Resources

This qualitative study draws on 37 in-depth interviews with cannabis consumers across nine states where adult-use cannabis has been legal for at least five years. Participants shared their experiences with and opinions on legal cannabis in their communities, revealing nuanced perspectives on the benefits and limitations of legalization.

Our new report on the Illinois market maps every active cannabis brand in Illinois to the parent company that controls it, and finds market concentration rising again. That outcome was produced by policy choices: a licensing framework that gave incumbents a multiyear head start, regulators too fragmented to intervene, and a tax structure that hits small producers hardest.

Signed in 2026 by over 200 experts and organizations including Parabola Center, this open statement calls for a five-year pause on all student-facing generative AI products in PreK-12 schools. It was cited in The New York Times and in letters by the NYC City Council and other public bodies throughout the country.

This survey research -- to our knowledge, the first of its type -- looks at what American adults think about legalization. American adults don't trust tobacco, alcohol, or pharmaceutical companies to create good cannabis policy. We found that they trust people who have lived experience and who use marijuana to create good cannabis policy. When we asked who should benefit from cannabis legalization, they responded that they want to see people who use marijuana, workers in the industry, and people harmed by previous enforcement to benefit. Social equity and ending arrests ranked highest among the concerns of respondents.

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!

A letter to the editor making the case for stronger regulation of AI chatbots to protect users from their harms.

As the markup of the SAFE(r) Act approaches, we joined CRCC and DPA in a letter to Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Scott. Because of collective and unrelenting efforts to prioritize equity, the current bill is undoubtedly better than previous versions of the bill with respect to the issue of cannabis banking. This is a testament that all marijuana policy reforms, including cannabis banking legislation, are an opportunity to promote equity. However, more can and should be done to ensure that cannabis banking policy promotes fairness and is not merely protecting banks and increasing banking access for some.

In response to reporting that cannabis may be reclassified to Schedule III, we joined several other drug policy reform nonprofits and cannabis industry trade organizations focused on social justice to urge the Biden administration to make good on its promise to decriminalize cannabis by fully removing cannabis from the list of controlled substances.

With new legislation in Congress, Big Tobacco and Big Alcohol’s quiet efforts to put themselves in charge of future federal cannabis policy are coming to a head. The latest bill, introduced by Sen. Hickenlooper and Rep. Joyce, is a clear example of how seemingly well-meaning efforts at reform could backfire and ruin marijuana legalization, handing control of the new industry to massive corporations.

In this column, Chelsea Higgs Wise and Shaleen Title .argue to preserve the framework originally passed by Virginia voters, which allowed Black communities a head start on licenses. Legislators were pushing bills that would rush legalized sales and skip all of the vital equity steps. We encouraged readers not to fall for this false sense of urgency. (Update: the bills did not pass!)

Congressional Democratic leaders filed a marijuana legalization bill last week aimed at remedying the injustices of the drug war. But my experience as a regulator overseeing the implementation of Massachusetts’s effort to end marijuana prohibition tells me that without stronger measures, their plans will fall short of that worthy goal.

Massachusetts is finally on the verge of passing comprehensive cannabis reform legislation that will help deliver on Question 4’s promise to support equitable opportunity in this new market. Both chambers’ bills take major steps toward improving equitable market participation through access to capital, incentives for equity in local licensing, and reforming our broken host community agreement system. Now, the devil is in the details. (Update: Our advice was largely taken!)

Parabola Center supports the ten equity-centered principles developed by the Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition founding board, which includes several of our founders and advisors. Its principles of governance are transparency, consistency, evidence, accountability and representation; its principles of policy are dismantling the drug war and its impacts, protecting cannabis patients, community investment, fair taxation, and preventing monopolies and oligopolies.

Announcing a comprehensive bill to legalize marijuana, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer said, “We don’t want the big tobacco companies and the big liquor companies to swoop in and take over.” Dr. Andy Tan and Shaleen Title agree. Tobacco behemoths are pouring billions of dollars into the new legal marijuana industry, seemingly determined to target marijuana consumers and patients as their next prey. We don’t have to let them.

Recent momentum in states’ legalization of cannabis in the USA represents a critical tipping point for eventual federal legalization. There is an urgent need for policy advocacy to avoid Big Tobacco taking over the cannabis industry and transforming into Big Tobacco 2.0, with lethal consequences for public health. There are alternatives available to prevent this bleak future of Big Tobacco 2.0.

In 2016, Massachusetts voters passed a landmark ballot question tasking our new agency with creating economic empowerment pathways for communities of color most devastated by the War on Drugs and other systemic inequities. Four years later, lawmakers now have an opportunity to collaborate with us to make that ambitious and just goal a reality by advancing a bill currently being considered. (Update: this bill passed!)

The top ten equity must-haves for any state cannabis legalization bill, starting with the right to grow at home. (Disclaimer from Shaleen Title: These were my opinions as of 2019 based on experience as both an activist and regulator. These recommendations have held up, but if I rewrote them today, I’d add a section giving first-mover advantage exclusively to equity businesses).

Did you know that in 2022 and 2023, a private meeting took place between sitting marijuana regulators from across the nation and an invite-only list that included Big Tobacco reps? Our organization declined an invitation to attend and speak both years, we cannot in good conscience attend any invite-only marijuana policy event, that includes such proven bad actors.

Failing to consider potential unintended negative consequences of a vape ban does a disservice to the people most impacted. Michael Sinha and Shaleen Title warn that we’re already seeing the consequences of the vape ban in MA, and we encourage other states to think twice before implementing aggressive measures that lack evidence.

In November [2017], Massachusetts voters chose to move our state’s drug policy into the 21st century by rejecting the failed War on Drugs and becoming the first state in the Eastern half of the country to legalize cannabis. It is vitally important that Massachusetts’s omnibus cannabis legislation be altered to preserve the will of the voters and the progress made.

This interview with renowned addiction psychiatrist and harm reduction advocate Dr. John Marks, who created the original parabola drug policy curve, was conducted by Parabola Leader and MPH student Meredith McGee.

In this fireside chat recorded live at New West Summit in 2019, Shaleen Title interviews Killer Mike about the relationship between cannabis, art, and music; cannabis and entrepreneurship; and the ability to create change. He makes a compelling case that “fair” is more effective phrasing than social equity or social justice, and drops some wisdom and policy solutions to address cannabis monopolies before they happen.

In December 2022, the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center and the Parabola Center hosted a discussion of cannabis residency requirements, the arguments at play, and some considerations and best practices for regulators and people seeking to build better cannabis regulations. We also touched on race-based criterion, but see our Race Factor Cheat Sheet for updated information after the Supreme Court decision in 2023.

We spoke to health researcher Jane Allen about her novel research examining what people in New Jersey think about equity in the context of cannabis, and the surprising results. Make sure to read about her fascinating study, published in April 2023 and available free and open to the public here: https://www.rti.org/announcements/new-study-finds-public-education-could- increase-support-equity-cannabis-policies

In this presentation, "Everything We Know About Social Equity So Far," Shaleen Title spoke to the newly appointed board members about sequential licensing, access to capital, barriers to entry, predatory deals, reinvestment into communities harmed by the war on drugs, and lots of other subjects during a wide-ranging discussion and question and answer session that was publicly broadcast in July 2021.

It was valuable for us to interview Massachusetts State Representative (now Senator) Liz Miranda about her views on drug policy. Along with Representative Mike Connolly, she introduced a bill to repeal all criminal penalties for drug possession and make them civil infractions. She lives in Roxbury near the area most well-known for drug enforcement and has consistently advocated for her community and for incarcerated people.

Social equity programs have been an effective tool in many states as one component of an effort to repair the harms caused by the war on drugs. But how do you determine who is eligible? This cheat sheet briefly and clearly explains the most frequently raised issues.

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.