Cat Packer on Cannabis, Equity, and Reform

In 2017, when Cat Packer became the founding director of Los Angeles’s Department of Cannabis Regulation, she took on the immense task of establishing and implementing a regulatory program for one of the largest cannabis marketplaces in the world. A law school graduate who previously had worked for the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), Packer instantly became the face of all the department’s accomplishments and missteps.

After holding the regulatory role from 2017 to 2022, she returned to work with the DPA, where she is now the director of drug markets and legal regulation. In addition to that work, she serves as Distinguished Cannabis Policy Practitioner in Residence at the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center at Ohio State University, her alma mater.

Packer says her work in drug policy reform was driven by a quote from Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow: “Nothing has contributed more to the systematic mass incarceration of people of color in the United States than the War on Drugs.” Her recent work has involved uniting with several different organizations devoted to restoring injustices caused by the drug war including the Last Prisoner Project, United for Marijuana Decriminalization, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, NORML, and Supernova Women.

An expert in cannabis law and policy, Packer is recognized as the first person of color to lead a cannabis regulatory program in the United States. As a founding member of the Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition, she works to develop an ecosystem for others who are tasked with managing the implementation of medical and adult-use cannabis programs across the nation. mg Magazine connected with her to discuss legalization and regulation through the lens of social justice reform.

Why does the cannabis industry need social equity programs?

I think all we’ve known thus far in this country in terms of cannabis polity has been inequity, and it’s my belief the government that caused the harm due to criminalization has a responsibility not only to acknowledge that harm but also to establish and implement policies that end and repair existing harms — and prevent future harms and disparities — whether it’s in public health, legal access, enforcement, or economic benefits and opportunities. It’d be the same thing if you caused a fire and someone’s house burned down. You’d expect there to be support to help rebuild that house.

In particular, in thinking about criminalization, it’s no secret that in this country cannabis was made illegal to target Black and brown, Latino, and indigenous communities. The government was successful in that effort in every nook and cranny of the United States. We know this has disrupted individuals’ lives. It’s disrupted and torn apart families. It’s been a reason for divestment in communities.

Even despite the challenges we’ve had with the implementation of some of the programs, we’ve demonstrated already that we can change laws and policies. We can acknowledge these different reforms and disparities. Particularly when there’s support, we can reinvest dollars into these communities. I think everyone stands to benefit from these programs if they’re appropriately designed.

I do think there’s been a bit of misappropriation of the term “equity” over the course of the past decade. My colleague Shekia Scott, who previously ran the State of Massachusetts’s social equity program — she’s now the senior cannabis industry manager for the City of Boston — always says “equity is not a program,” and I agree with that wholeheartedly. We’re not actually going to dig ourselves out of systemic harm by one program alone. That’s why it’s so important — more important than equity programs — that we have leaders and actual policies that are fair and equitable. But I think through these programs that have existed we’re able to pilot how we can, through government, provide oversight to ensure we’re not leaving people behind and in prison for the same reason [multistate operators] and large commercial cannabis companies are making hundreds of millions of dollars.

We’ve been able to demonstrate that we don’t have to arrest people for cannabis use, but part of the challenge is that, at least in some spaces, this concept of equity is kind of singularly tied to opportunity in the industry. And I think — at least over time, as my understanding of this has evolved and I’ve connected with other folks who are doing equity work, not just work in cannabis social equity programs — there’s a real need to assess all these policies to ensure they’re fair. Not just how we’re designing markets, but to make sure people who use cannabis are protected from discrimination in housing, education, and employment. That’s equity. It’s equitable when we are able to determine whether or not someone is going to be losing their housing rights because they consume cannabis.

There’s an opportunity to continue to improve these programs, but I think these programs are necessary, in part, because we continue to see real-life consequences and harms and disparities. If there weren’t these existing harms and disparities, enforcement in the market, tax revenue, we wouldn’t need these individual types of efforts. And again, I think these programs are not enough. They really do need to be systemic efforts to acknowledge and address harm, but they’re a demonstration of what we can do and we should continue to build on them.

How can the industry’s social equity perspectives and programs evolve?

I’ve noticed this in particular in lobbying and getting to see how large corporate actors lobby at the national level. There seems to be, at least in some instances, a real disconnect between the industry and the movement. I say that in part because, for example, the piece of federal legislation the industry continues to push as its top priority is not even a cannabis-industry bill. SAFER Banking [the Secure and Fair Enforcement Regulation Banking Act] is a banking bill; it’s not necessarily a cannabis bill. And at the same time, we continue to have people all across the U.S. who are dealing with the consequences of cannabis criminalization.

I would like to see the industry wholeheartedly embrace that it is not going to be successful in the market, in policy reform, unless it includes and prioritizes the interests of consumers and patients and veterans and Black and brown communities and indigenous communities in a meaningful way. In a way that doesn’t just pay lip service to those types of values, but is demonstrated in the actual policies that are supported and different ways compromises are made and negotiated when decisions are being made.

Particularly right now, in a moment where there are lots of attacks on equity and inclusion, it’s going to be important for the cannabis industry to remember it’s not an industry. This is a movement. It’s a movement that essentially was built off the backs of the LGBT community, because it was AIDS patients who were fighting for access to medical cannabis and medical cannabis patients are providing opportunities for the industry. So, we can pay homage to these stakeholders — and also, again, communities who have borne the brunt of cannabis criminalization.

I do think there is an opportunity for unity and, in reality, I think we’re going to be able to advance reform that at least is less harmful to as many as possible if we work together. But in order for that to happen in earnest, corporations are going to have to recognize they can’t continue to put their profits over the interests of people. So, we continue to say “people over profits” in the space.

That’s part of what’s necessary for the industry to evolve, particularly in this moment. We’re in a moment where the American people are with us, I think. There’s just a disconnect between the people and the leadership in this country, and we could do a better job as a movement of raising the issue profile of legalization for the everyday patient with members of Congress. And I don’t think we do that by focusing on commercial interests. We do that by focusing on the people themselves, how they’re impacted, how veterans are impacted, how mothers are impacted, how this impacts educators and folks who are doing research. We’d have gotten a lot further if we had done that previously, and I think the only way we get further at this moment is by building a coalition and advancing policy that works for the coalition.

Why don’t you use the term ‘black market’?

Because I heard the term and I was like, “What is that?” Somebody looked at me and said haphazardly, “Black is criminal and black is illegal, and white is legal.” Okay, we can’t use this term anymore. I even used it until I heard the term “white market” and started to think more critically about just the terminology we’re using and what it means if we’re equating black with criminal, particularly in this context. We know Black and brown folks have borne the brunt of cannabis criminalization.

I don’t think that word association is necessary. When I hear it nowadays I try to ask folks, “What do you mean?” A lot of the time they mean unregulated; they mean unlicensed. And I just encourage them to say what they mean instead of trying to use a criticism descriptor. I don’t think it’s necessarily as helpful anymore, because there’s so much nuance associated with the market. There are people who are licensed who are engaging in illegal activity. There are operators who, because of decriminalization, can grow and share cannabis, but they’re not necessarily part of the regulated market. I think we’ve come too far to use such simple terms at this point.

That term, in particular nowadays, feels like a dog whistle of sorts, in part because it’s always coupled with “we need to eliminate this; we need to crush this.” In reality, if we want to transition consumers — particularly right now, when we’re still seeing a market dominated by white men — we really should be doing everything we can to weaken barriers for access so we can have more of these operators from the unregulated, unlicensed legacy market participate in the licensed and regulated market.

What are your thoughts about federal rescheduling?

I worked in a coalition called United for Marijuana Decriminalization over the course of the past two years to educate folks about the rescheduling process, to really let folks know rescheduling is not enough. Rescheduling in no way ends criminalization. Patients, adult-use consumers, medical marijuana businesses, adult-use cannabis businesses, and the state programs these businesses and consumers and patients participate in will be just as illegal if rescheduling happens as if it doesn’t. In part, this is because the rescheduling process is an administrative process. Essentially, rescheduling would require the federal government to acknowledge marijuana has a chronicled use, that it has a lower abuse potential than Schedule I and Schedule II drugs.

There are some recommendations that are sort of indirect but consequential, like 280E. That’s the [Internal Revenue Service] code that says if you’re engaged with a Schedule I substance that you’re unable to claim [certain business] tax deductions. So I’m not one to say rescheduling is inconsequential, but DPA, the allies that I was on [Capitol] Hill with last week, the Cannabis Unity Coalition, we continue to say rescheduling is not enough. This is not a solution to the drug war. It’s not a solution to actually end or address the issues that everyday Americans are experiencing because of cannabis criminalization.

When the Biden administration initiated this process several years ago, when the proposed rule was announced, they allowed for, I think it was, a sixty-two day public comment period. And one of the things I’m most proud of in this effort is that DPA and others — this coalition — we launched an online tool to help folks submit public comments directly to the [Department of Justice] and [Drug Enforcement Administration]. And, as a result of this public comment tool, there were a record number of public comments that were submitted on drug scheduling. We saw, I want to say, 43,000 public comments submitted in total, but more than 25 percent of those public comments came directly from the portal DPA and my colleagues and I created. So we were able to mobilize 10,000 people across the country to engage in the public comment process.

When we did early analysis, we found approximately 69 percent of the public comments that were submitted called for descheduling; called for reforms beyond rescheduling. Seventy percent of those public comments called for decriminalization. The analysis also indicated 40 percent of public comments mentioned things like criminal justice reform and social justice. And so we know the people are on our side when we say rescheduling is not enough.

We’re not necessarily sure what the outcome of this process will be, but we’re trying to prepare for a scenario where, even if rescheduling happens, our work doesn’t end. And, depending on how it’s messaged, it could make things a bit more complicated if folks actually think [rescheduling] is a solution.

I can tell you by just the meetings I had with members of Congress last week, there’s a real need to educate our policymakers on the different challenges and what [rescheduling] would mean and how [it would] impact folks. I wouldn’t want policymakers — or even everyday Americans—to see a headline that says “marijuana has been rescheduled” and think anybody got any new rights. I wouldn’t want people to think they can do anything new, because they [wouldn’t be able to]. We still would need, and do need, Congress to act. It was Congress that passed legislation to criminalize cannabis in the first place.

There are opportunities for the Trump administration to take action to lessen those harms. We really need Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, to listen to their constituents and implement policies that are actually going to protect people who use cannabis responsibly instead of criminalizing them and providing new oversight to a disparate illicit product.

It’s important for the cannabis industry to remember it’s not an industry.
This is a movement.

—Cat Packer

Do you think we’ll see federal legalization? If so, when?

I have doubts that we will see it in this Congress, in part because Republicans are in charge and I really just haven’t seen anything to date that demonstrates the Republican Party is ready to take this issue up in an earnest way. Because this is an area of policy that has always been politicized, I wouldn’t write out the possibility of reform.

We know we’re going to have midterm elections [next year] and a presidential election in four years. Regardless of the party, if politicians were being smart, they would align themselves with their constituents and actually enact policies their constituents want them to enact. But short of President Trump himself directing his party to take a position, I don’t know that we’ll see the Republican-led legislature advance bills that would actually decriminalize cannabis.

By the way, Trump himself — I guess this is just in a Truth Social post, but everybody’s pointing to it right now to try and figure out what Trump’s position is — noted he didn’t think people should be arrested for small amounts of marijuana and he supported states’ rights, so you can take that for what it is. We’ll see what the administration’s [position on] reform is while in office. But there’s also a concern that, based on some of the other moves the administration is making, even if we were to see some type of reform advance in this Congress under a Trump administration, it wouldn’t be the type of reform that would benefit everyday Americans. It might be the type of reform that would benefit large corporate actors and folks who had access to the stock market, for example. And so I think those are still things to be wary of. Even right now, when legalization may seem several years away, there’s still an opportunity to think critically and actually improve bills.

On one hand, if we were to pass some type of legalization policy tomorrow — if the government tried to regulate cannabis tomorrow — we’d be in trouble, because we still have a lot of work to do to make sure we don’t set up something at the federal level that’s just going to create new types of harms. We actually know because of experience we’ve had at the local and state level that we should be taking these lessons learned and using them to inform whatever our federal approach is.

So my strategy in the short term is to continue to look at these bills that are advancing as opportunities to educate members of Congress. But for states and stakeholders who are in states that have passed policies or are hopeful for policies, I don’t think a federal cavalry is coming. And I think there’s going to be a need, an increased need, for state legislatures or state leaders and regulators to take action to protect what they’ve done at the state level and to improve what they’ve built, because I think federal reform — at least decriminalization, legalization — may still be a ways off.

---

At a Glance: Cat Packer on Cannabis Justice and Policy Reform