Regarding the Recommendation by the LCB
Regarding Recommendation #3 – Regulations regarding health care professionals …
Bullet point 3 - Keep “solely” for healthcare professionals and require training for those wishing to be “primarily.” Professionals with cannabinoid experience should be allowed to specialize.
Bullet point 7 – The ability to add conditions through due process should be kept. A process should exist to examine science as it becomes available in a regulated and appropriate manner.
Regarding Recommendation #4 – Collective Gardens
Collective Gardens should, in the near term, be allowed to survive issue. Patient access is unlikely to be provided for in the 502 system, at least at first. In our opinion, cannabis production under 502 will take more than a year to even begin to satisfy the needs of the legal market. Collective gardens have served the needs of the medical patient since before they were codified.
Implement the 502 system and see how it works. If we end up with a system that looks likely to serve patient with appropriate products, a reliable supply and prices to the patient that are reasonable for medicine, we can begin a conversation about transitioning to a 502 model.
Regarding Recommendation #5 – Possession amounts
Bullet point 1 – Possession amounts should be kept as they are currently. Patients need to hold larger amounts especially collectively. As supply actually materializes (that is reliable) and serves the needs of patients with reasonable prices we can revisit this issue.
Bullet point 3 – Patients should have the ability to grow a reasonable supply. If a 502 system emerges with reliable supply, appropriate medicine and reasonable prices emerge then we can revisit the issue.
Bullet point 4 – The ability for qualified patients to act as a compassionate caregiver to another patient should be kept. Not all patients possess the ability to grow for themselves and it is not appropriate at this time to tell patients that they will be served by a model that does not exist.
Bullet point 5 – Please provide specificity on cannabinoids to be tested. We suggest THC, THCA and CBD
Bullet point 7 – Affirmative defense should be kept.
Regarding Recommendation #6 – Location requirements
Bullet points 3-8 – The USC (United States Code) sentencing guidelines that are the federal litmus test for the 1000’ rule are defined in Title 21 VSC section 860. Section 860 refers to, of he locational buffer that are listed, only “a public or private elementary, vocational or secondary school or college, junior college or university or playground” in subchapter I part D 860 (a). Subsection (e)(I) defines “the term playground [as] mean[ing] any outdoor facility (including any parking lot appurtenant thereto) intended for recreation, open to the public, and with any portion thereof containing three of more separate apparatus intended for the recreation of children including, but not limited to, sliding boards, swing sets, and teeterboards.” It sets the relational distance as “100 feet of a public or private youth center, public swimming pool, or video arcade facility…” “Recreational center or facility” is defined therefore as “public swimming pool or video arcade facility” and these have a 100’ buffer. “Child care center[s]” are defined as “public or private youth center” and again have a 100’ relation. “Public parks without a playground as defined in Title 21, subchapter 1, part D 860(e) are defined as parks with a “public or private youth center” or “public swimming pool.” Again, these have a 100’ buffer. Public transit centers and libraries are not mentioned in Title 21 and have no distance buffer. “Game arcade[s]” are defined as “video arcade facilities” and have a 100’ exclusionary zone. The definition in Title 21 of a youth center is defined in subsection (e)(2) is that the term “youth center means any recreational facility and/or gymnasium (including any parking lot appurtenant thereto) intended primarily for use by persons under 18 years of age, which regularly provides athletic, civic or cultural activities.”
Regarding Recommendation #7 – Requirements for medical marijuana producing,
processing and retail licensing
There should be a goal to enact legislation in the 2015 legislative cycle that will address merging the systems.
Significant hurdles to implementation of 502 include:
Lack of Supply – Facilities that are compliant and ready to produce supply can easily be counted on one hand, of these their scale is not large. While facilities may come on line in the future, significant hindrances are in the way of this production.
Many localities have enacted moratoria excluding the commercial production of cannabis.
In the localities that have not enacted moratoria, very few have given insight as to the actions they plan to take.
Fewer than 10 localities provide current zoning that allows for the commercial production of cannabis.
Lack of Infrastructure – A lack of zoning clarity is preventing organizations from attempting to enter the market at this time.
Of localities that provide zoning for the production of cannabis, only Seattle has produced a building permit with an approved change in use for a production facility.
Of the organizations that are lucky enough to obtain a property that will allow it to produce cannabis, time will elapse for them to design, permit, build out, obtain occupancy and to actually grow cannabis. It is believed that little supply will come on-line within 12 months after licenses are issued.
Landlords are nervous about the legality of entering into a lease agreement with organizations wishing to secure a license under 502. It is very difficult for those desiring to do so to even get a suitable property to become a producer.
Banking services are unavailable to organizations pursuing a license under 502. This significantly hinders those that are trying to get into the industry from even putting money down on a property if they could even find one.
The high price of available cannabis will likely be prohibitively expensive.
Scarce supply and high demand on the available cannabis supply is likely to drive up the wholesale price and coupled with an unrealistically aggressive 25% on 25% on 25% on 10% tax is going to price cannabis in a manner that it is not going to be able to compete with the existing black market.
Even once the supply starts to equalize, the taxation scheme may be so aggressive that it keeps cannabis unaffordable to patients of limited income.
It is not reasonable to force patients, who are served in a working though imperfect model, into a system that does not exist and that faces so many challenges at its inception. Changes should be made to regulate and license medical cannabis in the 2014 legislative session. The recreational system should be evaluated as to its potential efficacy to serve those with a medical need that are currently served by RCW 69.51a. Medical access to cannabis was enacted by a vote of the people in 1998. This should be respected as an untried, tenuously organized system is enacted. We strongly recommend that the subject be revisited in the 2015 legislative cycle.
Regarding Recommendation #8 – Taxation of medical marijuana in relation to recreational marijuana
The current retail tax for medical cannabis should be kept. If some level of excise taxes are needed to keep the regulatory system revenue neutral that is understandable given our current economic situation. Small non-commercial patient grows should be kept tax-free. Let’s review our experiences of what materializes as the 502 system is implemented and act appropriately in the 2015 legislature.
No comments:
Post a Comment