2024-10-30 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy

2024-10-30 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy

REP DONAHUE - Joint hearing of the Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy to order. The Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy is here today for an informational hearing to continue our review of the Cannabis Control Commission. Today's hearing will include testimony describing how the CCC's structure deficits are manifested in the industry it regulates. We will hear oral testimony from associations representing licensees, advocates, patients, and other stakeholders. We'll also accept written testimony, which can be submitted to the committee using the instructions on the hearing web page. I just want to take a moment to introduce the members from the House that are joining us today. We have Representative Aaron Saunders of Belchertown, Representative Dawne Shand of Newburyport. I was gonna say Salisbury. We have Representative Mike Soter from Uxbridge and Representative Rob Consalvo from Hyde Park. So thank you guys for being here. Online, virtually, we have Manny Cruz from Salem, Representative Sousa from Framingham, and Representative Howard from Lowell. So thank you for81 joining us virtually. I wanna, hand it over to my delightful cochair of the committee, Senator Adam Gomez, to introduce himself and say some words.

SEN GOMEZ - Thank you, Chairman Donahue. Yes. I'm happy to be here, happy to listen to all of your testimony. Please, you know, make sure that we understand that it's three minutes per testimony. And from there, I'll give it back to Chairman Donahue.

DONAHUE - Thank you, senator. So I just wanna lay out a little bit opening statements, for myself just to kind of set the stage for this hearing that's relatively unique in the fall. But the Legislature understands the importance of a well functioning cannabis regulator. The Legislature has revisited the CCC's enabling legislation as recently as 2022 with an act relative to equity in the cannabis industry. These reforms to Chapter 180 further clarified the law as it relates to host community agreements and bolstered social equity programs through the creation of a social equity trust fund and a new municipal requirement. Today's hearing builds on that work as the committee continues to evaluate the cannabis industry and provide legislative solutions. In July, following calls from the IG for receivership to the CCC, the House members of this committee released a memo to Speaker Mariano identifying opportunities to statutorily reform and clarify the CCC structure.

This informational hearing will add in the committee's review of how Massachusetts regulatory structure can better serve licensees, consumers, the goals of regulation. The committee recognizes the need for public, proactive, and productive conversations concerning the CCC structures. We also recognize that it's the purview of the Legislature to consider and debate the statutorily embedded structural provisions of the CCC. This is why the committee181 and its members have asked to hold these informational hearings through the fall, however it won't be the last hearing or occasion to comment on the path forward. We expect that testifiers will discuss and focus testimony191 to how the CCC structure affects their experiences in the cannabis market.195 Each testifier196 will have three minutes to speak, followed by questions from committee members. Please begin200 your testimony by stating your name, organization, and a brief description of your organization's204 membership.

And before we move into the testimony, I just wanna recognize Representative Berthiaume. I saw him210 somewhere, there he is, who's joined us as well. And a quick couple notes from my colleagues. We will have, testifiers come up, and once they have finished their testimony, we'll take questions. I'll facilitate the questions from there, and we'll let each of the panels finish before we go into questions. So, with that, any questions from the committee? Alright. Seeing none, we'll call up our first testifier, which is a panel from the Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition, starting with Ryan Dominguez.

RYAN DOMINGUEZ - MCC - Chairman Donahue, Chairman Gomez, and honorable members of the committee. My name is Ryan Dominguez and I'm the executive director for the Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition. We're a trade association that represents over 70 licensees across the state, that includes single retailers,274 testing labs, vertically integrated operators, and delivery operators as well. Another single operator has joined me here282 today. So I'm back with the MCC. I wanted to thank the committee for recognizing our industry's struggles and hosting this hearing. To start, I wanna note that the MCC has been grateful for the work, current and past, of the CCC. Creating a cannabis program from scratch is no small feat. And, you know, we continue to have productive conversations with both the commissioners as well as the staff and they're hosting public listening sessions and hearings to understand our issues.

However, as you'll see from the testimony from some of my members, there's a disconnect between the CCC's many meetings and the implementation of changes, including the industry's regulatory proposals. We're one of the first states in the northeast to legalize cannabis for adult use and now we have to compete with nearly every state in331 New England, as well as the tri state. Our industry is in urgent need of regulatory efficiency to keep us alive, let alone competitive. And this requires us to have a strong regulatory body that adapts to a fast developing industry, but we also need the state Legislature. We're looking to you as experts to lead us into the next phase of our industry. We cannot delay the354 many legislative and regulatory changes needed to support business owners today.

We need debates on governance and structure to go362 hand in hand to changes in our program.364 We're a mature market now. Massachusetts is the fourth largest adult use market in the nation. In FY 24, Massachusetts brought in $272 million in tax revenue, and we have surpassed $1 billion in tax revenue overall but380 we're380 putting all of that at risk if you don't act quickly. According to the CCC, we have had 37 businesses closed down. Annual agent registration applications are also down. This year, the commission392 received just over 27,000 applications for new employees compared to 2022 when the CCC received close to 43,000 annual agent registration applications. That's a lot fewer job opportunities. We will lose more businesses and employment opportunities if you don't act. So as the MCC, we recommend that the committee act quickly to determine the direction of the oversight of our industry, ensuring safeguards to keep our industry going no420 matter what direction you choose.

We also are asking to pass legislation to create regulatory efficiency through changes in purchase and possession limits, advertising changes, testing, and many other recommendations that we'll put forth to you over the next couple months. Finally, we recommend the committee research and analyze our current market to better understand what makes sense from a market size perspective. This will allow us to effectively address the price compression, oversupply, and over saturation that is currently hurting our industry. I'll stop there and let my members get some time and get into specifics about their experiences as licensees. And first, I wanna introduce Megan Dobro from SafeTiva Labs.

MEGAN DOBRO - MCC - Hi. Thank you so much for having us. It's really nice to have a listening session and I am optimistic about where we're going. My name is Megan Dobro. I'm the founder and CEO of Safetiva Labs. We're a testing lab in Westfield. In 2019, I left my tenured position as a biology professor to pursue a license from the CCC to open a testing lab. There were only two fully operating labs at the time. Three and a half years later and several million491 dollars later in borrowed money, I finally had a license, but so did 12 other labs and then 16, which is more than the market can support.500 Three labs have since gone out of business. The main value of a legal market is the assurance to the public that the products and dispensaries are tested, and therefore are safe and accurately labeled. But we have a testing crisis that stems from vague regulations and market pressures. It means that potentially unsafe products are getting to consumers, and labels are often inaccurate.

I see three main problems to the current structure, and I will pair them with what I think are the solutions. Number 1, testing labs are charged with ensuring the safety of products, but it's the producers of those products that pay our bills. So each testing lab has to wrestle with the daily pressures around keeping their scientific integrity and prioritizing public543 safety over keeping their own545 doors open. Solution. We need to make the testing data public and make regulation551 so clear and standardized that outliers and testing data stand out clearly.555 There are a lot of loopholes that need to be closed around testing. Some limits559 don't make sense and there's absolute silence561 around some big questions. The testing labs have a wealth of expertise to contribute to changes, and we need two way communication and regular meetings with commission leadership and testing staff. This was how it was done under DPH and we wanna return to that model.

Number 2, it is too expensive and burdensome to operate a cannabis business in Mass. And it has created so much competition that people are compromising their ethics out of desperation. We have so many labs and so many producers, invoices are going unpaid, and good companies are going out of business. We have set everyone up to fail and it's the consumers and patients who are losing. The solution, we need a moratorium on new licenses and a statewide cap by license type. We need to lighten the load on businesses by relaxing the hurdles that were built on fear. The requirements around badging, transportation, training, security, metric tagging, and advertising are causing unnecessary expense and burden and they need to be changed quickly.

Number 3. I'm speaking for my clients on this one because they fear retaliation. Most business owners wanna do the right thing but they often don't know what the right thing is. Asking questions is a risky and often unsatisfactory avenue. Notices of deficiency are given out so liberally and often the cause was that the regulations were too vague. And you never know when you're gonna be issued a massive fine, so businesses try to hide things or they don't ask the question. Even inspectors have different interpretations of the regulations and give different answers to different licensees. Solution. We need clearer regulations and a portal for anonymous questions asked by licensees and an FAQ section with the recorded answer. I wanna know that all licensees are being held to the same rules without retaliation or special treatment. The list of questions would give regulators direction about what still needs tightening in the regulations. The commission has hardworking and dedicated staff. I don't wanna672 prescribe what needs to change about the culture and the system at the CCC because I'm not676 in it. But as a business owner and protector of consumer safety, I know we can't wait for change. Thank you.

691 PAYTON691 SHUBRICK691 -691 MCC691 -691 Good691 morning. My name is Payton Shubrick. I'm CEO and founder of 6 Bricks, an adult use dispensary in Springfield, Massachusetts, my hometown. 6 Bricks is a play on the last name Shubrick with six people in my immediate family with a focus on people, plan, purpose as we deliver that everyday connecting customers with the best product for them. Last month marked two years since 6 Bricks opened and since then I've seen the good, the bad, and the ugly of this industry. Today, I come to you voicing the many concerns of voiceless operators720 who have sacrificed time, energy, and money, but have been met with724 a lack of leadership and oversight to726 support their success.

I would like to share a visual with you all that highlights the many issues in industry. And I do have copies for you all, as well, at the conclusion of this. I think what's important to note is while you're aware of the many challenges, the time spent today should focus on the potential solutions available. The first major issue that we need to address is urgency. Right now, major changes are needed and we don't have months to act. Recent data highlights the urgency of addressing canopy oversupply in Massachusetts. According to the CCC's data room, there are currently 4 million square feet of licensed canopy in the state with767 an additional 375,000 square feet in the final licensing phase and 4.8 million square feet in provisional licensing. A potential solution available today is tier relegation as outlined in 935 CRM 500. Without this, we are looking at catastrophic results.

Additionally, given the CCC has three paid researchers, until a capacity study is completed, a pause on licensure with a carve791 out for social equity and economic empowerment carve out for social equity and economic empowerment licensees could support a more balanced industry. We would not be the first to do this. Vermont Cannabis Control Board outlined that they would stop accepting new retail applications last month with the cutoff date of November 15, 2024. Additionally, we should be looking to leverage known frameworks such as the Alcohol Business Commission to address accounts payable and pricing issues. And additionally, as we think about urgency, we need to consider loosening restrictions around marketing that allows us as cannabis business to attract and retain customers with loyalty programs, raffles, and act like other businesses in the commonwealth.

Outside of urgency, we need to look at leadership. The only example of a structure like the CCC is the gaming commission. The issue that should highlight is the gaming commission oversees 10 licensures, while the CCC oversees more than a 1000. We need a structure that allows leaders to respond proactively854 instead of reactively. And this should be seen in more858 collaboration to act swiftly as the structure of the CCC, again, well intentioned, does not support864 the industry's current growth. Challenges are being met with open meeting law, vacant seats, and too much time lost to implement changes with the two driver rule being an example of that. Additionally, we need uniform responses like an FAQ879 portal. Much like the ABC that creates consistency, and standards, and expectations, and not showcasing variability depending on the investigator you're assigned.

And lastly, as it relates to leadership, we need better knowledge of operator challenges, especially costly challenges that further burden cannabis companies such as 280E, RVT training, batch testing, and badging requirements. Without action, we are looking to lose a lot as a commonwealth. Not only will we see the loss of tax revenue with many operators currently struggling, but we will see a mass exit of talent from the state of Massachusetts. We are already starting to see that with women, people of color, and veterans leaving the industry at higher rates than their counterparts.

Additionally, we will continue to lose customers to other states that have higher daily allotments as Massachusetts currently only outlines one ounce but both New York and Maine are at 2.5 ounces. And lastly, without any changes, we're looking at the loss of innovation as it relates to product, new technologies and the potential for entrepreneurs that could continue to progress us into a leadership position as we think about the potential of this emerging industry. I thank you for your time and I'm hopeful to pass out the visual I mentioned at the beginning. Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


GOMEZ - So, Mr. Dominguez, you had testified that businesses, I think it was996 37, you said, over the last couple of months have closed. Are those1000 businesses that have opened or those also include license holders as well that haven't opened yet?

1006 DOMINGUEZ1006 -1006 Oh,1006 that includes, so that's, from the CCC's1008 activities1009 report. Okay. So I know that there may be some data out there that shows a bigger number. I think I've seen somebody quote 50, but most of those have been open business.

GOMEZ - Open businesses. So we1021 do have, from my knowledge, also individuals waiting to open that possibly have turned in their licenses as well on top of these businesses1031 That have been waiting to possibly1033 open, correct?

DOMINGUEZ - Yes. And I think there has been a lot of folks, especially, within the social1037 equity program that were going through the1039 process, maybe they weren't able to get the funding that they needed. Thankfully, the state put together the Social Equity Trust Fund, and hopefully that'll, you know, move people along in the process. But there's folks from Social Equity Cohort 1 that's been trying to go through this process for a long time and talk to some folks who, you know, just couldn't make it happen. And I think they're gonna give up their license. So there's probably a number of those that aren't being accounted for.

GOMEZ - Also, in testimony, what's your name, ma'am, again?

DOBRO - Megan.

GOMEZ - Megan. Thank you for your testimony today. You had stated that out of the 16 laboratories that received licenses across the state, that three of them have shut down. Are you one of those three, or are you still operational?

DOBRO - I'm somehow still operational.

GOMEZ - Alright. Thank you. And then you've also, alluded to potential ethics. And, obviously, I'm not asking for you to get in between those, what ethics can be and can provide. Just wanted to make sure that, you know, concrete information is, you know, if somebody's breaking some type of ethics that those individuals or those ones breaking ethics, or possibly, doing something illegal should be reported. And, obviously, listening to that, I'm fairly interested in what that looks like or have any knowledge towards that. And then, obviously, the special treatment with, the special treatment portion of your testimony as well, individuals, receiving special treatment. I have a zero tolerance, obviously. I think a lot of us here on the on the panel on individuals, receiving special treatment, but then also being cooperative with the CCC and individuals feeling that they're gonna be reprimanded for being cooperative or asking questions. So, just wanted to add that.

DONAHUE - Thank you, senator, and, thank you for your testimony. Really appreciate it. I appreciate the perspective from licensees as well as your association, and kind of bringing, the larger view of the whole association. But you talked a little bit about urgency and about regulation, and obviously, a lot of the regulation is set by the CCC. Can you maybe speak a little bit about, you know, do you believe or do you trust that the CCC will be able to make regulatory changes? Are there issues that may prohibit the CCC from effectively bringing regulatory changes? You had mentioned quite a few different regulation changes that are definitely under their purview. So let's see, I'd like to hear that.

DOMINGUEZ - Yeah. And just to summarize, some of the licensees I represent, I think for some of the issue topics they bring to the CCC, they've been talking about the same issue topics for years. I think two driver rule is, like, one of those examples, the CCC is currently needing to potentially change that. But within the context of that, there's also folks who have been trying to push for a expansive change to B to B, which is business to business deliveries outside of just delivery to consumer. And that has been going on for a long time as well. So, it puts us in a tough position where if we don't get that change through the CCC, we're going to you all, as state legislators, to be able to probably put that into some type of statute. And it's not probably normal1228 practice for you to put regular regulations into statute. So we are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place of where do we go in that kind of situation. And as Payton1238 had mentioned, you know, there's a lot of businesses that are struggling here today that need some type of change. And if it's gonna take years years to get that change it just doesn't make sense for us to keep going down the same road.

DOBRO - I don't understand why things move as slowly as they do, but one reason that I see is that, there are currently three active commissioners out of five seats. And so when they vote to make change, all three have to unanimously agree in order for that change to be made. There's no room for disagreement because there are only three seats currently being held. And so if there was a way to change the structure so that commissioners on extended leaves could be replaced by temporary acting commissioners, or if there could be a majority vote on when commissioners are, for those that are present, when some are absent, I think that could help to make change move faster. I'm sure there's a lot more to it and many layers about why things move slowly, but it's painfully slow.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


GOMEZ - In my opinion, I think that's when statute comes into play, not the regulator, things that you guys are advocating for. And that's just my personal opinion as a cochair. I think that there is some fine lines which me and the cochair have been, you know, in agreeance with that we feel that could be changes in trying to figure out along those lines, especially when it comes to badging, when it comes to increasing weight limits on product. But then on exercising rights to votes and, obviously, you know, what's the super majority of that work or not, or is it only three? Obviously, we have knowledge that one seat is unavailable and one's on extended leave for medical reasons. But for the most part, that position, I think, in my opinion, is a is a statutory change that we have to look forward to in our next session, but good observation.

DONAHUE - Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. No. I appreciate those answers. And, you know, when you do bring in these ideas of regulatory change in, how how do you feel you're received by the CCC? Or what what avenues of communication do you have with the CCC around the concerns that yourself or your other member organizations would have?

DOMINGUEZ - So, as I mentioned in the beginning of my testimony, they're really good with picking up the phone, meeting with us, hosting public meetings where they're collecting testimony or hearing out the industry. But as Megan said, we don't necessarily see what goes on behind the scenes. And I think that's the part where, you know, we're all coming to an agreement that this change needs to happen. But in the industry, we kind of question, you know, why it's taking so long and we don't necessarily get clear answers on that.

SHUBRICK - I highlighted the need for urgency just acknowledging that, as Ryan alluded to, many of the changes have been conversations for months, if not years. And so the reality of not seeing any action, it does start to feel like the definition of insanity. You're asking for the same changes, You know that they make sense. They could ease some of the financial burden and at least create a viable dynamic for you as an owner operator, but they're not moving at the rate in which the industry is holistically, and that is the largest disconnect. The way in which we are starting to see oversaturation and price compression occur in the market, coupled with the reality that we're not seeing changes come through the CCC quick enough, is creating the stress in which we will eventually see fallout of much more licensure. As someone who's born and raised here in Massachusetts, I see Massachusetts born brands Massachusetts, I see Massachusetts born brand suffering the most. And that's truly unfortunate when we think about being the 4th largest market in the state, excuse me, in the country
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


REP SOTER - So thank you. I appreciate you coming. I kind of wanna approach this a little bit. Today, I was kind of figuring out and looking at some things, all week leading up into this hearing, and I think we're at a very huge crossroad in our cannabis business here in Massachusetts. I think Colorado kind of went through some stumbling blocks but fixed them very quickly. I agree we are one of the largest blocks doing the most amount of business and I think we need to treat it a little bit differently. I guess the way I, let me1520 go back to some of the regulatory. I agree with my colleagues, the chairs, on the fact that I think we need to fix the part of where, legislatively, I think we need to kind of use what we do in the towns where we have a board of selectmen and they have open meeting a lot. If there's three of them, it's a 2 1 vote still a majority vote. The problem comes when you have 1 1 or you only have 2, that's a problem.

You can't throw, you know, an acting select board member in without a vote, right, without the people voting. So that would not work and I wouldn't support that. So but I do think that we have to legislatively change that so that we can start getting things through. I think where we lose some things is that, and I don't know if it's on us as legislators to be a little bit clearer in the regulations, and maybe you can help me with this. But maybe we need to take away1571 the gray and be more precise on1573 who is the executive board and who is the executive director. Because I think the problem that we have is that we're hitting this bridge. And we're always gonna hit this bridge, I think, if the Legislature doesn't clearly define that. So I guess, do you see that when you're dealing with the CCC that you can be talking to commissioners, but then you have the executive director, kind of circumventing the CCC's kind of thought process so everybody's kind of on hold?

DOMINGUEZ - I think I'll lean back to just say that right now, they're going through a period of transition. So I know that, you know, they just interviewed for the final candidate for executive director. So I think, you know, with the time that I've had with1620 the MCC, there hasn't been some of those folks in those leadership positions. And,1626 again, we don't see what's going on behind the scenes. I think we're having the conversations with staff as well as with commissioners. And they do seem to agree with the changes that we're trying to push, especially when they're universally accepted by the industry. But then somewhere in between, it gets lost and we don't see that from our perspective.

SOTE - So one of my biggest fears is with competition and saturation, is we've heard over the summer and we had a lot of advocates come in over the summer from a standpoint of the, from a lot of the inner city retailers. And those are mostly in the minority communities, minority groups trying to get into this, and having that struggle of trying to get funding. In a lot of cases it's,1675 for1675 them, it's, you know, family money that is put in, and they're getting decimated. And they're losing their wealth which took them a very long1687 time to get to. So, I guess, my concern is we have a lot to address but, I guess, if we don't try to make this a little bit more competitive based, if we don't address that soon, we could have a bigger problem on our hands where this is a different industry, right?

So bankruptcy court, everything from top down is very difficult in Massachusetts because from the federal government standpoint. So what concerns me is that we're going to decimate families, especially in our inner city communities that looked at opportunities, they are struggling through all these regulations also. And we kind of lock them up a little bit in the sense of, selling those licenses or getting other investors because of the regulations interpretation. Some say it's the way we legislated that and you represent some of these folks or is it the CCC not making it easier for them to be in the market already? I guess I'm asking you as you represent some of them also.

DOMINGUEZ - So I'll just go ahead and say too, I think this is a collaborative process. So I think that everybody shares a little bit of responsibility here. I think that when we set up the rules for this industry, I think there was a lot of stigma that we were still trying to battle against. There was a lot of things in terms of what those unintended impacts were going to be. And now that we're, you know, a few years into it, we're starting to see that maybe those didn't actually come to fruition. And I think with cannabis and the new industry, you have to continuously be adapting your policies, your regulations. And so I think, you know, in the same way that the CCC needs to keep up to date, I think the Legislature needs to as well.

You had mentioned Colorado as an example. You know, Colorado has a agency and a state legislature that is consistently putting out new statutes, new laws, and updating it based on the new science and data that's coming out based on the new business conditions. So I think in a similar way, we have to look at all of the tax revenue we're bringing in, all of the jobs that we're bringing in. And if we wanna protect those, I think it's on the Legislature to consider us a priority and to try to push bills on at least every session, in that way. So I think there's kind of a shared shared responsibility for all of us to do that.

SOTER - Let me just can I just jump on safety because I just don't wanna burn out too much time here? But the safety of the product, that concerns me because we are not, again, an industry that has the CDC and those folks kind of overseeing things like we see a little with listeria outbreaks and all that stuff we have now. So when it's product safety aspect of it, can you just address, the CCC has a lot of power to go in and fix those issues right away. They don't need us to sit here and try to figure that out. So I guess my question is, what are those roadblocks that you are hitting because that concerns me that you're hitting safety roadblocks and there's product going out there that isn't safe? So they have the ability to do that. I get it, they're in a flux and everything else, but doesn't stop the day to day operation of people doing the jobs that they are hired to do. Whether they have a leader or not, they need to figure that out. So product safety is foremost the biggest thing that we should be concerned about when you say that. So I guess, can you just focus just on that just for a little bit on what exactly you were talking about from a safety standpoint?
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


DOBRO - I will write it because there's so much, and there are so many problems, and so for me to focus and give you the snapshot is difficult. Part of the problem is that the producers do their own sampling, and so they send their own sample to the lab, and we can only test what we're given, and we don't know what has been done to that sample before we receive it. There isn't a1929 lot of guidance about how testing labs should do the testing, so it's up to1933 us to have our own scientific1935 background and integrity when each individual lab decides how they're going to do that testing. Because every lab interprets the regulations differently, that leads to variability.

Because every lab is using different technology, that leads to variability in the results. And when there's variability in the results, the producers are shopping for labs that are gonna give them results that allow them to sell their products for more. So they're shopping based on THC numbers being high, they're shopping based on safety checks passing. And so that means that the labs that are passing the most microbial, pesticide, heavy metals, the labs that are passing the most and the labs that have the highest THC are getting the most business. And so we are selecting out the labs that are trying to do things the right way, right? It's incentivized all wrong.

SOTER - But I believe in the regulation, the CCC has the ability to do their own testing. Am I wrong about that?

DOBRO - If they had a testing lab.

SOTER - But they can hire somebody. They don't have to have a testing lab. They can send it out to their own testing company that they use for product testing. So you're saying to me that has not been done?

DOBRO - Not to my awareness.

SOTER - You obviously have. So you're telling me that the CCC hasn't been out there testing this product?

DOBRO - Not to my awareness.

SOTER - That doesn't sound to me like the Legislature has any power to do anything. It sounds to me like the CCC just isn't doing what they given the power that we've already given them from the beginning. So thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony. Thank you, Mr.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


REP SAUNDERS - Thank you. And I wanna pick up on where you left off, Mr. Chairman, on this difference between regulatory concerns and statutory concerns, and I heard two very clear statutory concerns and2062 they2062 were both reviewed. The first is around the licensure moratorium. This is one place where I believe the Legislature was clear in its language and statute that the commission shall issue licenses assuming it meets the the core criteria in the statute 94G. This would be a big shift. And I'm interested, and perhaps this harkens back to one of our hearings earlier this session on the time and the investment that the hires have put into the process along with the largely, at times, unnecessary delay that you faced. But seeing that this would be a significant sea change, how would you justify to the Legislature, to the public at large that we should make a 180 degree turn on how we go about approving licenses?

SHUBRICK - So as I outlined in my comments, we acknowledge that there are three paid researcher roles at the Cannabis Control Commission. The moratorium we're asking for would essentially allow those individuals to do the research to2147 better understand where we currently are within our legalization process and what makes sense. Unfortunately, we are not seeing many data driven decisions that are being made. And so when you look at over saturation in communities like Northampton that have over 10 dispensaries, right, but they don't have a population that supports it, it lets us know that as we think about progression forward with oversaturation, as well as price compression in which a one gram pre roll that last year around this time frame sold for $14 is now being sold at $8, that there are multiple things that are working against a lot of the entrepreneurs that put in the time, energy, and money, in order to stand up their businesses.

And to talk numbers holistically, if you're looking at a retail, a stand alone retail, you're looking at anywhere between $1 million to $2 million And unfortunately, what's happening is many of the individuals who chose to enter the industry are exiting but they're financially worse off. And again, that's disproportionately harming women, people of color, as well as veterans. I'm not gonna assume I know all of the answers relative to how we address this, but what I am saying is that the data is clearly telling us that we need to do more research to better understand what this market can actually tolerate before we further progress into additional licensures to ensure that it is a data driven decision that will support a more balanced industry. Because right now what we are seeing is many groups that are getting desperate are starting to sell product below Keystone. And what is that doing to consumers? It's creating unrealistic expectations on price point while concurrently incentivizing folks to buy older product and then sell that at a cheaper price point. So when we think about the public safety aspect of this, there is a lot at risk.

SAUNDERS - So tell me if I'm right or wrong here, maybe it's a little bit of hope, that taking what you said as the situation on the ground, which I do, and I think that there's a lot of data to support that. It'd be nice for the commission to put its resources at work to confirm that data. That the operators currently have put in a tremendous amount of resource. And that by virtue of that effort, and again, the oftentimes, drawn process that the commission uses that there ought to be some protection for those operators to recoup their investment in some way, shape, or form as opposed to, I guess, you can make the the case that, the market decides. That lower prices are better for consumers and, you know, the best operators are going to be the ones to survive because they're operating the best customer experience. Is that a fair situation?

DOMINGUEZ - And so, I think, you know, in terms of some of the risks to folks who invested their life savings2340 and are going through the process, maybe haven't opened up, I think we can build in carve outs for, you know, specific business types that I think, Payton had mentioned, like, you know, carving out for SCE. If we wanted to broaden that definition for folks who are already in the pipeline and have invested those dollars, I think that's a big thing. And then, I think the way that our system is set up though is you have to be vertically integrated, if you're doing medical and the like. So I think the economics are just kind of different for single retailers and some of these other businesses. So, I think, you know, again, economic analysis to all of this and to decide, like, what should be kind of the market side, what is the best route for us to go is something that we need to invest in.

SHUBRICK - And if I could add, to2388 address your question, I think it's also important to note that throughout the entire licensure process, you have to have control of the property, right? So that means if2396 it took you 14, 16, 18, 24 months, you were paying rent the entire time. So by the time you do open doors, I can give you a key example. We opened in 2022, prices had just dropped by 38%, right? And yet the entire cost of controlling the property, building up the space, hiring employees, none of those fixed costs change. And so it creates a dynamic where in terms of being able to pay back investors or have conversations about expansion really becomes limiting because we're in an industry where you can't go to a bank. Trying to fundraise in this environment when many of the articles speak to the disarray right now happening within our market, creates a very few possibilities in terms of progression forward.

SAUNDERS - I think it's a compelling argument, especially given the challenges that the commission has had in seeing licensure through in a timely fashion. And the last question I have, and I don't even want an answer now. The other statutory item that was expressed as statutory, you mentioned, was around of advertising. This is a place where the Legislature was very prescriptive in what is and is not allowed in2470 statute. So if you could follow-up with2472 the committee on thoughts you have on how the statute could be amended to address some of these advertising considerations, we'd be happy to review those.

SHUBRICK - Absolutely.

SAUNDERS - Thank you, Mr.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


REP SHAND - Mr. Dominguez, could you speak to how other states are regulating cannabis? I've noticed that in Illinois the commission is under the guise of agriculture and other places under economic development. Do you have any thoughts about where cannabis should reside?

DOMINGUEZ - Yes. So there's two different ways to look at this, and I'll preface it by saying there's not a perfect 1 to 1 match to another state. I think if you go to operators in any other state, they're gonna have similar kinds of complaints. But I think you all, as a state Legislature, can kind of look at what works in some of these states. And so, with that, there's two different versions that we've seen. So we have the independent commission like we have here with the CCC, and then we've seen agencies that are2532 nestled under, like, agriculture, economic development, under2536 the governor's executive office or something along those lines. And I think they both have their warts. Obviously,2542 with the independent agency, it does protect, you know, the cannabis industry from an agency or a governor who is not so pro cannabis. So, you know, it allows them to act independently. But then on the flip side too, the other agency underneath the governor, or an executive officer, or something along those lines, it can maybe act a little bit more quickly. And so there's goods and bads to both of those, and I think that's up to you all as experts to decide.

SHAND - Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


JEREMIAH MACKINNON - MPAA - Good morning. Thank you, Chair Donahue, thank you, Chair Gomez, and members of the Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy for inviting me to speak today. My name is Jeremiah MacKinnon, and I serve as the president and executive director of Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance, MPAA. Our organization represents the coalition that drafted and successfully passed ballot Question 3 in 2012 that legalized medical marijuana in Massachusetts. For over a decade, MPAA has advocated on behalf of approximately 90,000 medical marijuana patients statewide that depend on medical marijuana for their health and well-being. Our mission is to ensure that state laws and policies truly address and protect the patient needs, protecting safe, reliable, and affordable access to this essential medicine.

As the only organization in Massachusetts that's solely dedicated to advocating for medical marijuana patients, we're here today to represent them and provide our input on the structure of how the Cannabis Control2673 Commission2673 and2673 its operating practices are impacting the medical marijuana program and2677 patient access. At MPAA, we believe that a well defined structure within the commission is essential to2683 the agency being able to fulfill on its mission and serve Massachusetts patients effectively. This requires statutory clarity around the goals and the powers of the executive director, the chair, and the commission as a whole. With clearer, more distinct roles and boundaries, it can lay the foundation for an effective conflict free commission that can streamline operations and stay focused on what truly matters.

While clarifying the commission structure is a step in the right direction, the reality is that the commission's operating practices have so far shown a lack of prioritization when it comes to medical marijuana access. For six years, advocates and even the cannabis advisory board, have called for essential reforms to medical marijuana policy only to face delays and inaction from the commission. The most striking example of the commission's failure to prioritize sensible medical marijuana policy is their ongoing enforcement of the vertical integration requirement. Under this requirement, a business is ineligible for a medical marijuana license unless they're engaged in cultivation, product manufacturing, and retail operations. And this is not a statutory requirement, this is a regulatory holdover from the Department of Public Health that the commission has consistently avoided addressing.

And at the same time, recreational cannabis businesses are not subject to this requirement, giving them the flexibility to engage in only one supply chain activity while still qualifying for a license. This has created an uneven playing field where recreational businesses can more easily establish themselves and expand while access to medical marijuana is limited and dwindle. Just this year, we've seen seven medical marijuana dispensaries, including half of those that are located within the city of Boston, shut down, turning Boston into an underserved area overnight with patients now having difficulties accessing their medicine. And it's quickly becoming a public health emergency in our view.

In recent weeks, I've spoke to the patients who are impacted by these closures, and many of them feel like they're only left with two options. Either search for another medical dispensary that might be unfamiliar or far away, or purchase cannabis from a recreational dispensary at a higher cost because of taxes. Patients should never be burdened with having to pay taxes on their medicine just because the commission's chosen to prioritize other issues. Access to medical cannabis should always be a priority, and that's something the commission should be held accountable2817 to. And we're not alone in2819 calling for this policy to end. WBOR is called the vertical integration requirement arcane, and the Boston Globe called it an outdated relic that should be eliminated.

MPAA was also pleased in April to see this committee advanced H 4409 in April, a bill that would eliminate this barrier and improve patient access. As you consider reforms to the powers and duties of the executive director, chair, and commission as a whole, we urge you to remember the voices of patients that MPAA represents. After waiting for six years for change, H 4409 is currently before the House Ways and Means Committee, and we're calling on you all to continue your leadership with this issue, with House Ways and Means, with colleagues, with leadership, and with the commission itself because patients in the current state of the medical marijuana program need to be a part of your discussions and your deliberations. It's really time to protect the medical marijuana program and patient access, and we ask you to help move this issue forward however you can. Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


DONAHUE - I appreciate your testimony. I appreciate you bringing up some of the statutorily clarity around executive director and some of the things you mentioned before. But, you know, coming particularly from, you know, patient advocacy and the medical side of things, how do you feel your issues are received by the commission? How do2899 you communicate with the commission? And you said it doesn't seem to be a priority, but do you feel2903 that you're hurt, or there's no action,2905 or how do you kind of come to that conclusion?

MACKINNON - So I do have2909 meetings with each of the commissioners and with members of their staff. So we do have a relationship and do engage in conversation regularly. And to be honest, I have met with each of the five commissioners, including, the former, Chair O'Brien, and I actually had a dual meeting with executive director Sean Collins and Chair O'Brien, which was probably a rare meeting. But at the same time, we have these meetings, and the sense that I'm left with is that the commission treats the medical marijuana program as if it's kind of a said and forget it kind of thing. Like, it's not half of their responsibility as the agency. That we're seeing the number of medical marijuana dispensaries decline, and yet we've actually seen no new medical marijuana license applicants this year.

So stores are closing, patients are losing access, and there's no new operators to fill that void. And we express these concerns to the commissioners, and most of what I receive in return is thank you for that comment. I appreciate it, and it's so lacking anything more than that. And I've told the commissioners, all we wanna hear is for you to acknowledge this topic, have a conversation about it, recognize that we're losing access, and that these barriers, that these foundational barriers are not only impacting patients in a negative way, but it's impacting equity. To have a vertical integration requirement is almost the the opposite of an equitable policy. So we do have engagement and conversation with the commission, but we don't get very much, dialogue on their end from the commission in terms of these topics that we feel are, you know, are really pressing.

Like, I honestly feel like we're hitting the red button here with our medical program because if the commission isn't going to do what's necessary to make it easier for more businesses to serve patients, then we're just gonna continue to see the medical program disappear, and it doesn't have to be that way. And so patients are at our wits' end and very frustrated with the fact that the commission has continued for over six years to not really address some of the major issues that patients face. And meanwhile, we're seeing them tackle issues like delivery that for four years these advocates have been pushing for, and yet they're getting through to the commission. So I'm not quite sure why access to medical marijuana is something that the commission isn't prioritizing and making more accessible. And, you know, just think about it, there are over 300 adult use dispensaries in Massachusetts, there are less than 100 medical. Why is it not possible for some of these adult use dispensaries to hook into the medical system and have a medical register? It's bureaucratic red tape and it's misprioritization of the medical marijuana program and patients. And so that's why we're here today to share our frustration and I hope that answers your question.

DONAHUE - No. Thank thank you. I think medical as you might be able to provide maybe unique insight as far as medical having been, unlike recreational, having been3100 regulated by the Department of Public Health, previous to legalization of recreational. I was wondering if there's3106 any any contrast or any comparisons to be drawn from the experience that maybe patients would have experienced under the Department of Public Health versus an independent agency that kind of would highlight whether, you know, obviously, there wasn't recreational, so it wasn't there. It wasn't a prioritization competition between the two. But kind of what was the patient access or patient conversations like with the Department of Public Health maybe versus what you have today?

MACKINNON - If I could be frank with you is, I've thought about this. When Governor Baker came into office, he had issued an administrative order that made all agencies update their regulations so that way there was no stagnant regulations. The Department of Public Health made updates in 2017, I believe. And one of the major things that we were pushing for at the time was an update to the patient3156 registration process because patients were going to their cannabis provider, getting certified, submitting their3162 patient registration to the state, and waiting two weeks, in some cases, to actually get the registration approved and be able to access the dispensary. We wanted patients to almost have, like, a temporary license. Be able to after they see the doctor, go directly to the dispensary. And the DPH was doing ministerial small edits that were not really fixing that major issue.

And I feel like the same thing is what's happening today. And what we had to do in that case was go to the Legislature during the compromise of Chapter 55 of the Acts of 2017 and plead to the lawmakers, that DPH isn't doing what's necessary to make the program successful to actually serve patients and modernize its policies. And the Legislature, in its wisdom, granted, you know, amendments to the law that allowed for a temporary registration, which is something the commission has implemented. And I feel like that's the point we're at now is that we've pleaded with the commission. They know every time I come to them that I'm gonna ask them about why we can't move forward on this topic of vertical integration and expanding patient access, and yet we're never getting anywhere with them. And so that's where I feel like we're kind of at the same place we were at the DPH.

The major issues that are really causing the most harm to patients that need to be done aren't being done and meanwhile, we're getting very small, tiny edits that should have been done a long time ago that don't take that much work. And so we see a lot more work and time being spent on adult use. And I just feel like there needs to be some sort of mechanism for the commission to actually be accountable for running the medical marijuana program and not just putting out press releases saying how many billions of dollars they're making for recreational because they kind of can't, you know, there's no3274 tax revenue for medical, right?

So they3276 can't go to the Legislature and get a pat on the back about medical marijuana in most cases. So I just, I'm looking for a way that they can be held more accountable to, and to be honest, their legislative activities report that they sent to the Legislature had inconsistencies and errors with regard to the information that was about the medical marijuana program. So, you know, I just think that shows that in some cases, they're not necessarily on top of what's going on with the medical program. And I'm worried about that because if they're not, you know, fully invested in the medical program success and doing everything they can, then who is and what does that mean for us?
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


SOTER - Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. While you were answering that question, there's a couple questions that maybe you can help me with. When you were looking for some of these regulations, some legal, I'm sure there were a lot a lot of legal questions. Can you just kind of shed some light on how the CCC's general counsel responded to you in some of those particular situations?

MACKINNON - Sure. So in 2020, Former Commissioner Doyle did kind of go into this discussion about vertical integration and how they might be able to break that. And she had come up with a policy and then she left. And then so the commissioners were having a regulatory round. They discussed Commissioner Doyle's proposal without the benefit of her being there. And so the general counsel opined at that time saying that this proposal was kind of an end run around the existing structure, and was3382 unclear about whether or not it would create a situation where businesses could evade the license caps, essentially, by having more than three of any license type. But, that's not how we saw it and that's not how, Commissioner Doyle or Commissioner McBride also opined in public meetings. She didn't view it that way either.

So there's been conflict about whether or not3409 the commission, whether or not the law requires vertical integration or not. And the only one I've ever heard defend that it is required is the commission.3417 And, you know, our medical marijuana law is3421 very, very brief. It's not very detailed like the adult use law. There's no language that requires a medical marijuana operator to engage in these three activities to engage with patients. So, you know, in fact, if you look at the medical marijuana law, the definition of a medical marijuana treatment center is the premises under the medical marijuana license. And if you look at medical marijuana license that says, you know, a license issued to the medical marijuana treatment center.

So, essentially, the commission, that's so broad that the commission really could open up their medical regulations and say, you know, if you're an operating business, that's criteria for a medical licensure and kind of streamline this process. But I really haven't heard a very detailed understanding of why they believe that the vertical integration requirement, you know, is something that's in the statute. And to be honest, there are documentation from DPH in 2013 that they said it was a choice, that it was the optimal model. And so if it was a statutory requirement, I'm sure in that memo, they would have just said, we're required under the law to have it this way. Instead, they said, we're choosing to do this because it would be the most optimal for patients. And, obviously, at that point in 2012, there was no access, it was a brand new industry. It made some sense then to make sure that every business was providing some product into the industry. But at this point, especially with an adult use industry that's thriving without a vertical integration requirement, I think there's no rational reason to have vertical integration anymore for medical, and it's hurting patients.

SOTER - Right. I don't disagree. I mean, from a private sector standpoint, if I'm looking at this, it's pretty simple. We need to integrate the two together. There is a database that you can have. I mean, we've been on enough tours. This committee's been on multiple tours. I've had two different chairs of this committee that I've been on with this committee since I've been here. In every single place that we went to, it's like you're tripping over one another. It's like you've got the medical marijuana side and you've got the adult recreational side. There's too much overlapping going on. The one licensing process, the one medical card should be able to handle. They should be able to walk into any adult use and be able to get their needs for their medical use.

I think it's something that definitely needs to be changed. And, again, I still think the CCC has the ability to do that. I just don't think they have the wherewithal to figure it out themselves. So, again, it comes upon the Legislature to figure out. I have one particular question. Do you feel in your, I'm gonna go back to the general counsel question again. Would you feel that the Legislature to fix kind of a more of an independent voice or independent opinion for not just yourself in the medical marijuana aspect of the advocacy, and I probably should have asked this from the last panel, do you think that it would be good for the Legislature to clearly define that the general counsel needs to be an independent general counsel outside of the appointing authority of any executive appointment from the governor or treasurer on down or the appointing authorities or the commission?

So what I mean is, should it be a strictly independent legal counsel, general counsel, giving advice to the commission and the executive director because it would eliminate a lot of this bureaucracy that we have, and I think it can clearly define? And the reason I asked that is because I see a very big common denominator in everything going on here, is that general counsel is giving very vague advice on what our interpretation of what we passed versus what they can do. And I think an independent voice, and when I say that independent company, very independent legal counsel giving advice, they don't have any stake in the game other than they're contracted by the state or the CCC to give that. Do you think that would be a better way to answer your questions, get through this process better, through the medical process better, because your arena, your advocacy has a lot of intricacies a little bit more so than the adult side? So I guess that's my question to you. You think that would help in the process? And that's my last question, Mr. Chair.

MACKINNON - It's a good question. I mean, I think it could help. I think it's possible that in the past the general counsel was maybe making an opinion that kind of went along with how maybe certain members of the commission wanted the conversation to go. And so maybe having an independent voice in that regard could eliminate it. But also, you know, I'm thinking would it eliminate that kind of, you know, doing the bidding of maybe, say, the chair who wants the opinion to come out a certain way, would it necessarily eliminate that? But I do think it's a good thing to entertain and and not necessarily something that I would oppose upfront, right? So so it's definitely a good question.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


SHAND - So currently, the commissioners each have a subject matter expertise. I'm curious if you think it3741 makes sense for subject matter expertise to be embedded at the commission level. Does it lead3747 to a kind of jostling of priorities as the commission decides what to tackle and in what order because you've mentioned that public health is not high on the priority?

MACKINNON - There is a commissioner that is supposed to have a public health seat currently. And so, I mean, I wouldn't say that having the different expertise is necessarily a negative thing. I would critique, though, that I I do think that the commission has lacked a particular individual whose primary goal it is to, like, it's their job to make sure the medical program is working. Like, you know, is any of the current commissioners the point person on medical marijuana for the other commissioners? I don't believe that's the case. And I think there's a lack of knowledge around the medical marijuana program, how it operates in all of its facets from the commission. And so I would like to see something3806 more dedicated towards responsibility of the medical program. But I do think there is some benefit to having different backgrounds of the commissioners. So, that's what I would say.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


REP CONSALVO - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just very quickly, I appreciate hearing this testimony. I think it's really important for the medical side to understand the issues that you're facing. Two things that struck me, just quickly, and I tried to take notes but if I didn't get it exactly right, I'm paraphrasing, you said something about lack of prioritization of the medical marijuana policy by the CCC. That's concerning, to say the least. And then also the access to medical marijuana is declining. And then you mentioned data. You mentioned the city of Boston. That's, I represent four neighborhoods in the city of Boston, so that's particularly of interest to me and concerning. We don't have to talk about it here, but, I would love to see the committee get sort of the year over year data of since we've had the law and since we've been operating. What does that data look like of openings and closings and where we stand? And could you just clarify what3868 you said about Boston?

MACKINNON - Sure. And and to my knowledge, there3873 have been very little to virtually no closings3874 of medical marijuana stores prior to this year, maybe less than a handful. But this year, over the history of the whole medical program, this year alone, though, we've seen seven medical dispensaries close, and half of the medical dispensaries that were in the city of Boston are no longer. So there were six as of this year, there are now only three. And, you know, I've spoken to one individual who actually has been affected by two of those closures. He essentially was going to one of those stores, then found a new store in Boston, and now that one's closed. And so now he's having to go outside of Boston to get his medicine at an affordable rate because some of them have different prices and whatnot.

So, for Boston, the most populated county in the state, to have only three dispensaries and then kind of be, they're located quite distant from one another. So if you're located anywhere in the city, you're likely gonna have to be traveling quite a bit to find that dispensary. And s that's very concerning to us because we've known that Cape Cod and the Berkshires kind of been underserved areas, but for the city of Boston to now have only three dispensaries, and, like, I'll add there's over 30 recreational dispensaries. So we could have all of these recreational dispensaries serving patients today. But like I had mentioned, for some reason the commission is kind of stopping applicants from plugging into the medical system and serving patients, and so patients are paying taxes.

And so when the commission waves around their $7 billion tax press3977 release, I get concerned because I know some of that money is being made off the backs of patients. Because we could really, if we had the will to do this, we could make this change happen. And so, I am concerned to see that this is affecting medical, that medical access is dwindling. And we are seeing that3996 the prioritization of adult use is actually making patients, you know, they're seeing that medical and adult, they're questioning whether there's a difference between medical and adult use because there's so many adult use. The prices have gone down so much. And so, we're really undermining the medical program. And another aspect of this is the commission is allowing adult use licensees to advertise discounts that target medical patients and try to entice them into recreational dispensaries by giving medical discounts. And so that's something I know is undermining the existing medical operators. So, you know, it's quite concerning. And I'm happy to share with the committee, in our written comment, any additional, information that we have relative to the number of dispensaries we've had and where we're at now.

CONSALVO - Yeah. I think that's really interesting. I think it's something we definitely should review. And I look forward to taking a deeper dive on that data and how it's moved over the years, particularly what's led up to this year's dramatic decrease.

MACKINNON - If I can just add one point is that, this vertically integrated medical marijuana license, it's a $50,000 a year license. And so if you're just a adult use retailer, that's a $10,000 a year license. So it's also something that we're worried about, not only allowing new operators to serve medical, but we're worried about the existing operators not being able to continue to serve patients. You know, they may be reconsidering their promise to patients because of this excessive license fee. And, you know, I don't wanna see if a facility, for some reason, isn't able to keep their cultivation facility that they all of a sudden need to close their medical stores because we're throwing the whole baby out with the bathwater. We got to decouple this medical license and make it more flexible.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


DONAHUE - I just wanna follow-up on one thing you had mentioned in your testimony as well. It's just about the idea of accountability, and we talked a little bit about independence as well. But when you talk about the medical program being accountable, who by that do you mean? Do you mean the program needs to be accountable, the commissioners need to hold it more accountable, that someone outside the CCC needs to hold it more accountable? Kind of describe your thought process around that.

MACKINNON - I have two thoughts on that. And I think one thought of that is the fiscal aspect of them, how they run the program, and where they get their money to operate. And also, like I had mentioned in response to one of the other questions is someone at the commission being responsible as the point person for the medical program at, like, the commission level or the executive director. Like, one of them needs to be able to answer almost any point about the medical program. And if I can do that and I have more institutional knowledge over the history of the program and how it is today than a commissioner or an executive director, I think that's a problem, right? So I think that aspect of someone at the commission being responsible for knowing, like, the back of their hand, the medical program is kind of where I was coming from on that.

And with regard to the accountability with the fiscal aspect, is under the DPH, there was a medical marijuana trust fund. And so all the fees that were collected sat in the fund and were only to be used on the operation of the medical program. And I think one thing we may wanna look at is the revenue neutrality aspect of our medical program, because is that why the commission is charging such high license fees? You know, if we lose more licensees, does the commission feel like they have to keep it revenue neutral by raising license fees? You know, I don't wanna see the license fees be kept high because the commission feels they need to be revenue neutral, especially when the money that's appropriated, you know, is not necessarily tied to how much they brought in, right? So, I think that also, I'd like to see the medical program kind of be able to keep its funding or be more accountable in that way, so that way we can understand, you know, the commission's operations in that regard.

DONAHUE - Excellent. And so, if the medical program was to run into continued difficulty in the way that you're describing it or if there was, you know, threatened access or anything like that, is it your opinion that if you were to go to the only place that, if the commission wasn't taking up, let's say, an issue that was very important to the, you know, the patient community, is the only other remedy to come to the Legislature?

MACKINNON - The only other remedy besides the Legislature is the judicial branch. And that is an avenue that we are contemplating because of the severity4277 of what's happening and the threat of continued harm. But we would like the Legislature to, like we said4287 in our comment, please champion this as you have. Continue bringing up with leadership, your colleagues, the commission. Get them to get on record with you about it.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


KEVIN GILNACK - MASS EON - Chair Donahue, Chair Gomez, thank you very much for your time today. My name is Kevin Gilnack. I live in Lowell, Massachusetts. I'm the policy co chair for Equitable Opportunities Now. I've been involved with EON since 2018 but EON was founded right after Question 4 passed, by Shaleen Title, Commissioner, and Chanel Lindsey, employee business operator, as well as a number of other folks who are currently pursuing or have equity licenses to make sure the Legislature, the CCC, and the Commonwealth as a whole advanced the social justice goals of Question 4, and, your mandate to the CCC to encourage full participation.

Aside from voting for, and medical in 08 and 2012, I first got involved with the Mass cannabis industry in 2015 as the first executive director of the Commonwealth Dispensary Association. I was brought on because of the challenges we were facing with the rollout of medical through DPH. And worked with vertically integrated medical operators and DPH to resolve some of the very flawed aspects of the regulatory testing application process. Had the privilege of helping draft Question 4, and really saw the challenges that come out of trying to regulate cannabis within the auspices of one constitutional office. I'm also grateful to have been pardoned by the Biden Harris administration along with thousands of others for possession of cannabis, and enrolled in the 4th cohort of the social equity program.

I'm here to emphasize the importance of preserving the quasi independent nature of the CCC with five commissioners appointed by three constitutional officers. Our rollout with medical marijuana extended over two governors, at least two application processes, numerous challenges with regulations and testing, and we only ever eventually opened up our medical dispensaries through a waiver from Governor Baker. Concentrating the power and responsibility of overseeing cannabis policy under one office puts an unfair burden on them and their bureaucracy, and often leads to opaque and politicized decision making with limited opportunity for public comment or debate. While the4447 CCC deliberations are often very slow and messy, they also prioritize4451 debate including different perspectives from different commissioners of different backgrounds, and they4457 encourage stakeholder input.

The lack of interference from appointing authorities give the commissioners freedom to make policy decisions they think are best for preserving public health safety, equitable participation, and the success of the industry. Recent events, obviously, highlighted the need for some potential clarification4473 enhancements of the CCC's authorizing statue, and I'm happy to get into that4477 during our questions. And I'm also happy to, I wanna take a moment just right now while I have your attention to urge you to fully fund the Cannabis Control Commission to make sure it has the resources it needs. With the rollout of social consumption, with a lot of backlog for equity applicants and licensees who need additional support, we think it's critical that the CCC has sufficient staff to provide technical assistance to equity applicants to review and license social consumption licensees as that comes online and meet their other mandates, including the rollout of the 4th cohort of the social equity program, which is currently on hold pending resolution of the FY 25 supplemental budget.

I speak to equity business owners nearly every day. EON funded the Mass Cannabis Equity Council this year in response to the existential threat created by MSOs trying to gain market share by changing the rules to allow big operators to exceed the current limits on ownership licenses. They've been providing critical input to EON's advocacy and programming. I'm glad to be joined by two members of MCEC right here today that I'm gonna pass the microphone over to. But I just wanna highlight that, in addition to the threat of changes to the license cap endangering all of our efforts around equity, we also ensure the feedback of others who have testified before us that it's critical the CCC expedite its regulatory reviews. And also that the Legislature step up and pass laws to address issues where the CCC either lacks the mandate or the will to make needed changes. So thank you very much for your time. I'm happy to answer your questions, but also to introduce Dru Ledbetter of Zeb Boutique and Chris Fevry of Dris Brands.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


DRU LEDBETTER - MASS EON - Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Chair Donahue, Chair Gomez, thank you, honorable committee members, thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon. My name is Dru Ledbetter. I live in Sharon, Massachusetts and I'm the CEO of Zeb Boutique, which has a provisional4595 retail dispensary license in the city4597 of Boston where I was raised. I'm a mother, a registered nurse, a cannabis patient, and a social equity business owner on a mission to help people define their own plant based wellness journeys through education and intentional use. As a social equity applicant with years of experience in healthcare management and wellness, I'm here today to advocate for a transparent, data driven, equitable cannabis industry in Massachusetts.

I want to echo my colleague4623 Kevin's comments on the importance of preserving the CCC's independence.4627 Adjusting staffing vacancies and clarifying roles within the commission is critically important. It's also essential that we expedite regulatory reviews and pass laws that address the challenges facing our industry today, especially the low hanging fruit that we have in front of us. I'd like to use my time today to talk most about my experience as an applicant, as a licensee, and my observations of the CCC also as a patient the last year and beyond. In my journey as an applicant and as a patient, I've seen firsthand both the successes and the struggles within the regulatory framework.

First, I'd like to acknowledge that the CCC has made meaningful progress in areas like licensing timelines. I have gone through the process a few times and I've seen diminished timelines in the return and communication. The frequency of public meetings, holding listening sessions for guidance that is not mandated by the regulatory process. Essentially, they've been outside a lot more and we've been able to communicate with them4687 a lot more. The commission has engaged stakeholders in social consumption policies and has made a real effort to really include and address the community. And we all know that there's still some issues and areas for improvement. I focus a lot on health disparities. We know we have been plaguing the black and brown communities with health disparities. And as you just heard, which kind of timed it perfectly, what are we doing about health disparities when it comes to cannabis?

We're still kind of being left out. So one of my first priorities is to urge you to verticalize the medical program, and I'm asking that as a patient. It is impossible to have to drive through an entire city and drive past four dispensaries to get to the one right outside of your city just to access your product without having to pay taxes. I think it's really important that dispensaries are owned by people that look like us in our communities are able to serve those patients without a lot of restrictions. I have a friend who I have to speak to who has MS, who relies on others for transportation and have to drive from Dorchester to Brookline just to get his medicine, and that's unfair. We need the dispensaries again to really address the health equity concerns. And I think health equity really includes cannabis medical patients as well. I also believe nurses have always been on the bridge between patients and healthcare, and it's no different in the world of cannabis. And I'd love to see some nursing roles implemented at the CCC as well to provide some education.

Next, I'd like to see the enforcing and protecting of ownership caps to prevent market consolidation. As somebody who is in the provisional state, it was an existential threat to me that large multi state operators were pushing for higher license gap limits before I even got my store open. Especially, right, when the social equity trust fund was made available to me. Safeguarding these limits is a vital and fair competitive landscape that is set up for us and people that look like us. Transparency around the enforcement is another priority. You know, some people are currently skirting those limits, and it's really important for us to collect the data to have transparency around those, issues. The CCC does need the resources to monitor and publicly report on these violations and ownership caps. They need the resources to monitor worker safety and other critical compliance areas.

This transparency is essential for accountability, fostering trust within our communities, and within the CCC. We have to look at the data. Furthermore, unresolved regulatory issues such4841 as allowing delivery in no4843 towns and permitting delivery to hotels, which is really, really low hanging fruit,4847 they need to be addressed pretty quickly. And we need to be able to adapt4851 to real world conditions and address things before the end of the year. I'd also like to see expanding the impact of the social equity trust fund's capacity. We can support economic empowerment and social equity applicants by enabling loan guarantees, which double the impact of the existing fund amount just using the fund monies as a loan backup and guarantee.

In Massachusetts, we have the expertise to set a national standard for cannabis policy. The means to empower the CCC to collect and analyze the data, which is essential for informed decision making. I think we need to invest in the commission's analytical capacity and engage with experts that will enable us to create a responsive data driven policy environment instead of a punitive one. In closing, I ask the committee to continue to support the CCC with the resources that it does need to build a balanced, equitable, and forward thinking cannabis industry. Expressing my gratitude for your time and your attention this morning, I am happy to continue to work with you on these processes. Thank you, and I'd like to introduce my colleague, Christopher Fevry.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


CHRISTOPHER FEVRY - MASS EON - Alright. Chair Donahue, Chair Gomez, and honorable members of the, committee members, thank you for opportunity to testify today. My name is Christopher Fevry. Based in Stow, Massachusetts. I'm the CEO and co founder of Dris Brands, a social equity, majority woman owned, minority owned cannabis logistics and distribution company. I also sit as Deborah Goldberg's appointee on the Massachusetts Cannabis Social Equity Advisory Board, and have been in the industry since about 2020. And we operate, one of the only companies to operate the three major delivery licenses, delivery4962 operator, marijuana courier and third party transporter. I've had4966 the pleasure to work with the CCC staff and with the majority of all the appointed commissioners during my time here in the cannabis industry. And I can say there's some positives and definitely some negatives.

For example, today, the CCC is voting on a two driver rule. This is a monumental step in supporting social equity delivery licenses. While this is4986 a great thing, it's taken us nearly four years for us to get here with companies going out of business. Myself and my wife personally laying people off, and being in a situation where we're feeling a little helpless even during COVID when, you know, people spend 10 hours a day with each other. They were forced to you know, we were not able to get relief to say, hey, we can operate with one driver. And again, many delivery operators could not get this relief over the last four years. And, again, we saw people go out of business. However, on the flip side, the CCC's responsiveness has dramatically improved. They're are engaging with stakeholders. They've also increased the number of public meetings that they have on a monthly basis. And, you know, I would say compared to four years ago, I do feel like they are listening.

And I wanna5040 echo Kevin's comments regarding the need to preserve the CCC's independence, get them the funding that they need, because they're doing a very tough job right now, and they need more legal support. And we need to expedite the regulatory review process so that we can handle a lot of the common sense issues that we all agree are a problem. One of these issues is unit delivery to little towns. New Jersey when they started their cannabis industry, even if a town doesn't allow for recreational dispensaries, they can still receive recreational delivery. Even right now, we have a delivery company, I cannot receive deliveries from my own delivery company, which I think we can all agree here that that does not make logical sense, and we don't need to do a study to figure that out.

But what we need the Legislature to do is to pass laws that increase access and protects the market and protects equity and prioritizes equity. And we've seen the commission constantly, you know, talk about, well, we don't see any equity operators. This is a very tough industry to be in. But also too, the market is dramatically changing, and we need to make adjustments for where the industry is going to be in 2027 today to prepare ourselves. And, again, also another unresolved delivery issue, we're not able to deliver to hotels. And the commission hasn't been clear whether or not they are able to make these decisions, which, again, I think that's a back and forth that needs to be resolved. Also the enabling of medical diverticalization with a priority of for equity applicants. I mean, what we learned today about all that there's, you know, there's only three available medical shops in Boston, that's pretty terrible. And in hindsight, there's no more than, I don't think there's no more than five, you know, medical delivery operators in the state of Massachusetts.

Other common sense things like adopting a one agent, one registration system, like many other government bodies have here in the Commonwealth. And ultimately, you know, in closing, the biggest thing that I think we need from everyone is bravery. I think, you know, we're still treating something that we legalized as an illegal product, which is really causing a lot of friction. And I think we need to get to the point of saying, okay, we've seen this play out since medical has legalized. People are not, you know, there's not robberies left and right, people are not dying from consuming too many edibles. We need to get to the point saying, okay, we need to deregulate because also by over regulating, we are making the staff members of the commission's job much harder. And actually, one last point, with the price compression that we are seeing, we do need a moratorium on licenses. We cannot keep adding new licenses into the mix. Because one, it makes the commissioner's job harder, but also it damages the market. And, you know, without, I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


DONAHUE - No. I very much appreciate your testimony, and, you know, I understand some of the regulatory challenges that you've lined out, kind of the long list, but kind of to maybe bring it back to the beginning of the testimony too. Just is there something, you find difficult or ineffective with the structure that's impending you know, preventing these regulatory changes from occurring? Are you not being heard?

FEVRY - No, I would say we definitely are being heard. We've had many, many meetings with the commission since 2020 regarding the two drive rule. I mean, many people have. I think, I am not sure, you know, maybe it's a process where it's something that the cannabis advisory boards, you know, because they vote on many things. They send things to the commission that needs to get on the agenda, even though they don't have, necessarily a, you know, legal authority to tell the commission what to do. But I think there more things need to be prioritized, but also too, the commission needs more legal staff to also research and dive into these issues so that they are able to, you know, get through them.

But also it seems like also too that there's a level of disagreement. And I think having those five commissioners there to, you know, when an issue comes up, you know, we discuss it, we vote. Okay, they update the regs, we have a public comment period, we vote again, and it's done. I don't see why sometimes these processes take years. You know, we need to, and that's kind of where we need a level of bravery, because I think sometimes people are very concerned about the backlash or what's gonna happen, or they're concerned, oh, do we have the ability to do this? But then or even takes a long time to research these topics. And I think those are some of the issues, but, you know, it's not necessarily, it's not really just say one solution.

GILNACK - Just to build on that, I think for each issue there's a different set of circumstances. For delivery to no towns, for example, I think there's a number of divergent legal opinions that have come up in previous CCC meetings around that topic. It's one of those areas where it would be very helpful for the CCC to have a mandate from the Legislature making it abundantly clear that they have the authority to authorize delivery to no towns even though, you know, you could find a room of lawyers and half would say they already have that power. The hotel's issue, I think that there's been push back from some hotel operators to the commission encouraging them to maintain the current prohibition, which is not rooted in any laws or regulations. And again, it might be helpful for the Legislature to clarify to the CCC that their job is to be responsive to regulating the industry. And, you know, while it's helpful to take into consideration the concerns of the hotel operators, we should be taking a much more holistic approach than just letting them have veto power over the sub sector of the industry. Another issue that comes up a lot is testing labs. I think it would be really helpful to take a look at the statutory authorization for the CCC to leverage state labs or private labs for independent testing and verification.

Right now, the CCC is responsible for licensing all independent testing labs and then needs to rely on them for their advice when they were dealing with the vape crisis and setting testing standards. And, you know, there is a license type for a standards lab. We have yet to get a single applicant for that type of license to provide independent testing. And in the absence of that, I think it would be helpful for the Legislature and the CCC to get together and talk about if there are state, DPH, or police, or other labs that could be leveraged to do independent audits of testing. And, also, I know that there's bills pending that would provide greater transparency around testing lab results. And have some accountability for large variations. So these are all areas ripe for action by the Legislature.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


SAUNDERS - So Two. The first one, I wanna pick up on the no towns question. I do think this is another one of those items that is very clearly a statute issue. So the statute reads now that, I will ask that when I make the same question, that municipalities can prohibit the operation of one or more types of marijuana establishments within the city. And it feels deliberate that the language doesn't prohibit the licensure, right? How would you respond to the policy? And I'm not an attorney, I'm not looking for a legal response, but from the policy that municipalities have proactively chosen, or in some cases, multiple times over proactively chosen not to have operators in their field?

FEVRY - So municipalities are made up of many different people, and they can decide whether or not they wanna have cannabis businesses, you know, within their borders. I think what's a little odd is that we allow for medical delivery to any municipality in the Commonwealth, however, recreation delivery, we do not. And it's specifically in the regulation that say if, you know, a town ban adult use retail, they do not allow delivery, but I don't think it's clear at the commission whether or not that's a statutory change that's needed to clear that up or to fix that issue or regulatory change. And that's why that issue has been an issue for the last four years.

SAUNDERS - I imagine the question may be whether or5549 not operation constitutes the delivery or where5553 it's, is5555 it5555 your position, I don't wanna put words in anyone's mouth, that municipalities often do not have the authority to limit deliveries within their community, or should that be a separate question for municipalities?

FEVRY - You know, I think the discussion around municipalities, I think, look, we see what happened to HCAs and how that was abused and how, you know, the results of that, we have now okay, well, we don't see many equity operators because they didn't know, you know, the mayor's brother to open a dispensary. We see that municipal power has caused lawsuits in Malden that, you know, we're also a party of, where they've created such restrictive zoning so that they are now, it's impossible for operators to even find a location to even operate in. I do think limiting municipal power is a really good idea because it5608 sets things up to be abused and, you know, it's5612 kind of a what's the word? There's a level of conflict of interest that we're constantly seeing. And so that would be my response to that question.

LEDBETTER - I just might add just a practical answer. As a private property owner, I should have the right to say what I want delivered to my home, it's that simple.

GILNACK - I think Dru and Chris summed up very nicely, but I just, get into the legalese, I think one of the questions to your point about operation is where does the sale take place? And the sale is taking place from that warehouse in the town that has authorized that delivery operator to operate. And then, you know, the question of his driving into that town to deliver it a part of that operation. But I think, you know, as it's been pointed out with medical delivery already taking place in every town for so many years, we think the impact's pretty low, and it's time to make sure that consumers and patients who don't have5667 access to retail are at least able to get deliveries in their community.

SAUNDERS - And I don't wanna beat5671 a dead horse here, but so it's your sense that the current statutory language is sufficient to allow delivery to no towns and this is a regulatory decision that needs to be made?

GILNACK - I think it would be sufficient, but it still takes the commissioners and their lawyers to agree, or the Legislature to make it explicitly clear just to cut through the ongoing debates.

SAUNDERS - And the second question has to do with your written testimony regarding, provide transparent and expedient process for removing commissioners and chairs. This has been something that we've had a lot of discussion about in the committee. Is there a reason, in your opinion, that commissioners shouldn't simply serve at the pleasure of their appointing authority?

GILNACK - I do. I think that it's pretty important to preserve a level of independence. I think it should be a pretty extreme situation where a commissioner is removed. There might be benefit in clarifying what that process is in bringing other decision makers. One of the options we proposed in our written testimony was having all three appointing authorities review any movement to remove a commissioner. Because, again, we've seen what happens when my constitutional officer gets very involved in trying to oversee and set regulations and choose applicants. And it's just a recipe for disaster we've lived through in Massachusetts before and we'd rather not repeat.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


SHAND - As a member of the advisory board,5758 I'm curious, how is your work product taken into consideration by the current CCC? And what would you like to see the role of the advisory board to be in a future regulatory agency?

FEVRY - Yes. So, the Massachusetts Cannabis Special Advisory Board is separate from the Cannabis Control Commission. We we don't work with the Cannabis Control Commission, whatsoever, and they're not involved in our work. We work with the Office of Economic Development, and we simply serve as advisers. I think that structure has worked pretty well, and I think, you know, we are on pace to create one of the best cannabis social equity funds in the country. And, you know, the Office of Economic Development, they're not required to do what we say but they are required to listen to our advice. And so I think that has been a good structure and has created a good5812 working relationship. And I think that's obviously the, the byproduct of that is, you know, we've launched the biggest grant program in the country. And so, that's gonna be my answer to that question.

SHAND - Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


DONAHUE - I just have one final question. You alluded to it a little bit in your beginning testimony, Kevin, about the idea of, you know, current events and some of the things we face. I mean, this committee faced a call from the inspector general directly to place the CCC in receivership, and we had that hearing, we had a debate on that. You know, do you find that the CCC as an independent agency is able to hold itself accountable? And is that independence, so you're calling for the independence, making sure it stays quasi, which I understand. Just trying to figure.

GILNACK - Yeah. I mean, I think that processes in state government never work as quickly as we'd like, but I do think they're working. I think this hearing is evidence of it working, I think the OIG report is evidence of it working. I think what happened with the former chair, and the courts, and the treasurer, they all reflect the system in motion. I do think it would be nice to see more engagement between the CCC and the Cannabis Advisory Board. There was a hearing just in the last month or so where they took up the topic of advertising and membership deals to help push that policy along. I think that that's a great opportunity for the community to have some accountability and accessibility to the commission. But by and large, as frustrating as it might be, I do think the systems are working as intended, however, slowly.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


DAVE KOFFMAN - MMA - Thank you. Chair Donahue, Chair Gomez, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for your time here today, and thank you for your ongoing work on this important issue. For the record, my name is Dave Koffman. I'm the senior executive and legislative director at the Mass Municipal Association. And we are a member organization of all cities and towns in Massachusetts, whether it's gateway cities, small towns, and all corners of the Commonwealth. And we know that there's a lot of important conversation at today's hearing and really trying to echo concern over the operations5974 of the CCC despite its really, really important and essential role for this industry in the Commonwealth. And I'll just start with what you'll likely hear if you talk to any local official on the subject, especially if they're a host community, with no sense of dependability on the agency and no sense of trust. And we know, despite some best efforts, really no intention at all, I think enough of a relationship towards treating municipalities as essential partners, as you all do6008 in the state, as essential partners in this work to make sure this industry can thrive rather than solely and adversarial challenges.

We know it doesn't need to be this way. We know this is, again, reflects in in how serious you're taking this issue and why you're you're hosting this hearing today. And I also do wanna say there are extraordinary, dedicated staff within the CCC who are committed to this work, know how important it is, know how important it is for all stakeholders, and again, know how important it is for this industry to thrive in the Commonwealth. I'm just really starting to, then send it over to my two colleagues. But really just grateful for your partnership and how serious you're taking this work and, as well as how we need really stress to urgency and a path forward for the CCC to really rebuild that trust and dependability for municipalities as host communities, as well as for the Commonwealth as a whole. And with that, I'll send it over to my colleague, Ali.

ALI DIMATTEO - MMA - Thanks, Dave. Good afternoon, Chair Donahue, Chair Gomez, distinguished members of the committee. My name is Ali DiMatteo. I'm a legislative analyst with the Massachusetts Municipal Association. I want to echo Dave's, appreciation for inviting us to testify before you today. As Dave stated before me, the commission has, to this point, been unable to effectively carry out its own statutory requirements. Section 4 of Chapter 94G of the general laws gives the CCC powers to enforce its regulations through fines and sanctions, but it's failed to follow through, and this lack of enforcement has been consistently exploited. So for example, on November 4, 2022 memo from the CCC stated that municipalities could continue collecting their very important impact fees in their regular course of business, yet many licensees had simply stopped paying their agreed upon impact fees knowing that the regulations would eventually change, and that in the meantime, the CCC would likely fail to enforce the current rules.

When we and other municipalities reached out to the CCC on this issue, they said that municipalities should email the CCC's enforcement division. And it's our understanding that not a single municipality received any sort of response from the CCC and that not a single licensee has yet to receive any penalty or sanction on this issue. The lack of communication is consistent and has been to the detriment to the industry and to communities that host them. And again, municipalities do host these important businesses. In order to be hosts, they need to have clear communication and responsiveness from the commission that regulates it. Municipalities have attempted to weigh in with the CCC during various stages of its rule making process but have received little or no acknowledgment or feedback from the commission when they do try.

Another example is this September 2023 hearing the commission held on host community regulations. It was made clear during the hearing that not only had the MMA and MMLA's joint testimony not made it into the commissioner's hands, but that dozens of testimony from other municipal officials had also not made it there despite them being submitted through the proper channels and in a timely manner. The incident has done little to instill faith in the incident has done little to instill faith in the CCC's internal processes or its public rule making process. I know my colleague Shaun here will discuss how municipalities do want to continue to host this multibillion dollar industry but they don't have faith in how it's being regulated. As the Legislature continues and considers its options, a structure that expedites effective enforcement and clear communication is really essential here. And I'll hand it over to Shaun.

SHAUN SUHOSKI - MMA - Thank you. I'm Shaun Suhoski. I'm the town manager in Athol, almost as far west as Representative Saunders, right? Almost. It's a joy, it's a joy. I wrote down a few examples. I wanted to, I'm going off script. I know they, I hope you don't mind. I want to think about what I've heard today from everybody, from my colleagues at the MMA. I endorse and support everything that Dave and Ali have said. What municipalities need, what the industry needs, everybody that's testified before you, what the Legislature would want is predictability. They want to know the rules of the road, where are the guardrails, and follow the process, and see that the process works. And it will avoid all this confusion and agitation and hearings after the fact. If you ask me, I'll give you the list of various reasons why the trust between municipalities and the CCC is broken down. And I've spoken with, whether it's town managers, I've spoken with mayors, the MMA itself hears from all of the membership.

I can attest that we've written testimony, I have appeared at hearings of the CCC. We we know that the Mass Municipal Association and our municipal council have commented before regulations are final. No response. We've emailed on enforcement matters. In Athol we have 10 parties that have come through, expressed interest, have host community agreements. Two, our, retail courier delivery to our manufacturing, a big one with wealth wealth finance, and a little one that was formed by four college buddies that pooled their money. So the industry is diverse. And my concern, the reason I came here today is to find anybody that will listen, to hear that for the agency to function, it's kind of like the town I work in. I answer to a select board, there are five people. They might be elected from different constituencies, same as the committee.

But the town charter that we operate under gives the authority of the staff and the daily operations to the town manager. I manage the staff, they answer to me, I answer to the select board, the elected board, they set the policy. So I think there's a disconnect between operational effectiveness and there's still6395 a disconnect on the policy side for all the reasons we read in the paper. And I have also met each of the commissioners that are still active and the one that's on leave. Smart, I mean, intelligent, committed, motivated, might have disparate opinions but that's for the commission to work out. But they need to empower their new executive director with the authority to carry forth the mission, to get things flowing through the pipeline. That's what we all want. I probably have another list of grievances, see on this side of the paper, but I'm gonna stop there. If there are any questions, I do appreciate your time. Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


SOTER - Thank you. I appreciate this part. I'm a little bit passionate about because it's very frustrating, and it makes me happy every day from my town of Bellingham where I live when I was on the board of selectmen that we have a moratorium on retail. And we don't do retail because this is exactly the reason of all the things I was talking about. It's an absolute headache for the towns, it's costing them a fortune to figure it all out, and I think again, I think the Legislature was very clear on the laws that we passed and the things that we did. I think this comes down to the fact that the CCC is just not understanding what their job is. And it sounds like, to me, that you're just solidifying that fact in my brain. Every single testimony I hear is that they have all the tools they need, they just don't have the, I don't know if it's the ability. I don't know if it's the counsel, the general counsel not giving them the right advice on what their job is, or they just, it's just too much chaos. I haven't figured it out.

I know this chaos, and I don't wanna address that today. But what I do6508 wanna address with you is that if there's one piece of legislation that we could manage and it6514 comes with the community host agreement piece of it. And I think I talked about this a6518 little bit in this prior session in talking about it.6522 Would it, and we talked about this last session too. If we took the community, I'm just asking from a standpoint, because I think when you say the guardrails, I think what you're saying is that we kind of have to streamline something here because no one's understanding where we need to go. If we took that community host agreement and eliminated it as a Legislature, and I know some of the people here are gonna take it, just take a deep breath when I say this. I'm not some of the advocacy groups. But it would probably make more sense to make it an ongoing percentage tax where it is so that it's clear as day, it sits there, and it's it's defining for the locals to deal with whatever they need to deal with.

I think what happens is we put in too much emphasis on these negotiations. I think people of towns are getting into trouble with their negotiating, the rules they're negotiating. So if we streamline that process and we took that completely in the legislative process, I think that's the one thing that we could probably do for the municipalities is streamline the community host agreement piece, eliminate it completely, and just create it as an ongoing tax. It doesn't sunset, it doesn't go away. It stays there and it's for your ongoing, whether it's equity issues, things like that that the town can use it and make it very broad what you can use it for. It comes back to the town to do it. Would that make it easier, as a town manager, would that make it easier for you?

KOFFMAN - Yeah. Well, I'll comment first and then obviously, Shaun's, experience as town manager, I think, would be crucial. I'll just say on behalf of the Mass Municipal Association, getting out of the host6620 community agreement business makes perfect sense. And I think as you've identified some sort of structure to maybe it's a small localized tax6630 to really simplify that, I think both local officials and licensees and all parties would agree that makes more sense in a way to look towards how to prospectively provide predictability, but also just fairness in the process.

SUHOSKI - I might surprise Dave with this, I agree. In fact, myself and others submitted testimony, probably to this committee and others and also to the CCC talking about that. And, you know, there's a term, I looked it up, so AI gives you an answer in Wikipedia. But remember that there's an old term from the 18th century, holding the bag, right? All the valuables are gone and who's left holding the bag? And cities and towns feel like it's us, the social equity applicants feel like they're holding this empty bag, the smaller operators feel like they're holding the bag. You probably feel the same way. The folks that, and I'm veering a little bit. So I answered yes to your question, but where we're at now is yes, let's get rid of that host community agreement, while we're at it, since the state is collecting 17% between the sales tax and the marijuana excise, and has the funds, and is looking to create that social equity program, which ideally would have been created through the commission a few years ago, let the state manage that. Because right now you got a town like me, you got me and I have a town planner, you know, we just don't have the experience to do that. So if you're gonna have a licensing vehicle through the Commonwealth and it's funded, and it already is, I agree. We would be okay. Do away with that host community agreement and streamline things for everybody's benefit. I feel confident saying that having talked to my select board as well. I wouldn't be out here on the whim.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


DONAHUE - Let's try and keep some of this stuff towards the structure of the CCC. Maybe come back to, I think you had some great points about town manager and select board, but you know, we've debated a lot of these different issues, and there is a lot of statutory stuff we can go through. But just wanna kind of come back and bring it, like, you know, simply independence of the CCC. Do you find it difficult to deal with an independent agency versus maybe one in the secretariat?

KOFFMAN - Yeah. And I know that there's a follow-up hearing where you'll have some administrative law and some other legal experts who, I guess, from a non legal opinion, I'll just say, I think, the adage was in some of the recent coverage, right, is because we understand why there was deliberate independence. I think there's good intentions there. But I think what's very clear is that independence has presented itself for no clear accountability when it comes to as these challenges, how can they be addressed. And I think ways to divert off of that, I think, would be advisable. But again, I imagine there's many other policy experts that have other thoughts on the way when it becomes a challenge. It becomes a challenge.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


SAUNDERS - So, same question as to the last panel. As regards to the towns and host agreement communities not to allow operations of these establishments, does anybody have a position on the current statutory language, and is it recommending one interpretation over another?

KOFFMAN - We can get back to you and the committee on a specific interpretation. I think, the statutory and what would be opine is advisable. But from a local control standpoint, I'd say outside of that, obviously, there's a lot of, you know, we do try to take the consideration, again, how does this work to its existing licensees, the certain delivery operators, as well as the medicinal. There's so many complexities from our perspective, but we can certainly get back to you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
DAVID O’BRIEN - MASSCBA - Thank you for the opportunity. MassCBA, thank you and Chairman Gomez, for the opportunity and the rest of the members of the committee and Chairman Donahue and your staff in particular. MassCBA was founded in 2017 to serve the adult use market in Massachusetts. We have over 100 members predominantly smaller operators based in Massachusetts, and we have a heavy emphasis on social equity, economic environment, and disadvantaged business enterprises as members serving all types of licenses. As you know, chairman, telling you we break, regularly, we've done this with you once through our regional roundtable series that we move around the state to hear from licensees. I will echo something one of the representatives said in earlier testimony, we are at a critical crossroads in the industry, and we're recommending a bottom up review of all regulations at the commission.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, we have discussed many of the solutions that the commission needs to do to improve its performance. Where this agency should live is gonna be up to you. Should it continue to be an independent, stand alone agency is also up to you. We think there's opportunities to learn from other states as they matured. We're seven years into adult use legalization in Massachusetts, and we think other states could teach us a lot. I think it's time to look at the agency and write, as the agent, I'll say, is a 140 staff too many? Is it not enough? What are they working on? Those are critical questions that I think we all need to ask one another. And as a way to really get to the bottom of what all licensees, who are the primary stakeholder, by the way, of the commission, people who risk their hard earned capital and their time and attention to open businesses and make a go of it in Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, as I offered to you, we're gonna do a survey of the entire industry, not just our members, but every member, every every licensee in Massachusetts, whether they're open and operational or in the provisional stage, to get their thoughts on what needs to improve at the commission. I've been here since the first five commissioners and the first executive director were all sworn in, the industry's learned a lot. And in that time, we wanna share that knowledge with you and by extension with the commission itself. Today, the industry is frustrated. I testified before the commission a couple of weeks ago and said the reason why the commission, excuse me, the7084 industry7084 wants to go to the Legislature at your invitation on the heels of the IG, is to express that frustration.

The drama that's been going on with the commission for the past two years, needs to be cleaned up. The pace of change at the, has been way too slow. A great example of that is better than two years ago, the former governor, Governor Baker, signed the equity law for cannabis, and that law went into effect 90 days later in November of 2022. We are still, witnessed the Mass Municipal Association earlier than me speaking today, we are still not resolved on the host community agreements, and who needs to pay them, and whether they should exist at all. I would agree with the earlier speakers. The HCA should go away, and the 3% that they collect at the register for each community ought to be enough to oversee a community.

I will say we are very excited about getting a full time and focused new executive director, David Lakeman. He's someone I've known in the industry before he moved to Illinois and we're excited to have him back. And we are hopeful that under his rule, we will have a customer for service focused agency. Through7165 the work that the commission's been doing with their listening sessions7169 of late, they are listening much more. We need to turn that listening into action and in part come to the Legislature to ask for specific recommendations and changes that we need to see that will come out of our survey, but that will affect the operations, the regulations, and ultimately, the legislation that you all consider. So I'm happy to take questions and report on anything else that might be helpful.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


SAUNDERS - Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your testimony, Mr. O'Brien. Appreciate the sort of detailed analysis of your dealings with the commission. And I wanna ask you a question that I asked panels before. With regard to the commissioners and their responsibility, does your organization, or do you have a position on why commissioners ought not simply serve at the pleasure of the appointing authorities?

O'BRIEN - It feels to me, kind of step back and tell you what I think the commissioners serve as. They seem to serve as a board of directors to the agency, and some of them wanna set policy, and others of them are less in involved in that. The first round of commissioners, for example, two commissioners, Shaleen Title and Steve Hoffman, were both very vigorous in their opposition to HDAs being enforced the way they were. But the general counsel at the agency sort of took a pass on that and said it would be too much for the agency, said we'll find ourselves in court fighting for money to get back. I don't know what became of where we ended up today and why the drama is what it is. It strikes me that, the agency, while independent, is a bit of an orphan because it's not, the governor is not looking at that agency every day. The two other appointing authorities are not looking at that agency every day and holding it accountable.

To my knowledge, they're not calling each commissioner and say, hey, do this and fix this. I think from the legislators' point of view, from the legislators I've spoken to, the fact that we've made so much negative news over the last couple of years when it comes to the drama and the sort of Game of Thrones that goes on at the agency is not helpful to anybody. It's not helpful to see meetings open with who fights to sit in the chair to chair the meeting. That doesn't help us run our businesses. It doesn't help them regulate us. But one of the things that is frustrating to us is the lack of customer service, the lack of evenness when it comes to enforcement in the industry is beyond the point of frustrating.

SAUNDERS - And I guess a follow-up question to that, and the chair had mentioned this, a bit earlier, the inspector general had indicated that it was his opinion that the commission be put into receivership. Do you believe that is the appropriate path in the interim and that a new structure ought to be established?

O'BRIEN - I don't know. More often than not in the states that I've observed where it's worked better than a standalone agency is, excuse me, standalone quasi public is it fits under another state agency, and someone's accountable to it, and they all have bosses. The agency is accountable. We're the largest state. Any given day, they may ignore us as well, and that's frustrating because the industry exists as a result of the people who risk their hard earned capital to open these businesses and to bring the tote board monthly or annually and say, aren't we doing a great job? As an agency, I'd like them to celebrate the people in the industry who are doing the work.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


DONAHUE - Sorry. I'm moving the mic around, but I appreciate your your testimony, some of the insights that you have. You know, one of the, you know, we're talking about some of the, you know, the I guess you'd use the word drama from in your testimony, but as far as you know, you mentioned a line of a board of directors. Is the governance structure help to hold the CCC accountable that exists currently, or is there, you know, you're saying about the governor not being able to see or the other entities or other parties not having direct ownership of the CCC? Do you or your members see that they might be, you know, credence to maybe moving the CCC to a different place instead of just having it as independent? Is that kind of what you're discussing?

O'BRIEN - Yeah. I think they'd like to see it be more predictable, Mr. Chair. And I think under its current iteration, it does not feel predictable. And it's, again, so frustrating, because I don't think the appointing authorities are in regular touch with their commissioners. And then the staff at the agency doesn't work for those appointing authorities, they work for the agency that's a stand alone. And I've heard some people at the agency say, well, the Legislature can't tell us what to do. I said, well, they they can't until they do and when they do, you may not like it. So how about plugging in and tuning in to the fact that there's you have some oversight here, and you shouldn't have to reach crisis point, which is what we're at now, to have to have you make decisions about an agency that should be fully functioning on its own.

Now, in fairness, they built an agency from scratch. It did a good job getting up and running, it improved wait times for licensing, but it's uneven in its oversight. And to many of the earlier speakers' points, not everything7562 can be a priority because everything7564 doesn't get done. And there are certain things that the industry would like to see done. And there's still, I mean, the former executive director told me two years ago, we probably overregulated7574 in the beginning. So let's peel that back because every bit of regulation is time, and attention, and ultimately money for these licensees, and it's money that they don't have in a constricting market.

DONAHUE - And then so if you say as in the seven years since, say, the creation of of the CCC, has the industry, the perceptions, or the market changed enough that maybe the, are you saying the CCC might not meet the current demand or the level of regulation might not meet the current moment?

O'BRIEN - I think that's fair. I think it's fair, and I think it's, I think they started off doing things that were hyper restrictive. And I think with a bottom up review to look at, like, testing for certain elements. You heard that from Megan Dobro who's a member of ours, earlier. To review the way we did business at the inception of this industry seven years in. If they're gonna be a learning industry excuse me, a learning organization, they should be listening to the industry who's learning every day how to do this more effectively. And one of the things we've said to commissioners is, look, we're never gonna ask you as an association to do something that's gonna be bad for public health or bad for public safety. But if anything we argue for isn't gonna affect either of those things, let the industry flourish, follow the lead of other states. We're not asking you to go out on a limb and change rules that's gonna expose anybody to any kind of worries.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


SHAND - So we have, and the federal laws are changing, the states are competing with one another. What do you think a regulatory agent should be doing and what do we need to write into statute so they have this capacity to do bottom up review but also to be watching what's going on everywhere else and updating the laws as we go along? Because this is not gonna stop changing, right?

O'BRIEN - No. And I would argue, representative, they have the ability to do regulatory review now on a regular rolling basis. And I think the current acting chair, Commissioner Stebbins has said, why are we not doing regulations on a rolling basis? It came from the gaming commission where they could do that a little more regularly. And I get it, it's a burden on the staff to have regulatory work on top of the other work they do. My argument would be, what is the other work they're doing, and do we still need to do all of that work anymore? I mean, it's the presumption, as well it's attached in stone, so we must do all that plus this new work, and the staff on any given day feels overworked. And I'm sympathetic to that. I'm saying stop doing some of the stuff you've been doing since the beginning because we don't need to do some of it anymore.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


DANNY CARSON - COALITION FOR CANNABIS WORKER SAFETY - Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you so much for your time today. My name is Danny Carson. I'm an air force veteran, I'm a former cannabis worker from the state. Today, I'm not here just to share my story, but also to advocate for the safety and well-being of all cannabis workers across our state. Many of you may not know the story of my friend, Lorna McMurray. At just 27 years old, she tragically lost her life after suffering an asthmatic attack due to cannabis dust exposure at Trulieve's manufacturing facility in Holyoke, she had no prior health conditions. Her death was not just a personal loss to me, it underscores a critical issue in our industry. And since Lorna's passing, I have dedicated myself to advocating for safer work conditions in the cannabis sector.

With over 20,000 registered cannabis agents in Massachusetts, it's alarming that the Cannabis Control Commission has yet to implement effective worker health and safety protections for workers like us. In recent months, I've heard countless complaints from workers about severe mold issues, new health problems, medical emergencies taking place at these manufacturing sites. These concerns are compounded by numerous OSHA complaints and labor rights violations, leaving workers fearful for even asking for proper protective equipment. According to Chapter 94G Section 4, Paragraph 23, the commission is responsible for creating health and safety standards in consultation with the Department of Public Health and the Department of Agricultural Resources, yet there were regulations currently in place merely directing employers to follow existing OSHA guidelines, which are not specific to the cannabis industry.

In November of 2023, the commission itself acknowledged the Department of Public Health's fatality assessment and control evaluation report about Lorna's case. However, they failed to act on its recommendations to improve the health and safety of these facilities. Lack of action is unacceptable. Together with experts from MassCOSH, the Massachusetts Coalition For Occupational Safety and Health, I have proposed actionable recommendations to improve our working conditions to the commission on three separate occasions. We have called for the creation of both health and safety, respiratory health plans, air quality inspections in these production areas, and a commitment to communicate with workers during their investigations, yet despite receiving and acknowledging all of these proposals, not one of them has been implemented. Today, I urge the Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy to take meaningful action now. We need robust health and safety standards7952 that protect workers. We need air quality testing. We need a safety first work environment. How many more people are going to needlessly get ill and sick and die before something is done for these workers to protect them. Thank you for your time.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
GOMEZ - 1, I just want to say, my condolences, from the whole committee, on the loss of your friend. I live in Springfield and I know exactly the issue that you're talking about. My prayers go out to you and your family and her family and, obviously, her work colleagues as well. Out of all the today's testimony, I think, workers' rights is something that really sticks out to me and really is something that I look forward to working on next session. I know that, you know, making sure that some of these facilities are safe and, you know, doing tours in different parts of the country,8008 the safety protocols that they have instilled, some of these safety protocols, essentially, when it comes to the workers, are instilled. That's something that my office, I think all of us, are looking forward and towards to be able to make these facilities a safe place to work for all. So I just wanted to say thank you for that. It was just more of a comment, not more of a question. And then if you can share any of the information that you have, because of the interest of time, if you can share that with myself and Chair Donahue, we would appreciate it.

CARSON - Yes, sir. Thank you so much.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
CONSALVO - Yeah. I echo the comments of the Senate chair. And just wanted to ask, throwing on my, you know, former city council hat, I mean, you brought up all these issues, complaints that have been brought, lack of action. I've been taking notes. What have the local municipalities done to help hold some of these problems accountable? Meaning, you know, there's permitting in cities and towns, right? There's zoning, there's inspectional services, there's task force in different cities and towns that handle different things. As you're bringing these to the CCC, are they also being brought to the cities and towns for corrective action by local inspection services, mayor's offices, selectmans, town managers like we heard? And then how do they interface with the CCC to make sure that some of the stuff is corrected?

CARSON - Yes, sir. Thank you for asking that. I have brought this specifically to that town manager that was up here in Athol as that's one of the most troubling areas that I've seen in the state at one of their growth facilities. They've had seven ambulance calls there to that facility in the last two years alone because of workers' health and safety issues, and they are aware of that. The local municipalities department of public health feels they have no hand in the direction of anything to do with cannabis. And is told by their leadership that they're hands off for the all of the inspections. I've pulled all of their host community agreements and anything that I can to get more information on who could help at this point. But it seems the CCC is always the person that I'm told to contact, and that agency is always unresponsive or unwilling to help in any capacity.

CONSALVO - So it sounds like there's a disconnect there of who's supposed to do what, and it's been referred back to the CCC, and then there are these questions you brought up. So I appreciate hearing that.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


SHALEEN TITLE - PARABOLA CENTER - Thank you. Thank you all for the invitation to testify today. My name is Shaleen Title. I'm the founder and director of Parabola Center For Law and Policy, which is a nonprofit focused on racial justice and preventing monopolies in the cannabis industry nationally. I also served as a commissioner on the Cannabis Control Commission from 2017 through 2020. I'm the only commissioner so far to have made it to the end of my term. I loved my time at the commission, and I'm grateful for it, and I really appreciate this committee and the Legislature taking a third look at the statute because I believe the first two were very helpful. While I believe the existing structure of five commissioners appointed by three separate authorities is vital to the agency's independence and should be maintained, there are three structural issues that in my opinion, most urgently warrant attention, investigations oversight, consistent enforcement of regulations, and human resources complaints.

First, commissioners must be able to exercise proper oversight of investigations. During my time there, I had some concerns about commissioners being kept in the dark about ongoing investigations. But the tragic absurdity of this practice became clear when the current commissioner shared that they learned about the death of Trulieve worker, Lorna McMurray, from a podcast eight months after it had occurred. At a minimum, there must be a requirement that commissioners be given regular reports with the status of all ongoing investigations and immediate notification of serious safety incidents. Second, commissioners should be explicitly charged with ensuring consistent enforcement of regulations. During my term, I struggled to track whether the regulations that we wrote were being enforced fairly and consistently across all licensees. Other states like Michigan publish monthly reports of all disciplinary actions. I enclosed a sample with my written testimony. I think that would help. I've also heard some of the commissioners call for a searchable public database of enforcement actions and I think that would help, along with clear enforcement guidelines to ensure fairness for licensees. And third, while maintaining the commission's independence is crucial, the one area that I think should potentially be handled externally is human resources complaints.

During my time there, I saw attempts to use the complaints process to block legitimate oversight, a problem that appears to have gotten worse, and it may be distracting from good faith complaints that should8367 be acted upon. So an external entity such as the Office of Inspector General, or Mass Commission Against Discrimination or the Attorney General's Office may be best positioned to properly evaluate those complaints. And then finally, this is more of a flag, but the Parabola Center focuses on, among other things, preventing regulatory capture by the tobacco industry nationally. And we've noticed an attempt to co opt language about highly regulated industries in cannabis legislation in order to make an opening for tobacco industry influence. So while you're looking at the statute, we wanna8404 suggest preemptively editing the role of the commissioner who must have expertise in regulated industries to prevent tobacco company executives from being8414 appointed to that seat in the near8416 future or far future. And I'm happy to talk more about that or any of this with you. Thank you for your time, and I'm going to pass it to Laurie Nsiah, who is our education director. Thank you.

LAURIE NSIAH - PARABOLA CENTER - Hello. Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here. My name is Laurie Nsiah. I am the education director of the Parabola Center. In addition, I serve as, I was appointed to the Cannabis Advisory Board by Treasurer Goldberg, and I sit on the public safety and community mitigation subcommittee of the Cannabis Advisory Board, as well as the market participation committee. I am also a cofounder of a marijuana retailer manufacturer and delivery courier in Worcester, and a professor. Yes, no, I don't sleep. So, and also, aligned with that licensing experience, I have also licensed entities. I own a brewery out in Franklin, so I have experience licensing through different agencies.8473

Now what I'm here to discuss is some of the structural, issues, a few suggestions that I have with regard to improvement. The first issue I8484 would like to highlight is the delays that were caused in licensing, including with the failure to prioritize equity businesses throughout the entire licensing process. That combination has undermined the viability of small and equity focused businesses. For example, some businesses have waited over three months to receive an approval for an architectural review. They don't have architects in the CCC reviewing this, so there's no reason why it should take over three months. And delays cost money. Furthermore, I've had companies who waited over four months for an approval of a label, to have their labels approved. That is just something you look at. So these types of delays are extremely costly, especially to small equity businesses where every penny, every minute counts.

Furthermore, it is unclear whether the priority status extends throughout the entire licensing process. Meaning, after we've obtained our8538 provisional license, does it apply8540 to scheduling inspections in reviews of that sort, in RFIs? It's unclear at this point. And I suggest ensuring that it's extended throughout the entire process. It's critical to note these delays are costly in putting many of these small businesses in financial peril. I also additionally recommend establishing mandated timelines for architectural review, mandated timelines for label approval, extending the equity priority8566 status as mentioned to every step in the licensing process.8570 And I, overall, strongly8572 encourage the Legislature, in combination with the CCC, to consider how the commission's regulatory review process can advance more quickly. And I further urge the Legislature to make critical statutory changes to resolve issues that the CCC has been unable to address due to lack of clear authority or perhaps a mandate.

The second key point I would like to talk about is the lack of access to reliable communication. Anytime an entrepreneur has a question about some of the vague regulations, some of it, I'm not saying they all vague, there's no one to really contact.8608 They always say call your attorney. I'm like, boo, I'm the lawyer. Who am I supposed to go to? So there needs to be someone in place who's going to answer these questions, because8618 whenever you have vague laws, what do you have? Entrepreneurs wasting money trying to figure it out. And especially to the social economic empowerment, veteran owned businesses, they don't have the luxury of wasting time. So having a dedicated hotline or platform where individuals can call in, perhaps anonymously to have their8639 questions answered would be extremely helpful.

And the last point I'll make, which has already been spoken about before is ensuring we have consistencies in lab testing to ensure that we have consumer and patient protection and to restore credibility back in the industry. Because when we legalized adult use, we the people expected to have clean product. We said, oh, the product in these dispensaries is gonna be cleaner than the ones you get from your friends. Well, that hasn't8672 been proven to be consistently true, and so we wanna ensure that there are policies in place to ensure that the products on the shelves are safe for consumers8680 and patients. And that's it. Thank8682 you so much for your time.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


SAUNDERS - Thank you for your patience so far. You probably heard me ask this question three times8695 now, but you spoke to8697 it directly in your testimony. We've heard that there's an interest in keeping sort of independence of the commission. I will say I'm not quite sure, through all the testimony, independence from whom, but I guess my question is, how would you suggest keeping the commission from being accountable to the appointing authorities by, let's say, serving at their pleasure and meeting all of these truly urgent goals of regulatory review, and expedited approvals, and whether it's architectural or the litany that's been mentioned8742 in your testimony and other, how do you do both at the same time?

TITLE - Well, I was a drafter of the original ballot measure and it put the8754 commission under a department, so I definitely understand the temptation to do8760 that. I think it was probably both accountability and efficiency that made us do that. And then when the Legislature changed it, I didn't really understand why at first. But I will say, after having sat in that seat I understand how important it is to both have transparency to the public in the meetings, and the three different appointing authorities who can't remove someone willy nilly because they don't like what a commissioner did. I think that having the statute lay out exactly the four things that a commissioner must8794 do for removal and then a process makes sense. It may need to be tweaked, but I think the general point does preserve independence. And I would say without that structure I probably would not have been able to push policies that are now, in many ways, taken for granted, but at the time, they were groundbreaking, like the exclusivity for equity applicants, a lot of the social consumption. Those weren't supported by the appointing authorities at the time publicly. And so we had to compromise in public, and we had to put in regulations that now seem quite restrictive, according to the testimony today. But at the time they were seen as too lax. So that would be my answer.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
DONAHUE - I have a question here. You spoke a little bit about the worry about, like, the tobacco industry or other industries getting involved in the regulatory scheme and stuff like that. It just kind of brings up to8853 mind obviously, I think with the issue of federal rescheduling on horizon and, obviously, there's much more changes to come to the cannabis world. You know, how do you see the current structure is positioning itself to take on those challenges in the future? And are there other, you know, just that was a quick point there for making sure that, you know, tobacco isn't maybe part of that regulatory scheme. But are there other places that you see kind of that future forward looking rescheduling issue in particular or even some of the issues that we've heard? We've had a joint hearing with the agricultural committee around, you know, hemp, and \the infusion of hemp in various different license places. You know, how do you see, is there a place for us to add to the structure of the CCC to kind of take on those challenges, or opportunities, they're not necessarily challenges?

TITLE - Right. Both. Let me make a placeholder on hemp because I don't know what's going to happen with the farm bill. I would love to come back to you on that. I think that the structure is very strong that the Legislature put in place. I think the ownership limit of three licenses was so prescient to do in 2016, because now with legalization and rescheduling on the horizon, it's going to be very important. But the big thing actually doesn't need to be done by the state Legislature, in my opinion. It needs to be done by Congress. And that would be to allow Massachusetts and other states to keep their current programs, particularly worker protections and social equity protections that would not survive federal legalization because of the dormant commerce clause. But they would be able to survive if Congress explicitly allows that to happen.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


SHAND - You mentioned third party reviewing HR concerns. Is there any other regulatory agency in the state that has the same policy?

TITLE - I don't know of one, and that feels like a bit of a drastic thing to suggest, but just from my observation, it really seems like these complaints, my observation from the outside, it seems like these complaints are hampering the commission's ability to do its job and that there really needs to be a neutral process to look at those complaints.

SHAND - Does the independence of the agency contribute to this problem, that there are HR concerns that are not bringing good management and need independent observation?

TITLE - I don't believe so, because I think the independence of the agency really makes it more transparent and accountable to the public. But the complaints are internal and, of course, you'll see, you know, when there are questions about it, they just respond, perhaps appropriately, we can't comment on this, it's a personnel matter. So I think it would make sense to have someone else able to address those questions.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


DON DUNCAN - SGCA - Thank you so much for the opportunity to provide testimony at this hearing. My name is Don Duncan. I am a resident of Lynn, Mass, a social equity program participant, a cannabis equity advocate, an industrial hemp licensee, a person with indigenous ancestry, and I'm here on this panel as the treasurer of SunGrown Cannabis Alliance. I'm joined by fellow board members, Matt Allen from New England Craft Cultivators, and Goldie Fiff, a farmer and cannabis equity activist. The SunGrown Cannabis Alliance, SGCA, is a coalition of outdoor growers in Massachusetts who aim to increase consumer awareness of the differences between indoor and outdoor grown cannabis, eliminate unnecessary restrictions on outdoor grows, and provide support, education, and services to growers.

As a coalition, we're tasked with the charge to protect and promote the interests of licensed outdoor cannabis growers. And we're offering testimony at this hearing in hopes that the regulatory framework, the statutes and the operations of the agency or agencies ultimately responsible for oversight of cannabis licensing and operations in Massachusetts, implement the regulations and practices in a manner that supports and helps us meet our needs as cannabis growers. Unfortunately, many elements of the current system stifle our ability to meet even the most basic of our business goals as growers. As a result, it appears that there's a need for some reforms to address these9153 concerns. SGCA would like to share today our experience and some of our9159 needs in relation to the goals of this hearing, acknowledging that we're not policy makers, and, of course, it's not our responsibility as growers to micromanage the internal workings of the CCC.

However, internal issues within the CCC do impact the livelihoods of growers who've dedicated their time, resources, and commitment to this industry based on a reliance that the CCC, as a licensing body, would operate fairly efficiently and competently. We appreciate9189 that the regulatory framework for cannabis licensing was developed9193 at a time before any businesses existed, and then in the grand scheme of things, cannabis businesses are still very new. The CCC was tasked with enormous number of areas to monitor such that it might be unrealistic9207 to expect all of these functions9209 to fall under the jurisdiction of one agency. We also wanna make clear that we very much appreciate the willingness of the commissioners to meet with us and hear about our concerns in the areas we focus on. We've appreciated their availability, openness, and responsiveness. And I will now turn it over to Matt Allen to continue more specifics in our testimony.

MATT ALLEN - SGCA - Thank you, chairs and committee members, for the opportunity to speak here today. It's certainly refreshing to see policy makers be so passionate about making sure that we can succeed as small business people. I operate an outdoor farm in Colrain. My name is Matt Allen. I first got involved in industry as part of the movement to allow safe access to cannabis for patients about 20 years ago. You know, back then, there was a perception of cannabis as a public safety threat, but now it's gratifying to see policy makers looking at cannabis as a potential engine for economic development. And it's time for the CCC to likewise evolve its mission to supporting small business owners, farmers like us, and social equity applicants.

We've set a regime under which only well funded big corporations can survive. And if we don't take bold action, we're really just setting the stage for small businesses to die and leave the industry to be replaced by multinational tobacco companies. One example of that is testing. The testing we have to work on. As a farmer, I have to test every 15 pounds I grow in triplicate. I got to test the water to make sure there's no microbes in there. I got to test the soil to make sure there's no heavy metals in there. Then I got to test the cannabis afterwards to make sure there's no microbes or heavy metals in there either. So soil testing alone for a full size cannabis farm in Massachusetts can cost upwards of $430,000 a year for testing dirt every year. You know, so farms can't function under under rules like this. And as Don said, the commission is just up to too much.

How can one agency track every gram of cannabis that is produced, verify that every operator is checking the criminal background of everyone they hire, review all the packaging to make sure that it's not too colorful, make sure each business meets its obligations to areas of disproportionate impact, review hundreds of pages of standard operating procedures for each of hundreds9364 of businesses annually, inspect each business, and conduct licensing for growers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and retail sales. So it's just too big for that agency to be successful. It means proper time and energy isn't going to some of the areas that we've heard about. Another one is metric packages.

I can have, metric is the seed to sale tracking database that we all have to use. So one typo from my staff, and I can have 15 pounds locked up in metric. I can't move it because of an administrative mistake. It's gonna take three or four months for the commission to review that, acknowledge it's a typo, and so I can get that product out and sell it. You know, it's not the fault of the commissioners or their staff, and they certainly try to do a good job. Just this week, a member of ours faced an unannounced inspection. He had seven inspectors come to his facility. Spent most of the day answering their questions about inventory and things like, why is this metric tag on a plant touching the dirt when it's supposed to be three inches up the stock?

So the problem for farmers is that, you know, we have to worry about this kind of minutiae as if it's not hard enough to operate a profitable farm. And that's why most farmers we operate in fear of the commission, most retailers and indoor growers do as well, because every time, that we ask a question or that, I mean, basically, our fear is that we're gonna face, like, an FBI like raid by the commission, and we're gonna wind up getting an exorbitant fine that's gonna put us out of business. And we have examples of fines that are just, really incredible. We don't understand the purpose of them other than to threaten our businesses. So on behalf of Farmers, we're asking for help. We wanna reform the commission to help small businesses like us instead of treating us like dangerous drug dealers. We wanna be regulated like farms, and, hopefully, we'd like to be regulated under Chapter 128. And with that, I will turn to Goldie.

GOLDIE FIFF - SGCA - Hi. I'm, EE in a social equity program. Doesn't really count for anything in this state, to be honest with you. And we're a farmer first. My family's own farmland since we came here in the 1800s. When I got this opportunity, I thought it was gonna be great. With all of the legislation and rules and everything going on, a lot of farmers, not just myself, but I've worked with plenty of other farmers, are finding it hard to even think about getting into it because first of all, we're farmers. Farmers are poor. We feed you but we don't really have money. And so I'm asking for reform in the CCC and keeping in mind that we were written into law. Farmers are an important part of the state and we've been looking for assistance with every commission that has been appointed. I've said and asked for the same things.

We have a social equity fund but we don't have a social equity program centered around farmers. So yeah, I'm a social equity act. And I have been entitled to all these classes. None of it has to do with farming. And so for me and other farmers, it's kind of useless and the program, it should benefit all of us. That's number 1. Number 2, as a patient and a caregiver, my mom has cancer, I drive out of state all the way to Maine to get cannabis oil for her to make sure it's safe and clean because I know I don't own anything in this industry, but I've worked with a lot of companies.9595 I'm always in this. I know it's not safe. I don't9599 feel comfortable giving my mother cannabis oil from a majority of the places here because I can't guarantee that the testing is correct, and my mother's life is on the line. It's not fair for us to have to do that. And the cost alone is just outrageous, but then to add that extra burden of me driving out of state when this is my state. Massachusetts is us. We're supposed to be setting the turn. We shouldn't have caregivers like myself leaving the state to get clean products because we can't guarantee the safety of here in Massachusetts. It doesn't make any sense.

Social equity trust fund. My other issue. I feel like it's a great start, but the barrier is still too high for most of us. You have to make it to a certain point before you can touch that money. Most of9651 us that are veterans of the war9653 on drugs are in a different ballgame. We don't have access to money. We don't have friends9659 that I can say, can I borrow a $100,000 from you, or invest in me? We're plain everyday people that the law was set up, the social equity fund was set up to help support us. As we look at the statistics around, you don't see many, and I'll speak from my community, black males that were targeted on this, participating in it. I don't want you to train them as workers. I mean, if you wanna be a worker, that's great, but you should also be given this opportunity. And I don't think things are working the way they're intended to work. When we started this, it was great. It's time to take a hard look, stop, take a hard look, peel back some of the restrictions on here, see what was working, what wasn't working and move forward. That's number 1.

My problem with isn't the commissioners itself. All the commissioners have been great. Whether you get along or bump heads on things, they all do a hard job. The problem is at the root of the industry, the commission. So you can replace as many commissioners as you want, executive directors, until you guys scrape the shit off the9728 floor, oh, sorry, until you clean things up, nothing is gonna change. And people like me, farmers, regular everyday people are suffering. That law we were written into was to protect us. Please give us a social equity program of our own for farmers. I know most people don't know many farmers, but we are who feed you unless you want everything coming from everywhere. We are relying on this industry to help save our farms.

So I really hope that everyone takes9759 a hard look, thinks about this. We've heard every other part of the industry from delivery, they get9765 this, micro businesses that this change. You've really haven't heard anything, any bonuses for farmers or outdoor growers. The CCC, it did one,9776 sorry, guys, I'm nervous. So I have to look at my phone because I can't remember what it was. When we were written in, they did a report, but I've asked each commissioner that's come on about a new farm report. We had one, I think it was 2019, the first farm report, nothing since. So there's no one concerned about farmers? Like we play a major part in this state and we should be doing everything we can, whether the farmer wants to get into cannabis or not, to give that opportunity. Farmers were hurt harsh by the hemp bill. We can't sell hemp unless it's, you know, through the commission, in the dispensaries. Give the farmers something to stand on, something to give us hope, something to make us wanna come here, drive hours, and sit, and be patient. Know that we're heard. That's all I'm asking. Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


GOMEZ - I just have more of a comment. It's not much of a question. Just want you to know that you're heard and I'm listening. And one, I was one that went through the victim being a victim of war on drugs. You know, it's no secret. I've always been very adamant of it. And I know that running a farm isn't easy. I remember you and your daughter came and testified when we were talking about hemp. So, you know, I do know who you are, I know the struggles that you have been going through. And you're right by around the corner. I9868 would, you know, just appreciate9870 that, you know, we know how big this industry is and how important farmers9874 are. So I wanna thank for your testimony.

FIFF - Thank you, guys.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


9882 DONAHUE9882 -9882 Alright.9882 So that'll conclude today's hearing. The committee will have a second hearing. I think those will go out the next day or two, and we'll continue our work.9893 So thank you so much for joining us today, and thank you for your patience. This was a long one, but I really wanna9897 thank the committee members for thoughtful questions and thoughtful insight through all this. And, obviously, thank you to my co chair9903 as well. So thank you.
© InstaTrac 2025