The Grass Isn’t Greener in New York

A smoke shop in New York City reflects the city's evolving cannabis market, where licensing and enforcement challenges have shaped the retail landscape. Photo courtesy of Eden, Janine, and Jim from New York City.

New York’s legal weed rollout has been about as smooth as the subways during rush hour: slow, chaotic, and full of questionable characters. Despite bold equity goals, the state's sluggish licensing, fragmented oversight, and weak enforcement have left its legal market underdeveloped and overshadowed by an illicit one. By contrast, Michigan built a more structured and accessible cannabis industry by prioritizing regulatory readiness and centralized implementation. This distinction between New York and Michigan shows that effective cannabis legalization depends not just on equity goals but on regulatory clarity, administrative capacity, and coordinated execution. 

From the outset, Michigan’s path to legalization was destined to succeed. Michigan legalized medical cannabis in 2008, passed a licensing act in 2016, and established the Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA) in 2018 to centralize oversight. New York legalized medical marijuana in 2014, but the medical program was narrowly restricted and lacked a regulatory framework to support future expansion. It was not true legalization, as it excluded smokable products and served only a limited patient base. When the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA) was passed in 2021, the state still had no fully developed agency to oversee implementation. Michigan built capacity before legalizing, while New York reversed the process, setting itself up for dysfunction.

The fallout from New York’s delayed rollout still cripples the system. Applicants face a licensing process plagued by confusion, inconsistent standards, and minimal oversight, with an understaffed Office of Cannabis Management and a Control Board that meets just once a month. Over 5,700 applications have been stuck in limbo for over a year, with many entrepreneurs spending thousands on leases only to be deprioritized without explanation. The result is a paralyzed legal market. As of December 2023, more than two years after the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act passed, New York had just 24 licensed dispensaries in the city and 1,500 unlicensed shops operating openly; even now, the state has only 378 legal dispensaries, while Michigan, by contrast, has licensed over 1,000 through clear and consistent regulation.

Nowhere is the cost of this dysfunction more evident than in the state’s approach to cannabis equity. Equity, as defined in the MRTA, was meant to create opportunities for individuals and communities harmed by racially biased enforcement of drug laws. New York committed $200 million to a Cannabis Social Equity Investment Fund, promising to support the first 150 dispensaries owned by individuals who met the state’s equity eligibility requirements by leasing and renovating storefronts on their behalf. In practice, the program faltered. By 2025, only 22 stores opened. Many licensees were burdened with unaffordable leases, and Governor Kathy Hochul’s administration proposed recovering the state’s $50 million investment before reinvesting revenue into the communities it was meant to serve.

Underlying these failures is a bureaucracy built on secrecy, incompetence, and betrayal. The fund was handed to private managers with minimal oversight, and financial details remained hidden until forced into public view. They collected millions in fees despite failing to raise capital or support licensees. State officials raised concerns as equity funds drained and borrowers faced predatory loans with unclear terms and little cost control. What was billed as a public mission became a mismanaged enterprise.

Where New York outsourced and obscured equity, Michigan embedded it into regulation, delivering transparency, access, and results. The CRA offers fee reductions and application prioritization for those with prior convictions or ties to disproportionately impacted communities. These measures are not outsourced or isolated in a separate fund but built into the standard process. The CRA also holds regular public meetings, publishes quarterly reports, and maintains accessible equity program plans, ensuring transparency and accountability across the board.

New York’s bureaucratic failures also bleed into the local level, where red tape and obstruction suffocate equity and stall progress. Strict zoning laws, local opt-outs, and uneven enforcement have made it difficult for smaller applicants to secure viable locations, while wide variation in municipal rules creates additional delays, uncertainty, and costs. Michigan avoided these issues by establishing consistent zoning and licensing standards statewide, giving the CRA authority to approve and site dispensaries without conflicting local restrictions.

Beyond blocking access, these regulatory hurdles also limit the state’s ability to generate and reinvest cannabis revenue in the communities legalization was meant to support. If illicit cannabis sales continue in New York, the state could lose up to $2.6 billion in tax revenue by 2030, limiting investments in housing, education, and healthcare–the very areas meant to receive support under the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act. While the law designates 40 percent of cannabis tax revenue for community reinvestment, only a $5 million grant program has materialized, offering $100,000 per project. The rest of the revenue flows into the general state budget without clear guarantees for equity-focused allocation. Contrastingly, in 2024, Michigan collected over $330 million in cannabis taxes and reinvested nearly $100 million into local governments, schools, and infrastructure, funding public services and expanding opportunity in communities harmed by past drug laws. Its structured allocation of tax revenue shows how transparent fiscal policy can turn legalization into equitable public investment.

New York’s failures call for more than minor adjustments. New York must pursue a comprehensive overhaul of its cannabis infrastructure, including expanding OCM staffing, streamlining approvals, and requiring more frequent board meetings to clear the backlog. Adopting a data-driven model like Michigan’s would boost transparency, while statewide zoning and licensing standards would eliminate local barriers blocking equity-focused applicants. 

Without structural reform, New York’s cannabis program will continue to fail the very communities it claimed to uplift. The current system does more than fall short; it blocks progress, sidelines equity applicants, and allows the illicit market to flourish. Michigan proves that when governance is clear and accountable, legalization can drive reinvestment, expand access, and build trust. New York’s refusal to act has already cost time, money, and credibility. And with every day of inaction, New York confirms that its promises of equity were nothing more than political theater.

Sheza Sheikh (BC ’27) is a staff writer from Queens, New York, majoring in political science, focusing on the intersection between business, law, and social justice. She can be reached at ss7030@barnard.edu.