Representative Justin Aragona presented a bill to the committee that would require payment when marijuana products move between licensees, modeled on existing liquor laws.

"This is cash on demand," Chair Justin Aragona said. "What this bill will require is that when that marijuana moves, from each of those licenses or within each of those licenses, that payment is then immediately required. This is, kinda copying and basing off of, a lot of our liquor laws, which is exactly what happens for beer, wine, and liquor."

Representative Ryan Tisdell asked whether requiring on‑delivery payment would address broader federal banking and liquidity challenges facing many cannabis businesses. Aragona and industry witnesses acknowledged banking constraints but said EFT (electronic funds transfer) within one business day and a defined return window would reduce disputes, counterfeit cash incidents and long delays in sellers receiving funds.

Clark Worthwine, co‑owner of Objective (a cultivation, processing and retail operator), testified in support with amendments and urged a one‑business‑day EFT requirement plus a short, defined return window to protect product integrity and give finality to transactions. "Accordingly, the only practical, simple, and enforceable solution is to move to EFT within 1 business day of delivery," Worthwine said, adding that the EFT rule should be paired with swift penalties for unlawful or noncompliant behavior.

Members repeatedly asked how smaller licensees without access to traditional banking or lines of credit would comply. Chair Aragona acknowledged state‑level authority is limited on banking but said EFT would create clearer, enforceable standards and reduce repeated nonpayment by bad actors. The committee did not take a final vote on the bill during this session.

Committee staff will likely draft follow‑up language after this hearing to clarify exceptions, the precise EFT window and return‑period mechanics.