Understanding How Ohio Compares to Other States' Post-Legalization Policies to Redress Past Harms
On November 7, 2023, Ohio became the 24th state in the nation to legalize marijuana for adult recreational use. Following the lead of other states, the Ohio ballot initiative included social equity provisions designed to address past harm of marijuana criminalization by investing in disproportionately impacted communities and encouraging participation of such groups in the new legal cannabis industry. The purpose of this resource page and associated report is to highlight the varying strategies other states have deployed to fulfill social equity goals and to look at how Ohio’s new laws compare to others. At the bottom of the page, explore additional research and events related to cannabis social equity.
NOTE: This page does not incorporate citations. Download the report to find the full list of sources and references used.
Introduction
When policymakers and advocates discuss social equity in respect to marijuana legalization, they typically focus on three policy areas: 1) criminal justice reforms encompassing record relief and resentencing, 2) efforts to facilitate participation of underrepresented groups in the marijuana industry by providing technical and financial support or by setting aside a certain number or type of licenses, and 3) investment into disproportionately affected communities. As of 2023, an overwhelming majority of legalization states have enacted some social equity provisions alongside their adult-use marijuana programs. As shown in Table 1, 22 of the 24 legalization states have enacted criminal justice reforms, 20 states have created industry participation assistance programs, and 18 states have either adopted community reinvestment provisions or are in the process of considering them. Not all marijuana-related social equity provisions were enacted as part of initial marijuana legalization reforms, which was especially the case with states that were part of the early wave of legalization. As shown in Table 1 below, many of these early states adopted social equity provisions through subsequent enactments.
In the following sections, we look at each policy area in greater detail, starting with criminal justice reform, followed by community reinvestment and industry participation. In addition to the three policy areas, we also provide detailed information on the criteria selected states have used to determine individual and community eligibility for participating in their social equity programs. We conclude the report with recommendations for greater data collection and analyses concerning the impact of social equity efforts and a more robust assessment of best practices for social equity programs.
Table 1: Overview of all three social equity policy areas by state
State | Criminal Justice Reform | Community Reinvestment | Industry Participation Assistance |
---|---|---|---|
Alaska (2014 by ballot) |
No | No | No |
Arizona (2020 by ballot) |
Yes (Enacted During and Post-Legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) |
California (2016 by ballot) |
Yes (Enacted During Legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) | Yes (Enacted Post-legalization) |
Colorado (2012 by ballot) |
Yes (Enacted During Legalization) | Yes (Enacted Post-legalization) | Yes (Enacted Post-legalization) |
Connecticut (2021 legislation) |
Yes (Enacted Post-Legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) |
Delaware (2023 legislation) |
Yes (Enacted Pre-legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) |
Illinois (2019 legislation) |
Yes (Enacted During Legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) |
Maine (2016 by ballot) |
No | No | No |
Maryland (2022 legislation) |
Yes (Enacted Pre-legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) |
Massachusetts (2016 by ballot) |
Yes (Enacted Post-Legalization) | Yes (Enacted Post-legalization) | Yes (Enacted Post-Legalization) |
Michigan (2018 by ballot) |
Yes (Enacted Post-Legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) |
Minnesota (2023 legislation) |
Yes (Enacted Post-Legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) |
Missouri (2022 legislation) |
Yes (Enacted During Legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) |
Montana (2020 by ballot) |
Yes (Enacted During Legalization) | No | No |
Nevada (2016 by ballot) |
Yes (Enacted Post-Legalization) | No | Yes (Enacted Post-legalization) |
New Jersey (2020 by ballot) |
Yes (Enacted Pre/Post-Legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) |
New Mexico (2021 legislation) |
Yes (Enacted Pre-legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) |
New York (2021 legislation) |
Yes (Enacted During and Post-Legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) |
Ohio (2023 by ballot) |
Yes (Enacted Pre-legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) |
Oregon (2014 by ballot) |
Yes (Enacted Post-Legalization) | No | No |
Rhode Island (2022 legislation) |
Yes (Enacted Pre-legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) |
Vermont (2018 legislation) |
Yes (Enacted Post-Legalization) | Yes (Enacted Post-legalization) | Yes (Enacted Post-legalization) |
Virginia (2021 legislation) |
Yes (Enacted Pre-legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) | Yes (Enacted During Legalization) |
Washington (2012 by ballot) |
Yes (Enacted Post-Legalization) | Yes (Enacted Post-legalization) | Yes (Enacted Post-legalization) |
Criminal Justice Provisions
Criminal justice reforms enacted by states in response to marijuana legalization can be broadly divided into two types – record relief provisions and resentencing provisions.
Record relief provisions nationwide
States use different terms to describe record relief provisions, with expungement and record sealing being used most frequently, in addition to labels such as "set aside," “vacate," or "erasure." As described in greater detail in a previous report, record relief encompasses a wide variety of provisions that can differ significantly in its scope. Four elements help determine the breadth of available relief: the range of offenses eligible for relief, the extent to which records are removed from government databases, how long one must wait before being able to seal their record, and who has responsibility for initiating sealing or expungement. In respect to the range of offenses, some states, such as Michigan, limit available record relief only to minor offenses, usually classified as misdemeanors, while other states, such as Missouri, allow for the sealing of a broad range of crimes, including felonies as well as misdemeanors. Second, the degree to which records are destroyed after a sealing varies, with some states destroying any record of past marijuana convictions while others only remove records from public view but allow the use for certain purposes, such as determining eligibility for employment in law enforcement or at sentencing for any future offense. Third, states differ in the immediacy with which record relief is available to people with marijuana criminal records, with some states offering immediate relief and others instituting various wait times or limiting relief only to convictions that took place within a specified timeframe. Lastly, the scope of relief is determined by whether the responsibility to initiate proceedings rests with the state, often called an automatic or government-initiated process, or whether it rests with the individual with the criminal record, generally called petition-based relief.
As shown in Table 2, 22 of the 24 legalized states have taken steps to provide record relief for marijuana-related convictions or other low-level convictions that would cover marijuana criminal offenses. Alaska and Maine are the only two states without a record relief mechanism for past convictions. A total of 16 states have implemented some form of government-initiated record relief, whether through provisions within the adult-use program that are marijuana-specific, or via a “clean slate” type of legislation enacted separately from the adult-use program.
Resentencing provisions nationwide
The second category of criminal justice relief involves the authorization of resentencing for those still subject to punishment for marijuana-related offenses. As with record relief, resentencing provisions differ from state to state but generally allow individuals currently serving a marijuana-related sentence an opportunity to have this sentence amended or completely vacated. This type of relief is less common, with only eight states out of 24 adopting resentencing provisions for past marijuana offenses.
Record relief and resentencing in Ohio
The Ohio marijuana legalization initiative passed in November 2023 did not include any direct criminal justice reform provisions. However, it did earmark some marijuana tax revenue to “study and fund judicial and criminal justice reform including bail, parole, sentencing reform, expungement and sealing of records, legal aid, and community policing related to marijuana” as part of the Cannabis social equity and jobs program. Notably, over the past 12 years the Ohio General Assembly has passed numerous record relief reforms that have significantly broadened the type of offenses eligible for sealing to include certain classes of felonies, and that allow for a near complete destruction of records of offenses eligible for sealing by making expungement broadly available with additional wait time. Consequently, the majority of marijuana offenses in Ohio are eligible for both record sealing and expungement. The process remains petition-based, which generally limits its effectiveness due to low utilization among eligible Ohioans, although recent legislation allows prosecutors to initiate record relief petitions on behalf of individuals convicted of minor substance offenses. However, an initial survey of prosecutorial offices across Ohio suggests that only a small number of offices plan to participate in the process to initiate record relief.
At present, Ohio does not have any statutes allowing for resentencing of marijuana offenses.
Table 2: Summary descriptions of record relief and resentencing provisions by state
State | Record Relief Description | Resentencing Provisions |
---|---|---|
Alaska | None | None |
Arizona | Arizona's Proposition 207 allows for expungement of records for possession up to 2.5 ounces and cultivation of up to six plants, upon petition. | Yes |
California | California's Prop. 64 allows petitions for marijuana offense expungements, with AB 1793 automating this process. AB 1706 further directs courts for record reduction, redesignation, and expungement. | Yes |
Colorado | Colorado's 2017 law allows petition-based expungement for misdemeanor marijuana convictions, with automatic sealing for first-time minor offenses. The 2022 Clean Slate bill extends automatic expungement to all eligible marijuana felonies and misdemeanors starting July 2024. | None |
Connecticut | Connecticut's 2021 legalization bill includes petition-based and automatic expungement for marijuana possession up to four ounces from specific periods, with automatic sealing effective from 2023 and mandatory record destruction for decriminalized charges. | None |
Delaware | House Bill 2 in Delaware mandates expungement for non-violent marijuana possession or paraphernalia offenses, with technology development for civil rights restoration and criminal record expungement. | None |
Illinois | Illinois authorizes automatic expungement for minor cannabis offenses involving up to 30 grams and, via petition, for larger amounts up to 500 grams. | None |
Maine | None | None |
Maryland | Maryland allows expungement petitions for cannabis possession, automatic expungement for certain cases, and resentencing for incarcerated individuals. It also seals records for specified cannabis offenses, treating public smoking as a civil offense. | Yes |
Massachusetts | Massachusetts' 2018 law allows discretionary expungement for low-level marijuana convictions, expanded in 2022 to include cultivation and intent to distribute offenses, with a mandatory 30-day expungement upon petition. | None |
Michigan | Michigan's Clean Slate legislation, following 2018's legalization, streamlines marijuana misdemeanor expungement and includes automatic expungement for simple misdemeanors and non-assaultive felonies after seven years, along with traffic offense expungement and reduced waiting periods. | None |
Minnesota | Minnesota's legislation includes automatic expungement for certain cannabis offenses, a Cannabis Expungement Board for reviewing and determining expungement or resentencing eligibility, and court-issued expungement orders with detailed procedures for record sealing and notification requirements. | Yes |
Missouri | Missouri mandates expungement of certain felony marijuana offenses within 12 months, allows petitions for resentencing and release, and requires record sealing, restoring individuals to pre-arrest status. | Yes |
Montana | Montana's 2020 initiatives (CI-118, I-190) allow individuals to petition for expungement, resentencing, or redesignation for offenses involving no more than one ounce, with presumed eligibility for relief. | Yes |
Nevada | Nevada's 2019 bill allows sealing of records for offenses like marijuana possession if decriminalized. AB 158 seals records for those under 21 for minor offenses, and a 2020 resolution pardons possession convictions from 1986-2017. | None |
New Jersey | New Jersey's 2021 law expands expungement to various marijuana offenses, directing an automatic record sealing system. It includes provisions for vacating convictions, assessing rehabilitation in background checks, and expunging cannabis-related offenses. | None |
New Mexico | New Mexico's legislation with marijuana legalization automatically expunges public records of cannabis offenses (2 ounces or less) no longer criminal or reduced in severity, two years after conviction or arrest. | None |
New York | New York's SB 6579 and 2021 legalization bill provide automatic vacatur and expungement for possession of two ounces or less of marijuana, including misdemeanor and felony possession and misdemeanor sale offenses. | Yes |
Ohio | Ohio's Cannabis Social Equity and Jobs Program authorizes a fund to study reforms including expungement. Ohio allows for the sealing and expungement of wide classes of misdemeanors and felonies, with various waiting periods in place depending on the type of offense. Record relief is petition based. | None |
Oregon | Oregon has streamlined the process for setting aside and reducing marijuana convictions, with eligibility for those under 21 at conviction time, fee waivers for small possession cases, and online filing for set-asides and reductions. | Yes |
Rhode Island | The Act includes expungement of certain cannabis-related convictions, guidelines for record sealing in employment, resentencing provisions, protections for individuals with expunged records, and considerations of rehabilitation and fitness for occupational licensing. | None |
Vermont | Vermont's S.234 authorizes automatic expungement for possession of up to 2 ounces of cannabis or cultivation of 4 mature plants, with petition-based expungement available for conduct no longer criminalized. | None |
Virginia | Virginia's SB 1406 allows automatic expungement of misdemeanor marijuana possession and petition-based expungement for paraphernalia sale, with limited public record access from July 2021. | None |
Washington | Washington allows individuals 21 or older at the time of a misdemeanor marijuana offense to apply for immediate conviction vacation, mandated by the court if eligible. | None |
Download the full report to access Table 3. Government-initiated or petition-based record relief.
Industry Participation Support
The second policy area of marijuana social equity is industry participation support aimed at individuals and communities that have been disproportionately affected by marijuana criminalization or other distinct groups such as veterans. With much of the marijuana industry structured around state licensing requirements, states have typically adopted two approaches to industry participation support: 1) a license assistance program, which can include financial and/or technical assistance provided to applicants that meet requirements for participation, and 2) equity license allocations or preferences.
As shown in Table 4 below, 12 states have enacted statutes requiring a certain number or certain percentage of licenses to be allocated for individuals who are part of a disproportionately affected community or who have met other criteria set by the state regulators. Additionally, 20 states have established programs to provide license assistance, whether through application fee waivers or reductions, programs that provide loans to applicants, or by offering technical assistance. Nineteen states have also enacted language that sets aside funds for providing some form of business education training for equity applicants and their workforce. These programs can come in the form of job training, business marketing, literacy and tutoring programs, apprenticeships, mentoring services, and other programs meant to foster economic growth for equity applicants and the communities impacted by enforcement.
Only four states do not provide any form of industry participation support: Alaska, Maine, Montana and Oregon.
Ohio industry participation support
The newly passed initiative in Ohio calls for the “department of development to establish a business assistance program funded by the cannabis social equity and jobs fund, and to adopt rules … to administer the program including the following:” …
- “(8) Provide financial assistance, loans, grants, and technical assistance to persons certified by the department under the cannabis social equity and jobs program pursuant to rules adopted under this section;”
- “(9) Encourage employment practices, in which an adult-use cannabis operator can demonstrate a plan of action to inform, hire, and educate minorities, women, veterans, and persons with disabilities, engage in fair labor practices, and provide worker protections;”
- “(C) For certified cannabis social equity and job program participants, the division of cannabis control shall waive at least fifty percent of any license or application fees associated with a license holder's application or license.”
Additionally, the initiative also established a “preferred status” for applicants certified as cannabis social equity and jobs program participants for 40 Level III adult-use cultivator licenses (up to 5,000 sqf) and up to 50 adult-use dispensary licenses:
- “(C) The division of cannabis control shall issue up to forty level III adult-use cultivator licenses consistent with this chapter with preference provided to applicants who have been certified as cannabis social equity and jobs program participants under the cannabis social equity and jobs program pursuant to 3780.19 of this chapter. No person may have any ownership or control in more than one level III adult-use cultivator license under this chapter. No adult-use cultivator or adult-use processor may have any ownership or control in a level III adult-use cultivator license.
- (D) The division of cannabis control shall issue up to fifty additional adult-use dispensary licenses in conformity with this chapter with preference provided to applicants who have been certified as cannabis social equity and jobs program participants under the cannabis social equity and jobs program.”
It remains to be seen how, and if, an industry participation support program will be established in the state of Ohio, as revisions have already been proposed in the Ohio General Assembly that would eliminate all industry participation support provisions by rerouting marijuana tax revenue to mostly law enforcement priorities.
Table 4: Industry participation support provisions by state
State | License Assistance Program | Equity License Allocation |
---|---|---|
Alaska | None | None |
Arizona | Offers fee waivers for eligible first-time applicants based on income and military/veteran status. | 26 adult-use marijuana establishment licenses for social equity applicants |
California | Offers fee waivers/tiered fees and technical/financial assistance for equity licenses. | None |
Colorado | HB 20-1424 offers financial/technical support and various Accelerator Licenses (Cultivator, Manufacturer, Retailer) for equity licensees with operational flexibility and partnership agreements. | None |
Connecticut | Connecticut offers loans for SEC-approved Social Equity Applicants owning 50%+ of Equity Joint Ventures or own 65% or more of a 149 cultivators/businesses. Covers specific business expenses, excludes taxes/licensing fees. Loans up to $500,000 with 6-9% interest rate, discounts for program completion, and personal guarantees required. | 50% of licenses are reserved for social equity applicants |
Delaware | Offers technical support and a Social Equity Fund providing low-interest loans and grants. Microbusiness licenses for small-scale operations with discounted fees and biennial renewals. | Cultivation Licenses - 30 licenses Product Manufacturing Facility licenses - 10 licenses Retail store licenses - 15 licenses Testing facility licenses - 2 licenses |
Illinois | Provides application advantages, 50% fee waivers, financial/technical support, and an incubation program. | Dispensing Organizations - 55 licenses Cultivation Centers - 20 licenses |
Maine | None | None |
Maryland | Establishes a Partnership Grant Program to support licensee collaborations. | First round of applicant submissions for all license types are reserved for social equity applicants |
Massachusetts | Offers fee reductions, grant/loan funds, and prioritizes these applicants in licensing. | None |
Michigan | Offers fee waivers/reductions and financial/technical assistance to social equity applicants. | None |
Minnesota | Provides grants, loans to cannabis microbusinesses, and technical assistance in affected communities. | None |
Missouri | Requires comprehensive license applicants to promote participation from disproportionately impacted communities. Appoints Chief Equity Officer for public education and assistance. | Microbusiness license category established for equity applicants |
Montana | None | None |
Nevada | Offers a 75% reduction in administrative fees. | Independent Cannabis Consumption Lounge - 10 licenses |
New Jersey | New Jersey established the Cannabis Joint Equity Grant Program. Program offers $20 million pilot for New Jersey license holders, and up-to $250,000 in grants for startup/operational costs. | 25% of licenses will be given to applicants from impact zones |
New Mexico | Offers microbusiness licenses with discounted rates based on plant count and business functions for smaller-scale entrepreneurs. | None |
New York | Equity program offers fee waivers/reductions, prioritizes these applicants, and includes an incubator program for additional support. | 50% of licenses will be awarded to social equity applicants |
Ohio | The passed initiative provides for the establishment of the cannabis social equity and jobs program to provide financial assistance and license application support to individuals most directly and adversely impacted by the enforcement of marijuana-related laws who are interested in starting or working in cannabis business entities. | Up to 40 Level III adult use cultivator licenses (5,000 sqf) and up to 50 adult use dispensary licenses with preference provided to applicants who have been certified as cannabis social equity and jobs program participants. |
Oregon | None | None |
Rhode Island | Establishes a fund for financial/technical assistance and allows license transfers only among qualified social equity applicants. | 6 retail licenses will be awarded to social equity applicants |
Vermont | Prioritizes social equity and economic empowerment applicants, with a 5-year fee reduction schedule for social equity applicants: full waiver in Year 1, incrementally increasing to full fee in Year 5. | None |
Virginia | Grants early preference to social equity applicants until January 1, 2024, with partial fee waivers. Virginia's Equity Business Loan Fund offers low/zero-interest loans to qualified licensees. | None |
Washington | WSLCB to issue new/revoked licenses (34 current, up to 52 additional from 2024) exclusively to social equity applicants. Annual fees waived through July 1, 2032. | 52 retail licenses will be administered to social equity applicants Any new or revoked license will be given to a social equity applicant |
Community Reinvestment
Among the 24 adult-use marijuana states, 15 states have created community reinvestment programs designed to invest some portion of the marijuana tax revenue into needy communities. The programs encompass efforts aimed at investment in job training and economic development opportunities, jail diversion and violence prevention, or providing funds for reducing unemployment and homelessness among other objectives. Some states direct community reinvestment funds specifically to communities deemed “disproportionately affected” by over-policing during prohibition, while others invest resources more generally into economically depressed areas. In addition to the 15 states with functioning traditional community reinvestment programs, the state of Michigan has established a social equity grant program that is opened to the social equity cannabis licensees, who can then engage in various community reinvestment activities in the jurisdiction where they are located. Two other states, Vermont and New Mexico, have community reinvestment programs in the planning stage, although they have yet to be implemented.
Ohio community reinvestment
As mentioned in the previous section on Ohio industry participation assistance, the recently passed initiative included a provision establishing the cannabis social equity and jobs program. Concerning community reinvestment, the initiative proposed to “(12) Fund direct investment in disproportionately impacted communities to enhance education, entrepreneurism, legal aid, youth development, violence prevention, and the arts related to the program.” Additional tax revenue is allocated for substance use treatment and prevention, which can be seen as a form of community reinvestment if it is invested in communities disproportionately affected by past enforcement. Furthermore, the initiative also designated a portion of the tax revenue to be invested back into communities that have licensees within their jurisdictions.
Similar to proposed reforms to Ohio’s industry participation assistance provisions, revisions have already been proposed in the Ohio General Assembly that would eliminate funding for community reinvestment by rerouting marijuana tax revenue to mostly law enforcement priorities except for substance use treatment and prevention, which continues to be funded under HB 86, albeit at a lower level.
Table 5: Summaries of community reinvestment programs by state
State | Community Reinvestment |
---|---|
Alaska | None |
Arizona | 10% funds the Justice Investment Fund, managed by the state treasurer for public health and justice reinvestment programs, with annual grantee reports. |
California | State allocated $30 million from 2020 cannabis taxes to local equity programs, with 50% for nonprofits. Program will increase to $50 million by FY 2022-2023. |
Colorado | Social equity efforts prioritize licenses for impacted individuals, provide financial aid and community reinvestment, facilitate criminal record expungement, offer local employment and training, encourage community regulatory input, and protect small businesses. |
Connecticut | From July 2023 to June 2026, 60% of excise tax is allocated to the Social Equity and Innovation Fund, increasing to 65% in 2026 and 75% in 2028. The Social Equity and Innovation Fund has a variety of purposes but specifically requires fund to be distributed for “community investments.” |
Delaware | Justice Reinvestment Fund managed by State Treasurer finances administrative costs, restorative justice initiatives, workforce development, and technology for civil rights restoration without year-end fund reversion. |
Illinois | The R3 Program allocates 25% of cannabis tax revenue to grants for violence prevention, reentry support, youth development, economic development, and civil legal aid in areas with high violence, poverty, unemployment, and incarceration rates. |
Maine | None |
Maryland | Legalization established the Community Reinvestment and Repair Fund. Fund shall be used for community-based initiatives intended to serve low-income, and/or, areas identified as disproportionately impacted by marijuana enforcement. |
Massachusetts | Equity plans for impacted communities, Cannabis Social Equity Trust Fund for grants and loans, 3% sales cap on community impact fees, 15% of Regulation Fund for equity and health programs, fines for non-compliance. |
Michigan | Equity plans for impacted communities, Cannabis Social Equity Trust Fund for grants and loans, 3% sales cap on community impact fees, 15% of Regulation Fund for equity and health programs, fines for non-compliance. |
Minnesota | CanRenew grants support community investments and job creation in social equity areas, with additional programs for loan financing, substance treatment, and industry training. |
Missouri | The Veterans, Health, and Community Reinvestment Fund, fueled by taxes and fees, offers grants for addiction treatment, overdose education, and support services, prioritizing high overdose rate populations. One third of the fund is allocated to agencies and not-for-profit organizations with an emphasis on reintegrating recipients into their local communities, while also providing for job placement, housing, and counseling for individuals with substance use disorders. |
Montana | None |
Nevada | None |
New Jersey | 70% of cannabis revenue supports 'impact zones' with grants, loans, and assistance, focusing on disadvantaged communities, training programs, and economic development. |
New Mexico | Division adopts policies to ensure full cannabis industry participation from communities harmed by enforcement, focusing on diversity, New Mexico residency, and support for rural, economically disadvantaged areas. In 2021 Cannabis Regulatory Advisory Committee created the following recommendation for the Cannabis Control Division: Create a community reinvestment fund – reinvesting 40% of state cannabis excise tax revenue in communities disproportionately affected by past federal and state drug policies by supporting housing, job placement, mental health treatment, substance use disorder treatment and legal services to address barriers faced by formally incarcerated persons. Based on available information, this recommendation has not yet been adopted. |
New York | New York State allocates 40% of adult-use cannabis tax revenue to the Community Reinvestment Grant Fund for various community revitalization efforts, including job skills, education, health, and legal services. |
Ohio | Fund direct investment in disproportionately impacted communities to enhance education, entrepreneurism, legal aid, youth development, violence prevention, and the arts related to the program. Additional resources are set aside for substance use treatment and prevention. |
Oregon | None |
Rhode Island | Social Equity Assistance Fund supports approved applicants with grants, community development goals like job training, restorative justice programs, fee waivers for industry entry, and mandates annual community impact reports. |
Vermont | Vermont has taken steps to enact community investment through funds meant for social equity however, the program is in its early phases and has not yet been activated. |
Virginia | 30% of funds to the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund for supporting impacted communities, educational resources, workforce development, and the Virginia Cannabis Equity Business Loan Fund for low-interest loans to social equity licensees. |
Washington | None |
Defining Social Equity Applicants and Disproportionately Impacted Communities
An important aspect of social equity programs, especially concerning community reinvestment and industry participation support, is the criteria states use to determine who is and who is not eligible for participation. The criteria used to determine eligibility for a social equity program usually include a combination of two elements: 1) personal circumstances and 2) a broader conceptualization of a disproportionately affected or deserving community.
Personal circumstances
Personal characteristics or circumstances used by states to identify individuals to participate in the social equity program can be roughly divided into four categories: 1) criminal justice involvement, 2) economic status, 3) residence in a certain geographical area identified by the state, and 4) a broad category of “other.” Criminal justice involvement usually refers to the individual’s personal experience with a marijuana arrest or conviction, or such direct experience by immediate family members. Economic status refers to certain income requirements for the individual or family. In addition, states often recognize current or past residence in a certain geographical area as an additional qualification criterion. Lastly, states sometimes recognize other characteristics as eligibility criteria, such as a veteran status or being a farmer from a rural economically depressed area. As shown in Table 6, states may use a single or a combination of the four factors to identify eligible social equity applicants.
Download the full report to access Table 6: Personal characteristics for qualification as a social equity participant in selected states.
Community characteristics
States use a combination of criteria that assess the level of economic disadvantage and/or measures of law enforcement in a given region for classifying communities as disproportionately affected. While some use the percentage of low-income households, others have used alternative economic indicators such as unemployment, SNAP benefits participation or free school lunches. With respect to criminal justice criteria, state and local governments have used rates of marijuana arrests, general drug arrests, and marijuana convictions to measure whether a community suffered higher levels of enforcement. It should be noted that defining disproportionately affected communities presents significant challenges due to incomplete statewide criminal justice data, lack of sufficient detail in available data, and other issues. Table 7 below presents criteria used by a select group of states to identify communities eligible for social equity programs.
Ohio criteria for identifying social equity participants and disproportionately impacted communities
The passed initiative included a mixture of personal and community characteristics for identifying individuals and communities for participation in the social equity program. Namely, the Department of Development was tasked with establishing criteria based on a requirement that the business owner or owners show both social and economic disadvantage based on the following:
- “(a) Wealth of the business seeking certification as well as the personal wealth of the owner or owners of the business.
- (b) Social disadvantage based on any of the following:
- (i)The business owner or owners demonstrate membership in a racial minority group or show personal disadvantage due to color, ethnic origin, gender, physical disability, or long-term residence in an area of high unemployment;
- (ii)The owner or owners, or their spouse, child, or parent, have been arrested for, convicted of, or adjudicated delinquent for a marijuana related offense as determined by rule by the department of development prior to the effective date of this section.
- (c) Economic disadvantage based on economic and business size thresholds and eligibility criteria designed to stimulate economic development through license awards to businesses located in qualified census tracts.”
While the personal characteristics are generally well defined, the statute is rather vague about what criteria will be used to identify “areas of high unemployment.” Additionally, in a section that talks about community reinvestment, the language specifies disproportionately impacted communities without providing any additional information about which measures will be used to categorize disproportionately impacted communities.
Download the full report to access Table 7: Community characteristics for identifying communities eligible for social equity programs in selected states.
Concluding Thoughts
In the last few years, we have seen a gradual shift to a wide acceptance of social equity programs in states that have legalized recreational adult-use marijuana. As shown in Table 1, of the 16 states that have legalized recreational marijuana since 2018, 14 states enacted social equity policies as part of their legalization effort. Only Montana did not adopt any social equity provisions and the state of Vermont adopted social equity provisions post-legalization.
But as social equity policies gained momentum, states have also begun to recognize that implementation of these policies involves an array of complications and is often fraught with legal and procedural difficulties and uncertainties. In this last section of the report, we will briefly discuss a few frequently identified issues.
Criminal justice reform
While not all states that have legalized recreational marijuana have embraced government-initiated record relief, there is a general consensus among advocates that the administrative barriers posed by the petition-based system justify advocating for so-called “automatic” or government-initiated record relief. Unfortunately, there is rarely anything automatic about such efforts. For example, California enacted petition-based marijuana-related expungement in 2016 that authorized “individuals who had completed a sentence for a wide range of marijuana offenses (both felony and misdemeanor) to petition the court to either have the conviction dismissed and sealed, resentenced, and/or redesignated, depending on the offense.” This was amended in 2018 to require government agencies to initiate the sealing of eligible records. Unfortunately, six years later, California has yet to complete the expungement of the estimated 227k eligible records.
The reasons why implementation of government-initiated record sealing is difficult are numerous but generally revolve around the lack of high-quality data stored in siloed databases as well as the lack of resources to process large numbers of records. Additionally, marijuana-specific record relief is also sometimes hampered by the fact that newly passed legalization statutes do not align with old marijuana criminalization statutes. For instance, when Arizona’s voters legalized recreational marijuana in 2020, the resulting statute authorized expungement of “[p]ossessing, consuming, or transporting two and one-half ounces or less of marijuana, of which not more than 12 ½ grams was in the form of marijuana concentrate.” However, because a previous statute classified all possession of marijuana under two pounds as the same offense, court, and police documents generally did not include detailed information about the amount of marijuana found on one’s person at the time of arrest.
Consequently, Arizona prosecutors and courts spent a vast amount of time and resources in accessing and reviewing original case records to determine whether an applicant is eligible for expungement under the new statute, often to no avail.
While adopting marijuana-specific record relief might seem like a commonsense policy, policymakers and advocates need to make sure that the admirable intent of a new statute is not impossible to implement in practice, and that the adoption of automatic sealing provisions does not turn into a broken promise of relief.
Industry participation assistance
Numerous press reports have discussed unfulfilled promises of social equity policies focused on industry participation assistance. These reports highlight problems such as lengthy delays caused by legal challenges to eligibility criteria and the selection process, unusually high cost of entry combined with lack of access to traditional financing due to cannabis’ federal status, unintended consequences of well-meaning but poorly designed regulations, persistent illicit market competition and others. While some programs may have fared better than others in facilitating minority participation in the legal marijuana industry, designing and implementing well-functioning social equity policies aimed at diversifying the cannabis industry has proven consistently challenging.
Given these challenges, states might want to consider whether facilitating cannabis industry participation among communities that have been disproportionately affected by marijuana criminalization is the most efficient and effective means to achieve the goals of social equity policies – namely, enabling those communities most impacted by marijuana prohibition to benefit economically from the creation of a new industry. Given the resource-intensive nature of the cannabis industry and the challenges posed by the uncertainty stemming from the incongruent federal and state legal environments, policymakers should consider whether other policy areas should be given more weight as they are designing social equity programs for their states.
Community reinvestment
Unlike the other two policy areas, not much has been written about the impact of community reinvestment efforts. As shown in Table 6, community reinvestment efforts tend to be broad in their focus, without well-defined end goals or measures of success, which in turn makes assessing their effectiveness difficult. However, the broad nature of some of the statutory language enacted by states also provides an ongoing opportunity to engage with members of the targeted communities to determine local needs and goals and to tailor specific community reinvestment efforts to achieve these objectives most effectively and efficiently. If the primary goal of social equity programs is to uplift struggling communities economically, then investment into things such as job training, minority business loan programs, scholarships, and other areas of need might be a more effective way to reach this objective than only focusing on facilitating cannabis industry participation.
Defining social equity applicants and disproportionately impacted communities
The first step in identifying social equity program participants and disproportionally impacted communities is to select a set of eligibility criteria. While this might seem like a straightforward process, it is a complex problem as policymakers do not want to set the criteria so broad that it includes almost everybody, or so narrow, that the program ends up serving very few. Additionally, policymakers must pay attention not only to what would make the best selection criteria but also whether the selected criteria can be supported by easily accessible, high-quality, and accurate data. As many criminal justice scholars know, the quality and availability of criminal justice data across the United States is abysmal, making any criminal justice criteria fraught with difficulty. When it comes to economic selection criteria, the availability of data on things such as unemployment, school lunches or SNAP benefits is generally better, but it comes with another challenge – choosing the right time for determining eligibility. If lawmakers use present data only, they might be excluding people who have suffered economic hardship historically, but now find themselves living in a recently gentrified area. This all shows that identifying individuals and communities worthy of support through social equity programs can be a difficult and complex challenge.
Need for data collection to allow for a rigorous evaluation of social equity programs
Statewide social equity policies enacted because of marijuana legalization are still very new, with the oldest dating back to the summer of 2018. It is still too soon to conclude that these programs cannot accomplish their goals even as they experienced early difficulties. These difficulties should not be viewed as a reason to give up on social equity policies, but rather as a reason to ensure that as new policies are adopted, and old policies are adjusted, necessary data is being collected to allow for a rigorous evaluation of the program’s effectiveness. This will require a clearer articulation of goals for each of the policy areas, and a purposeful effort to collect data on all aspects of social equity policy. While diversifying the cannabis industry might be deemed a worthy goal, other objectives for community reinvestment and criminal justice reform can and should also be assessed to ensure that tax revenue is being invested responsibly.
Additional Research
This paper, by DEPC Distinguished Cannabis Policy Practitioner and Founder and Director of Parabola Center Shaleen Title and coauthor Bruce Barcott, argues 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, they 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, authored by Cat Packer, DEPC Distinguished Cannabis Policy Practitioner and Drug Policy Alliance Director of Drug Markets and Legal Regulation, 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.
This paper, authored by Cat Packer, DEPC Distinguished Cannabis Policy Practitioner and Drug Policy Alliance Director of Drug Markets and Legal Regulation, examines the Biden Administration’s executive orders on equity, its position on marijuana reform before and after President Biden’s related October 2022 statement, and it's repeated statements acknowledging both cannabis criminalization’s disproportionate impact on Black and Latino communities and marijuana reform as an opportunity to advance equity. Moreover, this paper critiques the omission of marijuana reform within the Biden Administration’s Equity Action Plans and highlights the opportunity for the Biden Administration to use its existing executive orders on equity as a framework to understand and address how marijuana laws and policies create barriers for underserved communities through the development of an equity action plan for marijuana reform.
This paper from DEPC Distinguished Cannabis Policy Practitioners in Residence Shaleen Title and Cat Packer, along with fellow coauthors and members of the Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition, addresses the Safe and Fair Enforcement ('SAFE') Banking Act. According to its sponsors and supporters, the SAFE Banking Act would help address the challenges faced by small cannabis businesses that cannot currently access banking services or loans. With cannabis social equity programs ramping up across the nation but their participants lacking capital, a bill to solve that problem would be a well-timed blessing. But unfortunately, SAFE, as written, is unlikely to result in equitable access to financial services. This paper summarizes the bill, analyzes why it would fall short of its purported goals, and makes recommendations to improve the bill.
This paper from DEPC Distinguished Cannabis Policy Practitioner in Residence Shaleen Title argues for intentionally applying well-developed antitrust principles to federal cannabis reform now, before monopolization of the market takes place, and offers eight concrete policy recommendations. While states are making historic progress creating paths for small businesses and disenfranchised groups, larger companies are expanding, consolidating, and lobbying for licensing rules to create or maintain oligopolies. Federal legalization will only accelerate the power grab already happening with new, larger conglomerates openly expressing interest. Left unchecked, this scramble for market share threatens to undermine public health and safety and undo bold state-level efforts to build an equitable cannabis marketplace.
This paper from DEPC Distinguished Cannabis Policy Practitioner in Residence Shaleen Title is designed to equip readers with practical advice about how to implement social equity. Included are three large policy areas regulators have to address as they begin to design a comprehensive social equity policy for their state’s cannabis industry: policies around what makes an individual or an entity a social equity applicant, policies around what benefits a social equity applicant should have access to, and licensing policies that will support your community’s social equity goals.
This report details the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on small, minority-owned, and social equity businesses in the cannabis industry. The results indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic has introduced tremendous new challenges for the industry and exacerbated long-standing difficulties for businesses in this arena.
Authored by 2020-21 Drug Policy Grant recipient Lee Hannah, Associate Professor of Political Science at Wright State University.
Medical cannabis laws have now been adopted by 35 states and the District of Columbia. Yet the policies vary significantly and some policies have been viewed as more effective than others. This research project aims to take a deeper look at the implementation of medical marijuana programs in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Specifically, the project will focus on understanding how the states’ differing institutional structures, political control of key institutions, and approaches to policy design shaped differences in implementation outcomes. The research aims to better understand the intra-state dynamics of implementation and clarify how program design affects patient access.