Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Policy And Markets topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cannabis farmers press for direct‑to‑consumer retail options, urge statutory language
Summary
Cannabis cultivators testified to the Senate Agriculture Committee that current wholesale and retail systems squeeze small growers; they sought a pathway for limited on‑farm direct sales while affirming support for testing and inspection.
Several Vermont cannabis growers told the Senate Agriculture Committee on March 26 that the current distribution system concentrates revenue with wholesalers and retailers and limits small producers’ ability to build a direct relationship with customers.
“I’m the founder of Green Mountain Sativa, a small sun‑grown cannabis farm,” said Chris Lilly, who testified that selling through wholesalers and retailers can take as much as 70% of a farm’s revenue. He described direct‑to‑consumer sales as a way to build brand trust, demonstrate cultivation methods and educate customers about product selection.
Chris Lilly and other growers said they are not asking to remove regulation. “I’m not asking for less regulations. I totally believe in the regulations. We need to be tested. We need to make sure there’s no pesticides,” one grower said, and added that growers would accept continued testing and oversight if permitted to sell directly to customers on their farms.
Why it matters: Witnesses argued small growers lack bargaining power with retailers and wholesalers and that without a way to reach consumers directly, the market risks consolidation that favors large‑scale producers. Several growers asked the committee to solicit draft language so the Legislature can evaluate tradeoffs and unintended consequences, including impacts on retailers, wholesalers and federal constraints related to cannabis’ federal status.
Committee exchanges covered regulatory complexity: senators pointed out that Vermont created a licensing system under the Cannabis Control Board with distinct license classes, and that federal law complicates combining cultivation and retail in the same facility. Committee members repeatedly asked growers to submit draft statutory language and said any change would be examined for unintended consequences.
Ending: Senators invited growers to provide proposed language and indicated they would coordinate with the lieutenant governor’s office and the Cannabis Control Board to analyze possible models for limited direct‑to‑consumer sales and required safeguards.
