In November 2026, when Virginia anticipates launching a statewide retail cannabis market, the legal landscape along its 300-plus-mile southern border will change overnight. North Carolina will immediately neighbor a legal, integrated cannabis ecosystem even as it maintains some of the nation’s strictest enforcement on marijuana. That mismatch will not suppress use; instead, it will redirect consumers across state lines, draining North Carolina of regulatory control, tax revenue, and enforcement capacity. Under Virginia’s framework, adults aged 21 and older — including out-of-state residents — will be permitted to purchase cannabis products.

This is not an argument for cultural permissiveness or social acceptance. It is an argument grounded in basic governance: when laws cannot be enforced consistently, public trust erodes, law enforcement resources are strained, and black-market activity expands. These pressures already exist today because of vastly misaligned policies across state lines, but in 2026 they will intensify. North Carolina is nearing that point.

On Dec. 18, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order directing the US attorney general to complete the rescheduling process for marijuana, underscoring how quickly the policy landscape is shifting. The order cites decades of federal policy that limited research, muddled oversight, and left states operating in legal uncertainty. It stops short of legalization, instead emphasizing regulatory clarity, expanded research access, and more coherent enforcement standards. For states like North Carolina, the message is clear: the federal government is moving away from longstanding prohibition rhetoric and toward managing a reality policymakers can no longer ignore.

Having spent years as a special agent with ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), working narcotics and smuggling cases across the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and on the Mexican border in Laredo, I learned one recurring lesson: prohibition does not eliminate demand. When laws fall out of step with on-the-ground reality, enforcement becomes selective, uneven, and resource-intensive — precisely what limited government seeks to avoid.

North Carolina’s current marijuana laws already reflect that tension in practice. While possession of small amounts has been decriminalized, it can still result in criminal records, and the state lacks a comprehensive medical program. At the same time, enforcement discretion varies widely by county and jurisdiction, producing inconsistent outcomes for similar conduct. This is not a stable equilibrium; it is a holding pattern that is neither sustainable nor logical.

That instability is compounded by a contradiction in North Carolina’s current approach. While marijuana remains illegal, intoxicating hemp-derived THC products are widely sold in gas stations and convenience stores under a federal loophole tied to source and concentration, often without meaningful age verification or standardized testing. Recent laboratory analyses found that many sampled products were mislabeled or exceeded legal THC limits, and enforcement remains inconsistent. From a small-government perspective, this is regulatory incoherence. The state continues to tolerate an effectively unpoliced market even as lawmakers acknowledge the problem — House Bill 328, advanced in mid-2025, aimed to ban synthetic hemp products altogether. By contrast, a more commonsense solution is already emerging from Richmond and could serve to relieve many of the policy dilemmas facing North Carolina lawmakers.

Virginia has chosen that path. Its General Assembly has approved a retail framework, and once stores open, North Carolinians will not stop using cannabis; they will simply drive across the border to purchase it legally. In doing so, nearby counties will be forced to absorb increased traffic, enforcement ambiguity, and spillover effects, while North Carolina forfeits both revenue and regulatory oversight.

This creates a familiar governance problem. The state expends resources attempting to police conduct that is legal minutes away while gaining none of the regulatory benefits. That is not conservatism or restraint — it is plain inefficiency.

Opponents of reform often raise legitimate concerns about impaired driving and youth access. Those concerns should remain non-negotiable. Driving under the influence should stay illegal and be aggressively enforced. Sales to minors should carry serious penalties. Any regulatory approach must preserve those prohibitions.

But regulation strengthens those guardrails rather than weakens them. Age-verified retail systems, product labeling, and testing requirements provide clearer enforcement lines than the current gray market, where sellers are unlicensed, unaccountable, and indifferent to age limits. North Carolina’s present posture produces the worst of both worlds: widespread availability with minimal oversight.

Some conservatives worry that legalization signals approval or normalizes use. But lawmaking is not about endorsement; it is about enforceable rules that preserve order while respecting personal liberty. Alcohol and tobacco offer imperfect but familiar parallels: legal, regulated, restricted, and taxed — not celebrated, but managed.

Others argue that reform is premature because the science remains unsettled. Yet much of that uncertainty stems from decades of DEA barriers to research, many of which are now being eased. As evidence improves, policy should evolve with it rather than remain indefinitely paralyzed by uncertainty — particularly given consistent public support reflected in polling.

There is also the question of fairness. North Carolina’s own findings have shown persistent racial disparities in marijuana arrests, even though usage rates are similar across populations. Selective application of the law is not conservative; it undermines confidence in the rule of law. A uniform regulatory system reduces discretion and promotes equitable enforcement.

Importantly, this is not a call for haste. It is a call for preparation. Lawmakers in Raleigh have introduced bills to establish a medical cannabis framework, regulate intoxicating hemp-derived products, and, in separate proposals, legalize adult use. None have advanced, and meaningful reform remains stalled without clear political will. Unlike states that allow citizens to place laws directly on the ballot, North Carolina has no initiative process. It is a legislature-centric system, rooted in the state’s constitutional tradition, meaning reform occurs only when elected lawmakers choose to act.

Polling consistently shows overwhelming support among North Carolinians for medical cannabis and majority support for adult use. Recent polls have found that roughly 95 percent of respondents favor changing the state’s cannabis laws, with more than 60 percent supporting adult-use legalization and another third favoring medical use only. The electorate has moved. Once Virginia’s market opens, North Carolina will no longer be debating legalization in theory; it will be managing its consequences in practice — without regulation, revenue, or control.

Small government does not mean ignoring reality. It means acknowledging limits, upholding laws that can be applied consistently, and avoiding contradictions that fuel black markets and arbitrary outcomes.

With November 2026 approaching, North Carolina faces a choice: modernize its laws deliberately and on its own terms, or continue pretending that a legal border does not exist. One way or another, the market will operate. The only question is whether North Carolina will govern it — or be governed by it.