Three Subcommittees. Eight Days. Four States. How North Carolina Is Actually Building Its Cannabis Plan.

In September, a draft document from North Carolina's cannabis advisory council described a possible market in which retail sales would run through a state-controlled system. That document is one piece of a larger process, and over eight days in September, that process became much clearer.

Between September 18 and September 25, each of the three subcommittees of the Governor's Advisory Council on Cannabis heard from regulators with experience running a controlled cannabis or alcohol market. Here is what each one covered, based on the posted agendas.

September 18: Market Structure and Regulation

The Market Structure and Regulatory Subcommittee is co-chaired by the executive director of the North Carolina ABC Commission and the general counsel of the state's Department of Environmental Quality. At its September 18 meeting, an ABC Commission official gave a presentation titled “License Structure: State Control Model,” followed by member discussion of draft recommendations.

That draft, stamped “FOR DISCUSSION ONLY,” describes a three-tier system in which private businesses would handle cultivation and manufacturing, wholesale could be private, state-run, or a mix, and retail would run through a state-controlled system. It also includes a Craft Farm Cannabis License intended for North Carolina farmers and small businesses.

September 23: Public Safety

The Public Safety Subcommittee is co-chaired by the commander of the State Highway Patrol and a representative of the North Carolina Sheriffs' Association. On September 23, it heard from four officials of the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission, which took over Tennessee's hemp program at the start of 2026.

The agenda listed three parts to the presentation:

•        Tennessee's licensing structure for suppliers, wholesalers, and retailers

•        How Tennessee's enforcement branch operates

•        Recommendations from Tennessee to North Carolina

September 25: Revenue and Legal

The Revenue and Legal Subcommittee is co-chaired by a senior official from the state budget office and a senior deputy attorney general. Its September 25 agenda included three presentations:

North Carolina Consumer Protection

A special deputy attorney general from the North Carolina Department of Justice opened with a presentation on consumer protection.

Connecticut's Potency-Based Tax

The director of Connecticut's Cannabis Control Division presented on that state's potency-based cannabis tax. A potency-based tax is tied to how much THC a product contains rather than only to its price.

The timing makes this presentation especially interesting, because Connecticut is moving away from that model. Under a state law signed in May, Connecticut replaces its THC-based cannabis tax on October 1 with a flat 10.75 percent tax on gross receipts. North Carolina's council heard about a potency-based system days before the state that built it abandons it, which gives members a chance to look at both the original model and the reasons Connecticut changed course.

Virginia's Tax Structure

The acting head of the Virginia Cannabis Control Authority presented on Virginia's cannabis tax structure.

Why a Potency-Based Tax Matters for Hemp

Of the three September 25 presentations, the Connecticut tax discussion may be the most directly relevant to hemp businesses, even though hemp was not listed as a topic.

Under a tax based on THC content, a higher-milligram product carries a higher tax than a lower-milligram one, regardless of its price. Many hemp beverages and edibles are sold at several different strengths, so the choice between a price-based and a potency-based tax would affect which products remain affordable and which do not.

Connecticut's experience shows how that plays out. As retail prices fell there, the per-milligram tax stayed the same, and reporting on the state's collections found tax revenue rising sharply in early 2026 while overall sales stayed roughly flat. Retailers argued that the potency tax had become a growing share of what customers paid at the register, which was part of the push to replace it.

The council's interim report earlier this year recommended regulating intoxicating cannabinoids by the THC molecule rather than by plant source. If North Carolina ultimately adopts that approach, a potency-based tax could in theory be applied to hemp-derived products as well. The council has not adopted a tax structure, so that is a possibility, not a decision, but it makes the tax discussion worth following closely.

What Has Not Happened

It is important to be clear about the limits of what the public record shows:

•        Minutes from the September 18, September 23, and September 25 meetings have not yet been posted, so the official written record of those discussions is not yet available

•        The licensing draft is a discussion document, and no recommendation has been adopted

•        Three subcommittees hearing from outside regulators in the same week is a fact on the record, but it does not by itself show a coordinated plan

The Eight Questions on the Table

The licensing draft discussed on September 18 ends with a list of questions for the council. Together, they are the clearest picture of what is actually being decided:

1.      Should North Carolina's cannabis system use a three-tier structure modeled on the state's alcohol system?

2.     Should cultivation and manufacturing, wholesale distribution, and retail ownership be separated?

3.     Should retail cannabis be sold exclusively through state-controlled stores?

4.     Should North Carolina use a centralized state warehouse, private licensed wholesalers, or a hybrid?

5.     How should the Craft Farm License be structured so small farmers can participate without creating regulatory loopholes?

6.     What forms of vertical integration and common ownership should be prohibited?

7.     How should the state determine retail prices and adjust them in response to the illicit market?

8.     What role should local governments have in determining where state cannabis stores operate?

What Comes Next on the Calendar

The full council met in person in Raleigh on September 29 and meets again on November 17, its last scheduled full meeting before the deadline. Its final recommendations are due to the Governor by December 31, and the General Assembly convenes for its long session in January. For an industry estimated at roughly 2,197 storefronts and more than 16,000 jobs, according to a Whitney Economics analysis, the answers to those eight questions will matter.

With the September subcommittee sessions complete, the council now has two scheduled full meetings and one report left. Its meetings are public and its comment portal remains open. The separate discussions of licensing, enforcement, and taxes are now starting to come together, and the answers to those eight questions will take shape over the next three months.