Cannabis, US Presidential Election 2024, and Beyond: A Roundtable Discussion, Part II

Catch up on Part I of this roundtable discussion for more perspectives on what’s next in the cannabis industry after the election.

In October 2024 Harris announced her plan for cannabis. What do you think of this plan, and do you have any opinions on how it can be improved?

Anzarut: Harris has championed decriminalization and social justice reform, which are promising steps. This plan to expunge records for non-violent cannabis offenses would be a meaningful move toward repairing the harms of prohibition. However, her approach could have been strengthened with a clear focus on comprehensive federal regulation that includes banking reform, national testing standards, and equitable business opportunities for communities disproportionately impacted by the War on Drugs. Creating a unified federal framework would reduce inconsistencies and promote industry growth nationwide.

Audino: I was encouraged by Harris's thoughts and plans for cannabis; showed foresight and openness for dialogue and practical decisions. Of course there are always opportunities to improve, such as more direct research on the potential long-term effects on cognitive development for people under 25 who regularly use cannabis.

Hildenbrand: I personally have difficulty trusting Harris on this issue given her record with cannabis-related criminalization in California. This is not to say that someone can't change their mind on important issues like this, but she has not historically been a supporter of the new frontier of medicine.

Currently there is no unified standardization in cannabis testing, do you see this changing with this year’s election results?

Anzarut: I think we’re on the cusp of real progress with testing standardization, and this election could be pivotal. Standardization is critical for consumer safety and industry credibility, and with more states legalizing cannabis, federal pressure to address these inconsistencies is growing. If a pro-cannabis administration takes office, we could see the FDA, or another agency finally establish national testing protocols. This would be a huge step toward reliable, consistent testing and quality control, benefiting both businesses and consumers.

Audino: I do not see this changing any time soon. And, I'm not sure there needs to be a standardized cannabis testing protocol. As is true of all other commodities, especially agricultural commodities, there need to be requirements and specifications that make sense and are scientifically sound. Further, the industry definitely needs to improve expectations for laboratory testing and to reduce (if not eliminate) the incentivization to manipulate data to appease customers. I wholeheartedly believe the industry has demonstrated a failure to self-regulate; improving and creating a system that will provide value to the end user consumers is long overdue and will require all parties at the table.

Hildenbrand: I would love to see a governing body at the federal level to provide some degree of standardization; however, I believe that this may only happen if interstate commerce is allowed. For the most part, cannabis testing will remain a state-by-state issue.

Vaillencourt: There is reason for optimism here. First, recall that any federal framework for cannabis requires Congressional action. Meanwhile, the Cannabis Regulators Association (CANNRA) has been instrumental at the state level, creating a collaborative space for knowledge sharing and driving unification. With 45 states, territories, and even international members, CANNRA plays a crucial role in aligning state regulatory bodies—a necessity for eventual interstate commerce (a topic that I was an invited panelist for at their most recent external stakeholder meeting). Their topic-specific committees. and resources continue to shape best practices which they have been publishing as fact sheets.

If a Trump administration comes into power with both houses of Congress leaning Republican, we can expect a business-friendly, free-market approach. This could result in a self-regulated marketplace where voluntary consensus standards, like those from ASTM, gain importance. The Cannabinoid Safety and Research Act’s adoption of the ASTM Universal Symbol for Intoxicating Cannabinoids is one example. With 12 states now referencing ASTM standards in their laws, the momentum toward standardization is building. Congress has already mandated that government agencies use these standards for reasons that align with conservative pro-business limited government ideologies.

On the state level, cannabis has been recently legalized in a number of jurisdictions. What can lawmakers trying to create a legal pathway in other states learn from these recent legalization efforts, either from their successes or their failures?

Anzarut: Lawmakers can learn from the successes and shortcomings of other states by focusing on several key areas: first, ensuring that legalization includes clear, standardized regulations to avoid confusion and ensure compliance. Second, they should prioritize equity-focused policies, as seen in states like Illinois, where expungement and social equity programs have been integral. Lastly, they should consider phased rollouts with robust public education to minimize opposition and help the public understand the benefits of a legal, regulated cannabis market.

Audino: Do not copy from each other! When one state copies another, they are inherently copying their problems - whether known or unknown - and propagating those problems. In my opinion, the collective of states/regulators need to better define their understanding of what they are regulating and why they are regulating it. It's neither simple nor direct, and yet pivotal to the success of their program.

Hildenbrand: I believe that there is a lot of learning of what not to do. States like Oklahoma and New Mexico opened the floodgates to licenses, perhaps just to collect the application revenue, only to find the local economies become oversaturated and experience an incredibly high rate of attrition. Hopefully future states roll out a more moderate and incremental approach where licenses are limited from the beginning, but expand to support growth over time.

Vaillencourt: State legislatures can look to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) for guidance, particularly through their cannabis working group. My non-profit, the S3 Collective, has been engaging with organizations including CANNRA and NCSL to identify knowledge gaps and accelerate the development of scientifically backed standards. This collaborative approach ensures that voluntary consensus standards are robust, practical, and ready for adoption at both state and federal levels, reinforcing the framework established by the National Technology and Transfer Advancement Act.