In a significant development for the burgeoning cannabis industry, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that states across the nation have collectively amassed over **$9.7 billion** in tax revenue from marijuana sales since mid-2021. This figure underscores the economic impact of legalized cannabis and highlights the growing acceptance of marijuana as both a recreational and medicinal substance in various states. As more states move toward legalization, the financial implications both positive and negative are becoming increasingly evident.

 The Landscape of Cannabis Legalization

The journey toward cannabis legalization in the United States has been long and complex. Initially criminalized in the early 20th century, cannabis began to regain acceptance in the late 20th century, particularly for medical use. The first state to legalize medical marijuana was California in 1996, setting a precedent that many states would follow.

By 2012, Colorado and Washington became the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, paving the way for a wave of legalization efforts across the country. As of now, more than 20 states have legalized recreational marijuana, while over 30 states allow medical use. This shift reflects changing public attitudes toward cannabis and recognition of its potential benefits.

Economic Implications of Legalization

The legalization of cannabis has not only transformed social norms but has also created a substantial economic impact. States that have embraced legalization have seen significant increases in tax revenue, job creation, and investment opportunities.

According to the latest Census Bureau report, states like California, Colorado, Illinois, and Michigan have emerged as leaders in cannabis tax revenue generation. These states have implemented various tax structures on marijuana sales, including excise taxes, sales taxes, and local taxes. The revenue generated is often earmarked for essential public services such as education, healthcare, infrastructure improvements, and drug rehabilitation programs.

Breakdown of Tax Revenue by State

As the largest legal cannabis market in the United States, California has been at the forefront of marijuana tax revenue generation. Since mid-2021, California has contributed approximately $2.5 billion to state coffers from cannabis taxes. This revenue is derived from both recreational and medical marijuana sales.

California’s tax structure includes a 15% excise tax on retail sales, along with local taxes that can vary significantly by city and county. The state has allocated a portion of these funds to various programs aimed at addressing issues related to drug abuse and public health.

Colorado was one of the pioneers in cannabis legalization and continues to serve as a model for other states. Since mid-2021, Colorado has generated around $1.8 billion in tax revenue from marijuana sales. The state imposes a 15% excise tax on wholesale marijuana transactions and a 2.9% sales tax on retail sales.

The revenue generated from cannabis taxes has been instrumental in funding education initiatives through the Public School Fund, as well as supporting mental health programs and substance abuse treatment services.

Illinois has seen remarkable growth in its cannabis market since legalizing recreational use in January 2020. In just two years, Illinois has collected approximately $1 billion in tax revenue from marijuana sales. The state imposes a tiered excise tax based on the potency of the product, ranging from 10% to 25%.

The funds collected are allocated to various initiatives, including community reinvestment programs aimed at addressing social equity issues related to past drug enforcement practices.

Michigan’s cannabis market has also flourished since legalization. Since mid-2021, Michigan has generated about $700 million in tax revenue from marijuana sales. The state’s tax structure includes a 10% excise tax on recreational marijuana and a 6% sales tax.

The revenue is utilized for various purposes, including education funding and support for local governments impacted by legalization.

Broader Economic Impact

The legalization of cannabis has led to significant job creation across various sectors. According to industry reports, the legal cannabis market supports hundreds of thousands of jobs nationwide—from cultivation and processing to retail and distribution. As more states legalize marijuana, this trend is expected to continue.

With the growth of the legal cannabis industry comes increased investment opportunities. Entrepreneurs are entering the market at an unprecedented rate, leading to innovations in product development, marketing strategies, and distribution channels. This influx of investment not only benefits individual businesses but also stimulates local economies.

Social Equity Considerations

While the financial benefits of cannabis legalization are clear, it is essential to address social equity issues that arise alongside this new industry. Many states have recognized that communities disproportionately affected by past drug enforcement policies should benefit from legalization efforts.

States like Illinois have implemented community reinvestment programs that allocate a portion of cannabis tax revenues to support communities impacted by previous drug laws. These funds can be used for education initiatives, job training programs, and mental health services—aiming to rectify historical injustices associated with cannabis prohibition.

In addition to financial support for communities affected by past policies, some states are also working to create equitable licensing opportunities for individuals from those communities. By prioritizing applications from minority-owned businesses or those directly impacted by previous drug laws, states can foster a more inclusive cannabis industry.

 Challenges Ahead

Despite the significant progress made through legalization efforts, challenges remain on both state and federal levels.

Federal Legalization Uncertainty

One major hurdle is the ongoing conflict between state and federal laws regarding cannabis. While many states have legalized marijuana for recreational or medical use, it remains classified as a Schedule I substance under federal law. This discrepancy creates complications for businesses operating legally at the state level but facing potential federal prosecution.

Efforts toward federal legalization or decriminalization have gained traction recently; however, progress remains slow due to political divisions and differing opinions on drug policy reform.

Regulatory Hurdles

As more states enter the legal cannabis market, regulatory frameworks must evolve to ensure consumer safety while promoting fair competition among businesses. States face challenges related to product testing standards, labeling requirements, advertising restrictions, and taxation policies that can impact market dynamics.

Conclusion

The U.S. Census Bureau reports that states have collected over $9.7 billion in marijuana tax revenue since mid-2021, highlighting the significant economic impact of cannabis legalization. As public acceptance grows, more states are likely to pursue legalization. Despite ongoing challenges, including federal regulations and social equity issues, legalized cannabis is poised to remain a vital part of state economies. Collaboration among government officials, business leaders, and community advocates will be essential for fostering an equitable and sustainable cannabis industry. This evolving landscape not only presents economic growth opportunities but also addresses historical injustices tied to drug policy enforcement, shaping the future of cannabis legislation in the U.S.

WHAT STATES HAVE THE HIGHEST WEED TAXES? READ ON…

WHAT STATES HAVE THE HIGHEST MARIJUANA SALES TAXES?

Welcome the ninth annual “State of the State” post on Oregon cannabis. I feel like an old man. As compared to 2023, things this year were pretty mellow. That’s not to say, however, that we don’t have trends, intrigues, controversies, mysteries, etc., worth writing about. Let’s dive right in.

Sales and market data

According to OLCC data, retail sales between January 1, 2024 and November 30, 2024 clocked in at $881 million. That is remarkably consistent with 2023, where we saw $874 million over the same 11-month span. If things remain steady for the next couple of weeks, Oregon should avoid a third consecutive drop in annual sales.

Prices are also relatively static. The median price per gram in the extract/concentrate category was $15.83/gram in November, floating from $15.36 to $16.00 throughout the year. For “usable marijuana”, which includes dried flowers and leaves, prices fluctuated from $3.89/gram to $3.57/gram last month.

October saw Oregon’s largest METRC harvest, ever, with 5,733,288 pounds reported. I’m sure the illicit market had a bumper year too; weather is the same for everyone and the enforcement paradigm is static. Anyway, the October numbers equal 900,000 more pounds than the same month in 2023. Consumers may benefit, but that can’t be great for pricing.

As far as what people are actually buying at OLCC shops:

• 2% of purchases are for usable marijuana
• 25% are extracts/concentrates
• 7% are edibles/tinctures
• 10% are “inhalable product with non-cannabis additives”
• 4% is “other”; and
• 6% is industrial hemp commodity products.

Yes, that equals 100%. In 2023, I noted a “years-long trend of usable marijuana sales decreasing per capital in favor of other categories.” The trend continued in 2024 (usable marijuana sales dropped another 2.5% year over year). Last year, I wrote that “my impression is that near-term growth may be limited to select SKUs and product categories.” Still feel that way.

Licenses and licensing

Our years-long OLCC licensing moratorium was made permanent in 2024 (more on that below). Overall, license numbers declined marginally across the board. Here’s a table showing current numbers as compared to 2023, which I wrote “was the first year I saw license numbers fall since the 2016 roll-out of the adult use program.”

It’s good to see numbers dropping, I suppose. Most would agree that we have too many licenses across all categories– except perhaps for labs and research. Expect numbers to continue on a modest downward trend in 2025.

Industry limping along

In the last few State of the State posts, I’ve talked about businesses struggling. We’re still helping people sell or even walk away from things we helped them buy not long ago. In 2023, the big liquidation story was the Chalice receivership. In 2024, insolvency and cannabis receivership actions are still a regular occurrence. The largest of 2024 was the Tumalo receivership, which we structured here in the office, and which remains ongoing. We’re working on a few others as well: some are voluntary, and others, well, not so much.

Consolidation is still a fact of life in Oregon cannabis, with larger operators opportunistically picking up assets, mostly at retail. A majority of buy/sell transactions, however, seem to involve new market entrants and naked licenses. In these deals, a seller will relinquish its rights to an OLCC license in favor of a replacement license for the buyer— sometimes at the same location and sometimes in a new spot. Pricing on these transactions, which are styled as asset purchase agreements, has remained steady in each license class. That said, pricing can be negotiable.

Most of the bigger players are still around. A couple of people have asked me how that could be the case with a chain like La Mota, whose legal issues metastasized into a statewide controversy, and resulted in unwelcome tax compliance rules for OLCC retailers. The answer is simple: La Mota probably reached a deal on payment plan with the Department of Revenue. Elsewhere, we haven’t seen anything to convince us, one way or the other, that OLCC is making an effort to treat small businesses the same as the larger operators— a problem area we highlighted in 2023. That said, let’s see what happens with the labs.

OLCC chasing testing labs on THC inflation

On September 25^th, OLCC sent enforcement notices to seven testing laboratories. I explained at the time that OLCC had:

Propos[ed] license cancellation in some cases and suspension or fines in others. The notices center on alleged THC inflation, and extend back to instances identified in 2023. We only have eleven labs in Oregon accredited to do this mandatory work, so OLCC chasing seven of them is a big deal.

This saga is still ongoing, and none of these cases are resolved to my knowledge. For considered and lawyerly reasons, I’ll reserve further comment on this one, beyond all that I’ve already said.

New OLCC rules and legislative changes

Various rules took effect in 2024, due to legislative changes this spring and an initiative vote in the fall. Here are the four biggest developments for me, in chronological order:

Licensing Moratorium

Oregon finally made its licensing moratorium permanent, when Governor Kotek signed House Bill 4121 on March 20, 2024. This means the only way to acquire a cannabis license in Oregon is to find someone willing to sell. That will likely be the case forever, based on unreachable “new license triggers” in HB 4121, and the fact that the legislature won’t reverse this new law.

Hemp Vendor License Requirement

This one took effect July 1. At that time, I wrote that the rule was “very broad and likely to catch people off guard.” That proved to be the case in my experience, including with respect to OLCC— I ended up writing them on September 30 after stumbling across incorrect FAQs on the topic. My guess is that a large number of Oregon businesses are still unaware of the license requirement, and therefore not compliant, and that it doesn’t really matter because enforcement is sparse or nonexistent.

Labor Peace Agreements

This one has been a scramble, with many licensees having to find a way to comply on short notice. The short story is that due to Ballot Measure 119, which passed in November, all OLCC licensed retailers, processors and labs must provide a signed labor peace agreement (LPA) with a bona fide labor organization, to renew or apply for an OLCC license. I still believe BM 119 is legally problematic, but someone needs to challenge it to obviate the LPA requirement.

Presumptive Hemp Testing Rules

The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) issued a temporary administrative order following on HB 4121, which defines presumptive marijuana under its testing rules, outlines procedures for marijuana disposal, and outlines violations of ODA hemp licensure more generally.

__

We can expect to see more changes, as always, in 2025. OLCC is currently in rulemaking to implement HB 4121, to start. The 2025 legislative session next year is also a long one, lasting from January to June. I’ll write my usual session preview sometime in January, lest this post become extremely long. For now, the Cannabis Industry Alliance of Oregon (CIAO) has listed out is legislative priorities here.

Odds and ends

• 2024 must have been a welcome reprieve for OLCC, which remained mostly out of the spotlight after a trying year in 2023.
• Not much is going on with ODA and the hemp industry, beyond what I mentioned above.
• Shout-out to CIAO, which was organized and effective in its first full year as Oregon’s consolidated, cannabis trade group.
• Local cannabis banking is getting easier all the time. Most recently, we built out a cannabis banking program for Central Willamette Credit Union, the newest Oregon service provider.
• I’m still pessimistic about a federal cannabis banking bill, but I’m hopeful for federal rescheduling. A move for marijuana to Schedule III would do away with punitive tax code provision IRC § 280E – hopefully in calendar year 2024. That development would immediately increase margins for Oregon cannabis businesses, across the board.
• Also at the federal level, this was our last year with Earl Blumenauer, Congress’s greatest ever cannabis advocate.

Oregon cannabis: that’s a wrap

Let me know in the comments if you think I missed anything worth mentioning, or shoot me an email. There is always something. In the meantime, here’s hoping for smooth sailing for Oregon cannabis in 2025.

For previous posts in this series, check out the following:

In a heated and escalating debate over cannabis legalization in Florida, Curaleaf Chair Boris Jordan has publicly criticized Governor Ron DeSantis, asserting that the governor is “on the wrong side of history” regarding marijuana policy. This statement came amid the contentious campaign surrounding Amendment 3, a proposed constitutional amendment that seeks to legalize recreational cannabis for adults in the state. The clash highlights not only the political stakes involved but also the broader implications for Florida’s burgeoning cannabis industry.

While Amendment 3 failed at the voting booth by a small margin, it begs the question, would Curaleaf and Truelive be a monopoly in the Florida recreational cannabis market?

The Background of the Debate

The backdrop to this conflict is Florida’s evolving stance on cannabis. In 2016, voters approved Amendment 2, which legalized medical marijuana, leading to a significant expansion of the industry. However, the push for full legalization has faced considerable resistance from state officials, particularly Governor DeSantis. As public support for recreational cannabis grows recent polls indicate that a majority of Floridians favor legalization the governor’s opposition has become increasingly vocal.

 DeSantis’s Critique of Trulieve

Governor DeSantis has directed sharp criticism at Trulieve, Florida’s largest medical marijuana operator, labeling it “Big Pharma on steroids.” His comments suggest that he views the company as prioritizing profit over public health and safety. During a recent press conference, DeSantis accused Trulieve of using its substantial financial resources to influence legislation and secure an advantageous position in the market.

Trulieve is trying to push this amendment not for the good of Floridians but to line their pockets,” DeSantis stated. He emphasized that the financial backing behind Amendment 3 reportedly exceeding $140 million comes primarily from Trulieve and its allies, framing it as an attempt to create a monopoly that would benefit corporate shareholders rather than everyday Floridians.

Boris Jordan’s Response

In stark contrast to DeSantis’s assertions, Boris Jordan defended the push for legalization and criticized the governor’s stance. He argued that DeSantis is missing an opportunity to embrace a progressive policy that could yield significant economic benefits for Florida. “The governor is on the wrong side of history,” Jordan declared in a social media post. “States across America are seeing positive outcomes from legalizing adult-use cannabis more jobs, increased tax revenue, and reduced crime rates.”

 Jordan pointed out that many states have successfully implemented recreational cannabis laws without compromising public safety. He emphasized that legalizing cannabis can lead to better regulation and oversight of the market, ultimately benefiting consumers and reducing illegal sales.

The Stakes of Amendment 3

Amendment 3 aimed to decriminalize possession of up to three ounces of marijuana for adults aged 21 and older. If passed, it would have allow licensed operators including both medical marijuana companies like Trulieve and new entrants to sell recreational cannabis products across Florida. Proponents argued that this would create a regulated market that ensures quality control and generates tax revenue for essential public services.

However, DeSantis framed Amendment 3 as a dangerous proposal that could lead to increased access for minors and undermine public health initiatives. He has called on voters to reject the amendment, asserting that it does not serve the interests of Floridians but rather those of corporate entities seeking profit.

The Response from Trulieve

In response to DeSantis’s comments, Trulieve CEO Kim Rivers defended her company’s involvement in supporting Amendment 3. She dismissed the governor’s claims as “political disinformation” aimed at swaying public opinion against legalization efforts. Rivers emphasized that Trulieve’s financial contributions are part of a broader coalition advocating for responsible cannabis use and regulation.

Rivers also addressed concerns about monopolization, explaining that while Trulieve is a significant player in the market, the amendment includes provisions designed to ensure fair competition among licensed operators. She argued that concerns about liability and accountability are unfounded and reiterated her belief in the positive impact legalization could have on Florida’s economy.

 Broader Implications for Cannabis Policy

The ongoing debate over cannabis legalization in Florida reflects broader national trends regarding marijuana policy. As more states move toward legalization both for medicinal and recreational use—Florida finds itself at a crossroads. The outcome of Amendment 3 could set a precedent for future legislative efforts and influence public perception of cannabis use.

Advocates argue that legalizing recreational cannabis could lead to substantial economic benefits for Florida, including job creation in cultivation, distribution, and retail sectors. Additionally, tax revenues generated from legal sales could be directed toward education, healthcare, and infrastructure projects.

 Conversely, opponents like DeSantis warn about potential public health risks associated with increased access to cannabis products. They argue that without proper regulations in place, legalization could exacerbate issues related to substance abuse and youth access.

Public Sentiment and Future Prospects

 As Election Day approached, public sentiment appeared to be shifting toward support for Amendment 3. Recent surveys indicated that a majority of Floridians favor legalizing recreational cannabis use. This growing acceptance may put pressure on state officials like DeSantis to reconsider their positions as they navigate an increasingly pro-cannabis electorate.

 Moreover, with major financial backing from companies like Trulieve supporting Amendment 3, advocates were optimistic about their chances at the ballot box. The potential success of this amendment could not only reshape Florida’s cannabis landscape but also influence similar efforts in other states grappling with legalization debates.

Conclusion

The clash between Governor Ron DeSantis and cannabis advocates exemplifies the complexities surrounding marijuana policy in Florida. As both sides mobilized resources and supporters ahead of the vote on Amendment 3, the implications extend far beyond state borders. Should Florida choose to embrace legalization, it could pave the way for significant changes in how cannabis is perceived and regulated across the nation.

As voters prepared to make their voices heard on this pivotal issue, one thing is clear: the debate over cannabis is far from over. With strong opinions on both sides and substantial financial stakes involved, While Amendment 3 failed to get the required 60% to pass the bill, it did get over 50%, showing a majority of Florida voters want recreational marijuana in the state. Florida stands at a critical juncture in its journey toward potential legalization—a journey that could redefine its economic landscape and social fabric for years to come.

THE FLORIDA WEED BATTLE RAGES ON, READ ON…

THE WHACKY ROLE DESANTIS IS PLAYING IN FLORIDA WEED!