AS EIGHT BILLS in this legislative session seek to increase the number of dispensaries or cannabis establishments that any one individual or organization can own, the cannabis industry remains divided on whether the Legislature should maintain the current cap of three. 

The state set the license cap in 2017 as a measure to keep large companies from monopolizing the cannabis industry and to protect small cannabis business owners – particularly those who come from communities harmed most by the war on drugs. 

Now, some cannabis operators are saying that the cap restricts their ability to run their businesses. Some cannabis business owners have argued that the Legislature needs to increase the license cap to allow struggling business owners to attract desperately needed capital from large multistate operators and provide an opportunity for them to sell their companies. 

The bills currently pending all seek to raise the license cap from three to either six or nine. One bill seeks to allow companies that have already reached a three-license limit to increase the amount of ownership stake they can have in four additional social equity businesses. 

On Wednesday, at the Legislature’s first cannabis committee hearing of the session, cannabis business owners and leaders spoke in favor of the bills to increase the cap. 

Payton Shubrick, the owner of 6 Bricks dispensary in Springfield, argued in favor of increasing the cap. She said that her business is family-owned and has faced headwinds with the falling price of marijuana since she opened the dispensary. Increasing the license cap will mean that larger companies will have more opportunities to buy up or invest in companies like hers, she testified. 

“At this point in time, I’m sitting on an asset that’s losing value over time with oversaturation and oversupply creating a dynamic where I can’t create a successful exit,” said Shubrick. 

The owner of Apex Noire – the first black-owned dispensary to open in Boston – and a former member of the Boston city council, Tito Jackson, also spoke in support of changing the license cap. 

“Increasing the license cap should be seen as a tool – one that business owners can use if they are able to,” said Jackson. “It does not mean that … everyone has to sell. However, not giving those individuals the options to do so is problematic.” 

Other cannabis business owners testified in opposition.  

“I can guarantee you that raising the cap will do the exact opposite of what other people have mentioned here,” said Ruben Seyde, the owner of Delivered, Inc., a cannabis delivery company. “It is not going to help [social equity businesses like mine]. It is only going to put me in a worse position than the one I am in right now. I am already struggling in this market. If these entities are able to double their resources by partnering up with [multistate operators] and other larger entities, I have no future. I have no viable road from my current to take and to still reach some level of profitability.” 

Ahead of the legislative hearing, nearly 60 business leaders and advocates in the cannabis industry signed a letter urging legislators to continue to cap the number of dispensaries any business can own at three. 

“If the license cap is removed, we’re going to see [multi-state cannabis businesses] gobbling up equity businesses, consolidating the market and devaluing the value of licenses for those who are in the industry,” said Kevin Gilnack, Deputy Director of the cannabis advocacy group Equitable Opportunities Now, in a phone interview ahead of the hearing. 

Kimberly Roy, a commissioner on the Cannabis Control Commission, submitted written testimony to the legislative committee in favor of maintaining the license cap.    

“Current statutory ownership limits help to create a Massachusetts cannabis industry that encourages full participation, competition, locally owned and operated entrepreneurship … while fostering a diverse marketplace,” said Roy. “Current proposals to lift the current license cap threaten to undermine these goals, harm those we are mandated to help and as a by-product may create a ‘Walmart effect’ supply chain where market consolidation, buying power and price manipulation can be controlled by the wealthy few.”  

The cannabis industry has been struggling with the falling price of marijuana and the lack of access to capital. Social equity business owners – who come from disadvantaged backgrounds and, by definition, have limited access to capital – have been particularly hit by debt and the challenges of the industry.  

Two bills that would double cannabis purchase and possession limits and make it easier for those who work in the cannabis industry to get registered received widespread support at the hearing. Currently, every person who works at a cannabis business must get a separate registration for every different licensed establishment. One person may need multiple registrations, which is costly for business owners. The industry widely supports making the change to streamline the process.  

Another bill would make it so that medical marijuana businesses no longer have to cultivate, process, and dispense cannabis to maintain their licenses. In addition to removing that requirement, the bill would also decrease the licensing fee for medical dispensaries and allow people from other states to use their medical marijuana cards at Massachusetts medical dispensaries.  

“​​We need to reinvest in the future of the program, and that means streamlining it, modernizing it, and removing the shackles that limit patient access and prevent equity [owners] from participating in the medical industry,” said Jeremiah MacKinnon, the president of the Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance. “We brought these issues to the [Cannabis Control] Commission’s attention, but after six years of advocacy, nothing’s changed. It has not been on their list of priorities.”  

The post Legislators consider 8 bills to increase cap on cannabis dispensary ownership  appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

WHEN BOUNTIFUL FARMS, a medical cannabis dispensary in Natick, went to renew its license in June, it hit an obstacle: the host community agreement that it needed to renegotiate with the town and have approved by the state’s Cannabis Control Commission.

The agreement with Natick was in violation of a 2022 law that banned communities from charging fees greater than three percent of gross annual sales and required that the fees be “reasonably related” to the impact of the cannabis business on the city or town. Because the agreement both discouraged Bountiful Farms from ever suing Natick and imposed fees in addition to a legally allowed “community impact fee,” the commission rejected the company’s renewal application, leaving its owners in limbo.

Bountiful Farms is not the only cannabis operator in Massachusetts stuck between a town trying to maximize the fees it collects and the Cannabis Control Commission trying to abide by the law. Last year, the commission rejected about three quarters of the host community agreements – as of mid-December 461 out of 615 were ruled non-compliant – submitted. Without a compliant agreement, these companies can’t get their licenses approved or renewed and, in some cases, can’t keep their businesses running. In the meantime, companies that are waiting to open are paying rent and spending thousands on legal fees while they wait to get their host community agreements in order.

“I have referred to the concept of HCAs and the negotiations as the ‘wild west’ because it wasn’t a level playing field for negotiation,” said Commissioner Kimberly Roy in September, referring to host community agreements. “The municipalities had an extraordinary amount of negotiation power and leverage with folks trying to get into this new industry.” 

After recreational cannabis was legalized through a ballot measure in 2016, the Legislature passed a law requiring host community agreements before cannabis operators could obtain a license. The community impact fees were capped at three percent at that time, but there wasn’t explicit language banning other fees – an opening many cities and towns exploited to charge more.

Industry leaders say that there needs to be more done to help companies that are locked in conflict with their towns – some of which are trying to include provisions in new agreements that would prevent cannabis companies from asking their host municipality to reimburse previous impact fees – to get compliant agreements.

The commission doesn’t have an enforcement mechanism to make communities abide by the 2022 law, but it is taking some steps to support cannabis operators. On January 23, commissioners voted unanimously to allow their general counsel to file a letter of support for the three cannabis companies that are suing Great Barrington to recoup millions of dollars in impact fees they paid as part of past host community agreements. To protect its authority to review agreements, the commission also empowered its general counsel to find a way to become more involved in the lawsuit, though it’s unclear what that might look like.

Great Barrington is taking the position that the commission does not have the authority to review host community agreements that were signed before the law was enacted.

There have been several lawsuits before the case in Great Barrington where cannabis operators have sued their towns to recover fees that would now be illegal. In Uxbridge, the owner of Caroline’s Cannabis sued the town over the impact fees that she paid and received a refund of almost $1.2 million. Caroline Pineau, a cannabis operator in Haverhill, recovered 70 percent of the fees she paid through a settlement after she sued the town.

Another trio of cannabis stores is threatening to sue Newton over past impact fees if the city doesn’t offer a refund. The mayor of Newton said in an email update to the city on January 24 that the city will defend the previous agreements and not allow the cannabis companies to claw back any fees.

Uxbridge and Haverhill declined to comment, and Great Barrington did not respond to questions.

In December, the cannabis commission issued new guidelines that explained what expenses – like consultant costs, environmental impact studies, and traffic design studies – qualify to charge cannabis operators as an impact fee. (Jeff Barton, the CEO of Bountiful Farms, said the company brought the new guidelines to the town to try to amend the agreement with Natick. Bountiful Farms submitted a new host agreement to the commission and is waiting for approval.)

“I think the CCC is aware of the [host community agreement] challenges and they are trying to do what they can within the law to assist but there is nothing within the commission’s arsenal that would allow any kind of substantial pushback to a non-cooperative municipality,” said Michael Ross, the co-chair of the Cannabis Practice Group at Prince Lobel. “At some point, the Legislature will have to address the larger issue with regards to the HCA when there are bad actors from the municipalities. A company seeking their HCA can be stonewalled, and in those instances, there is no recourse.”

David O’Brien, the president of the Massachusetts Cannabis Business Association, a trade group for industry professionals, said that the guidelines are “two years too late” and still lack enforceability. Municipalities, he noted, can still choose to completely ignore the commission’s guidelines. 

“The only person that the CCC has leverage over is the licensed cannabis operator, so the agency says to the operator, ‘You need to go to your community and make them be compliant,’” said O’Brien. “Well, how do they do that? [The CCC says:] Show them this guidance. [The operator says:] What if they don’t want to do it? [The CCC says:] We can’t help you.”

In the meantime, the commission has given extensions of up to a year to companies for their license renewal. But now, more than 60 companies are bumping up against the end of that grace period without compliant host community agreements. 

“Those licensees are in a position where they have to make some decisions and are a little bit under the gun to finish their licensing process and submit a compliant HCA as part of that,” Kajal Chattopadhyay, the commission’s general counsel, said in January. “It seems like we are getting notice of a new licensee being impacted on a daily basis. The number is growing.”

On February 13, the commissioners voted to grant licensees yet a longer total extension of 600 days so that those companies caught up in conflict with their towns over host community agreement compliance wouldn’t have to shut down their operations.

“We don’t want to see anyone have to shutter their doors because of this,” said Roy during the February meeting. “I’ve met personally with people who are quite frankly terrified because they need a compliant HCA to do business. Unfortunately, there are still communities that aren’t fully recognizing what I see, in my opinion, as the intent of the [2022] law. At some point, the courts will opine on this but short of that, I’m relieved that we are doing something to help folks in the interim.”

Ross said the Legislature should get rid of host community agreements entirely. The industry is struggling right now with the falling price of cannabis and the fact that operators can’t get bank loans because of federal law, he added. The process of getting a host community agreement can be time-consuming and expensive for operators who are barely getting by. 

“The larger question is whether or not these host community agreements are needed at all,” said Ross. “What practical purpose do they serve to the business or the municipality?”

The post Regulators take aim at ‘wild west’ of cannabis host community agreements appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

The post CCC acting chair balks at IG’s call for receiver appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

CANNABIS BUSINESSES on Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket will be able to transport marijuana over state waters starting midnight on Friday, under an administrative order by the Cannabis Control Commission. 

Commissioners last week heard concerns from patients, advocates, and residents of the islands, about the looming loss of access to safe and legal cannabis on the two islands because cannabis could not be transported to and from the mainland. The situation was presented as being particularly dire for medical marijuana patients. 

The commission voted unanimously to pass the administrative order “regarding the transport of marijuana and marijuana products over state territorial waters to and from marijuana establishments and medical marijuana treatment centers in the counties of Dukes and Nantucket.” 

“This was turned around in a really quick time frame,” said Commissioner Kimberly Roy. “At the end of the day, this was about public health and public safety and patients and consumers alike having access to safely regulated products.”

The two islands have long been siloed from the mainland cannabis market because the commission has not written regulations on transporting cannabis over water.

The problem stems from the unusual status of marijuana: legal under state law but illegal at the federal level. Transporting cannabis over federal waters could lead to prosecution for operators. 

This has forced dispensaries on the Vineyard and Nantucket to source all of their marijuana from cultivators on the islands, an expensive move. And now, the only cultivator on the Vineyard is set to close its operations.

There are currently two dispensaries on Martha’s Vineyard: Island Time and Fine Fettle. Island Time temporarily shut its doors in May and Fine Fettle has said that without the commission’s intervention, they will close by the end of the summer.

The woes sparked a lawsuit against the Cannabis Control Commission, with businesses arguing there are water routes from the mainland to the islands through state territorial waters, rather than federal waters.

Island Time, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, was previously cited by the commission when the owner, Geoff Rose, transported cannabis products to Martha’s Vineyard over state territorial waters. According to the lawsuit, the commission ruled that cannabis products cannot be transported from the mainland to the Vineyard or Nantucket. 

With the new administrative order, cannabis businesses will no longer be reliant only on cultivators on the islands but will be able to transport cannabis and cannabis products to the islands using state water routes.

“Today is a great day in providing equity for operators on the islands,” Rose, who plans to reopen his business, said in a phone interview. “I truly appreciate the efforts of the cannabis commission to address this very important issue which has been long overdue for attention. I look forward to continuing to serve patients and consumers with safe and high-quality products.” 

Adam Fine, the attorney representing Island Time and the other cannabis business involved in the lawsuit said that the plaintiffs are planning to drop the lawsuit following this administrative order.

Added Chloe Loftfield, Fine Fettle’s general manager: “It really is a positive change and we’re really hopeful that this means a bright future for cannabis on Martha’s Vineyard.”

While the administrative order will provide immediate relief for dispensaries struggling to stock their shelves, the commission will still have to update their regulations to incorporate the change. Commissioner Bruce Stebbins also encouraged the commission to prioritize and expedite the granting of licenses based in Dukes County and Nantucket.

The post Cannabis regulators allow marijuana to be transported over state waters appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION is reconsidering the long-standing federal hardline stance on cannabis, ushering in pardons for marijuana-based offenses and proposing reclassifying the drug. 

While proponents of social equity in the marijuana industry are cheering the sentiment, they say these more lenient federal gestures, which are silent on established state cannabis regulations, could create confusion.

They also have a new concern: tobacco and alcohol industries big-footing into the market.

“The word of caution is that at this point, because it’s federally illegal, tobacco, alcohol and pharmaceutical companies are not involved,” said Shaleen Title, a former member of the state’s Cannabis Control Commission and now founder and director of the Parabola Center for Law and Policy think tank. “They have been waiting in the wings. So we have to understand that with federal legalization, that will change and there are precautions we’ll want to take.”

Title jumped from Massachusetts cannabis regulation to federal policy work at the end of 2020, joining a coalition of drug policy experts and lawyers pushing for substantial marijuana reform. She discussed the Bay State’s evolution on cannabis policy and its place in an increasingly complex state-federal cannabis environment on an episode of The Horse Race podcast co-hosted by Commonwealth Beacon reporter Jennifer Smith and MassINC Polling Group president Steve Koczela.

A federal move to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act – redefining it from a substance with no medical use and a high potential for abuse to one with a medical use and moderate to low potential for abuse – prompted mixed responses from advocates.

Dr. Rahul Gupta, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, told Florida NPR station WGCU that the move is “a recommendation based on science and evidence,” adding “it does make sense to make sure that we’re pursuing science and evidence when it comes to medications and use those medications for Americans with chronic illnesses, chronic pain, diseases like cancer.”

But Title said the administration is “mischaracterizing” the rescheduling proposal by making it seem like a straightforward shift, when there are still many unanswered questions about how the change would impact prescription access and production – let alone interact with states that have regulations managing both recreational and medicinal cannabis. 

The proposal is “completely out of line with what states are doing,” she said. “It does not legalize anything about state programs.”

The federal policy tilt, she said, prompted Parabola to “take a step back and look at what people actually want when it comes to legalization. And in particular, I think it’s really important to understand that different policies will benefit different groups of people.”

Title said she came to the conclusion that Massachusetts could “do a much better job” on worker protections prior to a new Parabola survey, but respondent priorities reinforced her view. Of those surveyed, 73 percent said cannabis legalization should benefit workers in the cannabis industry. A Bay State cannabis worker suffered an asthma attack at a Holyoke processing facility and died in 2022. 

The survey of 404 American adults was initially intended to be an internal Parabola tool to test education messaging on cannabis views, Title said, but the organization decided to release it publicly to highlight a few trends. 

Respondents said they generally trusted people who use marijuana and work toward social equity to guide policy – about 55 percent – and trusted tobacco and alcohol industry executives 18 and 13 percent, respectively. Similarly, 28 percent of respondents said that cannabis legalization should benefit tobacco companies and 19 percent said it should benefit alcohol companies. 

When it comes to the enormous tobacco and alcohol industries, any moves into the cannabis space could be substantial. In 2023, reports surfaced that the tobacco company Philip Morris was set to acquire the Israeli-based cannabis inhaler company Syqe Medical for up to $650 million, and international tobacco companies have been previewing an expansion into the cannabis business for years. 

The risk, in Title’s view, is not just that corporate entities could suck up profit from communities impacted by the drug war, including people of color and indigenous people.

“The risks of public health concerns rise when we get large corporations involved as well,” she said. “So we’re seeing potency rising, we’re seeing a focus on profit where the most heavy users tend to be catered to. And all of those problems would be exacerbated when larger corporations come in.”

Most Americans now live in a state that allows recreational cannabis use or medical cannabis use, with 79 percent of the population living in a county with at least one dispensary, according to a Pew Research Center review of state marijuana laws. 

President Joe Biden in 2022 and 2023 pardoned several marijuana-related offenses under federal law, with the goal of lifting “barriers to housing, employment, and educational opportunities for thousands of people with those prior offenses.”

The federal pardon, however, does not impact convictions under state laws. Though 24 states have legalized recreational marijuana use and another 14 allow medicinal use, the federal ban on cannabis products has led to a quagmire of state-by-state regulations. 

States like California, New York, and Massachusetts are well into an era of legalized cannabis, though the saturated market is leading to some paradoxical booms in unlicensed shops. Deep red states largely prohibit any cannabis products but CBD, a more benign marijuana byproduct that does not cause a high on its own. 

Even with her eyes turned toward the federal system, Title thinks the Bay State can offer some tools for broader legalization.

“I think we learned in Massachusetts that prioritizing equity is really important,” she said. “We learned that loans and grants for people who can’t access capital was a major issue, and we’re only starting to straighten that out. We also learned that the way that cities and towns handle policy should be clear from the beginning. So those are all lessons we can take for federal legalization.”

The post What does potential fed shift on cannabis mean for states like Mass.? appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

SIX YEARS SINCE Massachusetts opened the first legal recreational marijuana stores on the East Coast, residents are still by and large pleased with cannabis legalization. But they aren’t taking a lax stance on regulations. 

When asked in a new poll about the rise of some THC-laced drinks skirting the state’s cannabis regulations and tax structure, cannabis consumers and teetotalers alike said the place to purchase marijuana should be behind dispensary doors.

Polling on marijuana attitudes from the MassINC Polling Group – surveying 1,001 Massachusetts residents between April 4 and 17 – offers a first look at how Bay Staters might think about the unregulated hemp-based THC market (topline | crosstabs).

“Hemp is a type of marijuana plant that contains a much smaller amount of THC than the marijuana sold in dispensaries,” the poll explained. “Products containing THC from hemp are not regulated in the same way as marijuana. They are now being sold at liquor stores, convenience stores, gas stations, and some bars and restaurants.”

The poll asked respondents: “Do you think that products containing THC from hemp should only be sold at licensed dispensaries, or should they be sold in other places?”

While about a fifth of respondents said they didn’t know or didn’t want to answer, 55 percent of those polled said the products should be sold only in licensed dispensaries and 28 percent said they should be allowed to be sold in other places. 

“We certainly took into account that some people might not have noticed this is going on or be aware of it, so we offered the introduction to give that information,” MassINC Polling Group President Steve Koczela said on The Horse Race podcast. The results are “different than what we have seen, by and large, so far,” he said, “in that people think it should be legal to buy marijuana, but not in this way.”

Those who say they have used or purchased marijuana are slightly more likely to support the sale of the hemp-based products outside of the dispensary system, but more say they still want it to be limited to dispensaries. A substantial majority – 65 percent of respondents – said that legalizing marijuana broadly was the right thing to do in the state. 

Younger people, particularly millennial women, tend to be more in favor of Massachusetts marijuana legalization. Drinking among young adults has been on the decline, with a 2023 Gallup poll finding that young adults now vie with elders for the lowest drinking rates by age demographics. Pollsters considered several reasons for the trend, including greater awareness of the health risks of excessive drinking and an uptick in marijuana usage. 

But subbing out a beer for an edible or drinkable cannabinoid in a social situation is still not straightforward – regulated social consumption sites have been slow going. But as CommonWealth Beacon has reported, hemp-based THC seltzers are popping up not just in gas stations or corner stores, but on the menus of local restaurants along with alcoholic drinks. 

Legislators are planning for a June hearing to discuss the implications of the regulatory divide between hemp-derived THC products and those made from cannabis plants. Hemp products are subject to federal regulations, creating a complicated situation for state officials who may want to regulate it like cannabis. Other states are developing structures that treat hemp-based THC as similar to cannabis products while working not to conflict with federal law.

The somewhat embattled Cannabis Control Commission is scheduled to brief lawmakers at the State House Thursday on the state of the commission and its challenges from a regulatory and personnel perspective. 

Amidst a years-long drop in cannabis prices in a saturated market that consumers tend to like but sellers complain is making their businesses less financially sustainable, the poll asked how residents feel about the current regulatory system generally. 

Almost 60 percent of respondents said that the state’s system for regulating the sale of marijuana products is “good” or “excellent” so far. Those who have used the dispensaries are a little more likely to think the regulatory system is working well, said the polling group’s research director Rich Parr. The results offer “no real evidence that familiarity is breeding contempt,” he said.

The post Mass. residents don’t support hemp THC loopholes  appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

GOV. CHARLIE BAKER on Thursday signed a bill aimed at giving minority cannabis entrepreneurs easier access into the industry, and also paving the way for municipalities to allow marijuana cafes. The bill better regulates host community agreements, creates a state-run loan fund for minority entrepreneurs, lowers taxes for marijuana businesses, and makes it easier to expunge records for old marijuana offenses. 

Speaking to reporters moments after the bill was signed, Cannabis Control Commissioner Ava Callender Concepcion said she was “shaking with relief and happiness.”  

“This is the most comprehensive piece of legislation on cannabis since the establishment of the Cannabis Control Commission,” Concepcion said. 

Baker was an early opponent of cannabis legalization and has pushed unsuccessfully for stronger laws prohibiting drugged driving, but he has said he is committed to implementing the law. He wrote in his signing letter that he supports many of the provisions to improve regulation of the cannabis industry and “to expand opportunities for social equity businesses.” 

However, state regulators warn it will take time for the provisions to be implemented. The new law gives the Cannabis Control Commission until November 9, 2023, to craft and revise the regulations needed to come into compliance with the law.  

Sarah Kim, the interim chair of the Cannabis Control Commission, said the commission has been analyzing the legislation. We “will be implementing it in a responsible and thoughtful manner,” she said. “We intend to use the period allotted to us to implement the legislation.” The members of the Cannabis Control Commission have supported and lobbied for the bill.   

State law includes a “social equity” mandate, which requires the commission to prioritize helping those disproportionately impacted by prior enforcement of drug laws enter the legal marijuana industry. But practically, that has been difficult. The biggest problems have been trouble getting municipal approval and lack of access to start-up capital in an industry where typical bank loans and other financing are unavailable due to federal prohibition.  

As of this month, only 7 percent of businesses with some level of commission license approval were “economic empowerment” enterprises and 18 percent were “social equity” businesses. These are designations given to businesses run by minority entrepreneurs or people disproportionately affected by the war on drugs. Some companies may fit in both categories. 

The bill aims to address the financing problem by establishing a Social Equity Trust Fund, paid for with 15 percent of marijuana tax revenues, to give grants and loans to minority entrepreneurs. This will be set up by the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development, and appointments to a board advising the fund must be named by January 2023. 

The crux of the reform bill addresses an area the industry has been complaining about for years – the ability of host communities to demand high fees from marijuana businesses without regulation.  

While officially the law caps community impact fees at 3 percent of sales, practically, many communities have charged more than that or included additional “donations.” The Cannabis Control Commission has maintained that it has no authority to regulate host community agreements, beyond making sure a business signs one.  

The new law gives the commission oversight and clarifies that communities cannot charge businesses any monetary contribution that is more than 3 percent of sales, and the fees must directly relate to impacts imposed on the community. The bill establishes that no host community agreement can last for more than eight years after a business opens. 

Shawn Collins, executive director of the Cannabis Control Commission, said oversight of host community agreements is one area where the commission will have to write new regulations. At an April meeting, commissioners discussed a timeline that would have them reviewing and revising regulations in a process that will conclude around June 2023. Commissioner Nurys Camargo said the agency also needs to make sure it has the internal capacity and staff in place to review host community agreements. 

Another provision with a major impact is the creation of a voting mechanism by which cities and towns can opt in to allowing cannabis cafes, or “social consumption” sites. While these sites were included in the ballot question legalizing marijuana, regulators delayed launching that part of the industry because a technical fix was needed to set up a way for communities to opt into hosting one.  

In 2019, the Cannabis Control Commission laid out their vision for a social consumption pilot program in up to 12 cities and towns that opted in, with places where adult visitors could buy and consume marijuana – similar to a bar. They planned to limit the initial licenses to social equity entrepreneurs. The initial regulations included various safety provisions, like regulating portion sizes and allowing smoking only outdoors.  

However, the commission members today are all different than the panel in place in 2019. The new regulators could change the proposal through the regulatory review process, and several commissioners suggested that they planned to do so. 

Camargo called existing regulations a “placeholder” and suggested this commission would have more to say. “I think social consumption needs to be revisited,” she said, adding that there needs to be more thought put into “how to make it safe and equitable.” 

Commissioner Kimberly Roy added, “We’re not going to hit the ground at 180 miles per hour. We’re going to crawl before we walk and, hopefully, we can analyze the positive and if there are any negatives at each step of the way.” 

The new law also makes it easier to get records expunged for old marijuana possession and cultivation charges. It loosens some regulations regarding what criminal convictions would make someone unsuitable to own or work in a marijuana business.  

It lets marijuana companies be treated as legal businesses under the state tax code, starting in the 2022 tax year. Currently, because marijuana is federally illegal, marijuana businesses are taxed at a higher rate than other businesses and cannot deduct business expenses.  

Sieh Samura, owner and CEO of Yamba Market in Cambridge and a vocal advocate for minority entrepreneurs, said the effective tax rate for legal marijuana businesses can be close to 75 percent. “It makes the barrier to entry higher and presents a lot of obstacles for entrepreneurs, especially for those with less resources,” he said. 

Samura said the new law will have a huge impact by making taxes fairer, providing oversight to what is now a cutthroat competition for host community agreements, and giving additional money to help minority entrepreneurs enter the business. “We’ve got to see the money start flowing, and the earlier it starts flowing, the earlier we’ll see an effect in the bigger market on how many equity businesses there are, how much diversity there is,” Samura said. 

Baker vetoed one section, which would have established a commission to explore whether pediatric medical marijuana patients can be given medical marijuana in school. Baker said the language was too “prescriptive,” requiring the study to come up with ways to make marijuana available in schools rather than determining if it should be allowed. The marijuana legalization ballot questions and initial legislation, Baker said, both made clear that marijuana must be kept away from school grounds. 

The post Baker signs bill bringing equity to cannabis industry  appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.