Law Massachusetts

[Baron23]

" Delivery licenses are available exclusively to participants in the CCC’s Social Equity Program and certified economic empowerment applicants "

So, I imagine a number of folks here may not like my view, but my view nonetheless is that "social equity" is a made up term, that there is no such thing, but it sounds much more palatable and polticially correct than the prior term of race based set asides or carve outs....which, by definition, is racist as its based on race.


Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission makes major change to delivery licenses, targeted at improving social equity


State marijuana regulators have made alterations to the set of regulations that has been under development for months to allow delivery licensees to buy marijuana wholesale from cultivators and manufacturers, a change that one regulator said is key to equity in the newly-legal industry.
The way the Cannabis Control Commission had drafted its newest set of regulations, delivery licensees would have functioned essentially as couriers -- sourcing marijuana and marijuana products from CCC-licensed retailers and making same-day deliveries to customers for a fee. Several prospective cannabis delivery operators told commissioners during a public hearing that the framework for delivery would not work as initially written.



During a meeting Friday to comb through bundles of outstanding policy questions, the CCC voted to allow delivery companies to source the marijuana and products they offer for delivery from CCC-licensed cultivators and product manufacturers on a wholesale basis. Delivery licenses are available exclusively to participants in the CCC’s Social Equity Program and certified economic empowerment applicants, and the commission voted Friday to increase that exclusivity period from two years to three years.
“With this change creating unprecedented exclusivity for social equity + economic empowerment businesses, Massachusetts might be back on track to be the first state with a functioning national model for equity. Very grateful to all who took the time to comment, and my colleagues,” Commissioner Shaleen Title tweeted after Friday’s meeting.
Home delivery of marijuana has long been allowed under the state’s medical marijuana program, and advocates pushed for a delivery-only license in the recreational market arguing that it will help level the playing field between large corporations and small businesses because the barriers to entry for delivery are typically far less burdensome than those for retail licenses. The CCC’s courier-only delivery model will remain an option, one with a potentially lower cost of entry, for prospective business owners.
“We got a lot of pushback saying that people found that to be less than a viable economic model,” CCC Chairman Steven Hoffman said in August of the commission’s initial plan for delivery regulations. “The trade-off, of course, in our minds is a very strong desire to try to keep the capital requirements as low as possible in this business and, of course, adding warehousing and wholesaling would significantly increase the capital requirements.”
The CCC approved a delivery license structure in the fall and made applications available in May, but has not yet licensed a delivery-only business.
Also Friday, the CCC addressed another hot topic in its proposed regulations -- the threshold for the number of medical marijuana patients a single caregiver can assist. Originally, the CCC proposed affording caregivers -- essentially people registered with the CCC to care for and provide cannabis to medical marijuana patients who might be unable to go to a dispensary themselves -- the ability to provide care to up to 10 patients but that specific threshold was met with opposition from a major patient advocacy group.
Instead, the CCC decided Friday to allow each caregiver to care for up to five patients and to grow up to 500 square feet of marijuana for their patients. Caregivers would be able to request a waiver to care for more than five patients, but their homegrown canopy could not exceed the 500 square foot limit.
The CCC’s rewritten regulations are not yet final. Commissioners had expected to vote on the final set of regulations on Sept. 24, but the slideshow presentation from Friday’s meeting said the date for a final vote on regulations is to be determined.

 

[STAPRT]

I can't get to MA due to Covid travel restrictions. It sucks. I wish access was easier for introverts. I really don't want to spend $65 an 8th or $220 for a half in Maine Rec. (Not that MA rec prices are much better!)

 

[Baron23]

I can't get to MA due to Covid travel restrictions.

Up to you, my friend. But you do understand that there are no legal internal border controls within the USA. None.

Cheers

 

[Baron23]

Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission approves regulations for home delivery of pot​

Marijuana regulators in Massachusetts on Monday voted 3-1 in a virtual meeting to approve revised rules for the industry, including allowing the home delivery of pot.
The regulations create two types of delivery licenses:

1. "Marijuana couriers" will be allowed charge a fee to make deliveries from a retailer or dispensary to the customer.
2. "Marijuana delivery operators" are permitted to buy wholesale products and make deliveries from their own warehouse.

In both cases, businesses are permitted to contract with third-party technology providers but regulations will dictate certain terms of those contracts. Rules also prohibit marijuana businesses and technology providers from establishing a monopoly on the industry.

Kobe Evans, co-owner of Pure Oasis in Boston, said he believes the new delivery options will allow for more people to break into the business.
"It’s a lot different than spending millions on cultivation, or retail, meant to be easier to get into delivery," he said. "It’s a good gateway into allowing people into the industry especially for equity applicants."

All of the regulations approved Monday were subject to public comment periods and revised several times. In one earlier version, the licenses were called "limited delivery" and "wholesale delivery."

CCC Chairman Steven Hoffman and Commissioners Britte McBride and Shaleen Title voted to approve the regulations. Commissioner Jennifer Flanagan voted against approval.

After the vote, the Massachusetts Cannabis Business Association issued a statement praising the result.

"Delivery businesses will provide a new outlet for existing dispensaries and cultivators to sell their products, while satisfying consumer demand that, four years after voters supported legalization at the ballot, is still being met by the unregulated and untaxed illicit market," MassCBA President and CEO David O’Brien said in a written statement. "The Commission deserves credit for conducting a thoughtful and deliberate process to develop final adult-use marijuana regulatory changes that will help deliver a more equitable and successful adult-use cannabis industry in Massachusetts."

Not all retailers are happy with the regulations, however. The Commonwealth Dispensary Association, which represents nearly 40 businesses, issued a statement expressing plans to challenge the CCC's decision and specifically the creation of delivery operators.

"While the CDA is disappointed by today’s outcome, this will not be the final word on delivery," officials wrote. "The very real concerns of introducing online retailers should be heard and addressed. To that end, we are prepared to contest the matter to ensure that policy continues to adhere to the statute and that the market is not upended."

 

[momofthegoons]

Massachusetts Dispensaries Sue Over Home Delivery Rules​

Not everyone is celebrating an initiative meant to assist disenfranchised cannabis business owners.

Massachusetts cannabis dispensaries are currently suing the state over the new, contentious, delivery regulations.

Specifically, the dispensaries involved in the suit have a problem with the fact that only certain disenfranchised business owners will be able to deliver cannabis for the first three years, in order to try and make the industry more equitable.

The regulations were put in place by the Cannabis Control Commission last year, and they specify two types of cannabis licenses. One allows couriers to provide delivery for dispensaries, and the other allows companies to purchase product and keep it in a warehouse to then deliver it to customers.

While that created quite a diverse pool of options for those looking to dip their toes into delivery, existing dispensaries and other parties who are not disenfranchised but want to get into the industry are upset that they will not have a chance at the application process until at least three years down the road.


The applicants who qualify for the program fall under the umbrella of either the social equity program or the economic empowerment program.

The Controversy Behind The Lawsuit​

Many, including social equity advocates, are excited about this move, because it means those who are disenfranchised won’t be pushed out of the process or the industry, as often happens, especially when it comes to legal cannabis.

However, not everyone is celebrating. The lawsuit, filed January 13, claims that not allowing cannabis retailers who already have a license to deliver violates existing law that claims cannabis retailers will be permitted to deliver their products.

According to a statute found in chapter 94G section 1 of the law, a cannabis retailer is “an entity licensed to purchase and deliver marijuana and marijuana products from marijuana establishments and to deliver, sell or otherwise transfer marijuana and marijuana products to marijuana establishments and to consumers.”

Additionally, those suing over the law claim that the commission didn’t have the right to enact new regulations because the commission that did so only had four members, as one had resigned.

“Simply, the CCC overstepped its authority and disregarded state law, radically upending the established rules that hundreds of small businesses and their host communities operated in accordance with since 2016,” the association said in a statement.

The association of businesses that are suing claimed that, while they support the smaller delivery license being only for marginalized people, or the idea that a larger number of the applications should go to equity applicants, they at least want the wholesale, warehousing option that could benefit existing dispensaries to be available to them now, even if in a limited capacity, not three years down the line.

“Today’s action goes beyond a disagreement about cannabis delivery—the CDA is dedicated to ensuring that the Commonwealth’s established laws are upheld and appropriately observed through fair procedures and adequate due process,” the association said.

Now, it remains to be seen if the law will be claimed as invalid or if it will be put into place. Either way, it looks like cannabis delivery could be further delayed in Massachusetts, despite the fact that cannabis applications are already pouring in, both from social equity applicants and those who don’t apply under current conditions.

 

[bulllee]

Massachusetts mayor gets 6 years in prison for marijuana bribery scheme​

Published September 21, 2021



The former mayor of a small Massachusetts town received a six-year prison term after his conviction earlier this year on charges including fraud and extortion tied to the licensing of local marijuana businesses.
Jasiel Correia, the ex-mayor of Fall River, was sentenced Tuesday by U.S. District Court Judge Douglas Woodlock for extorting hundreds of thousands of dollars from cannabis entrepreneurs hoping to win business permits.

Correia was convicted in May on charges of wire fraud, extortion and extortion conspiracy, and prosecutors had asked for an 11-year prison sentence.
During the sentencing hearing, according to the Associated Press, the judge blasted Correia, saying that during his tenure as mayor, “City Hall was for sale.”
Correia, however, told reporters after his hearing that he turned down a plea deal because he’s innocent of the charges, the AP reported.
“The justice system has failed us,” Correia said after his sentence was handed down.
It’s not yet clear when his prison term will begin.

Instills a new feeling of justice.

 

[bulllee]

NEWS BRIEF

Massachusetts permits hemp sales by marijuana retailers​

Published 17 hours ago



(A version of this story first appeared on Hemp Industry Daily.)
Hemp growers in Massachusetts can now sell hemp extracts and smokable flower to the state’s more than 200 licensed marijuana retailers, a move that should allow MJ stores to serve a wider selection of consumers.

A new rule that took effect Monday gives Massachusetts hemp farmers instructions for testing and labeling their products for sale to adult-use or medical marijuana shoppers.
The change was made by Massachusetts lawmakers late last year. The change applies only to farmers growing hemp in Massachusetts.
Out-of-state hemp products remain off-limits for Massachusetts marijuana retailers.
The new rules require hemp products sold in Massachusetts dispensaries to carry labels that include:

• Manufacturer name and address.
• THC and CBD concentrations.
• A warning that the product “has not been tested, analyzed, or approved by the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources or the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration).”

The law did not end a prohibition on processing hemp and marijuana products at the same locations.
Marijuana manufacturers will need licenses from the state agriculture department before producing products listed as hemp or hemp-derived.
Massachusetts has roughly 65 hemp farmers on 407 acres and 95,000 indoor square feet this year.
The state is home to about 168 recreational marijuana retailers and 68 medical marijuana dispensaries.
Those retail outlets sold about $1.4 billion-$1.7 billion worth of product last year, according to the 2021 MJBizFactbook.

 

[Baron23]

More fucking politicians.

Bill to combat marijuana-related impaired driving should be rejected​

There is no blood, saliva, or breathalyzer analysis that can ascertain whether a person who has used marijuana is actually impaired.​

Prompted by the Commonwealth’s legalization of marijuana and growing concerns about an increase in impaired driving, Governor Charlie Baker has refiled the Trooper Thomas Clardy Law, which states that the presence of any intoxicating substance or its metabolites in a driver’s system, as indicated by breath analysis or a chemical test of blood or “oral fluid,” shall be admissible as evidence of that individual being under the influence. Mitigating marijuana-impaired driving is a public safety priority, but testing for marijuana use rather than actual impairment is a wasteful and scientifically invalid approach that would be successfully challenged in the courts.

These tests can indeed detect THC, the primary psychoactive chemical in marijuana, but in fact, there is no blood, saliva, or breathalyzer analysis that can ascertain whether a person who has used marijuana is actually impaired, and there is no level of THC in blood or oral fluid that can discriminate between an impaired and unimpaired person. As reported in a 2017 US Department of Transportation report to Congress, “the level of THC in the blood and the degree of impairment do not appear to be closely related.” Moreover, THC collects in fat and other body tissues, but then slowly reenters the bloodstream. Thus, even after a few weeks of non-use, a drug test for THC may still show evidence of past marijuana use, long after any impairment has passed.

Developing a reliable and objective measure of impairment for roadside stops is essential, but calls to use the mere presence of THC in a driver’s system to define legal impairment must be resisted. The Legislature should reject Baker’s bill.

 

[Tincandtoke]

More fucking politicians.

Bill to combat marijuana-related impaired driving should be rejected​

There is no blood, saliva, or breathalyzer analysis that can ascertain whether a person who has used marijuana is actually impaired.​

Prompted by the Commonwealth’s legalization of marijuana and growing concerns about an increase in impaired driving, Governor Charlie Baker has refiled the Trooper Thomas Clardy Law, which states that the presence of any intoxicating substance or its metabolites in a driver’s system, as indicated by breath analysis or a chemical test of blood or “oral fluid,” shall be admissible as evidence of that individual being under the influence. Mitigating marijuana-impaired driving is a public safety priority, but testing for marijuana use rather than actual impairment is a wasteful and scientifically invalid approach that would be successfully challenged in the courts.

These tests can indeed detect THC, the primary psychoactive chemical in marijuana, but in fact, there is no blood, saliva, or breathalyzer analysis that can ascertain whether a person who has used marijuana is actually impaired, and there is no level of THC in blood or oral fluid that can discriminate between an impaired and unimpaired person. As reported in a 2017 US Department of Transportation report to Congress, “the level of THC in the blood and the degree of impairment do not appear to be closely related.” Moreover, THC collects in fat and other body tissues, but then slowly reenters the bloodstream. Thus, even after a few weeks of non-use, a drug test for THC may still show evidence of past marijuana use, long after any impairment has passed.

Developing a reliable and objective measure of impairment for roadside stops is essential, but calls to use the mere presence of THC in a driver’s system to define legal impairment must be resisted. The Legislature should reject Baker’s bill.

I smoked joints with Boston police in uniform
Who is going to administer the test, a passerby?
It would be hard to determine who was higher
The perp or the cop

If you are in Mass. and any law enforcement tries to drug test you just say "you first"
The cops I knew were way worse druggies than the druggies

 

[Baron23]

"make grants and loans available through a new Cannabis Social Equity Trust Fund to participants in the Cannabis Control Commission’s social equity (SE) program or economic empowerment (EE) priority applicants"

I think you could get the Yellow Pages passed as legislation if you wrap it in "social equity"

Senate passes bill to grow, diversify cannabis sector​

Wide-ranging marijuana legislation that targets some of the most persistent issues that activists, regulators, businesses and municipalities have said are holding Massachusetts back from realizing the full potential of the 2016 legalization law cleared the Senate unanimously on Thursday with senators pitching it as both an economic development and racial justice bill.

The bill (S 2801) would put tighter restrictions and enhanced oversight on the host community agreements marijuana businesses are required to enter into with their host communities, make grants and loans available through a new Cannabis Social Equity Trust Fund to participants in the Cannabis Control Commission’s social equity (SE) program or economic empowerment (EE) priority applicants, and create a method for cities and towns to authorize the on-site cannabis consumption establishments that are already authorized under the CCC’s regulations.

“By clarifying the requirements of the host community agreements, making financial investments to increase social equity and allowing for the full implementation of the cannabis industry through permitting social consumption authorization, I am confident that this legislation aids in the continued growth of a competitive and equitable commercial marijuana industry here in the commonwealth of Massachusetts,” Senate Ways and Means Committee Chairman Michael Rodrigues said as he introduced the bill on the floor.

The Legislature has long maintained a mostly hands-off approach to marijuana policy. Lawmakers passed up their opportunities to act before voters approved decriminalization in 2008, medical marijuana in 2012 and adult legalization in 2016, but then delayed and rewrote significant portions of the 2016 ballot law legalizing marijuana. Aside from a bill that the House passed in early 2020 with provisions similar to the Senate bill, the Legislature has largely avoided cannabis issues since 2017.

Social equity​

Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz, who chairs the Cannabis Policy Committee for the Senate, said the bill that sailed through her committee without opposition seeks to remedy “long-standing problems with long-identified solutions.”

“If you talk to advocates, to policy experts, to the Cannabis Control Commission, you will find near-universal agreement. They will tell you ... that the costs of entry into the industry are too high and that there is a severe lack of access to capital in this industry. It typically requires one to one and a half million dollars in liquidity to open a new cannabis retail shop or three to five million for a manufacturing facility,” Chang-Diaz said. She added, “So when you need that kind of cash on hand in order to get into the business, in order to get your foot in the door, it’s no surprise that despite our best intentions, the industry has remained predominantly white and predominantly in already wealthy hands.”

Chang-Diaz likened the marijuana bill to other steps the Senate has taken to confront racial injustice, like passing criminal justice and policing reform laws, recognizing Juneteenth as a holiday and last week’s vote to ban discrimination based on natural and protective hairstyles in workplaces, schools and public spaces.
“Tackling our gaping racial wealth divide is the next front in this work toward pursuing racial justice in our state,” she said.



Massachusetts was the first state in the country to mandate that equity and inclusion be part of its legal cannabis framework and was the first to launch programs specifically designed to assist entrepreneurs and businesses from communities disproportionately harmed by the decades of marijuana prohibition.

But more than three years since the first legal sale here, just 6% of the licenses issued for the cannabis industry have gone to SE program participants or EE priority applicants, the Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy said when it released its draft of the legislation. Out of more than 1,000 applications submitted to the CCC as of November, just 232 came from SE or EE applicants.

The bill would make grants and loans, including no-interest loans and forgivable loans, available to participants in the Cannabis Control Commission’s social equity (SE) program or economic empowerment (EE) priority applicants through a Cannabis Social Equity Trust Fund. Each year, the fund would get 10 percent of the money in the Marijuana Regulation Fund, which is where revenue brought in by the state’s marijuana excise tax, application and licensing fees, and industry penalties is deposited.
For fiscal year 2021, a 10 percent share of just the cannabis excise revenue ($112.37 million) would have worked out to about $11.24 million for the trust fund. Rodrigues estimated that the 10 percent share for fiscal year 2023 would work out to about $18 million while Chang-Diaz forecasted a range of between $15 million and $18 million for FY 2023.

Social consumption​

More than two years ago, the CCC approved regulations that paved the way for social consumption establishments where adults could buy marijuana and use it in a social setting. But the agency said the pilot program it designed for up to 12 communities “would not be able to begin without a change in state law or the passage of legislation that will first allow cities and towns to authorize social consumption in their communities.”

The Senate bill would allow communities to opt-in to allowing social consumption businesses within their borders via local ordinance in addition to making a change necessary for cities or towns to use the existing local referendum avenue to greenlight marijuana cafes. The Senate rejected an amendment from Minority Leader Bruce Tarr that would have eliminated the ordinance option and required the decision to go before voters.

“Permitting this to go through the local political process, this decisionmaking to go through the local political process the same as all other town ordinances do, will both save municipal resources needed to execute a ballot question and avoid delays resulting from having to wait months or years until the next election cycle in some cases, while also maintaining accountability to the voters,” Chang-Diaz said.

Discussion of social consumption sites has typically led to talk of road safety and senators offered a handful of amendments meant to put driving while impaired by marijuana on an equal footing as driving while drunk. Most of those amendments were either withdrawn or rejected, but the Senate did adopt a Tarr amendment that would create a special commission on drugged driving to monitor and report on the development of technology related to the reliable testing of marijuana impairment in drivers.

“While I would have hoped that we would have taken action to make some statutory changes in this bill, the commission that is set up by this particular amendment sets the foundation for us to be able to move forward and make those changes in the future based on additional information and the insight of experts,” Tarr said. He cited data released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in February estimating a 15.5% increase in roadway fatalities in Massachusetts over the first nine months of 2021 compared to the same period in 2020, from 258 to 298.

On the issue of host community agreements (HCAs), the bill would direct the CCC to “review and approve host community agreements” and also to “regulate and enforce all host community agreements.” The CCC could only approve applications for provisional licensure or renewal if it has certified that the HCA is in compliance.
The bill would also more specifically define what can and cannot be included in the contracts, and would codify a municipality’s right to waive the requirement to have an HCA as a handful have already done. Through the adoption of an amendment from Sen. John Velis, the bill would also require the CCC to develop a model HCA that communities can use as a template to ensure their agreements are in line with what the CCC would approve.

HCAs have given businesses, prospective businesses and regulators fits basically since the CCC began licensing businesses here. Entrepreneurs, lawyers, lobbyists and regulators have pointed to stories about cities and towns demanding more from businesses than state laws allow, up to 3 percent of gross sales. The CCC began wrestling with the issue in 2018, determined it lacked the authority to intervene or reject an application based on the HCA and voted in January 2019 to formally request that the Legislature give it that authority.

The bill that the Senate passed Thursday has good odds of being in the mix as lawmakers send bills to the governor’s desk in the coming months; House Speaker Ron Mariano’s office has said addressing many of the same issues is a priority for him.

“If the legislation is to pass, I want to thank the House as well for their consideration they’ll give to this legislation,” CCC Chairman Steven Hoffman said Thursday morning before the Senate debate began.

 

[Baron23]

"Why? The law required cities and towns to poll residents on whether to allow these sites. It was written to say that a community referendum had to occur, with at least 10% of voters having signed a petition supporting social consumption. This would trigger a vote that would occur during a biennial state election. The law said that the petition had to conform "to the provisions of the General Laws relating to initiative petitions at the municipal level.​

Sound unfamiliar? That's because, except for a few cities, Massachusetts doesn't have provisions relating to initiative petitions at the municipal level, and so there was no way for people to bring the petitions that would trigger the vote that was necessary to allow social consumption sites."​

​

As I read this, I became further convinced that politicians have absoluely proved that there can be life....without a brain. FFS.

What is social consumption of cannabis, and when will it start in Massachusetts?​

In the final hours of the legislative session in late July, Massachusetts lawmakers passed a sweeping cannabis bill aimed at boosting the industry. One of its provisions: tackling social consumption.​

Once the bill becomes law, cannabis cafes will be one step closer to being able to open in the Bay State.

What is social consumption of cannabis?
Social consumption refers to being able to use cannabis on the premises where it was purchased. In other words, these establishments will be like bars, but for cannabis instead of alcohol. Instead of a pitcher of beer, customers can enjoy a blunt on a patio with friends at a cannabis lounge, or they can order an edible at a restaurant.

Businesses will have to be licensed marijuana social consumption establishments, and they'll have to be located in a city or town that has chosen to allow them. They can sell a variety of products from vapes to flowers. Right now, none of the state's existing dispensaries can allow a customer to actually consume cannabis on-site.

Does this mean people can smoke cigarettes indoors?
No, according to the law, “tobacco shall not be sold, smoked, vaporized or consumed at said establishment.”

Why is it taking so long for these social consumption businesses to launch?
Social consumption was legalized alongside recreational marijuana sales as part of a ballot question in 2016. But six years later, none of these businesses exist in in Massachusetts.

Why? The law required cities and towns to poll residents on whether to allow these sites. It was written to say that a community referendum had to occur, with at least 10% of voters having signed a petition supporting social consumption. This would trigger a vote that would occur during a biennial state election. The law said that the petition had to conform "to the provisions of the General Laws relating to initiative petitions at the municipal level."
Sound unfamiliar? That's because, except for a few cities, Massachusetts doesn't have provisions relating to initiative petitions at the municipal level, and so there was no way for people to bring the petitions that would trigger the vote that was necessary to allow social consumption sites.

What did the new legislation change?
This new cannabis legislation resolved this mix-up by ensuring local initiative petitions have proper procedures. Municipalities now have alternative options as well — they can approve social consumption sites by passing a by-law or ordinance.

So can a cannabis cafes open tomorrow?
Not quite yet.
Social consumption never moved forward because of the snafu in the law. Now that it's resolved, the Cannabis Control Commission, which regulates adult-use and medical cannabis in Massachusetts, will decide how businesses

The commission's first step will be to review the regulations around social consumption it developed in 2019. Back then, the board planned to set up a pilot program for social consumption licenses in 12 municipalities, and then they would use these sites as a case study for statewide implementation. Concerns around setting up these businesses include preventing underage access, avoiding impaired driving, and standardizing serving sizes for edible marijuana products.

However, the Cannabis Control Commission can tweak this plan, especially as it gains insight from other states that are moving forward with social consumption.

So when will the first social consumption businesses launch?
It’s too difficult at this point to determine a timeline, according to Shawn Collins, executive director of the CCC. The commission must review the law, identify communities for the pilot, develop an application, evaluate the applications, approve them and then build and inspect facilities.

However, there is a pre-certification process currently available, which will allow interested entrepreneurs to begin setting up these businesses.
Why is social consumption an equity issue?

In Massachusetts, it’s not legal to consume cannabis in public. If you rent, your ability to consume cannabis at home depends on your landlord. If you live in public housing, it may not be allowed at all.

“Despite the fact that you can purchase legally, it doesn't mean you can consume legally,” Collins said. “Equity is certainly at the forefront of just the access to a safe place to consume.”

Creating social consumption sites will give all adults the ability to legally consume cannabis.

 

[momofthegoons]

Social consumption refers to being able to use cannabis on the premises where it was purchased.

Really? That's not my definition of social consumption..... I would think social consumption would encompass a whole lot more locations than the place you purchased your herb.

 

[Tincandtoke]

But the guy drinking out of a bottle of wild turkey and peeing on the atm I want to use is in perfect compliance with the laws regarding public drinking
Apparently there were discrepancies with his account balance
Actually stood there for several seconds behind him before I realized he wasn't banking anymore

There are a lot of people who light up or pack a bowl and get into a car around here after a purchase
It puts law enforcement in a bind
They know everyone has opiates and alcohol in their system already from breakfast

 

[Baron23]

Trulieve expected to close all Massachusetts dispensaries ​

Dispensaries in Framingham, Northampton, and Worcester are set to close in June, and all Massachusetts operations are scheduled to stop at the end of the year.​

Cannabis company Trulieve is closing all of its Massachusetts locations at the end of the month, and plans to cease operations entirely in the state by the end of the year, according to a company announcement released Thursday.

Trulieve Cannabis Corp. will shutter its Framingham, Northampton, and Worcester dispensaries, as well as an outpost in Grover Beach, California, the company announced. It will also close its manufacturing site in Holyoke.

The company has locations in nine states, and closed additional California-based stores last year.

Despite these closures, CEO Kim Rivers said in the release that she felt confident in the direction of the company.

“These difficult but necessary measures are part of ongoing efforts to bolster business resilience and our commitment to cash preservation as we continue to focus on our business strategy of going deep in our core markets and jettisoning non-contributive assets,” she said.

Trulieve previously had to pay $14,502 in OSHA fines for a violation at the Holyoke cultivation site that resulted in a worker’s death in 2022. Lorna McMurrey, 27, died from asthma complications following cannabis dust inhalation while working at the plant.

The initial fine was $35,219 before a settlement was reached for the lower amount.

Closures this year are set to affect 128 employees, WBZ reports.

 

[Baron23]

I don't usually go out of my way to copy over the top photo in these articles....but I got a kick out of this one so....for your viewing pleasure hahaha

Executives re-enact Boston Tea Party to protest Cannabis tax rule ​

A demonstration in Massachusetts on Wednesday re-enacted the Boston Tea Party to protest IRS rules that unfairly tax cannabis businesses.​

Executives from a Massachusetts-based cannabis company dressed in colonial garb aboard a ship in Boston Harbor on Wednesday to protest an IRS rule that requires regulated marijuana companies to pay taxes that are significantly higher than businesses in other industries. The demonstration, which evoked the legendary Boston Tea Party at the same site 250 years ago, was orchestrated by licensed cannabis company MariMed to protest 280E, an IRS tax rule that is the bane of state-legal cannabis companies from coast to coast.

Lucas McCann, the chief science officer and a co-founder of cannabis compliance consulting firm CannDelta, explained how the IRS rule that prohibits most standard business tax deductions affects companies in the regulated cannabis industry.

“Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code is a daunting hurdle for cannabis businesses, including retail dispensaries. In short, 280E is a code used to make cannabis businesses less profitable by making them pay more of their overall profits in taxes,” McCann, who was not involved in Wednesday’s protest, writes in an email. “Rooted in the 1980s, this outdated tax legislation was crafted to prevent drug dealers from claiming any business expenses on their taxes. In a modern twist of coincidence, today’s cannabis businesses operate legally under state law but are still treated as illicit businesses, federally speaking, because cannabis is still listed as a Schedule I substance.”

Protest Evokes The Boston Tea Party​

Wednesday’s protest re-enacted the famed Boston Tea Party of 1773, when colonists protested high taxes levied by the British Crown on tea shipped to the New England colonies. In an act of independence-minded defiance, members of the group the Sons of Liberty, some disguised as Native Americans, boarded ships moored in Boston Harbor and dumped chests of tea into the water to protest the high taxes.

MariMed’s demonstration resurrected themes from the protest 250 years ago, this time featuring executives from the company dressed in period clothing aboard the Liberty Star, a schooner adorned with banners protesting 280E. Brandishing boxes emblazoned with the word “weed,” the costumed protesters shouted slogans as they boarded the ship and heaved the chests into Boston Harbor. In a statement, the company noted that the boxes were empty, made of natural wood and promptly retrieved from the water.

“As a Boston-based multi-state cannabis operator, MariMed protested in a way that would make the company’s Patriot ancestors proud – by paying homage to the most famous tax protest in history during the year of the Boston Tea Party’s 250th anniversary,” the company wrote. “By shining a light on Section 280E’s negative financial impact on legal cannabis operators, MariMed hopes to effectuate policy change geared towards industry growth and advancement.”

Jon Levine, the CEO of MariMed, said that the demonstration was a way to draw attention to the tax rules, which negatively impact patients and consumers and threaten to cripple businesses in the regulated cannabis industry. He also called for an end to 280E for businesses operating in compliance with state law.

“Section 280E is unfair and hampers companies striving to make cannabis accessible for consumers and medical cannabis patients in all legal states,” Levine said in a statement from MariMed. “It should be repealed. Doing so would remove an obstacle to our mission to improve people’s lives every day through cannabis.”

But eliminating the tax rule is easier said than done. A legislative repeal of the rule is required, but so far, bills to reform the federal government’s policy on cannabis have not specifically addressed 280E. The comprehensive legalization of cannabis would make the rule a moot point, but that solution is unlikely to come anytime soon.

“There are several bills that have been floated in D.C., but none to our knowledge that includes language about eliminating 280E,” Levine said in a statement to High Times. “The most likely path to the elimination of 280E is for cannabis to be rescheduled or de-scheduled altogether. President Biden has asked the Department of Health & Human Services for an opinion about that, but nothing’s happened yet. Just another example of the slog in D.C. as it pertains to federal cannabis reform.”

 

[Baron23]

"We want to be inclusive of people of color, people from disproportionately impacted areas — women," Ava Concepcion, Commissioner of the Cannabis Control Commission, said."

Race based government policies are, by definition, racist. Sex based government policies are, by definition, sexist.

Prove me wrong.

New regulations aim to level the Marijuana playing field in Massachusetts ​

When marijuana was legalized in Massachusetts, Commonwealth leaders said it wasn't just big business that was going to profit, yet the promises that everyone would have an even chance at the now-billion-dollar industry have not materialized.​

With that in mind, the state hopes that new guidelines will help even out the market.

In addition to reviewing the new draft regulations proposed by the Cannabis Control Commission, 5 Investigates toured a cannabis factory to get a better understanding of how a large-scale grow operation works.

Timothy Shaw, Chief Operating Officer for MariMed Inc., a multi-state operator, led the tour through the company's 70,000-square-foot facility in New Bedford, where they grow, extract, pack and process cannabis to sell.

"This is the room with all the different strains," Shaw said as he opened the door to the "mother room," which is where the cannabis company clones each mother plant to reproduce its genetic makeup.

According to Shaw, MariMed's New Bedford location houses 17 flower rooms and has over 50 different strains.

One thing that was apparent throughout the tour — it's not cheap to run an indoor farm and processing plant.

Shaw said just keeping the lights on "costs more than $100,000 a month."

"It's substantial. Not to get into exactly how much it costs you, but it's tens of millions of dollars to build a facility, which isn't conducive to just anybody walking, trying to get it."

The cost is high, but so is the potential reward.

As of this report, marijuana sales in Massachusetts are at nearly $5 billion.

This is where the new regulations from the Cannabis Control Commission come in. New regulations that were proposed by the CCC are aimed at keeping small businesses and business owners of color from being boxed out of the market.

"We want to be inclusive of people of color, people from disproportionately impacted areas — women," Ava Concepcion, Commissioner of the Cannabis Control Commission, said.

Concepcion said to help increase equity for adult and medical marijuana use, the new regulations take control of local host agreements between cities and towns and marijuana businesses, allow for social consumption sites, and remove barriers to entry for people with criminal records.

Concepcion said it is important to continue taking steps to open doors for and solidify a place in the cannabis market for people who were disproportionately harmed by the war on drugs.

"Before Chapter 180, if you had certain records, you cannot work in the cannabis industry. And that was counterintuitive to the overall intent," Concepcion said.

Another barrier that is addressed in the regulations is access to capital.

"I think that capital is really difficult to come by, and I think that the municipal process has made equity so difficult to achieve, but now the commission is starting to address that," Shaleen Title, a former member of the Cannabis Control Commission, said.

Title said the new regulations are focused on making sure cities and towns create a clear and fair playing field for all cannabis businesses.

"One of the biggest problems that we had in the early years was that cities and towns were often not being fair to licensees that were part of the equity program or that they were smaller businesses," Title said. "You're now going to be treated fairly by a city or town. You're going to have transparent access to what the process is. You can't be charged a fee that is essentially bribery, which is what we saw early on."

Communities would be required to use what is essentially a "playbook" to execute host agreements with all cannabis businesses or have their own guidelines approved by the state.

The goal is to increase equity in the industry.

"We understand how difficult it is to get into this space and think it's important for everybody to have an opportunity to play in this industry," Shaw said.

Members of the public have until October to provide comments and feedback on the CCC's draft regulations.

The Commission hopes to publicize the final regulations in November.