Welcome to 10thousand Oregon’s annual State of the Marijuana publication. A lot of things have changed over the years and I plan to write another review post soon. But for now, let’s talk about everything that happened in 2025 — and that’s a lot.
Sales and market data
According to OLCC datatotal sales from January 1 to November 30 were $848 million. This is a 3.7% drop from the same period in 2024, when total sales were $881 million. Does this mean Oregon cannabis retailers are selling less product? No, not like that. Maybe they are selling more for the price of the discounted models.
Sad retail price trend line continued to decline through 2025. Within this trendline, the extracts/concentrates category hit a low of $15.00 per gram (average) in the extracts/concentrates category in April; it again shows $15.00 per gram for November. Edible marijuana also dropped to an awful $3.33 per gram (average) in April, and has been pretty much nonexistent since then. (Useful marijuana is essentially a flower in the OLCC environment.)
There is no foreseeable end to the price depression: it can only get worse. Croptober 2025 was Oregon’s largest METRC crop with 6,289,890 pounds recorded. This was a significant and unwelcome 8.9% increase in the crop compared to the October 2024 crop, which itself was a record. As I wrote last year:
“I’m sure the illegal market has had a great year as well; the weather is the same for everyone and the enforcement paradigm is static… Consumers may win, but it may not be great for pricing.”
Unfortunately, it came true in 2025 and it will happen again in 2026. As for what people actually buy at all these OLCC stores, I’ve compiled the following table:
2025 year
2024 year
Change +/-
Used marijuana
43.6%
46.2%
-2.6
Concentrate/extract
26%
25%
+1.0
Food / Tincture
14.2%
13.7%
+0.5
Inhalation with supplements without canna
10.7%
9.1%
+1.6
“Other”
4.9%
5.4%
-0.5
Industrial hemp
0% (?)
0.6%
-o.6 (?)
Check it out the fall in the eligible marijuana category. In both 2023 and 2024, I noted a “multi-year trend of declining per capita marijuana sales in favor of other categories.” We’re not just seeing these SKU changes in the data—we’ve had a series of farm customers complaining that retailers are withdrawing flower orders in response to consumer preference for vapes and cartridges.
Bottom line: People are buying more cannabis in Oregon than ever, at lower prices than ever. There is also more hemp than ever in the OLCC market. Looking at this wealth, customers do not burn flowers, as before, but choose packaged products. All of this creates a very challenging business environment, especially for small farms that continue to falter and fail.
Cannabis Licenses and Licensing in Oregon
A years-long moratorium on OLCC licensing in Oregon was ratified by the Legislature in 2024. We still have a one-in, one-out policy whereby outgoing license holders are allowed to surrender (sell) their licenses in favor of new entrants purchasing (buying) replacement licenses. Outside of this buy/sell paradigm, the OLCC is “prohibited from accepting new license applications almost forever due to restrictive formulas based on population-based ratios,” as I explained ago when HB 4121 passed.
In 2025, as predicted, the number of licenses in all areas decreased slightly. This was also the case in 2024 and 2023 due to a long-term moratorium due to business bankruptcy. Here’s a table showing current license numbers compared to this time last year:
2025 year
2024 year
Change +/-
Manufacturers
1,351
1375
-24
Processors
275
288
-13
Wholesalers
243
257
-14
Retailers
769
789
-20
Laboratories
10
13
-3
Studies
1
1
none
The numbers continue to fall on the slow decline we’ve seen for several years, and that’s a good thing. Most would agree that we have too many licenses in all categories except perhaps labs and research. Unfortunately, we lost a couple of labs this year, possibly due to the October 2024 dropout. suppression of THC inflation.
In terms of pricing, we’ve helped people buy and sell producer licenses for anywhere from $60,000 to $85,000 over the course of a year, with prices rising over the past month or two. Most of the deals are relocation and change-of-owner scenarios, and most of the buyers are Chinese. Wholesale licenses and CPU licenses are sold less frequently and at lower prices; retail pricing is a separate animal that depends heavily on store performance. However, we did help sell a couple of $100K retail licenses.
The OLCC highlighted the rapid movement of applications through the system, which is welcome news. Last week, I met with several OLCC officials who outlined their goal of a “zero wait” for change-of-ownership applications, their plans to comply with the new rules requiring polished submissions, and their demands for fast-track applicants.
Oregon’s New Cannabis Rules
Marijuana
The licensing protocol rules mentioned above will go online on January 1, 2026, along with rules that make some technical updates and implement Marijuana Act of 2025. I considered these rules in a recent postand I will not summarize them here.
Earlier this year, rules a ban on the sale of most CBN products also came into effect. i explained:
Beginning July 1, 2025, products containing artificially derived CBN can no longer be sold in Oregon under either the OLCC system or the general (hemp) market unless the manufacturer has determined to be Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) or submitted a New Dietary Ingredient Notification to the FDA and received a “no objection” response.
To my knowledge, no one has acquired GRAS status and submitted a corresponding notification to NDI. This is not unexpected, and it is also very bad.
Hemp
Complex hemp registry rules will take effect on January 1. These rules apply to hemp flower pre-rolls, as well as hemp beverages and tinctures that contain cannabinoids such as THC, CBD, and others. The regulations do not apply to hemp products that: a) are sold in stores licensed by the OLCC, b) do not contain cannabinoids, c) are intended for local use only, d) are industrial or commercial feed products, or e) simply pass through the state.
A slew of labeling requirements and “claims” for hemp products sold in Oregon will also go into effect next year. It remains to be seen whether any of these new rules will interact with the recent federal ban on intoxicating hemp products, although I don’t expect much friction. If the federal ban remains, we will likely have fewer out-of-state registrations and fewer products coming in, other than what is allocated to the CBD space.
For what it’s worth, the OLCC and other agencies made public earlier this year report details that most hemp products in Oregon are hot. It wasn’t a great look, but yes was not a surprise.
Oregon Cannabis Litigation
Oregon hemp cases go to court in 2025. Our office has handled a number of business and investor disputes, and there have also been some public skirmishes. Here is my short list:
A friend of the firm, Andrew DeWeese, filed a notable statement challenging the dormant commerce clause to the federal ban on the interstate sale of marijuana. We root for him.
Ballot 119 was defeated in the District Court of Oregon. The measure required most Oregon hemp businesses to enter into labor settlement agreements with approved unions in order to be reinstated or licensed. The unfortunate case is currently pending before the 9th US Circuit Court of Appealsthousand Scheme.
Oregon Court of Appeals ruled against retail applicants unwilling to pay taxes as a condition precedent to license renewal. No appeal was filed.
Cannabis continued to grow rapidly, with Tumalo Industries being the biggest. Market remained soft, buyers again Chasha insiders.
Federal developments
I should add a little bit about President Trump Disposition of December 18, which regulates the transportation of marijuana. We have illuminated him from all sides already, but Oregon cannabis businesses should be happy.
Depending on the path Pam Bondi chooses and the resistance, marijuana could end up on Schedule III in 2026. If that’s the case, many of our customers will get better margins right away. These businesses may also experience less competition from out-of-state hemp operators due to the federal ban mentioned earlier.
Odds and ends
The hemp industry continued to limp along. Finally we saw increase in cultivated areas, despite the declining number of farmers. Licensed “providers” continued to accumulate in the ODA program toward the 2024 enrollment requirement.
We continue to fight to fix and end the cannabis industry transactions structured by brokers. At least one prominent cannabis broker in Oregon has no license, and several others continue to run riot. Of course there are also competent brokers – our advice is never to use legal agreements offered by brokers.
The OLCC appeared to be less strict and returning to compliance training, especially for smaller operators (including laboratories). I would like to think we had something to do this approach and I hope it sticks, but who knows anyway.
The Hemp Alliance of Oregon (CIAO) played a leading role in the 2025 legislative negotiations. CIAO has successfully lobbied for producer transfer rights, expanded trading patterns and more realistic timelines for the CBN compliance regulations mentioned above.
Initiative Petition 39, which aims to legalize cannabis cafes, was filed in February, but withdrawn last month, due to logistical problems.
Emerge Law Group, the Measure 91 law firm and Oregon’s first boutique cannabis law firm, has announced its retirement after a stellar 10-year run. His remaining attorneys to join Denver-based Vicente LLP.
Oregon’s 2026 legislative session began last week on February 2nd. The biennial “short session” will last just 35 days and will focus on budget deficits, transportation and housing — meaning cannabis is not a priority. However, of the approximately 300 bills introduced, there are four items related to cannabis. That’s where I come in.
A link to each bill with an explanation and redaction is below.
This is the annual cannabis bill. My source tells me it fell apart a few weeks ago when marijuana and hemp people couldn’t agree on key points around hemp-based alcohol products or how to implement new federal hemp laws and regulations. This is unfortunate because timing is of the essence in any short session.
For now, HB 4139 has been sent to an ad hoc task force led by the governor’s office and the Cannabis Industry Association of Oregon (CIAO). They met yesterday, apparently, at 1 p.m.
Here’s what the bill would do as introduced, with a few of my comments:
The definition of “adult-use cannabis” is changing. (But only in connection with the above.)
Imposes a 17% retail tax on industrial hemp-derived cannabinoids. This is the same percentage charged on the sale of marijuana products in the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (OLCC) system. There is no provision in the bill for the 3% surcharge that normally applies to OLCC sales.
Orders the OLCC to immediately suspend the marijuana grower’s license for the reasons specified. The language includes a “probable cause” standard that appears potentially problematic from a due process perspective. This section also provides that an OLCC manufacturer’s license suspended under this subsection “shall not be transferable pending final resolution of the commission’s action relating to the suspension,” and it prohibits the OLCC from issuing a new license on the premises for 10 years.
Orders the OLCC to conduct an unannounced inspection of the commission-licensed premises for the reasons specified and request that law enforcement escort the OLCC to the premises. It is also tied to the probable cause standard. It feels less risky if we’re just talking about validation. (“Inspect” is defined, euphemistically, as “to examine or inspect formally.”)
The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) is required to complete a criminal record check on the applicant for an industrial hemp license. Excellent. As with OLCC licensees.
An applicant for a license to grow industrial hemp is required to submit to the department a statement of land use compatibility and information related to the ownership of the land. Excellent. As with OLCC licensees.
Directs the ODA to conduct unannounced inspections of licensed premises for specified reasons and request a law enforcement escort to the premises. See comment above re: OLCC Licensee Inspections.
This is a medical marijuana bill aimed at patients and caregivers. I was told that it has traction and a working meeting tomorrow. Here are the main provisions:
Expands the definition of “debilitating medical condition” for the medical use of marijuana to include “the need for hospice, palliative care, comfort care, or other symptomatic treatment, including pain relief.” It feels like an uncontroversial cleanup job.
Requires an organization or residential facility designated as an additional guardian for a medical marijuana cardholder to establish and maintain a written policy and provide educational training for certain personnel regarding the medical use of marijuana. Excellent.
Exempts hospitals and hospital-affiliated clinics from the requirements. I’m pretty sure it has to do with federal law and insurance issues.
Protects an organization or residential facility, its employees and contractors from certain criminal liability related to the medical use of marijuana. Long overdue.
Prohibits the Oregon Board of Nursing from disciplining a nurse for discussing the medical use of marijuana with a patient. Long overdue.
This stupid bill was introduced by the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555, which is trying to get its own initiative overturned. My guess is that the UFCW is doing this because the US District Court ruled that the initiated law is unconstitutional, as predicted, and they don’t want “more bad law” if the Ninth Circuit upholds that decision.
I’ve written extensively about the waste of taxpayer money that the Ballot Measure 119 saga represents. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. In short, BM 119 required most Oregon cannabis businesses to enter into labor peace agreements with “approved unions” in order to renew or obtain a license. May 20thousandDistrict Court of Oregon beat him. The case is pending appeal, but HB 4162 could quietly debate it if passed.
Basically, HB 4162 is the equivalent of the Union saying, “Hey, Legislature, please repeal this law, which you warned would be legally flawed, but which we convinced the voters to approve directly regardless. We’ll stop wasting taxpayer money if you help us repeal ourselves. (At least for now.)”
This is a public health and prevention bill introduced by the chairman of the Senate Conduct Committee. I’m told Monday’s hearing was contentious between that side of the aisle and the industry. Here are the main provisions:
It requires individual packaging of cannabinoid food products and allows for up to 10 milligrams of adult cannabinoids per cannabinoid food product. The industry’s argument here is the packaging requirements for cannabis create huge wasteand are an affront to sustainable development. This is a good argument.
It requires cannabinoid-containing foods and other cannabinoid-containing products to be packaged in a manner that “reasonably” meets the specific purpose of protecting minors from the adverse health effects of the “illegal use” of cannabinoid-containing foods and other cannabinoid-containing products. See comment above.
Allows local governments to create buffer zones more than 1,000 feet wide around adult medical cannabis and marijuana in the interest of public health and safety. The Legislature has been working for years on the buffer zone, on grandfathering concepts and all that. There is no compelling health or safety reason for local authorities to reduce the accommodation radius; it should be left alone.
Let’s wrap it up for now
I’ll be back at the end of the session and let you know what happened, if anything. Aside from the farcical HB 4162, whatever passes will likely look markedly different in its final form than the registered drafts we see today. Stay tuned.
yesterday afternoon Washington Post and other sources report that President Trump is expected to issue an executive order directing federal agencies to reclassify marijuana as Schedule III. It’s some sexy reporting, though WaPo sources cautioned that “Trump could still change his mind” and “(a) White House official said no final decisions have been made on moving marijuana.”
That said, this is a story with legs, and I want to get back to some important points – aside from my usual refrain that marijuana shouldn’t be scheduled at all. Here are some important points to understand about a potential move to Schedule III.
Trump has options for moving marijuana
A WaPo story reports that an executive order may be in the cards. More likely – and depending on the content of the order – it will lead to a more direct, decisive approach than a formal one.”statement” and “request” released by President Biden in October 2022, which brought the redistricting process to a halt.
In August of this year, when Trump told reporters that his administration was considering moving marijuana, I laid out the following options:
resume the stalled rulemaking process, adopt last year’s proposal to list marijuana in Schedule III;
begin a new rulemaking process, presumably with a new proposed rule; or
do away with rulemaking hearings entirely and the DOJ simply publishes a final rule listing marijuana in Schedule III (or wherever); or
do nothing. Say, “We like marijuana where it’s at, science and treaties be damned.”
I noted:
One thing to address from the outset is the oft-repeated fiction that Trump could simply restore or repeal marijuana on his own via executive order. He can’t. However, he could lead the process in the same way that Biden did when Biden issued a request in 2022 that ordered HHS to review the controlled status of marijuana. Basically, Trump can say whatever he wants to see happen, and it’s likely to happen — especially given the strict loyalty the Justice Department has shown to him.
By this point, my colleague Jason Adelstone had arrived persuasive argument for the fifth option, which is that Trump could rely on Attorney General Pam Bondi to move marijuana on his own, even without rulemaking, under 21 USC § 811(d)(1). Jason concluded that “all it would take is a press release and a pen.”
Given the novelty of that approach, it is a given Prohibitionist Bondisuch a result would surprise me. In my previous post, I advocated for Option #3, which is the publication of the DOJ final rule. I explained:
Marijuana can then move to Schedule III (or wherever) within 30 or 60 days of the rules being published. Of course, people can appeal this rule. However, given the strength of the HHS findings and the apparent legal authority behind the Justice Department, it seems like an uphill battle.
I hope this is the chosen path and the administration will learn a lesson numerous, predictable errors former President Biden, DOJ Merrick Garland, and the Department of Anti-Ann Milgram when that administration made its failed foray into Schedule III.
The legal cannabis industry has benefited the most from marijuana’s transition
Schedule III was something of a holy grail for the cannabis industry, primarily because marijuana businesses would finally be taxed like other businesses. I explained:
When marijuana falls into Schedule III, the margin destruction statute, known as IRC § 280E will not apply and the cannabis industry will be changed forever. At the same time, the taxation of cannabis at the state level will not change. Or it could change for the worse if states feel emboldened to raise taxes on hemp in the absence of § 280E.
. . . .
However, I cannot stress enough that removing § 280E would change the industry forever. Having worked with cannabis companies for 13 years, I see taxation as the biggest insult to marijuana businesses – more than access to banking, intellectual property coverage, no bankruptcy, whatever. That would be HUGE.
Five things Schedule III won’t fix
We would like to remind people that Schedule III marijuana is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Here are five of the most persistent problems, in my opinion:
Criminal penalties for individuals. Possession, distribution and sale of non-FDA and non-hemp cannabis will still be criminal acts. State and local laws will not be violated in any way. We could see another 200,000 local arrestsannually, surrounded by List III.
Business headache. Like end users, state-licensed cannabis businesses would not theoretically be immune from federal prosecution. In addition, they will remain embargoed by the bankruptcy courts, will continue to fight over trademarks, and will still pay a premium for many shared services. Moreover, the intensive government regulation to which they are subject is unlikely to ease.
Banking issues. This is related to the above, and although banking it’s not the headache it used to beit still hurts. Schedule III marijuana would still be a controlled substance, and state-licensed businesses would still be “dealing” in that controlled substance, which is against federal law. Banks will continue to struggle with these dynamics.
Headache research. Contrary to popular belieffederal research won’t get any easier without significant intervention from Congress and administrations. It’s really a puzzle, but that’s our prediction.
Hemp. The industry of hop products from hemp took a big kick in the shorts last month when Congress passed PL 119-37. Most of these products will not survive the new law. The state-legal marijuana industry will benefit from less competition, and if marijuana becomes Schedule III, those operators will be less likely to lobby the hemp crowd for a “one-size-fits-all” federal hemp policy.
Schedule III Marijuana – Completion
I hope this happens and Christmas comes early for all our industry customers. However, I am cautious after viewing and to write about the rumor of carrying marijuana for most of the decade.
We continue to represent many buyers and sellers of OLCC marijuana licenses. At any given time, we run 10-12 such transactions, and sometimes more, as we have done over the years. There have been a few changes recently that are worth noting, especially regarding OLCC protocols. I will also briefly touch on other market dynamics.
OLCC Updates
a. Quick assignment of tasks
Gone are the days when buyers and sellers would wait months to hear back from an OLCC investigator after filing a change of ownership application. OLCC “processing dates” page. reports that applications for change of ownership are now being assigned and processed until September 3, 2025. This is not true. Over the past month or so, we have seen a number of applications set within a week or two of submission. They move fast.
b. Completed applications are required
OLCC Licensing Officers have begun pre-screening applications and are returning applications that lack the required documents. The old practice of applicants uploading filler documents will no longer be accepted. The idea here is to ensure that organized applicants are not forced to wait in line behind their unorganized counterparts, creating a bottleneck. In the future, incomplete applications will be delivered to the assignment queue only after all missing documents have been provided.
c. The 60-day appointment period expires
In case you missed it, the OLCC filed a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking September 25, 2025. The main aim was to comply with the 2025 legislation, but some technical updates were also made. These include OAR 845-025-1135(2)(A) and (B), which provide that applicants:
“…must complete the application process within 60 calendar days after the Commission notifies the applicant that the application has been designated,” and that “if the applicant does not complete the application process within 60 calendar days, the application will be canceled and suspended.”
Getting into such purgatory is a dangerous game. Most purchase agreements have cancellation periods, deposit forfeiture provisions, and other negative consequences for buyers, particularly those who fail to move forward properly. On the seller’s side, the downloaded program can be disruptive if there are problems with the landlord or if the seller has given the keys to management contract— something people still do regularly, often against advice.
d. Limited inspectors
We have recently experienced some delays with the availability of an OLCC inspector. There are probably not many of them. Several are also designed for large areas, making planning a challenge. Things tend to slow down around the end of the year holidays as well. When there is a change of ownership, final inspections are usually required by both the buyer and the seller, and the parties should be flexible.
Different market dynamics
a. Buyer’s market
Too many OLCC license and business sales these days are “fire sales”. Many sellers fail businesses that want to salvage some valuables under duress and leave in a hurry. This gives buyers significant leverage that should continue unabated even as the OLCC improves its processes and despite the ongoing moratorium on new licenses. These market dynamics are the new normal and have been for some time.
b. Brokers
Cannabis transactions in Oregon continue to suffer from unscrupulous or incompetent cannabis dealers brokerswith few exceptions. Every week, buyers and sellers come to us with confusing LOIs, dangerous purchase agreements, stupid leases and other contracts drawn up by brokers, some of whom also purport to act as escrow agents, application consultants and general counsel. We have spoken to these brokers and even filed malpractice complaints; but ultimately buyers and sellers should use common sense here.
c. Buyer profiles
We’ve been seeing a lot of Chinese buyers in the last year or so, following the Eastern European wave of buyers a few years ago. Existing network operators also continue to rake in licenses here and there. At the moment, there is very little action from multi-state operators (MSOs), and it would appear that Canadian public companies are not interested.
Stay tuned
I’ll touch on all of this again at the end of the year at my annual Oregon Cannabis “The state of the state“. In the meantime, take care and please give us a call if you need help getting or eliminating your Oregon cannabis license.
