ADULT-USE CANNABIS PRODUCER LICENSING REQUIREMENTS (REVISED)

ADULT-USE CANNABIS PRODUCER LICENSING REQUIREMENTS (Revised)

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.

Notice of Proposed Rule Making

Proposed Draft Rules

Reference Materials Used in Drafting the Proposed Rule Making

The rule hearing will be held both virtually and in-person at the New Mexico State Capitol, 490 Old Santa Fe Trail, Room 307, Santa Fe, NM 87501 on Friday, August 6, 2021 starting at 9:00 a.m.

https://nmrld.webex.com/nmrld/onstage/g.php?MTID=e09a44f444750858fcf5ddbc192d29daa 

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 August 6, 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 Friday, August 6, 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.

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 Your name will be included with your comment but your email address will not be published.

167 Comments

  1. Are you going to put in a provision for Producers where they’re allowed to provide “nursery” services such as sell immature plants to public considering each person in NM can grow 6 to 12 plants at home. I know other states allow it.

  2. These rules are not benefitting the small business. You claim to be following previous states rules, however, previous states that have legalized have fed the conglomerates while dedicating on the small business owner. Not only that, the other states have made it to where those who are making the money, are again the rich white man. The rich get richer while the poor stay poor. Cannabis business owners by race are 4.3% black, 5.7% hispanic, 81% white, and 9% other. Take licensing, there is no verbiage to limit the stacking of licenses. When California limited grows to 1 acre, the lobbyists came in, and then you had companies stacking up to 200 licenses next to one another. Effectively, eliminating their competition. So yes, the license itself is limited, but there is no limit to how many licenses 1 company can buy. Should be looked into. The capital requirements for a small business start up is ultimately the CCD saying “You’re either flush with cash, or you’re not even allowed to play the game.” 65% of Florida’s medical dispensaries are owed by only 5, that’s right, 5 companies. Why? Because the regulation requiring such a large capitol to get started running vertical integration.

    The Proposed set draft rules is not favoring the small business in any way shape or form. The security measures required eliminates any rural growers without access to adequate broadband to run the security cameras. It has been echoed over and over, but sadly seems to be falling on deaf ears. This legalization is to make the state money and to line the pockets of those who signed it into law. New Mexico DOES NOT CARE about it’s people, just the amount of wealth it can take from them.

  3. I propose rules and guidelines be established for mobile lab testing to allow laboratories a means to reach out to producers and cultivators regardless of geographic location. This provision will help meet and alleviate the anticipated demand for testing posed with legalization.

  4. I propose a license be created for cultivating vegetative plants only. The factors to obtain this license would follow the same criteria as the existing licenses but the fee structure would be ‘more affordable’. The utility of this license is to allow other parties entry into this industry while limiting exposure and liability by selling immature plants to cultivators. Ideally this ‘vegetative cultivation’ license would establish a feeder system for the ‘start to finish’ cultivators and allow them to dedicate their entire plant count to flowering plants.

  5. I propose medical cannabis patients who produce their own cannabis flower through a Personal Production License (PPL), may be authorized to sell their excess flower to dispensaries; provided the patient had the product lab tested to validate its safety prior to sale.

    In anticipation to amend my prior proposition, perhaps the City of Las Cruces or local dispensaries could establish a “medical cannabis holding” which would function as means for all local dispensaries to meet their obligation for reserving a percentage of their product exclusively for medical patients. This “holding entity” would function as the purchaser of medical patient’s excess cannabis flower and as the depository for local dispensaries required medical reserve.

    Thank you for your consideration,

    Brandon

  6. My comment is echoing the overwhelming majority of everyone’s concerns about the lack of regulation that could make it a bit easier for the micros to get involved and keep people away from the black market. Making the potential micro growers jump through all these hoops that are within your guys control is complete nonsense and goes against what the whole micro system was made for. I completely agree with the guy who said, people that get liquor licenses don’t have to have the whole business in place, building, build out, security, operate with no income for 4+ months, and still have no guarantee of a license. So why cant steps from that licensing process be tweaked to fit cannabis and give licenses in a similar way with provisions that the licensee will meet before cannabis operations begin? There has to be a solution that can truly help locals, who aren’t rich, get started and succeed in this industry but It really seems like you guys don’t listen or take into account these comments made by the smaller people trying to start a legit business.

  7. I am concerned about the requirement for cameras to be placed in all limited access areas. They already require cameras to be anywhere cannabis is in the building, then they expand to include all the limited access areas? Why do you need to watch our break room, bathrooms, and administrative offices if there isnt any cannabis there? I guess we can separate the office space and bathrooms with commercial grade locks but then do we have to sign in and out on the log each time we leave production area and go to the bathroom?

    is this just another expensive restriction designed to favor the rich over small New Mexican businesses?

  8. Hello, we have a debate around the office as to the correct interpretation of these words:

    “each storage device or camera shall contain an Internet Protocol (IP) address and allow
    internet accessibility via a secure Transmission Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) connection;”

    my boss thinks you are bundling [storage device or camera] as a singular system. To him this means that that either the storage device or the camera has to have an IP address. So coaxial connected cameras that are linked to a, IP addressed central dvr is OK.

    I read it as [each an every storage device or camera] so any device regardless must have its own address.
    I would really prefer to be wrong as replacing all our coaxial cameras and running ethernet all over will cost a fortune.

    I am also concerned that the state of New Mexico does not treat anything we provide as protected trade secrets, so will access to our camera system be obtained by anyone who submits an IPRA?

  9. Water Rights.
    This is the number one problem with the Cannabis Bill. Keep this provision and it will force a lot of growers to look to the BLACK MARKET.
    If New Mexico is to build an economy with cannabis the WATER RIGHTS provision needs to be SCRATCHED. No other state has gone in this direction. 100- 200 hundred plants can easily be grown on a drip system using rain catchment and or a domestic water well. 100 plants would require 50,000 gallons of water at most. A domestic well and a live stock well are aloud to use 329,000 gallons annually. So what gives? Is this provision simply to allow the large wealthy land holders a better chance at success in the cannabis market? It seems very likely that only a select few will have water rights to allow excess to a license. Please level the playing field and give the true growers an opportunity at this emerging market.

  10. The Cannabis Control Division rules imply that people applying for licenses will be able to go through the New Mexico Department of Public Safety for background checks. However, these background checks require the CCD to have an Originating Agency Identification Number (ORI) which they do not.

    The turn around time for background checks is 7-15 working days, which means that in order for producers to be able to apply by September 1st, we need that ORI by the beginning of August. That’s assuming there won’t be a backlog from a large influx of aspiring producers applying for these background checks simultaneously which would mean we need that ORI as soon as possible.

  11. With regard to the prohibition on advertising marijuana, I’m glad to note that there is an “editorial content” exemption but I feel that it’s wrong to limit such exemption solely to PRINT media… is it not true that Radio, Television and Internet broadcasters are also capable of delivering opinions in their non-written media. I urge the committee to change that language to reflect a more contemporary understanding of op/ed in the broadcast media context.

  12. I have 2 questions that I am seeking information about. I would appreciate any assistance at your earliest convenience.

    1.) I would like to request clarity on the fees associated with the cannabis education license requirements? There was a blank space in the information and fee section. I understand that section has not been completed. Do you have an idea when this section will be updated for interested business entities in providing cannabis education?

    2.) Is there any prohibition toward licensed retail dispensaries involved in re-sale of cannabis products obtained from licensed producers?

  13. These rules need to be changed to allow all business to file for a provisional license prior to any build out. we should be able to submit drawings, procedures and certifications as set forth in the rules, regardless of type of license, Microbusiness or Integrated. Business do not invest until they know they can operate within the law and rules. A liquor store does not lease space or build a new building until they have secured a liquor license. similar rules should apply to cannabis. This was stated numerous times in the comments, and in the July hearing. the CCD needs to respond and listen to the business people that are planning sustainable businesses.

    this is easy to amend the rules to read that Licenses will be granted on a provisional basis without an existing building, provided all other licensing requirements are met. It is the licensee’s responsibility to build out and operate in accordance with the CCD rules, and a permanent license will be granted upon completion and inspection of the premises. no cannabis production or sales activities are allowed until the permanent license is granted.

    CCD – help us out here. Many of us are local NM residents planning to establish a legitimate business. requiring buildings and fire inspections prior to licensing is not adhering to the spirit of the law that congress passed. These types of requirements support illegal and illicit activity by those that are unable to take the financial risk. They also support favoritism to the existing medical cannabis producers that want a monopoly. Competition in any industry is good for the businesses and good for the consumer. Without it we will be left the same low quality standards and products currently produced by the medical producers, and it opens the door for more illicit production and sales.

  14. I was thinking of trying this out, but I honestly don’t think there is going to be as big of a demand as people in charge seem to think. With there being all these restrictions and requirements, and lack of limiting people to say, 5 locations tops, and the bizarre allowance to out of state enterprises, I can see there won’t really be much opportunity for locals to compete… not realistically…

    Doesn’t matter… only idiots are going to continually throw away their money buying commercially… and tourism is a fleeting market, because it is becoming legal everywhere. It is not a hard plant to grow, and there is already lots of help to be found all over. I think I’ll pitch in and help new growers learn the ropes… I know some led light manufacturers, and might be able to get them to offer a deal strictly to New Mexicans for some basic home lights. Maybe help incentivize some to getting started.

    Good luck to the average locals trying to win at this… it’s going to be hard to compete with these unbalanced rules…

  15. Once again the New Mexico government is stomping on its own people so they can line their pockets. This bill was proposed to us as something that would help local New Mexicans and clearly this was a blatant lie. New Mexico is a poor state, as our representatives you SHOULD have this knowledge. Evidently, you guys don’t understand that by requiring the things you are, you’re knocking most native New Mexicans out of this race before they even get a start.
    Please take a walk down the streets of any town in New Mexico, stop and ask people if they have $20,000-$30,000 available to them to start a business. No banks, no investors, just them and their own money. You’ll be hard pressed to find people in our state who can do that. You’re not giving New Mexicans a chance, you’re giving the rich a chance to get richer off the back of our state.
    I don’t understand how you can read all these comments and listen to us speak at the public hearings and change NOTHING in favor of us New Mexicans. It’s a shame that you can sit and listen to us beg for the opportunity to do this in a financially feasible way and yet do nothing to help us.
    This is a perfect example of how dysfunctional our government is. They claim to listen to the people, but when we speak we are ignored. Why do we elect people who don’t have our interests in mind? Why do we allow them to screw us out of one of the only opportunities that many New Mexicans will ever get? If the current rules and requirements for licensing continue to stand, our government is showing us that they do not care for us at all (surprise, surprise 🙄) and would rather line their own pockets and allow out of state money and corporations to come in and dominate the market while New Mexicans continue to suffer. #NewMexicoStrong and let’s keep it that way, help us make our state better by allowing us to enter the LEGAL cannabis market in a feasible way

  16. Yet again, the New Mexico government has let the people down. I don’t understand how you can read all these comments, listen to us speak at your public hearings and yet change NOTHING to benefit us. This bill was presented to us under the guise of helping our LOCAL economies, how can they help if no local people can obtain a license? You are saying you have modeled the licensing after other states with proven track records, but this is a blatant lie. You have made this out for the big corporations, for the rich to get richer….not to help New Mexico. New Mexico is poor state, as government officials you should have more knowledge about our state than you do. Please, take a walk down the street and ask as many New Mexicans as you want if they have $20,000-$30,000 available to start a business, with NO outside help. No banks, no investors….just them. I am confident in saying that you will maybe find 5-10 people out of a hundred who can do it….and that’s probably an over estimation. It seems to me that you are purposely making the licensing process over bearing for the people you claimed you would be helping. You really need to look at this from a LOGICAL standpoint, not the standpoint of a government official.

    Anyone want to stage a protest if they decide to keep fucking us like this? The squeakiest wheel gets the oil y’all

  17. I would like to express my concerns about proposed rule 16.8.11.11 (Annual Plant Fee)

    This proposed rule per plant will create an undue burden to cultivators that utilize a “Sea of Green” growing technique. Our growing style utilizes a plant base of 20-30 plants per 25 sq ft of Canopy space. This rule will completely eliminate a very productive growing style.
    Please consider a revision that may assess canopy size or a dry weight fee to keep an even playing field amongst cultivators that use various growing practices.

    16.8.11.11 ANNUAL PER PLANT FEE:
    A. Commercial cannabis plants: Except for cannabis producer microbusinesses and integrated cannabis

    microbusinesses, a licensee cultivating commercial cannabis plants shall be assessed an additional annual fee per mature cannabis plant at the time of licensing, incremental increase as set forth in 16.8.8.10 NMAC, and licensure renewal as set forth in 16.8.2.17 NMAC. Plant fees shall be accessed based on the plant limit license designation as set forth in subparagraph A in 16.8.8.9 NMAC, as follows:

    (1) Level 1:
    (2) Level 2:
    (3) Level 3:
    (4) Level 4 and above:

    $10.00 per mature cannabis plant;

    $10.00 per mature cannabis plant;

    $10.00 per mature cannabis plant; a

    nd $10.00 per mature cannabis plant.

  18. I was going to go legit, but you rule writers absolutely, no question about it, are only operating to help those with lots of money. Not only that, but you actually seem to be going out of your way to keep any newbies and commoners out of the competition.

    I give up on playing by the one sided rules. Instead, I think I’ll just buy a property and have “friends” over to “share” my and others’ home grown. Donations are welcome, but not necessary. FU and GTH CCD.