MP Irion warns outdoor-only cannabis model will not get his support, but research challenges indoor profit claims

GREAT BAY--Member of Parliament Ardwell Irion has made clear that he cannot support cannabis legislation if local farmers are restricted to outdoor cultivation under the framework now being discussed, arguing that such a structure would place them at a disadvantage in quality, competitiveness, and market value. But while Irion’s warning centers on the widely held view that indoor-grown cannabis commands more money in the marketplace, international research suggests the larger profitability picture is more complicated, and in many cases points in the opposite direction.

Speaking during Parliament’s discussion on the cannabis framework presented by Native Nations St. Maarten, Irion said his major concern is the policy framework for local farmers and whether they are being placed in a weaker position from the outset. He said plainly that he would not support the legislation if local farmers are limited to outdoor cultivation. “My major concern comes with the policy framework for the local farmers,” Irion said. “As soon as I saw that, I had a red flag for me already and I could tell you I have the battery ready from today already. I would not support any legislation in this corner farm if it remains later, right?”

Irion argued that outdoor cultivation puts local farmers at a disadvantage compared with indoor growers, especially when it comes to the quality and consistency of the final product. “In farming one but especially in marijuana farming right outdoor has a disadvantage to indoor,” he said. He questioned why local farmers would be confined to outdoor cultivation at all. “Did the local farmers have an opportunity to grow indoors or based on your presentation, no. Right, why are we subjecting our local farmers only to outdoor?”

He went further, laying out the practical risks that come with outdoor farming. “If I grow outdoor, what am I subjected to? Pests, disease, sun, water, GEBE expenses,” he said. “So that also means now my terpenes levels affected, THC levels affected, and then I'm also subjected to you telling me I can't buy your marijuana because the quality is not on that level.” He warned that farmers could absorb the risk of cultivation only to be told later that their product is not good enough for premium sale or export. “I am subjected to all these extra costs because I can't go indoor and then another risk is that you can tell me after all, after all I did here, ‘Oh no, your quality is not a level we need to export internationally.’”

Irion said he could accept a model in which local farmers are allowed a limited form of indoor growing, but not one in which they are boxed into outdoor production only. “If you say OK local farmers, we're going to limit you to a certain level of indoors, I could accept that. But to see local farmers, we're only going to do outdoors, I can tell you now already, all farmers there, you're not committed, you're not going to compete.” He also made the economic point directly: “Anybody else ever travelled anywhere like indoor marijuana and me ask ask a question, is indoor marijuana more valuable on a market than outdoor?” and “How much harvest can you get indoors versus outdoors?” He closed by saying, “We have to be very open with the public,” and, “We have to be very, very real on this topic.”

Irion’s concern reflects a common perception in the cannabis industry: indoor flower generally sells for more. Market data in California, one of the most closely tracked legal markets in the world, show a notable price spread between indoor and outdoor cannabis, with indoor flower typically fetching a higher wholesale price. Earlier academic work from the University of California also noted that indoor-grown cannabis was selling at substantially higher prices than outdoor-grown product.

But international and U.S. research increasingly shows that higher market price is not the same as higher profitability. A California regulatory impact analysis found that indoor cultivation carries higher costs than outdoor or mixed-light production because growers must build and maintain enclosed facilities, stabilize growing conditions, and absorb significant year-round labor and energy expenses. The same analysis noted that outdoor cultivation has lower annual production costs and fewer startup requirements. That means indoor product may earn more revenue at the point of sale, while still leaving growers with weaker margins once overhead is paid.

Energy costs are one of the clearest reasons. A report from the Farm and Energy Initiative estimated electricity costs at about $0.24 per gram for indoor cultivation, compared with about $0.01 per gram for outdoor cultivation. Peer-reviewed research in Nature Sustainability also found that indoor cannabis production is highly energy-intensive because it depends on artificial lighting, ventilation, dehumidification, natural gas use, and CO2 enrichment. Those findings are often framed as environmental concerns, but they also point directly to the operating costs that can eat away at profit.

Irion is correct that indoor cannabis tends to sit in the higher-value segment of the market and that farmers restricted to outdoor cultivation could face a disadvantage in price, consistency, and product positioning. But the international evidence does not support the broader assumption that indoor is automatically the better business model. In fact, the opposite is often true once real costs are counted. California’s official market outlook shows continued price pressure across cultivation types, while the state’s long-running legal market has been marked by instability, oversupply, and margin compression. In those conditions, the heavier fixed costs carried by indoor growers can leave them more exposed, not less.

Research reviews have reached similar conclusions. A 2022 review in Agronomy found that the main advantage of outdoor cultivation is lower production cost because indoor systems require artificial lighting, ventilation, and temperature control, all of which increase implementation and maintenance expenses. More recent scientific literature continues to describe indoor cannabis as more controllable, but not necessarily more economical.

So while Irion’s political warning is about fairness to local farmers, the wider evidence adds another layer to the debate. If farmers are restricted to outdoor production only, they may indeed be locked out of the premium-priced end of the market. But if St. Maarten were to encourage broad indoor cultivation instead, the island could be steering growers toward the most expensive production model in an already volatile global industry. That contradiction sits at the center of the policy challenge.

In that sense, Irion’s remarks may have exposed one of the most important tensions in the entire cannabis discussion. On one hand, he does not want to see local farmers relegated to the lowest-value segment of the market. On the other, the international evidence shows that the higher-priced indoor segment is not automatically the most profitable once energy, infrastructure, and compliance costs are taken into account.

‍