2025-04-09 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy

SPEAKER1 - In virtual. Dan Donahue, the house cochair of the joint, cannabis policy committee. Good to see everyone here to today. I'm gonna call this hearing, to order. The joint committee of cannabis121 policy is here today for its first hearing123 of the hundred and 90 fourth session of Massachusetts General Court. We'll be hearing public testimony on 21 bills covering various policy matters filed by members of the House and Senate. I personally am excited to begin this session and to build on this committee's work. Last session, this committee variety of hearings and report140 out legislation aimed at responding to the142 needs of a rapidly maturing cannabis industry.144 Following our informational hearings last fall, the committee will pick up where148 it left off. We understand the need for a well functioning response in response of regulations and a government regulator that is empowered to react to the changing cannabis landscape across Massachusetts. We understand there are many proposals and actions which are before the legislature which require our attention. I would like to thank this, Speaker Mariano, who has made cannabis policy168 a priority for the house secession, and I'd also like to very much thank my co chair, Senator Gomez and his staff, not only just for their work last session, but also have you back on this committee again, to be able to continue the work that we started last session, and through this year. So I'd like to pass over to senator Gomez. You have a couple of words? Yeah.
SPEAKER2 - Of course. Thank you so much, chair Donahue. It is my pleasure to, once again be a part of this, this committee co chairing with, my house partners. I just, going to introduce some of my, colleagues here on the senate. We have, vice chair, senator Dylan Fernandez, senator Jamie Eldridge, senator Patricia Jalen, and senator
just a a quick update testing. Just to let you guys know if, any written testimony that is submitted, please, yes, send it to to towards the committee, but please make sure that you cc my office at send, at adam.gomez@masenate.gov. Any more information, you can, where is she? My legislative director, Matt Madeline Holden is right there, so we can make sure that we get the information, as soon as possible when it comes to written testimony. Thank you so much. Looking forward to all your testimony today.
SPEAKER1 - Perfect. Thank you, senator. And I just like to introduce the member house members of the committee who are
SPEAKER2 - I apologize. I apologize. We have senator Durant to my left. I apologize, senator Durant. I did shake your hand. I apologize. They, they gave me forgettable anyway. They they gave me all the the name tags, and you were here, so your name tag wasn't here. I apologize. I did shake your hand. So, from the minority side, we do have, senator Durant. Thank you for being here, senator Durant.
SPEAKER1 - Perfect. Thank you, senator. Just introduce the house members of the committee. On my left, we have representative Shand of Newburyport, Representative Sauter of Bellingham. I think
SPEAKER3 - it's the first time I got that right.
SPEAKER1 - Representative Berthiaume of Spencer, and beginning on my right, we have, representative, Fluker Reed of Boston and representative Schwartz of Newton, in attendance right now. Just, heads up, the house is in session today, so we have a, democratic caucus at noon and, roll call starting at 1. So you may see members coming and going. So a little busier than we anticipated today. But just, like to just we have a lot of interest in testifiers today. People have signed up and many people have come today. Just wanna run through some quick312 reminders and some ground rules. We'll be taking those testifying in316 person first for all those those joining us virtually. The chair reserves the right to take testifiers out of order, such as legislators who, may be joining us on the legislation at different times throughout the hearing. During virtual testimony, we ask that330 if you can please turn on your camera and audio while testifying, and please keep yourself muted335 when not testifying. We will keep337 everyone informed of the order virtually,339 in the chat function. We'll make sure we're updating, who's gonna be in line, as we kinda move through the virtual section. If you are here and you have not signed up to testify, the, house staff, Mariah Metzger at the far end here, you can, see353 her and sign up to testify. Each individual will be allocated 3 minutes in which to testify. I'll359 let you know when your time has expired. In the case of panels, each member of the panel will be allocated 3 minutes, and we will hold questions from the committee until the whole panel has finished their testimony. As the senator mentioned, the committee371 is also accepting written testimony. If you're interested in submitting written written testimony or you'd like to add to the testimony you may be providing in person today, all testimony can be submitted, via the hearing website or to the appropriate staff or even mailed directly to the committee offices. And if you have any questions about testimony or about the hearing, definitely please see Mariah and Liza at the, at the end. They'll be able to help you out. And a final note, under the new house rules for this session, all house bills heard today are required to be reported on by 06/08/2025 and subject to extensions consistent with House Rule 27. So I think that sums up the housekeeping, and I think we'll move right into, to the testimony. Just I see that we have senator Mike Moore is here. So why don't we we'll take, take you out of order first. And so floor is yours, senator.
SEN MOORE - Good morning. Thank you, chair Donahue and chair Gomez and the members of the committee. Senator Durant, I wasn't sure whether your title was still correct or not when identifying you.
SPEAKER5 - I can
SPEAKER6 - see how this is gonna go.
SPEAKER4 - I'm here this447 morning to testify on senate, legislation, senate 90,451 which would create an inspector general's unit within the CCC. And the reason for this is I feel it's very urgent, urgent need for legislative reform at the CCC. I wanna thank the committee for conducting hearings last session on the operations of the CCC, and I would like to thank I would also like to thank the speaker for his leadership on the CCC reforms. These reforms are needed because the CCC will not and cannot reform itself. As recently as last week, my office received new allegations of harassment and obstruction at the CCC. The dysfunction continues, and this this is simply unacceptable. April marks an anniversary for the CCC. It was 3 years ago in February that the CCC began its process of creating a governance document.
Mentioned it in legislative reforms on the horizon. But as explained, have mentioned it in legislative reforms on horizon. But as explained by the inspector general, even if and when completed, the governance charter is unlikely to fix the operations of523 the CCC. The delays are just status quo for the CCC as the CCC's regulatory actions, internal governance, reforms, and executive director hiring have all suffered extended delays. Only after countless years is social consumption slowly becoming a reality.541 In the workplace, they have faced almost complete turnover in their senior staff. We547 have also heard of allegations of a hostile workplace when last551 summer, WBUR553 reported that 3 women who were former high level staffers at the state's cannabis control commission say they suffered workplace bullying561 by the agency's communications chief.563 In late last year, the565 Boston Globe reported that the CCC's director of research took medical leave alleging she had experienced inappropriate and harmful behavior from senior leaders. In addition, at a time when we need every state dollar we can get, recent findings by the inspector general revealed that the CCC failed to collect at least a half million dollars in fees. Moreover, the CCC's expenditure on outside legal counsel more than tripled in fiscal year 2024 when the CCC spent over $300,000 on its main employment law firm.
Across the last 5 fiscal years, the CCC has paid over half a million dollars to this law firm. This fiscal year, the CCC has already spent almost $200,000 on legal counsel. In fact, on goings at the CCC led the treasurer to spend621 a million dollars so far in legal fees to remove her authority. It's not hard to think of a627 better use of those funds right now. Webb shopping allegations have also long persisted due to a failure by the CCC to aggressively respond to this issue. Lab shopping is not a new phenomenon, nor is it harmless as ingesting moldy can moldy cannabis repeatedly can lead to coughing, chest pain, and chronic inflammation, and in extreme instances, life threatening lung infections. Despite this issue having repeatedly been brought to the CCC's attention for years, the CCC's response has been glacial. A vague power structure has led to power conflicts at the CCC. We have seen conflicts between staff, conflicts between staff and commissioners, conflict between commissioners, and a conflict between a commissioner and their appointing authority. While the CCC is an independent agency, the678 appointing authorities are supposed to exercise a level of oversight in the operations of the CCC. After all, the commissioners are their appointees.686 But according to688 a to recent comments by690 1 appointing authority, when asked if the CCC was turning the corner,
the statement was we don't have oversight. We have no way of really knowing what goes on over there. So I have absolutely
SPEAKER5 - no idea.
SPEAKER4 - And I don't know what turned the
no oversight. This lack of oversight by appointing authorities over their appointees has further allowed issues at the CCC to deteriorate. Legislative reforms to the CCC's operations must be implemented. And I have offered senate, senate bill727 90 as a legislative vehicle for the committee to send these reforms to731 either chamber to get this done. And I'm happy to take any questions.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you, senator.
SPEAKER1 - Any questions from the committee? Yes. Yeah. Representative?
SPEAKER7 - Senator, I we got a long day, so you will be
new director, we've all seemed to have some of us had768 an opportunity to meet the new director. I'm hoping I'm hoping
SPEAKER3 - that we're gonna be772 moving in a very
SPEAKER7 - good direction. And, with his leadership that is running the town and understanding mass general law and how things work, I think people need to understand. The CCC, the way it's shaped, is kind of like a board of selectmen in in a in a sense. It's like a board of selectmen. You have a town manager and you have your selectmen and and you follow mass general law, and I think there has to be some reform and they're gonna get there. Question I have is on the IG. In that report and in this testimony and everything that we've heard, the biggest thing that kinda stands out and it kinda sticks with me a little bit, and I think it sticks with a lot of us because we're a little bit worried and we've had a lot of questions about it. The IG talked about, the CCC going to receivership.
819 What819 do you what do you think would be part of that with this legislation and your thoughts on that if we if this leg this piece of legislation got added into an overall827 bill and that we allowed the ID
SPEAKER6 - to be in829 there? So
SPEAKER4 - first of all, in my 15 years in the legislature, I have not ever seen the inspector general's office, recommend a state agency be placed in receivership. So I think the mere fact that he is recommended recommending that is unprecedented.
I think there's gonna be a you know, we have a lot of issues, and every time we seem to address 1 issue, another issue seems to come858 up again. So we don't really know all the factors, all the issues taking place within the CCC. So I think that would have been a perfect good step to start identifying that. I know there's a lot of responsibility placed on the committee to try to to try to address the workplace, the lack of, legislative mandates or legislative policies that have been passed, such as the social consumption, the equity aspect of it. There's just just so many areas that the CCC893 has lacked the895 ability to move forward on, legislative mandates that we have899 set forth with and and and the901 sad part about it is, if you look at this, even with the mismanagement, they've brought in over $8,000,000,000. And we've had complaints over towards the end of last session that, this possibly overcapacity of amount of retails now that have retailers that have been licensed. So we've had, you know, people putting their hard earned money
SPEAKER5 - because
SPEAKER4 - they can't get federal or they can't get loans because of the federal prohibition on this. So we've got people investing their own hard earned money, putting that that at stake. And, you've got an agency that is not, in my opinion, fulfilling their responsibility to these investors. But the people who you know, small businesses are 80% of our economy. These are small businesses. They're creating jobs, and they're helping the local949 communities they're in. And I think we're letting them languish, and I think the inspector general's recommendation, I think it should955 have been adopted, but it hasn't. So I think,957 I think something
industry is actually thank god for the industry that they've been setting the course and they've been doing doing what they're supposed to do. Trying to do what they're supposed to be doing.
SPEAKER7 - And and I couldn't agree more with you. And and I think you and I are kind of been on the same page on this for a while, and we're receiving a lot of those calls. And I just I just wanna say this, you know, my heart breaks for those people that are getting harassed. I'm getting the same phone calls. It's really a shame that people have to go in the workplace in 2025 and be treated like the way these folks are being treated because they are hard workers, and they're the ones keeping this thing together and from falling apart. And people need to recognize that. And I think our committee recognizes that, and I and I have great faith in our1004 chairs, and especially on our house side. He's been working very, very hard, on working with the speaker to to fix this. And I know he's committed, and I know we're all committed. So thank you, mister,1014 thank you, senator, and I appreciate the bill. And I I I I like I personally like the bill and I cosponsored.
SPEAKER8 - So I
SPEAKER7 - think we need to move forward with that.
SPEAKER1 - I just wanna
SPEAKER4 - say when I first, when I first got this issue, I was representing the town of Wester. It was a manufacturer or a grow facility that was said. I had no really dealings in this this area. And this 1, growth facility was having such a horrible relationship or interaction with the CCC that led to me filing this legislation session. And once I filed it, I mean, it I didn't have to do any marketing. I just had the outreach or the Pandora's box that opened up by people reaching out to me on how they were treated. And the ongoings of the, what was happening at the CC was unbelievable.
SPEAKER3 - Any other questions
SPEAKER1 - for the committee?
SPEAKER3 - Seeing none, thank you so much, Senator. Appreciate it. Thank you. Just to recognize wanna recognize a couple
SPEAKER1 - of representatives that have joined us. We have representative Giannino from Revere on my left. And on my right, we have representative Fluff from Brockton at the far end, and representative McGregor from Boston as well. I think that's the 1 right here. Perfect. And then I just recognized another legislator, representative Tyler, if you would like to testify.
Oh, he just walked in. Absolutely.
SPEAKER9 - Good morning, chair Donahue, chair Gomez. Thank you so much to the cannabis committee for showing up again and for your commitment to this cause. For all of those that are probably asking, yes, no baby today, I've gotten that question 80 times. It's just me today, regular old me, but that'll have to do for today. But again, good morning. I'm here to testify on behalf of 2 bills, house bill 1 83 and house bill 1 82, both of which I've filed. And I'll start with 1 83 and end off with 1 82 and be happy to take any questions. So to begin, house bill 1 83 is titled, an act to increase the cannabis purchase and possession limits, which I'm all you I'm sure you all are familiar with. So this bill, house bill 1 83, would modify the existing purchase limits on all cannabis products from 1 ounce to 2 ounces. As a part of the adult legalization in 2017, Massachusetts also raised the possession limits of cannabis to 1 ounce, while also decriminalizing possession of up to 2 ounces, instead of instead making it a civil violation. This has created some confusion in the marketplace, of course, and unnecessarily restricted access to products and medicine. So to be clear, as I'm sure you may know, medical patients here in Massachusetts are allowed to purchase, by default, 10 ounces every 60 days. No such allowance exists for adult use consumers. They are simply capped at 1 ounce. This includes products in any combination, smokeable flower, infused products, such as edibles and concentrates as well. Many of our cannabis businesses operate in an overly restrictive environment already, as you all may know. I'm sure you visited these places. They're they pat you down pretty much when you come inside, and other regulated markets, such as game and alcohol, just don't have those restrictions. While you can purchase as much alcohol as you want, and carry as much liquor out the liquor store as you want, or place merely as many bets as you like on a gaming app, in the cannabis industry, you're not able to do so. This would maintain some type of limit, but increase the top end cap to at least to the least legal to at least the legal possession limit of 2 ounces. So for context, many many operators are reporting that upwards of 30 or 40% of their daily transactions are at the existing limit of 1 ounce, so this could be positive for the operators for them. This bill would go a long way in ensuring that our cannabis retail stores remain viable in an increasingly competitive market, which we all know locally and regionally. So that is my testimony on house bill 1 83, and hopefully, the committee can consider that in a positive, favorably report, once you do make your first report. And secondly, house bill 1 82, I'll just give some remarks on this. The title is enact to create cannabis career pathways for incarcerated individuals. You guys know me. I'm a big fan of making sure that folks get a real second chance at life. We recently passed a big bill to make sure that we had free prison telephone calls, which was a big win, an effort to make sure that folks get a real second chance. And, so this bill would hopefully blaze a trail in the cannabis industry to make sure that folks that are formerly incarcerated can be able to participate, legally in the industry. So, I really appreciate you guys having me. Thank you all for showing up, and I'll be happy to take any questions.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you, representative. Any questions from the committee? Seeing none. Thank you very much.
SPEAKER10 - +1, 234. Appreciate it.
SPEAKER1 - Would like to recognize, senator Pallanos to testify. We'll go back to the 1. And while you're coming down, we have, the vice chair of the committee has just joined us, Pat Duffy from Holyoke. And we're a little full house right now. Senator Keaton. Senator Keaton is with us as well.
Is everybody on?
SPEAKER2 - I think so.
SPEAKER6 - Just gonna wait
SPEAKER11 - a bit for my colleague to
SPEAKER1 - Sure. Oh, absolutely. Something
SPEAKER11 - to do. That's how you win the race.
Good morning, good morning, sir Gomez, sir Donahue, and members of the committee, for the and thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of s 100 and act a study, supply and demand for cannabis, cultivation, filed with my good friend, representative Shand. In Massachusetts, the legal cannabis market is a critical is in a critical turning point. Once hailed as a booming industry, it is now showing serious signs of distress. Prices are plummeting, businesses are shuttering, and oversupply continues to destabilize the market. In just a few years, the retail price of cannabis has dropped by more than 2 thirds. For many local operators, this has mean this has meant razor thin margins, unsustainable operations, and tough decisions about whether to stay open or close. S 100 helps stabilize Massachusetts cannabis market by requiring the cannabis control commission to complete a comprehensive economic analysis of the current market. Currently, the Commonwealth has not conducted a full analysis of the market size or production capacity. As a result, the cannabis control commission continues to issue licenses without a clear picture of, of the market size, and the market condition. This legislation fills that gap by commissioning an economic analysis of the entire industry, giving lawmakers and regulators the data they need to make informed evidence based decisions. With that data in hand, we can begin to build a more balanced and form approach, to licensing. 1 that reduces the risk of oversaturation, protects existing businesses, and supports a stable, thriving cannabis economy. Importantly, this bill also emphasizes sustainability, both environmental and economic. It promotes responsible cultivation practices and ensures that social equity remains a core part of the industry's future. We need thoughtful data driven solutions to stabilize this market, preserve jobs, and
1477 SPEAKER51477 -1477 ensure1477 the industry remains viable for
SPEAKER11 - the long industry remains viable for the long term. This bill will help us address these challenges in a way that supports business owners instead of hindering them. It ensures that the budding market is protected while also fostering an environment where local businesses can thrive. Thank you again, to the chairs and the members of the, committee for an opportunity to testify.
SPEAKER12 - Thank you, senator. So according to a 2024 analysis by Whitney Economics, Massachusetts' 427 licensed cannabis cultivators, can potentially produce more than the state demands to the tune of probably 1.9 to 3,200,000 pounds of raw product, overestimated demand. So while this drives down the price of flower, it does create a very precarious financial dynamic for licensed cultivators who who cannot move excess product outside of our state. These businesses have no recourse to bankruptcy court, no ability to itemize business deductions on income tax, and they pay a roughly 70% effective tax rate. They have limit access to bank loans. They have high start up cost high start up cost and overhead, and the cost of compliance remains quite high. And often these compliance measures do not deliver any additional consumer safety or public health benefits. They do drive up the cost of production. So if more permits are given to cultivators, it could potentially destabilize the marketplace for the existing 427 cannabis producers by taking them below what economists call the threshold of economic viability. In other words, the1581 price of the product is just not going to cover its1583 production cost, and the producer must1585 sustain these operating loss through personal investment only. So1589 the purpose of the study
mature state market where demand is only rising by possibly 1%. Thank you.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you, representative. Thank you, Senator.
SPEAKER1 - Any questions from the committee?
SPEAKER3 - Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony.
SPEAKER6 - Thank you very much. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Alright. I think we're gonna move to the list of testifiers now. The, first group we have up was a a panel, the Cannabis Coalition for Worker Safety. Danny Carson, Elsa Hector, Al Vega, and Laura, Laura oh, Bruno. Yeah.
SPEAKER13 - Thank you. My name is Laura Bruno. I am speaking as the mother of Lorna McMurray, who tragically passed away at the age of 27 while working with working at a cannabis facility in Holyoke in 2022. As as a citizen of West Springfield, I'm here to testify in support of House of Bill number 1 94. I am testifying today because my daughter Lorna's death was preventable.
The facility in May of 20 21. The civility the facility had locked doors, video cameras, and no windows. And when she collapsed, they wouldn't even let the first responders go in and save her. On 11/09/2021, Lorna was working in a small room with other workers grinding and rolling cannabis materials. On that day, Lorna suffered her first occupational asthma attack. She was taken by ambulance to the hospital. The next day, she went back to work in the same place where she had the first asthma attack. 8 weeks later, on 01/04/2022, Lorna suffered a second asthma attack and collapsed at work. After 3 agonizing days in the hospital, I watched my daughter take her last press. Lorna's asthma attack was caused by occupational exposure to cannabis dust.
Lorna's story is not an isolated event. Workers and consumers are vulnerable because safety regulations are lagging behind the rapid industry growth. It is unacceptable for companies to prioritize prioritize profit over people's safety. Workers and consumers need to be protected. That is why this bill is crucial. Lorna was more than her job. She was a loving and compassionate daughter, a friend to many, and an animal lover who chairs her dog and cat. Her life mattered. The lives of every hardworking individual in this industry matter, and the lives of the consumers who buy these products matter. I urge you to support bill h 1 94 and take meaningful action to create safe safer workplaces and protect lives. Please honor Lorna's memory by making sure this doesn't happen to anybody else. Thank you for your time. Lorna was my world, and I have no world anymore.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you.
SPEAKER14 - Good morning. As team members of the joint committee on cannabis policy, thank you for this opportunity to address you today in strong support of bill h 1 9 4. My name is Danny Carson, and I'm here today representing the coalition for cannabis worker safety, which I co founded following the tragic passing of my friend, Lorna McMurray. At 27 years old, she passed away from a preventable workplace hazards in 2022. And in my years of advocating for workplace safety since her passing, I've heard numerous harrowing accounts from workers across Massachusetts. They've shared stories of alarming symptoms, inadequate PPE availability, and retaliation when raising safety concerns with their leadership teams. Recently, dozens of affected workers from revolutionary clinics in Fitchburg have come forward expressing serious health concerns, including respiratory illnesses and rare tumors. It is clear that workplaces in Massachusetts cannabis industry are not safe, and these hazards are unfortunately being passed down to consumers and patients. Molds poses a significant threat within this industry, prevalent and grow facilities of all sizes, regardless of whether they're operated by
multistate operators or small entities. Workers have long faced and raised these concerns about the dangers associated with mold exposure. And over the last 6 months, I have have personally initiated testing on over a hundred off the shelf cannabis products and have them tested for total yeast and mold. Shockingly, 47% of those products exceeded the safe threshold set by the state. This raises serious questions about the oversight of the CCC and ensuring product safety and worker safety. The presence of contaminated products does not only jeopardize consumers and patients, but it underscores the occupational risk that's faced by cannabis workers. Imagine working in a poorly ventilated small room without adequate PPE grinding moldy cannabis for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, for a year. This is the stark reality of a lot of these workers in our industry, and they are facing serious health consequences because of that. The CCC is the sole authority capable of addressing this critical issue and prevent further harm from workers and and consumers alike. Therefore, it is imperative that they establish a dedicated department of workplace and consumer safety without delay. Thank you1994 for considering my testimony today. I urge you to support bill h1998 1 9 4 and take decisive action to safeguard the health and well-being of all those involved in the cannabis industry. Thank you.
SPEAKER15 - Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'm so sorry for your loss. I'm here with the same theme. Out of 21 bills, this is the only 1 with the word safety in it. This is a chance for us to take steps to improve safety, consumer and worker safety. Lorna McMurray died after only 8 months working at Trulieve. Workers in cannabis facilities are getting sick and injured, but fear retaliation for reporting problems. They're exposed to cannabis dust, mold, endotoxins, pesticides, and dangerous working conditions. Work related diseases2049 and injuries can be prevented2051 with required planning, ventilation, safe work practices, education, and personal protective equipment. The federal government has failed to protect workers.
They find cannabis illegal and will not sample for cannabis or look at it. Employers have failed to protect workers, perhaps from shortcuts to maximize profit or because they need guidance on how to implement safety protections. And in fact, the federal government will be of less help. They're planning to close 1 of the 3 area offices in the next few months. So the state has to step up. The cannabis control commission has failed to make worker safety
underpinnings are present. The expertise is present in state government between the CCC and the Department of Public Health, where the occupational health program conducted the inspection of Trulieve after Lorna's death. So I think the h 1 94 is the first step in addressing some of those failures by bringing together the agencies that could make this a priority. So please pass h 1 94, which calls for a department of workplace and consumer safety. Stan?
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much for your testimony, and thank you, Laura. Sorry for your loss, and thank you so much for Oh, 0, we
SPEAKER16 - have another Sorry. Yeah.2160
SPEAKER5 - Oh, absolutely. Not enough chairs up here. Alright. Good,
SPEAKER16 - morning, chairs, vice chairs, and members of the joint committee on cannabis policy. My name is Al Vega. I'm the chief of strategy and engagement at MASKOSH, the Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health, and here in support of h 1 94, an act relative to the CCC forming a department of workplace and consumer safety. Since 1976, our nonprofit has been dedicated to improving the health and safety of workers in the state and believes that every worker deserves a2189 safe workplace, just wages, and benefits regardless of the type of work they do and should be able to return home free of workplace injury and illness. I'd like to again reference the tragic death of Lorna McMurray as was just mentioned by all2201 of my panelists fellow panelists. Her story is captured here in our 20 23 annual dying for work in Massachusetts workplaces report released every year on April 28, Workers Memorial Day. Although our report focuses on our state, there are examples across the country of other workers who have become seriously ill and in the worst cases lost their lives while working in this industry. We want to ensure that such heartbreaking tragedies such as hers never happen again in our state. While OSHA fined her employer $14,000 for failing to provide training about chemical hazards, this alone would not have saved Lorna's life. OSHA currently lacks the regulations to protect against the hazard that took her life. We believe it is of the utmost importance that the CCC should have a safety department to develop and operationalize enforceable rules specifically tailored to the health and safety needs of workers in this industry. It is critical that the CCC develop concrete measures to protect the health and safety and lives of all who are working in this industry. The CCC should be able to require workplace injury and illness prevention programs tailored to this industry, including proper recording of injuries and illnesses that occurred to these workers. Incorporate health and safety into required vendor training that includes hazard recognition and controls, emergency response, and explanation of workers' rights, offer technical assistance to small businesses for the effective implementation of health and safety measures, develop standardized occupational health and safety language to be incorporated in model host
SPEAKER17 - agreements, and create whistleblower retaliation protections so that workers
SPEAKER16 - can retaliation protections so that workers can speak up freely about the unsafe working conditions they would have. We know hazardous chemicals like pesticides, fertilizers are common in the industry, and workers need to be educated about the potential health risks associated with handling cannabis, including skin and eye irritation. They're exposed to dust mold and other airborne contaminants via cannabis cultivation and in processing facilities where adequate PPE, including respiratory protection and proper ventilation should be in place. Workers need to be informed of heat stress, ergonomics, workplace violence, fire, and electrical safety so that they are best protected from these hazards. Finally, we want to emphasize the power that the commission holds in licensing facilities and businesses in this industry and should mandate2326 that protecting workers is an indispensable criterion for granting or withholding licenses. Thank you again to the bill's cosponsors and those who also support this legislation. We urge you to report this bill favorably out of committee and help protect workers in our state who choose to join this industry, wanna be respected, have dignity, and stay safe on the job. We know that a safer environment for workers only makes safer product for consumers. Thank you.
SPEAKER3 - Excellent. Thank you so much for your testimony.
SPEAKER16 - And I'm gonna hand copies of this report to all of you.
SPEAKER3 - I was just gonna ask that. If you wanna hand it to staff,2354 we'll pass it pass it along.
SPEAKER1 - So thank2356 you for any questions from the committee? Yeah. Representative? I was we have we have some2362 questions here if you guys wanna I
SPEAKER6 - was wondering if the last speaker hi. Thank you. Thank you2366 very much. I was was wondering if the last speaker could tell
SPEAKER5 - tell
SPEAKER6 - the committee, if you're aware of health and safety regulations that meet what you're proposing in other states that manage
SPEAKER5 - Yes.
SPEAKER16 - Cannabis. In in states like Washington and Nevada, there are current regulations and additional measures that they do have in2386 place in order to ensure that workers are best protected in this industry. And those2390 are the kinds of recommendations that we have testified in front of the CCC in previous, attempts to let them know that there is things that our state can be
SPEAKER18 - doing to to follow the
SPEAKER16 - the model of other states that are already doing this.
SPEAKER6 - Great. Thank you, mister Ching.
SPEAKER3 - Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you again for your testimony and for
SPEAKER1 - your advocacy. We appreciate it. Thank you. Moving on to the next, testifier. We have, I think a panel with, Ryan Dominguez and the Mass Cannabis Coalition.
SPEAKER19 - Good morning. Chairman Donahue, chairman Gomez, and honorable members of the committee. My name is Ryan Dominguez, and I'm the executive director of the Massachusetts cannabis coalition. On behalf of the MCC, I wanna thank you for quickly recognizing the industry's need for swift legislative action and hosting this here early in the session. I wanna note that the MCC has submitted written testimony with our support for many of the bills on today's2477 docket. Instead of naming each 1, I will focus on the contents of the proposals.2481 As a a cannabis trade association that has every license type and ancillary business represented, we have put in the work to have the hard conversations about many issues that are affecting the industry. With that, the MCC is backing a comprehensive legislative package focused on 4 urgent areas. 1, increasing revenue, 2, improving
areas. 1, increasing revenue. 2, improving regulatory efficiency. 3, attracting new investment. And 4, stabilizing the current market. First, we need to boost revenue immediately to help our businesses remain viable. Raising the daily purchase limits for consumers and modernizing our advertising laws allows us to operate like normal retailers and will lead to our customers spending more in the regulated market instead of turning to the illicit market or go going to nearby states that have 2 to 3 times our purchase limits. Second, we must remove the red tape of outdated laws and regulations. Overly burdensome and nonsensical rules around employee badging, lab testing, and vertical integration requirements waste money our industry no longer has and prevents access for patients across the Commonwealth. Simplifying these systems would free up resources for businesses to invest in achieving scale scale2553 and
SPEAKER5 - growing their workforce. There, we
SPEAKER19 - need to2557 attract new investment dollars to the state. Although we are like many retailers, product manufacturers, and farmers, we cannot access traditional capital. Like many of those other industries, We need to take a hard look at the right way to increase ownership caps and encourage joint ventures. And I believe our proposal for a phased in approach for increasing the licensed cap to 6 over multiple years will help to provide financial assistance and exit opportunities without2583 compromising the mission of equity. And fourth, we must do the work of figuring out the best way to stabilize the market. We can do that by conducting a comprehensive, comprehensive study of our local supply and demand, and then have that drive our licensing decisions without the data and licensing targets, continuing to flood the market with new licenses only further guarantees that more businesses will fail and more jobs will be lost. So as you do the work on the committee on what to do with the CCC, we urge you to not forget about all the statutory support that our industry needs to keep our doors open. Simply reforming the CCC will not solve the crisis that we're currently in. And so we look forward to being collaborative partners with you as you all think about what are the best solutions for the entire industry. So thank you again for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much. Any questions from the committee? Yes, representative.
SPEAKER20 - Thank you so much, mister chair, and thank you, Ryan, for your2639 testimony. Just a few, questions. I know you spoke on2643 4 bills. Do you happen to have those bill numbers handy? So it's actually 14 bills. Great. So I was like, you get a 4 points.
SPEAKER5 - Can you
SPEAKER20 - email me, please? Will you be so kind just to email me the bill number so I can match your testimony to your package? Okay. Great. Thank you.
SPEAKER19 - And I sent over the written testimony to all the members, but I can resend it. So
SPEAKER20 - I appreciate that. Mhmm. Related to what you just orally testified, what do neighboring states do? I heard you say that some states have 2 to 3 times the purchase limit. Can you just paint the picture of what that looks like and what states you're referring to?
SPEAKER19 - Yes. So if you think about Massachusetts, we were the first on the East Coast to open up a legal cannabis program. Now the only state around us that doesn't have that is New Hampshire. So you think about all of these states looking at Massachusetts and our regulations and our laws. They're trying to figure out ways that they can undercut us so that their businesses can be successful. So if you look at New York, they have a 3 ounce daily purchase limit. You look at Maine, they have a 2 and a half, ounce purchase limit. So we're just trying to keep our businesses competitive with some of those. And 1 thing I'll say is that, you know, everybody used to come from these neighboring states into Massachusetts to buy cannabis, and I think some of our folks in these border towns are now seeing some of those folks go to other states so they can purchase.
SPEAKER20 - Thank you, Ryan. And then my last question, I know efficiency kinda has a dirty meaning these days, but I recognize the need for it in an industry and2725 thinking about profits and things of that nature. Can you also just share what we're not doing that other neighboring states are doing that would create those efficiencies for, your members. Yeah.
SPEAKER19 - I I don't know if it's a a comparative piece. I think it's more of the fact that when we created our regulations, we didn't really have too much to base it off of. So we were creating these, processes, and I'll give the example of agent registration cards, where we were moving from2751 a medical market into an adult use market. And I think we just carried over some of those, requirements for people who have an employee badge. They're required to have a badge for every location that they work at. So if you're a company, you have multiple locations, that means you're paying badge costs for every single location, also paying for the background check and the responsible vendor training. And you know, in our industry for some of the folks who are starting off in entry level jobs, like a bud tender or cultivation technician, there's a lot of high turnover. So you're not getting any of that money back after you pay for it. And so we're trying to make it a single badge system, and trying to save some people, thousands of dollars in the process. I know that this is something that is more of a regulatory change, but I think, you know, as I was able to testify last year, we've gone to the CCC and try to get some of these changed for multiple years. I think it has widespread approval from the rest of the industry, but we haven't been able to get any changes from them. And so we're coming to you, to see if we may be able to do something in statute. But ideally, I think that's something that we would love to get done through the CCC.
SPEAKER20 - Thank you, Ryan. Thank you, mister chair.
SPEAKER1 - Any other questions?
SPEAKER7 - Ryan, what is your, what is your take on this? Some bills and, you know, different various bills on raising the cap and things like that. But 1 of the things I wanna get your input on is I'm a firm believer that part some of the legislation we have, I I know 1 of them that I drafted and and it has the ability that if if another cannabis facility is failing, 1 that has a license that might be stronger can actually purchase that. So I I feel like that adds a safeguard for I've heard so many folks, especially when it comes to folks that have put their life savings into this and it's it's just dragging and we've all talked about funding and things like that. What is your take on that portion of the bill that would actually give the ability for other cannabis facilities that are already licensed have the opportunity to merge or take those in in under the umbrella.
SPEAKER19 - Thanks for that, representative. And I think that's gonna be probably the most popular bill that you're gonna get testimony on today. So you're gonna get a lot of, viewpoints on that. But, you know, at the MCC, we're a big tent organization. So we have all different types of, businesses there. And I think the biggest thing for us is trying to find those exit opportunities for folks. You know, as a business owner, you have a 5 year plan. You have an exit plan, on, like, what you're going to do once you build up your business. And currently, none of these businesses have that opportunity. So they're kind of stuck with this asset. And with all of the changing dynamics within the industry, we do have some folks who are failing. And in that way, there's no bankruptcy protections. They have to go into receivership. A lot of these entrepreneurs have put personal guarantees on the place that they are2921 renting out. And so, folks are gonna have to file for personal bankruptcy. And I think that this gives people an opportunity, if they're a distressed business to get out and, you2931 know, maybe get a little bit of money out of it, be able to give their investors who a lot of the small businesses are taking from community members and aren't necessarily getting, like, the funding from, big family offices or high net worth individuals. So we're just trying to protect not only the entrepreneurs and their all of their efforts, but, you know,2950 some of the community that believed in them as2952 well. And I think this is also an2954 opportunity for us to, you know, create some stability, within the market. I think there's if we raise the cap, there's opportunities for, smaller businesses to merge with each other and, achieve scale so that they can compete. And as we look long term with some of this stuff, you know, there's gonna be some type of federal change with rescheduling or, you know, legalization, hopefully 1 day. And we wanna set up our businesses to be able to be successful when that does change. And I think achieving scale is probably the only way to do that.
SPEAKER7 - Yeah. I I couldn't agree more because I've met with a couple of owners that have a lot of, I would say not big money, not rich money, hardworking money, years of of savings. And, they took a risk, but there's no exit strategy for them to protect themselves. And3002 they do3003 understand the risk, but I think, you know, like anything else, we make laws and sometimes we have to tweak them a little bit to help. And in this situation, I think we're very we put a lot of people in the box and it's hard to get out of that box. And I think some of this stuff will do that, and I think some of the stuff will save some of the family dollars that some of these families and and they're very close to the state house. They're right around the area, you know, put their life savings into something, and and they tried. I did that when I was younger, but I had an exit strategy. It wasn't cannabis. You know, I could if I failed, I could have the protections. These3035 people don't have the protections, and I think it's up to us. In a very regulatory, sense that we have to create that exit strategy or give some sort of exit strategy and also maintain, the integrity of equity and what we need to do. And I think we have bills today, and we're gonna hear a lot of testimony on it. But I think we do have a lot, to focus on in that. So I appreciate your support and your advocacy, in in representing the, the industry. Thank you very much.
SPEAKER5 - Thank you
SPEAKER19 - very much. Thank you very much.
SPEAKER7 - Thank you, mister chair. No problem.
SPEAKER6 - Representative Schwartz? Thank you, mister chair. Mister Dominguez, thank you for being here. Thank you for representing the industry and being able to answer some of our questions about how the industry feels about some of these bills. I was just wondering, in relation to the prior set of speakers, including miss McMurray, what is the MCC's position on improving the health and safety standards and, regulation of these, of these companies? I've heard from not just, those stories, but others of, workers who are concerned about their safety.
SPEAKER19 - Yeah. And we would, support the bill. We, you know, open, have open line of communication to be able to, you know, discuss that and support their efforts. I think what we're doing at the MCC is really trying to get a handle on the testing piece of this. I think that's been in the news a lot about lab shopping, inconsistencies with some of the testing. And since we have, independent testing labs as well as operators, within our group, we're able to come together to try to figure out if we can create some standardization around that, trying to create some best practices. And then also, I know they talked about some public education for workers that I think we're trying to figure out ways that we can share the, you know, best practices, some of the information that we're creating within the MCC with the industry as well. And I think the the CCC can be a good partner with us in terms of doing that, public education. So I I think I support those efforts from the previous speakers. And I think that, there's still a lot more research and data that is out there from the time that we created our own regulations around testing. And so, it's really up to the CCC, but also up to the legislature to update update those as new research and data is coming out. And so part of our bill is to have the CCC look at their testing regulations on a regular basis. And I think that's gonna be3172 really key for us to adapt our program as more and more information comes out.
SPEAKER6 - And if I could3178 just follow-up. So when you say testing, do you mean testing of the product or you mean testing
SPEAKER19 - of the product specifically? And I think that's, you know, where some of this conversation is coming from, because it's a plant and, all of the testing labs that we have, in Massachusetts are using different methods. So I think you're gonna get wildly different results from some of these. And so we need to create some standardization so that consumers can, you know, feel confident that the products that they're receiving are safe.
SPEAKER6 - I guess I would only ask that in addition to that testing, that I think what we're talking about also is about health and safety for the workers. So is is that something that you're also, able to support?
SPEAKER19 - Yes. And I think the CCC put out a bulletin around cannabis dust and required, businesses to come up with their own standard operating procedures around that. And out of the MCC, we were able to create a3227 document thanks to some of our members, so that we'll all be doing the same practices.
SPEAKER5 - Okay. Great.
SPEAKER6 - Thank you, mister chairman.
SPEAKER3 - Any other questions? Seeing none. Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you, chairman. I appreciate it.
SPEAKER1 - Alright. Moving down the list, we have, another panel. Peyton Schu Schubert, Tito Jackson, and Dennis Benzan.
SPEAKER3 - As long as you're comfortable.
SPEAKER21 - Good morning, joint committee. Thank you so much for this opportunity. Unfortunately, Dennis will not be joining us today, but Tito and I are honored to have the opportunity to speak with you. To introduce myself, my name is Payton Schubert. I'm CEO and founder of 6 Bricks. We're an adult use cannabis shop in my hometown of Springfield, Massachusetts.
Cannabis Coalition. Being born and raised in the city of Springfield and a product of the Springfield public school systems, when I thought about entering cannabis, I truly did view it as an opportunity to create generational wealth acknowledging the money that could be made. As I think about 6 bricks and what it's represented to the community, it is a play on the last name Schubert with 6 people being in my immediate family with my father joining me here today. Our tagline is people plant and purpose and that's not clever marketing. It's what we wanted to focus on as we thought about the individuals that would become customers and the community we wanted to uplift. We opened in September of 20 22, and that stands out in my mind not only3338 because it's the month that we opened, but that's3340 the first month that prices dropped in the state of Massachusetts, and they've dropped every month since. Right now with the license cap in place, it's prohibiting an exit, that my family and I have worked hard and earned in my humble opinion. At this point in time, I'm sitting on an asset that's losing value over time with over saturation and over supply, and creating a dynamic where I can't create a successful exit. I'd ask today that as you listen to testimony from various individuals that you prioritize the voices of those that are open and operational and have a retail license. That's not to be disparaging to others, but it is to acknowledge the reality that this is a difficult industry. The rules are constantly changing depending on your investigator. There's constantly an undercutting of pricing across the board, and it's getting harder and harder to meet the day to day needs of paying rent, your taxes, and payroll. As we think about this holistically, there creates a very real dynamic where I'm stuck. I cannot exit the space. I cannot improve my business model, and there are no opportunities that will leave me financially whole as I think about it holistically. Increasing the license cap should be seen as a tool. 1 that business owners can use if they are able to. It does not mean that increasing the license cap from 3 to 6 that everyone has to sell. However, not giving those individuals the options to do so is problematic. It should be noted that with this option, there is still the possibility that owner operators such as myself are retained by those who may acquire our business models if we're allowed to do so. And as a result of that, I can continue employed in the city of Springfield gainfully employed. I ask that you think about with 386 retailers, raising the cap from 3 to 6 would only allow independents to control may I finish the thought?
SPEAKER22 - Yes. You can. Okay.
SPEAKER21 - Would only allow them, to actually control 1.5% of the retail market. Narratives that are rooted in emotion versus fact are problematic when we think about those that are doing the hard work showing up each and every day. It is with that that I thank you for the time and hope that you'll take my recommendations into consideration.
SPEAKER5 - Thank you.
SPEAKER23 - Thank you very much. My name is Tito Jackson. And I want to thank, this August panel for allowing me to testify today. I am the founder and owner of Apex Noir Cannabis. We are Boston's, first and only 7 story full service experiential cannabis dispensary, edible factory, and we have a rooftop bar and lounge on top. Not too far from here, everyone is invited if they're 21 plus. So we, got our building in December 2020. We did not open our doors until January 23. We had to pay, rent, in between, that time. So as Peyton noted, this is not theory. This is not a philosophy. These are hard facts, and real money. In addition, we need to note that as a black entrepreneur, much of our money comes from other black and brown folks in the community. And as noted earlier, we can't fail because failure not only means, failure for our families, potentially losing our homes, and potentially losing everything we have. Because, unlike other businesses, we actually are not able to file bankruptcy because you're going to federal bankruptcy court. This would also mean for me, 31 employees who count on me every single day. And so, it is really critical, to think about why did we start this and what was a social equity and economic empowerment program for? It was not only for us to get in the front door, but was, here for us to actually close the gap and deal with the wealth gap. And when when I look at some of our peers, we saw Levia, a company they sold for $60,000,000. We saw Cultivate, 1 of the first folks to come out the gate. They sold for a hundred and $58,000,000. Neta has sold for a couple of hundred million dollars. We don't know how much. And now it's sold 2 times. Point to a black or brown entrepreneur who's exited for a multimillion dollar exit. I can't and I know a lot of them. And so when it comes down to this, this is actually in line with our objectives in terms of, social equity. This is a maturing of the industry and allows people who put their hard earned, sweat cap sweat equity in, their friends and families' money into these businesses to actually get something, out of it. And as Peyton just, noted, we're not talking about a monopoly here. Let's just put that, I'm gonna put that word on the table. 386 stores, and we're asking for folks to go from 3 to 6. And in the beginning, I actually said, let's actually only have, social equity companies and economic empowerment companies, as the first ones to even be able to be sold. Actually propping those, folks up. Individuals were, were not willing to come to the table on that. These are real, urgent issues, and we need real solutions. And we ask you, to take that as your time.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much. Turn it over to the committee. Senator?
SPEAKER2 - No. Just, a question on the license cap for you guys. Can you tell me how you see the adult use cannabis industry evolving or maturing and if we do not raise the cap? And then also, what do you see the benefit of keeping the cap the way it is now if there was 1?
SPEAKER23 - If you if you do nothing, what you're gonna see is what you're seeing on a weekly basis are individuals going out of business. And sadly, I'm I'm getting calls on a regular basis of, folks who are shutting their their doors. And as I noted before, when we sign a commercial lease, that commercial lease is personally guaranteed. And that personal guarantee is is attached to your house, your 4 1 k, or whatever whatever you have. And so people are losing it all. And if we do nothing, I would also submit to you, that you will see less revenue. You're gonna see not a consolidation of the industry, but losses, to the revenue. And I I will note, we are the state's largest cash crop. I I love my cranberry folks, but we are the state's, largest. And we have some cranberry flavors. State's largest, cash crop, and, we bring
SPEAKER5 - in more money, than alcohol. So if
SPEAKER23 - we do nothing,
we will continue to harm, individuals, families, and in particular, people of color in the industry.
SPEAKER21 - I will echo Tito's, comments in highlighting that in doing nothing, women, people of color, and veterans, stand, to lose the most right now as we think about it. What we are seeing across the board with oversupply and over saturation is a race to the bottom when it comes to price point. What What nobody acknowledges in that is my rent doesn't change even though the products I'm selling have less value associated with them. When3781 I first entered the market, a 1 gram pre roll could be sold at $14. We are now seeing them on average between 6 to $8. My rent has not changed at all in that time. And so when we think about this holistically, we are seeing that the value of these businesses over time is continuing to decrease. The product quality is, stayed the same.
Point that's sustainable for anyone in this market to survive. It's also worth noting that if you're a larger entity, you're relying on other states for dollars and cents. I don't have that luxury. At the end of the day, I live and die by the amount of customers that show up to 1860 Main Street every single day. Less customers showing up means that I'm generating less, but have the same bills. At the same time, it's also worth noting that I employ people from the city of Springfield. So closing my doors also means that I'm gonna see 25 people no longer employed. Many of which who wanna make cannabis their career, but needed a humble start somewhere, and 6 bricks was their start. At the end of the day, we are past the point of considering whether or not this is necessary. It is needed to ensure that folks such as myself, such as Tito, have the option to exit. Because right now, we're sitting on assets that are losing value and we have no way to exit. And as Tito outlined, we're heading towards financial ruin because of the because of the ways in which we've had to personally guarantee. And if we recall at the beginning of this industry, we talked about creating generational wealth for social equity, economic empowerment, black and brown businesses, so so on and so forth. We are now at a point where we're going to see people leave industry financially worse off than when they entered. And who wins in that?
SPEAKER23 - I also wanna note, as economic empowerment and social equity were required, we would do it anyway. But we are required to hire, at least 50% people of color. So the people we would also lose, are disproportionately, black and brown folks, in in these losses. And as noted, I've heard of ounces going for as little as, 45 and $50. I I I her her rent, hasn't gone gone up on the bills. My my bills have gone up. And so, that is actually, a burden to all of
SPEAKER3 - us. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Any other questions from the committee? Yeah. Yes. Vice chair.
SPEAKER24 - Thank you so much for coming. I really appreciate hearing your stories and perspective, especially
SPEAKER23 - thank you. So it it is, something that I I suggested, you know, a a while back. The people who, had4002 the least amount of money coming into this, and I know you know, the study that notes that, black families are are worth $8 versus $247,500, for white families in the in the city of Boston. So it was very, very difficult for us to, raise funds. And so, the objective there would have been to ensure that, businesses, EE and SE, would actually, have an opportunity, as as noted, to potentially exit even even first. And, that is something, that, you you know, you as a a legislator could could definitely, consider. And 1 of the things that, my mom used to tell me is when you're in a hole, stop digging. And if we continue to lose the companies that are now up and running, that have scaled like Peyton's has, that have scaled like, I have, those are gonna be, really, really big blows. And in fact, it is gonna harm the other companies that are coming into the industry, because if we're not able to make it, folks are not gonna put money into the new companies, that are that are coming in. And I don't want it to be that those people in the communities that that got locked out, I'm sorry, that got locked up get locked out of the the industry. So I'll be more than willing to sit down and have a conversation with you on how how that would play out.
SPEAKER21 - And if I might add, the bill that the MCC has put forth is taking into consideration concerns that folks have. So we are looking at a phased approach where groups could acquire 1, retail license every 6 months. So that way, you don't create a dynamic where, again, policy changes are put in place the next day you go out, and then you're able to acquire 3. So there is a thoughtfulness and intentionality to also ensure that the groups that are in a position to acquire are the ones doing the right thing holistically, while concurrently ensuring that you have businesses that are not going to fail. At the end of the day, and I believe it said already in the testimonies given today, these small businesses are employing people from the community. So it's not only us as business owners that are gonna lose, it's also these individuals that are no longer going to be employed that's problematic.
It becomes very problematic when you think about it. And anyone else in the pipeline trying to get their doors open is at a disadvantage. Imagine being a
viable exit. That's the story for many, unfortunately, based on where we are in present day. And again, I appreciate the question because acknowledging 6 bricks will be 3 years old in September. This is not something that is being said in theory. This is in practice based on what I've seen and heard.
SPEAKER24 - So appreciate it.
SPEAKER25 - Thank you.
SPEAKER21 - Thank you.
SPEAKER3 - Any other questions from committee? Alright. Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. Appreciate it.
SPEAKER7 - Thank you both. Thank you.
SPEAKER3 - I see we have, senator Miranda
SPEAKER1 - who is with us. Would you like to testify?
SPEAKER26 - Thank you. Hi, everybody. Good morning.
SPEAKER7 - Good morning.
SPEAKER26 - Hi. Before I begin my remarks, this is 1 of those situations where I just wanna make it clear. I have a lot of friends on both sides of this issue. I'm in deep relationship, love and respect many people. I met with about 5 individuals, that, testified for lifting the cap, and I met with about 30 to 35 people who were in opposition and led me, to the decision of filing what I filed, and I just wanna share a little bit why I disagree. So thank you chairman Gomez and chairman Donahue for your leadership of the committee. And to all the members that are here with us today, I appreciate all of your ongoing work to ensure that Massachusetts cannabis market is fair, is transparent, and is accountable. For those of you who do not know me, I'm senator Liz Miranda, and I proudly represent the Second District in the city of Boston, the home to Massachusetts' first black owned dispensary in Massachusetts. I come before you today to testify in support of s 88 and act protecting cannabis equity businesses by enforcing ownership limits and request that this bill be favored reported favorably out of commit. The legalization of cannabis 9 years ago in Massachusetts carried with it the spirits of remediation. There was a growing understanding in the public that criminalizing the use of cannabis through the war on drugs disproportionately and intentionally impacted the black and brown communities of our commonwealth. 1 dimension of this remediation was fostering a cannabis market in which black and brown community based entrepreneurs, most impacted by this war on drugs, could not only participate but thrive. As a result, regulations on the4306 cannabis market limited the number of different dispensary sites4310 an individual or company could have a license for. Restricting the size of cannabis4316 companies helps level the playing field. That alone does not create equity in the industry, but it does help prevent large firms from taking advantage of economics the economies of scale, excuse me, leveraging their vast resources, marketing channels, supply chains, retail space, etcetera etcetera to undercut prices that put small owners out of business or prevent4341 them from entering the industry in the first place. We don't4345 want 1 or 2 businesses dominating the entire Massachusetts cannabis market. This would run counter to the spirit that led us to legalize in the first place. Our laws are designed to establish equity in the cannabis industry such that minority owned businesses can succeed and to prevent concentrating profits in the hands of multistate conglomerates. But our laws are not perfect. Loophos, workarounds, and poor enforcement have allowed multistate conglomerates and shell companies to skirt ownership limits. This industry is uniquely profitable and exploitable. We need to stay vigilant and adapt quickly to the emerging market trends by continuing to pass regulatory measures that promote fairness, in my opinion. So let's meet this moment. The bill before the committee employs a number of mechanisms to strengthen the enforcement of licensure law. These mechanisms include,
investigate compliance with licensure ownership limits. 3, establishing a with whistleblower of protections for insiders who actually report abuses. 4, establishing an anonymous tip line. And 5, increase transparency through for the procurement and publishing of ownership data. In conclusion, we have the opportunity within this rapidly growing cannabis industry to uplift the communities most impacted and affected by these historical patterns of over sentencing, over policing, and the mass incarceration of literally black people. But the only way to make this happen is to ensure that our laws are actually enforced. So I wanna thank the chairs for the opportunity to testify today, and I ask for your support and favorable report from the committee. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, senator. Any questions from the committee?
SPEAKER3 - Seeing none, appreciate your testimony.
SPEAKER5 - Thank you.
SPEAKER3 - That's so much.
SPEAKER27 - Out of order. Absolutely.
SPEAKER2 - Just wanna
SPEAKER1 - I just wanna recognize senator Jalen has has joined our4481 hearing as well. Thank you, senator. Next up, we have, Armani4487 White and Sean Burt to testify.
SPEAKER3 - It's Bertie. Oh, Bertie. Sorry.
SPEAKER1 - So Armani White and Sean
SPEAKER3 - Burt. Thank you so
SPEAKER28 - much. Yeah.
Oh, yeah. So my name is Armani White. I'm the co owner of Firehouse, and we're a, recreational cannabis shop on the way to opening in High Park in Boston. Boston. And it's been a long journey for us, super long journey, and Sean can talk more about his personal story. But from my end, it's been something that I've been working on for the past, 8 years. But it's something that's been a dream of mine to be able to own a shop in my community as someone who's been actually impacted by the war on drugs. You know, I've been arrested for marijuana multiple times, back when it was, illegal to have marijuana and to possess it. And point of this industry is to support people who are, you know, impacted by the war on drugs and to help them open up shop. Shop.
SPEAKER4 - I know we've met with you, rep Donahue and,
SPEAKER19 - you know, you, senator
SPEAKER28 - Gomez about this a lot. And we've we've expressed how right now in this moment, you know, to allow the industry to double from 3 licenses to 6 licenses would make it so that people like myself and Sean who are on the path to opening. Because the industry is, you know, not in a place where there are a ton of social, equity, economic empowerment, and owners open right now. Right? Like, the people who have gotten in first were politically connected, and have, you know, pockets that people like us don't have. And we've been able to scrape it together to make it to this point, but we are threatened by the reality that if shops are able to to own 3 more licenses, that would really hurt our business. It would make it harder for us to be able to compete. And shops can open up right next to us and swallow4588 up our customers, that folks that4590 can afford to take a cut because they, you know, have shops in other states. So we're against any bill that, like, that increases the the license, cap. And we are here also to support, you know, other bills that, other people have filed such as senator senator Miranda, the bill that will actually allow us to, have the CTC look into this issue and and figure out a way to make sure that industry is actually equitable. And for folks who are worried about, you know, staying afloat, we're part of the, MCEC, which is a coalition of other economic empowerment, social equity businesses. We We have, you know, 20 plus businesses, both retail, delivery, people who are open, people who aren't open, and we're all on the same page that lifted the cap right now, won't will hurt us. So don't listen to the voice of, like, you know, 4 or 5 people. Listen to the majority of social equity folks who are saying this is going to hurt us, and take it seriously. You know, we4645 have put money in, you know, personal guarantees ourselves to get to the path4649 of opening. And so being able to get open and stay open is also important to those who want to enter. So I think it's important to understand that there's, multiple sides to this. And we're really afraid of that multistate operators who have never been in support of equity from the start. We had 1 open right down try to open right down the street from us and swallow us up. They tried to offer us, you know, short the deals that we know would hurt us to get us to basically not want to open our shop. And, you know, some of them here today might testify in support of the same bill saying that people like us will benefit from us. And they told us that opening next to us would also benefit us. And so we're here today just to make it clear that lifting the cap is gonna hurt the people who really should be impacted by this industry. People who are, you know, arrested in communities that come, you know, who are affected by
SPEAKER4 - the war on drugs.
SPEAKER28 - So and come to, Firehouse and be open in Hyde Park.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Yeah.
SPEAKER29 - Thank you, chair. My name is Sean Berdy. I live in Roslindale. I've testified there before, when legalization was happening. I'm a convicted felon,
federal prison, back in 22009. I was a Boston Firefighter at the time and, lost everything. And it was because of a terrible law. While I was sitting in prison, that terrible law was changed. I'm asking that this law that was supposed to give us some some some room to grow and kinda come out of the other side, you know, don't change it. Strengthen it. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much. Are there questions from the committee?
Not seeing any. Very much appreciate your testimony. Thank you very much.
SPEAKER1 - And, next on the list, we have Meg Sanders
SPEAKER3 - from Canada Provisions. Who's this?
SPEAKER30 - Hi. I'm on Zoom.
SPEAKER1 - Oh, hold on. Hello. There you
SPEAKER30 - are. Hello, everyone.
SPEAKER5 - Am
SPEAKER30 - I coming through4784 okay? I apologize.
SPEAKER1 - Yes. You are. You absolutely are.4786 Thank you.
SPEAKER30 - Thank you so4788 much. Thank you to the commission for the4790 opportunity to, I think excuse me. The legislature to, for the opportunity to speak with you today, and, I'm really grateful to represent, a ton of small businesses in this space. We have a we have a seems to be 2 bookends and that is social equity and economic empowerment, which we fully support, as well as MSOs. In the middle of that are a bunch of small businesses like mine, who are proud proud4818 to say employee owned as of 2024. Canada Provisions converted to an ESOP. We handed4824 over the reins of our company, basically, to our employees, the ownership to benefit however we, succeed in this business. With that said, I have a vested interest in making sure that my employees are successful as owners of our company, and I fully support efficiencies like 1 badge, 1 person that has been on the been on the plate for a really long time, and it saves businesses a ton of money. I would also add to that, which is not listed, but I would really love to add to that. Corey background checks should be the decision of the business. We should be able to determine how we're gonna do that anyway because there really is no limitation anymore of who can work in the industry. The other thing that I think is just so critical is that we address the advertising rules and make sure that we normalize those to what we really are, which is we're we're we're normal retail, and we need the ability to compete and not be hindered by nuances of words, like features or bargains or bundles or a million other words where everybody's in, kind of open to interpretation. So I really believe that we need to take a look at our advertising laws, our our advertising rules, and make sure that we address that.4900 I think it's very important that we address workplace4904 safety. I think that's a business decision, but I also strongly support making sure we hold businesses accountable to that. And I support raising, purchase limits to match and mirror our neighbors and to keep us competitive. I think the, challenge that I have for some of the bills that are supporting more responsibility on our regulatory body, the CCC, is incredibly challenging when the responsibilities that they currently have are not quite being met. So to expect this body to do more, is is a challenge. And I think under the circumstances with businesses really against the ropes, I feel like it's mission critical that we understand how they're how they're formed, how they get how they get money, and really be realistic about what can be4955 expected from this body. I hope that we come together and continue to come together as an industry to find our path forward. I really want to see Massachusetts be a success story for cannabis, and I look forward to seeing what happens with all of these bills. Thank you so much.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much for
SPEAKER1 - your testimony. Questions from the committee?
I just have 1 question. Just, you business has gone employee owned. What are some of the benefits that you've kinda realized through that process? Is it a difficult process to to achieve with the CCC?
SPEAKER30 - That that is such a great question. Thank you for asking. So, the process, first of all, is incredibly expensive. It's a big lift. There's a lot of documentation, a lot of, evaluation work. There's it's it's a big lift to get it done, and I can personally say that because I shepherded us through that. With regards to the CCC, I have to say that we're it's being looked at incorrectly, and that the idea that ESOPs are limited by their5022 trustee, which I also want to point out in receivership the same kind of thing you guys the the rules are saying that, oh, you can only have 1 receiver for 3 entities. I just feel like overall, we paid $35,000 to change basically, not change owner. We pulled owners out, and 1 of our owners became the trustee. And that was a huge expense, and I feel like that was just not not okay. I wanna talk about just really quickly the benefits. First of all, our employees take this very seriously. We're all rowing in the same direction. They're just as focused on cost savings as we are. They're just as focused on producing great products and and providing a great experience at our stores. And I feel like we've never been more aligned with our employee pool, and we could not figure out how to get this done in a way that, we wouldn't run into regulation issues if 1 employee made a bad decision 1 night or, you know, did something wrong, and then all of a sudden our license is in danger because somebody decided to to run afoul of the law. This provides a great platform, and I'm thrilled that we have done it. I'm glad to be on the other side of it. And, if there's any other questions about ESOP, I'm happy to answer it.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you.
SPEAKER5 - Seeing
SPEAKER1 - all the questions, appreciate your testimony. Thank you.
SPEAKER30 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Next up, we have signed up, Kevin Conroy and Mike Ross.
SPEAKER31 - Thank you. Good5125 afternoon chairs and members of the committee. I am, Kevin Conroy. I'm an attorney at the law firm of Foley Coag here in Boston.5131 And Mike's gonna introduce himself when he5135 speaks. Mike and I are both, attorneys in the cannabis industry here in Massachusetts. We represent numerous, provisional and final license holders, as well as cannabis investors here in the state. We're here to, urge urge you to adopt, the license cap provision, the raising of the license cap provisions that are contained in a variety of bills. H 1 4 9, H 1 7 4, S 7 8, H 1 5 8, H 1 7 1 and S 7 5. We believe these bills will allow for greater investment in cannabis companies here in the Commonwealth. Greater investment means more jobs, more cannabis businesses, more tax revenue for the Commonwealth, all good things. We represent a variety of different companies who are in the provisional license phase, and they cannot get to the final license phase because they cannot get investment in their businesses. If we raise a license cap, we'll have more investors in this industry, which will do good things. As I'm sure the committee is aware, access to investment in the cannabis industry is particularly challenging. It is illegal under federal law. Every large bank, in The United States refuses to invest in cannabis. Smaller banks are are participating in the industry, but many of them are deciding not to provide loans to the industry. This means as an industry, we rely on large family offices and high net worth individuals to invest in this industry. We've been in, there have been investments in this industry in Massachusetts now for 9 years. I have to stress with this committee, we have exhausted the limit of high net worth individuals and, and family offices. They have invested already. They have reached the license caps. We have exhausted investments, and we are seeing that on a day to day basis. Mike and I, our firms used to do a variety of transactions that would deal with Massachusetts licenses. We no longer do that work.
SPEAKER32 - Afternoon, mister chairman and members of the committee. Thanks for the opportunity. Mike Ross. I'm an attorney at the law firm of Prince Lobel, and I co chair the cannabis practice group there. As picking up for Kevin, started, the numbers, of the cannabis industries bear out what he was saying. In5298 Massachusetts, there are 1,747 applicants for the cannabis licenses. However, to date, only 650 have opened their doors. In Boston, there were 71 applicants that have been approved, only 34 have opened. And what this tells us is that more than half of the businesses that are approved to open are not doing so. There's only 1 good reason why a business would take all the steps to open, but then fail to do so. Capital. A cultivation facility requires a minimum of $5,000,000 in capital to open and a retail facility at least $1,000,000. Without investors, these facilities cannot and will not open. As someone who advises proposed licensees throughout Massachusetts, as both of us do, I can tell you that the challenges for social equity business owners who are trying to open their businesses are especially acute. In many cases, I have had investors ready and willing to make the investments in these entities. However, they have been unable to do so due to the regulatory cap on their existing licenses. The lack of investors also greatly hurts the ability
SPEAKER5 - of
SPEAKER32 - our current license holders to sell their businesses, as you heard in the previous testimony, or to expand their operations even. I represent a number of business owners who've been working tirelessly for 6 to 7 years to get their businesses open and have their businesses prosper. But now, like many other business owners, they're looking to get out,5407 at least for the short term, as you heard in testimony, from the from the woman from Springfield and others. However, with the lack5415 of new investors, there's no5417 1 to sell their businesses to, so they can't get out. Accordingly, Kevin and I are before you today to support the bills that Kevin mentioned. These bills will allow existing license holders who already have experience in Massachusetts to invest more money in Massachusetts businesses by raising license caps. Passing these provisions will allow more small and social equity businesses to open. The largest 14 cannabis companies or the 14 largest cannabis companies nationwide hold only 7.8% of the retail licenses in Massachusetts. So these monopolistic concerns, are not valid. I'll stop there. I thank you for your time.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much.
SPEAKER1 - Any questions from the committee? Yes, representative.
SPEAKER20 - Thank you, mister chair, and5467 thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. We heard from a few people already5471 before you who were opposed to the cap, and I think before the timer went off, you were saying that they're invalid. And I would love to just hear more about why you disagree with that perspective in terms of the testimony we heard from senator Miranda, and others.
SPEAKER32 - Yeah. I mean, thank you very much, for that question. I appreciate it, representative. I mean, the the the concern that you heard earlier that a few companies are going to dominate and take over this entire business is just not true. It's not a true statement. I was trying to tell you that, the large MSOs in Massachusetts only hold 7.8% of the Massachusetts licenses. So the 14 largest companies only hold 7.8%. I think that's a good statistic. In many cases, these MSOs are are simply trying to put shelf space, within an existing dispensary. In exchange for, capital dollars, they would, want a certain percentage of the shelf to be dedicated towards their products that would be sold at a fair markup. And I've seen some of these deals before, and they're reasonable. In exchange, they're able to put funds into this operator to get them open, but they can't with the cap in place. So, you know, the the not it's not just to dominate. It's you know, there's no interest of the MSOs. And, you know, I represent MSOs. I represent social equity applicants. I represent everyone in between. No 1 wants to see the MSOs dominate the entire industry. That wouldn't be healthy. That wouldn't be good. We wanna see money freed up, and we believe that this that that would do that.
SPEAKER31 - I'll just add representative, the original intent of 3 of capping at 35576 licenses, 3 retail licenses was a concern that our MSOs and that state would dominate the market. Right? And right now, I I this is a rough number. There are about 350 retail licensees in the Commonwealth. 3 right now, they're limited to 3. Every company can only have 3. Even if you you double that, you get to 6 or even if you get to 9. That is still a very small percentage of cannabis licenses in Massachusetts. And the challenge is, representative, is that without raising the license cap, we will just not see new investments. All of those folks who are stuck in line right now, who have these provisional licenses, who are dying to get open, do not have an investor, or many of them do not have an investor to get them to final licensure. And we need to get them to final licensure. We need them to be part of our our system, and it'll be good for all of us. It'll be good for tax revenue. Thank you for the question.
SPEAKER20 - Thank you both.
5636 SPEAKER15636 -5636 Any5636 other questions? Yep. Representative Shand.
SPEAKER12 - So I think we all have some concerns about the multistate operators, abusing their power. I have a a small business in Salisbury, and what they experienced was their multistate operators said, we're just not gonna pay your bills because we're gonna take all the free cash and open up operations in Ohio. So I'm not I'm a little sanguine about the multi state operators.
SPEAKER31 - I hope that wasn't 1 of my clients, representative because I I'll I'll tell you. And and if you wanna introduce me to the the licensed owner in Salisbury, I'm happy to bring a lawsuit against, the multistate operator who who did that. I gotta tell you, I my my impression on on this, representative is that the multistate operators are interested in, coming to the Commonwealth. Many of them are already here, making money, benefiting this industry, paying taxes, being a good corporate citizen. This is a really highly regulated industry as you know, representative. And to the extent you are a bad actor, to the extent you're not paying your your vendor bills, that gets around and people know that. And the CCC knows that. And, I will tell you in our my experience that the the MSOs and all cannabis operators, they recognize they have to be good corporate citizens because otherwise you're not gonna survive in this highly regulated industry.
SPEAKER12 - I'm just not sure that was the experience of my operator.
SPEAKER31 - And that's unfortunate.
SPEAKER3 - Any questions? I'd like to just,
SPEAKER33 - ask you just the the the
SPEAKER3 - statements you're making about the lack of
SPEAKER1 - investment or the investment opportunity are kinda shocking in5740 a way. 1 of the things that the committee has worked on in past session was creation of the Social Equity Trust Fund.
SPEAKER3 - I don't know if
SPEAKER1 - you have any comments on whether that's been an effective push for some of the license holders.5750 But also beyond just looking at the caps, do you have conversations with license holders or with prospective investors about the percentage of ownership that we have? We have a cap of 10% on percentage of ownership of current licenses. Is that come up as a as a an avenue that people are are speaking of? Or is is it a beneficial move for some life?
SPEAKER32 - Yeah. 2 very good questions. First of all, I think the the fund is a great vehicle. It's it's I've seen in my clients have an inflow of funds, some small and some large, and they've been able to to not be stuck, to kinda keep moving. And that's what it's intended to do. I think it's I think it's a a great thing. You know, it it it alone will not do what we need to do to fix the industry. The 10% increasing the 10% would help because, you know, it would5802 free up additional capital for people to make investments. The problem is is that these investments aren't there anymore. What you see now, the only investments that seem to be around are debt, and they're at very high interest rates. And, you know, they're they're they're companies that are looking to make money. No one's coming in with equity. They can't because everyone is at their capacity. They're either at 10% across the board with 3 other applicate 3 other licenses or a % in some cases, or or or they just don't have capacity to because of the regulations that are in place. So it's a whole other Avenue of investment that is it's not available. The only investment available. I mean, generally speaking, I mean, I'm sure there's always going to be friends and family and you can always kind of find things. But for the most part, when our clients are only finding debt, and the debt and the rates are not good, and they're taking on these big debts at very high interest rates, and we're concerned. And frankly, when they show up with the5864 funds that they got from the CCC, and and, like, what do I do now? Sometimes moving forward and then proceeding with that debt could be a problem, you know. And we don't wanna put our clients in a situation where they're not gonna be able to pay their bills, not gonna be able to pay their rent, not gonna be able to pay the debt service on that loan. It's it's it's tricky. So So having other options, other low cost options for them to open, like, earlier, like I mentioned, the shelf space agreements and things like that, or or equity where someone can come in and own, say, 10%, 20 % of the business, that will be very helpful. So I I'm in I'm for increasing those, those numbers.
SPEAKER31 - I would just add quickly, chair. Look, I think for our clients who are looking to invest in cannabis companies, there's there are a few mechanisms, but the 2 primary mechanism is to provide a loan or to take equity in the company. And by having a 10%, maximum, right, you can have, you can own 3 and then you can only invest, you can only take equity up to 10% in that fourth license or any other after. You're really limiting what they can do. And so we have every once in a while, clients come to us and say, hey, I really wanna give to be part of this operation in in this social equity applicant in Boston. They've they've got a good operation. I like their model. I'd like to get them some money. But I as part of that, I wanna wanna get some equity in that business. And we're constantly saying, well, you're limited to less than 10% because that's the cap in Massachusetts. And that really limits what we can do, and it limits the amount of money that ends up in these businesses, and it's preventing businesses from opening.
SPEAKER20 - Quick quick follow-up question. Thank you, attorney Kevin for that remark. What is it in other states? We often look to other states as a model. So if here in Massachusetts, the cap is 10%, what is it in our neighbors in Connecticut,5975 New York, Rhode Island, whomever? If you have that5977 or can get that to the committee, that would be helpful.
SPEAKER31 - Sure. We we can follow-up, with more information on that, representative. I'll tell you, Michigan is a great model. Un uncapped state, seeing some very aggressive, very flexible, financing, models. We're, California and Colorado or other states that that, do do not have license caps in the same way we do in Massachusetts. Honestly, I can't tell you a state, representative that has such a low limit as 3 retail stores. Ohio is is, maybe a 10 something like that. So there are other states that limit them, but nobody at such a low number for such a large state. You know, we're we're we're we're, on the on the cannabis playing field, we're 1 of the larger states. And to be limited to 3 is is is you you that is that is an outlier among other states. But we'll get you some follow-up information. Thank you for the question.
SPEAKER3 - Alright. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. Appreciate
SPEAKER7 - it.
SPEAKER1 - Next up, we have Emma Thurston in Calverti.
SPEAKER34 - Hi. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, chairman Gomez, chairman Donahue, and the honorable members of the joint committees committee on cannabis policy. My name is Emma Thurston, and I'm here to support the advertising bills H 1 7 1 and S75. I'm the chief off chief operating officer of Calverta Naturals. We're a non vertical, independently owned and operated, single store mom and pop, in Belmont. And I'm also a member of Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition. So I'm here today to speak to the advertising portion of these bills because6082 of the way they impact our business. And I could legitimately talk about this for an hour, so be grateful for that 3 minute timer. But I'd like to come at it from, my background of of where I came from in this industry. So I've been in here for about 3 years with this company. And before that, I spent 20 years in corporate retail, traditional retail. My last company, I was responsible for about $25,000,000 worth of inventory. So what I'd like to talk about is how the advertising regulations currently affect inventory control. It's been my primary focus for my career for years. So if you don't have control over your inventory, you don't have control over your company. Being able to effectively turn product is critical to managing your business. And as retailers, we need to be able to get new product lines and slower turning product in front of customers by being allowed to show discounted prices or run temporary temporary sales. Our manufacturing and cultivating friends sometimes need to move through excess product or trying to build excitement for new product, and they pass that pricing on to our Us retailers. And as retailers, we wanna pass that onto our customers. But we also need to acknowledge that pricing, in some cases, may be special, temporary, not repeatable. And the best way to do that is through sales. Regulations currently prevent us from doing any of that. We aren't allowed to say 10% off. We aren't allowed to say discount. We aren't allowed to say promotion. We're not allowed to say sale. And that's not all encompassing, by the way. And we can't even show strikethrough pricing, to show a price that has been lowered from its regular price on our own website. So my experience in in retail has shown me unequivocally that this is the single most effective way to help slower churning product move. You have to get consumer eyeballs on it. Simply changing the price does not accomplish that. Customers are now more than ever extremely price sensitive, and they're looking for those special offers. Cannabis retail has been around for a few years now, and customers see our stores as that. They see us as retail stores. They don't understand that we're not allowed to run sales or show promotional pricing, just like they don't understand why loyalty programs aren't allowed. There is simply no
SPEAKER5 - public safety issue that these current advertising regulations solve or prevent.
SPEAKER34 - The inability to launch a new product line new
product line with special promotional pricing also prohibits growth of new ventures. The inability to effectively move through sluggish inventory creates a clog in our product pipeline. It takes up valuable space on our vault shelves, which by the way also have a threshold of efficiency because of the other regulations. It prevents other product from being ordered. It ties up cash flow. This industry has an accounts receivable problem. Retailers need to be able to be effective in turning product into revenue. We aren't asking for permission to run full page newspaper ads screaming 90% off all day. We're just asking to be allowed to show our customers sale pricing on our restricted entry stores. If I may just finish that thought, our age gated website and our opt in customer communications. This is retail 1 0 1. This is the foundation of a successful inventory control and customer satisfaction. We remove these restrictions, we make our customers happy, we alleviate time and resources of our buyers, and we help solve a critical problem for industry. I'm happy to answer any specific questions.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you so much. Any questions from the committee?
Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. We very much appreciate that.
SPEAKER1 - Next up, sign up, we have, Ian Powell.
SPEAKER35 - Good afternoon.
I came to put something in the air and know it isn't a blunt. It's the truth. And 8 bills on the table right now that would do serious harm to the very people this industry was supposed to uplift. I thought this was our market, equity, ownership, a chance for local businesses, especially those impacted by the wars on drugs to actually thrive. But these bills, they give out state corporations the green lights to go from 3 to 9 licenses by buying out local social equity businesses. The same businesses still struggling to access capital, affordable space, and even shelf space. But let me be real. If we don't hold a line, MSOs will use their deep pockets to swallow the market up whole. We've seen it happen in Arizona. They've loosened the rules and local players disappeared. Don't believe me? Look it up. This fight is bigger than cannabis. This is about fairness, legacy, and keeping our words to communities harmed by decades of criminalization. If we don't protect small equity owned businesses, we're handing over the keys again to the folks who never had the chance to earn them. That's why I'm asking the committee to reject those 8 bills and support Liz Miranda's s point, 88. That bill holds the line and keeps the door opens for real equity. I'm here to strongly oppose the bills that would lift cannabis license ownership limits, including h 9 I I can just give you that last part. I I know all 8. But, big shout out to Rep Tyler, big up Massillon, and big up Senator, Liz Miranda. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Any questions from the committee?
SPEAKER3 - Seeing none. Thank you very much for your testimony.
SPEAKER35 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Appreciate it. Next up is,6394 Frank Shaw.
SPEAKER3 - No rush.
SPEAKER5 - Hello?
SPEAKER3 - Good afternoon.
SPEAKER36 - Thank you very much,
Jade Donahue and Jake Golds Mass for the chance to speak today. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Frank Shaw. I'm a 72 year old senior, and I live in Ipswich, Massachusetts. I've been a medical marijuana patient since 2018 and a member of the Massachusetts campus advisory board since 2021. I was diagnosed with HIV AIDS in 1998, and I'm here today to speak about h 1 6 3 and s 83. Our medical program is stuck in the past, and these bills represent a change that patients desperately need. Right now, operators are required to show half a million dollars just to apply for a medical license. They must become vertically integrated, and they face a $50,000 licensing fee per location per year. These policies were put in place by the Department of Public Health in 2013, and I have and have never been revisited.
Meanwhile, recreational dispensaries don't face these same hurdles. These bills would eliminate the vertical integration requirement, lower excess of capital, and licensing fees6525 in the Stag Bush reciprocity. Since 2024, '13 medical dispensaries are closed, leaving us less access to our medicine we rely on. If medical dispensaries keep disappearing and new ones can't open because of high barriers of entry, how do we expect this program to survive? The cannabis control commission has focused mostly on its efforts on recreational sales while the medical program continues to be held back by unnecessary restrictions. That's why I'm calling on you today to support these bills and let every dispensary add a medical register and sell cannabis to patients tax free. We fought hard to make medical marijuana legal, but we shouldn't have to fight for our basic access to our medicine. Patients need to be prioritized, period. As a patient, I can choose to get my medical card, but when most business don't have the ability to serve medical patient, does that sound like a program that's working? No. It doesn't. We are looking to you, our lawmakers, to help move these6610 bills forward immediately. Please pass these bills,6614 prioritize patience before it's too late. Thank you for your time and indulgence.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much.
SPEAKER1 - Any questions for the committee?
SPEAKER3 - Seeing none, thank you so much for your testimony. We appreciate it.
SPEAKER1 - And next up, we have Jeremiah McKinnon.
SPEAKER37 - Good morning.
SPEAKER38 - Yeah. Good afternoon.
SPEAKER33 - Good afternoon. Yes.
SPEAKER38 - Gina Gomez, Tim and Don, you're distinguished members of the cannabis policy committee. My name is Bill Malloy. I am legislative counsel for the Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance, and I'm joined by the president and executive director, Jeremiah McKinnon. I just wanna we're here to testify for 2 bills, house 1 6 3, filed by chairman Dave Rogers, and senate 83, filed by the good senator Gomez. These are to address needed much needed changes in the medical marijuana program. And we really appreciate your serious consideration. And if you consider further changes in the cannabis control commission, to please include these changes as well as you go forward. Thank you. Jeremiah.
SPEAKER39 - Thank you, Bill. Good afternoon, members of the joint committee. As you as Bill mentioned, my name is Jeremiah McKinnon, and I am president, and executive director of Mass Patient Advocacy Alliance, an organization that's advocated for patients and caregivers since the beginning of our medical program. And we are here today to support h 1 6 3 and s 83. These bills are not radical. They're rational and urgently needed to save our medical program, which is being quietly suffocated by outdated policies and unjust financial barriers. There are over 80,000 medical patients who rely on this program. They live in all of your districts. They're ordinary people, and it could be you in the future who may need relief for medical marijuana. And unlike most states who've seen the medical program drop off and shrink after adult6746 use sales begin, we've actually we need to6748 take pride in the fact that we've actually seen our medical program grow since adult use started. But we can't take that for granted. We need to reinvest in the future of the program, and that means streamlining it, modernizing it, and removing the shackles that limit patient access and prevent equity from participating in the medical industry. We brought these issues to the commission's attention, but after 6 years of advocacy, nothing's changed. It has not been on their list of priorities. Since 2024 alone, 13 medical dispensaries have closed their doors. And in many regions, Boston, Cambridge, the Berkshires, Cape Cod, patients have to drive to find a medical dispensary. While there are recreational dispensaries in their neighborhood, ready and willing to serve patients if they were given the option to. And when patients can't access medical, they're shopping at recreational, being taxed on the medicine they need, and their protections says patients don't apply at recreational facilities. Right now, the state charges more to a medical dispensary to operate than it does for adult use. Despite the fact that medical serves a smaller, more vulnerable population. Medical license fees are $50,000 per license per year with a capital requirement to apply of half a million dollars. That's that's irrational. It's exclusionary, and it's hurting existing businesses and stopping new businesses from entering the marketplace and serving patients. This bill would lower that license fee to a thousand dollars and waive it entirely for social equity businesses. Right now, and the main part of this bill is to eliminate a major barrier in the medical program is the requirement for all medical businesses to be vertically integrated. They have to grow their own cannabis. They have to process that cannabis and then retail it. We heard from previous speakers, a cultivation facility can cost $5,000,000. A retail, 6,000,000. It's hard enough to get into 1 segment of this industry, let alone do everything yourself. And the, so we wanna get rid of that vertical integration requirement. But our medical program's not broken beyond repair. It it's just been bound by outdated rules and financial barriers that hold it back. These barriers that do not apply to the adult use industry. So we're holding back our medical program and in the language in the bill, we strike the language that says our medical program must be revenue neutral. That's outdated language, and it doesn't reflect how the program actually works. All licensing fees, whether they're medical or recreational, get deposited into the wanna regulation fund and are appropriated through the legislature. So we6891 wanna get rid of that, revenue neutrality so that way the commission's not using that as an excuse to have, like, high license fees. And lastly, this bill would
SPEAKER5 - establish reciprocity, which means that patients
6899 SPEAKER396899 -6899 from6899 other states who visit Massachusetts, which means that patients from other states who visit Massachusetts, their medical card would be valid, and they could you buy medical marijuana at medical dispensaries instead of having to go to recreational and pay tax. And that's not just compassionate, but it's also to help sustain the businesses that we have today. That in the meet in the interim, while the commission, implements a system that's not vertically integrated, that these we can, you know, so, you know, build up the the pool of potential patients who could, frequent these medical dispensaries instead of such a limited market that we have today. So these these bills are really, rational and aligned with the commission's values, your values. And I do ask that, in whatever happens moving forward, that patients become a priority because we have been overlooked for far too long.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions from the committee? I just I just have 1 question. Is it do you have any studies about as far
SPEAKER1 - as kind of are there concentrations of patients or that that we know of
SPEAKER3 - that are underserved by access as far as, you know, you're saying distance to drive or with the recent closing of 16 facilities?
SPEAKER1 - Is there Sure. Any studies or anything could share with the committee?
SPEAKER39 - So the commission actually recently published a report where they actually highlighted where patient numbers were most prevalent. And Boston was the epicenter of patients. And we actually have seen the 7 dispensaries that were in Boston that were medical, 3 of them are closed. So there are, almost half of the dispensaries that were medical in Boston have closed, and yet there are 30 recreational dispensaries in the city. So why can't those existing adult use dispensaries add medical and expand access, so patients don't have to pay taxes. And we're talking to patients who live in communities where there's 7 adult use dispensaries and no medical. And they're asking, why should I continue to to renew my card if there's no if there's no access? And that's really what this is all about, is setting up places where patients can access the medical program. If we have businesses closing because license fees are too high or because adult use is starting to eat their lunch and, take their their customers, then we need to make it possible for the medical program to exist everywhere. So patients don't have to seek out the medical program. Their card, wherever they go, they get treated like a patient. So, there are several areas of the state that have, little to no access, including Cambridge, which used to have medical dispensaries, has no medical today, but has several social equity businesses that do operate in the city that I would imagine would benefit from additional traffic and being able to distinguish themselves from other operators by by having medical. So it's been a travesty to our social equity mission to have these barriers in place. And to be honest, if we had these barriers in place for the adult use industry, it would look nothing like it does today. Half a million dollars to apply for a license, $50,000 fee per year, and do you have to be vertically integrated? We're gonna kill our medical program if nothing's done. And there's people who rely on this and shouldn't be taxed for their medicine. So that's why we're here today to stand up for them and make sure that moving forward patients are a priority.
SPEAKER2 - Yeah. Senator? Thank you, mister chair. Just for the for the committee, can is there a difference between the cannabis that, medical use, individuals use versus the I know the answer to it. I just want him to state for the facts.
SPEAKER5 - For the record.
SPEAKER19 - Sure. I'm I'm try
SPEAKER2 - I'm trying to get him to show a little bit more emphasis on the bill he's talking about, which is mine.
SPEAKER39 - It brings up a
SPEAKER2 - I apologize.
SPEAKER39 - No. That's actually a really good question.
SPEAKER2 - So, just, just for the for the individuals that don't know, the difference between medical and, recreational marijuana, is there a difference between them 2? Are they grown in the same, facilities and rather?
SPEAKER39 - Sure. So at the end of the day, cannabis is cannabis. It's it is what it is. There are some products that are more, have higher concentrations of of medical components or, you know, that would be more geared toward patients. But, the the major distinguishing factor is the fact that patients are able to purchase high dose edible products. There are restrictions on edibles for recreational, 5 milligrams per serving, a hundred milligrams of THC per package. For medical, there's no limit whatsoever. So patients can buy, 1000 milligram chocolate bar, and they have a 60 day supply. So this is supposed to last them, during the, you know, during a long time period of time. They don't have to keep going to the dispensary again and again. But but but largely, these are the same products. And what we're seeing is that, that in some cases, the recreational growers are are growing a superior product to those who are vertically integrated medical. And when you're forcing every medical to grow, and then they they don't necessarily grow maybe a superior product, they're not gonna put wholesale product on their menu to compete with their product, because they spent so much time and energy growing it. So I I think, you know, there's not there may have been a reason in the beginning of time to start with, a vertically integrated medical model. But nowadays, Canada if you're a co located, so meaning you're recreational and medical, you can actually transfer a product that's recreational into medical. So it can be interchanged. And so what we what we wanna see is more dispensaries to be able to be co located instead of recreational only. So that way, they can, have more products on their medical side and, you know, if they have both menus, make those products available to both recreational and medical. But at the end of the7233 day, they're largely the same products. But what I will say is that with the recreational side of things, the commission says that 500 equals 1 ounce of flour. Mhmm. That's actually a false equivalency for adult use. For public health purposes, they put that in place. For medical, it's 5000 milligrams for 1 ounce. So we actually get the real equivalency of edibles to flower, whereas adult use is, kind of arbitrary.
SPEAKER2 - On the medicinal side.
SPEAKER39 - So so that's the major distinguishing point, other than the fact that patients can buy up to 10 ounces, every 60 days. The product is is mostly the same.
SPEAKER2 - Alright. Thank you for that answer. I can see that there's a lot of work in understanding the difference between both, so then we can help. The reason why I asked that question is because I want, my my friends here on the legislature to understand the difference between those 2. But then to understand that, you know, it's, basically, making sure that both sides are equivalent and obviously to make sure that parents have access I mean, patients have access.
SPEAKER39 - Right. Yeah. It becomes medical when a medical dispensary sells it. So that's actually 1 thing I wanted to say is that cannabis exists in a duality. So it can it can be both recreational or medical. And so what we're not allowing to happen is for more dispensaries to exist. We're not allowing that duality to exist. We're only saying, only a handful of companies who have access to capital can be medical. And instead of every dispensary being able to do both, you know, we're just limiting you to, you know, pigeonholing you in this 1 area. And so I think that's concerning, especially for for equity that, you know, we should be making it possible for them7328 to serve the medical community instead of multi state operators or or those who have been in the game for a long time. It's time to have real competition, a real fair market.
SPEAKER20 - Mister chair, I apologize. I was debating when you first asked if we could speak, and I was like, do I? So thank you, so much, mister McKinnon and mister Malloy, for sharing. Anecdotally, just wanna speak on the equity component. So I'm my mom's only child. I'm in full time caregiver mode, and she has late stage Parkinson's. And so we know for her, for her anxiety attacks, like, having an edible will calm her down, get her back, so, like, not freaking out. Having said that, I went through the process of trying to get the medical license card, but then there was literally nowhere nearby that made sense for me to commute with my day job and everything else. So and I know I have constituents in Milton. Also, medical marijuana use it in all seniors for the record. Like, let's be very clear about who was needing this medical marijuana who also have to travel basically to, like, Brighton to get their medicine because it is kind of a desert in Southeast Part of Boston, in the Greater Boston area for medical marijuana dispensary. So I am glad someone is looking at this and taking the time because it is a true equity issue. And then it becomes, do I drive past all the black and brown businesses that are in the district and nearby to go get this medical marijuana, waste gas, and time? So thank you for raising it. And I can definitely speak for the Southeastern Corridor of the city of Boston and and Greater Boston area that is a desert, so to speak. So thank you.
SPEAKER39 - Thank you for those comments. You know, the way I put it is, it's not a supply issue. It's an access issue. So we should look at the existing retailers today as a resource that they can help patients and help us, make sure the medical program continues to be there for decades to come.
SPEAKER1 - Excellent. Any other questions? Dean,
SPEAKER3 - thank you both for your testimony.
SPEAKER40 - Thank you.
SPEAKER5 - I appreciate
SPEAKER1 - it. Just like to
SPEAKER3 - recognize we have, senator Dylan Fernandez has joined us as well from Falmouth. Right? That's right.
SPEAKER5 - Come
SPEAKER1 - We'll come back to that 1. Tracy LaMaire.
SPEAKER24 - Good aft good afternoon.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you.
SPEAKER24 - Thank you, chairman Donahue, chairman Gomez, members of the committee. My name is Tracy LaMaire. I'm the owner of Evolve CPA Consulting. I serve I'm a CPA here in Massachusetts, very
important. I serve as a consulting CFO to, many Massachusetts cannabis operators of varying sizes and license types. I write or I'm I'm here to express, my strong support for H 174, H 171, H 149, S 75 and S 78. Basically the license cap increase proposals.
H 1 74 in particular seeks to increase the stand alone cap, for entities having direct or indirect control of adult use retail establishments from 37517 to 6. We've already had some discussion here today. So, you know, continuing that here. I believe that increasing the cap of retail stores that can be controlled by the same group will provide exit opportunities for smaller operators. And I think there's been a lot of discussion already today, and I really wanna make the distinction, you know, between a a multistate operator conglomerate and small businesses and that the majority of the businesses we're talking about in the state lie in the middle. Right? So it will provide exit opportunities for the majority of the small to medium, operators in the state that currently own 3 or less stores. It will allow for more capital and financing opportunities from investors and foster a market where operators actually have the ability to reach financial and operational stability. There are currently many retail store operators in Massachusetts who are effectively being forced to close their doors or exit at below market valuations because of the lack of eligible and interested buyers. Raising the caps slightly, 3 to 6, very slight, would increase
SPEAKER5 - the number of potential buyers, enable
SPEAKER24 - these stores to sell, and would also buyers, enable these stores to sell, and would also increase the values of the stores in those sales much closer to traditional market values. Some of them are closing their doors and literally giving up the keys for nothing. Every financial model that I have created shows that businesses in the Massachusetts market can only reach sustainable, healthy level of financial profitability when they can operate at a level of scale by controlling at least 5 or more stores. The reason is that every individual store is required to maintain a certain fixed level of overhead costs, including general and administrative
an accounting, they need HR, they need compliance. Every single store is recreating the wheel with the same level of overhead. I, you know, as HR could serve 5 floors or more. Oh, no. I'm already out. Oh, goodness. Can I have, like, 1 more?
SPEAKER5 - Yes. Sorry.
SPEAKER24 - You can finish up. Alright. So required fixed level overhead and compliance costs, and, they need to be able to spread those fixed overhead costs over a larger aggregated revenue. And at that point, the portfolio of stores becomes financially You don't see people7672 with 1 vending machine. They have many. You don't see people with 1 Dunkin' Donuts franchise. They have at least a few. As a CPA and consulting CFO serving the cannabis industry, I7682 see firsthand how current license and ownership7684 caps have limited the ability of companies to reach a viable level of profitability, including the social equity and economic empowerment owners. Investors are outright unwilling to invest in licensees who operate in Massachusetts because they too understand what the financial models show. Operators in Massachusetts are competing for capital from investors who are considering the entire national cannabis landscape. From that perspective, Massachusetts is much less competitive, much less attractive to be because of the current inability to scale and create additional profitability or exit opportunities. To be clear, this does not mean that increasing the license caps would mean more multi state operator conglomerates would enter the Massachusetts market. Many of them have been here, many of them are leaving. In order for the market to be attractive for conglomerates in the monopoly category, the standalone cap would have to go to 10 or 12 or or higher. So we're not talking about that here. Such as in regulated adult use markets, I know this question came up earlier, that are more attractive to investors like Ohio, where the standalone cap is 8 or Missouri, where you can own up to 10% of the total stores in the state. Increasing the standalone cap would enable these small operators, to realize the intended goal of creating a viable business that can be operated for generations, creating generational wealth for those disproportionately affected groups without creating a consolidated market controlled by large out of state conglomerates. I urge you to support these proposals. Thank you for the additional minute here. Thank
SPEAKER10 - you. Any questions?
SPEAKER1 - Any questions for the committee? Let's go ahead, representative Sauter.
SPEAKER7 - I wanna thank you. And I'm gonna ask you to put your accounting hat on for a little bit if you don't mind. You know, when you look at these bills, raising the cap and all the proposals that we have, and then some of these bills that we have really only increases the market share by 1.55% from an accounting standpoint. Do you think that would have any effect on businesses that are managing their market share and trying to, because to me that 1.55%, there's so much failure rate in that 1.55% growth. And 1 of the main explain is that they're failing. So we have to have somebody come in and help them or they lose everything like I said earlier. So as an accountant and somebody that works with folks, in this industry, do you think that there's gonna be a major impact on the industry here in Massachusetts or make it unfair for anybody or eliminate the concerns of, taking away from equitable, businesses?
SPEAKER24 - Right. I I mean, I I ultimately think that's the most critical question on this issue. Obviously, I heard some sort of from both both both arguments, but I would say that, you know, this this is not going to create a monopoly. No. I don't think anybody here, and I don't think the intent of the legislature, legislation initially was to create a market that's gonna be controlled by conglomerates. We're really talking about moving the needle enough to get to a point where these existing businesses, small businesses, and social equity businesses can can can be sustainable. And they can be what's considered like a lifestyle business. If if they don't wanna sell, they could run the business for 50 to a hundred years and pass it on to their family. That's what we're talking about here. It it gets to that level where the math math for it just to to use a a term. Right? That is the threshold that you can cover your required, compliance and regulatory fixed costs having that, you know, 5 whatever, that range of between 3 to 6 or up to 6, that is where you can become a sustainable business that can operate for generations. We're not talking about creating conglomerates. We're just getting to a level of actual viability where it it also reaches the threshold where the investors recognize it's viable and would consider, you know, putting some some capital or or financing in.
SPEAKER7 - And, mister chair, just 1 more 1 more thing. I feel 1 74 opens the opportunity for businesses that might be failing, especially in in and I've had many in the, that have their licenses from the social equity aspect of our legislation and the opportunities they got in for. 1 of the things they expressed is that 1 74 also give them the opportunity to stay in the business, stay invested in the business. So a portion of the business gets sold. They can stay in the business. It's something that they can still have an opportunity to make money. So do you feel like that helps the this legislation will help a lot of those businesses retain some of their ownership and some of what they built.
SPEAKER24 - Absolutely. And I I'm I'm very passionate about this because, again, I'm seeing this in my client base and having really, really tough conversations of, do you close the doors and walk away with nothing and give away the keys? Or is there, you know, what this is this is to me the solution where companies that are contemplating walking away, folding doors, bla laying off employees, this gets them to the ability of, okay, I I can actually run this business again. Maybe I don't wanna7997 sell. Maybe I just wanna run it for 50 years and pass it down to my family. But it it it gets to that level where they have the choice. And right now, they there's there's just not much choice.
SPEAKER7 - And lastly, are you the kind CPA that might be able to get me a refund to pay?
SPEAKER24 - No. But if you didn't file your extensions yet, you got you got about a week to go.
SPEAKER7 - Thank you, mister chair. I appreciate the opportunity.
SPEAKER24 - Thank you for your time.
SPEAKER1 - Anyone else? I I used to I have 1 other
5 or more as, like, the business. And if you have any further testimony or any of that model
SPEAKER3 - that you could share with
SPEAKER1 - the community, that'd be wonderful.
SPEAKER24 - Yeah. I I'd be happy to sort of submit, you know, like, a a financial you know, the financial model I was referring to that kind of shows the math. Right? Like, what is what is that level of fixed cost that you can get to to, be be somewhat profitable? And and I think there's a lot of misconception here that there is, you know, there was a re the green rush is over and and the handover fist, with still the federal illegality and the schedule 1, 2 80 e applies federally. Somebody said it earlier. The effective rate of these companies is 60 to 70%. So we're talking they have to be8066 at a level of revenue where they can clear 60 to 70% of, you know, effective tax rate, the rent, the payroll. We're not at the end of the day, they're still not gonna be throwing off millions of dollars in profit. It it's just enough to sustain. It would be it would be higher than that, you know, to be have these companies be throwing off millions and millions of dollars. This is just to get to a viable, financial. But, yes, I'm happy to share, you know, financial models so so you can see the math, basically.
SPEAKER5 - Yeah. I'd be
SPEAKER3 - appreciate that. Yeah.
8100 SPEAKER18100 -8100 And8100 have you speaking of that, actually, I was 1
SPEAKER3 - of my follow-up with the with the
SPEAKER1 - February and, you know, the federal tax structure. I think that we had heard
SPEAKER3 - a little bit earlier from some I know we have
SPEAKER1 - heard testimony about employee owned programs. Have have you worked with any with the tax benefits that come along with employee owned programs or the ESOP programs and your clients have experienced in that?
SPEAKER24 - Yeah. They're great. And I I, you know, I would echo what Meg said. That has been 1 avenue where folks are looking, because it helps solve the federal you know, until schedule 1 happens or if there's any change, 2 80 e still applies federally. It it does take the the federal tax requirement away, but as Meg mentioned, Saunders, it is very expensive. So there right right now, there's only a certain amount of, groups that are eligible. What I would say on that though is it's limited right now because you can only do an ESOP where you control 3 licenses. So if we're talking about you can do an ESOP and groups can combine, and they can combine licenses to 6 or more, all of a sudden, the cost of creating ESOP gets, again, spread across 6 licenses. And so that is that could be another opportunity where you start to see groups combining 6 stores or, you know, to do 1 ESOP spreading the the legal cost of the structure of that and creating an an exit opportunity there and and more employee owned businesses. So I think those are great. I think you would see more again in this if this cap scenario gets lifted because they'll actually be able to legally,
SPEAKER1 - model, is that8205 is there any geographic considerations considered? Or is that I mean, is it 5 stores from
SPEAKER5 - the entire
SPEAKER24 - So it's the Berkshires?
SPEAKER1 - Or is is it make sense to have, you know, geographic limitations or any if you're feeling
SPEAKER24 - good with this I would I honestly the way I would say it is really just, like, average revenue8220 per store
SPEAKER5 - Mhmm.
SPEAKER24 - Combining to a total revenue threshold. So, it doesn't it's not necessarily based on where the stores are per se. It's more just on an average per store times 5 stores gets you to roughly a revenue threshold that you need to be able to cover cover those costs and be viable. So I didn't necessarily factor in geographic location. Yeah.
SPEAKER2 - Leonard? Yeah. Just, I'm sorry that it's you. You'll we're asking these questions.
SPEAKER24 - Oh, no. That's okay.8254 I I apologize I went over.
SPEAKER19 - No. It's just more8256 more
SPEAKER2 - on the the discussion on the the license cap on, you know, the expansion you're talking about 5 or the 5 model. Yeah. Okay. Is that 1 cultivation versus 3, 3 recreational sites, is that, you know, does in your model that you might, that you're gonna send to us, is it gonna have different8277
recreational stores? Do you understand the question that I'm
SPEAKER24 - Yes. So I'm I'm mostly speaking on on the the retail
SPEAKER27 - The retail retail number. Yeah.
SPEAKER2 - Okay. I just I just wanted to clarify that because, that question. Because sometimes, ideally, within the industry, what is what is said, I don't I don't know if it's proven as of yet, that for some of these business to to stay, lucrative and above that percentile that you had stated, if you own a grow, they say that, allegedly, you're supposed to own 3 different, or, 3, retail locations for them, you should be able8320 to sustain kind of that model. But it's the reason why I asked because you we're we're we're talking about 5, expansion of licenses, but not, unbeknownst to us is just, how does that work with the different licenses? And you're just talking about just straight retail.
SPEAKER24 - In in this, yeah, in this particular, bill, it's focused around the the retail. And and, again, I think that model would be 5 the 5 retail stores similar to if they if there is a cultivation in processing, they would still need at least 5 or more, right, to, on the retail as well. So yeah. Yeah. It should reach a threshold that's assisting you all.
SPEAKER2 - No problem. I just wanted you to just, answer that.
SPEAKER24 - Yes. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - There was another 1 more question, sir. Sorry.
SPEAKER6 - Sorry to keep you in sync. That's okay.
SPEAKER5 - Sorry to see you.
SPEAKER6 - And I apologize if, if I show my ignorance in this question, but you you had mentioned as we've all seen that there there's 2 sides to this issue. Right? I mean, we've got 1 bill that's saying, you know, and testifiers say, don't increase it because it'll put the mom and pops out of business and, and and then yours and and and others who are saying that, you need this for economic vitality. You mentioned that MSOs would not, like, at a certain level would not be interested in coming in if they were though. And that's 1 of the concerns that was raised by the folks. What, what guardrails are8402 would you recommend to try to address that concern that's been raised by the mom and pops?
SPEAKER24 - Yeah. I mean, with all due respect, right, I'm not sure that those groups have done the done the the financial analysis or have talked to the investors like I have, who basically said we're not we're not putting money here. We're we're going to Ohio. We're going to New Jersey. We're going to every other state of Massachusetts right now. That is the reality of all the investor conversations you've heard from the attorneys and and others. So, you know, I'm not sure that what what financial modeling or math has been done or conversations with those investors has has happened. And I think it's a misconception, because the the the8443 Ohio's where the investors are going and the large conglomerates, Pennsylvania, 18. Right? Maryland, they're going to the limited
license states8451 where the licenses are worth a lot more because there's a limit on how many licenses exist. That is where you have monopolies and conglomerates. Pennsylvania,8459 some of the other medical only states. That's where they are. That's where they wanna be. Massachusetts hasn't been structured like that and and should continue. So in terms of guardrails, I think if you're staying under a cap of, you know, whatever, 10, 12, you're you're you're out of the realm where there's interest of groups from a monopolistic perspective. They're looking they're they're in limited license states like Pennsylvania and and others where they they can have monopolies, quite frankly. Yeah.
SPEAKER6 - And just to follow-up. So so if that weren't the case though or the market changes and this, you know, now we have them coming in, is there any value to requiring them to maintain let's say they acquire 1 of the, smaller operations that's equity focused. Is there any value to requiring them to maintain the the nature of that of that and and the clientele and, you know, the retail operation of let's say, a social equity, store or operation?
SPEAKER24 - Yeah. I mean, I, I'm8522 not, I'm not sure if you could, you know, can require,8524 because again, like, there's there's a level of scale of operation. Think of the sort of the equivalent of a franchise. Right? You get scale by saying, we're gonna do the same thing. Dunkin' Donuts is gonna be all the same. So I'm not sure that that would still be appealing, but8541 they also have to look at the market. Right? If they're in a market where it's a very, locally owned place, maybe they don't wanna change the name of the8549 sign on the door. I don't know I don't know about, about, like, requiring that. I think if you're if you're staying under the 10 to 12 cap and we're really just, again, the bill is going from 3 to 6, I don't see that any of those in any conversations I've had or or any of those, again, models for the the conglomerate's perspective, that it's still not gonna be interesting to them. They're they're looking at Pennsylvania and other states where their licenses are limited, and they're a lot more valuable, to to those groups. So
SPEAKER3 - Thank you. Any other8584 questions? Seeing none, thank8586 you very much for your testimony. Appreciate that.
8588 SPEAKER18588 -8588 Thank8588 you. Next up,8590 we have Peter Belcido.
SPEAKER8 - Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Jamie Gomez, Jamie Donahue, and all the members of the joint committee. My name is Pete Belcido.8609 I'm here representing myself as8611 well as Fitzgana Inc, a cannabis wholesale broker, and I'm here to support the modernization of our medical marijuana program, bill senate, senate bill s 838621 and house bill 1 63. Got about 5 quick points I'll make here. I8627 think a lot of the testimony, stated8629 earlier about the equity piece. I'd like to focus a little bit more on8633 the health of the industry at a large and why a reform medical, program, actually8639 modernizes and invigorates the entire marketplace. First and foremost, again, supports the vital population. The only reason we're here is because of the medical patients who stood at the very steps of this building for years and years and years, telling
SPEAKER5 - us
SPEAKER8 - this was medicine and, you know, dealing with all the, statements, etcetera, to the point where we can8662 have a discussion inside the building instead8664 of just on the
revitalizes the medical, market, and it stabilizes the industry at a large. Why is this? Well, medical sales are a stabilizing force in other states where the volatile adult use markets the adult use market, as you can see, can be cyclical. It can be raised around holidays. There is nobody who buys a more consistent, amount of product than the medical patients. You know?8692 We talked about high THC levels. There's also more to it. It ensures diversity among the offerings. I think senator Gomez, your question about are the products the same? The plant's the same. The products can be quite different. You know, I I go around to a lot of different outlets looking for different cannabinoid profiles. Like, there's8710 more than just 1 medical, you know, active ingredient, so to speak. And there really isn't an incentive to to provide these products. And8720 first of all, you can only get them in a few places.8722 I'm not saying they don't exist. They just don't exist. And again, from a wholesale standpoint, right through the retail, the price of the product usually revolves around 1 factor, and that's the THC amount. And that's just, you know, a small fraction of what the plant offers. And we have products like my mom, myself included, who are looking for, different kinds of products that exist and consistent types of products as well.
Seconds. Alright. Here we go. Speed round. Advances public safety and equity goals. We've already spoken about this. It focuses the product, the industry more on the health. Again, the8760 origins of why we're here. And there's, you know, it brings us into the 20 twenties other states that have, programs similar to this as well. So in short, these bills are a win win. It's good for patients, it's good for businesses, and it's good for the long term health of Massachusetts
market. I'll stop there and wait for questions.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much.
SPEAKER1 - Any questions from the committee?
SPEAKER3 - Seeing none, thank you so much. We appreciate it.
SPEAKER2 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - I just wanna recognize that, representative Cruz from Salem has joined us. Thanks so much for looking. Alright. I think we're good. Next up, we have Mary Cabral.
SPEAKER24 - Hello, and thank you. So I'm here today to advocate for consumer and worker safety in the Commonwealth's cannabis industry in support of h 1 9 4, an act relative to the Massachusetts cannabis control commission forming a department of workplace and consumer safety. While the Massachusetts regulations are some of the most restrictive in the countries, in many way, those provisions ensuring safety only exist on paper. I worked as a compliance manager for a vertically integrated cannabis company in Western Mass for several years, acting as the company's contact person for the CCC and managing their establishment licenses. The unfortunate reality for the cannabis industry is that there's a belief that laws are only real if they're enforced. The CCC is tasked with regulating many different types of enterprise, cultivation, manufacturing, retail, research, more. Although well intentioned, it's obvious that the
SPEAKER5 - CCC's investigative staff
SPEAKER24 - are stretched unable to prioritize enforcing8869 every aspect of compliance with the8871 laws. Under8873 the protections of uncertainty, these uncharted waters of enforcement become a safe harbor for cannabis companies serving their business interests often without8881 regard for public safety. In other words, we should not be relying on these licensees to self regulate in absence of more meaningful oversight from the CCC. The gaps are many. Speaking from my own experiences in the industry, the enforcement responsibilities for safety concerns such as fire hazards, pesticide testing, and
pesticides testing, and indoor air quality are fragmented, relying on under other under resourced state agencies or local authorities. I mean, really, how can the CCC actually ensure that a local building8910 inspector has physically inspected the8912 facility? Do they have a line of communication with fire departments in every municipality where cannabis licensees operate,8918 or do they rely on self attestations? When cannabis industry workers are faced with hazards
SPEAKER5 - on the job, there are few avenues for them to
SPEAKER24 - report or seek assistance. It's a compliance best practice to8924 make seek assistance. It's a compliance best practice to make available a hotline for anonymous reporting. Why hasn't the CCC made 18933 available for its registered agents? Without a voice, cannabis workers are often forced to choose between their jobs and their safety. It really brings it back to the entire point of regulating the cannabis industry is to ensure that it operates safely and ethically. It's really no secret that the CCC is in desperate need to reevaluate its priorities, and I think it should be empowered by law to put worker and consumer safety at the top of that list. Thanks. Looking for any questions.
SPEAKER3 - Excellent. Thank you so much for your testimony. Any questions from the committee? Seeing none, very much appreciate it.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Next up we have, Patricia Cooney and Ellen Casper.
SPEAKER41 - I just like to put my Canvas Bibles here.
SPEAKER25 - Hi. Thank you for having us.
SPEAKER3 - Appreciate being
SPEAKER25 - there. My name is Joan Casper. I'm a navy veteran and RN. I met Patricia when I testified here in June of 20 23. She did a Zoom presentation. And because we're both nurses, we're both passionate about medical cannabis and patients. We got together, and we've been advocating and doing education. I've been fortunate since 02/2013 to be working for a small, locally owned and operated med dispensary committed to providing safe quality cannabis to patients since 02/2013. We're not an MSO nor equity, so we're in a different space, but are faced with life issues that have been brought up here. With the industry's climate as
SPEAKER20 - it is, we've been forced
SPEAKER25 - to add AU to keep our medic our medical business viable. I feel that the AU program fund should support the medical program. We shouldn't be charged so much. All that money should really help the medical program stay viable. I'd like to address h 1 63, the vertical integration elimination. For years, it's been pointed out that all these medical dispensaries are closing, and the 1 idea is to eliminate vertical integration,
but little to nothing has been done to why is it so loud all of a sudden? At
SPEAKER24 - some point.
SPEAKER25 - To support currently operating dispensaries. I agree that vertical integration is burdensome. We'd be thrilled if we didn't have to pay $50,000 a year since 02/2018 for9083 2 separate places, 1 being just a small store.
But only support elimination if9093 in addition to reciprocity, meaningful changes also made are made to refund the cost of $49,000 a year in overpaid licensing fees, streamline license approval and additions, especially for known compliant businesses, and reduce redundancy and delays. That's the CCC's job. The bills that support increase in licenses, purchase limits, AU can actually purchase 1 ounce a day as there is no walk in tracking. So someone can go to every day for 60 days. They can go walk into a place, and they can potentially get9128 60 ounces in 60 days. So that's just something to be aware of. Allowing sales of synthetic more potent THC beverage product sales outside of dispensaries,9139 when THC is so regulated for us, don't help the med dispensary viability nor increase access to safe medicine. With no differentiation between med9149 and AU except tax, maybe it's time that there should only be 1 license with clients actually choosing what they would like to purchase. I support the bills, h 1 94 for safety, s 91 on the moratorium, s 88 the whistleblower protection, and h 1 48 badges. Badges.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you.
SPEAKER5 - Sorry. We
SPEAKER25 - don't need no sticky badges.
SPEAKER3 - I think that's what
SPEAKER1 - we're all thinking. Right? Thank you.
This this fight as well?
SPEAKER41 - Yes. Hi. I didn't know if you had any questions. Oh.
SPEAKER1 - I'll wait till yet.
SPEAKER41 - Thank you for this opportunity. I appreciate it. My name is, Patricia Cooney. I've been a registered nurse for many years. I'm here today to strongly report age bill 163 and Senate 83. In 2011,9203 my daughter was hospitalized for 4 weeks battling lupus and experiencing unbearable pain. She told me, mom, I feel better when I use9211 marijuana. That changed everything for me. That's when I started learning about the endocannabinoid system, an essential part of our biology that helps regulate pain, inflammation, and mood. I was shocked to find out that only 13% of medical schools teach it. Even my daughter's Harvard education doctors here in Boston have never heard of it. I continue to teach them. As a nurse, I found this unacceptable. So when Massachusetts legalized medical marijuana in 2012, I was hopeful. But it took over 2 years for the first dispensary to open, which I was at. And since then, patients have continued to struggle with access. Now more than a decade later, our medical program is quite is it crisis? Since early 2004, 13, medical dispensaries have closed. Every time a medical dispensary shuts down, patients lose access9258 to what they have come to rely on, which my daughter does. They are forced to start all over again to figure out which product works for them and where to access them. This involves cost and frustrating talent9270 trial trial and error. The canvas Canvas Control Commission is supposed to protect patients, but unfortunately, the medical program9278 is not their North Star for the suffering consistence, in our9282 state. My daughter is 1 of them. High daughter is 1 of them. High fees,9285 outdated, and unnecessary regulations9287 continue to limit access. Advocates have been urging the commission to act since 2018, yet here we are. That's why I'm urging to step to support house bill 1 63 and senate bill 83. These bills would allow more dispensaries to serve medical patients by removing current burdensome requirements. Patients deemed more access to the medical program, not less. These bills would make it possible for every dispenser to add a medical register to patients who get their medicine or whatever it's most accessible to them. We need to modernize the medical program, and these bills make that those steps right steps to ensure that there's not that that this is not only survives but thrives. Please support this practical fit to make our medical program and make more patients priority in any legislation you move that you move forward. In my daily life, I still work. I have 2 jobs. I work for the DPH as a SANE nurse, and I'm a school nurse. I teach everyone. We have nursing students that I precept. I teach all the nurses, all the doctors I see see with my doctor. I my I give them this book. It is a nursing specialty now as of October 2023. I'm a member of the American Canvas Nurses Association, and I graduated from the first program in the country at the University of Maryland
pharmacist. I believe we can, do better with the medicine and medicine program here, and, please support. Our patients deserve better, and, we need to support them. They're suffering. Thank you.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much for your testimony.
SPEAKER1 - Any questions?
SPEAKER7 - That looks good.
SPEAKER3 - Seeing none, thank you very much for for for sharing your testimony with us.
SPEAKER1 - I saw
SPEAKER42 - quite loud. Thank you, chair Donahue and chair Gomez for taking me out of turn and members of the committee, for hearing me today. This is, testimony on bill h 1 60, house 1 60. I know that this is a
controversial topic and way to address, the potential or or the the struggles that most folks have financing cannabis businesses, but it is a proposal and a tool that we would like to see potentially9437 implemented if it if it is deemed as working within the grander scheme of legislation that you're trying to put up. So I ask that you vote favorably for h 1 60, an act to promote equity9447 joint venture partnerships out of9449 committee. H 1 60 is explicitly drafted in order to attract and facilitate additional investment opportunities at the start up or existing Canada's businesses. So, you know, that finding funding is incredibly difficult, because they can't apply through for banks9463 and they have to finance and market9465 and that could take years. I've9467 had several places in my district,
find a space, find a lease, and then not be able to open because they can't find any9477 financing to continue the process. Since adult use cannabis passed in Massachusetts, cannabis licenses have raised 2 consistent issues. The need for business to grow and expand here in the Commonwealth and the challenges of accessing accessing necessary capital, not just for social equity, but for the cannabis business generally. House 1 60 addresses those 2 issues directly. The bill does not increase the cap on licenses, which has been a point of contention. Instead preserving the cap and allowing those that want to invest in other businesses to do so. This narrowly tailored specific intent of generating investment opportunities into the business, but no more than 35% of equity and is limited to an additional 4 licenses. So for context, which you probably already all know, based on the data released by the cannabis control commission, there are more than 700 businesses pending between application, provisional licensure, and final license phases. This is due to lack of capital and access to it, a major hurdle these businesses have to overcome. Just last session, this challenge was addressed when we created the social equity fund to offer grants to qualifying cannabis businesses. This legislation is wholly consistent with that intent and will undoubtedly allow some of those businesses to join the existing ones that are already open. This is an opportunity for us to create a pathway for businesses to grow and expand here in our states and is something that desperately needs the boost, especially as we're looking at the rest of the economy kind of fall down around us during this time. So thank you for hearing my testimony. Thank you for taking me out of turn. I'm happy to answer any questions if you have them.
SPEAKER3 - Excellent. Thank you so much for your testimony.
SPEAKER1 - Any any questions from the committee?
SPEAKER42 - Okay. Well, thank you very much.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Next up to testify, we have, Stella Johnson.
SPEAKER43 - Nothing has ever looked better than your iced coffee, can I say?
SPEAKER3 - You want a sip?
SPEAKER43 - Oh, so badly. Good afternoon chairperson's Donoghue and Gomez, vice chairs and distinguished members of the joint committee on cannabis policy. Thanks for the opportunity to testify today. A lot of this is duplicate testimony, so I've tried to chop it down since you've heard it all already. I'm here to testify9605 in support of house bills 1 58, 1 70 1, 1 40 9, 1 70 4, and9611 senate bills 75 and 78. My name is Stella Johnson, and I serve as director of compliance for Buds Goods and Provisions. We're a cannabis, licensee operating 3 retail locations and a manufacturing facility here in Massachusetts. We support these bills because the current 3 retail license cap prevents successful operators like BUGS from supporting other cannabis businesses when we're approached for acquisitions. While we occasionally hear from 1 off retailers hoping to be acquired, many are vertical companies who wanna focus on cultivation or manufacturing
license cap to 9 or to 6, like H b 1 71,
the license cap9661 to 9 or to 6, like H b 1 71 and 1 49 suggest, by acquisition only, does not create a monopoly or even significantly consolidate the market. In many other industries, operators can run dozens or hundreds of locations without raising concerns about competition. The cannabis industry should be treated with the9679 same economic logic. Buds is great at retail. We are annual winners9685 of various best of business, best dispenser,9687 and community choice awards. It's arguably what we do best. We want the opportunity to support other operators who've asked us for help, and we wanna do it responsibly without running a foul of any of the state's laws or regulations. Raising the cap gives us and others like us the flexibility to contribute to the long term stability of this market. I also wanna raise the issue of agent registrations. Our company spends thousands of dollars each year managing background checks, notarized releases, staggered renewal dates for our agents. Simplifying the process and extending renewal dates would free up critical time and resources, allowing us to focus on higher impact compliance priorities. For all these reasons and others I've shared in written testimony, we respectfully urge the committee to support, the slew, the 14 that Ryan mentioned of bills, today. Thank you for your time and consideration. Happy to answer any questions if you have them.
SPEAKER3 - Excellent. Thank you so much for your time.
SPEAKER1 - Any questions from the committee? Yeah. That's Andrew.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you, mister chairman. I appreciate you
SPEAKER2 - being here today and testifying. So as as an entrepreneur
SPEAKER1 - in this industry, I'm just curious,
SPEAKER2 - how do you see,
SPEAKER1 - the adult use cannabis industry evolving, if we don't raise the cap? So I'd love it's a 2 part question. So that's part 1. And then the second is, like, what
SPEAKER3 - is the benefit of having the cap
SPEAKER33 - for you as an operator?
SPEAKER43 - Benefit of having the cap, I see.
SPEAKER5 - Yeah.
SPEAKER43 - I think the most important piece of, I'm gonna take I guess I could take them out of order. The most important piece of the bills presented today that hasn't kind of been mentioned is that we are looking to raise the cafe acquisition only. So we're not looking to, generate 3 new business from scratch.9788 We really just want to support an exit strategy for people that wanna get out9792 and make a return on their investment. So without that, we, you know, we continue to get scrappier and, the business continues to get tougher to run. And you'll continue to see places close, because there's no exit for them as mentioned by previous testimony.
SPEAKER22 - Thank you.
SPEAKER3 - Any other questions? Seeing none. Thank you very much for your testimony.
SPEAKER5 - Thank you
SPEAKER43 - so much. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Appreciate you hanging in there.
Next up with testify, we have, Danielle Drummond.
Is Danielle here?
Charlie Yan?
SPEAKER33 - Chairman Gomez, chairman Donahue, and honorable members of the joint committee on cannabis policy, good day and thank you. My name is Charlie Yon. I live in Holliston and serve as chief of staff for Native Son, a vertically integrated Massachusetts cannabis company with retail facilities in Hudson, North Attleboro, and Boston, and cultivation and Manufacturing in Fitchburg. Native Son is a proud member of Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition. I'm9880 here today to offer my testimony in support of the agent registration9884 card bills, h 1 48, s 80, h 1 71, and s 75. The proposed legislation streamlines the agent registration process by establishing a single transferable agent
SPEAKER5 - registration cards at Native Son,
SPEAKER33 - from applications to annual
court has a real opportunity to simplify the system in a way that benefits everyone in Massachusetts. For the sake of the individuals and businesses who make this industry possible and the regulators, sorry, and the commission that regulates it, I ask that you consider this appeal grounded in simplicity and utility. These proposed reforms offer a chance to modernize what has become an unnecessarily burdensome process and to align cannabis licensing with other professions where Massachusetts has already refined credentialing, such as health care,9966 education, and the trades.9968 In Massachusetts, nurses, teachers, and electricians maintain a single license, while cannabis workers may need to hold up to 9 licenses for just 1 employer. The legislation before you presents an opportunity to effectuate irrefutably meaningful change. A single transferable badge would increase job mobility for individual agents, reduce administrative burden, and save both businesses and regulators time and money. In an industry already strained by countless small burdens, this legislation presents a rare opportunity for significant relief, a potential lifeline for businesses and entrepreneurs on
SPEAKER5 - testimony. I think I'm gonna send out your question. I'm grateful for the opportunity to testify you before today, and, I'm open to
SPEAKER33 - any questions. Thank you.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you for your testimony. I think I'm gonna send out your question.
SPEAKER2 - So you, fanned out, 9 different licenses that a potential employee can own.
SPEAKER33 - These are all my licenses. Licenses.
SPEAKER2 - Yeah. And I can see your face on10044 all of them. Same10046 picture. Question. How much does 1 of those, licenses each 1 of those badges cost for 1 individual that, you employ?
SPEAKER33 - Sure. So beyond just the license, fee, there are other fees that go into the agent registration process, including background check, responsible vendor training, and other fixed costs. I apologize. I should know that that number off the top of my head, but I don't Give me a ballpark I wanna say it's between 85 and $400 total per license? Per license? Per license per year. Have you ever,
SPEAKER2 - purchased these licenses for10086 an employee, and then next day, that individual, for some reason, is not employed at your facility no more?
SPEAKER33 - Correct. We have, processed onboarding for individuals who, you know, circumstances changed, and they never even ended up working at our10096 facility.
SPEAKER2 - You're probably not gonna know this answer, but if you wanna, submit the the testimony after of, how much money within this fiscal year have you in turnovers your business has, and and if any of you guys that are operators had gone through this, how many, how much money you have wasted just on licensing, badging have you wasted within the business that have not retained and stayed with you guys?
SPEAKER33 - We'd be happy to compile and submit that information, and I'd invite you to, reach out to the independent testing labs and other facilities, as well as the regulators that10138 deal with these processes because it is involved and it is cumbersome.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you so much. Thank you, representative.
SPEAKER7 - Can you just clarify if if we were to adopt a single system to to do this, would it would it help with labor cost as far as, say, some you're only at a, lower labor rate a b c companies over here, they can work at both companies?
SPEAKER33 - Exactly. That's the idea. Because right now, if I were to go work at another cannabis licensee, I would need to register for these same licenses. And it's all the same processes that you're going through for the registration. It's just duplicating the paperwork multiple times.
SPEAKER7 - Right. Well, I I think it's a it's a smart move, in our sense. We've gotta start streamlining and helping the initiatives. So thank you for your testimony. Appreciate10190 it.
SPEAKER1 - Any other10192 questions? It looks pretty
10194 SPEAKER310194 -10194 seeing10194 none. Thank you very much for your testimony.
SPEAKER1 - Danielle Drummond,
SPEAKER19 - I think.
SPEAKER1 - Sorry I missed you earlier.
SPEAKER41 - You took a whole fashion and then
SPEAKER44 - my step off. Of course.
SPEAKER3 - I'll get I'll get
SPEAKER1 - you right back in. So
SPEAKER45 - Yes. Appreciate it. Good10214 afternoon, and thank you for this opportunity to be able to testify in10218 front of you today. My name is Danielle Drummond, and I am the vice president of10222 social equity for Ascend Wellness, a multistate operator that was born here in Boston. Ascend employs hundreds of people across our commonwealth. The declining margins that we've seen in the marketplace are putting those jobs at risk. Large and small businesses alike are closing at an alarming rate with 2024 seeing double the amount of 2023. We have to keep a sharp eye on these trends as we are looking to grow10252 this market and be nimble enough in our regulations to shift if necessary. This industry, unlike many others, I think provides a unique opportunity for operators to be able10264 to align their interest as10266 they are navigating similar challenges. In my position, I work with social equity operators, economists, researchers, advocates, and, yes, multi state operators. The conversations that I've had with them have made it clear that in order for this market to thrive, we have to be looking holistically at what the market needs through a lens of data and the current research that's
opportunity. New Jersey, who's only 3 years into
market and come up with 3 things that were clear. Businesses needed an opportunity to scale, equity operators needed access to capital, and regulations were needed to ensure the integrity of that expansion and to protect social equity businesses. They raised their cap to include an option for joint equity partnerships, and I've been able to see firsthand the impact that that has had on social equity operators. Ascend is currently investing in several social equity operators there. 1 of the people who we have been working with has been trying to get his license off10346 of the ground for the last 3 years. I mentored him. He went through our mentorship program. I introduced him to investors. I really spent a lot of time making sure that we can invest the resources that we had at the time, which wasn't ability to partner in him. He still wasn't able to get up and running. Now that these equity partnerships are open, he's become operational in under a year. We've also provided extensive coaching, executive coaching, hands on training, and of course, the capital to make this happen. This is the kind of structure that social equity applicants need access to. In an industry with high upfront costs, limited banking options, the ever present issue of access to capital, dwindling investors, and no option for bankruptcy, an opportunity that was supposed to be set up for generational wealth is turning into a set up for generational debt. And I'll end there. Any questions?
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Any questions from the committee?
SPEAKER3 - Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony.
SPEAKER5 - Thank you. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Next up, we have, Jack Kinsley up, UFCW.
SPEAKER46 - Thank you, chair Donahue, chair Gomez, other members of the committee. My name is Jack Kensley. I'm the political director with United Food and Commercial Workers local 14 45. UFCW is the largest cannabis union in the state of Massachusetts and in The United States as a whole, together with our sister locals, 3 28 and 14 59, we represent over a thousand workers, in the cannabis industry, in the state of Massachusetts, in both the grow facilities and in retail. I'm speaking to here today to support bill H 194, which you've heard about from some10462 other people already to create a workplace safety division within the CCC. As we have organized more locations in the industry, learned more about the shops we have under contract and had discussions with, non unionized facilities. We've come to get a better appreciation of the issues that are prevalent prevalent across many of these locations. It's become incredibly clear that safety is a huge concern because of the lack of standards that exist across the industry. You know, in machine shops, industrial laundry facilities, indoor produce greenhouses, food processing plants, liquor distilleries, and any other industry where the work performed is similar to that of cannabis grow facilities. There are clear guidelines set and enforced to protect workers. And while some of that does exist in cannabis facilities, there are, many facets that present a gray zone. Workers tell us they're not properly informed on how to deal with air particulate levels,10516 use of cleaning supplies, and fertilizing chemicals, long term risks of exposure, and other ways to mitigate10522 risk in the workplace. There's a running joke among cannabis workers that in 20 years, we'll see 1 of those infomercials asking if you or a loved 1 has experienced any long term health difficulties because of your work in the industry with a phone number for a personal injury attorney to call now. In addition, a common complaint we've seen is that, PPE within the shops doesn't feel sufficient. Workers are not properly fit tested for respirators or have to go outside of work on their personal time to do so and often get a generic mask anyways after they get the results of that test. And the10554 Tyvek suits they wear to protect them from10556 allergens and chemicals often tear or get soaked through10560 far too easily. Gloves, hair nets, and masks are often in short supply. At10566 the root of these issues is a lack of common standards set across the industry. While similar problems arise at many of our shops, the specific issues can vary wildly from location to location as do the type of machines and chemicals being used to fertilize and process the product10581 and clean the grow rooms. So by creating a division within the CCC, our hope is that the commission can study the processes involved in this10589 work and make recommendations and requirements to address those issues proactively and set common standards across the industry.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very10598 much for your testimony.
SPEAKER1 - Any questions from the committee members?
SPEAKER2 - No. From them.
SPEAKER33 - Thank thank you
SPEAKER3 - for your testimony today and your advocacy on behalf of workers. Are there any other states that, have common standards for workplace safety in the cannabis10611 industry?
SPEAKER46 - Yeah. I think, some of the earlier testimony, mentioned that there are some pretty good ones set up in10617 Washington and Nevada and California, but I think it's something that is not really set up as much over on the East Coast. Thank you.
SPEAKER3 - Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for your assessment.
SPEAKER5 - Thank you
SPEAKER27 - for having me.
SPEAKER5 - Thank
SPEAKER1 - you. Next up, we have, Meredith Fried.
SPEAKER43 - Good afternoon.
SPEAKER4 - Good afternoon.
SPEAKER47 - Thank you so much for the opportunity to address this committee. My name is Meredith Fried. I became a10657 Massachusetts medical patient in10659 2015 when diagnosed with postherpetic neuralgia, a chronic condition from an unfortunate shingles outbreak. Get your vaccine. For 10 years while enduring this condition, I have watched quality and access deteriorate to the point where I now supplement my needs with a small home grow. This ensures that I have access to quality medicine and strains that I can rely on. I have personally immersed myself in this industry in an effort to observe and understand it from all levels of participation. I've invested much of my own time listening to and speaking with people in an affected by this industry who10699 acknowledge the importance of the medical program yet cannot raise the capital necessary to finance burdensome fees, licensing costs,10707 and build out of all 3 supply chain components to be a part of it. In addition, small MTCs are getting squeezed on existing fees that are disproportionately higher than the adult use market. The CCC has a lot of work to do to save the medical program, and the legislature has the opportunity here to drive that change. I urge you to implement these changes swiftly so patients10732 and businesses are no longer irreparably harmed. H 1 63 and s 83 gives a legislature the power to revitalize the mission at the CCC. It guarantees access to all medical patients in the Commonwealth. These 2 bills will allow any qualifying patient regardless of Massachusetts residency to access the medicine they need while in the Commonwealth. General law chapter 94 I has no residency requirement for patient qualification. Amending this language to a generic cardholder term will allow access for out of state medical patients seeking care at many of the Massachusetts distinguished medical facilities, patients on vacation, the unhoused or transitory residents. I'm not sure why the CCC insists on holding fast to this requirement.10781 Everyday prescriptions are filled and called into pharmacies without any extra steps for patients to access their medicine. All they need to do is show an ID and pay for it. It should be the same for cannabis. I should be able to go anywhere I want and get the medicine I need. Additionally, 94 I has no language requiring MTCs be fully verticalized. They have, or have any capital requirements to do business. This framework seemed to be created with an effort to establish this, establish the seed to stale sale supply chain, to ensure consistent and reliable access for consumers. This frame, this framework should have been revised shortly after adult use was passed with opportunities to enter the market in just 1 of the 3 tiers for a fraction of the cost. Yet the CCC continues to squander its authority and ability to swiftly
revise these regulations. I do have a couple of more comments. I don't know if you'll allow me
SPEAKER5 - the time. We still
SPEAKER1 - have quite a few to go. So
SPEAKER47 - Okay. Thank you so much.
It's possible that CCC will face an immense challenge to continue the medical program as revenue neutral under mass general law, chapter 94, I section 7, given the failure to address the10855 immediate obstacles facing MTCs and directly negatively affecting patients. The CCC must be directed to10862 allow qualified adult use licensees to apply for MTC status10866 with an affordable licensing fee and to consider waiving fees for current MTCs that have demonstrably shoulder the burden of this finite market. I struggle with wanting to support the existing quality MTCs while overcoming distance or access obstacles when my closest MTC is now offering unreliable quality and changing strains. Without the ability to offer samples, I have mostly stopped purchasing products from certain MSOs because I do not wanna waste my money on low quality and limited product availability. I because so few business businesses are part of the MTC network, I seem to10906 have limited options compared to the adult use market. The only difference between adult use and medical product10912 is the available dosage for edibles and tinctures with no different difference at all when it comes to flower, concentrate, vapes, and the like. Medical patients deserve access to all brands in order to let the market decide the best cultivators and manufacturers. The CCC must be forced to10931 recognize, respect, and implement tax free local accents for all patients, whether at a10937 dispensary or by delivery. You have the power and the authority to remove these restrictive barriers and incentivize MTC licensing in order to afford all patients the accessibility we deserves deserve. I urge you to act quickly. Thank you.
SPEAKER5 - Thank
SPEAKER3 - you very much for your testimony. Any any questions from the committee? Seeing none, thank you very much.
SPEAKER2 - Thank you
SPEAKER47 - so much.
SPEAKER1 - Next up, we have Mary Cabral.
Oh, 0, jeez. I'm sorry. I'm looking at the wrong thing. That's the wrong pile. My apologies. Matt Allen.
SPEAKER22 - Hello. Committee members. Thank you, chairs Donahue, you, and and senator Gomez, members of committee and and especially those who introduced legislation, senator Eldridge and and Rep Shan and others. My name is Matt Allen. I'm a board member of the sun grown cannabis alliance. I found an outdoor farm in Western Massachusetts in Colrain. Sun Grown Cannabis Alliance is a coalition that works to remove barriers to enter in the cannabis industry for farmers in Massachusetts, which is, outdoor growers. We are a member of the mass cannabis coalition. I'm here to support changes related to testing in H 171, Senate 75 House 1 40 Agent badging in, H 171 S 75, H 1 40 8 S 80 and increasing possession limits in House 171 and S 75 also ban on intoxicating hemp changes in the, advertising, rules and, a lot of the other bills that are that are here today. But I wanna focus on testing since we haven't heard much about that. An outdoor grill that's full size in Massachusetts, according to the current regulations is supposed to spend up to about $430,000 on soil and water testing every year. That's just to test dirt. So I'm testing dirt, to make sure that it's free of heavy metals, only to later test the cannabis to make sure it's free of heavy metals. I'm making sure that my water has no sediment in it and no microbes in it, only to put it in the dirt where there's microbes and later to test the cannabis for microbes, and other contamination. So there's just, there's no logic to this. No 1 at the commission has been able to tell us why we do this. We just know we spent a lot of money on it year after year. Another big problem is actually that the testing of the cannabis itself because the thresholds for, total use and mold and total viable aerobic bacteria are so low that an apple go down, going down the street, at 1 of the orchards near where our farm is or even like a piece of lettuce that you would get, at a restaurant that sources organically. These are these are not not gonna pass just because of natural microbes in in the environment. And in fact,11108 organic growers to reduce their use of chemical, pesticides often use microbes, for like an organic approach to controlling, pests and disease. And yet these same ingredients will cause us to to fail the test. So this system makes no sense for outdoor growers. We need to move from arbitrary testing limits to evidence based policies, and that's why we support house 1 71. This bill would require that testing levels are adjusted to reflect the actual conditions faced by outdoor growers in the state. We'd also like to see the batch sizes for testing, increase. Outdoor growers and indoor growers, agree about this. 15 pounds, is just arbitrary. There's no public health benefit to it. Our vision is really to revive farming in Massachusetts. We11153 want this to be an industry that that that farmers can enter and thrive in right11157 now. They run from it. Really, we're concerned about how we can have a cash crop in Massachusetts for 5 or 10 years,11165 in 5 or 10 years. And at this rate we're getting strangled by these regulations and there is going to be no industry. So we're turning to you guys for help. You know, a lot of these changes could be addressed through regulations at the CCC level. But we've had no success there. When it comes to the microbial thresholds, we first introduced a petition that was changed in 2020. When I talked to the commission about it, no one's heard about it. We met with the commissioners, about, the thresholds again, about a year ago. We they're very good at listening. They had held a listening session. All the farmers came out. We all had consensus on these points, but11204 still nothing has happened. Thank you.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you for your testimony. Any questions from the committee?
Appreciate your perspective and your testimony.11212 Thank you for your time.
SPEAKER5 - Thank you, man.
SPEAKER1 - Next up, I have Helen Gomez Andrews.
Helen here.
SPEAKER20 - Hi. I'm I'm,
SPEAKER23 - oh, can
SPEAKER20 - you hear me?
SPEAKER1 - Yeah. If you're on my we're we're both just starting Is
SPEAKER20 - that okay? Sorry.
SPEAKER1 - Virtual. We'll come back to you during the virtual. Thank you.
SPEAKER20 - Okay. Thank you. Sorry.
SPEAKER1 - Oh, that's our fault. Kyle Page?
How's it going?
SPEAKER29 - Hello, everyone.
SPEAKER17 - My name is Kyle Page, and I am a social equity applicant and partner with Ascend Wellness Holdings. I'm here speaking on behalf of Ascend Wellness Holdings in support of let me pull the bills up. I'm in support of, House Bill 1 7 4 h 1 4 9 h 1 60.
I'm I'm a social justice advocate, a national social justice advocate, and11283 I've served over 12 years of my life in prison for cannabis related offenses, nonviolent cannabis related offenses. So when talking about these partnerships, they affect people like me. Not only do they affect people like me, they affect the the generations coming after me because me being a partner with these big companies, these it helps people like me to be able to enter the corporate space. Not only is it my first my first step into the corporate space, but it's my first step out of the black market. And these is this is a huge effect for people that come from my community. I want people to understand what this means for people like me. I want people to understand the effect and the weight of this. This this right here, I'm I'm I'm a I'm a proud recipient of a national advocacy award. I wouldn't be able to have these type of things, these type of opportunities if it wasn't for these huge companies making these partnerships. I don't have the money. I don't have a million dollars or $2,500,000 to open up a retail dispensary. These partnerships make that viable for me. It makes it it makes it a real thing. When I got released from prison in 02/2021, I never thought that I would be sitting first of all, standing in front of a a a board like this. I never thought that I would be opening up a retail dispensary space, but I am. And I am because of these partnerships. So when people when people talk about how these these partnerships are gonna swallow up their business, I mean, even me, I'm I'm11375 I'm no analyst or anything, but just doing just doing a little bit of research, I11379 found out that nationwide, these these MSOs only make up about 8% of the11384 market. That's not even that's not even a a a really a fraction of the market. And then on top11390 of that, in Massachusetts, it's only 7.8%. So to open up that cap, to to to let these things happen, you're you're looking at somebody right here who is affected by that, who's not gonna go back in the black market and and and cause crime, but somebody who's now gonna be a business owner, somebody who's gonna this is bigger. I'm gonna pass11411 this down to generations like my daughter. This changes my entire family. This changes everything for people like me, and I want you to look at me and see me and see people like me for the future. See that what these companies are doing are really changing. They're they're they're changing legacies is what they're doing. So I just want people to really understand that. And it it there's so much more I wanna say, but I get choked up because it means so much to me.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Questions
SPEAKER1 - from the committee? Mister representative?
SPEAKER7 - Sir, thank you very much. I I truly appreciate that you're here because this is exactly when I filed my legislation on this and when you speak with 74 and all the other legislation. It's because that's what it does. It gives opportunity. It gives you more opportunity. Gives you space to expand your business and
do something that you have passion about. And I think 1 of the things can you just and I and because you mentioned something about the black market, and I think that's the 1 piece that we're all missing from this opportunity, if we correct this. And can you just just kind of enlighten us on the fact that if we didn't give this opportunity, how many more people would go back into the black market and crime would go up and lose opportunity and lose
SPEAKER17 - hope? Absolutely. So for somebody like me, when I when I when I first was released and I was, you know, introduced to, Ascend Wellness, of course, my my thinking is how am I gonna get back to making the money that I was making before?
SPEAKER23 - How how how am I
SPEAKER17 - gonna do this? Because jobs are not gonna give me that opportunity because I'm freshly released from prison. So, of course, I I know I know of plenty of people who've gone back to the black market. When you go back to the black market, you know, I think people get it they get it confused. They think that, oh, yeah. It's cannabis, so everything's flowers and roses. No. It's not. You have people standing on corners. You have people that have to protect themselves. That means you're bringing in violence. That means you're bringing in more crime. But with partnerships like Ascend, guess what? I'm not going back into that. And then also too, I'm bringing jobs for people just like me. I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm changing people's lives because they changed my life. You know? So this it's not just me. It's not just me. This is a domino effect, and it's it's good. It's a positive domino effect to help people that come11562 from impacted communities just like I do.
SPEAKER7 - And would you agree that in today's black market, there's more synthetic
cannabis laced dangerous in that black market versus
SPEAKER17 - I think I think that there's a definitely a chance of that of that happening. I mean, you have these these k 2 type derivatives and stuff, and I think that these these are extremely dangerous chemicals, you know, people who have overdose and such on that. But yeah. I mean, I think that it again, it's stopping that too because now I'm in the legal market getting testing and everything else, so I'm putting a quality product out. I'm11601 not I'm not dealing with street product or anything that could have other chemicals in it.
SPEAKER7 - Right. Well, God bless you, and I I I really hope that we get this situated so that we can help you grow your dream. And I truly appreciate your story. So great job. God bless.
SPEAKER1 - Any other questions? No?
SPEAKER3 - Thank you so much for
SPEAKER1 - your testimony. We appreciate it. Next up, we have,11623 Kevin Gilnak, Jeff Chamillion.11625
Oh, and Ruben. Sorry.
Afternoon. Afternoon. You wanna go
SPEAKER2 - or should I Oh, shoot. Do that.
SPEAKER48 - Chair Donahue, chair Gomez, and the honorable members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Kevin Gilnek. I'm here representing Equitable Opportunities Now in the Massachusetts Cannabis Equity Council, which includes 20 social equity business leaders from across the Commonwealth. We appreciate your leadership of promoting equity in the cannabis industry, but we're at a critical juncture, particularly with today's hearing. I urge you to focus on solutions that will strengthen the entire industry legislature's vision11677 for it. Today, you can advance long overdue bills that, are widely supported, including senator Miranda's s 88 to protect cannabis equity11685 businesses by enforcing ownership limits, h 1 82 and s 84 to create cannabis career pathways for individuals, who are involved in the criminal justice system, that E. Young is proud to work11696 with, rep Tyler and senator Jalen to put11698 forward, h 1 63 and s 83 to modernize11702 the medical marijuana program, which was favorably reported last session in which we encourage you to act quickly on,11708 an act to create efficiencies in the cannabis employment process and an act to increase purchase and possession limits. These reforms will expand access, reduce burdens, and lift up all participants in the industry. While in contrast, raising ownership limits would destabilize the market and do lasting harms. According to Whitney Economics,
control 10% or nearly 10% of the entire industry.11735 I know others have put forward, figure closer to 7 or 8%. So look forward to figuring out the the root of the discrepancy. But regardless, allowing them to double or triple, I believe the most extreme proposal would allow outright ownership of 6 licenses and then, control through, minority investment in 4 more. So that's 10 licenses that a individual or entity could potentially control and, leverage for their wholesale11761 purchasing and retail footprint, making it nearly impossible for folks for 1, 2, or 3 stores to11767 compete. Proponents say that these changes are needed to attract buyers capital, but the only ones who truly benefit long term are those who are at the cap, well, funded and looking to grow their presence in the industry as much as possible. Giving a few operators a great deal at the expense of those who try to stay in the industry debts
through an influx in debts through an influx in funding through the Social Equity Trust Fund, looking at opportunities for tax release, addressing accounts receivable, reducing costs like agent registration, and expanding opportunities to increase the value of licenses through medical vertical integration and increase in possession and sale limits. And if we're gonna have a11817 discussion about radically changing the industry to allow folks to double or triple their footprint, we need to gather the data to11823 make data driven, decisions beyond just, 1 study that, we know is funded by the people who are putting this forward. We've seen what happens in other states. So I appreciate your time, and I'm happy to address questions, after my coming speak. Thank
SPEAKER18 - you. Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you, chair Donahue, chair Gomez, rep Brandy, and everybody here today. So thank you all for, making the time to speak to us. My name is Jeff Simillion. I'm a founder and CEO of Lokey Dispensary. So unlike many of, earlier testifiers, mentioning that they're in the industry. So I am actually a operator, that, pretty much went through the uphill battles to actually get, a store open in Dorchester, Carbon Square, my11869 neighborhood that I grew up in, facing a lot of obstacles as far as, predatory lending, bad partnership, high cost, so on and so forth.11879 Earlier in this industry, when I11882 previously started, some of the, 1 of the reason main reason11886 I'm against, increasing, the license cap is, my experience, from having a conversation11892 with, conglomerate MSOs, who previously weren't in the state yet. I was flown out to, different states to have these conversations and, and offered deals where, 90 10 their way, offered deals, where I I would just collect, what they call mailbox money. So a lot of, these partnerships that we've referred, I mean, some some, previous had mentioned, doesn't work for everybody. Everybody has their own challenges. And based on everybody's, intention long term and exit strategy, it's not a 1 fit, solution for everybody. Right? So, I know for me personally, this is an industry that, currently enjoying the process, but I'm facing I do face a lot of obstacles. But, hey, this is this is business where we have to figure things out. Right?
I think raising the car, raising raising the license increase doesn't necessarily work. 1 of the reason main reason, as we all mentioned, there's about 386 stores currently. And everybody from everybody from MSOs to, SCs is struggling. And the struggle comes from a lot of different things as, Kevin just mentioned, from taxes, from, high cost of, operating. 1 of the things that as a commercial real estate broker, this is how I, was able to get into this, industry is high cost of leases. So early on when everybody wanted to get into this industry, you know, sign they signed high, high11991 leases in in the city of Boston, as we all know, is is an expensive city. So I don't think that any any any business is liable to sustain long term paying anywhere between 30 to $40,000 a month in rent. Right? So that's a major expense that a lot a lot of minority businesses are facing. Right? And that gives us a problem. Then we have taxes, 20% taxes off the bat that you have to pay. Right? And all these other, tax all these other fees that we all have to also pay as well is the reason why this industry is tough. So, but I think today, we were able to find a lot of different solutions where I think, that allowing, you know, social equity and and economic empowerment license holder to be able to partner with other groups to allow them for joint ventures, for shelf space, to allow us maybe, being able to be, you know, co cohabitated in in in selling, medical and and recreational, products as well. So again, is I think this conversation that we've all had here today, there was a lot of solution, a lot of great ideas that was shared, and that we all needed to to reflect and figure out what the best way that works out for everybody. So thank you all very much. I appreciate it.
SPEAKER40 - Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you, chairs, for having us here and for taking the moment to hear our testimony. My name is Reuben Sadie. I am the founder and CEO of Delivered Inc. We are also an entity that is already operating. We began operations back in July third of 20 23. And since then, it's been even more of an uphill battle compared to the licensing process. 1 thing or first of all, like, my journey began in the cannabis space over a decade ago despite the fact that Massachusetts didn't have weed legal life that long ago. I grew up in Fitchburg. I was the son of immigrants. I I am Brown. And when you grow up in these conditions, you really think that there's not many opportunities for you or your family to make much change. And with all that in mind, despite having amazing people around me, I turned to what I saw everyone else around me doing. I started smoking weed at at the age of 13, and I started selling it not too soon after that. And when the social equity program came out, I saw that as a12138 first as the first opportunity for12140 me to really build any type of generational wealth for my family. I saw it as an opportunity to do something meaningful with the experiences that I've built over the last 5, 6 years12150 at that point. And, unfortunately, the social equity program, while it has great intentions and there's really good resources and opportunities, it has let me down, and me and a bunch of colleagues that I know. And I can guarantee you that raising the cap will do the exact opposite of what12168 other people have mentioned here. It is not going to help me. It is only going to12172 put me in the worst position than the 1 I am in right now. For reference, my business is located in Clinton, Massachusetts. That's Worcester County. We are the cannabis capital of Massachusetts. We are competing with 50, 60 other licensed entities, and we're all vying for the same dollars. I am already struggling in this market. If these entities are able to double their resources by partnering up with MSOs and other larger entities, I have no future. I have no viable road for for my business to take and to still reach some level of profitability. There are plenty of other solutions being proposed here that will give me a promise and opportunity to succeed. The most the most glaring 1 is raising the purchasing limit to at least 2 ounces to make us comparable with our neighboring states. In addition to that, reducing some of the overburdensome regulations, we are I I we saw the CCC do that with the 2 driver rule a couple of months ago, which huge shout out to them for for making that change, but there is so much more that can be done. Marketing is 1 of our biggest issues that we face right now. We my business just got reprimanded a week ago for having a 75% off discount on a certain product. And as it was mentioned before, that product is expiring. We don't have use for it to sit on our shelves much longer, and our customers clear clearly weren't buying it before. So why are we being punished for running a sale to try to sell through that product and be able to pay our vendors? These regulations currently are holding us in a choke choke hold, and expanding the cap will only put us in the worst position.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much for your testimonies.
SPEAKER1 - Any questions from the committee? Yeah. Alexander?
SPEAKER3 - At the time, it was just a clarifying question. I sometimes I have trouble hearing with the microphones. Could you just clarify, where is your business located? And if you were did you say you were in the retail?
SPEAKER40 - I am in Clinton, and we're a delivery operator. You're a delivery. CCC classifies us as non retail, but there isn't much separating us from a store.
SPEAKER1 - Understood.
SPEAKER20 - David. Thank you, mister chair.
SPEAKER12 - I
SPEAKER20 - have a few questions. This first 1 is for mister Gilmack. You mentioned that other states where this has been allowed, the MSOs have pretty much taken over, I think, with12316 some of the language you use. And I know a previous testimony referenced Arizona. Are there other12320 states that you can point the committee to for more research?
SPEAKER48 - Arizona is certainly the most glaring example where we saw the, value of12328 licenses plummet from around $55,000,000, where they had about more than a dozen equity operators, and the, licenses plummeted to a value of around $35,000 when they were getting sold off. And I believe only as of the report I saw 6 months ago in the press, only 1 of the original, 13 equity operators was Ryanair.
SPEAKER20 - Are there any other states besides Arizona is my question. I know that's the most glaring, but what are there other states that this happened and where the MSOs, once the cap was lifted or expanded or didn't exist, that all of a sudden there was mass MSO takeover, so to speak, of the local market?
SPEAKER48 - Sure. I think I feel none of my colleagues have been in touch.
SPEAKER40 - So I think the state of Michigan was referenced earlier as being a great great state because of its lack of caps and open market. But if you look at that state, there maybe is 1 or 2 social equity operators while12382 the rest is all big money, and that's essentially what would12386 happen here. Just
SPEAKER48 - just to build on that, I'd wanna note that, the Whitney economics report that's been brought up several times12394 also noted that, Colorado12396 showed a decline in the number of diverse minority owned businesses between 20 20 and 20 20 3, as license caps were eroded. Meanwhile, in Illinois, the report found that Illinois has set caps on certain license types, which has been effective in preventing market oversaturation oversaturation, and the Illinois data clearly illustrates that Illinois' progress in enhancing ownership diversity within its cannabis industry. In general, where we see caps,12422 we see equity thrive, and where we don't, we see market consolidation over time.
SPEAKER1 - Any other questions from committee?
SPEAKER3 - I very12432 much appreciate your time and your testimony. Thank you very12434 much. Thank
you.
SPEAKER1 - Next up we have, Brian Keith.
SPEAKER48 - Oh, he's not here.
SPEAKER3 - Oh, he's not? Okay.
SPEAKER1 - Jeff Rosson.
SPEAKER10 - Alright. Hi. Thanks. Thanks for the chance to talk. Okay. I'm gonna try to blast through and talk about 3 bills. Okay. I'm Jeff. I'm a chemist. The group I founded is the Institute of Cannabis Science. We do consumer protection in cannabis, and we, we tell people the honest truth about cannabis using data and research and analysis. I'm testifying in support of h 1 9 4, an act relative to the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission, forming a department of workplace and consumer safety. The CCC's failures to protect consumers and workers
SPEAKER5 - are
SPEAKER10 - I've already been talked about a lot, and they are a systematic result. They happen because these people don't have a department that's actually in charge of them. There's actually no employee of the CCC who's in charge of consumer protection or workers
SPEAKER22 - protection.
SPEAKER10 - So, we've heard a lot about $7,000,000,000 of revenue that adult use marijuana has brought to the state, but I think that we might have forgotten that that money didn't come from business owners. It came from consumers who were purchasing the fruits of labor.
So, yeah, that that's it's a shame that we pay so little attention to the rights of those people that make up actually most of this industry. The language of the proposal h 1 9 4 should be augmented to specify the membership of the department, the proposed rank and reporting responsibilities of its director. Furthermore, the reporting requirements12562 of this department must be specified like the type of report, its contents, who writes it, how often, to whom is it addressed. I urge you to pay special attention to spelling out reporting requirements for the CCC.
Alright. And then about, s 88, an act protecting cannabis equity businesses by enforcing ownership limits. I wanna point out this is really more than equity businesses. It establishes12587 a capacity and expectation for audits of ownership, and it creates a public database of licensees. We know12594 from the number of today's bills, which concerns license caps and ownership12598 shares, that it's very important to assure the public that these are enforced correctly. And most importantly, s 80 ADA establishes a whistleblower program that would protect employees of cannabis companies, regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders from retaliation if they report wrongdoing. These whistleblower protections are essential to rooting out abuse and public hazards from the cannabis industry in Massachusetts. I myself12621 have spoken to workers in Massachusetts cannabis who witnessed misconduct in testing, cultivation, production, and enforcement. And most often, the affected parties12631 choose not to come forward out of fear of retaliation. And finally, I'm testifying in support of s 90, an act establishing an internal special audit unit12643 within the Cannabis Control Commission. I've written extensively about how12647 the CCC has worked to subvert requirements of reporting to the legislature and the public.12651 The commission has struggled to establish a culture of accountability, and evidence suggests that members deliberately conceal failures from the legislature. This is why it is so important to establish an internal office with complete access to internal records but controlled externally. Individuals in the commission appear to have obstructed the chief of research, doctor Julie Johnson, PhD, in her investigations in the cannabis testing. I described evidence of this12679 concealment including comments in12681 a public meeting and a conference abstract from a presentation that was never12685 given, given in an article published in on talking joints memo. And the
SPEAKER5 - chief of staff and the office of general counsel of the CCC
SPEAKER10 - seem to be protecting the agency,
repercussions after their failure to investigate alleged misconduct in testing labs. Those failures of enforcement may have further consequences now that 1 lab has sued others over these allegations. And in a public meeting on March 13, I witnessed more evasive behavior and aberrant legal assertions from the office of general counsel on the subject of the delivery exclusivity period for social equity applicants. As I reported in an article published by the Institute of Cannabis Science, the objective of the evasion on March 13 appears to have been to conceal failures of the CCC to follow statute in collecting and evaluating data. The exclusivity period for delivery drivers is extended without the evaluation of any report on its merits, and no public explanation for the lack of a report was provided. These failures impact more than a few stakeholders. Policies which impact the entire industry are being set without the needed data. So thank you very much for listening to me, and I'm happy to answer any questions about any of these.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much for your testimony.
SPEAKER1 - Are there any questions from the committee? Questions from me?
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much for your testimony. Appreciate that.
SPEAKER1 - Next up, we have, Dimitrios Pelakudas. I apologize if I'm mispronouncing that.
SPEAKER5 - It it it happens a lot.
SPEAKER1 - I I can only imagine.
What's that close?
SPEAKER49 - What's the correct way? Pelakudas.
SPEAKER1 - I wasn't too far off. It's all
SPEAKER5 - yours. I
SPEAKER27 - realize it's getting late, so I, commend your candor, for the day. So dear members of the joint committee and chairs, thank you very much for seeing me today. My name is doctor Dimitrio12802 Pelakudis, and I am the founder and CEO of Assured Testing Laboratories, 1 of the Commonwealth's independent testing laboratories. I speak to you as subject matter expert of cannabis science, not only as a laboratory agent of Massachusetts, but also with my doctoral studies specializing in chemistry and biology of cannabis. This is at Northeastern University's, studies within their pharmaceutical science program. After reviewing the proposed bills of h 1 5 8 and s 99, there are multiple sections that have led me to question the basis for their12835 implementation. The community of subject matter expertise in cannabis science12839 is small as 1 can imagine, in a new industry and are often in contact to collaborate on educational efforts. While these bills propose changes that seem to quote choice paraphrases of cannabis science, there is no indication that any subject matter experts were conferred on the content of these bills. Furthermore, these paraphrases appear to be selected without the consideration of the objective truths that have been omitted. These facts ignore the relevance to public health and safety, as well as the empirical evidence that has been compiled to, in fact, propose for the opposite recommendation of some portions of these bills. The clearest of the example of these is within its proposed changes outlined within section 9 of the these bills. This section proposes an increase in testing batch size where a representative
marijuana less than 40 pounds, end quote. A similar proposal was approved years ago when the initial regulations on batch sizes were for 10 pounds before being increased to 15 pounds. In that circumstance, there was also little to no consideration to the advice of scientific experts which had to offer. Indeed, I could speak at length on how such a change has been disputed in several states, most notably, Nevada, where after they consulted with public health and cannabis science experts, the minimum batch size was set to 5 pounds Excuse me. For representative samples. I could speak even further at length on how these would have larger detrimental impacts, that would range from affecting larger scale potential for contamination, which would ripple to either large scale recalls and or sickness should contamination be in part of
importantly of all, retaining batch sizes12952 at 15 pounds will help ensure that the ITLs catch commonwealth, catch contamination by help ensure that the ITLs catch Commonwealth, catch contamination before it reaches patients and consumers, keeping the people of the Commonwealth safe and thereby protecting the business interests of cultivators and manufacturers of Massachusetts cannabis industry. While the reasons for opposing these bills are numerous, I believe there is a path forward that can come from dedicated testimony and longer discussion with leaders in public health and and the science. Several of my colleagues and I are more than open to participating in this type of discourse, and I thank you very much for your time today.
SPEAKER2 - Thank you for your testimony and questions to my left. For the record, there was a roll call in the house. That's why everybody got up and left.
SPEAKER49 - I felt that. Serious apologies.
SPEAKER2 - If there's any questions, we
SPEAKER3 - wanna thank you
SPEAKER2 - for your testimony. Any more information, please, provide it to, to the committee.
SPEAKER27 - Absolutely. We're happy to provide several empirical evidence, researches that
SPEAKER6 - we put together. So thank you very much. Thank you, doctor.
SPEAKER2 - Next up, we have Lucas Thayer. Lucas Thayer? Yes. I'm here. Okay.
Then after Lucas, we'll have Irina13022 Montag.
SPEAKER19 - Hi.
SPEAKER37 - Thank you so much for, hosting this hearing.
SPEAKER2 - Thank you for the oranges and apples. I see
SPEAKER37 - Yeah. Of course. Yeah. I've got some more to share. I'm I'm happy to share it. It's a it's a shame that my state senator, Jamie Eldridge, couldn't make it. Maybe he's waiting for the train. Okay. So I, I organized these by by numbers, and I only wanna talk to you about the ones that I support. So the ones that I oppose, I'm not gonna talk to you about. Number 76. This 1 is related to first responders. I'm gonna call this the cops should smoke weed bill. Cops should smoke weed. They're kinda assholes. If they were to smoke weed, they would be less assholes. Alright. Number 80, an act to create efficiencies in the cannabis employment process. This is an obvious 1.13075 This would just make it so that the agent registration card can get held by 1 agent going from, operator to operator. I'm currently an agent registration card holder. It was very expensive for me to get that agent registration card. If the operator has to pay for it, that's a bummer. If the agent has to pay for it, which was my case, it's even more of a bummer. Because then if I have to get another operator, which I do, I'm in a situation where I have to change operator from 1 to another, I'm gonna have to pay another, like, $250 for another background check that's gonna, again, say that I'm not a criminal. So there's no reason for the state to charge me that $250 for for this new agent card that I'm gonna have to get. Oh, by the way, I'm a I'm a recipient of the grant, the social equity program grant. So by the way, I'm not gonna have to pay the $250. You're gonna have to pay the $250, because I'm just gonna hit the grant money for it. It's ridiculous that you're creating a bunch of unnecessary fees that I just have to go and hit my grant money for. I want that grant money to be utilized towards building my business, not paying stupid fees. Alright. Number 83. Senate 83. Again, card holder. The patients should should be able to move from state to state and get medicine in the states, whatever state they want to go to. Patients from out of state come to college here, they come to vacation here, they spend a lot of money on Cape Cod, and they should be able to go to Provincetown and get some medical marijuana while they're there. Career pathways for justice involved individuals, number 84. Support that 1, please, because that just makes sense that people that have been incarcerated or disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs should have career opportunities. Number 88, support that 1. Enforce the business ownership limits. A lot of you guys have talked to great length about the business ownership limits. I'm gonna leave that 1. Number 1 48 in the house, support that 1. Efficiencies in the employment process. Again, that agent registration card shouldn't be from all these different, operators. You13184 should have 1 agent registration card just like my 1 driver's license is works in all the 50 states. Number 182, support that 1. Provide career pathway training for people that are in jail now. People that are in prison now should be taught how to grow weed. Number 163, support that 1, but. That's a yes, but because you still have that dumb $500,000 capital requirement. So reduce the license cost for those medical operators, but don't require a half a million dollars in the bank. I'm almost done. Number 1 83, that 1 is increasing the possession limits. That's obvious. I would actually strike 2 ounces and replace it with 10 ounces, because I think 2 ounces is not enough. 1 ounce is not enough. 2 ounces is not enough. We should be able to have 10. 16 ounces on our person with no problem there. And then number 1 94, related to the workplace and consumer safety. Rest in peace, Lorna. Anything that you guys can do to make another tragedy like that not happen13244 again, do it. And, also there's another bill that you're not discussing today, but I am, which relates to, delivery operators being able to deliver to all 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts as well as to hotels, motels, resorts, and campgrounds. I believe it's currently called 1 65, but please support that 1 as well.
SPEAKER2 - Thank you, guys. Any questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Thanks. Next, we have Irina Montag.
Last call, Irina Montag. K. We have, next up, Carl Caswell. Carl, welcome.
I just spoke to the girl over here. She said I
SPEAKER5 - was at for Reuters. I'm sorry.
SPEAKER2 - I'm just giving the the notes as
SPEAKER49 - I really have no idea.
SPEAKER2 - I apologize. Carl Caswell. Are you Bill? No. I'm Carl Caswell. No worries. I don't know who's asking. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Carl. Okay. I'm speaking on behalf
SPEAKER44 - of the people on the street, basically. I I do
SPEAKER2 - a lot of work. I talk to a lot of people.
SPEAKER1 - I pass out flyers and stuff. And,
SPEAKER44 - I I don't know. There are few ones my feelings are saying that your laws are, should be it should be able to help our people. But do you see how you make her sit by a card first before they can get13331 the meds they need?
SPEAKER2 - And Excuse me, sir. Can you speak into the microphone? I just wanna13335 make sure that you're you're being done.
SPEAKER44 - Alright. Your bills and laws control us. It's what we see. It's how your greed is being used to rob and control our people, you see. It's a plant that grows for free, and it costs the same as tomatoes you know. You tax and rate it greatly, force some people to pay money, to open our stores for our people's needs. You keep us apart by not allowing us open cast where we can gather and share some liberty and freedom to talk about our people's needs. You took away liberty and put a price on her. You see Our our people want our freedom and rights, and laws bias not about us. It's for future life, treat liberty safe and right. Use her to better flight, not to keep her away than make her pay pay your price. We organize for these rights. We have the freedom fighters. They put time and energy. We have the soldiers who fight with their words. We have13386 parties who enjoy the freedom we win. The volunteers, they're a hope of our freedom.13390 We can hope to enjoy this wonderful freedom like, and work together for the future of life, where liberty is life for safety and right and not taken away. And, I I support all the bills that that help our people. But right now, it's it's it's more or less seems like it's being used to rob our people. You know? The price you pay for a plant that grows free is ridiculous,13411
SPEAKER22 - I see.
SPEAKER44 - And and it's it's causing a lot of, hardship for the people on the streets.
SPEAKER2 - You know? That's why you
SPEAKER44 - probably have a lot of homeless.
SPEAKER6 - They they end up13421 buying
SPEAKER44 - the weed when they get, you know, not paying the rent and stuff like that. You overpriced it. It's it's it's really causing a lot of pain. And I thank you for your time. Any questions?
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Any questions for
SPEAKER3 - the committee? No?13435 Thank you very much for your testimony. We appreciate
SPEAKER1 - that. And, my apologies. The, we had a roll call in the house, so members will be right back down. It was a quorum call.
SPEAKER3 - So I don't think we'll
SPEAKER1 - be anticipating 1 any too soon after that. So, next, we have Gary Gill.
SPEAKER49 - Good afternoon, board, chair, and vice chair. Thank you for this opportunity to come here. As I sat there13477 in the pew, listening to everything, everything has really been touched on me. So13483 I'm not gonna read my notes here. I'm gonna go off, but I do wanna support h 1 63 and s 83 bill that's on your tables that you can take a peek at. Something happened to me in June, and it wasn't pretty. There is a secret that you all are aware of that you're not paying attention to or you're overlooking it right now. But look at me.
I got sick from smoking pot, and I have several other friends in the same situation right now. I'm 65 years old. I'm full blown aids. I testified 10 times 10 years ago with Mark Cusack and Patricia, Jalen. We gave you all these ideas already. We implemented these ideas on paper with Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance. We also told about
the hotline that's not existing. We also talked about the each town rotating adult recreational, adult recreational. Everybody grabbed up all of those double licenses and all of those locations and held on to those forever. And they're not even using them to this day. They're all going recreational. So therefore, for, they wanted to destroy the medical program from the get go,13583 and they still do to this day, it sounds like. But as a patient, with a big voice, and I wanted to acknowledge my State Rep, Manny Cruz, and Paul Tucker, the DA of Salem, Massachusetts, because I ran for City Councilor, and I did very well for that community. Lieutenant Kim Driscoll is a very good friend of mine, and she knows my cause that I have in my heart for people that are HIV and AIDS. That is the most important thing I want to put in your mind, and realize patient13621 comes before profit. You can't13625 make money off of dead people, and it shouldn't be13629 allowed. If they're killing me this way before the AIDS does,
in the hospital for 19 days at Mass General Hospital. They I had 6 doctors on me. I was on my way out. And it was from pneumonia. But all the tests that they13652 ran, they said, there's nothing wrong with you with HIV. It's a bacterial infection, a bacterial infection. And that I'm pretty straight with13664 my doctors. They know I've smoked pot. I've I've been smoking pot since I'm 12 years old. And now that I'm 65, it's a problem for me. It's a problem because it almost killed me. And all the doctors, the 6 doctors that I had at Mass General Hospital said, if you have never traveled, you don't do vacations, you don't go anywhere, you don't have any contact with anybody else, it's got to be the pot.
And several weeks ago, I was at the CCC doing the exact same thing I'm doing here right now with you all. And I told them, I let the cat out of the bag, that there is mold. It's been proven there's mold, and they're still using some of it. And13710 that's the scary part. When I heard 1 of the testimonies today, he read off a list of dispensaries. 3 of those dispensaries that I go to were on the list. And they've been on13724 that that list before. So I'm here to let you all know, each 113728 of you, that there is an inside13730 problem, and you really need to take13732 care of it. And you really need to13734 support the medical program. We gave you all these ideas in the very beginning with the medical program, Patient Advocacy Alliance. And I'm sure Jeremiah13745 might still have those
SPEAKER5 - in archives. Everything that we talked about, all of the
SPEAKER49 - inspections, all of the people doing the inspections, but it comes to seem
SPEAKER5 - to me
SPEAKER49 - right now that
SPEAKER5 - the inspections, but it comes
SPEAKER49 - to seem to me right now that none of
SPEAKER2 - that has ever
SPEAKER49 - existed. It's quite obvious that it's never existed. And that's a big problem. And that falls back on you guys and the owners. And this whole conglomerate of the medical and this whole conglomerate of the medical marijuana business. And everybody just wants to make money. I want to13780 live. I want to be able to live and enjoy what I took in 10 years. I testified 10 different times with Pat Jalen and Mark Cusack. And I'm sure you can go back to their notes and find out what the medical marijuana program put into the effort for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for everybody to reap from the benefits. So I want to thank each 1 of you that is here right now, but I wish everybody was here because this is a perfect timing right now to end the day with the most important thing of a whistleblower. I got a Martin Luther King Social13818 Justice Award in 2013 for the GATE community and for speaking out on behalf of seniors. Those are the seniors that I13828 have told that the program was good, and told them they didn't have any problems. But now they're all getting sick. And I really feel responsible for some of that.
Is a big problem. And it is existing. And everybody's looking the other way. So to implement the inspections would be the first thing. To have a hotline
anonymous that you13858 can call into the CCC with these cares and concerns.
You gotta do something. And it's up to you to make the change, and we realize that. That. But 10 years ago, those ideas, some of those ideas are not good for this day right now. But you can go back and use some of that stuff and implement it when you didn't.13882 So please take in consideration everything that I said to13886 you today. So you're in, hopefully,13888 everything moving forward would be better.
SPEAKER3 - We we hope so. Thank you very much for13892 your testimony. Yeah.
SPEAKER2 - Appreciate that. Any questions?
SPEAKER49 - And I do wanna let you know, I have an attorney, and they're gonna pursue this. And I'm gonna walk walk right along with them. Because if I can get there's a few things I gotta do to make that happen, but it's all there. And it's quite obvious that there is an issue. And that's why the attorney came to me. I didn't go looking for an attorney. And that attorney today was in this room.
SPEAKER3 - So thank you very much for your time. I appreciate
SPEAKER1 - it. So that's the end of the in person sign ups. Is there anyone else who's here that wants to testify in
SPEAKER3 - person before we move on? Yo, you were signed up?
SPEAKER1 - I apologize. I think that's fine.
SPEAKER50 - Hi, everybody. Rather than thanking all
SPEAKER24 - of you, I'm actually gonna
SPEAKER50 - thank everybody behind me because as Gary
SPEAKER12 - said, they're the ones who
SPEAKER50 - have been doing this work for a really long time, and I've been bringing the same recommendations to you over and over and bringing the same recommendations to the commission over and over. They're doing this not being paid as representatives, but because they care about their community.13978 I'm13980 gonna talk to you. I have a bit of a different13982 experience than most people. I worked for the commission for 5 years, so I know how things operate in there. I'm also gonna speak to you as a patient. I suffer from multiple chronic illnesses, and I'm currently going through an MS diagnosis. All of that, I wouldn't be able to get through without cannabis.
We keep talking about protecting consumer safety and health, yet we have a bunch of ways to do that already in in our regulations, and the commission has failed to act on those. You can write more and more regulations or more and more laws to have them more write more and more regulations. But if they're not doing what
SPEAKER24 - they already have on the
SPEAKER50 - books, what is the point of all of that? There's a secret shopper program. They've never done a single secret shopper. There is no process for that. There is nowhere to bring product. If 1 of our investigators finds that it should be removed from the shelf and should be tested, tested, there is no chance of custody for that. There is no cameras for that. Our vehicles are not as outfitted as our delivery drivers.
And I say our, but my time with the commission is done as of Friday. There's also no cannabis education for certifying providers. You had a nurse here who gave you all kinds of information about14066 how they've added programs, nursing programs. There's books on this information. The CCC certifies a provider once. They never have to come back. They don't have to show that they're still active with anything, and they never have to take a single cannabis course.
How do those providers educate our patients on how to take the medication that they're getting from their other providers and make sure that using cannabis isn't gonna impact that? I brought this up at the last commission listening session for patients. Rather than taking that advice, it we were met with a, but no. We have this. There's 2 credits that they're have to do, and those are just standard credits especially how
SPEAKER5 - little
SPEAKER50 - regulators
SPEAKER5 - know
SPEAKER50 - about
SPEAKER34 - cannabis.
SPEAKER50 - In not requiring it on a14144 regular basis, the providers are behind any of
SPEAKER5 - the research that's out there. I'm gonna say 2 more things, and
SPEAKER50 - then I'll
SPEAKER34 - the whistleblower
SPEAKER50 - line. Staffers have been bringing this up over and over. This is not just an industry thing. Staffers have tried to put this in place. I oversaw the procurement of a new phone line the phone system. 1 of the first things I asked is how do we who wants to have the whistleblower line come to them? How14176 do we manage this process? That was 2 years ago. And we go to the commission meetings, and they're still talking about how, I think14184 this is a great idea, and I've talked about it before, but it's their job to enact14188 what they talk about, not just talk about it for years. The second thing I'll say about that is that you should really look at the investment the commission is making in investigations versus the lack of investment in testing. We have there are 5 staffers in your testing department, while there's 70 investigators.
And I lied. There's 1 more part.
As a former CCC staffer, I wanna say that none of this is gonna happen and safety isn't gonna happen and workers aren't gonna be protected if the CC can't CCC can't even protect their own workers? You've heard a lot about retaliation here. If the CCC can't protect their own staff from being retaliated against, how are they gonna protect people in an industry that they're so far disconnected from? So I didn't see a single bill on the14248 docket today. I've given my written testimony to say where I think amendments should14252 be made to some of the awesome bills that have been brought14254 forward, you know, for this session. But I didn't see anything about the structure of commission, and I'm really, really hoping that you all take that extremely seriously because there's a lot of people doing good work. They're your state employees. They're your taxpayers. They're your voters, and they're not being treated right by the CCC and14273 their employment.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you for your testimony.
SPEAKER1 - Any questions from the committee?
SPEAKER22 - Alright. So, you know, thank you very much.
SPEAKER1 - We'll now move on to some virtual testimony.
Damian Fagan and Kate Packer.
SPEAKER3 - The next on the on
SPEAKER1 - the list followed by will be Ben Bill Downing, mister D'Amico, and Mike Esposito following those 3. We'll keep a list in the chat so they keep people aware online. And, if you could just remind her, just turn if you can, turn on your audio and your camera while you're testifying.
SPEAKER5 - But don't you not do the
SPEAKER50 - audio yet?
SPEAKER5 - Can you
SPEAKER19 - hear me?
SPEAKER5 - She's
SPEAKER1 - off. Yes. Alright. I'll get going. Thank you, members of the committee for hearing from me. I stand before you today, to emphasize the fundamental truth. Equitable market frameworks and small business access are not optional. They are essential to cannabis industry committed to economic justice. New York, strategic approach the strategic approach we implemented in New York, was anchored by ownership limits, and it demonstrated how targeted regulations can foster diverse participation, keep revenue circulating locally, and prevent corporate consolidation. The data clearly supports this strategy thanks in large part to strict ownership caps. Over 90% of the licenses14360 in New York's cannabis market are held by small businesses. More than 350 AU dispensaries, adult use dispensaries, and nearly twice as many farmers collectively create over 500 distinct brands. We tripled the total amount nationwide of black owned dispensaries in 2 years with the same ownership restrictions. This decentralized model keeps revenue within communities supporting local economic growth. Ownership restrictions on both supply and retail sides have driven unprecedented diversity in our market. 40% of adult use licenses are minority owned, 45% are women owned, and 80% of dispensaries in New York, are operated by people with cannabis related convictions. These outcomes demonstrate14401 the power of intentional regulation in addressing the historical harms of prohibition. As a lead drafter of New14407 York's social and economic equity plan and adult use regulations, I must acknowledge the significant influence of Massachusetts' approach to ownership and equity. Massachusetts' foresight and initiatives like the Boston Cannabis equity program provided invaluable guidance shaping policies that now benefit countless New Yorkers. Opponents claim raising ownership caps would rescue struggling operators. However, simply doubling ownership limits does not address the underlying issues of insufficient capital and predatory partnerships. These problems require direct solutions, high quality mentorship, targeted education, and another area where Massachusetts has served as a leader, accessible financial assistance. And accessible
financial assistance, empowering entrepreneurs without pushing them into dependence on multi state corporations. Critics also suggest relaxing ownership limits could stimulate growth, yet historical evidence shows otherwise. Without safeguards, well capitalized companies rapidly consolidate market power, inflating costs, and marginalizing independent businesses. Washington state's recent experience illustrates this clearly. Relaxed ownership restrictions have allowed a handful of ownership groups to roughly control 50% of the retail market, severely impacting small independent growers who face declining prices and diminished market access. Supporting small businesses produces measurable economic benefits, including job creation, innovation, and stronger regional economies. Ownership limits are crucial to achieving14493 these outcomes. Without them, equity risk becoming merely a facade for corporate dominance. To lawmakers considering weakening these protections, I urge careful examination of the evidence. Ownership limits are not barriers. They are foundational tools that broaden legalization's economic benefits.
SPEAKER2 - Out of it. Yeah.
SPEAKER1 - I see. Our progress and not dismantle it.
SPEAKER3 - You just jump in.
SPEAKER4 - Excellent. Thank you. Now it's,
Katie Packer?
SPEAKER3 - No. Bill Downey.
SPEAKER5 - Hey, folks. It's Kat Packer. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm the former executive director of the city of Los Angeles department of cannabis regulation, and I currently serve as an adviser to the Parabola Center on law and policy. I've had
SPEAKER6 - the privilege of working on cannabis policy and market regulation for early a decade and hope to bring that experience and expertise to bear in
SPEAKER5 - my testimony today. I urge this committee to oppose any legislation that would increase or eliminate caps on the number of licenses that a single individual or entity may own, house bill 1 58, senate bill 99, house bill 1 49, senate bill 78, house bill 1 74, house bill 1 71, senate bill 75, and house bill 1 60. I also urge you to support senate bill 88, legislation that protects and prioritizes small, independently owned and equity centered cannabis businesses. In14576 order to protect and expand opportunities for small businesses, it is essential that governments continue to use tools that foster a diverse and inclusive marketplace. In my experience, 1 of the most effective tools is limiting the number of licenses any 1 business can control. Massachusetts has long been a leader in modeling how14596 ownership caps and other regulatory measures can be used to advance economic equity. And we've seen the consequences of removing these protections in other states. In markets where larger operators and their trade associations representing their interests dominate, equity licensees have consistently struggled to gain meaningful market share. Rather than remove critical protections, I urge you to pair the existing caps with policies that help these14625 businesses scale, access capital, build value, and have meaningful opportunities, to sell or transfer ship ownership when they choose, not simply allowing others in this moment to profit from their continued struggle. Massachusetts has an opportunity to strengthen its commitment to equity by rejecting these policies that would open the door to further concentration of ownership. I urge this committee to act, with urgency and intention to ensure that Massachusetts does not become another cautionary tale of consolidation, but instead continues to lead as a model for building a fair, competitive, and inclusive cannabis industry that supports local and small businesses, workers,
SPEAKER4 - Thank you. Any questions from the committee? No? Thank you very much for your testimony for the perspectives. Wonderful. We had something on, you know, outside of just Massachusetts perspective. So thank you very much for your testimony. Next we have, Bill Downing.
SPEAKER7 - I'm Bill Downing of Redding, and I've been a lead leader in cannabis law reform since becoming president of MassCanNormal in 1990. The medical marijuana program suffers long term neglect. It is on the verge of collapse. Many medical marijuana program deficiencies would be properly addressed by the passage of s 83 sponsored by senator Adam Gomez, and its house version h 1 6 3 sponsored by representative David Rogers. Almost no new medical marijuana licenses are being issued. A lack of medical marijuana dispensaries is driving patients to recreational dispensaries, and medical cannabis patient numbers are dropping. Medical license holders who are leaving the business include Apotheca, the cannabis, Trulieve, Rev Clinic Clinics Cambridge, and Ryze Amherst. 13 medical dispensaries have closed recently, while only 1 has opened. The regulations governing medical marijuana licensing limit growth and are causing so many closures of medical marijuana dispensaries that patients aren't properly served. What regulations make medical cannabis licensing a losing proposition? Vertical integration, licensing requiring all 3 functions, growing, processing, and retailing. Unlike recreational licensing, medical cannabis licensee is required to finance all 3 types of cannabis operations. Only the very wealthiest businesses can afford such a finance, such a venture. Lack of capital is the number 1 reason why businesses fail. Excessive agents fees, annual agent registrations that are a hundred and $15 for recreational agents cost $500 every year for recreational agents cost $500 every year for medical ones. Capital requirements, recreational marijuana license applicants must outline their plan and their ability to fund it, which seems reasonable. Medical cannabis licensees, on the other hand, must prove they have $500,000 in a separate account, which is not alone, and that is not reasonable. The rules limit medical licensing applicants to multimillionaires. There is a lack of reciprocity. Medical dispensaries are not allowed to service cardholders out of state. Their limitation this limitation on their sales potential is completely unreasonable. Why? Please restore vigor to medical cannabis licensing and restore patient faith in the Commonwealth's medical cannabis program by moderating licensing requirements. Please allow separate licenses for growing processing and selling medical cannabis. Please adjust other medical licensing requirements like the cash requirement to those for recreational cannabis, and please allow sales to patients from other states. Please allow patients to buy tax free cannabis at any cannabis store. Please support s 83 and h 1 63.14862
SPEAKER4 - Thank you very14866 much for your testimony. Any questions from the committee?14868 Seeing no, we appreciate14870 that. Next up, I have, mister
SPEAKER6 - D'Amico.
SPEAKER4 - Looks like they're with us. We'll move on to Mike Esposito.
SPEAKER8 - Hey. How's it going? I'm I'm having a little technical difficulty here. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER4 - Yep. We can hear you. Yep. Absolutely.
SPEAKER8 - Alright. Thank you very much. My name is Mike Esposito. I'm a cannabis microbiologist, plant biologist, and pathologist, and a former cultivation employee within 2 different cultivation states in Massachusetts. I'm speaking to you today not as a representative of any company, but as an individual to strongly express support for bill h 1 94, an act relative to the Massachusetts cannabis control commission forming a department of workplace and consumer safety. As things currently stand in the industry, we really only take measurements at 2 points during the process of cannabis production. That is source water and growing media all the way upstream as far as possible. Then the end point COA that's generated before product can go to sales, which is on the opposite end the furthest downstream point in production. I believe we have a pretty glaring void throughout basically the entire processing step there. And because cannabis doesn't really, not necessarily beholden to any gmp or process regulation, I think there is a lot of huge risk to the workforce and even the consumer base that is kind of neglected through ignoring this portion of production. A COA at the end point really only measures the amount of living microbes on material and a very incredibly narrow band of mycotoxins14985
Because we know you can remediate products, we know lab shopping is really prevalent, this does not necessarily tell us anything about the safety of the individuals working with this product. It completely ignores any antigens, micro toxins, bacterial toxins produced through remediation that are going to be impacting sensitive patient bases, immunocompromised individuals. The spirit of quality indicator testing, like total yeast and mold, total aerobic bacteria, is not only to provide you an end point idea of what the product looks like going to the consumer, but to also inform you on your process control. Let you know if there is actual quality standards being met in production. Not only does an endpoint COA only measure that 1 gram of material going through the consumer, which is actually kind of an insanely small amount of material. Any other industry, corn, peanuts, would crack up if they knew you didn't have to grind 2 50 grams. Not only does that only inform what the product is on the shelf, it ignores everything that's happening in the grill. We know that cannabis is a relatively new agricultural industry legally so we don't have a large clinical database. But we can look at proxy industries. Things like corn production, wine production, berry production all have well known occupational diseases like wine growers lung, berry sorter's lung which are caused by specific fungus like botrytis cinerea, which you know is incredibly prevalent in cannabis. We know that, responsive investigation of a workplace, say after somebody has an asthma attack, if you go in the next day, all you really measure is how good the HVAC is, and not what the conditions were during that. And then kind of to wrap it up, I believe that if we don't act now, we're gonna see not only in the short term more tragic and preventable loss of life, but over the course of the following years and decades, we will see swaths of the workforce infected with occupational diseases like cannabis tremors lung. Thank you.
SPEAKER4 - Thank you so much for your testimony. Any15109 questions from the committee? Seeing none, we appreciate you, providing that background. Next up, we have15117 Cynthia Stamp. Just a reminder that I15121 think the staff's updating the list, in the chat function.
Cynthia with us? Cynthia. Alright. Move on. Ellen Moore.
SPEAKER3 - Hi.
Good afternoon, chair Donahue, committee members. My name is Ellen Moore, and I'm a medical cannabis patient living in Redding, Mac. Thank you for hearing my testimony today in support of bills h 1 6 3 and s 83, both acts to modernize the medical marijuana program. And thanks to senator Gomez and representative Rogers for sponsoring these15168 bills so desperately needed to release the medical cannabis program from the grips of an equitable requirements that are crippling the program today. We have a medical emergency. Patients are scrambling to find their tax free medicine as medical dispensaries are disappearing at an alarming15188 rate. You have the power to repair and save the medical cannabis program by supporting these bills to modernize this out of date program and allow it to expand and serve more patients. Eliminate the vertical integration requirement that is not required tax
on
tax on their medicine. By passing these bills, you give the cannabis control commission the ability to fully implement chapter 1 80, bringing social equity into the medical program and medical equity to disadvantaged areas in the state. With lack of access, many patients like myself go15243 to adult use dispensaries and pay the 20% tax because of ease of access, better selection,
recommendation is similar to a prescription, making medical marijuana tax exempt in the state. It also references part of directive 95 1, which states that over the counter purchase of medicine that can be obtained with prescription is also tax exempt. But why are patients paying on over count over the counter purchase when all that is required is for the patient to present their card and the vendor to make a record for the tax exempt purchase. Medicine is not taxed in Massachusetts, and cannabis is a medicine for cardholders. Our cards make it medical. Please vote favorably for 163 and 83 to expand patient access and save our medical program. And I really, really appreciate your time today. Thanks very much.
SPEAKER4 - Thank you. We appreciate your time as well. Any questions from committee? Seeing none, thank you so much for your testimony.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you.
SPEAKER4 - Next up, we have Scott Selenak Selenak. Sorry if I mispronounced that.
SPEAKER9 - Yeah. Selenek. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Scott Selenek, and I work with Eastern Cannabis Company. We're an adult use cannabis retailer in Malden,15343 Massachusetts and a member of the MCC. I'm I'm here today to express my strong support for house bill 1 63 and senate bill 83. While Eastern Cannabis Company operates on the Adult East Side, this bill represents a major opportunity, not just for patients, but for businesses like ours to expand access and serve medical consumers in a sustainable, responsible way. As the law stands now, businesses that wanna serve medical patients are required to be vertically integrated. For many of us, that's simply not financially feasible. But h 1 6 3 and s 8 3 would remove that requirement and finally allow companies like mine to serve patients directly using our existing infrastructure without needing millions of dollars in capital. And that is very much needed. Right now, there are only 94 active medical dispensaries in Massachusetts compared to over 3 50 recreational dispensaries. That means patients are left behind, especially those in rural communities or without easy access to transportation. This bill would also eliminate eliminate outdated capital requirements and cap license fees, which lowers the barrier to entry and create space for smaller equity focused operators to get involved, something our industry and our patients both benefit from. And finally, I fully support the provision that allows out of state medical card holders to access care here at Massachusetts. It's compassionate, logical, ensures the continuity of care for people visiting or temporarily living in the Commonwealth. Eastern cannabis is ready and willing to support patients, but we need the regulatory structure to allow us to do so. These bills are a smart, forward thinking way to modernize the system, expand access, and create new opportunities. Thank you for your time, and I respectfully urge the committee to give H163 and S83 a favorable world record. Thank you.
SPEAKER4 - Thank you so much. Any questions? Thank you so much for your testimony. We appreciate that. Next up, we have Chris
SPEAKER10 - Alright. Everybody hear me okay?
SPEAKER4 - Yes. We can hear you.
SPEAKER10 - Alright. Chair Donohue, thank you so much. Members, appreciate the opportunity to speak. Good afternoon. My name is Chris Zaworicki with Green Meadows Farm, and also a member of, the MCC. We are a, vertically integrated family15473 owned operator in state, both adult use and medical, operating for almost 5 years now. And I'm here to throw my support behind 2 sets of bills, agent registration, H148, S 80, H 1 70 1, and S75. And the purchase limit
s 75. But I'll start by stating, that I understand the state agency's mission is to safely, equitably, effectively administer state laws to enable access to marijuana. But I also believe the state bears great responsibility to support the health and the viability of the industry in which we all operate, for us, the operators. Otherwise, building a sustainable industry, won't be possible. And and unfortunately, I think it'll cease to exist. And we're starting to see, over the last 18 months the the beginning of that, of course. The landscape of the industry has changed greatly. It's matured. We're dealing with a much different playing field than we did 6 to 7 years ago. So I would say without hyperbole, the current regulatory challenges we face as operators are stretching us beyond our means. So we need change. So having said that, I'll focus on the, the group of bills that I mentioned, the agent registration cards, and some of this has already been stated today, so I'll try to be quick. But the onboarding offboarding process for employees is resource intensive. It's expensive. We deal with fees, background checks, trainings, reports. You know, we operate also in a fairly transient industry with high turnover, which means we're having to go through that work and that onerous process more often than traditional industries. And we're currently required to carry 1 badge per license as has been stated a few times today, which is just plain wasteful. I myself carry 6 badges around my neck each day at work. Process is unnecessarily costly and burdensome. The legislation that's put forth will streamline the process, by establishing a single transfer employee, employee badge, that'll be valid across licensed facilities and up to 6 years. So that's great. And it will offer us savings that we all very much need as operators, as you know, and also offer the workforce, kind of convenience of mobility. And then on purchase limits, if the industry is to survive current conditions and thrive in the future, we cannot unnecessarily restrict our operating or consumer base and hand a competitive advantage to others. Our daily purchase limits now are lower than some of our neighboring states, which I think has been stated, New York and Maine. Since the inception, the industry in Massachusetts has proven out to be safe and secure. And so it's time to increase those limits to at least 2 ounces, which will lead to additional revenue, help fight against the illicit market and support our bludgeoned cultivation market, by alleviating the significant oversupply that we have in the state. So thank you all for the15650 opportunity to speak, and, I'll take any questions if there are any.
SPEAKER4 - Thank you so much, Chris. Any questions from committee? Seeing none, appreciate your testimony. Thank you, Fame.
SPEAKER10 - Alright. Thanks so much.
SPEAKER4 - Next up, we have Toby Neuber.
SPEAKER6 - Yes. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER4 - Yes. We can. Yep.
SPEAKER6 - Alright. I'm just okay. I guess, can you see me?
SPEAKER4 - We can hear you. I don't think we can see you. Yeah.
SPEAKER6 - Okay. Well, I might just go ahead in the interest of time, but chair Donahue, senator Gomez, other members of the committee, thank you for the forum here to speak. I'm Toby Neuber with Good Chemistry. I'm the COO and CFO. I'm also a member of the, a board member of the Massachusetts cannabis coalition just as a reminder you know we're an independent self funded operator we have retail cultivation and manufacturing and operations in both Colorado and Massachusetts and we've been operating in the regulated market in those states for you know more than 15 years at this point I'm just registering my support for the agent registration card legislation h 148 sa h 171 and s 75. I mean a lot of the arguments
have been made already. I guess just to give you some further context again in colorado I have 1 badge I own it and I can move freely between other companies should I wish to change jobs. And within a company, I can move freely between any facility. And right now in Massachusetts, I don't know, I have 10 or 12 badges, that are also significantly more expensive. In Colorado, it's $90 for a 2 year badge. And I think as was mentioned earlier, in Massachusetts, it's approximately 118 for adult use, 500 for medical, and you get, you know, you have to renew it after 1 year, and then it's good for 3. But I guess Senator Gomez, to answer 1 of your questions earlier, a few years ago, we actually spent over a hundred thousand dollars on badging costs for employees that either didn't show up for their first day of work or were gone with or quit within 30 days. So not only is it extremely expensive, but, obviously, we're all trying to run very lean right now given all the market dynamics. And if I have a bigger harvest in the garden, I can't send an employee over from retail to help unless I wanna stop and get them batched. So I think there's benefits to the employee in terms of their freedom and ability to move between organizations. And then on the employer side, there's a huge advantage to changing this structure, not only in cost savings, but it also allows us to deploy labor where we need it without having to cut through a bunch of red tape in order to do so. That's all I have. I appreciate the time, and your consideration.
SPEAKER4 - Thank you. Any any questions from committee? No. Thank you very much for your perspective and your testimony. We appreciate that.
SPEAKER6 - Thank you.
SPEAKER4 - Next up, I have Jennifer Keeley.
SPEAKER2 - Hello, everybody. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER4 - Yes. We can hear you.
SPEAKER2 - Okay. Alright. Well, hello, chairman Gomez, chairman Donahue, and honorable members of the joint committee on the cannabis policy. My name is Jennifer Keeley, and I'm the vice president of finance and regulatory affairs at Root and Bloom. We hold a cultivation, manufacturing, and retail license. I am also a member of the MCC. I am here today in support of h 100 and 70 1 and s 75 as they will create pathways to make small changes that will have big big impacts for our business. Today, I would like to discuss 2 things, agent badges and testing reform. The passing of these bills will substantially aid financial relief to all marijuana businesses. So let's start by looking at the need for a single agent badge, which I know has come up many times today. In other states, a single badge is used and it is simply tracked in metric in the c to sale system. And it also allows for temp work to exist. It takes on average 13 days after I find a candidate hundreds and hundreds of dollars in badging fees per potential employee. This is not only a burden on the operators, but also for the potential employee that cannot start work. They are stuck waiting and hoping that to be hired. And in some cases, we lose good candidates because they just can't wait anymore. And for these
can't wait anymore. And for these reasons, that is why I'm in support of the change to a single badge per individual that belongs to them like a driver's license obtained and maintained by them. It also allows businesses the freedom to hire prequalified candidates that are already screened, background checked, and badged, ready and eager to work, and the agent can then immediately start employment. It would also eliminate many redundancies not only for the businesses, but also for the CCC, saving them from the administrative burden of issuing several licenses to a single individual.
Today, I would also like to address flower testing. The testing batch size reform specifically, in these bills regarding the rule change from a 15 pound rule to a 40 pound batch size makes more sense. 9 35 CMR defines this a cultivation batch as a collection of marijuana plants from the same seed stock cultivated and harvested together receiving identical propagation and cultivation treatment. So if these are the same, let's let a batch be a batch. The current 15 requirement is costly in both time, money, and operational tracking, and it adds no real value to the end product test results. Testing accounts for 14% of our cost of goods alone. It is a significant number. And I believe that the testing rules can be reformed to ensure that the testing requirements are meaningful and not just cost prohibitive while still ensuring consumer safety. And that is why I support testing reform. Further rulemaking can ensure that the selection made for those 40 pounds provides full representation of each flower batch, much like that in other states where a batch has no size. It just requires additional sampling requirements. Thank you for your time today and in consideration of passing house bill 1 71 and senate bill 75 as these small changes would make a big financial uplift in our operation.
SPEAKER4 - Thank you for your testimony. Any questions from committee? Seeing none, appreciate your testimony. Thank you very much. Next up, we recognize Brendan, Brandon Pollock.
SPEAKER11 - Hey. Good afternoon. Chairman Donahue and Gomez and committee, thank you, for having me. I'm, in the office in Stone. I'm a apologize for not being able to make it down into the city today. I am the, founder 1 of 1 of the founders, and the CEO of Theory Wellness. Theory Wellness is a Massachusetts based Massachusetts based company. We're the largest employee owned cannabis country cannabis company in the country, and we've been proudly serving patients since 2017 and, rec customers since, January of 20 20. And, so, yeah, we've been around a lot. This is the best slate of legislation we've ever seen. So thank you first and foremost. There's a lot of great bills out there. Unfortunately, a lot of the issues that are in the industry have to be run through the legislature these days, and I appreciate the leadership in, working through some of the the issues that are creating some true, truly difficult conditions on the ground for many entrepreneurs.
I'm gonna speak16159 today about, senate bill 91, house bill 1 69, and senate bill 100, which would temporarily pause new license issuance in the Commonwealth, for most operate most potential operators that wouldn't apply for social equity. And this would also require an economic study on market dynamics to determine what an appropriate amount of licenses should be on a going forward basis. This idea is not novel. We have a16189 store in Vermont in Brattleboro. Vermont started recreational sales 05/01/2022, 10/25/2024. So about a little over 2 years later, Vermont paused all new, retail licenses because the regulator, not the legislature, but the regulator in Vermont realized that the market was becoming, oversaturated and that wasn't helpful for anybody to continue issuing new licenses. So I think from my view, it's important to consider this pausing of licenses because right now the market is in it's really an absolute total distress. I just was texted this morning another company that has been around for a long time is going out of business in mass, and that is very sad. A lot of people have put their heart and souls and life savings into these businesses. And because the beginning of the market was so constricted with local and state government, there was such an initial bottleneck. It created this this circumstance where all of a sudden when everyone could finally get through, people looked around and said, wow. I didn't know there's gonna be so many people doing this, and we're we're oversaturated. So I'm generally a a free market guy, but this has not been a16265 free market. If it was, everyone could've just opened16267 within you know, like, you could open coffee shops,16269 not been like that. It's not gonna be16271 like that, and I think that's where the government does need to step in, hit pause, and sort of assess what the market may need.
So that that's my view on these bills. Again, I think support I support most of the bills in front of legislation. There are a lot of good16290 things out there, but in particular, testifying for, senate bill 91,16294 house 1 69, and senate bill a hundred. And I will pause there and happy to answer any questions on anything or keep moving. I know it's been a long day.
SPEAKER4 - Excellent. No. Thank you very much for your testimony, Brandon. Any any questions from committee? Seeing none, we appreciate that. Thank you. See you. Next up, we have, Drew Ledbetter.
Drew with us? Alright. We'll come back to you. Ross branch
off.
Well, we'll keep we'll come we'll keep moving. Nike John?
16345 SPEAKER1216345 -16345 Hi.16345 How are you guys?
SPEAKER4 - Good. How are you? Can you
SPEAKER12 - hear me okay? Oh, good. Yep.
SPEAKER4 - Yes.
SPEAKER12 - Alright. Alright. Sorry. Thank you, committee, for your time, efforts to make needed changes, and thoughtful questions. This topic means a lot to me, so I apologize for not being in person. I'm unfortunately but unfortunately on bed rest due to pregnancy. My name is Nikki John and out of breath, apparently. My name is Nikki John. I'm the owner of the Heritage Club, a retail dispensary open in Charlestown, the first black woman owned shop in Boston. I'm a founding member of MCEC, the equity operators advocacy advocacy group. I'm a social equity operator and majority owner of my store with more than 70%. More importantly, I'm a local owner operator. I'm from Massachusetts. I I live in Massachusetts, and I hope that16390 means something to you. Local operation in this developing industry is16394 important. This industry is still new.16396 We need operators who care about the consumers,16398 and it's so easy to care when the customers are our family and our friends. As we heard from med patients today, quality matters. Usar is my dog. I've been in the industry for 5 years, sixth of September. My store has been open for 2 of those years. It's upsetting to hear the experience of people not yet open discounted by fellow operators. It took me 3 years to open, and if the rug was pulled from under me during that process, I'd be upset if my voice did not count. The state of the industry has been, impacted by over saturation, burdensome regulations, and the race to the bottom. The license cap is not the issue here. Price compression is the reason that overhead expenses that so many have spoken on are hard to maintain. We need to work to create an industry where both independent and multi state, and multi store operators thrive. Scaling should not be the only way, for people to thrive. Support small businesses, support local businesses, support equity. There are exits for viable businesses. I've engaged in many discussions with buyers in the past few months. The cap has not been the reason I have not exited. It is not the reason my valuation has changed, but a license cap would decrease my store's value and put many out of business as we would lose the ability to compete, lowering already razor thin profit margins. I already heavily compete against operators with 3 stores. Interestingly, today's conversation neglected to highlight that any of these interested investors or companies can invest or add funds up to 9.9% in an unlimited number of licenses for operators that are supposedly in need of16487 funding and wanna stay in the industry. They don't have to exit. Few16491 to none of those owners of those companies who claim to wanna help us are here showing up on their own.16495 I understand these wealth minded companies have their CFOs, their CPAs, their attorneys, but all I have is my voice. At least 7 states have caps, and you have to ask why. These ownership limitations are designed to foster a diverse and competitive cannabis market by preventing excessive market consolidation. These bills to raise the cap have me praying to God and begging to this committee for mercy, protect equity operators, and oppose the license cap increase, support senator Miranda's bill 88. Thank you again for your time.
SPEAKER4 - Thank you so much. Any questions from committee? No? Thank you so much for your for your testimony. Appreciate it. Next up, Janet Mormon.
Stephanie Butler.
We'll keep moving. We'll come back to people if they they log back on. John Piesecki?
SPEAKER13 - John Piesecki.
SPEAKER4 - Hi, John. How are you?
SPEAKER13 - That's me. Good. So, I've been growing pots since 1974. Thank you very much for, hearing from me and listening to me. I run Wiseacre Farm in West Stockbridge, Massachusetts. It's a tier 11 outdoor grow.16577 The idea with growing outdoors is it's actually really hard to do16581 properly, because our climate's very different than Central Asia, and we, need your help. The market has completely imploded. The legislation in front of you that does an economic analysis in terms of licensing and supply and demand is critical, for us to be able to continue into business. Furthermore, reducing the testing, though the fellows with the testing labs want more testing. You know, again, I started in 1974 and have grown and sold lots of pot that doesn't kill people. 40 pound batches are fine. And for people who are sick, you would be very smart to consider not buying flour at all because it's all irradiated in the state of Massachusetts and covered with fungus because of the way our testing stuff works. Be better off with extraction. And, finally, I've I've gotta ask you for for help. The way that, we are considered not agriculture in the state of Massachusetts has made my situation where my farm in the middle of nowhere with the nearest neighbor of 1,675 feet away can essentially shut my business with 40 employees down because my tiny little select board doesn't understand that, second homeowners are not as important or, you know, I'm in a manufacturing zone. There has to be a place where I can operate, and there's so much stigma against us, that, you know, it's very hard with the local board. So I really appreciate you guys doing the work or people doing the work to, legislate this because we need your help. And, 1 last thing, the, the CCC is taking a lot of abuse in this, discussion. I've been legal here since 2019 I started. No 1 has done more to help me than the CCC, just so that you know. The only people who have stepped up to support me and help me as I navigate this very complicated process now, granted, maybe they're the ones that are putting in the hurdles, but I don't think so. I think you guys are the ones that are putting in the hurdles, and they're just figuring out how to get through. My I have 2 agents. The 1 now, Sam Keenan, has just been exceptional in trying to get me and shepherd me through this and try to keep me alive. And folks, we are dying. The market has collapsed. We need your help. You have to step in. Something has to happen, or you're not gonna have a pot industry. Please allow for consolidation. Give the social equity guys the the chance first to do it. No problem. Or social equity people, but 6 is not too many. And please do everything that you can to help us and to empower16733 the CCC, because if you don't, you're not gonna have us. So thank you very16737 much.
SPEAKER4 - Thank you very16739 much. Any questions from, committee? So, yeah, thank you very much,16743 John, for your testimony. Appreciate that. Next up, we have John Napoli.
SPEAKER14 - Yeah. Hey. How you doing? John Napoli. He I represent Vanguard and Cannabis Company, Quincy Cannabis Company, and the Hampus Dispensary. So I'm involved in all 3 aspects of the industry, and I'd like to speak out in favor of raising the consumption limits for, h 1 8 3, I believe. Sorry. I'm kinda multitasking right now. Raising the16780 consumption limits is really 1 of the easiest things we can do to help the state, help businesses, and help consumers alike. It really helps everyone and doesn't harm anybody. Yeah. To put it into perspective, a 1 ounce limit, a pack of cigarettes weighs about an ounce. I don't know how many packs of cigarettes are in a carton, and I don't know how many cartons I can buy at a store. But you can buy bulk tobacco, buy bulk alcohol, and those 2 things kill hundreds of thousands of people in this country a year. And we're treating cannabis like it's a kill. Cannabis, from a strictly health outcome point of view, is safer than most of the food we eat, and it should be treated as such. Raising the consumption limits really easy will benefit all and harm none. Thank you very much. Any questions, I'm free to answer.
SPEAKER4 - Thank you. Any questions from committee?
Alright. Thank you so much. Appreciate your testimony. Thank you.
SPEAKER14 - Thank thank you.
SPEAKER4 - And I think we have Will Seagard.
Will, are you with us?
SPEAKER15 - Hello. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER4 - I can hear you. Yes.
SPEAKER15 - Great. So I just wanna start off by saying first and foremost, thank you all. I know there's a lot of work that's gone into all of these bills, and I appreciate it. I am a member of the industry. I16874 am 1 of the owners of the Fresh Connection. We're 1 of the smallest indoor cultivators in
SPEAKER4 - the
SPEAKER15 - state, and we're located in Fitchburg.
I employ probably over 80% of my staff is from Fitchburg or has previously lived in Fitchburg. And we're here every single day as part of our business, part of our community. And I can't stress enough16906 how much a lot of these reforms16908 are needed from badging to limiting canopy limits and scaling16914 down on the production side. I think that will help a lot. What I do not think will help is raising the cap on how many licenses 1 licensee can16927 control.
So I16931 sell I'm the head of our sales. We're in about 20% of the licensees in the state. So I have a very unique window into
SPEAKER5 - all of
SPEAKER15 - the different markets all over the state and what is happening. And what will continue to happen and is already happening in some of those markets is groups come in, they have purchasing power, they can drop the price and drive others out of business. That will only accelerate and hurt the people who this industry is supposed to be helping the most. And, you know, I have a degree in economics and finance. I'm not just saying this blindly. You can look at a lot of other industries. It doesn't have to be cannabis. And when consolidation happens, short term prices go down. Long term, they go up, and your, your different options16993 are lowered. So, anyway, I just wanted to say that. I16997 know you guys have a lot of16999 other people to get through. I appreciate it. Thank you for your time.
SPEAKER4 - Thank you so much, Will. Any questions from committee?
Thank you very much, Will. We appreciate your testimony.
SPEAKER15 - Alright. Thank you.
SPEAKER4 - I think that's exhaust the list. Is there anyone else logged on that I didn't call on or was called on, but is back on?
Alright. Seeing none, I would like to thank all the committee members for, sticking through this this hearing. I know there's a lot going on today. And appreciate everybody testifying on this. Obviously, being the co chair, we've got quite a bit of work to get through here, and I think we'll be having our next hearing coming up pretty soon. So I will close the hearing. Thank you.