Recreational marijuana is going to be big business in this state. Pot-infused chocolates. “Canna-tourism.” Estimates put annual sales at $1 billion once the industry gets going. And with so much money blowing around, and significant health and safety issues at stake, it is vital that the state get regulation right.

That’s why lawmakers should approve a bill that would expand the size of the commission that will oversee the marijuana trade, broaden its expertise, and make it less susceptible to influence, or “capture,” by the industry.

Under the pot legalization law approved by Massachusetts voters last fall, regulation would fall to a three-member Cannabis Control Commission appointed by the state treasurer. There is a certain logic to the setup, since the treasurer’s office already houses the state’s alcohol regulators. But vesting all of the appointment authority in a single state official will make it easier for the industry to wage an influence campaign.

Legislation proposed by state Senator Jason Lewis, a Winchester Democrat, and a similar bill in the House of Representatives, would spread out the appointments among the treasurer, governor, and attorney general, among others, making regulatory capture a more difficult enterprise.

The legislation, patterned after the widely respected Massachusetts Gaming Commission, would also expand the number of marijuana commissioners from three to five. A three-member panel, Lewis rightly argues, “is not sufficient . . . to provide the kind of expertise and experience that is necessary to try to regulate this very complicated and brand new industry.”

One commissioner would have experience in licensure or marijuana regulation, under Lewis’s bill, another in public health and substance abuse, a third in law enforcement, and a fourth in agriculture. The fifth would be focused on social justice concerns, with an eye toward providing opportunity in the recreational marijuana industry for those from the low-income, minority communities most affected by the so-called war on drugs. 

Marijuana advocates have voiced concern about tinkering with the current law, worried that it will delay the launch of the industry. That’s understandable. But getting the regulatory structure right for the long term should be the priority.

Treasurer Deborah Goldberg has also pushed back, concerned that the considerable work her office has already done to prepare for the arrival of recreational marijuana could be lost.

Her office has, in fact, done good work — establishing contacts with regulators in other states and compiling lists of companies that could track marijuana from seed to sale, among other things. The state should find a way to build on that work; it would be foolish to toss it away.

But it would also be foolish to toss away a chance for better oversight of what promises to be a sprawling and powerful industry.