Missouri’s 2022 constitutional Amendment 3 legalized recreational marijuana, but it also embedded a complex and controversial regulatory structure directly into the state constitution. Critics argue this system is tailor-made for abuse, centralizing control and creating opportunities for insider favoritism, exploitation by bad actors, and even infiltration by criminal enterprises.
Amendment 3 passed narrowly and set strict limits on the number of comprehensive licenses available in the state. These licenses were initially awarded to those who already held medical marijuana permits, creating what many call a closed, insider-friendly marketplace. In an effort to offset this, the amendment created a new regulatory category: microbusiness licenses, designed to provide opportunities to applicants from “marginalized” communities.
Who Really Benefits From Missouri’s Marijuana Licenses?
At the heart of this new system is the Chief Equity Officer (CEO), a position housed within the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS). The CEO oversees the application process for microbusiness licenses, which are intended to benefit individuals who meet certain criteria, including living in high-poverty areas, having past marijuana-related convictions, or being a racial or ethnic minority. The current Chief Equity Officer, Abigail Vivas, was appointed in 2023.
On paper, these provisions were framed as a remedy for past drug policy injustices. In practice, however, they have raised serious concerns about fairness, favoritism, and the potential for abuse. Just months into implementation, state officials discovered that many of the initial 48 microbusiness licenses were awarded to out-of-state applicants who failed to meet eligibility criteria. Nine of those licenses were later revoked, exposing major flaws in the vetting process.
“This is about opening up doors that have historically been closed,” said NAACP St. Louis President Adolphus Pruitt, defending the controversial license allocation process. But critics argue the process has opened more doors for opportunists than for local Missourians.
“This is not a day of celebration for me… The fight for an equitable and accessible cannabis industry in Missouri is not over,” said Brennan England, a cannabis advocate. Yet for many Missourians watching from the outside, the system doesn’t look accessible at all—it looks captured.
The Equity Officer Role: Fairness or Political Favoritism?
Even those outside traditional activist circles are sounding the alarm. Conservative voices, once silent on cannabis issues, are beginning to raise red flags about the amendment’s structure and intent.
“This system installs an unaccountable, unelected official with unchecked power over who gets to participate in the cannabis economy,” warned Brian Evans, a Republican legislative candidate, referring to the Chief Equity Officer’s authority.
A System Ripe for Abuse
The structure is further complicated by the opaque nature of marijuana business ownership in Missouri. Many businesses are structured as LLCs or holding companies, making it difficult for regulators—or the public—to know who truly owns or controls them. Combine this with the fact that most dispensaries remain cash-based due to federal banking laws, and you have a fertile environment for money laundering.
Missouri is no stranger to controversy when it comes to marijuana regulation. The medical marijuana rollout in 2019 was dogged by allegations of insider dealing and corruption. Dozens of lawsuits were filed over the license scoring process, and although no high-profile prosecutions followed, the perception of unfairness has persisted.
Cartels in the Shadows?
While there is no conclusive public evidence that cartels or foreign criminal organizations have successfully infiltrated Missouri’s legal cannabis industry, the warning signs are there. A recent investigation revealed that some applicants had used predatory contracts to exploit local licensees—maintaining the appearance of local, minority-owned businesses while real control remained in the hands of out-of-state investors.
The structure invites important questions: Who actually owns Missouri’s marijuana businesses? Are background checks and financial audits robust enough to stop criminal infiltration? What oversight tools does DHSS have in place—and are they using them? Are state regulators more concerned with promoting a political narrative than protecting the public interest?
The Fentanyl Factor: Steering Drug Use Into Storefronts?
There’s a larger, more uncomfortable possibility lurking behind all of this: Could the fentanyl crisis be indirectly steering people toward these state-run dispensaries? Fentanyl-laced heroin, meth, and counterfeit pills are killing Americans by the tens of thousands. As street drugs become increasingly deadly, some suspect there’s a quiet campaign—intentional or not—to push users toward “safe,” state-approved alternatives.
If that’s the case, who really benefits? Legal dispensaries stand to gain most. But if those dispensaries are ultimately owned by hidden investors or criminal fronts, then we haven’t solved a problem—we’ve institutionalized it. We’ve moved the drug trade from the alleyway to the showroom floor.
Political Support: Who Backed Amendment 3?
Amendment 3 received support from both Republicans and Democrats. Governor Mike Parson, a Republican, facilitated the rollout. “The people have spoken,” Parson said following the 2022 vote. “Now it’s our job to make sure the process is fair and functional.” Yet critics argue the system is anything but fair, and it certainly doesn’t feel functional to those watching licenses go to out-of-state players while local applicants are boxed out.
The Democratic Party of Missouri declined to officially endorse Amendment 3, citing concerns about monopolization and the amendment’s entrenchment in the state constitution. Even progressive groups that supported the measure are now expressing regret.
Is This What Voters Were Promised?
The structure of Missouri’s marijuana program—few licenses, centralized gatekeepers, murky ownership rules, and cash-heavy operations—is a recipe for manipulation. If the public has no meaningful insight into who profits, then voters have every reason to take a hard look at whether Amendment 3 should remain in place.
After all, this isn’t just about cannabis. It’s about accountability. It’s about whether a constitutional amendment should protect politically appointed bureaucrats and well-connected insiders at the expense of ordinary Missourians. And it’s about whether we should be using the state constitution to protect a commercial drug market at all.
A Constitutional Mistake That May Need Reversal
One might wonder: if the system can’t be fixed—and if it wasn’t meant to be—perhaps it was never intended to serve the public in the first place. Maybe the real solution isn’t to reform it. Maybe the real solution is to end it.
Missouri’s leaders owe the public more than slogans about fairness and opportunity. They owe transparency, integrity, and the courage to admit when something simply isn’t working. For those who’ve been watching closely, the verdict may already be clear.
