New Strategies 64 paper spotlights need for cannabis product authentication, offers recommendations for federal oversight of cannabis supply chain
A new paper from the cannabis policy experts at Strategies 64 spotlights the need for effective cannabis product authentication and offers recommendations for future federal oversight of the cannabis supply chain.
The publication is an addendum to The One-plantSolution, a white paper released earlier this year that proposes a national unified cannabis policy and federal regulatory framework and identifies product authentication as a critical area of federal responsibility.
“Effective product authentication is fundamental to a successful federal cannabis regulatory system,” said Jordan Wellington, managing partner of Strategies 64. “Regulators need a reliable way to verify where products originated, how they moved through the supply chain, and whether they were produced and sold in compliance with applicable laws. Without it, product safety standards, youth access protections, marketing restrictions, and taxation are difficult to enforce, and regulated markets remain vulnerable to diversion and inversion.”
The new paper examines the two most commonly discussed approaches to cannabis product authentication: technology that monitors inventory and transactions throughout the supply chain, which many states are already using, and mandatory third-party distribution akin to the three-tier model applied to alcohol in the U.S.
Strategies 64 recommends leveraging technology and building on the inventory transparency systems already operating in state-regulated cannabis markets. State track-and-trace systems have more than a decade of real-world experience monitoring cannabis from cultivation through retail, and they can provide the foundation for a federal reporting framework that gives regulators visibility across state lines without requiring businesses to duplicate reporting or fundamentally restructure their operations.
The addendum also explores how modern data analysis and anomaly-detection tools could make that information substantially more useful to regulators. By analyzing inventory, transfer, pricing, testing, and sales data across markets, federal regulators could identify unusual activity and target enforcement toward potential diversion, inversion, tax avoidance, and other forms of noncompliance.
In contrast, the paper concludes that imposing a mandatory third-party distribution system modeled after alcohol would add costs, complexity, and market disruption without providing comparable regulatory benefits.
“The three-tier system was developed following the repeal of alcohol prohibition at a time when regulators lacked the technology to continuously monitor products through the supply chain,” Wellington said. “Today, inventory transparency technology can accomplish many of the same regulatory objectives more efficiently while providing regulators with significantly greater visibility. A modern product authentication framework can strengthen public health and safety, improve enforcement and tax compliance, and protect the integrity of regulated markets while minimizing unnecessary burdens on businesses.”
Read the full One-plant Solution white paper and the new Product Authentication addendum at one-plantsolution.org.
Denver Post includes S64’s Mason Tvert in list of “150 most notable people in Colorado history”
He and longtime colleague Brian Vicente were recognized for being “big, leading names behind the successful push to legalize recreational marijuana in Colorado.”
The Post noted:
The competition was fierce. We looked for those who had roots in Colorado that went beyond living here just a few months, had a profound impact on this state’s culture and history, helping the Centennial State become what it is today.
Some on the list are people whose achievements were of national, international or interstellar significance, so their inclusion is warranted even if their direct influence in Colorado was less marked.
NIST scales report highlights role for national standards in cannabis regulation
In late June, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published a report examining the suitability of scales used to weigh cannabis products. As Marijuana Moment reports, the 31-page document aims to assist state marijuana officials in developing standards for scales used in marijuana sales.
At first glance, scale requirements may seem like a narrow weights-and-measures issue. In practice, they are exactly the type of technical regulatory question that determines whether cannabis markets function fairly and consistently. When products are sold by weight, scale accuracy affects consumers, licensed businesses, tax collection, and regulatory oversight.
The report does not prescribe specific rules for states to adopt. Instead, NIST explains that its purpose is to provide objective technical information to help regulators evaluate scale requirements for cannabis sales. This is the right role for federal agencies in a modern cannabis framework—provide expertise, support consistency, and help states regulate effectively. It is also a key recommendation in our white paper, The One-plant Solution, which calls for cannabis to be regulated as one plant through familiar federal and state channels, with product-specific standards that reflect the realities of the marketplace.
The NIST report offers a good example of how federal agencies can support state cannabis regulation without creating a one-size-fits-all system. State and local weights-and-measures officials are already responsible for enforcing scale requirements in legal cannabis markets. NIST can help those officials make more informed and consistent decisions.
This model aligns closely with the federalist approach recommended in The One-plant Solution, in which states continue serving as the primary regulators of cannabis activity within their borders, while the federal government supports those efforts where consistency is important.
Weights and measures is one of those areas. Scale requirements affect consumer confidence, competitive fairness, product authentication, and tax administration. If standards vary too widely or are not grounded in technical analysis, businesses and regulators can face unnecessary complexity.
The One-plant Solution white paper and additional related resources are available at one-plantsolution.org.
Regulate cannabis end products, not the source material
There is an emerging consensus that cannabis should be regulated based on the nature of the end products and not whether they were derived from “hemp” or “marijuana.” Those categories are legal distinctions, not botanical ones, and they have produced a fragmented regulatory system in which identical cannabinoid products can be subject to entirely different rules based solely on the THC concentration of the source plant.
A growing number of stakeholders recognize this approach is difficult to justify and becoming increasingly unworkable. It was the first point in a list of consensus points released earlier this year by a group of hemp and marijuana business leaders collaborating informally as the “Commission.” Specifically, it recommended:
Formulation, form factor, intoxicating potential and intended use, instead of just the source material (hemp vs marijuana), should determine how cannabinoid products are regulated.
Hemp for fiber, hurd and grain should be regulated separately from cannabinoid production.
Strategies 64 had the privilege of participating in the Commission, and the product-based approach it proposes is a central recommendation of our white paper, The One-plant Solution. (It is one of several areas in which the Commission and the paper are aligned, as we discussed earlier this year.)
By regulating finished products according to their composition, intended use, and safety profile, rather than the legal classification of the plant from which they were derived, federal policymakers can build a more coherent regulatory framework that better protects public health, provides greater certainty for businesses, and is considerably easier to administer and enforce.
Embrace existing pathways for most product types
Once cannabis is fully descheduled, federal regulation can move beyond the artificial hemp-marijuana divide and instead classify products according to their intended use and risk profile. Rather than creating separate regulatory systems for identical compounds based solely on where they originated, existing federal agencies can regulate cannabis products through pathways they already administer.
Cultivation
Cannabis cultivation should be regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in a manner consistent with other agricultural commodities. Federal oversight can focus on areas where national consistency is important, including pesticide standards and inventory transparency to protect against diversion and inversion, while allowing state and local governments to regulate time, place, and manner of cultivation. This includes developing minimum security standards, identifying appropriate zoning and setback requirements, and addressing odor mitigation, among other things.
Industrial and agricultural products
Industrial and agricultural products like fiber, grain, hurd should also be regulated by USDA under the same agricultural framework that governs comparable non-consumable crops. These products comprise a genuinely different commercial activity than cannabinoid production for consumer products, and they present very different public health and safety risks. The regulatory environment should reflect this.
Consumable products
The Food and Drug Administration already classifies and regulates foods, dietary supplements, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals based on well-established safety standards. Cannabis ingredients that satisfy those existing standards, such as hemp seed ingredients currently used in food, should follow those same regulatory pathways without any changes or special treatment.
Adult-restricted cannabis products
Some cannabis products would not meet the safety standards to fit within the existing FDA classifications. The One-plant Solution proposes creating an “adult-restricted cannabis products” category under a new product safety standard or exemption like those created for alcohol. This classification would recognize products that warrant additional safeguards while remaining appropriate for lawful adult consumers. For example, “adult-restricted products” would include those that contain intoxicating cannabinoids or levels of CBD that exceed dietary supplement safety standards. Popular products like cannabis flower and vaporizers also do not fit within existing FDA product categories, so this pathway would allow for targeted safety standards to allow for the safe sale of such products.
Adult-restricted cannabis products could be subject to additional restrictions such as age-gating, marketing limitations, product authentication, and taxation. This would be the only classification requiring novel regulations, and it should be jointly overseen by the FDA and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), which could leverage best practices from similarly exempted products. access. Federal oversight would focus on ensuring products are manufactured safely, remain within the regulated supply chain, and are sold only to adults, while leaving most regulatory activities currently associated with the marijuana market to state and local governments.
Moving forward
The artificial distinction between hemp and marijuana has outlived its usefulness. It has created unnecessary complexity for regulators, uncertainty for businesses, and inconsistent protections for consumers. Continuing to build federal policy around that distinction will only compound those problems as the marketplace continues to evolve.
Regulating products rather than source material offers a practical foundation for modernizing federal cannabis policy. By building on existing federal regulatory frameworks and tailoring oversight to the characteristics of finished products, policymakers can replace today’s fragmented system with one that is more coherent, enforceable, and protective of public health.
Both The One-plant Solution and the Commission see this as the logical starting point for creating a modern federal regulatory framework, and we hope consensus among stakeholders will continue to grow.
S64 in the News: Medical marijuana rescheduled by Feds, could open up research and tax breaks
Strategies 64 leaders hit the airwaves to discuss the Justice Department’s announcement that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a final order reclassifying medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act.
S64’s Christian Sederberg was interviewed for a story on Colorado Public Radio, where he discussed the road ahead for implementation of rescheduling medical marijuana and for upcoming hearings on the prospect of expanding rescheduling to include marijuana regulated for adult use.
While legalization advocates welcomed the move, there’s concern of legal challenges to the medical rescheduling and potential recreational rescheduling.
“So a lot of advocacy work to be done,” said Christian Sederberg, an attorney who helped draft marijuana legalization in Colorado. “It’s going to be a rapid and furious a couple months here for the folks that have been working on this.”
Meanwhile, S64’s Mason Tvert represented Colorado’s cannabis industry trade association, Colorado Leads, in a story on KOAA NBC Colorado Springs and an interview on KOA 850 news radio.
New Strategies 64 white paper offers a “one-plant solution” for advancing a unified national cannabis policy and regulatory framework
A new white paper by the cannabis policy experts at Strategies 64 offers the most detailed and realistic roadmap to date for ending federal cannabis prohibition, reconciling federal “marijuana” and “hemp” policy, and establishing a coherent, viable, national regulatory framework.
The paper explains how the current federal approach to cannabis, which separates “marijuana” and “hemp,” has created a fragmented and unstable policy landscape that rewards loophole chasing, weakens consumer protections, complicates enforcement, and undercuts public health research and data collection. States have worked to fill the void, demonstrating that regulated cannabis systems can work, but contradictions embedded in federal law still create confusion and cause problems for regulators, businesses, and consumers alike.
Strategies 64 lays out a “one-plant solution”—a clear and achievable plan for establishing a fair, familiar, and workable regulatory framework that regulates cannabis as one plant, prioritizes public health and safety, and reflects the realities of today’s market. In summary:
Deschedule botanical cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and regulate it as one plant through existing federal authorities, aligning it with the nation’s typical approach to product safety for food, dietary supplements, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and adult-restricted products;
Preserve state autonomy, allowing each state to continue setting its own policies and serving as the primary regulator; and
Establish national guidelines to support states with clear standards for product safety, youth access prevention, marketing, taxation, and product authentication.
The analysis and policy recommendations in the paper were informed by extensive stakeholder input and feedback from across the marijuana and hemp spaces. Over the course of three months, Strategies 64 conducted more than 80 interviews with federal officials, state regulators, policy experts, advocates, trade association leaders, and business operators, including cultivators, manufacturers, retailers, and testing facility operators, to collect and contemplate their perspectives and gain insight into the on-the-ground realities of governments and businesses.
The paper also highlights the timeliness of its recommended reforms, as Congress just acted in November 2025 to recriminalize most hemp-derived products in November 2026. Paired with Trump’s recent order to reschedule marijuana, the subject of federal cannabis classification is gaining significant attention and a unique sense of urgency among federal officials.
“This plan is designed to be realistic and achievable, leveraging existing regulatory infrastructure and respecting political constraints, while delivering durable, enforceable policy that aligns with current market realities,” said Jordan Wellington, managing partner of Strategies 64. “With marijuana rescheduling and hemp-derived product rules in flux, stakeholders across the spectrum are calling the two-track system confusing and unworkable. Federal leaders should seize this moment to reset U.S. cannabis policy and bring clarity, consistency, and a public safety focus to the U.S. cannabis market.”
The two discuss the future of federal cannabis policy reform and the “one-plant solution” proposed by Strategies 64 in a new white paper that was the talk of the event. They also revisit the fascinating panel discussions on tribal cannabis law, the difficulty in defining what is “attractive to children,” and the gaps that persist between cannabis policy and research.
Riana explains CPI’s ranking of state cannabis markets, as well as some of the unique regulatory issues facing Nevada, such as the separation of gaming and cannabis, which has prevented the cannabis industry from fully capitalizing on Las Vegas tourism.
S64 in the News: How Trump’s order to reclassify marijuana could affect Colorado’s industry
Strategies 64 partner Mason Tvert was featured in multiple media outlets, including the Denver Post and talk radio stations 850 KOA and 630 KHOW, speaking on behalf of Colorado Leads regarding President Donald Trump’s executive order to reclassify cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III.
President Donald Trump’s executive order to legally reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug stands to benefit Colorado cannabis businesses’ bottom lines at a time when the industry in this state is struggling, local proprietors and advocates said Thursday. … Mason Tvert, spokesperson for Colorado Leads, said the change “represents an extremely meaningful step toward aligning federal policy with scientific evidence, public opinion and decades of our state’s experience with cannabis. It acknowledges what many experts have known for decades, which is that cannabis does not belong on Schedule I.” … Tvert noted that critical issues would remain unsolved, including access to banking, lines of credit and traditional merchant processing. “It just comes down to, is marijuana federally illegal? And under Schedule III, it is still federally illegal,” Tvert said, so the incentive for banks to get involved in the industry wouldn’t necessarily change.
Audio and a transcript of Mason’s interview on 630 KHOW is available here.
S64 in the News: Colorado officials react to marijuana, AI executive orders
Amid reports that President Donald Trump is expected to advance cannabis rescheduling, Denver Fox affiliate KDVR interviewed Strategies 64 partner Mason Tvert, who spoke on behalf of Colorado Leads about the impact it would have on Colorado cannabis businesses. Watch a video of the news story below.
Mason highlighted how reclassifying cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III would greatly improve tax fairness, as state-regulated cannabis businesses would no longer be subject to Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which currently prohibits them from deducting ordinary business expenses like other businesses can.
The president signed an executive order on A.I. last week, and he could be signing an order dealing with marijuana soon. The two moves are getting different reactions here at home.
“Marijuana would still be illegal (at the federal level), but it would simply be treated differently under the law. And that has significant political and policy implications down the line,” said Mason Tvert of Colorado Leads.
The president said he is strongly considering rescheduling marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III, classifying it as a less dangerous drug. Tvert, a marijuana industry group, said the proposed change could allow cannabis businesses to be treated more fairly under federal tax policy, pave the way for more research and signify a shift.
“The most significant change for cannabis businesses would be the tax relief it provides. Currently, legal cannabis businesses are paying 70% or more in an effective tax rate, which is far greater than other legal businesses. They might see some relief if cannabis is rescheduled,” Tvert said.
