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 Commission, 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.
[image: Cat Packer, director of drug markets and legal regulation at the
Drug Policy Alliance]Cat Packer. Illustration: Akmal / mg Magazine
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

1. What is Cat Packer known for in the cannabis industry?

Cat Packer was the first person of color to lead a cannabis regulatory
agency in the United States. She served as the founding director of Los
Angeles’s Department of Cannabis Regulation and now advocates for equitable
drug policy reform at the national level.
2. Why does Cat Packer oppose the term “black market”?

Packer believes the term reinforces racial bias by associating “black”
with criminality. Instead, she encourages using more accurate terms like
“unregulated” or “unlicensed” to describe non-legal cannabis markets.
3. Does Cat Packer support federal cannabis rescheduling?

While Packer acknowledges that rescheduling could have some financial
benefits, she argues it doesn’t go far enough. She advocates for full
decriminalization and policies that address the harms caused by prohibition.