“From Grey Areas, To Red Lines”: License Holders Prepare To Defend Brands
Earlier this year, New Mexico license holders took the stage to speak against HB 294—a bill that would have sterilized packaging, resulting in wasted inventory and costly redesigns. To many, it felt like an overstep on regulations that hadn’t been enforced over the past few years. In reality, it may have been an informal détente—a chance to normalize the market quietly without dragging brands through the mud.
Now that option is gone, and both sides are already lawyering up.
HB 294 wasn’t just about packaging. What was being offered—whether people saw it or not—was an agreement to a sanctioned sparring match, instead of an all-out street fight.
Devils In The Detail
Now it’s easy to throw your hands up and say regulators are disconnected and don’t know what they’re doing. It’s harder to look back and ask ourselves—do we? For decades, the pitch was medical legitimacy. That argument worked, but it came with strings. Clinical framing doesn’t leave much room for mascots, nostalgia, or anything that reads like a kids’ book. And the CRA has clearly outlined: no cartoons, no loud colors, no Celebrity characters; or likeness of any types.
What we’re seeing now are signs of a fractured relationship—regulators who haven’t historically been part of label approval decisions, and license holder uncomfortable with the sudden attention. It obviously too late to pre-approve thousands of labels in production now, a process that isn’t unheard of in other states.
Nevada requires submission of labels to the CCB prior to sale.
Massachusetts requires product registration via the CCC, which includes label review before products can be sold.
Oregon uses a pre-approval model for certain products, particularly edibles and extracts through the OLCC.
Colorado requires pre-market approval through its MED process.
Helots
For license holders, the pain point behind these changes comes from several angles. For some, it’s the years of investment in packaging—dialing in cost, scale, and supply chains to reach something sustainable. For others, branding is personal—an extension of identity, something they built and stand behind. In many cases, it’s both. That’s why some license holders are already prepared to contest any changes tooth and nail.
But that fight is wasteful for all side. Time, energy, and resources that could be spent strengthening operations, improving product quality, or building systems that actually move the business forward.
Return To Eden
The Industry is in a strange place. We’re fighting for the right to build brands while complaining that Cookies can charge more for an 8th because of its logo and packaging. We want the product to be treated with respect and used to heal, but reject operators that present it in a clean, clinical way. We want it to be for everyone, but cringe when we see it paired with a plush toy.
The complex nature of having both freedom of expression, and the freedom of speech. Sometimes we don’t know what we want—we just know we don’t want someone else to have it.
