Who Would Sell Legal THC in North Carolina? The State's Cannabis Council Added a Meeting to Discuss It.

North Carolina's Advisory Council on Cannabis has added a second meeting of its Market and Regulatory Subcommittee, scheduled for Friday, October 23, from 1 to 3 p.m. The same subcommittee met on October 16 to hear a presentation on how a future cannabis regulator could be designed. Together, the two meetings put one question at the center of the council's work: if North Carolina builds a regulated THC market, who would be allowed to sell the products?

That question matters to every hemp retailer in the state. This article explains the options in the council's public record, what the documents say about existing hemp businesses, and how to follow the October 23 meeting. Everything discussed so far is a draft or a discussion item. No votes have been taken, and none of it is law. This article is for general information and is not legal advice.

What the Market and Regulatory Subcommittee Has Scheduled

The subcommittee is co-chaired by Daniel Hirschman of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality and Missy Welch, executive director of the North Carolina ABC Commission. Its recent and upcoming meetings, as listed on the council's website, are:

• September 18: a presentation on a "state control model" for licensing, along with draft licensing recommendations for discussion.

• October 16: a presentation on "Regulatory Agency Design" from Welch, Renee Metz of the ABC Commission and Kaycee Deen, a legal consultant with the NCDHHS Division of Public Health, followed by an hour of member discussion on market structure, according to the posted agenda.

• October 23: a newly added meeting. No agenda had been posted as of October 19.

A November 20 meeting of this subcommittee was previously listed, but it no longer appears on the council's page. It is not clear whether the October 23 meeting replaces it. Minutes and slides from the October 16 meeting had also not been posted as of October 19, so this article does not describe what was presented that day.

The State-Controlled Retail Model in the September 18 Draft

The most detailed proposal in the record is the subcommittee's cannabis licensing draft, which is marked "for discussion only." It describes a hybrid of North Carolina's ABC liquor system and Quebec's cannabis system, in which "the state exclusively controls the retail channel" while private businesses handle cultivation, manufacturing and processing, and wholesale distribution. We covered that draft when it was first posted in our report on the proposal for state-controlled stores.

The draft lays out several options rather than a single plan:

• Retail governance: either a centralized state retail corporation running its own stores, or an ABC-style system with a state cannabis commission, local cannabis boards and stores.

• Wholesale: private licensed wholesalers supplying the state stores, a state-run central warehouse similar to the ABC warehouse, or a mix of both.

• Growing and manufacturing: a protected craft farm license for North Carolina farmers and small businesses, a standard cultivation license for larger operations, and a manufacturing or processing license.

The draft also says that state control "does not have to mean state-set pricing," and it leaves open which kinds of vertical integration and common ownership should be prohibited.

What Subcommittee Members Said About Licensing

According to the September 18 minutes, members treated the number of licenses, and how license holders would be chosen, as a top priority, because other structural decisions depend on it. The minutes record several points of agreement among members:

• More data on volume, revenue, margins and market size is needed before decisions are made.

• Over-licensing is a serious risk.

• Limits on drinks and gummies were described as appropriate.

• Cannabis would need funding and operations separate from the ABC system.

Members did not reach agreement on how to define a craft license, whether to create a separate distribution tier, or how to handle out-of-state businesses. The selection methods discussed included open licensing, high fees, auctions, merit review and lotteries. There was also interest in allowing low-dose products to be sold through private retail, although some members felt that would be too big a step at the start.

An earlier August 21 meeting heard presentations on Quebec's state-run model and on how the ABC Commission works. Members asked, "Do we want an ABC model for cannabis?" No decision was recorded. The October 14 Public Safety Subcommittee minutes also mention "state-run retail" as an alternative to mail order sales, as we explained in our report on the council's first public safety draft.

Other Licensing Approaches in the Public Discussion

Council member Pat Oglesby has been writing publicly about the licensing question on his own blog. In an October 17 post, he wrote that if intoxicating hemp and marijuana are regulated alike, deciding who receives a license to sell will be one of the hardest problems, and he described the tradeoffs of each approach:

• Merit contests can lead to long delays, as he said Georgia's medical rollout showed.

• Lotteries can invite litigation and may reward applicants with little stake in the business.

• Auctions tend to favor wealthy applicants.

• Unlimited licensing can produce "an uncontrolled market with many losers," which he said Oklahoma has demonstrated.

He pointed to Mississippi as a possible model because it limits its market through objective entry rules, such as background checks, annual fees tiered to discourage large companies, local approval, spacing requirements, penalties and seed-to-sale tracking. These are one council member's published views, not a council recommendation.

Other states offer different examples. In Illinois, the Department of Agriculture has proposed rules, published in the October 16 Illinois Register, for at least 45 new cannabis infuser licenses by January 1, 2027, chosen by lottery if there are more applicants than licenses. According to the Marijuana Herald, applicants who were registered hemp processors, held an Illinois hemp cultivation license or ran a business earning most of its revenue from hemp products by May 1, 2026, would receive an extra lottery entry. A 45-day public comment period on those rules began October 16. Illinois is not part of North Carolina's council process, but it shows one way a state has chosen to give existing hemp businesses a path into a licensed market.

Where Existing Hemp Retailers Fit

No council document posted so far sets out a role for North Carolina's existing hemp shops. The question has come up, however. The September 18 minutes record a warning from the ABC Commission's Renee Metz that a Quebec-style system could put current vape and hemp shops out of business unless the state contracts with them to operate as state-run stores. The minutes do not record any decision on that point.

The issue matters because the council has said it sees THC as one issue. Its April 2026 interim report recommended that, if the General Assembly acts, it regulate products "based on total tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content and intoxicating potential" rather than through separate systems for hemp and marijuana. If that approach were adopted, the retail model the council recommends could eventually shape where hemp-derived THC products can be sold.

Under the options discussed so far, the effect on existing retailers would depend on the design:

• State-controlled retail: private shops would not sell THC products directly unless the state chose to contract with them.

• Limited private licensing: existing shops could compete for a license, with their chances depending on how licenses are allocated.

• Objective entry rules: standards such as fees, spacing and background checks could admit or exclude existing locations, depending on how they are set.

• Low-dose products in private retail: the September 18 minutes show interest in this idea, which could affect hemp beverages and edibles if it moves forward.

These are possibilities, not proposals. They are useful questions for hemp business owners to raise with the council while its recommendations are still being written.

Why the Timing Matters Before December 11

The October 23 meeting comes three days before the General Assembly reconvenes on October 26. The full council is next scheduled to meet on November 17, and under Executive Order No. 16, its final recommendations are due to Gov. Josh Stein by December 31. The federal hemp changes are scheduled to take effect before then:

• November 12: the first set of federal hemp definition changes takes effect, covering intermediate and final hemp-derived cannabinoid products that contain specified cannabinoids that cannot be naturally produced by the cannabis plant.

• December 11: the remaining changes take effect, including the 0.3 percent total THC threshold by dry weight, including THCA, and the 0.4 milligram combined limit per container for covered finished hemp-derived cannabinoid products.

We explained both dates in our guide to what changes on November 12 and December 11. The council's market structure recommendations will not be final before those dates. Any new state law before then would have to be passed by the General Assembly. HB 328, North Carolina's bill to regulate hemp-derived consumables, remains in the House Rules, Calendar, and Operations Committee, and no vote on it has been scheduled.

How to Follow the October 23 Meeting and Share Your Views

The October 23 meeting will be held online through Microsoft Teams. The join link and passcode are listed on the council's website, where any agenda will also be posted. For background on how the subcommittees fit together, see our guide to the council's subcommittees.

The council also accepts public comments through an online comment form. Hemp business owners who want the council to address existing retailers can use it to:

1. Describe your business, how long it has operated and how many people it employs.

2. Explain the safeguards you already follow, such as age checks, lab testing and labeling.

3. Ask the council to state whether its market recommendations will include a path for existing hemp retailers.

4. Share how a state-run, limited license or open license model would affect your business.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is North Carolina creating state-run cannabis stores?

Not at this point. A September 18 subcommittee draft, marked for discussion only, describes a model in which the state controls retail sales. It has not been adopted by the council, and any new market would require action by the General Assembly.

When is the next North Carolina cannabis council market meeting?

The Market and Regulatory Subcommittee is scheduled to meet online on Friday, October 23, from 1 to 3 p.m. The full council meets on November 17.

Would existing hemp shops be allowed to sell THC under a new system?

The council has not said. The September 18 minutes record a warning that a state-controlled model could put current vape and hemp shops out of business unless the state contracted with them, but no recommendation on existing retailers has been made.

How would North Carolina choose who gets a cannabis license?

That has not been decided. Options discussed by subcommittee members include open licensing, high fees, auctions, merit review and lotteries, alongside the state-controlled retail model.

Can I comment on the council's recommendations?

Yes. The council accepts public comments through an online form on the NCDHHS website.