Experts across gaming, cannabis policy, and state government say expanding access to legal, regulated cannabis in Las Vegas could help bolster tourism and support the broader gaming industry, particularly as visitation trends soften and competition for consumer spending intensifies.

That consensus view emerged Friday during a panel at UNLV’s Cannabis Policy Institute and International Gaming Institute’s 3rd Annual Gaming & Cannabis Policy Discussion, which brought together industry stakeholders and policymakers to examine how Nevada’s cannabis regulations intersect with its tourism economy.

A central theme throughout the discussion was that current restrictions may be limiting consumer choice in a market where Las Vegas increasingly competes with other destinations and entertainment options. Speakers pointed to the gap between how visitors behave in social settings and how regulated products are currently segregated under Nevada law.

“The idea that we’ve limited one aspect of our tourism economy is ridiculous,” state Sen. Rochelle Nguyen said. “To think the cannabis industry is outside of our other tourism industry is naive, inaccurate, and not what’s happening out there in the tourism corridor. We got this wrong in some areas. We had good intentions, but as we move forward, this industry is changing.”

University researcher Robin Goldstein, who presented findings at the event, argued that limited cannabis access within casino environments may be a drag on tourism and called for regulatory reconsideration.

Industry perspectives echoed the idea that regulated cannabis could function as another amenity in Las Vegas’ hospitality ecosystem, similar to how nightlife and entertainment offerings have evolved within casino resorts over time.

“A year ago, we hadn’t gone into a terrible summer and seen double-digit visitation decreases and the rise of the prediction markets that are a direct competitor to the casino business,” said Fifth Street Gaming CEO Seth Schorr. “Things haven’t gotten better. The casino industry has a lot of competition.”

Schorr described cannabis as one of several potential “tools in the tool box” for operators looking to differentiate offerings and attract visitors, particularly non-loyalty customers who are not part of casino marketing databases.

“Our carded play, people who are part of our players club, is up, but our non-carded play is significantly down,” Schorr said. “I think cannabis would have an impact. I don’t think it would be a one size fits all strategy. There’s probably a casino that would say no even if it’s legal.”

He added that different operators could take widely different approaches if regulations were updated, ranging from limited controlled access to more immersive brand experiences.

“Many others would allow it in a highly regulated way and some might completely change their brand to a cannabis-first hotel, creating a first-of-it-kind cannabis experience. We’re a very creative industry and giving that option, you’d see things in all different ways — operators coming up with cool and compelling reasons to come to our city.”

State Assemblyman Max Carter pointed to another barrier: federal banking and regulatory oversight, which he said creates hesitation among casino operators even when state law permits certain activities.

Carter said the biggest concern among casinos was how they fall under banking rules subject to federal oversight and audits. The proximity of a federal offense occurring on or near their properties, even though legal in Nevada, scares the industry.

He has proposed legislation to allow cannabis deliveries to non-gaming businesses on the Strip, though he said resistance remains strong in parts of the casino industry, even as some stakeholders show openness to reform.

Still, panelists emphasized that regulatory change is not straightforward. Operators raised concerns about internal controls, guest access, and delivery logistics inside hotel properties, even if broader legalization frameworks were expanded.

Not everything is as simple as changing laws and regulations, Schorr said. A lot of operators don’t want delivery people dropping off products to rooms as part of the internal controls on access. A change in law won’t change whether hotels can determine who can go to a room.

Nguyen said meaningful reform will likely require coordination between legislators, regulators, and industry stakeholders, and acknowledged that federal uncertainty remains a complicating factor for Nevada.

“The big elephant in the room is we still need to see some change on the federal level,” Nguyen said. “Everyone kind of hides behind that and with good reason. We don’t want to disrupt our gaming industry by gambling on what the federal government is going to do.”

Nevada’s next legislative session is scheduled for 2027, leaving industry and policy advocates to continue refining proposals in the interim as debates over cannabis access and tourism strategy continue to evolve.

___

©2026 Las Vegas Review-Journal. Visit reviewjournal.com.. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.