Michigan's Cannabis Export Bubble: How 1.50 Grams Per Day Proves the Coming Collapse

Michigan sells 2.5 times more cannabis per capita than any other legal market in North America. This isn't because Michigan residents consume more—it's because a massive portion of the state's $3.17 billion annual market is being exported to prohibition neighbors Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

The evidence isn't speculative. It's in the weight data.

The Consumption Anomaly

Michigan's Cannabis Regulatory Agency reports that adult-use retailers sold 1,688,251 pounds of flower and shake between January and November 2025. That's 765,954 kilograms, or 765,954,000 grams over 334 days.

The daily breakdown:

• 2,293,579 grams sold per day statewide
• Michigan has 1.46 million adult cannabis consumers (18% participation rate)
• 1.50 grams per day per consumer

Compare this to validated consumption baselines across every other market studied:

Michigan's flower consumption is 2.5x the validated baseline. This magnitude of variance doesn't occur in biological systems. Either Michigan residents are physiological anomalies consuming three times more than everyone else, or a substantial portion of Michigan's sales are leaving the state.

The second explanation is the only rational one.

Calculating Export Volume

Using the validated 0.60 g/day baseline (conservative middle of the 0.50-0.65 range):

Expected Michigan resident consumption:

• 1.46M consumers × 0.60 g/day = 876,000 grams/day
• Annualized: 319.7 million grams = 704,918 pounds

Actual Michigan sales (Jan-Nov 2025):

• 1,688,251 pounds over 334 days
• Daily average: 2,293,579 grams

Export volume:

• Daily: 2,293,579 - 876,000 = 1,417,579 grams (62%)
• Annual: 517.4 million grams = 1,140,522 pounds (62%)

This isn't an assumption—it's math. The 62% export figure emerges directly from comparing Michigan's actual sales to the consumption baseline validated across eight other markets.

The Product Mix Confirms Export

Michigan's product mix further validates the export thesis. Analysis of 11 months of CRA revenue data (January-November 2025) reveals a product distribution optimized for interstate transport:

Michigan product mix (2025):

• Flower/shake: 50.3%
• Concentrates: 40.0%
• Edibles: 9.6%

Typical legal market:

• Flower/shake: 45-55%
• Concentrates: 30-35%
• Edibles: 15%

Michigan's concentrate share is 5-10% higher than typical markets. Concentrates are the preferred form for interstate transport—they're potent (70-90% THC vs 20-25% for flower), easier to conceal, produce less odor, and have higher value per unit weight.

Meanwhile, Michigan's edibles share is 35% below typical. Export buyers avoid edibles because they're bulky, have low value relative to weight, and are perishable.

The product mix didn't evolve to serve Michigan residents. It evolved to serve out-of-state demand.

The Geographic Reality

Michigan borders three prohibition states with a combined adult population of 24.5 million—three times Michigan's 8.1 million adults:

Ohio: 9.5M adults

• Recreational legalization: Late 2026/early 2027 (Issue 2 passed November 2023)
• Current pricing: $100-140/oz in medical dispensaries
• Michigan arbitrage: $63/oz retail ($37-77/oz savings)

Indiana: 5.4M adults

• Medical legalization: 2025 legislative session (likely)
• Recreational timeline: 2027-2029
• Current pricing: Prohibition (black market only)
• Michigan arbitrage: Substantial

Wisconsin: 4.7M adults

• Governor supports legalization, GOP legislature opposes
• Timeline: 2027-2029
• Current pricing: Prohibition (black market only)
• Michigan arbitrage: Substantial

For residents of these states, a two-hour drive to Michigan saves $40-80 per ounce while providing legal product quality and selection. Michigan's competitive $63/oz post-tax pricing—enabled by the state's optimal 16% effective tax rate—makes this arbitrage compelling.

The export isn't underground trafficking. It's personal-use purchases by out-of-state consumers exploiting legal gray areas. Michigan law allows adults 21+ to purchase up to 2.5 ounces per transaction. Nothing prevents Ohio, Indiana, or Wisconsin residents from making these purchases and transporting them home, though doing so violates their home state laws.

Michigan's Market Distortion

Michigan's apparent market size of $3.17 billion (annualized from 2025 data) masks a fundamental distortion:

Headline numbers:

• Total revenue (Jan-Nov 2025): $2.90B
• Annualized: $3.17B
• Retail locations: 845
• Total licenses: 2,240
• Active plants (June 2025): 1,621,710

Reality:

• Resident consumption: $1.20B (38% of total)
• Export to prohibition neighbors: $1.97B (62% of total)

Michigan issued 2,240 licenses to serve what appears to be a $3.17B market. But only $1.20B of that market is sustainable. The remaining $1.97B exists solely because Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin haven't legalized yet.

The Consolidation Timeline

When Michigan's prohibition neighbors legalize, the export vanishes overnight:

Phase 1: Ohio Impact (2027)

Ohio's recreational market launches late 2026 or early 2027 following the passage of Issue 2 in November 2023. With 9.5 million adults—more than Michigan's entire population—Ohio's legalization immediately eliminates the largest source of Michigan's export demand.

Projected impact:

• Market contraction: $900M-1.1B (28-35%)
• License failures: 600-800 (27-36%)
• Revenue drops from $3.17B to $2.1-2.3B

Phase 2: Indiana and Wisconsin (2028-2029)

Indiana's medical legalization is likely in 2025, with recreational following in 2027-2029. Wisconsin's timeline is similar, depending on legislative composition. When both states legalize, Michigan's remaining export evaporates.

Projected impact:

• Market contraction: Additional $900M-1.0B
• License failures: Additional 500-700
• Revenue stabilizes at $1.20B (resident-only)

Phase 3: New Equilibrium (2029-2030)

Michigan's cannabis market reaches its sustainable resident baseline:

• Revenue: $1.20B annually
• Licenses needed: 600-800 (vs 2,240 currently)
• License failures: 1,400-1,600 total (63-71%)
• Plant count: Declines 60-70% from June 2025 baseline

This will be the worst consolidation in U.S. cannabis history—2-3x larger than Colorado's contraction.

Cross-Market Comparisons

Colorado: The Consolidation Precedent

Colorado experienced gradual market maturation from 2014-2024, contracting from $2.2B (2020 peak) to $1.4B (2024), a 36% decline over four years.

Colorado's consolidation:

• Revenue: -$800M (-36%)
• Plant count: -52% (2020-2024)
• License count: Declined from 850+ to ~650
• Timeline: Gradual (4+ years)

Michigan's consolidation will be:

• Revenue: -$1.97B (-62%)
• License failures: 63-71% of operators
• Timeline: Compressed (2-3 years)

The difference is speed and severity. Colorado's market matured organically as demand stabilized. Michigan's will collapse abruptly when export demand vanishes.

Oregon: The Over-Licensing Parallel

Oregon issued 769 retail licenses for a market that supports approximately 400-500. The result: chronic oversupply, margin compression, and a permanent licensing moratorium implemented in March 2024.

Oregon's situation (2024):

• Revenue: $925M annually
• Retail licenses: 769
• Revenue per location: $1.20M
• Solution: Permanent moratorium on new licenses

Michigan's situation (2025):

• Apparent revenue: $3.17B
• Sustainable resident revenue: $1.20B
• Retail licenses: 845
• Revenue per location (post-collapse): $1.42M
• Needed licenses: 600-800

Michigan over-licensed by 60-70%, compared to Oregon's 50-90% over-licensing. But Michigan's problem is worse because the apparent market demand that justified the licensing doesn't represent resident consumption.

Illinois: The High-Tax Comparison

Illinois demonstrates what actual policy failure looks like. The state's 25-35% effective tax rate drove only 42% black market displacement despite optimal geography and strong regulatory enforcement.

Illinois performance (2024):

• Total revenue: $1.85B
• Black market displacement: 42%
• BMDE score: +0.45
• Problem: Tax rate too high

Michigan performance (2025):

• Total revenue: $3.17B (apparent)
• Resident revenue: $1.20B (actual)
• Black market displacement: ~100% (resident market)
• BMDE score: +0.79
• Problem: Licensed for export bubble, not resident demand

Michigan's policy is nearly optimal. The state achieved complete black market displacement among residents with competitive pricing and reasonable taxation. The problem isn't policy design—it's that regulators licensed capacity for temporary export demand that will disappear when neighboring states legalize.

Florida: The Strategic Model

Florida's vertical integration model demonstrates how to scale licensing with demand. The state maintains approximately 600-700 locations serving a $2.0-2.3B medical market, generating $2.9-3.3M per location annually.

Florida's approach:

• Medical market: $2.0-2.3B (2024)
• Dispensaries: ~600-700
• Revenue per location: $2.9-3.3M
• Optimal density: 1,500 patients per store
• Structure: Vertically integrated operators

If Florida legalizes recreational cannabis in 2026 or 2027, the state will scale to approximately 1,200+ locations for a projected $7.6B combined market. This measured approach prevents the over-licensing that plagues Colorado, Oregon, and Michigan.

Michigan should have followed Florida's model: conservative licensing tied to demonstrated resident demand, not apparent market size inflated by export.

Black Market Displacement Efficiency

Michigan's Black Market Death Equation (BMDE) score validates that the state got policy right:

Current Michigan score: +0.79

This +0.79 score places Michigan among the most efficient legal markets in North America, comparable to Colorado (+0.74) and Oregon (+0.74), both of which achieve near-complete black market displacement.

For comparison:

• Illinois: +0.45 (42% capture due to excessive taxation)
• California: +0.38 (poor enforcement, complex regulations)

Michigan achieved the policy goal: competitive pricing and strong access that completely displaced the black market among residents. The problem is that policymakers then issued licenses as if the export bubble was permanent resident demand.

The January 2026 Wholesale Tax

Michigan implements a 24% wholesale tax on January 1, 2026, increasing the effective tax rate from 16% to approximately 23-25%. Some industry observers believe this tax increase will trigger the market's collapse.

They're wrong. The wholesale tax is a side show.

BMDE impact of wholesale tax:

• Current score: +0.79
• Post-tax score: +0.77
• Black market displacement: Remains near 100%

Even with the wholesale tax, Michigan's tax burden stays below Illinois's 25-35% rate, which still achieves 42% capture despite being excessively high. Michigan's post-tax BMDE score of +0.77 remains higher than Oregon (+0.74) and Colorado (+0.74), both of which maintain near-complete black market displacement.

The wholesale tax hurts margins, not market capture:

• Retail prices increase from $63/oz to approximately $75-80/oz
• This compresses operator margins but doesn't push consumers back to the black market
• Michigan remains significantly cheaper than Illinois ($110-130/oz) and competitive with other legal markets

The real crisis isn't the wholesale tax—it's Ohio's legalization in 2027, followed by Indiana and Wisconsin in 2028-2029. When the export collapses, the wholesale tax becomes immaterial because two-thirds of current demand simply vanishes.

Home Cultivation Impact

Michigan's homegrow policy allows adults to cultivate up to 12 plants for personal use—one of the most generous policies in the nation. Some policymakers worry this undermines the legal market's tax revenue.

The data says otherwise.

Michigan homegrow participation (2025):

• Legal cultivation limit: 12 plants per adult
• Estimated participation: 2-3% of consumers
• Impact on retail sales: Minimal

Research on homegrow economics demonstrates why participation remains low despite generous plant limits:

1. Space requirements: 12-plant cultivation requires 120-180 sq ft of dedicated space with proper ventilation
2. Startup costs: $2,000-5,000 for equipment (lights, ventilation, nutrients, containers)
3. Ongoing costs: $40-80/month in electricity, plus nutrients and supplies
4. Time investment: 15-25 hours per month for maintenance and harvest processing
5. Opportunity cost: Most consumers value their time and space more than the savings

For 85-90% of cannabis consumers, the $63/oz retail price ($2.25/g) is significantly cheaper than home cultivation when accounting for time, space, and capital costs. Only dedicated enthusiasts or very high-volume consumers (>1 oz/week) find homegrow economically rational.

Michigan's 12-plant policy is evidence-based and appropriate. It allows hobbyists and high-volume consumers to cultivate while the vast majority continue purchasing from licensed retailers, generating tax revenue. This policy doesn't threaten the market—Ohio's legalization does.

Operator Economics and Financial Reality

Michigan's licensed operators are financing current operations against revenue that will disappear in 2027:

Current economics (2025):

• Average retail location revenue: $3.75M annually
• Gross margins: 40-45% (pre-wholesale tax)
• Operating margins: 8-12% for efficient operators
• Debt levels: $1-3M per location typical

Post-consolidation economics (2029):

• Average retail location revenue: $1.42M annually (-62%)
• Gross margins: 35-40% (post-wholesale tax)
• Operating margins: Negative for 60-70% of operators
• Debt service: Unsustainable for most

Operators that financed expansion based on 2024-2025 revenue will face impossible debt service obligations when revenue drops 62%. The result will be:

• Loan defaults
• Asset liquidation sales
• Bankruptcy filings
• License surrenders

Well-capitalized multi-state operators with diversified portfolios may survive by absorbing losses and acquiring distressed assets. Small independent operators with concentrated Michigan exposure will not survive.

Total capital destruction: $1-3 billion

This includes:

• Write-offs on cultivation facilities sized for 2024-2025 demand
• Retail location improvements and build-outs
• Processing equipment and infrastructure
• Inventory write-downs
• Working capital losses

Policy Recommendations (That Won't Be Implemented)

Michigan could mitigate the coming consolidation with several policy interventions:

1. Immediate Licensing Moratorium

Follow Oregon's example: implement a permanent moratorium on new licenses effective immediately. This prevents additional operators from entering a market about to contract 62%.

Political feasibility: Low. Moratoriums create inequity between existing licensees and new applicants, drawing political opposition.

2. Wholesale Tax Suspension (2027-2029)

Suspend the 24% wholesale tax during the consolidation period to preserve operator margins while revenue collapses. Reinstate it once the market stabilizes at resident baseline.

Political feasibility: Very low. The wholesale tax generates $150-200M annually that funds state programs. Legislators won't surrender this revenue voluntarily.

3. Vertical Integration Incentives

Allow and encourage vertical integration to reduce costs and improve margins during consolidation. Operators that control cultivation, processing, and retail can better survive margin compression.

Political feasibility: Medium. This may happen organically through distressed asset acquisitions regardless of policy changes.

4. Voluntary License Buyback Program

Establish a state-funded program to purchase licenses from operators willing to exit voluntarily, reducing excess capacity before the consolidation forces involuntary exits.

Political feasibility: Very low. This requires substantial state funding ($100-300M) that doesn't exist in budget projections.

5. Gradual Capacity Reduction Requirements

Mandate 10-15% annual reductions in licensed capacity beginning in 2026, spreading the consolidation over 4-5 years rather than concentrating it in 2027-2029.

Political feasibility: Very low. This picks winners and losers through government intervention rather than market forces.

The reality: Michigan will implement none of these policies. The consolidation will occur through market forces—loan defaults, bankruptcies, asset sales, and license surrenders. It will be painful, rapid, and concentrated among small operators with high leverage and limited capital reserves.

The Lesson for Other States

Michigan's experience provides a clear lesson for states considering legalization:

License for resident demand, not apparent market size.

When bordering prohibition states, inflated sales figures represent temporary export demand that will vanish when those neighbors legalize. Issuing licenses based on this inflated demand creates structural over-capacity that must be purged through painful consolidation.

States should:

1. Calculate expected resident consumption using validated baselines (0.50-0.65 g/day flower) or 1.0/g daily includes all forms of ingestion
2. Add reasonable buffer for tourism and market growth (5-10%)
3. Issue licenses based on this conservative figure
4. Implement adaptive licensing that scales with demonstrated demand

Michigan got cannabis policy right: competitive taxation, strong access, reasonable regulations. But the state over-licensed by 60-70% because policymakers mistook temporary export demand for sustainable resident consumption.

The result will be the worst consolidation in U.S. cannabis history—1,400-1,600 license failures, $1-3B in capital destruction, and a market that contracts from $3.17B to $1.20B in just 2-3 years.

The consumption data proved it. Michigan sells 1.50 grams per day per consumer—2.5x the validated baseline. That's not biological variance. It's export. And when Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin legalize, that export vanishes.

Michigan's cannabis industry is heading for a reckoning. The only question is how many operators survive it.

What does Michigan’s export surplus mean for long-term operator sustainability?

Discussion on Stocktwits.