As we move toward 2027, this Council needs all the help it can get. If we’re going to treat intoxicating “hemp” and “marijuana” alike, one of the hardest questions will be who gets a license to sell cannabis—whether for medical use, adult use, or both.
Law enforcement might prefer a small number of licensees it can get its arms around. Multistate operators (MSOs) might welcome limits on competition. But if we issue only a few licenses, how do we decide who gets them?
Merit-based selection—a “beauty contest”— can produce years of litigation and delay. Georgia is a striking example: the first medical marijuana sales came eight years after the law passed. Lotteries can generate litigation, too, while rewarding people who may know little about the business and have little at stake. Where does their money come from? Sometimes, the real winners are shadowy backers or even bad actors behind the apparent applicants. Auctions? They favor the wealthy.
What about unlimited licensing? Plenty of people may dream of striking it rich in cannabis, but unlimited licensing can produce an uncontrolled market with many losers, as Oklahoma has demonstrated.
Mississippi appears to have learned something from Oklahoma. It limits licenses in its small medical cannabis market through a series of objective barriers to entry that don’t rely on discretionary judgments vulnerable to litigation. These include demanding background checks, high annual fees (tiered to disfavor large enterprises), local approval, spacing requirements, substantial penalties for violations, and strict seed-to-sale tracking. The fees may also discourage larger operators. So far, I’ve heard secondhand that law enforcement is satisfied with the Mississippi model.
