“One-Gram Ceramic 510” Is Not a Cartridge Specification

By Harry Huang
No Comments

Cannabis brands often approve a cartridge sample and then place a production order based solely on the product description. That shortcut leaves the filling partner, packaging team, and vape supplier to resolve important details after the purchase order has been submitted. A “controlled specification packet” must include formulation, critical dimensions, closure process, materials, lot records, and change rules, all decided on before the production clock starts.

Consider a production meeting in which purchasing has an approved sample, but the filler cannot locate the delivered cartridge consistently in its tray. The purchase order offers little insight into why the elements don’t work since the description only says “one-gram ceramic 510.”

Nobody necessarily shipped the wrong item. The company looking for a vape supplier based its purchasing decision on a basic product description rather than specifying defined configurations.

That distinction matters because a vape cartridge is handled by more than its buyer. It has to accept a particular formulation, go through a filling and closing process, fit a fixture, survive packing and distribution, and remain traceable to the approved version. If those interfaces live in separate email threads, the first production lot becomes the point at which the team discovers what it forgot to agree on.

A controlled specification packet gives the team a common target for validation, testing, and jurisdiction-specific legal review.

 

The RFQ should begin with the oil

Catalog labels encourage buyers to start with capacity, coil type, and thread. Operations usually need a different first question: what will go into the cartridge?

“Cannabis oil” does not describe one set of flow characteristics. A formulation may behave differently as temperature changes or after added terpenes and other permitted ingredients alter it. Those differences can affect how readily the reservoir fills, whether oil reaches the intake openings as intended, and how much time the operator has before closing the unit.

The brand does not need to disclose a proprietary recipe in an initial request for quotation. It can provide a bounded process description: the viscosity range measured at a stated temperature, planned fill temperature, target fill amount, and any known material restrictions. For qualification, the parties can agree on a representative fluid or a controlled sample of the intended formulation.

This is where shortcuts are tempting. Sending a representative fluid sample takes time, and some suppliers will offer a quick recommendation based on a broad oil description. That recommendation may be a sensible starting point. It is not a substitute for confirming the final model with the actual formulation and operating conditions.

ASTM International publishes separate classification and guidance documents for cannabis/hemp extract vaporizers.¹ For a buyer, the practical starting point is simply to use consistent terms for the device being evaluated. Suitability for a particular extract still has to be established for the selected model and operating conditions.

“One gram” leaves a volume question unanswered

Brands sell by net weight. Reservoirs are physical volumes. Treating the two as interchangeable creates avoidable arguments at the filling line.

The specification should distinguish the cartridge’s nominal reservoir volume from the target net fill. It should then state the allowed fill tolerance and the agreed maximum fill level or headspace for the selected formulation. These are related values, but they are not the same value.

There is no responsible universal conversion to paste into every specification. Density is part of the formulation, and usable volume depends on the particular cartridge and closing process. The correct numbers come from measurement under defined conditions.

The filling instructions should capture the details that change the result: product temperature at dispense, needle position, dispense approach, and maximum interval between filling and closure. If the center airway collects oil during filling, the first question should not be whether the cartridge is “good” or “bad.” The team should first confirm that it used the same fill conditions under which the hardware was qualified.

 

Approve a drawing, not a photograph

A commercial image helps identify a style. It cannot locate a part in a nest or size a carton insert.

The released drawing should show the dimensions used downstream, including overall height after closure, maximum diameter, base geometry, connection details, and the surfaces used to locate the part in a tray or fixture. The team should mark which dimensions are critical to fit or function. Cosmetic dimensions and fixture interfaces should not receive the same attention merely because both appear on the page.

Buyers sometimes ask for tighter tolerances everywhere because it feels safer. That can add cost without improving the process. The better discussion is specific: Which dimension controls centering under the fill needle? Which surface determines press depth? Which assembled height controls the package? Those are the dimensions that purchasing, the supplier, the filler, and packaging must understand the same way.

The drawing also needs a part number and revision. The approved sample, quotation, purchase order, inspection record, and packaging file should point to that revision. A model name alone cannot do this job. Suppliers may improve tooling or substitute a subcomponent while continuing to sell under the same name.

 

A press-fit mouthpiece is a process step

The words “press fit” do not tell an operator how to close a cartridge.

A workable closure instruction identifies where the fixture contacts the part, how the cartridge is supported, the required final position, and how the operator confirms that closure is acceptable. If force or travel limits are part of the qualified process, those limits belong in the instruction along with the equipment and fixture used to establish them.

Mouthpiece geometry, seal design, materials, and equipment vary, so a closure-force value from another model may not apply. The supplier should provide model-specific starting information, and the processor should establish the operating window during qualification.

This step is also where three schedules collide. The supplier wants to release hardware. The filler wants final nests and closing tooling. Packaging wants the post-closure dimensions. If the brand approves artwork and inserts from an early rendering, a small change at the closure interface can create packaging rework even when the cartridge functions as intended.

 

“Ceramic” identifies one component, not the assembly

Cartridges described as ceramic still contain an assembly of materials. Depending on the model, that may include metal alloys, glass, polymers, seals, adhesives, surface finishes, and a ceramic heating or wicking component. The relevant disclosure maps each material to a component and identifies its relationship to the formulation and aerosol pathway.

The material record serves a practical purpose. In a peer-reviewed study of unused cannabis vape pens, researchers observed metal-containing particles in the liquid and reported variation between devices filled with liquid from the same product lot. The identified particles included metals used in common device alloys.² Section 5.3.5 of Health Canada’s industry guide states that studies suggest coil type and composition, device power setting, device type, and user behavior could contribute to the release of elements. The same section recommends that manufacturers control harmful elements in devices and parts so their transmission to aerosol under normal use is minimized.³

Those findings do not predict the performance of a particular cartridge or create a universal test plan. They are a reason to ask what a certificate actually tested.

When reviewing a report, ask what was actually tested. Was it raw material, empty hardware, liquid after contact, or generated aerosol? Which model and revision? Which formulation, storage interval, operating conditions, sample count, method, and acceptance criteria? Does the report identify a production lot?

That checklist is a procurement recommendation, not a requirement taken from the cited study. Its purpose is to prevent a valid report from being applied to a product it did not evaluate.

 

Decide which evidence belongs to the model and which belongs to the lot

Two folders often get mixed together.

The first supports model qualification. It may contain the released drawing, component-level material declarations, relevant test reports, process information, and records of validation of the brand’s formulation and filling method.

The second travels with production lots. It should identify the part number and revision, lot or batch code, manufacturing date where applicable, quantity, and agreed inspection or conformance records. The exact contents depend on the risk assessment and the parties’ quality agreement.

The distinction keeps document requests honest. Asking a supplier for “all certifications” produces a large attachment folder and very little certainty. Asking for the test report applicable to revision C and the conformance record for lot 2407 makes the traceability question answerable.

Receiving inspection should be equally focused. Verify the few characteristics that would stop production or break traceability: correct revision, lot identity, packaging condition, and the critical dimensions or assembly features selected during qualification. The sampling method and acceptance rule should be agreed before delivery so receiving staff are not forced to improvise when a result falls outside the target.

 

Expect resistance to change control

Change notification is easy to endorse and harder to negotiate. Suppliers may treat sub-supplier identities, detailed bills of material, or proprietary processes as confidential. Buyers may respond by asking for everything, which usually produces boilerplate rather than usable control.

A narrower agreement works better. Define the changes that affect the approved interface or risk assessment: formulation and contact materials, heating components, seals, critical dimensions, assembly method, tooling, manufacturing site, and critical sub-suppliers. Then agree on the notice period and the response. Some changes may require only a document review. Others may require samples or requalification.

This negotiation has to happen before the order. Once inventory is built and a launch date is fixed, both sides have an incentive to treat a change as minor.

If a supplier will not disclose proprietary composition, the brand can still request stable material identifiers, a declaration of no change, or an agreed-upon notification category. The objective is not to acquire the supplier’s trade secrets. It is to know when the qualified configuration is no longer the configuration being shipped.

 

The two-page packet is better than the twelve-page packet nobody uses

Start with the smallest controlled document that can travel across purchasing, quality, filling, and packaging. For many teams, the core can fit on two pages plus attachments.

Page one identifies the product: part number, revision, intended formulation conditions, nominal reservoir volume, target fill, and approved configuration. Page two controls the handoffs: critical drawing references, fill and closure instructions, fixture and packaging interfaces, required lot records, receiving checks, and change-notification rules.

Figure 1 summarizes how those handoffs connect from formulation through packaging while lot evidence and change notification preserve the approved revision.

The drawing, material declaration, and test reports sit behind those pages as controlled attachments. One owner maintains the packet. Each affected function approves the fields it actually uses.

This will add work to the RFQ. It should. The choice is whether the team resolves those questions while it can still change a drawing and schedule a trial, or after thousands of cartridges are waiting beside a filling line.

Q&A: Hirsh Jain on Cannabis Rescheduling, Interstate Commerce and the Next Wave of Market Growth

By Hirsh Jain
No Comments

Cannabis federal reform has finally reached a historic moment. Medical cannabis is moving through the rescheduling process after decades under federal prohibition, marking one of the biggest developments in the industry’s history.

The final outcome could determine how companies expand, whether cannabis can move across state lines, and which markets become the next major opportunities.

Hirsh Jain, CEO of Ananda Strategy, shares his perspective on where rescheduling stands, whether interstate commerce will be allowed, and which states businesses should be watching next.

 

Where does the process stand today?

I think it is helpful to separate the rescheduling process into two parts: the rescheduling of medical marijuana and what is being described as the full rescheduling of marijuana.

Medical marijuana was rescheduled through the Todd Blanche order issued on April 23. The question now is whether that action survives the legal challenges that have been brought against it.

The lawsuits argue, among other things, that the process did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and that the government should have gone through a formal notice-and-comment process.

The key issue right now is standing. Before the court even considers the arguments on the merits, the plaintiffs need to demonstrate that they have suffered a concrete injury as a result of the rescheduling decision.

The Department of Justice has argued that some of the plaintiffs cannot meet that threshold. For example, one argument against MMJ Biopharmaceuticals is that it does not yet have a product on the market, meaning it has not suffered an economic injury from rescheduling.

If the court agrees that the plaintiffs lack standing, the case could be dismissed. If the court finds standing, the next question is whether to grant a stay, which would pause the rescheduling process while the broader lawsuit proceeds.

 

What about the broader rescheduling hearing?

The hearing to consider the full rescheduling of marijuana concluded on July 15. The parties have until August 17 to submit their final briefs.

I expect that this process will continue for several months.

Some people have suggested we could see a final rule by late summer or early fall, but I think that timeline is unlikely.

After the administrative law judge receives the final briefs, they need to issue a recommendation. There is no statutory deadline requiring that decision to come quickly.

Then the decision moves to the DEA administrator, who has the authority to disagree with the administrative law judge’s recommendation as long as they provide a reasoned explanation.

We have historical precedent for this. In 1988, administrative law judge Francis Young recommended that cannabis be rescheduled, but the DEA ultimately rejected that recommendation.

After the DEA administrator weighs in, the matter moves to the Attorney General for a final rule. Then there is a 30-day window where parties can challenge the decision legally.

So while I am cautiously optimistic, I think we should recognize there are many procedural opportunities for delay.

 

The DEA appeared to take a narrower approach during the hearing by focusing on medical use rather than legalization. Does that improve the chances of rescheduling?

I think that strategy made a lot of sense.

The DEA was very clear that the question before them was not whether cannabis should be legalized or whether cannabis is harmless. The question was whether marijuana has a currently accepted medical use.

By narrowing the issue, they created a stronger legal argument.

I am optimistic about the substance of the hearing. My concern is less about the underlying argument and more about the procedural mechanisms that opponents can use to slow the process.

 

Companies like Trulieve have successfully uplisted to major exchanges. What does that signal about investor confidence?

I think it demonstrates that exchanges are evaluating cannabis through a very technical legal lens.

Trulieve and Glass House structured their businesses to emphasize their medical operations and create a pathway toward federal legality.

Other companies, like Curaleaf, have taken a more cautious approach and indicated they want to wait until full rescheduling occurs before pursuing uplisting.

I think the broader takeaway is that if we are in a world six months from now where full rescheduling has occurred, we could see many more operators pursue uplisting.

 

Could rescheduling finally open the door to interstate commerce?

This is one of the biggest questions facing the industry.

Historically, interstate commerce did not exist because cannabis was federally illegal, but I think the more complete explanation is the structure created by the Cole Memorandum.

After Colorado and Washington legalized cannabis in 2012, the federal government essentially allowed states to experiment as long as they avoided certain enforcement priorities. One of those priorities was preventing diversion across state lines.

That created the foundation for state-based markets.

Even after the Cole Memo was rescinded, states continued operating under that framework. Over time, every state built its own isolated system.

Rescheduling could change that conversation by creating a stronger argument for federal legality. That could make courts more receptive to challenges based on the Dormant Commerce Clause.

But this would not happen overnight.

There are three potential pathways:

First, courts could determine that state restrictions on interstate commerce violate the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Second, individual states could reform their cannabis laws to allow interstate commerce.

Third, states could create interstate compacts in which participating states agree to allow commerce among themselves.

I think interstate commerce will happen gradually. It will likely begin with groups of states that are willing to work together, rather than a nationwide opening all at once.

 

How would interstate commerce change the industry?

It would completely change the strategy of scaling cannabis businesses.

Right now, companies often have to build cultivation, manufacturing, and distribution infrastructure in every state where they operate.

If interstate commerce becomes possible, companies could manufacture products in one location and distribute them across multiple states.

That would dramatically change the industry’s economics and reduce some of the pressure operators face today.

 

Which states do you see driving the next wave of cannabis growth?

The industry has been starved for growth over the past few years.

Between 2016 and 2023, we saw a steady stream of states launching adult-use markets. Over the past three years, that momentum slowed.

The exciting thing is that by 2027, I think we can identify several meaningful growth markets.

The biggest one is Virginia.

Virginia is currently a limited medical market, but adult-use sales are scheduled to begin in 2027. Most analysts believe the state could eventually become a multibillion-dollar market.

What makes Virginia particularly interesting is its geography. It borders states including North Carolina and Tennessee that do not currently have adult-use programs.

Virginia could become a destination market for consumers across the region.

 

What about Minnesota?

Minnesota is another market I think people should watch.

One thing Minnesota has done particularly well is create pathways for hemp operators to transition into the regulated cannabis market.

That is a model other states should consider.

The challenge in Minnesota has been supply. The state licensed retailers, but cultivation capacity and testing infrastructure have not kept pace.

The result is that many stores have limited inventory and high prices.

I think 2027 could be a turning point because more cultivation comes online, testing capacity improves, and retailers have more products to sell.

 

What medical markets are worth watching?

I think Georgia and Texas are two of the most exciting medical markets in the country.

Together, those states represent more than 40 million people.

Georgia is particularly interesting because of the changes it has made to its medical program, including expanding qualifying conditions and allowing additional product formats.

The pharmacy model is also important.

Pharmacies are trusted healthcare providers. Many consumers who may hesitate to enter a dispensary may feel comfortable visiting a pharmacy.

Georgia has the opportunity to demonstrate a different model for cannabis distribution.

 

Final thoughts: What should cannabis businesses be watching over the next year?

I think the biggest thing is understanding that the industry is moving into a new phase.

Rescheduling, interstate commerce, new state markets, and changing distribution models all have the potential to reshape how cannabis companies operate.

But none of these changes happen instantly.

 

The long-awaited moment has arrived. After building markets state by state under federal prohibition, companies are ready for a new chapter in the industry.

 

Hemp Beverage Expo 2026: Get in the Room Where the THC Beverage Industry Is Being Built

No Comments

The Hemp Beverage Expo (HBE) heads into its second show this June in Austin, Texas, and the energy is full speed ahead — even with November 12th looming over the industry.

With policy updates shifting rapidly and operators scrambling to brainstorm contingency plans, getting in the room with businesses and advocates from across the beverage sector has never felt more urgent. The November 12th deadline is a genuine threat to the industry’s survival, and the show is positioning itself as the place where the people fighting for this category can share knowledge, compare notes, and figure out their next moves together.

Leaders from the Hemp Beverage Alliance, Coalition for Adult Beverage Alternatives, Beverage Wholesalers for Responsible Regulation, and Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America will all take the stage in Austin to discuss their latest efforts to shape policy and educate lawmakers.

 

The Data Is Building

Now that hemp beverages have been on the market for a few years and revenue is growing year over year, major enterprise market research firms are starting to dedicate real resources to tracking the sector. According to NielsenIQ’s April 2026 report “Buzz Worthy: The High Rise of THC Beverages,” THC drinks generated $239 million in sales over the past 52 weeks — a striking 135% year-over-year increase.

Market research companies MoreBetter and Vermont Information Processing (VIP) will be on hand to present insights into national and regional sales trends, consumer behavior, and emerging opportunities across the category. They’ll dig into questions such as: What outcomes do hemp beverage consumers report? At what THC level do adverse events become predictable? Do the data support regulatory THC caps? What cut-off protocols should on-premise operators follow? And how can brands legally market using clinical evidence? For anyone making data-driven strategic decisions in this space, this session alone is worth the trip.

 

Selling What Sells

Across grocery, liquor, convenience, and on-demand platforms, operators are expanding their hemp beverage selections as demand for the category grows. But selling effectively in each of those channels requires a completely different approach.

Art Mossollo, who helped build Cycling Frog into one of the top 10 hemp THC beverage brands, will lead a panel digging into exactly that. John Horton, Head of North America Public Policy at DoorDash, will discuss their strategy in the delivery channel. Thomas Winstanley, GM at edibles.com, will share how they are building an online marketplace for hemp products. And Blake Row, VP of SSCP Management — a restaurant group overseeing more than 600 locations nationwide — will walk through how hemp beverages are fitting into the on-premise channel, which many alcohol industry veterans consider the most effective launchpad for a new beverage brand.

The panel will cover what each channel is seeing in the market, how they are managing compliance and risk, and why consumer behavior will ultimately be the deciding factor in the category’s long-term trajectory.

 

What’s the Path to Retail?

There is no unified national distribution system for emerging beverage brands to follow. The infrastructure for THC is being built and negotiated on the fly.

Distributors from grocery, beer, and retail channels will join the “Distributing Through Uncertainty” panel to discuss how they are approaching hemp beverages while continuing to build portfolios, service accounts, and meet demand in spite of an uncertain regulatory environment. How are they evaluating risk? What are they hearing from retail partners? And what does it actually take to operate in a category that could change overnight? From route-to-market strategy and supplier selection to compliance and contingency planning, this session offers a candid look at how distributors are keeping the wheels turning—and positioning for whatever comes next.

 

You’re in Retail. Now What?

Landing on a shelf is just the beginning. Generating sales velocity is the real job, and every retail channel demands its own playbook.

Mary Eggers Beruth, CEO of Pharos Premium Infused Beverages, will lead the session “How to Win with Hemp Beverages at Retail,” joined by Laura Romero of Hire Dragon, a trade marketing firm; CJ Watson from TradeWorks, specialists in the convenience store channel; and Marissa Kinsey from Nowadays, who previously held a leadership role at BeatBox Beverages, a sales record breaking RTD brand in the alcohol industry.

The panel will break down what is actually working on the floor: merchandising strategies that drive visibility, simple ways to educate shoppers, and proven tactics like sampling and storytelling to introduce the category without overwhelming customers. They will provide plug-and-play ideas attendees can easily implement to build trial, loyalty, and long-term sell-through.

 

Know Your Supply Chain

Behind every successful THC beverage is a repeatable, predictable experience. Without that consistency, customers do not come back.

Building an infused beverage is more complex than most people realize, and the stakes for getting it wrong are high. Retailers, wholesalers, and CPG buyers need to know how to identify products that are GMP-certified, operationally sound, and capable of delivering a reliable experience every time.

Kim Rael Sanchez, co-founder of the emulsion lab, Azuca, will moderate the panel “Know Your Supply Chain,” with Aaron Owens from Teja Tonics, Alexa Wilson from Omega Equipment, and Vanessa Snyder from SC Labs. Together, they will walk through the supply chain realities behind product manufacturing and ingredient sourcing to quality assurance, compliance, and scalability. Attendees will learn how to evaluate brand partners more intelligently and reduce downstream risk.

 

Navigating the Legal Landscape

The patchwork of state laws governing hemp-derived THC beverages is unlike anything most beverage professionals have dealt with before, and the rules look different depending on whether you are a brand, a distributor, a retailer, or a platform.

The legal community is working in overdrive to help operators navigate the chaos and stay compliant as legal frameworks evolve.

One legal panel at HBE brings together a mix of voices: a brand operator navigating real growth decisions, a legal expert interpreting the regulatory landscape, and an actual regulator helping shape the policy conversation.

Shawn Hauser, Partner at Vicente, will moderate a discussion with Thomas Graham, Executive Director of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission; Angus Rittenburg, Co-Founder and CEO of Wynk; and Andrea Steel, Principal at The Banks Law Firm. Together, they will dig into how companies are making strategic decisions right now, where the biggest compliance risks exist, and what businesses should be doing today to stay adaptable no matter which way the regulatory winds blow.

The second session is an open Ask Me Anything with some of the sharpest lawyers working in the THC beverage space. Michelle Bodian, Strategic Advisor at the Hemp Beverage Alliance, will moderate, with Shauna Barnes of Barnes Beverage Group, Jim Ickes, Partner at Frantz Ward, and Alyssa Samuel, Senior Counsel at Husch Blackwell, fielding questions from the floor. Come with your most pressing legal questions — or, as the organizers put it, come with a bag of popcorn. Either way, you will leave with answers.

 

The Hemp Beverage Expo is bringing leaders together at a moment when the industry genuinely needs it. The regulatory clock is ticking, consumer demand is escalating, and the infrastructure is being built on the fly. Austin is the place to be this June.

 

 

 

 

 

The Post-280E Opportunity: Turning Cannabis Risk Into an Asset

By Patrick Johnston
No Comments

The April 2026 Department of Justice rescheduling order landed with the weight of a decade of advocacy behind it. For an industry that has watched every other legal sector deduct its rent, payroll, and marketing costs while cannabis operators paid taxes on money they never made, the optimism is more than justified. It is earned. The uncertainty, however, is just as real.

A Quick Reminder of Current Law

Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits businesses trafficking in Schedule I or II controlled substances from deducting ordinary business expenses. Operators may deduct the cost of goods sold under §471 and nothing else. The result is effective federal tax rates of 60 to 80 percent, and in some cases well beyond, on businesses that are licensed, regulated, and paying state taxes like any other industry. Among the largest publicly traded multi-state operators, contested 280E tax liability now exceeds $1.7 billion collectively.

Why Rescheduling Moves the Needle

The statutory logic is clean. As cannabis tax attorneys have broadly noted, a completed Schedule III reclassification could eliminate 280E by its own terms, potentially improving operator profitability overnight, in some cases dramatically.

What the April Order Actually Does

Here is where the headline optimism requires a reality check. The April 23 order covers two categories: FDA-approved cannabis products and cannabis produced by operators holding a state-issued medical license. That is it (at least for now).

Important: The April 2026 order does not broadly reschedule cannabis. Adult-use recreational operators remain in Schedule I pending completion of a formal DEA rulemaking hearing scheduled for June 29–July 15, 2026. Even for qualifying medical operators, the IRS has issued no formal guidance and is actively litigating 280E challenges in Tax Court. A final, legally durable rule covering all operators awaits the hearing, a post-hearing final rule, a likely 90-day waiting period, and near-certain legal challenges from opponents.

 

What Rescheduling Doesn’t Fix

280E relief is not federal legalization. Banking access remains a legislative problem.  The SAFER Banking Act is still stalled. Interstate commerce restrictions stay in place. Securities law complications for publicly traded cannabis companies don’t evaporate with a scheduling change. And state/federal conflicts don’t resolve automatically under Schedule III. The infrastructure problems that have defined this industry’s capital markets for a decade largely remain intact, unfortunately.

The Angles Worth Watching

Three questions are already moving through the industry. Will 280E relief trigger a wave of M&A activity as operators flush with new after-tax capital become acquirers? Will multi-state operators restructure entities to maximize exposure to state medical programs and capture Phase 1 relief ahead of a final rule? And will expansion plans such as new markets, facilities, and verticals that were shelved under 280E’s punishing math come back to life?

The answers are coming, but so is the litigation.

What You Can Do Now

As of April 22, 2026, state-licensed medical cannabis businesses are no longer subject to Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code. Because the order also encourages the Treasury Department to consider retroactive 280E tax relief for prior years, a window is now open for opportunities to amend returns and file protective claims. Businesses should evaluate immediately with legal and tax counsel rather than waiting for formal guidance. The window to apply through the DEA Diversion portal for expedited DEA registration review closes on June 26, 2026. While DEA registration may not be required to obtain tax relief, it could provide important operational advantages, including the ability to transport and transact medical cannabis between DEA-registered facilities across state lines and participate more directly in medical research activities.

The Bottom Line

For operators navigating this still-unsettled landscape, 280E relief could be transformative. What hasn’t changed is the underlying risk environment: product recall exposure, business interruption vulnerability, and the coverage gaps that commercial cannabis insurance routinely leaves unaddressed. Operators who have long lacked the capital to address that exposure structurally may find, for the first time, that they have it. A captive insurance company allows an operator to turn that capital into owned, purpose-built coverage, thereby converting risk from a cost center into a financial asset.

The 280E thaw is real. In consultation with trusted counsel, applicable operators should consider the registration deadline of June 26, 2026. Plan accordingly, but verify before you act.

CSQ Launches EU GMP Tool to Help Cannabis Businesses Break Into European Markets

No Comments

As U.S. cannabis rescheduling moves forward and export opportunities to the European Union become available, a new certification tool to help producers prove their products meet EU standards and fight back against supply chain fraud is now available.

CSQ (Cannabis Safety & Quality), the first ANAB-accredited cannabis and hemp safety and quality certification program, announced this week the publication of its new EU GMP Addendum, kicking off a public comment period that runs through June 1, 2026. The addendum is designed to help cannabinoid producers worldwide demonstrate compliance with EudraLex Volume 4, Parts 1 & 2, and Annex 7 — the EU’s Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) regulatory framework for medicinal herbal products.

What the Addendum Does — and Doesn’t Do

The EU GMP Addendum is not a standalone regulatory certification. Rather, it functions as a third-party validation layered on top of a producer’s existing certification issued by a recognized Competent Authority. It gives producers a documented paper trail of compliance that can be presented to potential EU buyers — a critical validation as more North American operators eye the European medical cannabis market.

The tool is also specifically aimed at curbing what CSQ calls “greenwashing” in the cannabis supply chain, a practice where imported products are falsely relabeled as EU GMP-certified before being sold across Europe.

“When a pharmacist in Europe sells a medical cannabinoid product to a patient, they shouldn’t have to question whether or not that product is safe, or if GMPs were followed, they should know without a doubt,” said Darwin Millard, CSQ’s Technical Director.

Why This Matters Now

With U.S. federal cannabis rescheduling underway, the window for American cannabis and hemp producers to access international markets — including the EU’s growing medical cannabis sector — is opening. But gaining entry requires more than product quality; it requires internationally recognized documentation of that quality. The CSQ addendum aims to fill that gap.

CSQ’s broader certification program is built on ASTM, ISO, cGMP/cGACP, HACCP, and other internationally recognized standards, and is designed to help companies build what CSQ describes as a “best-in-class Cannabis Safety & Quality Management System.”

How to Participate

Industry stakeholders, regulators, and experts are encouraged to download the CSQ 2.0 EU GMP Addendum and submit feedback through the Public Comment Form at www.csqcertification.com/public-comment before the June 1st deadline. Audits under the finalized addendum — incorporating all public comment feedback — are expected to begin in Q4 2026.

What MJ Unpacked Reveals About Cannabis in 2026

No Comments

From cultivation to retail, businesses are digging deep to tighten operations and increase margins as the only way to endure another grueling year in cannabis without federal support.

A common sales pitch these days centers on cost-saving systems and operational efficiency. The industry has shifted from “how fast can we grow?” to “how do we survive profitably?” There is little tolerance left for inefficiency.

A glance at the agenda for the upcoming MJ Unpacked show in Atlantic City, kicking off May 5, offers insights into the industry’s current challenges as we move through 2026. According to co-founder George Jage, the programming is shaped by input from committees across retail, brands, and cultivation, made up of operators who meet regularly to share pain points and what they are seeing on the ground.

“There’s no higher level of learning than peer-to-peer learning, and understanding the biggest pain points,” says Jage. “We take that information and design panels around the challenges and solutions operators are actually dealing with.”

Here is what I gleaned from this year’s agenda and where the industry is focusing. If the industry is going to stabilize, tight execution at every phase will matter.

 

The Retail Grind

Retailers across the board are grappling with inventory management and SKU rationalization, given the dizzying number of strains and products available and consumers’ constant demand for variety and newness. Without careful planning, a store can end up overstocked, leading to discounting, spoiled product, and shrinking working capital. Trying to stock everything is where money gets wasted, and seasoned buyers will weigh in at the Atlantic City show on what actually makes it to store shelves.

Hoodie Analytics will be on-site to break down the latest retail performance data, consumer behavior shifts, pricing trends, and competitive dynamics impacting markets nationwide. Where is growth accelerating? How are operators adapting to evolving market conditions? Attendees can expect to walk away with a sharper read on what the data signals for the year ahead and where emerging opportunities may lie. Leading operators and data partners will also share how analytics are driving smarter merchandising, tighter pricing, stronger customer engagement, and disciplined growth planning, with a practical roadmap for turning insights into action and getting more out of your tech stack.

Successful retail operations are also about keeping up with the times. Today’s cannabis consumers move fluidly between digital menus, delivery, storefronts, and apps, and they expect the experience to feel seamless at every touchpoint. Panelists will dig into how to build a connected model that supports the consumer experience across the full dispensary ecosystem.

 

The Art of the Sell

You have six seconds to stop a consumer in their tracks and get them to notice your product. Merchandising shapes someone’s experience, creates interest, and drives sales. It shouldn’t be an afterthought.

Cannabis has reinvented the retail experience, but it’s not quite there yet. Browsing products locked behind glass or displayed in empty boxes is a far cry from traditional retail, where consumers walk the aisles, interact directly with products, and toss whatever catches their eye into a cart.

MJ Unpacked Atlantic City is bringing together visual merchandising experts to discuss the evolution of the dispensary experience, covering how store design, product presentation, and category selection can shape consumer behavior, spark product discovery, and drive sales. The dispensary floor has real potential as a selling tool. It’s just a matter of using it well.

 

Where Science Meets the Shelf

The cultivation sessions go deep into the science driving product quality. Researchers and operators will come together to explore how emerging science can sharpen cultivation strategies and product development. There’s even a push for operators to collaborate directly with academic institutions to build a more data-driven foundation for the industry.

On the plant science side, sessions will examine how controlled-stress strategies, from drought tolerance to deliberate environmental pressure, can enhance terpene and cannabinoid expression without compromising yield. Understanding how to manipulate stress responses gives cultivators the ability to improve flavor profiles and potency.

Genetics is also getting serious attention. As commercialization scales, the risk of genetic erosion is growing, and experienced breeders are concerned about preserving diversity, stabilizing traits, and maintaining legacy cultivars while still meeting production demands. Phenotypic selection, trait heritability, and breeding for consistency across environments will all be on the table.

Rounding out the cultivation track, a session on enterprise risk management will address the wave of recalls, testing failures, and regulatory shifts operators are navigating. Panelists will share tactics for moving from reactive crisis response to proactive resilience, including whether AI can play a role in monitoring compliance and surfacing issues before they escalate.

The insights from genetics research, stress response science, and data-driven growing practices inform how brands develop and differentiate their products, and will be front and center at the panel discussions at MJ Unpacked Atlantic City.

 

Building National Brands

The Brand sessions zero in on growth strategy and the complicated maze of state-by-state partnerships. Panels will cover licensing as a lower-risk path to multi-state expansion, with a focus on maintaining brand consistency and compliance across different markets. Operators will also dig into disciplined growth and when to push forward and when to pull back. On the supply chain side, attendees will hear how to build scalable operations from concept to distribution while keeping costs in check. Rounding it out, a conversation on strategic partnerships will address how social equity operators can structure deals that bring in capital and distribution without giving up control.

 

Money, Debt, and Deals

Finding ways to tighten operations across the business is mandatory in cannabis right now, but it won’t matter without disciplined financial planning behind it. Accountants specializing in this heavily regulated industry will take the stage to offer guidance for licensed operators navigating one of the most complex tax and compliance environments in any sector.

A session on mounting maturities will examine how the current wave of restructurings, refinancings, and strategic roll-ups is triggering a new phase of deal-making. Financial and operational leaders will unpack how this capital reset is redefining ownership, attracting new investors, and reshaping the competitive landscape, and what it means for operators on both sides of the table.

For those already in distress, a separate session tackles how to protect enterprise value and stabilize operations when capital is tight. Turnaround specialists will share frameworks for managing debt, improving liquidity, restructuring costs, and making the moves needed to survive and reposition for growth.

On the planning side, a deep dive into FP&A will focus on the performance indicators that matter most for cannabis businesses and how to use them to make smarter decisions. Leaders will share best practices for keeping operators agile in an unpredictable market.

Finally, a session on M&A readiness will address why so many deals stall before serious diligence even begins. Panelists will walk through the most common data room red flags, the realities of EBITDA normalization in cannabis, and how cap table complexity and weak governance quietly kill transactions before they ever get off the ground.

 

 

 

Colorado Pushes to Normalize THC Beverages in Bars as Federal Pressure Mounts

No Comments

As federal policymakers move toward restricting hemp-derived cannabinoid products, a new state-level effort in Colorado is taking the opposite approach by moving to integrate low-dose THC beverages into mainstream hospitality.

A coalition led by Colorado-based attorney Brian Vicente, partner at Vicente LLP, has formed the Colorado THC Beverage Coalition and introduced legislation that would allow hemp-derived THC beverages—up to 10 milligrams per serving—to be sold and consumed in bars, restaurants, and event venues.

If successful, the bill would position Colorado alongside states like Minnesota and Tennessee, which have emerged as early leaders in normalizing hemp-derived THC beverages in social, alcohol-adjacent settings.

 

A Three-Tier System for THC?

At the core of the Colorado proposal is to treat THC beverages more like alcohol.

The legislation seeks to establish a regulated pathway for hemp-derived THC drinks to move through licensed distribution channels and into on-premise consumption environments. This model mirrors the three-tier alcohol system, creating clearer compliance standards while expanding access points beyond dispensaries.

For beverage brands, the implications are significant. Instead of being confined to cannabis retail, THC beverages could tap into existing hospitality infrastructure, unlocking new revenue streams for bars, restaurants, and event organizers.

“This is about meeting consumers where they already are,” Vicente has argued, emphasizing that low-dose THC beverages are increasingly viewed as an alternative to alcohol in social settings.

 

Why Minnesota Became the Model

Colorado’s effort draws heavily from Minnesota’s regulatory framework, widely seen as one of the most functional hemp THC markets in the U.S.

Since 2022, Minnesota has allowed the sale of low-dose hemp-derived THC edibles and beverages with defined potency limits, age restrictions, and testing requirements.

Notably, the state permits beverages containing up to 10 mg of THC per container, creating a standardized, sessionable product format that aligns with consumer expectations around alcohol.

This clarity has enabled breweries and beverage manufacturers to enter the category at scale, with many positioning THC drinks as a complementary or alternative offering to beer and spirits. Even mass retail such as Target stores in Minnesota are selling beverages by meeting the state’s licensing requirements.

 

The Federal Threat Reshaping the Market

A major federal policy change, set to take effect in November 2026, could upend the entire hemp-derived cannabinoid category.

The updated federal definition of hemp introduces a “total THC” standard and imposes a cap of just 0.3 milligrams of THC per container, effectively eliminating most existing THC beverage products.

Industry groups estimate that as much as 95% of current hemp-derived products could be wiped out under the new rules, with cascading effects on jobs, tax revenue, and investment.

This looming crackdown has created a paradox: while federal policy is tightening, states are experimenting with structured, regulated pathways that integrate THC beverages into existing consumer ecosystems.

Colorado’s push to expand access to hemp beverages is timely. In Washington, a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Senators Rand Paul, Amy Klobuchar, and Joni Ernst, recently introduced the Hemp Safety Enforcement Act. This new bipartisan bill aims to give states a way to maintain control over intoxicating hemp products and potentially keep the category alive. Against that backdrop, state-level efforts like Colorado’s are taking on added importance, as regulators and industry stakeholders look to establish controlled, scalable frameworks for the sector.

 

Tennessee and the Rise of Alcohol-Like Regulation

Tennessee offers another model influencing Colorado’s approach.

Beginning in 2026, the state moved hemp-derived cannabinoid products under the oversight of its Alcoholic Beverage Commission, introducing stricter rules around potency, labeling, and distribution.

Regulating intoxicating hemp products through alcohol-style frameworks rather than treating them as unregulated wellness goods seems to be the most logical approach, one that increasingly requires compliance sophistication, supply chain discipline, and alignment with traditional beverage distribution systems.

 

A Market at an Inflection Point

The Colorado THC Beverage Coalition’s bill arrives at a pivotal moment for the industry.

On one hand, consumer demand for low-dose, sessionable THC beverages continues to grow, driven by wellness trends and declining alcohol consumption among younger demographics.

On the other hand, regulatory uncertainty—particularly at the federal level—is constraining long-term investment and product development.

States like Minnesota have demonstrated that regulated hemp THC markets can function safely and generate meaningful economic activity.

But without federal alignment, those markets remain vulnerable to disruption.

 

What This Means for Cannabis and Beverage Operators

For cannabis brands, the Colorado proposal could expand retail strategy beyond dispensaries into mainstream channels.

For alcohol and beverage companies, it’s an opportunity where THC-infused drinks could sit alongside beer, wine, and spirits in licensed venues.

And for policymakers, it raises the question of whether low-dose THC beverages should be regulated as cannabis, alcohol, or something entirely new.

 

Whether federal policy will allow that vision to materialize remains the defining question for the industry heading into 2026.

Bipartisan Bill Seeks to Preserve State Control as Federal Hemp Crackdown Looms

No Comments

As the U.S. hemp industry braces for potential federal disruption later this year, a new bipartisan bill aims to give states a way to maintain control over intoxicating hemp products and potentially keep the category alive.

Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Joni Ernst (R-IA) have introduced the Hemp Safety Enforcement Act, legislation that would allow states and tribal territories to opt out of an anticipated federal ban on intoxicating hemp-derived cannabinoid products. Instead, states could regulate these products under their own frameworks.

The bill arrives at a critical moment for the hemp sector. Federal provisions expected to take effect in November 2026—widely interpreted as banning hemp-derived cannabinoid products exceeding the 0.3% delta-9 THC threshold—have created significant uncertainty across the supply chain. Industry stakeholders warn that, without a legislative fix, the rule could effectively dismantle much of the hemp-derived consumer packaged goods (CPG) market, including fast-growing categories like delta-8 THC beverages, edibles and other ingestibles.

Originally legalized under the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, hemp and its derivatives have since evolved into a multi-billion-dollar market. However, the lack of clear federal guardrails has resulted in a fragmented, state-by-state regulatory patchwork. Some states have embraced hemp-derived cannabinoids, while others have moved to restrict or ban them entirely.

Proponents of the Hemp Safety Enforcement Act argue that a state-led approach offers a more practical path forward—preserving existing markets while enabling oversight tailored to local public health and safety priorities. The legislation would also support compliant interstate commerce between states that choose to regulate, rather than prohibit, these products.

Industry leaders say the bill reflects growing bipartisan recognition that the current trajectory—toward an outright federal ban—could have sweeping economic consequences.

“We strongly support this legislation as a critical step toward finally bringing clarity and stability to the hemp-derived cannabinoid market,” said Thomas Winstanley, GM and EVP of Edibles.com, in a statement. “This bill helps safeguard consumer access, supports American farmers and businesses, and establishes clear, enforceable standards for product safety and compliance.”

Winstanley also emphasized the urgency of federal action ahead of the November deadline. “We can’t afford continued ambiguity. We need a durable framework that recognizes the legitimacy of hemp-derived products and provides a clear path forward.”

The introduction of the bill signals a broader shift in how lawmakers are approaching hemp regulation. Rather than attempting to impose a one-size-fits-all federal prohibition, policymakers appear increasingly open to a cooperative federalism model—one that mirrors aspects of state-led cannabis legalization.

Still, the legislation faces an uncertain path through Congress, where competing priorities and differing views on intoxicating cannabinoids remain. For now, the Hemp Safety Enforcement Act represents one of the clearest attempts to reconcile federal oversight with the realities of a rapidly evolving marketplace.

With billions of dollars in economic activity—and the survival of thousands of businesses—potentially at stake, the coming months are likely to define the next chapter of the U.S. hemp industry.

Cannabis Biopharma Company Enters Fight Over CMS Hemp Pilot

By Pam Chmiel
No Comments

A cannabis biopharma company is seeking to join the federal lawsuit challenging the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) new hemp and CBD pilot program, adding a pharmaceutical voice to a government-sanctioned program allowing untested and unregulated hemp products into the marketplace.

MMJ International Holdings and its subsidiaries, MMJ BioPharma Labs and MMJ BioPharma Cultivation, have moved to join the lawsuit filed by Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and other plaintiffs against CMS and federal health officials.

The move comes after the court denied the plaintiffs’ emergency request for a temporary restraining order on March 31, allowing the program to launch while the litigation continues. The court is scheduled to hold a preliminary injunction hearing on April 20.

SAM and its co-plaintiffs filed suit on March 30 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to block CMS’s new Substance Access Beneficiary Engagement Incentive, or BEI. The optional Innovation Center program allows participating organizations to discuss eligible hemp-derived products with Medicare beneficiaries and, under the model’s rules, furnish them for symptom management.

CMS has argued that the BEI is not a broad Medicare coverage expansion and does not directly reimburse hemp or CBD products in the same way as a traditional Medicare benefit.

SAM has a long history of opposing cannabis reform and has consistently fought state legalization measures, cannabis banking legislation, and broader federal recognition of cannabis-derived products. In the current case, SAM argues that CMS created the pilot without going through the formal notice-and-comment process required under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The plaintiffs also contend that the program conflicts with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and with CMS’s own previous position that cannabis products are not eligible for Medicare coverage.

At the center of the case is a larger policy debate over whether CMS can use an innovation model to create a limited access pathway for hemp-derived CBD products before the FDA has approved them as prescription drugs. Supporters of the pilot say it could improve access for patients with chronic conditions. Opponents argue it effectively endorses unapproved substances without sufficient scientific or legal safeguards.

MMJ’s position differs from SAM’s broader anti-cannabis stance. The company has publicly argued that cannabinoid products should move through the FDA’s botanical drug pathway before they receive federal reimbursement or endorsement.

According to court filings, MMJ describes itself as a developer of plant-derived cannabinoid therapeutics and says it has spent years pursuing cannabinoid drug development for Huntington’s disease and multiple sclerosis. The company has repeatedly criticized the CMS pilot in a series of March press releases, warning that the government is moving toward reimbursement before scientific evidence and FDA review are complete.

In one March 27 statement, MMJ CEO Duane Boise said, “A soft-gel is a medicine; a gummy is a snack.”

Federal defendants do not oppose MMJ joining the lawsuit. However, they are asking the court to reject the plaintiffs’ request to delay the briefing schedule and postpone the April 20 hearing.

The government argues that MMJ has been publicly criticizing the BEI since early March and was aware of the lawsuit no later than March 31, when the company issued a press release linking directly to the complaint. Yet MMJ did not seek to join the case until April 7, less than 48 hours before the government’s opposition brief was due.

According to the defendants, the timing suggests MMJ is being added not because of any urgent injury, but because the court raised questions during the March 31 hearing about whether the original plaintiffs have legal standing, unlike MMJ Holdings, which has invested millions over several years to build its cannabinoid drug development program.

MMJ sees the issue very differently. The company argues that it has spent years and millions of dollars pursuing the FDA botanical drug pathway, conducting research, seeking federal approvals, and building cannabinoid therapies for serious conditions such as Huntington’s disease and multiple sclerosis. From MMJ’s perspective, the CMS pilot creates an uneven playing field by allowing hemp-derived products to reach Medicare beneficiaries through a federal program without first meeting the same FDA standards that MMJ has been required to satisfy.

MMJ has repeatedly argued in public statements that the BEI could undercut companies investing in formal drug development while opening the door to products that have not undergone the same clinical testing, manufacturing controls, or regulatory scrutiny. In that sense, MMJ is not opposing cannabinoid medicine itself. Rather, it argues that if the federal government is going to support cannabinoid products, it should do so through the same approval process that pharmaceutical developers have been required to follow.

The filing further suggests that the government may contest MMJ’s public statements that the FDA has accepted its investigational drug applications and that it has a federally authorized Huntington’s disease program. Defendants said they may seek permission to submit confidential declarations under seal to address those claims.

Defendants additionally argue that MMJ cannot demonstrate irreparable harm because its alleged injuries, including reduced investor confidence, future competitive disadvantage, and lost earnings, are speculative and tied to products that remain years away from commercialization.

The government contends that delaying the case would create more uncertainty around the newly launched pilot program and could discourage healthcare organizations from participating while the lawsuit remains unresolved.

The court has not yet ruled on whether MMJ may join the case or whether the April 20 hearing will proceed as scheduled.

Industry Coalition Warns New Bill Would Wipe Out California’s Legal Cannabis Beverage Market

No Comments
A letter to California’s Assembly Committee on Business and Professions argues a proposed 10mg THC-per-package cap would eliminate 93% of beverage sales — and more than $21 million in annual tax revenue. But the bill has a longer backstory rooted in child safety, audit findings, and a statewide crackdown on unregulated hemp products.

 

A broad coalition of California cannabis operators, trade associations, and supply chain companies has formally opposed AB 2532, legislation authored by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Ventura) that would cap the total THC content of cannabis beverages at 10mg per package. In a letter submitted to the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions, the group argues the measure would effectively eliminate a legal category generating $79 million in annual retail sales — but the bill’s origins stretch back years, to a state audit Irwin herself requested and a wider political battle over unregulated intoxicating hemp products flooding California’s general retail market.

 

The backstory: audits, ER visits, and a hemp gray market

Irwin has been focused on cannabis packaging and youth safety for several legislative cycles. She requested a state audit of cannabis packaging practices, which found that enforcement by the Department of Cannabis Control against repeat violators was inconsistent and that existing rules on what constitutes youth-appealing packaging lacked clarity. One finding from that audit stood out and appears to have directly shaped AB 2532: 100mg THC beverages — ten times what regulators consider a standard adult dose — were being sold with no built-in mechanism for a consumer to easily take a smaller amount.

Irwin also pointed to rising calls to California Poison Control Centers and increases in emergency room visits involving children who had ingested cannabis products, arguing those incidents weren’t coming exclusively from the illicit market. That framing was disputed during legislative hearings: researchers noted that some of the steepest increases in poison control calls came after 2019, when hemp was descheduled at the federal level and intoxicating hemp-derived products proliferated in mainstream retail — and that distinguishing legal-market from illegal-market incidents in those statistics is difficult.

 

Context: Irwin’s previous cannabis bill, AB 762, originally proposed banning all-in-one cannabis vaping devices. The industry fought it and secured amendments removing vapes from the bill’s scope. That precedent — broad legislation followed by industry negotiation — is likely informing both sides’ strategies on AB 2532.

 

The bill also arrives amid an aggressive statewide crackdown on the intoxicating hemp gray market. Governor Newsom issued emergency regulations in September 2024 requiring hemp food and beverage products to contain no detectable THC per serving, and he set a minimum purchase age of 21. The state conducted nearly 15,000 business inspections and removed thousands of illegal products from shelves. That enforcement push culminated in AB 8, which mandated that all intoxicating hemp-derived products transition out of general retail and into licensed cannabis dispensaries, primarily in beverage format. The irony now raised by the industry coalition: the state just directed those products into the regulated beverage category, and AB 2532 would eliminate that category before the transition is complete.

 

What the bill would do — and what the industry says it would cost

Products containing more than 10mg of THC currently account for 93% of all cannabis beverage sales in California dispensaries. The 100mg format alone represents $66 million — roughly 84% of total category revenue. A 10mg cap, the signatories contend, would reduce the viable market to approximately $5 million, making the economics of maintaining a beverage supply chain untenable for most operators.

 

The coalition breaks down the fiscal impact in detail: the lost $74 million in sales would translate to roughly $12 million in foregone state cannabis excise tax, $6 million in state sales tax, and $3 million in state income tax — a combined state-level loss of approximately $21 million annually, before accounting for local cannabis taxes that often run 5–10% or higher. This comes at a moment when total California cannabis tax revenue declined approximately 7% year-over-year in 2025, according to CDTFA data, while the beverage category grew an estimated 5–10% over the same period.

 

“Beverages grew an estimated 5–10% over the same period, one of the only functioning growth engines in the legal market.”

 

The illicit market concern — and why beverages are different

Opponents of the bill make an unusual argument when it comes to illicit market dynamics: unlike flower or edibles, cannabis beverages are structurally impossible to replicate outside the licensed supply chain. The category requires sophisticated manufacturing, cold chain logistics, and licensed retail distribution. While more than half of all cannabis flower consumed in California is purchased outside the licensed market, the coalition argues that beverages have zero illicit leakage. Eliminating the one category the state captures entirely within its taxed system, they contend, runs counter to every stated goal of cannabis regulation.

 

A safety record and an unresolved tension

The coalition points to five years of adverse event data in the FDA’s CAERS database showing zero instances of adverse events involving children from licensed cannabis beverages, a safety record they argue is unmatched by any other cannabis product category. They contend that the child safety concerns cited in support of AB 2532 are products of the illicit and hemp-derived gray market, not of licensed operators, and that the bill would penalize compliant businesses while leaving non-compliant actors untouched.

Irwin and her allies point to Poison Control data and audit findings suggesting the legal market isn’t entirely blameless, while the industry argues those incidents can’t be cleanly attributed to licensed products and that the regulatory infrastructure already in place, mandatory dispensary consultations, third-party lab testing, child-resistant packaging, and age verification, provides multiple layers of consumer protection that general retail never had.

 

What they’re proposing instead

Rather than a blanket dosage cap, the signatories put forward a set of alternatives: standardized per-serving THC disclosure requirements with minimum font size standards; uniform warning label mandates clearly indicating multi-dose formats; consistent child-resistant packaging standards across all manufacturers; restrictions on single-serve marketing language; and a funded statewide consumer education campaign modeled on alcohol responsibility programs.

The letter was addressed to Chair Marc Berman and members of the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions, with a copy to Assemblymember Irwin. The signatories close by requesting a direct meeting with committee staff to discuss alternatives, echoing the same strategy that secured amendments to Irwin’s earlier vaping bill. Whether it works a second time may hinge on how willing the legislator is to treat the beverage category as meaningfully different from the packaging and potency concerns that originally motivated her focus on this space.