In many ways, it’s a strange scenario to be describing, when New York legalized in 2021.

As he noted, New York lawmakers have already given more authority—and funding—to state agencies to go after illicit dispensaries. The fiscal year 2024 budget approved by Governor Kathy Hochul (D) gives the cannabis office and tax departments more powers to inspect such stores, fine them and shut them down through court orders.

In the breakdown of these rules, state cannabis and tax officials can charge civil penalties to unlicensed businesses—up to $20,000 daily in fines if they don’t stop selling cannabis—and fine them for unpaid taxes. They can also seize cannabis products, and seek to evict commercial renters. The bill makes it a crime to sell cannabis without a license, and a tax-fraud crime to sell cannabis without paying taxes. Lawmakers provided $5 million in funds to hire 37 new cannabis office staff, to assist with enforcement.

In many ways, it’s a strange scenario to be describing, when New York legalized in 2021.

And officials have already been cracking down. In June, Governor Hochul announced that state agencies had inspected 33 businesses in New York City, Ithaca and Binghamton, with 31 receiving violation notices. Officials ultimately seized over $11 million worth of cannabis products. Then on July 18, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg announced his office had struck an agreement with business owner Rami Alzandani, who allegedly owns a dozen illicit dispensaries in the city, for Alzandani to pay back over $400,000 in taxes and illicit profits.

OCM Director Alexander supported these changes. “Today, the State took a necessary step to protect the public health of New Yorkers and to support our state’s growing cannabis industry,” he said when the new measures were introduced. “Today’s legislation will further those goals by giving the Office of Cannabis Management real power to shut down businesses trying to flout our laws and ensure that communities who were promised reinvestment dollars are not shortchanged.”

But what explains the thriving illicit cannabis market in New York? There’s certainly money to be made during the slow legal rollout, when many consumer still don’t, in practice, have access to legal cannabis. Why wouldn’t smoke shops—which by one estimate, can make up to $3,000 a day—keep selling unregulated cannabis when this demand exists? You could argue it’s the city and state’s responsibility to shut down businesses that may sell contaminated products or sell to minors. But it’s also their responsibility to make sure New Yorkers can access cannabis, wherever they live, as easily—and as soon—as possible.

“This is not the right way and you’re getting in the way of us who waited our turn.”

Sohan Bashar is a Bengali-American immigrant who has lived in Jamaica, Queens since he was five. He told Filter that he has been involved in the cannabis business for over 20 years, in a “plant touching” role, and was previously prosecuted on a felony charge in Queens.

With this background, he was part of the second round of dispensary licenses awarded—which so far have been reserved only for people with a past cannabis arrest or conviction, under New York’s cannabis social equity program. He now holds a conditional license for his business, So Vapes & Accessories. But he said that the path to opening a legal store has been continually challenging.

As once of the resources provided to applicants, the state Dormitory Authority initially found Bashar a commercial location on Jamaica Ave and 162nd Street. But he felt it wasn’t the right spot: There was no parking, and rent and buildout costs were too high. The premises ended up going to Good Grades LLC, the first licensed dispensary to open in Queens.

In June, after a long delay, Bashar found his own location on Queens Boulevard—across the street from the courthouse where he was charged years ago.

Despite a combative meeting with a local community board that Bashar said raised unfair objections, the Office of Cannabis Management has the final say here, and he is still expecting to open a storefront, having secured a lease and contractors.

But near his building, Bashar said, is a smokeshop that sells unlicensed cannabis products. And he is not sympathetic to these businesses.

“This is not the right way and you’re getting in the way of us who waited our turn,” he said of the owners of such stores. “We did the crime and did the time, and we applied for the license and got it. Every regulation that’s passed we’re following. It takes time to do these things right—we’re choosing to do it the hard way.”

Bashar dismissed concerns that a further state crackdown on these shops will risk more police violence and discrimination, arguing that it’s a financial issue, not a criminal one.

Nonetheless, he believes that of the hundreds of people who received a conditional dispensary license under the equity program, most will find it nearly impossible to actually open a store.

“I’m having to pay my own lawyers and research out of pocket,” he said. “The 90 percent of other license holders who don’t have these resources and money saved, don’t have another business to borrow from, they’re left with nothing but a piece of paper that says they got a license. Now you got people who are predatory lenders out here, trying to get 49 percent of their license, for pennies on the dollar.”

New York State has “one of the best” legalization rollouts anywhere in the country, he still believes. But even with the strongest protections for disadvantaged entrepreneurs, he said, the deciding factor will always be money.

Success—and, potentially, the future of the illicit market—will depend on how many conditional license-holders can get over the finish line, and how soon.

New York lawmakers have created a “Cannabis Social Equity Investment Fund” worth $200 million, which is supposed to support dispensary licensees and get their properties leased and equipped so they can open doors. A quarter of that, $50 million, is allocated by the state out of cannabis licensing fees and taxes; the rest, $150 million, will come through a public-private partnership with a Chicago-based private investment firm, Governor Hochul announced on June 30.

The state has promised it will provide grants and low-interest loans to dispensary license holders, to help allay the high costs of opening a store. But Bashar and other license holders are concerned about the loan terms being offered. A group of them wrote a May 9 open letter to state officials, criticizing a lack of transparency over how dispensary locations are being approved and awarded. They also demanded immediate access to financial support to start up their businesses.

The Cannabis Control Board will approve one more batch of conditional dispensary licenses in the next few months, and later this year will consider approving licenses for general applicants. Success—and, potentially, the future of the illicit market—will depend on how many of the conditional license-holders can get over the finish line, and how soon.

Photograph via Pxfuel

The post New York’s Unlicensed Cannabis Stores Still Focus of Controversy appeared first on Filter.