Committee Blog: Announcing Winners of NCIA’s State Regulatory Committee 2024 CannaStar Awards
National Cannabis Industry Association’s State Regulation Committee announces 2024 award winners for cannabis regulatory and program rollout success in 8 states
State-level cannabis regulations are a moving target; or rather, 50 moving targets. Despite nationwide movement in nearly every US state towards a regulated, adult-use market, each state has approached cannabis sales with their own unique flair.
Although it has been fun to watch each state’s program mature under their own particular point of view, as we move forward into 2025 our committee wants to call attention to some of the states we feel are getting it right.
The National Cannabis Industry Association State Regulatory Committee (NCIA’s SRC) hopes that by highlighting the successes (some of them unlikely) in individual states, we can inspire states to come together to share best practices, work towards eliminating redundancies for multistate operators, and create a streamlined framework that allows for greater access to the market for both would-be operators and consumers.
Without further ado, here are the National Cannabis Industry Association State Regulatory Committee’s CannaStars for 2024!
Best Social Equity Program: Illinois
Through the Illinois R3 Program (Restore, Reinvest, Renew), 25% of Illinois cannabis tax revenue is reinvested into communities disproportionately impacted by the War on Drugs, funding initiatives like job training, reentry services, and legal aid. Since launching, this has amounted to $244M in marijuana-funded revenue grants to community organizations that address disinvestment and excessive incarceration in Illinois.
Illinois also prioritizes social equity applicants for licensing by offering additional points on applications, reduced fees, and conditional licenses for roles such as craft growers and transporters. Further, the Cannabis Business Development Fund provides low-interest loans and grants to social equity applicants, helping reduce financial barriers to starting a cannabis business.
Like every state, Illinois continues to navigate the complexities of implementing a fair social equity program. However, the state has also backed up their commitment to restorative justice with criminal record reform. They have identified more than 770,000 records of “minor cannabis offenses” that may be eligible for expungement.
Currently, of the 25 jurisdictions with legal adult-use cannabis programs, 18 have an active social equity program. NCIA’s SRC believes that Illinois leads the nation with a model for social equity within cannabis that truly prioritizes a fair, restorative model.
Best Hemp Regulation: Kentucky
Kentucky’s hemp program stands out as a model of safety, transparency, and innovation due to its prioritization of registration and rigorous testing of hemp products. In Kentucky, all hemp-derived cannabinoids must undergo purity testing and remain compliant with THC limits. Packaging and labeling must also be clear and meet rigorous standards, similar to those in the adult-use markets of other states.
Although enforcing hemp producers and sellers to comply with tight standards has been met with some controversy, NCIA’s SRC believes that Kentucky’s efforts are a good thing and reinforce trust in the marketplace for consumers. California’s outright ban on intoxicating hemp derived products in 2024 has made it clear that lax regulations on hemp put the reputation of the entire cannabis industry at risk.
Beyond safety, Kentucky’s Cabinet for Health and Family Services does an outstanding job fostering collaboration. They engage farmers, processors, and retailers through education and support, and are transparent about regulatory changes and best practices. Their forward-thinking approach has positioned Kentucky as an ideal place for farmers and cultivators throughout the country.
Best Balance of Cannabis and Hemp Regulations: Minnesota
When Minnesota voted to legalize adult-use cannabis in 2023, the state already had a thriving hemp-derived THC product market. Instead of bulldozing the existing hemp market, Minnesota has instead worked to bridge the gap and create a cohesive framework that supports existing businesses, innovation, while also prioritizing public safety and further economic growth.
One of Minnesota’s key strengths is its integrated approach to regulation: hemp and adult-use cannabis are regulated centrally. This is a substantially different model than many other states, where cannabis and hemp are managed by separate regulatory bodies. By overseeing hemp-derived THC products and cannabis under a unified system, the state avoids market confusion and ensures consistent quality standards.
By carefully integrating cannabis and hemp regulation, Minnesota has positioned itself as a model for other states. NCIA’s SRC believes that the Minnesota model – a two-tiered system where lower THC products can be manufactured and sold more readily while higher concentrates of THC are sold through a traditional adult-use framework – merits consideration nationally as a way to increase access, safety, and roll-out adult-use without disrupting existing businesses.
Best Legislator: New Mexico State Senator Katy Duhigg
Elected in 2021, Senator Katy Duhigg (D) represents Albuquerque Senate District 10. Duhigg is the former Albuquerque City Clerk, with a background in election and consumer protection. As a State Senator, she brings extensive cannabis knowledge to her role, and has been critical in allowing New Mexico to emerge as an unlikely success story in adult-use cannabis.
Senator Duhigg serves as Chair of the Senate Rules Committee, and as Vice Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where cannabis-related legislation enjoys the most rigorous discussion. Her commitment to the cannabis industry was witnessed during her very first legislative session, wherein the Cannabis Regulation Act was passed, legalizing cannabis for adult use in New Mexico.
The Cannabis Regulation Act was signed by Governor Lujan Grisham in June, 2021 and New Mexico was able to roll out their program quickly and effectively. Less than a year later, on April 1, 2022, New Mexico was open for business. There are now 3,071 active license holders (as of December 4, 2024).
Since the passage of the CRA, Sen. Duhigg has been absolutely integral, leading the charge in the Senate to improve the enabling legislation and to ensure New Mexico’s cannabis industry continues to mature, with strong equity protections that include uplifting the existing medical operators who have been serving the state since the beginning of New Mexico’s medical cannabis program in the 1970s.
Best Age Verification Guidelines: Nevada
Cannabis is frequently subject to “think of the children” style regulations and moral panic, but states often miss the mark when actually trying to put guidelines in place that protect minors and keep products out of their hands.
Nevada is still the first, and only, state to require any type of ID authentication to detect fake and suspicious IDs, and the Nevada Cannabis Control Board remains the most well-educated regulatory body on the subject of the forensic document analysis required to actually separate adult users from minors presenting false identification.
Furthermore, in March 2023, Nevada Assemblyman Brian Hibbets introduced AB342 – special interest legislation – that would have required onerous, and expensive third party checks as part of the Nevada dispensary age verification process. The Nevada State Legislature smartly shot down this amendment, which was vendor-specific language desperately seeking a problem that doesn’t exist in a state where every dispensary is doing the absolute most to detect fake IDs and keep minors out.
As of May 2024, Nevada is also the only state to include any guidelines for age verification of cannabis purchase via eCommerce, or age verification for cannabis delivery. This makes Nevada the top state in the nation for preventing underage sales, but with a common-sense approach that doesn’t try to add unnecessary burdens to their cannabis operators.
Best Challenge to the DEA: Georgia
In 2023, Georgia took the bold step of deploying their medical program directly into independent pharmacies across the state. With a limited product mix and a nascent patient base, this was an innovative way to jump-start a program and avoid high capital costs. The program was on track to get 90% of the medical cannabis patient base accessible within a 30-minute drive within 6 months of launch.
Unfortunately, in November 2023, the DEA sent an ominous letter to ice the exciting new rollout, reminding pharmacists that cannabis is still a Schedule I substance. However, instead of capitulating to the threat, the industry persisted and the state stood by to support the program with 52 pharmacies remaining active license holders. NCIA’s SRC celebrates Georgia’s commitment to medical cannabis patients and increasing access, in spite of federal threats.
Best Tax Rate Reform: Washington State
The culmination of a 5-year effort finally succeeded in removing all state taxes from Washington Department of Health-compliant products when purchased by registered medical patients. This matches the standards for pharmaceutical purchases in nearly every US state, where prescribed medications are non-taxable. Washington now joins 10 other states who do not tax medical cannabis purchases.
Since 2016 The Cannabis Alliance, Washington’s largest cannabis trade organization, has been advocating for the reduction or removal of the 37.5% state excise tax on medical cannabis products. Now, as of June 6, 2024, registered medical patients can purchase prescribed cannabis tax-free, a nearly 50% reduction in total cost to medical consumers. The state also introduced new higher testing standards for medical products, a patient registry, and a medical cannabis consultant license provided to budtenders.
Although adult-use cannabis in Washington still remains subject to a 37% tax, and the NCIA SRC acknowledges that taxes are needed to continuously fund state cannabis programs, we want to highlight Washington as the first state in the nation to treat medical cannabis as a medical necessity under the tax code, easing consumer financial burdens, and helping better position medical cannabis as a legitimate and needed treatment for many conditions.
Best Employee Protections: Nevada
Nevada leads the way with some of the strongest employee protections in the United States to ensure legal users of medical or adult-use cannabis do not face workplace discrimination. In 2020, Nevada was the first state to prohibit most employers from rejecting job applicants based on pre-employment marijuana tests. This landmark legislation, codified under Assembly Bill 132, effectively protects job seekers who legally consume cannabis, while still allowing employers to maintain workplace safety standards for positions in safety, aviation, and other high risk roles. Additionally, Nevada law protects employees from penalties for lawful off-duty cannabis use. This includes the stipulation that employers cannot take adverse actions against employees for testing positive for cannabis unless there is a direct safety concern or violation of company policies.
For medical cannabis users, Nevada law goes a step further by requiring employers to attempt reasonable accommodations for qualifying medical conditions. This requirement, enacted under Assembly Bill 453, emphasizes that individuals using medical cannabis for legitimate health concerns are entitled to workplace protections, similar to those afforded to employees using other prescription medications.
Notably, the Nevada Supreme Court has affirmed employees’ right to sue for violations of these protections, cementing the legal precedent that employees have the right to challenge discriminatory actions based on cannabis use. The court’s decisions have reinforced Nevada’s position as a model for other states considering similar workplace protections for cannabis consumers. These legal safeguards represent a forward-thinking approach to balancing employee rights with workplace safety, and have set a gold standard for workplace cannabis policies across the United States.
Best Regulatory Addition for Market Diversification: Massachusetts
Better late than never, the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission recently drafted new social consumption regulations and has moved to the formal public comment stage. As mature markets struggle with oversupply and overlicensing the rate of entity failures and state court receiverships (both voluntary and involuntary) of licensees are steadily on the rise. Massachusetts is among the first states to proactively offer a diversification opportunity for their cannabis program in the form of consumption lounges.
The draft regulations contemplate three different varieties of social consumption licenses – supplemental, hospitality and event organizer – and would restrict social consumption licenses to only Social Equity Businesses, Social Equity Program Participants, Certified Economic Empowerment Priority Applicants, Microbusinesses, and Craft Marijuana Cooperatives for the first 5 years after program launch. Supplemental licenses would be available to certain existing marijuana establishments and allow for on-site consumption within or attached to an existing facility. Hospitality licenses would permit non-CCC licensed entities to host on-site consumption events in partnership with certain existing marijuana establishments. Finally, event organizer licenses would permit certain existing marijuana establishments to host temporary consumption events.
9 states have already active consumption lounge licensing, and Massachusetts has been considering a social consumption pilot program since 2019, but the NCIA SRC wants to highlight Massachusetts for a considered approach focused on increasing revenue streams for smaller operators and social equity license holders.
Lifetime Achievement Award for Innovation: California
California has consistently led the nation when it comes to innovative and inclusive cannabis policy, going back to their first legalization ballot initiative in 1972. They were the first state to legalize medical cannabis in 1996, and today California still remains a leader in the cannabis industry, driven by its vast market, progressive regulations, and culture of experimentation.
A key milestone in this evolution was the 2024 California State Fair, which became the first state-sanctioned fair to integrate cannabis sales and consumption on-site, embracing cannabis culture into the mainstream. The state is also pioneering new business models, with cities like West Hollywood and San Francisco operating cannabis lounges that combine cannabis with art, food, and entertainment, reshaping consumption and creating new opportunities and economic growth in hospitality and entertainment.
California’s commitment to research further enhances its role as a leader, with the University of California system partnering with private enterprises to explore cannabis’s medical potential, including at the UC San Diego Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research. Together, California’s groundbreaking events and innovative business models position it as the epicenter of cannabis innovation.
NCIA’s SRC expects that California will continue to lead the way with an innovative and focused approach to growing its legal cannabis industry.
Conclusion & Congratulations
Congratulations to the 2024 National Cannabis Industry Association State Regulatory Committee’s CannaStars winners! The committee has enjoyed supporting the progress of medical and adult-use cannabis programs across the US, and can’t wait to see what new developments every state has in store for 2025.
Committee Blog: Regulations in the Inhalable Cannabis Space – A Call for Sensible Flavor Regulation for Cannabis Vapes
As the cannabis industry continues to evolve, so do the discussions around regulations, particularly concerning flavor additives in inhalable cannabis products. This blog post represents the members of NCIA’s State Regulations Committee current reflections on the successes and shortcomings of existing cannabis vape regulations, focusing on flavor limitations, safety considerations, quality specifications, and labeling practices. While technical, this topic has a tremendous impact on cannabis brands and consumer safety.
First, for those who might question the need to add flavors to cannabis vapes, it’s essential to highlight the following points regarding why flavors are added and the benefits they bring:
Restoration
In some cases, such as with cannabis distillates, processing or manufacturing techniques can alter or remove natural cannabis flavors from vape liquids. Adding cannabis flavors back simply returns the final product back to nature’s intended taste profile, providing consumers with a comprehensive vaping experience.
Mimicking Smoking Sensation
For individuals transitioning from traditional smoking to vaping, flavors can mimic the sensations and tastes they are accustomed to, making the switch more enjoyable and satisfying.
Customizing Preferences
Consumers have diverse preferences, and adding flavors allows them to customize their vaping experience based on their personal taste preferences, whether they prefer fruity profiles or classic cannabis flavors. Akin to aromatherapy, consumers may also predict the mood impression they will experience by vaping a particular flavor.
Providing Consistency
Consumers often expect certain flavors in products based on their product familiarity so it is important for brands to be able to deliver a consistent vaping experience wherever their product is sold despite changes that the consumer may otherwise notice due to harvesting variability of the cannabis or limitations on strain availability across borders.
Meeting Market Demands
The vape industry is driven by consumer demand for a wide variety of flavors. Adding flavors allows vape manufacturers to meet market demands and cater to the preferences of different consumer segments. In regions where certain flavors are restricted or banned due to regulation, the legal vape industry is challenged to compete with the illicit market, where flavors would continue to be available. However, these illicit market alternatives may not undergo the same safety and quality standards as legal vape products, potentially posing risks to consumers’ health. By offering a wide range of flavors, the legal vape industry can provide consumers with safer alternatives and help combat the proliferation of potentially unsafe, unregulated products.
Personal taste aside, the dangers of unsafe flavors in unregulated products are real, as was demonstrated in 2019 through cases of EVALI (E-cigarette or Vaping Associated Lung Injury). As detailed in this piece, manufacturers need to follow best practices to protect vaping consumers no matter if they are in regulated cannabis, unregulated cannabis, or the CBD/hemp markets.
Flavor Limitations
Overall, the addition of flavors to cannabis vapes is not just about enhancing taste but also about meeting consumer expectations and improving consumer safety. Flavors create consistency in products and are common across consumer products we already enjoy daily. Consumers are trained to expect flavor variety and consistency in traditional e-cigarettes, and cannabis vapes should be no different.
What’s Working?
We commend states like Oregon for taking a pragmatic approach by allowing a broad range of natural, artificial, and cannabis-specific flavoring ingredients while rightly prohibiting scientifically known inhalation hazards. This approach provides broad room for innovation while protecting the public from valid safety risks.
What’s Not Working?
Conversely, restrictions on flavor ingredients to only natural sources, as seen in states like Nevada, California, and New York, are unnecessarily limiting and not scientifically justified. Further limiting flavoring terpenes to being cannabis or hemp-derived, like in Connecticut, also hinders creativity, imposes higher costs, and potentially pushes consumers towards unregulated alternatives. Likewise, enforcement actions to prevent adolescent access to vapes should be prioritized over regulations to limit flavors or labels thought to be more appealing to adolescents.
Safe Flavors
Everyone’s goal should be to provide consumers with the safest possible experience when using inhalable products containing flavors. What’s safe to eat isn’t always safe to inhale.
What’s Working?
Responsible suppliers implementing robust quality and regulatory pre-qualification measures for all flavor ingredients is a positive step. Vendors should be vetted, approved, and responsible for the products they supply. Encouraging manufacturers to develop comprehensive toxicological programs tailored for inhalation safety is also crucial.
What’s Not Working?
Requiring flavors or flavor ingredients to be listed on the pharmaceutical FDA IID for inhalation is inappropriate and does not guarantee a safer flavor. The only reason flavors or flavor ingredients may be in the FDA IID is because they already exist in pharmaceutical products that went through a safety review process. However, the flavors themselves haven’t been evaluated independently for inhalation safety (emphasis added).
Instead of mandating a specific database of flavors, it’s more appropriate to regulate the process of sourcing and validating ingredients.
Quality Specifications
Once a desirable and suitable flavor has been identified, manufacturers need to understand how to maintain quality.
What’s Working?
Adhering to the approach of FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) for quality plans is best practice, ensuring hazards are identified and controlled by qualified individuals at each manufacturing stage.
What’s Not Working?
Overly broad testing requirements for non-cannabis-derived flavors or multi-ingredient cannabis products are redundant and economically unviable, particularly when hazards are effectively controlled through quality plans at earlier or later stages of a supply chain.
Labeling Practices
Finally, it’s important to examine how manufacturers should disclose when flavoring has been added to products. Consumers have a right to understand if a product is flavored.
What’s Working?
Simple, consumer-friendly labeling, such as using common terms like “Natural and Artificial Flavors,” aligns with other industry standards and will be recognized by the common consumer. Adopting labels familiar to the conventional Consumer Packaged Goods (CPG) industry effectively bridges the gap between industries and aligns with how consumers already make these decisions across all products they buy.
What’s Not Working?
Listing the chemical names of all flavoring ingredients, as mandated in Oregon, New York and Missouri, is excessive and may confuse or intimidate consumers. Consumers are not qualified to assess risk from formula information. Unregulated products that do not list flavor ingredients may become more appealing to some consumers that are intimidated by the chemical names on the flavor label of the licensed product.
Recommendations
Having reasonable and consistent regulations across the country will help to create a safe and level playing field for manufacturers and brands to compete for consumer market share. While nuanced, these regulations materially impact the ability to bring a product to market or make a product economically viable.
Starting with flexible flavor definitions allows for a wide range of internationally recognized flavor ingredients, including natural, artificial, and cannabis-inspired isolates.
Banning known risks is common sense best practice. This process must be dynamic and listen to science. For example, Diacetyl, once a popular popcorn flavoring, was banned after research concluded it was unsafe for inhalation. A known, published inhalation hazard list is critical.
Implementing a safety certification policy based on thorough toxicological risk assessments specific to inhalation exposure ensures accountability.
Finally, adopting simple and recognizable labeling terms like “Natural and Artificial Flavors” and aligning allergen disclosures with established FDA and EU regulations make sense and protect intellectual property. We are advocating for consistency.
These effective regulations prioritize safety without stifling innovation or burdening stakeholders. We welcome ongoing dialogue and collaboration to develop pragmatic, science-based regulations that benefit consumers and the industry.
Video: NCIA Today – Thursday, May 5, 2022
¡Happy Cinco De Mayo! NCIA Director of Communications Bethany Moore checks in with what’s going on across the country with the National Cannabis Industry Association’s membership, board, allies, and staff. Join us every other Thursday on Facebook for NCIA Today Live.
Deputy Director of Communications Bethany Moore checks in with what’s going on across the country with the National Cannabis Industry Association’s membership, board, allies, and staff. Join us every Friday on Facebook for NCIA Today Live.
Video: NCIA Today – August 13, 2021
Deputy Director of Communications Bethany Moore checks in with what’s going on across the country with the National Cannabis Industry Association’s membership, board, allies, and staff. Join us every Friday on Facebook for NCIA Today Live.
M
Committee Blog: Re-Thinking Cannabis Track and Trace Models – How State-Mandated Track and Trace Integration Capability is Failing the Cannabis Industry
This is the second in a three-part blog series. The first part can be read here.
Highly regulated industries typically require key information to be readily available to regulators related to the production, movement, and sale of products, which is the case in the cannabis industry. The two main reasons for “seed-to-sale” record keeping are (1) to reduce the diversion of cannabis products to the unregulated market and (2) to protect consumer health with an efficient track and recall product method.
However, cannabis operators are facing many challenges with the state-mandated track-and-trace requirements, causing their business operations to suffer inefficiencies, delays, and sometimes even interruptions, which can ultimately impact consumers and patients. This is the second blog in a series highlighting the issues that cannabis operators and regulators are facing with the current centralized state-mandated track-and-trace model from NCIA’s State Regulations Committee, Technology and Compliance Sub-Committee.
The point of frustration begins with the method in which the track-and-trace requirements are implemented. Most U.S. states with some form of legal cannabis sales (medical and/or adult-use) have selected a single mandated technology platform that all operators must use to track and trace their cannabis seeds, plants, and products. The track-and-trace system selected by the state is independently configured to match the adopted cannabis regulations for that region. Because each state has adopted different cannabis regulations, there are variations in what can and cannot be accomplished within the selected track-and-trace systems, even within the states that have selected the same technology provider.
What is an API?
While the definition of an API may seem complex, at its most basic level, the API is the communication pathway between two systems. API stands for “application programming interface,” which means that it is a software intermediary that allows two systems to “talk” to each other, meaning communicating and sending or receiving information. The communication pathway is intended to be two-way, with third-party business management software being able to retrieve (“GET”) information in the track-and-trace system, as well as send (“PUT”) updated information back into the system.
Let’s turn to an everyday example of an API integration that most consumers would be familiar with: travel booking applications that aggregate flight information. Let’s say you are planning a flight for a summer vacation and you have two options: go directly to each airline website to search for and compare flight options, or use a third-party travel booking application to simultaneously access all flights across all airlines within your search parameters. The ability to search and review all the available flights, across many airlines, is because of the airlines’ and applications’ APIs. When you use the travel booking application, it sends the search parameters to the airlines it is connected with via the API. The airline API then sends available flights, seats, and prices to the travel booking application. In the more sophisticated travel booking applications, you can also purchase the ticket for your flight through the travel booking application, which then also utilizes other APIs for your secure banking/payment information. If all of the APIs are open to send and receive data between the systems, then the transaction is seamless, and all of the required information (identity verification, payment method, etc.) is shared with the airline for your booking.
Understanding API Limitations in Cannabis
State regulators intend for the cannabis track-and-trace technology to serve as a way to accurately collect and record information about the flow of goods in the cannabis industry from seed to sale. What is consistent across all states, regardless of the track-and-trace technology selected, is the acknowledgment from regulators that the mandated systems are not intended to serve as an operator’s compliance solution or business management software system. The state-mandated track-and-trace systems are not built in a way that would allow a business operator to manage day-to-day operations and transactions between operators and retailers to consumers.
This acknowledgment of the business management limitations within the track-and-trace systems and the need for interoperability with operators’ own software is often stated outright by regulators and policymakers and/or codified in regulations, such as in California’s Business and Professions Code (Clauses (b) and (c)). Instead of directly managing operations within the track-and-trace systems, cannabis businesses utilize third-party software that has been vetted and certified to connect with and communicate important transaction details to the state systems. Cannabis operators are then relying heavily on third-party software and API integrations for the communication and transmittal of that important information and data.
State-Mandated Software Providers Set Regulators And Operators Up To Fail
Now let’s think about how cannabis businesses utilize APIs on a regular basis: for example, point-of-sale (POS) software. Regulations require that the cannabis retailer record all sales in the central, state-mandated track-and-trace system, but the actual on-site transaction is conducted through POS software at checkout. The retailer is therefore encouraged to use POS software that provides the necessary sales tools and controls that make running the business manageable for all employees, while also providing API integration with state-mandated track-and-trace systems.
Without the API integration, a retailer would be forced to manually enter all of the details of all of the POS transactions into the track-and-trace system on a daily basis. Hundreds of daily sales without an API integration means many hours of data entry and countless opportunities for human errors in the track-and-trace system. Opportunities abound for inaccurate reporting in the track-and-trace systems with manual entry. Regulators rely on the track-and-trace system they selected to ensure compliance and consumer safety, although operators are essentially utilizing third-party software to communicate with the track-and-trace system. This is exactly why it is important that the cannabis industry has an open and operating track-and-trace system API at all times. Any time the track-and-trace API malfunctions (limited in communication pathways, delayed in responding to POS requests for information, or just completely down), the cannabis retailer operations are severely impacted, if not altogether halted.
In current situations where the state has mandated a specific software provider, the vendor approves specific POS and other software vendors, but the agreements the vendor has with the state does not allow for direct support to the approved vendors. This causes challenges as a licensee’s POS vendor cannot talk directly to the vendor to get API issues resolved. There is also no direct line of communication to the approved vendors about changes happening in the state-mandated software provider’s system that affects the API. These types of issues can cause the licensee (cannabis operator) to be out of compliance without even knowing it.
From The Operator’s Perspective
Imagine that you are a budtender trained on your employer’s POS software, compliance and track-and-trace requirements. Very rarely will you access the statewide system directly because the POS is fully integrated with the track-and-trace API. You are working during your daily shift processing retail transactions through the POS, but unfortunately, the track-and-trace API is experiencing high call volumes from all of the other retailers in the state, and the API is not responding to your POS requests. You cannot complete the transaction in the POS as usual, so you are forced to complete and track the transaction manually. Later on, you have to spend hours manually entering which unit of product came from which box in the back storeroom, along with all of the customer’s information and time stamps. This takes hours of labor and could lead to mistakes (hey, we’re human!). As we stated, manual records and entry invite human error. Now the inventory listed in your POS software does not match the statewide track-and-trace system. You spend many more hours trying to find and correct this mistake. The circle of conducting sales transactions, recording and tracking it manually, and fixing errors, widens, all putting your cannabis business at risk.
Because cannabis businesses at every point of the supply chain (i.e., cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and retail) rely on third-party software to manage their operations effectively and efficiently, a hiccup in the track-and-trace API has ramifications for an entire statewide industry at once. While this sounds like a “perfect storm” scenario that only happens every once in a long while, in reality, track-and-trace API performance issues happen on a regular basis.
In California, a group of third-party software integrators reviewed track-and-trace API performance over a period of six months (April 2020 through October 2020) and found that the API was generally up and fully responsive approximately 91 to 98 percent of the time. While an API performance ranking in the high nineties may seem acceptable, the technology industry considers 99.999% uptime as the standard for high availability. An availability of 94 to 98 percent means 2-6% downtime, which is effectively 3 to 8 hours of downtime per week.More recently, the California Metrc API (CCTT-Metrc) experienced consistent outages for approximately 17 consecutive days (February 16, 2021 – March 5, 2021). This extensive outage caused all third-party software integrators serious Metrc-sync issues for packages, transfers, and more. Operators were forced to keep their staff on extensive overtime for more than two weeks in order to manually enter and/or correct information that was entered into the system while sync issues were occurring. As a result, cannabis businesses suffered as operations were interrupted, additional labor was required, and additional costs were incurred that had to be absorbed by the business.
From The Regulators’ Perspective
Cannabis is a highly regulated industry and regulators are very concerned about the path from a cannabis seed to final sale to a consumer. The perceived public safety concerns are immense, which is what prompted the implementation of, and requirements, around track-and-trace. Put simply, regulators rely on the track-and-trace system they selected and the system is only as good as its uptime.
Many regulators focus on the track-and-trace server uptime reporting from their technology providers as an indication of how well things are running. If the server is up, then an operator can still access and update the track-and-trace system manually, and that is where most regulators stop in their understanding of the issues. API connectivity and performance is just as critical as track-and-trace server uptime in order to ensure business continuity and accurate data; and accurate data is the entire intent of the state’s mandated technology platforms. It is important that regulators assign key technical leads with the sole responsibility of reviewing track-and-trace API limitations and performance issues for their regulated industry.
Without skilled technical staff on the state’s side, when the track-and-trace API has issues, no one is aware of the problem besides technical teams at third-party software providers. The onus is on the software providers to notify all operators and inform the regulators. This leads to a delayed and fragmented flow of information to operators who are scrambling because their third-party business platforms are shut down. The responsibility of transparent notification around API performance should be on the state-mandated system provider, and no one else. The current lack of transparency on API performance and downtimes also leads to complete blind spots for the regulators, having also not been timely notified that cannabis operations in their state have halted due to API connectivity. The operators and the state should know the health of their track-and-trace systems at all times so that they can attempt to mitigate the amount of damage an outage inflicts on businesses. As with many other online platforms with APIs (i.e., SAP, Twitter, Intercom, etc.), this is typically done through the establishment of an API status page. At this time, there are no current API status pages for key track and trace vendors and, as stated above, performance issues are largely tracked and reported to regulators by the operators. In California, there are currently no performance reports required of Metrc for their system’s API availability (not including general server/equipment uptime).
Conclusion
The performance deficiencies of track-and-trace API’s are burdensome to the entire legal cannabis industry because it can cause third-party inventory management applications to collapse. Then operators are forced to duplicate and/or correct entries directly in the track-and-trace system. This amounts to countless hours lost and perpetuates inaccuracies of the data being entered into the system. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the track-and-trace system diminishes with any amount of downtime. Unfortunately, downtime and interruptions are all too common and the cannabis industry’s needs as a highly regulated industry demand a much higher success rate for its systems.
In our next blog in this series, we will compare the current centralized state-mandated track and trace model with the alternative distributed model.
Interested in joining us in establishing an effective and scalable track and trace framework for regulators and operators in the legal cannabis space? Click here to stay updated on the State Regulations Committee, and the efforts that its Technology and Compliance Subcommittee are taking to improve and advance track and trace nationally. Let’s close the information gap between operators and regulators, and help the entire industry move forward together.
Stay tuned for the next blog post in our multi-part series!
Committee Blog: ‘Corporate to Cannabis Crossover’ – An Interview with Portland’s Cannabis Czar, Dasheeda Dawson
by Elise Serbaroli of Strimo, interview conducted May 2021
Elise Serbaroli is a member of the NCIA’s State Regulations Committee, “Informing Local Governments” subcommittee, which aims to bridge knowledge gaps between operators and regulators in the cannabis industry. This is done through interviews with current cannabis regulators in various U.S. states, sharing best practices and lessons learned.
Dasheeda Dawson is a cannabis regulator in Oregon and co-founder of the Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition (CRCC). As cannabis czar for the City of Portland, she is the highest government official overseeing and advising on cannabis regulation for the municipality. Ms. Dawson brings an incredible breadth of experience to the cannabis space. A self-proclaimed “corporate to cannabis crossover”, she is perfectly positioned to navigate and lead the complexity that is the legal cannabis industry. Before becoming a best-selling author (“How to Succeed in the Cannabis Industry”), she held leadership roles at Victoria’s Secret and Target. Her career is built off of a solid educational foundation, including a Princeton degree (Molecular Biology & African-American studies) and an MBA from Rutgers.
Can you tell us how you got into the cannabis industry?
For the five years prior to formally getting into the industry, I was what you would call a “closeted cannabis consumer/patient.” I have early signs of MS and my mom was actually the one that insisted I give it a try. At the time, I was working at Target in Minnesota. Cannabis was my saving grace for maintaining productivity and overall capabilities. My mom passed away unexpectedly in 2016 and it jolted me out of the standard corporate trajectory I had been on. I ended up moving to Arizona and became a medical cannabis patient there, jumping into the advocacy side of the industry. Arizona legalized adult-use this past November!
From Target to Cannabis Czar! Did you always plan on becoming a regulator?
Certainly not! Straight out of the gate, I got a lot of work as a consultant in the industry, using everything that I had done in my corporate career, including business strategy and supply chain management. I had owned everything for my categories at Target and when you’re the business owner, you lead and oversee the entire cross-functional team. I applied that to the cannabis space as quickly as I could, working for a lot of clients and gaining an entrepreneurial education from working with large cannabis enterprise clients, small operators, multi-state operators, Native American tribes, even government. I gained the truest sense of how NOT to do it. In a corporate role, you usually write a report about what you have learned, insights, etc., and then you move forward. My workbook, now in its 3rd edition, was really built off of those lessons learned.
When COVID hit, my book tour was abruptly stopped overnight! At the same time, I was selected to become the Cannabis Program Supervisor for the City of Portland. I was only the third Black woman at the time to be selected to oversee a cannabis regulatory office. I believe that now there are more, but women and people of color are scarce in these positions. Most of the regulators are white men, many of whom come from another regulatory agency, like liquor or law enforcement. In order to assure that cannabis regulation is equity-centered, you need people at the table that will center equity. This last year has been amazing. I have a lot of runway and support to be exactly who I am, which is the Weed Head (TM). I refuse to be anything else and I’m in a bureau that allows me to do that.
What exactly is a cannabis czar?
On the state level, the Oregon Liquor Control Commission is currently passing legislation to become the Oregon Liquor AND CANNABIS Commission (OLCC), primarily because cannabis is providing substantial revenue for the state. Most of those people are liquor regulators, and they have organized a sub-group, focused only on cannabis. It started off with four people and now there are 50!
As Portland’s cannabis czar, I am a municipality leader, similar to Cat Packer in Los Angeles, and operate independently of the OLCC. Portland represents approximately 40% of the total cannabis revenue for the state and I oversee the entire cannabis program, including regulatory, licensing, compliance, community impact, and equity initiatives for Portland’s medical and adult-use programs.
In the city of Portland, cannabis regulation and oversight was placed in the Office of Community and Civic Life, as opposed to in the Office of Finance and Revenue or the Office of Business Development Services, which is where they license other businesses. This placement is partly due to the idea at the time that the cannabis industry was going to be disruptive to the community. Many individuals were worried about safety for communities. Our office has been trying to decrease the stigma and canna-phobia around the plant, offering education and equity initiatives. We were the first city to have community reinvestment grants tied to our cannabis tax revenue. These grants are administered through the SEED (Social Equity and Educational Development) Initiatives and grant fund.
CRCC and CannRa are two independent organizations, which happened to both launch at the same time. This caused some confusion in the industry. They are not mutually exclusive memberships! In fact, two of our founding members are also founding members of CannRa. The regulators roundtable was the predecessor of CannRa and that association aggregates insights and learnings state by state. The Oregon Liquor Control Commission (state-level) is a member of CannRa.
CRCC centers equity and support of legalization, while also aggregating insights and learnings state by state. If you are a regulator of color, at the state or local level, it makes sense to join the Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition. We know that legalization is a requirement to start to undo the harm done through the war on drugs.
Centering equity involves re-thinking how we regulate this industry. One challenge is getting people to realize that this is a regulatory agency, like any other government regulatory agency. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), a regulatory agency, gives out licenses and adjusts to assure that no group is precluded from access (adjusting for wheelchairs, visual and hearing impairments, etc.). Yet, in cannabis, we are regulating the industry without dealing with the inequities in the industry. Some of these inequities are directly linked to the historical prohibition of cannabis and the war on drugs, which we define as the racially-biased enforcement of cannabis prohibition.
Supporting equity also includes gender inequities, economic inequities, and disability inequities, to mention a few, that will positively impact everyone in the industry, including and especially patients themselves. Exclusionary practices would not be tolerated if it was an agency like the DMV. With cannabis, we are over-regulating the industry and excluding many people from participating, which is to the detriment of the market and the community. CRCC is focused on equity-centered regulation for the cannabis industry.
What is one thing that you would like to see in the legislation for cannabis businesses at the federal level?
Well, there’s a misconception about the size of companies in this industry. As an industry, we have to be careful about supporting legislation that only benefits large corporations. More than 75% of cannabis businesses have annual revenue of $2 million or less. Compared to small businesses in other industries, for example, in agriculture ($6 million or less) and retail ($14 million or less), cannabis businesses are very small, so everyone needs to push for legislation to benefit these small businesses in whatever regulatory framework is set up on a federal level. This is one step in leading the industry towards a more equitable path.
One aspect of inequity is how cannabis businesses of different sizes are treated. On average, very small cannabis companies have an after-tax rate of 70%, so when you’re going to the table for the regulatory framework, push back on the tax structure, push back on mechanisms that are inherently disadvantageous to small businesses. Surprisingly or not, most Black, Indigenous, or Latinx businesses are also small businesses, so you are positively impacting racial equity.
If you, as a cannabis business, think you’re a big fish, trust me, Big Tobacco, Big Alcohol, Big Pharma, Big CPG (“consumer packaged goods”) – Target has $70 billion in annual revenue – are coming, so a big fish in this cannabis pond is setting itself up to be eaten by much bigger fish and bigger sharks. If we leave back doors open for the larger cannabis businesses, we’re leaving that same back door open for a Walmart or an Amazon. Large corporations are already investigating and supporting cannabis. They plan years in advance for large takeovers and once it starts, it’s a stampede of well-financed, organized strategic efforts.
At a state level, the industry and those who want to support the industry, need to be careful to not overtax the small businesses and to vote to provide a framework of support mechanisms for small cannabis businesses.
What are some examples of frameworks that support or negatively impact small cannabis businesses?
Some of the early legalization efforts required vertical integration. Because of the way the state and local jurisdictions are regulating and taxing, forcing vertical integration is not a small-business-friendly approach to licensing. This was the case in some earlier states, but we’re also seeing newer states like Georgia taking this approach.
By breaking up the licensing into different parts of the supply chain (like California), you open up possibilities for smaller businesses to operate. If the state is giving out micro-business licenses, there should also be a track to grow into a larger size so that there is no ceiling on those businesses’ growth prospects. For example, in New Jersey, advocates fought to amend provisions that failed to create a way to sell out of a micro-license for a growth event.
Everybody has a different opinion depending on which economist you talk to about how you tax up and down the supply chain. I’d like to see states have tiered tax by production weight. Once you start doing it by the percentage of THC, you’re negatively impacting businesses and patients. It’s meant to be a deterrent and is an example of the government intending to overregulate in an area that it doesn’t fully understand. But usually, those penalties wind up impacting the smaller craft businesses. Too many people are assuming that consumption in the adult-use market is just for recreational purposes, but there are plenty of small niche operators aimed at a specific medical community and they are producing small batches, for example, with high THC, but their clientele may be negatively impacted, simply as a function of the way the tax law was written.
Thanks, Dasheeda, for taking the time to speak with us! If readers want to get involved in changing legislation and connecting with regulators, where should they start?
It’s certainly a long and hard process when dealing with big issues and change. For operators, NCIA is a good place to start. There is also the M4MM and the MCBA. Folks should really try to connect with the local- and state-relevant organizations. Building and operating in coalitions can be very powerful. On a national level, be sure that any group you are part of is actually going to D.C. and is having conversations with the legislators, because at the end of the day, whether it’s cannabis or any other business, you need to be involved with influencing the policies that impact your industry. Everything starts with the law and civic engagement.
Elise Serbaroli leads Global Business Development at Strimo, where she provides cannabis businesses with software solutions around inventory management, cost accounting, QA, and compliance. She’s back in the USA after over a decade of experience in Spain, Germany, Switzerland and Ecuador.
Understanding the importance of efficiency, scalability, and profitability, Elise created solutions to financial and legal processes for the R&D team at CPW, a joint venture of two of the world’s largest food companies, Nestlé & General Mills. As a systems coordinator, she gained a deep appreciation for food safety, GMPs and regulatory compliance. Her supply chain software experience builds off of her Business Development role at Tradeshift, the world’s largest network for digital B2B payments.
This site uses cookies. By using this site or closing this notice, you agree to the use of cookies and our privacy policy.
by NCIA’s 
Elise Serbaroli leads Global Business Development at