Guest post: Licensing THC businesses in North Carolina

Comments on licensing THC businesses in North Carolina from Gabrielle Jarrell, Former Board Chair, NC NORML, for the North Carolina Advisory Council on Cannabis (I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with these comments — PO)

I appreciate the work the Council is doing to think through cannabis and hemp regulation in North Carolina. I wanted to share thoughts specifically on sale and licensing structure, because the decisions made here will shape public health and the state’s economy for decades.

While recent federal action like the President’s executive order directing agencies to fast-track cannabis rescheduling, does not legalize marijuana, it does reflect a broader, increasingly bipartisan shift in how cannabis is viewed nationally. That makes it especially important for North Carolina to act deliberately rather than waiting and reacting once federal changes force the issue.

I strongly believe North Carolina should avoid a high-cost, pay-to-play licensing model or auction-based system. Those approaches risk turning licenses into speculative assets and almost always advantage large, out-of-state operators. We have seen in other industries how this leads to consolidation, higher consumer prices, less competition, and far less revenue staying in the state.

At the same time, a completely unrestricted licensing system presents real challenges. I think there is a reasonable middle ground, a tiered, non-transferable licensing structure that creates different entry points for different types of operators. This could include a limited number of licenses for the largest companies, a broader tier for mid-sized operators, and a protected tier reserved specifically for North Carolina farmers, processors, and retailers. This would allow the existing hemp industry to transition into a compliant, regulated market.

Lower-barrier, NC-only licenses could also serve as a pathway to entrepreneurship by lowering fees, waiving costs, or providing technical assistance and business support to new and small operators. This would allow individuals who may not have access to large amounts of capital to participate meaningfully in the regulated market without being forced to compete directly with multistate operators at the outset.

I also support a cost-differentiated approach where out-of-state companies pay significantly higher fees. That revenue could help fund early regulation while also creating pools of capital for training, infrastructure, and seed funding for North Carolina entrepreneurs. If large out-of-state companies are allowed to participate, the state should require them to meaningfully reinvest by contracting with NC businesses across cultivation, processing, distribution, or retail.

As a North Carolina resident and a parent, my concern is that allowing out-of-state companies to dominate the market would effectively put public health second to profit, while forfeiting long-term revenue that could otherwise support infrastructure and our severely underfunded public schools. Strong enforcement can address illicit sales, but it is much harder to undo a market structure that prioritizes consolidation over community benefit.

A tiered system that keeps ownership, control, and revenue largely in state offers a path to strong public health protections, predictable revenue, and genuine economic opportunity for North Carolinians.

Thank you for the opportunity to share feedback and for the care you are taking to get this right.