Chances are, one of your first weed purchases was a nickel bag. For just $5, you and your friends could change the course of an afternoon by sharing a joint: painting the town red, watching a movie, cracking jokes. For Manhattan native Nicholas Koury and owner of Nicklz dispensary near Time Square, the nickel bag […]
The post Nicklz dispensary was built on the nickel bag appeared first on Leafly.
Welcome to the 10th annual “State of the State” post on Oregon cannabis. A great many things have changed over the years, and I’m planning to write another lookback post soon. For now, though, let’s cover everything that happened in 2025—which is a lot.
According to OLCC data, total sales from January 1 through November 30 were $848 million. That’s a 3.7% dip from the same period in 2024, where we saw $881 million in total sales. Does this mean that Oregon cannabis retailers are selling less product? No, it doesn’t. They may be selling more, in fact, at discount model pricing.
The miserable retail price trendline continued to fall throughout 2025. Within that trendline, the extracts/concentrates category hit a nadir of $15.00/gram (median) in the extracts/concentrates category in April, and again in November. The “usable marijuana” category also fell to a ghastly $3.33/gram (median) in April, and all but flatlined from that point. (Usable marijuana is essentially flower, in the OLCC milieu.)
There is no foreseeable end to the price depression: in fact, it may only get worse. Croptober 2025 was Oregon’s largest METRC harvest ever, with 6,289,890 pounds reported. This was a significant and unwelcome 8.9% increase from the October 2024 harvest, which itself was a record high. As I wrote last year:
“I’m sure the illicit market had a bumper year too; weather is the same for everyone and the enforcement paradigm is static… Consumers may benefit, but that can’t be great for pricing.”
That proved true in 2025, unfortunately, and it will happen again in 2026. As far as what people are actually buying at all of these OLCC stores, I compiled this table:
| 2025 | 2024 | Change +/- | |
| Usable marijuana | 43.6% | 46.2% | -2.6 |
| Concentrate/extract | 26% | 25% | +1.0 |
| Edible/tincture | 14.2% | 13.7% | +0.5 |
| Inhalable w/non-canna additives | 10.7% | 9.1% | +1.6 |
| “Other” | 4.9% | 5.4% | -0.5 |
| Industrial hemp | 0% (?) | 0.6% | -o.6 (?) |
Check out that drop in the usable marijuana category. In both 2023 and 2024 I noted a “years-long trend of usable marijuana sales decreasing per capita in favor of other categories.” We are not just seeing these SKU shifts in the data—we’ve had a series of farm clients lament that retailers are pulling back orders for flower, in response to consumer preference for vape and cartridge products.
Bottom line: People are buying more Oregon cannabis than ever, at lower prices than ever. There is also more cannabis in the OLCC market than ever. Surveying this abundance, customers aren’t burning flower like they used to, opting instead for packaged products. All of this makes for an extremely challenging business environment—especially for small farms, which continue to falter and fail.
Oregon’s years-long OLCC licensing moratorium was ratified by the legislature in 2024. We still have a “one-in, one-out” policy where outgoing licensees are allowed to surrender (sell) their licenses in favor of new market entrants, who acquire (buy) replacement licenses. Outside of this buy/sell paradigm, OLCC is “prohibited from accepting new license applications pretty much forever, due to restrictive, ratio-based formulas tied to population,” as I explained back when HB 4121 passed.
In 2025, license numbers declined marginally across the board as predicted. This was also the case in 2024 and 2023 due to the years-long moratorium, in concert with business failures. Here’s a table showing current license numbers as compared to this time last year:
| 2025 | 2024 | Change +/- | |
| Producers | 1,351 | 1,375 | -24 |
| Processors | 275 | 288 | -13 |
| Wholesalers | 243 | 257 | -14 |
| Retailers | 769 | 789 | -20 |
| Labs | 10 | 13 | -3 |
| Research | 1 | 1 | none |
Numbers continue to fall at the slow drip we’ve seen for a couple of years, which is healthy. Most would agree that we have too many licenses across all categories—except perhaps for labs and research. Unfortunately, we lost a couple of labs this year, possibly tied to fallout from the October 2024 crackdown on THC inflation.
As far as pricing, we helped people buy and sell producer licenses at prices between $60K and $85K throughout the year, with prices rising in the last month or two. Most of these transactions are change-of-location and change-in-ownership scenarios, and most of the buyers are Chinese. Wholesale and processor licenses trade less frequently, and for lower prices; retail pricing is its own animal, largely dependent on store performance. That said, we did help sell a couple of change-in-location retail licenses in the $100K range.
OLCC has emphasized moving applications through the system quickly, which is welcome news. I met with a few OLCC staff last week, who articulated their goal of a “zero wait” time for change-in-ownership applications, their plans to enforce new rules requiring polished submissions, and requirements that applicants move quickly through the process.
The licensing protocol rules mentioned above come online on January 1, 2026, alongside rules that make some technical updates and implement the 2025 marijuana legislation. I covered these rules in a recent post, and I won’t summarize them further here.
Earlier this year, rules banning sales of most CBN products also took effect. I explained:
Beginning July 1, 2025, products containing artificially derived CBN can no longer be sold in Oregon, either in the OLCC system or in the general (hemp-derived) market, unless the manufacturer has made a “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) determination, or submitted a New Dietary Ingredient Notification to the FDA and received a “no objections” response.
To my knowledge, no one has acquired GRAS status or submitted a qualifying NDI notification. That’s not unexpected, and it’s also too bad.
The comprehensive hemp registry rules will take effect on January 1. These rules apply to hemp flower pre-rolls, as well as hemp beverages and tinctures containing cannabinoids like THC, CBD and others. The rules don’t apply to hemp items that are: a) sold at OLCC licensed stores, b) lacking cannabinoids, c) intended only for topical use, d) industrial or commercial feed products, or e) merely passing through the state.
A host of labeling and “claims” requirements for hemp products sold in Oregon also take effect next year. It remains to be seen if or how any of these new rules will interact with the recent federal ban on intoxicating hemp products, although I’m not expecting much friction. If the federal ban holds, we’ll likely just have fewer out-of-state registrants, and fewer inbound products beyond what is carved out in the CBD space.
For what it’s worth, earlier this year OLCC and other agencies published a report detailing that most hemp products in Oregon run hot. Not a great look, but not surprising either.
Oregon cannabis matters found their way to the courts in 2025. Our office handled a series of business and investor disputes, and there were some public skirmishes as well. Here is my short list:
I should include a bit on President Trump’s Executive Order of December 18, directing marijuana rescheduling. We’ve covered it comprehensively already, but Oregon cannabis businesses should be pleased.
Depending on the path Pam Bondi chooses, and the measure of resistance, marijuana could go to Schedule III in 2026. If so, many of our clients will realize better margins overnight. These businesses could also see less competition from out-of-state hemp operators, due to the federal ban mentioned earlier.
As always, trying to summarize a year’s worth of stories in this small space can be challenging. Let me know in the comments if I missed anything important. For prior posts in this series, check out the list below.
Best wishes to the Oregon cannabis industry and all of our clients in 2026.
The post Oregon Cannabis: State of the State (2025) appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Wishing all of our readers, along with friends and families, the very best this holiday season.
Whether you celebrate Hanukkah, Christmas, Kwanzaa, Winter Solstice, Festivus, or something else, we hope you can kick back and enjoy this wonderful time of the year.
The post Happy Holidays from the Canna Law Blog appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Sesh by Sherlocks has grown to North Carolina's top destination for THCA flower after beginning as a glass museum.
The post Meet Sesh by Sherlocks Glass—North Carolina’s leading THCA flower and live rosin brand, born from a glass museum appeared first on Leafly.
President Trump has just signed an executive order that accelerated rescheduling cannabis from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3.
The post Cannabis rescheduling just sped up: What you need to know about the executive order appeared first on Leafly.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Canna Provisions, Inc. et al. v. Bondi, a high-profile lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of intrastate (and not interstate) cannabis activity. The denial offered no reasoning; nor was it accompanied by dissents or concurrences from any of the justices—all of which is typical. The upshot is that petitioner’s loss at the First Circuit Court of Appeals is final. Rest in peace, Canna Provisions.
We have been tracking and writing about this case since it was filed two years ago. We acknowledged the pedigree of David Boies and the lawyers involved, but ultimately, the effort left us uninspired. See:
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s denial on Monday, my colleague Jason Adelstone also offered this post mortem on LinkedIn:
This outcome is unfortunate but unsurprising given the fundamentally flawed strategy used to challenge Gonzales v. Raich. There were far more credible avenues for advancing this argument, most notably through sympathetic medical patients, rather than corporate actors operating in the adult-use market. From the outset, this case was designed for Supreme Court review. What the strategy failed to adequately account for, however, is the composition and conservatism of the current Court. Maybe next time the industry will support a case that has an actual chance to prevail.
Whether there is a “next time,” or what that would look like, is an open question—particularly with rumors aswirl about a Trump executive order on rescheduling marijuana. If marijuana lands on Schedule III, cannabis businesses would ultimately get the fair tax treatment sought by Canna Provisions, although banking, SBA loans and other amenities would still be impaired.
It would be somewhat ironic if the Department of Justice ultimately followed a Trump directive to reschedule marijuana at this time, given its posture last month in the Canna Provisions litigation. I explained:
[T]he DOJ declined to file a Supreme Court brief in the Canna Provisions case . . . . The DOJ’s position is curious, given that 1) the case strikes at the heart of the federal government’s ability to enforce federal laws, and 2) the federal government has been keen to weigh in on Supreme Court cannabis litigation, in the context of gun rights. As it stands, the Court will now decide whether to hear this case without executive branch input.
And that’s exactly what happened. It’s now time for everyone to move on to the next thing, which we’re told could be an executive order on rescheduling, announced as soon as tomorrow. As I explained in a Canna Provisions critique:
[M]arijuana reform is squarely a job for Congress or the executive branch. Not the judiciary. We need Congress to act, especially in the context of stalled Schedule III proceedings, and we need broader reforms than what Canna Provisions seeks. Those reforms include not just interstate commerce, but decriminalization and ideally reparations of some sort.
Schedule III will not get us interstate commerce, and it certainly wouldn’t bring decriminalization or reparations. But it’s a step in the right direction—especially while Congress cannot get organized on cannabis reform, aside from hemp. I don’t expect that to change prior to the 2026 midterms, which means the best hope for now is an executive order. Canna Provisions, rest in peace.
The post Canna Provisions v. Bondi, R.I.P. appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Leafly's list of the top 100 US dispensaries, backed by data and costumer ratings. Find the best dispensaries in your state and beyond.
The post Leafly’s top 100 US dispensaries of 2025 appeared first on Leafly.
Even with slightly lighter attendance at MjBizCon this year, the quality of conversations and the overall engagement felt stronger than ever. The insights, candor, and determination that filled the hallways and side events were a powerful reminder of why this industry keeps pushing forward despite constant headwinds. The event team delivered a well-run, thoughtful conference that brought together some of the most committed voices in cannabis.
What stood out most throughout the week was the shared sense of resilience. Being surrounded by so many operators, advisors, investors, and innovators, all working to move this space toward a more functional and equitable future, was incredibly energizing. The panels, side events, and gatherings around the Chandelier room at the Cosmo, created genuine opportunities for connection and dialogue. It was great exchanging ideas with so many thoughtful people. These conversations are what make MjBizCon valuable: they reveal both how far the industry has come and how much collective work remains.
One theme that was impossible to ignore this year was the growing international momentum in cannabis. The presence of global operators has never been more visible, and many of these markets are advancing at a pace that puts the United States on the sidelines. While the U.S. continues to wrestle with outdated federal structures and political stalemate, other countries are establishing regulatory frameworks, cross-border supply chains, and long-term economic strategies. The world is moving forward, with or without U.S. leadership, and that reality is becoming more pronounced each year.
Another significant takeaway was the persistent misalignment between the hemp and marijuana sectors. Much of the hemp industry remains optimistic that Congress will repeal or substantially modify the restrictions on intoxicating hemp. But realistically, that optimism seems misplaced. Any effort to carve out hemp without addressing marijuana places Senators from legal-marijuana states (many of whom represent jurisdictions that restrict or ban intoxicating hemp derivatives) in a politically untenable position. They are unlikely to champion a fix that benefits the hemp sector while leaving marijuana untouched.
Conversely, bringing marijuana into the conversation would trigger immediate and significant opposition from lawmakers who remain resistant to broader cannabis reform. As a result, the path forward for repealing the “hemp ban” appears extremely narrow. The only plausible near-term change may be a limited technical adjustment, such as permitting slightly “hot” hemp during the manufacturing of CBD, rather than any meaningful rewrite of the governing statutes.
Still, MJBizCon reinforced something important: progress doesn’t depend on unrealistic expectations, but on honest assessments, strategic collaboration, and the willingness to adapt. Despite the challenges, the energy and commitment in this industry remain unmatched.
If we didn’t connect at the show, or if we did and you’d like to continue the conversation, feel free to reach out.
The post Closing Reflections on MJBizCon 2025 appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
We asked Snoop three burning questions. Find out Snoop Dogg's favorite strain, and 2 more hot takes from the legend.
The post Snoop Dogg’s favorite strain, and 2 more essential takes from our interview appeared first on Leafly.
Yesterday afternoon, the Washington Post and other sources reported that President Trump is expected to issue an executive order directing federal agencies to reclassify marijuana, to Schedule III. That’s some sexy reportage, although WaPo’s sources cautioned that “Trump could still change his mind” and “[a] White House official said no final decisions have been made on rescheduling of marijuana.”
Still, it’s a story with legs and I want to revisit some important considerations—beyond my usual refrain that marijuana shouldn’t be scheduled at all. Here are some critical things to understand about a potential Schedule III move.
The WaPo story reports that an executive order may be in the cards. Most likely—and depending on the order’s contents—this would make for a more direct, decisive approach than the formal “statement” and “request” issued by President Biden in October of 2022, which led to a stymied rescheduling process.
This August, when Trump told reporters that his administration was considering rescheduling marijuana, I laid out the following options:
I noted:
One thing to address at the outset, though, is the oft-repeated fiction that Trump could simply re- or deschedule marijuana on his own, via executive order. He cannot. He could, however, direct the process much like Biden did, when Biden issued a 2022 executive order directing HHS to revisit the control status of marijuana. Essentially, Trump could say what he’d like to see, and it will probably happen—especially given the strict fealty shown to him by DOJ.
To that point, my colleague Jason Adelstone has made a compelling argument for a fifth option, which is that Trump could lean on Attorney General Pam Bondi to reschedule marijuana on her own, even without rulemaking, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 811(d)(1). Jason concluded that “all it would take is a press release and a pen.”
Given the novelty of that approach, and given the novelty of Bondi’s prohibitionist record, that outcome would surprise me. In my previous post I advocated for option #3, which is the publication of a final rule by DOJ. I explained:
Marijuana could then go to Schedule III (or wherever) within 30 or 60 days of rule publication. People could litigate that rule, sure. Given the strength of the HHS findings, though, and the clear statutory authority behind DOJ, it seems like an uphill battle.
Hopefully, this is the chosen path and the administration learns from the numerous, foreseeable errors of former President Biden, the Merrick Garland DOJ and Anne Milgram’s DEA, as that administration made its half-assed foray into Schedule III.
Schedule III has been a holy grail of sorts for the cannabis industry, primarily because marijuana businesses would finally be taxed like other businesses. I’ve explained:
If marijuana goes to Schedule III, the margins-crushing statute known as IRC § 280E would not apply, and the cannabis industry would change forever. That said, state-level taxation of cannabis will not change. Or, it may change for the worse, as states feel emboldened to raise cannabis-related taxes in the absence of § 280E.
. . . .
Still, I cannot emphasize enough that removal of § 280E would change the industry forever. Having worked with cannabis businesses for 13 years, I view taxation as the largest affront to marijuana businesses—more than banking access, intellectual property coverage, lack of bankruptcy, you name it. This would be HUGE.
We like to remind people that marijuana on Schedule III is not a universal solve. Here are the five most persistent issues, in my view:
Criminal penalties for individuals. The possession, distribution and sale of non-FDA, non-hemp cannabis would still be criminal acts. State and local laws would not be preempted in any respect. We could see another 200,000 local arrests, annually, in a Schedule III milieu.
Business headaches. Like end users, state-licensed cannabis businesses wouldn’t be immunized from theoretical federal prosecution. In addition, they would remain embargoed from bankruptcy courts, they would continue to struggle with trademarks, they would still pay a premium for many general services, and the intensive, state-level regulation to which they are subject would hardly abate.
Research headaches. Contrary to popular belief, federal research will not become easier without significant Congressional and administrative intervention. That one is a real head-scratcher, but it’s our forecast.
Banking issues. Although banking isn’t the headache it once was, it’s still a pain. At Schedule III, marijuana would still be a controlled substance and state-licensed businesses would still be “trafficking” in that controlled substance, contrary to federal law. Banks would continue to struggle with this dynamic.
Hemp. The intoxicating hemp products industry took a huge kick in the shorts last month, when Congress passed P.L. 119-37. Most of these products won’t survive the new law. The state-legal marijuana industry stands to benefit from less competition, and if marijuana goes to Schedule III, those operators will be less inclined to work with the hemp crowd on a “universal solve” for federal cannabis policy.
I hope it happens, and Christmas comes early for all of our industry clients. That said, I’m cautious after watching and writing about marijuana rescheduling rumors for the better part of a decade.
If we do get confirmation on this WaPo reporting, though, rest assured— we’ll be all over it. In the meantime, check out the following posts:
The post Is Marijuana Rescheduling Finally Happening? What to Know, Now. appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Last month, I gave my big-picture thoughts on the intoxicating hemp products ban under P.L. 119-37, concluding that enforcement was an open question. That question has started to pick up steam, particularly following a Congressional Research Service report published on December 3rd.
The CRS report provides:
…it remains unclear if and how federal law enforcement will enforce the new prohibitions when the new definition goes into effect. In marijuana’s case, the federal response has largely been to allow states to implement their own marijuana laws despite the fact that state-regulated activities may violate the CSA. If intoxicating hemp products persist on the market after the change to their legal status, it is possible they could be subject to the same criminal and collateral issues as marijuana. It also remains to be seen whether FDA will pursue additional options to remove these items from the market. Both FDA and DEA may lack the resources to broadly enforce the laws prohibiting intoxicating hemp products on the market.
It concludes:
Congress may choose to exercise oversight over federal enforcement priorities regarding state-regulated cannabis activities. FDA (under the FDCA) and DEA (under the CSA), in coordination with the Department of Justice, have a range of civil and criminal remedies they may use in efforts to exercise control over these activities.
I’ve promoted CRS reports in the past, and this one is certainly timely. Enforcement considerations are paramount now, just as they were in the early days of state-legal marijuana programs.
P.L. 119-37 doesn’t take effect until November 12, 2026, but its effects are already being felt. I’ve spoken with service providers to the cannabis industry — most notably financial institution clients — who are reigning in their offerings to the hemp industry in response to the new law. This follows on actual federal government programs, such as the Small Business Administration, which already views many hemp businesses as non grata.
But there is a disconnect between the outlook of service providers, in some cases, and what many seed sellers and vendors of intoxicating hemp products are saying. Many operators display high confidence that P.L. 119-37 will somehow be reversed prior to taking effect; or that if it isn’t, it won’t be enforced. It’s a ballsy gambit– one step further than exploiting the 2018 Farm Bill’s suspect “loophole.”
It’s true that the feds have generally let state-legal cannabis actors alone; and it’s true that the feds never really enforced the 2018 Farm Bill. That’s been the case in respect of purported “loophole” products, and also with hemp-CBD food and beverages— which FDA has maintained violate the FDCA Act since day one.
P.L. 119-37 is different in a few respects, though. First, unlike state-legal marijuana, many intoxicating hemp products are sold in states that do not expressly allow their sale. Sellers are simply operating in a “vacuum” of sorts, citing a federal law loophole, without state law prohibitions. Second, as to marijuana plant seeds, DEA had opined that sales were legal, because those seeds had not yet expressed THC and were still statutory “hemp.” That’s no longer the case.
Let’s consider a scenario (which is the mostly likely scenario, in my opinion) that P.L. 119-37 remains on the books come November 12, 2026. The $20 billion question, as I mentioned last month, is whether there will be enforcement. I think it’s possible at the state level, and also at the federal level.
At the federal level, I wouldn’t expect a coordinated crackdown by DEA and U.S. attorneys. That would be too expensive, too unwieldy. Instead, I think targeted enforcement of select larger players — perhaps including warning letters next summer — is the most likely path. In that scenario, the chilling effect I mentioned for service providers would be magnified, and it’s likely that many operators would also stand down.
I also think states will continue to get on the prohibition bandwagon, as I explained to MJ BizDaily last month. Some already are, but you’d see more of this in an environment where the feds throw their backs into it, enforcement-wise, and where de jure prohibition is not the whole picture.
Next November seems far away, but nearly a month has come and gone since P.L. 119-37 passed. For the next 11 months, enforcement is going to be the biggest question of all. That will be true whether or not P.L. 119-37 stays on the books as written, or whether the put-upon industry claws back some of its “loophole.” If so, it will need to overcome resistance from various sources: the state-legal marijuana industry, prohibitionists at large, and legislators who either don’t understand the issues, or are offended by ideas like sales of “gas station weed” and sales to minors.
One thing is for certain: 2026 will be another interesting year for cannabis.
For more on this topic, check out the following posts:
The post Will the Feds Enforce the Ban on Intoxicating Hemp Products, and Seed Sales? appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
This holiday season will be a cold one, but AmeriCannaRx is helping you and yours stay warm with hot deals all December long. They are offering a gigantic 60% off discount on select products throughout the end of the year, so you’ll have more than enough to stuff your stocking. They’ll even price match any […]
The post Stay warm with hot holiday deals at AmeriCannaRx appeared first on Leafly.
Medical cannabis is available from Greenlight at locations all across West Virginia. Their locations all feature a wide selection of brands and knowledgeable staff. Patients with a medical card are welcome between 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. every day of the week. Do not operate a vehicle or machinery under the influence of this drug. […]
The post West Virginia medical cannabis is available at Greenlight appeared first on Leafly.
We’re excited to announce that Harris Sliwoski attorney Jason Adelstone will speak at MJBizCon in Las Vegas this Wednesday, December 3, joining the industry’s largest global gathering of cannabis entrepreneurs, investors, operators, and policymakers.
Jason is widely regarded for his expertise in the complex interplay between international drug treaties and domestic cannabis legalization. At MJBizCon, he’ll serve as a panelist for Global Cannabis Outlook: Trends, Policy Shifts & Market Opportunities Around the World on December 3 at 2:50 PM.
This session brings together international experts to examine how regulatory frameworks, treaty interpretations, capital movement, and evolving laws are shaping the global cannabis economy. Jason will contribute his perspective on international compliance pathways, regulatory strategy, and how U.S. policy interacts with international law.
If you’ll be attending and would like to meet Jason during the conference, we’d love to hear from you. Feel free to reach out ahead of time and we’ll help coordinate.
Stay tuned — we’ll be sharing key takeaways from Jason’s MJBizCon presentation after the event.
The post Jason Adelstone Presents at MJBizCon This Wednesday appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
