Colorado regulates marijuana businesses through the state Marijuana Enforcement Division (MED), while local jurisdictions retain separate licensing and regulatory authority over marijuana businesses within their boundaries. The current Colorado Marijuana Rules are codified at 1 CCR 212-3 (version effective January 5, 2026). Because state rules, forms, fee schedules, and local ordinances can change, applicants should confirm relevant requirements before filing or closing a transaction.

Who regulates marijuana licensing in Colorado?

The MED administers Colorado’s state marijuana licensing framework under the Colorado Marijuana Code and the Colorado Marijuana Rules. A regulated marijuana business may not operate until it has the state and local approvals or licenses required for its business and location. Colorado’s rules expressly condition state business licensing on relevant local approval. The also allow local jurisdictions to impose separate requirements concerning the time, place, and manner of marijuana businesses.

What types of marijuana business licenses are available?

Colorado maintains medical and retail marijuana business license categories that include stores, cultivation facilities, products manufacturers, testing facilities, transporters, and retail business operators. Colorado also recognizes a medical marijuana research and development facility license, and retail hospitality license types–including marijuana hospitality businesses and retail marijuana hospitality and sales businesses. In addition, Colorado’s licensing framework includes accelerator licenses associated with the social equity program. A separate state application is required for each license type.

Is Colorado accepting applications for new marijuana licenses?

Colorado law permits applications for regulated marijuana business licenses, but the availability of a particular license at a particular site depends in part on the local jurisdiction. Colorado rules allow a local jurisdiction to prohibit a regulated marijuana business license type, or to impose separate local licensing requirements. Accordingly, an applicant should confirm that the proposed jurisdiction and premises can support the intended license before making substantial site or transaction commitments.

What is the Colorado marijuana license application process?

The MED’s Regulated Marijuana Business License Application is Form DR 8548. As of July 1, 2026, applicants can now file a unified application for identical controlling beneficial owners who are applying for multiple licenses in the state.

The marijuana application requires disclosure information, a main application, authorization forms, and an affirmation of reasonable care, with additional addenda required for specified applicant structures or license types. The application materials address ownership and investment categories that include controlling beneficial owners and, where applicable, passive beneficial owners, qualified institutional investors, qualified private funds, and other interests addressed by Colorado law and MED rules.

The MED may require additional information or documents to process and investigate an application. Applicants may not operate the regulated marijuana business before obtaining all necessary state and local approvals or licenses.

What ownership and financial-interest categories does Colorado require applicants to understand?

Colorado does not treat every investor, lender, fund, or economic participant in a marijuana business the same. The Colorado Marijuana Rules divide ownership and financial interests into categories that determine what must be disclosed and, in some cases, who must be licensed or found suitable.

What is a Controlling Beneficial Owner (CBO)? A Controlling Beneficial Owner generally includes a person or entity that, acting alone or in concert, owns or acquires at least 10% of the owner’s interest in a regulated marijuana business; an affiliate that controls the business, including a manager; or another person or entity that is otherwise in a position to control the business. A Qualified Institutional Investor is generally treated as a CBO only when it owns or acquires more than 30% of the owner’s interest. CBO status is important because controlling beneficial owners are subject to the owner-licensing and disclosure framework in the MED rules.

What is a Passive Beneficial Owner (PBO)? A Passive Beneficial Owner is a person or entity that holds an ownership interest below the controlling-beneficial-owner threshold and is not otherwise in a position to control the regulated marijuana business. The rules distinguish passive ownership from control, but PBOs remain within the regulatory ownership framework and may be subject to disclosure or additional MED review, including reasonable-cause disclosure.

What is a Qualified Institutional Investor (QII)? A Qualified Institutional Investor is a specifically defined institutional investor, including certain regulated banks, bank holding companies, insurance companies, registered investment companies, employee benefit or pension plans, government pension plans, and qualifying groups of such institutions. The QII category matters because Colorado applies a different controlling-ownership threshold and disclosure treatment to qualifying institutional investors.

What is a Qualified Private Fund (QPF)? A Qualified Private Fund is generally a private investment fund that would be an investment company under the federal Investment Company Act of 1940 but for the exclusions in sections 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7), is advised or managed by a properly registered investment adviser, and satisfies the additional requirements stated in the Colorado Marijuana Rules. When a QPF is a controlling beneficial owner, the MED requires organizational disclosure concerning persons who control the fund’s investment in, or management or operations of, the marijuana business.

What is an Indirect Financial Interest Holder (IFIH)? An Indirect Financial Interest Holder is a person with a financial or economic relationship to the regulated marijuana business who is not an affiliate, CBO, or PBO. The category can encompass specified debt, commercially reasonable royalties associated with intellectual property, and other economic arrangements recognized by the rules. Certain IFIHs receive heightened disclosure treatment, including a person who holds two or more indirect financial interests, is also a PBO, or provides previously undisclosed debt financing exceeding 50% of the business’s operating capital.

Why do these categories matter in an application or acquisition? The classification affects the scope of the MED’s disclosure, licensing, and suitability review. Colorado requires specified disclosures for controlling beneficial owners and certain indirect financial interest holders and authorizes additional disclosure of specified owners, affiliates, and financial interests. Applicants should therefore analyze not only the cap table, but also management and control rights, financing, royalties, fund structures, and other economic arrangements before filing or closing a change-of-ownership transaction.

What is a finding of suitability, and who may need one?

Colorado’s rules use findings of suitability as part of the licensing and ownership-review process for persons and entities that fall within specified ownership or investment categories. Controlling beneficial owners are subject to the owner-licensing requirements in the Colorado Marijuana Rules, and passive beneficial owners may elect or be required in specified circumstances to be subject to disclosure or licensure. Suitability and owner-license requirements therefore depend on the person’s or entity’s status under the current ownership provisions rather than on a single ownership-percentage rule applied to every investor.

What is required at the local level for Colorado marijuana licensing?

Local governments may impose licensing requirements separate from the MED’s state process. Those local requirements may address the proposed premises, zoning or land use, local application materials, inspections, hearings, and other locally imposed licensing conditions. In Denver, for example, the municipal code requires specified inspections and permits before issuance of a local marijuana license and requires a corresponding state license.

Do owners and employees need individual MED licenses or badges?

Colorado distinguishes Owner Licenses and Employee Licenses, and the rules provide for identification badges associated with those licenses. A natural person who is required by the rules to obtain an Employee License must obtain that license before beginning activities that require an Employee License. Controlling beneficial owners are subject to the Owner License provisions of the rules, while the required credential for any particular individual depends on that person’s ownership and operational role. The MED uses Form DR 8517 for the Marijuana Employee License Application.

How much does a Colorado marijuana business license cost?

Colorado does not impose one uniform state application-and-license fee across all regulated marijuana business license types. The current Colorado Marijuana Rules contain separate fee schedules by license category, and cultivation fees vary by tier or class. Under the current rules, the first payment is submitted with the application and the second payment is generally due at least twelve months before the license expiration date. Local jurisdictions may charge additional application, license, transfer, change-of-location, or other fees under local law.

How long are Colorado marijuana business licenses valid?

Senate Bill 24-076, which became law in 2024, extended initial state regulated-marijuana business license and renewal periods from one year to two years. The legislation permits local licensing authorities to determine whether local licenses are issued for one-year or two-year terms.

How long does the licensing process take?

The cited state materials do not establish a universal processing period for every new regulated marijuana business license. The application process requires state review, local approval, ownership and suitability review, payment of applicable fees, and satisfaction of premises-specific local requirements. A transaction timetable should therefore be based on the particular license type, ownership structure, premises, and local jurisdiction rather than on a single statewide processing estimate.

What special rules apply to new marijuana licenses in Denver?

Denver’s municipal code reserves applications for specified new marijuana business licenses to social equity applicants, subject to stated exceptions. The current Denver code provides that this social-equity exclusivity provision is repealed effective July 1, 2027. Denver separately imposes a moratorium on applications for new marijuana store and new marijuana cultivation facility licenses. Denver’s code also contains proximity, location, hearing, inspection, permit, and other local requirements that can affect whether a proposed premises is licensable.

Can a non-social-equity buyer acquire an existing Denver marijuana license before July 1, 2027?

Denver permits transfers of marijuana business ownership subject to approval by the local licensing authority and the requirements of its municipal code.

Before July 1, 2027, a license held by a social equity applicant may be transferred to social-equity or non-social-equity applicants only if at least fifty-one percent of the license remains held by one or more social equity applicants. A non-social equity applicant, however, may transfer its license to a non-social equity applicant without any additional social equity restrictions.

After July 1, 2027, Denver’s code states that licenses held by social equity applicants may be transferred to social-equity or non-social-equity applicants upon approval by the manager. A purchaser should therefore determine whether the target license is subject to Denver’s social-equity transfer restriction before structuring the acquisition.

Who qualifies as a Colorado social equity marijuana licensee?

The current Colorado Marijuana Rules implement the statutory social-equity framework and require applicants to establish qualification under the criteria applicable to their application. The rules include evidentiary provisions addressing qualification based on residence during the relevant period, receipt of specified government assistance, and marijuana-related arrests or convictions involving the applicant or specified family members. The rules also contain ownership requirements applicable to regulated marijuana businesses held by social equity licensees. Because those criteria have been amended over time, applicants should ensure they are using the current version of the rules and the current statutes rather than relying on older summaries of the program.

What mistakes should an applicant avoid?

• Do not assume that a state-level license category is available at a particular location without confirming the local jurisdiction’s rules and the site’s eligibility.
• Do not use an outdated ownership chart or incomplete financial-interest disclosure where the current MED application and rules require additional ownership or investment information.
• Do not assume that every owner and worker requires the same individual credential. Owner License, Employee License, and identification-badge requirements depend on the role and status addressed by the rules.
• Do not budget only for state fees, because local jurisdictions may impose separate fees and licensing requirements.

Are the Colorado rules subject to change?

Yes. In fact, the MED just concluded a rulemaking session in preparation for a rule change. We will keep you posted on these changes when they are finalized and published.

What is the bottom line?

A Colorado marijuana business must satisfy the state licensing framework and the requirements of the relevant local jurisdiction before operating. The applicable license type, ownership structure, individual-license requirements, fees, and local-site restrictions should be analyzed under the current MED rules and the current local code for the proposed premises. For Denver transactions, the social-equity exclusivity and transfer provisions remain applicable through a sunset date of July 1, 2027.

Source link

“When you take a really long time to get a bulletin out to tell people about these issues, a lot of time, people have already consumed the product.”

By Christopher Osher and Evan Wyloge, The Denver Gazette

This story was originally published by ProPublica.

In March 2022, Colorado public health officials started getting startling reports of liver damage tied to a new marijuana-based sleep aid that had quickly become a top seller in the state.

But it wasn’t until June 2023, nearly 15 months later, that the state’s Marijuana Enforcement Division would warn consumers that the danger had become so serious that the manufacturer had halted production of the sleep pills, called 1906 Midnight Drops, after more reports of “acute liver injury.”

The delay highlights a slew of weaknesses in the system for protecting consumers from hazardous products in the nation’s first regulated recreational marijuana market.

The health complaints had prompted the division to investigate, but the agency decided it didn’t have the power to pull the drops from the stores in this situation. If the agency had dug deeper, it might have found what the state attorney general’s office later discovered: The manufacturer, Sima Sciences, began receiving complaints of harm shortly after it launched 1906 Midnight Drops and two years before health officials ever did.

Instead, the enforcement division took four months after the first report of liver damage to the state to post a notice on its website. But the agency didn’t call it a health and safety warning, which would have advised people not to consume the product. It released a more neutrally named “informational notification.” While there had been reports of “adverse health events,” the notice said, regulators didn’t find any violations. The manufacturer had reformulated the product, the notice added, and no additional issues had surfaced.

Jenifer Chatting didn’t even see it.

A surgical assistant at an oral surgeon’s office, Chatting wanted a safe, natural alternative to pharmaceuticals to treat her insomnia. So she was relieved when a local marijuana dispensary suggested a sugar-free option made of cannabis and herbal extracts that the manufacturer touted as the “the best sleep aid on the market.” She began taking the Midnight Drops nightly the same month that the state health department received its first complaint.

Unaware of the enforcement division’s notification, she didn’t worry when she started having full-body cramps and became lactose intolerant in September 2022, about six months after she started taking the drops. She thought she just needed to drink more water.

She continued taking the drops for nine more months until her dispensary stopped stocking them. Now, despite never having liver problems before, according to her medical records, she has liver damage at age 53; her doctor says she will ultimately need a transplant.

Colorado’s failure to get Midnight Drops off the market or to warn consumers to stop taking it despite repeated reports of harm was not an anomaly, The Denver Gazette and ProPublica found.

The division has limited authority to force companies to recall products. The agency instead relies on posting health and safety advisories on its website to warn the public, and on sending news releases to local media outlets.

Yet, in the cases for which the news organizations were able to identify the date of a complaint or the start of an investigation, it took regulators an average of more than seven months to issue a warning. That’s an incomplete snapshot because the division refused to release data on when investigations began. Complaint dates were private, it said, because the probes were ongoing — even years after the warnings were issued and some companies had surrendered their licenses.

Still, The Denver Gazette and ProPublica were able to identify initial complaint or investigative start dates for 23 of the 83 advisories the agency issued over the past five years by reviewing other licensing violation records.

Seven months is a long time for products that are typically smoked or ingested within days of purchase, industry insiders and consumer safety experts said. In comparison, federal investigators have criticized the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for taking an average of two months after learning of a potential hazard to not just warn consumers but to get companies to recall contaminated food.

Kimberly Anzarut, a former Denver marijuana regulator and now an industry consultant, said the delays mean Colorado consumers aren’t getting vital warnings while products are still on shelves.

“When you take a really long time to get a bulletin out to tell people about these issues, a lot of time, people have already consumed the product,” she said.

Lab directors said it generally takes only three days to return test results identifying contaminants, and if there’s an emergency, they can do so in a day.

But MED spokesperson Heather Draper said in a statement that it’s more complicated than just getting test results and that it takes time to build a case that leads to a health and safety advisory.

“This most often requires investigative resources to evaluate the scope of concerns, gather evidence of potential product safety concerns, and receive test results that indicate a contaminated product has been sold to consumers,” she said.

In 2019, he branched out into the sleep tablet line and also manufactured other “drops” meant to help with sex, anxiety, energy, focus and bliss.

By 2023, his company, based in Henderson, Colorado, was manufacturing 81% of the pills sold in dispensaries in the state, according to the cannabis analytics firm BDSA.

Vu, the former Denver regulator, worked for about a year as Barsoom’s head of regulatory compliance and said Barsoom wanted her to bend the rules on inventory reporting and product safety, though she stressed that she was unaware of the problems with the Midnight Drops, which were made after she left. They clashed, and he fired her in 2016, she said.

Barsoom declined interview requests and did not respond to detailed questions. His company’s lawyers also did not respond to requests for comment. But in court filings in response to personal injury lawsuits, they stated that “injuries, damages and losses, if any, may have been caused by plaintiff’s own comparative negligence.”

To promote the Midnight Drops, the 1906 website said the pills were infused with corydalis, an herbal extract, which, it said, “has been used for millennia.” It claimed the extract had sedative qualities and would help people stay asleep because it targeted body pain and tension.

A relative of the poppy, corydalis also contains a compound that researchers have linked to severe and potentially fatal liver injury.

Following reports about liver problems, the company reformulated Midnight Drops and added a warning label stating the product should be taken in consultation with a physician. But the new herbal supplement was also primarily composed of a compound with the same chemical makeup as the one in corydalis that had been tied to liver risks, regulators eventually concluded.

One doctor reported to the enforcement division in December 2022 that he continued to “see an uptick in patients with elevated liver enzymes,” which he believed was caused by Midnight Drops. He warned the agency that he had seen four such patients in the past two months and knew of other doctors treating more, state records show.

Dr. David Cristin, a gastroenterologist, said he was exasperated because patients kept using Midnight Drops despite his concerns. He said he registered a complaint through the company’s website, detailing the issues he had found, but was never contacted.

“The thing that was frustrating was my patients were swearing by these,” he said.

By May 2024, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment would receive 52 reports of harm involving Midnight Drops, at least 20 severe enough to require medical care. Of those reports, 25 occurred before the MED’s second notification. While the health department often does the initial review, records show it typically finished gathering information within days, which would trigger an automatic referral to the MED.

Nearly a year after issuing its first “informational notification,” the MED and the health department issued the second one in June 2023, warning that Midnight Drops had continued generating reports of “acute liver injury.”

At that time, Sima announced it was stopping production. But Barsoom and his companies continued marketing Midnight Drops for several more months and did not adequately warn dispensaries to stop selling them, according to a Colorado attorney general’s office investigation.

Chatting didn’t see the second MED notification either. A couple of weeks after it was posted, she went into a dispensary but learned the drops were no longer in stock. She said a dispensary staffer told her they had been pulled because consumers had been abusing the product. She hadn’t been, so she didn’t worry.

But that summer, bloodwork during a routine checkup revealed Chatting’s liver enzymes had soared to abnormal levels, indicating potential damage.

The MED’s lawyers have refused to release any of the agency’s investigative files about Midnight Drops, making it difficult to assess why the agency didn’t act sooner. Draper, the spokesperson, said that when regulators were fielding complaints about Midnight Drops, their powers were limited: They could put a hold on products and require companies to issue recalls only for specific violations. She said because of a 2023 statute change, regulators can now place holds on products over safety concerns to prevent their sales, even without a violation.

Still, even with that change, the time it takes to warn consumers after the first complaint as well as after the date when a product goes on sale have both gotten longer, according to the news organizations’ analysis. Draper said the agency “has improved its Health & Safety Advisory processes and this work continues.” She added that agency officials do not believe that the newsrooms’ analysis is “an accurate representation of our process and progress in these areas,” but she did not say why or provide any evidence disputing it.

Loopholes in Safety Rules

The continued time lag in public warnings from regulators is another blow to consumer safety for Colorado’s marijuana industry, which has loopholes in safety rules other states have closed to make it less likely that contaminated products end up in dispensaries.

In one of the longest cases, it took regulators three years to warn consumers from the date of the first sales of marijuana products made by Pueblo County-based Boone Farms that were contaminated with yeast, mold and aspergillus, which can damage lungs and cause asthma, fungal infections and, in rare instances, death. Draper said she could neither confirm nor deny if there was any other investigation. The owner of the company declined to comment but previously said it was a small amount of product and that some of it sold before the state set standards for aspergillus.

An MED investigator had similar suspicions about contamination in products made by Boulder-based Range Street, but “due to other priorities and bandwidth,” had to put the investigation on the “backburner,” according to the investigator’s synopsis obtained through a public records request. The MED eventually found yeast, mold and aspergillus. But it didn’t warn the public until 410 days after the first sales. Range Street, whose former owner declined to comment, has since surrendered its medical marijuana cultivation license.

Unlike other states, Colorado operates largely on an honor code, with manufacturers free to choose the samples and the labs that conduct contaminant tests required before products can be sold. Colorado regulators in January said they were considering requiring lab personnel to collect samples, which would bring Colorado in line with 26 of the 42 state marijuana markets. But the agency backed away from the proposal after top manufacturers argued it would increase costs.

Colorado also allows marijuana manufacturers to test their products far less frequently if they can show consistent compliance, something only one other state does. And the time frame for demonstrating that compliance can be as little as a few weeks.

Colorado’s regulators acknowledged at a 2023 industry forum that the reduced testing program “potentially poses risks to public health and safety,” as problems with the program were “a common occurrence” in investigations.

This January, the enforcement division noted in an industry bulletin that problems with that program persist, leading to recalls and advisories for unsafe levels of pesticides. The division told manufacturers in July that it is reviewing the reduced testing program as it considers a broader overhaul of testing rules.

Colorado also has historically relied on complaints to identify tainted marijuana once it is actually in the marketplace, rather than randomly sampling products on shelves. The Cannabis Regulators Association recommends random sampling, and other states like Oklahoma have such programs. Colorado only this year launched a pilot program to randomly sample dispensary products, but the program has run into delays, and the state hasn’t identified a long-term funding source.

Once a contaminated product gets to dispensaries, Colorado regulators face challenges in getting the product off the shelves. Colorado expects manufacturers to voluntarily recall products. Regulators in Colorado can only force products to be recalled in a public health emergency, but regulators can encounter hurdles to quickly establishing that one exists.

Even when testing finds contaminants, manufacturers say marijuana that’s already in dispensaries often remains for sale. That’s because Colorado allows the manufacturer to retest the marijuana, and the rules don’t specify a time frame for when those tests have to be done. The rules state that the MED “may” require manufacturers to refrain from selling items during retesting.

In contrast, Missouri immediately puts a hold on all marijuana products that fail mandatory contaminant testing. Manufacturers there can have the products reanalyzed, but dispensaries can’t sell those products until retesting shows the original analysis was incorrect.

In an industry bulletin in January, Colorado regulators said the agency had seen “increased instances” of marijuana manufacturers taking advantage of the retesting rule to cover up the use of banned pesticides.

“Health Isn’t Really Their Primary Concern”

Tess Eidem, a research professor at the University of Colorado who has a federal grant to analyze the division’s health and safety bulletin process, said she worries the state prioritizes protecting the financial viability of the marijuana market over consumer safety.

She pointed out that the MED isn’t part of the state’s health department but instead is in the state’s revenue department.

“So health isn’t really their primary concern,” she said.

Draper said that “consumer safety has been and remains a top priority for the Division.”

In September 2024, a little over a year after Chatting stopped taking Midnight Drops, she and her husband went on a dream vacation to England, where they lived on a houseboat. The trip was such a success that they began planning to retire there, projecting that in about a decade they could downsize and spend their golden years traveling the canals through the English countryside where Luke was born.

A month later, Jenifer got a call from a doctor. Because she’s a former smoker, she had gone in for a routine lung screening. Her lungs were fine, but the X-ray detected something suspicious with her liver. A follow-up ultrasound detected cirrhosis.

Chatting’s gastroenterologist ruled out alcohol consumption, noting in her medical records that Chatting had always been a light drinker, and instead cited an herbal sleeping aid as a likely factor. After she stopped taking the drops, her liver enzymes came back into normal ranges, but the damage was already done, her medical records show.

Two days before Thanksgiving, Luke couldn’t sleep and rose about 2 a.m. to Google information about cirrhosis. He said it was then that he finally discovered the MED’s notifications about Midnight Drops.

He started slamming his fists on the armrests of his desk chair. One armrest broke, and his fist hit jagged plastic, fracturing his left hand.

“Jen, they killed you,” he recalled shouting.

She has few symptoms now, other than body cramps, but her gastroenterologist has warned that her condition will inevitably deteriorate and she will require a liver transplant in as little as five years.

Struggling to come to terms with the diagnosis, Jenifer now stays mostly indoors, building elaborate Lego artwork and spending time with their rescue pug mixes.

“It’s hard because you think you’re doing something good for yourself and healthy and all natural,” she said. “And then it ends up being, you know…” She stopped and gathered herself. “Just because something’s all natural doesn’t mean that it’s good for you.”

Last September, Barsoom and his companies settled with the attorney general’s office to resolve the office’s investigation. Barsoom and his companies denied that they had violated consumer protection laws. But they agreed to pay $400,000 in fines, and the settlement bars them from selling cannabis products in Colorado until at least 2027.

Barsoom also agreed to issue an apology.

“We’ve always believed that great products should improve people’s lives,” his statement read. “When we learned that Midnight Drops wasn’t meeting that standard for everyone, we realized we had let our customers down. We are sorry that we didn’t act faster and communicate better with both our customers and regulators.”

The Chattings said Barsoom’s apology doesn’t amount to much for them, and they wish Colorado regulators had acted faster and communicated better with consumers.

“How are people supposed to know this?” Luke asked. “The only way I found this stuff was by digging and digging and digging on the internet.”

This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with The Denver Gazette. Sign up for Dispatches to get stories in your inbox every week.

Source link

Cannabis flower sold in Colorado claims to contain much more tetrahydrocannabinol– or THC- than it does, according to my findings published in the peer-reviewed journal Plos One.

THC is the psychoactive compound that is derived when cannabis flower – commonly referred to as “bud” – is heated through smoking or cooking.

Why It Matters

Accurate THC reporting is a linchpin for medical patients, recreational consumers, and the overall integrity of the cannabis industry. Medical and recreational flower are generally the same – the difference is in testing requirements, price, taxes, and purchase limits. Misleading potency information can disrupt medical dosages, misguide recreational users, and erode trust in an industry striving for legitimacy.

Consumers often associate higher THC levels in cannabis flower with superior quality, potentially leading to overpayment for products that may not meet their expectations. This misconception can also create incentives for cultivators, testing labs, and dispensaries to generate higher THC numbers – whether through cultivation techniques or testing fraud.

Additionally, testing for toxins, pesticides, and total yeast and mold can also fall victim to falsification. Recent reports reveal instances where labs in New York and other states have passed products that should have failed. This casts doubt on the credibility of the broader testing processes in place.

How I Did My Work

I gathered a total of 23 cannabis flower samples from 10 dispensaries across the northern Colorado Front Range, which includes Denver, Fort Collins, and Garden City. The samples encompassed 12 strains, including indica, sativa, and hybrid types, and varied in reported THC values. Some had ranges, such as 12.8%-19.3% on the lower end and 28.07%-31.28% on the higher end, while others had single values, such as 16.4% or 17.4%.

I sent the samples to a third-party testing lab that does high-performance liquid chromatography, or HPLC. HPLC is a method to separate, identify, and quantify components in mixtures based on their chemical properties. It is the most commonly used method in cannabis testing to analyze cannabinoids and detect contaminants. This can ensure product potency, safety, and quality.

Approximately 70% of the labels reported THC percentages more than 15% higher than what was quantified through the lab.

Among the 23 flower samples analyzed, 18 displayed lower THC levels than reported – with 16 falling below 15% of the stated value, 13 falling below 30% of the reported THC, and three samples falling below half of the reported THC. Notably, only one sample had slightly higher THC than reported. Four were within the reported range.

The observed disparity was not due to aging. When THC ages and degrades, it turns into cannabinol or CBN. CBN was not found in measurable amounts in any of the samples, however, and further testing indicated stable THC levels over time.

What Still Isn’t Known

A fundamental query looms large: With advancements in cultivation techniques, including lighting, nutrients, and selective breeding, has the potency of cannabis flower genuinely surged over the past 15 years?

THC levels averaged 9.75% back in 2009, based on testing of DEA-seized cannabis flower. Today, levels reportedly surpass 35%, though they’re not as common as consumers have been led to believe. DEA-seized cannabis flower averaged 13.88% in 2019, which is closer to my observed mean of 14.98% than the reported mean of my samples, which was 20.27%-24.10%.

We also do not know who is responsible for the misinformation regarding inflated THC potency for cannabis flower. It could be cultivators or dispensaries selecting the best flowers to test. 

Sampling guidelines differ by state, but all require a random sample from the entire batch. But there is little to no oversight when it comes to enforcing these guidelines. It could also be lab fraud. Facilities might manipulate the testing process or doctor numbers on the certificate of analysis to ensure repeat business from producers and distributors who set prices based on THC content or to generate new customers.

What’s Next

I believe a critical next step is for the cannabis industry to educate consumers on how to make more informed choices by looking beyond mere THC percentages. People generally do not shop for wine or beer based on alcohol content. Instead of focusing on THC content, a novice cannabis consumer might consider brands that are reputable or strains that have an aroma or flavor profile they enjoy. Eventually, they may move on to find a favorite breeder or grower, or a trusted dispensary that employs a knowledgeable budtender. A budtender is akin to a bartender in a dispensary setting, serving as a customer representative.

Cannabis consumers, industry players, and the public must also continue to advocate for better oversight in sampling and testing to ensure safety, transparency, and accountability and to foster trust in the cannabis community.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Source link