LTL Example #1 -
will go here.
My name is JS, I am Executive Director of the Umpqua Cannabis
Association and I have submitted testimony to you previously on implementing
We support much of the language in HB 3400-1 and -2.
Moving the marijuana tax to retail transactions will work better for many
reasons. This tax should be kept low. I suggest allowing early sales to all
adults at medical marijuana dispensaries but having no tax at all during a
transition period. This will minimize prices and maximize the pull of
customers away from the black market into the regulated market. This
transition period can be used to finalize implementation of taxing details
and will provide real sales numbers that can be used to set the tax rate.
Regulated sales to adults could start as early as July 1, 2015. The 2016
Legislature could set the tax rate for taxes to start on July 1, 2016. This
tax timeline along with allowing generous plant limits and overall efficient
regulation is the best strategy to undercut the black market.
Please consider charging a progressive fee for all licensees. Having a small
family farmer and Privateer Holdings both pay a $1000 license fee for their
marijuana production facilities is not fair. Privateer's representative
Patrick Moen testified about their 60,000 sq. ft., $24 million marijuana
production facility. Presumably they would expect millions of dollars in
revenue to justify that investment. If the family farm has to pay the same
fees as the giant corporation, they will be driven out. It will cost OLCC
much more to regulate a giant entity than a small one so a flat license
penalizes the small entity. Progressive licensing is fair.
Licensing fees that are progressive based on gross revenue is in the public
interest. Large entities have a built in advantage in the economy of scale
and how they adapt to regulation. If we are really trying to build a healthy
economy based on small Oregon businesses and family farms we should make the
playing field as fair as possible. Progressive license fees also offer a way
to raise substantially more in revenue and to do so from those most able to
afford it. There may also be a way to direct some such revenue back to local
governments addressing Rob Bovett's concern about localities that will not
be adequately compensated based on the number of licensees and the impacts
in their jurisdiction. Please consider this as a way of minimizing what will
be a protracted struggle over local dispensary bans.
UCA strongly supports provisions in the bill that eliminate the prohibition
of home gardens within 1000 feet of a school and similar provisions.
UCA supports the various penalty reductions and urge you to make all
marijuana criminal penalties into violations punishable by fines.
UCA support the language in the -2 amendments regarding expungement of
We support the language creating a research license. Early research should
focus on establishing dosages and best practices for all the new
formulations of medical marijuana actually available in Oregon stores for
Research should also be directed at determining if subsidizing medical
marijuana for some patients saves money. If the OHP is paying for a
patient's morphine why shouldn't it pay for their marijuana?
Please consider raising the limit for household possession. Measure 91
allows a household to grow four plants but only possess eight ounces.
According to Chair Burdick, an indoor plant can yield 3-5 pounds and outdoor
plants 10 or 11 pounds. While these numbers may represent the most skilled
gardener ever, it is pretty easy to see that almost every harvest will put
households over their possession limits. Language in SB 964 fixes this
problems for medical marijuana gardens and some similar approach should fix
this for households. A household could be made up of 5 adults. It does not
make sense for the law to make possession of a few weeks supply a crime now
that marijuana is legal.
Thank you for consideration of these points and your ongoing work on this
challenging issue. We hope you will have more public hearings on this bill.
I haven't read it yet - but based on this article, the number is 48 plants, no more card stacking, no more out of state patients, and growers would have to submit info on what they produced and who it went to. Click >> here <<
Burdick is introducing a very similar bill that would have a limit of 24 plants.
Looking closer at it - there has been no activity so far, it has been assigned to the M91 committee.
Here are my crib notes on some pertinent elements (it is long, but much shorter than the 33 pages of the proposed bill!) The first couple of points are longer than the rest of the notes below, after that they are quicker:
Section 5 (copied in full below along with the related section 6) I think is going to be one that MMJ growers are going to want to look closely at - how much burden is included in making these monthly reports? How precise must the reporting be?
Will this require scale calibration and other equipment certification, or will the numbers be rough numbers (ie rounded to the nearest ounce? Gram?) It would seem that this could be extra costs on growers, and that cost will be more difficult to distribute, since the number of patients able to be served will be reduced:
SECTION 5. (1) Not less than once per month, a person responsible for a marijuana grow
site under ORS 475.304 must submit to the Oregon Health Authority, in a form and manner
prescribed by the authority, the following information related to the production and processing
(a) The amount of usable marijuana and the numbers of mature marijuana plants and
immature marijuana plants in the person's possession;
(b) The amount of marijuana that the person has processed into cannabinoid edibles;
(c) The amount of marijuana that the person has processed into cannabinoid extracts;
(d) The amounts of marijuana, cannabinoid edibles and cannabinoid extracts and the
numbers of mature marijuana plants and immature marijuana plants that the person transfers
to each registry identification cardholder for whom the person produces and processes
(e) The amounts of marijuana, cannabinoid edibles and cannabinoid extracts and the
number of immature marijuana plants that the person transfers to each medical marijuana
facility registered under ORS 475.314.
(2) In addition to reporting the information as required by subsection (1) of this section,
a person responsible for a marijuana grow site under ORS 475.304 must keep a record of the
information described in subsection (1) of this section for at least one year after the date
on which the person submits the information to the authority.
SECTION 6. The Oregon Health Authority may inspect a record kept pursuant to section
5 of this 2015 Act at any time
to ensure that a person responsible for a marijuana grow site
under ORS 475.304 is in compliance with section 5 of this 2015 Act.
I think even with legalization, the reality is that there are still quite a few patients that have to rely on the goodwill of growers to provide for them for little to no cost. There are plenty of people who can just find alternative routes if they lose their grower, and we all know people who have used OMMP previously that aren't likely to stick with it once there are alternatives such as growing their own four plants or purchasing it legally without OMMP, but I think that there is a most vulnerable population that is overlooked in efforts to regulate.
This section concerns me because it implies a level of specificity that may be difficult to comply with, especially for those dealing with indigent patients. Clearly the intent is to be more in compliance with the Cole Memo (at least as they are interpreting it), but it sounds burdensome.
The new possession limits (Section 13) looks like they forgot to redefine immature plant (after deleting the 12 inch rule) yet they allow law enforcement to confiscate any excess beyond "an amount of usable marijuana or a number of mature or immature plants in excess of the quantities specified in subsection (1) or (2) of this section".
This is a HUGE oversight - as I went through the bill entirely searching for every instance of "immature" and "mature" and found no definition at all.
Also, they set the maximum number of mature plants at a given address as 48, unless you are in "city limits in an area zoned for residential use", then it is only 12 plants at any given address;
however, they do allow for colocation of MMJ and rec MJ at the same time, provided they are kept separate and records are kept for both:
(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, a registry identification cardholder, the designated
primary caregiver of the registry identification cardholder and the person responsible
for a marijuana grow site under ORS 475.304 who grows marijuana for the registry identification
cardholder may jointly possess up to six mature marijuana plants.
(2)(a) If the address of a person responsible for a marijuana grow site under ORS 475.304
is located within city limits in an area zoned for residential use, only 12 mature marijuana
plants may be produced at the address.
(b) If the address of a person responsible for a marijuana grow site under ORS 475.304
is located in an area other than an area described in paragraph (a) of this subsection, only
48 mature marijuana plants may be produced at the address.
(c) This subsection does not apply to any mature marijuana plants produced as allowed
under the provisions of sections 3 to 70, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2015, at a premises licensed
under section 19, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2015, that are kept separate from mature
marijuana plants produced as allowed under the provisions of ORS 475.300 to 475.346 as described
in section 7 of this 2015 Act.
(3) If a law enforcement officer determines that a registry identification cardholder, the
designated primary caregiver of a registry identification cardholder or a person responsible
for a marijuana grow site under ORS 475.304 who grows marijuana for a registry identification
cardholder possesses an amount of usable marijuana or a number of mature or immature
marijuana plants in excess of the quantities specified in subsection (1) or (2) of this
section, the law enforcement officer may confiscate only the excess amount of usable
marijuana or the excess number of mature or immature marijuana plants.
Section 14 removes the restriction to be 1000 feet from another MJ facility and clearly defines schools as compulsory public or private elementary or secondary schools.
Section 18 still requires a facility to move if a school relocates within 1000 feet of the facility, granting a specific amount of time (the second renewal after the school is first attended by students).
Section 24 requires testing of usable marijuana AND immature marijuana plants (?) as defined under ORS 438.605 - 438.620, although I haven't looked at that statute yet to see what those standards are. Growers should especially look closer at this one.
Section 26 imposes an "untruthful or misleading" marketing prohibition that also includes prohibition on marketing if the authority feels it could "create a significant risk to the public health and safety". Industry people may want to look closely at this section and find out more or get it more specifically written, as it is very broad currently. There are definitely valid times we would want to prohibit misleading packaging, but this section could make it difficult or impossible to offer consumers any information about the product (which wouldn't be beneficial to consumers).
I think my real concern with this section is that nothing is defined - so do reviews on leafly becoming "marketing" or does this only refer to direct marketing by the processor/grower/retailers such as packaging or printed material? (as just one example of where it is undefined).
Section 28 grants OLCC oversight for MMJ facilities.
Section 36 defines seeds as nursery stock under ORS 571.005 but limits the labeling and other requirements required there and section 633 -
the short section seems to incorporate a lot of other statutes so for those interested in seed production, it is worth reading those sections:
SECTION 36. (1) For purposes of ORS 475.300 to 475.346, seeds of the plant Cannabis
family Cannabaceae are a propagant of nursery stock as defined in ORS 571.005.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section,
the production and processing of seeds
under ORS 475.300 to 475.346 is not subject to the labeling or other requirements of ORS
576.715 to 576.744 or 633.511 to 633.750.
Section 38 redefines the authority to tax as "solely in the Legislative Assembly" and requires express authorization by state statute for localities to impose fees or taxes on the production, processing or sale.
Section 43 prohibits a licensed health care professional from refusing to prescribe or dispense medication to a person who uses MMJ unless it is contraindicated.
(Goodbye pain contracts or will this just result in further federal conflicts?)
Section 46 requires harmonizing the regulations of rec and medical, but also requires that differences in products and uses are taken into account when doing so.
Section 53 - it becomes operative on Jan 1, 2016.
The only part of the OMMA that is really being messed with is the large
grows, and if you want to sell to dispensaries, or are over a certain size,
you have to report.
Seems to me, if you want to sell your cannabis to the dispensaries, the
OLCC will be involved somehow, and that seems reasonable. The OHA shouldn't
"track" cannabis going to dispensaries, that's not their job. And, the
reporting is minimal, no cameras, no time consuming tracking...pretty easy
I think your HIPPA records are safe, that's a red herring. What do the cops
want your records for, anyway?
If you want to grow 24 plants (or maybe 48 if it can be managed in
committee) on your property, and not sell to the dispensaries, not much, if
anything, will change. But, you may be able to be reimbursed for your
labor, finally, by your patients (if things go as we hope)...that's good,
If you are a 96 or 150 plant OMMP grower, you gotta register, and do heavy
reporting to the OLCC...big deal! Also, if you want to grow that many
plants, you better not be in a RR2.5 or RR5 zoning, because that likely
will not be allowed, nor should it.
If you think you should be able to grow
96 plants in a RR2.5 zone, you are not respecting your neighbors, and you
are part of the problem.
These bills are a start, but will be modified a bunch, and a descent bill
will hopefully come out of it.
If people are concerned, they need to email their Reps and Senators, simple
as that. Get involved...
NO big deal?! I'll let YOU do the monthly paperwork for me. I quit! I'll have my quadriplegic patients, patient on stretcher, etc. line up at Burdick's office to get their meds...for free. The legislature should be making this easier to help people who would otherwise be slipping through the cracks, not making it impossible for me to help them.
I have plenty of paperwork with the reapplications every year, correspondence with nurses, social workers, doctors, and now MONTHLY reports of exactly how much and to whom it is given for free, how many plants I have, how much was used to make what?
Come on! We have 8 different "alternative delivery modalities, and each patient gets at least 2, in addition to vaporizing for breakthrough symptom control. That's a LOT of additional paperwork...I will Â NOT do!
Now, if these idiots wanna pay me to do it (instead of making it more difficult), maybe I would consider that. BUT their only concern is how much can they squeeze from the public for state income, forcing the most vulnerable sick and dying Oregonians to dispensaries and M-91 stores.
Easy there, C ...
3400 isn't set in stone. We are also discussing different levels of
regulation. If you are providing to patients without selling into
dispensaries or rec stores, then most of this conversation will not likely
apply to you at all. If you are only growing Sungrown, then you may only
need to report quarterly. They are not asking you to quantify your
patients' usage, only your production, and then only if you meet certain
I would encourage you to contact your representatives, as well as email the
M91 committee members, but not with the tone you just expressed towards
Keith. Calm, reasoned advocacy will win the day here. Angry reactionary
emails will not make us any allies.
I may be overly optimistic, but this is the first time in my life I have
really felt good about an advancing legislative process. Yes 3400 has
major problems, and even worse is Sen. Burdick's LC3929.
One size does not
fit all, and the committee is starting to understand this, as is the OLCC,
because of the ongoing conversation. Please continue your advocacy, and
keep the tone conversational.
The plant limits are over the top in HB3400. 12 plants for "residential"
areas and 48 for all else Limits city growers to 2 patients .. I would have
to fire 5 indigent patients for my address. People I have known for years.
How will these people who receive cannabis for free be able to come up with
the 3,000$ or more for cannabis a year (each) using the new recreational
stores Forget getting a new grower .. How? The state subsidizes them? dream
on. How about altruistic stores? (don't make me laugh) .. What about the
patients in this?
I understand that some patients will be affected, and if it affects you,
call your Rep and Senator!
We need ideas, not griping.
There are way too many large grows moving their cannabis out of the state,
and that's a problem. They want a 24 plant limit, so 48 is a compromise.
And, if you are growing 48 plants in a true residential neighborhood in a
city, that's borderline farming, and should be able to be regulated, IMHO.
RR zoning will not be part of that.
At some point, we have to compromise so people quit being charged with
crimes! This is not just about patients, its about fairness to all those
who have been persecuted and AREN'T patients. To implement a recreational,
or adult use, market, is the plan, and if a few concessions need to be made
by large farms, so be it. Large farms are a problem more than a solution.
To be honest, they could have made a 24 plant restriction on ALL medical
gardens years ago, and actually contemplated it.
Maybe some more ideas so indigent patients can get meds? Maybe more
ideas...co-op farms, real co-op farms?
Enforcable contracts and rules so
all patients are protected? Some ideas....maybe communicated to your reps?
residential is a zoning designation
could still have plants for 30 patients, just not in an urban residential area
whether, and what additional regulation this would require, remains to be seen
On the plant limits, I think that it is important that the large farms get involved in talking to the legislature. There are most definitely considerations that the legislature isn't considering and one of those considerations needs to be how to ensure indigent patients can still have access. Maybe now is the time to get an indigent program into place that takes some of that recreational tax money and directs it towards the cost of providing for particular patients (what criteria would determine who qualifies would be something to consider then).
I think that diversion of tax money would be reasonable if they are diverting the regulation towards medical to be in compliance with the Cole Memo. Compromise is the key and the people impacted have the best insight into what would be the appropriate compromise.
For instance, if the large farms are willing to report but don't have the time/resources to be able to do so - maybe they get a subsidy towards the costs of providing for those patients in exchange for compliance with those regulations. The large farms know best what they need to make more oversight a reality and the ones operating on the up and up would most likely have legitimate compromises that could make that possible while still providing for those patients.
If I were operating a large farm, I would be talking to the legislature with the mentality of "what do I as a provider for the most vulnerable patients need to be able to comply with the regulations that the legislature wants to pass?" Maybe some of the oversight/regulation is overly burdensome - but some of it might be easy to comply with if the state was willing to compromise to help provide for those patients. So then, again, what patients would qualify for such assistance so that the state could be assured that they were providing for patients and not aiding in diversion of marijuana to the black market?
I really think that this is the compromise that should be brought into this conversation now that they are wanting to implement further oversight and restriction on MMJ.
This is in direct agreement with the consensus from legislators that they want to make it desirable to come into the legal framework and out of the grey and black markets.
I think there is also a possibility for large farms to grow under the regulations intended for dispensaries or OLCC stores, and maybe donate/give away medicine to those patients, but I haven't heard or seen anyone analyze what possibilities could exist.
I think incentivizing this sort of thing could be good - but it also opens up "diversion" possibilities, so that is probably another area worth talking with legislators about - how to make charitable donations to indigent patients from legal channels.
My two cents.
Please don't give up, folks! Your concerns are important, and
I do apologize for the characterization of "griping". You are right to be
concerned, and voice your concerns.
Make them known to your representative in Salem. That's important.
understand that we have a few very reasonable individuals trying to get a
"best case" deal in place.
Reimbursement is on the table, and plant limits,
extract regs, testing, and a lot more.
The most immediate threat to local residential grows is the local cities
and counties attempts to ban. That is a real serious problem, along with
land use and taxing. So their plate's full.
They want to strike a balance
and try to prevent export as much as possible, or the feds will possibly
interfere (unlike, i believe).
Please continue to contribute to conversations ... sometimes not taken well at first, but worth the effort.
stay with it!
For links and help with contacting state reps and
To check up on bills and such, visit our Legislative ToolShed for Tools, Tips, Tricks and More.
back to [ Top of Page ]