TALKING POINTS:

My name is JS, I am Executive Director of the Umpqua Cannabis Association and I have submitted testimony to you previously on implementing marijuana legalization.

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.

Progressive Fees

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 marijuana convictions.

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 Oregon patients.

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.

JS

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 of marijuana:

(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 marijuana; and

(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.

JA

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 shit, really.

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, right?

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...

K

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  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.

...C

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 criteria. 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.

}P