The Coalition at a Glance
Our Mission
California’s social equity cannabis program was created to deliver a specific outcome: that the people most harmed by cannabis prohibition would hold an enduring share of the regulated industry that followed legalization.
Verified social equity stakeholders committed their savings and years of their lives to building licensed cannabis businesses on the strength of that promise.
Since 2018, California cannabis operators have contributed more than $7.87 billion in state cannabis excise and sales taxes alone, with billions more paid in local cannabis business taxes, license fees, and income taxes to State and municipal authorities.
The program has not, in return, delivered what it represented.
Compounding tax burden, slow enforcement against the unlicensed cannabis market, and consolidation pressure have pushed many verified equity stakeholders into the financial position the program was created to prevent.
The Social Equity Cannabis Alliance was formed to publicly hold and articulate the policy positions of California’s verified social equity cannabis community.
Coalition Positions
The Coalition holds the following positions on California cannabis policy.
California’s social equity cannabis program is, and should remain, a permanent component of the State’s regulated cannabis market. Its standing should be protected in any future restructuring of state cannabis policy.
Cannabis excise taxation should be structured to allow equity-licensed businesses to reach sustainable operating margins. The current 15% excise rate as applied to small-format retail merits review.
State enforcement resources directed against the unlicensed cannabis market should be at parity with the resources directed at compliance audits of licensed operators.
California’s verified social equity stakeholders should have a formally defined role in the rulemaking and policymaking processes of the Department of Cannabis Control.
Policy proposals that treat the unlicensed cannabis market as a permanent feature of the regulated landscape — including proposals to tax or otherwise institutionalize unlicensed operators in place of enforcement against them — should be rejected.