Product availability in the U.S. cannabis market is shaped less by demand than by law. Because cannabis remains illegal at the federal level, brands cannot move plant-touching products across state lines, even between fully legal states. That bright-line rule forces producers to grow, manufacture, package, and test inside each state where they sell, limiting how widely any brand can appear on shelves and creating uneven availability for consumers.
Federal rescheduling talk has not changed this reality—at least not yet. In 2023, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommended moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, and rulemaking has continued into 2025. Even if rescheduling occurs, the Controlled Substances Act and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act would still bar introducing cannabis into interstate commerce without an FDA-approved pathway; industry analysts therefore do not expect rescheduling alone to open national distribution.
State licensing systems add another layer. Every state issues its own licenses with different caps, fees, ownership and residency rules, vertical-integration requirements, advertising limits, and lab-testing standards. Some cap the number of dispensaries; others require in-state cultivation to supply local retailers. For a brand, expansion typically means replicating cultivation and manufacturing or partnering with a licensed operator, then retooling SKUs and labels to satisfy that state’s potency, packaging, and testing rules—costly steps that slow market entries and constrain product selection.
Recent court fights over “residency” and other local-preference rules show how unsettled the legal map remains. Several federal appeals courts have concluded that the Dormant Commerce Clause constrains states from discriminating against out-of-state applicants, while other courts have been more deferential. In August 2025, for example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that portions of New York’s framework violated the Dormant Commerce Clause—signaling mounting pressure on states that prefer in-state ownership or experience. Outcomes like these can abruptly reshape who is eligible to operate, which in turn affects which brands reach consumers.
Banking, logistics, and transport constraints compound the problem. Because federal law still prohibits transporting marijuana across state lines, brands cannot use the U.S. Postal Service or common carriers like FedEx or UPS to move THC products between states; they must build compliant intrastate distribution in every market. At the same time, states diverge on rules for hemp-derived intoxicants and synthetics (e.g., delta-8), further fragmenting supply chains and product assortments. The result is higher costs, slower launches, and inconsistent shelf availability even for well-known brands.
Practically, national recognition in cannabis usually reflects licensing partnerships or multi-state operators reproducing a brand under multiple state licenses—rather than a single interstate supply chain. Consumers encounter gaps on menus when license caps tighten, litigation pauses rollouts, distribution cannot scale, or a brand calculates that cloning facilities and compliance is not economical yet. Until Congress creates a lawful route for interstate commerce—or states meaningfully harmonize standards—availability will remain state-by-state and uneven, and many brands will be visible in some markets while absent in others.