Resources

This report outlines concerns that federal marijuana legalization would wipe out current state markets and replace them with a national monopoly. It provides a blueprint for Congress to protect the almost 10,000 small businesses that make up most of the legal market in states and the hundreds of thousands of jobs they provide. We suggest three constitutional policy solutions and model language that would protect states' efforts toward equity and justice, and preserve the progress these states have already made in those areas.

If you are concerned that big businesses are taking over the cannabis industry and you want to take action to prevent it from getting worse, this toolkit is for you. The national monopolization of cannabis is a big issue to tackle. But there’s good news: It’s easier to prevent it from happening in the first place than it is to fix it after the fact. The purpose of this toolkit is to provide an educational resource for anyone with a stake in the outcome of this multibillion-dollar market – legislators, regulators, adult consumers, medical cannabis patients, or any concerned citizen who doesn’t want to see yet more domination and destruction caused by national cannabis corporations and by Big Tobacco, Big Alcohol, and Big Pharma.

In this paper, we argue that small cannabis businesses foster local economic growth and contribute to the public good. Additional research is necessary, particularly to compare findings from states that are already taking measures to safeguard and financially support specific types of small businesses. In the interim, we recommend the exploration of immediate solutions, beginning with (1) access to SBA loans, (2) systematic data collection and potential expansion of state measures such as fee waivers and licensing prioritization, and (3) consideration of lower-cost regulations for small businesses. Various relevant federal bills are listed and briefly analyzed in the Appendix.

This paper describes the benefits, limitations, and risks of federal rescheduling, specifically how federal rescheduling could consume the state-licensed industry without safe harbors under the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Of particular concern is the risk that rescheduling could inadvertently facilitate a monopoly by the pharmaceutical industry over interstate and international cannabis markets. The paper introduces several ways that the risks to consumers, patients, and small businesses could be mitigated.

This paper reviews federal laws and approaches to cannabis banking, including the SAFE Banking Act of 2021 and notable changes in the SAFE Banking Act of 2023. Particular focus is placed on amendments seeking to promote banking that is fair. This analysis details how efforts to advocate for provisions promoting fairness in marijuana banking have led to minor but meaningful amendments to the SAFE Banking Act of 2023. It also identifies ongoing opportunities to ensure that banking is fair and accessible for all.

As policymakers prepare to open the door to a national marijuana market, they must beware of monopolies — and structure the industry accordingly. This Expert Opinion Analysis written for Law360 by Shaleen Title and Matt Stoller, director of research at the American Economic Liberties Project, explains how.

This paper presents different perspectives on how the federal government should regulate the interstate commerce of cannabis, starting with our plan to exclusively allow “equity businesses” (those owned by people previously harmed by the war on drugs) to participate in interstate commerce first.

Published by The Ohio State University Drug Enforcement and Policy Center, this paper argues for intentionally applying well-developed antitrust principles to federal cannabis reform now, before monopolization of the market takes place. It was ranked #2 on the list of the world’s most downloaded antitrust and competition articles on SSRN in 2022.

We submitted these recommendations in response to the U.S. Senators’ request for public comment. They are crafted in light of a specific vision for a fair, open, and competitive market founded on justice and restorative practices. Cannabis commerce should not be a new revenue machine, a tool to exploit users, or a free-for-all for corporate greed.

If we are serious about creating a fair and equitable national industry, we must allow the federal government to develop its own competency in cannabis regulation and prevent the domination of the market by a small number of corporations in the meantime. Our suggested amendments to the MORE Act offer constructive alternatives focused on a gradual shift to interstate commerce.

As part of the working group convened by Drug Policy Alliance to develop them, we support these recommendations that center health equity, social equity, justice, and accountability in federal cannabis regulation. We believe this framework– not the PREPARE Act or other approaches being pushed by Big Tobacco and Alcohol – is the best starting point for Congress to create rules for a national cannabis market.

Published by The Ohio State University’s Drug Enforcement and Policy Center, this paper is designed to equip readers with practical advice about how to implement social equity. It covers the large policy areas regulators have to address as they begin to design a comprehensive social equity policy for their state’s cannabis industry.

This model bill provides a comprehensive statutory framework for cannabis legalization with express provisions to remedy disparate burdens placed on communities of color in the enforcement of cannabis prohibition. But note that this model represented the best information available as of 2017 – there is data available from 2017-2023 that suggest sections of this bill are now out of date.

Save the date for our 2024 Federal Cannabis Policy Crash Course July 13-14, 2024 in Providence, Rhode Island!

The tobacco industry has a demonstrated history of resisting government regulation, co-opting experts, engineering products to be more addictive. In order to prevent them from doing the same with cannabis, federal legalization will need to empower regulators and restrict the influence of big business. Our cheat sheet explains how, with links to sample language including mandatory disqualification based on past corporate conduct.

We have previously pointed to Massachusetts' economic empowerment designation criteria and other similarly structured eligibility requirements and suggested considering race as one of several factors, based on settled law up until now. In light of the decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President &a Fellows of Harvard College, we are updating this recommendation.

Our position is neutral on the SAFER Banking Act (previously known as SAFE). But with cannabis banking legislation now making its way through Congress, we believe it’s crucial that people have an understanding of the limitations of the bill and its potential impacts, both in its current form and with specific amendments focused on fairness. With minor and technical changes, it can advance us toward a fair and equitable industry. Our cheat sheet provides a quick overview for people who aren't concerned about its effect on everyday people, not stock prices.