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 the notice of proposed rule making:
Click here to view the reference materials used in drafting the proposed rule making:
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 Your name will be included with your comment but your email address will not be published.
Comment submitted on June 29, 2021.
06-29-21 – Rachel Varney
Comment submitted on June 29, 2021.
06-29-21 – Chavez, Ahtza
Comment submitted on June 29, 2021.
06-29-21 – Diaz, Javier
Please do not implement limitations regarding retail to retail proximity. This will be a huge barrier for new applicants to enter the industry due to medical establishments already leasing out retail space in preparation of adult and the lack retail owners will to lease to cannabis related businesses. Also, please do not require new applicants to lease property (retail or cultivation warehouses) and pay for any modifications before receiving a license due to the significant amount of capital necessary to meet this requirement. Potential solution: have an applicant receive a letter of intent to lease property contingent upon receiving a license or a provisional license. Thank you!
Greetings and thank you for taking the time to read through and take action based upon our public comments. As you know, this is one of the pillars of democracy and vital to its continuance.
I must say that after reading both, there are great inconsistencies between the law passed by our states elected officials and the rules which the Cannabis Control Division (CCD) have proposed. To those who have researched or even paid slight attention to the studies and science behind cannabis laws and their analogous counterparts, one will quickly discern that some of these proposed rules are not only unfounded, but also not based upon any real data. These rules, as proposed, go way too far and like the war on drugs, which moved these markets to the cartels, threaten to undermine the very nature of the law as passed.
First of all, the Bill passed by our State Representatives and dully ratified by the Governor very clearly lays out a need to encourage small business, particularly from rural New Mexican residents as well as those disproportionately affected by the archaic and unfounded embarrassment we all know as the war on drugs. However, one would never know that these provisions even existed after reading these proposed rules. All the while they are embedded in the very same law that gives the CCD the legal ability to propose these rules. One cannot follow one part of the law while ignoring the rest of it.
The level of proposed surveillance suggests that Cannabis is tied to some mythical proportions of violence that simply do not exist. However, there are businesses that do perpetuate violence that do not have anywhere near this level of required surveillance. Though Alcohol has been directly tied to violence, belligerence and domestic abuse, alcohol producers and retail establishments are not required to be surveilled at all. As matter of fact, it seems there is more proposed surveillance for a Cannabis Micro-business than there is required to sell firearms in some situations! This is beyond preposterous and should be enough to help the CCD realize it needs some time to reflect on what it is proposing and how they can use real data to propose rules that actually have a meaningful impact that will guide legalization of cannabis into the vision our lawmakers had in crafting the bill.
As a rural, small family, organic farmer who was excited to finally have a chance to be a part of an emerging market, we quickly realized that there is NO WAY we can even consider the costs associated with these proposed rules, much less meet the “security” requirements. First of all there is not as much money to be made by small producers as these rules make it seem. If you are going to propose rules as a one size fits all approach, maybe the CCD should make certain that the economic viability makes sense for the small producers the original bill aims to bolster. Our lack of high speed internet access throughout rural New Mexico alone dictates that we cannot comply with the hyper-surveillance laid out in these proposed rules. All the while, we live in an area where no more than 20 vehicles drive by our land on a daily basis (at least 15 of them are our neighbors we have known for over 20 years and the areas are not even visible or accessible without going through a gate or fence). Yet in downtown Albuquerque you can grow 10 times as much, where there are thousands of people (strangers) and they have the same requirements? Even if this form of hyper-surveillance was necessary, how does this make any sense at all?
If these proposed rules are adopted then the type of cannabis legalization HB2 laid out is sure to fail from the get go. The proposed rules show plainly that there is no room for small business, unless one wants to loose their shirt trying to play ball with the large out of state conglomerates that will sweep up most of the markets. I would wager that even some of the current medium sized medical dispensaries will end up out of business within the first 5 years. Just look at what happened in the other western states who went down this road of over regulation before us.
Time and again we have been shown that large corporate interests have very little incentive to act in an equitable fashion or even follow the law. One only needs to look at the trail of fines, fees and bribes paid to brush their infractions under the rug. It doesn’t matter what industry we look at these large conglomerates look at breaking the rules and paying the fines associated with this behavior as a cost of doing business. Therefore, I believe it is self evident that it is within all of our best interests to encourage the micro-business rather than regulate them out of the market before it even gets started. Small business is the engine that keeps pour rural communities alive, employ our citizens and actually pays taxes. These are all things that are sorely needed now more than ever. Please consider looking into how we can encourage small businesses to be a large part of this new market (as HB2 laid out) by going back to the drawing board and look at what the CCD can do to ensure they have an equitable set of rules, that makes sense for their operations rather than a one size fits all approach, as has been proposed.
In summery these rules as proposed, undermine the law that was passed by our states representatives as well as steals all economic opportunity from local New Mexican business. If any person or organization is to be looked at with respect, they must first be able to admit and correct their mistakes and wrongdoings. I hope that the CCD will do just that before it makes a grave mistake by passing these rules as proposed.
Respectfully Submitted,
at what date do we need to fire all of our 20 year old employees?
Why can a 19 year old serve booze but they have to be 21 to produce or sell cannabis?
Comment submitted on June 29, 2021.
06-29-21 – Saenz, Victor
Comment submitted on June 29, 2021.
06-29-21 – Myer, Aaron
Comment submitted on June 29, 2021.
06-29-21 – Tsosie, Beata
Comment submitted on June 29, 2021.
06-29-21 – Seay, Tim
It’s very important, especially for the income level in NM as far as being inclusive, that the cost of licensing remain low to ensure it’s affordable to maintain a pro-small business attitude, as we know small business makes up the majority of our economy both statewide and nationwide. Easy access is key to economical successes with this budding industry.
I would like to see incentives for using rain catch, hydroponics, nutrient recycling, soil reuse, as well as incentives to build solar systems and using LED lighting.
I would like to see the ability of micro businesses to slowly increase plant counts, e.g. in units of 50.
I would like to see lower regulatory barriers to entering the micro business, e.g. people who only have their garage or small yard to begin to produce.
Comment submitted on June 29, 2021.
06-29-21 – Newell, Matthew
I would suggest that under the courier license also include a personal delivery service so that way micro-producers can deliver their product to adult individuals through that service if they also get that license.
I have several suggestions as well as general thoughts regarding the regulations around the production of cannabis. The first being that I noticed that there is no standardization around the pricing of wholesale cannabis and I know that in other states it is based on the percentage of THC that the stain contains, in other states it is 100 dollars per percentage of THC percentage. This would allow for an accurate pricing based on the quality of the cannabis flower. I believe that if the legislation stands as is it will only benefit those who already have what they need in terms of wealth and will not benefit those New Mexicans who are impoverished. My suggestion is edit the legislation to make it easier for lower income people to start their business. The way in which this could be done is by lowering the building requirement or allowing for trailers to be used instead of a constructed building for the use of trimming the flower. Another requirement that causes pretty serious cost is the level of monitoring required a camera every 20 feet is going to cost a large amount of money. I would suggestion that a grant program is implemented to help those of us who are impoverished and help those us with the entrepreneurial spirit. I would also suggest a residency requirement for the licenses for the first 5 years.
Comment submitted on June 29, 2021.
06-29-21 – Lyons, Alexandria
Comment submitted on June 29, 2021.
06-29-21 – Jamie Phillips
With the Integrated Cannabis Microbusiness we understand there are several options to tier the company for $2500 permit is this with the option to sale and distribute any other license cannabis products from other manufacturers?
Comment submitted on June 29, 2021.
06-29-21 – Akins, Luther
Comment submitted on June 29, 2021.
06-29-21 – Torres, Quinlan