Wednesday, April 9, 2025 10:30am

Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy

Submitted by:

Shaleen Title, Founder and Director, Parabola Center for Law and Policy;

Former Commissioner, Cannabis Control Commission (2017-2020)

Dear Chairman Gomez, Chairman Donahue, and Members of the Committee:

I am writing to record my strong opposition to H.158, S.99, H.149, S.78, H.174, H.171, S.75, and H.160, and my support for S. 88.

This committee has historically made well-informed and thoughtful decisions on marijuana policy, and I appreciate being able to offer my input.

I advise against changing the existing ownership limits. As you consider changes, in addition to considering what may result tomorrow, please also consider the long-term consequences. As I mentioned in previous testimony to this committee, tobacco and alcohol companies are investing heavily in the cannabis industry globally. Our ownership limits in Massachusetts provide protection against corporate concentration by Altria, British American Tobacco, Molson Coors, and other companies who are lobbying for federal legalization and preparing to make acquisitions in markets like Massachusetts. What would be the policy implications of doubling the potential market share of these companies?

The limits imposed by the Massachusetts legislature have been one of the strongest and most effective ways to support small businesses, promote equity, and protect the public from concerns related to corporate misconduct when marijuana is legalized. I highlighted Massachusetts’ license limits in the paper “Bigger is Not Better: Preventing Monopolies in the National Cannabis Market,” which was cited in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime World Drug Report in 2022 as well as in the 2024 report on public health consequences of cannabis legalization by the U.S. National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. I have long encouraged other jurisdictions to adopt similar measures.

Thank you for considering this perspective. I am not a lobbyist for any organization and do not have any private clients.

Dear Chairman Gomez, Chairman Donahue, and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the invitation to provide testimony regarding structural issues at the Cannabis Control Commission. I serve as founder and director of Parabola Center for Law and Policy, a nonprofit conducting education, research, and training focused on racial justice and preventing monopolies in the cannabis industry nationally. I previously served as a commissioner of the Cannabis Control Commission from 2017 to 2020.

I want to highlight three specific structural issues. While I strongly support maintaining the commission’s existing structure of five commissioners appointed by three separate authorities as essential to its independence, in my opinion both as a former commissioner and now as an observer, the following areas warrant attention.

1. Oversight of Investigations The agency’s practice of withholding information about ongoing investigations from commissioners hampers its ability to provide meaningful oversight. This was illustrated in October 2022, when commissioners learned about the death of Trulieve worker Lorna McMurrey from a podcast eight months after the incident. This practice undermines the commissioners’ ability to exercise their oversight responsibilities.

Recommendations to consider: • Explicitly require that commissioners be notified of all opened investigations within 72 hours, with immediate commissioner notification of any serious incidents involving worker or public safety • Mandate quarterly reports to commissioners summarizing all ongoing investigations, their status, and any preliminary findings
• Establish clear criteria for what constitutes a reportable investigation

1. Consistency in Regulatory Enforcement The lack of transparency around enforcement makes it difficult for commissioners, industry participants, and the public to assess whether regulations are being enforced fairly and consistently across all licensees. Unlike other state cannabis regulators, such as Michigan’s Cannabis Regulatory Agency which publishes comprehensive monthly disciplinary action reports (see attached), Massachusetts lacks systematic public reporting of disciplinary actions.

Recommendations to consider: • As some commissioners have called for, mandate the creation of a searchable online database of enforcement actions • Require annual analysis of enforcement patterns to identify any disparities in how regulations are applied across different categories of licensees • Direct the CCC to develop and publish enforcement guidelines that establish standard penalties for common violations

1. Human Resources Complaint Process The current internal handling of human resources complaints has created conflicts that can interfere with proper oversight. During my term, I observed instances where HR complaints were potentially used as a mechanism to obstruct oversight functions. This problem appears to have intensified and may also be obstructing legitimate complaints. An external entity may be best positioned to properly evaluate these complaints.

Recommendations to consider: • Transfer authority for handling human resources complaints to an external entity such as the Office of Inspector General, Mass Commission Against Discrimination, or the Attorney General’s office • Establish clear protocols for when and how complaints should be referred to external authorities • Require annual reporting on complaint patterns and resolutions

I believe that these changes would strengthen the CCC’s ability to fulfill its mission while maintaining its essential independence. The current moment of transition is a good opportunity to consider these changes.

Finally, based on our concerns about tobacco industry influence on cannabis nationally, we suggest editing the role of the commissioner who “shall have professional experience in oversight or industry management, including commodities, production or distribution in a regulated industry” to add “…in a regulated industry other than tobacco.”

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, Shaleen Title

1. First, I have always opposed the rule requiring two drivers because it was not based on evidence, so of course I support lifting that requirement. If you encounter resistance, one option might be to recommend that the commission lift the requirement temporarily to gather evidence to be considered as part of the process to collect and evaluate data when it decides whether to extend the exclusivity period. That way, both public safety data and the financial feasibility of the regulation which is already required to be examined will be looked at side by side as part of a public process that is already built into the regulations, providing some structure to the permanent decision about two drivers.

2. Second, with respect to removing the vertical integration requirement, which I think is a no-brainer, I urge you to recommend (as Ms. Lucien mentioned) that social equity and economic empowerment licensees (and potentially state-certified disadvantaged business enterprises as Ms. Gomez Andrews mentioned) have exclusive access to all types of medical cannabis licenses for at least 5 years. The last thing we want to do is remove the vertical integration requirement without that type of proactive measure, which will essentially permanently cement the inequities going back a full decade now and currently reflected in the demographic data of medical operator ownership.

3. Third, and most importantly, thanks to the hard work of many of you, the historic cannabis and equity bill passed this summer that is now law essentially puts the commission in charge of whether they want to make the municipal process equitable, and how to do it. In the briefest terms possible, some concern is warranted because any agency is incentivized to lay low, keep things the same, and make the fewest changes possible, unless there’s an outside incentive to be bold and in this case create a strong framework for cities and towns to act equitably, for example through the model HCA, the enforcement of HCA laws, and the municipal equity rules. Historically this body, this subcommittee, has been a positive significant factor in providing incentive and cover for the commission to be bold when it comes to equity, and providing important accountability when that’s not happening. So I encourage you to continue that role because accountability will be critical in this coming year.

Thank you for your time and please don’t hesitate to follow up with me individually to discuss any of these issues further.

We are 90% there and running out of time! I recommend that you send your own letter too; you can find a sample email from Equitable Opportunities Now here.

Here’s the letter we sent:

June 29, 2022

The State House
24 Beacon St
Boston, MA 02133

Dear President Spilka, Speaker Mariano, Sen. Comerford, Sen. Fattman, Sen. Rodrigues, Rep. Donahue, Rep. Muratore, and Rep. Wagner,

Thank you for your leadership to advance our common goal of a fair and equitable cannabis industry in Massachusetts. We appreciate your responsiveness to the times we’ve previously asked you for help, and we are encouraged by your work to pass omnibus bills this year to address those concerns. We write you today to ask you to finish the job to get the bill done and on the governor’s desk.

As we noted in 2020, although Massachusetts led the nation by being the first state to require cannabis regulators like us to create economic empowerment pathways for communities most harmed by the war on drugs, we lag behind other states that have created, among other solutions, funds for small businesses to access capital. A final bill to create a fund for Massachusetts with 20% of excess tax revenue will help to level the playing field for our residents.

With yet another arrest by federal authorities this month for a marijuana business representative allegedly attempting to bribe a local official, it has never been clearer that the rules for municipalities to select businesses should be strengthened. The host-community agreement process has been abused to the detriment of small and minority-owned businesses for almost six years straight now.

We are grateful for your thoughtful attention to these issues and your dedication to fairness and justice in the Commonwealth. We hope you will act quickly to finalize this bill while we still have a narrow window of opportunity to create a fair market, a move that will make a positive impact on our state for generations to come.

Sincerely,

Steven Hoffman (Former Chairman, Cannabis Control Commission, 2017-2022)
Shaleen Title (Former Commissioner, Cannabis Control Commission, 2017-2020)

Monday, September 27, 2021 9:00am

Joint Committee on Mental Health, Substance Abuse and Recovery

Submitted by: Shaleen Title, Distinguished Cannabis Policy Practitioner in Residence, The Ohio State University College of Law Drug Enforcement and Policy Center Former Commissioner, Cannabis Control Commission (2017-2020)

Dear Chairman Cyr, Chairman Madaro, and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this act relative to harm reduction and racial justice. I want to begin by commending Chairman Cyr as well as Representatives Miranda and Connolly for their leadership on this issue, and by expressing my gratitude to all of you for your consideration. Making thoughtful decisions about drug policy can require confronting and overcoming years of inaccurate conditioning in how we have been led to think about people who use drugs, and that can be an uncomfortable process. Thank you for engaging in it.

Criminalizing people for using and possessing drugs is harmful. Handcuffing people and ruining nearly every aspect of their lives – employment, education, housing, immigration, benefits – isn’t just cruel, it also doesn’t work. What does work is providing support. Sometimes that means directly providing treatment for people who need it, though it can often mean other types of support. The right approach should be determined through an individual needs screening, conducted by practitioners trained in the use of evidence-based, culturally and gender competent, trauma-informed practices like the type that bill provides for as a replacement to arrest and incarceration.

Because no one can argue that our current system works, people sometimes oppose support-based reforms by speculating that if we stop criminalizing people for drugs, things will get worse – substance use disorder rates might increase, for example, or crime might go up. It used to be difficult to argue against this because of a lack of real-world data. However, we now know from Portugal, which decriminalized drug possession 20 years ago, that arrests, incarceration, overdose deaths, and other harms all go down following decriminalization. We also know, from Oregon’s decriminalization measure that went into effect this year, that a workable model exists to replace our cruel and inhumane war on drugs with a system that instead connects people who possess drugs for personal use with crucial health and support services.

The other argument people sometimes make in defense of our current drug laws is that these laws are not enforced anyway and that “no one” is arrested for simple possession. First, this is false: Thousands of people are arrested for drug offenses in Massachusetts every year, the majority for possession. Second, even if their claim were true, I don’t need to explain why it’s fundamentally unjust to have a law on the books that is enforced only sometimes, at police and prosecutors’ discretion. When opponents of reform suggest that “no one” is being arrested for drug possession, that is the model they are supporting. If we all agree that criminal penalties should be removed for drug use and possession, then it follows that those penalties should be removed from our statutes.

The last thing people say when they wish to continue criminalizing and controlling people who use drugs is that we don’t have the necessary funds to offer support services. In Massachusetts, this is false. The Massachusetts marijuana market surpassed $2 billion this month, with the state collecting 17% in total taxes. The public cannot see where that money is going, but out of the appropriations we can follow, the vast majority is already being allocated to the Bureau of Substance Addiction Services. In other words, a mechanism to fund substance abuse services through the state’s rapidly growing cannabis tax revenue already exists. What’s required now is to remove the criminal penalties for drug possession and replace them with access to support services.

More than a hundred years ago, Massachusetts was the first state in the country to criminalize cannabis, which it called “Indian hemp.” Whether a substance is criminalized has nothing to do with science, evidence, or how dangerous the substance is. It has to do with whether that drug was associated with Indigenous or Indian or Chinese or Mexican or other cultures in a way that could be used to scapegoat and subjugate Black and Brown people. When we acknowledge that, we can understand why, decades later, every study on the subject consistently shows that drug laws have been and continue to be enforced with massive racial disparities. These disparities have deep lasting consequences for communities for color both nationally and in Massachusetts. Handcuffs and cages should never have been brought into the equation for people who use and possess drugs. They are not tools of rehabilitation. The only reason they were was so they could be used as a tool to control and harm people of color. You now have the opportunity to right that generations-old wrong.

Testimony Regarding Medical and Research Bills

Tuesday, June 29, 2021 11:00am

Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy

Submitted by:

Shaleen Title, Distinguished Cannabis Policy Practitioner in Residence, The Ohio State University College of Law Drug Enforcement and Policy Center Former Commissioner, Cannabis Control Commission (2017-2020) CEO, Parabola Center for Law and Policy

Dear Chairman Donahue, Chairwoman Chang-Diaz, and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on medical and research bills. When I have information to contribute, it is always worth my time to provide it to this Committee as you have consistently listened to public feedback and considered it thoughtfully.

First, I support data collection efforts on public health impacts. More data collection is a good thing, especially if you are taking a long-term view. The state and national future of the cannabis industry is unclear. Having data now will be useful to compare to later. It’s important for public health and corporate accountability to track the impact of legal cannabis products being available over time.

With five years of experience with research and reports, it may be helpful to speak with the Commission’s research experts to find out what further data would be useful to reach the state’s goals and where that data might come from. For example, we can see data on emergency room visits, but we don’t know what products those visits are related to. If it’s a particular type of packaging, for instance, that is correlated with higher rates of accidental ingestion, we should know that and the Commission can adjust regulations accordingly. If marketing or packaging rules need to be stricter, it would be helpful for the Commission to have evidence to inform that. It would also help to know if people who are using cannabis and reporting effects are using legal or illicit cannabis products. This was a crucial factor during the EVALI crisis when legal vape products were banned, but illnesses were being caused by illicit, unregulated vape products. The more specific the data, the better.

Second, I support veteran access to medical cannabis, specifically H.179 and S.70. Disabled veterans receiving healthcare from the Veterans Administration should be allowed to access medical cannabis.

When I was a commissioner, the last time we changed our regulations, I served on a working group focused on medical regulations with a cross-section of members of our medical program team to licensing and enforcement team to outreach team, and we looked into the issue of qualification for disabled veterans. We ultimately didn’t recommend any changes due to the limitations in the statute (that the bill you are considering would address). But in the course of reviewing the policy, we spoke to staff in Illinois who implemented the policy that this bill is based on. I believe it is fully within the commission’s ability to implement this change, with appropriate additional staff time, and I believe such a change would further our collective mission to serve veterans. This experience informs and strengthens my support of this bill.

In the course of serving on that working group, I talked to many patients who felt that they were experiencing price gouging. We ended up recommending and passing a requirement for providers to take into account low-income patients, more in line with the original compassion goals of the medical cannabis statute. I mention this as someone with no financial interests in these matters: it’s important to understand when reviewing feedback that a financial ecosystem developed when the medical cannabis law passed in 2012. There are business models that rely on keeping policies the same even if it doesn’t make sense anymore. Disabled veterans over 21 could access cannabis easily in recreational stores. It’s not some substance that’s impossible to get without a $300+ evaluation. Rather, this is largely about letting veterans access the benefits that lawmakers and regulators have put in place for patients, such as not paying sales tax, accessing a wider variety of products, and not having to stand in line.

No one deserves those benefits more than disabled veterans. In my opinion, I would say to disabled veterans, if you’ve fought for your country and become disabled and you use medical cannabis, you deserve those conveniences. It’s not your fault our federal government is omitting an important part of your health care.

Finally, I support removing the requirement for vertical integration of medical marijuana businesses, but it is equally crucial to impose an initial exclusivity period similar to the exclusivity period that the Commission has put in place for delivery. In other words, medical business licenses should be issued only to social equity, economic empowerment, and microbusinesses for the first 3-5 years. Please consider that the medical cannabis law as currently in effect does not have an equity mandate as the adult-use cannabis law does, and it is important to make the two laws consistent.

Thank you for time and consideration and please don’t hesitate to contact me if I can provide any additional information or context.

Download the PDF

Testimony Regarding Host Community Agreements

Tuesday, May 11, 2021 11:00am

Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy

Submitted by:

Shaleen Title, Distinguished Cannabis Policy Practitioner in Residence,

The Ohio State University College of Law Drug Enforcement and Policy Center

Vice Chair, Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition

Former Commissioner, Cannabis Control Commission (2017-2020)

Dear Chairperson Chang-Diaz, Chairperson Donahue, and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to share my input about host community agreements and my strong support for S. 72. Thus far this Committee has, in my opinion, truly represented the people of Massachusetts with respect to cannabis.

Every cannabis business is required to have a host community agreement to operate. As of today, there are no practical limits whatsoever on what a host community may demand from a business in order to grant a host community agreement. With rare exceptions, host communities use these agreements not as part of a fair negotiation, but as a tool to hold hostage in exchange for significant financial benefits that go beyond the law.

This system unfairly favors those companies which can afford it and is one of the top reasons why only 8 out of 223 cannabis businesses operating in this state are economic empowerment and social equity businesses.

I am grateful to have been consulted on several of the bills being considered today. Many of them are excellent and contain different elements that would address this problem. After reviewing all of the bills, it is clear to me that S. 72 is the one comprehensive bill that would address all of the different systemic problems with the host community agreement process.

I specifically would like to call your attention to section 1 subsection 7 of S. 72 which I consider the most crucial. Currently, the Cannabis Control Commission is charged with creating policies that take into account the needs of disproportionately impacted people, but host communities are not. Subsection 7 fixes this inconsistency in a completely unspecified, nonprescriptive way, simply by allowing every municipality to decide for itself how it would like to contribute to the state’s established goal of including impacted communities in this industry. The current chairman and executive director of the Commission have asked for such a change (see #2 in the February 27, 2020 letter to your committee attached).

Having lived it, I know that just having a simple stated principle of equity to point to will remove some of the barriers that people who attempt to develop solutions on racial justice issues within government often face. You may know this too from your own work, but when people are working on true solutions to racial justice issues, they tend to be dismissed, condescended to, alienated, retaliated against, and most of all ignored, but I can tell you from experience that being able to point to a principle of equity in the law makes a seemingly impossible job seem more possible. When you consider making this small change, please remember all of the people who marched in the streets last year and why.

Thank you again for your consideration and please don’t hesitate to contact me for feedback anytime at shaleen@gmail.com.

Download the PDF

However, far fewer people are familiar with the need to limit the number of licenses that a person or company may own or control. None of the steps above matter if, during the time it takes to work them out, other multistate corporations dominate the state’s market so that there is nothing left for small businesses, POC-owned businesses, or farmers – something that has happened in many, if not every, legal marijuana state and is becoming a bigger problem each time.

To that end, I want to share some concrete statutory and regulatory language to create such limits, using Massachusetts as a model. In my opinion, any state legalization bill must contain a limitation like this or else it’s a dealbreaker:

No person or entity shall own or control more than 3 marijuana retailer licenses, 3 marijuana producer licenses, 3 marijuana cultivator licenses limited to a total of 100,000 square feet of Canopy*. (This is an adapted and combined version of the Massachusetts legalization statute, Section 16 of Chapter 55 of the Acts of 2017, and regulations, 935 CMR 500.050(b)(5).

The list of licenses is not crucial here; you can replace the list of licenses with the appropriate list of licenses from your state. The number 3 is also not crucial; I think anywhere from 1 to 5 is reasonable. The crucial parts are having a limit, using the phrase own OR CONTROL, and defining cultivation limit with both a number and total square feet of canopy (so you don’t end up with 1 million-square-foot facility that supplies the entire state under one license, for example).

The statutory language above is good, but it leaves several potential loopholes open. No doubt there will be more being developed and attempted, and probably more the moment I publish this blog. But when you include a provision like this, and each time you close a loophole, you make corporate domination that much more difficult.

Below in italics are relevant excerpts of the current Massachusetts ownership and control regulations which cover as many sketchy scenarios as possible, and close many of the loopholes, IF you have regulators who are willing to invest in enforcing these provisions and IF you have a culture that encourages people to report attempts to violate ownership and control compliance rules.

No Person or Entity Having Direct or Indirect Control shall be granted, or hold, more than three licenses in a particular class, except as otherwise specified in 935 CMR 500.000.

Person or Entity Having Direct Control means any person or entity having direct control over the operations of a Marijuana Establishment, which satisfies one or more of the following criteria:

(a) An Owner that possesses a financial interest in the form of equity of 10% or greater in a Marijuana Establishment;

(b) A Person or Entity that possesses a voting interest of 10% or greater in a Marijuana Establishment or a right to veto significant events;

(c) A Close Associate;

(d) A Person or Entity that has the right to control or authority, through contract or otherwise including, but not limited to: 1. To make decisions regarding operations and strategic planning, capital allocations, acquisitions and divestments; 2. To appoint more than 50% of the directors or their equivalent; 3. To appoint or remove Corporate-level officers or their equivalent; 4. To make major marketing, production, and financial decisions; 5. To execute significant (in aggregate of $10,000 or greater) or exclusive contracts; or 6. To earn 10% or more of the profits or collect more than 10% of the dividends.

(e) A Court Appointee or assignee pursuant to an agreement for a general assignment or Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors; or

(f) A Third-party Technology Platform Provider that possesses any financial interest in a Delivery Licensee including, but not limited to, a Delivery Agreement or other agreement for services.

Person or Entity Having Indirect Control means any person or entity having indirect control over operations of a Marijuana Establishment. It specifically includes any Person or Entity Having Direct Control over an indirect holding or parent company of the applicant, and the chief executive officer and executive director of those companies, or any person or entity in a position indirectly to control the decision-making of a Marijuana Establishment.

Close Associate means a Person who holds a relevant managerial, operational or financial interest in the business of an applicant or Licensee and, by virtue of that interest or power, is able to exercise a significant influence over the corporate governance of a Marijuana Establishment, an MTC or Independent Testing Laboratory licensed under 935 CMR 500.000. A Close Associate is deemed to be a Person or Entity Having Direct or Indirect Control.

Here are a couple other situation-specific scenarios regarding ownership and control to keep in mind:

• If your state has an economic empowerment program, social equity program, or other particular benefits for impacted communities, you want to ensure that there are some fair limits so that if a company is sold to new owners who do not meet the criteria, they will no longer enjoy the benefits. Here is some relevant language from Massachusetts which requires disclosure of all changes of ownership and control and notes that such a change may cause a loss of benefits. Note that you may want to go further, such as preventing transfers of ownership for a period of time after receiving certain benefits.

Priority Applicants Change in Ownership or Control.

a. Economic Empowerment Priority Applicants shall notify the Commission of any change in ownership or control, regardless of whether such change would require the applicant to seek approval [under other required circumstances].

b. When an Economic Empowerment Priority Applicant notifies the Commission of any change in ownership or control, the Commission shall review anew the applicant’s eligibility for economic empowerment certification status.

c. When an Economic Empowerment Priority Applicant implicates the approval process established in 935 CMR 500.104(1)(b)(1)-(2), the applicant shall seek approval by the Commission of a change in ownership or control, and shall undergo the approval process provided therein prior to making a change in ownership or control.

i. In order to maintain its status as an Economic Empowerment Priority Applicant, the Economic Empowerment Priority Applicant in its submission shall demonstrate that it continues to qualify as an Economic Empowerment Priority Applicant, as defined in 935 CMR 500.002.

ii. If the qualifications are no longer are met subsequent to the approved change, the applicant will no longer be certified as an Economic Empowerment Priority Applicant and will no longer receive any benefits stemming from that designation.

iii. The applicant may still seek approval of a change of ownership or control.

• If you have a social equity program or economic empowerment program, you might want to allow participants to accept investment and sell some percentage of the company while requiring that eligible participants in the program maintain majority ownership and control. Similarly, if you offer exclusive access to certain license types or during a certain initial period to participants in a program, you might want to ensure that access is only available to businesses with majority ownership and control comprised of people in those programs. Some relevant language:

Delivery Operator Licenses shall be limited on an exclusive basis to businesses controlled by and with majority ownership comprised of Economic Empowerment Priority Applicants or Social Equity Program Participants for a period of 36 months from the date the first Delivery Operator Licensee receives a notice to commence operations; provided, however, that the Commission may vote to extend that period following a determination that the goal of the exclusivity period to promote and encourage full participation in the regulated Marijuana industry by people from communities that have previously been disproportionately harmed by Marijuana prohibition and enforcement of the law has not been met; and the Commission may vote to expand eligibility for Delivery Licenses during the exclusivity period pursuant to [this section]. The Commission shall develop criteria for evaluating whether the goals of the exclusivity period are met, which shall include, but not be limited to . . . [see 935 500.050(11) for full criteria].

• For delivery licenses in particular, especially if you have delivery licenses that are exclusively for social equity/economic empowerment licensees as Massachusetts does, you want to ensure that software companies cannot exercise unlawful control over delivery licensees (for example, if customers are using an app and the app is directing them to certain licensees whom the app owns, and not listing others). Here are relevant limitations on that control:

A contract between a Delivery Licensee and a Third-party Technology Platform Provider shall be negotiated and entered into on an arm’s length basis. A Delivery Licensee may not accept any investment in the Delivery Licensee by a Third-party Technology Platform Provider with which they have a contract.

No Delivery Licensee may share its profits of the sale of Marijuana or Marijuana Products with a Third-party Technology Platform Provider, or otherwise provide a percentage or portion of the sale of Marijuana or Marijuana Products to the Third-party Technology Platform Provider.

I hope this is helpful! Feel free to use and adapt this language however you find useful in your own jurisdiction. Please note this post is limited to limits on ownership and control of licenses – there are many other related topics and model language outside the scope of this post. Everything I’ve excerpted here is from Massachusetts, but feel free to message me if you’ve seen better language on this topic or if there are provisions from other states related to other specific scenarios or loopholes that I should add.

Tuesday, February 9, 2021, 10:00am

Submitted by: Shaleen Title, Esq. (shaleen@gmail.com), Co-Founder, Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition, Former Inaugural Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commissioner (2017-2020)

Dear Chair Porter, Chair Kushner, and members of the Labor and Public Employees Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of HB 6377. From 2017 to 2020, I served as a commissioner of the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission appointed by the governor, attorney general, and treasurer of Massachusetts for expertise in social justice and policy issues. My goal is to be a resource to share the lessons we learned in Massachusetts. I enthusiastically support HB 6377 for addressing all of these areas and, to me, taking into account those lessons.

Over the past three years, I learned that the will, the intent, and even an explicit mandate for social equity in a state cannabis law is not enough without specific policies in place that focus on criminal justice reform, reinvestment of tax revenue into disproportionately harmed communities, and both ownership and workforce development for people harmed by the war on drugs. HB 6377 contains those crucial policies, in particular:

• Allowing for personal use and cultivation, which reduces the likelihood of a monopoly

• Protection against municipal corruption, which has been a major issue in Massachusetts

• Protections for vulnerable communities to ensure that the legal cannabis framework does not unintentionally perpetuate the same discrimination as the war on drugs

• An equity task force to collect data for effective decision-making and provide transparency on these policies.

HB 6377 is a well-drafted bill that is responsive to the complexity of cannabis laws and business as well as the decades of devastation caused by past prohibition, and I appreciate the opportunity to support it. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Overall, this is a solid draft. As I’ve stated before, I am beyond grateful that with this change creating unprecedented exclusivity for social equity and economic empowerment businesses, Massachusetts might be back on track to be the first state with a functioning national model for equity. Earlier this summer, we created the new license type and required those businesses to warehouse (while leaving in place the existing option for businesses seeking to courier for retail operators), and we extended the exclusivity period to 3 years. You can find more information on those past decisions in the meeting minutes and various news stories.

But before we see any progress, we will need to implement these regulations and ESPECIALLY ensure that municipalities have all the resources and tools and information they need to get on board, or else it will never move from theory to reality. I believe that our municipal outreach on this license will be a major factor in whether it is successful or not.

(By the way, it must be unpleasant to watch proceedings with people acting as though everything is normal – it’s worth acknowledging that nothing is normal, and that with each passing month and meeting, people are closer to their boiling points for all the reasons that we have in common and all our individual reasons. It’s also worth acknowledging that the drug war harms we seek to begin repairing are very real and affect real people, and Breonna Taylor was one of them. She deserved better, and her family and friends deserve better than for the drug war to be unfolding exactly as designed. I hope it’s clear from the policy we are making that this isn’t business as usual. I think our policies and results are more important than anything any of us say. But sometimes it’s important to say something too.)

The writing group that wrote the draft regulations, led by Commissioner McBride, did an excellent job of handling one of the most important and outstanding issues well in my opinion – ensuring that there are protections against control by third-party technology platforms.

As I know these are all important topics and not everyone has the opportunity to watch the full meetings, below is a recap of the issues I personally feel are important and the things I mentioned I’d like to see public comment on.

License Names

I think we need to change the name of this new license type. Currently, the new license type is called a Wholesale Delivery License, and this stems from the fact that the previous regulations only allowed the businesses to purchase from retail businesses, whereas now it allows the business to purchase at wholesale. But these businesses will NOT be wholesaling! Wholesaling as a verb means to SELL in bulk to another business that will sell to retail. These businesses will be purchasing at wholesale and delivering to consumers. I suggested calling it a Delivery Operator instead and was voted down 2-2. I am not really sure why I was voted down on this at the meeting today, because I read aloud the definition of wholesale from the dictionary and it means something that it is different from what the license does.

This really matters! I have a spent a lot of time over the past few years talking to local officials trying to understand why they have acted so inequitably, and it comes down to systemic bias and – crucially – confusion. We are already starting from way behind in getting municipalities to approve these types of licenses. They’re busy, distracted, and understandably don’t have time for marijuana. Confusion at the local level will KILL any chance for these businesses. I am certain of this. The last thing we need to do is name them a word that already has a definition and that doesn’t match the license.

I don’t know why Delivery Operator was rejected, or my other suggestion (Non-Storefront Delivery, similar to California), but if you have ideas for better names please submit them during comment. I think I had a pretty good sense of how important it is to be clear and concise to begin with, but the last three years have only taught me that clarity is way more important than I thought.

I also suggested that we rename the Limited Delivery License to Courier License, because it’s stickier and it conveys what the license is, but I can live with Limited Delivery License.

Consistency

Putting aside my reservations about the actual practice for now, it is concerning to me that the current draft allows brick-and-mortar retailers to repackage, but delivery operators may not repackage. I lost the vote on this in a previous meeting, but I don’t think we should have different rules for those two different license types without being able to articulate why. I also am confused about the practical difference when one group can repackage with no prohibition on white labeling, and another group can white label but not repackage. I welcome public comment on implications on this for manufacturing and labeling processes.

Related, I have been receiving complaints that independent retailers feel that this license type is unfair, although I have yet to hear that from any independent retailers directly. I’m aware, of course, that currently smaller, less-resourced businesses tend to be the independent retailers. They have every right to make any concerns clear during the public comment period and I will carefully consider them.

Repackaging and White Labeling

When we only had the courier/limited type of license in place, I was very concerned about feasibility and was pushing for repackaging, white labeling, and whatever practices we could allow that might give the businesses an ability to stay in business. However, after the recent changes, we are now in a much better position where the business model appears to be feasible, and I think that we have more room to consider the implications of these decisions and weigh the pros and cons.

So that you know where I’m coming from, it was up to me, we wouldn’t have branding at all. All drugs would be sold in brown paper packaging with an informational label and any applicable Leadership Ratings and that would be it. But of course marketing is allowed, and we do have very strong marketing restrictions in place under the law. But it makes me uncomfortable to explicitly allow different delivery operators to sell the same product at different prices purely based on marketing and branding, especially when it’s a product that the company does not make itself. That strikes me as incentivizing something we should not be incentivizing, based on experience from other industries.

I’m more comfortable with this when we are talking about flower or products closer to the plant, versus products like vapes that we have much less information about. The writing group that put together the draft wisely excluded vape devices from white labeling. One further option in that direction might be to limit repackaging and white labeling to flower only. It’s also possible that my impression is wrong and I’ll be corrected by experts. I don’t know. I am interested in public comment on this subject. It’s an even more complex question when balanced against our duty to repair the imbalance and harms in favor of these businesses.

--

I hope this was helpful for those who needed a recap, and I look forward to reading your comments. Don’t send them in yet, watch MassCannabisControl.com for instructions and follow them so that your comments will be considered part of the public comment.

These issues are the most important to me, but of course everyone has their own perspective and I encourage you to watch the commission meetings and follow different organizations and stakeholders.

PS – before anyone asks, no, I still don’t know how long I will be in this seat! I am taking it one day at a time.