Connecticut CannaTimes

Connecticut CannaTimes We provide fact-based, nonpartisan coverage of Connecticut’s evolving cannabis laws.

09/28/2025

Oregon Proved It: Connecticut Needs Real Competition in Cannabis

By CT CannaTimes Staff - 9.28.2025

Oregon’s Early Experiment: Open Doors, Then Guardrails

Oregon’s cannabis market started with broad entry. Licenses were widely available, and the number of producers skyrocketed. Oversupply quickly followed, prompting the state to introduce moratoria in 2019 and 2022. Today, new licenses are tied to per-capita thresholds — but the key lesson remains: Oregon let the market grow fast, and then let competition sort itself out.

Sources:

https://www.oregon.gov/olcc/marijuana/Documents/Legislative_Reports/2019_SB218_LegislativeReport.pdf

https://www.oregon.gov/olcc/Docs/reports/2023_HB4016_Moratorium_LegislativeReport.pdf

https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displayDivisionRules.action?selectedDivision=3873

https://www.oregon.gov/olcc/Docs/Rules/2024-MJ-EFF010125.pdf



The Oversupply and the Price Crash

In 2024, Oregon growers harvested roughly 12.3 million pounds of cannabis — far more than consumers could buy. Retail prices fell to record lows, with grams averaging $3.75 and dipping to $3.51 in December 2024. For nearly two years, flower prices have stayed under $4 per gram.

Sources:

https://mjbizdaily.com/oregons-marijuana-glut-leads-to-lowest-prices-ever/

https://oregonbusiness.com/olcc-weed-supply-hits-record-high/

https://www.oregon.gov/olcc/Docs/Legislative/2025-Legislative-Overview-Cannabis.pdf



Natural Selection: Winners and Losers

As prices plunged, not every business survived. Inefficient operators closed or consolidated. Stronger, more efficient growers adapted and remained. This is how real markets work: the best producers thrive, and the weakest leave.

Sources:

https://www.opb.org/article/2024/01/15/oregon-cannabis-industry-oversaturation-new-restrictions/

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/portland-marijuana-dispensaries-crime-oversaturated-market/283-74b95ffd-f289-44ea-8952-f73355950861

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-portland-1d7ae6b0-e266-11ef-a401-198dda839010



What Oregon Consumers Actually Paid

Oregon’s experiment delivered a clear consumer benefit: affordable prices. By late 2024, average grams cost around $3.50–$3.80. The state’s own reports confirm this range, making Oregon one of the cheapest cannabis markets in the U.S.

Sources:
https://oregonbusiness.com/olcc-weed-supply-hits-record-high/
https://mjbizdaily.com/oregons-marijuana-glut-leads-to-lowest-prices-ever/
https://www.oregon.gov/olcc/Docs/Legislative/2025-Legislative-Overview-Cannabis.pdf



Connecticut’s Reality: High Prices, Few Choices

Connecticut’s cannabis market is the opposite. Prices hover around $9–$10 per gram — more than double Oregon’s — with $9.98 in May 2025 and $9.46 in June 2025. The state only has five producers, lotteries for limited licenses, and restrictive zoning that keeps out competition. Consumers pay the price for these barriers.

Sources:

https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/Cannabis-Average-Price-Per-Gram/ttwq-xhyz

https://insideinvestigator.org/ct-recreational-cannabis-retail-sales-set-new-high/

https://apnews.com/article/2458b79304aebde97d7d7f014dcf615e

https://portal.ct.gov/cannabis/Knowledge-Base/Categories/Licensing-and-Business-Information/Licensing—Lotteries-and-Application-Information

https://portal.ct.gov/cannabis/knowledge-base/articles/licensing/licensing-retailer

https://www.ctinsider.com/cannabis/article/ct-cannabis-real-estate-fine-fettle-insa-20040228.php

https://ctmirror.org/2025/08/06/marijuana-more-expensive-ct-ma/



The Path Forward for Connecticut

The evidence is clear. Oregon shows that open competition lowers prices and weeds out weak operators naturally. Connecticut’s system of caps, lotteries, and bottlenecks guarantees high costs and low consumer choice.

If Connecticut wants affordable cannabis and true equity, the solution is simple:

• Lower barriers to entry.

• Expand cultivation and retail licensing.

• Remove zoning and lottery bottlenecks.

• Let free market competition decide who survives.

The market will self-correct. Consumers will pay less. The best growers and entrepreneurs will thrive. Connecticut needs to stop protecting monopolies and start trusting competition.

09/26/2025
Don’t Fund Cannabis Enforcement Cannabis Community Boycott
09/22/2025

Don’t Fund Cannabis Enforcement Cannabis Community Boycott

09/22/2025

🚨 CannaTimes Investigation: How HB 6863 + HB 7181 Hid the Movement of Cannabis Dollars Into Enforcement

By CT CannaTimes | September 2025



The Hidden Transfer of Cannabis Revenues

Connecticut lawmakers have done something few cannabis consumers or patients realize: they’ve quietly built a pipeline that funnels cannabis sales, fees, beverage taxes, and smoke shop penalties into a dedicated enforcement war chest.

The maneuver required two bills working in tandem — a mid-year “deficiency bill” (HB 6863) to pre-fund enforcement, and a sweeping enforcement bill (HB 7181, as amended by LCO 10422) to lock in permanent revenue streams.



Step One: HB 6863 — The Deficiency Shuffle

On May 1, 2025, the legislature passed HB 6863, a deficiency appropriations bill meant to plug budget holes. But hidden in Section 13 (pages 13–14 of File No. 817) is a telling move:
• $400,000 to Revenue Services
• $500,000 to State Police (DESPP)
• $750,000 to Consumer Protection (DCP)
• Total: $1.65M pulled from the Cannabis Regulatory Fund .

None of this was earmarked for patients, equity programs, or the Cannabis Ombudsman. All of it went straight to enforcement agencies — before HB 7181 even passed.

🔗 HB 6863 File No. 817 (see Sec. 13, lines T402–T413):
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2025/HB/PDF/2025HB-06863-R000817-FC.PDF

🔗 HB 6863 Fiscal Note:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2025/HB/PDF/2025HB-06863-R000817-FN.PDF



Step Two: HB 7181 — The Permanent Enforcement Machine

Then came HB 7181 (with Amendment LCO 10422, June 2025). This bill built a new Cannabis Control Division inside DCP and created a statewide enforcement board .

But the real story is where the money goes:

• Sec. 5(k): “All fees, settlement amounts and fines collected under this section shall be deposited in the Consumer Protection Enforcement Account.” 

• Sec. 8(c)(1): $500,000 application fees (cultivator → micro-cultivator) into CPEA .

• Sec. 20: Retail/hybrid endorsements for micro-cultivators → fees into CPEA .

• Sec. 28: Transporter expansion fee ($5,000 one-time) → CPEA .

• Sec. 37: $1 per THC-infused beverage container → CPEA .

• Sec. 11: Civil penalties against unlicensed cannabis shops and landlords ($30,000 / $10,000 fines) → CPEA .

🔗 HB 7181 Fiscal Note (June 4, 2025):
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2025/FN/PDF/2025FN-07181-R02-FN.pdf

🔗 HB 7181 Amendment LCO 10422 (116 pages):
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2025/AMD/PDF/2025LCO10422-R00-AMD.PDF



The Effect: A Hidden Cannabis Enforcement Fund

By pairing these two bills, lawmakers accomplished a bait-and-switch:
1. HB 6863 moved cannabis revenues into enforcement accounts early, cloaked inside a budget bill .
2. HB 7181 then codified the Consumer Protection Enforcement Account (CPEA) and redirected every major cannabis-related revenue stream into it  .

This means:
• Every THC beverage you buy sends $1 into the enforcement fund.
• Every social equity “conversion fee” goes into enforcement.
• Every transporter expansion or smoke shop fine swells the enforcement account.
• Consumers indirectly fund this every time they walk into a dispensary.



Why This Matters

The promise of legalization was to end the war on cannabis and reinvest revenues in equity and health. Instead, Connecticut has constructed a system where cannabis sales and fees bankroll the very enforcement apparatus targeting cannabis and h**p.

Support dispensaries → Fund enforcement.
Buy THC beverages → Fund enforcement.



Sources to Verify

• HB 6863 Deficiency Appropriations Bill (File No. 817):
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2025/HB/PDF/2025HB-06863-R000817-FC.PDF

• HB 6863 Fiscal Note:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2025/HB/PDF/2025HB-06863-R000817-FN.PDF

• HB 7181 Fiscal Note (R02, June 4, 2025):
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2025/FN/PDF/2025FN-07181-R02-FN.pdf

• HB 7181 Amendment LCO 10422 (Full Text):
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2025/AMD/PDF/2025LCO10422-R00-AMD.PDF



🔥 This is headline news: Connecticut cannabis dollars are not funding patients or equity. They are funding enforcement.



Cannabis Community Boycott

09/22/2025

09/22/2025

💥 CannaTimes Special Report: How Your Cannabis Dollars Now Fund Enforcement Against You

By CT CannaTimes | September 22nd, 2025



The Hidden Truth Behind Connecticut’s Cannabis Enforcement Fund

Every time you buy a cannabis product from a dispensary in Connecticut — especially a THC beverage — your dollars are not just paying for overpriced product and corporate profits. They are being funneled straight into a state enforcement fund that bankrolls the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) to investigate, penalize, and shut down cannabis and h**p operators across the state.

That’s right: your cannabis purchases are funding the very enforcement machine used against cannabis consumers and small operators.



What Goes In: Business Fees, Beverage Taxes, and Fines

Under Public Act 25-166 (HB-7181, as amended in 2025), the state created the Consumer Protection Enforcement Account (CPEA). It is fed by multiple cannabis-related revenue streams:
• Cannabis Businesses
• $500,000 application & conversion fees (cultivator → micro-cultivator)
• Endorsement fees (micro-cultivators adding retail/hybrid sales)
• Transporters
• $5,000 one-time expansion fee
• Beverage Manufacturers/Wholesalers
• $1 fee per cannabis-infused beverage container at wholesale
• Smoke Shops & Unlicensed Sellers
• Civil fines of $10,000–$30,000 per violation
• Civil Penalties & Settlements
• Enforcement actions against cannabis/h**p/tobacco violators

All of these funds are deposited into the CPEA, which is used exclusively by DCP to bankroll enforcement, compliance sweeps, investigations, and penalties  .



Who Pays What
• Businesses (cultivators, micro-cultivators, retailers, transporters) → huge license and conversion fees.
• Wholesalers → per-beverage “sin tax.”
• Smoke Shops & gray-market sellers → crippling fines.
• Consumers → indirectly fund it all through higher prices and beverage markups.



Which Bills Made It Happen
• HB-7181 (early 2025): Proposed the Cannabis & H**p Enforcement Task Force, routed fines to the General Fund.
• HB-7181 w/ House Amendment A (June 2025): Created the Consumer Protection Enforcement Account and began diverting cannabis/beverage revenues into it.
• Public Act 25-166 (final, July 2025): Locked in permanent funding streams from cannabis conversions, retail endorsements, transporter fees, beverage taxes, and smoke shop fines.



Why This Matters

The promise of legalization was about equity, access, and relief from criminalization. Instead, Connecticut has created a system where every dollar spent at a dispensary strengthens enforcement against patients, homegrowers, legacy operators, and even smoke shops.

👉 When you buy from dispensaries, you are funding enforcement.
👉 When you purchase a THC beverage, you are literally paying $1 into the enforcement fund.
👉 When social equity applicants pay exorbitant license fees, that money fuels enforcement instead of supporting communities.



Headline Warning

Connecticut’s cannabis market is no longer just about sales — it’s about surveillance and enforcement. The money from your purchases is being weaponized against the very community legalization was supposed to protect.

Support dispensaries → Fund enforcement.
Stay silent → Watch the cycle continue.



🔗 CT CannaTimes will continue exposing how Connecticut’s cannabis revenue structure criminalizes the people it claims to serve.

09/19/2025

⚠️ CannaTimes Patient Alert: Mold Levels Found in Connecticut Cannabis

By Connecticut CannaTimes Investigations

Published: September 19th, 2025

Connecticut cannabis patients need to be aware: recent laboratory results show that some products currently passing state testing would fail in most other states due to excessive yeast & mold contamination. For patients with compromised immune systems, asthma, or mold sensitivities, these results should be treated as a red flag.

The Three Most Concerning Batches

1. Bachelor Party Flower

Manufacturer: Affinity Grow

Location: Portland, CT

Yeast & Mold Count: 43,500 cfu/g

This batch of cured flower tested by Analytics Labs in September 2025 came in at over four times the 10,000 cfu/g limitobserved in most states. Despite this, it was marked as “Pass” under Connecticut’s much looser threshold of 100,000 cfu/g.

2. Savvy Smalls 7G Citrus City

Manufacturer: CTPharma

Location: Rocky Hill, CT

Yeast & Mold Count: 36,000 cfu/g

Sold in 7-gram jars, this flower lot tested at more than three times the typical national cutoff. Patients purchasing products from CTPharma should be mindful of these elevated counts, especially those relying on cannabis as a medical therapy.

3. Ghost Train Haze Minis

Manufacturer: Affinity Grow

Location: Portland, CT

Yeast & Mold Count: 16,900 cfu/g

Though lower than the first two, this batch of Ghost Train Haze minis still exceeded the widely accepted 10,000 cfu/g action limit. It, too, was labeled compliant in Connecticut.

Why This Matters

Most states cap yeast & mold at 10,000 cfu/g. Cannabis above that limit would be rejected from dispensary shelves in Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, and more.

Connecticut’s standard is 100,000 cfu/g — ten times higher than what’s common elsewhere.

This means products that are considered unsafe or non-compliant in neighboring states are still legally sold here.

Patient Guidance

If you are a medical cannabis patient with:

Compromised immunity, Asthma or chronic lung conditions, Or a known sensitivity to mold, you should exercise extreme caution. Ask your dispensary for certificates of analysis (COAs) and check the Total Yeast & Mold Count.

If you see numbers above 10,000 cfu/g, understand that other states would classify that product as failing.

Final Word

Connecticut patients deserve the same level of consumer safety protection as patients in other states. Until regulations are updated, vigilance falls on the patient community.

Stay informed. Stay safe. Share this alert.

09/16/2025

CT Drug Control Director Steps Down Amid Cannabis Retaliation Scandal

By CT CannaTimes Editorial Board
September 16, 2025



A Sudden Departure

Rodrick Marriott, longtime head of the Department of Consumer Protection’s Drug Control Division, has resigned just weeks after a state investigation faulted him for his role in an unauthorized inspection of a cannabis cultivator. His last day at the agency was September 2, ending a 17-year career.

Marriott formally submitted his resignation letter on August 7, one day after appearing at a pre-disciplinary hearing where the maximum penalty under consideration was a five-day suspension. In his letter, Marriott made no mention of the scandal, simply thanking the agency for the opportunities provided during his tenure.

Full coverage here:

https://ctnewsjunkie.com/2025/09/16/connecticut-drug-controlation-into-surprise-inspection-of-cannabis-cultivators-facility/



Fallout for the Agency

During the investigation, Marriott was stripped of cannabis oversight duties and those responsibilities were reassigned to a separate division led by a DCP attorney. This was a clear acknowledgment from DCP leadership that trust in Marriott’s division had been compromised.

In its public statements following his departure, DCP stressed that “everyone should feel safe and comfortable providing testimony at a public hearing without fear of retribution or retaliation” and that the agency has taken “several steps toward improving communication with the cannabis industry.”

Coverage via WSHU:

https://www.wshu.org/connecticut-news/2025-09-16/ct-dcp-drug-director-named-in-unauthorized-cannabis-inspection



What Comes Next

While Marriott’s resignation may close one chapter, the damage to DCP’s credibility lingers. Operators remain wary of engaging openly with regulators, fearing that dissent could still trigger retaliation.

The department says it does “not anticipate any further issues of this nature,” but confidence in those assurances will depend on whether meaningful cultural change follows Marriott’s exit.



09/16/2025

DCP’s Retaliatory Culture Exposed

By CT CannaTimes Editorial Board
September 16, 2025



The scandal now engulfing Connecticut’s Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) is not an isolated mistake. It is the inevitable result of a toxic regulatory culture where power is abused, dissent is punished, and the cannabis industry is treated not as a partner but as an enemy.

At the center of this storm is Rodrick Marriott, former Director of DCP’s Drug Control Division. A newly released labor investigation confirms what many in the cannabis community have long suspected: Marriott used his authority to retaliate against a business owner for daring to speak out.

On March 19, 2025, Rino Ferrarese, CEO of Affinity Grow, testified before the General Law Committee against DCP’s rigid and costly “final form testing” policies. His exact words were:

“We’re basically the medical program operated with intermediate bulk testing from 2014 up until probably a couple months ago. So, we’re just continuing what we’ve been doing since 2014.”

Marriott seized on that single sentence, misheard it as an admission of non-compliance, and by the next morning had agents on their way to Ferrarese’s facility in Portland. Less than 24 hours after public testimony, Affinity Grow was targeted. No violations were found. But the message was unmistakable: challenge DCP, and you risk retaliation.



The Official Findings

The 13–page investigation by the Office of Labor Relations is damning. It documents how Marriott admitted to watching only part of Ferrarese’s testimony late at night, misheard the statement, and jumped to the conclusion that Affinity Grow was breaking the law. By the next morning, he had ordered an unannounced inspection.

The report concludes Marriott failed to exercise due diligence, acted on misinformation, and displayed “poor judgment” that was “detrimental to the best interests of the agency.” Even DCP Commissioner Bryan Cafferelli acknowledged the damage, warning that the action had destroyed trust with both the legislature and the cannabis industry .



The Fallout

Thanks to a WSHU Freedom of Information Act request, more than 100 internal documents have now come to light, including Teams messages where Marriott sheepishly admitted: “Uh oh, I think I messed up.”

The fallout forced public apologies from DCP leadership, who scrambled to assure lawmakers and licensees that testimony would not be punished. But the damage was already done. Marriott resigned on September 2, 2025, after 17 years at the agency, just one day after facing a pre-disciplinary hearing .

Full WSHU coverage:

https://www.wshu.org/connecticut-news/2025-09-16/ct-dcp-drug-director-named-in-unauthorized-cannabis-inspection



Sidebar: Timeline of Events

• March 19, 2025 – Rino Ferrarese of Affinity Grow testifies before the General Law Committee, opposing DCP’s final form testing policy.

• March 20, 2025 (Morning) – Rodrick Marriott misinterprets testimony and orders staff to inspect Affinity Grow.

• March 20, 2025 (Afternoon) – DCP agents arrive at Affinity Grow, find no violations.

• March 21, 2025 – Legislators publicly rebuke DCP, citing chilling effect on testimony.

• March 24, 2025 – Formal labor investigation requested into Marriott’s actions.

• March 27, 2025 – Investigation officially begins.

• May 30, 2025 – Internal report released, concluding Marriott showed poor judgment and harmed public trust.

• August 6, 2025 – Marriott faces pre-disciplinary hearing; a five-day suspension considered.

• August 7, 2025 – Marriott resigns after 17 years at DCP.

• September 2, 2025 – Marriott’s resignation becomes effective.

• September 16, 2025 – WSHU publishes FOIA findings and confirms the scandal publicly.



Lawmakers’ Rebuke

During the March 21 follow-up meeting, General Law Committee co-chair Rep. Roland Lemar made clear how damaging Marriott’s decision was:

“We invited a number of people to give us expertise… One of the individuals testified in a way that could have been misconstrued or misheard, but it led to a subsequent action by the Department of Consumer Protection where he felt, and this committee feels, inadvertently or purposefully, his business was put in jeopardy. It is our goal as a committee to be a place where constituents feel welcome… without fear. I have an expectation that I can offer that space here. I failed to offer that space. This action was unacceptable.”

Those are extraordinary words: a sitting lawmaker admitting the state failed to protect the public’s right to speak freely.



A Pattern, Not a Fluke

DCP’s statement after Marriott’s resignation tried to downplay the scandal: “We do not anticipate any further issues of this nature.” That’s wishful thinking. For years, patients, caregivers, and advocates have complained of intimidation, selective enforcement, and a regulatory approach designed to protect corporate interests rather than empower small businesses or the public.

This inspection was not a “misheard” one-off. It was the logical outcome of a system where regulators believe they are untouchable, where cannabis businesses must tiptoe around the agency in fear of retaliation.



The Cost of Silence

If business owners believe that speaking at the Capitol could trigger a punitive inspection, democracy itself is undermined. Connecticut’s legalization law was sold on promises of equity and transparency — yet its implementation has been defined by secrecy, favoritism, and retaliation.



Where We Go From Here

Marriott may be gone, but the culture that enabled his misconduct remains. DCP must be stripped of its unilateral enforcement power over cannabis. Independent oversight is needed, and legislators must ensure that regulators cannot weaponize inspections against those who dissent.

Until that happens, the fear will remain. Entrepreneurs will stay silent. Patients will suffer. And DCP will continue to operate as if it is above accountability.

This scandal is not just about one man’s poor judgment — it is about an agency that has lost the trust of the very people it was meant to serve.



Sources:
– Labor Relations Internal Investigation Summary, Office of Labor Relations, May 30, 2025
– WSHU Public Radio, “CT DCP drug director named in unauthorized cannabis inspection,” September 16, 2025
https://www.wshu.org/connecticut-news/2025-09-16/ct-dcp-drug-director-named-in-unauthorized-cannabis-inspection







09/08/2025

CT Politicians, Power, and the Edge of Legality: From Cannabis to the WNBA

By CT CannaTimes - 9.8.2025

It sounds like something out of a political thriller: a sitting U.S. Senator writing directly to a private sports league, warning that their conduct could violate federal law—and invoking his senior seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee while doing it.

But that’s exactly what happened when Sen. Richard Blumenthal fired off a letter to WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert. At issue? The Mohegan Tribe’s attempt to sell the Connecticut Sun.

Blumenthal’s warning: if the WNBA interferes in those negotiations, it “could violate federal antitrust law.” He went further, saying he would demand investigations and enforcement actions from federal authorities if the league tried to steer the sale.



A Letter with No Legal Force, but Plenty of Political Muscle

Let’s be clear: this was not a law, not a subpoena, not a binding order. It was a letter. On paper, that means no legal teeth.

But when it comes from a Senator on the Judiciary Committee—the body that oversees antitrust enforcement—the threat is implied. The message is unmistakable: “Do what Connecticut wants, or risk federal heat.”

And that’s the problem. What would look like extortion if written by a lawyer becomes “oversight” when written on Senate letterhead.



How It’s Legal—But Questionable

• Protected Speech: The Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause shields members of Congress when they act in their official capacity. That makes letters like this protected.

• Oversight Authority: Antitrust falls under federal jurisdiction, so technically, Blumenthal is within his rights to flag it.

• No Binding Power: The WNBA is under no legal obligation to comply.

But legality and ethics aren’t the same thing. This is political jawboning at its finest—no law passed, no court order issued, just raw influence applied.



Riding the Edge of Coercion

Where it becomes deeply problematic is in the appearance. If Blumenthal had tied this to campaign donations, or coordinated with local bidders, it could easily cross into bribery or abuse of office. If he pushed federal enforcers to act without cause, it could look like unlawful interference.

For now, it sits in the gray zone: not criminal coercion, but absolutely political coercion.



Sound Familiar? Cannabis Advocates Know This Playbook

This tactic isn’t new in Connecticut. We’ve seen it in cannabis policy over and over again:

• Regulators jawboning patients and small businesses—hinting at crackdowns or investigations when convenient, but never putting rules into plain law.

• The Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) and Social Equity Council using opaque processes to tilt the licensing table, while leaving the public powerless to challenge decisions.

• Lawmakers writing bills that appear to open access for patients—then layering in loopholes and agency discretion that undermine those rights.

Each time, politicians hide behind legality. “We didn’t break the law, we just enforced it.” Or, “We didn’t regulate unfairly, we just exercised oversight.”

In reality, it’s the same as Blumenthal’s WNBA letter: political muscle flexed in a way that ordinary citizens or small businesses could never get away with.



The Bigger Picture

Whether it’s cannabis patients losing their rights, local entrepreneurs squeezed out of the industry, or a pro basketball team on the brink of being sold out of state, the pattern is the same: Connecticut politicians operate right at the edge of legality, wielding power through intimidation and technicality.

It might not break the law. But it breaks trust.



Bottom Line

Blumenthal’s letter to the WNBA may go down as just another example of Connecticut politics: no law broken, no charges filed—but power leveraged in ways that look less like democracy and more like coercion.

In cannabis and beyond, the real question for Connecticut residents isn’t whether these maneuvers are technically legal. It’s whether we’re okay with being governed this way.

———










09/08/2025

CT Cannabis Market Failing, Pivots to Enforcement for Profit - 9.8.2025

By CT CannaTimes Staff

Connecticut’s cannabis experiment is not going as promised. Despite a “captured market” with few competitors, the state is posting bottom-tier revenue numbers compared to other legalized states. Now, instead of profiting through a thriving industry, Connecticut is increasingly relying on penalties and lawsuits against smoke shops to balance the books.



How Connecticut Ranks vs. Other States

According to U.S. Census data (via Cannabis Business Times), Connecticut ranked 19th out of 23 adult-use states/DC in excise-tax revenue in 2023.
• Connecticut (2023): $17.3M in excise taxes.
• Massachusetts: $168.1M (∆ +$150.8M vs. CT).
• New York: $33.5M (∆ +$16.2M vs. CT).
• Rhode Island: $5.2M (CT is +$12.1M vs. RI).

Source: https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/news/u-s-census-issues-cannabis-sales-tax-revenue-data-for-first-time

By FY2024, Connecticut reported $49.4M total cannabis revenues (excise, sales tax, municipal share, licensing/fees), with only $21.3M from the cannabis excise tax itself.

Source: https://ctmirror.org/2024/08/14/connecticut-cannabis-sales-marijuana-pot-tax-revenue

But even those numbers tell a weak story: the Office of Legislative Research found Connecticut had the lowest per-capita cannabis sales in 2024 among Northeastern peers, while still posting the highest price per gram.

Source:https://www.cga.ct.gov/2024/rpt/pdf/2024-R-0043.pdf



Enforcement as a Revenue Stream

Meanwhile, the Attorney General has ramped up enforcement against smoke shops selling cannabis outside the licensed system.
• Planet Zaza (East Haven): $4.93M civil judgment – the largest penalty ever imposed in CT for illegal cannabis sales.
• Nine other retailers/wholesalers: prior judgments totaling $300,000.
• Subtotal adjudicated enforcement to date: ≈ $5.23M.

Press release: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Press-Releases/2024-Press-Releases/AG-Tong-Announces-49M-Judgment-Against-Planet-Zaza

In January 2024, the AG also filed seven new enforcement actions (including against Planet Zaza, Anesthesia Convenience & Smoke, and Smoker’s Corner), with penalties under CUTPA of up to $5,000 per violation.

Coverage: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Press-Releases/2024-Press-Releases/AG-Tong-Files-Enforcement-Actions-Against-Smoke-Shops

Legislators have since increased the maximum penalty to $30,000 per day for unlicensed cannabis sales.



Enforcement vs. Sales: Scale of the Problem
• FY2024 cannabis revenue: $49.4M.
• Documented enforcement judgments to date: ≈ $5.23M.

That means about 11% of CT’s entire cannabis take last year came not from sales, but from civil penalties. And that number is climbing as new $30,000/day cases work through the courts.



The Bigger Picture

With high prices, shrinking patient counts, low per-capita sales, and bottom-tier national revenues, Connecticut’s cannabis market is failing to deliver on its promises. Instead of generating robust, sustainable tax income like Massachusetts or Michigan, CT is leaning on court fines against smoke shops as a notable part of its revenue story.

That is not a healthy market. It’s an enforcement-driven scheme. And it’s both pathetic and unethical for a state that sold legalization as justice and opportunity.

Address

Hartford, CT

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Connecticut CannaTimes posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Share