Legalization was sold as a finish line. Regulators in four states say it was the start of a job that keeps changing, from funding gaps and equity fixes to whatever Washington does next.
Colorado’s cannabis regulator is authorized for roughly 158 staff positions. It has about 84 employees.
The Marijuana Enforcement Division relies heavily on the application and licensing fees it collects from the industry it oversees, and as the state’s market has slowed, so has the money. Raising fees to close the gap, says Dominique D. Mendiola, the division’s senior director, “risks adding pressure to businesses already navigating a declining market.”
It is the kind of problem nobody campaigned on. Legalization was sold as a finish line. More than a decade after the first adult-use sales, the governments running these markets describe it as the start of a job that keeps changing: fixing early decisions, catching up on equity, funding regulators and now bracing for whatever Washington does next.
To see what that looks like from the inside, High Times put the same questions to regulators in four states at four different stages of legalization. Colorado has more than a decade of adult-use experience. Massachusetts has spent years revisiting and reforming parts of a mature East Coast market. Maryland entered adult use later, with lessons from earlier states already available. Minnesota is still building its adult-use market while developing its own approaches to regulation, social equity, economic development and Tribal participation.
The officials who answered, in written responses to High Times, are Dominique D. Mendiola, senior director of Colorado’s Marijuana Enforcement Division and Natural Medicine Division; Shekia Scott, senior cannabis industry manager for the City of Boston, along with the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission; Tabatha Robinson, director of the Maryland Cannabis Administration; and Jess Jackson, director of community and economic development for Minnesota’s Office of Cannabis Management. Some of the reporting grew out of conversations on The State [of] Flower Tour.
Colorado: Governing a Market That Keeps Changing
More than a decade in, Colorado is still adjusting to what wasn’t fully accounted for when the market began. Changing products and consumer-safety questions have pushed the regulator itself to evolve, from an early structure heavy on law enforcement to one that includes scientists, environmental protection specialists and a data analytics team. One example is how regulators assess ingredients: Mendiola says FDA food-manufacturing standards can help inform cannabis regulations, but “it shouldn’t be assumed that additives or ingredients the FDA allows in food products means it is safe in cannabis products,” particularly when those products are heated and inhaled.
Time has also made some early policy choices harder to correct. Colorado’s original eligibility requirements excluded some people with felony drug convictions from owning or working in regulated cannabis businesses, including people from communities disproportionately harmed by prohibition. Equity measures came later, leaving the state to introduce adjusted eligibility requirements, reduced fees, business assistance and access to capital within a market Mendiola describes as saturated.
The staffing gap is the sharpest version of a question every legal state will eventually face: how government keeps paying for regulation when the market it regulates shrinks. Mendiola’s advice to newer states is to build systems with enough flexibility, funding stability and expertise to change alongside the markets they oversee. “Regulation is continuously iterative, and to keep pace with this dynamic landscape, regulatory agencies should prioritize data-informed decision-making and cultivate a workforce with diverse skill sets to remain effective.”
Massachusetts: When Government Has to Revisit the Rules
Massachusetts offers a different lesson. Time has not only revealed pressure points, it has forced government to reconsider parts of the framework already in place. Scott cautions against assuming those problems were impossible to anticipate, noting that communities and prospective entrepreneurs raised many of them early. What government has now is operating experience and, as she puts it, “a responsibility to act on this experience.”
For Scott, that responsibility means looking beyond whether an equity program exists. “The biggest lesson is that equity cannot be enacted through a single program; it is a responsibility across the entire cannabis ecosystem.” That includes ownership and business sustainability, but also who gets hired and promoted, which vendors receive contracts, whether patients can access affordable medicine and whether communities harmed by prohibition benefit from legalization.
Money is where it shows. In the medical market, the state’s $50,000 initial and annual license fee, combined with Boston’s $15,000 fee, came to $65,000 in those two fees alone. Medical operators historically also had to cultivate, manufacture and dispense their own products. Scott says those costs contributed significantly to the lack of diversity in medical cannabis leadership, a problem that carried into adult use when existing medical operators received priority. “A fee can be uniform on paper and profoundly unequal in its impact,” she says.
Since then, Boston has returned millions in community impact fees, the state created a Social Equity Trust Fund and, in 2026, Massachusetts ended the medical market’s mandatory vertical integration. The Cannabis Control Commission says the broader lesson for states coming behind it is that early policy choices should not be treated as permanent simply because a market is already running. “Regulators should expect to revisit early policy choices, measure whether they are producing the intended outcomes, and be willing to adjust them as the legal marketplace develops.”
Maryland: Turning Access Into a Working Market
Maryland entered adult use with the advantage of watching other markets develop first, but its experience shows that designing access into a framework is only the beginning. The state’s first social equity licensing round combined early eligibility verification, community engagement and an exclusive application process intended to expand participation. The lesson Maryland draws is about what comes afterward: long-term equity requires pairing accessible pathways into licensing with technical and financial support that can help conditional licensees actually open.
That support extends beyond the license holder. Robinson points to the need for what she calls “broad ecosystem education,” reaching local zoning boards, bankers, landlords and supply partners. Maryland’s Cannabis Industry Professional Certificate Program applies the same idea to the workforce, offering free advanced training to incumbent workers and Workforce Development Program alumni in lab testing, packaging and labeling, manufacturing practices, quality assurance, inspections and enforcement.
For newer markets, Robinson’s advice is to build that understanding early rather than wait for gaps to appear. “Success isn’t just about consumer awareness; it’s about educating local zoning boards, bankers, landlords, and supply partners early.”
Minnesota: A Different Blueprint for Legalization
Minnesota is still building its adult-use market, which gives government a chance to connect pieces that older states often built separately. Jackson points to the state’s effort to link regulation with economic development, social equity, workforce development and community reinvestment, including asking whether people who qualify for a license also have the capital, regulatory knowledge, relationships and operational capacity to use it. As Jackson puts it, “equity in access does not automatically produce equity in outcomes.”
Minnesota’s relationship with Tribal Nations adds another dimension. State law directed the governor to negotiate cannabis compacts with Tribal Nations, allowing Tribally regulated businesses and products to participate across jurisdictions while Tribal Nations keep their own regulatory authority. Jackson says coordination has required shared standards in testing, packaging and labeling, product tracking and information sharing, and Tribal products have supplied state-licensed retailers, including social equity-owned businesses. Her takeaway is that “interoperability is possible without regulatory uniformity.”
Jackson argues that all of this should ultimately be judged by results: whether businesses survive, whether social equity ownership lasts, whether stable jobs are created and whether communities harmed by prohibition see reinvestment. “Counting licenses tells us who entered the market. It does not tell us whether those businesses remain open, become profitable, create jobs, or build wealth.”
What Washington Changes, and What It Doesn’t
All four states are now governing under a shifting federal picture. Since April 2026, marijuana covered by qualifying state medical licenses sits in Schedule III, while adult-use marijuana remains Schedule I. And most of the new federal limits on intoxicating hemp products are scheduled to take effect December 11.
Asked what federal change would and wouldn’t alter for their work, the regulators drew the line in different places. Maryland’s answer was the most emphatic: while the federal government pursues rescheduling, Robinson says, “Maryland law remains fully operative and unchanged,” and state licensing and enforcement continue as written.
Colorado sees new work and a new opening. Licensees seeking DEA registration “will face an added layer of oversight and increased federal engagement,” Mendiola says, and state regulators can coordinate with federal inspectors to avoid duplicate effort. “Where Schedule I status previously hindered meaningful collaboration, we now have key opportunities to strengthen this coordination,” she adds, pointing not only to public health and enforcement agencies but also to banking, tax and insurance regulators.
For Minnesota, the bigger federal shock may not be rescheduling at all. “I think the changing federal definition of hemp may be just as consequential as marijuana rescheduling,” Jackson says. Hemp gave small businesses a cheaper on-ramp into the THC market and gave consumers one too, including people who buy a THC beverage at a restaurant or liquor store but would never walk into a dispensary. Products that stay legal under Minnesota law may now run into federal restrictions on shipping, supply chains, taxes, banking and payment processing, and the burden will not fall evenly. “Larger companies may have more capital to restructure supply chains, obtain new licenses, vertically integrate, or absorb transition costs. Smaller operators often have much less flexibility.”
That, Jackson says, is why federal reform doesn’t end the state’s job. “Who bears the cost of regulatory change?”
The Markets Are Legal. The Work Isn’t Done.
Across four states at four different stages, none treats legalization as the end of government’s role. Colorado emphasizes adaptability and argues that “a compliant industry is part of what makes a successful industry.” Massachusetts has revisited policies after seeing how costs shut people out, and Scott argues that equity reaches workers, vendors, patients and communities, not only owners. Maryland is investing in education across the ecosystem around each license. Minnesota draws a clearer line between creating the conditions for success and guaranteeing it, arguing that government should make regulation navigable and opportunity accessible while business risk stays with entrepreneurs.
The states draw government’s role differently, but their answers point to the same thing. A legal cannabis market is not just a collection of licensed businesses. Decisions made in regulators’ offices shape what reaches consumers, who gets to participate, whether the communities that paid for prohibition see anything from legalization and, increasingly, how much of the old culture survives inside the new system. The laws passed years ago. What legalization actually means is still being decided.
Veronica Castillo, The Traveling Cannabis Writer, covers cannabis culture, communities and legal markets across the U.S. and abroad. She is a partner in The State [of] Flower Tour, for which High Times is a media partner.
