 Social equity is one of the cornerstones of every single state or federal cannabis legalization discussions. It is as integral to legalization as cannabis itself. Legalization is just not done unless social equity is included.
But what exactly do they mean by the phrase? And is it working? First, social equity is about justice and fairness. It’s an attempt to ensure that people who have been disproportionately negatively affected by laws prior to cannabis are now given an opportunity to participate in and benefit from the new legal industry. The city of Los Angeles definies their Social Equity Program as being: “to promote equitable ownership and employment opportunities in the cannabis industry in order to decrease disparities in life outcomes for marginalized communities, and to address the disproportionate impacts of the War on Drugs in those communities.” So in short, the governments realize that it’s not fair that people from marginalized communities bore the brunt of cannabis punishments, and now the wealthy corporations, who possibly never had to deal with the negative side of cannabis law, are now the ones who, because of having money and therefore opportunity, will prosper financially from cannabis legalization. Generally what is supposed to happen is that a certain number of so called “social equity” licenses will be set aside, apart from the general licenses issued. They are the exact same license, but they are held for only those individuals who qualify as a “social equity applicant”. To qualify, they must prove they were ‘negatively affected’ by past anti cannabis legislation which has since been legalized. One example for qualification would be if an individual, or someone in their family or business was arrested or incarcerated for a cannabis charge that is now legal. There is more to it than that, but that’s the basic jist of it. Once they can prove it, they can qualify for that social equity license. One problem is that there are not many oof these licenses available. A state may have a few dozen at most. Lotteries are usually held to draw the winners. So, how are these programs going? Are they doing what they were designed to do? Well, there have been bumps along the way for sure. In lots of cases, someone may qualify, but they may not have the means to start a cannabis business. It can take a lot of money! So in some states, like Arizona, a social equity license winner is allowed to ‘sell’ the rights to someone else. Or they can take on a partner with money to fund the project. Over the past several weeks in Arizona, residents have been inundated with propaganda from some of the biggest cannabis investors in the state, searching for Arizona residents who may qualify for people who qualify as a “social equity” candidate. These cannabis investors have snet out flyers and mailers are saying things like, “Once in a lifetime opportunity,” and, “Brighten your future. Own a cannabis dispensary at no cost to you.” The investors behind this are searching desperately for people who can front applications for one of the state’s “social equity” dispensary licenses. Arizona only plans to have a total of 169 dispensary licenses. 26 of those are reserved for social equity licenses. So in a state where the dispensary numbes are capped, getting a license is extremely important to a large cannabis company, and they’re willing to pay big for it. A recent lawsuit filed is alleging that the state is not doing enough to keep these social equity licenses out of the hands of big business, which was not the intention behind granting social equity licenses. The new legal complaint argues that Arizona’s social equity program has failed to meet the standards laid out in Prop 207, which is the ballot initiative voters passed last year. Prop 207 legalized marijuana and allowed thousands of Arizonans to have their prior marijuana charged expunged. Prop 207 also directed the state to create a social equity program to encourage dispensary ownership by people who were disproportionately impacted by marijuana laws, which is often those in poor, Black and Latino communities. One of the plaintiffs’, Celeste Rodriguez of cannabis consulting firm Acre 41, said, “These [investors] are coming in, selling them the dream. They want to buy them out for pennies, and add it to the portfolios that they are building right now.” That sounds like a valid concern. Social equity licenses weren’t meant for big businesses, but on the other hand, should an individual who doesn’t have the money be barred from joining forces with large corporations or venture capitalists if it helps them get started in the industry? The plaintiff’s lead attorney, Jimmy Cool, told New Times, “What the voters were trying to do was enrich communities that were impacted by the drug war. From our clients’ perspective, all [this] does is enrich 26 people.” It’s an interesting point. It’s hard to understand how just 26 licenses which get bought up by big business could make amends for the countless numbers of individuals and their communities that have been negatively affected by cannabis. The lawsuit has just been filed, so it’s one to keep an eye on. Comments are closed.
|
RSS Feed