About New Jersey

The New Jersey page is built from the state's seed-to-sale compliance testing record — 72,098 packages from 133 licensed facilities, 8 testing labs, and 3,499 distinct strains, spanning Jan 2023 – Dec 2025.

Labs appear by code, A through H. The state's Metrc export does not carry lab business names, so I don't guess them. Facilities are named as the state filed them.

The data is New Jersey's. The collection, cleaning, analysis, and presentation are mine. This is not an investigation, and it is not an accusation. Any conclusion is yours to draw.

This page exists because New Jersey's Cannabis Regulatory Commission chose to make its testing data public — fully, and without being forced to. It released one of the most complete cannabis testing datasets any state has put in the open. Not a narrow records pull. The whole thing.

That is how a market improves: regulators, operators, and patients can all argue from the same facts. I'm grateful the CRC put it in the open, and I hope they keep doing it.

I'm Max Jackson, founder of Cannabis Wise Guys.

Before I started analyzing cannabis markets, I operated in one. I worked on a licensed cannabis farm in Trinity County, California — first as a photographer documenting the operation, then as general manager running the whole on-the-ground business across 13,000 square feet of flowering canopy. I lived on-site in a converted ambulance and learned every lesson the hard way: undersized irrigation, failed automation, diesel generators at 3 AM, two hours from the nearest Home Depot.

When I read a Metrc export today, I'm reading data I used to generate.

Today I work as an operational translator between cannabis operations, finance, and policy. I serve on the cultivation committee of a state cannabis trade association, consult on cannabis litigation as an expert witness, and publish market analysis that connects what operators experience to what investors and regulators assume. No party funded, directed, or pre-reviewed this project. The analysis is independent.

I built this because I kept citing testing data in policy memos and realized nobody could verify what I was saying without doing the same multi-month data processing I had done. That's a problem. If the evidence matters, the evidence should be public — in every state, not just the one I happened to be writing about that week.

Markets work better when participants see the same data.

Operators should be able to see how many facilities are actually producing, what the potency distribution looks like, which categories are growing, and what the failure rates are by test type. Regulators and policymakers should be able to read the patterns inside the data they already collect. Investors should be able to see structural concentration, cohort survival, and lab variance without commissioning a custom study. None of that should require a multi-month data project of your own.

The patterns were never hidden. They were sitting in the compliance exports the state has been collecting all along. The work was turning those raw exports into something a reader can actually use — and doing it the same defensible way in every state, so the numbers can be compared and reproduced.