Beyond “Gas Station Weed”: Why Convenience Stores Belong in the Cannabis Market

 

The phrase “gas station weed” is a lazy insult, not a policy position. It is designed to end the discussion before it even begins, and asks us to picture a questionable product in loud packaging sitting next to the candy, sold by a clerk who doesn’t ask for age-verification ID. That picture describes a bad product sold by a bad retailer. It does not describe an entire class of businesses, and it certainly does not tell us how cannabis should be regulated.

The convenience-store (“C-store”) industry is now saying the same thing in Washington. As Marijuana Moment reported(opens in new tab), NACS supported Congress’s recent delay of the federal hemp prohibition and urged lawmakers to use the additional time to adopt rules for lawful adult sales. NACS’s Jon Taets makes the point well: “The convenience retail channel, with its well-established age verification procedures, is suited to selling hemp products to adults legally and responsibly.”

He is right. Convenience stores should not be the only lawful distributors of cannabinoid products. Specialty hemp shops, wellness retailers, grocery stores, liquor stores where state law allows it, and well-run online sellers all have a role. But I have long argued that convenience stores are, and should remain, a primary distribution channel. They are not an embarrassing exception to a sensible cannabis market. Properly regulated, they are part of the market’s basic infrastructure.

Congress bought a month, not a solution

Timing matters. Section 781 of Public Law 119-37, enacted on November 12, 2025(opens in new tab), rewrote the federal definition of hemp. Among other things, it created a limit of 0.4 milligrams of combined total THC and certain similar cannabinoids per container for final hemp-derived cannabinoid products.

That is prohibition masquerading as a product standard. It would eliminate nearly every commercially meaningful hemp THC product and sweep in many full-spectrum CBD products that nobody seriously regards as intoxicating. NACS warns that most CBD products now sold in convenience stores, along with all intoxicating hemp products, will become unlawful unless Congress changes course.

Congress recently moved the deadline(opens in new tab), but only slightly. H.R. 6500, signed into law on September 2, provides that until December 11, 2026, the Section 781 amendments apply only to products containing cannabinoids that are not capable of being naturally produced by Cannabis sativa L. The remaining restrictions, including the 0.4-milligram limit and the exclusion for cannabinoids manufactured outside the plant, are still scheduled to arrive on December 11.

A one-month reprieve is useful, but it is not a regulatory framework. Congress should use the time to replace the ban with rules that protect consumers, keep products away from minors, and preserve a competitive national market. Any such framework should include convenience stores as eligible retailers.

A sales channel is not a safety standard

A cannabinoid product does not become safe because it crosses the threshold of a marijuana dispensary. It does not become dangerous because it sits behind the counter at a convenience store. Product safety depends on what is in the package, how it was made, whether it was properly tested, whether the label is accurate, how it is displayed, and whether the retailer follows the rules.

This distinction is routinely blurred. Critics point to a contaminated vape, a wildly inaccurate gummy, or a package that copies a children’s snack brand. Those are real problems. But then, without explaining the leap, they conclude that only marijuana dispensaries should be allowed to sell cannabinoid products. The stated concern is safety. The proposed remedy is market control.

Good cannabis policy should target the conduct that creates risk. If the product is contaminated, require manufacturing controls and testing. If the package appeals to children, prohibit it. If the label is false, punish the manufacturer and seller. If a retailer sells to a minor, impose meaningful sanctions. None of those remedies requires banning an entire retail category.

C-stores already know regulated retail

I have been making this point since at least 2023. Of all possible outlets for hemp products, convenience stores are among the best.  They have sold alcohol, cigarettes, nicotine products, and other regulated goods for decades. They already operate cash-register prompts, employee training programs, restricted displays, security systems, inventory controls, and age-verification procedures. These systems are used every day.

Federal tobacco law provides a useful example. It is unlawful for a retailer to sell tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, to anyone under 21. Since September 30, 2024, retailers must check photo identification for purchasers under 30. FDA reported in 2024 that it had conducted more than 1.5 million retailer compliance checks, resulting in roughly 134,000 warning letters, more than 33,000 civil money penalties, and 230 no-tobacco-sale orders.

Those figures do not prove that every convenience store is compliant. But they prove that this is an inspectable and accountable channel with established age-restricted sales practices and real consequences for violations. Cannabis regulators do not need to invent the retail wheel. They can adapt systems that already exist.

Minnesota is an example of a regulatory system that has done exactly that for lower-potency hemp edibles. Its law creates a retailer license, permits licensed retailers to sell other lawful products, requires verification that a customer is at least 21, places most edibles behind the checkout counter or in a locked case, prohibits vending-machine sales and sales to visibly intoxicated people, and authorizes inspections and enforcement. That is not a perfect national template, and it does not cover every product category. It is proof that ordinary retail and serious regulation can coexist.

Why C-stores should be a primary channel

1. They reach adults where adults live

The United States has 151,975 convenience stores. About 63 percent are operated by companies with ten or fewer stores. That reach matters, especially in rural communities and in states without functional adult-use marijuana markets. A legal market that requires adults to drive hours to a scarce dispensary is not meaningfully accessible. A market that is expensive or inconvenient also gives illicit sellers room to compete.

C-store distribution supports more than consumer convenience. It supports independent retailers and a national supply chain. It gives responsible brands access to ordinary commerce instead of forcing every cannabinoid product into a closed, state-bound marijuana system.

2. They have existing compliance architecture

Convenience stores are built around rapid, repeatable transactions. That is precisely why they use point-of-sale prompts, barcode controls, camera systems, employee procedures, and inventory software. A sound cannabinoid regime can require the register to block a sale until age is verified, restrict sales to registered products, preserve batch information, and execute recalls by SKU. These are operational tasks, not exotic cannabis rituals.

The same logic applies to product placement. Non-beverage products can be kept behind the counter or in locked cases. Retailers can refuse sales to visibly intoxicated customers. Packages can remain sealed, and on-site consumption can be prohibited. A responsible C-store can implement these rules at least as effectively as many other retailers.

3. Face-to-face retail can improve age verification

Physical retail is not automatically superior to e-commerce, but it offers an immediate identity check. A 2024 study of twenty high-traffic websites selling derived psychoactive cannabis products found that 65 percent did not verify age during an attempted purchase and 75 percent did not indicate that an adult signature was required at delivery. The answer is clearer rules for online sellers, not the elimination of e-commerce, which is a vital distribution channel in today’s age of online shopping. Still, the comparison undercuts the assumption that a licensed C-store using a real-time ID check is somehow the uniquely reckless channel.

4. Competition is a consumer-protection tool

A retail monopoly is not a safety program. When lawful channels are narrow, prices rise, selection falls, and consumers have more incentive to use illicit sources. C-stores should compete with dispensaries, hemp shops, grocery stores, e-comm sites, and other eligible retailers on a level field. I’ve argued for years that the marijuana sector’s answer to its own overregulation should be to reduce unnecessary burdens, not impose those burdens on every competitor.

A recent Ohio federal case illustrates the legal difference between safety rules and market protection. In Delta Beverages, Inc. v. Canepa(opens in new tab), a federal judge preliminarily enjoined enforcement against the plaintiffs after concluding that Ohio likely violated the dormant Commerce Clause by routing federally lawful interstate hemp products into an Ohio-only marijuana supply chain. The ruling is narrow, preliminary, and does not create a right to sell every product in every store. It does reinforce the principle that states may adopt legitimate product and retail standards, but they should not use “safety” as a label for economic protectionism.

Youth exposure and child-oriented products

The strongest objection to broad retail access is that convenience stores are ubiquitous, visible to young people, and sometimes carry products packaged like candy. The underlying concern is legitimate. FDA reported 2,362 poison-control exposure cases involving delta-8 THC from January 2021 through February 2022; 41 percent involved people under 18. FDA and FTC have also warned companies selling delta-8 foods in packages that mimic familiar chips, candy, and snacks.

Responsible hemp advocates do not minimize those facts. Instead, we insist on child-resistant and tamper-evident packaging, banning of copycat brands and youth-directed marketing, requiring accurate milligram disclosures, restricting products from self-service displays, and enforcing a 21-and-over sales rule. Those requirements address the danger directly. Banning C-stores does not. A dangerous package remains dangerous when sold online, at a smoke shop, or through an illicit dealer.

Uneven product quality

Another fair objection is that a cashier cannot determine whether a laboratory report is legitimate or whether a product contains harmful residual solvents. True. Cashiers should not be asked to act as chemists, and consumers should not be asked to audit laboratories.

The solution is a licensed supply chain and a product registry. Manufacturers should comply with appropriate current good manufacturing practices. Independent laboratories should be accredited and subject to oversight. Every batch should have a valid certificate of analysis tied to the package. The retailer’s job should be to obtain products from licensed suppliers, confirm that each SKU is registered, maintain records, follow recalls, and refuse unregistered products. Modern point-of-sale systems make that job manageable.

Impaired driving

Some people object that selling cannabis products at a fuel retailer creates an impaired-driving risk. Nobody should consume an intoxicating cannabinoid and drive, and there is a raging debate about how best to address cannabis intoxication and driving that I’ve written(opens in new tab) and spoken(opens in new tab) about. But the location of a sealed retail sale does not authorize immediate consumption. Many convenience stores already sell alcohol without permitting customers to open and drink it in the parking lot. Cannabis rules can be equally direct, such as requiring products to be in sealed packages with prominent impairment warnings, and prohibiting sales to visibly intoxicated customers.

If evidence supports additional restrictions for a particular product, adopt them. But do not pretend that a licensed dispensary changes the pharmacology of THC or eliminates the risk of driving after use. The rule should follow the risk.

A workable policy for cannabinoid retail

For years I have advocated a Three Pillars approach to cannabinoid regulation(opens in new tab): restrict access by minors, establish objective quality controls, and require uniform, informative labeling. A durable federal and state retail framework should build on those pillars and include the following:

1.     Adult-only sales. Set a minimum age, require reliable government-ID verification, mandate employee training, and conduct regular unannounced compliance checks.

2.     Open but licensed channels. Make retail licenses reasonably available to qualified C-stores, hemp shops, grocery and liquor retailers where appropriate, pharmacies, dispensaries, and online sellers that can meet rigorous age-verification and delivery standards.

3.     A controlled supply chain. Require retailers to buy only from licensed suppliers and sell only registered products. Use batch identifiers and point-of-sale records to support recalls and enforcement.

4.  Real product standards. Require appropriate manufacturing practices and independent testing for potency, pesticides, heavy metals, residual solvents, microbes, and other relevant contaminants. Tie each package to a trustworthy certificate of analysis.

5.     Responsible packaging and labels. Require child-resistant and tamper-evident packaging, clear per-serving and per-container cannabinoid content, ingredients, warnings, and a ban on packaging or marketing that targets children or copies non-cannabis brands.

6.    Controlled merchandising. Keep non-beverage products behind the counter or in locked cases, prohibit sales to visibly intoxicated customers, and prohibit on-site consumption unless separately licensed.

7.     Enforcement aimed at the violation. Penalize the manufacturer that falsifies a test, the brand that uses deceptive packaging, and the retailer that sells to a minor. Repeat or serious violations should threaten the license. Compliant businesses should not be punished merely because they share a retail category with a bad actor.

8.    Reasonable cannabinoid rules. Debate serving sizes, package limits, and particular compounds using evidence and product-specific risk. Do not call a 0.4-milligram-per-container ban a safety standard because that’s not what it is. 

Stop regulating by insult

“Gas station weed” is an insult, not a policy. It tells policymakers that a product’s location is evidence of its illegitimacy. We do not talk about “gas station beer” as though the words resolve alcohol policy. We ask whether the seller is licensed, whether the buyer is an adult, whether the product is lawful, and whether the rules were followed.

Cannabis deserves the same seriousness. A clean, well-run convenience store that checks identification, sells tested and registered products in responsible packaging, maintains recall records, and submits to inspection is not the problem. It is part of the solution.

Congress now has until December 11 to choose between prohibition and regulation. It should replace the 0.4-milligram ban with a genuine federal framework. That framework should preserve multiple distribution channels and recognize convenience stores as a primary one. Not because every C-store is perfect. No retail category is. Because they are accessible, experienced with regulated adult products, capable of age-gating, and accountable to licensing and enforcement.

By the way, I don’t currently represent any C-stores nor do I work with any C-store advocacy or lobbying groups. I just think that allowing them to distribute cannabis products makes good policy sense. 

September 8, 2026