Law Massachusetts

[Baron23]

Massachusetts moves to ease medical cannabis access

Medical marijuana companies in Massachusetts could see a hike in business once regulators implement several improvements to the state’s MMJ program.

The Department of Health proposed the changes in September 2016 but delayed acting on them amid concerns about how recreational marijuana legalization would affect the medical cannabis program, The Boston Globe reported.

Here’s what you need to know:

• Officials hope the changes will be in place by the end of the year. The changes must first be submitted to the state Public Health Council for formal approval, on Nov. 8, and then to the Secretary of the Commonwealth for certification.
• Medical marijuana businesses – where growing, manufacturing and retailing are vertically integrated – will be allowed to grow cannabis from plant clippings instead of just seeds, which will increase yields and make it easier to keep strains consistent.
• Dispensaries will be permitted to post prices online, making it easier for patients to comparison shop.
• Certified nurse practitioners will be authorized to recommend medical marijuana, which MMJ advocates say would greatly expand the number of health professionals who can make recommendations.
• Employees of nursing homes, hospice centers and other medical facilities will be permitted to administer MMJ to residents and patients in those facilities.

 

[Baron23]

Massachusetts is tackling rules for the marijuana industry this week. Here's what to watch for

This week is crunch time for the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission.

The nascent agency, charged with overseeing recreational pot, has said it expects marijuana will be available for sale to adults older than 21 by July 1. But for that to happen, it must first translate the state law legalizing marijuana into the specific, step-by-step rules and policies that businesses and consumers and its own staff will follow. And it must file the first draft of those regulations by the end of the year, so there’s enough time to hold public hearings and finalize the rules by March 15, as the law requires.

So this week, the commission has scheduled a series of all-day meetings, during which its five commissioners will debate and vote on dozens of regulations. Some will be of interest mostly to those in the business — insurance requirements, for example. Others could have a big effect on consumers. Some key decisions to watch for:

Local control

Many cities and towns remain apprehensive about whether to allow marijuana businesses, such as dispensaries and cultivation facilities, within their borders. More than 100 have various restrictions on licensed companies, including bans, moratoriums, and limits on how many can open.

Get Talking Points in your inbox: An afternoon recap of the day’s most important business news, delivered weekdays.

While some local officials are opposed to pot in general, much of their hesitance stems from confusion: How much control will a city or town have over the licensing of marijuana companies? Will an operator need a letter of support from a municipality to win a state license?

Look for the commission to offer some clarity on the role of municipalities. If it does, some cities and towns may lift their restrictions, which should make legal pot available over a wider area in Massachusetts. If they don’t, the market is likely to remain smaller in the early days.

Pot bars?

One problem in other states with legal marijuana has been a dearth of places where it’s legal to consume the drug. This has been an issue especially in tourist-heavy areas, where out-of-towners have taken to lighting up in public (which is illegal in Massachusetts), to the annoyance of residents.

One solution could be so-called “social consumption lounges” or “cannabis clubs” — essentially, pot bars — which are allowed under the Massachusetts law.t

These could also be attractive to renters whose landlords won’t let them smoke in their apartments and parents who don’t want to consume pot around their kids.

But the commission must answer questions about the licensing and management of these facilities, including how much marijuana customers will be allowed to consume, how the facilities will be ventilated, whether patrons can take home leftover marijuana, and how “budtenders” will keep patrons from leaving and driving while intoxicated.

There are also questions about whether licensed pot bars could be combined with other businesses, such as yoga studios or massage parlors.

Delivery services etc.

Some corners of the local marijuana industry have argued that the commission, in order to meet its July 1 target date, should hold off licensing all but the basics: cultivation, processing, and retail facilities.

But the law also allows the commission to issue licenses to “craft cooperatives” comprised of small home-growers, delivery and transportation services, research, education efforts (think, marijuana industry career training institutes), and one-time licenses for farmer’s markets and other events.

Keep an eye out to see if cannabis officials tackle these “extra” categories, and if so, what rules they will be subject to. There is particular debate around whether craft cooperatives should be limited in size or subjected to less stringent rules than other cultivators.

Diversity

The law calls for the commission to grant expedited licensing to companies that will empower minority communities and others that were disproportionately affected by the war on drugs. That provision prompts questions: how to define those communities, and how much of a leg up those businesses should be granted. Should the state go so far as to provide loans to prospective business owners who lack access to capital?

This issue is a key one for progressives, for whom racial and economic equity is a big reason they supported legalizing marijuana. Other states where the drug is legal have struggled to create diverse cannabis industries.

Ads and packaging

One concern frequently raised by skeptics of legalization is that kids will get into cannabis-infused edibles. The commission must decide on requirements for labeling and packaging such products, so it’s clear they are for adults only.

Similarly, it must decide on advertising limits and ensure ads do not target minors. Currently, medical dispensaries are subject to strict requirements about signs and until recently, were not even allowed to post their prices online.

 

[Baron23]

Massachusetts Regulators Busy Rolling out the Rules for Legal Cannabis

BOSTON (AP) — From “cannabis cafes” to “craft cooperatives,” regulators have been laying out a vision for what a potential multibillion dollar recreational marijuana industry might look like when retail sales begin next year in Massachusetts.The Cannabis Control Commission reached tentative agreement over the past week on an array of rules and regulations required to implement the law approved by voters last November and later modified by the Legislature.



RELATED STORY
Massachusetts Taking First Steps to Allow Cannabis Clubs
Promoting diversity and placing controls on the packaging, marketing and advertising of pot were other key issues discussed by the five-member panel, which is expected to formally approve the regulations in the coming days.

The rules would be open to public comment before being finalized in March.

Here are some highlights:

Social Consumption
A cannabis store typically works much like a liquor store: You go in, buy the product and take it home to consume.


RELATED STORY
Where Can I Smoke Legally in a Legal State?
Regulators in Massachusetts and other legal recreational marijuana states have wrestled with the issue of when, where and how to let people use marijuana in social settings and other establishments.

A major question is whether smoking would be allowed in such establishments.
The commission ultimately settled on two types of on-site consumption licenses.

A primary use license would be for businesses that derive more than 50 percent of their income from marijuana sales. An example of such a business model would be a cannabis bar or cafe where patrons could gather and use marijuana with friends.

A major question, however, is whether smoking would be allowed in such establishments or if customers would be limited to using marijuana in other forms such as edibles. The commission plans to form a working group to make recommendations on “smoking and other forms of social consumption,” by July 1.

The second category, a mixed use license, would be available to businesses that may want to make cannabis available to customers in some fashion. Examples could include restaurants, movie theaters, yoga studios or even massage parlors that promote marijuana-infused lotions.

A restaurant, for example, might be able to offer a single-serving dish that has cannabis as an ingredient, but it couldn’t leave the premises. So forget takeout or doggy bags.


RELATED STORY
Statewide Delivery to Launch in Massachusetts
Home Delivery
Can’t make it to the nearest marijuana store? Home delivery may be available under a strict set of rules laid out by the commission.

Upon delivery, drivers must obtain positive identification and proof that a buyer is 21 or older. The recipient must also sign for any delivery.

Products that are delivered must follow the same packaging requirements as if sold in a store. A single delivery of multiple products could not exceed $3,000 in value and deliveries could only be made during a store’s normal business hours.

Craft Cooperatives
Craft cooperatives would allow groups of people — with each member required to have lived in Massachusetts for at least a year — to organize as a limited liability company or similar business structure.

The cooperatives would be licensed to operate up to six marijuana cultivation locations and up to three additional processing or manufacturing facilities. While they could package and brand marijuana products and deliver them to retailers, craft cooperatives would not be permitted to sell directly to consumers.


RELATED STORY
Emerald Triangle Growers Scale Up Together in Co-Ops
Marijuana Research Facilities
In what could foster greater scientific understanding of the health effects or medicinal value of cannabis, the commission agreed to create a special license category for marijuana research facilities.

Such facilities could cultivate or purchase marijuana, but not sell it.

Any testing done on humans would have to be approved by an institutional review board and test subjects must be 21 or older.

Diversity
State lawmakers have made clear they want opportunities provided in the legal marijuana industry for economically disadvantaged people — particularly residents of minority neighborhoods who were harshly impacted by the so-called “war on drugs” in recent decades.


RELATED STORY
How Activists Turned a Bad Massachusetts Bill Into a Great Law
The commission agreed to designate as yet undefined “areas of disproportionate impact,” and offer what it called priority review for applicants for cannabis business licenses from those communities.

Applicants with a majority of owners who have lived in areas of disproportionate impact for at least five of the past 10 years would be offered priority review, as would any company in which at least 51 percent of employees or subcontractors have drug-related arrests on their records.

Priority review of an application would not guarantee a license.

All applicants, regardless of location or ownership makeup, would be required to submit to the commission an employment diversity plan and live up to that plan once licensed.

 

[Baron23]

"We do not let regulated industries choose how and by whom they are regulated in the commonwealth," Mark Cusack (D-Braintree), the House chairman of the Marijuana Policy Committee"

I don't care who wrote it, the people of MA voted for it.

In America we aren't supposed to let an elitist professional political class overrule the direct democratic vote of the electorates. This shithead just doesn't seem to get the basic tenets of democracy. This asshat is one of the ones who decided that the voters will doesn't matter and overruled the tax percentage and bumped it up by 8 fucking percent. That's 8% out of the pockets of MA citizens.

MA residents....how the fuck does this guy stay in office with this attitude?


As 2017 Ends, Mass. Works Toward Marijuana Retail Sales On July 1, 2018

In just a little over six months, the first retail sales of recreational, or "adult use," marijuana will take place. Regulations governing the new legal cannabis industry are on track to be finalized by March, with businesses sending their license applications to the Cannabis Control Commission soon after.

A Look Back At This Year

In November 2016, voters changed the law setting up legalized marijuana, but the Legislature set out to make changes to the voter-passed law.

First, lawmakers passed a six-month delay to all the provisions in the law, giving the Legislature and, eventually, the Cannabis Control Commission more time to draw up regulations to govern the new industry. Lawmakers created the Marijuana Policy Committee, which spent the first part of 2017 developing changes to the law. They held hearings all over the state developing legislation that would take control of the CCC away from the state treasurer's office, as it was originally conceived in the referendum, and give it to an independent, five-member panel whose members are appointed by the governor, attorney general and treasurer.

Legislators took issue with the original law as it was passed by voters.

"The Yes on 4 people wrote this ballot question — basically the marijuana industry. We do not let regulated industries choose how and by whom they are regulated in the commonwealth," Mark Cusack (D-Braintree), the House chairman of the Marijuana Policy Committee, said back in April. "We didn't do that with Uber and Lyft, we don't do that with private utilities, I don't see us starting with letting the marijuana industry choose how and by whom they are regulated."


For much of the legislative year, the House and Senate squabbled over how to rewrite the law. The House was in favor of a much higher tax, and more stringent limitations on the business. The Senate plan was less restrictive, and the tax was lower. Ultimately they settled on a compromise much more in line with the Senate. Lawmakers increased the tax from 12 percent, as called for in the referendum, to a total of 20 percent (17 percent to the state, and up to 3 percent to the community hosting a marijuana retail establishment). They clarified how municipalities can opt out of having marijuana businesses within their borders, by making it slightly easier for communities that rejected the marijuana initiative in 2016 to institute a ban. They restricted advertising and packaging to minors, and called for making sure communities disproportionately affected by the war on drugs are not cut out of taking part in the new industry.

The changes were accepted by Gov. Charlie Baker, who was an opponent of the referendum that legalized recreational marijuana. He seemed to begrudgingly accept that "the voters had spoken" and was happy to let the Legislature make the changes they wanted.

"I worry terribly about what the consequences over time will be," said Baker moments after signing the bill in his office. "And having spent a lot of time talking to folks in Colorado and in Washington, and in having talked to a lot of people who have talked to folks in Colorado and in Washington, there are a lot of pitfalls we need to work hard to avoid."

By the end of summer, the Cannabis Control Commission was finally in place, and it began taking steps to draw up policy to govern the new, legalized industry. With state law mandating they must have regulations in place by March 15, the CCC has been facing a time crunch, but has adopted a number of policies and draft regulations.


Steven Hoffman, chairman of the Cannabis Control Commission, speaks during its first meeting in September 2017. (Jesse Costa/WBUR)
Looking Ahead To 2018

The CCC decided they will issue social use licenses, making Massachusetts the first state to do so. It's not clear at this point if smoking will be allowed at those locations, however the CCC has vowed to make a decision on smoking by Oct. 1, 2018, at the latest, after considering the effects of secondhand smoke and workplace safety.

The commission is also planning on accepting applications for micro-businesses and craft cannabis cultivators. They are also, as required by the law, reaching out to those communities disproportionately affected by past marijuana laws.

One of the big questions lingering as 2018 is about to begin: Will there be plenty of marijuana shops open July 1?

That's a bit unclear. It is likely that the 17 existing medical marijuana establishments will be allowed to convert to retail sales. One problem facing the industry could be supply. Cultivators might not have enough time to grow an adequate amount of cannabis to meet demand. That could spell shortages and initially high prices soon after the doors open to retail sales.

The chairman of the Cannabis Control Commission, Steven Hoffman, is trying to tamp down some expectations, saying not to expect things to be like they are in other states that have legalized right out of the gate.

"We're not going to snap our fingers and have Colorado. What Colorado is now four years after passing their initiative, we're not going to be there on July 1," Hoffman said in October. "We will get there, but I think it's just important to, as I said, set expectations that we're not going to have Colorado on July 1st of 2018." He is predicting a robust industry will eventually emerge. It's just going to take some time.

 

[Baron23]

So, on the level of MA state goverment, this is laudable IMO.

But I wonder about E Warren getting on her high horse. Just what MJ legalization bills has she co-sponsored....remind me again? To me, this lady just feathers her own bed with her faux populist stances....so, she's chewing out Wells Fargo for not supporting MJ banking....well, banks are subject to Federal law...law passed by the Federal goverment of which she is a part. I don't believe Wells Fargo has passed any legislation...MJ related or not.


Massachusetts officials say they will move forward with legal sales despite Sessions’ shift
"This reckless action by the DOJ disrupts the ability of states to enforce their own drug policies and puts our public health and safety at risk," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren

Warren is leading a new effort to make sure vendors working with marijuana businesses don't have their banking services taken away. Pictured: Senate Banking Committee member Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., questions Wells Fargo Chief Executive Officer John Stumpf on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Susan Walsh, The Associated Press)


By Bob Salsberg, Associated Press

BOSTON — Regulators pledged on Thursday they would push ahead with implementation of the state’s voter-approved recreational marijuana law despite a shift in official U.S. policy on enforcement of federal laws against pot.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced he was rescinding a policy from the previous administration that allowed legal marijuana to flourish without interference from federal prosecutors in states that allow it. The decision could lead to confusion in the eight states, including Massachusetts, where voters have legalized adult use and commercial sale of recreational marijuana.

The five-member Cannabis Control Commission is finalizing rules for pot shops expected to begin opening in the state around the middle of this year. The commission said that regardless of the decision by Sessions it was committed to fulfilling the will of voters.

“We will continue to move forward with our process to establish and implement sensible regulations for this emerging industry in Massachusetts,” the panel said in a statement.

The new position from Sessions will let federal prosecutors in states where marijuana is legal decide how aggressively to enforce federal law prohibiting the drug.

The Massachusetts U.S. attorney’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on future marijuana enforcement.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew Lelling was sworn in just last month as U.S. attorney for Massachusetts. He was nominated by President Donald Trump in September and later was confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Democratic U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Congress should act immediately to protect marijuana laws in Massachusetts and other states.

“This reckless action by the DOJ disrupts the ability of states to enforce their own drug policies and puts our public health and safety at risk,” Warren said in a statement.

Republican Gov. Charlie Baker, who opposed the 2016 ballot question that legalized recreational marijuana, indicated he remained committed to implementing the state law and opposed the move by Sessions.

“The administration believes this is the wrong decision and will review any potential impacts from any policy changes by the local U.S. attorney’s office,” Baker spokesman Brendan Moss said.

It is already legal in Massachusetts for people over 21 to possess up to an ounce (28 grams) of marijuana for recreational purposes and grow up to 12 pot plants per household. It remains illegal to sell the drug until the proposed regulations are finalized and licenses granted to businesses that hope to grow or open retail stores like those in Colorado and other states.

Medical marijuana dispensaries began operating several years ago in Massachusetts. A congressional amendment blocks the Department of Justice from interfering with medical marijuana programs in states where it is allowed, though Justice officials did not immediately rule out the possibility of prosecutions related to medical marijuana.

A spokesman for the group Yes on 4, which spearheaded passage of the ballot question that legalized recreational marijuana, called the decision by Sessions “distressing” and a “regressive move” when more states are moving away from cannabis prohibition. Spokesman Jim Borghenasi said he hopes individual federal prosecutors “recognize and respect decisions by voters in legal states.”

 

[Baron23]

“This is a straightforward rule of law issue,” said Lelling. “Congress has unambiguously made it a federal crime to cultivate, distribute and/or possess marijuana.”​

In fairness to Federal Prosecutors, this is actually very true and this dog needs to lay at the feet of Congress.

Massachusetts’ federal prosecutor “cannot provide assurances” for legal marijuana businesses
Acting Senate President Harriette Chandler says would-be marijuana entrepreneurs now face "a great deal of uncertainty."


By Bob Salsberg, The Associated Press

BOSTON — The top federal prosecutor in Massachusetts offered no guarantees on Monday that he would take a hands-off approach to legalized marijuana, injecting a new layer of uncertainty and confusion into the commercial cannabis industry as it looked to gain a foothold in the state.

U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling said in a statement that while he understood the desire for guidance on the federal approach to the state’s voter-approved recreational marijuana law, he “cannot provide assurances that certain categories of participants in the state-level marijuana trade will be immune from federal prosecution.”

Such determinations would be made on a “case-by-case basis,” he added.

Related: Sans Cole Memo, U.S. attorneys empowered to enforce — or ignore — federal marijuana laws

The Yes on 4 Coalition, which spearheaded the 2016 ballot campaign, had publicly called for Lelling to provide “clear, unambiguous answers” to several questions, including whether his office would prosecute businesses that are granted licenses by state cannabis regulators to grow, produce, test or sell marijuana legally in Massachusetts.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions moved last week to rescind the so-called Cole Memorandum, an Obama-era Justice Department policy that, in general, called for non-interference with legal marijuana operations in states. Eight states, including Massachusetts, have legalized adult use of recreational pot.

Lelling took office in December after being nominated by President Donald Trump and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. His comments on Monday expanded on an earlier statement last week that promised enforcement of serious federal crimes but did not directly address the recreational marijuana issue.

“This is a straightforward rule of law issue,” said Lelling. “Congress has unambiguously made it a federal crime to cultivate, distribute and/or possess marijuana.”

Jim Borghesani, a Massachusetts spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, called the prosecutor’s comments “ominous.” Pro-marijuana groups fear the change in tone from the Justice Department and federal prosecutors will send a chill through the nascent cannabis industry, discouraging those looking to start or invest in those businesses.

Related stories

• New DOJ marijuana policy sparks latest clash over states’ rights
• Sans Cole Memo, U.S. attorneys empowered to enforce — or ignore — federal marijuana laws
• Colorado congressional members developing plan for federal marijuana protections
• In wake of marijuana policy shift, Sessions to appoint interim U.S. Attorney for NorCal
• Oregon leaders vow to fight Sessions’ marijuana policy rollback

“I don’t think any business would ever want to open its door and have fears on the first day that the FBI is going to be standing on their doorsteps,” said Borghesani.

Democratic legislative leaders echoed those concerns Monday, with acting Senate President Harriette Chandler saying that would-be marijuana entrepreneurs now faced “a great deal of uncertainty.”

The Cannabis Control Commission, a five-member panel created to regulate marijuana in Massachusetts, has pledged to move forward with a process that foresees the first commercial pot shops opening in July.

Republican Gov. Charlie Baker, who said last week that rescinding the Cole Memorandum was the “wrong decision,” continued to support the commission’s work and would provide adequate funding for it, a spokeswoman said Monday.

 

[Baron23]

Massachusetts Police Resist Sessions, Respect State Law

After Jeff Sessions and the Department of Justice announced they would rescind the Cole memo and direct U.S. attorneys across the country to resume their prosecution efforts of marijuana “offenders,” many wondered how the states that had already legalized would handle the directives. State and local law enforcement in Massachusetts, the first East Coast state to legalize cannabis, isn’t leaving anything up to the imagination.

Should the federal government pursue law-abiding marijuana businesses in the Bay State, they’ll be missing a critical component of federal investigations and arrests — the support of Massachusetts state and local police.

While U.S. attorneys across the country have said their hands are tied, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is coming out strongly against the move.

Public Safety Secretary Daniel Bennett, who leads the Massachusetts State Police oversight, told the Boston Herald, “We have a state law that we’re intending to enforce, and the state law was voted on by the people of Massachusetts. We have no intention of raiding a pot shop that is legal under state law.”

The state police aren’t alone in their resolve to resist federal pressure to crack down on state-legal marijuana businesses, either, as Boston Police Department Detective Lt. Michael McCarthy echoed a similar stance to his “statie” counterparts.

“Similar to our position on immigration, the BPD will not actively enforce federal marijuana laws at the local level,” explained McCarthy. “We will continue to enforce local drug laws to keep our neighborhoods safe.”

The public defense of the recently established marijuana industry comes after the state’s U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling offered little more than a cloud of doubt. Lelling made a statement that he couldn’t guarantee the law-abiding business owners making up the state’s cannabis industry would be able to avoid federal scrutiny.

The Cannabis Control Commission, the governing body of the legal marijuana industry in Massachusetts, will forge ahead as planned. The commission must finish developing the regulatory framework that will guide the entire market when it opens for business July 1.

If the feds do decide to bring down the hammer of prohibitionist justice on these East Coast cannabis pioneers, at least these New Englanders won’t have to worry about it coming from their state or local law enforcement — for better or worse.

Today, the mayors of many major cities across the country unified in their resistance to the Department of Justice’s recent policy change:

 

[Baron23]

When can you legally buy marijuana in Massachusetts? Here's the timeline

Massachusetts voters approved marijuana for medical use in 2012, but it took the state nearly three years to open its first dispensary.

The timeline for retail pot shops is looking a little more expeditious, even with some delays and the uncertainty brought about by US Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

When Bay State voters went to the polls in November 2016, they approved a ballot question legalizing recreational marijuana with a rapid timeline. (Marijuana is still illegal at the federal level, as federal prosecutors keep noting.)

The growing and gifting of pot became legal under state law in December 2016, but Gov. Charlie Baker and state lawmakers tinkered with the timeline, delaying a series of important deadlines by six months as they sought to re-write the voter-approved marijuana laws.

That meant that states like California, whose voters approved recreational marijuana at the same time as Massachusetts, beat the Bay State to opening retail marijuana shops.

Steven Hoffman, chairman of the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission. (Gintautas Dumcius/MassLive)

It's not set in stone
State regulators say they’re moving ahead with setting up the framework for legal pot shops.

But the timeline could still change. Jeff Sessions aside, roadblocks could pop up, and lawsuits could slow things down, too.

Take the Massachusetts Gaming Commission as an example. (Lawmakers looked to the set-up of the Gaming Commission when rewriting the state’s marijuana laws to create the Cannabis Control Commission.)


The Gaming Commission
The Gaming Commission, tasked with awarding licenses for a casino and a slot parlor, was created through a 2011 law signed by Gov. Deval Patrick.

Patrick is out of office, and the casinos haven’t been completed yet. MGM Springfield is scheduled to open this year, while the massive Wynn Boston Harbor project, which was once at the center of multiple lawsuits and public spats between mayors and Steve Wynn after its license was awarded, is due to open June 2019 in Everett.

The third available resort casino license hasn’t been awarded, because plans for a potential tribal casino made the Gaming Commission take a step back.

The owner of the slots parlor license, Plainridge Park Casino, was up and running in June 2015.

US Attorney General Jeff Sessions (AP Photo)

Federal officials are the wild card
“I understand that there are people and groups looking for additional guidance from this office about its approach to enforcing federal laws criminalizing marijuana cultivation and trafficking,” Andrew Lelling, the US Attorney in Massachusetts, said after Sessions made his move to rescind an Obama-era memo that allowed states to do their own thing when it came to marijuana.

He added: “I cannot, however, provide assurances that certain categories of participants in the state-level marijuana trade will be immune from federal prosecution.”

Lellings’ comments injected additional risk and uncertainty as Massachusetts ramps up a massive change to the culture of the state that’s been underway for a while: Marijuana was decriminalized a decade ago, and medical marijuana and recreational marijuana legalization followed.

(More on that below.)


Here's the current timeline
Here’s a look at the Massachusetts timeline as it stands today, starting after voters approved the recreational marijuana law and ending with what happens to medical marijuana dispensaries now that recreational marijuana is here.

(Photo: Gintautas Dumcius/MassLive)

Parts of new marijuana law go into effect -- Dec. 15, 2016
A little more than a month after Massachusetts voters approved legalization, people who were at least 21 years old could possess up to 10 ounces of marijuana inside their home and up to one ounce outside on this date.

Smoking marijuana in public is still banned in the same places smoking tobacco is.

Gov. Charlie Baker (Photo: Kristin LaFratta/MassLive)

Gov. Baker signs law delaying retail pot shops' part of marijuana law -- Dec. 30, 2016
Lawmakers rushed a bill to the governor’s desk delaying key parts of the marijuana law that govern retail pot shops. It didn’t affect personal possession limits and the home-growing of marijuana products.

Board of cannabis advisers set up -- Aug. 2017
The 25-member Cannabis Advisory Board was set up through the ballot question approved by voters. Its members include Walpole Chief of Police John Carmichael Jr., who opposed marijuana legalization, and Kimberly Napoli, an attorney who co-founded the Hempest, a hemp-based clothing boutique in Cambridge’s Harvard Square neighborhood.

Shaleen Title, one of the five Cannabis Control Commission (Photo via Massachusetts State Treasurer's Office)

Cannabis Control Commission set up -- Sept. 2017
A retired executive who worked at Bain. A former state senator from Central Massachusetts. A former top aide to ex-Attorney General Martha Coakley. An attorney who co-founded a cannabis recruiting firm. And the former deputy general counsel for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

Tapped for the job in September 2017, these five people are the ones with hands on where recreational marijuana is going to go in Massachusetts. Just one member voted in favor of the ballot question broadly legalizing recreational marijuana.

Learn more about them here.

They’ve hired Shawn Collins, a top aide to state Treasurer Deb Goldberg, as their executive director. Collins, a Webster native, was tapped due to his experience in navigating the State House.

(AP Photo: Robert F. Bukaty)

Cannabis commission releases draft regulations - December 2017
The Cannabis Control Commission dove into developing regulations for the new industry expected to grow in Massachusetts, including everything from marijuana cafes to yoga studios and movie theaters that could be allowed to sell the controversial substance.

Read more about the draft regulations here.

Here's what the commission is doing in the first six months of 2018
The Cannabis Control Commission must start accepting license applications from potential retailers, product manufacturers and cultivators by April 1, 2018.

The five-member commission also has to endorse regulations on protocols for independent marijuana testing facilities by May 1, 2018.

The commission can issue the first retail licenses starting on June 1, 2018. (They cannot issue approvals before that date.)

(AP Photo: Marcio Jose Sanchez)

First retail pot shops slated to open -- July 1, 2018
If all goes according to the timeline described above and laid out in state law, retail pot shops should open on July 1.

The specific date of July 1 is not explicitly in the Massachusetts marijuana law, but it’s the date state regulators are aiming for because it’s when people are widely expecting them to be open.

How many stores?
The number of stores that will be open to customers remains unclear.

Kamani Jefferson, the president of the Massachusetts Recreational Consumer Council, said at a recent panel on marijuana that the state will be lucky to have 25 stores, maybe 30, by July 1.

Jim Smith, the founding partner of Smith Costello and Crawford and a former state representative from Lynn, had a more optimistic take. Also a panelist at the summit on marijuana put together by the State House News Service, Smith said there will be more than 25 shops, and could be as many as 40 to 50.

A dispensary in California. (AP Photo: Marcio Jose Sanchez)

How much retail marijuana will be available?
Both Jefferson and Smith pointed to whether there’ll be enough marijuana available.

“There’s plenty of demand,” Smith said, predicting that the “Day 1 story” will be a “picture of the lines.”

Peter Bernard, president of the Massachusetts Grower Advocacy Council, predicted in comments to MassLive/The Republican that the first places open “will sell out in less than a week."

Taxes on marijuana could reach up to 20 percent. The break down is: 6.25 percent sales tax, state excise tax at 10.75 percent and local option tax of up to 3 percent that can be set by cities and towns.

How much is 'overkill'?
There are currently 200 pot shops in Denver, Colorado.

Sen. Stan Rosenberg, D-Amherst, said at the panel that Colorado was among the first states to implement legal marijuana, and Massachusetts is learning from what the state did to handle demand. But the amount of retail pot shops is “overkill” in Colorado, according to Rosenberg, who was one of the few elected officials at the State House to support the 2016 ballot question legalizing marijuana.

“We do not need the kind of proliferation in Massachusetts that they have in Colorado,” he said.

(AP Photo: Damian Dovarganes)

Transfer of medical marijuana program -- Dec. 31, 2018 or sooner
The rewritten marijuana laws call for the medical marijuana program to fall under the oversight of the Cannabis Control Commission.

The program has been with the state Department of Public Health, since the ballot initiative endorsed by voters in 2012 placed it there.

So what about the feds?
Baker, the Massachusetts governor, has expressed worries that federal prosecutors are sowing confusion about marijuana with the stance Jeff Sessions is taking.

Baker opposed marijuana legalization in 2016, but now notes voters approved the ballot question. Prosecutors should be focusing on street drugs like fentanyl to combat the opioid epidemic in Massachusetts and elsewhere across the country, he said.

Medical marijuana patients are scared
Registered patients of medical marijuana say they’re frightened by the Sessions move, particularly since it’s driven some operators to shift to cash-only.

But they add they’re heartened by comments by local law enforcement officials who say they won’t be going after legal marijuana operators, despite what federal prosecutors have said.

Gov. Baker’s public safety chief Dan Bennett told MassLive that the Massachusetts State Police will be focused on enforcing state law, and under state law, marijuana is legal for adults age 21 and over.

Marijuana legalization advocates are waiting to see what happens next
Jim Borghesani, a spokesman for the ballot campaign that broadly legalized marijuana, said he hopes local police departments pay attention to what Bennett said.

Public opinion has shifted toward the advocates’ side, with most voters in recent national polls believing marijuana should be legalized.

As for what happens after the Sessions move and the Lelling statements, Borghesani wrote in an email to MassLive, “I think much of how this plays out remains to be seen.”

Congress could pursue a measure that blocks federal prosecutors from moving against state-sanctioned marijuana businesses.

“As ominous as Lelling’s statement is, I’m hopeful that he and other U.S. attorneys are ultimately prevented from prosecuting lawfully operating businesses,” he wrote.

Jim Borghesani, spokesman for 'Yes on 4' pro-marijuana legalization campaign (Kristin LaFratta/MassLive)

 

[Baron23]

Massachusetts could become a pot sanctuary

On Friday, Massachusetts State Representatives Dave Rogers and Mike Connolly filed an unusual piece of legislation. Their bill, called the “Refusal of Compliance Act,” would prevent local and state authorities from handing over people who follow state cannabis laws to federal agents unless those agents have a warrant.

(Massachusetts legalized recreational marijuana in 2016.) The legislation has the same skeleton as many “sanctuary” immigration policies, which eliminate much of the voluntary cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration agents.

Massachusetts is already a sanctuary state in immigration terms. Now, it appears to be expanding that definition to include marijuana.

“Massachusetts voters have gone to the polls and expressed their support for what I’d call a sensible drug policy and an end to marijuana prohibition,” said Connolly. “I can appreciate the parallel between this and more typical sanctuary-state-type stuff. I think the comparison is pretty clear, to the extent that we are a state government responding to the will of our own voters and people in our community.”

When Massachusetts legalized marijuana, it included language that prohibited local law enforcement from assisting federal agents in prosecuting legal users of the drug. The new bill doubling down on that idea was prompted by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ decision earlier this month to revoke the Cole Memo, an Obama-era policy that told the federal government to leave marijuana alone in states where it had been legalized.

Steve DeAngelo, a cannabis activist and founder of the marijuana dispensary Harborside Health Center in Oakland, California, told CityLab after the Cole Memo was rescinded that the best way for cities and states to protect their legal, licensed marijuana businesses was to effectively pass sanctuary policies.

“If cities and states refuse to make their agencies available, it’s basically impossible for the feds to [prosecute],” DeAngelo said. Indeed, across America, local agencies and the Drug Enforcement Administration are closely intertwined—more so than similar task forces on immigration—as a legacy of the planning and execution of the War on Drugs.

But not all municipalities in Massachusetts voted to legalize marijuana, and after legalization passed, some of the dissenters opted to become “dry towns.” “Probably a lot of communities in there are looking at Sessions’ removal of the [Cole Memo] as a good opportunity to use federal laws to skirt around state legalization—especially in conservative rural communities,” said Rick Su, a professor at the University of Buffalo School of Law who focuses on immigration and local-government law.

“It’s not surprising that Massachusetts is thinking about pre-empting local policies.”

There is another reason cities may be tempted to cooperate with the federal government. Sessions is a proponent of civil forfeiture, the practice of letting authorities keep the cash and property of someone suspected of being involved in a crime—even before charges are filed against him or her.

The Obama administration had placed restrictions on the practice, which was especially popular during the War on Drugs during its peak in the 1980s, because of concern that police departments were funding themselves by seizing the cars, homes, and money of suspected drug dealers. In July, Sessions rolled back many of those restrictions; under the Department of Justice’s newly revived Equitable Sharing Program, 80 percent of the value of the assets seized goes back to the state or local police agencies.

Now, said Su, local communities who didn’t have a strong position on marijuana before may see a way to get money by cooperating with the federal government. “There’s a lot of cash there,” he said, “and for small communities thinking, ‘The mayor cut our budget; our police officers are worried about vehicles being old and need new gear,’ that looks really tempting.”

But Carol Rose, executive director of the Massachusetts branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, stressed that municipalities choosing to circumvent the state in such a manner would be violating existing Massachusetts law. “I think the law is clear,” she said, “but having this bill is a welcome move, because I think it sends a message—not only to the Trump administration and Department of Justice, but all the law enforcement in Massachusetts—that you follow the law of [the state] when it comes to drug laws. You don’t serve as agents for the Trump DOJ.”

Connolly said he can’t be sure what the towns who opted out of legalization will do, but he pointed out that they stand to gain from the potential tax revenue of legal, licensed dispensaries in the state. As a result, he said, “even those municipalities that may have decided to limit availability in the immediate future still have some interest in seeing the policy go forward.”

Likewise, Su noted that localities in Massachusetts that chose to be dry may be “less likely to betray the state policy, because under state law they [already] have an option to not legalize.”

On the whole, Massachusetts has not been thrilled by the changing focus at DOJ. Governor Charlie Baker has said he hopes Andrew Lelling, the state’s attorney general, will focus on illegal street drugs—particularly the opioid fentanyl—instead of marijuana. Massachusetts Public Safety Secretary Daniel Bennett told the Boston Herald, “We have no intention of raiding a pot shop that is legal under state law.”

Detective Lieutenant Michael McCarthy, a spokesperson for the Boston Police Department, echoed that sentiment, telling the Herald, “Similar to our position on immigration, the BPD will not actively enforce federal marijuana laws at the local level.”

There are a few key differences between immigration sanctuary policy and marijuana sanctuary policy. One of them has to do with the way that oversight over each issue has traditionally been delineated. “There has always been a debate in marijuana about whether the federal government has the power to regulate [it], especially if it doesn’t cross state lines,” said Su.

“On the other hand, the Supreme Court has been very clear that immigration is a federal-government issue. When it comes to immigration, there is a sense that not only can the federal government regulate it, but states and localities should not at all. Whereas with marijuana, the court has not said that.”

Another difference, Su said, is how much the Trump administration actually cares about the respective issues. “My sense is that the politics behind marijuana are very different from immigration,” he said. “Within the Trump administration, [immigration] is their base, their bread and butter right now. With marijuana, other than Sessions’ moral crusade, it’s not getting a lot of support from the establishment or the president.”

Connolly, the representative who introduced the “sanctuary” bill, isn’t sure about the likelihood of its passing, and admitted that it was brought forward relatively late in the legislative calendar. He said the need for such legislation will be more urgent if local law enforcement starts to cooperate with federal pot crackdowns (there are no examples of that happening yet).

But even if the bill doesn’t go through, he hopes it will be a clear sign to the federal government about the way his state feels about Sessions’ agenda. “My hope—and a lot of people’s hope,” he said, “is through these different statements, we’re sending a message that this change of policy isn’t welcome.”

Massachusetts isn’t the only state to have considered marijuana sanctuary policies. In June, California passed a similar measure through its assembly before the bill ultimately stalled in the state senate. California Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer has recently decided to reintroduce the bill, prompted, like Connolly, by the DOJ’s recent actions.

So far, the Massachusetts bill is largely symbolic. There won’t be a pressing need for it until the federal government starts aggressively targeting marijuana, or until local municipalities start teaming up with federal agencies to thwart the state’s legalization policy—actions that are unlikely to happen, according to Su, given the Trump administration’s overall ambivalence on the issue.

But even if a sanctuary bill about marijuana is little more than a statement, states may push for one, deciding that they want their opinions heard loud and clear. Su pointed out that attorney generals in each state are less likely to prosecute marijuana-related crimes if they think being punitive on pot will go over badly with the people.

Rose, of the ACLU, said that many states, such as Washington, Nevada, Oregon, and California, “made the decision that criminalizing marijuana is a smokescreen for prosecuting people of color at disparate rates, and undermines public safety.” (According to the ACLU, black Americans are 3.7 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites, although both groups use the drug at roughly the same rate.)

“The fact that Jeff Sessions doesn’t like it is not adequate reasoning to step down,” Rose said. “I do think we’re going to see states standing up to reflect the will of the people.”

 

[Baron23]

Oh, the shock. The horror. Where's the humanity. Let's review the bidding, legal MJ voted by referendum by the electorate which has then been delayed, regulated, and had added taxes (now 20%) by the MA politicians. And what do you know....the grey market is alive and well. Who would have thunk it. sigh

Massachusetts: Cannabis capitalists exploit loopholes by 'gifting' the drug

The single bottle of juice delivered to your door will set you back at least $55. But the bag of marijuana that comes with it? On the house.

Retail marijuana stores are months away from opening in Massachusetts, but some companies have been quietly operating for more than a year, selling and delivering marijuana via a legal loophole.

Companies like HighSpeed, which describes itself as a juice delivery service, are exploiting so-called “gifting” provisions that are on the books in Massachusetts and most other states where marijuana has been legalized.

They generally allow the exchange of small amounts of the drug so long as it’s given away — “gifted” — from one adult to another. In other words, passing a joint at a party or dropping a bud in your brother’s Christmas stocking won’t result in fines or jail time.

But some entrepreneurs see the provisions as an opportunity to get ahead of the regulated market, planting an early stake in what could become a crowded and lucrative industry.

Gifting also allows cannabis capitalists to undercut licensed shops because they don’t face the same oversight or pay marijuana sales taxes. And underground sellers could complicate things in places like Vermont, Maine and Washington, D.C., which have legalized pot but have no firm plans to open regulated retailers.

“Under any fair reading of the law, these businesses are illegal,” said Roger Katz, a Republican state senator in Maine who is studying the issue. “If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck.”

At least four enterprises have done gifting business in Massachusetts since marijuana was legalized in December 2016, two of them in the Boston area, The Associated Press found in an investigation that included records gathered from law enforcement agencies around the state.

In addition to HighSpeed, a Boston-area company cleverly called Duuber has drivers delivering marijuana-themed T-shirts that come with gifts of pot.

Officials in western Massachusetts also looked into a Craigslist ad offering plastic sandwich bags costing up to $325 apiece (the marijuana in them was free) but dropped the case after they couldn’t identify the seller.

In Springfield, officials ordered a smoke shop called Mary Jane Makes Your Heart Sing to shut down last March after it gave marijuana to customers who paid a $25 to $50 admission fee.

That hasn’t scared HighSpeed, which also operates in D.C.

“We’ve had no issues with law enforcement, and we’re going to do our best to keep it that way,” said founder David Umeh. “We’re not doing anything wrong. We’re abiding by the current legislation until it changes.”

Gifting provisions are on the books in Massachusetts and all but one of the other states that have legalized marijuana: Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state, plus D.C. Most instituted the measure specifically as part of new marijuana laws.

Vermont does not have a provision, but local experts and activists argue the exchanges will be permitted there, too, since they’re not expressly banned.

Some states have tried to stem abuse of the laws by prohibiting businesses from advertising marijuana giveaways or specifically banning “delayed or disguised” payments for marijuana gifts, said Leo Beletsky, a law professor at Northeastern University in Boston.

But businesses simply find ways to obscure what they’re doing, he said, and then rely largely on word of mouth to make sales. Clued-in customers can infer how much pot they’re ordering judging by the price and size of the items accompanying it, but for the most part, they’re at the mercy of the seller.

In the case of HighSpeed, there is no mention of marijuana on its website. The company sells drinks priced from $55 to $150, depending on whether the beverage comes with “Love” or “Lots of Love.”

The AP recently put in a $60 order for “Raspberry Roxbury” with “Love” and received a bottle of Tazo juice along with about an eighth of an ounce of marijuana.

Duuber also doesn’t explicitly spell out its marijuana “gift” on its website. But when the AP ordered a $100 product listed as “Luxury Tshirt – Citrus – small,” the brown paper bag delivered by a driver contained a white T-shirt with the company’s name in black over an image of a marijuana leaf — and a clear plastic bag of marijuana labeled “1/4 Ruthless OG.”

The opening of retail shops in states with marijuana laws should eventually make most gifting operations obsolete, said Morgan Fox, spokesman for the D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project.

“People want quality control-tested products,” he said. “The sooner that happens, the sooner this sort of thing disappears.”

But in Colorado, where pot shops opened in 2014, gifting businesses are still hatching creative ways to skirt the law, said Detective Kerry Linfoot of the Colorado Springs Police Department. The department shut down 14 gifting businesses last year.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ decision to rescind an Obama-era policy that called for non-interference with legal state marijuana operations could also help bolster gifting and other underground operations, Beletsky said.

“If the feds somehow came down on state regulators or licensed retail operations,” he said, “that could provide a convenient opening for these grey-market operators to scale up what they’re already doing.”

 

[Baron23]

In addition to this type of action, I would like to see all MMJ states pass laws protecting their medical patient data base from Federal inquiry. It should be handled like all other HIPAA protected info and none of ole' Jeffe's business.

Massachusetts lawmakers push to become a Marijuana sanctuary state

For those looking for protection from a potential federal government crackdown on the legal marijuana industry, it could just be a state away.

Two lawmakers in Massachusetts, where legal recreational marijuana sales are expected to begin later this year, have introduced a bill that essentially makes The Bay State a so-called “marijuana sanctuary state.”

The bill, introduced by Dave Rogers and Mike Connolly, both representing Cambridge, would bar law enforcement officials in the state from complying with any federal-ordered crackdown on legal cannabis operations. They filed the bill in reaction to two significant events.

Cannabis Crackdown

In early January, U.S. Attorney Jeff Sessions -- the former Alabama senator who strongly opposes the use of marijuana and says so frequently -- announced rescinded an Obama Administration policy that mandated a hands-off approach to enforcing federal marijuana laws against businesses operating in compliance with state law in where marijuana is legal.

In Massachusetts, U.S. attorney Andrew Lelling -- a Trump Administration appointee -- then followed in Sessions’ footsteps and announced he could not offer any assurance that he would take a hands-off approach to marijuana sales in the state, even if it was approved by voters.

None of that is good news for the recreational marijuana industry in Massachusetts, which hasn’t even started yet. That motivated Rogers and Connolly to make a move.

'No help.'

In an interview with Newsweek, Rogers said the bill is aimed at providing support for the state’s fledging recreational marijuana market in the light of threatening statements from Sessions and Lelling.

Rogers told Newsweek if "the FBI or federal cops or the U.S. attorney want to pursue these cases, perhaps that’s their prerogative. But they will get no help at all from state or local police."

It’s easy to see why marijuana entrepreneurs might feel nervous. Massachusetts voters have been very clear about what they want. They approved medical marijuana in 2012 and recreational marijuana in 2016. But businesses are not sure they can count on the government.

The statements from Sessions and Lelling have had a chilling effect. In the wake of Sessions’ decision, one vendor stopped processing debit cards for medical marijuana transactions. Although only a temporary move, it indicates how jittery some businesses are about the current environment around legal marijuana.

Still, much like in California where recreational sales have already started, most entrepreneurs in Massachusetts are forging ahead. Protests also have been mounted. After Sessions made his decision, the Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance protested outside of the federal courthouse in Boston.

According to the Salem News, Gov. Charlie Baker has argued that federal prosecutors would do better spending their resources fighting the opioid crisis rather than marijuana, saying, “Let’s focus on the stuff right now that’s wreaking havoc across our commonwealth."

 

[Baron23]

Chief Massachusetts marijuana regulator says decisions coming on pot cafes, yoga studios and home delivery

Massachusetts marijuana regulators this week will consider how to approach the roll-out of retail pot after receiving feedback from Gov. Charlie Baker and marijuana advocates.

The five-member Cannabis Control Commission is set to meet over the course of three days to debate the scope of the new industry, and whether to limit it to just retail pot shops before proceeding at a later date with allowing the sale and consumption of marijuana inside places like cafes, yoga studios and movie theaters.

The commission is also considering allowing businesses that would handle the home delivery of marijuana.

Baker, Attorney General Maura Healey and others who opposed the legalization of recreational marijuana have asked commissioners to go slow, and keep the roll-out to just retail shops.

But marijuana advocates say allowing a wider variety of places for recreational marijuana will help small businesses and minorities who do not have the funding to spend on getting a full-blown retail operation up and running.

"We got a lot of feedback, we are taking it to heart," Steve Hoffman, chairman of the Cannabis Control Commission, told reporters who pressed him on what regulators plan to do.




When can people in Massachusetts legally buy marijuana?

The growing and gifting of marijuana became legal under Massachusetts law in December 2016, but Gov. Charlie Baker and state lawmakers tinkered with the timeline for retail pot shops.

"I can't forecast how the conversation is going to go, I will tell you we'll talk about that," Hoffman said. "But what the outcome going to be, that's the whole point of having these meetings in public, I don't know how it's going to turn out."

If the commissioners do end up defer some things like pot cafes and yoga studios, Hoffman said he prefers to create an explicit timeline rather than keeping it open-ended.

The commission plans to meet on Monday and Wednesday at the Massachusetts State House. On Tuesday they will gather at 101 Federal Street in the Financial District. The meetings, which will be in public, start at 10 a.m.

Based on the decisions they make over those three days, commissioners expect to vote the following week on final rules for the new industry.

Advocates also alleged that the Baker administration mounted a "calculated intimidation campaign" against the independent state commission in order to push them to focus only on retail pot shops for now.

Asked whether he felt intimidated, Hoffman said, "No."

"I have always been focused on doing this job as well as possible, getting this right," he added. "Nothing has changed. I feel an enormous amount of pressure to do it right, but nothing's changed."

 

[Baron23]

"allowing each licensee to grow 100-thousand square feet of cannabis."

Wow, I'm reading this right, yeah....that's one hundred thousand square feet (100,000 sq ft). I think that's my kind of cap...wow.


Cannabis Control Commission votes to place growth cap on marijuana farmers

BOSTON (WWLP) – The Cannabis Control Commission agreed to place caps on marijuana farmers and determined a threshold for how much marijuana product they have to sell.

The Cannabis Control Commission has just two weeks left to finalize regulations for Massachusetts marijuana industry. The Commission had their third day of policy deliberations Wednesday, discussing cultivation caps.

Commissioners voted to place a cap on marijuana farmers, allowing each licensee to grow 100-thousand square feet of cannabis.

Kay Doyle, Commissioner of the Cannabis Control Commission, told 22News “I didn’t want to unduly constrain businesses that are already underway, but I did think that we should probably learn from what other states are doing.”

Despite some concerns for overproduction, regulators agreed to hold craft cooperatives or groups of farmers that hold one license together, to the same cap as other cultivators.

“If we’re concerned that we have overproduction risks that we have not addressed through our draft regulations then I think we need to talk about all of the caps, not just on craft cultivation,” said Steven Hoffman, Chair of the Cannabis Control Commission.

Under the Commission’s draft regulations, farmers would also subject to higher licensing fees the more marijuana they intend to grow.

The Commission plans to establish a tier system determining those fees. Cultivators would also have to sell at least 85 percent of their product to stay in that tier.

Under the law, the Commission must establish regulations by March 15th.

 

[Baron23]

"But the commission reached a compromise under which it agreed to:

• Draft delivery and onsite consumption rules within one year.
• Create an initial time period when those licenses will go only to people affected by the war on drugs.

How long should that time period be?

“We think five years is reasonable,” Lindsay said. “The idea is to let these businesses get a foothold in the industry.”

​

What a racist crock of merde'.

Massachusetts recreational marijuana delay

Massachusetts defers recreational marijuana delivery and onsite consumption, Arkansas approves five medical cannabis cultivators, and Washington state grants its floundering hemp program a reprieve.

Here’s a closer look at some notable developments in the marijuana industry over the past week.

An ‘elegant’ solution

The decision by Massachusetts regulators to delay licensing for stand-alone marijuana delivery services and onsite consumption businesses drew criticism from some cannabis proponents.

Specifically, critics said the Cannabis Control Commission (CCC) caved under pressure from opponents who wanted a delay.

But at least one advocate for industry diversity applauded the commission – especially given the circumstances.

“This is a very elegant way for the CCC to meet the demands of a lot of different groups,” said Shanel Lindsay, a member of the Cannabis Advisory Board, which advises the commission.

Industry diversity advocates like Lindsay view delivery and onsite consumption licenses as a way to bring minorities into the sector because those businesses are less expensive and don’t necessarily require investor backing.

That’s why such provisions were written into the recreational cannabis referendum that voters passed in 2016.

“When we were drafting Question 4,” Lindsay said of the adult-use measure, “we specifically drafted this law to correct the problem we saw on the medical side. … There were no small businesses or people of color involved.”

There was such a clamor from high-ranking state officials and groups like the Commonwealth Dispensary Association to defer delivery and onsite consumption licenses that diversity advocates worried the permits would be delayed indefinitely and unconditionally.

And that would have effectively shut an important door on minority participation in the industry.

But the commission reached a compromise under which it agreed to:

• Draft delivery and onsite consumption rules within one year.
• Create an initial time period when those licenses will go only to people affected by the war on drugs.

How long should that time period be?

“We think five years is reasonable,” Lindsay said. “The idea is to let these businesses get a foothold in the industry.”

 

[Baron23]

"Baker said in February that “people should crawl before they walk and walk before they run."

Politicians should listen to the voters who elected them and pay their salary....without the paternalistic and patronizing BS.


Massachusetts won't allow cannabis cafes or marijuana home delivery after all

Looks like the right to use marijuana outside of a private home legally is not going to become a reality anytime soon in Massachusetts.

However, legal sale of adult-use marijuana remains on schedule to start July 1, although rules governing the industry are still being drafted.

The Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission voted in late February to delay action on licensing “social consumption” establishments for recreational marijuana. The idea of creating cannabis cafes where people can go in, buy marijuana and use it right there -- like a person entering a bar and ordering a beer -- proved too controversial for many of the state’s leaders.

Any action on establishing cannabis cafes was put off until the fall of 2018, with a new proposal drafted by February 2019 at the earliest. The commission also delayed allowing home delivery of recreational cannabis, another controversial issue.

The Cafe Plan

The idea was to license a limited number of establishments with the right to both sell and allow the use of marijuana on their property. It would give consumers a place to enjoy marijuana outside of a private residence. Like every other state where cannabis is legal, public consumption of cannabis is currently prohibited.

The move also would have opened another avenue for entrepreneurs looking to get into the legal marijuana business.

A similar pilot project is underway in Denver. However, the Massachusetts plan went further. Massage therapists and yoga instructors also could have applied for a license to allow marijuana use in their establishments in the form of cannabidiol oils and other such non-psychoactive products.

The proposal would have limited how much cannabis a person could buy and use in one place at one time and give budtenders the right to cut off customers.

Hard Sell

Despite the precautions in the proposal, it proved a hard sell for state law enforcement, prosecutors, the attorney general and Gov. Charlie Baker. “The pressure campaign conducted by the governor, attorney general and others proved difficult to overcome," Jim Borghesani, a spokesman for marijuana legalization advocates, said in an email to MassLive.

Baker opposed the legalization of adult-use marijuana, which Massachusetts voters approved in November 2016. In urging a slowdown on cannabis cafes, Baker said in February that “people should crawl before they walk and walk before they run."

Cannabis Control Commission member Shaleen Title advocated for the delay rather than rushing it though with so much opposition. She also won approval for the idea of offering an exclusive period in which licenses for home delivery and social consumption are only awarded to microbusinesses, co-ops and applicants from communities impacted by the war on drugs.

She wanted a five-year exclusive period, but the commission did not reach agreement on the length.

 

[Baron23]

With Rules Now Finalized, Here Are 4 Key Changes To Massachusetts' Marijuana Regulations


With less than four months to go before the first legal sales of adult-use marijuana are supposed to begin in Massachusetts, the agency tasked with overseeing the cannabis industry has finalized its regulations.

The Cannabis Control Commission voted unanimously to accept the rules that will govern the new legal industry. Commission Chair Steve Hoffman said he doesn't anticipate any potential roadblocks between now and July 1 when the first licensed retail stores will be allowed to open.

"We need to make sure we have all of our staff in place. We need to make sure that our technology is in place. We need to continue to collaborate with the cities and towns around the state to make sure they're comfortable and that our process works with their process," Hoffman said shortly after the commission's vote.

"I wouldn't call any of those roadblocks," he added. "It's just things that we have to continue to work on between now and July 1."

Backers of the 2016 referendum that legalized recreational marijuana are generally pleased with the regulations.

"I think the Commission has done a laudable job in making sure that the regulations are in place in a timely manner, and for the most part they seem to be very workable regulations," said Will Luzier, political director of the Marijuana Policy Project of Massachusetts.

The commission will begin accepting applications for licenses to operate cannabis businesses on April 1.

Here are four key changes to the regulations since they were initially approved last December:

1. No Social Consumption Or Home Delivery For Now
The biggest change is that there will be no cannabis cafes, or weed delivery services until next year, at the earliest.

The hold off on social consumption in public establishments came following an outcry from Gov. Charlie Baker, Attorney General Maura Healey and many members of the state Legislature. The Commission initially said they would issue licenses to businesses where patrons would be allowed to consume cannabis on-premises. There would have been two types of licenses: a primary license, in which more than 50 percent of the business' revenues would come from the sale of cannabis; and a mixed-use license, in which places like restaurants, theaters and yoga studios would allow patrons to purchase cannabis products to be consumed during another activity, such as dining, watching a movie or taking a yoga class. Cannabis sales in businesses with mixed-use licenses would need to represent less than 50 percent of the company's revenues.

Supporters of social consumption licenses argued they were needed to give people a legal place to go to consume marijuana, since some landlords and housing units would likely prohibit tenants from partaking. But opponents successfully argued that the commission should start out slow by, for now, only licensing brick and mortar retail stores where consumers could purchase their cannabis.

The commission also agreed to hold off on allowing home delivery, which was initially OK'ed in December. The panel did reach a compromise that they will revisit the topic after the initial rollout of retail stores on July 1. That discussion will take place after more data are compiled and input has been received from the Cannabis Advisory Board in October, with a decision made by February. It was also agreed that social consumption and home delivery licenses will, for a time, be issued only to so-called "equity applicants," which are applicants that come from mostly minority communities that were disproportionately harmed by the war on drugs.

2. Dispensaries Must Set Aside Product For Registered Patients
Registered marijuana patients in Massachusetts have had access to legal marijuana products at licensed dispensaries since 2015. Many of those patients fear there will be a stampede on July 1, when several of those dispensaries seek to also offer adult-use marijuana to anyone over the age of 21. The patients successfully convinced the Cannabis Control Commission to require that those dispensaries set aside 35 percent of their product, or a six-month average of their medical marijuana sales, for registered patients. Registered patients will also, at least for the time being, not have to stand in line with the general public to purchase what many consider their necessary medicine.

3. Cultivators Capped At 100,000 Square Feet
Initially, the CCC was set to allow cultivators to grow as large as they wanted, provided they applied for the appropriate license and pay the corresponding fee that increased as the size of the grow increased.

The commission heard feedback during the public comment period that not having a cap could create a situation where a cultivator was growing so much product, it might be tempting to divert some of that product out of state, or to the unregulated (black) market. The commission decided a 100,000-square-foot (2.3-acre) cap would help discourage diversion, as well as discourage huge agri-cannabis companies from forming and taking hold of the market.

The commission set up a tiered system where a cultivator would initially decide how much product they wished to grow. For example, a cultivator that wanted to grow 60,001 square feet of cannabis would be in Tier 8, meaning they could grow up to 70,000 square feet. Upon annual renewal, the cultivator would have to demonstrate to the commission that they have sold 70 percent of what they have grown. If they did not, or grew less than 60,001 square feet, they would be bumped down to Tier 7, meaning they could grow between 50,001 and 60,000 square feet of cannabis. The rationale behind this is to make sure enough marijuana is grown for the demand of the legal market, but not so much that there is a surplus that could potentially be diverted.

4. People Convicted Of Trafficking Hard Drugs Essentially Barred From Industry
This was the most passionate discussion by the commission members over changes to the regulations. Commissioner Britte McBride, an attorney, proposed that given the fact the U.S. Justice Department has repealed the Cole Memo, the Obama-era guidance that allowed states to set up legal cannabis industries despite marijuana being federally banned, it would be best to prohibit convicted drug traffickers (other than those found guilty of trafficking in marijuana) from working in the new industry. McBride's argument was that to allow convicted traffickers to take part in the regulated industry might attract unwanted attention from federal prosecutors, and ultimately, bring the entire industry down.

Commission Chair Steven Hoffman and member Shaleen Title, who is also a lawyer, disagreed, saying it was unfair to prohibit someone who had paid their debt to society from finding work in the new industry. Ultimately, the commission voted 3-2 in favor of the prohibition. However, they did include language that would allow convicted drug traffickers to be licensed to work for a marijuana business provided that the individual has no direct contact with any cannabis product.

 

[Baron23]

Massachusetts finalizes regulations for its long-awaited adult-use cannabis industry

Massachusetts officials voted unanimously to implement warning labels, preferential treatment for medical marijuana patients, and more, but banned both home delivery sales and social use clubs.

More than a year after residents voted to legalize cannabis, Massachusetts' adult-use marijuana industry finally has a concrete set of regulations, and will begin accepting business applications next month.

According to Mass Live, the Bay State Cannabis Control Commission passed the package of recreational rules in a unanimous vote on Tuesday, implementing standards for legal weed warning labels, cultivation limits, licensing, and more.

With the newly-passed regulations now in place, state commissioners are confident the industry will be up, running, and making sales by a target start date of July 1st.

"As I said, we need to make sure our staff is in place, we need to make sure we have our technology in place, but our intent is to have a 'go' on July 1," Steve Hoffman, chairman of the state's Cannabis Control Commission, told reporters after Tuesday's vote. "And we are hitting all of the deadlines that we have in the legislation. So I'm feeling good about that."

Once those retail cannabis sales start, all products will be labeled with a weed leaf warning label, patients with valid medical recommendations will be able to skip any long recreational-use lines, and, to dissuade any shady under-the-table dealings, "secret shoppers" will make frequent compliance checks.

Massachusetts residents and tourists alike will be able to make purchases at the state's licensed pot shops, but commissioners have, for the time being, banned any potential cannabis delivery businesses or social use venues.

In legal weed states like California and Nevada, a lack of social use spaces have already become a sticking point for tourists and local renters who say they have been left without a legal and safe place to consume the plant. In Colorado, social use cafes are now beginning to open, some four years after legal sales first began.

Outside of retail, cannabis commissioners also passed regulations for cultivation, capping grow sites at 100,000 square feet, or 2.3 acres. Massachusetts regulators said that the agreed upon ceiling was large enough to allow local growth, but sufficiently restrictive to dissuade black market diversion and large-scale agriculture companies from dominating the nascent industry.

Residents with past cannabis-related convictions will be encouraged to shed the drug's stigma and enter the legal market, but commission rules will unequivocally ban any person with a rap sheet for trafficking other, non-weed narcotics from industry employment.

Now that regulations are in place, the commission plans to begin accepting applications for all types of canna-business licenses in only three weeks, starting April 1st. Because potential ganjapreneurs have been waiting patiently since late 2016 to finally submit their business plans, the number of applications waiting in the wings remains a mystery.

"I have no idea how many applications we're going to get," Hoffman told reporters on Tuesday.

No matter how many cultivation, processing, and retail permits the state hands out, though, meeting the July 1st sales start goal will also depend on the will of local municipalities.

With separate city or county licenses acting as the final barrier to full legal status, it is still unclear how many pot shops will actually be ready to open their doors this summer. In California, local licensing prevented dispensaries in Los Angeles and San Francisco from joining the rest of the state's January 1st adult-use sales start earlier this year.

If all goes according to plan, Massachusetts will be the first state on the East Coast to welcome adult-use retail cannabis sales, passing regulators in Maine, Vermont, and New Jersey in the eastern seaboard's legalization race.

 

[Baron23]

"If the commission’s trying to ensure that Massachusetts is known as a state with poor-quality product and high prices, this is a great way to do it,”

Bureaucrats...always the same, they just miss the mark and the result is unintended consequences.


Growing concern: Marijuana rules could mean lower quality product

On its face, the idea hardly seems objectionable: With the state obliged to reduce greenhouse gases by 2020, regulators should act now to address the large amounts of electricity consumed by major indoor pot-growing operations where energy-hungry high-pressure sodium lamps can burn 24 hours a day.

But a new regulation set by the Cannabis Control Commission to do just that — by limiting the amount of electricity that can be used for lighting to an average of 36 watts per square foot of cultivation space — has the industry howling in protest as it prepares for the debut of recreational sales this summer.

To stay under that cap, growers say, they would have to use LED lights that, while cooler and far more efficient, are five to 10 times more expensive than traditional bulbs. Worse, they said, most of those LED fixtures emit less intense light across fewer frequencies, which in turn causes each plant to yield less marijuana and, in some cases, buds that are not as dense or potent.

“If the commission’s trying to ensure that Massachusetts is known as a state with poor-quality product and high prices, this is a great way to do it,” said Kris Krane, president of 4Front Ventures, a cannabis consulting and investment firm that also plans to open its own dispensary in Worcester this year. “I’d love it if we could get to a place where it’s feasible to grow high-quality product and keep prices down at 36 watts, but I’ve talked to experts around the country and the LED technology is just not there.”

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:
Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.


The rule was first proposed by Governor Charlie Baker’s environmental agency. Officials there have suggested that a proliferation of cannabis facilities using high-pressure sodium lamps — the warm-looking bulbs found in older street lights — could make it harder for Massachusetts to meet greenhouse gas reduction goals it’s obligated to reach by 2020.

Kay Doyle, one of the cannabis agency’s five commissioners, said that the lighting standard was just a starting point and that a committee of state environmental experts would work with the marijuana industry on possible adjustments.

Still, she said, the commission was “striving to be a leader” in tackling the environmental challenges posed by the marijuana industry, and it wanted to help the state meet its goal of reducing overall energy use by 25 percent, compared to 1990 levels, by 2020.

But she also acknowledged that the cannabis commission, facing a tight March 15 deadline to promulgate its final regulations, had adopted the recommendations of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs with few changes.

“We had to move forward in a way that started us off but gave us an opportunity to further refine if necessary,” Doyle said.

Environmental advocates praised the commission, saying the rule sends a message that it’s time for the fast-moving marijuana industry to slow down and take a hard look at its electricity consumption, which is driven both by lighting and HVAC systems that control the temperature and humidity of grow spaces. High-pressure sodium lights used to grow cannabis can burn 50 to 70 watts per square foot or more, experts said, and run 12 to 24 hours a day, depending on the stage of plant growth.

“We have an opportunity here to help the state and the nascent cannabis cultivation industry figure out the best ways to be efficient,” said Sam Milton, principal of Climate Resources Group, a consultancy that works with cannabis firms. Besides, he noted, “every watt saved is money in their pockets.”

Milton said he was hopeful the lighting standard would encourage more outdoor and greenhouse operations, where sunlight reduces the need for artificial lights.

But Mark Cusack, a state representative from Braintree who cochairs the Legislature’s joint committee on marijuana policy, said he was pondering a legislative fix that would undo the rule, arguing that the Legislature never envisioned the agency proscribing certain lighting equipment and that the commission failed to consider the rule’s potential impact.

“We have a healthy illicit market where people are growing without LED lights,” Cusack said. A lighting standard that reduces supply and increases prices in the state-regulated industry, he continued, will push growers and consumers to stay underground, depriving the state of tax revenue.

Cusack and other critics also said that an exemption for marijuana-growing operations smaller than 10,000 square feet will only encourage companies to split the large grow operations they’re planning into several smaller ones — negating the environmental benefits.

And they said that even with a 12-month grace period to comply with the standard, existing medical marijuana facilities that want to offer recreational sales will have to spend millions of dollars retrofitting their current cultivation operations. Other companies are midway through building out facilities and must now weigh whether to stop and switch to a design that would accommodate LEDs.

“I got the impression that [the commissioners] think they can revisit this within a year and address it then, but that doesn’t give comfort to anyone trying to make plans right now,” said David Torrisi, executive director of the Commonwealth Dispensary Association. “This has major ramifications across the whole marketplace.”

In addition to smaller cultivators, facilities that generate all of their energy from renewable sources are also exempt from the wattage requirement. The commission’s rules require producers of all sizes to submit annual reports about their energy usage, plus plans for being more efficient.

Marijuana farmers questioned why cannabis cultivation operations, and not computer data centers and other power-intensive facilities, are being singled out.

“I don’t hear anybody complaining about the exorbitant energy use of a server rack, and the thousands of server rooms all over Massachusetts,” said Peter Bernard, president of the Massachusetts Growers Advocacy Council. “This is just a move by prohibitionists to cripple the industry.”

High energy usage and other negative environmental impacts have long been uncomfortable truths for the pot industry. In Denver, data recently obtained by Colorado Public Radio showed that 4 percent of the city’s total electricity usage is devoted to cannabis growing. In California, where the weather allows for more outdoor growing, environmental advocates are increasingly worried about marijuana operators clear-cutting swaths of forest and the runoff from those farms.

Krane and others conceded the industry could do better but said the cannabis commission should take a broader look at how “green” a cultivator is.

“Why not come up with an overall wattage per square foot and let people find efficiencies wherever they can?” Krane asked. “And what about water? It’s a mistake to just focus on lighting.”

 

[Baron23]

Everything you need to know about Massachusetts' new pot rules


After months of debate, the rules for Massachusetts’ recreational marijuana industry are largely set. With sales poised to begin in July, what can consumers expect? Here are quick answers to some frequently asked questions:

When can I buy some weed already?

Sales to adults 21 and older should begin in July. You may have heard that they’ll start on July 1, but that’s not a certainty — it’s merely the earliest possible date for sales to begin, since the state Cannabis Control Commission begins accepting applications for marijuana business licenses on April 1 and then has 90 days to act on them.

Where will I be able to buy marijuana when sales begin?

Most likely, the only places that will have marijuana in stock in July will be some of the 22 currently operating medical dispensaries (along with any that open before July) that win a recreational license, too. But not all medical dispensaries want or will be able to get a recreational license.

It’s also possible some new retail pot shops will be able to open and buy inventory from the existing medical dispensaries, but only if there’s supply to spare.

Why so few?

Three main reasons:

1. It takes 4½ to 6 months to grow a marijuana plant, depending on the technique used. New operators can’t plant their clones or seeds until they get their licenses, meaning they’ll be ready closer to the end of 2018.

2. A bunch of medical dispensaries have promised their communities to remain medical-only, or are having trouble getting local permission to “convert” into hybrid medical-recreational shops. There’s an ongoing legal debate about how binding those promises are and how much control cities and towns have over the conversion process. Those questions may be resolved only with a lawsuit or a change in state law — and that will take some time.

3. A large number of municipalities have put in place bans and moratoriums on recreational businesses. Fewer possible locations means fewer operators.

So will there be lines out the door and supply shortages?

Maybe — it depends on how many stores actually open and how many consumers actually show up on the first day of sales.

Some existing medical dispensaries are ramping up production in anticipation of getting a recreational license. But they’re also required to set aside a chunk of their inventory for registered patients.

Can I just get a medical card? Where do I sign up?

Getting a medical card requires seeing a physician, getting a recommendation, and sending a photo and some paperwork to the state. Doctors can charge up to $200 for the initial appointment, while the state charges a $50 fee (waived for low-income residents). So it’s not instantaneous.

How expensive will marijuana be?

No one knows — it depends on the supply and the demand. Right now, an eighth of an ounce of cannabis flower goes for about $50 at a medical dispensary. It’s possible prices will spike this summer if demand is high; in other states, prices have come way down as the industry grows and competition increases.

Recreational marijuana will be subject to a total state tax of 17 percent. Municipalities may impose an additional local tax of 3 percent. Medical marijuana sales to registered patients are not taxed.

Can I get my marijuana delivered?

The Cannabis Control Commission has delayed the implementation of delivery licenses, likely until early next year. Medical dispensaries are allowed to deliver to medical patients, however, and several already offer this service.

But I see a lot of delivery services online.

There are certainly a lot of gray-market delivery providers on the Internet, many of which claim to be legal under the “caregiver” provision of the medical marijuana law. State regulators insist they’re not.

Other online delivery services offer lemonade and other products that come with a “free gift” of pot that just so happens to be worth the cost of the other item. State authorities have made it clear that such sham transactions are illegal, but they haven’t cracked down on them.

Can I get in trouble for buying marijuana from an unlicensed seller?

Under state law, selling marijuana without a license is against the law. Buying it is not. So the seller takes most of the risk. Federal law is another matter, but few experts believe individual consumers will be targeted for prosecution.

How much marijuana am I allowed to have?

State law says you can possess 1 ounce on your person in public; if you’re in a vehicle, your stash needs to be locked up out of sight. You can keep 10 ounces of cannabis at home.

How much marijuana can I grow at home?

You can grow up to six plants at home, or 12 if more than one adult lives there. You’re allowed to possess the amount harvested from those plants, even if it exceeds 10 ounces. You can gift your home-grown pot to friends, but you can’t sell it or barter it for other goods and services. Good news for would-be home-growers: The cannabis commission recently decided that retail pot shops can sell seeds and clones to consumers.

Where can I use marijuana?

It’s easier to say where you can’t use it: in public. Toke up on the sidewalk and you could get a $100 ticket. Also, you can’t use it while you’re driving.

I’m a renter and my lease doesn’t allow me to smoke inside. What am I supposed to do?

Like delivery, the Cannabis Control Commission has also postponed the licensure of so-called “social consumption” businesses that would allow patrons to use marijuana on site. In the meantime, there are always edibles. Otherwise, you may need to go to a friend’s house or other private property where you have permission to consume.

Why is this taking so long?

In December 2016, the Legislature delayed the start of recreational sales from January 2018 to July 2018. The Cannabis Control Commission has been working on regulations and setting up its enforcement operation since September 2017, when its five commissioners were appointed. To be fair, the commission hasn’t really been dragging its feet. Plenty of reasonable people disagree over the rules it has established, but the agency has been hitting all its deadlines. If there are supply shortages and only a limited number of retailers open in July, it will have more to do with the market factors and local control issues.

What about the federal situation?

The federal government categorizes marijuana as the most dangerous type of drug there is, alongside heroin. But for the moment, despite a change in policy by Attorney General Jeff Sessions that gives regional US prosecutors more discretion to bring marijuana cases, a full-blown crackdown by federal agents on state-legal cannabis businesses and consumers seems unlikely.

Why? For one thing, federal prosecutors have limited resources. US Attorney for Massachusetts Andrew Lelling, despite issuing some tough-sounding statements in the wake of the Sessions announcement, has said he wants his modest staff to focus on deadly drugs such as opioids.

Also, the move by Sessions is said to have blindsided his own prosecutors, some of whom suggested publicly that they will continue to follow the Obama-era hands-off approach. Meanwhile, Sessions has feuded publicly in recent weeks with his boss, President Trump, leaving it unclear whether he would really have the backing of the executive branch in launching a crackdown.

Another thing to consider is public opinion, which has turned decisively in favor of legalization. Even Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, who supported the unsuccessful anti-legalization campaign in 2016, has praised the medical benefits of cannabis and said the feds should let his state implement the will of voters who approved a commercial marijuana industry. Lelling, an appointed official, may have felt compelled to say publicly that he can’t unilaterally repeal prohibition and rule out prosecuting state-legal marijuana operators, but he must know that actually doing so would invite a strong backlash from voters and politicians of all stripes.

 

[Baron23]

I think this is pretty simple....if you don't allow the industry in your municipality, you don't get any of industry's tax money.

Also, you are allowed to home grow six plants....my suggestion to all Mass MJ users is to go get a grow tent, grow your own, and fuck the politicians where it really hurts...in the wallet.


Pot shops face bans in most of Mass.



Marijuana companies will be banned from a majority of cities and towns in Massachusetts when recreational sales begin this summer, a Globe review has found, the latest indication that there will be fewer pot stores in the early going than many consumers expected.

At least 189 of the state’s 351 municipalities have barred retail marijuana stores and, in most cases, cultivation facilities and other cannabis operations, too, according to local news reports, municipal records, and data collected by the office of Attorney General Maura Healey.

Fifty-nine of the local bans on marijuana businesses are indefinite. The remaining 130 are temporary moratoriums designed to buy local officials time to set up marijuana zoning rules. Many expire on July 1, and the rest are due to end later this year.

Still, for marijuana companies hoping to get in on the ground floor of the lucrative, newly legal industry, that means more than half of the state’s municipalities are off-limits as they scout for locations this spring.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:
Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.


“Communities right now are going extremely slowly on this whole process,” said Jim Smith, a Boston attorney whose firm represents cannabis companies seeking host municipalities. “By Labor Day, I can’t imagine there will be more than half a dozen stores. I’m concerned, because the public expects something different.”

For consumers, this means that only a handful of pot shops are likely to be open in July, when state officials have promised the recreational market will debut — most likely, existing medical dispensaries that win a recreational license.

For the state, it could mean falling short of the $44 million to $82 million in annual revenue it expected to collect from the 17 percent tax on pot sales.

And with more municipalities considering bans and moratoriums, the marijuana industry’s fortunes may decline before they improve.

Local officials defended the restrictions, noting that most will ultimately expire. They say communities must be allowed to chart their own courses and need time to set up zoning.

Eventually, “the vast majority of communities will be available for commercial marijuana facilities,” said Geoff Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association. “A very small percentage have put in place bans,” he added, while other communities “are going through a challenging process of updating bylaws and ordinances.”

Local restrictions on recreational marijuana companies
At least 189 of the state’s 351 municipalities have barred recreational marijuana operations. A look at which communities have enacted indefinite bans, temporary moratoriums, or zoning rules regarding cannabis operations.

Although 54 percent of Massachusetts voters approved Question 4, the 2016 ballot question legalizing marijuana, proponents of marijuana have fared poorly in local votes on proposed bans and moratoriums: All but a handful have passed.

In municipalities where voters supported the 2016 ballot measure, implementing a ban requires a communitywide vote. In cities and towns where voters opposed legalization, elected bodies such as town councils or boards of selectmen can impose a ban without polling residents.

The 59 municipal bans mark a sharp increase from July 2017, when a Globe review identified just 29. The number of moratoriums also jumped, from 70 to 130.

Observers noted that local politics generally attract older, more conservative voters, and said some residents may have favored legalization in the abstract but feel differently about welcoming a pot shop to their community.

“There are definitely people who say, ‘Yeah, I want it legal, but I don’t want it next door,’ ” said Adam Chapdelaine, the town manager of Arlington, where residents will soon vote on whether to extend through December a moratorium that was due to expire in June.

Other communities, such as Lawrence, have implemented bans over fears that adding marijuana to the mix will exacerbate their opioid problems. Elsewhere, local officials have cited the prospect of upticks in stoned driving and youth drug use, or simply remain opposed to legalization in the first place.

Prospective marijuana business owners decried the proliferation of local restrictions. Between the high rents in urban areas and the bans in many smaller communities, they fear the emerging market will favor large, well-capitalized companies that can afford to hire consultants to identify promising parcels and then pay rent or taxes on them during time-consuming approval processes.

Sean Berte, a Boston entrepreneur who’s eligible for a head-start in the state licensing process because he was previously incarcerated for growing and selling marijuana, has long dreamed of opening a legal cultivation facility. But he said he was discouraged by the swath of communities with restrictions along Interstate 495, where he could afford real estate.

“I might look at cultivation more seriously if not for all the moratoriums,” he said. “These towns aren’t eliminating any problems by having bans and moratoriums, they’re just emboldening the unregulated market.”

Instead, Berte will try to open a retail pot shop in Boston, which has no ban. But even there, proposed zoning rules mandating a large buffer between stores could make it difficult to find a site. He’s also worried that the local restrictions elsewhere in the state will limit the number of cultivators, making it hard to find a supplier.

Chapdelaine and other local officials said they backed moratoriums because they were waiting for the state Cannabis Control Commission to finalize regulations and wanted to include residents in a conversation about where marijuana facilities belong.

“For us, it was just about planning and figuring out how we should regulate these businesses,” Chapdelaine said.

Ryan O’Malley, a city councilor in Malden, added that most Malden residents support allowing marijuana firms, and that he hopes the revenue they bring could help the city replace lead pipes and address other problems.

The cannabis commission submitted its final rules last week and on Friday issued updated guidance to cities and towns affirming their critical role in the process of licensing marijuana businesses.

“There’s a lot of local control, and that’s really going to dictate how quickly this market unfolds,” said David Torrisi, executive director of the Commonwealth Dispensary Association, an industry group representing medical dispensaries.

Cities and towns that haven’t implemented formal, indefinite bans cannot use overly long moratoriums, zoning rules, bylaws, or other “unreasonably impracticable” measures to effectively prevent marijuana companies from locating within their borders, according to the commission. They also cannot demand unlimited payments from operators, a problem that’s bedeviled the state’s earlier medical marijuana program.

However, municipalities can require special permits and a separate, local application process. Prospective marijuana businesses must also host a community meeting to take questions from residents and negotiate a “host community agreement.” with the city or town.

Marijuana businesses and their attorneys said that a company confronted with unreasonable local demands is more likely to simply move on to another community than sue its future host city or town over the matter, giving municipalities an advantage in negotiations.

And proponents say they’re already hitting such speed bumps, including municipalities that have confined marijuana companies to tiny industrial districts on the edge of town, or have implemented large buffers around schools and day cares that, drawn out on a map, cover nearly all of their territory.

“Just because there are 162 communities without bans or moratoriums, we cannot assume that there are 162 welcoming communities,” said Smith, the cannabis lawyer. “These bans and moratoriums are just the beginning.”

Kamani Jefferson, president of the Massachusetts Recreational Consumer Council, said he was optimistic that the finalization of state regulations would prompt cities and towns to replace their moratoriums with zoning. He also said he’s counting on an underwhelming recreational rollout to galvanize pro-marijuana consumers against further local bans, noting that many local restrictions were implemented at sparsely attended hearings or through low-turnout, off-cycle referendums.

“I’m hoping it gets the people who want a store in their area more active in terms of asking, ‘What’s taking so long and what can we do?’ ” he said.