Connect with us

featured

Texas Governor Tells Lawmakers To Regulate Hemp THC Products Like Alcohol After Vetoing Bill To Ban Most Consumable Cannabinoids

Published

on


The governor of Texas says that, rather than outright ban consumable hemp products, lawmakers should establish a regulatory framework that treats cannabinoids “similar to the way alcohol is regulated.”

After vetoing a controversial bill on Sunday that would have effectively eliminated the state’s hemp market, Gov. Greg Abbott (R) proposed an extensive list of policy changes that he says he would support—and which the legislature will have the chance to enact during a special session the governor is convening next month.

“Texans on each side of the Senate Bill 3 debate raise serious concerns. But one thing is clear—to ensure the highest level of safety for minors, as well as for adults, who obtain a product more dangerous than what they expected, Texas must strongly regulate hemp, and it must do so immediately,” Abbott said.

Part of the rationale behind his veto was the risk of litigation over “valid constitutional challenges” that he suggested would hold up in court. And to that end, multiple top Texas hemp companies did file a preemptive lawsuit challenging the legislation, SB 3, before the governor’s veto.

“If I were to allow Senate Bill 3 to become law, its enforcement would be enjoined for years, leaving existing abuses unaddressed,” Abbott said in his veto message. “Texas cannot afford to wait.”

“At worst, Senate Bill 3 would be permanently invalidated by the courts; at best, its implementation would be delayed for years as the case winds its way through the legal system,” he said. “We can do better.”

Rather than face the possibility of having the law enjoined, or indefinitely delayed, the governor said the state “must enact a regulatory framework that protects public safety, aligns with federal law, has a fully funded enforcement structure, and can take effect without delay.”

“Legislators could consider a structure similar to the way alcohol is regulated, with strict enforcement by an agency like the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission,” he said, adding a list of recommended policies he wants to see lawmakers adopt that include age restrictions, zoning requirements and bans on public consumption.

Here’s the full list of the governor’s recommended hemp regulations:

  • Selling or providing a THC product to a minor must be punishable as a crime.
  • Sales must be prohibited near schools, churches, parks, playgrounds, and other areas frequented by children.
  • Packaging must be child-resistant, tamper-evident, and resealable;
  • Products must not be made, packaged, or marketed in a manner attractive to children.
  • Any store selling these products must have a permit and restrict access to anyone under the age of 21, with strict penalties for any retailer that fails to comply.
  • Products containing THC may not contain other psychoactive substances (e.g., alcohol, tobacco, kratom).
  • Testing must be required at every phase of production and manufacturing, including for both plants and derivative consumable products.
  • Manufacturing and processing facilities must be subject to permitting and food safety rules.
  • Permit and registration fees must suffice to support robust enforcement and testing by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, in partnership with other state agencies.
  • An operator’s permit and warning/danger signs must be posted at any store selling these products.
  • Sales must be limited to the hours between 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., and prohibited on Sundays.
  • The amount of THC permissible in each product must be restricted and an individual may make only a limited number of purchases in a given period of time.
  • Labels must include a surgeon general-style warning, a clear disclosure of all ingredients, including the THC content, and a scannable barcode or QR code linking to test results.
  • Fraudulently creating or displaying manifests or lab results must be punishable as felony offenses.
  • Public consumption, consumption on the premises of any store that sells these products, and possession of an open container in a vehicle must be punishable as crimes.
  • The Attorney General, district attorneys, and county attorneys must have authority to pursue violations under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
  • Local governments must have the option to prohibit or limit stores selling these products.
  • Excise taxes must be assessed on these products to fund oversight and enforcement.
  • Additional funding must be provided to ensure law enforcement have sufficient resources to vigorously enforce restrictions.

“This list, of course, is not exhaustive. But it may provide items to consider in a regulatory system that is strict, fair, and legally sustainable,” Abbott said. “Passing a law is not the same thing as actually solving a problem. Texas needs a bill that is enforceable and will make our communities safer today, rather than years from now. Next month, the Legislature will have the opportunity to address this serious issue. I look forward to working with them to ensure that we get it right.”

Abbott on Sunday called a special session of a legislature to begin on July 21, saying in a press release that SB 3 and other vetoed bills would be placed on the agenda for further consideration.

Hemp advocates and stakeholders had delivered more than 100,000 petition signatures asking Abbott to veto the measure. Critics of the bill argued that the industry—which employs an estimated 53,000 people—would be decimated if the measure became law.

Texas lawmakers legalized the sale of consumable hemp in 2019, following enactment of the 2018 federal Farm Bill, which legalized the plant nationwide. That’s led to an explosion of products—including edibles, drinks, vape products and cured flower—sold by an estimated 8,000 retailers.

Military veterans advocates, including Texas Veterans of Foreign Wars, have also called on the governor to veto the hemp ban, saying it “would cause irreversible harm to communities across the state.”

Farmers have also said the prohibition would devastate a key sector of the state’s agriculture industry.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), who championed the hemp ban legislation this session, criticized Abbott’s move to veto the bill.

“His late-night veto, on an issue supported by 105 of 108 Republicans in the legislature, strongly backed by law enforcement, many in the medical and education communities, and the families who have seen their loved ones’ lives destroyed by these very dangerous drugs, leaves them feeling abandoned,” he said on social media. “I feel especially bad for those who testified and poured their hearts out on their tragic losses.”

Meanwhile, a recent survey from a GOP pollster affiliated with President Donald Trump showed that Texas Democratic and Republican voters are unified in their opposition to the hemp ban bill.

Another poll commissioned the Texas Hemp Business Council (THBC) found that Texas Republican primary voters oppose the proposal.

On Saturday, the governor signed bill to significantly expand the state’s medical marijuana program with new qualifying conditions additional product forms and more dispensary locations.


Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.


Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.

Abbott separately signed a bill into law this month to create a state-backed research consortium to conduct clinical trials on ibogaine as a possible treatment for substance use disorders and other mental health conditions. The ultimate goal of the project is to develop the psychedelic into a prescription drug with federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, with the state retaining a portion of the profit.

The measure expands the state’s list of medical cannabis qualifying conditions to include chronic pain, traumatic brain injury (TBI), Crohn’s disease and other inflammatory bowel diseases, while also allowing end-of-life patients in palliative or hospice care to use marijuana.

Separately in Texas, a House committee approved a Senate-passed bill last month that would prohibit cities from putting any citizen initiative on local ballots that would decriminalize marijuana or other controlled substances—as several localities have already done despite lawsuits from the state attorney general.

Under the proposal, state law would be amended to say that local entities “may not place an item on a ballot, including a municipal charter or charter amendment, that would provide that the local entity will not fully enforce” state drug laws.

While several courts have previously upheld local cannabis decriminalization laws, an appellate court comprised of three conservative justices appointed by the governor has recently pushed back against two of those rulings, siding with the state in its legal challenge to the marijuana policy in Austin and San Marcos.

Despite the ongoing litigation and advancement of the House and Senate bills, Texas activists have their targets set on yet another city, Kyle, where they hope put an initiative before voters to enact local marijuana reform at the ballot this coming November.

A recent poll found that four in five Texas voters want to see marijuana legalized in some form, and most also want to see regulations around cannabis relaxed.

Read the governor’s veto message on the hemp bill below: 

 

Alabama Cannabis Regulators Grant Medical Marijuana Testing License To Foley-Based Lab

Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.

Become a patron at Patreon!





Source link

mscannabiz.com
Author: mscannabiz.com

MScannaBIZ for all you Mississippi Cannabis News and Information.

featured

Massachusetts Suspends Cannabis Testing Lab’s License; Lawsuit Filed in Appeal

Published

on


The Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission (CCC) last week ordered the cannabis testing lab Assured Testing Laboratories to cease operations after officials said they had identified suspicious patterns in the lab’s yeast and mold test results, MJ Biz Daily reports.

Specifically, the official sampling data submitted by Assured shows the testing lab failed just 10 samples out of 17,565 for containing excessive yeast and mold, or a 0.05% failure rate. The state’s average cannabis testing failure rate for excessive yeast and mold, meanwhile, is 4.5%.

A CCC spokesperson said the suspension was thanks to a task force aimed at improving “product testing as part of the Commission’s mission to oversee a safe, equitable cannabis marketplace in Massachusetts,” according to the report.

Representatives from Assured, meanwhile, have defended the testing lab’s work. The company’s CEO and founder, Dr. Dimitrios Pelekoudas, told the Boston Herald that the company has followed regulators’ every instruction.

“There is a fundamental principle in this state and in this country that before you lose everything at the hands of the government, you have a right to appear in some forum to defend yourself. Assured Testing Laboratory, a locally run business with 33 employees, did nothing wrong here, posed no threat to the public, and ensured that no contaminated products reached the market.” — Dr. Pelekoudas, via the Herald

Dr. Pelekoudas called the issue a “simple disagreement about how data was being reported,” and that the company was filing a lawsuit to appeal the decision despite having stopped operations indefinitely, per the suspension order.

Dr. Pelekoudas also noted that the CCC recently had to reissue certain regulations that were unclear, but he said that “At all times, Assured Testing Laboratory complied with all active regulations and orders.”



Source link

mscannabiz.com
Author: mscannabiz.com

MScannaBIZ for all you Mississippi Cannabis News and Information.

Continue Reading

featured

Federal Judge Rejects Pennsylvania Prosecutor’s Lawsuit Challenging Ban On Marijuana Consumer Gun Ownership

Published

on


A district judge in Pennsylvania has dismissed a lawsuit challenging the federal government’s ban on gun ownership by state-legal medical marijuana patients, ruling that the prohibition is constitutional and that patients can avoid legal jeopardy “by simply choosing an alternative treatment.”

“Plaintiffs have no constitutional right to use marijuana—medical or otherwise, and there are no allegations that medical marijuana is the only available treatment for their medical conditions,” U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon, an Obama appointee, wrote in a decision this week.

The suit was filed in January of last year by Warren County District Attorney Robert Greene, who is a registered medical cannabis patient in the state, and with the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), which advocates for gun rights.

At the heart of the case is the federal statute known as Section 922(g)(3), which prevents someone who is an “unlawful user” of an illegal drug from buying or possessing firearms.

The Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss last November, arguing that the suit “fails as a matter of law by challenging a constitutional statute.”

Greene’s participation was especially notable. The complaint said the county prosecutor had intended to “lawfully purchase, possess, and utilize firearms and ammunition so that he may exercise his constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and all other lawful purposes” but was barred from doing because of his status as a medical marijuana patient.

Another plaintiff, Bloomberg resident and Second Amendment Foundation member James Irey already owns firearms, the suit said, but wanted to obtain a medical marijuana registration at the recommendation of his doctor.

Plaintiffs alleged the prohibition on gun ownership by cannabis users was unconstitutional, both on its face and applied to Greene and Irey. Attorneys argued that the federal law is distinct from other statutes that limit gun ownership by potentially dangerous individuals, pointing out that other restrictions are “only permitted the deprivation of one’s Second Amendment rights after a hearing, providing for due process, and then, only temporarily.”

“To say that an individual loses their right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes merely because they may be ‘intoxicated’ at some point in time, by virtue of using a lawful medicine pursuant to state law, eludes logic,” the lawsuit said.

Bissoon disagreed, dismissing the challenge for failure to state a claim.

“Plaintiff Irey already possesses numerous firearms and can retain them by simply choosing an alternative treatment,” she wrote. “Plaintiff Green can purchase and possess firearms if he stops participating in the medical marijuana program.”

“Choosing to refrain from engaging in federally unlawful behavior,” the judge added, referring to cannabis use, “is not a burdensome ask.”

The case, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, is Greene v. Bondi (24-00021).

Bissoon’s ruling acknowledges that “modern Second Amendment jurisprudence is rapidly evolving,” but she said the decision’s reasoning “reflects the current legal landscape in the Third Circuit,” which includes Pennsylvania.

Unlike some other recent federal court rulings around the constitutionality of the restriction—such as in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth and Fifth Circuits—the district court dismissal maintains that the law is sufficiently similar to other historical government limits on the Second Amendment, such as preventing firearm possession by intoxicated people and individuals with mental illness.

“After careful consideration, the Court agrees that the Government has shown that Sections 922(g)(3) and (d)(3) are ‘relevantly similar’ to historical regulations aimed at preventing potentially dangerous persons from possessing and using firearms, including the mentally ill and the intoxicated,” the June 30 ruling says. “Although the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has not yet addressed directly the provisions challenged here, this finding is consistent with the overwhelming weight of authority upholding the facial constitutionality of Sections 922(g)(3) and/or (d)(3) and related regulations.”

Bissoon’s ruling dismisses the suit with prejudice, meaning the case is now closed and cannot be amended and refiled. “Because the Court’s decision rests primarily on legal conclusions and not on insufficient factual allegations,” it says, “it finds that further amendment would be futile.”

Courts in recent years have been divided on whether the federal government’s ban on gun ownership by cannabis users is lawful, especially when broadly applied.

Some have said the blanket ban on gun and ammunition possession infringes on the Second Amendment—at least as applied to certain individual cases—because there’s no historical justification for such a broad restriction on an entire category of people.

The matter could soon be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court. In a recent petition for review by justices, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that despite recent appeals court decisions calling the constitutionality of the firearms ban into question, the restriction is nevertheless lawful.

“Section 922(g)(3) complies with the Second Amendment,” the government’s filing in that case, U.S. v. Hemani, says. “That provision targets a category of persons who pose a clear danger of misusing firearms: habitual users of unlawful drugs.”

The federal statute “bars their possession of firearms only temporarily,” the government petition says, “and leaves it within their power to lift the restriction at any time; anyone who stops habitually using illegal drugs can resume possessing firearms.”

Notably, while the government mentioned “habitual” users of illegal drugs 40 times in its filing, that word does not itself appear in 922(g)(3). The language of the statute prohibits anyone “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition.

A reply brief from the plaintiff in the case is due to the Supreme Court by July 21.

While DOJ is asking the high court to take up the Hemani case, at least two other, similar cases are waiting in the wings: U.S. v. Cooper and U.S. v. Baxter both of which also hinge on the constitutionality of 922(g)(3).

In Cooper, an Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel dismissed a three-year prison sentence against a person convicted for possession of a firearm while being an active user of marijuana. Judges in that case ruled that government’s prohibition on gun ownership by drug users is justified only in certain circumstances—not always.

“Nothing in our tradition allows disarmament simply because [the defendant] belongs to a category of people, drug users, that Congress has categorically deemed dangerous,” their ruling said.

In Baxter, the Eighth Circuit ruled 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied to the facts in the case.

Judges in that case wrote that there were insufficient factual findings in the record “for this Court to review Baxter’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge.” Nevertheless, the they wrote, “We reverse the district court’s ruling on Baxter’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

In recent weeks, the government has sought further time from the court to decide whether to seek an appeal in the other cases. And when DOJ filed its appeal in Cooper, it further asked the court to slow walk the case, requesting justices “hold the petition for a writ of certiorari pending the disposition of the petition in United States v. Hemani…and should then dispose of this petition as appropriate.”

One reason DOJ could be focused on the high court taking up Hemani in particular is that the defendant is not only a cannabis user but also a user of cocaine who’s sold drugs in the past, perhaps reasoning that he is a less sympathetic face of drug consumers’ gun rights. Defendants in the other cases were merely found in possession of both a firearm and marijuana.

If the Supreme Court takes up Hemani and declares 922(g)(3) constitutional, such a ruling could could mean government wins in the remaining cases.

One risk to the government appealing the lower court rulings are that if the Supreme Court does take the case, justices may in fact rule unfavorably to the government, possibly cementing that § 922(g)(3) is—in at least some cases—unconstitutional.

A number of federal courts in recent months have cast doubt on the legality of § 922(g)(3), finding generally that while the ban on gun ownership among drug users may not be entirely unconstitutional, there’s scant historical precedent for such a broad restriction of Second Amendment rights on an entire a category of people.

Earlier this year, for example, a federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that the ban was unconstitutional as applied to two defendants, writing that the government failed to establish that the “sweeping” prohibition against gun ownership by marijuana users was grounded in historical precedent.

In another case earlier this year, a Fifth Circuit panel ruled that the firearms ban was unconstitutional as applied to least one defendant. That ruling came on the heels of a string of other judicial decisions casting doubt on the legality of the ban.

A federal judge in El Paso, for instance, ruled late last year that the government’s ongoing ban on gun ownership by habitual marijuana users is unconstitutional in the case of a defendant who earlier pleaded guilty to the criminal charge. The court allowed the man to withdraw the plea and ordered that the indictment against him be dismissed.

Another panel of judges, on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, heard oral arguments in November in the government’s appeal of a district court ruling that deemed the gun ban unconstitutional.

Much of the panel’s discussion at oral argument in that case surrounded whether the underlying dispute was a facial challenge to the gun ban or an as-applied challenge. And, as in other cases, judges zeroed in on whether or not that defendant was actually under the influence of marijuana while in possession of a firearm.

In a number of the ongoing cases, DOJ has argued that the prohibition on gun ownership by marijuana users is also supported by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, U.S. v. Rahimi, that upheld the government’s ability to limit the Second Amendment rights of people with domestic violence restraining orders.

DOJ has made such arguments, for example, in favor of the firearms ban in a case in a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In that matter, a group of Florida medical cannabis patients contends that their Second Amendment rights are being violated because they cannot lawfully buy firearms so long as they are using cannabis as medicine, despite acting in compliance with state law.

DOJ under President Joe Biden consistently argued that medical marijuana patients who possess firearms “endanger public safety,” “pose a greater risk of suicide” and are more likely to commit crimes “to fund their drug habit.”

It remains unclear how the Trump administration will approach the cases. At a NRA conference in 2023, Trump suggested there might be a link between the use of “genetically engineered” marijuana and mass shootings. He listed a number of controversial and unproven factors that he said at the time he would direct the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to investigate as possibly causing the ongoing scourge of mass shooting afflicting the country.

“We have to look at whether common psychiatric drugs, as well as genetically engineered cannabis and other narcotics, are causing psychotic breaks” that lead to gun violence, he said.

DOJ has claimed in multiple federal cases over the past several years that the statute banning cannabis consumers from owning or possessing guns is constitutional because it’s consistent with the nation’s history of disarming “dangerous” individuals.

In 2023, for example, the Justice Department told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that historical precedent “comfortably” supports the restriction. Cannabis consumers with guns pose a unique danger to society, the Biden administration claimed, in part because they’re “unlikely” to store their weapon properly.

Last year, Biden’s son Hunter was convicted by a federal jury of violating statute by buying and possessing a gun while an active user of crack cocaine. Two Republican congressmen challenged the basis of that conviction, with one pointing out that there are “millions of marijuana users” who own guns but should not be prosecuted.

The situation has caused confusion among medical marijuana patients, state lawmakers and advocacy groups, among others. The National Rifle Association’s (NRA) lobbying arm said recently that the court rulings on the cannabis and guns issue have “led to a confusing regulatory landscape” that have impacted Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

“Marijuana use is no longer limited to the domain of indigenous religious customs or youth-oriented counterculture and now includes a wide variety of people who use it for medicinal or recreational reasons,” said the advocacy group, which does not have an official stance on cannabis policy generally. “Many of these individuals are otherwise law-abiding and productive members of their communities and want to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.”

Meanwhile, some states have passed their own laws either further restricting or attempting to preserve gun rights as they relate to marijuana. Recently, for example, a Pennsylvania lawmaker introduced a bill meant to remove state barriers to medical marijuana patients carrying firearms.

Colorado activists also attempted to qualify an initiative for November’s ballot that would have protected the Second Amendment rights of marijuana consumers in that state, but the campaign’s signature-gathering drive ultimately fell short.

As 2024 drew to a close, the ATF issued a warning to Kentucky residents that, if they choose to participate in the state’s medical marijuana program that’s set to launch imminently, they will be prohibited from buying or possessing firearms under federal law.

The official said that while people who already own firearms aren’t “expected to” turn them over if they become state-legal cannabis patients, those who “wish to follow federal law and not be in violation of it” must “make the decision to divest themselves of those firearms.”

Since then, bipartisan state lawmakers have introduced legislation that would urge Kentucky’s representatives in Congress to amend federal law to clarify that users of medical marijuana may legally possess firearms, though no action has since been taken on that bill.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) said in January that he supported the legislature’s effort to urge the state’s congressional delegation to call for federal reforms to protect the Second Amendment rights of medical marijuana patients, but the governor added that he’d like to see even more sweeping change on the federal level.

“I think the right way to deal with that is not just to focus on that issue, but to change the schedule of marijuana,” Beshear said at a press conference. “What we need to change is the overall marijuana policy by the federal government.”

Read the judge’s full ruling in Greene v. Bondi below:

Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.

Become a patron at Patreon!





Source link

mscannabiz.com
Author: mscannabiz.com

MScannaBIZ for all you Mississippi Cannabis News and Information.

Continue Reading

featured

5 Ways Dispensaries Can Build Momentum Around 7/10

Published

on


Every cannabis retailer knows the power of 4/20. But what about 7/10?

Just like 4/20, which took years—if not decades—to become the mainstream cannabis moment it is today, 7/10 is still in its early growth phase. Known as Oil Day, July 10 has emerged as a rising occasion for cannabis concentrates. Yet despite years of industry effort, 7/10 has yet to achieve the mainstream traction of its April counterpart. But that’s not a failure; it’s an opportunity. 

Advertisment: Cannabis Business Times » Cannabis Business Times Best Cannabis Companies to Work For » CBT Best Companies 2026 ROS Parallax Reveal » bcc-ads-730x570
Advertisment: Cannabis Business Times » Cannabis Business Times Best Cannabis Companies to Work For » CBT Best Companies 2026 ROS Parallax Reveal » bcc-ads-730x570

Holiday or Hype? Sweed’s 7/10 Retail Data Challenges Assumptions

7/10 is a blank slate with strong potential, but most consumers aren’t yet connecting with it.

In July 2024, oil-based products like vapes and concentrates made up 30% of all dispensary revenue, with vape carts neck-and-neck with flower in nearly every sales metric, according to Sweed, an innovative retail management platform for the cannabis industry.

Advertisment: Hanwha Vision » Hanwha Vision Order 78 » CBT ROS 300x250 Medium Rectangle July 2025 » D53_Cannabis-Business-Times_300x250_v1

Interestingly, the purchase of oil products actually peaked after 7/10, with August outperforming July across most categories. Sweed’s data suggests that 7/10 does not drive immediate retail spikes the way 4/20 does, and that consumer enthusiasm for oil-based products builds after the holiday.

Advertisment: Frank Mayer » Frank Mayer Order 84 » CBT ROS Medium Rectangle 300x250 July 2025 » CBT Web Ad - July 2025

Instead of expecting immediate returns, Sweed recommends that retailers take a leadership role in shaping what 7/10 means, and that begins with education, accessibility, and consistent storytelling. Here are five tips to help retailers make the most of 7/10 and build a foundation for long-term success:

1. Explain the Holiday Before You Try to Sell It

Most shoppers don’t know what “710” refers to, let alone how to celebrate it. Dispensaries can lead by demystifying the holiday with simple in-store or online education. A counter card at the register, a post on Instagram, or a short video on a display screen can go a long way in explaining why the holiday is called 7/10, what oil-based products are, and how they differ from flower or edibles. Simple in-store and digital explainers can turn a passive shopper into an engaged one.

2. Launch a “Cannabis Oils 101” Campaign

Data from Sweed suggests that many consumers are curious about concentrates but hesitant to dive in. Creating low-pressure education events or budtender Q&A sessions the week before and after 7/10 can help demystify oil-based products. Educational signage or short videos showing how to use vape carts, dab rigs, or applicators can boost confidence and interest. Also, using friendly, accessible terms like “starter-friendly” or “beginner concentrate” can make trying these products feel less intimidating to first-timers.

3. Position Oil Products as a Lifestyle Fit

The diversity of oil-based formats, from disposable vape pens to potent live resin dabs, makes them ideal for a range of needs, but most shoppers don’t know this. Retailers can help by connecting oil products to everyday intentions. For instance, a vape pen might be “perfect for a hike,” and a discreet cartridge could be marketed as “great for daytime use.” Another way to reduce decision fatigue is to create curated product bundles, like “The Curious Dabber Starter Pack” or “Vape & Go Essentials,” that introduce customers to different formats based on their lifestyle or goals.

4. Turn Budtenders into Oil Ambassadors

Budtenders are among the most trusted voices in the cannabis retail experience. To make the most of 7/10 and beyond, dispensaries should equip their staff with clear, easy-to-understand talking points about oil-based products, including information about effects, use cases, and safe dosing.

Also, offering incentives to budtenders for upselling or recommending concentrate formats throughout July can boost engagement, especially if the focus remains on education rather than pure conversion.

Lastly, featuring “staff picks” for oils, along with short notes about why a product is loved by the team, builds trust and personal connection with shoppers.

5. Extend the Holiday: Make July to August Your Oil Season

Since Sweed’s data found that oil product performance is often stronger in August than in July, Sweed recommends treating the 7/10 holiday not as a single day, but as a launchpad for a longer seasonal campaign.

Retailers can start building awareness in early July and continue promotions and educational efforts into late summer. A themed campaign like “Summer of Oil” can provide a flexible framework for rolling out educational campaigns, spotlighting new or limited-edition products, and running evolving deals throughout the summer. By making oil education and discovery a season-long experience, dispensaries can capture greater sales while deepening customer relationships.



Source link

mscannabiz.com
Author: mscannabiz.com

MScannaBIZ for all you Mississippi Cannabis News and Information.

Continue Reading
featured9 minutes ago

Massachusetts Suspends Cannabis Testing Lab’s License; Lawsuit Filed in Appeal

featured1 hour ago

Federal Judge Rejects Pennsylvania Prosecutor’s Lawsuit Challenging Ban On Marijuana Consumer Gun Ownership

featured2 hours ago

5 Ways Dispensaries Can Build Momentum Around 7/10

featured3 hours ago

Cannabis banking will move “hopefully sooner than later,” senator says (Newsletter: July 7, 2025)

Mississippi Cannabis News20 hours ago

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians Approve Referendum Allowing Tribe to Explore Cannabis Legalization

featured21 hours ago

Slipknot’s Sid Wilson Proposes to Kelly Osbourne During Ozzy’s Farewell Show

featured23 hours ago

Marijuana Users In Iowa Are Engaged And Active Citizens, Survey Shows—Smashing ‘Lazy Stoner’ Stereotypes

featured24 hours ago

Here’s Where To Buy Legal Recreational Marijuana In Delaware Next Month

video1 day ago

Fireworks, marijuana and cash found in Bronx apartment – NBC New York

video1 day ago

How often are marijuana cases federally prosecuted?

featured2 days ago

A Brief History of Getting High

featured2 days ago

Rhode Island Marijuana Regulators Seeking Applications For New Dispensary In State’s Northern Region

featured2 days ago

Texas Medical Marijuana Industry Wants Lawmakers To Ban Synthetic Delta-8 THC And Restrict Hemp Products To Adults

featured2 days ago

California Cannabis Operators Warn That New Tax Hike ‘Could Kill This Industry’

featured2 days ago

High Times Greats: Jim Morrison

video3 days ago

New cannabis tax increase is a high concern for California dispensaries, customers

featured3 days ago

A Brief History of High Times (2019)

video3 days ago

Georgia veterans suffering from PTSD push for medical cannabis expansion on Fourth of July

featured3 days ago

A Brief Global History of the War on Cannabis

featured3 days ago

The Evolution of Cannabis in Film

featured3 days ago

High Times Is Home Again

featured3 days ago

Dope As Yola Becomes First Weedtuber to Hit 2 Million Subscribers

video3 days ago

$20M worth of cocaine, marijuana seized in Caribbean Sea: USCG

featured3 days ago

Will Success Spoil Cheech & Chong? Of Course (1980)

Trending