Ask cannabis operators to name the single regulatory change that would have the biggest practical impact on their business, and you rarely get the same answer twice. The specific points of friction, licensing timelines, 280E, banking access, dual inventory requirements, interstate commerce, hit differently depending on what kind of company you run and what stage of the market you are operating in. Four operators share their priorities below.
Timing and banking
Jasmine Johnson, Founder and CEO of GUD Essence, is among those who would start with the clock. "The single most impactful regulatory change would be establishing clear, enforceable timelines for each stage of approval, cultivation, processing, and dispensing," Jasmine says. "Right now, operators are expected to deploy significant capital and maintain readiness without predictable timelines, which creates inefficiencies and unnecessary financial strain. Certainty around timing would allow us to plan hiring, inventory, and expansion more responsibly, ultimately improving access and stability across the market."
© GŪD Essence
Capital deployed without a predictable clock on the other end compounds across every subsequent decision, because every financial model built on assumptions about when revenue starts is only as good as the regulatory process it depends on.
Paula Savchenko, Founding Partner at Cannacore Group, has worked across enough cannabis transactions to identify where the structural damage lands hardest.
"The single most impactful regulatory change would be the combination of meaningful banking access and relief from Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code," Paula says. "Together, these two constraints distort the economics of the cannabis industry more than any other regulatory factor. Today, operators are overtaxed and underbanked, forced to operate with punitive effective tax rates while lacking access to traditional lending, restructuring tools, or even basic financial services. Even incremental progress, such as safe harbor protections for financial institutions alongside reform or repeal of 280E, would have an immediate positive impact on cash flow, balance sheet stability, and enterprise valuation."
Interstate commerce, she adds, would change the physical architecture of how the industry is built. "Separately, if interstate commerce were allowed, that would be a game changer. It would let operators move product across state lines, rationalize supply chains, and stop duplicating infrastructure in every single market. From a legal and deal perspective, those shifts would move the industry out of survival mode and into a place where businesses can actually scale in a meaningful way."
Taxes and federal reforms
Wendy Bronfein, Co-Founder and Chief Brand Officer at Curio Wellness, focuses on what federal momentum could unlock rather than on what it would eliminate. "The most immediate and meaningful impact would come from federal reform that addresses the current tax and financial constraints facing the industry," Wendy says. "A move to Schedule III is an important step in normalization. It reflects recognition of cannabis as having accepted medical use and begins shifting the policy framework toward something more aligned with other regulated industries. From an operational standpoint, relief from 280E would significantly improve cash flow and allow companies like ours to reinvest more meaningfully in research, product development, and patient-focused innovation."
Schedule III alone would not resolve the state-by-state fragmentation, Wendy notes, but it could set something larger in motion. "At the same time, we would still be operating within a fragmented, state-by-state system that limits efficiency and scale. The real opportunity is for federal progress to act as a catalyst for broader regulatory modernization, creating more consistency and allowing the industry to operate in a more sustainable and disciplined way."
David Gacom, Chief Commercial Officer at Ascend Wellness Holdings, points to the dual inventory requirement. "The most immediate impact would come from federal reform that addresses the structural inefficiencies operators face today, particularly around taxation and capital access," Gacom says. "At the same time, one of the more practical challenges is the requirement in some states to manage separate inventory streams for medical and adult-use programs within the same state. Operating in parallel systems creates duplication across cultivation, manufacturing, and retail, and can be cumbersome for both operators and patients. A more unified approach would improve efficiency, simplify operations, and create a more seamless experience for consumers." The demand is already there, he says. The regulatory structure is the part that hasn't caught up.
"The opportunity is to modernize the regulatory structure so it better supports how the business actually operates today."
Click here if you missed part 1 or part 2. See you tomorrow for part 4.
