Could Kamala Harris fix Colorado’s cannabis monopoly problem?

As the first Black person in America to be granted a license to open a dispensary, I have witnessed how the cannabis industry can empower entrepreneurs while also reinforcing systemic barriers. Now, with Vice President Kamala Harris pledging to legalize marijuana federally and ensure cannabis access becomes “the law of the land,” we must confront an issue that threatens to undermine the potential of this moment: monopolistic control over the industry.

Vice President Harris has made it clear that her administration aims to “break down unjust legal barriers by legalizing marijuana nationally.” This pledge signals a long-overdue shift toward equity, justice, and the dismantling of the drug war’s harmful legacy.

But we must also recognize that true equity cannot exist if the legal cannabis market is still controlled by a few powerful players, as is the case in Colorado. We cannot move into a post-prohibition climate with antitrust issues woven into the fabric of this new economy.

In Colorado, when medical cannabis was first legalized, vertical integration was mandated, meaning businesses had to control cultivation, processing, and retail sales under one roof. Although this requirement was later removed for some licensees, we are now faced with a new kind of monopoly: exclusive vertical distribution dependency. Independent producers are still forced to sell their products through vertically integrated entities that control the distribution channels. This setup creates artificial barriers to entry for smaller players, many of whom are minority-owned businesses. The market remains dominated by the same entities, acting as gatekeepers, and stifling innovation and competition.

This structure represents a form of bottleneck economics, where vertically integrated businesses control a critical point in the supply chain and dictate who has market access. It’s a monopoly in all but name, and small producers are still effectively locked out. To make matters worse, this monopolistic control raises serious antitrust concerns. If we truly want to embrace the spirit of equity that Harris champions, we must address these economic injustices embedded in the cannabis industry.

My colleague, Sarah Woodson, has eloquently articulated this problem: “If the distribution channel is still owned and controlled by the vertically integrated entities, even after the requirement for vertical integration has been removed, you could refer to the industry as having a vertically integrated distribution monopoly or exclusive vertical distribution dependency.” She is exactly right. This system creates an environment where a few large companies can dictate the terms of success for everyone else, preventing independent operators from flourishing.

Colorado’s Attorney General Phil Weiser should take a close look at the cannabis industry’s structure through the lens of antitrust law. Vice President Harris has set the stage for federal legalization, but we must ensure that when cannabis becomes legal nationwide, it does so in a way that dismantles–not reinforces—economic monopolies. The promise of federal legalization cannot be fulfilled if it ushers in an era where market access is controlled by a few, driving up costs for consumers and keeping small, independent, and minority-owned producers out of the game.

Harris’ vision for breaking down barriers is critical, and her commitment to federal legalization offers an opportunity for the cannabis industry to reflect its true values: equity, access, and fairness. But this vision cannot come to fruition unless we first break up the monopolies and ensure that the market is open to all. Antitrust reform in cannabis is not just a legal necessity–it’s a moral one.