CCB and Legislative Update

The 2026 General Assembly convened on Tuesday, January 6. With several cannabis bills under consideration this last year of the biennium, and an encouraging new approach to the legislative procedure for cannabis, we anticipate a cautiously promising legislative session. To round out the busy month, the Cannabis Control Board also held a wide-ranging Board meeting that lasted over three hours.

The Vermont State House in Montpelier in the winter.

“Cannabis legislation also began in the Senate this year, which is something we fought hard for at the end of the 2025 General Assembly. By contrast, cannabis legislation began in the House in previous sessions and in committees unwilling to maintain the level of discourse we felt the industry required. This change in the legislative process for cannabis legislation this year, starting in the Senate and moving much earlier in the session, is a significant moment of progress with the potential to improve the session’s outcomes drastically.”

The State House

The very first week of the 2026 General Assembly was a busy one for the cannabis community, which is good! By contrast, lawmakers did not take up cannabis during the last three legislative sessions until almost a month into the session, and sometimes close to crossover, a deadline by which legislation must advance into the other chamber to be considered for enactment, leaving little time for meaningful discussion.

Cannabis legislation also began in the Senate this year, which is something we fought hard for at the end of the 2025 General Assembly. By contrast, cannabis legislation began in the House in previous sessions and in committees unwilling to maintain the level of discourse we felt the industry required. This change in the legislative process for cannabis legislation this year, starting in the Senate and moving much earlier in the session, is a significant moment of progress with the potential to improve the session's outcomes drastically. We want to thank Senator Ram Hinsdale for leading this year's effort to improve the legislative process and environment for the cannabis community. Still, there are no guarantees, and much work remains to ensure that, come adjournment, we all have a bill that brings material and tangible improvements.

VGA and Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition members attended the early Senate committee meetings in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs, and other committees. The CCB was also busy in these committees with its agency introductions and formalities. Of note, we have seen the CCB testify before the Senate Committee on Appropriations, seeking funds to support its upcoming lab, and before the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs to discuss the implications of possible federal changes, such as rescheduling.

Several cannabis bills have been introduced in both chambers so far, and we are tracking them closely. Many of the bills are single-issue, and some are alcohol- and cannabis-related. Here is an up-to-date list of cannabis bills this session. The leading legislation this session is emerging as Bill S.278, An Act Relating to Cannabis. Senator Ram Hinsdale introduced the bill on Wednesday, January 21. Bill S.278 in an omnibus bill with notable co-sponsors who are members of committees relevant to cannabis policy discussions, such as Senator Vyhovsky, who sits on the Senate Committee on Judiciary, where we can address issues such as expungement and consumption, and Senator Gulick, who sits on the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare, where we can hold medical program and THC cap reform discussions. We break down each of the 18 sections of Bill S.278 in the next blog post.

The January CCB Board Meeting

On Wednesday, January 28, the CCB held a marathon meeting that lasted 3 hours and 9 minutes, during which they discussed and voted on several important issues. The meeting included a presentation of a preliminary report on an upcoming market analysis and survey conducted by an out-of-state contractor, Cannabis Public Policy Consulting. Additionally, the Agency of Commerce and Community Development shared information about the Cannabis Business Development Fund.

The Board also voted on a retailer location request and discussed several policy matters, including: the use of kief and pre-rolls, changes to local control commission guidance, pathogen testing requirements for cannabis used in solventless products, regulations around advertising medical cannabis products, if medical dispensaries must adhere to adult-use regulations for in-store products, and the Executive Director presented the monthly report, which included updates on licensing. As always, we encourage you to watch the meeting video on YouTube. Below is a summary of the agenda items discussed.

The Cannabis Public Policy Consulting Presentation
In December 2024, the Cannabis Control Board secured a contract with Cannabis Public Policy Consulting, a Massachusetts-based firm, to update the agency's market analysis and supply-and-demand modeling. The agency announced that it would soon publish the contractor's findings, followed by a preliminary presentation by the Cannabis Public Policy Consulting, which included insights from a survey they conducted with Vermonters regarding consumer behavior, covering topics such as where products are purchased, the types of products bought, and more.

An interesting data point reported during the Cannabis Public Policy Consulting's presentation found that only 1-2% of cannabis sales are lost to neighboring states. Meanwhile, local retailers situated near these borders often report to us that many Vermonters travel to neighboring states with adult-use markets at rates significantly higher than the 1-2% figure. During the public comment section of the meeting, a retailer stated that the 1-2% figure did not reflect their experience.

Another interesting finding reported by Cannabis Public Policy Consulting is that states with adult-use markets typically capture between 70% and 90% of their potential customer base. Colleagues in other states with adult-use cannabis markets often express concerns that their regulated market is only reaching a small portion of its potential customers. This understanding is corroborated by research from Whitney Economics, a well-known cannabis economic firm, which reported that in 2024, states with adult-use markets are capturing, on average, only 29.4% of all cannabis transactions. While we are uncertain about the implications of these preliminary findings from Cannabis Public Policy Consulting, we look forward to reviewing the final report upon its publication.

The Agency of Commerce and Community Development Presentations
Nathan Davidson from the Department of Economic Development, under the ACCD, provided important updates on the Cannabis Business Development Fund. Currently, the CBDF distributes annual beneficiary payments to Social Equity businesses and offers technical assistance through Roads Consulting, a Massachusetts-based firm.

Nathan gave an overview of the CBDF's history, detailing its funding sources over the years and how those funds are used. It's important to highlight that Social Equity applicants receive an annual payment of $5,000. Furthermore, the ACCD will distribute any payments from the previous year that have not yet been disbursed. We encourage you to check out the ACCD's presentation if you are a Social Equity applicant.

The Use of Kief and Pre-rolls
This issue surrounds kief and when it becomes a cannabis product, compelling it to comply with concentrate regulations, and if the allowance for cultivators to use kief with pre-rolls to be considered cannabis, so long as it falls within 30%, should be revisited.

During the conversation, the CCB's General Counsel suggested that this question comes down to the statutory definition of kief and whether or not it's a concentrate. The law doesn't distinguish between processes for producing kief, whether derived from equipment, such as a tumbler, or naturally occurring, such as from trimming. The issue of labeling and unintentional infusion was raised, along with harvest lot and co-mingling concerns.

The Board decided to table this discussion for now; there is no change on this issue.

Changes to Local Control Commission Guidance
The CCB's General Counsel presented proposed changes to guidance for local control commissions. As expressed during the discussion, the most important thing for local control commissions, should a town have one, is to understand that the CCB will no longer send them an annual communication because towns were reported to the agency that it was confusing, and that the new language reminds towns that the agency is going to assume the coast is clear until it hears otherwise. This change in guidance is rather minor in scope and presents no real impact on licensees in towns with a local control commission; in fact, it may improve the local climate for licensees.

The Board voted to adopt the new guidance language for local control commissions.

Pathogen Testing Requirements for Cannabis Used in Solventless Products
This issue was whether a cultivator who doesn't already have a manufacturer's license can skip testing a harvest lot for pathogens if intended for solvent-less extraction, which would require a pathogen test at the final product level.

During the discussion, the compliance team recommended against allowing this, stating that it creates risk and liability for any employees handling potentially contaminated product and for the manufacturer's equipment. Commissioners went back and forth in discussion, noting that while these tests are meant to ensure safety, there may not be a significant safety issue related to their removal. They also commented that concerns about liability can be addressed and are likely manageable. However, eliminating one of the pathogen tests could complicate tracing product issues back to their sources.

The Board decided to leave this matter as-is for now.

Regulations Around Advertising Medical Cannabis Products
This matter concerns whether licensees can advertise medical products to the general adult population, provided the advertisements comply with adult-use advertising restrictions. Commissioners stated they would have no objection to this, provided the audience consisted solely of patients and caregivers. They recommended that lawmakers clarify advertising regulations in the upcoming legislative session, which could influence this discussion.

After further discussion, the Board voted to prohibit the advertisement of medical products.

If Medical Dispensaries Must Adhere to Adult-Use Regulations for In-Store Products
This issue concerns the regulations governing the medical use endorsement retailer license and their impact on a medical dispensary's ability to sell medical and adult-use products, such as requiring adult-use stores to keep medical products separated and covered or out of view. Commissioners expressed that, since only card-carrying patients and caregivers can enter a dispensary, they are comfortable waiving the separation rule for dispensaries, but that the cover rule is beyond the agency's control and requires lawmakers.

The Board voted waive the separation regulation for dispensaries, but the cover policy remains in place.

Retailer Relocation Request, and the Executive Director Report
After a lengthy discussion and vote on those five issues, the Board then discussed and approved the retailer location request, allowing the Clean Cannabis Dispensary to move from Johnson to Jeffersonville.

Following the relocation vote, the Executive Director presented the monthly Executive Director Report. We highlight some key findings below.

There are 571 active total licenses;
359 active total Cultivators;
0 Integrated, a decrease of 1 license from last month;
89 Manufacturers, a decrease of 1 license from last month;
108 Retailers;
2 Testing Labs;
8 Wholesalers;
5 Propagators;
351 Standard licensees, 134 Economic Empowerment licensees, and 86 Social Equity licensees.