• Missouri Adult-Use Regulations

    Missouri Adult-Use Regulations

    Adult-Use Proposed Rules – Comment Period Ends November 25th

    The Department is proposing changes to the rules listed below. Any proposed changes appear as bolded text within the document. Interested individuals are encouraged to monitor this webpage as draft rule changes will be posted for public review to this page as soon as they are available.  The public may submit written comments regarding the proposed changes using the Suggestions Form.

    Proposed rule amendments filed with the Secretary of State appear on the Rule Amendments page.

    Public feedback will be accepted until 11-25-2022.

  • 40% of Oregon Cities Ban Psilocybin Businesses

    40% of Oregon Cities Ban Psilocybin Businesses
    BAKER COUNTY: BANS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES AND FACILITIES WITHIN UNINCORPORATED BAKER COUNTY.
    YES 66.48% 5,478
    NO 33.52% 2,762
    TOTAL VOTES 8,240
    CITY OF BAKER CITY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN BAKER CITY.
    YES 64.75% 2,943
    NO 35.25% 1,602
    TOTAL VOTES 4,545
    CITY OF HALFWAY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES AND FACILITIES WITHIN HALFWAY CITY LIMITS
    YES 65.34%. 115
    NO 34.66% 61
    TOTAL VOTES 176
    CITY OF HUNTINGTON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN HUNTINGTON.

    YES. 63.21% 122
    NO 36.79%. 71
    TOTAL VOTE 193
    CITY OF SUMPTER: PERMANENTLY PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF SUMPTER.
    YES 71.43% 100
    NO 28.57% 40
    TOTAL VOTES 140
    CITY OF UNITY: BANS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES AND FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF UNITY.
    YES 95.24% 20
    NO 4.76% 1
    TOTAL VOTES 21
    CITY OF PHILOMATH: MORATORIUM ON PSILOCYBIN MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE FACILITIES IN PHILOMATH
    YES 53.32% 1,204
    NO 46.68% 1,054
    TOTAL VOTES 2,258
    CLACKAMAS COUNTY: TEMPORARILY PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN UNINCORPORATED CLACKAMAS COUNTY
    YES 57.67%. 61,219
    NO 42.33% 44,939
    TOTAL VOTES 106,158
    CITY OF ESTACADA: TEMPORARY PROHIBITION ON PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN ESTACADA
    YES 62.50% 715
    NO 37.50% 429
    TOTAL VOTES 1,144
    CITY OF MOLALLA: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESS IN MOLALLA
    YES 64.03%. 1,175
    NO 35.97%. 660
    TOTAL VOTES 1,835
    CLATSOP COUNTY: TEMPORARY BAN OF CERTAIN PSILOCYBIN BUSINESSES IN UNINCORPORATED CLATSOP COUNTY
    YES 55.81% 10,094
    NO 44.19% 7,993
    TOTAL VOTES 18,087
    CITY OF SEASIDE: TEMPORARY BAN ON PSILOCYBIN SERVICE CENTERS AND MANUFACTURING PRODUCTS
    YES 57.51% 1,439
    NO 42.49% 1,063
    TOTAL VOTES 2,502
    CITY OF CLATSKANIE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CLATSKANIE FOR 2 YEARS.
    YES 62.64% 379
    NO 37.36% 226
    TOTAL VOTES 605
    CITY OF ST. HELENS: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN ST. HELENS FOR TWO YEARS.
    YES 55.18% 2,717
    NO 44.82% 2,207
    TOTAL VOTES 4,924
    Wheatland Township Marihuana Proposal (Vote for 1)
    Times Cast 636 / 1,162 54.73%
    YES. 269
    No 350
    TOTAL VOTES 619
    GILLIAM: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF GILLIAM COUNTY
    CENTERS IN KLAMATH COUNTY.
    YES 67.98% 637
    NO 32.02% 300
    TOTAL VOTES 937
    CITY OF ARLINGTON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF ARLINGTON
    YES 69.90% 202
    NO 30.10%. 87
    TOTAL VOTES 289
    CITY OF CONDON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF CONDON FOR TWO (2) YEARS. PROHIBITION SUNSETS DECEMBER 31, 2024
    YES 74.18% 273
    NO 25.82%. 95
    TOTAL VOTES 368
    JACKSON COUNTY: PROHIBITING PSILOCYBIN MANUFACTURERS AND SERVICE CENTER OPERATORS IN JACKSON COUNTY
    YES 47.50% 46,231
    NO. 52.50%. 51,098
    TOTAL VOTES. 97,329
    CITY OF CENTRAL POINT: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
    YES 64.94% 5,398
    NO 35.06% 2,914
    TOTAL VOTES 8,312
    CITY OF EAGLE POINT: PERMANENTLY PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN RELATED BUSINESSES IN THE CITY OF EAGLE POINT
    YES 69.16% 3,169
    NO 30.84% 1,413
    TOTAL VOTES 4,582
    CITY OF JACKSONVILLE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
    YES 66.87% 1,348
    NO 33.13% 668
    TOTAL VOTES 2,016
    CITY OF PHOENIX: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN PRODUCT MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE CENTERS IN PHOENIX
    YES 47.18% 811
    NO 52.82% 908
    TOTAL VOTES 1,719
    CITY OF ROGUE RIVER: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF ROGUE RIVER
    YES 61.33% 663
    NO 38.67% 418
    TOTAL VOTES 1,081
    CITY OF SHADY COVE: SHADY COVE PERMANENTLY PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CITY LIMITS
    YES 65.45% 987
    NO 34.55% 521
    TOTAL VOTES 1,508
    SHERMAN COUNTY: CONCERNING PSILOCYBIN MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE CENTERS IN UNINCORPORATED SHERMAN COUNTY
    YES 69.98% 690
    NO 30.02% 296
    TOTAL VOTES 986
    TILLAMOOK COUNTY: TEMPORARILY PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN UNINCORPORATED TILLAMOOK COUNTY
    YES 54.41% 6,077
    NO 45.59% 5,091
    TOTAL VOTES 11,168
    CITY OF NEHALEM: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF NEHALEM
    YES 51.35% 57
    NO 48.65% 54
    TOTAL VOTES 111
    CITY OF TILLAMOOK: TEMPORARILY PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF TILLAMOOK
    YES 54.15% 738
    NO 45.85% 625
    TOTAL VOTES 1,363
    CITY OF WHEELER: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESS WITHIN THE CITY OF WHEELER
    YES 49.73% 91
    NO 50.27% 92
    TOTAL VOTES 183
    UMATILLA COUNTY: BAN OF CERTAIN PSILOCYBIN BUSINESSES IN UNINCORPORATED UMATILLA COUNTY
    YES 69.19% 16,161
    NO 30.81% 7,196
    TOTAL VOTES 23,357
    CITY OF ATHENA: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF ATHENA
    YES 73.12% 408
    NO 26.88% 150
    TOTAL VOTES 558
    CITY OF ECHO: TO PROHIBIT PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF ECHO
    YES 68.49% 150
    NO 31.51% 69
    TOTAL VOTES 219
    CITY OF HERMISTON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF HERMISTON
    YES 68.64% 2,736
    NO 31.36% 1,250
    TOTAL VOTES 3,986
    CITY OF MILTON-FREEWATER: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF MILTON-FREEWATER
    YES 68.25% 905
    NO 31.75% 421
    TOTAL VOTES 1,326
    CITY OF PENDLETON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF PENDLETON.
    YES 66.11% 3,757
    NO 33.89% 1,926
    TOTAL VOTES 5,683
    CITY OF PILOT ROCK: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF PILOT ROCK
    YES 76.91% 423
    NO 23.09% 127
    TOTAL VOTES 550
    CITY OF STANFIELD: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF STANFIELD
    YES 70.56% 393
    NO 29.44% 164
    TOTAL VOTES 557
    CITY OF UMATILLA: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF UMATILLA
    YES 66.03% 653
    NO 33.97% 336
    TOTAL VOTES 989
    WHEELER COUNTY: PSILOCYBIN PRODUCT MANUFACTURE AND SERVICE CENTERS IN UNINCORPORATED WHEELER COUNTY
    YES 58.31% 449
    NO 41.69% 321
    TOTAL VOTES 770
    CITY OF FOSSIL: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF FOSSIL, OREGON
    YES 61.23% 139
    NO 38.77% 88
    TOTAL VOTES 227
    CITY OF SPRAY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF SPRAY
    YES 62.79% 54
    NO 37.21% 32
    TOTAL VOTES 86
    MARION COUNTY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE CENTERS IN UNINCORPORATED MARION COUNTY
    YES 58.20% 52,279
    NO 41.80% 37,550
    TOTAL VOTES 89,829
    CITY OF AUMSVILLE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE AUMSVILLE
    YES 65.77% 709
    NO 34.23% 369
    TOTAL VOTES 1,078
    CITY OF GATES: TEMPORARILY PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF GATES
    YES 73.74% 73
    NO 26.26% 26
    TOTAL VOTES 99
    CITY OF HUBBARD: PROHIBITS: PSILOCYBIN BUSINESSES WITHIN HUBBARD. PROHIBITION SUNSETS AFTER TWO YEARS
    YES 68.10% 476
    NO 31.90% 223
    TOTAL VOTES 699
    CITY OF JEFFERSON: TEMPORARILY PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF JEFFERSON
    YES 65.31% 514
    NO 34.69% 273
    TOTAL VOTES 787
    CITY OF KEIZER: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF KEIZER
    YES 64.79% 7,530
    NO 35.21% 4,093
    TOTAL VOTES 11,623
    CITY OF MILL CITY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF MILL CITYALL
    YES 53.33% 40
    NO 46.67% 35
    TOTAL VOTES 75
    CITY OF ST PAUL: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN ST. PAUL, OREGON
    YES 72.12% 150
    NO 27.88% 58
    TOTAL VOTES 208
    CITY OF STAYTON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF STAYTON
    YES 68.83% 1,742
    NO 31.17% 789
    TOTAL VOTES 2,531
    CITY OF SUBLIMITY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESS WITHIN THE CITY OF SUBLIMITY
    YES 80.47% 1,104
    NO 19.53% 268
    TOTAL VOTES 1,372
    CITY OF TURNER: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF TURNER
    YES 71.70% 684
    NO 28.30% 270
    TOTAL VOTES 954
    CITY OF WOODBURN: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF WOODBURN
    YES 64.88% 2,995
    NO 35.12% 1,621
    TOTAL VOTES 4,616
    KLAMATH COUNTY INCORPORATED CITIES: CONCERNING PSILOCYBIN MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE CENTERS IN KLAMATH COUNTY.
    YES 68.74% 10,610
    NO 31.26% 4,824
    TOTAL VOTES 15,434
    CITY OF MERRILL: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CITY OF MERRILL.
    YES 73.50% 86
    NO 26.50% 31
    TOTAL VOTES 117
    CITY OF SPRAY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF SPRAY
    YES 62.79% 54
    NO 37.21% 32
    TOTAL VOTES 86
    PRAIRIE CITY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN PRAIRIE CITY
    YES 68.68% 318
    NO 31.32% 145
    TOTAL VOTES 463
    LAKE COUNTY: PERMANENTLY PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN LAKE COUNTY
    YES 71.59% 2,719
    NO 28.41% 1,079
    TOTAL VOTES 3,798
    TOWN OF LAKEVIEW: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN TOWN OF LAKEVIEW.
    YES 66.97% 657
    NO 33.03% 324
    TOTAL VOTES 981
    CITY OF TOLEDO: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN TOLE
    YES 56.33% 627
    NO 43.67% 486
    TOTAL VOTES 1,113
    CITY OF TOLEDO: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN TOLEDO FOR TWO YEARS.
    YES 53.74% 725
    NO 46.26% 624
    TOTAL VOTES 1,349
    JOSEPHINE COUNTY: AMENDS CODE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN PRODUCT MANUFACTURING IN JOSEPHINE COUNTY
    YES 24.62% 7,215
    NO 75.38% 22,096
    TOTAL VOTES 29,311
    JOSEPHINE COUNTY: AMENDS CODE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN SERVICE CENTERS IN JOSEPHINE COUNTY
    YES 26.52% 7,839
    NO 73.48% 21,720
    TOTAL VOTES 29,559
    CITY OF CAVE JUNCTION: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CAVE JUNCTION FOR TWO YEARS.
    YES 63.06% 355
    NO 36.94% 208
    TOTAL VOTES 563
    HARNEY COUNTY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESS AND FACILITIES IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF HARNEY COUNTY
    YES 64.80% 2,360
    NO 35.20% 1,282
    TOTAL VOTES 3,642
    CITY OF BURNS: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CITY OF BURNS
    YES 59.30% 663
    NO 40.70% 455
    TOTAL VOTE 1,118
    CITY OF HINES: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CITY OF HINES
    YES 65.12% 504
    NO 34.88% 270
    TOTAL VOTES 774
    GILLIAM: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF GILLIAM COUNTY.
    YES 67.98% 637
    NO 32.02% 300
    TOTAL VOTES 937
    CITY OF ARLINGTON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF ARLINGTON
    YES 69.90% 202
    NO 30.10% 87
    TOTAL VOTES 289
    CITY OF CONDON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF CONDON FOR TWO (2) YEARS. PROHIBITION SUNSETS DECEMBER 31, 2024
    YES 74.18% 273
    NO 25.82% 95
    TOTAL VOTES 368
    DOUGLAS COUNTY: CONCERNING PSILOCYBIN (HALLUCINOGENIC MUSHROOMS)-RELATED BUSINESSES IN UNINCORPORATED DOUGLAS COUNTY.
    YES 24.97% 9,784
    NO 75.03% 29,396
    TOTAL VOTES 39,180
    CITY OF CANYONVILLE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF CANYONVILLE
    YES 64.42% 248
    NO 35.58% 137
    TOTAL VOTES 385
    CITY OF ELKTON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF ELKTON
    YES 73.61% 53
    NO 26.39% 19
    TOTAL VOTES 72
    CITY OF GLENDALE: PROHIBITING PSILOCYBIN-RELATED ENTITIES IN AREA OF JURISDICTION.
    YES 72.73% 104
    NO 27.27% 39
    TOTAL VOTES 143
    CITY OF MYRTLE CREEK: CONCERNING PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES IN THE CITY OF MYRTLE CREEK.
    YES 23.67% 227
    NO 76.33% 732
    TOTAL VOTES 959
    CITY OF OAKLAND: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN OAKLAND, OREGON.
    YES 63.82% 217
    NO 36.18% 123
    TOTAL VOTES 340
    CITY OF REEDSPORT: PROHIBITS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES FOR TWO YEARS.
    YES 66.67% 984
    NO 33.33% 492
    TOTAL VOTES 1,476
    CITY OF RIDDLE: PROHIBITING PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES IN THE AREA OF CITY JURISDICTION.
    YES 17.69% 26
    NO 82.31% 121
    TOTAL VOTES 147
    CITY OF ROSEBURG: CONCERNING PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF ROSEBURG, OREGON
    YES 30.02% 2,112
    NO 69.98% 4,923
    TOTAL VOTES 7,035
    CITY OF SUTHERLIN: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN BUSINESSES WITHIN SUTHERLIN. PROHIBITION SUNSETS AFTER TWO YEARS.
    YES 70.17% 2,225
    NO 29.83% 946
    TOTAL VOTES 3,171
    CITY OF WINSTON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF WINSTON, OREGON
    YES 63.45% 1,172
    NO 36.55% 675
    TOTAL VOTES 1,847
    POLK COUNTY: PERMANENTLY PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN UNINCORPORATED POLK COUNTY
    YES 15,515 53.81%
    NO 13,317 46.19%
    TOTAL VOTES 28,832
    CITY OF DALLAS: ADOPTS ORDINANCE PROHIBITING PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN DALLAS.
    YES 3,728 58.31%
    NO 2,665 41.69%
    TOTAL VOTES 6,393
    CITY OF INDEPENDENCE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF INDEPENDENCE.
    YES 1,302 54.55%
    NO 1,085 45.45%
    TOTAL VOTES 2,387
    CITY OF WILLAMINA: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN BUSINESSES WITHIN WILLAMINA. PROHIBITION SUNSETS AFTER TWO YEARS.
    YES 117 56.80%
    NO 89 43.20%
    TOTAL VOTES 206
    MORROW COUNTY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF MORROW COUNTY.
    YES 2,504 65.02%
    NO 1,347 34.98%
    TOTAL VOTES 3,851
    CITY OF BOARDMAN: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF BOARDMAN.
    YES 356 60.34%
    NO 234 39.66%
    TOTAL VOTES 590
    CITY OF HEPPNER: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF HEPPNER.
    YES 415 64.74%
    NO 226 35.26%
    TOTAL VOTES 641
    CITY OF IONE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN (HALLUCINOGENIC MUSHROOMS) BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF IONE
    YES 135 75.42%
    NO 44 24.58%
    TOTAL VOTES 179
    CITY OF IRRIGON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF IRRIGON.
    YES 365 67.22%
    NO 178 32.78%
    TOTAL VOTES 543
    TOWN OF LEXINGTON: PROHIBIT PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE TOWN OF LEXINGTON, OREGON
    YES 101 73.72%
    NO 36 26.28%
    TOTAL VOTES 137
    MALHEUR COUNTY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE CENTERS IN UNINCORPORATED MALHEUR COUNTY
    YES 6,321 71.65%
    NO 2,501 28.35%
    TOTAL VOTES 8,822
    CITY OF ADRIAN: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF ADRIAN.
    YES 34 69.39%
    NO 15 30.61%
    TOTAL VOTES 49
    CITY OF JORDAN VALLEY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF JORDAN VALLEY.
    YES 68 87.18%
    NO 10 12.82%
    TOTAL VOTES 78
    CITY OF NYSSA: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF NYSSA.
    YES 448 75.68%
    NO 144 24.32%
    TOTAL VOTES 592
    CITY OF ONTARIO: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CITY OF ONTARIO.
    YES 1,866 65.24%
    NO 994 34.76%
    TOTAL VOTES 2,860
    CITY OF VALE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF VALE.
    YES 436 72.79%
    NO 163 27.21%
    TOTAL VOTES 599
    UNION COUNTY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN PRODUCT MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE CENTERS IN UNION COUNTY
    YES 7,101 60.44%
    NO 4,648 39.56%
    TOTAL VOTES 11,749
    CITY OF COVE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CITY OF COVE.
    YES 258 72.07%
    NO 100 27.93%
    TOTAL VOTES 358
    CITY OF ELGIN: AMENDS CITY CHARTER REMOVING OFFICE OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL
    YES 293 44.06%
    NO 372 55.94%
    TOTAL VOTES 665
    CITY OF ELGIN: AMENDS CITY CHARTER COMBINING OFFICES OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR/RECORDER TO ADMINISTRATOR.
    YES 364 56.09%
    NO 285 43.91%
    TOTAL VOTES 649
    CITY OF ELGIN: AMENDS CHARTER ALLOWING ALTERNATIVE TO SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT FOR ELECTORS.
    YES 184 27.71%
    NO 480 72.29%
    TOTAL VOTES 664
    CITY OF IMBLER: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN – RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF IMBLER
    YES 133 73.48%
    NO 48 26.52%
    TOTAL VOTES 181
    CITY OF LA GRANDE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF LA GRANDE.
    YES 2,690 54.51%
    NO 2,245 45.49%
    TOTAL VOTES 4,935
    CITY OF ISLAND CITY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF ISLAND CITY.
    YES 408 67.00%
    NO 201 33.00%
    TOTAL VOTES 609
    CITY OF NORTH POWDER: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF NORTH POWDER.
    YES 130 61.90%
    NO 80 38.10%
    TOTAL VOTES 210
    CITY OF UNION: PERMANENTLY PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CITY OF UNION.
    YES 730 69.46%
    NO 321 30.54%
    TOTAL VOTES 1,051
    WALLOWA COUNTY: PERMANENTLY PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN WALLOWA COUNTY
    YES 2,743 61.96%
    NO 1,684 38.04%
    TOTAL VOTES 4,427
    JEFFERSON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN JEFFERSON COUNTY.
    YES 59.45% 5,541
    NO 40.55% 3,779
    TOTAL VOTES 9,320
    CITY OF CULVER: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF CULVER.
    YES 64.55% 366
    NO 35.45% 201
    TOTAL VOTES 567
    CITY OF MADRAS: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CITY OF MADRAS.
    YES 60.05% 1,198
    NO 39.95% 797
    TOTAL VOTES 1,995
    CITY OF METOLIUS: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF METOLIUS
    YES 53.85% 182
    NO 46.15% 156
    TOTAL VOTES 338
    DESCHUTES: CONCERNING PSILOCYBIN MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE CENTERS IN UNINCORPORATED DESCHUTES COUNTY.
    YES 43.69% 42,417
    NO 56.31% 54,660
    TOTAL VOTES 97,077
    CITY OF LA PINE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CITY OF LA PINE.
    YES 58.26% 543
    NO 41.74% 389
    TOTAL VOTESb 932
    CITY OF REDMOND: DECLARING A PROHIBITION ON THE MANUFACTURE OF PSILOCYBIN PRODUCTS.
    YES 56.75% 8,033
    NO 43.25% 6,123
    TOTAL VOTES 14,156
    CITY OF REDMOND: DECLARING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM ON PSILOCYBIN SERVICE CENTERS.
    YES 53.66% 7,494
    NO 46.34% 6,471
    TOTAL VOTES 13,965
    CURRY: CONCERNING PSILOCYBIN SERVICE CENTERS AND PRODUCT MANUFACTURING IN CURRY COUNTY.
    YES 54.31% 6,030
    NO 45.69% 5,072
    TOTAL VOTES 11,102
    CITY OF BROOKINGS: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN PRODUCT MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE CENTERS FOR 2 YEARS.
    YES 62.26% 1,678
    NO 37.74% 1,017
    TOTAL VOTES 2,695
    CROOK COUNTY: 7-84 PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CROOK COUNTY.
    YES 66.00% 7,176
    NO 34.00% 3,697
    TOTAL VOTES 10,873
    CITY OF PRINEVILLE: 7-83 PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF PRINEVILLE.
    YES 63.87% 2,348
    NO 36.13% 1,328
    TOTAL VOTES 3,676
    CURRY: CONCERNING PSILOCYBIN SERVICE CENTERS AND PRODUCT MANUFACTURING IN CURRY COUNTY.
    YES 54.31% 6,030
    NO 45.69% 5,072
    TOTAL VOTES 11,102
    CITY OF BROOKINGS: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN PRODUCT MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE CENTERS FOR 2 YEARS.
    YES 62.26% 1,678
    NO 37.74% 1,017
    TOTAL VOTES 2,695
    CITY OF AMITY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN AMITY FOR 2-YEARS.
    YES 64.81% 221
    NO 35.19% 120
    TOTAL VOTES 341
    CITY OF CARLTON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CARLTON. PROHIBITION SUNSETS AFTER TWO YEARS.
    YES 63.32% 378
    NO 36.68% 219
    TOTAL VOTES 597
    CITY OF DUNDEE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN DUNDEE FOR TWO YEARS.
    YES 65.88% 529
    NO 34.12% 274
    TOTAL VOTES 803
    CITY OF MCMINNVILLE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN MCMINNVILLE. PROHIBITION SUNSETS AFTER TWO YEARS.
    YES 59.30% 5,316
    NO 40.70% 3,649
    TOTAL VOTES 8,965
    CITY OF NEWBERG: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF NEWBERG.
    YES 58.36% 3,657
    NO 41.64% 2,609
    TOTAL VOTES 6,266
    CITY OF SHERIDAN: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN SHERIDAN. PROHIBITION SUNSETS AFTER TWO YEARS.
    YES 68.29% 741
    NO 31.71% 344
    TOTAL VOTES 1,085
    CITY OF WILLAMINA: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN BUSINESSES WITHIN WILLAMINA. PROHIBITION SUNSETS AFTER TWO YEARS.
    YES 58.22% 177
    NO 41.78% 127
    TOTAL VOTES 304
    COOS COUNTY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESS WITHIN UNINCORPORATED COOS COUNTY.
    YES 58.43% 14,142
    NO 41.57% 10,062
    TOTAL VOTES 24,204
    COOS COUNTY: A FIVE-YEAR LEVY TO INCREASE JAIL FUNDING AND CAPACITY.
    YES 45.02% 11,037
    NO 54.98% 13,477
    TOTAL VOTES 24,514
    BANDON CITY: PROHIBIT PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESS. PROHIBITION SUNSETS AFTER TWO YEARS.
    YES 60.92% 904
    NO 39.08% 580
    TOTAL VOTES 1,484
    BANDON CITY: CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY TO SET SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
    YES 58.84% 3,054
    NO 41.16% 2,136
    TOTAL VOTES 5,190
    COOS BAY CITY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF COOS BAY
    YES 58.84% 3,054
    NO 41.16% 2,136
    TOTAL VOTES 5,190
    COQUILLE CITY: PROHIBIT PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF COQUILLE.
    YES 60.56% 843
    NO 39.44% 549
    TOTAL VOTES 1,392
    LAKESIDE CITY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF LAKESIDE.
    YES 70.22% 632
    NO 29.78% 268
    TOTAL VOTES 900
    MYRTLE POINT CITY: PROHIBITS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES IN MYRTLE POI
    YES 68.19% 521
    NO 31.81% 243
    TOTAL VOTES 764
    NORTH BEND CITY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF NORTH BEND.
    YES 63.25% 2,189
    NO 36.75% 1,272
    TOTAL VOTES 3,461
    CITY OF BANKS: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES IN BANKS. PROHIBITION SUNSETS AFTER 2 YEARS
    YES 64.13% 320
    NO 35.87% 179
    TOTAL VOTES 499
    CITY OF CORNELIUS: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN BUSINESS WITHIN CORNELIUS.
    YES 57.10% 1,375
    NO 42.90% 1,033
    TOTAL VOTES 2,408
    *Results may be unofficial.

  • Unofficial Rhode Island Cannabis Ballot Measure Results

    Barrington, RI
    4. RI CANNABIS ACT
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Reject 4169 52.9%
    Approve 3710 47.1%
    Bristol, RI
    4. ISSUANCE OF CANNABIS LICENSES WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 4017 51.2%
    Reject 3824 48.8%
    Burrillville, RI
    4. RHODE ISLAND CANNABIS ACT – LOCAL LICENSING
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 3119 58.9%
    Reject 2177 41.1%
    Charlestown, RI
    4. RI CANNABIS ACT; MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 2144 54.2%
    Reject 1809 45.8%
    Coventry, RI
    15. RHODE ISLAND CANNABIS ACT – LOCAL LICENSING
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 8302 59.9%
    Reject 5551 40.1%
    Cumberland, RI
    5. RHODE ISLAND CANNABIS ACT – LOCAL LICENSING
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 6937 54.2%
    Reject 5860 45.8%
    East Greenwich, RI
    4. LICENSES FOR LOCAL RECREATIONAL CANNABIS BUSINESSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Reject 3284 51.1%
    Approve 3148 48.9%
    East Providence, RI
    5. RHODE ISLAND CANNABIS ACT – LOCAL LICENSING
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 9233 62.1%
    Reject 5624 37.9%
    Glocester, RI
    4. LICENSES FOR RECREATION CANNABIS RELATED BUSINESSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 2461 55.5%
    Reject 1977 44.5%
    Hopkinton, RI
    4. RETAIL SALE OF ADULT RECREATIONAL USE CANNABIS
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 2170 60.8%
    Reject 1397 39.2%
    Jamestown, RI
    4. RI CANNABIS ACT: MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Reject 1608 52.6%
    Approve 1451 47.4%
    Johnston, RI
    4. RHODE ISLAND CANNABIS ACT – LOCAL LICENSING
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 5443 56.0%
    Reject 4278 44.0%
    Lincoln, RI
    4. CANNABIS LICENSES IN LINCOLN
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 4418 50.8%
    Reject 4286 49.2%
    Little Compton, RI
    4. RHODE ISLAND CANNABIS ACT – LOCAL LICENSING
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Reject 1141 57.1%
    Approve 858 42.9%
    Middletown, RI
    6. CANNABIS LICENSES IN MIDDLETOWN
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 3281 56.9%
    Reject 2482 43.1%
    Narragansett, RI
    4. RETAIL SALE OF ADULT RECREATIONAL CANNABIS
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 3630 52.6%
    Reject 3275 47.4%
    New Shoreham, RI
    4. ISSUANCE OF CANNABIS LICENSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 372 54.9%
    Reject 305 45.1%
    Newport, RI
    4. STATE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES FOR CANNABIS BUSINESSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 4253 60.8%
    Reject 2743 39.2%
    North Kingstown, RI
    4. NEW CANNABIS RELATED LICENSES IN NORTH KINGSTOWN
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Yes 7061 54.7%
    No 5858 45.3%
    North Providence, RI
    4. RI CANNABIS ACT:STATE ISSUED LICENSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 5642 56.1%
    Reject 4417 43.9%
    Richmond, RI
    4. LICENSES FOR CANNABIS RELATED BUSINESSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 2080 58.2%
    Reject 1496 41.8%
    Scituate, RI
    4. RI CANNABIS ACT:STATE ISSUED LICENSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Reject 2377 50.5%
    Approve 2331 49.5%
    Smithfield, RI
    4. NEW CANNABIS RELATED LICENSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Reject 4172 50.7%
    Approve 4063 49.3%
    South Kingstown, RI
    4. RI CANNABIS ACT: STATE – ISSUED LICENSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 7498 60.1%
    Reject 4982 39.9%
    Tiverton, RI
    8. TITLE 21 CHAPTER 28.11 The Rhode Island Cannabis Act
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 3230 54.8%
    Reject 2666 45.2%
    Warren, RI
    4. ISSUANCE OF CANNABIS LICENSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 2263 57.6%
    Reject 1666 42.4%
    West Greenwich, RI
    4. ISSUANCE OF CANNABIS LICENSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 1543 52.1%
    Reject 1419 47.9%
    West Warwick, RI
    4. STATE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES FOR CANNABIS BUSINESSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 5646 60.6%
    Reject 3676 39.4%
    Westerly, RI
    5. RHODE ISLAND CANNABIS ACT – MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 4983 55.0%
    Reject 4083 45.0%
    Woonsocket, RI
    5. RELATING TO CANNABIS ESTABLISHMENTS AND PUBLIC USE
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 4574 62.0%
    Reject 2809 38.0%
    North Smithfield, RI
    4. THE RI CANNABIS ACT: STATE ISSUED LICENSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 2687 56.1%
    Reject 2101 43.9%
  • Early Michigan Cannabis Ballot Measure Results

    Hagar Township Ordinance for Marihuana Facilities Proposal
    Precincts fully reported: 2 of 2 100.00%
    Ballots: 1,551
    Yes 670 47.93%
    No 728 52.07%
    Total: 1,398 100%
    Niles Charter Township Marihuana Establishments Proposal
    Precincts fully reported: 5 of 5 100.00%
    Ballots: 5,365
    Yes 2,322 48.03%
    No 2,512 51.97%
    Total: 4,834 100%
    Zilwaukee Township Initiated Ordinance Number 2022-0001 Repeal of Marihuana Prohibition
    Precincts fully reported: 1 of 1 100.00%
    Ballots: 35
    Yes 12 36.36%
    No 21 63.64%
    Total: 33 100%
    City Of Laingsburg Marihuana Ballot Proposal
    Precincts fully reported: 1 of 1 100.00%
    Ballots: 636
    Yes 381 62.05%
    No 233 37.95%
    Total: 614 100%
    City of Memphis Proposal Prohibit Adult Use Marihuana Establishments
    Precincts fully reported: 1 of 1 100.00%
    Ballots: 163
    Yes 59 38.31%
    No 95 61.69%
    Total: 154 100%
    South Haven Charter Township Marijuana Dispensaries Proposal
    Precincts fully reported: 2 of 2 100.00%
    Ballots: 1,689
    Yes 892 54.26%
    No 752 45.74%
    Total: 1,644 100%
    ­
    ­
    *Results may be unofficial – Includes 16 of 83 Counties that posted results.
    Contact us for further information.
  • Utah Accepts Crypto as Currency

    The State of Utah proposed a new rule that allows state agencies to accept digital currency for payment owed. Public comment is being accepted through November 14, 2022. The tentative effective date is November 21, 2022.

    #digitalcurrency#crypto#rules#utah

    NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE TYPE OF RULE: New Rule or Section Number: R25-25 Filing ID: 54909 Agency Information

    3. Purpose of the new rule or reason for the change (Why is the agency submitting this filing?):

    This rule has been created in accordance with Subsection 63A-3-112(6) to establish requirements that agencies must meet to accept virtual currency for payments and establishes standards for service providers wishing to contract with the state to covert virtual currency collections into fiat currency to satisfy amounts owed to the state.

    4. Summary of the new rule or change (What does this filing do?

    If this is a repeal and reenact, explain the substantive differences between the repealed rule and the reenacted rule): This is a new rule that has been created in accordance with Subsection 63A-3-112(6) to establish requirements that agencies must meet to accept virtual currency for payments and establishes standards for service providers wishing to contract with the state to covert virtual currency collections into fiat currency to satisfy amounts owed to the state. It establishes requirements for service providers, such as insurance coverage; timing of pricing, conversion, and deposit of funds; regulatory compliance requirements; and service provider fees. It also establishes requirements that state agencies must meet to offer digital asset payments, such as: record retention, fees, refunds and internal controls.

  • Municipal Cannabis Ballot Measures – November 8, 2022

    Municipal Cannabis Ballot Measures – November 8, 2022
    DATESTATECOUNTYMUNICIPALITY
    Nov 8, 2022CAKingsAvenal
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesBaldwin Park
    Nov 8, 2022CASan MateoBurlingame
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesClaremont
    Nov 8, 2022CARiversideCorona
    Nov 8, 2022CALassenCounty of Lassen
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesCounty of Los Angeles
    Nov 8, 2022CASacramentoCounty of Sacramento
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesCudahy
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesEl Segundo
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesEl Segundo
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesEl Segundo
    Nov 8, 2022CASonomaHealdsburg
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesHermosa Beach
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesHermosa Beach
    Nov 8, 2022CAOrangeHuntington Beach
    Nov 8, 2022CAOrangeLaguna Woods
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesLynwood
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesManhattan Beach
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesManhattan Beach
    Nov 8, 2022CAKernMcFarland
    Nov 8, 2022CASan BernardinoMontclair
    Nov 8, 2022CAMontereyMonterey
    Nov 8, 2022CAMontereyPacific Grove
    Nov 8, 2022CAMontereyPacific Grove
    Nov 8, 2022CATehamaRed Bluff
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesRedondo Beach
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesSanta Monica
    Nov 8, 2022CAMarinSausalito
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesSouth El Monte
    Nov 8, 2022CAEl DoradoSouth Lake Tahoe
    Nov 8, 2022CALassenSusanville
    Nov 8, 2022CATulareTulare
    Nov 8, 2022CAYoloWoodland
    Nov 8, 2022COEl PasoCity of Colorado Springs
    Nov 8, 2022COEl PasoCity of Colorado Springs
    Nov 8, 2022COEl PasoCity of Colorado Springs
    Nov 8, 2022COTellerCity of Cripple Creek
    Nov 8, 2022COTellerCity of Cripple Creek
    Nov 8, 2022CODenverDenver
    Nov 8, 2022COGrandTown of Grand Lake
    Nov 8, 2022CTNew LondonTown of Ledyard
    Nov 8, 2022CTNew LondonTown of Ledyard
    Nov 8, 2022CTNew HavenTown of Waterbury
    Nov 8, 2022ILSt. ClairBelleville
    Oct 4, 2022MAMiddlesexBillerica
    Nov 8, 2022MAHampshireChesterfield
    Nov 8, 2022MDAnne ArundelState of Maryland
    Nov 8, 2022MEHancockBar Harbor
    Nov 8, 2022MEHancockBar Harbor
    Sep 6, 2022MEHancockBar Harbor
    Nov 8, 2022MEYorkEliot
    Nov 8, 2022MIOaklandAuburn Hills
    Nov 8, 2022MIOaklandBrandon
    Nov 8, 2022MILivingstonBrighton
    Nov 8, 2022MIOaklandCharter Township of Royal Oak
    Nov 8, 2022MIWayneCity of Flat Rock
    Nov 8, 2022MIOaklandCity of Keego Harbor
    Nov 8, 2022MIMacombCity of Memphis
    Nov 8, 2022MIMacombCity of Memphis
    Nov 8, 2022MIOaklandCity of the Village of Clarkston
    Nov 8, 2022MIGeneseeClio
    Nov 8, 2022MIGrand TraverseGreen Lake
    Nov 8, 2022MIOaklandLathrup Village
    Nov 8, 2022MIOaklandLeonard
    Nov 8, 2022MIEmmetPetoskey
    Nov 8, 2022MIWayneTaylor
    Nov 8, 2022MOMillerState of Missouri
    Nov 8, 2022NDSheridanState of North Dakota
    Nov 8, 2022NYDelawareTown of Franklin
    Nov 8, 2022OHPortageCity of Kent
    Nov 8, 2022ORMarionCity of Aumsville
    Nov 8, 2022ORMalheurCounty of Malheur
    Nov 8, 2022RIProvidenceCity of East Providence
    Nov 8, 2022RIProvidenceCity of East Providence
    Nov 8, 2022RIProvidenceCity of Woonsocket
    Nov 8, 2022RINewportNewport
    Nov 8, 2022RIWashingtonSouth Kingstown
    Nov 8, 2022RIProvidenceTown of Burrillville
    Nov 8, 2022RIWashingtonTown of Charlestown
    Nov 8, 2022RIWashingtonTown of Charlestown
    Nov 8, 2022RIWashingtonTown of Exeter
    Nov 8, 2022RIProvidenceTown of Glocester
    Nov 8, 2022RINewportTown of Jamestown
    Nov 8, 2022RINewportTown of Jamestown
    Nov 8, 2022RIProvidenceTown of Johnston
    Nov 8, 2022RINewportTown of Middletown
    Nov 8, 2022RIWashingtonTown of Narragansett
    Nov 8, 2022RIProvidenceTown of North Providence
    Nov 8, 2022RIProvidenceTown of North Smithfield
    Nov 8, 2022RIProvidenceTown of Smithfield
    Nov 8, 2022RINewportTown of Tiverton
    Nov 8, 2022RINewportTown of Tiverton
    Nov 8, 2022RIBristolTown of Warren
    Nov 8, 2022RIWashingtonTown of Westerly
    Nov 8, 2022RIKentWest Warwick
    Contact us for Ballot Measure Details!
  • Acceptance of Cannabis Is Growing: How Are Industry Stocks Performing?

    Each year, at this time of significance for the cannabis industry, Jushi Holdings (JUSHF), a vertically integrated, multi-state operator in the cannabis business, commissions a poll on attitudes to cannabis. This year’s poll

  • The Emerging Cannabis Industry Needs Targeted Capital and Is in Danger of Suing Itself to Oblivion

    When Illinois passed its adult-use cannabis legislation in June of 2019, the future for the business in the state looked bright. Since then, though, it has hit the rocks, mired down by a failure to achieve social equity goals and a string of lawsuits that have held up licensing, especially in the areas of craft growers and retail dispensaries. Even a cursory glance at the OBEDIO™ data and analysis that can be found at thcregs.com shows that things are moving a lot slower than hoped in the state. The state still hasn’t added to the initial 110 retail licenses issued, and even they are now in question following the most recent lawsuit filed.

    There is hope. The Illinois legislature has refined the lottery rules for the latest round on or before December 21st this year, when they will issue fifty additional dispensary licenses. That will help with the immediate issues, but there are more fundamental problems that need to be addressed.

    The Problems

    The two main problems causing the delays are inherently linked and are also indicative of problems in the emerging cannabis industry elsewhere. Illinois, like other states, attempted to give an advantage to communities and individuals disproportionately affected by the “war on drugs” and to local residents, by giving both groups a scoring advantage in the rating system used to allocate licenses to applicants. The problem is that when you give one group an advantage, that obviously means that you disadvantage others and that, according to the basis of the most recent suit, violates the constitution.


    Save time and money. Not only in Massachusetts, zero in on favorable locations and opportunities in over 7,500 jurisdictions across the country. Simple and reasonable monthly pricing. Only at THCREGS.com

    I am not a lawyer and do not intend to get into the legal merit of the case, but the very fact that it exists, along with countless other suits both in Illinois and elsewhere that have been filed to protest social equity measures in adult-use legislation, is itself a problem for the industry. The Law is many things, but speedy is very rarely one of them, and delaying the opening of businesses is sucking enormous amounts of capital out of a very young and undercapitalized industry. For potential small business entrepreneurs, including most of those social equity applicants, that is often fatal.

    As I said, this is not confined to Illinois. A San Francisco study in 2020 found that two years after the licensing process began there, only the 37 licenses granted to existing medical dispensaries were operating. For most small businesses, two years of paying rent, salaries, and other expenses before a dime of revenue is brought in is an impossible hill to climb, and even those that survive will start operating at a huge disadvantage to larger, better capitalized concerns. If you add massive legal fees that are becoming the norm to that mix, the size of the problem is obvious.

    There are two separate, but linked issues here. The first is that, after literally centuries of discrimination, there just isn’t enough money in disadvantaged communities to provide the kind of capital required for success without more conventional outside funding. This can be addressed, as it was with regulation in the brokerage industry that mandated a percentage of business done by minority brokers. It took time in that case and was far from perfect in the early days, but ultimately led to some degree of equity in a business that had typically been inaccessible to minority communities.

    The second is that, while lawsuits from those who feel that they are now being discriminated against are understandable, they are short-sighted and risk destroying the young industry before it gets going. The cannabis business is not without its enemies and using lawsuits to effectively concentrate the benefits from it into the hands of big business helps them. It reinforces the belief that the industry is about the exploitation of the poor and weak to benefit the rich and strong. That was the case in the illegal market but if the industry is to grow, both in size and acceptance, it cannot be so as legalization moves forward.

    One answer may be to adopt the approach of Florida, legislation without any social equity component. The problem there, though, is also one of image. Much of the support for adult-use proposals comes from those who believe it can be an agent for positive change in wealth disparity between communities. Without it, you risk losing their support, particularly at the federal level, and once again reinforce the exploitation argument.

    The Solutions

    The first problem, a lack of capital, particularly among social equity applicants for licenses, can be addressed to some extent by grants and funding, although the experience of Oakland, CA where defaults on interest free loans are becoming a problem, suggests that that too can create its own problems. As with so many issues in the industry, a change to federal law that would give access to traditional banking and make federal grants and assistance possible is probably the best way forward.

    The answer to the second problem is relatively obvious and simple but is in some ways less likely to happen. The adult-use cannabis industry needs to stop eating itself by filing lawsuits that really benefit only the lawyers, and to start prioritizing the long-term success of the industry over perceived short-term gain. Given the oft-quoted litigious nature of America and the equally well-covered short-sightedness of the modern business community, though, I’m not holding my breath while I wait for that to happen organically. That means that future laws and regulations need to be written with potential litigation of that nature in mind. This too would be helped by federal recognition of the industry that would enable some protections to be written into the laws of the nation.

    Young industries are competitive by nature, but they are also often vulnerable and, ultimately, federal law needs to change to make adult-use cannabis fulfill its true potential. At the very least, federal decriminalization of the business is needed to give the industry access to traditional banking and capital markets. For now, though, it is important that states and entrepreneurs protect their already substantial investment in adult-use cannabis themselves and a good start on that front would be for local authorities to make provisions to close the capital gap, and for the industry to stop suing itself into oblivion.

    This article was written based on the data and analysis available to potential investors in the cannabis industry at thcregs.com. Click on the link for more information.

  • The Good and Bad of Massachusetts’ Successful Adoption of Adult-Use Cannabis Legislation

    Massachusetts approved the legalization of recreational, adult-use cannabis by ballot measure in 2016, making it one of the earliest states to do so. Since then, the rollout of the business there has gone well, and the state is often held up by those in the industry as an example of how things should be done. It certainly seems that way, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t problems. As is the case in all states with adult-use laws, Massachusetts regulators have been keeping a close eye on the market as it develops. They have identified both things they have done well and some issues that need to be addressed. Their observations, combined with the OBEDIO™️ data and analysis available at thcregs.com contain some interesting lessons for both potential investors and regulators in new and developing markets.

    There’s enough bad news in the world at the moment, so let’s start with the positives.

    Cannabis Businesses Have Been Well Received

    One of the things that Massachusetts regulators have focused on since the early days is the publication and promotion of the facts around cannabis businesses as they have become established. That is an important thing to do because there, as in other markets, the data and facts contradict what many people “feel” should be true. They feel that, obviously, cannabis businesses will increase crime and reduce property values, for example, neither of which have been observed to have happened in Mass., or elsewhere for that matter.

    There are always some people who will ignore evidence and trust their feelings more than the facts no matter how clearly presented, but they are in the minority. When given the facts, it turns out that Massachusetts residents will form informed opinions. A recent UMass Amherst poll showed that 61% of respondents believe that adult-use laws have been an overall positive for the state. Given the controversial nature of the business, that is a big number, and it will make growth in the industry a lot easier than it otherwise might have been.


    Save time and money. Not only in Massachusetts, zero in on favorable locations and opportunities in over 7,500 jurisdictions across the country. Simple and reasonable monthly pricing. Only at THCREGS.com

    A Fast-Growing Industry

    That growth so far has been spectacular. From $444.9 million in 2019, the first full year of adult-use retail, sales grew to $702 million in 2020, then soared to $1.33 billion last year. That led to a situation where, last year, for the first time, the state collected more revenue from cannabis sales than it did from alcohol. Some of that growth has come as more locations have opened up, but one of the main drivers recently has been the success of delivery services that were rolled out last year. That is significant for both potential investors and regulators in other markets as they open up. Home deliveries increase sales and therefore revenue for states and localities, while offering good growth for investors.

    As indicated earlier, though, as successful as Massachusetts has been in establishing and growing adult-use cannabis businesses, the process hasn’t been without issues.

    A Few Problems

    Even with a robust public information campaign, opposition to the industry exists and it is important that legislation and regulation address some of the complaints or even, in an ideal world, get ahead of them. For example, Massachusetts took what with hindsight looks like a strange and mistaken decision to treat the newly legalized cannabis in a different way from alcohol when it comes to DUIs. That is being rectified, but unfortunately it took the death of a State Trooper, Thomas L. Clardy after being hit by a cannabis impaired driver during a routine traffic stop, to prompt a tightening of the laws and their enforcement.

    I understand that those that wrote those early laws were trying to avoid a shift back towards a “war on drugs” mentality, where strict enforcement of strict laws ended up being both discriminatory and hugely expensive, but public safety has to be a priority in states that attempt to emulate Massachusetts’ success. Marijuana may not prompt the aggressive or destructive behavior associated with alcohol, but it can impair driving at least as much, and that has to be recognized in both legislation and enforcement.

    Access to Capital

    In recent interviews with Massachusetts Cannabis Commissioners, all of those interviewed identified access to capital as the biggest issue facing the industry when asked what that might be. In large part, this is something beyond their control. As long as federal law lags behind what is happening at the state level, access to traditional banking and therefore capital sources will remain restricted. A more streamlined license application and issuing process would help, as would industry specific capital and investment pools at the state level, but ultimately, federal law needs to get on the right side of history here.

    As you might expect, the lack of access to capital impacts those that the adult-use laws are trying to help, communities of color and those disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs, the most. It is no surprise, then, that worse than expected progress in helping those priority communities gain a foothold in the business is another problem identified by the Commissioners. The solutions here, though, are basically the same as for other issues. Encourage a change in federal law, get in front of possible objections to new businesses, observe and make necessary changes, and look at your own processes to seek state level help, and you have a chance of achieving what you set out to do.

    Those aren’t just the keys to achieving the desired results in terms of social equity, either. What the three plus years of retail, adult-use marijuana sales in Massachusetts show is that, if regulators do those things, the business can get public approval and grow quickly, creating some good opportunities for investors and a situation where everybody wins.

  • Lessons From the World’s Largest Retail Cannabis Market

    Lessons From the World’s Largest Retail Cannabis Market

    California pioneered the cannabis industry in America by passing Proposition 215 in 1996 that legalized medical marijuana. It is now, by most measures, the world’s largest locally regulated cannabis market. In 2021, retail stores in the state sold over $5.2 billion worth of products, a 20% increase on the 2020 numbers, and the market there is still growing. adult-use was approved by a large majority of voters in 2016, so the state also has one of the more mature recreational cannabis markets in the U.S. Its size and state of development mean that the state of the California cannabis industry is an important study for both regulators of newer markets and for potential investors.

    Fortunately, California requires regular, extensive, detailed analysis of the impact of the industry and changes that are taking place, analyses which provide valuable information. The most recent is the Final Report of a team led by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., who have been analyzing the industry in the state’s capital, Sacramento. It makes for interesting reading.

    Reaffirming The Industry’s Negligible Negative,
    and Overall Positive Impact

    In many ways the most important conclusions of the report are regarding something that has been shown elsewhere too… that the introduction of legal, adult-use cannabis businesses has virtually no negative impacts on the areas that accept them, and significant positive financial impact at both the state and local levels.

    The biggest problem seems to be the aroma in some locations, something that is quite easily solved by updating regulations around air filtration at the indoor cultivation and processing sites. There is, however, no significant impact on more substantial issues such as commercial and residential property values, lease and rent rates, and crime. As studies in other places have shown, if there is any impact, it is a slight positive in all of those areas.

    On the fiscal side, the industry generates a surplus of nearly $20 million annually for the city’s general fund, creating a positive economic impact of $2 billion and around 12,500 jobs annually in Sacramento.

    This all shows, once again, that states that are not moving towards legalization and the municipalities that are opted out are missing out and are probably on the wrong side of history. Right now, the OBEDIO data and analytics of thcregs.com shows that around 38% of California municipalities are participating, and reports like this make it likely that that number will increase over time.

    Where Investment is Going

    The one area where the California regulations are not doing as well is in their goal of promoting social equity and supporting small businesses. There is an increasing trend towards vertical integration by big, outside investors. That, combined with some disadvantageous tax laws such as not allowing depreciation of assets in the industry, is squeezing margins and cash flow for smaller entities, resulting in some falling behind on tax payments.

    The outside investment right now is focused on the distribution side of the business, which makes perfect sense. Limiting the numbers of cultivation and retail businesses any one company can own is fine, but if just a few companies control distribution, they can make sure that their products get maximum exposure and gain a significant advantage in market share. That is true within the state, but it appears that many of these investors are also preparing for a time when cannabis is legalized at the federal level and interstate commerce in products is possible.

    As more and more states legalize in one way or another, that is a reasonable bet. Eventually, as happened with online gambling, the level of adoption will reach a critical mass, where federal bans are impractical and essentially unenforceable. When it does, the law will change.

    Possible Opportunities

    The one area of the cannabis industry that is not attracting big investment so far, but where there are significant opportunities, is that of testing labs. These facilities perform required quality control checks on products but are also used by growers and processors to develop and refine products.

    In the early days, the labs faced a lot of problems, both in terms of their own procedures and a high failure rate among products submitted to them. That led to 66 testing licenses being canceled, revoked, or expired, leaving only 27 testing labs operating in the state. For now, they are managing the workload, but any expansion of the business in the state will require more labs. That, though, isn’t the whole story. The potential for that side of the industry in a state like California with a thriving cultivation business should federal law change is huge so investment here, while flying in the face of recent history and not without risk, has enormous upside potential.

    Risks and Conclusions

    The principal risks for investors in California are around changes to regulations designed to increase the social equity value of the industry. If those are focused on helping small businesses, fine, but if California legislators go down the road of trying to punish larger operations for their success and ambition it will reduce the value of investments considerably.

    However, California’s experience with the legalization of adult-use marijuana has so far been largely positive, and the already large market there can be expected to grow as a result. As it does, there will be further investment opportunities, particularly in distribution and testing, areas that will see increased business as the industry in the state expands, but which offer huge potential should federal law allow the cannabis industry to operate in a more normal manner.