The Challenges of Accessing Cannabis License Information and facts – five States with Surprising Roadblocks


Cannabiz Media has been tracking marijuana and hemp licenses for 5 years. When we 1st launched our database to the public in 2016, there have been a quantity of states that offered varying amounts of data connected to cannabis licenses. Washington was and remains the leader in dissemination of license data as they give much more detail than any other jurisdiction.

As we move into 2019, Cannabiz Media now covers a combined 82 jurisdictions for cannabis and hemp in the US and Canada, and in numerous situations, we track various regulators in each and every state.

The heavily regulated cannabis market, for the most element, has created a wonderful deal of license data offered so , stakeholders can be confident , they are getting treated pretty.  On the other hand, the jurisdictions outlined beneath have been much less than forthcoming in generating data offered.


According to the Arizona Division of Overall health Solutions, you can not locate the place of any cannabis establishment unless you have a health-related marijuana card:

Unless you are a registered qualifying patient who is not authorized to cultivate marijuana plants for health-related use, the Division can not give you with a list of dispensaries. The Arizona Healthcare Marijuana Act, A.R.S. § 36-2810 (A.), states that data received and records kept by the Division for the purposes of administering the Act, like “the physical addresses of nonprofit health-related marijuana dispensaries”, are confidential. On the other hand, A.R.S. § 36-2804.04(C) demands the Division to give a list of registered dispensaries to a qualifying patient who is not authorized to cultivate marijuana plants when issuing the qualifying patient’s registry identification card.

This is most likely the most intense instance of maintaining data from the public. Locating licensed cultivators or suppliers in Arizona is even tougher than discovering dispensaries.


As reported in the Nevada Independent, the Nevada Division of Taxation is asking marijuana firms to voluntarily let the state reveal no matter whether they have been granted a conditional license to open one particular or much more dispensaries and how their application ranked rather than just generating the data public.

The move comes immediately after the division received criticism for the secretive nature of the marijuana licensing procedure. At least one particular firm whose applications have been rejected has sued the state, questioning how some applicants received licenses when they scored substantially reduce than the firm in a preceding application period.

Taxation officials have so far declined to release other data about the winning applicants, citing a marijuana regulation that states “the Division will and any designee of the Division shall keep the confidentiality of and shall not disclose the name or any other identifying data of any particular person who facilitates or delivers solutions pursuant to this chapter.”

But the division released a list of scores for applications they received in each and every jurisdiction — with the applicant names redacted — and spokeswoman Stephanie Klapstein mentioned the division will reveal the names when and if the applicant returns the consent kind.

Critics have dismissed the confidentiality as unnecessary, saying it is a misinterpretation of a regulation that was intended to shield health-related marijuana sufferers.


Whilst Nevada asked the license winners for their permission to share data, Pennsylvania went even additional by enabling the applicants to self-redact their personal filings!

As reported in Pennlive, The division initially permitted grower / processor and dispensary applicants to self-redact what they regarded as proprietary data on a copy of the application they submitted to the division. In addition, the division created some of its personal redactions. The procedure, nonetheless, resulted in tiny consistency from one particular applicant to the subsequent.

For some applicants, the public could not inform who will run the operations or who’s funding each and every operation. In at least one particular case, the applicant redacted the name of the firm itself.


Missouri officials mentioned lately that much more than $three million in health-related marijuana license costs have been paid because the state started accepting pre-filed applications a month ago. They proudly tout that 418 “pre-filed application forms” have been sent in, accompanied by a total of $three,020,000 in costs.

The totals incorporate:

  • 226 types for dispensary facilities
  • 128 types for cultivation facilities and
  • 64 types for infused-item manufacturing facilities

The state has repeatedly declined to make that data public even immediately after getting Freedom of Information and facts Act requests. In their request denial to the News-Leader, the DHSS spokeswoman explained the choice by saying that the division will “continue to stand behind our interpretation of the Short article XVI Section 1.three(five) of the Missouri Constitution.” That section of Amendment two demands DHSS to “maintain the confidentiality of reports or other data obtained from an applicant or licensee.”

Backers of Amendment two have mentioned that provision of the legal text is not meant to shield the identities of organization-connected health-related marijuana license applicants from public disclosure. Like Nevada, the regulator has selected a extremely distinct view of a regulation to favor applicants.


Lastly, Colorado initially created data offered to the Denver Post and then wanted tens of thousands of dollars to release the very same data a year later. The Post criticized the regulator for treating the cannabis market so differently simply because specifics on other sate licensed industries and occupations is offered.

At that point, the state had been generating data offered about the enterprises themselves but not the persons who owned them. They also stopped generating offered data on state disciplinary actions against a marijuana organization

The Denver Post did at some point prevail and the regulator developed a method for the public to investigation this material on the internet – one particular license at a time.

Tracking Cannabis Licenses

Not all states are complicated to deal with. Some place a lot of time and power into generating data offered to aid stakeholders know who is element of the market. Examples of robust states incorporate Alaska, Massachusetts and California.

Cannabiz Media is now tracking more than 40,000 licenses across these 82 jurisdictions in the Cannabiz Media License Database, and you will be capable to continue to rely on us to sort via these regulatory nightmares to bring complete, timely and precise license data to your promoting and sales efforts.


Latest posts