During the COVID-19 pandemic, in a stroke of marketing genius, several airlines introduced “flights to nowhere,” where planes took off and landed at the same airport. This concept emerged as a way for airlines to generate revenue and for passengers to experience air travel despite international restrictions. For instance, in September 2020, Qantas offered a seven-hour scenic flight over Australia, which sold out in ten minutes. Similarly, Singapore Airlines considered such flights but later opted for alternative experiences like dining on stationary aircraft.  These flights capitalized on individuals longing for the experience of travel and a sense of normalcy during lockdowns.

When New Jersey legalized cannabis use, the promise was clear: it was about social justice, providing opportunities for minoritized communities, and a path forward for those whose lives were destroyed by the failed War on Drugs. Cannabis legalization in New Jersey was signed into law on February 22, 2021, by Governor Phil Murphy through the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMM Act). This law legalized recreational cannabis use and possession for adults 21 and older and decriminalized cannabis possession, with implementation rolling out in later years, including the start of recreational sales in April 2022. 

The CREAMM Act decriminalized possession of up to 6 ounces of cannabis and set up a regulated market, theoretically cutting down on criminal penalties for minor offenses. On its face, New Jersey’s cannabis legalization was laudable, appealing to New Jerseyans who were longing for a sense of social justice.  However, In February 2025, a new bill, S4154, was introduced in the New Jersey Legislature by Senate President Nicholas Scutari that criminalizes the possession of cannabis not purchased from a licensed dispensary. The bill makes it a disorderly person’s offense to knowingly buy from an unlicensed source—punishable by up to six months in jail, a $1,000 fine, or both—reintroducing criminal penalties for consumers, not just sellers. This is a shift from the current law, where possession of up to 6 ounces is legal regardless of where it came from, and only unlicensed selling carries penalties (under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5). The bill also ramps up punishment for unlicensed sellers, with third-degree crimes for operating an unlicensed business and second-degree crimes for leading an illegal cannabis network. But it is the consumer-facing part that is sparking debate about social justice.

The introduction of S4154 following the CREAMM Act feels eerily like the illusion of travel without going anywhere—the illusion of progress without delivering on its promises.  The people most likely to buy from unlicensed sources are often the same marginalized people legalization was supposed to help. Instead of promoting equity, the new bill risks criminalizing the very individuals intended to benefit from legalization in the first place.  

The argument for home grow reducing racial disparities ties to access and enforcement. Legal dispensaries in New Jersey are expensive with prices often hovering around $40-60 per eighth, driven by taxes like the SEEF, a 6.625% state sales tax, plus local add-ons in some towns. Illicit market prices, by contrast, can be half that. For low-income communities, many of which are disproportionately Black or Latino due to systemic economic inequities, this cost barrier limits access to legal products. Home grow could theoretically cut reliance on both pricey dispensaries and the illicit market. 

States with home grow still see illicit markets, but residents have a legal fallback. New Jersey’s choice prioritizes market control over individual autonomy, which widen gaps in access, and thus exposure to enforcement for those already marginalized. Without home grow, the state leans on a system that assumes everyone can afford or reach dispensaries, an assumption that does not hold evenly across racial and economic lines. Those who cannot afford legal sources might turn to unlicensed sellers, especially in “cannabis deserts”—areas with few or no dispensaries.

Urban areas like Newark or Trenton have more options, but rural or suburban zones often do not, and transportation costs add up. If the proposed S4154 bill passes—making it a disorderly person’s offense to knowingly buy from unlicensed sources—this could amplify risks for those without affordable legal alternatives.   

In 2023, a study published in Health Affairs found that in states where cannabis is legalized and home cultivation is permitted, there was a notable correlation to a reduction in low-level cannabis-related arrests. This suggests that allowing individuals to grow their own cannabis at home may have a “protective effect,” potentially reducing interactions with law enforcement over minor cannabis offenses, such as possession or small-scale distribution.  New Jersey Assemblywoman Shanique Speight called for home grow to “level the playing field,” especially for medical patients who were denied affordable options. 

Defense attorneys, like Michael Hoffman, also expressed concerns that S4154 could invite pre-textual stops and searches by law enforcement under the auspices of determining the source of cannabis.¹² Before legalization, cannabis odor was a common justification for searches, disproportionately affecting Black and Latino communities. The CREAMM Act banned using smell alone for searches, but S4154 might give a new angle to get around that protection, reigniting racial disparities in policing. Reverend Charles Boyer, a prominent advocate for social justice, expressed apprehension that such measures might undermine the progress made on the past injustices related to prohibition.  “We are definitely not in favor of any re-criminalization,” Boyer said. “Absolutely not.”¹³

The CREAMM Act stated that pre-legalization, “New Jersey spent approximately $127 million per year on marijuana possession enforcement costs.”¹⁴ By re-criminalizing a slice of consumer behavior, it opens the door to the same old patterns of disproportionate enforcement that legalization sought to fix. The CREAMM Act mandated expungement of certain past cannabis-related cases, aiming to mitigate prior disparities, but this applies to historical records, not new arrests. New Jersey expunged over 360,000 cannabis-related records since 2021, a win for equity. Yet S4154 could create new records, especially if enforcement targets neighborhoods already over-policed. Plus, the penalty itself—up to six months in jail—feels heavy for a state that just decriminalized possession. It risks putting people, particularly those in economically disadvantaged areas who might rely on cheaper illicit sources, back into the criminal justice system. Advocates argue the focus should be on expanding legal access—like allowing home grow or lowering prices—rather than criminalizing consumers. Senator Gopal’s critique that legalization has become “too corporate” and has not fully delivered on criminal justice reform echoes this sentiment. 

Senate President Scutari has consistently emphasized the social justice aspect of legalizing cannabis in New Jersey. He stated, “[f]rom the beginning, the fight to legalize cannabis has been first and foremost a battle for social justice.” In his initial support for legalization, he highlighted the importance of decriminalization, remarking, “Those of us who have been inside a courtroom know all too well how devastating a marijuana arrest, even for possession of a small amount, can be for a young person in an economically depressed community.”¹⁵ In describing the legalization movement, he commented, “The bill in, and of itself, is the epitome of a social justice reform…because those arrests are going to stop.”¹⁶ However, introducing S4154 challenges the initial intention of legalization, putting New Jersey on a flight to social justice that lands in the exact same place it departed from.