Nevada Cannabis and Gaming Industry Separation: Policy, Impact & Reform

Executive Summary

Nevada forfeits an estimated $80 million in annual tax revenue by maintaining strict regulatory separation between its cannabis and gaming industries, according to a 2026 University of Nevada, Las Vegas economic analysis. The state's Gaming Control Board prohibits casino operators, their parent companies, and key employees from holding any financial interest in cannabis businesses, a policy rooted in federal prohibition under the Controlled Substances Act and designed to protect Nevada's $15 billion gaming industry from federal enforcement risk. This firewall has prevented multi-state operators from accessing Nevada's lucrative Las Vegas Strip market, limited institutional capital flows into the state's 80-plus licensed dispensaries, and created a bifurcated economy where the world's gaming capital cannot leverage its hospitality infrastructure for cannabis tourism. As federal rescheduling moves forward in 2026 and neighboring states integrate cannabis into resort experiences, Nevada faces mounting pressure to reconsider a separation policy that once protected gaming licenses but now costs the state tens of millions in foregone tax revenue, tourism dollars, and economic development opportunities.

Why This Matters

The Nevada cannabis-gaming separation affects $18 billion in combined annual industry revenue, 400,000 hospitality workers, and the fiscal health of a state that derives 40% of general fund revenue from gaming taxes. Nevada's adult-use cannabis market generated $1.2 billion in sales during fiscal year 2025, producing approximately $180 million in state and local tax revenue. The gaming industry contributed $1.4 billion to state coffers in the same period. The UNLV report concluded that allowing limited integration could increase cannabis tax revenue by 30-45% through expanded tourism sales, premium product development, and institutional investment in cultivation infrastructure.

For casino operators, the separation policy blocks access to a high-margin ancillary revenue stream that competitors in New Jersey, Illinois, and Massachusetts have successfully integrated into resort properties. MGM Resorts International, Caesars Entertainment, and Wynn Resorts have publicly stated they cannot participate in Nevada cannabis despite operating in states where integration is permitted. The policy affects 440 licensed gaming entities in Nevada, from Strip megaresorts to rural sportsbooks, all subject to the same prohibition.

For cannabis operators, the firewall eliminates Nevada's most sophisticated hospitality partners and their institutional capital. Multi-state operators including Curaleaf, Green Thumb Industries, and Trulieve have entered Nevada but cannot partner with casinos for co-located dispensaries, consumption lounges, or branded product lines. Small Nevada operators lack access to the real estate, customer traffic, and marketing infrastructure that Strip properties could provide.

For patients and consumers, the separation limits product availability, increases prices through inefficient distribution, and prevents the development of integrated cannabis tourism experiences that would position Las Vegas as a global destination for legal adult use. An estimated 42 million annual visitors to Las Vegas represent a customer base larger than the entire population of California, yet cannabis sales to tourists remain constrained by limited dispensary locations, restricted consumption venues, and lack of resort integration.

Background and History

Nevada's cannabis-gaming separation originated in the state's 2013 regulatory framework for medical marijuana, codified before adult-use legalization, and designed to insulate gaming licenses from federal enforcement under the Controlled Substances Act. The policy reflects a decades-long tension between state-level cannabis reform and federal prohibition that remains unresolved even as the Drug Enforcement Administration moves toward rescheduling in 2026.

Gaming Regulation Foundation (1931-2000)

Nevada legalized casino gaming in 1931 and established the Gaming Control Board in 1955 following organized crime infiltration of Las Vegas casinos. The state developed the nation's most rigorous gaming licensing regime, requiring "suitability" determinations for all owners, investors, and key employees. Federal law became the benchmark: any activity that could jeopardize a federal gaming license or violate federal law created grounds for denial or revocation of Nevada gaming privileges. This framework made cannabis involvement categorically disqualifying once the Controlled Substances Act classified marijuana as a Schedule I substance in 1970 under 21 U.S.C. § 812.

The 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and subsequent federal-tribal gaming compacts reinforced Nevada's caution. Tribal casinos operate under federal oversight, and any state policy that normalized federally prohibited activity could theoretically trigger federal intervention. Nevada gaming regulators watched the 1990s federal crackdown on tribal gaming operations in California and concluded that strict separation from cannabis was essential to protect the state's economic foundation.

Medical Marijuana Era (2000-2016)

Nevada voters approved medical marijuana through Question 9 in 2000 with 65% support, but the state did not establish a regulated dispensary system until 2013. During the intervening 13 years, the Gaming Control Board issued multiple advisory opinions clarifying that any involvement with medical marijuana—even state-legal activity—violated suitability standards for gaming licenses. A 2012 internal memo obtained through public records requests stated that "marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law, and participation in the marijuana industry, regardless of state authorization, demonstrates unsuitability for gaming licensure."

When Nevada Assembly Bill 374 created the medical marijuana establishment licensing system in 2013, the legislation included explicit separation language. Nevada Revised Statutes § 453A.322 prohibited medical marijuana establishment licensees from holding gaming licenses, and Nevada Gaming Commission Regulation 5.011 prohibited gaming licensees from holding any financial interest in cannabis businesses. The dual prohibition created a complete firewall: no entity could operate in both industries, and no individual with a gaming license could invest in, manage, or derive income from cannabis operations.

Adult-Use Legalization (2016-2017)

Nevada voters approved Question 2 in November 2016, legalizing adult-use cannabis with 54.5% support. The initiative became effective January 1, 2017, and the Nevada Department of Taxation began issuing retail licenses in July 2017. The ballot measure did not address gaming separation, and the Legislature's 2017 implementation bill, Senate Bill 487, maintained the existing firewall. Gaming industry lobbyists testified that any integration posed "unacceptable federal risk" to Nevada's gaming licenses, and no legislator challenged the separation during floor debate.

Early adult-use sales exceeded projections. Nevada dispensaries sold $425 million in cannabis products during the first 12 months of legal sales, generating $70 million in tax revenue. Las Vegas dispensaries reported that 40-60% of customers were tourists, demonstrating the market potential of integrating cannabis into the resort experience. Yet Strip casinos remained entirely absent from the industry. Dispensaries clustered near but not on casino properties, forcing tourists to travel off-Strip to access legal cannabis.

Federal Enforcement Uncertainty (2018-2020)

The Trump administration's January 2018 rescission of the Cole Memorandum created renewed federal enforcement uncertainty. Attorney General Jeff Sessions' memo eliminated Obama-era guidance that had deprioritized federal prosecution of state-legal cannabis businesses. Nevada gaming regulators cited the Sessions memo as justification for maintaining strict separation, arguing that any relaxation could trigger federal scrutiny of gaming licenses.

The 2018 Farm Bill's legalization of hemp and CBD created a narrow exception. The Gaming Control Board issued guidance in 2019 allowing casinos to sell hemp-derived CBD products with less than 0.3% THC, concluding that federally legal hemp did not create suitability issues. Several Strip properties began offering CBD beverages and topicals, demonstrating that limited integration was operationally feasible, but the firewall remained absolute for marijuana products containing more than 0.3% THC.

COVID-19 and Economic Pressure (2020-2022)

The COVID-19 pandemic devastated Nevada's economy. Gaming revenue fell 45% in 2020, and the state faced a $1.2 billion budget shortfall. Cannabis sales remained strong, increasing 30% in 2020 as dispensaries qualified as essential businesses. The divergent performance prompted the first serious legislative examination of integration. Assembly Bill 341 in the 2021 session proposed allowing casinos to host on-property dispensaries if federal law changed, but the bill died in committee after Gaming Control Board testimony opposing any policy shift before federal rescheduling.

The Nevada Resort Association commissioned an economic analysis in 2021 that estimated integrated cannabis sales could generate $200-300 million in additional annual revenue for Strip properties. The report noted that New Jersey casinos had begun planning cannabis integration following that state's 2020 legalization, and that Nevada risked losing its competitive advantage in hospitality innovation. Gaming regulators remained unmoved, reiterating that federal prohibition made integration untenable regardless of economic benefits.

Rescheduling and Current Debate (2023-2026)

The Department of Health and Human Services recommended rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III in August 2023, triggering a formal Drug Enforcement Administration rulemaking process. The DEA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in May 2024, and administrative law judge hearings began in December 2024. The rescheduling process created new momentum for Nevada integration advocates, who argued that Schedule III status would eliminate the federal prohibition rationale for gaming separation.

The Nevada Legislature established a joint interim study committee in 2023 to examine cannabis-gaming integration. The committee heard testimony from multi-state operators, tribal gaming representatives, tax policy experts, and federal law scholars. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas International Gaming Institute received a $250,000 appropriation to conduct the economic analysis released in May 2026, which quantified the $80 million annual revenue loss from continued separation.

Key Players

Nevada Gaming Control Board

The Gaming Control Board enforces the separation policy through licensing regulations and has consistently opposed integration absent federal legalization. The three-member board, appointed by the governor, operates under Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 463 with broad authority to determine suitability standards for gaming licenses. Chairman Brin Gibson testified before the Legislature in 2025 that "our primary obligation is protecting the integrity of Nevada gaming licenses, and until marijuana is removed from the Controlled Substances Act entirely, any involvement with cannabis creates unacceptable federal risk." The board has denied gaming license applications from individuals with prior cannabis business involvement, even in states where such activity was legal, and has required divestiture of cannabis interests as a condition of gaming license approval.

Nevada Department of Taxation

The Department of Taxation regulates cannabis businesses and collects excise taxes but has no authority over gaming policy. The Cannabis Compliance Board, established in 2020 as a division within the department, oversees 80 retail dispensaries, 58 cultivation facilities, and 42 production facilities statewide. Director Scot Rutledge has publicly supported integration, stating in 2025 that "the artificial separation limits our ability to maximize tax revenue and creates inefficiencies in the supply chain." The department's 2025 annual report noted that Nevada's effective cannabis tax rate of 15% generates lower per-capita revenue than Colorado (21% effective rate) or Washington (37% effective rate), in part because separation limits premium product development and tourism sales.

Nevada Resort Association

The Resort Association represents major casino operators and has evolved from opposing integration to supporting limited pilot programs. The association's 2021 position statement opposed any integration, but its 2025 policy brief endorsed allowing casinos to host licensed consumption lounges and sell pre-packaged cannabis products if federal law changes to Schedule III or lower. President Virginia Valentine said the association "recognizes the economic opportunity but cannot support any policy that jeopardizes gaming licenses under current federal law." MGM Resorts International CEO Bill Hornbuckle stated in a 2025 earnings call that "we are ready to integrate cannabis into our resort offerings the moment federal and state law permits, and we believe Nevada is leaving significant revenue on the table by maintaining absolute separation."

Nevada Dispensary Association

The Dispensary Association represents 60 licensed retailers and has advocated for integration while opposing casino dominance of the industry. Executive Director Riana Durrett testified in 2025 that "we support allowing casinos to host consumption lounges and sell products, but we oppose vertical integration that would let casinos obtain cultivation and production licenses, which would squeeze out existing operators." The association has proposed a tiered licensing system that would allow casinos to retail but not produce cannabis, preserving the existing supply chain while expanding distribution channels. The association commissioned a 2024 study showing that 73% of Nevada dispensary customers support on-Strip locations, and that lack of convenient access reduces tourist purchases by an estimated 40%.

Multi-State Operators

National cannabis companies operate in Nevada but cannot partner with casinos, limiting their market penetration and capital efficiency. Curaleaf operates three Nevada dispensaries, Green Thumb Industries operates two, and Trulieve operates one, but none have Strip locations or casino partnerships. Curaleaf CEO Matt Darin stated in 2024 that "Nevada should be our highest-revenue state given the tourist traffic, but the gaming separation makes it impossible to access the most valuable real estate and customer base in the market." These operators have lobbied for integration but face opposition from Nevada-only licensees who fear that casino partnerships would favor well-capitalized national chains over local businesses.

Tribal Gaming Interests

Nevada's tribal casinos face unique federal constraints that complicate integration even if state law changes. The Fort Mojave Indian Tribe operates the Avi Resort and Casino in Laughlin, and the Washoe Tribe operates gaming facilities in the Reno area. Tribal gaming operates under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and requires federal approval for any changes to gaming compacts. Tribal representatives testified in 2025 that federal rescheduling to Schedule III would not automatically permit tribal cannabis operations, as the National Indian Gaming Commission has indicated that marijuana involvement could still jeopardize tribal gaming licenses even if federally rescheduled. This creates a scenario where Nevada could allow commercial casino integration while tribal casinos remain prohibited, raising competitive equity concerns.

Legal and Regulatory Framework

Nevada's cannabis-gaming separation rests on three legal pillars: federal prohibition under the Controlled Substances Act, state gaming suitability standards in Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 463, and administrative regulations enforced by the Gaming Control Board.

The Controlled Substances Act classifies marijuana as a Schedule I substance under 21 U.S.C. § 812, defining it as having high abuse potential, no accepted medical use, and lack of safety for supervised medical use. Federal law makes it a felony to manufacture, distribute, or possess marijuana, with penalties up to five years imprisonment and $250,000 in fines for first-time offenders under 21 U.S.C. § 841. State legalization does not create a defense to federal prosecution, as the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution establishes federal law as supreme. The Tenth Amendment reserves police powers to states, allowing Nevada to decline to enforce federal marijuana prohibition, but does not prevent federal enforcement within Nevada.

Nevada Revised Statutes § 463.170 requires gaming license applicants to demonstrate "good character, honesty and integrity." The statute grants the Gaming Control Board discretion to determine what conduct demonstrates suitability, and the board has interpreted any violation of federal law—even if state-legal—as evidence of unsuitability. Nevada Revised Statutes § 463.220 allows the board to deny licenses to persons whose operations "would reflect or tend to reflect discredit upon the State of Nevada or the gaming industry," a standard the board applies to cannabis involvement based on federal illegality.

Nevada Gaming Commission Regulation 5.011 explicitly prohibits gaming licensees from holding "any direct or indirect interest" in cannabis businesses. The regulation defines "interest" broadly to include ownership, management roles, consulting arrangements, lease agreements, and debt financing. A 2019 declaratory order clarified that even passive investment through a blind trust creates disqualifying interest if the licensee has knowledge of the cannabis investment. The regulation contains no exception for medical marijuana, hemp, or CBD products derived from marijuana (as opposed to hemp).

Nevada Revised Statutes § 453A.322 creates the reciprocal prohibition, barring cannabis licensees from holding gaming licenses. The statute applies to owners, officers, and board members of cannabis businesses, effectively preventing any individual from participating in both industries. The statute contains no materiality threshold, so even a 1% ownership stake in a dispensary disqualifies an individual from gaming licensure.

The regulatory framework creates several practical consequences. First, casino properties cannot lease space to dispensaries, as the lease would constitute a financial interest in the cannabis business. Second, casinos cannot provide debt financing, consulting services, or management agreements to cannabis operators. Third, individuals must choose one industry or the other; no person can hold simultaneous licenses. Fourth, casinos cannot develop cannabis-branded products or experiences, even if manufactured and sold by licensed third parties, as trademark licensing would create a financial interest.

Nevada's framework differs from other states with legal cannabis and gaming. New Jersey allows casinos to apply for cannabis licenses and host on-property dispensaries, though no major operator has yet done so as of 2026. Illinois permits casinos to hold cannabis licenses but requires separate corporate entities. Michigan allows casinos to host consumption lounges. Massachusetts prohibits direct casino ownership of dispensaries but allows lease arrangements and co-location. Nevada's absolute firewall is the strictest separation policy among states with both legal cannabis and commercial casinos.

Economic and Market Implications

The UNLV economic analysis concluded that Nevada forfeits $80 million in annual tax revenue through lost cannabis sales, reduced tourism spending, and constrained market development. The report used three methodologies to estimate the revenue impact: tourism sales modeling, comparative state analysis, and institutional investment assessment.

The tourism sales model estimated that integrated cannabis sales at Strip casinos could generate $300-400 million in additional annual revenue. The model assumed that 15-20% of Las Vegas visitors would purchase cannabis products if available at their hotel, compared to the current 8-10% who visit off-Strip dispensaries. Average tourist transaction values would increase from $85 to $120 due to premium product availability and convenience purchasing. At Nevada's 15% cannabis excise tax rate plus 6.85% sales tax, the incremental sales would generate $65-87 million in new tax revenue.

The comparative state analysis examined per-capita cannabis sales in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and California, adjusting for tourism rates and demographic differences. Nevada's per-capita sales rank fourth among these states despite having the highest tourism rate, suggesting that distribution constraints suppress sales. The analysis estimated that Nevada's per-capita sales should exceed Colorado's by 25-30% given tourism volume, implying $200-250 million in unrealized annual sales and $45-55 million in foregone tax revenue.

The institutional investment assessment examined capital flows into Nevada cannabis businesses compared to other western states. Nevada cannabis companies have raised $890 million in institutional capital since 2017, compared to $2.1 billion in Colorado, $1.8 billion in California, and $1.4 billion in Arizona. Adjusting for market size, Nevada attracts 40% less institutional investment per dollar of sales than comparable states. The report attributed this gap to gaming separation, which prevents casino operators and their institutional investors from participating in Nevada cannabis. Increased institutional investment would fund cultivation expansion, processing automation, and product innovation, generating an estimated $15-20 million in additional annual tax revenue through increased sales and higher-margin products.

The report identified several market distortions created by separation. First, dispensaries cluster in suboptimal locations near but not on the Strip, increasing customer acquisition costs and reducing foot traffic. Second, cannabis tourism remains underdeveloped compared to Colorado and California, where integrated experiences attract dedicated cannabis tourists. Third, product innovation lags, as Nevada operators cannot access casino culinary expertise, entertainment partnerships, or hospitality branding. Fourth, wholesale prices remain elevated due to supply chain inefficiencies, as cultivators cannot access casino purchasing power or distribution networks.

For casino operators, the separation eliminates a high-margin ancillary revenue stream. The UNLV report estimated that integrated cannabis sales could generate $15-25 per occupied room night in incremental revenue, or $180-300 million annually across Strip properties. Cannabis profit margins of 40-50% exceed slot machine margins of 8-12% and table game margins of 15-20%, making cannabis one of the most profitable potential amenities. Casinos also lose the ability to use cannabis as a customer acquisition and retention tool, as integrated experiences could differentiate properties in an increasingly competitive regional gaming market.

For existing Nevada cannabis operators, integration presents both opportunity and threat. Increased tourist access would expand the total market, benefiting all operators. But casino entry could consolidate market share among well-capitalized entrants, squeezing independent dispensaries. The Nevada Dispensary Association has proposed limiting casino operators to retail-only licenses, preserving the existing cultivation and production tier for current licensees. This approach would expand distribution while protecting supply chain participants, though it would limit the vertical integration efficiencies that casinos could achieve.

What Experts Say

Legal scholars, economists, and industry analysts disagree on whether federal rescheduling to Schedule III eliminates the legal justification for Nevada's gaming separation.

According to UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Robert Faiss, rescheduling to Schedule III would not legalize marijuana under federal law, but would eliminate the most serious criminal penalties and allow state-legal businesses to deduct ordinary business expenses under 26 U.S.C. § 280E. Faiss testified before the Nevada Legislature in 2025 that "Schedule III status creates a middle ground where marijuana remains federally controlled but is treated more like prescription medications, which should reduce the federal risk to gaming licenses." He noted that pharmacies holding DEA registrations to dispense Schedule III controlled substances do not face gaming license disqualification, suggesting that cannabis businesses operating under similar federal oversight should not create suitability issues.

Former Gaming Control Board member Becky Harris offered a contrary view in a 2025 law review article, arguing that any federal prohibition creates unacceptable risk regardless of scheduling. Harris wrote that "gaming regulators must take a conservative approach to federal law compliance because a single federal enforcement action could jeopardize Nevada's entire gaming industry, which generates $15 billion annually and employs 200,000 people." She noted that Schedule III substances remain subject to federal prosecution under 21 U.S.C. § 841, and that state-legal cannabis businesses would still violate federal law even after rescheduling.

Applied Analysis, a Las Vegas economic research firm, released a 2024 report concluding that integration would create 3,000-5,000 new jobs in cultivation, retail, and hospitality sectors. Principal Jeremy Aguero said the separation "artificially constrains Nevada's competitive advantage in hospitality innovation and cedes cannabis tourism leadership to Colorado and California." The report estimated that integrated cannabis experiences could attract 500,000-800,000 additional annual visitors to Las Vegas, generating $200-300 million in incremental gaming, hotel, and food and beverage revenue beyond direct cannabis sales.

Marijuana Policy Project deputy director Matthew Schweich argued in 2025 testimony that Nevada's separation policy is "a relic of early legalization caution that no longer serves its intended purpose." Schweich noted that no state-legal cannabis business has faced federal prosecution since 2018, and that the Justice Department's current enforcement priorities focus on unlicensed operators and interstate trafficking rather than compliant state-legal businesses. He contended that Nevada's risk-averse approach costs the state tens of millions in tax revenue without providing meaningful protection against federal enforcement that is unlikely to occur.

Tribal gaming consultant Anthony Sanchez testified that tribal casinos face unique constraints that state policy cannot resolve. According to Sanchez, the National Indian Gaming Commission has indicated that marijuana involvement could jeopardize tribal gaming compacts regardless of state law changes, because tribal gaming operates under federal law and requires federal approval. He warned that allowing commercial casino integration while tribal casinos remain prohibited would create competitive inequity and could trigger legal challenges under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act's requirement for state-tribal parity.

What's Next

Nevada's cannabis-gaming integration debate will be shaped by three near-term developments: federal rescheduling finalization, 2027 legislative session proposals, and competitive pressure from other states.

The Drug Enforcement Administration's rescheduling process is expected to conclude in late 2026 or early 2027, following completion of administrative law judge hearings and public comment review. If the DEA finalizes rescheduling to Schedule III, Nevada gaming regulators will face renewed pressure to reconsider separation policy. The Gaming Control Board has indicated it will not act without legislative direction, meaning any policy change requires statutory amendment through the Nevada Legislature. The 2027 legislative session, which convenes in February 2027, represents the next opportunity for integration legislation.

Assembly Member Daniele Monroe-Moreno has announced plans to introduce integration legislation in 2027 that would allow casinos to host licensed consumption lounges and sell pre-packaged cannabis products manufactured by existing licensees. The proposal would maintain the prohibition on casino ownership of cultivation and production licenses, addressing concerns from current operators about market consolidation. Monroe-Moreno said in May 2026 that "the UNLV report makes clear that we are leaving significant revenue on the table, and we need to modernize our regulatory framework to reflect the reality that cannabis is becoming federally accepted."

The Nevada Resort Association has indicated it would support limited integration legislation if federal rescheduling occurs. The association's 2026 policy brief outlined a phased approach: first allowing consumption lounges, then retail sales of third-party products, and finally considering vertical integration after evaluating market impacts. This incremental strategy aims to build regulatory confidence while minimizing disruption to existing cannabis operators.

Competitive pressure from other states is mounting. New Jersey casinos are expected to begin hosting on-property dispensaries in late 2026, and Illinois casinos are evaluating similar integration. If these states successfully integrate cannabis without federal enforcement consequences, Nevada's risk-averse approach will become harder to justify. The Nevada Resort Association's 2025 competitive analysis warned that "Las Vegas risks losing its position as the nation's premier adult entertainment destination if we continue to prohibit experiences that competitors are offering."

The tribal gaming question remains unresolved. Federal legislation would be required to clarify whether tribal casinos can participate in cannabis under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and no such legislation is currently pending in Congress. Nevada may face a scenario where commercial casinos can integrate while tribal casinos cannot, creating competitive imbalance and potential legal challenges. Some tribal representatives have suggested that Nevada should maintain separation until federal law provides clear authorization for tribal participation, ensuring competitive parity.

Industry observers expect the integration debate to intensify through 2026 and 2027 as federal rescheduling progresses and other states demonstrate successful integration models. The $80 million annual revenue estimate from UNLV provides quantifiable justification for policy change, and the state's ongoing budget challenges create fiscal pressure to maximize tax revenue. However, gaming industry caution and tribal equity concerns may slow the pace of reform, potentially resulting in limited pilot programs rather than comprehensive integration.

Further Reading

• Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 463 (Gaming Control Act) - https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-463.html
• Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 453A (Medical Marijuana) - https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-453a.html
• Nevada Gaming Commission Regulations - https://gaming.nv.gov/index.aspx?page=51
• Nevada Cannabis Compliance Board - https://ccb.nv.gov/
• UNLV International Gaming Institute - https://www.unlv.edu/igi
• 21 U.S.C. § 812 (Controlled Substances Act Schedules) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/812
• 21 U.S.C. § 841 (Prohibited Acts and Penalties) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/841
• 26 U.S.C. § 280E (Tax Code Provision Affecting Cannabis Businesses) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/280E
• Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/25/chapter-29
• Nevada Department of Taxation Cannabis Tax Reports - https://tax.nv.gov/Publications/Marijuana_Statistics_and_Reports/
• DEA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Marijuana Rescheduling - https://www.federalregister.gov/
• Nevada Resort Association Policy Briefs - https://www.nevadaresorts.org/