With yesterday’s bill-introduction deadline now past, the contours of California’s 2026 legislative cannabis and hemp agenda are becoming clear. Between January and February 20, California lawmakers introduced 16 bills that either directly regulate cannabis and hemp or, like AB 2494 and SB 936, impose collateral rules that licensed operators will need to navigate or at least be aware of. [1] For an industry that just absorbed sweeping changes in 2025—AB 8’s hemp-cannabinoid integration framework, SB 378’s online-marketplace enforcement, AB 564’s excise-tax reduction, and AB 1103’s research-process streamlining—the 2026 session is less about rewriting the rules from scratch and more about implementing, tightening, or strategically expanding the framework the Legislature and Governor Newsom put in place last year. [2]
What follows is an overview of all 16 measures, organized by theme, with an eye toward how they build on the 2025 session and where they might materially change the operating environment for cannabis and hemp businesses.
I. Core Cannabis Reform and Operations
AB 1564 (Ahrens): Medical Cannabis Shipping 2.0
Scope. AB 1564 would authorize a licensed microbusiness with an M-license whose activities include retail, distribution, and outdoor cultivation to ship medicinal cannabis directly to medicinal patients in California and to ship free medicinal cannabis provided under MAUCRSA donation programs. [3] Packages must comply with all existing MAUCRSA rules, including age-verification at delivery and possession-limit caps, and the bill sunsets January 1, 2030. [3]
2025 context. AB 1564 largely reruns Ahrens’ 2025 bill, AB 1332, which passed both houses unanimously but was vetoed by Governor Newsom as “burdensome and overly complex” given the track-and-trace changes it would require, particularly for a program that would initially benefit only a couple of eligible businesses. [4] The DCC estimated one-time costs of about $269,000 and ongoing annual costs of roughly $472,000 for AB 1332—a number that may be easier to justify now that AB 8 implementation and federal hemp changes will force significant track-and-trace system work anyway. [5] [6] Ahrens is permitted to reintroduce the bill because Joint Rule 54(c) expressly exempts vetoed bills from the prohibition against introducing legislation with “substantially the same effect” as a bill previously introduced during the same two-year session. [7]
Why it matters. For patients—particularly rural and mobility-limited patients—AB 1564 is a direct response to post-Proposition 64 access erosion. Dr. Laurie Vollen testified in favor of AB 1332, noting that 29 years after medical marijuana legalization, vulnerable patients still cannot reliably obtain their medicine. [8] No formal opposition was recorded to either AB 1332 or AB 1564.
AB 1826 (Lackey): Due Process for DCC Embargoes, Recalls, and Destruction
Scope. AB 1826 would require DCC, when issuing a recall or embargo, to provide supporting evidence, offer a meet-and-confer opportunity within five business days, and adhere to enforced timelines for embargo determinations and condemnation proceedings. [9] Perishables get accelerated hearing schedules—a hearing within five business days and a decision within 48 hours. DCC would be barred from conditioning remediation or embargo removal on licensees’ waiving liability or appeal rights or destroying product before the process runs its course. [9]
2025 context. This bill lands squarely in response to 2024–2025 enforcement: DCC reported 481 embargoes in 2024 alone, a massive increase from prior years, resulting in hundreds of thousands of products being pulled from the supply chain. [10] In Q2 of 2025, DCC issued 34 recalls covering 444 products, including 183 recalled for incomplete regulatory compliance testing and 181 for labeling “attractive to children.” [10] Cannabis recalls reportedly increased 800% from 2023 to 2024. [11]
Much of the procedural architecture in AB 1826 evolved out of Sharp-Collins’ AB 1027 (2025), the testing-reform bill that sailed through both houses before stalling on the Senate Appropriations suspense file. [12] [13] The California Cannabis Industry Association has publicly listed AB 1826-style due-process reforms—mandatory transparency and hard timelines for embargoes and recalls—as a top 2026 legislative priority. [14]
Why it matters. AB 1826 is the licensee-rights counterpart to the product-safety push. If it passes, operators will gain clear, enforceable timelines and protections when DCC moves against their inventory—which will be especially important if AB 1965 and expanded off-the-shelf testing lead to more enforcement actions, not fewer.
AB 1965 (Sharp-Collins): Cannabis Testing and Quality Assurance
Scope. AB 1965 revises how licensed labs sample and test cannabis, clarifies batch and sampling definitions, expands when retesting is allowed, authorizes DCC off-the-shelf testing of products already on retail shelves, and subjects labs to performance testing and practice evaluations. [15] It also requires retailers to provide Certificates of Analysis on request, making test data more transparent at the consumer level. [15]
2025 context. This is the direct successor to AB 1027, which was motivated by evidence that up to 87% of randomly sampled California products had inaccurate labels [16] and that recalls had spiked dramatically. [11] AB 1027 never drew a floor “no” vote but died in Appropriations, apparently for budget reasons, not policy objections. [12] [17] AB 1965 offers a second chance, with potential tweaks to address fiscal concerns while preserving the core: more rigorous, consistent testing and stronger DCC oversight of labs.
Why it matters. Testing integrity and “lab shopping” remain existential issues for the regulated market. AB 1965, paired with AB 1826’s due process, would further institutionalize DCC as both a technical regulator and a quasi-public-health agency—strengthening the front end (testing rigor) while binding enforcement to clearer rules on the back end (embargo and recall procedures).
AB 2489 (Lowenthal): The California Veterans’ Right to Try Act
Scope. AB 2489, the “California Veterans’ Right to Try Act,” coauthored by Assembly Member Jeff Gonzalez, would authorize the Research Advisory Panel to submit investigational new drug (IND) applications to the FDA for clinical trials of Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substances—including, but not limited to, cannabis and psilocybin. [18] If the FDA fails to timely approve an application, the bill would authorize the Research Advisory Panel to provide expedited state-level approval, provided the application meets specified requirements including proof of independent peer review. [18] To participate, a veteran must have been diagnosed with two or more severe or life-threatening mental health conditions and have been deemed ineligible for FDA-approved trials. The bill sunsets January 1, 2028. [18]
The bill’s findings make clear that its primary focus is psychedelic-assisted therapy: they cite the FDA’s breakthrough therapy designation for CYB003, a synthetic psilocybin analog, and document the crisis of veteran suicide (between 17 and 44 veterans lost per day nationally) and the barriers that FDA comorbidity restrictions impose on veteran participation in clinical trials. [18] Cannabis is covered by the broader Schedule I umbrella but is not the bill’s animating concern.
2025 context. AB 2489 builds on AB 1103 (Ward), enacted in 2025, which simplified the Research Advisory Panel’s gatekeeping role and was aimed at accelerating legitimate research involving cannabis and other controlled substances. [2] While AB 1103 removed procedural friction, AB 2489 goes much further by creating an expedited state approval pathway when federal processes stall—a significant assertion of state authority in the controlled-substance research space.
Why it matters. For the cannabis industry, AB 2489’s significance is indirect but real: any expansion of the state’s controlled-substance research infrastructure benefits cannabis research, and the bill’s expedited-approval mechanism could become a model for future cannabis-specific research pathways. For veterans, it offers a potential lifeline to psychedelic-assisted therapies that are otherwise available only abroad or through FDA trials that exclude the most vulnerable participants.
II. AB 8 Implementation and Hemp/Cannabinoid Integration
AB 2250 (Aguiar-Curry): AB 8 Clean-Up on Cannabinoids and Tax Law
Scope. AB 2250 is a narrowly targeted clean-up of AB 8’s cannabis-and-hemp integration framework. [19] It makes three specific changes:
- CBN isolate exclusion. AB 8 excluded CBD isolate from the definition of “cannabis concentrate” under the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act beginning January 1, 2028. AB 2250 extends the same exclusion to CBN (cannabinol) isolate—a logical parity fix ensuring CBN isolate products are not swept into the controlled-substances framework when the AB 8 recasting takes effect. [19]
- Redundant definitional clean-up. The bill deletes a redundant definition of “synthetic cannabinoid” from the Cannabis Tax Law and removes an unused definition of “CBD isolate” in the tax code. [19]
- Enforcement funding clarification. AB 8 prohibited tobacco retailers from possessing or selling cannabis, with enforcement under the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003. AB 2250 amends the Compliance Fund provision to expressly authorize funds for seizure and destruction of cannabis, cannabis products, and products presumed to be cannabis—closing a drafting gap that could otherwise leave enforcement against tobacco retailers selling illicit cannabis unfunded. [19]
2025 context. That the principal author of AB 8 is introducing a clean-up bill is not surprising—AB 8 was an omnibus measure that restructured the relationship between cannabis and hemp across multiple statutory frameworks. [5] [20] The CBN isolate exclusion reflects the industry’s growing recognition of CBN as a distinct, commercially significant cannabinoid—particularly for sleep and wellness products—that should have received the same treatment as CBD isolate in the original legislation. The enforcement-funding fix addresses a drafting oversight that could have hampered the DCC and CDTFA’s ability to enforce one of AB 8’s most public-facing mandates: keeping cannabis products out of unlicensed retail channels. [21] [22]
AB 2246 (Wicks): MAUCRSA Transition Spot Bill
Scope. AB 2246 makes a single, formally “nonsubstantive” edit to MAUCRSA Section 26000.5, which requires licensed manufacturers, until January 1, 2028, to use only cannabinoid concentrates and extracts from licensed cannabis cultivators. [23] The edit changes “shall only use” to “shall use only”—a purely grammatical correction.
2025 context. That word-order fix is a classic spot-bill tactic: amending the AB 8 transition section now gives Wicks a live vehicle to make substantive amendments later in the session to the cannabis-hemp integration timeline or scope. [6] Those eventual amendments could be particularly important in light of the new federal hemp restrictions taking effect November 12, 2026, which limit total THC per container and will force many hemp and “low-dose” products either off shelves or into state-licensed regimes. [24] [25] AB 2246 is the logical vehicle for any mid-course correction the Legislature might want to make to AB 8’s 2028 integration schedule once federal rules kick in and their market impact becomes clearer.
III. Youth Protection, Vapes, Nitrous Oxide, and Retailer Conduct
AB 2249 (Irwin): Youth Advertising and Packaging Intent Bill
Scope. AB 2249 declares the Legislature’s intent to enact legislation responding to the California State Auditor’s Report 2024-105 on DCC’s youth-advertising and marketing enforcement. [26] The bill itself currently contains only that intent language.
2025 context. The Auditor’s report was scathing: auditors found cannabis packaging mimicking children’s snacks, cartoon-style imagery, and a sharp increase in pediatric cannabis exposures—poison control calls among children under five increased 469%, from 148 in 2016 to 842 in 2023. [27] Of 40 products reviewed, 23 were deemed attractive to children. [28] DCC inspectors lacked consistent documentation practices, and the agency did not systematically track repeat offenders or consistently escalate penalties. [28] [29] The Auditor recommended that the Legislature clarify prohibited design elements in cannabis packaging and that DCC develop a rubric for assessing compliance by August 2026. [30]
Why it matters. Once amended, AB 2249 could significantly tighten the rules around packaging, flavors, and even strain names, and could create more objective, checklist-style criteria for what counts as “attractive to children.” Retailers, manufacturers, and brand-holders should assume this bill will eventually touch creative, packaging, and marketing budgets.
AB 2532 (Irwin): Packaging and Labeling Spot Bill
Scope. AB 2532 makes a nonsubstantive change to MAUCRSA Section 26120, which governs cannabis packaging and labeling requirements—including the child-resistance mandate, the government warning, cannabinoid-content disclosures, and the prohibition on packages and labels “attractive to children.” [31] The edit changes “In the event” to “If” in the subdivision addressing how labels would change if cannabis is reclassified from Schedule I at the federal level.
Why it matters. This is Irwin’s second spot bill in the cannabis space this session. By amending Section 26120 now, Irwin reserves a vehicle to later make substantive amendments to packaging and labeling rules—the exact subject area the State Auditor flagged for legislative action. Read alongside AB 2249, AB 2532 suggests that Irwin is building a two-bill architecture: AB 2249 for advertising and marketing enforcement, and AB 2532 for the packaging and labeling code sections themselves. Industry participants should monitor both.
AB 2667 (Hadwick & Alanis): Vape Designs, Minor-Appealing Branding, and DCC License Consequences
Scope. AB 2667 would prohibit marketing or selling vape products—including cannabis vapes—in California by (A) imitating a product that is not a vape product to conceal its nature from parents, teachers, or other adults (including imitating candy, school supplies, or clothing), (B) using branding known to appeal to minors (including characters from comics, movies, TV shows, or videogames), or (C) including interactive videogame capabilities within a vape product. [32]
Enforcement includes escalating civil penalties: $1,000 for a first violation, $2,500 for a second, and $5,000 for the third and subsequent violations—with a separate, steeper penalty of $50,000 per violation for distributors. [32] Violations would also constitute infractions punishable by fines of up to $500. [32] Critically, the bill would require DCC to revoke or suspend the license of any cannabis licensee who violates these prohibitions—and would separately require the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to revoke or suspend tobacco licenses for violators. [32]
The bill also includes provisions beyond branding: it would require the Department of Toxic Substances Control to evaluate opportunities to increase safety and convenience related to the disposal of vape pens confiscated from students by schools (sunset January 1, 2030) and would authorize permanent household hazardous waste collection facilities to mechanically disassemble vape pens and devices. [32]
Relationship to AB 762 and AB 2249. While AB 762 attacks disposable battery-embedded vapes (nicotine only, after cannabis was carved out) [33] and AB 2249 sets the stage for youth-marketing reforms, AB 2667 attacks the design and branding of vapes themselves—regardless of whether they are disposable or reusable, nicotine or cannabis. Taken together, these measures reflect a broader political move to distance both nicotine and cannabis vaping from youth culture and kid-adjacent aesthetics.
Why it matters. For cannabis operators, AB 2667 has the sharpest teeth of the youth-protection bills because it directly links violations to mandatory DCC license suspension or revocation and imposes escalating per-violation fines. Vape brands that lean on nostalgia, toy-like hardware, food-mimicking designs, or game-like interfaces will be squarely in the crosshairs if this bill advances in its current form.
AB 762 (Irwin & Wilson): Disposable Vape Ban with Cannabis Carve-Out
Scope. AB 762 bans the import and manufacture of disposable, battery-embedded vapor inhalation devices in California beginning January 1, 2027, and bans sales and distribution beginning January 1, 2028. [33] After January 26 amendments, the definition expressly covers devices containing nicotine but not cannabis or cannabis products. [33]
Legislative evolution. As introduced in 2025, AB 762 would have swept in cannabis disposables and empowered DCC to enforce against licensees, but the author pulled the bill amid heavy opposition. [34] [35] Revived in 2026 with cannabis still included, it passed the Business and Professions Committee 10-5 before industry pressure led to the January 26 amendment carving cannabis vapes out entirely and dropping DCC license-revocation authority. [36] [37] The California Cannabis Operators Association argued that disposable cannabis vapes account for approximately 12% of licensed sales statewide and roughly 40% of all vape sales, and that banning them would redirect consumers to the unregulated illicit market. [35] [37] The bill passed the Assembly 50-17 on January 29 and now sits with the Senate Rules Committee. [38]
2025 context. The cannabis carve-out can be understood against the backdrop of AB 564’s excise-tax reduction from 19% to 15%, which reflected the Legislature’s recognition that the legal cannabis market remains fragile. [2] With inhalable hemp products already banned under AB 8 unless they enter the licensed cannabis supply chain by 2028, the Legislature appears to have decided that the regulated cannabis vape market is better left to MAUCRSA’s existing oversight—and AB 1894’s existing recycling mandates—than to a blanket disposable ban. [5] [20] But AB 2667 and AB 2249 make clear that cannabis vapes are not off the regulatory hook.
SB 936 (Blakespear, Umberg & Alanis): Nitrous Oxide Retail Restrictions and Cannabis-License Collateral Risk
Scope. SB 936 would prohibit the sale and distribution of nitrous oxide containers capable of holding more than 8 grams, containers from which an individual may directly inhale, flavored nitrous oxide (marketed as having the taste or smell of any food), and devices used to inhale nitrous oxide. [39] Violations are punishable as infractions with escalating fines: $500 first offense, $1,000 second, $2,000 third and subsequent. [39]
For cannabis retailers, the key provision is the license-suspension mechanism: a court may suspend a cannabis license (or tobacco license or any business license) for up to one year if the business knowingly violates the nitrous oxide prohibitions following a prior conviction for the same offense. [39] This is a collateral consequence—not automatic, and triggered only by a prior conviction—but it expands the list of non-cannabis conduct that can put a cannabis license at risk.
Why it matters. Cannabis retailers that sell head-shop-style paraphernalia alongside cannabis should treat nitrous oxide compliance as part of their overall license-risk management. The prior-conviction requirement provides a buffer, but the mere existence of a cannabis-license hook in a nitrous oxide bill underscores a broader trend: the Legislature increasingly treats cannabis licenses as privileges that can be conditioned on compliance with regulations far beyond MAUCRSA itself.
IV. Environmental and Forest Remediation
AB 2494 (Rogers & McGuire): State Forest Management Reform
Scope. AB 2494 is a comprehensive forest management reform bill, not a cannabis bill per se. It redefines “management” for state forests to prioritize biodiversity conservation, fire resilience, and durable onsite carbon storage; declares state policy to respect California Native American tribal sovereignty and seek comanagement opportunities; restricts timber sales from state forests to ecological restoration or research purposes; repeals the authorization for mining on state forest lands; and restructures how revenue from state forests is deposited and spent. [40]
Cannabis nexus. The bill touches cannabis only incidentally. Existing law—Public Resources Code Section 4629.6(f)—authorizes up to $500,000 per fiscal year in loans from the Timber Regulation and Forest Restoration Fund to the Department of Fish and Wildlife “for activities to address environmental damage occurring on forest lands resulting from marijuana cultivation.” [40] This provision already contained a sunset clause rendering it “inoperative on July 1, 2017,” though it remains in the statute. AB 2494 restructures the fund broadly—redirecting various revenue sources into the Timber Regulation and Forest Restoration Fund—but does not appear to revive or extend the marijuana-remediation loan provision itself.
Why it matters. AB 2494’s inclusion in a cannabis legislation roundup reflects the fact that illicit marijuana cultivation continues to cause significant environmental harm on state forest lands—water diversions, pesticide contamination, habitat destruction—and the Legislature has not forgotten it. For the licensed cannabis industry, AB 2494 reinforces the long-running policy narrative that the regulated market helps avoid the ecological costs of illegal grows, even if the bill itself does not directly regulate licensed operators.
V. Senior Access and Compassion
AB 2420 (Caloza): Senior-Focused Donation and Tax-Exempt Access
Scope. AB 2420 states the Legislature’s intent to enact future legislation authorizing licensed cannabis retailers to donate cannabis or cannabis products to persons 65 years of age and older and to exempt those donations from the cannabis excise tax. [41] Currently, MAUCRSA authorizes donation only of medicinal cannabis to qualified patients or their primary caregivers under specified conditions, and the excise-tax exemption applies only to donated medicinal cannabis. AB 2420 would expand both the donation authorization and the tax exemption to encompass all cannabis provided to seniors, regardless of medical status.
Why it matters. AB 2420 sits at the intersection of compassion-program expansion and tax policy. It signals that at least one legislator wants to carve out senior-focused, low- or no-cost access from the excise-tax base—an idea that could dovetail with medical-access themes in AB 1564. If amended into substantive form, the bill could raise complex questions about age-verification, donation tracking, and whether the excise-tax exemption would be limited to licensees who participate in a formal program or would apply more broadly.
VI. Spot Bills: Strategic Placeholders for Future Cannabis Policy
A sizeable fraction of the 16 bills are spot bills: they make only nonsubstantive, word-order changes to specific MAUCRSA sections, reserving those code sections as vehicles for future substantive amendments. Importantly, these are not generic “relating to cannabis” placeholders—each targets a specific code section, which provides a meaningful signal about where substantive legislation may land later in the session.
AB 2617 (Schiavo): MAUCRSA Purpose and Intent (Section 26000)
AB 2617 amends Section 26000—the foundational statement of purpose and intent of MAUCRSA—changing “is to establish” to “shall be to establish.” [42] Section 26000 defines the act’s scope, including the regulation of cultivation, distribution, transport, storage, manufacturing, processing, and sale of both medicinal and adult-use cannabis, as well as cannabis products intended for animals. By amending this section, Schiavo reserves a vehicle that could later be used to adjust MAUCRSA’s foundational scope—potentially addressing topics such as interstate commerce, the integration of hemp-derived products, or the inclusion of new product categories.
AB 2506 (Hart): Cannabis Licensure (Section 26053)
AB 2506 amends Section 26053, which requires that all commercial cannabis activity be conducted between licensees and that each applicant obtain a separate license for each location. [43] The edits are nonsubstantive (“and” becomes “and, if approved, shall”; “it” becomes “the applicant or licensee”). Given Hart’s 2025 authorship of AB 632 (local lien authority for enforcement against illegal cannabis operators, vetoed by Newsom), a licensure-section vehicle is notable—it could become a vessel for reforms touching multi-location licensing, license portability, or enforcement against unlicensed operators.
AB 2537 (Chen): DCC Powers and Local Authority (Section 26200)
AB 2537 amends Section 26200, which establishes the DCC’s power, duty, purpose, responsibility, and jurisdiction—and specifies that MAUCRSA does not supersede or limit local authority to adopt and enforce local cannabis ordinances. [44] This is the section that governs the state-local balance in cannabis regulation. A later amendment could address DCC staffing, authority expansion, or—conversely—local control provisions that have been a recurring source of legislative tension.
VII. A Wide Field, but a Clear Center of Gravity
Counting bills understates their combined effect. The 16 measures introduced cluster around a few clear themes:
- Implementation and clean-up of 2025’s big moves. AB 2250 and AB 2246 are both about fine-tuning AB 8 and the MAUCRSA transition language in light of real-world market conditions and looming federal hemp restrictions. [5] [24]
- Product safety and DCC accountability. AB 1965 and AB 1826 together would strengthen DCC’s technical and enforcement capacity while binding it to clearer process and timelines. [15] [9]
- Access and compassion. AB 1564 (shipping), AB 2420 (senior donations), and AB 2489 (veterans’ research access) all treat cannabis—or controlled substances more broadly—as having therapeutic value that deserves better infrastructure for patients and science. [3]
- Youth protection and peripheral risks. AB 2249, AB 2532, AB 2667, AB 762, and SB 936 collectively focus on packaging, branding, vapes, and nitrous oxide, reflecting a political imperative to insulate youth from both cannabis and adjacent intoxicants—while the spot bills in this cluster (AB 2249 and AB 2532) signal that Irwin is building a coordinated packaging-and-marketing reform effort grounded in the State Auditor’s findings. [28]
- Strategic placeholders. AB 2617, AB 2506, AB 2537, and AB 2246 target specific, consequential MAUCRSA code sections. The true policy agenda in these bills will crystallize once they pick up substantive language, but the sections they amend—MAUCRSA’s purpose clause, licensure requirements, DCC authority, and the hemp-transition framework—telegraph where the Legislature is keeping its options open.
For licensees and investors, the practical takeaway is that 2026 is shaping up as a “refinement and enforcement architecture” session rather than another structural overhaul. The most important developments to watch are:
- Whether AB 1965 and AB 1826 move together, creating a more mature, rule-bound testing and enforcement ecosystem.
- How AB 2249, AB 2532, and AB 2667 ultimately define “youth-appealing” packaging and devices—and how aggressively DCC is empowered to enforce those standards.
- What substantive language ultimately lands in the spot bills (AB 2617, AB 2506, AB 2537, AB 2246) as the Legislature reacts to federal hemp changes and early AB 8 implementation pain points.
As these bills begin to see amendments and committee hearings in March and April, the outlines of California’s next phase of cannabis and hemp regulation will come into sharper relief.
This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For questions about how pending legislation may affect your cannabis or hemp business, contact The Law Office of Shay Aaron Gilmore.