The Paradox of Social Equity in the Cannabis Industry

Session Submission Type: Roundtable

Abstract

Social equity and the promise of redressing historical harms has become a cornerstone of cannabis legalization across the US. And yet many states struggle to translate that into policies that meaningfully empower communities most harmed by past prohibition and over policing. Despite a growing national interest and investment in the industry, non-white owners comprise just 15 percent of the industry in sharp contrast to 85 percent of white owners (Ordonez, 2024). 

This panel explores the paradox of social equity within the cannabis industry: while legalization has emerged as a vehicle for redress, the roots of inequity—namely, prohibition and racially-targeted criminalization—continue to shape outcomes for communities of color. Although state-level reforms have attempted to embed social equity through licensing preferences and reinvestment programs, the cumulative harms of prohibition are not easily undone in an industry where profitability is elusive and ownership remains overwhelmingly white.

As documented by the ACLU in A Tale of Two Countries (2020), Black individuals were 3.6 times more likely than white individuals to be arrested for marijuana possession, even in states that had already decriminalized or legalized cannabis. Yet, despite widespread acknowledgment of this disparity, ownership and control of the legal industry continue to elude those most harmed. The Minority Cannabis Business Association’s Equity Map (2024) shows that few states have implemented robust equity programs, and even fewer have seen measurable outcomes. Only 27% of cannabis businesses are currently profitable (Adams, 2024), suggesting that equity applicants—often undercapitalized and structurally disadvantaged—are entering a failing market.

Additionally, the gender gap in the cannabis industry, with women-owned businesses comprising only 22 per cent highlights more systemic barriers like limited access to capital, fewer leadership opportunities, and consistent wage gap (Cauli, 2023; Passman, 2023). Marc Ramirez (2022) points out that although the LGBTQIA+ community were at the frontline of medical cannabis legalization in the 1980s, they have often been overlooked in recent policy initiatives, and in many cases “left behind.” 

In grappling with these contradictions, we draw on Wendy Smith’s (2022) Both/And Thinking, applying paradox theory to illustrate how equity initiatives often navigate competing demands: redressing past harms while building future sustainability, advancing inclusion within a market economy, and creating pathways for ownership in a political climate where “equity” is increasingly polarizing. Recent public health literature (Sundstrom et al., 2023) further supports that without structural change, efforts to improve equity in cannabis will likely replicate, rather than repair, past injustices.

This panel calls on policymakers and scholars to hold these tensions with intentionality and integrity. Rather than selecting one "truth" over another—e.g., that equity is failing or succeeding—we argue for a more complex understanding: equity can be both necessary and insufficient, urgent and under-resourced, morally compelling and politically precarious. This both/and approach urges policy leaders to center the historical causes of inequity, acknowledge current market failures, and design policies that are responsive to the sociopolitical realities in which they must be implemented.

Policy Area

• Social Equity and Race

Moderator

• Samuel L. Myers, University of Minnesota

Organizer

• Samuel L. Myers, University of Minnesota

Speakers

• Jessica LYNNE Jackson, University of Minnesota

• Heather Trela, SUNY Rockefeller Institute of Government

• Spruha Joshi, University of Michigan Ann Arbor

• Courtney Davis, Maryland Office of Social Equity