Recommendations to Governor Hochul, Cannabis Control Board and Office of Cannabis Management
1. The Cannabis Control Board should utilize the financing expertise it has on its board with the appointment of Reuben McDaniel, III to make money immediately available through state bonds, the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement or the state budget to fund zero-interest and low-interest loans and the incubator program. In addition, the board should immediately fund the Community Grant Reinvestment Fund, the Drug Treatment Public Education Fund, and the Lottery Fund through these funding sources rather than wait for the collection of tax revenue to monetize these fund.
2. The Cannabis Control Board should immediately utilize its authority under the legislation to register 10 additional medical marijuana companies to the most harmed1 segment of the social equity population, placing these new applicants on equal footing with the 10 existing registered companies.
3. The Cannabis Control Board should issue provisional licenses to most harmed social equity applicants in all license categories to allow them to obtain the necessary capacity building assistance (i.e., training, mentoring, partnerships, site acquisition, etc.) they will need to be competitive and sustainable in the open market.
4. The Cannabis Control Board and the Office of Cannabis Management should prohibit out-of-state cannabis companies from applying for any licenses.
5. The Cannabis Control Board and the Office of Cannabis Management should allow qualified most harmed social equity applicants to build their capacity by excluding any licensing awards to applicants other than most harmed applicants for 5 years.
6. To protect most harmed applicants from predatory lenders, the Cannabis Control Board should prohibit funding from in- and out-of-state investors or limit their funding to no more than 40%.
7. The Cannabis Control Board should delay existing registered organizations from selling adult use recreational marijuana to the general public for five years, allowing most harmed social equity applicants to get established.
8. To meet the legislative goal of awarding 50% of the licenses to social equity applicants, the Cannabis Control Board should not assign social equity applicants 50% of the least profitable license categories (i.e., delivery, on-site consumption, etc.). The board should assign social equity applicants 50% of all license categories (cultivation, processing, distributers, etc.), giving priority to the most harmed segment of the social equity population.
9. The Cannabis Control Board and the Office of Cannabis Management should award licenses to most harmed social equity applicants for a year without proof of funds or ownership or control of site.
10. The Cannabis Control Board should give most harmed social equity applicants 20% of the total application points.
11. The Cannabis Control Board should allow the delivery license category to purchase cannabis products from distributors and dispensaries, warehouse cannabis products and sell directly to consumers.
12. The Governor and the Senate and Assembly leadership should appoint members of the Cannabis Advisory Board that represent community-based organizations, business organizations and religious organizations that have a history of providing social, economic and healthcare services to communities disproportionately impacted by marijuana drug policy.
13. The Office of Cannabis Management should incentivize cities and counties to adjust their zoning ordinances to support cannabis operations in their locality.
14. The office of Cannabis Management should work with state and city authorities to make state and city owned property exclusively available to most harmed social equity applicants at an affordable price and expeditiously.
1 The “most harmed” are Black and Latino people arrested, convicted or adversely affected by the unequal enforcement of the marijuana drug laws. The adversely affected includes family members of this population as stated in the legislation.
From our research of social equity programs in other states, we know that without these basic provisions the social equity program in New York will fail.
