Committee backs changes to packaging and transaction limits, seeks clearer THC-equivalency language

Legislative counsel told the committee that sections three through six address edible package sizes, single-transaction limits and related civil and criminal thresholds. Members and Cannabis Control Board staff urged specifying THC-milligram limits rather than ambiguous product-equivalency formulas to make enforcement practicable.

Committee discussion focused on customer convenience in widely rural parts of the state and on fairness for small producers who must meet testing and labeling requirements. A legislative counsel example noted that the current transaction limit equivalency (used in other states) can be operationally difficult; staff recommended using explicit THC milligram caps to simplify enforcement.

Several members said they could accept sections three through six with technical drafting fixes. "If you want an enforceable transaction limit, specify the milligram THC limit," a Cannabis Control Board representative told the panel. The committee agreed to proceed with sections three–six and to harmonize the civil and criminal thresholds to avoid creating unintended offenses for ordinary retail transactions.

Why this matters: Transaction and package limits affect retail operations, equity of access for rural residents, and how enforcement agencies measure compliance across inhalable and ingestible products. Clear statutory units (milligrams of THC) help inspectors and retailers apply the law consistently.

What happens next: Legislative staff will prepare draft language that replaces ambiguous equivalency formulas with THC-milligram limits and will propose matching adjustments to penalty thresholds for the committee's next meeting.