California’s Department of Cannabis Control opened a regular rulemaking October 30 to preserve a process that lets eligible cannabis retailers separate a combined medicinal and adult-use license. The proposal, DCC-2026-04-R, is a step toward permanent regulations, not an announcement that every operator has changed its license or received federal approval.

The department says 95 licensed businesses have already obtained separate medicinal and adult-use licenses under emergency rules adopted June 4. That figure describes California licensing changes. It does not establish that those businesses have registered successfully with the Drug Enforcement Administration, a separate process that remains central to the department’s rationale.

What California is trying to preserve

In its initial statement of reasons, DCC describes operators trying to maintain adult-use business while exploring a distinct medicinal operation. The agency says federal registration guidance has been limited, leaving some licensees waiting for more clarity before changing their structure.

The proposed pathway would allow a business with a combined designation to retain an adult-use license and receive a new medicinal license through an expedited state process. A related legal entity could hold the separate license if the applicable conditions are met. Participation is voluntary, and the agency says it cannot quantify how many additional eligible operators will choose it.

That distinction matters for readers following cannabis reform. A new configuration can give a business another option without changing every rule governing the products it sells. The state is addressing the shape of its licensing system; it is not issuing a blanket statement that all commercial cannabis activity has become federally lawful.

Separate licenses still carry shared responsibilities

The proposed text requires related entities at the same premises to share the same individual owners and designated responsible party. Cannabis goods would have to be physically separated by license, with inventory and tracking records identifying which license holds them. Business records would also be maintained separately.

The entities would be jointly and severally liable for obligations, debts and violations under either license. The proposal treats the related licenses as one licensee for compliance and enforcement purposes. In practical terms, organizational separation would come with documentation duties rather than an opportunity to place problems outside the regulator’s reach.

Retailers would also have to comply with local requirements. The text preserves the restriction that goods designated for medical use only may be sold only to medicinal customers. A second license would not turn that label into an ordinary adult-use product or eliminate the need to identify the appropriate customer.

How a modification request would work

The draft rule lists the information required for a modification: the existing combined license, the name for the medicinal license, the submitting designated responsible party, business-formation records, a federal employer identification number and a valid seller’s permit number. The department would review a request within five business days and identify deficiencies in writing if the requirements were not satisfied.

Existing inventory would stay in the adult-use license’s track-and-trace account at the point of separation. That provision gives the change a defined starting position: a retailer cannot simply relabel its entire stock as belonging to the new medicinal operation without following the applicable inventory requirements.

The displayed proposal includes both a provision about paying an applicable annual medicinal-license fee before inventory transfers and a provision saying no fee is due until renewal for a newly issued medicinal license. Operators should ask DCC to explain how those provisions apply together, rather than build a budget around an assumed fee exemption. This is a useful subject for public comment.

Potential benefits are not guaranteed outcomes

The rulemaking notice estimates about 1,600 licensees could be affected and classifies approximately 97 percent as small businesses. Those are agency estimates of the potentially eligible population, not a prediction that every business will apply or that another 1,600 stores will open.

DCC frames greater flexibility for pursuing federal medicinal registration as a potential benefit. Its discussion also acknowledges uncertainty around future participation and the federal process. Operators should distinguish an agency’s policy objective from a completed registration, a confirmed tax treatment or a demonstrated improvement in profitability.

Comments come before final adoption

Written comments must be received by December 14, 2026. The department plans a virtual public hearing December 15 beginning at 10 a.m.; its notice explains how to request access and where the meeting link will be posted. Read the official notice before preparing a submission so the comment addresses this rulemaking.

For now, California is proposing continuity for a licensing option already used under emergency regulations. The substantive questions are whether the process is clear, how separate records work in practice and what guidance operators still need. The number of state license splits is one measure of uptake; federal registration and business outcomes remain different questions.

Illustrative stock office records; not DCC files or records from a cannabis licensee. Photo: Pixabay / Pexels.

Renato Moicano and Tom Nolan headline UFC Fight Night at Meta APEX in Las Vegas on Saturday, October 31. UFC’s current event page lists prelims at 2 p.m. and the main card at 5 p.m. for Phoenix viewers, giving Halloween an afternoon-to-evening sports option before the night’s other plans.

For cannabis-minded fans considering a Las Vegas visit, the useful connection is the setting and its rules. Nevada permits regulated adult-use cannabis, but that does not make a fight ticket permission to consume at the event. The distinction matters when a weekend combines a sporting venue, a hotel and an interest in the city’s cannabis scene.

A lightweight main event with two different positions

The current card places Moicano at No. 12 and Nolan at No. 14 in the lightweight matchup. Those are the rankings displayed on the event listing when checked, rather than numbers carried forward from an earlier announcement. The promotion’s September ticket release had a different ranking for Moicano, illustrating why the live card is the better starting point.

UFC’s September announcement explains how the matchup took shape: an injury to Brian Ortega removed his planned bout with Moicano from UFC 331, after which Moicano was assigned Nolan for October 31. That is the scheduling history, not a suggestion that Ortega is part of Saturday’s card.

For a viewer, the main event supplies a straightforward point of entry: two ranked lightweights meeting at the top of a Fight Night program. It is possible to follow that contest without treating the rest of the evening as background. Earlier bouts introduce different divisions and can change the pace of a viewing session well before the headliners enter.

What the current main card includes

UFC lists Randy Brown against Jacobe Smith at welterweight, Ode’ Osbourne against Cody Durden at flyweight, and Yana Santos against Luana Santos at women’s bantamweight. The Santos matchup is displayed as No. 6 against No. 7. Jean-Paul Lebosnoyani against Farman Hasanov is also listed at welterweight.

Those pairings make this more than a single-fight appointment. Fans interested in the smaller weight classes can note the flyweight bout, while the two welterweight matchups offer another thread to follow. This is a guide to the advertised card, not a prediction of winners or a report that the fights have already happened.

Cards can change. Use the official event page again on Saturday if a particular matchup is the reason for watching or traveling. Promotional announcements are useful records of what was planned; they should not override a later organizer update.

There is a full preliminary program

The current prelims include Francis Marshall against Dakota Hope at featherweight, Rodrigo Sezinando against Theodor Berggren at welterweight, and Julian Erosa against Jeongyeong Lee at featherweight. At middleweight, Zachary Reese is listed against Mickey Gall and Nick Klein against Joe Kropschot.

The women’s preliminary bouts listed are Talita Alencar against Piera Rodriguez at strawweight and Lucia Szabová against Tainara Lisboa at flyweight. Someone watching from the opening broadcast will therefore see several divisions before the main-card start. Someone joining later should use the scheduled main-card window rather than assume it is the headliners’ exact walkout time.

How to watch from Phoenix

UFC’s official broadcast announcement lists Paramount+ for the entire U.S. card: prelims at 5 p.m. Eastern and the main card at 8 p.m. Eastern. On October 31, that corresponds to 2 and 5 p.m. in Phoenix and Las Vegas.

Check the service’s current access requirements and local availability before settling on a viewing location. The preliminary and main-card times describe broadcast blocks, not guaranteed start times for individual bouts. Leave room for the program to unfold rather than organizing a watch party around an assumed minute for the main event.

For attendance rather than streaming, UFC’s event page links to its authorized ticket seller; check current availability there.

Keep the cannabis plan separate from venue access

The Nevada Cannabis Compliance Board says adult-use buyers must be at least 21 and purchase from a state-licensed retailer. It prohibits public consumption and consumption in a moving vehicle, including by passengers. Licensed consumption lounges are a distinct permitted setting; a sports venue is not automatically one.

The board also says private-property consumption depends on the owner allowing it and warns against impaired driving. Plan transportation before any consumption and confirm property rules rather than assume a hotel booking settles them. None of this implies cannabis use by Moicano, Nolan or any other athlete. It gives fans a practical way to enjoy the fight weekend while keeping the event, the accommodation and cannabis permissions clear.

Illustrative stock boxing gym; not the UFC Octagon, Meta APEX or the October 31 event. Photo: Ron Lach / Pexels.

A new Michigan bill would suspend the state’s 24% wholesale cannabis tax for one year, reopening a debate with consequences for licensed businesses and the prices shoppers encounter. House Bill 6440 was introduced October 28 by Republican Rep. Jay DeBoyer and referred to the House Appropriations Committee. It has not become law, and the existing tax remains in effect.

The proposal targets the wholesale levy rather than Michigan’s separate retail taxes. That distinction matters: a pause upstream in the supply chain would not automatically erase the tax lines on a customer’s dispensary receipt or require a retailer to cut its prices by a matching percentage.

What the bill actually says

The introduced text adds a temporary exception to section 5 of the Comprehensive Road Funding Tax Act. It would stop the wholesale tax from being levied during a period beginning on the amendment’s effective date and ending one year later. It does not set an immediate October 28 start to a tax holiday.

The legislative record establishes introduction and committee referral, not passage. A bill number gives the proposal a concrete document to evaluate, but businesses should distinguish that milestone from an enacted change with an operative date. For now, there is no approved one-year suspension to build into a purchase or tax payment.

Tom Angell’s October 29 reporting for Marijuana Moment follows the filing after DeBoyer outlined his plan the previous week. It places the proposal within the wider political debate over Michigan’s cannabis tax. The actual bill offers a narrower and more useful starting point than campaign shorthand about eliminating taxes.

Where the wholesale tax sits

According to the Michigan Department of Treasury’s explanation, the levy began January 1, 2026. It applies to specified adult-use cannabis sales and transfers at the wholesale level, including the first transfer from a licensed establishment to a retail licensee. The state’s 10% retail excise tax and 6% sales tax are separate.

For a typical wholesale transaction, the wholesaler is legally responsible for paying and remitting the tax, even when it collects that cost from a retailer. This is one reason a wholesale-tax debate affects more than the final checkout screen: the obligation arises as product moves into retail inventory, before the eventual consumer purchase.

Treasury’s wholesale-price FAQ distinguishes transactions between unrelated businesses from transfers between affiliated entities. The former use the actual wholesale price as defined by law; the latter use Treasury’s quarterly average wholesale prices. A vertically integrated business therefore cannot assume that moving its own inventory avoids the tax question.

Why a pause would not equal a fixed discount

Treasury’s collection guidance provides a simple example: a $1,000 taxable wholesale sale, assuming no other invoice costs, produces $240 in wholesale tax. A wholesaler may collect that amount from the retailer. That illustrates the levy’s scale at one transaction point; it does not calculate the shelf price of each product in that shipment.

Retail pricing also reflects the underlying product cost and the business decisions made between acquisition and sale. Removing one cost could create room for lower prices, stronger margins or another adjustment. The proposed legislation does not promise which response an individual operator would choose. Shoppers should therefore be wary of translating a 24% wholesale rate into a guaranteed 24% retail discount.

There is also a timing issue for operators carrying unpaid customer invoices. Treasury says the wholesale tax is due for the quarter in which product is sold to the retailer, regardless of when that retailer pays. Changing a tax going forward is therefore different from resolving existing receivables or earlier liabilities. The introduced suspension language contains no blanket instruction to disregard prior transactions. Following the bill alongside Treasury’s published administration guidance gives a clearer picture than assuming a proposed pause would reset every outstanding business obligation.

The competing claims need evidence

In his October 22 statement, DeBoyer argued that a pause would give lawmakers time to reconsider the tax’s effectiveness and ease pressure on lawful businesses. His assertions about revenue performance and the illicit market are arguments for the proposal, not findings established simply by introducing it.

Treasury’s March implementation guidance identifies the department as the administrator and describes quarterly payments, calculations and transition-year provisions. It also explains that revenue supports roads and bridges. Evaluating a pause requires considering both business costs and the public funding affected, rather than treating either side’s desired outcome as automatic.

The next meaningful developments are committee action, any amended text and ultimately a change in law. Until then, HB 6440 is a proposal for temporary relief. The useful takeaway for readers is its precise scope: one wholesale tax, one proposed year, and no suspension currently in force.

Illustrative stock finance photograph; not Michigan tax records or a cannabis business. Photo: Kindel Media / Pexels.