Cannabis consumers in established adult-use markets are noticing a problem operators have warned about for years: Consolidation and regulatory costs are making it harder for small businesses to survive.
A new qualitative study from the Parabola Center for Law and Policy found participants broadly supported legalization, citing reduced stigma, safer access, fewer cannabis-related arrests, and a wider selection of regulated products. But interviews across nine states also revealed recurring concerns that legal markets are becoming concentrated in the hands of large corporations while locally owned and craft businesses struggle.
The nonprofit drug-policy think tank interviewed 37 adults in Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington for the report ‘I Like Not Having to Go Behind the Dumpster at a Taco Bell’: Consumer Perspectives in States with Established Cannabis Markets.
Consumers recognize pressure on small businesses
Several participants connected the struggles of small operators with high regulatory costs and rules that favor companies with greater access to capital.
“But we wanted to reinvent the wheel again with cannabis and take things slow, and it seems to have concentrated, the businesses in the hands of a few corporations instead of individual owners that are local,” a Nevada participant said.
A California participant connected market concentration with the cost of regulatory compliance.
“But what I do know is that the way that [county] has done the legalization process and all the fees that farmers have to go through, it has destroyed probably the best cannabis farmers,” the participant said.
Participants in several states proposed policies such as easier licensing for small operators, greater regulatory support for small businesses, restrictions on out-of-state ownership, and higher taxes on large growers and dispensaries.
A Colorado participant said regulations should support businesses of varying sizes: “I think that we should create programs that’s more support [for] small businesses and like, the idea that regulations should support all different types of small businesses, I think, has very much changed my perspective on how we legalize cannabis.”
One Michigan participant worried that large corporations eventually could gain enough political influence to shape federal cannabis laws in their favor.
“So, you know, what I don’t wanna see is a situation where Philip Morris realizes that, you know, there’s so much money in cannabis and not tobacco,” the participant said. “And then you have a situation where senators are more easily able to take campaign donations to tailor the laws to those giant corporations. Like, that’s a huge concern that I and a lot of cannabis smokers in Michigan share.”
Communities question where cannabis taxes go
Participants also questioned whether cannabis tax revenue has delivered the community benefits promised during legalization campaigns.
“I think the taxes that are being, you know, taken out by the state government, those are not being used the way that we were all promised they would be used,” an Oregon participant said. “They, in a lot of cases — the money is still just sitting in large funds, without being used for, you know, all the different addiction programs and awareness programs and money to repair our roads.”
Participants in Nevada, Colorado, Alaska, and California expressed similar uncertainty or dissatisfaction about how cannabis tax revenue was allocated. Several called for greater transparency and more community involvement in deciding how the money is spent.
The complaints were based on participants’ perceptions; the study did not examine state spending records to determine how cannabis tax revenue actually was allocated.
Legalization still receives broad support
Despite their concerns, participants generally regarded legalization as a significant improvement over prohibition. They praised greater access, decreased stigma, regulated products, and the ability to purchase cannabis without entering the illicit market.
An Oregon participant summarized one of legalization’s most immediate benefits: “So I [like] not having to go behind the dumpster at a Taco Bell to try to score some weed, but instead go to a nice, you know, establishment and buy it all legally.”
Others credited legalization with reducing arrests and incarceration, revitalizing vacant commercial properties, creating jobs, and making conversations about cannabis use and potential risks easier.
Participants also identified drawbacks unrelated to market structure, including concerns about problematic consumption, youth access, insufficient consumer education, high-potency products, and cannabis use in public spaces.
Interviews identify themes, not prevalence
Study authors Faith English, PhD, and Meredith McGee, MPH, conducted semi-structured, 45- to 60-minute interviews over Zoom between February and April 2026. Researchers coded the transcripts for recurring ideas and reported reaching thematic saturation, meaning additional interviews stopped producing new themes.
The study was designed to explore experiences and identify concerns, not measure how widely consumers hold them. Participants were recruited through community and cannabis-related subreddits, outreach organizations, health centers, and personal referrals. Sixteen reported consuming cannabis daily or almost daily, and most identified as liberal or somewhat liberal.
Consequently, the findings cannot be generalized to cannabis consumers across the nine states. They demonstrate that concerns about consolidation, small-business survival, regulatory burdens, and cannabis tax spending recurred among this particular group of participants in several established markets.
The Open Society Foundations provided partial funding for the research. The authors stated the findings and conclusions were their own.
