Senate committee pauses on raising potency caps, punts sections 1–2 to House

The Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs committee spent the bulk of a session debating whether to change potency limits in the committee strike-all amendment to S.278. Legislative council said section one would raise the solid and liquid concentrate cap from 60% to 70%; members wrestled with whether to also alter the 30% THC cap that applied to flower in earlier drafts.

The chair told colleagues she was "comfortable with removing or raising the potency caps on the flower buds" to avoid forcing consumers to smoke more to achieve the same effect, but urged medical evidence before making permanent changes. "I will put this out there to have others educate and inform me on this topic," the chair said.

Grower testimony argued that cannabis is a plant with variable THC levels and that there is no fixed biological ceiling. Jeff, speaking for the Vermont Growers Association, told the committee: "We are dealing with a plant. It is not a widget...it is impossible to predict and anticipate THC levels." By contrast, James Pepper, testifying for the Cannabis Control Board, said national public-health signals and CDC findings about illicit-vape harms informed a cautious regulatory approach; he advised that raising potency without mitigation could push some consumers to unregulated markets.

Committee members also debated an age-targeted option: section two would raise the purchase age to 25 for products whose potency rises to the 60–70% range, a measure some members said would accompany higher potency if adopted. David Mcenberg flagged that raising the age could unintentionally treat vape cartridges differently and asked whether a carve-out should preserve 21 as the purchase age for those products.

After extended discussion, several senators said they were not comfortable increasing concentrations without more medical testimony and clearer evidence. The chair said multiple members favored extracting the potency and age provisions for further consideration in the House. "Punt the THC levels," one member summarized; the committee directed staff to strike sections one and two from the next draft and to reconvene the discussion with additional testimony in the next phase.

Why this matters: The debate balances producer and retail market incentives with public-health concerns, particularly for high-potency inhalable products and their availability to younger adults. The committee's decision to remove these sections sends the contested choices to the next legislative stage and preserves time to gather more evidence.

What happens next: The chair asked legislative staff and the Cannabis Control Board to assemble additional testimony and report back; members signaled readiness to consider a floor amendment or House-delivered changes when more data are available.