Opinion: New Jersey Must Build Its Cannabis Industry in the Open — Not Behind Closed Doors

By Matha Figaro
Cannabis Manufacturer, Independent Operator Advocate

New Jersey is still in the early chapters of building its legal cannabis industry, and the decisions made in these next few years will shape the future of entrepreneurship, equity, and public trust for decades to come. As proposed legislation like Senate Bill S4847 moves through the process, it is vital that the public, operators, and legacy participants understand what is at stake and have the opportunity to take part in the conversation.

S4847 has been framed as an administrative update — a cleanup bill to help the state regulate more efficiently — but the changes it makes are not cosmetic. They are structural. They affect who has access to decision-makers, how leadership is chosen within the Cannabis Regulatory Commission (CRC), and how conflicts of interest are reviewed. These are not small adjustments. They shape the environment in which licensed operators, legacy entrepreneurs transitioning into the regulated economy, and future applicants will compete.

To be clear: policy evolution is necessary. No state has launched a perfect system on its first attempt, and New Jersey is navigating challenges in real time that older markets already faced. We should learn from those lessons — not repeat their missteps.

For decades, before legalization was even considered viable, unregulated operators served patients and consumers when legal access was not available. I was one of them. Many of today’s licensed operators were. In neighborhoods across this state and country, cannabis was changing lives quietly long before legislation acknowledged the need for compassion, autonomy, and the freedom to choose plant medicine.

This is why any discussion around enforcement must be honest and nuanced. The unregulated market did not appear because people were uninterested in compliance — it emerged because no compliant path existed. Legacy operators were filling a gap the legal system refused to acknowledge. Now, as regulation matures, it is reasonable for the state to clarify expectations and protect consumers, but that transition must be handled transparently, respectfully, and without erasing the history or contributions of the people who built the foundation the legal industry benefits from today.

The concerns around S4847 are not rooted in resistance to enforcement; they are concerns about governance. The bill allows private, non-public meetings between regulators and applicants — something that may be intended for flexibility but also creates a real risk of perceived or actual favoritism. It shifts how leadership within the CRC is selected, which may consolidate influence among a smaller number of politically appointed actors. And it loosens the ethics framework around ownership interests, which introduces discretion into areas where bright-line clarity protects everyone.

These issues are not about partisanship or ideology. They are about trust.

Every successful industry relies on trust — consumers must trust the products they purchase, workers must trust the conditions they operate under, and entrepreneurs must trust that regulations are applied fairly and consistently. Transparency is what builds that trust. The cannabis industry cannot aspire to legitimacy while adopting the optics of back-room decision-making or carving out exceptions without clear rationale and accountability.

We should pay attention to what has happened elsewhere. California’s rapid expansion without clear guardrails led to consolidation, cost barriers, and widespread frustration among small operators. Michigan’s late-stage policy adjustments reshaped competition in ways that locked out entrepreneurs the market once promised to include. Even Colorado, often praised for its early leadership, has spent years trying to rebalance participation after patterns set in the industry’s infancy.

New Jersey has the advantage of being later to legalization — we have models to reference, research to look to, and communities whose voices deserve a seat at the table. We can build a market rooted in transparency, competition, and fairness rather than exclusivity and access-based advantage.

As S4847 progresses, my hope is not to slow progress, but to strengthen it. Public input does not obstruct policymaking — it legitimizes it. The success of legalization in New Jersey should not be measured only in sales totals, tax revenue, or headline growth but in how well it aligns with the values that made legalization possible: compassion, access, justice, and opportunity.

We owe it to this industry — and the people who sacrificed and advocated for it long before it was profitable — to ensure that governance decisions are made in the open, with clarity and accountability. The future of cannabis in New Jersey deserves nothing less.

Disclaimer: This commentary is written in my personal capacity and solely reflects my individual perspective. It should not be interpreted as a statement, endorsement, or position of any organization, business, coalition, industry group, or board with which I am professionally connected.