Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation Terpenes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nevada cannabis businesses ask CCB to use formal rulemaking for botanical terpenes guidance
Summary
Industry representatives told the Cannabis Compliance Board on Jan. 16 that staff guidance issued Jan. 7 on botanical terpenes changed approval criteria for menu items without a workshop or formal rulemaking, delaying approvals and creating procedural and substantive concerns.
Lake Martin, representing the Nevada Cannabis Association, told the Cannabis Compliance Board on Jan. 16, 2025, that guidance the agency issued Jan. 7, 2025, on botanical terpenes changed how the board approves menu items and has caused delays for licensees.
"Reg 9 doesn't speak directly to botanical terpenes, and the guidance creates a host of new rules for these terpenes," Lake Martin said, arguing that the guidance imposes requirements not in existing regulations and that staff have begun denying menu requests that had previously been approved.
Martin told the board many licensees have waited months for menu-item approval and that the guidance requires upfront proof that third‑party extraction solvents were not used, despite allowable residual solvent limits in the regulations. He said the guidance offers a 10-business-day window to provide feedback but asserted that does not meet the Nevada Administrative Procedure Act's (rulemaking) requirements.
Martin also urged the board to balance procedural correctness against the practical impact on licensed businesses. He said some companies have built brands around menu items now being denied, and that further delays are costing money. Martin added that the legal market faces competition from intoxicating hemp products sold unregulated at shops and online and from an unlicensed cannabis market he estimated at $370,000,000 a year.
The speaker asked the board to hold a public workshop and move the proposed changes through the formal rulemaking process so affected licensees and terpene manufacturers can comment publicly and the board can consider revisions before staff enforces the guidance more broadly.
The guidance itself and staff denials were raised during the public-comment portion of the meeting rather than as a scheduled agenda item. Board members acknowledged the procedural concern and did not take immediate formal action on the guidance during the Jan. 16 meeting.
