Drug Policy Watch · State Brief 2026

California

Snapshot (structured)

Adult-use cannabis: Legal since 2016 (Prop 64), retail sales since 2018
Medical cannabis: Legal since 1996 (Prop 215), patient excise-tax exemption
Home grow: Yes, up to 6 plants per residence for adults 21+
Intoxicating hemp / hemp THC: Sharply restricted; AB 8 folds it into the licensed cannabis market, phased through 2028
Psychedelics: Not decriminalized statewide; therapeutic framework still unbuilt; multiple bills vetoed or stalled
Broad decriminalization: No general decriminalization beyond cannabis; some city-level psychedelic measures
Harm reduction: Broad; legal syringe services, naloxone access, fentanyl test strips de-scheduled as paraphernalia
Governor (party): Gavin Newsom (Democrat)
Legislature control: Democratic supermajority in both chambers
Citizen ballot initiatives allowed: Yes
Enclosure pressure score: 4/5

Cannabis

California legalized adult-use cannabis through Proposition 64 (the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, AUMA) in November 2016, with licensed retail sales beginning January 1, 2018. Medical cannabis has been legal since Proposition 215 (the Compassionate Use Act) in 1996. Adults 21 and older may possess up to one ounce and cultivate up to six plants per residence for personal use, with plants required to be in a locked space not visible from the street (CaNORML; High Times Prop 64 FAQ).

Market structure: California uses a state plus local dual-licensing model administered by the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC). There is no statewide cap on the number of licenses, but local jurisdictions may ban or limit commercial cannabis, and a large share of cities and counties still prohibit retail. The state does not mandate vertical integration but permits it. Multi-state operators and larger players have consolidated control, especially in dense urban markets, standardizing the commodity-product experience (Cannabis Business Times, 2025).

Taxes: The state cannabis excise tax was raised from 15 percent to 19 percent on July 1, 2025, then rolled back to 15 percent on October 1, 2025 after Governor Newsom signed AB 564. AB 564 holds the rate at 15 percent through June 30, 2028, after which the DCC may adjust it every two years up to a 19 percent ceiling. Retail cannabis also carries the statewide 7.25 percent sales and use tax (medical patients with a state card are exempt), plus local district taxes and local cannabis business taxes that can run roughly up to 10 percent, pushing combined burdens in some cities well above 25 percent (Lost Coast Outpost, Sept 2025; CalMatters AB 564; cannabispromotions.com).

Key 2026 actions: The dominant 2026 legislative theme is enforcement and compliance rather than expansion. Q1 2026 state cannabis tax revenue was reported near 248 million dollars (CBS8). The illicit market remains large: roughly 60 percent of cannabis consumed in California is estimated to come from unregulated sources (Cannabis Business Times).

Hemp

California has taken one of the most restrictive intoxicating-hemp postures in the country. In September 2024 Governor Newsom issued emergency regulations through CDPH banning the retail sale of hemp food, beverage, and dietary products with any detectable THC or intoxicating cannabinoids, setting a minimum purchase age of 21 and a five-serving package limit (CDPH NR24-26). The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control reported near-universal licensee compliance (99.7 percent) by May 2025 (ABC), and CDPH moved to make the rules permanent in 2025 (Cannabis Science and Tech).

On October 2, 2025 Newsom signed AB 8 (Aguiar-Curry), which establishes a single framework regulating all intoxicating cannabinoid products, hemp-derived or cannabis-derived, and channels them into the licensed cannabis market. Phase 1, effective January 1, 2026, bans smokable hemp, mandates a 99 percent THC-free purity standard for hemp raw extract used in food, beverages, and supplements, and bars tobacco retailers from possessing intoxicating hemp products, with fuller implementation phased toward January 1, 2028 (LegiScan AB 8; cannabisregulations.ai).

Federal exposure: California is also exposed to the federal hemp change taking effect November 12, 2026 under Section 781 of the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2026 (P.L. 119-37), which shifts the federal hemp definition from a delta-9-only 0.3 percent standard to a total-THC standard including THCA and caps finished consumable hemp products at 0.4 mg total THC per container. Congressional efforts to delay or rework the ban (including via the 2026 Farm Bill) have so far failed (Vicente LLP; Marijuana Moment). Because California already restricts intoxicating hemp more tightly than federal law, the federal change largely reinforces the state's existing posture rather than upending it (Shay Gilmore Law).

Psychedelics

California has not decriminalized psychedelics statewide and has not stood up a licensed therapeutic-access model. SB 58 (Wiener), which would have decriminalized personal possession of psilocybin, psilocin, DMT, and mescaline for adults 21+, passed the legislature but was vetoed by Governor Newsom in October 2023; his veto message asked for a regulated therapeutic framework first (SB 58 veto; leginfo SB 58).

In the 2025-2026 session, SB 751, a limited psilocybin pilot program for veterans and former first responders, did not pass (Heron and Lily, 2026). Newsom did sign AB 1103 in October 2025, which modernizes the state's research-approval process for Schedule I and II substances through the Research Advisory Panel of California. As of early 2026 the principal lawful pathway for psychedelic-assisted therapy remains participation in approved clinical trials (Heron and Lily, 2026). Several cities (including Oakland, Santa Cruz, and San Francisco) have adopted local deprioritization measures, but these do not change state law. Specific 2026 psychedelic bill numbers beyond the above are unconfirmed; see the live trackers below.

Broader drug policy

Decriminalization: Beyond cannabis, California has not enacted broad drug decriminalization. Possession of most controlled substances remains a criminal offense, though many are misdemeanors. There is no Oregon-style across-the-board decriminalization.

Harm reduction: California maintains a broad harm-reduction framework. State law permits syringe services and the carrying of syringes, naloxone, and other harm-reduction supplies; the sunset on nonprescription syringe sales (which would have hit in January 2026) was eliminated, letting pharmacists provide sterile syringes to adults indefinitely. Naloxone access is broad, with good-faith liability protections for bystanders, and the state has promoted low-cost generic naloxone. Drug-checking equipment, including fentanyl test strips, has been removed from the legal definition of drug paraphernalia. AB 461 requires public universities and community colleges to distribute and signpost fentanyl test strips and naloxone (Network for Public Health Law 50-state survey; CDPH fentanyl test strip FAQ). A pending reform, AB 1037, would further reframe substance-use policy toward a health-and-safety-first model (Aurrera Health Group).

Sentencing and expungement: Prop 64 reduced penalties for many cannabis offenses and allowed reduction, dismissal, sealing, or expungement of qualifying prior convictions. AB 1793 created a statewide process requiring district attorneys to automatically review and clear eligible cannabis convictions, with completion required by July 1, 2020; Code for America's Clear My Record tool supported counties at no cost (recordgone.com; Nieves Law Firm).

Political landscape

Governor: Gavin Newsom (Democrat), serving his second and final term (term-limited; California holds its gubernatorial election in November 2026). Legislature: Democrats hold veto-proof supermajorities in both chambers, roughly 30-10 in the Senate and 60-19 in the Assembly following the 2024 elections, giving the party a trifecta (Ballotpedia 2026 session; Wikipedia 2025-26 session).

Key committees for drug policy include the Assembly and Senate Business and Professions committees (cannabis licensing), the Public Safety committees (controlled substances, sentencing), Health committees (harm reduction, hemp consumables), and the budget committees (excise tax). Reform champions: Senator Scott Wiener has been the leading psychedelics-reform author (SB 58); Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry authored the intoxicating-hemp framework AB 8 and the CBN cleanup AB 2250. Named opponents and the precise sponsor of every 2026 bill are not fully confirmed; treat individual attributions as unconfirmed unless linked above. Governor Newsom has acted as a brake on psychedelic decriminalization (vetoing SB 58) and as the driver of the intoxicating-hemp crackdown.

Ballot initiatives

California allows citizen-initiated statutory and constitutional ballot measures, and adult-use legalization itself (Prop 64, 2016) came through this route. As of this writing no statewide cannabis, psychedelic, or broader drug-policy citizen initiative is confirmed as qualified for the November 2026 ballot. Status of any pending signature drives is unconfirmed; verify against the California Secretary of State's qualified and pending initiatives list.

Equity and expungement

Prop 64 embedded social-equity goals, and California funds local equity programs (for example in Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco) that prioritize licensing, fee relief, and technical assistance for applicants from communities harmed by prohibition. Tax revenue is partly earmarked for equity grants. Expungement is broad and partly automatic: AB 1793 required automatic DA review and clearance of eligible prior cannabis convictions (completion due July 1, 2020), and individuals may also petition for reduction, dismissal, sealing, or reclassification (recordgone.com). Who is excluded: equity programs have been criticized for slow capital access and high local barriers, and the broader expungement relief does not reach non-cannabis drug convictions. Quantitative 2025-2026 equity-licensing counts were not located and may be stale; verify with the DCC.

Market and barriers

Excise tax: 15 percent of gross retail receipts (Oct 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028), after a temporary 19 percent rate from July 1 to Sept 30, 2025 (AB 564, CalMatters). Sales tax: 7.25 percent statewide plus local district taxes; medical patients with a state ID card are exempt from sales tax. Local cannabis business taxes can add roughly up to 10 percent. License caps: no statewide cap, but many local jurisdictions ban or cap commercial activity. There is no statewide residency requirement. Application and annual license fees are tiered by license type and gross revenue and are set by the DCC; exact 2026 fee schedules should be confirmed on the DCC site (nstarfinance operator guide). Market size: licensed production rose by double digits into 2025, yet an estimated 60 percent of consumption is illicit, with illicit wholesale value estimated as high as 7.9 billion dollars (MJBizDaily; Cannabis Business Times). An exact count of active state licenses was not located in a current source and may be stale; verify via the DCC license search.

Enclosure read

California presents a paradox: a permissive legal framework (legal adult use, home grow, broad expungement, strong harm reduction) layered over an increasingly fenced commercial market. The fencing pressure comes from three directions. First, high combined taxation and heavy local control squeeze small operators while a persistent illicit market (about 60 percent of consumption) undercuts licensed businesses, favoring better-capitalized MSOs that can absorb compliance costs and consolidate urban retail. Second, AB 8 channels the entire intoxicating-cannabinoid category, including hemp, into the licensed cannabis system, effectively eliminating a lower-barrier hemp pathway and concentrating legal intoxicant sales inside the expensive licensed channel. Third, the 2026 enforcement-first legislative posture and the November 2026 federal hemp change reinforce that consolidation. Counterweights such as home grow rights, expungement, and local equity programs keep this from being a fully closed system, but the trajectory is toward consolidation. Enclosure pressure score: 4/5.

What to watch next

January 1, 2028: fuller AB 8 intoxicating-cannabinoid implementation; interim 2026 phase already in effect.
June 30, 2028: scheduled end of the 15 percent excise rate, after which the DCC may adjust biennially up to 19 percent.
November 12, 2026: federal hemp total-THC standard and 0.4 mg per container cap take effect (P.L. 119-37).
November 2026: California general election, including the governor's race (Newsom term-limited) and legislative seats that could shift reform dynamics.
2026 session: enforcement and compliance bills (AB 1826, AB 2537, AB 1965, AB 2532, AB 2250) and the AB 1037 harm-reduction reframe to watch.
The 2025-2026 legislature is in its second regular-session year; track committee hearings via the legislature site.

Regulators

Department of Cannabis Control (DCC): licensing and regulation of cannabis cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, testing, and retail (cannabis.ca.gov).
California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA): administers the cannabis excise tax and sales/use tax (cdtfa.ca.gov).
California Department of Public Health (CDPH): industrial hemp consumable products and harm-reduction programs (cdph.ca.gov).
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC): enforcement against intoxicating hemp at licensed retailers (abc.ca.gov).
California Health and Human Services Agency: psychedelics therapeutic-framework workgroup mandate.

Federal exposure (2026)

California's exposure to 2026 federal drug policy is large and runs mostly the wrong way for the state's commercial market, because nearly all of that market is recreational rather than medical.

Rescheduling and 280E: Cannabis remains Schedule I by default. The April 2026 DOJ/DEA final order moved only FDA-approved cannabis drugs and state-licensed medical cannabis to Schedule III, ending Section 280E for that narrow medical category and leaving recreational cannabis on Schedule I (Foley Hoag; Foley & Lardner). For California this matters less than almost anywhere, because the state's market is overwhelmingly adult-use. California reports only roughly 49,000 active registered medical patients, a tiny fraction of total demand (cannabispromotions.com stats), so the vast majority of licensed operators sell under adult-use licenses and get no 280E relief at all. Who does benefit: the handful of operators that hold or can structure activity under a state medical license, and any maker of FDA-approved cannabis-derived drugs, can drop their effective federal tax rate toward the 20 to 30 percent range estimated by the Cannabis Regulators Association (Greenspoon Marder). The broader DEA rescheduling hearing that opened June 29, 2026 (and may slip to 2027) is the only path to relief for California's recreational mainstream; Schedule III, even if extended, would still not legalize cannabis federally, permit interstate commerce, or let California product cross state lines.

Hemp cliff (November 12, 2026): California is folding intoxicating hemp into the licensed cannabis system through AB 8, and the federal change accelerates and aligns with that channeling. The FY2026 agriculture appropriations rider (Sec. 781, attributed to Rep. Andy Harris, R-MD, unconfirmed as the operative sponsor; see Vicente LLP) narrows hemp to a total-THC standard of about 0.4 mg THC per container, recriminalizing roughly 90 to 95 percent of intoxicating hemp products effective November 12, 2026. The proposed delay measure H.R.7010 was not enacted and the 2026 Farm Bill (H.R.7567) keeps the ban (Marijuana Moment). Practical effect in California: the federal total-THC ceiling does not contradict AB 8, it reinforces it. California already bans detectable-THC consumable hemp at retail and is routing all intoxicating cannabinoids into the licensed cannabis channel, so the federal cliff removes the residual federal-legal hemp pathway that operators might have used to argue around the state rules. After November 12, 2026 there is effectively no lawful low-barrier intoxicating-hemp lane in California: the only legal route to sell an intoxicant is a state cannabis license (Shay Gilmore Law).

Banking: SAFER Banking has stalled in Congress, so California's licensed operators remain largely shut out of mainstream banking, card payments, and ordinary lending. This bites harder in California than in smaller states because the licensed industry is large, heavily taxed (15 percent excise plus 7.25 percent sales tax plus local taxes), and competing against an illicit market estimated near 60 percent of consumption. Cash-heavy operations, limited credit, and high effective costs all push margins toward the better-capitalized incumbents that can self-finance, while the federal Schedule I status of recreational cannabis is what keeps the banking door shut in the first place.

Psychedelics: California has no statewide decriminalization or therapeutic-access model after the SB 58 veto, and SB 751 did not pass. Federally, psilocybin, MDMA, and ibogaine all remain Schedule I; the April 18, 2026 executive order, Accelerating Medical Treatments for Serious Mental Illness [https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/04/accelerating-medical-treatments-for-serious-mental-illness/] plus FDA priority vouchers fast-track FDA review, but no product is approved yet, and conditional rescheduling triggers only on FDA approval. The interaction for California is that the only near-term lawful expansion path is the federal FDA/clinical-trial route, which dovetails with the state's existing posture: AB 1103 modernized the Research Advisory Panel process for Schedule I and II research, so an FDA approval would flow into California through clinical and prescribing channels rather than through any state decriminalization. Until then, lawful access stays confined to approved trials, and the model is medicalize-and-control, not decriminalize.

Harm reduction: California has one of the strongest harm-reduction infrastructures in the country (legal syringe services, broad naloxone access, fentanyl test strips removed from the paraphernalia definition, AB 461 campus distribution), and that infrastructure is directly exposed to the SAMHSA guidance of April 24, 2026 barring federal funds for fentanyl test strips, clean syringes, and sterile water. Naloxone remains federally supported. The practical effect is a funding squeeze: California programs that lean on federal dollars for syringes and test strips will have to backfill with state or local money to keep services that state law expressly authorizes. State law still permits these services, so the exposure is fiscal rather than legal, but it tests how much of California's harm-reduction commons the state is willing to fund alone.

Patient access and rights

This section covers what California law does and does not protect for a medical cannabis patient: use inside a hospital, and the broader rights that follow a patient into work, housing, parenting, an organ transplant list, and school. It is information, not legal advice, and it reflects the law as of July 2026. Each point links to the primary statute.

Hospital access (Ryan's Law): California is where Ryan's Law began. Senate Bill 311, enacted in 2021 and codified at Health and Safety Code section 1649 and following, requires health care facilities to permit a patient to use medical cannabis on site. Enacted does not mean unconditional, though, and this is the caveat every California patient should know: the protection reaches only terminally ill patients, and it does not allow smoking or vaping, so both who is covered and how they may use it are limited. Seven states have now enacted a Ryan's Law protection (California in 2021, and Colorado, Delaware, Louisiana, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington in 2026), with Pennsylvania's bill pending; California was the first.

Broader protections: California protects a patient in several areas, each with its own limits. On employment, Government Code section 12954, added by Assembly Bill 2188, bars an employer from discriminating based on a person's use of cannabis off the job and away from the workplace. It is not a medical-cannabis-specific protection, and it does not cover everyone: it excludes workers in the building and construction trades and positions that require a federal government background clearance. On parenting, Health and Safety Code section 11362.84 provides that a qualified patient's lawful medical cannabis use cannot, by itself, be used to restrict custodial or parental rights in a family or juvenile court proceeding, although a court may still weigh other factors. On organ transplants, Health and Safety Code section 7151.36 bars a hospital or transplant program from denying a patient a place based solely on their patient status or a positive cannabis test, unless a physician finds, case by case, that the use is medically significant to the transplant. Beyond those, a review of the relevant Health and Safety Code sections found no provision protecting housing or school enrollment, and the general medical-care section, 11362.785, only limits an insurer's duty rather than guaranteeing care.

Out-of-state patients: California does not offer medical reciprocity, so another state's medical card does not authorize medical purchases here. Adults 21 and over can use the adult-use market instead, which rests on a different legal footing from a medical patient's protections. These rules change, so verify at the point of travel.

The federal picture: the April 2026 federal move of state-licensed medical cannabis to Schedule III did not change any of this. Schedule III does not make dispensary cannabis a lawful prescription medicine and does not create any hospital-use right; the protections above, and the gaps beside them, are creatures of California law, not federal law.

Sources: hospital access, Senate Bill 311 (Health and Safety Code section 1649 and following); employment, Government Code section 12954; parental and custody rights, Health and Safety Code section 11362.84; organ transplants, Health and Safety Code section 7151.36; the insurer-duty limit, Health and Safety Code section 11362.785.

Analysis: the enclosure read in depth

California is the clearest case of a permissive legal regime sitting on top of a commercial market that is being steadily fenced, and the 2026 federal moves tighten the fence from the outside while state design tightens it from the inside. The people fenced out are small cultivators, legacy operators, equity applicants, and informal sellers. They face a combined tax and local-tax burden that can push past 25 percent in some cities, local bans that leave much of the state with no legal retail, and an illicit market estimated near 60 percent of consumption that undercuts licensed prices. Those same dynamics reward the consolidators: multi-state operators and well-capitalized firms that can absorb compliance costs, run cash-heavy operations without bank credit, and dominate the dense urban retail that remains open. The federal layer reinforces this. Because California's market is almost entirely recreational, the narrow medical-only 280E relief passes the state by, so the federal tax penalty that most punishes thin-margin small operators stays in place for nearly everyone, while the few who can structure around a medical license gain an edge.

The hemp channeling is the sharpest enclosure mechanism, and here state and federal policy move in lockstep. AB 8 routes every intoxicating cannabinoid, hemp-derived or cannabis-derived, into the licensed cannabis system, closing the lower-barrier hemp lane that small and informal actors had used to sell intoxicants outside the expensive licensed channel. The November 12, 2026 federal total-THC standard recriminalizes most intoxicating hemp nationally, which means there is no longer even a federal-legal argument for an out-of-channel product. The combined effect is that the only lawful way to sell an intoxicant in California becomes a state cannabis license, which is exactly the expensive, locally gated, bank-starved channel that favors incumbents. Banking adds another turn: with SAFER Banking stalled and recreational cannabis still Schedule I, capital access stays tilted toward firms that can self-finance.

What to watch: the broader DEA rescheduling hearing that opened June 29, 2026 is the single biggest swing factor, because extending Schedule III to recreational cannabis would end 280E for California's mainstream and materially improve small-operator economics, though it still would not open banking or interstate commerce on its own. Watch whether that hearing slips to 2027, whether any SAFER Banking revival advances, how California funds harm reduction after the SAMHSA cuts, and whether an FDA psychedelic approval lands and flows through the state's research and prescribing channels. Watch too whether the AB 8 phase-in toward January 1, 2028 and the 2028 excise-rate review tighten or loosen the licensed channel.

Commons counter-moves are present and real, which is why this is not a fully closed system. Adults keep the right to grow up to six plants per residence, a genuine non-commercial escape hatch from the fenced market. Expungement is broad and partly automatic under Prop 64 and AB 1793, returning agency to people harmed by prohibition. And the harm-reduction framework, syringe services, naloxone, and test strips, treats drug use as a health matter and keeps a public-health commons alive even as federal funding retreats. These counterweights keep individuals from being fully enclosed even as the commercial market consolidates. Weighing both layers, the state design (high taxes, local bans, roughly 60 percent illicit market, hemp channeling) and the federal layer (recreational excluded from 280E, the hemp cliff, stalled banking, no psychedelic access, harm-reduction defunding) point the commercial trajectory toward consolidation, while the personal-use and public-health commons hold the line short of total closure. That balance supports an enclosure pressure score of 4 out of 5: strongly enclosing on the commercial side, reinforced rather than relieved by 2026 federal policy, but not a 5 because home grow, broad expungement, and a state-backed harm-reduction commons remain intact.

Active legislation (2026)

The table below is the full set of drug policy bills we track this session, updated automatically from LegiScan. To search all California legislation, see LegiScan California and the California Legislature site.

Bill	Title/Topic	Chamber	Status	Sponsor(s)
AB 564	Cannabis excise tax: holds rate at 15% through June 30, 2028	Assembly	Signed/Chaptered Sept 2025	unconfirmed (see CalMatters AB 564)
AB 8	Intoxicating cannabinoids folded into licensed cannabis market; phased 2026-2028	Assembly	Signed/Chaptered Oct 2, 2025	Aguiar-Curry
SB 378	Digital marketplace disclosure/liability for illicit online cannabis and hemp sales	Senate	Chaptered (2025)	unconfirmed (see LegiScan SB 378)
AB 1885	Cannabis products for animals/pets; standards effective Jan 1, 2026	Assembly	Enacted (effective 2026)	unconfirmed
AB 1564	Medicinal cannabis: shipments	Assembly	Active (introduced)	Ahrens
AB 1826	Recall, embargo, and destruction of cannabis products (due process)	Assembly	Active (introduced)	Lackey
AB 1965	Cannabis testing: quality assurance	Assembly	Active (introduced)	Sharp-Collins
AB 2249	Cannabis: youth advertising and marketing	Assembly	Active (introduced)	Irwin
AB 2532	Cannabis: packaging and labeling	Assembly	Active (introduced)	Irwin
AB 2250	Modify AB 8 to exclude CBN from cannabis concentrate definition	Assembly	Active (introduced)	Aguiar-Curry
AB 2420	Cannabis donations to seniors 65+	Assembly	Active (introduced)	Caloza
AB 2506	Cannabis licensure	Assembly	Active (introduced)	Hart
AB 2537	Cannabis local control / risk-based enforcement	Assembly	Active (introduced)	Chen
AB 2246	Cannabis: nonsubstantive changes to manufacturing code	Assembly	Active (introduced)	Wicks
AB 2617	Cannabis: nonsubstantive changes to MAUCRSA intent	Assembly	Active (introduced)	Schiavo
AB 1037	Substance-use policy reframed toward health-and-safety-first	Assembly	Active/recent	unconfirmed
AB 1103	Modernizes Schedule I/II research approval (Research Advisory Panel)	Assembly	Signed Oct 2025	unconfirmed

Sponsor attributions for introduced 2026 bills follow the Cal NORML tracker; where the tracker did not list a name or it could not be independently confirmed, the cell reads "unconfirmed."

Support this work

This work is free and reader-funded. No paywalls, no ads. This brief is independent and fully sourced, and reader contributions are what keep the 50-state coverage current and answerable to readers, not advertisers or owners.

If it helped you, please chip in $5 to keep it going. Recurring support helps most; about $25 funds a full refresh of a state brief like this one.

Contribute $5 on Ko-fi Become a member

← Back to all 50 states and federal briefs

A planning snapshot for 2026, not legal advice. Policy moves quickly; confirm any single detail against the cited sources before acting on it. Sponsor names are given where confirmable and marked unconfirmed otherwise.

About the author. Jessica Mantonya is the founder of Drug Policy Watch and Hold in Common. She also advises operators, advocates, and funders on regulatory strategy and anti-enclosure positioning. Work with her →