Overcoming ‘Overkill’: Can Massachusetts' Cannabis Industry Survive Excessive Regulations?

After nearly a year of discussions, the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission finally voted to eliminate its controversial two-driver requirement for cannabis deliveries—a rule widely criticized for stifling growth in the state’s cannabis industry. For Devin Alexander, CEO of the cannabis delivery service Rolling Releaf, the regulatory change marks a long-anticipated victory. “This is a day I dreamed of for many years,” Alexander said. “We’re grateful to everyone who helped bring this change.” Yet despite this small step toward greater flexibility, Massachusetts remains one of the most regulated cannabis markets in the country, creating challenges that other states with legal cannabis delivery largely avoid.

Massachusetts’ cannabis delivery requirements, first established in 2020, have consistently ranked among the strictest in the United States. In addition to the two-driver mandate, every delivery vehicle was required to be unmarked, outfitted with three cameras, and equipped with separate locked compartments for cannabis and cash. Body cameras were mandatory for all drivers, who also had to check in with a dispatcher every 30 minutes or whenever they made a delivery. The rules resembled protocols for handling hazardous materials rather than consumer products, as Alexander once joked, “It felt less like delivering cannabis and more like transporting plutonium.”

The now-defunct two-driver rule and other restrictive measures were intended as safeguards, reflecting an abundance of caution as the state navigated legalization. Yet entrepreneurs, especially social equity applicants, argue that such rules have created an operational burden so heavy that few businesses have been able to thrive. Chris Fevry, co-owner of Dris Delivery, a social equity cannabis delivery business, believes the regulations represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the industry. “What we’re seeing is the result of overregulation,” he said. “There have been hundreds of thousands of deliveries, and we’ve seen almost no incidents. At this point, these heavy regulations just seem unnecessary.”

The restrictions on cannabis delivery have hit social equity applicants especially hard. These applicants, who qualify due to being disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs, were intended to benefit most from cannabis legalization through exclusive access to delivery licenses. However, the weight of regulatory compliance costs has eroded much of the intended opportunity. Fevry likened the regulatory process to an “experiment” for businesses, saying, “We were the guinea pigs of delivery. Thankfully we didn’t die in the experiment, though we’ve come close.”

The Cannabis Control Commission has made some concessions, adjusting the dispatch rules to require drivers to check in only when making a delivery or an unscheduled stop rather than every 30 minutes. The commission also expanded delivery hours, allowing for operations from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. instead of the previous 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. However, many operators believe these changes are insufficient. For instance, Fevry pointed out the impracticality of requiring drivers to call the business in the event of an accident or unexpected stop when vehicles are already tracked via GPS and internal cameras. He argued, “We have to create regulations that safeguard the community without overburdening businesses.”

Shaleen Title, a former Cannabis Control Commissioner who reluctantly approved the initial regulations to get cannabis delivery up and running, has since spoken out against some of these measures. Title believes that regulations like body camera mandates and redundant check-ins for drivers impose an unrealistic standard not backed by incident data from Massachusetts or other states. While safety concerns were originally paramount, Title contends that evidence from states like California, New York, and Michigan—which employ far more relaxed “ice cream truck” models, allowing stocked cannabis vehicles to deliver as orders come in—shows that lighter regulation can support industry growth without jeopardizing public safety.

These more flexible models have proven sustainable, bolstered by public data showing minimal incidents related to cannabis delivery across states. Title acknowledged the initial caution but questioned the need for maintaining “overkill” restrictions. “It does make sense politically and from a safety perspective to start out erring on the side of minimizing risk and having more control,” she said. “But over time, it’s reasonable to roll back some of these regulations. People will have more experience with delivery and can make informed decisions.”

The future of Massachusetts’ cannabis industry may hinge on whether the state is willing to ease regulatory pressures. While Alexander and Fevry credit the current commission for addressing some of the most burdensome rules, they remain concerned about long-term survival. Even as the social equity fund—designed to provide financial support for impacted communities—begins disbursing funds, delivery businesses still face high compliance costs that may offset any aid they receive.

Commissioner Kimberly Roy addressed this tension, acknowledging the importance of extending exclusivity periods for social equity delivery companies as the fund begins supporting new ventures. “We hear you,” she told stakeholders. “We know this—exclusivity—is on the horizon.” Despite these assurances, the regulatory pace remains slow, and industry advocates like Fevry say further deregulation is necessary for survival. “We’re still treating something we legalized as an illegal product,” he argued. “There are no robberies, people aren’t dying from edibles.

It’s time to trust the industry and deregulate.”

As Massachusetts grapples with finding the right balance, the cannabis industry waits, hopeful that fewer restrictions and more business-friendly policies will allow them to grow and, finally, realize the promise of legalization.

Are Massachusetts’ strict cannabis delivery regulations necessary for safety or a barrier to business growth?”

• Yes, regulations should prevent this kind of mix-up.
• For sure! I'd want to know exactly what's in my food.
• es, accidental THC in my pizza would be concerning