Committee approves substitute widening Cannabis Control Division enforcement powers, 11-0

The House Commerce & Economic Development Committee on Oct. 12 approved a committee substitute for House Bill 10 that expands enforcement authority for the Cannabis Control Division, voting 11-0 to pass the substitute as amended.

Supporters told the committee the measure is intended to help licensed cannabis businesses compete with an active illicit market and to protect public safety by giving the Regulation and Licensing Department’s Cannabis Control Division (CCD) stronger tools to inspect, embargo and seize products and to create a dedicated enforcement bureau.

The bill matters to producers, retailers and public agencies because witnesses said illegally produced or mislabeled cannabis products are undercutting legal operators and causing health incidents in schools. "We are not retail," said Jeffrey, identifying himself with Hi Lonesome Cannabis, a micro business producer and manufacturer, who urged the committee to prioritize enforcement against large illegal operations rather than targeting minor violations. JD Bullington, representing the Gallup‑McKinley County School District, described recent student illnesses after ingesting mislabeled cannabis gummies and said the district strongly supports the legislation. Troy Weiser, chief of the New Mexico State Police, told the committee that combining regulatory oversight with criminal enforcement will improve compliance and public safety and that state police will continue to assist when needed.

Committee members pressed authors and agency witnesses on definitions, due process and operational details. Todd Stevens, director of the CCD, said the substitute implements authorities tied to the Cannabis Regulation Act and that the division would conduct administrative hearings under existing statutory procedures; Stevens described the division's testing capacity as seven licensed laboratories operating across eight premises. Under the bill, a licensee would have 10 days to request an administrative hearing and could appeal decisions to district court; Stevens said the division would need a court condemnation order to permanently condemn seized product. "There’s multiple steps and, you know, as far as due process for licensees that would be potentially impacted here," Stevens said.

Lawmakers also questioned resource and scope issues. Witnesses and staff said enforcement work requires pulling resources from other agencies; Captain Kevin Burns and Chief Weiser warned that sustained enforcement of organized illegal operations will require assistance from state police and local law enforcement. The committee discussed whether the substitute should explicitly name the CCD and how the new authority would interact with existing statutes; Representative Matthews suggested adding clearer statutory language to identify the division and streamline reading of the law. Committee members noted that a three‑year operational cost estimate of about $3,000,000 had been removed from the substitute and placed in House Bill 2.

Industry testimony was largely supportive but included cautions. Ellie Buzanson, president of the New Mexico Cannabis Chamber and a micro business owner in Albuquerque, said the regulated market has a strong foundation but that "bad players and illegal operations continue to pose a threat." Ben Loe, executive director of the New Mexico Cannabis Chamber of Commerce, backed the substitute’s seizure and embargo powers as a way to bring more products into regulated testing and tracking. Some dissent came from operators who oppose creating what they described as a new policing function: Corina Miramontes, a micro business owner, said she is "against the bill" and worries about creating a new police force rather than fully implementing existing inspection provisions; Chad Lozano, an industry advocate, urged care so that enforcement does not disproportionately target small operators or low‑level violations.

Committee members asked technical questions about lab testing and labeling. Stevens said the state licenses seven labs that specialize in cannabis testing and that the CCD would use those licensed facilities for product analysis. The CCD representative told lawmakers the division can use seed‑to‑sale tracking data and routine inspections to identify suspected illicit or misbranded product, for example when a facility’s inventory in the tracking system exceeds its expected allotment.

On enforcement mechanics, witnesses said the substitute allows both announced and unannounced inspections and provides penalties for knowingly moving quarantined or embargoed products; witnesses compared that approach to existing practices in other regulated industries such as alcohol, tobacco and environmental enforcement.

The committee moved and approved a motion recorded as "do not pass on House Bill 10; pass the House Commerce & Economic Development Committee substitute for House Bill 10 as amended." The roll call recorded 11 votes yes and 0 no. Several committee members asked for additional clarifying language in a future committee substitute to make the statute clearer to regulated parties and the public.

The committee transcript does not specify the bill’s next formal legislative step.

Ending: The substitute’s proponents said stronger CCD enforcement would help licensed businesses and public safety; opponents cautioned about creating new enforcement structures without clearer limits. The committee advanced the substitute unanimously.