An in-depth report on how cannabis regulations favor large firms and exclude social equity applicants through licensing, zoning, and tax policy.
More than a decade into the era of legal cannabis, the rules governing the industry continue to privilege the powerful while obstructing the very communities most harmed by prohibition.
Despite growing public support for reform and the promises of inclusivity baked into many legalization campaigns, a pattern of legislative protectionism has emerged. State regulations often serve to entrench monopolies, marginalize equity applicants, and suppress competition under the guise of public safety and compliance.
A Patchwork of Legalization: 2012–2025
Cannabis regulation in the United States is a study in contradiction. As of 2025, 24 states have legalized adult-use marijuana, and 38 have some form of legal medical cannabis. Yet it remains federally classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act—on par with heroin, with no recognized medical use. This contradiction has led to a legal and regulatory quagmire that favors corporations with the resources to navigate it.
The first major shift came in 2012, when Colorado and Washington voters approved adult-use legalization. Over the next decade, a cascade of states followed, each constructing unique licensing and compliance systems. The 2018 Farm Bill added a wrinkle by legalizing hemp and opening the door for CBD products. That same year, Canada federally legalized cannabis, placing pressure on U.S. regulators. Still, the DEA and FDA retained broad authority, and no federal legalization bill has passed Congress.
Multi-state operators (MSOs) rose to prominence during this regulatory vacuum, building vertically integrated businesses across state lines. After 2018, they began to dominate markets through mergers, aggressive lobbying, and acquisition of distressed licenses—especially in states with high entry barriers.
The Tax That Isn’t Deductible: IRC Section 280E
One of the most burdensome federal policies is Internal Revenue Code Section 280E. Originally designed to prevent drug traffickers from writing off business expenses, it now penalizes legitimate cannabis businesses by disallowing standard deductions. This means dispensaries pay taxes on gross income, not profit—often doubling their effective tax rate. Despite numerous challenges, the provision remains in force, upheld by tax courts.
For smaller operators, this tax structure is devastating. Without deductions for rent, payroll, or utilities, many equity applicants who barely survive the licensing gauntlet find themselves unable to stay afloat. It also discourages reinvestment into communities and employees, contrary to the stated goals of many legalization laws.
The Licensing Labyrinth
State licensing systems are often prohibitively expensive and convoluted. In Illinois, application fees alone can run into tens of thousands of dollars, with additional costs for zoning compliance, security systems, and legal fees. California’s ongoing market contraction is partially attributed to high renewal fees and bureaucratic delays. New York’s social equity rollout was plagued by lawsuits and delays that allowed corporate actors to sideline community applicants.
In Arizona, the state’s vertical integration requirement—where licensees must control cultivation, processing, and retail—has effectively locked out new entrants.
The lion’s share of recreational licenses were awarded to existing medical operators, most of whom are now owned or backed by MSOs. The state’s social equity program promised 26 licenses for those harmed by prohibition but delivered little in practice. Many awardees lacked capital or legal resources, making them easy targets for predatory partnerships or outright takeovers.
Court Battles Over the Dormant Commerce Clause
Several legal challenges have emerged around state policies that favor in-state operators or exclude out-of-state applicants. Courts in Maine and Missouri have ruled that such protectionist laws likely violate the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from discriminating against interstate commerce. These rulings may reshape future cannabis markets, forcing states to revisit local ownership requirements and residency mandates.
Yet states continue to defend these provisions, citing public safety, quality control, and local economic development. Critics argue these justifications mask a deeper intent: maintaining market control for politically connected firms.
Who Benefits: A Breakdown of Stakeholder Incentives
MSOs, with their scale and capital, have mastered the art of regulatory capture. Political donations from cannabis firms have surged in states like Illinois, where campaign finance records show a correlation between contributions and license allocations.
MSOs also acquire distressed licenses from equity applicants who cannot afford to operate under the current system. This is not merely market consolidation—it’s strategic absorption of competition.
Pharmaceutical firms, while less visible, exert pressure through federal channels. Several have lobbied the DEA to reschedule cannabis in ways that would benefit patented synthetic products over plant-based options. By using FDA approval pathways, they aim to enter the market with fewer regulatory risks and greater control over distribution.
Regulators themselves are not neutral actors. Campaign contributions, lobbying, and the revolving door between industry and oversight bodies create incentives to favor large operators. In Arizona, state officials have been criticized for opaque scoring systems and inconsistent communication with applicants, further eroding trust.
Meanwhile, grassroots entrepreneurs and equity applicants face systemic barriers. Many are denied due to zoning restrictions, arbitrary scoring systems, or lack of capital. Even when licenses are awarded, operational timelines and compliance hurdles often render them moot.
Counterarguments and Risks
Supporters of stringent cannabis regulation argue that high standards are necessary to ensure public safety and prevent diversion to minors. They cite the need for quality control in an industry historically plagued by contaminants and inconsistent dosing.
There is also concern about a resurgence in black-market activity if states lower the bar for entry. California’s persistent illicit market is often used as a cautionary tale, despite evidence that high taxes and limited retail access are key drivers.
Nonetheless, the broader risk lies in entrenching monopolies under the guise of safety. Constitutional challenges are mounting, and if courts continue to strike down protectionist statutes, states may be forced to rewrite their rules—this time with greater transparency and fairness.
Metrics Worth Watching
Several trends will determine the future of cannabis regulation. Tax court decisions on IRC Section 280E could open financial breathing room for small businesses. Consolidation among MSOs continues, with mergers reducing market diversity. Social equity program outcomes must be scrutinized not just in terms of license distribution, but actual operational sustainability.
In Arizona, early data shows that few equity licensees have opened stores, and many have entered management agreements that hand effective control to outside investors. This mirrors patterns in other states, raising ethical questions about tokenism versus true empowerment.
The Path Ahead
Legalization was never meant to be easy. But it was supposed to be just. The current system favors those who can navigate or rewrite the rules, often at the expense of the communities cannabis reform was intended to uplift. As federal and state policies evolve, the question is not whether the industry will grow—it will. The real question is: who will be allowed to grow with it?
For that to happen, lawmakers must revisit the structures they’ve built. Licensing should reward viability, not just capital. Tax policies must recognize the distinction between legal businesses and criminal enterprises. And social equity must be more than a headline—it must be a measurable, enforceable commitment.
Until then, cannabis regulation remains a policy success story with a justice-shaped hole at its center.
***
Trap Culture is the ultimate destination for cannabis enthusiasts who want to experience the best of Arizona’s cannabis culture. Whether you are looking for the hottest cannabis-friendly events, the latest news on cannabis legalization, trends in the industry and exclusive, limited-edition products from the top brands in the market, Trap Culture has you covered. Visit our website to learn more about our events, our blog, and our store. Follow us on social media to stay updated on the latest news and promotions. Join the Trap Culture family and experience the most immersive and engaging social cannabis events in Arizona.
Follow us on social media
