Cannabis Legislation in Minnesota - What's in Play

March 19, 2026

The Minnesota Legislature is at the stage where bills have been introduced and now the question is what gets a committee hearing and what moves forward into the next phase. Some of the cannabis provisions that I’m watching:

First Up

• Extend out-of-state testing for LPHE (hemp THC) products. Allies in the Legislature are fast-tracking this bill, which would preserve MN’s limited testing capacity for the adult-use industry. Otherwise, starting March 31 LPHEs have to test in Minnesota. I’m hearing optimism that this will pass by March 31.

Some proposals of note, that look like they have some traction:

• Ban on vapes with embedded batteries: this came from Minnesota’s Pollution Control Agency, because disposable vapes leach chemicals into landfills. They are also a top seller in dispensaries. I’d like to see at least a delay in implementation to make the shift easier for industry. SotaCANN opposes, saying the black market will still sell disposable vapes, which is absolutely true.

• Rep. West (R) has proposed increasing the amount of overlapping ownership between adult-use licensees allowed under the true party in interest (TPII) rules from 10% to 35%. I’m hearing a compromise might happen – 20%?

• Removing the ban on owning both a hemp THC and adult-use cannabis license. This is especially important because some hemp players want to shift to adult-use in light of the looming federal ban.

• Allow micro-/mezzo-/retail to sell some additional unregulated products, like art and growing supplies. This fixes a pain point - hemp THC stores were selling those things, and have lost revenue in flipping to the restrictive list in statute.

The Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) bills:

• Bad ideas (IMO) in the OCM bill:

  • Possession of two times the legal limit counts as “intent to sell” and a fine under that provision blocks someone from holding a license! I don’t know where this came from, but it moves us backwards.

  • Everything on the premises of a licensed business counts as “offered for sale.” Note: I see why OCM Enforcement wants this, as they probably feel like people hide things in the back room. But there are legitimate reasons for non-legal products in the back room: Inventory got recalled. Employees have personal belongings. A shipment was found to be non-compliant with labeling rules.

• OCM’s bills include a lot of other changes, including

  • The creation of new endorsement categories layered on top of the license types. One of them: A micro-/mezzo-/retailer would be able to get a “cannabis flower packaging endorsement,” which would allow retailers to buy flower in bulk and package it into jars and prerolls for the consumer – this fixes a pain point as cultivators are not necessarily prepared or excited to take on the packaging and branding step, and it possibly allows for “deli-style” service, which customers like as they can see and smell the products before deciding which to purchase. Overall, if these endorsement changes pass, licensees will need to dig in and understand not only which license but also which endorsements they need to get to do the activities they plan to do.

  • More labeling changes, including the return of QR codes for hemp (but not adult-use cannabis)

  • Event organizer license moves to an overarching license and then you apply for events under it, not a new license every time

• Industry advocacy group SotaCANN’s priorities include:

  • “Liberalize” the investment rules for social equity applicants (SEAs), allowing them to sell more than 35% of their equity. In theory, this would allow SEAs to raise the capital they need to open.

    • A related idea: SEAs could “renounce” being SEAs (and just be regular licensees), since there are lots of downsides (cannot sell for 3 years, must hold 65%) and no remaining upsides (SEA grants have not happened).

    • Preliminarily it does not look like this is getting a lot of traction. If you are an SEA who feels strongly that this is a good idea, let me know and I can hook you into SotaCANN’s effort. Extend the ability of cultivators to transport to testing facilities, rather than requiring a transporter, which are hard to find at the moment

  • Decrease the size of the sample required for testing (especially for concentrates, that’s a valuable chunk of product you can no longer sell)

  • Fixing the change of entity provision in 342.12. If passed, licensees will be able to shift from being an individual to an LLC or from an LLC to a corporation without risking their license. Under the draft, a new license would be required upon consolidation, merger, or bankruptcy.

• There is a complex proposal to streamline the medical supply chain that would change the “med-combo” licensees to instead a new “macro” license with 45K square feet of canopy. I’m hearing a lot of lukewarm feelings about this bill. It’s more complicated than it needs to be, it both benefits and hurts the med combos, no one is excited to push it forward. Maybe it doesn’t go anywhere this year.

Thanks to industry group SotaCANN and their lobbyist Will Blauvelt, as well as Maren Schroeder at Blunt Strategies, for their insights. All opinions and mistakes are my own.

And this is already out of date as I type it – stay tuned for updates as the Legislature continues to work on these bills.

To keep up with Minnesota's budding cannabis market, subscribe to Jen's newsletter here:

Subscribe Now