Policy data were derived from reviewing cannabis laws passed by January 1, 2020 in all 539 California cities and counties using methodology comprehensively described elsewhere (A. Padon et al., 2022). Briefly, information on local laws was collected from Fyllo’s Regulatory Database (Fyllo^™, 2022), complemented by analyzing jurisdictions’ municipal codes (California | Municode Library, n.d.) and outreach to jurisdiction staff when necessary; county laws applied to unincorporated areas only. State-level 2020 policies were verified through California’s cannabis portal (California Department of Cannabis Control, 2019). Data collection and analysis occurred January-September, 2020.

Table 1 presents demographic characteristics across the analytic sample, representing approximately 98.4% (margin of error=±0.2) of California’s population. The majority of white (59.0%) and Asian (69.8%) residents lived in advantaged neighborhoods, whereas the majority of Black (63.3%) and Latinx (69.2%) residents lived in disadvantaged neighborhoods. All differences within racial and ethnic categories were statistically significant (p<0.001).

Figures 1 and 2 present the percentages and 95% confidence intervals of California’s overall population and across racial, ethnic, and neighborhood advantage subgroups covered by local cannabis policies (Supplementary material 1, Table 1). Pairwise comparisons across subgroups were mostly significant (Supplementary material 1, Table 2).

By January 2020 about 58.1% of California’s population lived where some form of cannabis retail sales was legal, 46.1% in a jurisdiction allowing storefronts, and 56.7% in a jurisdiction allowing delivery. Those in advantaged neighborhoods were more likely to live where retail was allowed than those in disadvantaged neighborhoods. In the overall sample, Black, then Latinx individuals were most likely to live where retail was allowed, followed by Asian and white individuals. This was consistent within racial and ethnic groups by advantage, except for Asian populations. Black individuals from advantaged neighborhoods were consistently most likely to live in a jurisdiction allowing storefronts and/or delivery, while white individuals in disadvantaged neighborhoods were least likely.

With respect to delivery, the difference between advantaged and disadvantaged neighborhoods was particularly high for white and Black populations (+16.9% [white], +11.6% [Black], +8.6% [Latinx], −0.6% [Asian], +9.7% [All races and ethnicities]).

Over half of Californians living where retail was allowed were covered by enhanced ad restrictions. Latinx residents were most likely to be covered by these policies, followed by Black, white, and Asian residents. In general, and within the same racial and ethnic populations, a higher percentage of people in disadvantaged neighborhoods had enhanced ad restrictions than those in advantaged neighborhoods, except for white populations.

Only 37.5% of those living where retail was allowed were covered by any local equity provisions. Black residents were most likely to be covered, followed by Asian, Latinx, and white residents. In general, and comparing within subgroups, a higher percentage of advantaged neighborhoods were covered by local equity provisions. Black individuals in advantaged neighborhoods had the highest coverage (57.2%) and white individuals from disadvantaged neighborhoods had the lowest (21.0%).

About 40.3% of those living where storefronts were allowed had a robust storefront cap in their area; differences between subpopulations were small. In the overall sample, Asian residents were most likely to live in a jurisdiction with a robust cap, followed by white, Black, and Latinx residents. Highest coverage was among Asian populations from advantaged neighborhoods (47.6%) and lowest for Latinx populations from advantaged neighborhoods (35.4%). Apart from Asian populations, within racial and ethnic groups, a greater percentage of individuals in disadvantaged neighborhoods lived with robust storefront caps than those in advantaged neighborhoods.

About three-quarters (75.7%) of those living in a jurisdiction allowing storefronts were covered by expanded storefront buffers from youth-serving sites. White and Black residents were least likely to be covered by expanded buffers and Asian and Latinx residents were most likely. Highest coverage was among Asian individuals from disadvantaged neighborhoods (83.5%) and lowest among Black individuals from advantaged neighborhoods (72.9%). A greater percentage of Asian, Black, and white populations from disadvantaged neighborhoods had expanded buffers than their advantaged counterparts (+9.8%, +1.9%, +0.2%, respectively), whereas Latinx populations in disadvantaged neighborhoods had a lower percentage of coverage than their advantaged counterparts (−9.0%).

Using quintile-based measures of neighborhood advantage yielded fairly consistent results to median-based measures (Table 2). As neighborhood advantage increased, percentage of residents living with any retail or covered by equity provisions increased with a dose-response trend consistent with the main analysis. Similar trends were present across quintiles within Latinx, Black, and white populations. One notable inconsistency was expanded buffer coverage between disadvantaged and advantaged neighborhoods. While the median-based analysis found 1.1% difference (76.3% versus 75.2%, respectively), the quintile-based analysis showed an inverted U-shape of coverage across neighborhoods. Residents in middle advantage neighborhoods (Q3) had the highest buffer coverage (84.9%) and residents in neighborhoods of either extreme had the lowest coverage (Q1: 68.2%; Q5: 66.5%).

For the most part, in California, legalization of storefront cannabis retailers, and to an even greater extent, delivery, was most common in socioeconomically advantaged communities. Findings differ from Matthay and colleagues who found that, in California, any cannabis business type legalization was most common in impoverished areas (Matthay, Mousli, Fu, et al., 2022). This difference may stem from our examination of storefront and delivery cannabis retailer policies in the universe of jurisdictions, in contrast to Matthay’s examination of all business types in a more limited sample of 241 (45%) California jurisdictions (Matthay, Mousli, Fu, et al., 2022).

Our finding that Black residents were most likely to live in jurisdictions permitting storefronts than any other racial and ethnic group is consistent with the findings of Matthay and colleagues (Matthay, Mousli, Fu, et al., 2022; Matthay, Mousli, Ponicki, et al., 2022). However, as with the overall socioeconomic findings, Black residents of more advantaged neighborhoods were more likely than those of more disadvantaged neighborhoods to live where storefronts were allowed.

More prevalent legalization of sales where Black residents live may reflect a social response to the War on Drugs and the disproportionate burden of arrests and incarceration (American Civil Liberties Union, 2020). Conservative, predominantly white communities in California’s rural areas may have retained more support for anti-cannabis policies, perhaps explaining why white residents in disadvantaged neighborhoods were least likely to live in jurisdictions allowing retail. Alternatively, socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, long exposed to high tobacco and alcohol outlet concentration, may have been more opposed to allowing cannabis retailers. The opportunity of drug tourism, as seen in Amsterdam and Jamaica, may influence populous jurisdictions with large tourism industries to allow legal cannabis sales (Silverman et al., 2023). Future research should examine distributions of policies by rurality in addition to socioeconomic status, race, and, ethnicity.

Latinx and Black populations in disadvantaged neighborhoods were the most likely to have enhanced advertising restrictions. This finding is promising, since exposure to advertisements increases interest in use among youth (Trangenstein et al., 2021), and tobacco and alcohol research suggests that ads are often specifically tailored to demographic groups (Cohen et al., 2011; Cruz et al., 2019; Gardiner, 2004) and cluster in areas with lower socioeconomic status and higher Black and Latinx composition (Lee et al., 2015; Pasch et al., 2009; Wilson & Till, 2012). In contrast, a smaller percentage of white residents (49.5%) living in disadvantaged communities, despite having some of the highest rates of recent cannabis use in California (UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, n.d.), are protected by ad regulations than Black (65.7%) and Latinx (65.8%) populations in neighborhoods of the same socioeconomic level. This may reflect heightened awareness in Black and Latinx communities of past targeted advertisement used by other industries.

Equity provisions for cannabis licensing and hiring, while not widespread, were most prevalent where Black residents lived in advantaged neighborhoods, perhaps reflecting the advocacy power of the socioeconomic advantage in Black communities seeking racial justice with respect to cannabis. Insufficient financial resources for establishing a new business is a common obstacle for people of color (Phillips Pantin, 2017), especially those who suffered cannabis-related incarceration (Harris et al., 2010). While more advantaged Black (and Latinx) residents may be financially positioned to benefit from equity licensing provisions, even those in disadvantaged communities without capital may benefit from reduced fees and equitable hiring practices (Levy-Pounds, 2010). In 2022, California created cannabis license fee waivers for equity applicants and established grants for jurisdictions to develop social equity programs (California Department of Cannabis Control, 2022). However, as of April 2023, only 114 storefront retailers were equity licensees (about 10%) (California Department of Cannabis Control, 2023), suggesting that direct economic benefits of cannabis legalization continue to be limited for those most harmed by criminalization of cannabis.

Among places that have implemented equity licensing policies, many are not as effective as they could be because of poor administrative infrastructure, overinclusive or vague eligibility categories, and preference toward larger businesses with better resources (Patterson et al., 2024). Equity businesses may also have lower access to commercial, tourist, and affluent areas (Patterson et al., 2024). Whether owned and operated by residents or by outside investors, the public health concerns of legal cannabis retailers in communities most affected by the War on Drugs remain. Evidence shows, for example, that pregnant women living in closer proximity to cannabis retailers are more likely to use cannabis (Young-Wolff et al., 2021), which may negatively impact birthweight and child development (Avalos et al., 2024; Bassalov et al., 2024; Paul et al., 2021). This may further exacerbate Black-white perinatal health disparities, which are rooted in structural racism (Brown et al., 2021).

To date, the public debate on what “equity” in cannabis policy means has largely neglected consideration of social or health inequities unrelated to cannabis business opportunities. Decriminalization and automatic expungement may bring the largest equity benefits for Black and Latinx communities, removing barriers to employment and advancement for far more people than prioritizing individuals for work in the cannabis industry itself (Kilmer et al., 2021), one which continues to carry social stigma, even in the legal environment (Patterson et al., 2024). Cannabis possession arrest rates have declined dramatically over a decade (American Civil Liberties Union, 2020), and as of January 10, 2023, about 93.3% of eligible cannabis-related convictions in California had been expunged (Bonta, 2023). Investment of California cannabis tax revenues in childcare, youth programs, substance use prevention, and community reinvestment may also have positive equity impacts. The overall equity impact of a weakly regulated for-profit cannabis industry remains to be determined.