Adult Use Cannabis Producer Licensing Requirements

Back to All Posts

Adult-Use Cannabis Producer Licensing Requirements

The purpose of this rule hearing is to consider proposed draft rules regarding the processing, approval, and denial of license applications for cannabis producers in New Mexico. The rule hearing will also consider the regulation of cannabis licensees, proposed fees for corresponding license types, the plant count, canopy or square footage limit for each license type, and per-plant fees applied to licensees that are growing more than 200 cannabis plants.

Click here to view the proposed draft rules:

Click here to view

Click here to view the notice of proposed rule making:

Click here to view

Click here to view the reference materials used in drafting the proposed rule making:

Click here to view

A public rule hearing will be held via an Internet-based video conference and via telephone on Tuesday, June 29, 2021 starting at 9:00 a.m.

Please click here to access the public rule hearing.

We are now accepting public comments on the proposed draft rules. There are four ways to provide public comment on the proposed draft rules:

  • Use the text box below to enter your public comment
  • Email your public comment to ccd.publiccomment@state.nm.us
  • Submit your public comment via postal mail to:Public Comment
    c/o Robert Sachs
    P.O. Box 25101
    Santa Fe, NM 87504
  • Participate in the June 29, 2021 public hearing and present your public comment via video conference or via telephone

The deadline to submit public comment is at the conclusion of the public hearing on June 29, 2021.

Please know that all public comments will be posted on this website.

Any individual with a disability who is in need of a reader, amplifier, qualified sign language interpreter, or other form of auxiliary aid or service to attend or participate in the hearing should contact Nicole Bazzano, Executive Assistant for the Office of the Superintendent, rld.cannabiscontrol@state.nm.us or (505) 469-0982 at least seven days prior to the hearing.

Exhibits

To submit public comment, please enter your first name, last name and your email address along with your public comment. Required fields are marked *

You can enter your public comment in the box below or upload your public comment as an attachment. All public comments will be posted on this website. Your name will be included with your comment but your email address will not be published.

326 Comments

← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
  5. Cesar Meraz on June 29, 2021 at 11:03 am

    Hello All, my name is Cesar Meraz an entrepreneur from New Mexico, I would like to publish my comment in public since I think is a good question or inquiry. I would like to know If we apply for micro-business licenses (retailer and producer) can run both licenses in the same land for example if we buy a lot with enough size to build our growing facility attached to our retailer facility can we run both licenses on the same lot?, also I want to know if we going to have borderline regulations between Texas and New Mexico like distance limits or something like that. Also I want to know

  18. Rosalie Flores on June 29, 2021 at 10:37 am

    The intentional omission of equity, water issues (natural resources), environmental impacts and health/safety issues from this round of rulemaking made it extremely difficult to comment adequately and thoroughly on this set of proposed rules. These rules will ultimately determine industry access and water use which means that equity and environmental impacts cannot be parcelled out and treated as separate issues. Therefore, I believe that this rulemaking is premature and being rushed per the insistence of the industry and law makers with special interests. This set of proposed rules is yet again another example how the voice and perspective of New Mexicans is muted in favor of large developers and operators who are positioned to make millions off of the most impoverished state in the U.S. during a year of extreme drought. These rules were clearly written by and for large cannabis operators down to capping the amount they have to pay for the unlimited penalties that are allotted. It is of great concern we address these issues because said by the New Mexico Acequia Association “ It is during this time of extreme megadrought, of catastrophic economic hardships to New Mexico’s traditional farming and ranching communities, that our state government has legalized industrial level cannabis production.”

    These rules do nothing to “promote or encourage” the full inclusion of underserved communities (that include tribal, acequia, land-grant merced or other historic rural communities) per the Cannabis Regulation Act as they are nearly identical of the requirements of existing LNPP’s and require extensive industry experience and start-up capital. There was no consideration nor mention of the significant language added last minute to the CRA at the push of local New Mexican land and water right owners who recognized that this legislation did not benefit nor protect land-based communities where cannabis production is most likely to take place. Not only is there no prioritization for local New Mexican landowners to enter the industry, but there are also not enough safeguards in place to prevent the illegal use of water which is an ongoing issue with medical cannabis production. Additionally, there is nothing suggested to hold large cannabis producers accountable for their water use nor are these operators required to consider how their presence can negatively affect the drinking water, cultural traditions, and historical practices within the communities they produce in. These operators are allowed to take as much as they can afford and don’t have to give back a dime to the communities they care nothing about. It also appears per the rules that it will be nearly impossible for a cannabis operator to lose their license nor be charged with criminal activity. These proposed rules allow room for many violations with the option to settle with monetary penalties. Compound this with the fact that extreme drought conditions have limited growing activities of local farmers that will now be surrounded by cannabis producers in the same rural communities that have been given limited water use. Without very specific and intentional language to recognize and address the needs and concerns of New Mexicans, this legislation and these rules, in particular, create not only inequities of ownership in the industry but also lay the foundation for a true water war that will result in the violation of basic human and civil rights of the most underfunded and ignored communities in the state.

    Specific Issues on the proposed rules:

    The Cannabis Advisory, tasked with advising the division on best practices and the promotion of economic and cultural diversity in licensing, has not been established nor provided input on the proposed rules which clearly only take the cannabis industry needs into consideration. There is a blatant disregard of local economic and environmental conditions in these proposed rules which would have potentially been addressed if the cannabis advisory board had provided input.

    There are many opportunities for someone new to the industry to be denied a license because literally, The ONLY reason the division shall deny an application is if it does not meet the requirements or is incomplete as set forth by the CRA. Since the proposed rules are similar to existing LNPP requirements, the existing cannabis industry is positioned to easily meet the regulatory requirements yet there are multiple references to required certifications needed without clarity on the actual requirements. This appears to be an easy way for the division to deny an application for someone with no industry experience. The state needs to provide templates or guidelines for all of the required certifications.

    There is nothing indicating that a microbusiness is intended for New Mexicans or small farmers. Anyone can get a microbusiness license including large operators. This license should have been defined as available only for small businesses.

    Requirements for a micro business are the same as requirements for large operators. The start-up costs are identical for much less of a return

    No requirement for producers to indicate if they are located in an underserved community as required per the CRA. No definition of an underserved area which per cannabis social equity program standards, would constitute over 90% of the state.

    There are zero requirements to prevent the transportation of cannabis – a Schedule 1 drug – across federal and tribal lands.

    Possession or legal rights to a property are needed for a successful application. It is unclear how long the division will take to process applications so the amount needed to secure a property alone is substantial. This is a huge barrier to entry for New Mexicans.

    In “Monitoring of licensing” it is not clear what is considered criminal activity. Existing medical producers have committed atrocious acts in rural communities and in order to prevent these behaviors from continuing, specific language is needed to call out the type of crimes that need to be addressed.

    Report to law enforcement: The division shall refer suspected criminal activity or complaints alleging criminal activity that is made against a licensee to appropriate federal, state, or local law enforcement authorities. Including but not limited to illegal and inappropriate use of water, transportation of cannabis through federal lands, human trafficking, and threats on community resources or individuals

    No mention of water at all in the following sections: audit, quarterly producer report, and plant increase request

    Procedures for receipt of a complaint do not require the division to take any action. There are no specific penalties for the misuse and misappropriation of water usage.

    “Schedule of civil monetary penalties” allows for a discipline history that shows a pattern before issuing a fine or revoking a license allowing operators to engage in damaging and exploitive behavior for extended periods of time. The responsibility is on the community to prove guilt.

    Settlement agreement – allows for an “informal conference with the licensee to determine whether a compromise of the penalty for the violation would be in the best interests of the state or public health and safety.” Any issues concerning public health or safety should not allow room for compromise.

    Additional needed requirements:
    Require producers to hire from the local community
    Require producers in “underserved communities” to conduct a community or environmental impact report

← Older Comments
Newer Comments →