ADULT-USE CANNABIS PRODUCER LICENSING REQUIREMENTS (REVISED)

167 Comments

1. Yeshe Parks on August 5, 2021 at 4:28 pm

   Comment submitted on August 5, 2021.

   08-05-2021 – Parks, Yeshe

2. Poki Piottin on August 5, 2021 at 4:28 pm

   Comment submitted on August 5, 2021.

   08-05-21 – Piottin, Poki

3. Yvonne Aragon on August 5, 2021 at 4:27 pm

   Comment submitted on August 5, 2021.

   08-05-2021 – Aragon, Yvonne

4. Michael Pacheco on August 5, 2021 at 4:27 pm

   Comment submitted on August 5, 2021.

   08-05-21 – Pacheco, Michael

5. Zoey Fink on August 5, 2021 at 4:26 pm

   Comment submitted on August 5, 2021.

   08-05-21 – Fink, Zoey

6. Vince Higgins on August 5, 2021 at 2:57 pm

   Q: The CCD’s revised rule number 16.8.1.8.A-C (SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EQUITY), lacks specifics on measures the division will take for the responsibility conferred to the division by the Cannabis Regulation Act {Sec. 26-2C-3(B)(7) and (8)}. As September application date approaches, how will the division work “to promote and encourage full participation” of representatives in communities disproportionately harmed?

   Q: The “50 percent goal” set in the division’s proposed rule 16.8.1.8 is aspirational language. Further, the language refers to applicants, not licensees. Does this same ratio apply for the actual licensees approved by the division?

   Q: Has the Division sought to confer with the Securities Division of NM Economic Development Department (EDD) for any specific investment policies that would further the legislative intent inferred by the language in the Cannabis Regulation Act, Sec. 26-2C-3(B)(7) and (8) and referenced in the CCD’s proposed rule number 16.8.1.8 (SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EQUITY)?

   Q: What are the details on how the division will engage other state divisions to form and offer real incentives that “promote and encourage” investment in the “disproportionately impacted” and “economically disadvantaged” applicants prior to the opening of application period?

7. Lori Lindsey on August 5, 2021 at 2:55 pm

   Thanks for all of the hard work you are doing. I am in a traditional community in Santa Fe County. The Board of County Commissioners voted to approve an ordinance that makes growing in a traditional community a conditional use. This would not be a problem except that it is a very difficult and expensive process. The communities that have been affected by the war on drugs have an extra hurdle while they did not place any conditional uses on farmland. If we are going through a conditional zoning process (which is a slow down), will we be able to apply for our state license?

8. Kevin Lutz on August 5, 2021 at 2:53 pm

   I have read many of the comments and concerns about residency requirements, which I support. There are already comments from Colorado Cannabis companies that are wanting to start operations in New Mexico. It is true that this has been legally challenged in many states as unconstitutional, it is still a gray area in the law.

   I f we allow licensing to anyone that can qualify, we will be inundated with outside big money corporations, that have no interest in developing and supporting New Mexico. all those profits will leave our state.

   I would Highly recommend that the CCD enact a moratorium on out of state ownership and licensing of a cannabis business for a period of at least 2 years, giving our residents a head start and fair opportunity to grow our New Mexico economy. Just as our current Medical Cannabis producers were protected with license limits, some protection needs to granted for New Mexico residents to jump start our operations and our economy.

   I would also like to see a rule that anyone who has attempted to by pass the rules and “Gift” cannabis and has been issued a cease and desist order, be excluded from licensing for a period of at least 3 years. These bad players, through their demonstrated actions, will continue to violate the rules even if licensed. They will sell untested cannabis, fake testing results, etc… damaging our reputation as a state with a legitimate cannabis economy.

   for all of you that agree, please comment to the same effect, as we need to have a united voice.

9. James J McLaughlin on August 5, 2021 at 2:52 pm

   August 5, 2021

   ATTN: Linda Trujillo, Superintendent
   New Mexico Regulation & Licensing Department
   2550 Cerrillos Road, Santa Fe, NM 87505

   Dear Superintendent Trujillo:

   UFCW Local 99 represents nearly 25,000 professionals and their families in grocery stores, meat processing, retail shops, and medical cannabis in New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. Nationwide, UFCW is the largest union in cannabis. Our cannabis members can be found in growing and cultivating facilities, manufacturing, and processing facilities, and in laboratories and dispensaries. Wherever cannabis is legalized, the UFCW is committed to building good jobs.

   As you consider the regulatory framework for this new industry, it is critical that you build a fundamental foundation that ensures that the growing industry supports family sustaining jobs and a strong, diverse, and skilled workforce. There are two elements in the rules as proposed that are of importance to UFCW and will help establish this framework.

   Safety in the Workplace
   In 16.8.2 of the draft rules, it stipulates that licensees must provide security and surveillance on site anywhere cannabis is transported or cultivated. If adopted correctly, this can help keep workers safe from burglary and assault, but must be narrowly drafted so as to not invade worker privacy. Surveillance requirements should never be used to spy on or discipline workers. It is a great first step that the proposed rules acknowledge the public safety risks workers face in this industry.

   However, the current rules do not address another safety issue workers face – exposure to workplace injury. We know that cannabis workers face many health and safety risks including exposure to abnormal heat levels and chemicals, along with repetitive stress injuries and other injuries on the job.
   We urge you to use these rules to direct the New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Administration to develop a curriculum for occupational health and safety training for all cannabis workers and management. This will help establish a work environment that recognizes the value workers bring to this emerging industry.

   Social Equity
   UFCW recognizes the disproportionate impact the war on drugs has had on African American and Latino communities. In the draft rules 16.8.1 the newly created cannabis control division is required to adopt procedures to encourage full participation in the industry from communities that have been harmed by high arrest rates due to cannabis prohibition in the past. We strongly support this provision and providing opportunities for women, people of color, LGBTQ, veterans, and people with disabilities to both work and become business owners in the cannabis industry.

   The cannabis industry in New Mexico has the potential to create 11,000 new jobs. Communities disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition deserve quality jobs with sustainable living wages, health insurance, retirement benefits and a voice on the job.

   What needs to be added
   UFCW supports an adult-use cannabis industry in New Mexico that will create sustainable jobs for families for the foreseeable future. In addition, the safety and equity provisions already drafted, the addition of labor peace agreements as a condition of licensure can provide the cannabis industry with high standards and give workers a sense of security. Labor peace agreements in the cannabis industry benefit everyone. Labor peace agreements will reward responsible businesses and ensure that New Mexico’s cannabis industry is driven by companies committed to making long-term investments in local communities.

   And lastly, UFCW believes all jobs in the cannabis industry should be family sustaining with opportunities for training and advancement at every level. One way to achieve this is the establishment of a New Mexico cannabis apprenticeship program. UFCW supports the inclusion of a state funded apprenticeship program in the newly established adult-use cannabis industry.
   A well-trained cannabis workforce will re-enforce the public and consumer’s confidence in both the safety of the product and the entire industry.

   The nascent New Mexico cannabis industry presents an unparalleled opportunity to build a new kind of industry for New Mexico, one that redresses historical and continuing harms and gives workers an opportunity to exercise workplace democracy, to improve workplace security, health and safety, and New Mexico communities.

   Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft adult-use cannabis rules.

   Sincerely,

   James J. McLaughlin
   President, UFCW Local No. 99
   UFCW International Vice President
   JM:AO:RL

   UFCW 99 Cannabis Letter Regs FINAL 7.29.21

10. Austin Overpeck on August 5, 2021 at 10:38 am

    Attention RLD and CCD,

    There are still very serious issues developing with this program prior to it even beginning:

    – The RLD MUST take a stand and prevent local jurisdictions from imposing SEVERE and OVERBURDENSOME zoning restrictions. San Juan County, Chavez County and many others are not only imposing zoning rules making it difficult to open a cannabis operation anywhere in their county, they are also imposing additional fees AND regulations for operating a cannabis facility that must be paid ON TOP of the RLD/CCD licensing fees. This is NOT in the spirit of the law that was passed. If the RLD allows this sort of local prohibition, not only do the residents of the county who planned on operating a license in there area suffer, but so do the commercial property owners, power and utility companies, contractors, vendors, potential employees, and potential customers. This bill was designed and passed to allow New Mexico and all its counties to benefit, as many other states have, from the growth that the cannabis industry inherently brings with it. By allowing San Juan, Chavez, and other counties to impose these types of restrictions on this new industry, the RLD has failed to uphold their requirements of HB2.

    – The Provisional license is a welcome addition to the latest version of the proposed rules and regulations, but similar to others’ concerns here, 3-months is not enough time to allow the completion of a commercial construction. MANY individuals and entities that are gearing up for inclusion in this industry are hesitant to commit to the capital outlay required to build or retrofit a commercial cannabis production facility without a bit of assurance from the CCD that a license will be issued for their company. For this, they are grateful for the provisional license, but perhaps a provisional window of greater than 3-months can be granted.

    – Failing to present ANY language on New Mexico residency requirements for new licenses will prove to be catastrophic for New Mexico business. This will will fall squarely on the shoulders of the RLD and the Governor. In two years, when California, Colorado, Washington, and Oregon companies have flooded the shelves with their brands and products, it will be the NM families who will suffer as they shutter their businesses. These existing companies can easily bring in the MILLIONS of start up capital it takes to build large, fully functional cannabis cultivation facilities, while NM companies are scraping together start-up capital and still building their foundations of success. In addition to capital, these existing out-of-state companies also bring with them the resources (knowledge and labor) that they have amassed and will use it to get operational quicker than NM businesses could ever hope to. In reality, this is already happening and this is a recipe for disaster for New Mexico businesses and families, some of whom will be putting everything into this industry.

    – The verbiage in the rules and regulations that reference both plant count and canopy size are confusing for farmers who are planning on using greenhouses, hoop houses or open air. While canopy size would make sense to count in an indoor farm, it should have no bearing for measurement in an outdoor farm, where a single plant can exceed 49 square feet opposed to an indoor farm that would have between 4-20 plants in the same square foot area. This creates a great disparity in sizing. The RLD should eliminate all verbiage referring to canopy size in the new rules and regulations as it has no definite reason for inclusion.

    – Austin Overpeck

11. Kristina Caffrey on August 4, 2021 at 12:05 pm

    Comment submitted on August 4, 2021.

    08-04-21 – Caffrey, Kristina

12. James DiPadua on August 4, 2021 at 12:04 pm

    Comment submitted on August 3, 2021.

    08-03-21 – DiPadua, James

13. Bryan Krumm on August 4, 2021 at 12:04 pm

    Comment submitted on August 2, 2021.

    08-02-21 – Krumm, Bryan

14. Ivy Masterson on August 3, 2021 at 6:15 pm

    Reconsider adding residency restrictions to the application process for all licenses. Not placing residency restrictions will create a initial spike in macroeconomic activity, however it will further oppress small local business owners, creating a larger income “gap” across our population.

    This gap will continue to allow non-resident’s to benefit off of the high poverty that exists in New Mexico, further suppressing those on public assistance (i.e., TANF, SNAP, CWS, HUD, etc.). This will result in more strain placed on other NM programs such as NM public assistance services – for example TANF MOE (state matching maintenance of effort)

    While it appears to boost economic activity in the short run – allowing an opportunity for non-residents to enter the NM cannabis space, fosters the cycle for intergenerational poverty across the state, that lasts in our public welfare system for generations – increasing social inequity and disparity across low socio economic and specifically Women, Hispanic, and Native American populations.

    Please consider allowing recently discharged/retired military Veterans a waiver for any residency requirements.

    Thank you for your consideration.

15. alexander spray-eich on August 3, 2021 at 11:55 am

    Hello NMRLD and CCD.
    I am writing on behalf of CDP LLC., a current, licensed and operating cannabis manufacturer here in New Mexico since 2010. We are excited to be working with you as this transition takes place for New Mexico into both an expanding medical program as well as the upcoming adult use market.

    These new proposed rules contain a general definition and procedure for calculating distance between cannabis establishments and Church, school, and daycare that do not seem to be congruent with the current distance measurement definition. I have included below a message from DOHs’ counsel on how they are calculating measurement currently.

    Section 16.8.2.21 (a) of the proposed rules has the measurements from real property of the church, school, or daycare to the actual limits of real property of the proposed cannabis establishment.

    Attached below from DOH Council, is the current measurement parameters which puts it from outer property limit of church school or day care to the building or portion of the premise used for cannabis production. This would allow a cannabis cultivator with a large property to have their property line closer than 300 feet to one of these establishments as long as they did not utilize that area of property for cannabis production.
    For example: A licensed property with a large parking lot not used for production of cannabis or a strip mall parking lot would not be included in the distance measurement.

    By adopting the new measurement procedure you have outlined in the proposed rules, you may inadvertently be putting many facilities currently operational out of compliance.

    We urge you to adopt a measurement procedure currently utilized by the Department of Health to maintain facilities compliance within the state of New Mexico. Without that, this will also hinder some parts of rural NM where properties can be large and butt up to one another even though there are acres unutilized inbetween properties.

    Thank you,
    Alex and Tim
    CDP LLC.

    ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: FW: 300-foot rule
    From: “Gonzales, Martinik, DOH”
    Date: Tue, June 06, 2017 11:54 am
    To: “alex@bhangchocolate.com”

    Hi Alex,

    The below is specifically from Department Counsel.

    The Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act at NMSA 1978, Section 26-2B-7 states in part that the Department of Health shall:

    (6) develop a distribution system for medical cannabis that provides for:
    (a) cannabis production facilities within New Mexico housed on secured grounds and operated by licensed producers; and
    (b) distribution of medical cannabis to qualified patients or their primary caregivers to take place at locations that are designated by the department and that are not within three hundred feet of any school, church or daycare center;

    This 300-foot rule is reflected in DOH rule 7.34.4.8 NMAC, which states in part:

    Production and distribution of medical cannabis by a licensed non-profit producer to a qualified patient or primary caregiver shall take place at locations described in the non-profit producer’s production and distribution plan approved by the department, and shall not take place at locations that are within 300 feet of any school, church, or daycare center. For purposes of this provision, delivery to the residence of a qualified patient or primary caregiver shall not be deemed “distribution”.

    It is also reflected in LNPP application requirements, at 7.34.4.19(C) NMAC, and courier requirements at 7.34.4.17(B)(20) and (22) NMAC and 7.34.4.17(C)(8) NMAC.

    DOH interprets the 300-foot rule requirement in accordance with case law concerning a similar 300-foot rule that applies to sales of alcohol, which prohibits the sale of alcohol within 300 feet of a school or church. Attached is the Court of Appeals decision in the case of City of Santa Fe vs. Tomada, 2014-NMCA-022, in which the Court considered this question in the context of liquor sales.

    Following the reasoning of the Court of Appeals in Tomada, DOH applies the 300-foot rule as follows:

    To measure the 300-feet, we measure the shortest distance, in a straight line, between:

    1) the outer boundary of the licensed premises themselves, i.e., the premises actually used to produce or distribute cannabis, to

    2) the outer boundary of the property that is actually used for the school, church, or daycare purposes.

    We do not measure the 300 feet from property line to property line. Rather, the measurement depends on the nature of the use of the properties.

    Here are some examples:

    · A church is located on a large plot of property, and much of that property is barren and/or unused. The church conducts all of its activities within a physical building, and never conducts church activities elsewhere on the property. A producer has a grow location that is within 300 feet of the church’s property line, but not within 300 feet of the church’s building. The producer’s grow location satisfies the 300-foot rule, and the producer can continue to operate at that location, because it is not producing or distributing cannabis within 300 feet of the outer boundary of property that is actually used for church purposes. Conversely, if the church used all of its property for church purposes, then the producer would be in violation of the 300-foot rule. Likewise, if the church began conducting church activities on all of the property, the producer would become out of compliance with the rule. Because of this, as a general rule, we would recommend that producers not grow or distribute cannabis within 300 feet of the property line of a church, school or daycare center, because it is possible that the school, church or daycare center could change its use of the property and put the LNPP out of compliance with the 300-foot rule.

    · A cannabis dispensary is located near a school. The school building is not located within 300 feet of the dispensary’s distribution of cannabis. However, the school has a playground that is located within 300 feet of the dispensary’s distribution of cannabis. The producer is out of compliance with the 300 foot rule, because the distribution of cannabis is occurring within 300 feet of property that is actually used for school activities.

    · A cannabis dispensary has a large plot of property that is adjacent to a daycare center’s property. The dispensary’s building is not within 300 feet of the premises that are used for daycare services. However, the LNPP wants to hold an outdoor “cannabis fair” elsewhere on the property, and the LNPP intends to apply to MCP for an amendment to their distribution plan authorizing sales elsewhere on the property. To determine whether their plan violates the 300-foot rule, the LNPP needs to measure the shortest straight-line distance from the boundary of wherever it is that they intend to distribute cannabis on the property, to the closest area of the adjacent daycare property where daycare services occur.

    · A cannabis dispensary’s property is adjacent to a church’s property. The dispensary has a parking lot that is used by customers that is within 300 feet of property where church activities occur. However, the dispensary’s building is not within 300 feet of the property where church activities occur, and distribution only occurs within the building. The dispensary does not violate the 300-foot rule. Based on the reasoning in paragraph 18 of the Tomada decision, unless the producer is actually distributing cannabis in the parking lot, or unless the producer’s license authorizes the distribution of cannabis in the parking lot, the parking lot is not factored in determining the 300-foot distance. Instead, we look to where the producer is actually distributing cannabis, just as we look to where the church is actually conducting church activities. So, if the issue concerned the church’s parking lot, we would ask whether the parking lot is used for church activities. If they sometimes had outdoor church functions (for example, in tents or booths) in the church’s parking lot, then the church’s parking lot would be factored; but not otherwise.

16. Philip M Borzoni on August 3, 2021 at 10:45 am

    We are POOR. Dirt POOR! We own a small parcel of land, have cannabis experience and NEED to create a revenue for our family.

    Can’t work, don’t have the means to get everything we need to become permitted… On SNAP, medicaid, and fighting for disability.

    Please tell me how WE CAN BE INCLUDED WITHOUT BEING FORCED TO BEG IN PUBLIC (not smart with covid nowadays)!!!!

    If we get left behind then shame on all of you as our future well being potentially lies in obtaining PERMISSION TO GROW SOME PLANTS THAT GOD HAS GIVEN US ALL.

17. Andrew K Welch on August 2, 2021 at 7:49 pm

    Why are you limiting an Integrated Cannabis Microbusiness (ICMs) to only buying and selling their own product? Some producers do not have all the manufacturing capabilities and would need to purchase those products they cannot make from another producer/manufacturer. There should be an allowance that would allow a ICMs to be able to sell/trade their own product to/from a manufacturer so that the the ICMs would be able to offer those products to their patients and/or customers.

18. Bia Campbell on August 2, 2021 at 3:59 pm

    Please see attachment.

    Maggie’sFarm_NewMexico_CCD_Rules2_Memo_7.29.21_FINAL

19. Terence L. Jones, PhD on August 2, 2021 at 7:39 am

    Please provide an update on the status, costs etc. associated with obtaining a cannabis education license. Your assistance is truly appreciated.

20. 3xJ on July 31, 2021 at 6:24 pm

    To Sandy below: consumption areas are allowed, but need a separate license and area to production and/or sales areas. No alcohol anywhere near weed is allowed, but food sales should be fine IF you also have a seperate license for that, in conjecture to the other licenses. You will need LOTS of money to pull that off.