The Color of Cannabis Capitalism: A CRT-Informed Qualitative Content Analysis of Nevada's Marijuana Licensing Policies

Background: Almost half of the United States has legalized recreational cannabis, yet significant racial disparities persist in legal cannabis ownership. As of October 2023, 24 states have fully legalized recreational and medical marijuana, but approximately 80% of owners and operators of marijuana businesses are White (Marijuana Business Daily, 2017). Since Nevada legalized recreational marijuana in 2017, it has established a profitable cannabis industry generating over $800 million in taxable sales in 2024 alone. However, systemic inequities remain evident: Cannabis board members are disproportionately White and male (approximately 53%) (Klimas, 2021), while Black Nevadans are three times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession compared to their White counterparts (ACLU, 2020). While existing research has documented disparate arrest rates and increased cannabis usage following legalization, there is limited research regarding policy language and implementation that either facilitates or impedes entry into the legal cannabis market for racial minorities. Nevada, as an affirmative action state with social equity initiatives, presents an ideal case study for examining the intersection of drug policy reform and racial equity in cannabis regulation.

Methods: This study utilized a qualitative content analysis guided by Critical Race Theory (CRT) to examine Nevada state cannabis regulations, legislative documents, licensing requirements, and program guidelines. Thematic coding using Dedoose software identified CRT-informed patterns within these documents, with particular focus on barriers and facilitators within the regulatory system.

Results: Findings revealed a centralization of power, despite the creation of cannabis regulatory boards, with ultimate authority remaining in the executive branch through governor-appointed positions. Furthermore, the board maintains exclusive control over industry entry and continuation. Additionally, substantial barriers emerged in licensing requirements, including minimum liquid assets of $250,000 and clean criminal records—criteria that disproportionately exclude historically marginalized communities affected by racially disparate drug enforcement practices.

Conclusion: This analysis demonstrates how seemingly neutral policy language perpetuates racial inequities in cannabis regulation despite reform efforts. While Nevada's social equity program appears progressive, it fails to address fundamental structural barriers to industry participation. For social work practice and policy advocacy, these findings highlight the importance of critically examining implementation mechanisms, not just stated goals. Social workers must recognize how technical requirements can undermine equity and advocate for truly accessible pathways to participation for communities most harmed by historical drug criminalization.