Law Massachusetts

[Baron23]

"Revenue Commissioner Christopher Harding said body cameras are a way to ensure a driver is not leaving a package by a front door or with a minor. “Especially in the infancy of the industry, we need to build faith and trust,” Harding said."​

FFS...don't ya' just love a good bureaucrat?


Should Massachusetts require marijuana delivery drivers to wear body cameras?

Should drivers working for marijuana delivery companies be required to wear body cameras?
As the Cannabis Control Commission prepares to consider new regulations to govern the state’s marijuana industry, body cameras are emerging as a flashpoint in the debate over licensing delivery-only companies.
Until now, the commission has been granting licenses to traditional retail stores, growers and manufacturers. The new rules will establish a licensing process for the first time for delivery-only companies and marijuana cafes.

The draft regulations would require drivers for delivery companies in the recreational market to wear body cameras and record all deliveries. Consumers would be notified of the cameras. Video would be retained for 90 days and could be used in investigations by the police or state regulators.



Surveillance, home delivery, product bans: Massachusetts marijuana regulators grapple with tough issues as they rewrite rules

The Cannabis Control Commission will vote Thursday on draft regulations that will update the state’s medical and recreational marijuana rules and create entirely new segments of the industry.


At a meeting Tuesday, the Cannabis Advisory Board, a group of experts formed to advise the Cannabis Control Commission, voted 9-5 with two abstentions to recommend that the commission to eliminate the body camera requirement.
“We’re treating cannabis so differently than we’re treating alcohol,” said Shanel Lindsay, an attorney who started a marijuana-related business. “Body cameras seem to really be going above and beyond and treating this in a more restrictive way that leads to more costs for people to run a business.”
Lindsay noted that body cameras are not used by drivers who deliver alcohol. Committee member Kim Napoli, an attorney and director of diversity at a marijuana company, said drivers who deliver prescription medication or UPS or FedEx packages also do not wear cameras.

Revenue Commissioner Christopher Harding said body cameras are a way to ensure a driver is not leaving a package by a front door or with a minor. “Especially in the infancy of the industry, we need to build faith and trust,” Harding said.
Harding said the state already tracks marijuana from seed to sale. “This is an opportunity where this process could break down,” he said of deliveries.
Matt Allen, of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said spot checks could be used to check on drivers rather than body cameras, which he said raise concerns about privacy and access to data. He worried that federal law enforcement or immigration officials, for example, could access the videos. “In a golden age of surveillance, we have technologies proliferating much faster than policies that regulate them,” he said.
Andrea Cabral, a former public safety secretary who now heads a marijuana company, said mail deliverers have been caught stealing money, jewelry and private correspondence. No one has suggested they wear body cameras. “The need to build trust is a direct outgrowth of the prejudice and stigma that was attached by scheduling the drug to begin with,” Cabral said.
Public hearings on the draft regulations will be held Aug. 14 and 15.

 

[Baron23]

Medical marijuana patients in Massachusetts say product variety dwindling as stores begin selling to recreational customers


Dan Scotland lives in northeastern Massachusetts and uses medical marijuana to treat insomnia, anxiety and sleep issues.
He used to go regularly to Patriot Care in Lowell — but then the medical dispensary began selling to the recreational market.
“When they went adult use, their stock pretty much dwindled,” said Scotland, who also runs a podcast about marijuana. “A lot of products have been funneled to the adult use side.”

Since the dispensary opened up for recreational sales, Scotland said, “Every time I’d check their menu before going, they didn’t have anything I needed.”
Scotland’s complaint is not unique. As medical marijuana dispensaries have begun selling to the newly legal recreational market, medical marijuana patients say they have had mixed experiences buying marijuana at dispensaries that sell to both markets. While some dispensaries have maintained adequate inventory, many patients say they have fewer choices for medical marijuana than they used to.
While patients can buy off the recreational menu, they must pay taxes and their purchases are not recorded in their medical records.
“Some dispensaries ... have very similar menus from the medical and adult use side,” said Nichole Snow, executive director of the Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance. “Other dispensaries seem to be having a problem with managing the patient supply safety net, and their way of going about it is exploiting a vulnerable population.”
Mary-Alice Miller, chief risk officer of Patriot Care’s parent company Columbia Care, said the dispensary, which opened for recreational sales in March, is still working to understand the demand for products in the recreational and medical markets.

“Using these data, we can properly allocate supply from our vertically integrated cultivation and manufacturing facility to our medical patients to be sure we are meeting their unmet needs,” she said in a statement. The dispensary sells its own products on the medical market and buys wholesale to supplement its recreational supply.
Regulations written by the Cannabis Control Commission require medical marijuana dispensaries that open for recreational sales to set aside 35% of their inventory for medical patients for the first six months. After that, the amount they must set aside is based on their sales from the previous six months.
The recreational market is bigger than the medical market, and dispensaries can potentially charge more for recreational products. Lower sales of medical products, meanwhile, mean lower inventory requirements — so, if dispensaries can divert customers to the recreational side, that could limit the supply they have to set aside for medical patients.
State law requires that the reserved supply reflect the actual types and strains of marijuana purchased by patients in the past six months, or that dispensaries offer a reasonable substitution.
It does not require that the medical supply be comparable to the recreational supply. Nor does it require a dispensary to transfer specific products from the recreational market to the medical market.

The Cannabis Control Commission says it investigates every patient complaint, and conducts inspections of facilities to make sure they adhere to state laws.
Dispensary owners say they are continuing to prioritize patient needs.
Fancy Wade, a spokesman for Cultivate in Leicester, said the dispensary has a “mirrored inventory” policy, where whatever is on the adult use menu is also available to medical patients. “We do not have products exclusively for recreational customers,” Wade said. “We do, however, have some products that are exclusively for medical patients that are more suited to a medical patient’s needs.”
According to Cultivate’s official policy, if a medical patient requests something that is not on the medical menu, staff can transfer the product to the medical system, and the patient would not have to wait in line or pay tax.
However, Jeremiah MacKinnon said when he bought an item at Cultivate off the recreational menu using his medical card, the purchase did not show up on his electronic patient record. He says the dispensary discounted a recreational product and listed it as a recreational sale, rather than moving it to the medical system.
Trevor, a medical marijuana patient from Florence who asked that his last name not be used, said he checked Cultivate’s menu and saw many more strains listed on the recreational menu than the medical menu. He emailed Cultivate to find out whether he could buy from the recreational menu, and they told him he would have to pay the tax.

Similar complaints are widespread among dispensaries.
MacKinnon said at Sanctuary Medicinals in Gardner, he found six concentrates on the recreational menu and one on the medical menu. He was told that to buy from the recreational menu, he would have to wait in the recreational line and pay tax.
Frank Shaw, of Ipswich, said the day he went to Patriot Care in Lowell, it was offering three flower options with CBD on the recreational menu and one on the medical menu. When he went to Temescal Wellness in Hudson, he was told they had run out of a strain on the medical side, even though it was available on the recreational side.
“Isn’t this what the [patient] supply prevention was supposed to prevent against?” Shaw said.
A reporter recently called Cultivate, Patriot Care in Lowell and Sanctuary Medicinals and asked if someone with a medical card could buy from the recreational menu. The person answering the phone at each dispensary said a patient buying from the recreational menu would have to pay tax.
(This is contrary to the policy written on Cultivate’s menu, which says a medical patient can purchase anything from the recreational menu, with a 10-minute wait to allow the product to be transferred from one system to the other.)

Josh Weaver, chief financial officer of Sanctuary Medicinals, said the dispensary is “is committed to providing our medical patients with the most diverse menu of product at all times.” Weaver said although it is “rare,” it is possible for lab results to be delayed, which can lead to delays in restocking products.
Anthony Crescenzi of Wakefield needs different strains of marijuana at different times of day to regulate his ADHD. He has had more trouble finding the specific strains he wants since the recreational market opened up. When he asked for one brand of sativa at Alternative Therapies Group in Salem, he was told it is only available on the recreational side. “They have abundance and we have none,” he said. “It’s supposed to be the other way around.”
Mike Crawford, a medical marijuana patient and legalization activist, said he has heard from numerous patients that there are not enough products available, or that stores are sold out of a product in the medical market.
Between the lack of products and the price, which is higher than buying on the street, Crawford said he has gone back to buying marijuana unregulated, from friends.

 

[momofthegoons]

Mayor charged with taking cash bribes to help pot businesses
At least four business owners paid a total of $600,000 in bribes to Fall River Mayor Jasiel Correia, according to authorities.

Fall River Mayor Jasiel Correia speaks to the media after leaving federal court, in Boston on Oct. 11, 2018.Jonathan Wiggs / The Boston Globe via AP file



BOSTON — A Massachusetts mayor was arrested Friday on charges he conspired to extort hundreds of thousands of dollars from companies seeking to operate marijuana businesses, federal authorities said.

Fall River Mayor Jasiel Correia brazenly accepted cash bribes in exchange for issuing official letters needed to obtain a license to set up a pot business, authorities alleged. At least four business owners paid a total of $600,000 in bribes to the mayor, and he used the money to support a lavish lifestyle and cover mounting legal bills, they said.

"Without hesitation, Mayor Correia was extorting marijuana vendor after marijuana vendor," U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts Andrew Lelling told a news conference after the mayor's arrest. "It's striking the lengths he went to get the money, and the seeming indifference with how overt his activities were."

Correia's lawyer didn't respond to messages seeking comment Friday.

In one instance, Lelling said, Correia walked into a vendor's office and simply asked for $250,000 to issue one of the letters. Another time, Correia was paid $75,000 in cash while sitting in the backseat of a car. He promptly handed over a signed letter, according to Lelling.

Once a rising political star in Massachusetts, Correia has remained in office despite efforts to force him out amid his legal troubles. He was already facing charges on accusations that he stole investor funds to bankroll a lavish lifestyle. He has pleaded not guilty.

The latest investigation, which also involved agents from the FBI and IRS, highlighted the potential for abuse in Massachusetts' nascent retail marijuana industry, authorities said Friday.

Under state law, a so-called non-opposition letter is required to obtain a license to operate a marijuana business. The head of the local government issues the letters, which say that he or she has verified that the business is in a permissible zoning district.

Correia has issued at least 14 of the letters, including two for his current girlfriend's brother, authorities said. It was not clear if authorities were alleging that there was any illegal activity involved in the issuing of the letter to the brother.

"We're a little concerned," said Lelling. "Local mayors can be sorely tempted. That single letter can be the ticket to a very lucrative business."

State Inspector General Glenn Cunha said he hopes the indictment prompts state marijuana regulators to consider additional safeguards.

Massachusetts voters approved recreational sale of marijuana in 2016; the first storefronts opened last November.


Friday's indictment also details other accusations against Correia, who became the old mill city's youngest mayor when he was first elected in 2015 at age 23.

Authorities say the now-27-year-old also accepted cash payments and a Rolex watch from a property owner to approve permits for his commercial building.

He also had his chief of staff, who also faces federal charges, give him half of her salary in return for allowing her to keep her city job, prosecutors said. It was not clear if the staffer had a lawyer representing her who could comment on the case.

She and Correia are both expected to appear in court Friday afternoon, authorities said. Three other associates are also charged in the marijuana extortion scheme and will appear in court on another day.

In a strange turn of events this year, Correia was recalled by voters and then promptly reelected on the same night in March. He's also among three mayoral candidates in a primary election scheduled for Sept. 17.

Correia pleaded not guilty last October to a 13-count indictment charging him with defrauding investors and filing false tax returns.

Prosecutors say Correia collected more than $360,000 from investors to develop an app that was supposed to help businesses connect with consumers.

Instead, he allegedly spent more than $230,000 of the money on jewelry, designer clothing and a Mercedes as well as on his political campaign and charitable donations.

A trial on those federal charges is slated to begin Feb. 24.

 

[Helios]

Beat me to it Mom, another POS greedy opportunist Politian pinched..

 

[Baron23]

State Pot Regulators Approve Body-Camera Rule For Deliveries

The Cannabis Control Commission on Tuesday voted to require that marijuana delivery drivers record all transactions on a body camera and that the footage be made available to law enforcement officials investigating a crime.

The language in the rule was updated by Commissioners Shaleen Title and Britte McBride after public pushback. It was adopted unanimously by the CCC into the agency's newest set of regulations for the recreational marijuana industry.

The requirement states that delivery drivers wear a body camera any time they are outside their delivery vehicle — which is also required to have cameras — and record all transactions. It caught significant flak at the CCC's public hearings on the proposed regulations this summer, and commissioners have wrestled to find a balance between public safety and individual privacy rights.


Video of delivery transactions would be stored for at least 30 days and must be made available to the CCC or law enforcement if requested.
Get the latest news Boston is talking about sent to your inbox each day. Subscribe here.

The language adopted Tuesday would make clear that the footage is not to be shared with any third parties not authorized to receive it under the CCC's regulations, but that a licensee "shall make video footage available to a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity" with a court order or search warrant.
McBride said that the CCC, which is attempting to establish a legal framework for an activity that is already ubiquitous in the illicit industry, relies on good relationships with law enforcement to succeed but also heard the privacy concerns raised by the public.

The commission adopted the new language unanimously and then approved its final draft of new regulations for the adult-use side of the marijuana sector by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Jen Flanagan dissenting.

The CCC is also planning to vote to adopt new medical marijuana regulations Tuesday.

 

[Baron23]

Meanwhile, in the Socialist State of Maryland we changed from an optional Card for $50 (and yes, $100 if you lose it and need a replacement) to where now EVERYBODY needs a card to even enter a dispensary.

Now, the card has nothing to do with you legal ability to buy MMJ. This requires a cert from your DR, updated annually (yeah, you need to pay for that too), and MUST be checked in the state's online system before you buy.

In other words, the card serves fuck all of a purpose except to send money to Annapolis because that's what politicians do....they levy taxes so that they can spend it on priorities that help their reelection chances.

Good for Mass.....MD still sucks in this regard.

Oh...however, MD does not sales tax medicine and that extends to MMJ. Yes, there are taxes levied upstream....oh, don't you worry, they are taxing it. But not at the retail level.


Annual fee eliminated for Massachusetts medical marijuana patients

Massachusetts medical marijuana patients will no longer have to a pay a $50 annual fee for a patient registration card.

The fee will be eliminated under new rules governing medical marijuana approved unanimously Tuesday by the Cannabis Control Commission. The rules will become officials as soon as they are promulgated by the Secretary of State. The commission will then update its procedures for patient renewals and inform patients.

The elimination of the fee has been a priority of the Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance, an advocacy group for medical marijuana patients.
“It was an obstruction to health care,” said Nichole Snow, executive director of the MPAA. “No other medicine requires a $50 fee.”

Representatives of the MPAA say the fee posed a hardship to low-income medical patients.

Although medical patients can now buy from the recreational market without a medical card, there are certain benefits only available to medical patients, including tax-free marijuana and the creation of an electronic patient record.

Snow said the elimination of the fee is “a real win for low-income and disabled patients.”

The new rules also revise the regulations governing financial hardship programs. While medical dispensaries have always been required to offer discounts for low-income individuals, it was largely up to the dispensaries how to fashion those programs. Going forward, all medical marijuana dispensaries will have to write a financial hardship plan that includes goals, programs and measurements, which will be considered during the licensing process.

 

[Baron23]

Dispensaries blame computer system as medical marijuana patient complaints persist

Medical marijuana patients have complained about difficulty buying a variety of medical products since recreational sales started almost a year ago. Some dispensaries are now placing the blame partly on state rules related to the computer system that tracks marijuana inventory.
“It became a bit more of a headache and a bit more of work process” to keep appropriate inventory on both the medical and recreational sides, said Luis Pedro, director of operations at INSA in Easthampton.
The Republican/MassLive.com reported in August that some medical marijuana patients could not access the variety of products they were used to at dispensaries that had begun selling recreational marijuana. Although dispensaries are required to reserve a percentage of inventory for patients — who can buy marijuana tax-free and in higher doses — state law does not require that they are offered the same variety as recreational consumers.
Stores appear to have different policies regarding whether a product can be moved from the recreational menu to the medical menu.
One challenge flagged by some dispensaries relates to a computer system called METRC, which dispensaries are required to use to track their marijuana inventory from seed to sale.
Some of the earliest dispensaries to open, like INSA and New England Treatment Access, which has stores in Northampton and Brookline, bought an adult-use license for METRC and initially sold to both medical and recreational customers under that license. State law requires a physical and electronic separation of medical and recreational products, but the software lets companies maintain a single inventory, then record a product as either recreational or medical when it is sold.
However, when the Cannabis Control Commission approved regulations for co-located dispensaries, which went into effect in April, the commission required dispensaries to buy separate licenses for medical and recreational sales. So managers must decide in advance which products they are designating for medical and for recreational sales.
While it is still possible to move products from one side to the other, it takes several minutes and dispensary owners say there are some restrictions.
The issue of dual licenses came up at NETA, which set up its computer system before the regulations came out. The Cannabis Control Commission issued NETA a notice of deficiency in July for not separating its medical and recreational products in its computer system.
Documents show that NETA worked with the commission to transition to the dual license system, and the company implemented an extensive plan regarding things like staff training, menu creation, changing how products are allocated, and updating computer systems and apps.
“The dual license change represents a big shift for NETA and given how established our systems were prior to learning of the requirement for dual licenses, we appreciate any consideration you will give us in making the transition smoothly and without disruption to our patients and clients,” NETA operations manager Adam Freed wrote to a commission investigator in an email obtained through a public records request.
NETA President Amanda Rositano said in an interview that the company believed it was complying with state laws, and after hearing from the commission, immediately worked to come into compliance.
But Rositano said the new way of operating makes it harder to ensure full patient access, because the company now has to decide earlier in the process — rather than at the point of sale — which products should be sold as medical versus recreational.
“We did feel and we do feel that one inventory system provides advantages for patient access,” Rositano said.

Pedro, of INSA, had a similar experience switching from one license to two. The company hired a new inventory staffer. Like most dispensaries, INSA keeps more inventory on the recreational side because products sell more quickly.
INSA will still switch a product from one menu to another if a patient requests it, Pedro said, but there is a 13-step process to do that, which takes around six minutes.
“Sometimes it takes longer to service our customers than just pulling it off the shelf,” he said.
Other dispensaries say it is not a big problem. Theory Wellness CEO Brandon Pollock said a couple of times a week, a patient will ask for a product off the recreational menu, and staff will ask the customer to wait 10 minutes while they move the product.
“We haven’t seen any issues with doing it, it just takes a little bit of time,” Pollock said.
Cannabis Control Commission Chairman Steve Hoffman said he personally supports allowing one inventory, separated at the point of sale, so companies would no longer have to designate their products as medical or adult use — other than the required reserved medical inventory — until someone buys them.
“I don’t know that we’ve cracked this one, but we’re aware of it and concerned with it and will try to work with medical companies to make sure METRC’s not the obstacle,” Hoffman said. “If they are, we’ll get METRC to change.”
Nichole Snow, executive director of the Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance, said the problem is not with the database system, but with dispensaries that do not make all recreational products available to medical patients.
“The fault is when a business doesn’t make their menu symmetrical and they have to continue to rely on product transfers,” Snow said.
More broadly, it is not clear how widespread patient access problems are.
Cannabis Control Commissioner Jennifer Flanagan said she has heard concerns from patients about inadequate patient supply at a couple of dispensaries. She believes the problem is related to individual dispensaries’ operations rather than regulations.
“My concern is that making sure the policies allow for the removal from the adult use side to the medical side if the patient comes in,” Flanagan said.
The Republican/MassLive.com submitted a public records request to the commission seeking all notices of deficiencies issued to collocated dispensaries related to patient access to medical marijuana. The commission provided notices sent to five dispensaries. However, most of the deficiencies did not directly relate to patient access or reserved medical inventory.
One problem flagged at INSA stemmed from an instance when the medical sale system went down and medical patients were kept waiting in line for 15 to 20 minutes, while recreational customers were served at other sale stations.
Pedro said that was a combination of a surprise inspection as the medical sale system experienced an outage and “a little bit of exaggeration in terms of how many people were in line and how long the delay was.” Pedro said the waiting patients received a discount.
Alternative Therapies Group was cited for improperly reserving some products for medical patients who worked for the company’s cultivation plant. A manager said the product would be sold if another patient asked for it.
The commission did not provide records of any ongoing investigations.
Hoffman said the commission is continuing to investigate complaints and make sure companies set aside the required medical inventory. “We’ll look into any complaint we’ve gotten,” he said. “I can’t tell you there are no violations. But I will tell you any time we hear about one … we’ll take appropriate action.”

 

[Baron23]

Vape shop owners sue Massachusetts over product sale ban

Several vape shop owners are suing the state of Massachusetts for implementing a four-month ban on sales of all vaping products and asked the court to deem it “unconstitutional.”

Massachusetts imposed a ban on sales of all e-cigarettes and supplies, both those used for tobacco and marijuana, which is legal in the state, citing a national public health emergency.

U.S. health officials are investigating a mysterious vaping-related respiratory illness that has so far caused 12 deaths and sickened 805 people.
The ban will impact customers, wholesalers and corporations, the plaintiffs said in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts on Sunday.
The plaintiffs argue that the ban undermines the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s assessment that the Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) products and e-liquids are safe to use and distribute.

The plaintiffs for the case are Mass Dynamics LLC, Boston Vapor LLC and Vick’s Vape Shop.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has urged people to not use e-cigarettes with marijuana ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) as latest data suggests that the high-inducing component may play a role in causing respiratory illness. (Reporting by Sathvik N in Bengaluru; Editing by Sandra Maler)

 

[Baron23]

Criminal charges dropped against Massachusetts marijuana grower

Criminal charges were dismissed against a Massachusetts marijuana license holder who allegedly conspired with another man to set up an illicit cannabis cultivation operation.

A District Court judge dismissed a marijuana trafficking conspiracy charge against Mark Rioux, according to The Milford Daily News.

After learning of the original charges, the state’s Cannabis Control Commission in September suspended Rioux’s medical and recreational cannabis licenses and quarantined the company’s products.

Rioux held a controlling interest in six provisional and final cultivation, processing and retail licenses under the name Nova Farms, according to the state.

Massachusetts regulators couldn’t immediately be reached for comment Monday, but the Daily News indicated that Rioux remains under state investigation.

According to authorities, Rioux, who also is a commercial real estate agent, and another man communicated by text about finding a warehouse site for an illicit growing operation.

Rioux denied the allegations.

 

[Baron23]

Starting in November, medical marijuana patients in Mass. will no longer have to pay annual fees

Medical marijuana patients in Massachusetts will no longer have to pay annual registration or renewal fees starting in November, a long-sought change by patients who have called the fees a barrier to access.



The elimination of the $50 annual fee was unanimously approved by the state’s Cannabis Control Commission during its recent review of the medical use of marijuana regulations. The cannabis commissioners heard from patients about the impact of the fee — and also weighed whether the state could offset lost revenue from getting rid of it — before voting to kill the charge.
“Over the course of the regulatory drafting process, the commission heard from many patients who described the annual registration fee as a barrier to care, and we continue to take their concerns very seriously,” commission chairman Steven Hoffman said in a statement.
Patients will still be required to pay a $10 fee if a replacement medical marijuana card is needed.
Nichole Snow, executive director of the Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance, applauded the decision, saying the removal of the fee was a “long time coming” with a lot of effort put in by patients and advocates.
“The fee was undue stress to receiving health care, and it was an obstruction,” she said. “What this really means is that patients are going to be treated equally, just like any other patient who is seeking out health care, and that is huge.”
Snow added that the $50 fee reinforced the stigma of using medical marijuana.
“It made us feel like it was a challenging hoop to go through in order to seek out medical marijuana as a health care option,” Snow said. “We felt outcasted and not like anyone else, and now we feel like we belong in the health care system.”

 

[Baron23]

Medical marijuana patients will be able to purchase cannabis vaping products on Tuesday

Massachusetts medical marajuana cardholders will be able to purchase cannabis vape products again on Tuesday after the state’s Cannabis Control Commission refused to extend Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker’s controversial four-month vaping ban to vaping products used by cardholders.
This CCC decided not to uphold Baker’s ban after Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Douglas Wilkins ruled Baker’s Department of Public Health did not have the authority to regulate cannabis products used by medical marijuana patients, according to the ruling.

Wilkins made his decision after a grassroots medical marajuana advocacy group filed a memo to the Superior Court arguing that the CCC is the only regulatory body in Massachusetts with the power to regulate cannabis products used by medical marijuana patients.

Baker enacted his highly controversial four-month ban in response to a recent surge in reports of vaping-related lung illness throughout the country. The ban involved restricting the sale of all vaping products across Massachusetts until January, and included both nicotine- and THC-based vaping products.
Multiple groups challenged the ban in court, including the group whose memo was eventually accepted by the Superior Court.

Peter Bernard, a representative from the Massachusetts Grower Advisory Council, wrote in an email his organization also advocated against Baker’s ban on vaping products used by medical marijuana patients.

“We are in support of the lift and in fact visited the governor’s office about it,” Bernard wrote. “Ultimately the ban is lifted and we see this as a good thing for patients. That action returns a needed products to patients.”

This change in policy comes after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control announced Friday, one and a half months into the ban, that Vitamin E acetate, an additive sometimes used to dilute or thicken THC vaping liquids, was likely responsible for the recent cases of vaping illness, according to the CDC.
Bernard wrote medical marijuana card holders can rest assured that they will stay safe.

“Cheap cartridges from overseas can and do leech heavy metals into the vape liquid,” Bernard said. “But, there are safe materials to use in vaping products … lab tested products such as MMJ vape should not be kept from patients. We have the toughest testing standards on the continent when it comes to cannabis in Massachusetts.”
Back Bay resident Getulio Silva, 52, said he thinks Wilkin’s decision will be good for medical cannabis cardholders.
“I feel like if you’re a medical user, then the lift makes sense. If not, then I think the ban makes sense,” Silva said. “I mean, as long as the items are certified by the state, then I think it should be fine.”

Chris Quartararo, 28, of Melrose, said he still questioned the safety of vape products, pointing to the numerous deaths caused by vape products that incited the original ban as a sign of caution.

“For both medical and recreational use I just don’t think there’s enough research or evidence to say one way or the other,” Quartararo said. “I would say it’s always better to be more on the conservative side rather than the liberal side when it comes to health.”

Back Bay resident Robert Ajemian, 40, said he thinks Baker’s ban should continue, but supported lifting the ban for medical marijuana patients.
“I think it’s important for vaping to be banned, especially how it targets the youth with ‘fun flavors’ and stuff — but for medical users, lifting the ban makes complete sense,” Ajemian said.

 

[momofthegoons]

Massachusetts, Planning Asset Forfeiture, Leads the War on Vaping



One of the states to succumb to the national vaping panic—which rages on despite Trump’s recent indication that he may pull back from a national ban on flavored vapes—is Massachusetts.

After Gov. Charlie Baker declared a public health emergency in response to an outbreak of vaping-related lung injuries and deaths, Massachusetts implemented a four-month ban of all vapes in September. It applies to all online and retail store sales of vaping products, including nicotine and marijuana.

This disastrous decision has resulted in people who vape nicotine, as well as many of the 67,000 medical cannabis patients across the state, being cut off from supplies.

Some nicotine vapers will return to smoking cigarettes, which remain fully available, while medical marijuana patients and other marijuana vapers might turn to the illicit market.

State politicians and public health officials have expressed little concern for the health and safety of adults who vape nicotine or use cannabis for health problems. Frank Shaw, a 66-year-old medical marijuana patient who spoke against the ban said, “It has been devastating to patients who depend on vaping cannabis products to relieve pain.”

Cannabis patients won a small victory on November 12, when the ban waspartially lifted, specifically for medical-use vaporizers that use raw marijuana flower.

But the Massachusetts House of Representatives is still hell-bent on unleashing a drug war on nicotine. On November 13, the House approved a draconian bill titled, “An Act Modernizing Tobacco Control” that would ban all flavored tobacco products including menthol cigarettes and e-cigarettes (which are not tobacco products).

Bill H.4183 would also impose a whopping 75 percent excise tax on “electronic nicotine delivery systems,” including e-liquids and devices. The price increase would put these products out of reach for thousands of low-income and vulnerable smokers who want to switch.

Together, the ban on flavors and dramatic price increases will fuel a large illicit market; and unregulated markets, as we know, increase risks for consumers.

Which populations do you think would be predominantly targeted?

But there’s more. The bill also contains excessive fines for “a person who knowingly purchases or possesses an electronic nicotine delivery system not manufactured, purchased or imported by a licensed electronic nicotine delivery system distributor or licensed electronic nicotine delivery system retailer.” The fine can be up to $5,000 for a first offense and up to $25,000 for a second offense. Which populations do you think would be predominantly targeted by such fines?

Taking a page directly from the War on Drugs, the bill contains a provision for asset forfeiture. H.4183 allows a state or local police department that “discovers an untaxed electronic nicotine delivery system in the possession of a person who is not a licensed or commissioner-authorized electronic nicotine delivery system distributor” to seize both the product and the “receptacle” in which it is found.

What constitutes a “receptacle” is open to interpretation, but past interpretations under such laws include cars, boats, airplanes and homes. Under this bill, unapproved vaping products would be treated like illegal drugs, possession of which is enough to justify forfeiture. In order to avoid having their assets taken, a person will have to provide an invoice or sales receipt to prove the vaping product was bought legally. Who carries around receipts? Confiscated items will be sold and the money deposited in the state’s General Fund.

Asset forfeiture has been argued to violate constitutional rights and represents a cash-grab to fund state and local governments as well as law enforcement agencies. As one Filter article pointed out, “assets are seized predominantly from the poor and people of color.”

Given the long and well-documented history of asset forfeiture, it’s clear that enforcement of bans on nicotine products will not be race– or class-neutral. And once “policing for profit” agencies come to rely on the funds generated by asset forfeiture, they will go all the way to the Supreme Court to fight to keep that money.

Far from “modernizing tobacco control,” such thinking will destroy the industry that makes life-saving products, deny smokers access, and punish, fine and steal from those who dare to defy it. Small wonder that Drug Policy Alliance founder Ethan Nadelmann recently expressed his fear that we’re looking at “the great new drug war of the 21st century.”

 

[Baron23]

FFS....they put out absolutely NO useful information or details...like brand associated with these cases, where bought from, test results from seized carts....fucking NADA!

Yet they manage to put out an overly broad and unnecessarily alarmist "report"

And yeah, I'm sure that NOBODY lied about using ILLEGAL carts....FFS. sigh

Is the main qualification for a position in state government that you be an absolute useless, idiotic, do nothing, know nothing twit? Seems like it from reports from around the country on state initiatives to legalize MJ.

6 People in Massachusetts reportedly sick after using vapes from licensed source


Health officials in Massachusetts revealed this week that six patients have suffered illnesses likely linked to marijuana vaping products purchased from dispensaries. Those reports, which are unconfirmed, are alarming, given that they stem from regulated products, and not those purchased from the illicit market.

The reported illnesses also come a week before Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker is slated to lift a temporary ban on all vaping products. Baker issued an emergency order banning the products back in September amid a nationwide epidemic that saw dozens of individuals die and thousands more fall seriously ill from vaping. Three vaping-related fatalities have occurred in Massachusetts.

“One of the experts said that, ‘We don’t have time to wait. People are getting sick and the time to act is now.’ I couldn’t agree more,” Baker said at the time.
The temporary ban is set to be lifted on December 11, although it will come with new restrictions governing the sale of e-cigarettes and other vaping products that were etched out in legislation signed by Baker. The governor’s administration also said that the state Department of Health will present new regulations surrounding the sale of vaping products on the same date.

According to the state government website, the new legislation signed by Baker “includes a number of restrictions on the sale of tobacco products, including limiting the sale of flavored nicotine vaping products to licensed smoking bars where they may only be smoked on-site,” while also giving the Department of Health “new authority to regulate the sale of nicotine vaping products, to ensure the public is informed about the potential dangers of vaping and to implement other provisions of the law in order to protect the public health.”

The six new illnesses reportedly stemming from regulated marijuana vaping products remain shrouded in mystery. The Boston Herald reported that the state health department “did not specify which products were linked to the six cases or which dispensaries they were purchased from, leaving marijuana users with little answers as to whether the vapes they legally purchased, before the ban, are safe.”

That prompted Shaleen Title, a commissioner at the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission, to call for more information.

“Obviously, some urgent next questions here: What products did they report using/from where? Did they also report using unregulated products?” Title tweeted Friday. “Looking forward to working further with MA health officials and grateful for their collaboration toward our common goal of public health.”

 

[Baron23]

OH.......what a surprise.



MA officials revise cause for marijuana vape illnesses

Six Massachusetts patients suffering from probable cases of vaping-related lung illnesses might have used illicit marijuana vapes in addition to legal ones, according to state health officials. That is a “surprising” change, as officials initially suggested products sold at legal marijuana retailers were solely to blame for the illnesses, The Boston Globe reported.

 

[Baron23]

Oh yes, I'm sure that everybody who was using an illegal cart just readily admitted it.....yeah, right....sigh.

Mass. Health Officials Admit Lung Patients May Have Used Illicit Vapes, Too


State health officials conceded Friday night that six Massachusetts patients suffering from probable cases of vaping-related lung illnesses may have used illicit marijuana vapes in addition to legal ones, a surprising revision from the day before when officials suggested products sold at licensed cannabis retailers were to blame for the ailments.

The admission, along with a Friday agreement by the state Department of Public Health to release detailed information about the cases to the state Cannabis Control Commission, headed off a highly unusual public confrontation between the two Massachusetts agencies.

But the deal prohibits any immediate public release of the data, meaning uncertainty about the real cause of the six cases could linger for weeks or longer. Along with earlier conflicting warnings from health officials, the latest back-and-forth promises to further bewilder consumers about which vaping products are safe and which might make them sick. It also risks undermining confidence in the ability of Massachusetts authorities to manage a fast-evolving public health crisis.

Earlier Friday, the cannabis commission urged health officials to identify the licensed cannabis producers that made the vapes tied to the six cases, saying it is “critical to expediting the Commission’s investigation into potential legal sources of those products, and for the public to fully understand whether products they have purchased may be linked to any probable injuries.”

Now, health department officials say they have signed an agreement with the commission, an independent state agency, to share information, and handed over the names of the implicated cannabis companies and products and other details .

A commission spokeswoman Friday said the agreement will help the agency “determine whether any items sold by Massachusetts licensees may be implicated” in the lung illnesses, and pledged to “keep the public informed as to whether any legal products are confirmed to be linked to these illnesses.”

But some public health experts said the state has been opaque in its handling of the vaping crisis.

“Consumers are really left in the dark today as to how to protect their health,” said Jane Allen, a longtime researcher at RTI International who specializes in developing and evaluating public health policies and messaging. “It’s the responsibility of the [commission] and the [health department] to convey any information they have to the public so people can choose how best to protect themselves.”

The health department, for its part, would say only that “at least one” of the six patients had used an illicit marijuana vape in addition to a regulated one.

The health department first reported on Thursday night that six patients with probable — but not confirmed — cases of vaping-related lung illness had told investigators they used vapes from licensed marijuana retailers. (In those vaping cases labeled as “probable,” health professionals suspect vaping is a major reason for the symptoms but haven’t ruled out other possible contributing factors.) The report also listed a number of vape brands used by lung-illness patients, but did not identify which were legal and which were illicit.

The six patients who said they used legal vapes are a fraction of the 90 confirmed and probable cases of vaping-related lung illnesses that Massachusetts has reported to federal health officials. However, officials interviewed patients in only 49 of the 90 cases, and some reported using only nicotine vapes. A further 22 patients used marijuana vapes not purchased at legal shops here.

According to the US Centers for Disease Control, vitamin E acetate and other dangerous additives commonly found in illicit vapes — but rarely used in regulated products — account for most of the nearly 2,300 illnesses documented so far across the United States.
The revelation Thursday by the health department followed weeks of pressure from regulators and consumers to be more forthcoming about which vaping products have sickened Massachusetts consumers.

Other states that have legalized cannabis in some form have said regulated recreational and medical marijuana products are not to blame, cracked down on illicit suppliers, and published the names and pictures of illegal marijuana products used by lung patients so consumers can avoid them. But the Massachusetts health department initially denied having such information, and later claimed it was protected by patient privacy rules, even as critics said the information could be easily anonymized.

That changed with the publication of the analysis Thursday; then on Friday officials provided incomplete answers about whether the six patients had also used illicit vapes.
Public health experts said much remains unclear, and they implored health officials to publicly release everything they know about a possible link between legal marijuana vapes and the lung illnesses.

has finally heard the complaints and decided to release some measure of information. It’s long overdue,” said Leo Beletsky, a professor of law and health sciences at Northeastern University who specializes in drug policy and harm reduction.

But, he added, “It’s ambiguous and unclear and not actionable. It seems designed to reinforce the conclusion that this entire class of products is dangerous. We have to have more information.”

Beletsky and other experts said the recent reports leave unclear exactly how many of the patients who used regulated vapes had also used illicit ones; nor, they said, have officials made clear which vape brands were linked to which types of cases — probable or confirmed.
Public health experts also noted it was highly likely some patients would lie about where they obtained marijuana vapes for fear of prosecution, for example, or deportation.

Other flaws in the report cited by experts who reviewed it include the poor sample size: There are no data for nearly half of the cases.
“From a public health perspective, this is a terrible response rate,” Allen explained. “In any kind of survey work, those who don’t respond or are excluded are often excluded systemically, so their exclusion biases the results. ”

A spokeswoman for the Department of Public Health noted that some patients have been reluctant to candidly discuss their use of products that may have been obtained from an illegal source, while others are too sick to provide information. She said the state is working to interview the remaining patients.

 

[momofthegoons]

Massachusetts Lifts Ban On Cannabis Vaping Products

The new rules require lab testing for the presence of vitamin E acetate, toxins, and other contaminants including heavy metals.

Cannabis regulators in Massachusetts have modified a ban on marijuana vape products that will allow businesses to begin selling newly manufactured goods as soon as retailers can get them on the shelf. However, vape products manufactured before December 12 will remain under a quarantine imposed by the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission (CCC) on November 12.

Under the amended quarantine order, medical marijuana treatment centers and adult-use dispensaries will be permitted to sell devices that vaporize cannabis flower or concentrates provided that they comply with new regulations.

November’s quarantine order was issued in response to the outbreak of lung illnesses that has been dubbed e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) by health officials. In its ongoing investigation of the lung injuries, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified vitamin E acetate as a toxin of concern.

Shawn Collins, the executive director of the CCC, emphasized that the new regulations, which were put in place in the interest of consumer safety, only apply to products purchased from licensed retailers.


“These protections exist in the legal market,” he said. “They do not exist in the illicit market.”

New Rules Push Transparency
Dispensaries that carry cannabis vaping products will be required to post a warning and disclaimer to consumers that reads “This product has been tested for contaminants, including Vitamin E Acetate, with no adverse findings. WARNING: Vaporizer Products may contain ingredients harmful to health when inhaled.” The warning must also be contained on an insert provided with vaping products.

Amanda Rose, the president of cannabis retailer New England Treatment Access, said that the new regulations will help advance consumer safety and confidence in licensed cannabis businesses.


“[The commission’s decision] is really a win for our customers and our patients who can now have access to a product that has been tested, that’s well regulated, that comes with accurate information about what’s inside those products, and that really drives them back into the regulated market and away from the illicit market,” she said.

Businesses selling cannabis vaping products “will be required to list their active or inactive additives, including the amount infused or incorporated during the manufacturing process, including thickening agents, thinning agents, and specific terpenes,” according to Thursday’s announcement from the CCC. Regulators are also requiring transparency on the parts used in vape pens and other devices, which “will be required to include a written insert that identifies their manufacturer, battery, and other known components, and discloses the materials used in their atomizer coil. This information will be required to be included in product lists posted on the licensee’s website and other third-party applications as well.”

David Torrisi, the executive director of industry group the Commonwealth Dispensary Association, applauded state regulators in a statement.


“Today’s ‘lifting’ of the quarantine order on cannabis vaping products by the CCC’s Executive Director Shawn Collins is reflective of the thorough, thoughtful, collaborative, and evidence-based approach he has led the CCC through,” he said.

Cannabis companies in Massachusetts can begin producing vape products that comply with the new regulations. But before they can be sold they’ll have to be lab tested, a process that usually takes three to five days, according to Michael Kahn, the CEO of licensed cannabis analytic laboratory MCR Labs.

“If we have a huge onslaught, of course it’ll take longer,” he said. “We’re doing our best.”

 

[Baron23]

Yeah, well they are fine with keeping the liquor stores open. I got to get out of the fucking northeast and away from these paternalistic bastards...just need to go. sigh


Massachusetts: No Adult-Use Cannabis Sales amid COVID-19

Cannabis sales are rising in the US and Canada amid the global COVID-19 pandemic. Canada has declared that marijuana is an essential item. In some US states, medical cannabis is an essential item now. However, some states aren’t allowing recreational cannabis sales yet. Massachusetts wants to put a stop to recreational cannabis sales amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Massachusetts to stop adult-use cannabis sales
Marijuana sales continue to rise due to increased demand amid the coronavirus outbreak. Globally, the coronavirus chaos has caused panic and anxiety. Many patients use cannabis to relieve anxiety and stress. Research has also shown that cannabis helps people with chronic stress, anxiety, and PTSD. However, the governor of Massachusetts thinks that allowing recreational cannabis sales might invite out-of-state customers, which will increase the spread of the virus.



A Marijuana Moment article discussed that the governor of Massachusetts announced that the state will temporarily close recreational marijuana shops. Massachusetts doesn’t want visitors from other states where cannabis is illegal.

In a press conference, Governor Charlie Baker said, “If we make recreational marijuana available, we are going to have to deal with the fact that people are going to come here from all over the place across the Northeast and create issues for us with respect to the fundamental issue we are trying to solve for here, which is to stop the spread.” However, he made it clear that medical cannabis will still be available.

Is the decision wise?
Governor Baker also said that Massachusetts residents won’t have access to recreational cannabis. However, he isn’t sure if that would be possible legally. The governor faces pressure from marijuana stakeholders to allow recreational stores to stay open. Closing the stores causes unnecessary layoffs. Also, marijuana operators in the state think that the decision will push consumers towards the illegal market.

I agree that a lack of availability is the first reason why the illegal market is in demand despite cannabis being legal in certain states. Currently, many customers are desperate. Their need to buy marijuana will lead them towards the illegal market. However, Governor Baker is also right that every measure should be taken right now to contain the spread of the virus. Looking at the current demand for marijuana, Massachusetts will attract consumers from other states where marijuana is illegal.
Also, many patients prefer edibles over any other form of marijuana. These patients will have a hard time if recreational cannabis isn’t available in Massachusetts.
Other states like Illinois, Florida, Connecticut, and California will see dispensaries open. Cannabis is an essential item in these states. Meanwhile, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Michigan allowed curb-side pick up of medical marijuana.

Marijuana stocks didn’t start the week well
The marijuana sector outperformed the broader market in the last two weeks. Notably, marijuana sales started soaring. However, Hexo (TSE:HEXO) and Cronos Group (NASDAQ:CRON) reported disappointing earnings results this week. Both of the stocks took a hit. The cannabis sector is also down this week. Analysts cut Hexo and Cronos Group’s target prices. MedMen also withdrew its guidance for fiscal 2020 and 2021 amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
At 11:15 AM ET today, Cronos Group has fallen 0.18%, while Hexo has fallen 15.7%. Meanwhile, Canopy Growth (NYSE:CGC)(TSE:WEED) and Aphria (NYSE:APHA) have fallen by 0.90% and 2.4%, respectively.

 

[Baron23]

"excluded recreational marijuana dispensaries out of fear that out-of-staters might cross into Massachusetts to buy weed during the crisis and potentially spread the deadly virus."

Just when you thought we had plumbed the bottom of the intelligence barrel for our politicians, we find out that no, they are even dumber than we thought.

So, why would people drive to MA from legal states to buy MJ during the virus....well, obviously, they won't.

So, why would people who do NOT live in a legal state drive to MA to purchase MJ more often during the virus crisis then they would otherwise....well, they won't and chances are that the numbers will actually go down as people huddle in fear of their lives.

Ok, Baker....actually explain this stupidity to us...pretty please?

Massachusetts marijuana dispensaries sue governor over COVID-19 shutdown

Four recreational marijuana dispensaries in Massachusetts are suing Governor Charlie Baker over his refusal to allow them to continue operating during the state’s partial coronavirus shutdown.
Although Baker decided against a statewide lockdown, the governor ordered the closure of all non-essential businesses on March 24 in an effort to contain the spreading of COVID-19.
The list of designated businesses that provide essential services amid the pandemic excluded recreational marijuana dispensaries out of fear that out-of-staters might cross into Massachusetts to buy weed during the crisis and potentially spread the deadly virus.

Medical marijuana patients will have continued access to their prescriptions during the emergency set to last at least until May 4.

“Significant numbers of the customers who procure cannabis at recreational marijuana dispensaries in Massachusetts are not from Massachusetts. Making those sites available to anybody from the northeast would cut completely against the entire strategy we’re trying to pursue,” Governor Baker defended his decision.

In their lawsuit, the four dispensaries argue that, aside from the financial harm they face as their businesses remain closed, people in Massachusetts won’t have access to regulated weed, indicating they will need to stock up on the illicit market, which continued to thrive despite legalization at least until the partial shutdown in the state.

“If it continues, this mandatory closure will cause profound and irreparable damage to the nascent adult-use marijuana industry; will deprive Massachusetts residents of safe access to regulated marijuana; and, will make it very difficult or impossible (e.g., in Nantucket) for certain medical-marijuana users to obtain marijuana legally,” according to the lawsuit.

Amid the drama, the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission approved some growers to redirect their crops to medical marijuana dispensaries this week. The CCC says it received 1,300 new medicinal cannabis patient registrations in the last week of March – more than double the amount just before Baker’s order.

“The COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting strain on the medical supply chain constitutes a documented emergency and permitting the transfer of existing, finished adult-use marijuana and marijuana products is necessary to avoid harmful disruptions to the medical marijuana supply chain,” the CCC said, as reported by the Boston Globe.

At the moment, Massachusetts has nearly 19,000 documented cases of the coronavirus, according to figures collected by Worldometers. Meanwhile, the entire U.S. has recorded close to half a million infections – the highest number of COVID-19 cases in the world.
Although a lack of critical medical equipment and protective gear has exacerbated the crisis even further, the country could reach its peak in coronavirus deaths this weekend, as predicted by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.

 

[Baron23]

Massachusetts Fines Three Cannabis Companies



Law 360 reported that the Massachusetts’ Cannabis Control Commission handed down hefty fines to three cannabis companies doing business in the state. 4Front Ventures Corp. (FFNTF) and Garden remedies were fined for using pesticides on plants, while Acreage Holdings Inc. (OTC:ACRGF) was fined for failing to disclose its relationship with two license holders.

4Front Ventures

4Front Ventures fined $350,000 settlement over pesticides used at its Georgetown, Massachusetts, facility. According to Law360, the settlement included a statement that 4Front Ventures admitted hydrogen peroxide, baking soda, and other pesticides were used at the facility, which is not approved for use on marijuana. The commission reportedly said that the company received test results that showed the plants contained a banned pesticide in June or July 2019 but didn’t alert the commission until August. Company CEO Leo Gontmakher said the company has made changes to ensure the violations do not happen again. “Patients were protected and no one was harmed,” Gontmakher said.

Garden Remedies

A $200,000 settlement was reached with cannabis company Garden Remedies over its Fitchburg, Massachusetts, facility. Like 4Front, Garden Remedies also noted in its settlement that it acknowledged using unapproved pesticides and altering its financial records to hide the purchase.






Company CEO Karen Munkacy said in a statement that the company has fired the employees involved in the falsified documents and ended its relationship with the vendor that provided the pesticides in question.


“While the product we used is permitted to be used in cannabis cultivation in many other states and is not an externally applied pesticide that puts anyone in danger, it is not permitted in Massachusetts and the situation was mishandled,” Munkacy said. “The company and I will continue to strive to ensure that ethical and regulatory violations never again occur.”

Acreage Holdings

Law360 also reported that The Botanist, an Acreage Holdings subsidiary agreed to pay a $250,000 fine for failing to disclose its parent company’s controlling relationship with two medical marijuana licensees. Massachusetts had passed a law when its program was established that limited license holders to just three so that there would be no monopolies and more companies would share in the industry.


Acreage Holdings came under fire for bragging that it had numerous licenses in the state. The commission’s investigation found that Acreage’s contracts with two affiliate medical marijuana treatment centers in the Bay State gave it a controlling relationship over them. Despite the ruling, the commission can approve two provisional retail licenses for The Botanist Inc.


“We want to express our thanks to the CCC for their professional approach as we worked through today’s resolution,” Acreage general counsel James Doherty said in a statement. “We’re looking forward to focusing all of our energies on what we do best, which is deliver great products to the citizens of Massachusetts.”


It seems the original agreements had been entered into while Massachusetts had a medical-only program and the regulations at the time were not so specific about control and ownership. The commission went on to clarify the rules about ownership limits at which time the commission said Acreage should have realized it had too many.


The commission did state that The Botanist “cooperated with the commission’s investigation into ownership and control interests and engaged in good-faith efforts to comply with the regulations after being notified of possible control issues.”

 

[CarolKing]

Marijuana company will destroy $2.6 million inventory of year-old vapes
Temescal Wellness says consumers lack confidence in state tests for lead
By Dan Adams Globe Staff,Updated August 14, 2020, 1:53 p.m.

4

A worker held a filled marijuana vape cartridge at a California cannabis facility in 2018.NYT
A Massachusetts marijuana company plans to destroy $2.6 million of aging cannabis vapes, saying consumers have no confidence in the state’s system for certifying that the devices are free of lead and other toxic heavy metals.
Temescal Wellness, which operates dispensaries in Framingham, Hudson, and Pittsfield, said Friday that it will dispose of more than 40,000 vape cartridges that have been sitting in storage since last year’s temporary ban on their sale.
“People are just not comfortable with these products, and they’re not comfortable with any company that would sell these products,” said Temescal chief executive Ted Rebholz in an interview. “We didn’t feel good about selling something to consumers and patients that we wouldn’t want to use ourselves.”

While it remains unclear whether other operators will follow suit, the decision by a major player in the state’s cannabis industry to sacrifice its large investment in the vapes underscores — in dollars and cents — the depth of public skepticism about the products.

The company’s marijuana vapes are among 619,000 statewide that were removed from store shelves and “quarantined” in September, when Governor Charlie Baker banned their sale for several months in response to an outbreak of vaping-related lung illnesses. The illnesses were later linked to an additive used in illicit cartridges.

Regulators allowed sales of newly manufactured vapes to resume under tighter rules in December, but only lifted the freeze on previously quarantined cartridges this month after months of pressure from operators eager to recoup their investments. That’s when the state Cannabis Control Commission gave licensed marijuana firms the options of either destroying the vapes, testing one-half of 1 percent of each batch for lead and reselling them as is, or breaking the cartridges open and reprocessing the oil they contain to remove lead before using it to make new products.


However, the agency’s investigation into the safety of the devices yielded confounding results. Tests showed a significant number of cartridges contained high levels of lead, which presumably leached into the concentrate from the vape hardware while the products sat in storage for months. Yet follow-up tests often failed to confirm the findings or revealed contamination after initial tests showed none.

That has prompted critics — including consumers, medical marijuana patients, physicians, and even the scientists who conducted the tests for the commission — to question the reliability of the tests and whether measuring only a small sample of each batch sufficiently protects the public. They also said a warning label that must be applied to any previously quarantined product is too vague.

Rebholz said consumer confidence in vape safety had already waned because of the lung health scare, with Temescal now selling roughly 24 percent fewer of the devices compared to last summer. Dumping questionable cartridges into the market would only make matters worse, he argued.

Rebholz also noted that cannabis operators were ineligible for federal coronavirus relief payments because the drug remains illegal under US law and because Massachusetts shut down the state’s recreational sector for 10 weeks at the beginning of the pandemic. That raises concerns that other operators will feel financial pressure to sell the questionable vapes, even if it potentially endangers public health, he said.