Twelve hellish months later, here we are: limping into 2020 like a block-long line of downtrodden Massachusetts dispensary customers huddled against the sleet, clutching their last $60 and wondering if there’s still an eighth-ounce limit on flower purchases. ( Ed. note: Oh my god, there is. )

A year ago, I slipped on a tattered wizard’s robe (blue velvet, stars — you know, standard issue for cannabis reporters), peered into TWIW ’s crystal bong, and wrote down eight phantasmic predictions that revealed themselves in the swirling amnesia kush mist.

Sign up for This Week in Weed to witness the birth of the marijuana industry in Massachusetts and catch up on national pot headlines, written by reporter Dan Adams and delivered to your inbox every Saturday.


But not me, man. I’m sliding past in the metaphorical medical line, smiling under an umbrella with a built-in depression lamp (patent pending), about to buy a tax-free ounce. That’s because, unlike for 2018, my predictions for 2019 were almost completely on point.

To be fair, I failed to predict some major developments, such as the marijuana investment market crash and vaping health crisis. Also, some of my predictions-come-true were on the gloomier side. But I only had one major whiff, compared to six total flops and two partial misses out of eight in 2018. Two years to competency? Let’s call that... decent.

Without further ado, the results:

PREDICTION #1: A lack of access to capital will continue to hobble equity efforts, thanks to a lack of political leadership; big operators will try to exploit the resulting vacuum.

VERDICT: True ...though I wish it wasn’t.

As we reported in our Spotlight series last spring, large multistate marijuana companies tried in Massachusetts and elsewhere to gobble up more retail licenses than allowed by law. Their trick? Using onerous loans and “management” contracts that could give them effective control of seemingly independent local licensees. And indeed, some firms shopped contracts with highly questionable terms to state-designated equity and empowerment applicants desperate for capital.


Still, the key word here is “try.” The Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission (and even the Department of Public Health when it still managed the state’s medical marijuana program) were watching these arrangements almost from the beginning. This year, the commission said it was investigating the deals, and made clear that it took a dim view of any attempts (clever or not) to sidestep caps on license ownership.

Following the unambiguous regulatory warning shots and unflattering press coverage, the operators in question have largely retreated from this model. Let’s call that a win for accountability and the proverbial little guy.

Overall, though, equity remains elusive in the state’s legal cannabis market, with the commission awarding only a relative handful of final licenses to smaller, local applicants. I was correct that access to capital (along with the local approval process) would remain a major barrier to entry, and the cannabis market crash (which I failed to predict) has only further limited the cash available to would-be operators.

However, as we’ll explore more next week in my 2020 predictions, hope is on the horizon for equity and empowerment applicants in the form of delivery licenses and other commission policy tweaks.

I was also perhaps a bit too cynical last year when I said elected officials lacked the will to solve the equity problem. While it’s true that state-level electeds haven’t passed new legislation on this front, progressive local officials in Boston, Cambridge, Waltham, and elsewhere have surprised me and other observers by enacting strong local equity ordinances. That’s a testament to the persistence of local advocates, who despite rampant infighting pushed these measures across the finish line. It’s also a credit to the local electeds who responded to revelations about the licensing shenanigans of Big Marijuana by reexamining their municipality’s approval processes and asking applicants much tougher questions about who their true owners are.


PREDICTION #2: The Massachusetts Legislature will pass a law aimed at preventing and policing stoned driving, prompting legal challenges.

VERDICT: Wrong. Yeah, no excuses here. I just flubbed it. Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker did make a strong push for exactly such a bill, but the state Legislature has yet to take it up in earnest. The proposal is being held up in part because of concerns over civil liberties and the accuracy of roadside tests administered by so-called drug recognition experts.

PREDICTION #3: Consolidation and acquisitions will continue.

VERDICT: True. In 2019, a number of acquisitions and consolidations involving major Massachusetts operators such as Curaleaf, New England Treatment Access, Sira Naturals, and Alternative Therapies Group were closed or proposed. However, most of these deals were essentially national plays, with the three-license limit in Massachusetts preventing any one company from dominating the wholesale or retail markets here.


PREDICTION #4: There won’t be huge changes to federal law just yet.

VERDICT: True. I was pretty much spot-on with this one.

The Democrat-controlled US House in September did pass a bill that would let banks and other financial institutions work with licensed cannabis operators, and a key House committee passed a comprehensive marijuana legalization bill in November — major milestones in the decades-long effort to reform federal drug laws.

But in the absence of a push from the White House, where President Trump recently spiked bipartisan protections for state medical marijuana programs, the Senate seems as unlikely as ever to even take up such bills, much less approve them. As I said a year ago, “a divided and distracted Congress will have bigger priorities than marijuana reform.” Like, you know, impeachment and stuff. (Weed policy nerds: yawn.)

PREDICTION #5: Advocacy will continue to become more industry-oriented and -funded.

VERDICT: True-ish. Honestly this was kind of a “soft” prediction. It’s not like there’s some objective “extent to which the marijuana movement is hitched to the industry” meter bolted on the wall in the drug policy control room that I can reference.

Still, I think I was basically right. The influence of old-line advocacy groups continues to wane and marijuana industry associations are getting much more involved in both federal lobbying and the next wave of state cannabis legalization efforts.


A lot of the more principled cannabis reformers are now moving on to efforts to decriminalize other drugs. That means it will be up to consumers, regulators, and the press to keep an eye on commercial pot interests, which are quickly becoming classically American, profit-driven entities with little regard for the movement that brought them into existence nor the ugly, racist history of prohibition.

PREDICTION #6: Municipalities will spend the money they get from marijuana businesses on whatever they feel like; everyone will gnash their teeth, but nothing will change.

VERDICT: Mostly true. I said last year: “Technically, all the money that cities and towns extract from marijuana operators [at least in the form of “community impact fees”] is supposed to go toward offsetting the costs those cannabis facilities impose on the community. (Some of you are already laughing.) However, most of the contracts I’ve seen stipulate that the municipality can spend that cash on whatever it pleases, and I have no doubt most will hold true to their word in that regard.”

Many municipalities have yet to formally allocate the funds they received in the form of fees on local marijuana operators, so it’s hard to say for sure, but this appears to be basically true.

While some cities and towns, such as Brookline, are directing a portion of their cannabis revenues to restorative justice efforts, few if any have produced a detailed rundown of the actual costs imposed by local pot facilities.

And some, such as Leicester, required operators to pay for police details and other expenses separately, out of pocket.

As I predicted, there have been no consequences for communities that engage in such excesses, in part because the early operators in the state’s nascent cannabis market are almost all well-capitalized and all too happy to grease the local wheels.

PREDICTION #7: Delivery and social consumption businesses will be the topic of much conversation, but few, if any, will open.

VERDICT: True, if you’re willing to allow my “if any” hedge.

No such businesses opened in 2019. The commission did authorize both license types, and reserved them exclusively for participants in its equity and economic empowerment programs. But the agency has yet to begin accepting applications for delivery permits, and cautioned it will take a change in state law for a social consumption pilot program to get started.

I also guessed that “in the meantime, illicit and gray-market operators will continue to thrive and operate more or less openly” — which remains true.

PREDICTION #8: The Cannabis Control Commission will (belatedly) ease fees on medical marijuana patients and make registration easier.

VERDICT: Swish. The commission earlier this year eliminated patient registration fees and now allows new patients to go directly from the certifying physician to the dispensary.

Dan Adams can be reached at daniel.adams@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @Dan_Adams86.