Let’s say the quiet part out loud: Massachusetts cannabis regulation is at an inflection point. The Cannabis Control Commission, like the larger legislative apparatus around it, is being asked to evolve in ways that match the complexity and maturity of the market it governs.

That’s not an easy task. But for those of us operating on the ground, particularly the smaller, independent, or community-owned businesses, the stakes couldn’t be higher.

We see the CCC requesting studies. The Legislature introduced bills. Policy is being shaped at the margins. And while this work matters, what’s often missing is urgency. The hard truth is that many businesses are running out of time. Deliberate governance is essential, but when it comes at the cost of basic operability, it risks leaving behind the very stakeholders this industry was built to empower.

In practice, that looks like this: entrepreneurs navigating shifting regulations, opaque enforcement, and market conditions they’re structurally unprepared for. The result? Businesses, many of them family-run or funded by close-knit communities versus venture capital or traditional funding methods, are being squeezed between inconsistent oversight and brutal economic headwinds.

We should acknowledge the original vision of equity and access embedded in Massachusetts cannabis policy. But we also have to confront the present reality: the Economic Empowerment program hasn’t delivered on its promise. Today, far too many small operators are suffering not only at the hands of market forces but under a regulatory system that wasn’t built to scale or adjust as the industry matured.

This is especially clear when it comes to the basics of doing business. Take advertising: Operators are still being cited for using terms like “bargain” or “bundle.” Commonplace language in virtually every other retail sector becomes a compliance landmine in cannabis. Worse, these rules often change without warning or consistent guidance.

That kind of ambiguity doesn’t promote public health or safety. Instead, it creates fear and dysfunction. It forces operators to either play it impossibly safe or risk citations for doing the exact same thing they did last month. No other regulated industry is expected to navigate this level of shifting ground.

Licensing fees are another flashpoint. At Canna Provisions, we recently transitioned to an ESOP, a worker-owned company, because we believe in building long-term wealth and opportunity for our team. We handed this business over to 75 employees, many of whom come from diverse backgrounds and have deep roots in the communities we serve.

But despite this ownership structure, we’re still charged licensing fees as though we’re a massive multistate operator. There’s no pathway in the current regulations that recognizes or rewards employee ownership models. If Massachusetts wants to support equitable business models in cannabis, that needs to change.

A policy shift to waive or reduce licensing fees for ESOPs is both logical and fair. These are not extractive entities. They’re built to reinvest, to stabilize, to create durable jobs. The state should be encouraging this, not treating ESOPs like corporate giants.

And it goes further. ESOPs should be eligible for medical licenses. They should be part of the patient care ecosystem, not excluded from it. The medical program itself desperately needs simplification; patients and providers alike are burdened by systems that have grown overly complex and out of sync with their original intent.

There are other fixes that could make a difference quickly, without sacrificing the values that underpin cannabis regulation:

• Raise daily purchasing limits to match states like New York and others in our region. Consumers shouldn’t be penalized for shopping local. This is a true win-win that will increase tax revenue as well as helping cannabis businesses.

• Adopt a “one badge per person” model to simplify workforce compliance while maintaining safety standards.

• Evaluate excise tax structures for businesses like ESOPs that serve broader economic development goals. (We’re still exploring this, but it’s a worthy policy conversation.)

None of these ideas are radical. They’re rooted in what the industry needs to function. Namely: fairness, clarity, adaptability. And they reflect what Massachusetts cannabis is becoming: more sophisticated, more diverse, and more aligned with the long-term health of the communities it operates in.

One area that deserves more attention, especially from regulators and lawmakers, is the way businesses are starting to explore new digital tools like AI platforms, GPT-based systems, and other automation technologies. These innovations aren’t just buzzwords. They’re becoming critical to operational efficiency, customer education, and regulatory compliance.

At Canna Provisions, we’re actively learning about how these tools can streamline everything from training to inventory to community engagement. But we’re also aware that many operators don’t have the bandwidth or the guidance to explore these options confidently.

This is an opportunity for the CCC and policymakers to lead. By providing clear frameworks or pilot programs for ethical, compliant AI use in cannabis, Massachusetts can once again be a national leader in forward-thinking governance.

The core idea here is simple: the industry has grown up. It’s not a novelty anymore. It’s a complex, job-creating, community-embedded sector. And the rules need to evolve to reflect that.

That means moving beyond rigid control into responsive, evidence-based policy. It means balancing safety with sustainability. And it means honoring the vision of equity by actually supporting the models, like ESOPs, that embody it.

We don’t need fewer rules. We need better ones. Smarter, clearer, fairer. Because this isn’t just about saving struggling businesses. It’s about unlocking the full potential of an industry that’s already proven it can deliver. Especially when it’s given the chance to breathe.