Loaded Question: Should retailers be limited?

Do you think cannabis retailers should be limited to a certain number of stores in individual state markets? Or should the free market decide and allow retailers to own/operate as many stores as they see fit? Why?

Davis Tiburzi | CEO | CannaZip

Competition is good and free market principles always rule. It is unfortunate that sometimes businesses go under due to these circumstances; however, that is an unfortunate reality of free-market capitalism. The market rewards those who answer the needs of said market, and punishes those who cannot, and likewise for those who participate in business practices that have excessive risk or poor business/service practices. It would be similar to coffee shops. There is no limit there, however, if a business owner places coffee shops in a location with many of them, they can expect excessive competition and sales will suffer or if they have too many of their own stores, they will cannibalize their own sales. Government regulation and intervention, while usually true in intent, tends to muddy the waters and have lasting ripple effects in the markets.

George Fernandez | CEO | Modern Canna

Regulatory limitations on the number of cannabis retail stores stifle innovation by discouraging businesses from scaling and improving operations. In most industries, monopolization is controlled by fostering healthy competition. If you don’t want a single entity to dominate the market, then go outperform them. Removing limits leads to better services, wider product selection and higher quality products for consumers.

Christina Betancourt Johnson | CEO | Standard Wellness Maryland

Limited license frameworks can provide stability in emerging markets, ensuring compliance, equity and community integration — critical under the burdens of CSA Schedule I status and 280E taxation. However, as the industry matures, a free-market system can foster competition, innovation and consumer access. Balancing these approaches and their timing is critical for equity and sustainable growth in an incredibly unique industry.

Danielle Wildstein | CEO | Blue Oak Dispensary

I believe retailers that have demonstrated their ability to successfully operate their business while maintaining good standing with their state compliance agency and local municipality should be able to expand across multiple locations. Expanding allows retailers to capitalize on operational synergies, ensuring the integrity of the cannabis market while benefiting consumers.

Ulysses Youngblood | President | Major Bloom

I believe free-market principles should prevail, but with state oversight limiting overall licenses and prioritizing social equity. Consumers and communities will naturally decide if they prefer chains on every corner or unique, local retailers. For instance, in my hometown of Bridgeport, Connecticut, Merritt Canteen — a beloved burger spot — thrives alongside McDonald’s and Burger King because of its unique experience. Similarly, cannabis retailers should focus on individuality and community connection rather than allowing hostile licensing takeovers to dominate the industry.

Jesse Alderman | Partner | Foley Hoag

I’ll answer in lawyerly fashion: yes and no. There is proof beyond argument that capped license jurisdictions create healthier markets. So yes, there should be a limit. But, that limit should not be so low as to prevent businesses from scaling and creating exit opportunities for small business and social equity participants.

Corey Keller | Co-owner | Bonanza Cannabis Company

We believe cannabis retailers should not be limited to a specific number of stores in state markets and that the free market should determine the scale of operations. In limited-license states, we often see loopholes exploited, such as licenses being distributed among family members or associates to circumvent ownership caps. Allowing retailers to open as many stores as they can effectively manage encourages competition and rewards good operators. Moreover, imposing caps is unusual — few other industries restrict the number of businesses one can own. Such limits feel inconsistent with fostering a thriving and innovative marketplace.

Blythe L. Huestis | Vice president of retail | Sun Theory

Let the free market prevail. There will always be a limited customer base within a limited geographic range and saturation is a risk, hence limited licensure oftentimes being better for business. However, retailers should be allowed to make decisions to expand, open or close stores based on forecasted profitability and sustainability. The balance between operational freedom and customer accessibility can foster a healthier retail environment. Encouraging responsible operators to make decisions based on market dynamics allows our industry to mature and will lead to diverse, improved shopping experiences.

David Paleschuck | Author and brand consultant | Branding Bud Consulting Group

While lessons can be drawn from Bangkok’s oversaturated cannabis market, the free market ultimately dictates demand. Limiting the number of stores, as seen in states like Washington and New York, helps prevent market flooding and ensures quality control. However, states without caps, like California and Michigan, allow for greater competition and consumer choice. Striking a balance between regulation and market freedom is key to fostering sustainable growth and avoiding oversaturation while meeting consumer demand.

Garrett Rudolph | Editor in chief | Marijuana Venture

I’ll play devil’s advocate here. In general, I think free-market principles should guide regulations in terms of licensing and limits on the number of cannabis stores an individual or company can own. However, I also think having limits allows a more diverse, vibrant, competitive business landscape to develop — as it has in places like Massachusetts, New York and Washington, where store ownership is capped — instead of allowing large-scale chains to immediately buy up a significant chunk of the market. What I would ultimately like to see is states implement tighter restrictions in the first, say, five to 10 years of the adult-use market, with a sunset provision that allows those caps to be eliminated as the market matures and, inevitably, some chains look to grow while others look to exit.

Loaded Question: Should retailers be limited?

Do you think cannabis retailers should be limited to a certain number of stores in individual state markets? Or should the free market decide and allow retailers to own/operate as many stores as they see fit? Why?

MV Writer

You may also like