by  The Law Office of Shay Aaron Gilmore

On April 22, 2026, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signed the most consequential federal cannabis order in more than five decades. The order immediately moves both FDA-approved cannabis products and state-regulated medical cannabis products from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). At the same time, it launches an expedited administrative hearing — beginning June 29, 2026 — to determine whether broader rescheduling of all marijuana, including adult-use products, should follow.

For California medical cannabis licensees and investors, this is not an abstract federal development. It is a live, operational event with immediate legal, tax, corporate, and compliance consequences. This post breaks down what changed, what did not, what is still unresolved — and specifically what California M-license operators and their advisors need to do right now.

As discussed in our prior post Marijuana Rescheduling, If It Happens, Will Be Incremental Progress — Still Not the Answer, and followed up in California Cannabis M&A in 2026: Rescheduling Momentum, Hemp Bans, and State Integration Collide, rescheduling was never going to be a cure-all. What April 22, 2026 delivered is real but narrow — and the narrowness is exactly what California operators need to understand.

How We Got Here

The rescheduling process dates back to October 2022, when President Biden directed HHS and the DEA to review marijuana’s CSA scheduling. In August 2023, HHS recommended Schedule III, finding that marijuana has a currently accepted medical use and a lower abuse potential than Schedule I or II substances. The DEA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in May 2024, attracting more than 42,000 public comments. Hearings were postponed multiple times — first due to procedural challenges, then due to a stay pending interlocutory appeal.

The process appeared stalled until December 18, 2025, when President Trump signed Executive Order 14370 directing the Attorney General to “expedite and complete” the rescheduling process. Rather than restart the cumbersome notice-and-comment rulemaking, Acting AG Blanche invoked 21 U.S.C. § 811(d)(1), which permits the Attorney General to schedule substances by order when necessary to comply with U.S. obligations under the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs — without the full procedural requirements otherwise imposed by the CSA. This treaty-based authority allowed the administration to act immediately.

Critically, the order does not cover all marijuana. It covers two categories only: FDA-approved drug products containing delta-9-THC, and marijuana handled under a qualifying state-issued medical marijuana license. All other marijuana — including adult-use cannabis sold under a state recreational license — remains Schedule I pending the outcome of the June 29 hearing. Hemp and synthetically derived THC are expressly excluded.

California’s Dual-License Structure: The Essential Starting Point

To appreciate what this order does and does not do for California operators, the state’s parallel license structure under the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) is the essential starting point.

Under MAUCRSA, the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) issues two parallel license designations across all activity categories — cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, retail, testing, and event organizers. An M-license (medicinal designation) authorizes a licensee to engage only in medicinal commercial cannabis activity. An A-license (adult-use designation) authorizes activity only in the adult-use market. A business may hold both designations on the same licensed premises, provided it holds both designations for the identical type of activity.

This bifurcation — maintained since MAUCRSA’s 2017 enactment — turns out to be precisely the distinction that determines who receives federal relief under the April 22 order. The federal order tracks state-licensing categories: it reschedules marijuana products subject to a qualifying state-issued medical marijuana license, and a California M-license fits squarely within that definition. A California A-license does not.

Pure M-license operators — those holding only medical designations across their operations — are unambiguously covered. Dual-license operators, sometimes referred to as mixed-use or MSO-affiliated entities, occupy far more complicated ground, addressed in detail below.

The Tax Transformation: Section 280E Relief Is Real and Effective January 1, 2026

The single largest immediate benefit of rescheduling for California M-license operators is the elimination of the Section 280E deduction disallowance.

Internal Revenue Code § 280E prohibits any deduction or credit for ordinary and necessary business expenses incurred in the “trafficking” of a Schedule I or II controlled substance. Because the IRS treated state-licensed cannabis businesses as traffickers in a Schedule I substance, California operators could not deduct payroll, rent, utilities, marketing, professional services, or any other standard operating expense at the federal level — only cost of goods sold (COGS) remained deductible. The result was effective federal tax rates commonly exceeding 70% for California dispensaries and supply-chain operators.

California partially addressed this disparity through Assembly Bill 37 in 2019, which decoupled state tax law from IRC § 280E, allowing MAUCRSA licensees to take ordinary deductions on their California returns. But the federal burden remained crushing — particularly for California operators who also face some of the highest combined state and local cannabis taxes in the country.

The April 22 order eliminates 280E’s reach over qualifying medical operators. The Treasury Department and IRS confirmed the same day that rescheduling “removes section 280E as a bar to claiming deductions and credits” for qualifying businesses and announced forthcoming guidance. Treasury further confirmed that for § 280E purposes, rescheduling applies for a business’s full taxable year that includes the effective date — meaning January 1, 2026 for calendar-year filers.

This is not a future benefit contingent on further rulemaking. For California M-license operators, the 280E burden has been lifted for the full 2026 tax year. The practical cash-flow impact is substantial: the broader industry is estimated to have been absorbing $2.3 billion in excess federal taxes annually above what it would pay as an ordinary business.

Retroactive Relief: Possible but Not Guaranteed

The order also includes precatory language encouraging — though not mandating — the Secretary of the Treasury to consider retrospective relief from § 280E for taxable years in which a state licensee operated under a state medical marijuana license. This language is aspirational, not legally binding. As one detailed analysis notes, the IRS is not obligated to comply, and operators should not amend prior returns or book corresponding assets until the IRS formally confirms the availability, scope, and mechanics of any look-back period. That said, California M-license operators should begin documenting prior-year expenses now to move quickly if Treasury guidance confirms retroactive applicability.

DEA Registration: A New Federal Compliance Obligation with Teeth

The DEA registration requirement is where this order becomes both the most operationally transformative and the most legally technical for California operators. It is not a benefit layered on top of existing operations. It is a new federal compliance obligation that determines whether an operator can legitimately access Schedule III status — and all of the benefits that accompany it.

What the Requirement Actually Means

The CSA has always required registration with the DEA Diversion Control Division for manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers of any controlled substance, including those in Schedule III. Before April 22, 2026, this requirement had no practical enforcement path against state-licensed medical cannabis operators — their activity was federally illegal under Schedule I, and the DEA’s accommodation of state cannabis markets was purely a matter of prosecutorial discretion. Rescheduling changes the legal architecture fundamentally: state-licensed medical operators are now engaged in a federally recognized activity, and federal law requires that recognized activity to be registered.

The order codifies a new registration pathway under 21 C.F.R. § 1301.13(k) — titled “Medical marijuana registrations” — which directs the DEA to establish an expedited review process for entities holding state medical marijuana licenses seeking registration as manufacturers, distributors, or dispensers. This is not aspirational guidance. It is now codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. And critically, the order is explicit: operating without DEA registration while handling Schedule III-controlled substances is a federal violation.

The practical implication for California operators is significant: to be entitled to the benefits of Schedule III status — most importantly, 280E relief — an M-license operator must obtain and maintain federal DEA registration. An operator who continues business-as-usual under their DCC M-license without filing for DEA registration is not simply missing an optional federal benefit; they are operating outside federal law in a newly codified way.

The 60-Day Window: Why It Is Critical

State-licensed medical marijuana licensees that submit DEA registration applications within 60 days of Federal Register publication — by approximately June 22, 2026 — may continue operating under their state license while the DEA processes the application. This “interim operating authority” provision protects operators from the disruption of having to cease operations while awaiting federal processing. Operators who miss this window forfeit the protection and face the risk that their Schedule III activity may be federally unauthorized during any gap between application and approval.

The DEA has committed to processing applications filed within the 60-day window within six months of receipt. For applications filed after that window, no such processing timeline commitment applies. The practical message: file within 60 days, or accept the risk of an uncertain processing timeline during which your federal compliance status is ambiguous.

Why a California M-License Is Uniquely Valuable — and the Public-Interest Factors That Can Still Block You

The new regulation provides that a state medical marijuana license “shall constitute conclusive evidence that the applicant is authorized under state law to engage in the activity for which registration is sought.” This is a significant legal accommodation. Under standard DEA registration procedures, an applicant must independently establish state-law authorization, and the DEA has substantial discretion to investigate and question that showing. The April 22 order eliminates that ambiguity for California M-license holders: the license is, by regulation, conclusive.

However, conclusive state authorization does not guarantee federal registration. The DEA must register the applicant unless doing so would be inconsistent with the public interest under 21 U.S.C. § 823 or with the requirements of the Single Convention. The § 823 public interest factors include:

• Maintenance of effective controls against diversion of controlled substances;
• Compliance with applicable state and local laws;
• Prior conviction record relating to manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances;
• Lack of experience in the distribution of controlled substances; and
• Other factors relevant to and consistent with public health and safety.

For California operators, the most significant factor is compliance with applicable state and local laws. A DCC license with a clean compliance history — no suspensions, no enforcement actions, no unresolved violations — satisfies this factor readily. But operators with prior DCC disciplinary history, unresolved local permit violations, or any federal criminal exposure should carefully assess their § 823 posture before filing, not after. A denial triggered by public-interest concerns creates a federal record that is substantially more damaging than simply not filing.

Historical DEA precedent on this point is sobering: when the DEA reviewed manufacturer registrations for research cannabis in 2021, it noted that conducting cannabis activities compliant with state law but in violation of the CSA “may constitute grounds to deny an applicant’s registration” under the public-interest factors — citing such activity as relevant to the “promotion and protection of public health and safety.” While the new framework is designed to accommodate qualifying state licensees, the public interest factors remain live legal criteria that operators must treat as such.

Registration Is Location-Specific

A frequently overlooked aspect of DEA registration mechanics is that registration is tied to each principal place of business — each licensed premises where controlled substances are stored, administered, or dispensed requires a separate DEA registration. For California operators with multiple licensed locations — a common structure among vertically integrated businesses and those holding cultivator and retailer licenses at separate premises — this means a separate DEA registration application for each location.

This has direct compliance budget implications. A California operator with a licensed cultivation facility in Humboldt County and two licensed retail dispensaries in the Bay Area must file three separate DEA registration applications, each tied to the DCC license for that specific premises. Operators with multi-site portfolios need to inventory their licensed locations and plan registration filings accordingly — and within the 60-day window.

The Automatic Suspension Linkage: A New Federal Risk Tied to DCC Compliance

The April 22 order includes a provision that the DEA registration issued under the § 1301.13(k) expedited pathway is automatically suspended if the underlying California M-license is suspended, revoked, or expires. This is one of the most practically significant provisions in the entire order for California operators and their compliance counsel.

Before rescheduling, a DCC enforcement action — a license suspension, a notice of violation, or even an administrative lapse in renewal — was a purely state-level event. Federal law provided no corresponding benefit to suspend; the operator was already in a legally ambiguous federal position regardless of state compliance status. After rescheduling, the calculus is fundamentally different. A California M-license holder who obtains DEA registration now has a federal benefit that tracks DCC license status in real time. A state enforcement action that results in even a temporary DCC suspension triggers automatic federal registration suspension — meaning the operator’s Schedule III status and entitlement to 280E relief are simultaneously interrupted.

The implications for DCC regulatory compliance are substantial:

• License renewals must be timely. A DCC license that lapses due to a missed renewal filing, a bond coverage gap, or a delayed local permit renewal can trigger automatic federal suspension of the DEA registration. California operators are accustomed to state license renewals as administrative calendar items. They are now federal compliance events.
• DCC enforcement actions have federal consequences. An operator facing a DCC notice of proposed action, a license suspension, or a regulatory investigation must now assess the potential federal fallout in addition to the state consequences. Regulatory compliance counsel must communicate the federal suspension risk to clients engaged in DCC proceedings.
• Ownership change compliance has heightened stakes. DCC regulations require notification of ownership changes within 14 days and impose compliance obligations throughout the change process. If a change-of-ownership process creates a lapse or ambiguity in the DCC license during which the license could be deemed suspended, the DEA registration may be affected. Operators and counsel should structure ownership transitions to avoid any gap in DCC license status.

The automatic suspension linkage makes DCC license compliance not just a state business-preservation issue, but a federal one. For California M-license operators who have obtained DEA registration, the quality and currency of their DCC compliance program is now directly tied to their federal regulatory status.

Schedule III Compliance Obligations That Come with Registration

Obtaining DEA registration does not simply confer federal authorization — it subjects registrants to Schedule III compliance requirements under the CSA and DEA regulations. The April 22 order incorporates state compliance systems where possible, but federal requirements are additive, not displaced. Under the order, registered California M-license operators must comply with:

• Recordkeeping: Schedule III registrants are subject to DEA recordkeeping requirements, though the order directs the Administrator to accept state-required records, forms, and reports to the maximum extent permissible under federal law. California DCC recordkeeping systems — track-and-trace via Metrc — should substantially satisfy federal requirements, but operators should verify that their Metrc records are current and audit-ready before filing.
• Security standards: Registrants may generally rely on state-law physical-security requirements in lieu of otherwise applicable federal standards, subject to limited qualifications. California DCC security regulations are generally consistent with CSA Schedule III standards, but operators should confirm that any pending security upgrades or DCC compliance notices are resolved.
• Labeling and packaging: Registered operators must include the federal warning required by 21 U.S.C. § 825(c) where applicable, in addition to California DCC labeling requirements. Review of product labels for compliance with both state and federal requirements is now required for all M-licensed products.
• Disposal: State-authorized disposal procedures generally suffice under the order, but operators should document their disposal protocols to demonstrate compliance with both DCC and federal standards.
• Import/export permits: The order amends 21 C.F.R. Part 1312 to add an import/export permit requirement for Schedule III marijuana. Any California operator currently contemplating international product movement must account for this permit requirement.
• The Single Convention nominal-price mechanism: State-licensed registrants are subject to a nominal-price purchase-and-resale arrangement designed to satisfy Article 23 of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Cultivators registering as manufacturers should understand this mechanism and its operational implications before completing registration.

The “Practitioner” Registration Category for Dispensaries

The order introduces an additional registration category relevant to California dispensaries. Entities that transfer Schedule III marijuana to patients — including California M-licensed retail dispensaries — must register with the DEA as “practitioners” under 21 U.S.C. § 823(g). This is a distinct registration category from the manufacturer or distributor registration, and the order makes clear that a practitioner registration does not authorize possession or dispensing of Schedule I controlled substances — meaning it does not extend to the adult-use inventory a dual-license dispensary also holds.

For California dual-license retail operators, this creates a layered registration question: the dispensary entity needs a practitioner DEA registration to cover its M-license dispensing activity, and continued state-only authorization (with no DEA registration) for its A-license adult-use activity. Inventory, recordkeeping, and physical custody of product must be maintained consistent with these different legal statuses simultaneously.

The Dual-License Problem: California’s Most Complex Compliance Challenge

Perhaps the most practically urgent compliance question in California concerns operators who hold both M-license and A-license designations. Many California dispensaries, cultivators, manufacturers, and distributors operate in exactly this structure — serving both medical patients and adult-use consumers, often on the same licensed premises.

The April 22 order creates a bifurcated federal schedule for these operators’ activities. Their M-licensed operations are now Schedule III. Their A-licensed operations remain Schedule I. They operate across two federal schedules simultaneously, with no precedent for this kind of split classification at the entity level.

Treasury has announced that forthcoming guidance will address expense apportionment — allocating costs between medical and adult-use activities, with only the former eligible for § 280E relief. From a regulatory compliance standpoint, dual operators need to examine their accounting systems immediately to determine:

• Whether revenue, payroll, inventory, and overhead are tracked separately by license type or commingled;
• Whether existing management agreements, intercompany allocations, or shared-service arrangements satisfy the “genuine separation” standard applied by the IRS and U.S. Tax Court;
• Whether entity structures put in place under prior 280E-minimization strategies remain optimal in a bifurcated Schedule III/Schedule I world;
• What additional documentation and accounting controls should be implemented now, before Treasury guidance issues, to ensure maximum defensibility.

Many California MSO structures were specifically architected to reduce 280E exposure through entity separation. Some of those structures may be redundant for the medical side of the business, or could inadvertently complicate expense allocation for the adult-use side. A comprehensive structural review — the kind of analysis that lives at the intersection of corporate law and regulatory compliance counsel — is not optional for California dual operators. It is urgent.

Capital Markets and Investment: What Investors Need to Know

The order has immediate implications for investors in California medical cannabis operations — both in ongoing cannabis M&A transactions and for those evaluating new positions.

Valuation and Cash Flow

The elimination of 280E for medical operators is the most direct valuation lever. For any California operator with meaningful M-license revenue, 280E removal translates directly to improved cash flow, stronger EBITDA, and lower effective tax rates. Verano Holdings, a major MSO, estimated that rescheduling would save it approximately $80 million annually in 280E expenses. California-specific operators and single-state businesses operate at different scale, but the directional impact is consistent: M-designated revenue streams are materially more valuable post-order than they were on April 21, 2026.

M&A Due Diligence Has Changed

The order “draws a line through the middle of the industry.” For California buyers and sellers in ongoing M&A processes, the regulatory compliance picture is fundamentally different for M-license positions than for A-license positions. Diligence on a California target that holds both designation types now requires separate analysis of each license category. As reflected in our Cannabis M&A Transactions practice, deals must now account for:

• The adequacy of the target’s M-license compliance infrastructure, since that license is now the gateway to DEA registration and 280E relief;
• Whether the target’s DCC license history is clean enough to support federal registration under the § 823 public-interest factors — a clean enforcement record is now a material deal term, not just a background diligence item;
• The DEA registration gap in change-of-control transactions. When a California cannabis business changes ownership, the DCC requires the new owner to submit all information under 4 CCR § 15003, including a background check, and the business may continue operating during the approval process. However, a change of ownership may affect the underlying state license status in ways that trigger the automatic DEA registration suspension provision — particularly if there is any period during which the DCC treats the existing license as having undergone a material change. Buyers and sellers must structure change-of-control provisions to address this risk, including whether responsibility for maintaining uninterrupted DEA registration vests with the seller, buyer, or is addressed through escrow or closing condition mechanics;
• Indemnification structures that explicitly address which party bears the risk if retroactive § 280E relief is or is not granted, and for which license categories.

Representations and warranties in cannabis M&A agreements must now be license-type-specific. A blanket representation that the company is in “regulatory compliance” is insufficient — it must distinguish M-license and A-license compliance postures, address DEA registration status, and account for the automatic suspension risk going forward.

Diligence Matrix for California Cannabis M&A Post-April 22

Banking: Improvement at the Margins

The cannabis banking problem has not been solved by rescheduling. Financial institutions remain subject to the Bank Secrecy Act and the 2014 FinCEN guidance, neither of which is eliminated by Schedule III status. Major banks are unlikely to fundamentally change their posture until the SAFER Banking Act passes or explicit federal safe harbors are legislated. For California cannabis investors and venture capital advisors evaluating debt-financed transactions, the practical takeaway is improved debt service capacity for medical operators and a somewhat more favorable lending environment at cannabis-specialist lenders — but not a transformed one.

Legal Risks: What Could Unwind This

The April 22 order is consequential, but not legally bulletproof. California operators and counsel should understand the primary vulnerabilities.

The Treaty Authority Question

The DOJ bypassed ordinary notice-and-comment rulemaking by invoking 21 U.S.C. § 811(d)(1). Legal commentators have noted that the order relies heavily on a 2024 Office of Legal Counsel opinion regarding treaty compliance — an interpretation not beyond challenge, particularly under the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright framework, which has increased judicial scrutiny of agency statutory interpretations. Whether the treaty-implementation authority extends to the full range of regulatory amendments accompanying the order — including new DEA registration requirements under 21 C.F.R. § 1301.13(k) — is a narrower but potentially significant legal question.

The order includes an express severability clause, acknowledging that individual provisions might be struck down without invalidating the whole. A registered operator who has affirmatively integrated into the federal framework is better positioned to argue for preservation of their status under a severability analysis than an operator who has not yet filed — another reason to act within the 60-day window.

The Ongoing Administrative Hearing

The expedited DEA hearing beginning June 29, 2026 will consider broader rescheduling of all marijuana. If that process results in comprehensive rescheduling, the adult-use gap closes and the current bifurcated structure becomes transitional. If the hearing produces delays — as the prior Biden-era process did — the two-tier system could persist for years, embedding competitive asymmetry between medical and adult-use operators. As analyzed in A Spring 2026 Field Report for California Cannabis Operators and Investors, the legal and market landscape is in genuine flux, and strategic decisions should be made with that uncertainty priced in.

Competitive Dynamics and the Illicit Market

One under-discussed consequence of partial rescheduling is its effect on California’s persistent illicit market problem. Licensed cultivators in California produced approximately 1.4 million pounds in 2024, while unlicensed operations produced an estimated 11.4 million pounds — a ratio that reflects the illicit market’s continued dominance, according to the DCC-commissioned ERA Economics report. The DCC’s head of enforcement has acknowledged the black market remains “very pervasive, and definitely larger than the legal market.”

By eliminating the 280E burden from licensed medical operators, rescheduling directly reduces one of the largest structural cost disadvantages that licensed operators face relative to the illicit market. The limitation, however, is that adult-use operators serve the far larger share of California’s consumer market and remain subject to 280E, limiting the aggregate competitive effect until broader rescheduling follows.

What California M-License Operators Must Do Now

This section is directed at California operators who hold active M-license designations — either as pure medical operators or as part of a dual M/A-license structure.

Immediate Actions (Next 60 Days):

1. File your DEA registration application — by approximately June 22, 2026. This is the most time-sensitive action item. The 60-day window is the critical window for securing interim operating authority and a committed six-month DEA processing timeline. File a separate application for each licensed premises. Work with regulatory compliance counsel to assemble your DCC license documentation, confirm your license is current and in good standing, and assess your § 823 public-interest factor exposure before filing.
2. Engage your tax counsel on 280E planning now. The effective date is January 1, 2026. Your accountant and tax attorney should immediately assess whether your entity structure, cost accounting systems, and expense tracking are positioned to capture the full benefit of post-280E deductibility. If you are a dual operator, this analysis must address expense apportionment between your medical and adult-use activities before Treasury guidance issues.
3. Audit your DCC license compliance status. Federal registration automatically suspends if your California DCC license is suspended, revoked, or expires. Ensure all renewal filings, bond requirements, local permit renewals, and DCC compliance obligations are current. This is now a federal issue.

Near-Term Strategic Actions (Next 90–180 Days):

1. Review your corporate structure. Many California operators built multi-entity structures specifically to mitigate 280E exposure — separating plant-touching and non-plant-touching entities, establishing management companies, and structuring brand licensing arrangements to shift deductible expenses upstream. Some of those structures may be redundant for the medical side of the business and may create unnecessary complexity in the new environment. A corporate restructuring review with both corporate counsel and regulatory compliance counsel is warranted.
2. Revisit existing transaction documents. If you are party to a pending acquisition, earn-out, management agreement, or lease that was negotiated under the prior 280E economics, review it for provisions that need updating. Allocation of retroactive § 280E relief, representations about regulatory compliance, change-of-control triggers affecting DEA registration, and indemnification carve-outs are live issues in every California cannabis M&A transaction being negotiated today.
3. Monitor the June 29 hearing. The outcome of the expedited DEA administrative hearing on broader rescheduling has direct implications for your competitive position, corporate structure, and transaction strategy. If adult-use cannabis moves to Schedule III through the hearing process, the calculus for restructuring and deal-making changes substantially.

The Bigger Picture for California

California was the first state to legalize medical cannabis in 1996 under the Compassionate Use Act, and it has operated the world’s largest legal cannabis market for nearly a decade. The state’s MAUCRSA framework, which created parallel M and A designation categories, inadvertently positioned California’s medical-designated operators as the first beneficiaries of federal rescheduling — provided they hold M-licenses and take the compliance steps required by the April 22 order.

The irony is not lost that adult-use operators — who serve by far the larger consumer segment in California — are excluded from the immediate order and continue under the crushing weight of Schedule I federal treatment. This creates a bifurcated competitive environment within the California market itself, with medical operators potentially achieving sustainable economics while adult-use operators continue under structurally punitive tax treatment. As anticipated in Marijuana Rescheduling, If It Happens, Will Be Incremental Progress — Still Not the Answer, rescheduling was never going to resolve every structural problem the California cannabis industry faces. But for California M-license operators who act quickly and competently, it is the most significant shift in federal cannabis law in a generation — and the compliance window is narrow.

This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. If you hold a California cannabis license and have questions about how the DOJ’s rescheduling order affects your regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structure, or any pending transaction, contact the Law Office of Shay Aaron Gilmore for a consultation.

Shay Aaron Gilmore is a member of California NORML’s Board and Legal Committee. See his Cannabis Marketplace listing for more information 

Cal NORML Voter Guide to Cannabis Candidates

May/June 2026 Primary Election

Got input on candidates or races? Write here.

Artwork: Ruth Anne

Quick Links: EXECUTIVE / CONGRESS / STATE SENATE / STATE ASSEMBLY / LOCAL

Governor

The only terrible candidate on cannabis among the frontrunners in the nonpartisan primary for California’s governor is Chad Bianco. Xavier Becerra and Katie Porter have expressed support for cannabis reform and their actions have been good, as have those of Antonio Villaraigosa and Tony Thurmond. Not much is known about the views of Steve Hilton, Tom Steyer, or Matt Mahan, but we are continuing to reach out to key campaigns.

Xavier Becerra – In 2016, as California’s Attorney General, Becerra told Politico he would be defending California’s new law legalizing marijuana against possible federal interference, and admitted he tried weed “at a younger time.” Asked if it was illegal then, he compared it to driving over the speed limit. “Cannabis is last century’s argument. We’re beyond that,” he said. He continued the CAMP (Campaign Against Marijuana Planting) program (as have all AGs) and in 2020, he joined 34 other AGs to urge Congress to provide banking services for licensed cannabis businesses. In 2013, as US Secretary of Health and Human Services, oversaw the agency’s recommendation that cannabis should be reclassified as a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act, something that’s back in the news. Becerra has a longer record of public service in both state and federal government than all the other candidates. He compiled a consistently good voting record over 24 years as a Congressman from L.A.

Chad Bianco – Riverside sheriff Bianco is a crusty, old-style, right-wing Republican who takes a tough line on drug issues.  A former narcotics officer, he is the only candidate on record as opposing legal marijuana, and he thinks legalization has exacerbated the problem of illegal grows. (Cannabis growers can’t be licensed in most of his district; a horrible homicide in Riverside left seven dead at an illicit farm in 2020.) Last year, commenting on news that that California’s Department of Cannabis Control lost a lawsuit alleging they failed to stop illegal operations, Bianco commented, “Another failed agency from a failed State agenda….Legal marijuana was doomed from the start. It was a scam to begin with but once passed it was going to actually take work to make it successful.” Reportedly Bianco said that all marijuana is laced with fentanyl at a campaign event. He seized voting records in Riverside in a MAGA-inspired goose-chase for voter fraud, before the courts stopped him.

Steve Hilton – Former Fox News host Hilton is the other Republican front-runner in the race and the one that Trump endorsed. Like Bianco, he is critical of California’s Democratic supermajority. Unlike Bianco, his views on cannabis legalization are unknown. Given the Trump administration’s bold rescheduling order, timed just before the midterms, it’s not impossible that they are favorable. One of his CalDOGE investigations concluded the $370 million in cannabis taxes earmarked yearly for youth drug prevention is largely misspent, including funding Democratic-leaning organizations. (The same organizations lobbied forcefully to raise the cannabis excise tax last year in order to keep their funding.)

Matt Mahan – The moderate Democrat in the race, Mahan is the popular mayor of San Jose who has made strides against homelessness in the city. He was typically supportive of local dispensaries, except for one zoning vote. Mahan styles himself as a social liberal, but is mostly interested in economic issues. Local activists give him a thumbs up.

Katie Porter – Porter takes pride in being the only candidate who never accepts corporate donations. She is particularly interested in economic issues, but has consistently voted well on marijuana bills. She has co-sponsored the SAFE Banking Act and the MORE Act to legalize at the federal level, with equity and human rights components. She voted well on other bills, and declared support for legal marijuana in response to a questionnaire from Cal NORML in a past race.

Tom Steyer – A self-styled progressive, hedge fund billionaire Steyer has bombarded the air with over $100 million in commercials, spending multiple times more on his campaign than all other candidates combined. Steyer is an outspoken champion of environment and climate legislation, but has made no campaign pronouncements on cannabis (but now that rescheduling has happened perhaps a reporter will actually ask candidates about it).  In 2020, while running for President, Steyer was overheard supporting legalization, saying “I’m from California, are you kidding me?”  He also vocally advocates “restorative justice.”  At a debate on KRON TV in which Bianco and Hilton blamed homeless on drug addiction, Steyer advanced his plan to provide emergency shelter without requiring residents be “clean” (from drugs). Like all candidates, however, he endorses mandatory treatment for delinquent addicts.

Tony Thurmond – State Education Superintendent and solid progressive, Thurmond posted a good voting record in the Assembly, where as chair of the Labor Committee he supported a Cal NORML-sponsored bill for employees’ right to use marijuana off the job.

Antonio Villaraigosa – Former LA Mayor and Assemblyman, labor leader and ACLU president who styles himself as a problem solver and has admitted to using marijuana. As mayor, Villaraigosa presided silently over the introduction of medical marijuana clubs into the city (no one had dared open one during the administration of his Republican predecessor).

Also running:  The ballot is cluttered with another 53(!) candidates for governor.

Lieutenant Governor – ENDORSE FIONA MA

As state treasurer, Ma has been a longtime supporter of cannabis and of lowering taxes on cannabis. She responded to Cal NORML/CCIA’s 2026 Candidate Survey, saying she would support addressing “cannabis deserts” with no licensed businesses, streamlining state/local permitting and regulations, and encouraging cannabis tourism in our state. She also supports intensifying enforcement against the illicit market, and measuring enforcement effectiveness in terms of market growth/stability/outcomes. And she’s for providing MediCal and worker’s comp coverage for medicinal cannabis, and funding state-sponsored research into the safety and efficacy of cannabis products.

Ma wrote, “We need to overturn Prop 64. It’s a complete failure,” something she was interviewed about in High Times. She testified before Congress in favor of banking for cannabis businesses. She also offered a response to rescheduling, saying, “I welcome the long-overdue decision to reclassify cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III, a step that will provide meaningful relief by ending the unjust application of IRS Code Section 280E and beginning to dismantle barriers that have shut legitimate businesses out of the financial system. But let us be clear: reclassification alone is not enough.”

Attorney General – ENDORSE ROB BONTA

Bonta sponsored bills to regulate medical cannabis, lower taxes on cannabis, and protect employment rights of cannabis users while in the Legislature. As AG he helped expedite the clearing of criminal records for past cannabis offenses.

CONGRESS

Here are some of the frontrunners in key new Congressional districts (all are up for election). Many are in crowded fields in these top-two primaries.

Don’t know your district? Look it up.

Find office holders’ NORML ratings.

Got input on candidates or races? Write here.

CD1

Mike McGuire (A rating at NORML) has a strong voting record and authored one of the three bills that regulated medical marijuana in California in 2015. He favors adult-use legalization, but opposed Prop. 64 until such time as regulation of medical cannabis could be solidified. He strongly supports local regulation and was a key opponent of outlawing local delivery bans.
James Gallagher (D- rating) has a bad voting record in the state legislature, slightly improved in 2024 with yes votes on ending double cannabis taxation at local level, and allowing small farmers to sell directly to consumers.

CD6

Martha Guerrero – West Sacramento Mayor has local activist support; she voted in favor of cannabis licensing
Thien Ho – Sacramento’s district attorney
Lauren Babb Tomlinson – Planned Parenthood executive 
Dr. Richard Pan – Along with other Democrats, Sen. Pan voted against a 2012 bill to reduce charges in marijuana cultivation cases, after strong police opposition. As chair of the Senate Health committee in 2018, he voted for a bill to redirect cannabis tax funds for youth programs despite the Dept. of Health Care Services writing an opposition letter saying it would require them to exercise preferential treatment. In 2022, he authored a bill to require costly, badly designed new label warnings on all cannabis products.
Kevin Kiley (D+ NORML rating) voted wrong on nearly every key vote in the Assembly, although he did vote for cannabis compassion programs, automatic resentencing, and a resolution to ask the DOJ to allow cannabis businesses.

CD11

Sen. Scott Wiener (A+ NORML rating) has been a champion for cannabis in the state legislature, sponsoring SB 34 to allow for tax-free compassion programs for patients, and SB 1186, requiring local governments to permit medical cannabis sales or delivery.

CD14

Victor Aguilar, Jr. is a Brownie Mary Club Member and San Leandro councilmember
Sen. Aisha Wahab (C NORML rating) – Rather weak voting record for a Democrat. Voted against cannabis cafes and farmers markets, but also against restrictive labeling for cannabis products in 2024.
This is one of many crowded fields.

CD20

Vince Fong (D- NORML rating) posted a terrible voting record on marijuana & drug issues in the CA Assembly, just like his former boss, Kevin McCarthy.

CD22

Asm. Jasmeet Bains (B- NORML Rating) – Dr. Bains is the medical director of a network of Bakersfield addiction treatment centers. Has voted well, except on cannabis cafe bills, from which she has abstained. Shut down any discussion of relative harms of cannabis and tobacco smoke in committee, scolding us by saying, “Smoking is bad, people” and leaving in a huff.
Randy Villegas – A progressive who’s said to have a fundraising lead. Endorsed by Bernie Sanders, Dolores Huerta, Ro Khanna, Lateefah Simon, others.
David G. Valadao (D+ NORML Rating) – As an Assemblymember, Valadao voted against every marijuana reform measure and opposed recreational legalization, but co-sponsored an industrial hemp bill. In Congress, he supported the SAFE banking act and medical marijuana research, but joined other Republicans in opposing the Democrats’ MORE legalization bill. One of just two Republican House members running for re-election who voted to impeach Donald Trump.

CD23

Jay Obernolte (D+) has had a poor voting record in the legislature and Congress. He did vote yes on a state bill (AB2020) to expand places where cannabis events can be held, and was absent for a vote on a resolution to the federal government to allow state-legal cannabis programs (AJR 27). Twice he voted against cannabis compassion programs for needy patients (SB 34).

CD26

Asm. Jacqui Irwin (C-) Mixed voting record. Sponsored failed bills to ban cannabis billboards and impose restrictive labeling requirements on cannabis products; voted against cannabis cafes; skipped votes on employment rights, medical access. To her credit, she did move AB 2555, a bill to extend cannabis compassion programs, through a key committee she chaired in 2024.
Fellow Democrat Chris Espinosa is challenging her.

CD38

Hilda Solis, a former Congresswoman, championed cannabis business licensing “that is rooted in equitable access, strong and effective enforcement, and community awareness and education” as an LA County Supervisor. She has also championed Prop. 47’s implemetation, saying she is is “deeply concerned about rising deaths within our correctional health system, driven in large part by overdoses….Every person in custody deserves timely, adequate, and humane health care, and we must continue working to achieve this goal.”
Monica Sánchez has the endorsement of Linda Sánchez, who is vacating the seat to run in the 41st. She’s either (or both?) Pico Rivera Councilmember / Montebello Mayor Pro Tem.

CD40 

Ken Calvert (F NORML Rating) has voted badly on every cannabis bill in Congress.
Young Kim (D+ NORML Rating) had a poor voting record in the state legislature except on more recent regulatory bills, and she opposed Prop. 64. In Congress, she voted against the MORE Act but supported the SAFE Banking Act.

CD41

Linda Sánchez (B+ NORML Rating) Co-sponsored the SAFE Banking Act of 2021, voted well on other bills.

CD48

Daryl Issa’s district. 

Jim Desmond (R) San Diego County Supervisor
Marni von Wilpert (D) – San Diego Councilmember
Ammar Campa-Najjar (D)  – former Obama official

STATE LEGISLATURE

Find your districts.

Find office holders’ NORML ratings.

Got input on candidates or races? Write here.

Senate

State Senate District 4 – Counties of Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Inyo, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne
Marie Alvarado-Gil (R) (B-) Mixed voting record in CA Legislature. Voted for cannabis cafes and against restrictive labeling on cannabis products. Was absent for employment rights vote and voted against farmer’s market bill. Sponsored a bill to forfeit property from illicit cannabis growers; took amends from Cal NORML to target grows of 1,000 plants or more. Switched from a Democrat to a Republican in mid-2024.
Also in the race: County Supervisor Jaron Brandon (D) and Alexandra Duarte (R) mother/farmer

State Senate District 10 – South Bay Area, from Hayward down to Santa Clara north of San Jose.
Aisha Wahab’s district. No Democratic party endorsement in the race. 
Scott Sakakihara – Union City councilmember/Navy officer; served in Obama White House. Endorsed by State Senator Jesse Arreguín, Assemblymember Bill Quirk (Ret.), East Bay Young Democrats, unions. Just voted against raising cannabis tax in Union City.
David Cohen is a member of the San Jose City Council
Anne Kepner is a member of the West Valley-Mission Community College District Board of Trustees; has support of SEIU, Ca Teachers Assn., Cal Labor Federation.
Raymond Liu is a member of the Fremont City Council

State Senate District 12 – Fresno, Clovis, Tulare, parts of Bakersfield
Shannon Grove’s district.
Nathan Magsig (R) is a member of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors
Louis Miramontes (R)
William Brown Jr. (L)

State Senate District 14 – Central Valley south of Highway 99. Includes Merced, Madera, Chowchilla, Fresno and Mendota.
Esmeralda Soria (A NORML Rating) – Democratic Assemblymember and clear frontrunner
Esmeralda Hurtado – Sanger City Councilmember and sister of poorly voting Sen. Melissa Hurtado, who is running in SD-16
Darin DuPont – Merced city councilmember

State Senate District 16 – Central Valley district that includes portions of Fresno, Kings, Tulare and Kern counties and much of Bakersfield’s east side
Melissa Hurtado (D NORML Rating) – Worst voting record of any Democrat in State Senate 2021-2, and just as bad in 2023-4. Did vote in favor of parental rights. Guillermo Gonzalez – a field representative for the cannabis unfriendly Rep. David Valadao
Manpreet Kaura – Bakersfield Vice Mayor

State Senate District 24 – Coastal Los Angeles County; Malibu, Santa Monica and Torrance
Ben Allen’s district (running for Insurance commissioner)
Dr. Sion Roy is a physician, professor, and education advocate who is Vice Chair of the Santa Monica College Board. Endorsed by Democratic party.
Brian Goldsmith – Democratic media consultant, has a roster of prominent names behind him and has out fundraised the others
John Erickson – West Hollywood City Councilmember
Eric Alegria is a member of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District school board
Zennon Ulyate-Crow was shot in the face with a rubber bullet while peacefully protesting ICE. Gen Z.

State Senate District 26 – Downtown Los Angeles
Maria Elena Durazo’s District (running for LA County supervisor). No Democratic Party endorsement in the race. 
Wendy Carrillo was a communications manager for SEIU ULTCW (United Long Term Care Workers) and a communications and social media deputy for the City of Los Angeles
Sara Hernandez is a member of the Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees
others…

State Senate District 38 – Coastal north of San Diego, including Mission Viejos, Carlsbad, Encinitas and La Jolla
Catherine Blakespear (A NORML Rating) – Democratic State Senator who flipped the district and faces her first re-election
Laura Bassett (R) – a small businesswoman.

State Senate District 40 – Inland San Diego County, north and east of city of San Diego (includes Escondido)
Brian Jones’s district
Mara Elliott (D) was the San Diego City Attorney
Kristie Bruce-Lane (R) – twice unsuccessful Assembly candidate endorsed by cannabis-unfriendly Asm. Carl DeMaio
Ed Musgrove (R) – San Marcos city councilmember

Assembly

State Assembly Member District 3
Gallagher’s district
3 Republicans running

State Assembly Member District 12 (Petaluma)
Damon Connolly’s district
Jackie Elward is a labor organizer and the first Black woman elected to the Rohnert Park City Council. Born in the Congo.
Endorsed by: Congressmember Mike Thompson, Former Congressmember Lynn Woolsey, State Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, Former State Senator Steven Bradford, State Treasurer Fiona Ma

State Assembly Member District 27 (Fresno)
Esmeralda Soria’s district
Brian Pacheco (D) – Fresno city councilmember
Japjeet Singh Uppal (D)
Mike Murphy (R)

State Assembly Member District 34 (Barstow)
Lackey’s district
Randall Putz (D) – Former school board member, city councilmember, and three-time Mayor of Big Bear Lake. Endorsed by California Democratic Party, California Teachers Association, California Young Democrats, Communication Workers of America, and San Bernardino County Professional Firefighters Local 935, State Treasurer Fiona Ma, Superintendent Tony Thurmond, Senator Tom Umberg, Assemblymembers Josh Lowenthal, Juan Carrillo, John Harabedian, Nick Schultz, James Ramos, Robert Garcia, Corey Jackson, and Congresswoman Norma Torres.
3 Republicans

State Assembly Member District 35 (Bakersfield)
Jasmeet Bains’s district
Andrae Gonzales (D)
Ana Palacio (D)
Saul Ayon (R)

State Assembly Member District 42 (Thousand Oaks)
Jacqui Irwin’s district
Deborah Klein Lopez (D)
Ted Nordblum (R)
Rocky Rhodes (R)

State Assembly Member District 65 (Compton)
Gipson’s district
open field

State Assembly Member District 66 (Torrance)
Muratsuchi’s district
open field

State Assembly Member District 67 (Fullerton)
Quirk-Silva’s district
open field

State Assembly Member District 68
Avelino Valencia’s district
Jessie Lopez (D)
David Penaloza (D)
Shannon Wingfield (D)
Mayra Ruiz (R)

State Assembly Member District 72 (Huntington Beach)
Diane Dixon seat
Chris Kluwe (D)  An ex-NFL football player for the Minnesota Vikings, Kluwe is a strong believer in medical cannabis.
Matthew Harper (R)
Gracey Van Der Mark (R)
Frank Wagoner (No party preference)

Local Measures

City of Los Angeles – Measure CB, Apply Marijuana Tax to Unlicensed Marijuana Businesses Measure
A “yes” vote supports applying the city’s tax on cannabis businesses to unlicensed cannabis businesses, amounting to:
10% on cannabis sales; 5% on medical cannabis sales; 2% on manufacturing, cultivation, or other commercialization; and 1% on testing, research, or transportation.
A “no” vote opposes applying the city’s tax on cannabis businesses to unlicensed cannabis businesses.

San Benito County (Unincorporated Area) – Measure D, Marijuana Business Tax Increase Measure
A “yes” vote supports changing the county’s cannabis cultivation tax in unincorporated areas from a per-square-foot rate to a per-acre rate, with the cultivation tax set within a range of $1,000 to $10,000 per acre.
A “no” vote opposes changing the county’s cannabis cultivation tax in unincorporated areas from a per-square-foot rate to a per-acre rate.

The order states:

“State medical marijuana regulatory systems have matured significantly since California first authorized medical use in 1996, and today the vast majority of States maintain comprehensive licensing frameworks governing cultivation, processing, distribution, and dispensing of marijuana for medical purposes. These state regimes have developed robust infrastructure for preventing diversion, ensuring product safety, maintaining records, and conducting facility inspections—functions that fulfill the objectives of federal registration and recordkeeping requirements. The Attorney General has reviewed the operation of these state systems and finds that, taken as a whole, they demonstrate a sustained capacity to achieve the public-interest objectives that underlie the CSA’s registration framework, including protecting public health and safety and preventing the diversion of controlled substances into illicit channels.”

“The Acting Attorney General further notes that, as a consequence of this rule, state licensees will no longer be subject to the deduction disallowance imposed by Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which applies only to businesses engaged in trafficking in controlled substances… in a schedule I or II…qualifying state licensees should consult with tax counsel regarding the applicability of Section 280E to their specific circumstances.”

Hearings Set for Broader Rescheduling

In addition, DOJ announced “procedural updates to expedite the ongoing rulemaking process required to fully remove marijuana from Schedule I and place it into Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act.”

According to Marijuana Moment, DOJ is moving to end a prior administrative hearing process on the rescheduling proposal that stalled near the end of the Biden administration amid litigation from pro-reform parties that alleged improper agency communications and witness selection decisions. The DOJ release states that DEA is “terminating those proceedings in order to move more efficiently toward the completion of marijuana’s complete redesignation.”

Beginning on June 29, there will be a new expedited administrative hearing process to consider the broader rescheduling of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. Terry Cole, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), said that the agency is “expeditiously moving forward with the administrative hearing process—bringing consistency and oversight to an area that has lacked both.” The hearing process will conclude no later than July 15, 2026, according to the notice that Blanche signed. It would then have to be published in the Federal Register for 30-90 days before it could take effect.

DEA Involvement to Satisfy Treaty Obligations?

The proposed amendments establish “a new registration pathway for state-licensed medical marijuana entities seeking federal DEA registration as manufacturers, distributors, and/or dispensers.” The regulation creates an expedited review process under which the Administrator must take action in 60 days.

The order states, “Pursuant to a 2018 OLC opinion, DEA must buy marijuana crops from registered manufacturers, be the seller of that marijuana to any eligible registered purchaser, and establish prices for such purchase and sale. Marijuana growers must pay DEA an administrative fee for such transactions. These actions are necessary for the United States to meet its obligations under articles 23 and 28 of the Single Convention.”

Looking Forward

Rescheduling from Schedule I (“no accepted medical use”) to Schedule III won’t federally legalize cannabis, but it could remove barriers to research as well as offer tax benefits to cannabis businesses. And it could have other benefits for patients in the areas housing, employment, and medical care, where discrimination against medical cannabis users continues.

Cal NORML will be closely monitoring the effect of this announcement and subsequent actions on state laws and regulations, and exploring possible future legislation and regulation to advance cannabis consumers’ rights. Join us at the Cannabis Unity Coalition Lobby Week May 12 – 14 in DC to meet with Congressmembers and their staffs on reforms at the national level, including pending bills to allow VA doctors to recommend cannabis, and more.

NORML first sued the DEA to reschedule marijuana in 1972. Read National NORML’s release: Justice Department Moves to Federally Reschedule State-Approved Medical Cannabis Products.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates. 

Also see:

VIDEO: Cannabis Rescheduling Update 2026: Schedule III Medical Marijuana, June 29 Hearing & Litigation
With NORML, MPP, and attorneys from Vicente LLP

California M-License Operators in a Bifurcated Federal World: A Legal Deep Dive on DOJ’s April 2026 Rescheduling Order
From Cal NORML board member and attorney Shay Gilmore

DEA Medical Marijuana Dispensary Portal Opening April 29, Annual Application Fee Set at $794
The DEA registration created by the order covers M-license activity only. Nothing in the order requires exclusive M-only operations, and nothing in it prohibits the same entity from simultaneously holding an A-license for adult-use activity at the same premises.

DEA Schedule III Registration Asks Cannabis Businesses to Admit to Drug Trafficking
Attorneys on Cal NORML Legal Committee will be weighing in on this

California Cannabis Regulators Streamline Medical License Designation Process Following Federal Rescheduling
The DCC said it has requested a meeting with the DEA team handling the federal implementation plan. However, according to the department, the DEA has indicated that it will release information publicly and all at once, rather than through state-specific briefings.

CANNRA Issues Overview of DOJ Order on Marijuana Rescheduling
CANNRA’s analysis states explicitly that the 280E tax burden is removed for state medical marijuana licensed businesses regardless of whether they pursue a DEA license. Also, that state authorized medical marijuana certifications or similar documents will be sufficient to permit dispensing of medical marijuana to users, provided they have the user’s name and address, are dated and signed, and include the name of the issuing practitioner and their address and state license number.

Treasury Department Says Tax Guidance Is Forthcoming for State-Licensed Medical Cannabis Businesses

BTA Cannabis CPA Tax – Position Statement on Cannabis Rescheduling and 280E Tax Relief

Federal Marijuana Rescheduling Will End Discrimination In Housing, Healthcare And Employment For Medical Cannabis Patients (Op-Ed)

Join Cal NORML through 4/30 with a discounted $42 Gold Membership and get a free thank-you gift: Our popular gold lapel pin in the shape of a pot leaf. It’s a great way to represent your support for Cal NORML and cannabis!

As another special offer, Cal NORML Business or Legal Committee Memberships, usually $500/year, are discounted to $420 through the end of the month.  Get your discounted membership today!

Introduction: Returning To India With Purpose

 When I first visited India in 1981, cannabis cultivation was still legal in certain regions. During that trip, I photographed a large, government-regulated ganja farm—an experience that left a lasting impression. The plants were grown openly, harvested responsibly, and taxed by the state.

Today, cultivation is no longer legal anywhere in India. Yet cannabis remains widely available throughout the country—typically of poor quality, harvested prematurely before flowering, and sold through unregulated channels. Prohibition has not eliminated cannabis use; it has simply ensured inferior products while generating no public benefit.

On earlier trips, I came to India as a tourist. This time, I returned with a purpose: to support the growing re-legalization movement and to help spark what civil rights leader John Lewis once called “good trouble.” At a recent meeting with activists, I was asked to outline clear reasons why India should re-legalize ganja. That outline is now circulating throughout the country.

What follows is a practical, historically grounded case for reform.

Cannabis And India — A Deep Historical Relationship

Cannabis is not foreign to India. The plant originated in Central and South Asia and has grown naturally in the Himalayan foothills for millions of years. Humans have used cannabis on the subcontinent for at least 10,000 years—for food, fiber, medicine, ritual, and pleasure.

For centuries, ganja and charas were cultivated, traded, regulated, and taxed. Cannabis use was woven into daily life, Ayurvedic medicine, and religious practice long before modern drug laws existed.

Why India’s Cannabis Laws Are Ineffective

Cannabis Is Widely Available Despite Prohibition

After nearly four decades of prohibition, ganja and charas remain easy to obtain across India. Criminalization has failed to reduce demand or supply. Instead, it has pushed cannabis into an unregulated underground market.

Poor Quality And Premature Harvesting

Because cultivation is illegal, growers often harvest plants early to reduce risk. The result is cannabis of poor quality, low potency, and inconsistent effects. Prohibition has degraded the plant itself.

Enforcement Encourages Corruption

When a widely used plant is illegal, enforcement becomes selective. This fosters bribery and corruption while diverting law enforcement resources away from serious crimes. Over time, the law loses credibility.

Public Health And Safety Considerations

In legal cannabis markets, products are tested for pesticides, heavy metals, and microbial contamination. In India’s unregulated market, consumers have no such protections.

Prohibition also produces unintended consequences. When cannabis becomes scarce due to enforcement actions, some users turn to alcohol—an intoxicant associated with greater social and health harms.

Regulation allows risk to be managed responsibly.

Economic And Scientific Opportunities

Lost Tax Revenue And Rural Opportunity

India forfeits significant revenue by keeping cannabis illegal. A regulated market could generate tax income, create agricultural jobs, and support rural economies—especially in regions where cannabis grows naturally.

Protecting India’s Landrace Cannabis Genetics

India is home to unique landrace cannabis varieties—genetically distinct plants shaped by geography, climate, and centuries of open pollination. These landraces contain rare cannabinoid and terpene profiles with potential medical and scientific value.

Under prohibition, these genetics are neither studied nor protected—and are often exported illegally with no benefit to India.

Barriers To Medical Research

Indian pharmaceutical companies are currently restricted to immature cannabis plants with low cannabinoid content. Legal access to mature flowers would enable meaningful research and allow India to compete globally in cannabis-based medicine.

Cultural And Religious Significance

Cannabis has long played a role in Indian religious traditions, particularly in connection with Shiva and festivals such as Holi and Shivaratri. While bhang remains legal, the continued prohibition of ganja forces traditional users into unsafe, unregulated markets.

Re-legalization would acknowledge cultural reality rather than deny it.

What Sensible Cannabis Regulation Could Look Like

A practical regulatory framework could include:

• Licensed cultivation and distribution
• Mandatory testing and labeling
• Age-restricted sales
• Taxation to support public health and education
• Protection for traditional and religious use
• Inclusion of small farmers and cooperatives

This is not radical policy—it is responsible governance.

Ganja In India — A Historical Record

Ganja in India is a photographic and historical record of a legal cannabis farm during my 1981 visit. At that time, ganja was cultivated openly, regulated by the government, and taxed.

The book documents a moment in Indian history that is now largely forgotten—a reminder that legalization is not a new idea, but a return to a system that once worked.

Conclusion — A Return To Reason

India’s cannabis prohibition has failed to eliminate use, protect public health, or reduce harm. Instead, it has produced inferior products, empowered illegal markets, and erased economic opportunity.

Re-legalizing ganja would not be a leap into the unknown. It would be a return to regulation, tradition, and common sense—guided by history, science, and lived experience.

FAQ — Cannabis Legalization In India

Is Cannabis Completely Illegal In India?

Cannabis flowers and resin are illegal under the NDPS Act, but bhang made from leaves remains legal in many states.

Why Was Ganja Banned In India?

India criminalized ganja primarily due to international pressure following the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

What Are Landrace Cannabis Varieties?

Landraces are genetically distinct cannabis plants that evolved naturally in specific regions over centuries. India’s Himalayan landraces are among the most unique in the world.

Could Legalization Benefit India’s Economy?

Yes. Regulation could generate tax revenue, support rural agriculture, reduce enforcement costs, and enable scientific research.

Did India Ever Regulate Cannabis Legally?

Yes. Cannabis cultivation was legal and taxed in parts of India until the mid-1980s, including during Ed Rosenthal’s 1981 visit.

Ed Rosenthal’s expert advice has advanced marijuana cultivation and know-how for decades, helping gardeners achieve his strategy of over-growing the government to propel marijuana normalization. At the same time, he was active in the legalization movement. Now he is interested in classic varieties, breeding strategies, and landrace research. His books have sold over 1 million copies, including his latest grow guide “Cannabis Grower’s Handbook.” Ed’s warning: “Marijuana may not be addictive, but growing it is.”

EdRosenthal.com is a proud member of California NORML. See their Cannabis Marketplace listing here. 

Join Cal NORML now through the end of April with a discounted $42 Gold Membership and get a free thank-you gift: Our popular gold lapel pin in the shape of a pot leaf (shown). It’s a great way to represent your support for Cal NORML and cannabis!

Join Cal NORML through 4/30 and we will send your gift to you by mail. Membership renewals qualify; email here if you are unsure of your membership status. Members receive our printed newsletter and discounts on events and items throughout the year.

As another special offer, Cal NORML Business or Legal Committee Memberships, usually $500/year, are discounted to $420 through the end of the month.  Get your discounted membership today!

Business memberships include a listing in our online cannabis marketplace and guest blog post on the high-authority CaNORML.org, plus other great promotional benefits and discounts. Contact kharla@canorml.org, 707-337-9747 for more info. Sign up by 4/30 for this $80 discount.

Cal NORML is completely funded by personal and business memberships and donations from within California. We are the only organization advocating for the rights of all cannabis consumers in our state.

Read more about Cal NORML and Our 50 Years of Progress.

LAST UPDATED 5/15/2026

Cal NORML is tracking the following and has reached out to the authors’ offices:

AB 1826 (Lackey) To improve due process around the recall, embargo, and destruction of cannabis products. Sponsored by CCIA. Passed Assembly Business & Professions,  Judiciary and Appropriations committees. Heading for vote in Assembly. Cal NORML has joined a sign-on letter in support of this bill.

AB 1965 (Sharp-Collins) Cannabis: testing: quality assurance. Passed unanimously in Com. on B. and P.  and Appropriations committees. Heading for vote on Assembly floor. Cal NORML has sent a letter in support of this bill.

AB-2249 (Irwin) Cannabis: labels, packaging and manufacturing. Passed Com. on B. and P. and Appropriations. Heading for vote on Assembly floor. The Dept. of Cannabis Control (DCC) estimates annual costs of approximately $3 million to $4 million from the Cannabis Control Fund, explaining the majority of costs are associated with implementing a pre-approval process for cannabis labels and the expansion of prohibited imagery in advertising and marketing. A smaller portion of estimated costs are attributable to expansions of prohibited packaging design content.

AB-2532 (Irwin) Cannabis: labels, packaging and manufacturing. Passed Com. on B. and P. and Appropriations. Heading to Assembly floor. A new amendment added on 5/7 says, “If the cannabis product is a cannabis beverage containing more than one serving, the bill would require a consumer to be offered, at the time of purchase and at no additional charge, a measuring instrument or measuring device that allows the consumer to measure a single serving for consumption.”
Cal NORML has taken a neutral position on this bill following the news that amendments have been worked out with the cannabis industry removing the 10 mg cap on beverages and requiring industry-wide precision dosing and product identification features on all multi-serving cannabis beverages, warning label standards, child-resistant container requirements, while prohibiting single-serve marketing and supporting a funded, statewide campaign on responsible, informed cannabis beverage consumption, potentially modeled on alcohol responsibility campaigns. We will be continuing to follow this bill as amendments are published. Thanks to all who have taken our Beverage Safety survey; you can continue to provide input there. 

AB 2250 (Aguiar-Curry) Modify AB 8 to exclude CBN from the definition of cannabis concentrate. Passed Asm. B. and P., REV. and TAX and Appropriations committees.

AB-2420 (Caloza) Cannabis: donations: seniors. Authorizes cannabis retailers to donate cannabis or cannabis products to persons 65 years of age and older. 14-APR-26 hearing in Asm. B & P cancelled at request of author.  

AB 2506 (Hart) Cannabis: tribal government licensure. Passed Com. on B. and P. and Appropriations. Heading to Assembly floor.

AB 2537 (Chen) Cannabis Enforcement Accountability and Public Health Prioritization Act of 2026. Passed Asm. Com. on B. and P. and Appropriations. Heading to Assembly floor.
Would “require the DCC to prioritize its enforcement of MAUCRSA in a manner consistent with a risk-based enforcement framework that focuses on material threats while applying less intensive and less punitive measures on minor technical or administrative violations by licensees.” Sponsored by CaCOA.

AB 2697 (Pellerin) Cannabis drive-throughs. Passed Asm. Com. on B. and P. and Appropriations. Will head to Assembly floor.
Would authorize a local jurisdiction to allow a licensed cannabis retailer to conduct sales or deliveries at a drive-through, pass-out window, or slide-out tray, if the sales and deliveries are made through a fixed-pane security window with a security drawer. 

AB 2667 (Hadwick) Vape products: household hazardous waste: advertising. Passed Asm. Committees on E.S and T.M., B. and B. and P. and Appropriations. Heading to Assembly floor.
Would allow authorize hazardous waste collection facilities to mechanically disassemble vape pens and devices, and prohibit nicotine or cannabis vapes using branding to appeal to minors, packaged to conceal the nature of their use, or including interactive videogame capabilities. Cal NORML has taken a “support if amended” position on this bill. 

AB 1884 (Hadwick/Sharp-Collins) Interscholastic athletics: drug testing: suspensions: nicotine use. Passed Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, & Tourism; hearing in Education committee cancelled at request of the author.
This bill has been amended to allow schools with drug testing programs to also test for nicotine, limit it to athletics, and require diversion instead of banning participation for a positive drug test. We will continue to watch.  

AB-2617 (Schiavo) NO LONGER A CANNABIS BILL. It’s now the Protecting Kids from Online Gambling Act.

AB-2246 (Wicks) NO LONGER A CANNABIS BILL. It’s now the Youth Social Media Protection Act: report.

Winning a cannabis license can feel like the hardest part: months (sometimes years) of applications, capital outlays, community positioning, and regulatory scrutiny distilled into a single approval. In limited-license states, that approval is scarce by design. It carries value the moment it’s issued.

But a license is not yet a business. It’s a permission slip with a timeline, and the next choice you make (build it out or sell it now) will largely determine whether you capture a quick premium or create a larger, more durable asset.

At Green Life Business Group®, Inc., we work with operators and investors nationwide who reach this fork in the road. The “right” answer isn’t universal, and it’s rarely ideological. It usually comes down to one decisive factor: capitalization, paired with a clear-eyed strategy.

When to Build-Out

If you have meaningful capital reserves and access to funding and you can withstand the time it takes to construct, clear inspections, secure final approvals, and ramp operations—building before selling can expand what a buyer is willing to pay. In this industry, buyers pay up for reduced execution risk. A license on paper is potential; a compliant facility with systems, staffing, and real operating traction is certainty. When the heavy lifting is done: buildout, municipal signoffs, regulatory inspections, early hiring, and initial revenue an acquirer is no longer buying a plan. They’re buying a functioning enterprise with far fewer unknowns.

That premium can be substantial, but it’s not “free money.” The build-first path asks you to carry the business through its most vulnerable phase, when delays are common, cash burn is steady, and a single compliance miss can set the timeline back. In many jurisdictions, the practical runway from approval to stable operations can stretch from six months to eighteen, depending on local processes, construction realities, and how quickly your team can operationalize compliance. The operational burden is also real: cannabis is heavily regulated, and early-stage execution requires experience, discipline, and a willingness to manage details most industries never face.

For well-capitalized license holders who want to maximize long-term value, that effort can be worth it. If your aim is to build an asset that commands a higher multiple—because it is already operating, already compliant, and already de-risked—then building out can be the strategic move.

When to Simply Sell

The opposite strategy can be just as rational (and sometimes more profitable) when the goal is speed, liquidity, and risk reduction. If you prefer to avoid construction exposure, permitting drag, cost overruns, staffing complexity, and the day-to-day grind of compliance, selling the license prior to buildout may be the smarter business decision. In that scenario, you’re monetizing scarcity and the work you’ve already completed: the approval itself, the credibility required to win it, and the buyer’s urgency to enter the market. Instead of spending months converting the license into an operating company, you transfer the opportunity to someone else who has the balance sheet and operating appetite to finish the job.

This approach limits downside in a market where timing matters. Cannabis valuations are not static. They rise and fall with licensing scarcity, competitive intensity, pricing conditions, and capital availability. A build that looks sensible on day one can become far less attractive if the market softens while you’re mid-construction, or if new entrants flood the category and compress margins. Selling earlier can protect you from that cycle—and from the risk of becoming a forced seller if timelines slip and reserves thin out.

There’s also a market-timing layer that many license holders underestimate. If you’re pursuing multiple applications across states with an “asset strategy” (winning approvals with the intent to monetize them) the highest premiums often appear in newly legalized or newly regulated markets. Early licenses can trade at outsized values when supply is limited and demand is urgent, particularly from groups racing to establish footprint and brand presence. Over time, that premium often narrows. More licenses enter the market, competition intensifies, pricing pressure builds, and capital becomes more selective. Distressed operators begin to surface, and “last year’s multiples” stop applying. In other words, the value of a license can be as much about when you act as what you won.

So how do you decide?

Start by asking the questions most people avoid. Do you have the capital to build properly (not minimally) without cutting corners that later undermine inspections or operations? Can you carry twelve months or more without meaningful revenue if approvals take longer than expected? Do you actually want to operate a cannabis business, with all the compliance and execution that entails, or do you want to exit while the asset is still simple and scarce? And what does buyer demand look like in your specific state and license category right now not in theory, but in the deals actually closing?

When you answer those honestly, the strategy usually becomes clear. If you’re well-capitalized and positioned to execute, converting a license into a compliant, operating business can materially increase what you can command in an exit because you’re selling certainty and performance. If you want a lower-risk, faster liquidity event, selling pre-buildout may be the most strategic move. And if you’re playing across multiple emerging markets, early-cycle timing can often generate the highest returns: before competitive saturation and valuation compression take hold.

At Green Life Business Group®, Inc., we help license holders evaluate market cycles, buyer demand, capitalization plans, and execution timelines to determine which path is most likely to maximize outcomes. Winning the license was the milestone. Now the work is making sure you extract its full value.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax, or investment advice. Regulations and transfer rules vary by jurisdiction.

Green Life Business Group has SOLD over 400 Cannabis Licenses/Businesses all across the Country. Green Life Business Group currently has over 200 Active exclusive cannabis businesses or licenses on the Market Today.

Green Life Business Group is pleased to support California NORML as a Business Member — learn more about their services in their Cannabis Marketplace listing.

A “joint” hearing

Chair of the Joint Legislative Audit committee John Harabedian (D-Pasadena) opened the hearing and turned it over to Asm. Jacqui Irwin (D-Ventura) who requested an audit of cannabis packaging last year. The audit determined that laws and guidance are not always clear on what constitutes a package that is attractive to children, and that the DCC’s enforcement against companies with repeated violations was lacking.

DCC’s regulations prohibit cartoonish characters on cannabis packages, but examples were shown of gummy packages that arguably had such images, as well as those with images of marshmallows or candies and sweets like fruity rice, all of which had been determined to be within the agency’s guidelines. Also shown were bottles of drinks containing 100 mg of THC—ten times the standard adult dose—that provided no mechanism to consume a lower dose. It was recommended that CA either limit drink packages to 10 mg, unless a device is included to measure dosages.

Asm. Irwin pointed to increases in Poison Control Center calls and emergency room visits involving children ingesting cannabis, saying they are coming not just from the illicit market but also the legal, regulated one. It was pointed out that some of steepest increases in poison control center calls came after 2019 when hemp was descheduled at federal level and intoxicating hemp products proliferated. Also, it’s hard to distinguish if calls were coming from products on legal or illegal market. But Irwin kept coming back to, but some of the problems are from the legal market, to which DCC’s Christina Dempsey replied, certainly and said her department has taken steps to better coordinate and take action against violators.

Dempsey said the state audit happened during period where staff were still being combined from three different agencies that formerly regulated cannabis in CA. DCC has spent time developing a tool that will scan labels and highlight what staff might miss, she said, adding that in some cases it’s not obvious what’s attractive to youth. The agency is getting ready to roll that out their tool to licensees this summer.

DCC would love to have more inspectors, Dempsey said, but they have resource constraints. The agency has budget proposals under consideration for additional legal staff to review complaints, and to consolodate licensing systems, which are still in two separate databases (down from three, when Prop. 64 first took effect).

“We need cannabis products to look more like the pasta aisle than the cereal aisle,” Harabedian said, noting this his children don’t ask for pasta in the grocery store, but they want every cereal they see. He and others also objected to the name Root Beer being used on drink cans, to which the response was that root beer float was the name of a cannabis strain.

Several committee members like Legislative Audit Vice Chair Cabaldon asked if statutory clarity was needed on products like “Krispy Rice treats”? Asm. Hart asked, is the definition of child-attractive packaging or enforcement the issue? (Answers were unclear.) Asm. Bauer-Kahan noted that we must support the legal market, “it’s making us safer.” But we must protect children.

Asm. Berman, chair of Asm. Business and Professions committee, asked why strain names are a problem, saying that they’re used on flower, not products. He noted that this year marks 10 years of legal cannabis in CA, but the industry is still struggling to meet its expectations. He held up a package that “looks like it’s straight out of Alice in Wonderland,” calling it unacceptable.

Dr. Lynn Silver, a pediatrician and CDPH task force on packaging co-chair, noted that almost none of recommendations from the task force’s 2024 have been implemented. Those recommendations included moving to plain packaging or a system like Oregon’s where packaging is pre-approved. California has been a national leader in reigning in flavored tobacco, Silver noted, and should take the lead here as well. She raised an objection to Snoop Dogg onion rings and said that $70 million went from youth programs funded by cannabis taxes to the DCC to address child-attractive packaging.

Caren Woodson of CCIA noted that Prop. 64 tax money was to go to education and prevention. “How about instructing parents about safe storage?” she asked, noting that children can’t get into licensed cannabis retailers to see packages and must be accessing them at home.

Amy Jenkins of CaCOA said her organization just put out a White Paper based on an audit of 161 popular products, which found that 62% were compliant, 10% were clearly out of compliance, and the rest were unclear. CaCOA recommends:
1. Define observable design features
2. Align DCC guidance with regulation
3. Focus enforcement where risk is highest

“Protection without undermining the legal market is possible,” Jenkins concluded. The most egregious examples of dubious child-friendly products come from the illicit market, which has no age gating. The legislature has made substantial investments in enforcement, and needs to do more at the illicit retail level, she said.

Irwin said she would like to see CaCOA’s white paper, and was glad the industry was willing to work together for more precision in labeling.

During public comment, Dr. Alisa Padon from the Public Health Institute, said that with DCC funding, her organization used a Content Appealing to Youth Index and found measurable features like psychedelic effects that appeal to teens. Usage remains lowest in places without retail sales, she said, so the legal market matters.

Sam Rodriguez, who represents vertically integrated cannabis farmers from the Santa Barbara county area noted that labels that reflect the region – mountains, rivers, surfers – promote the industry and tourism for the county. While agreeing that cannabis must be kept away from youth, he asked, “Please be prudent and don’t overreach.”

Irwin’s last packaging bill was opposed by Cal NORML and the California cannabis industry and was vetoed by Gov. Newsom as overly broad. It disallowed any kind of picture, such as a picture of a farmer, on packages. The Assemblywoman has introduced a bare-bones packaging bill that will soon be flushed out, it is expected, along with a bill addressing marketing practices.

California NORML and our supporters worked hard in 2022 to sponsor and pass 

Our bill became law on January 1, 2023 (BPC 2228.5), prohibiting physicians and health plans to have policies denying medical treatment to qualified patients with a recommendation to use medical marijuana. The only exception is if a clinical determination is made on a case-by-case basis that a “medically significant” contraindication exists. The law further states, “The use of medical cannabis that has been recommended by a licensed physician and surgeon shall not constitute the use of an illicit substance in the evaluation described.” See a Fact Sheet about the law.

Unfortunately, we have continued to receive complaints from Kaiser patients who are being denied health care for using cannabis since the law took effect. This seems to impact pain patients the most, despite numerous studies demonstrating that the use of cannabis can lessen a patient’s need for prescription painkillers, and that access to medical cannabis lessens the rate of opiate abuse and overdose. Kaiser continues to drug test pain patients and prohibit its doctors from prescribing certain medicines if a patient tests positive for cannabis as a blanket policy, in direct violation of the law. We are also hearing from patients who have been denied surgery due to a positive drug test for THC.

Cal NORML is working demanding Kaiser change its policy in accordance with state law, for which we need a critical mass of patients to tell us their stories. All information will be kept confidential and anonymous, unless you give us permission to share it. 

IF YOU HAVE BEEN DENIED MEDICAL CARE BY A KAISER DOCTOR DUE TO CANNABIS USE, WE WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE YOU IN OUR EFFORT TO CHANGE KAISER’S POLICY. PLEASE WRITE TO ELLEN@CANORML.ORG WITH THE DATE AND OTHER DETAILS ABOUT WHEN YOU WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY KAISER. 

UPDATE 2/26/26 – The cannabis language in the bill has been erased, following opposition from some in the cannabis industry, concerned that it would open the door to broader shipping. 

UPDATE 2/20/26 – During a chat with Capitol Weekly, new DCC chief Clint Kellum said (@ 19:46 in), that direct-mail options for cannabis could be “quite beneficial” to consumers, noting that most people are getting goods via Amazon, etc. Kellum said that the cannabis consumer has “quite a confusing market to deal with, in that there’s not widespread access across the state, you have intoxicating hemp cannabinoids that aren’t allowed in the state but are allowed at the federal level that make their way in through direct-to-consumer efforts, so there’s quite a bit of confusion, and having more traditional lines like direct-to-consumer would be nice.” However, Kellum said we were a long way off from such a plan, due to federal law. 

1/25/26 – Asm. Patrick Ahrens (D-Silicon Valley) has introduced a bill, AB 1564, to allow for the shipment of certain medical products from specified cannabis license holders directly to patients. Ahrens’s attempt at the bill last year, AB 1332, passed unanimously in the Senate and Assembly last year; however Gov. Newsom vetoed it.

“While I appreciate the author’s goal of expanding patient access to medical cannabis, the proposed direct-shipping program would be burdensome and overly complex to administer,” Newsom said in his veto statement. “The Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) will need to revamp the California cannabis track-and-trace system, which will take significant resources and time. Moreover, this measure includes numerous restrictions on eligible products – many of which are unclear, overly narrow or unworkable, adding to the implementation challenge.”

As reported by Cannabis Business Times, according to a fiscal analysis of the bill from the Senate Appropriations Committee, the DCC estimated a one-time implementation cost of approximately $269,000 to modify the track-and-trace system, and ongoing annual costs of $472,000 to oversee shipments and ensure compliance with product restrictions. That annual cost represents less than 0.05% of what the state collected in taxable cannabis sales in 2024, according to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.

The bill would have allowed any microbusiness with an M-license whose licensed activities include retail sale, manufacturing, distribution, and outdoor cultivation may directly ship medicinal cannabis to a medicinal cannabis patient in the state. “Given that this measure allows just two businesses to ship medical cannabis directly to patients, the costs of administering this program far outweigh the possible benefits to patients,” Newsom claimed.

Dr. Laurie Vollen testified in favor of A.B. 1332, saying that 29 years after medicinal marijuana was legalized in California, “medicinal products have become virtually extinct in today’s cannabis marketplace. Long-term patients cannot find any of the products that they were using effectively five years ago. No dispensary or delivery service has a full complement of medicinal products suitable for serving the needs of a variety of cannabis patients, especially cannabis-naive patients desperately seeking to begin alternatives to dangerous and addictive pharmaceuticals.”

The legislation as written would limit product shipments to cannabis flower and tinctures manufactured with non-volatile solvents, mechanical extraction or infusion only, sent by common carriers like FedEx or UPS. Ahrens had included a three-year sunset provision in A.B. 1332 in an effort to allow lawmakers to revisit its effectiveness. The new bill AB 1564 extends that date out to January 1, 2030. More revisions are expected.

In his 2025 veto statement, Newsom said he remains open to working with state lawmakers to adopt strategies to effectively advance equitable access to safe medical cannabis. Some 57% of California cities and counties still prohibit retail cannabis businesses, according to the DCC.

“I need the shipping bill,” wrote one Cal NORML supporter.  “I live in a legal cannabis desert, which creates both logistical and financial burdens for obtaining my necessary medication.”

Tell us: How might cannabis shipping benefit you?