“The next phase of cannabis policy will not be decided by a single bill. It will be shaped by the political environment that determines whether any bill has a path.”

By Jordan Isenstadt, National Cannabis Industry Association

The cannabis industry loves a headline bill.

The Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act. Rescheduling. Federal reform. Every cycle brings the same conversation. Is this the moment something finally passes?

It makes sense. Legislation is tangible. It gives the industry something to rally around and react to.

But it misses how Washington actually works. Bills do not move on their own. The people who decide whether they move are about to be decided in the 2026 elections.

Before working in communications, I spent years in government. I sat in rooms where policy decisions were shaped long before they became public debates. The outcome was rarely about one issue standing on its own. It was about who held power, who controlled the agenda and which issues were worth spending political capital on.

Cannabis is no different.

The industry tends to treat federal reform as a question of timing. When will something pass? In reality, it is a question of alignment. Committee chairs. Party control. Agency leadership. Governors and state legislatures. These are the forces that determine whether cannabis policy moves forward, stalls or gets chipped away.

The 2026 elections will shape all of that.

That matters in Washington, but it also matters at the state level. While federal reform gets the headlines, cannabis policy is still being defined every day through state decisions.

Implementation, enforcement and in some cases efforts to roll back existing markets are all happening in real time.

Prohibitionist groups like Smart Approaches to Marijuana understand this. They are not waiting on one federal bill. They are active in elections, in statehouses and in the broader policy conversation.

They are also shaping perception. That part gets overlooked.

In communications, perception is not secondary. It often determines what is politically possible. Policymakers respond to pressure, to narrative and to what they believe is safe to support or risky to touch. An issue can have broad public support and still stall if it is not backed by sustained pressure.

Cannabis has made real progress on public opinion. That does not automatically translate into policy outcomes.

If the industry wants movement on banking, taxation or broader reform, it has to engage with the system that produces those outcomes. That means paying attention to elections. It means understanding who is running, what they care about and how cannabis fits into their priorities.

It also means showing up.

The industry is not small anymore. It includes state-regulated operators, hemp and cannabinoid businesses, technology companies and a wide range of stakeholders. That reach is a strength. It also makes alignment harder at the exact moment when it matters most.

The next phase of cannabis policy will not be decided by a single bill. It will be shaped by the political environment that determines whether any bill has a path.

The industry has spent years building momentum. The question now is whether it is willing to engage in the political process that actually determines what happens next.

In Washington, outcomes are not driven by what gets introduced.

They are driven by who is in the room when decisions get made.

Jordan Isenstadt is a senior vice president at Marino PR and founder of the firm’s cannabis practice. He has over a decade of experience in the industry and a background in government, including roles in the New York State Senate and executive chamber. He was recently appointed to the board of the National Cannabis Industry Association.