2023-06-06 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy
2023-06-06 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - find my friend once --
SPEAKER2 - Mhmm.
SPEAKER1 - --
SPEAKER3 - because when I first got back there, I just no. Actually, we explained famous at
SPEAKER1 - 8.
SPEAKER4 - So we'll Brand Ellis Smith first, and then we'll go I'll dance.
SPEAKER3 - So that was, like, all
SPEAKER5 - put them on, like, you can see
SPEAKER3 - where she put it.
SPEAKER4 - We're
SPEAKER5 - gonna try that sliding it, which is?
SPEAKER1 - It's been about yeah.
SPEAKER3 - Give her a text. Right.
SPEAKER5 - Good afternoon, everybody.
Like to call the hearing to order to order of the joint committee on cannabis policy. I'm Dan Duneyou. I'm a house co chair of the committee. I'm joined virtually by the senate co chair, Senator Adam Gomez. He's 1 of the labview senator, and we we wish you the back in best in your recovery. We are bringing a Florida committee hearing today on bills related to medical research in laboratories. So we ask all testifiers to limit their testimony to the bills that are on the docket. Before we get started, I'd just like to introduce all the members702 of the committee that have joined us here today.
And we got a little little so we have quite a few house members. everyone for being here today. So first on my left, we have representative Gary from Drakeett. Drakeett.
SPEAKER3 - Thank
SPEAKER5 - you. Representative, Shannon from Salisbury. Newburyport. Newburyport. I know you're 1 of them. So you guys all agree in the district, though. We have on my right side representative Saunders from Beltertown. and representative Capano from the city of Lynn. And on my left media left, I have the vice chair of the committee on the house side, representative Consalvo from Boston. As far, we have Senator Gomez on anyone virtually on there that we're missing, I think. Maybe joined by a couple members virtually. But oh, a rep cruise from Salem is on there as well. So introduce members as they come and go. Building's752 pretty busy with hearings today, so I'm sure754 members will be popping in and out as756 they as the the hearing goes on.758 Just before we proceed, just a couple of house keeping items. So we are this is a hybrid hearing as you can see with the the screens on. We have people be joining us virtually as well as in person yourselves. We just like to remind everyone to keep their cell phones on silent, muted, keep conversations limited. Please feel free to leave. The hearing rooms have any conversations on the side so we can hear everybody. I'd like to remind everyone to keep their testimony to 3 minutes, both virtually and in person. so that we have time for questions and to hear from everybody as we go through it. That said, we do wanna remind everybody that we do accept written testimony throughout the session and after the hearing. So please even if you are testifying in person or orally, please submit written testimony myself and the staff and all the committee members always take the opportunity to review all written testimony that comes before us. You can email it directly to the807 co chairs, and we'll make sure it's disseminated to all the committee members.
So for the hybrid hearing, we're gonna generally take in person or a testimony first And then unless someone's asked for an accommodation to be heard virtually. And then after that, we'll go to people who are testifying virtually And we'll also take legislators who might be testifying of their bills out of turn just to accommodate their schedules as people are running around the building today. If you haven't signed in, some have signed in virtually. But if you haven't signed in in person, the staff, I think Doug here has a sign842 in sheet. So just please sign in on that so we can kinda work our way through the order, and we'll call you. Please come up to the front. If you have signed up as a panel, I think there was a panel too. We just wanna remind everybody to come up altogether, and then each individual member of the panel still is limited to 3 minutes. On the virtual side, for everyone who is testifying virtually, just a couple of quick reminders, just mute your phone or your your computer if you have well, before you testify, and unmute yourself and turn on your video when it is your time to testify. If you're not comfortable turning your video on, that's fine. But please just make sure your name appears on the team's account so our staff can just monitor who's signed in and who's ready to testify. The staff will be monitoring the chat function as well. So if you have any questions, please. You can direct it through the chat function. And on the chat function, we'll be updating periodically just to give everybody a heads up on who's next who the next couple's testifiers will be. just in case you can be902 closed by the computer when we do call you. We will for those who are on screen. If you wanna look at Mariah, is your screen available? Mariah will be doing the timekeeping. So just when you have 1 minute left, know, see a timer come up. And then when your 3 minutes have expired, you'll see that come up.
SPEAKER4 - So if you do
SPEAKER5 - see that, please just kinda make sure you're you're limiting your testimony to those 3 And, again, reminder, we'd love to have as much written testimony sent as well. And the committee members, you
SPEAKER4 - know, just hold off on our
SPEAKER5 - questioning until after the the the testifiers have finished. And with
SPEAKER4 - the panels, we'll probably take all the
SPEAKER5 - panel members in 1 go, and then we'll take questions after that. So I think that is where we are. I think, Sarah Gomez, do you have anything to add, or you kinda wanna jump949 right on in?
SPEAKER6 - No. Thank you, chairman down at UI. I really appreciate the the kind words and all the support from all across the the Commonwealth. My big salutations to everyone that's there and also to all of the house members. Just wanna give a shout out to my committee members on the senate side, my cochair, senator Robert Kennedy, and also the other members, Senator James Eldridge, Senator Susan Moran, Senator Pavel Pallano and also a senator Ryan Fatman. Today, we will be hearing testimony regarding medical research and labs legislation. I would like to remind everyone again that there's a 3 minute time limit, which I know the chairman is is going to be gabbling today. So look forward to all the testimony. And happy even though even though it's virtually happy to be bet. Thank you.
SPEAKER7 - Excellent. Great to have you back
SPEAKER5 - as well.1005 So perfect. So I think with that, we'll jump into the first 1st, testify we have signed up, and that's actually virtually for Grant Ellis. So Grant Ellis, if you available, we'll take you virtually first for 3 minutes.1021
SPEAKER8 - Thank you, Mister Chair.
SPEAKER5 - Oh, are you muted? I think you just muted yourself. We heard you at first. Go on. Just
Is he mute yourself?
SPEAKER8 - I think I should be unmuted now. I appreciate
SPEAKER1 - --
SPEAKER8 - There you are.
GRANT SMITH-ELLIS - MASSCANN - HB 105 - HB 117 - HB 120 - I appreciate the accommodations with the disabled access. I know the Legislature has prioritized it. I'm grateful to the committee. My name's Grant Smith-Ellis. I'm a disabled medical cannabis patient. I'm here to talk to you about three bills today, H 105, H 117, and then the withdrawn H 120, which I just wanna talk about even though it's withdrawn. In the con, I wear a lot of hats but I prefer to think of myself as just some guy. In regards to H 105, this has to do with making research data related to the state's cannabis testing labs more transparent. This is important because right now, of the 11 to 13 testing labs that are operational, there are concerns that have been raised publicly by commissioners on the CCC that there's manipulation occurring in the testing of both contaminants and THC results in the context of those labs. And as a result, it is an imperative that the Legislature takes steps to 1, help the CCC create a state run standards lab to supplement ISO accreditation for those labs. But also take steps to open up access to this data because the corrupt labs will push back against it, the labs who are doing the right thing will want this done, and then you'll be able to weed out the bad actors.
Regarding H 117, this isn't a bad bill. It's well intentioned, but it's fundamentally flawed. If we look at a section of the bill, I have the PDF right here. Its line 65 through 68, specifically on line 65, the commission may promulgate rules and regulations related to encouraging equity in1148 the licensing and medical cannabis operations in the Commonwealth if the verticalization happens of those licenses. There has never, dating back to 2012, been an equity program for ownership of medical licenses in this state of any kind whatsoever. That is a burden which the people who wrote that law, the advocates, and the activists have to bear. This equity mandate is not the same as exists for the adult use sphere or on local cities and towns. It says the commission may in this bill, Mister Chair, H 117, may promulgate not shall. This isn't an equity mandate. This is an equity option because this bill is not meant to benefit small local operators. It's meant to facilitate expedited consolidation of the medical market under the auspices of assisting smaller operators to allow them those centralized medical operators to own more licenses than they do now.
And let's be clear, we have no demographic data for ownership of medical licenses, and I bet it would show the industry medical licenses are a 100% white owned. Ask the advocates who work for those dispensaries today, Mister Chair, why don't we have demographic data for ownership of medical licenses because their clients are all white. Mister Chair, regarding bill H 120, I'll quickly explain it. It was withdrawn because the actual bill to allow veterans access to medical cards without having to pay a for profit medical card verification provider is H 119. I hope we'll have a hearing on that soon. Thank you for the time. I appreciate the accommodation. Best of luck to the committee. Happy to answer any questions. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER5 - Perfect. Thank you very1239 much, Mister Ellis. And, yeah, we will be having, you know, additional hearings as our first hearing. So those other bills will be heard in the coming weeks. Was there any questions from the committee?
SPEAKER7 - Seeing done. Thank you very much
SPEAKER5 - for your for your time. Appreciate that and please follow-up with any other testimony they might have as well.
Alright, excellent. So now we'll move to those in person testifying.1262 So first up, This is the panel there. So first up, we have Dan Delaney.
DAN DELANEY - ACTL - HB 105 - SB 62 - Good afternoon Chairman Donahue, Chairman Gomez, members of the Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy. Thanks for the opportunity to provide testimony today. I will also be submitting written testimony, but I just wanna hit up a few highlights before you today. My name is Dan Delaney. I'm the Executive1299 Director of the Association of Cannabis Testing Laboratories. ACTL was formed in late 2022 as a trade association to promote consumer safety, testing integrity, and regulatory responsiveness. I'm here to testify in support of H 105 Senate 62, an act relative to data transparency in the cannabis industry. Lab shopping and lab fraud undermine the very purpose of the regulated market. Namely that adult use and medical cannabis consumers1325 can get a safe tested product and know what they're consuming. All too often,1329 the products they're purchasing are not accurately labeled for either potency or contaminants. This mislabeling poses a problem to both public health and consumer protection.
Microbial contamination poses a real health risk for the immunocompromised and other medical patients. Inconsistent or inaccurate potency levels put consumers at risk for accidental over consumption. Since pricing typically follows potency levels, consumers are always getting what they pay for. I've heard from lab after lab stating that they've been approached by current potential clients who demand certain potency levels or pass rates for their business. Labs are left in the untenable position of either choosing between maintaining their client list or maintaining their scientific integrity. I brought this issue to the CCC a year ago this week. I reached out to commission staff pointing out the problems suggesting 2 viable solutions. One was to use the existing CCC secret shopper program for off the shelf testing. And the other was to make testing data available to the public so that patterns of unlikely or impossible testing results could be identified and addressed.
I was told they were glad I brought up the issue. They did mention to me that they noticed that I had pursued legislative remedies before consulting with them and they had feelings about that. But I'm glad that I did come to Legislature years past. And despite numerous conversations with CCC staff and Commissioners, there hasn't been any regulatory or policy change dealing with issue of lab shopping or fraudulent labeling. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a single public instance of the CCC identifying mislabeled product on shelves via their secret shopper program. Now at least we can participate in a public process highlighting the problem and offering viable solutions. House 105 Senate 62 takes an important step towards addressing the problem of1437 lab shopping. Requires the CCC to collect, compile, and make publicly available data on lab testing as it relates to contaminants and potency.
This data transparency will give the public as well as policymakers information to hold both the industry and regulators accountable. Concerned citizens, academics, and policymakers can examine the data and ask relevant questions. It has to be done thoughtfully to avoid unattended consequences but it's a critical first step, bringing us closer to the safe, well regulated industry that voters demanded. The Association of Cannabis Testing Lab was created because individual labs were unable to make themselves heard. I appreciate you hearing our concerns today and I hope you report this bill out favorably. Thank you again, available for any questions. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER4 - Perfect. Thank you so much. Definitely. Any questions from the committee?
Fantastic. We appreciate that. Thank you. Alright.
SPEAKER5 - Next the community here from Michael Khan.
SPEAKER4 - Hello?
How are you?
MICHAEL KAHN - MCR LABS - HB 105 - SB 62 - Thank you Chairman Donahue and Chairman Gomez, and the members of the Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy for having me today. My name is Michael Kahn. I am here on behalf of MCR Labs, an independent testing laboratory that tests for potency and contaminants in Cannabis products. We founded MCR Labs in Massachusetts in 2013 and have since gained experience from operating laboratories in other states. In 2021, in Pennsylvania, a large cultivator sent us a 113 samples for testing. We tested the samples and returned results with lightning speed. We only found mold in 6 of the samples, an excellent pass rate. Then later we were informed that the cultivator chose another lab for future services because that other lab did not find any contaminants in any of the 113 samples. The writing was on the wall. The market did not want accurate testing. There was no incentive for honesty or accuracy and pass rates dictated the entire testing markets. We had to lay off all of our staff and close. I don't believe that currently honest and accurate laboratories can operate in the Pennsylvania cannabis market space.
We have had many such experiences in Massachusetts. The selection of labs based on the results that producers want is called lab shopping and is widespread here. The financial incentives are strong and there are no real discernible incentives for honesty or accuracy. As the commissioners have mentioned and especially Commissioner Roy last summer, manipulated testing is a threat to public health, to consumer protection, and market fairness. As seen in other states, by far the most effective solution to dishonesty is transparency. I want to thank Chair Donahue and Senator Velis for addressing this critical by providing the first incentive I have seen for honesty through transparency in cannabis testing in Massachusetts. I strongly support Bills H 105 and S 62. I'm submitting written testimony with additional details suggestions on how to improve the bill and examples. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
So thank you so much, Jenny. Questions from the committee members? virtually.
SPEAKER5 - Well, thank you very much. We look forward to your additional written testimony. Thank you.
SPEAKER11 - Next up we have Bob Miller.
SPEAKER5 - Thank you. You're good. We're all cheers. Yep.
BOB MILLER - ACT LABORATORIES - HB 105 - SB 62 - Thank you Chairman Donahue and the committee. My name is Bob Miller. I'm the chief scientific officer for ACT Laboratories. A little bit about my background, over 35 years in the pharmaceutical industry. I have a PhD in pharmaceutical chemistry. And prior to joining the cannabis space was heads of quality at Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer and Gilead. I joined ACT Laboratories about 4 years ago. ACT, for those who don't know, ACT Laboratories operates today in 5 states, soon to be 7 in the next coming months, and then by the end of the year, an 8th state. So the states in which we actively do businesses, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New York, and we're just completing our acquisition in Massachusetts, and we just got approval in Florida which we'll be in that business in the next month.
So from my perspective where I sit, I work with regulators based on my background and just about every state that we do business in, the regulators are looking at strengthening, modifying regulations, and I'm very much actively involved. Talking about this bill, this bill I think, may a lot of sense from a data integrity side. You've heard already about laboratory shopping, falsification. That's our business, that's where we exist today. The idea of making the data available at the state level makes perfect sense to me. You need an informed consumer, and that information should be very, very helpful. What I do ask the the committee to consider those, this may have an unintended consequences, and I'll give you an actual example of where this happened.
Reporting the data as it relates to potency levels or failures of contamination t the laboratory level, actually, can cause some problems. And I'll give you an example. I was actively involved in a major lawsuit in1803 Michigan where there was falsification going1805 on both in the 2 things we're talking about, potency and micro. What was very interesting is the grower process was actually gravitated to that laboratory in that they saw an opportunity because the financial opportunities to say, I wanna go to a laboratory that gives me higher potency. I wanna go to a laboratory that will fail the lesser extent. So,1823 therefore, it actually, if not careful, will actually have unintended consequences if we're gonna report it at the laboratory level. So I very much would discourage such an approach.
It also encourages other laboratories to see where their goal is, right, at the end of the day. If I know that my laboratory is 3 or 4 percent lower in potency, I'm gonna go back and say, how do I get 3 or 4 percent more potency, whether it's scientifically valid data or not, gonna go there because that's where the marketplace is going. What can be done? Again, you know, the states we're in, companies have labs, states have addressed this very different ways. What I would encourage, the CCC has the data. The data is available, the data trending. Looking at the data data analytics will tell where the potential bad actors are. You can look at the data and it'll tell you that. That should be grounds then for additional investigation of those specific laboratories. That doesn't necessarily mean they're guilty, though, at the same time because it all depends on what samples they're testing and whether you get high or low micro.
Because you have a lower micro rate doesn't mean that you have a bad laboratory. It could be that you just have ultra pure product. It just happens to be the customers you're dealing with. So what we encourage is a combination of a few things, data trending which is already available today, looking at the secret shopper works very, very well. States like Michigan have used it very successfully. We encourage that. And then bringing technical confidence to the CCC as well as an independent1905 laboratory. Those things together1907 will bring a much better ultimate outcome to ensure the patients, what's on the labels in the bottle and really to ensure overall reliability at the consumer level. So thanks for the opportunity to present and can answer any questions1923 anyone has. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER7 - Excellent. Thank you very much. Any questions from community members?
SPEAKER4 - No. Seeing that.
SPEAKER7 - I appreciate your testimony. Thank you very much.
SPEAKER11 - Next up to testify. We have Jeremiah McKinnon.
SPEAKER4 - How you doing? Good.
JEREMIAH MACKINNON - MPAA - HB 117 - Good afternoon. Members of the joint committee, Chair Donahue, Senator Gomez, Chair Gomez. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Jeremiah MacKinnon. I'm the president of the Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance, and I represent the coalition that helped pass medical marijuana ballot in 2012 that legalized medical marijuana. With the help of the Legislature in 2017, Chapter 55 was rewriting the cannabis laws in the state. And since then, we've seen a 60% increase in the number of medical marijuana patients since adult use started. And that was because the Legislature worked with our organization to pass improvements to the patient registration process which is now known as instant access. So a patient can go to the doctor and get a temporary, kind of like a temporary driver's license. Prior to that, they had to wait for the commission to approve their card. So that reduced the barrier of waiting for access. So this, I'm here today to support H 117 because it would expand access to marijuana by eliminating the vertical integration requirement in medical marijuana licensing.
If any of you ever wanted to open up a medical marijuana dispensary, the current rules today require that you have to actually grow your own cannabis and manufacture those products in addition to retailing it. And so that has driven out small businesses and prevented patients from getting access in certain areas of the state. This has actually been an issue that's been on the commission's plate since November of 2018. And I know2042 Dan Delaney just mentioned his lab issue. They were a little upset about bringing it to the legislature before them. Our organization has brought this topic to them for several years now and, unfortunately, it's just not something that they are taking up at this time. And the Boston Globe, though, in February did support eliminating vertical integration by saying it limits competition in small businesses.
This means less access for patients. WBUR called it an arcane role that mandates medical marijuana shops grow their own cannabis. So the real issue here is that there is a number of businesses that exist today in the adult use space that were able to become operational because there's no vertical integration requirement. If that were the case for adult use, they would never be in operation. So we want to see patient access be expanded. Let businesses that want to add medical do it. You know, the state of Massachusetts should not be standing in the way of, say, an adult use retailer wants to add a medical register to their store. Because there are patients going to those adult use dispensaries and unfortunately having to pay tax for their medication because there is not a medical dispensary within a reasonable distance of their neighborhood.
And this is true in Provincetown, these patients have to drive an hour to the nearest medical marijuana dispensary. And I guess I'll just close by saying that the vertical integration requirement is the opposite2132 of a equitable policy.2134 It's contradictory to equity. So for us to say that we are advancing equity in the cannabis industry but only for adult use is very unfair, and it limits those businesses kind of pigeonholes them to be adult use businesses where they could expand and could actually succeed in this industry by being able to serve their community. So I do have additional testimony that I'll submit in writing but thank you so much for hearing me today. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER4 - Excellent. Thank you very much. Any questions from the committee? No.
REP DONAHUE - I just have one quick question here. You know, the geographic access for patient access, is there, would you say de-vertical integration as far as, you said, just geographic access? Does de-verticalization help with access to different products or as well?
MACKINNON - Sure. So there are 4 adult use dispensaries in Provincetown, there are a couple in Wellfleet. So the patient in Provincetown driving that hour to the medical dispensary will pass maybe 7 adult use dispensaries that can't serve them. You have to pay tax there. So obviously, if we got rid of vertical integration, it would help those businesses expand. But at the same time, entrepreneurs that may be looking to get into the cannabis industry but haven't done so yet may see this as a pathway because medical can't be banned, so adult use can. So this is an opportunity for2216 medical to actually be in communities where there's no access to cannabis and won't be access to recreational marijuana. And to the product side of it, adult use manufacturers are limited to 5 milligram servings, a 100 milligrams per package. But if they were able to add a medical manufacturing component to their business, they could create, you know, a small product with a large dose for those patients that don't wanna eat 5 to2243 10 servings to get the relief they need.
So there are, you know, drink companies that, you know, 5 milligrams and a drink. To me, I'm a patient as well. That's not enough. to, you know, get the relief for my chronic pain. So to be able to make those higher dose drinks, to be able to kind of focus on creating products for patients and cultivators as well may not find the benefit currently in creating specialized strains that would work for patients. But if we allow small cultivators to create those products, they could wholesale them to the dispensaries and create a more diverse you know, array of products that are available for patients. And, you know, there are patients that are going to the adult use dispensaries and wish that they could add medical. And I'll just close by saying that I actually visited almost 2 dozen adult use dispensaries in the Greater Boston area in the week or 2 to try to raise awareness about this bill. And many of the workers are patients and wish that their store would add medical. And so, you know, they recognize that the patients are coming and they need access. So I would implore the committee to pass this out favorably. This is the 3rd time it's been introduced, and I do believe the joint committee has passed it favorably in the past. So thank you for your support and thank you for your question. I hope it was helpful. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Yeah.
SPEAKER7 - Very helpful. We appreciate your testimony. Thank you2323 so much. Thank you.
SPEAKER5 - Next up, we have Frank Shaw.
SPEAKER14 - Sorry. I'm a little slow.
SPEAKER5 - No. There's no rush. Thank you for being here today
FRANK SHAW - MA CANNABIS ADVISORY BOARD - HB 117 - Thank you members of the joint committee on Cannabis policy for allowing me to speak today. My name is Frank Shaw. I am a medical marijuana patient, and in 1998 I was diagnosed with HIV and AIDS. Since March of 2021, I have had the honor to serve as a registered qualified patient adviser on the Massachusetts Cannabis Advisory Board. My role has allowed me to become more familiar with both the complexity and the future potential of our State's medical marijuana program. Today, I'm here to express my full support for H 117. Since 2013, the rules have required medical dispensaries to grow their own plants. This is known as Vertical Integration. It's an outdated relic from the DPH era. It prevents the ability for medical programs to expand to its full potential. H 117 would eliminate the vertical integration requirement and give the businesses a chance to participate in at least one but perhaps several supply chain activities. Allowing businesses to do what they do best will allow for experts to focus and specialize on their skill sets. Removing the vertical integration requirement will let small cultivators grow specialized streams. Independent manufacturers create high dose edibles and retail is dedicated to special needs of patients.
Throughout the years as an advocate, I have spoken to many patients and entrepreneurs who support removing the vertical integration requirement.2471 H 117 represents a big step in the right direction to bring access to medical cannabis in underserved areas like the Berkshires and Cape Cod. Patients in these areas have limited access to medical cannabis, and as a result, they are often forced to rely on nearby adult use dispensaries where taxes are applied. There are many adult use retailers in operation today that would like to add medical cannabis to their dispensary. Unfortunately, until H 117 becomes2511 law, they are unofficially prevented from doing so. Why is the Massachusetts standing in the way of businesses that want to expand access to benefits of the medical marijuana program? The time has come to dismantle the barriers and end the vertical integration requirement and support a future where medical cannabis is accessible to patients in need across the Commonwealth. Please pass H 117 out of committee favorably. Thank you for your time and indulgence. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER4 - Thank you so much. Appreciate the testimony. Any any question questions from the committee?
SPEAKER7 - Mhmm. Seeing that. We appreciate your testimony.
SPEAKER5 - Thank you for being here today.
Next up, we have2560 Ellen Casper.
Hi. Good afternoon. How are you?
SPEAKER15 - Looking for giving me the opportunity to speak. Sorry, I'm gonna have to read from my phone.
SPEAKER5 - No problem.
ELLEN CASPER - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 117 - HB 105 - SB 62 - I'm a recently retired RN and veteran and became interested in the medical benefits of cannabis for use with a variety of physical and mental health challenges. Since 2011, I've been learning, advocating, and educating about cannabis. I've also been a patient who came to cannabis later in life and have assisted to start up and do outreach for small locally owned and run medical marijuana dispensary that opened in 2017. I feel these experiences give me a unique perspective as we were among the early medical dispensaries that helped to safely and compliantly usher cannabis into Massachusetts, and I've witnessed many changes in the industry since. We opened with a passion2630 for helping patients obtain access to quality cannabis products, and fully intend to continue serving patients, but the present climate in the industry makes it almost impossible for small locally owned and operated business to survive.
Bill H117 that seeks to eliminate the vertical integration requirement for medical dispensaries proposes to provide more access to patients, allow for more equity and small business involvement, and specifically2656 to a allow adult use dispensaries to easily add medical sales to their operations. I do support equity in the cannabis industry but I can't support this bill as it is without some concessions and assistance and support being given to the medical dispensaries who are required to invest millions of dollars to vertically integrate. I think there are other more equitable ways to support equity and increase patient access. Efforts should be made to provide relief to struggling small medical dispensaries that are currently operating and still working off those huge debts before allowing easier entry to medical sales in an already flooded market. The industry has changed dramatically and cannot support more licenses at this time. And for a small local company, medical alone is unsustainable unless there are changes made.
The idea2708 for vertical integration was that it would control products and provide patients and dispensary staff assurance of known quality products. We sell almost exclusively our own products and can speak to and educate about them. My comfort in starting cannabis came from my knowledge and confidence in where the products came from. How does this work with adult use now, and how will it work when an adult use dispensary adds a medical license2729 and purchases all its products elsewhere?2731 If vertical integration is eliminated, there needs to be provisions that enable existing small medical dispensaries to sustain, grow, and increase patient access, suggestions would be reimburse, decrease fees. Right2745 now, we pay $50,000 a year for the vertical integration. We have a retail only just selling our products in another location, we spent $50,000, adult use retail only, $10,000.
The automatic ability to add adult use that would help us out. Credit registration fees back. Allow one driver for delivery, which would greatly assist us in opening up our area for delivery and that would increase access for patients. Reciprocity for medical patients with other states, provide anonymity to patients because some of them not just access, it's they're uncomfortable having their names in a database, ensuring compliance with the use sales promotions, loyalty programs intended to benefit patients going to use medical dispensaries and not for use in recreational dispensaries, which is going on now. And the thought of license caps for areas already saturated. I also wanted to comment on bills 105, H 105 and S 62, dealing with the data transparency around lab testing. I wholeheartedly support these bills and all efforts to prevent the lab result shopping, THC inflation, inaccuracies, and fraud that has made it difficult for compliant honest business to compete in the industry. Thank you very much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER4 - Thank you so much
SPEAKER5 - for your testimony. Is there any questions from the committee?
Nope. Seeing that. We appreciate you You you are testifying. Thank you.
Oh, but I just see is that representatives.
Representative, Susan from Framingham has2843 also joined us virtually. Thank you for being here. Next up for testifying. We have doctor Denise Valenti.
DENISE VALENTI - IMMAD - HB 117 - HB 110 - Hello. Thank you for the opportunity. I am Doctor Denise Valenti. I have decades of experience in research specific to sensory impairment, cognition, and with a special emphasis on driving. But I wanna clarify a little bit, I grew up in Oregon. Marijuana was decriminalized in 1972, it was actually2880 part of my culture. Those of us that advocate very strongly for2884 public safety frequently are accused of being anti marijuana, pearl clatcher, buying into reefer madness. In my case that is not true. My company, Impairment Measurement Marijuana And Driving, researches impairment to drive with marijuana, and we are funded by the National Institute of Justice. However, based on the community I grew up, the communities I've lived in, I am also in cohort 2 of Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission certified social equity. I am the only social equity candidate in application for a research license. So with that background, I want to talk a little bit about2924 2 separate bills.
One, I did a decade of research in Alzheimer's Part of that was pharmaceutical studies. I am strongly convinced AL admittedly, there needs to be more research that cannabis can be an effective treatment for neurodegenerative disease processes that include Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Those are both diseases I've worked with. There's another disease retinitis pigmentosa that is being showed to have some extreme blindness. Cannabis has been shown to increase some peripheral awareness not improve driving, let's make that clear. However, in that case, the research being done in Israel shows there is very, very narrow type of product in plant, which begs for in Massachusetts to make narrow products available for specific diseases. That cannot happen with the vertical integration. Further as the cannabis community has evolved with, where's the timer? Oh, 1 minute. Okay. Has evolved with more recreational, many of the community or the dispensaries have changed hands and offer products that at first were medicinal and now are no longer even though they're medicinal.
So we've seen the availability of medicinal products shrink. So I do think the only way to solve that is to have more independent ways to bring products to market, to provide medicine for patients, and that is eliminating the3016 vertical integration. My second concern though is 110 which requires informed consent in loosely defined medical facilities and loosely defined blood or products3031 taken by medical providers to require informed consent. I do not oppose that in general, but because the way the bill is written,3039 it leaves it open to disallow police officers and forensics retrieval of saliva and breath, and other nonblood products to be eliminated and require an informed consent. So I think in addition to the way it's set up now, it has to clearly clarify that this does not apply to forensic collection of body fluids. Right now, you cannot if they a person refuses draw blood, that makes sense. It's invasive. However, an officer's tools that are not invasive include saliva breath and other bio fluids. That bill needs to be revised so there's no risk at all of eliminating forensics retrieval of fluids. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER5 - Thank you. Are there any questions from the committee?
Sorry. Oh, no way. Oh, they'll make you run back, but no. We'll see any questions, but thank you. Yeah. We appreciate you sharing any written testimony particularly around the forensic stuff would be wonderful. So I did notice that we're joined by a representative of birth, Hugh. from Spencer. Good to see you.
SPEAKER11 - Thank you for being here. Moving along, we have next up, Patricia Caffino.
SPEAKER13 - I said that right. it.
PATRICIA SEFRINO - CONCERNED CITIZEN - SB 61 - Thank you Chairs. I am here to testify in support of S 61, the medical marijuana oversight. My name is Patricia Sefrino and I am the mother of a son who struggles with addiction. My son is 21 years old and has been to 17 plus rehabs in the past 3 years. He's been hospitalized, he's been Section 12 by the police, Section 35 by me and my family, arrested, beaten up, etcetera. My son continues to be granted a medical marijuana card by the Cannabis Commission. When he was 16, my son overdosed and tried to commit suicide a number of times and he was brought to Children's Hospital. Because he was under 18, there is no place for these kids. So3182 I had to send him to Maine to a behavioral ranch that specialized in substance abuse and he spent 16 months there. He was free to go when he turned 18. He was an adult. He came home the next week. He got on the phone, and he called the Cannabis Commission for a card. He was granted one in 5 minutes. I3207 was sitting next to him. I was begging him not to do it. They asked what he suffered from. He said, anxiety, and he paid $200 from his confirmation money, and he has had this card for the past 3 years.
Over the past 3 years, and 17 plus treatment centers, over $500,000 spent out of my personal fund for his college and my insurance. I have begged the Cannabis Commission to revoke his card they have again and again refused to. I have given them doctors notes from Mass General3249 McLean's Children's Hospital, the Massachusetts Corrections Department where he has spent 2 stays and they still say sorry, we have okayed him for a card. He is granted 97.03 grams a month. That's a lot of marijuana. You can roll up to 300 joints with that. He has sold it, he has traded it, he3280 has3280 abused it. He has cannabis use disorder. He has gone into psychotic episodes. I've had to call the police a number of times. It goes on and on. We have had many sleepless nights as our son has been taken away by ambulance due to the cannabis products and his psychosis yet my son is still prescribed medical marijuana.
When we provided the commission with the doctor diagnosis, they have refused to listen to me. I called my state senator Patrick O'Connor, and he listened and that is how I sit before you today. I am grateful to have this time but I will tell you marijuana for my son is a gateway drug. He is now addicted to opioids, fentanyl, and the nightmare continues. For the past 3 years, we've been living front and center in this nightmare, and my son has an inability to find recovery. You see, he's kicked out of multiple recovery3345 residences and treatment centers due to his use of cannabis. You cannot stay in a halfway house if you are smoking marijuana. So he gets kicked out. He goes to treatment, he uses marijuana, he is kicked out.
There's no place for him to go, he cannot complete a treatment program, he can't begin the recovery process, and his substance disorder begins and ends with cannabis. It pains me to say that my son is entirely incapable of living an independent life as an adult, and I feel strongly that much of this is rooted in the cannabis use. Please take this bill into consideration so that my family and countless families after me have the means to break the cycle of our loved ones when they aren't capable of doing it themselves. Yes, my son has out aged. He is now 21 as of February. But I'm doing this now for all the families that come after me. And being 18 does not give you the ability to decide what's good for you,3411 especially when your brain has been on drugs for so many years. So thank you for listening. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER5 - Thank you. Thank you for sharing your testimony. Is there any questions from committee members?
REP GARRY - Chairman thank you and through you to, my sympathies and prayers for you and your son and your family. Just wondering, is that disorder actually in the registry any idea of how many people in Massachusetts have been diagnosed with that?
SEFRINO - So cannabis use disorder is in the DSM5. And in 2021,3447 that's the last I heard, children 12 and over 5.8% of them were diagnosed with cannabis use disorder. It was 16.3 million children. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. You're welcome.
SPEAKER4 - Thanks. Any other questions?
SPEAKER3 - We'll see
SPEAKER5 - you again. Thank you very much
SPEAKER7 - for sharing your your testimony. We appreciate that. Thank you.
SPEAKER5 - Next up to Testify, we have Lucas Thayer.
LUCAS THAYER - APPLE GUY FLOWERS LLC - HB 110 - HB 116 - HB 117 - SB 61 - Good afternoon. committee members. Thank you for having us. I hope we have more legislative sessions where you all listen to the public more often. Thank you. My name is Lucas There. I3497 have a provisional license with3499 the Cannabis Control Commission. My company is called Apple Guy Flowers LLC currently in the engineering process located in Uxbridge. The3509 acts related to transparency have already been discussed, but I just wanna briefly say that the cost of testing is unnecessarily high, and I would3517 like to see some of the cannabis taxes go towards subsidizing these testing labs that are doing wonderful scientific work protecting the safety and health of the public. And maybe that subsidy could cause the cost of testing to go down. Anything that brings the cost of the cannabis down at the storefront is good for the Commonwealth because as is mentioned, the market is saturated. There are too many operators with too much weed, and the people can't smoke it fast enough. But they also don't wanna buy the expensive stuff at the stores. So bring cannabis prices down however you guys can.
Related to the medical professional consultation, that's a joke, right? You guys were joking about that. Hiring a doctor to be on-site at a cannabis dispensary. When was the last time you saw a liquor store with a doctor advising people on the dangers of consuming liquor? Is there a bar3566 that has a doctor paid by the3568 bar to sit there at the bar telling people not to drink too much? No. So we are supposed to regulate cannabis like alcohol. Don't make dispensaries hire a doctor to stand there at the dispensary telling people about cannabis. That's going to bring the cost up, bring the customers away, and ultimately fail as an idea. Informed consent for marijuana testing. I'm in favor of that, H110. H 116, I'm on the fence, I won't even touch on it. H 117, I am in favor and as my colleague Grant mentioned earlier, I'm in favor of that one clause changing from may to shall. Forcing the commission to make for more equitable access to the medical marijuana market. I would like to, as my business, I'm a cultivator. I would like to be able to sell my cultivated cannabis to a medical marketplace without having to run a dispensary. I don't wanna run a dispensary I just wanna cultivate cannabis. When people are good at something, they should do the thing that they're good at, not be forced to do all of the things.
The vertical okay. We already talked about vertical integration. The medical marijuana fees, I guess that one pulled, but anything making cannabis cheaper, I'm in favor of. No fees for the medical marijuana cards, please. The S 61, that was a joke too, right? We were joking about that3647 idea? That's absolutely insane that the commission could pull someone's card that they legitimately obtained. a medical patient that legitimately has these cards, the commission should not be able to confiscate that medical card just because they have been alleged or convicted of sale of cannabis. That's ridiculous. I think that's it, guys.3669 Thanks so much for having us. I do have some apples available. If anyone's interested, please come grab some they're free. Thank you, I appreciate it. That's my business card, by the way. Any3677 questions? SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
If any questions for the committee, I appreciate your testimony, questions. Alright. See you now. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. I'll3684 see you again soon. Thank you. So that's the more interest.
Yeah. So that exhausts3692 the list of those who signed to testify in person. Is there anyone else who would like to testify in person before we move3698 to virtual?
Right. seeing that. If anyone does come in, feel free to see staff to sign up. So working on to the list of those who are signed in to testify virtually, The first we have is Kurt Calker, I believe. Is that correct? Yeah. Kurt Calker. And then just to give everyone heads up online,3719 we have hell after Kurt, we have Helen Gomez Andrews and following her, we have Patricia Cooney. So just to we'll have the staff update in the in the chat just to make sure everyone's aware where we are. So we'll turn it over now to Kurt, and see our floor is yours.
KURT KALCKER - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 117 - Good afternoon. Thank you for your time. My name is Kurt Kalcker. I'm a registered nurse of 30 years of medical experience. I worked in multiple specialties. Most of my practice has been spent in pediatrics, but now I work in cannabis as an educator and a coach now for the last 5 years. I'm in favor of H 117 to be removed, the vertical integration to be removed. As a medical patient myself, and as one of the few registered nurses working in a recreational cannabis shop here in the state, I've seen a reduction in medical shops coming online, as well as a reduction in medical types of products available to my patients across the state. If the removal of this archaic regulation we would help access the patients, obviously, hopefully, increase medical shops, and as well, we would be servicing3788 patients as3790 what this program exactly was enacted for. So I'm in favor, obviously, of getting rid3796 of that writ vertical regulation.
As well, I do need to mention is, if we do remove this requirement,3802 as a small company that I work for that has had followed the rules for vertical integration and paid the enormous licensing fees to have recreational and in manufacturing facility. For some companies like ours we should not be disproportionately affected by this change. We have followed the rules and been a good provider in our communities, obviously, we're 1 of the few shops that has a registered nurse on staff which I hope that we can kind of look at almost all the medical shops should have. But what we really need to do is if we do pass this and remove that requirement, my suggestion would be to grandfather the current licensed companies that have medical license admin paying for those licenses and actually let them continue to regain some of the specialties perks of that licensure. As my company, we would have 3 medical shops and 3 recreational shops and a manufacturing facility available for us. So we wanna make sure that there's some type3865 of, you know, we don't get disproportionately pushed out. We've been a good operator in our community, one of the few that is actually very responsible to our customers in our community by having, you know, medical staff on board. So thank you for your time to listening to us today. Hope you guys will really take a close look at removing this recreational or the medical vertical integration. But thank you so much for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER5 - Excellent. Thank you for your testimony. Are there
SPEAKER4 - any questions from the committee?
SPEAKER5 - Virtually, this doesn't see any. So thank you. Appreciate your testimony. Thank you so
SPEAKER18 - Thanks so much.
SPEAKER5 - Alright. Next up, we have Helen Gomez Andrews. You're recognized to speak next.
HELEN ANDREWS - MA CANNABIS ADVISORY BOARD - HB 117 - Hello. Good afternoon members of the joint committee and Chairs Donahue and Gomez. My name is Helen Gomez Andrews, and I'm speaking to you as a member of the Massachusetts Cannabis Advisory Board. a cannabis business owner in Holyoke, a certified women in a minority owned business, and a parent to a medical cannabis patient who, by the way, has no medical dispensaries within walking distance or in her city to serve her. And I'd like to speak to H 117. The vertical integration requirement is entirely counter to the CCC's mission to safely and equitably implement and administer the laws enabling access to medical and adult use marijuana in the Commonwealth with an emphasis on access to medical marijuana. In my capacity as a representative of the Cannabis Advisory Board's industry subcommittee, I have submitted our written formal recommendations to the CCC to Mariah. So, I won't go into it. But they do recommend eliminating the vertical integration requirements, and they also include very relevant social equity components, which I think you know, as many of the other testimonies have said, are integral to this consideration.
I've also submitted to Mariah a letter from Josh Garcia4007 the mayor of the city of Holyoke in support of those recommendations. Holyoke is home to many cannabis businesses, producers and retailers alike, but none of our dispensaries all of which are4018 small independent businesses are able to4020 participate in the medical cannabis industry and none4024 of our patient residents have access to medical cannabis in their own city. Notably, Holyoke is a designated area of disproportionate impact and home to many social equity applicants. Elimination of the vertical integration requirements would not only improve patient access but also benefit the Social Equity Program and many other independent businesses by allowing them to serve the medical market, whether in production of higher dose products, or in serving their local community at the storefront. So, I support the bill. And finally, I just want to say thank you to the committee for the opportunity to contribute and looking forward to more sessions where I can, you know, add volume to the issues of my community and certainly my own personal concerns as a business owner and a parent of a medical patient. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER5 - Excellent. Thank you so much for your testimony.
SPEAKER4 - Are there any questions from the committee?
SPEAKER5 - Doing online. Looks good. Well, we appreciate you your testimony and contributions, and we will be having additional hearing. So happy to have you testify again.
Next up we have Patricia Kooty. Patricia, you recognize 3 minutes.
Share it.
SPEAKER3 - I'm here. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER5 - We can hear you. Yes.
SPEAKER3 - Oh, okay. Hi. My name is Patricia Cooney. I'm a registered nurse. I'm a recent graduate of the universe
SPEAKER5 - I think you just cut out. Are you, Shmira?
SPEAKER3 - Nope.
SPEAKER5 - I think we just lost Patricia.
Which which she comes back on, we'll we'll put her back in the queue. So that why don't we move on until she signs back on? We'll move on to Megan Dobre. making you available test by.
SPEAKER10 - Hi. I'm here. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER5 - Yes. We can hear you. Thank you.
SPEAKER10 - Okay.
MEGAN DOBRO - SAFETIVA LABS - HB 105 - SB 62 - Hi. My name is Megan Dobro. I'm the CEO and cofounder of SafeTiva Labs, an independent testing laboratory in Westfield. I'm testifying to support bills H 105 and S 62 on testing transparency and would like to offer some recommendations for improvements to the language. Our labs are staffed with talented, highly educated scientists who are very passionate about analytical chemistry and microbiology. We want to give accurate honest results. Without standardization in how labs are supposed to calculate cannabinoids or which species must be included in each microbial category or how sample prep is supposed to happen there will be wide variability in the results between labs. So I fully support the CCC digging deeper into the practices that are causing so much variability and then give us data informed scientifically based guidance towards standardization. How often does a group in a highly regulated industry come to you and ask to please regulate us more? We recognize there's a problem that threatens our industry, and it can be solved with more oversight.
However, publicly ranking the labs by these average results will make lab shopping easier. As an academic and a data nerd, I am all for transparency, but context matters and4241 one number is not enough to understand the full picture. The vague nature of this bill leaves open4247 questions. Should we submit only results from compliance panels or also R&D samples? How long does the commission have to investigate and report about discrepancies after the data reports are made public? If a new small lab has only 5 clients and they're growing craft cannabis, their dataset will be small, and their average THC could be the highest in the state. Are they gonna get accused of fraud and sustain months of reputational damage before a report is released showing that their data were legitimate? The bill calls for investigation of statistically significant outliers but that assumes a tight grouping of results with a few outliers. But there won't be statistical significance if the data spread is very wide. Please remember also that the labs aren't doing the sampling. We test what we are given, and our portfolio of clients are all wide ranging.
In one example, please imagine that a lab that has the highest microbial failure rate in the state, and there will be one that has the highest level. For public health, it's much better to have false positives and hold that product back than air on the side of false negatives that could potentially make people sick. But the unintended consequences of publishing just this one number publicly is that producers are going to stop testing there. Failing tests is bad for business so the labs with lower failure rates are gonna see a spike in business, thereby jeopardizing public health. Consumers may be happy that the products from that lab are safer, but the products aren't labeled with which lab did the testing. So I'll conclude, I firmly believe in the data transparency and more oversight, and I support this bill moving forward for further discussion and hope that its good intentions are realized. Thank you for the opportunity. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER5 - Thank you for your testimony.
SPEAKER4 - Are there any questions from the committee.
SPEAKER5 - Yes. Represent of Saunders.
REP SAUNDERS - Public in outlying geographic regions to be able to participate and not only define this testimony to be insightful, but likely only able to be communicated in this fashion. So It's been a wonderful change to come into the House to see these hearings expanding public access like this. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER5 - Yeah. No. No. Absolutely. It's it's wonderful. 1 of the benefits of coming through COVID is the virtual hearing is now with the hybrid. So Are there any other questions? Alright. Seeing down, we appreciate. And if you'd actually, I would request if you want to submit any written testimony particularly on some of the the issues around the context that you mentioned, we'd definitely be happy to kinda take a look at that. So thank you for your time and your testimony. Appreciate
SPEAKER10 - I will. Thank you.
SPEAKER11 - And next, we'll we'll go back to Patricia Cooney.
SPEAKER5 - I think we we had lost you before. Are you are you logged in?
SPEAKER3 - You hear me?
SPEAKER5 - We can hear you. Yes.
SPEAKER3 - Oh, great. Hi. Yes. Sorry about that.
PATRICIA COONEY - ACNA - My name is Patricia Cooney. I'm a registered nurse. I'm a member of the American Cannabis Nurses Association and a recent graduate of the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy Medical Canvas Science And Therapeutics. I started this journey when my daughter in 20114455 became critically ill, and she said, mom, when I smoke marijuana I feel better. She has chronic illnesses, she's now disabled. She has cognitive impairment, she has lupus plus comorbid diseases. So I got into the space due to that. And I was at the first opening of the first dispensary in Salem, Massachusetts. And then I was like, wow, I got to understand this better. So as a nurse and a healthcare professional, I'm a sane nurse for the Department of Public Health and a school nurse. My daughter gets no medical care. The medical cannabis patient is being left in the dust. They do not get an intake. They do not have an intake of the medicines they're on because there's drug on drug interactions, guidance on roots of administration, dosage, and follow-up, and what strains would be best for their particular, you know, symptoms. And, of course, my daughter developed bad habits with it because there was no guidance.
The professionals are out there in our state from the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy where our goal is to connect the medicine that cannabis offers to them and to connect them with that so they can have relief. We have people in our state who are suffering, and we have medical professionals who are here who want to help them. There's a pharmacist who's graduating from the program I graduated from last year. We both wanna connect patients with what they need, and we wanna help them, and we're here. And we don't teach the endocannabinoid system to our medical care professionals. I am a nurse and nursing has promoted medical cannabis and supported it for 27 years. And, actually, the board of nursing in the country recommends that nurses learn the 6 essential knowledges of cannabis. And I have students come here all the time, and I give them the cannabis nurse handbook written by a professor of nursing in Maine.
We have Doctor Dustin Sulak in Maine. He's a worldwide medical cannabis expert. His website, healer.com is amazing. and it does show, and I know cannabis use disorder, we learn all about the downside. All medicines have a downside but there are medicinal applications that research is out there. It helps people with peripheral neuropathy from their chemotherapy. I've had friends with their breast cancer they can't even walk and CBD cream helps them. I talk to anyone I can about it, my daughter's doctors. I give them literature. They're starting to listen. It's been 12 years now. So if any of you had a child or a loved one4639 who is suffering, you are going to look for what will help them. And this is a medicine that was in our Pharmapedia till 1942. The doctors did not want it taken out. It was a you know, a political ploy, and the paper industry, I mean, our founding fathers had people grow hemp, Washington grew hemp. Some of our documents are written on hemp paper. was made for clothing, rope, and we farmed it. So it's been in our culture for a long time, and we've actually been brainwashed for 80 years.
And when you have a family member who is suffering, you are going to look for ways to relieve that suffering. And these patients in the dispensaries need guidance. This is a complex plant with different roots of administration, the drug on drug interactions, side effects, people who shouldn't use it, it's just like any other medicine, but these patients are left on their own to figure this out and they're sick. And I really appreciate this opportunity to present. It has been my mission since my daughter got sick. And I just, I hope people will recognize that we need medical care professionals in the dispensaries to guide sick people for using a complex medicine that can help4739 them. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - --
SPEAKER5 - very much for you. you for your testimony. Appreciating your story. Are there any questions from the committee?
Well, seeing none, we appreciate your time. Thank you very much for your testimony.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you. I appreciate it very much.
SPEAKER5 - Joy.
SPEAKER11 - Next up, we have blank blank messing.
SPEAKER21 - Hi. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER5 - We can hear you. Yes.
SPEAKER16 - That's it. Right?
BLAKE MENZING - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 109 - HB 117 - SB 61 - Excellent. Thank you. I'm Blake Menzing. I am an attorney that exclusively practices cannabis law in the Commonwealth, including state licensure work, regulatory compliance, and local permitting work. And I am an owner of an operational retail store and the CEO of a retail store in Boston that majority is social equity owned. I want to speak today in fierce opposition to H 109, especially in terms of the adult use context. There is no reason to have a medical doctor in an adult use facility. It's not for medicine, it's for fun, it's recreational. So that makes 0 sense just linguistically. I also think in the context of a medical facility it has more logic behind it. But the next item that I am gonna support, I think, would be negatively impacted by a requirement such as that given that there are 99 open medical dispensaries in the state. I'm not aware of 99 doctors with enough knowledge, you know, to have a full time availability at each one of those stores, and you're just making it, you know, more expensive. And the people who have questions can ask them, you know, of their a primary care provider or whomever gave the recommendation as well as staff.
So the next bill that I do support is H 117. That's the de verticalization of the medical industry. I think that will allow for fewer access deserts as was described earlier in some prior testimony. The ability to open a retail component for medical, I think, is the obviously lowest hanging fruit. It's the cheapest to get open because it requires the least, you know, capital expenditure. In particular, I think this law should be amended to require the commission to create an4877 exclusivity period for de verticalized medical applicants if this were to pass comparable to what the commission did with respect to delivery and social consumption. You know, the promise of Question 4 was, you know, restorative social justice. And the commission spends an awful lot of time patting themselves on the back for their programs and policies and you look at the representation numbers and it's a failure by any metric. So if we can de verticalize, allow already existing social equity economic empowerment retail stores to add a medical counter, I think most would. It's sort of the same ball of wax in terms of regulatory compliance as running a retail store. It just allows you to have an opportunity for people to buy their medicine from a location that's convenient and not get taxed4920 into oblivion.
The final bill that I wanna mention is S 61. I understand the sort of heartbreaking story of people whose family members have cannabis use disorder and not wanting them to have access to a card. My concern though is the very definition of cannabis use disorder as I understand it is, you know, daily use. So someone who's prescribed medical cannabis is going to be called someone suffering from cannabis use disorder if they have to use it every night to go to sleep. So that just makes no sense to me and I'm very leery of giving the commission power that they shouldn't really have because I don't know if they have the scientific or medical judgment to weigh in. So with that, I appreciate the community and the chairs time and appreciate the work you're doing. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER5 - Excellent. Thank you. Running time. Any questions from the committee?
Alright. Seeing none, we appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Next up, Brenda Shalu. Brenda, floor is yours for 3 minutes.
BRENDA SHALLOO - ANALYTICS LABS - HB 105 - SB 62 - Good afternoon. My name is Brenda Shalloo. I'm the chief scientific officer Analytics Labs in Holyoke. I unfortunately could not make it down there the last minute. I apologize for that, but Ted and Tiffany Madru are present on behalf of our lab, if anyone wants to catch up with them. I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak and provide feedback. I am here to support H 105 and S 62, cautiously support, I should say, and we'll be submitting additional written comment for review as to some of the wording and whatnot of those. One of my favorite aspects about being in the cannabis industry is the opportunity to give comment like this and possibly help shape the regulatory space. In each state, I have been in the industry since 2010, specifically in laboratory testing. So I've seen, you know, every aspect of this industry. I was the chair of the Independent Laboratory Testing Committee in the state of Nevada. I've been on several working groups, I've been subpoenaed to testify for other labs data in the court of law. So I've been quite involved in a lot of regulatory5054 side of of this industry.
And even when it comes to regulatory wording or the working groups that I've been on, even if I don't fully agree with the final determinations that are made that get written into regulation I still thoroughly believe that it moves the industry forward and in the right direction. Being in the state of Arizona, you know, in 2010 with 0 oversight, it was kind of scary what I saw, and it made me realize the importance of it. So I applaud and support all attempts to increase regular oversight specific for laboratories because it's the only way to keep patients and consumers safe. It is extremely important to proceed with caution when publicizing laboratory data because misuse, misunderstanding of lab data can be very detrimental to laboratories. and create the opposite desired effect of what we're trying to accomplish here. Data released needs to be presented thoughtfully and carefully because independent testing labs are always guilty until proven innocent and that needs to be taken to heart when we're releasing this type of information.
I am also a big proponent of I want to be audited. I wanna be inspected as a laboratory. Because if you've got nothing to hide, then there's nothing5137 you know, even if you end up being in that5139 outlier group, there's no reason to be scared5141 because you will pass the inspection and move on. But it's very scary to think that you might be publicly blasted as, hey, an outlier and then for months, be scrutinized while5154 waiting for the inspection to confirm5156 that you were not doing anything wrong. On the information that is5161 provided to Metric is unbelievably insightful and can be used to trigger investigations standardized method and monitor the overall health of the industry. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I will have many written detailed comments when I submit it the committee. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER5 - Excellent. Thank you very much. Any questions from the committee?
Alright. Seeing nanya, we appreciate that written testimony. It would be fantastic. Appreciate you submitting that. Thank you for your testimony. Next
SPEAKER11 - up, we have David Rabinovitz.
SPEAKER12 - David, the 40 -- Yes.
SPEAKER23 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - --
SPEAKER14 - for next?
DAVID RABINOVITZ - THE GREEN RUSH - Yes. Thank you very much. I'll try to be as brief as I can. First, I'm gonna wade into the issue of the labs a bit. I fully support the testimony you've heard earlier today. I've been in the cannabis industry in Massachusetts since 2012 and I do believe there is a lot of lab shopping that goes around. It's well known that there are inconsistency between lab results and operators who want to either have lower mold or higher THC5225 because customers pay for5227 THC will in fact shop for5229 the labs. I'm most interested today in testifying in the de integration of the medical licensing program. I think that's an important step forward. The medical licensing because it's integrated is probably at the highest barrier to entry for those who are medical patients they have the least amount of access because they're the fewest amount5249 of stores. And for the social equity5251 program, which unfortunately has been an abysmal failure, this could actually give it a leg up if you gave an exclusivity period and allowed some of the social equity operators to get into, for example, just become retailers of medical licenses or add a retail medical license to their existing adult use license. But I think it would be a big step forward for the medical patients to have greater access There will likely be more products if you de-integrate5281 the manufacturing side of it, and it'll just make generally for a more equitable5285 industry in the medical end of it. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER5 - Thank you so much. Any questions from the committee?
See you now. We appreciate your testimony. Thank you so much.
I'm gonna take I just saw Santa O'Connor has come into the hearing.
SPEAKER24 - I would like to testify. So Senator O'Connor is yours.
SEN O'CONNOR - SB 61 - Thank you Chair Donahue, members of committee. I appreciate you taking me out of turn. Earlier today, you heard from one of my constituents, Patricia Sefrino, about the situation regarding medical marijuana and licensing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I think that this is an unintended consequence of the marijuana coming to be and medical marijuana coming to be through ballot initiative, and that we have a serious problem when it comes to abuse of medical marijuana licenses. And with this said, I fully support Marijuana recreationally as well as medical marijuana. I don't think that5344 that's the question at hand. It's what do we do now that we know that some individuals who are taking medical marijuana cards and using them and potentially or are supplying underage individuals with the larger quantity of marijuana that they're allowed to get with the medical marijuana license. In addition to that, cannabis use disorder is real, and we have seen it in our communities, and we need to address that specific component of this as well.
In putting this bill together, I did reach out to the Cannabis Control Commission. Talked to Sean directly, and, obviously, he has a board that he5381 needs to adhere to. And this was something that I had suggested to him and just to give the the commission the tools to research that to try and see if there's something that we can do as a commonwealth to make licensing and regulations better. You know, I wouldn't say even more restrictive, but just better. Understanding that, you know, individuals from circumstances that constituents have sent me, are using Snapchat to5409 send Snapchat pictures of the drugs that they're able to procure from the medical marijuana license and then selling them to kids in the high school. And this is something that I think given the tools would allow the commission to investigate more thoroughly, some of these instances, both of cannabis use disorder as well as illegal distribution of medical marijuana. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER7 - Perfect. No. Thank you very much, Sandra. Appreciate bringing the bill to our attention. Are there any questions,
SPEAKER5 - filings, though?
SPEAKER4 - Thanks. Awesome. We thank
SPEAKER5 - you very much. Thank you.
Thank you. So moving
SPEAKER11 - on, we have next on the docket Doctor Marion McNab.
SPEAKER5 - If you are online, just get your have the floor for 3 minutes.
Yep. So, like, we have her on right now.
Okay. Oh, perfect. So she submitted written testimony. Alright, so we'll be moving on to Dwayne Harden. you're next to testify for 3 minutes?
SPEAKER25 - Hello? Can you hear me?
SPEAKER5 - We can. Yes.
DUAN HARDEN - BLAZEXPRESS - HB 117 - Hi. My name is Duane Harden. I'm a co owner of BlazeXpress, license number MD1284, Holyoke Smokes Corp. We are a social equity, LGBTQ5496 certified, a minority business enterprise certified business. We deliver adult use. So I'm here to testify on behalf of the patients that we've delivered to. So we can't deliver medical marijuana, of course, but they order adult use because there are no other ways for them to to get the cannabis that they need. The first thing I wanna talk about is the I guess, like, the CCC needs to do a better job of alerting patients that they can have delivery because, you know, we've delivered, and people thought we were a scam, you know. There's been reports of people paying digitally online giving a false address and not receiving marijuana. So when we deliver, they don't think we're even a legitimate licensed company. And if you go to the CCC's website, you can't find us on the final retailer. So we're having this uphill battle approving that we do deliver legal, tested, safe cannabis.
The next thing besides the awareness to the public, that delivery is available. The next thing would be if, the lowest hanging fruit right now is for patients, we deliver to a patient in Palmer because no one else can deliver medical or adult use to him with the only company that made the exception from Holyoke. And he pays the tax. He has to pay the tax. So I think the lowest hanging fruit is until all the regulations are put in place for the vertical integration, at least if the person has a valid medical card, and they order adult use, and we deliver it that did not require to pay the tax. And then as someone testified earlier, at least on the delivery portion, removing the two driver requirement, because it would make it more affordable, and we could reach more patients. That's it. Any questions? SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER5 - Well, thank you for your testimony there.
SPEAKER4 - Any questions from the committee?
SPEAKER5 - Seeing that. We appreciate your testimony. Thank you so much.
SPEAKER25 - Thank you.
SPEAKER11 - So next we have Meredith Fried.
SPEAKER5 - Can I ask for 3 minutes?
Hello? Hello. How are you?
SPEAKER26 - I'm doing well. How are you?
SPEAKER4 - Very good.
MEREDITH FREED - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 117 - I'm testifying about H 117. It's essential for helping patients gain access to the medicine they need. Most patients have some form of physical or mental disability. And the framework as it stands right now leaves5680 medical marijuana patients inadvertently denied convenient access and essentially discriminated against when seeking their medicine. My town, I live in Swampscott, and it currently has 2 adult use cannabis dispensaries that I can walk to. But because I'm a patient, I would be forced to pay a 20% tax for which I should be exempt under law as certified registered patient. So I have to drive or travel more than 3 miles in order to get my medicine. And if the Legislature votes to remove vertical integration that challenge will no longer be an obstacle in my life. It would free up time, energy, and money in order to get the medicine that I need and deserve.
I understand why the local frame, why the original framework was established. When medical marijuana first came into existence, we didn't have a supply chain. In order to make sure that patients had the medicine they need, they needed to make sure that whichever company was providing that had a vertical integration. Now that it's been established, the5758 CCC has regulations, there's framework in5761 place, we now have an adult use side that has5765 no access to the medical but medical has access to adult use which seems backwards. It should be equal. They should have any store or any business should be able to apply for each type of license. It should be completely separated. If somebody wants to cultivate for both without owning manufacturing or retail dispensary, they should be able to make that business decision. And I think that5798 as the legislation evolves, so should the regulations and so should the way that patients and adult use are treated. We have framework in place that has dosage requirements for each side and the systems are already in place to set up that framework. So all we need is for you guys to vote yes. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER4 - Thank you so much. Any questions from my managers?
SPEAKER5 - Seeing nothing. Thank you so much for your testimony. We appreciate5831 it.
SPEAKER26 - Thank you.
SPEAKER5 - And I believe that exhausts the list of those who had signed up to testify
So is there anyone else online or in person who wishes to testify in front of the committee before we close out the hearing?
You're online?
Alright. Well, seeing then, we'll close this hearing. So thank you all for everyone who's testified, and please feel free to submit any written testimony to Mariah Metz her this email address who was put out there or to the co5867 chairs. We'll make sure it's distributed to the5869 committee. So thank you all so much.
© InstaTrac 2025