Cannabis Control Commission moving in right direction on adult use delivery, caregiver proposals
Mass patients group strangely wants to limit patient access to caregivers
Support our local coverage, upgrade your subscription!
By Grant Smith
Among a litany of other changes discussed during Monday’s Cannabis Control Commission public listening session, interest seemed to swirl around two proposals that are highly popular within the grassroots community; delivery of adult use cannabis and an expanded patient ratio for caregivers seeking to grow at-cost medication for the most vulnerable medical cannabis patients in the state.
On the first issue there was near unanimous agreement among the nearly 100 participants at the public hearing; the current format for adult use delivery is nothing more than a glorified uber-eats courier and drastic changes are needed in the short term to ensure the license is economically viable. Adding to the pressure, the delivery licenses at issue are supposed to be available exclusively to participants in the state’s Social Equity (SE) and Economic Empowerment (EE) programs.
The solution, according to applicants, advocates, community leaders, and business owners alike is simple; allow delivery companies to purchase products at wholesale, own a secure warehouse, and provide delivery of those products directly to consumers. The community also made clear its request that the CCC extend the current 2 year priority period for EE/SE companies seeking a delivery license to a period of 3 or 4 years as, applicants said, a 2 year period is not enough time to analyze the economic viability of the license type (whatever form it may take in the end).
In the absence of those changes, said applicants, all EE and SE companies seeking to open delivery operations would find themselves entirely bankrupt within 6 or so months-even were they to be charging an outrageous $40 dollars per delivery-according to a coalition of local delivery companies calling itself the “Massachusetts Cannabis Association for Delivery” (MCAD).
Those points of analysis are without question true and the proposed solution, an ability for delivery companies to purchase products at wholesale and obtain a warehouse for product storage, are more than reasonable.
The second issue that seemed to dominate the discussion was that related to expanding the role of cannabis caregivers, who currently provide low/no cost medication to the state’s most vulnerable medical cannabis patients (albeit within the strict limit of a 1 patient per caregiver ratio in almost all circumstances).
In turn, the Commission included a section of its current draft regulations that would allow those caregivers to grow cannabis for up to 10 registered medical patients at a given time within 500 square foot of canopy (so long as those caregivers registered with the Commission, provided the exact address at which the grow would be located, and subjected themselves, and their record, to inspection by the Commission upon demand).
In turn, those caregivers would be able to provide cannabis to their patients while only charging those patients for the costs to grow and transport the medication to the patient themselves.
That proposal drew near unanimous support for those who spoke at Monday’s hearing, save for a few voices who objected for a litany of - sometimes conflicting- reasons. Below, I have quoted those objections and provided my own response in the intervening space between those quotations.
I have also included the source video, of the Cannabis Control Commission’s official feed, from where the quotes were taken (and the timestamps on the quotes reflect the “minutes” and “seconds” of the source video).
"In January of 2015 the MPAA (Massachusetts Patients Advocacy Alliance) mathematically theorized a patient to caregiver ratio of 1 caregiver to 10 patients would be sufficient to provide safe access for the number of registered patients at the time period. At that time, the Patrick administration had been sitting idle for over two years with 0 dispensaries...the 1 to 10 caregiver to patient ratio is no longer necessary, it is obsolete."
- Nichole Snow, President MPAA (6:24-6:55)
This seems to be saying that the MPAA was only comfortable supporting a ratio of 10 patients per caregiver when there were no dispensaries, and that now those dispensaries should be where those patients go to obtain their medication. That strikes me as strange, as MTC's are for profit companies that charge huge markups to their patients whereas caregivers, by law, can only provide medication to patients at cost (and those costs, and receipts, are open to inspection by the Commission).
"MPAA would rather see caregivers registered on a case by case basis...an arbitrary number of patients per caregiver will likely open the door to a gray market that is indistinguishable from the legally regulated market you and the staff have worked so hard on developing.prior to question 4, illicit operators were boldly participating in interviews with well known media outlets while making claim that they were..legal with no way for law enforcement to verify any of this.."
- Nichole Snow, President MPAA (7:08-7:47)
This also strikes me as very strange; if the caregivers are providing all of their information, including the location of the grow, why would they engage in any behavior that is in violation of the regulations or statue (knowing full well that they have a huge target, painted on their own back, because of their registered status). I'm also confused as to how a non-profit model, wherein caregivers who grow for patients can charge those patients no more than the cost to grow (and transport) the medicine itself, is "indistinguishable from the legally regulated market you and the staff have worked so hard on developing", as the entire point of this regulation would be to include those caregivers in the regulated market.
Furthermore, the consequence of not allowing 10 patients per caregiver would be to return to only 1 patient per caregiver grow. It strikes me that defaulting back to 1 patient per caregiver, and only allowing more than a single patient per caregiver (with no ability for those caregivers to have a specific canopy) would only make it more difficult for patients and caregivers alike to facilitate the provision of at-cost medication (and perhaps that is the driving ideological framework of these objections, although that is only my opinion).
"This regulation (allowing 10 caregivers per patient and 500 square feet of canopy) is also extremely inadvisable without a task force controlled by the state. Without a task force policy in place we are leaving our local citizens to be openly enforced by the federal government."
- Nichole Snow, President MPAA (7:53-8:04)
If this is the same task force that was proposed by the Commonwealth Dispensary Association and anti-cannabis law-maker Hannah Kane earlier this year, I think its quite clear why this is a worrisome statement on its face.
Further quotes from those who objected to the caregiver proposal as written (and my responses included again, between quotes, as above).
"Please prohibit caregivers [f...] [pause] cultivating cannabis and serving more than 1 patient from advertising, marketing and branding of their products and services, ensure they are also required to lab test their cannabis thereby creating a paper trail for staff to review upon inspection. They should also be prohibited from obtaining delivery licenses and delivery endorsements and create a complaint form for patients and marijuana delivery licensees to submit any issue they have."*
Michael Latulippe, MPAA (15:13-15:23)
*Editors note; there has been a dispute raised about this quote (which has now been updated). While the sound of "f" and slight pause before the "cultivating cannabis and serving more than 1 patient" did introduce confusion, the update has nonetheless been provided. The parallel construction of the sentence also proved a basis for confusion (and thus that sentence structure was also provided in full in the updated quote).
This statement speaks for itself. I oppose it entirely.
"To prevent lingering public safety issues, this caregiver policy for hardship cultivators should coincide with the implementation of an MTC endorsement model that allows for small farmers in the medical cannabis industry."
Michael Latulippe, MPAA (15:43-15:55)
*Editors note; there has been a dispute raised about this quote (which has now been updated). While the sound of "f" and slight pause before the " cultivating cannabis and serving more than 1 patient" did introduce confusion, the update has nonetheless been provided. The parallel construction of the sentence also proved a basis for confusion (and thus that sentence structure was also provided in full in the updated quote).
This seems to suggest that the person making this statement feels that caregivers should only be able to grow for more than 1 patient if they apply to be an MTC first and then get an endorsement to have a small grow. That proposal entirely undermines the concept of a caregiver growing at-cost for the patient in my opinion, and seems to me a proposal that would only benefit existing RMD's based on my analysis.
In that context, those who do support allowing caregivers to grow for 10 patients at a given time-within 500 total square feet of canopy-may email their comments of support to commission@cccmass.com before the 5:00PM deadline on August 14th.
""Please prohibit caregivers from cultivating cannabis and serving more than 1 patient..."
Michael Latulippe, MPAA (15:13-15:18)"
What is this other than BLATANT asskissing of Corporate Weed???
LET US GROW AND GIVE LEGALLY. LET US DO LEGITIMATE BUSINESS.
Might as well just say "Please force MMJ patients to keep paying $300+/ounce." outright because that's literally all this boils down to.