North Dakota HB 1203: Medical Edibles Legalized—But 5mg Limits Guarantee Continued Illicit Market

Why ultra-low dose restrictions ensure North Dakota's medical program remains among the nation's least effective

The Silent Majority 420 | November 2025

The Bill at a Glance

Executive Summary

North Dakota HB 1203 legalizes medical cannabis edibles for the first time since the medical program began in 2017—but with restrictions so severe they guarantee the bill will fail to meaningfully expand legal market access.

What HB 1203 does: Authorizes "cannabinoid edible products" defined as "soft or hard lozenges in a geometric square shape" containing no more than 5mg THC per serving and 50mg per package.

What HB 1203 doesn't do: Allow gummies, brownies, cookies, beverages, chocolates, or any other edible format patients actually want. The 5mg serving limit is half the 10mg industry standard and inadequate for most medical conditions.

CBDT Assessment: HB 1203 will grow North Dakota's patient base by an estimated 10-15% (from 10,000+ to 11,000-12,000 patients) and increase legal medical sales from $22.4 million to approximately $25-28 million annually. This captures approximately 3-6% of North Dakota's total $100-115 million cannabis market. The remaining 94-97% stays illicit or flows to Montana and Minnesota.

This is good for the 1,000-2,000 patients who gain edible access. But it does virtually nothing to address North Dakota's fundamental policy failure: a $75-90 million illicit market, zero adult-use access, and 1,500+ annual arrests despite "decriminalization."

What HB 1203 Changes

The Product Definition

Exact statutory language: "Cannabinoid edible product" means "a soft or hard lozenge in a geometric square shape into which a cannabinoid concentrate or the dried leaves or flowers of the plant of the genus cannabis is incorporated."

Critical restrictions:

• MUST be square-shaped (prevents candy-like appearance)
• MUST be lozenge (hard or soft)
• CANNOT resemble food (no gummies shaped like bears, fruits, etc.)
• CANNOT be beverages, chocolates, baked goods, or any other format

THC Limits:

• 5mg THC per serving (one lozenge)
• 50mg THC per package (maximum 10 lozenges)

Comparison to industry standards:

• Most states: 10mg per serving
• Colorado medical: No serving limits, 1,000mg+ packages
• Michigan medical: 500mg packages
• North Dakota: 50mg packages (among nation's lowest medical limits)

Why 5mg is Inadequate for Most Medical Conditions

The math problem for heavy medical users:

• Patient needing 25mg three times daily = 75mg daily requirement
• HB 1203 package limit: 50mg maximum
• Patient must purchase 1.5 packages daily at ~$45-75/day
• Monthly cost: $1,350-2,250 (prohibitively expensive)

The 5mg limit was political compromise, not medical necessity. States with higher medical limits show no evidence of increased diversion to minors when products have child-resistant packaging and warning labels.

Packaging Requirements

Required safety features:

• Child-resistant packaging (Consumer Product Safety Commission standards)
• Opaque packaging (cannot see product inside)
• Warning labels (THC content, health warnings)
• No appeal to children (no cartoons, bright colors)
• Tamper-evident seals

Implementation timeline:

• Effective date: August 1, 2025
• Estimated availability: Late August/September 2025
• Distribution: Through existing 8 medical dispensaries statewide

The CBDT Framework: Medical Market Impact Analysis

The CBDT Framework adapts to medical market analysis by evaluating medical program penetration—what percentage of potential patients actually register and use legal products vs. illicit alternatives.

Key Variables

Product Adequacy (35% weight): Do available products meet patient medical needs?
Eligibility Scope (25% weight): How many residents qualify under medical program?
Access Density (20% weight): Can patients physically reach dispensaries?
Price Competitiveness (15% weight): Are medical products affordable vs. illicit?
Registration Ease (5% weight): How difficult is obtaining a medical card?

North Dakota Scoring

Before HB 1203:

• Product Adequacy: 0.25 (no edibles, limited formats)
• Eligibility Scope: 0.30 (restrictive qualifying conditions)
• Access Density: 0.20 (only 8 dispensaries, no delivery)
• Price Competitiveness: 0.35 (medical $15-25/g vs. illicit $9-11/g)
• Registration Ease: 0.40 (in-person required, $50 fee, state registry concerns)

Penetration calculation: 27.7% of eligible patients enroll

Actual enrollment: 10,000 patients (eligible pool: 50,000-60,000)

After HB 1203:

• Product Adequacy: 0.40 (+0.15 improvement, but still limited to 5mg lozenges)
• Other variables: Unchanged

New penetration rate: 33.5% (+5.8 percentage points)

Predicted enrollment: 11,000-12,000 patients (+10-20% growth)

Why Only Modest Improvement

The 5mg serving limit and 50mg package limit remain inadequate for patients with serious medical conditions:

Chronic pain patients typically need 10-25mg per dose. HB 1203's 5mg lozenges mean taking 2-5 lozenges per dose, quickly exhausting the 50mg package limit.

Chemotherapy patients experiencing severe nausea need 15-30mg. At 5mg per lozenge, they'd need 3-6 lozenges per dose—potentially using an entire package for a single day's relief.

Cancer pain patients often require 20-50mg+ for effective pain management. HB 1203's 50mg package limit makes this impossible without purchasing multiple packages daily.

Comparison to comprehensive medical programs:

• Colorado: Medical patients can purchase 1,000mg+ packages
• California: No serving size limits for medical
• Michigan: 500mg packages for medical patients
• North Dakota: 50mg packages (among nation's lowest)

Market Impact Projection

Current medical market (2024): $22.4 million annually

Post-HB 1203 (2026): $25-28 million annually

• Edibles percentage: 15-20% of medical sales ($3.75-5.6M)
• Growth attributable to HB 1203: $2.5-5.5 million

As percentage of North Dakota's total cannabis market:

• Total market (illicit + medical + border bleed): ~$100-115M annually
• HB 1203 captures: $2.5-5.5M
• Legal share improvement: +2.2-4.8 percentage points
• New total legal share: ~25-28% (up from 22-23%)

The bottom line: HB 1203 is incremental improvement that still leaves 72-75% of North Dakota's cannabis market illicit or bleeding to Montana and Minnesota.

Winners and Losers

Winners

Medical patients needing edibles (1,000-2,000 people):

• Cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy (nausea relief)
• Patients with respiratory conditions who cannot smoke/vape
• Elderly patients preferring discrete, measured dosing

North Dakota's 2 licensed manufacturers:

• New product line generating $1.25-2.75M additional revenue each
• Protected market share from out-of-state competition

8 medical dispensaries:

• Higher-margin products (edibles typically 35-45% margins)
• Revenue increase: $300K-700K per location annually

Lawmakers seeking incremental reform:

• Political win: Expanded patient access without controversial adult-use debate
• Bipartisan success (Republican sponsor, broad support)

Losers

Patients needing higher doses (3,000-5,000 people):

• 50mg package limit inadequate for severe chronic pain, cancer, PTSD
• Forced to purchase multiple packages (expensive) or continue illicit use
• May still need to travel to Minnesota or Montana

Patients preferring other edible formats:

• Want: Gummies, chocolates, beverages, baked goods
• Get: Square lozenges only
• Many will continue illicit purchases for preferred format

Reform advocates:

• HB 1203 creates illusion of progress while avoiding comprehensive reform
• Delays adult-use legalization by releasing political pressure
• "We just expanded medical" argument will be used against future reform

Adult-use consumers (80,000-100,000 estimated):

• Zero benefit from HB 1203 (medical program inaccessible without qualifying condition)
• Still face criminal penalties, $1,000 fines, 1,500+ annual arrests
• Still must use illicit market or cross border to neighboring states

Political Context: Why This Bill Succeeded

HB 1203 succeeded where broader reforms failed because it satisfied multiple constituencies through ultra-conservative restrictions:

For patient advocates: First edibles in medical program history, addresses smoke-free medication need

For law enforcement: Square lozenges only, low doses minimize youth appeal concerns, child-resistant packaging

For conservative lawmakers: Medical expansion politically safer than adult-use, demonstrates "responsible regulation"

Rep. Steve Vetter's framing: "This edible bill is good conservative bill with safeguards for minors. It allows for a healthier alternative product that decreases a patient's exposure to carcinogens."

Contrast with Failed HB 1596 (Decriminalization)

HB 1596 (decriminalization for all adults):

• Reduced possession penalties from criminal to civil
• Passed House 76-17 with bipartisan support
• Killed by Senate 32-14 (April 2025)
• Opposition: "Voters rejected Measure 5, sends wrong message"

HB 1203 (medical edibles):

• Expanded access only for registered medical patients
• Passed both chambers, signed by Governor
• Support: Medical necessity, patient health, responsible regulation

Lesson: North Dakota legislature will expand medical program incrementally but won't touch adult-use penalties. Medical = politically safe, adult-use = politically radioactive.

The Incrementalism Pattern

• 2016: Voters approve medical with home cultivation
• 2017: Legislature removes home cultivation
• 2019: "Decriminalization" keeps criminal records
• 2018/2022/2024: Adult-use ballot measures fail (margins narrowing)
• 2025: Medical edibles authorized (most restrictive format possible)

Pattern: Baby steps. Each reform is the minimum politically feasible. North Dakota takes the slowest, most cautious path to cannabis policy reform.

Comparison to Other States' Medical Edible Policies

Georgia SB 220: A Bolder Approach to Medical Expansion

Georgia recently expanded its medical cannabis program from 5% THC cap to 50% THC cap—a 10× increase in potency limits. While both Georgia and North Dakota took incremental approaches to medical expansion, Georgia's reforms were far more substantive.

Key difference: Georgia dramatically increased access for patients with serious medical conditions, while North Dakota's HB 1203 remains among the most restrictive medical edible policies in the nation.

Result comparison:

• Georgia's expansion likely drives 40-50% patient growth
• North Dakota's HB 1203 drives only 10-20% growth

Lesson: States can maintain conservative regulatory frameworks while still providing medically adequate dosing options.

Minnesota's Evolution: Starting at 5mg, Recognizing Inadequacy

Minnesota's medical program initially launched with 5mg edible serving limits—the same restriction North Dakota just adopted. After recognizing patient needs, Minnesota expanded to 10mg servings.

North Dakota should learn: The 5mg limit will prove insufficient within 1-2 years. Future legislation will need to double the serving size to meet patient needs effectively.

Prediction: HB 1203 will be amended by 2027-2028 to increase serving sizes, following Minnesota's path.

Colorado's Medical-Recreational Distinction

Colorado maintains separate medical and recreational programs with different limits:

• Recreational: 10mg servings, 100mg packages
• Medical: No serving limits, 1,000mg+ packages available

Rationale: Medical patients with cancer, severe chronic pain, and serious medical conditions require therapeutic doses that recreational users don't need.

North Dakota's mistake: HB 1203 treats medical patients more restrictively than many states treat recreational users. Colorado's recreational limit (100mg packages) is double North Dakota's new medical limit (50mg packages).

This demonstrates the policy incoherence: North Dakota claims to prioritize medical access while implementing restrictions that prevent therapeutic dosing.

Federal Reform Impact on HB 1203

Schedule III Rescheduling

If Schedule III rescheduling occurs (likely 2026-2027), North Dakota's medical cannabis businesses would benefit:

Key change: Medical cannabis businesses could deduct ordinary business expenses (currently prohibited by IRC Section 280E)

Business impact:

• Reduces operating costs 15-25%
• Could enable 10-15% patient price reductions
• Makes edible manufacturing more profitable

HB 1203 specific impact:

• North Dakota medical market could grow to $28-32M (instead of $25-28M)
• Patient count: 12,000-13,000 (instead of 11,000-12,000)
• Edibles: 20-25% of medical sales (instead of 15-20%)

But: Federal reform doesn't fix the fundamental problem—5mg serving limits and 50mg package limits remain inadequate regardless of price.

SAFE Banking Act

If the SAFE Banking Act passes, impacts would be modest but positive:

Primary benefits:

• Card payments reduce transaction friction
• Improved banking access for manufacturers
• Security cost reductions (less cash handling)

Patient impact: Convenience improvement (card payments vs. cash-only), but doesn't address the core inadequacy of 5mg servings.

North Dakota specific: Medical program already operates successfully despite banking restrictions, so SAFE Banking would provide marginal operational improvements rather than transformative change.

Combined Federal Reform

Best case scenario (Schedule III + SAFE Banking both pass):

• North Dakota medical market: $28-32M annually (vs. $25-28M baseline)
• Patient count: 12,000-13,000 (vs. 11,000-12,000)
• HB 1203 edibles: 20-25% of medical sales

Still inadequate: Even with favorable federal reforms, HB 1203's restrictive limits ensure the program underperforms its potential. Federal reform helps at the margins but doesn't solve the state-level policy inadequacy.

What Meaningful Reform Would Look Like

HB 1203 solves <5% of North Dakota's cannabis policy problems. Comprehensive reform options:

Option 1 - Improve Medical Program:

• Increase to 10mg servings, 200mg packages (match Minnesota standard)
• Allow gummies, chocolates, beverages (all with child-resistant packaging)
• Authorize statewide delivery for rural patients
• Result: Medical market grows to $30-35M, captures ~30% of total market

Option 2 - Adult-Use Legalization

• 18-22% total tax rate (competitive with Montana 24%)
• 80-100 dispensaries statewide plus mandatory delivery
• Strong enforcement ($2-3 per capita targeting large illegal operations)
• Result: Legal market $65-80M annually, captures 75-82% with federal reform

Option 3 - True Decriminalization:

• Civil fines <$200, no criminal record
• Eliminate arrest and prosecution costs
• Result: Harm reduction without solving illicit market, but reduces enforcement burden 90%+

The reality: HB 1203 helps 1,000-2,000 patients but delays comprehensive reform that would solve 75-85% of policy problems by creating illusion of progress.

CBDT Verdict

Should North Dakota have passed HB 1203?
Yes. Any expansion of medical access helps patients, and 1,000-2,000 North Dakotans will benefit from legal edible access. For patients with respiratory conditions or those who prefer smoke-free medication, this is meaningful progress.

Does HB 1203 meaningfully address North Dakota's cannabis policy failures?
No. The bill captures ~3-5% of the total cannabis market (from illicit to legal medical) while leaving 95-97% illicit or bleeding to Montana and Minnesota. It does nothing for 1,500+ annual arrests, nothing for 80,000-100,000 adult-use consumers, and creates political cover against comprehensive reform.

Is HB 1203 better than nothing?
Yes, marginally. 1,000-2,000 patients gain access they didn't have before.

Is HB 1203 sufficient?
Absolutely not. The 5mg serving limit and 50mg package limit are inadequate for patients with serious medical conditions. North Dakota needs comprehensive reform—either strengthened medical program or adult-use legalization—not incremental tweaks to an already-restrictive framework.

The strategic problem: HB 1203 releases political pressure for broader reform while solving <5% of North Dakota's cannabis policy failures. It's a politically safe half-measure that delays the comprehensive legalization needed to actually displace the illicit market.

What North Dakota actually needs: Adult-use legalization with competitive taxes (18-22%), robust access (80-100 dispensaries plus delivery), and strong enforcement. This would capture 75-82% of the market, generate $12-16M in annual tax revenue, create 800-1,200 jobs, and reduce arrests by 90%+.

HB 1203 is a baby step when North Dakota needs a policy transformation.

Framework Citation

This analysis applies the Consumer-Driven Black Market Displacement (CBDT) Framework, adapted for medical market penetration analysis.

Framework Publication: The Silent Majority 420, "Consumer-Driven Black Market Displacement (CBDT) Framework: A Behavioral-Utility Heuristic for Illicit-to-Legal Market Transition," Zenodo, 2025. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17593077

Validation Data: Harvard Dataverse, DOI: 10.7910/DVN/MDVDTQ

Framework Methodology: The Black Market Death Equation

Related Analysis:

• North Dakota Cannabis Market Analysis
• Cannabis Legislation Tracker

Analysis by The Silent Majority 420 | November 2025

Analysis licensed CC BY 4.0 (free use with attribution)