ADULT-USE CANNABIS PRODUCER LICENSING REQUIREMENTS (REVISED)

167 Comments

1. William Dwight Hooton, DVM on August 6, 2021 at 10:07 am

   Cannabis Control Division
   Public Comment
   ccd.publiccomment@state.nm.us

   Dear Deputy Director Sachs,

   I am a Parciante and farmer of the Acequia de San Rafael del Guique near Española. Thank you for this opportunity to provide public comment on these important draft regulations for cannabis producer licenses that will serve as the foundation for an equitable cannabis production economy that also protects existing water rights and our precious water resources.

   I am concerned about the lack of definition “water” and its uses for application to Cannibis production. I am worried about the potential Water variances that may be permitted under 16.8.2.8.Z.

   A variance petition would be filed with the CCD, CCD may act as the hearing officer, and the CCD would make the final decision and “shall not be subject to judicial review.”

   This is all unlawful. CCD is not above the law. Approval or denial of a variance is an administrative action and under the Uniform Licensing Act is subject to judicial review.

   But first and foremost the CRA does not authorize the use of a variance mechanism and does not authorize the CCD to promulgate a variance rule. The legislature has to expressly authorize that. Variances are very serious and any other state agency using a variance has been expressly authorized to do so by the legislature and strict parameters are imposed, and decisions on variance petitions are subject to judicial review.

   Further I am concerned about the apparent lack of equity for applicants and license for rural communities. I am equally concerned about the environmental effects of producing Cannibis using highly expensive and highly environmentally impactful effects of using carbon footprint heavy fossil fuel sourced artificially produced light/electricity.
   Local and rural producers are unlikely to invest in or to use such environmentally impactful resources, hence should they should be advantaged by the RLD to encourage environmentally responsible production.

   In light of my concerns, I respectfully request the CCD to:

   **** Prevent illegal uses of water: withdraw the unlawful Variance Rule from the revised rules. The Cannabis Regulation Act mandates protection of our scarce water resources by requiring cannabis producers to establish a legal right to a commercial water supply, water rights or another source of water sufficient to meet the needs related to a producer license. The CCD has included an unlawful Variance Rule in its revised rules at 16.8.2.8.Z, which would allow either an applicant or licensee to evade this statutory requirement, along with all other statutory and regulatory requirements, such as social equity mandates, plant count limits, and environmental regulations. The variance rule will likely result in state-sanctioned illegal use of water by cannabis producers.

   Under TITLE 16 CHAPTER 8 PART 1
   OCCUPATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING COMMERICAL AND MEDICAL CANNABIS GENERAL PROVISIONS
   SS 16.8.1.7, there is no legal definition for “water” and/or the legal use of water for application to Cannibis crop production.
   Recommended RLD action: identify proper definitions of water and its use on and for Cannibis and include same in “Definitions” section 16.8.1.7, W.
   As described above, review illegal variances and eliminate the possibility, especially as regards to water resources.

   **** Ensure smaller growers have the opportunity to benefit from the cannabis economy. RLD Superintendent Linda Trujillo recently advised legislators that “she fears a lack of access to bank loans and other financing will keep local residents from entering the new cannabis industry and competing with out-of-state companies,” and that, “The biggest challenge producers are going to face is that startup cost. The access to capital is almost not available.” [1] The CRA requires the CCD to promulgate rules encouraging participation by agricultural producers from economically disadvantaged communities. These rules should be promulgated either before or simultaneously with cannabis producer license rules. Including a new draft rule stating that the division “must adopt social equity procedures” at 16.8.1.8 does not satisfy the CRA’s social equity mandate and does not address the startup capital access issue the RLD Superintendent has raised with legislators. Without meaningful social equity regulations, rural New Mexicans will not only be priced out of participating in the new cannabis economy, but will be pressured to sell their land and water rights to out-of-state corporate cannabis entities who do have access to startup and expansion capital.

   Recommended RLD action;
   Review and rewrite regulations to include specific development plans and support documents to be included with application but require no construction until provisional license is granted. Formal and annual license granted after inspection/approval by RLD/CCD, after which production may be permitted.

   **** Defer adoption of final rules until the Cannabis Regulatory Advisory Committee has been created and given the opportunity to review and advise the RLD/CCD on these proposed rules. The Cannabis Regulation Act mandates creation of this Committee BEFORE rules are promulgated, and is Committee tasked with reviewing and advising the RLD/CCD on proposed rules, including the draft cannabis producer rules.

   Current RLD/CCD procedures are a bit like putting the cart before the horse. The end goal is in some misty distant vision, however, the specifics of how we arrive to that vision are still undeveloped.
   Recommended RLD/CCD Action:
   As referred to above, RLD should defer adoption of regulations until after the above questions and concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, and until after rules are promulgated.

   El Agua es vida. Thank you for your time and consideration.

   Sincerely,
   William Dwight Hooton, DVM
   drhooton@gmail.com

2. New Mexico Acequia Association on August 6, 2021 at 9:30 am

   Please see attached comments submitted by the New Mexico Acequia Association. We also incorporate by reference our June 16th comments submitted.

   8.6.21 NMAA Comments on Revised Cannabis Producer Rules

3. Rosalie Flores on August 6, 2021 at 9:28 am

   Comments from the New Mexico Cannabis Justice Project

   NMCJP – Comments on revised production rules.docx (1)

4. Chad Gruber on August 6, 2021 at 9:27 am

   Please amend NMAC 16.8.2.9 (“Substantially Related Convictions”), section (E)(3). I propose leaving the existing text intact but adding, “…except those offenses specifically repealed or amended by the New Mexico Cannabis Control Act”

5. Juan Sanchez on August 6, 2021 at 9:07 am

   August 6, 2021

   Robert Sachs
   Deputy Director of Policy
   Cannabis Control Division
   New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department

   Mr. Sachs:

   The New Mexico Land Grant Council submits this letter as public comment on the New Mexico Regulation & Licensing Department (RLD) Cannabis Control Division’s (CCD) Revised Cannabis Producer Regulations. We are a state agency that provides a program of support for land grant-merced communities throughout the state and serves as a liaison between state, federal and local agencies and land grants, most of which are organized as political subdivisions of the state. During the 2021 New Mexico Legislative Session, the New Mexico Land Grant Council joined grassroots organizations, including the New Mexico Acequia Association and the New Mexico Land Grant-Merced Consejo, in voicing our concerns about the impact of the legalization of recreational cannabis on land grant-merced and acequia communities. While we did not have the same opportunity to express our apprehension during the brief special session, when the Cannabis Regulation Act was ultimately passed, we have remained engaged with our partners in monitoring the implementation of the act, particularly provisions that protect the land and water that is so precious to land grants, acequias and other traditional communities.
   On June 24, 2021, we offered a letter to the Cannabis Control Division, asking that rulemaking be deferred until the Cannabis Regulatory Advisory Committee has been seated and the rules, procedures and technical resource guide have been drafted for consideration in rulemaking proceedings. To date, we have had no direct response from the Cannabis Control Division. While rulemaking has proceeded, we maintain our stance that the Cannabis Control Division would best serve the greater public interest by deferring the adoption of final rules until the Cannabis Regulation Advisory Committee has been created and given ample time to review the proposed rules and appropriately properly and advise the Regulation and Licensing Department and Cannabis Control Division on all proposed rules and regulations.
   The New Mexico Land Grant Council maintains that the proposed Revised Cannabis Producer Regulations fail to protect our traditional land grant-merced communities as the Cannabis Regulation Act intends. For one, the proposed rules fall short of furthering the participation growers from economically disadvantaged communities, particularly those that have been disproportionally affected by the overzealous enforcement of cannabis prohibitions in the past. According to the Albuquerque Journal (July 26, 2021), RLD Superintendent Linda Trujillo recently testified that local prospective growers would not have the access to capital needed to start a cannabis growing operation. Adopting these measures should be paramount to the CCD; simply creating a draft rule that states that the Division “must adopt social equity procedures” does not meet the requirement of actually creating and adopting these procedures. In our reading of the Cannabis Regulation Act, the Cannabis Control Division is required to promulgate rules encouraging such participation concurrently with producer regulations, but no later than January 1, 2022. The adoption of nuanced social equity measures can allow for local participation in the growing cannabis industry, ensuring that local communities can maximize the benefit and minimize the adverse impacts of the legalization of recreational cannabis production.
   Finally, the Cannabis Regulation Act contains provisions vital to our land grant-merced and acequia communities, including the protection of water and the environment and social equity mandates and plant count limits that will help ensure the participation of small, local producers. The Cannabis Control Division has included a variance rule in its proposed revised rules (16.8.2.8.Z) which circumvents these protective provisions of the Cannabis Regulation Act by allowing applicants to evade statutory and/or regulatory requirements of the Act. We agree with the New Mexico Acequia Association’s assessment that this proposed rule is not only damaging, but an illegal deviation from law that not only encourages, but sanctions the illegal use of water by profit centered and non-community-minded cannabis producers. The CCD states it will use the Uniform Licensing Act as a guide and, but the ULA does not allow for variances rules like the one that has been proposed. We believe that a variance rule is also a serious deviation from the intent of the New Mexico State Legislature, which it expressed in its passing the of the Act, and that the rule allows for the evasion of the Act’s crucial water protection and social equity mandates. In closing, the Council agrees with the New Mexico Acequia Association’s assessment that if the Legislature had intended for the creation of a variance mechanism, it would have explicitly done so in the Act.
   Please feel free to reach out to the New Mexico Land Grant Council’s staff (Jacobo Baca, jacobobaca@unm.edu, 505.400.9426 / Arturo Archuleta, carchuleta02@unm.edu, 505.328.4104) should you have any questions.

   Con Todo Respeto,

   Juan Sánchez
   Chair

   NMLGC letter cannabis control division re variance etc- August 2021

6. Toner Mitchell on August 6, 2021 at 9:05 am

   Trout Unlimited is extremely concerned that, though applicants/licensees are required to show a water right sufficient for the planned level of production, actual water use be documented in a meaningful way – quarterly as opposed to annually – so as to enable the state to accurately assess the impact of the industry on the environment, particularly streams and riparian areas. Quarterly reporting provides evaluation that is equal to New Mexico’s climate changed reality and will provide the necessary level of scrutiny for our water-starved state. We also support the prohibition of any variances regarding current or future environmental or water laws and regulations.
   Generally, we feel this rule making, and the law itself, to be weak in terms of the cannabis industry’s potential impacts on the environment, and we hope the state is prepared to enforce environmental/water provisions in a way that disincentivizes poor environmental practice and water theft.

7. Jeremiah Tingen on August 6, 2021 at 8:55 am

   For Dona Ana residents, are EBID water rights acceptable for use for an indoor grow? According to the state engineer it cannot be used unless the water is going back into the soil and replenishing the water table. If this is not acceptable, what are the alternatives you propose as Dona Ana water will not sell water because they are federally funded

8. Andrea Padilla, New Mexico Land Grant-Merced Consejo on August 6, 2021 at 8:53 am

   Cannabis Control Division
   Public Comment
   ccd.publiccomment@state.nm.us
   Dear Deputy Director Sachs:

   On behalf of the New Mexico Land Grant-Merced Consejo, as its president, I write this public comment letter regarding the new proposed and revised Cannabis Producer Regulations. Our organization is concerned that the process of rulemaking is taking place when the Cannabis Regulatory Advisory Committee has yet to be named and seated. This Advisory Committee is mandated by the Cannabis Regulation Act and offers the opportunity for the concerns of land grants-mercedes, acequias and other traditional communities to be heard. Land grant-merced communities are worried about the effects of this new cannabis industry, which can transform our traditional communities in a whole host of ways, economically, environmentally, even socially. Our communities’ traditional lands were stolen from us and we still face displacement at the hands of developers, investors and land speculators. The cannabis industry threatens water rights and farmlands, making them the targets of new markets, inflating their prices and forcing people to leave our traditional communities to be low wage earners in the city yet again.

   We have heard from our members and allies that the Cannabis Control Division hosted a webinar (July 29) for potential cannabis producers, where the water rights division director from the Office of the State Engineer informed that applicants can apply for a variance from the requirements of the Cannabis Regulation Act, that requires producers demonstrate a legal water right or access to a legal source of water. We are concerned that the State Engineer’s office, which is in charge of protecting New Mexico’s water and determining legal use of it, is discussing variances like they are inevitable. The Consejo has been in dialogue with the New Mexico Acequia Association and shares it contention that variances should not be allowed. What is the limit on these variances? Can applicants use them to skirt other important aspects of the law, beyond the very important water protection provisions? What if they consider the other provisions of the Act to be burdensome, like plant limits that can level the playing field for small and local producers or the social equity provisions that we fought so hard for? It boggles my mind that these variances might even allow them to avoid environmental regulations, even those that haven’t even been passed!

   The Consejo respectfully asks that the Cannabis Control Division wait to create its regulations until the Cannabis Regulatory Advisory Committee has been seated and can review and advise the new proposed rules. We also ask that the Cannabis Control Division take an active role in ensuring that small and local producers have the chance to participate in the cannabis economy. This way, our local communities can benefit not only from jobs at growing facilities, but more cents on every dollar made in the production of cannabis stay in our small and often economically depressed communities. The passage of the Cannabis Regulation Act was sold as a great opportunity to diversify New Mexico’s economy, but we fear that without these protections, yet another phase of economic development will pass us by, or even worse, will prove harmful to our communities. Finally, we join the New Mexico Acequia Association and ask that the Cannabis Control Division withdraw its variance rule, an element that undermines the Cannabis Regulation Act and allows producers to circumvent aspects of the law that protect our water, our communities and the environment. As the oldest non-Native American institutions in our nation, land grants-mercedes and acequias represent proto-democracies that have given our communities the voice and power to determine our future. We pray that our voices are heard and the Cannabis Control Division reconsider adopting the proposed rules especially a variance rule that harms the act itself.

   If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contract me at ……………………………

   Consejo 2021 – letter to CCD – variance, etc. – August 2021

9. David White on August 6, 2021 at 8:39 am

   Give Micro Business A Fighting Chance

   New Mexico’s adult use, recreational cannabis laws were born on the backs of patients, the New Mexico medical cannabis program, the promise of social justice and added revenues desperately needed to benefit all New Mexicans.

   I urge all law makers and decision influencers to refer back to these factors when deciding what is best for the program, your constituents and the great State of New Mexico.

   Do the rules and regulations you are voting on:
   Benefit patients?
   Help right social injustices?
   Live up to the intent of the LECUA?
   Provide opportunity to New Mexicans?
   Support small mom and pop, micro businesses?

   If we do not do our best to support micro businesses in the final phase of rules and regulations development, large out of state operators and existing multi licensed cannabis companies posing as medical cannabis companies will devastate the market, forcing many of the micro businesses out of business before they even get started.
   _________________________________________

   What can be done to support the micro businesses?

   1. Limit the number of licenses existing and future LNPPs can own or manage to just one. With the new plant counts there is no reason to own multiple licenses, other than pure greed and the ability to dominate the market. Moving forward I suggest collapsing all multi license holdings into one license and charging them accordingly for their plant counts. On a side note this would also benefit the multiple license holders by greatly reducing their overhead and fiduciary responsibilities.

   2. Enforce NM residency requirements for board members, decision makers and policy influencers.
   New Mexico’s cannabis program needs the revenue to go back into New Mexico. Out of state organizations funnel profits out of our state.

   3. Create a third class of producers that manage home grows of up to 12 plants, under approved and monitored conditions that emulate the same standards as micro licenses and producers. This new class could grow harvest, cure, test and sell their flower and trim to licensed producers under an independent contractor agreement. This new license class would not allow direct retail sales, manufacturing or corridor activities and would solely focus on small artisanal batches of cannabis to be sold wholesale to licensed dispensaries.

   As you know financing or lack of access to financing is a major road block to many interested in starting a micro business. By implementing this new class of license the financial burden of starting a truly micro, micro business is removed and though the size of the operation is very small, it is manageable and could be performed while working a full time “day job”. Managing a 12 plant grow operation can provide meaningful revenue, to individuals who are patient, resourceful and willing to do the hard work.

   I appreciate your time, efforts and hard work.
   Together we can grow New Mexico’s cannabis program into something we can all be proud of.

   David White – medical cannabis patient #600, founder of Organtica and NM Micro Biz

10. Frank Carrillo on August 6, 2021 at 8:23 am

    Many of us have land outside city limits, out in the county, far from urban areas with a domestic well as our water source. These are areas that are not agricultural areas and therefore there are no agricultural or commercial wells. I plead that the state allow the use of irrigation wells at least for micro businesses. Forbidding domestic wells from a source of irrigation for the small micro business participant will be unfair and take out many residents out of being able to participate in this business opportunity.

11. Matt Munoz on August 6, 2021 at 7:56 am

    The CCD is holding a rule hearing today mainly to increase plant count. The justification the Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent have provided to legislative committees over the past couple of weeks for this hearing today, large producer need a 50% failure rate built into the rules. The CCD did not rely on any scientific data when making this arbitrary and capricious increase. No other state or country who has recreational cannabis allows for a 50% failure of crops. No farmer in America has a 50% crop failure rate built into their business.

    By allowing large producers to fail 50% of the time, the CCD is going to create the largest waste of water this state has ever seen. Microbusiness do have the ability to fail 50% of their crops and remain profitable.

    Crop loss happens from time to time, this is part of farming. Entire crops can be lost in heavy storms and pest infestation. But this is not an annual or per harvest occurrence for chile and pecan farms in southern NM.

    As someone who believes in water conservation in the desert, I ask the CCD to reconsider their arbitrary and capricious plant count increase.

    I also ask the CCD to institute background checks on all investors over a certain dollar amount. Cannabis is still a black market product and persons investing large amounts of cash must be vetted if we are going to legitimize this industry.

12. Jason Barker on August 6, 2021 at 7:27 am

    Friday, August 6th 2021

    New Mexico Regulation & Licensing Department
    Superintendent Linda Trujillo
    Cannabis Control Division
    2550 Cerrillos Road, Santa Fe, NM 87505

    Good Morning and Thank you for providing the great citizens of New Mexico this opportunity for providing public comments.

    “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” ― Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from the Birmingham Jail.

    I am contesting the legality of the proceedings today.

    I’m Jason Barker, I am a cannabis policy expert who has successfully petitioned the state and had five new health conditions added to the state’s medical cannabis program: sleep apnea, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Friedreich’s Ataxia, Lewy Body Disease and Spinal Muscular Atrophy. My policy work has been incorporated in 2 recent laws for the program and one senate memorial and I have 4 more new health condition petitions (ADHD, ADD, Anxiety Disorder, and Tourette’s Syndrome, Substance Abuse) awaiting final decisions to be new qualifying conditions from the DoH Secretary from 2020.
    I do not hold any ownership interest or investment in any licensed entity or ancillary entity pursuant to the current medical cannabis industry in New Mexico or the proposed Cannabis Regulation Act.

    The New Mexico Regulation & Licensing Department Cannabis Control Division has failed to follow the most important legal requirement of the Cannabis Regulation Act for providing a lawful process in creating and promulgating the proposed Rules and Regulations for adult-use cannabis.

    RLD Deputy Superintendent Blair exposed this violation of the law on Thursday, August 5th 2021.

    The state’s Cannabis Regulation Act law in it’s statutory timeline has the legal requirement placed upon the Cannabis Control Division to first create and form the Cannabis Regulatory Advisory Committee. The New Mexico Regulation & Licensing Department has failed to follow this legal requirement while at the same time advancing the promulgation of proposed rules and doing that is now a violation of the State Rules Act and The New Mexico Administrative Procedure Act, the latter is the law governing procedures for state administrative agencies to propose and issue regulations.

    The Hearing Officer assigned to this meeting has a legal duty to halt the current preceding of this proposed rules hearing for Adult-Use Cannabis Producer Licensing Requirements until the New Mexico Regulation & Licensing Department is in compliance with the State Rules Act, New Mexico Administrative Procedure Act, and the Cannabis Regulation Act Timeline for promulgating proposed rules by completing the legal requirement of forming Cannabis Regulatory Advisory Committee.

    This is clearly stated in the State Rules Act and New Mexico Administrative Procedure Act from the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office.
    “All public hearings shall be conducted in a fair and equitable manner.”
    (https://www.nmag.gov/uploads/files/Open%20Gov/State%20Rules%20Act.pdf)

    These current proceedings fail to meet the “fair and equitable manner” legal requirements of the State Rules Act due to the RLD Cannabis Control Division’s failure to form the Cannabis Regulatory Advisory Committee. Even the RLD Super has expressed concern in the press of the lack of fairness and equity in the current process.

    “One nagging question is how the new law will help create equity, as lawmakers who backed it said it was intended to do.”
    “That’s an issue Trujillo said gives her “sleepless nights” -SFNM June 26th 2021
    [Green light to grow: First part of New Mexico’s recreational cannabis law takes effect this week |By Robert Nott rnott@sfnewmexican.com Jun 26, 2021
    https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/green-light-to-grow-first-part-of-new-mexico-s-recreational-cannabis-law-takes-effect/article_06a9b128-ceab-11eb-bb2c-930960596341.html%5D

    The New Mexico Legislature placed this Legal duty and requirement of advising the Cannabis Control Division by the Cannabis Regulatory Advisory Committee. The Cannabis Regulatory Advisory Committee has to be involved in these current proceedings for the proposed rules and this has clearly not happened.

    The “cannabis regulatory advisory committee” shall be created no later than September 1, 2021. The committee shall advise the division on the development of rules pursuant to the Cannabis Regulation Act, including best practices and the promotion of economic and cultural diversity in licensing and employment opportunities and protection of public health and safety while ensuring a regulated environment for commercial cannabis activity that does not impose unreasonable barriers that would perpetuate, rather than reduce and eliminate, the illicit market for cannabis.
    (Source: Laws 2021 (1st S.S.), ch. 4, § 3, , retrieved on 08/06/2021.)

    The New Mexico Regulation & Licensing Department is in violation of the Cannabis Regulation Act law by not following the timeline outline for the proposed rule proceedings and that means the RLD is going to have to start this entire process over by first completing the legal requirement of forming the Cannabis Regulatory Advisory Committee to then be able to then conduct public hearings for proposed rules and regulations that the Cannabis Regulatory Advisory Committee will have reviewed and advised for the Cannabis Control Division.

    RLD Deputy Superintendent Blair exposed this violation of the law on Thursday, August 5th 2021.

    On Thursday, August 5th 2021 the RLD Deputy Superintendent Blair presented an update on Adult-use cannabis to a Joint meeting with Indian Affairs Committee and Rural Economic Opportunities Task Force.

    During Mr. Blair’s powerpoint slide presentation to New Mexico Legislators on August 5th, he stated that “The Cannabis Regulatory Advisory Committee, created under the CRA, shall advise the CCD on the development of rules.” (Page 3 this pdf: https://www.nmlegis.gov/handouts/IAC%20080421%20Item%208%20RLD%20Cannabis%20Presentation.pdf)

    On page 4 of Mr. Blair’s presentation is a list of the Cannabis Regulatory Advisory Committee Membership with only 4 of 16 membership spots completed.
    • Chief Public Defender – Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
    • District Attorney – Mary Carmack-Altwies, First Judicial District Attorney
    • Municipal Police Chief – Phil Smith, Roswell Chief of Police
    • County Sheriff – Mark Cage, Eddy County Sheriff
    • Cannabis Policy Advocacy Organization –
    • Labor Organization –
    • A Qualified Patient –
    • State or Local Agency –
    • Indian Nation, Tribe or Pueblo –
    • Public Health –
    • Regulating Commercial Adult-Use Intoxicating Substance –
    • Cannabis Laboratory Science –
    • Small Business Development –
    • Water Resources –
    • Other Relevant Experience –
    • Previous Experience as a Cannabis Retailer, Producer, or Manufacturer (non-voting member)
    (https://www.nmlegis.gov/handouts/IAC%20080421%20Item%208%20RLD%20Cannabis%20Presentation.pdf)

    On July 4th 2021 an article in the Albuquerque Journal discussed how one of the Cannabis Regulatory Advisory Committee members is already performing the duties with the RLD Cannabis Control Division.
    “First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies, who is also a member of the New Mexico Cannabis Regulatory Advisory Committee”
    Erasing the worst of a War on Drugs | Albuquerque Journal | Jul 4, 2021
    https://www.abqjournal.com/2405979/erasing-the-worst-of-a-war-on-drugs-ex-new-cannabis-law-says-related-crimes-are-to-be-automatically-expunged.html

    RLD Deputy Superintendent Blair at the Joint meeting with Indian Affairs Committee and Rural Economic Opportunities Task Force informed lawmakers how the RLD is working with established cannabis producers collaboratively to develop a producer framework.
    (pdf powerpoint slide #10 | https://www.nmlegis.gov/handouts/IAC%20080421%20Item%208%20RLD%20Cannabis%20Presentation.pdf )

    In doing this above, RLD Deputy Superintendent Blair further exposed how the RLD Cannabis Control Division is not following the legal requirements of the Cannabis Regulation Act Law.
    The law says, Previous Experience as a Cannabis Retailer, Producer, or Manufacturer are non-voting members of the Cannabis Regulatory Advisory Committee. But here we have the RLD admitting they are only working with cannabis producers collaboratively to develop a producer framework without the rest of the Cannabis Regulatory Advisory Committee.

    The RLD is going to have to start this entire process over by first completing the legal requirement of forming the Cannabis Regulatory Advisory Committee to then be able to then conduct public hearings for proposed rules and regulations that the Cannabis Regulatory Advisory Committee will have reviewed and advised for the Cannabis Control Division.

    There is nothing in the timeline of the Cannabis Regulation Act law (Below) that allows for the RLD Cannabis Control Division to have first called for proposed rules hearings and drafted proposed rules and regulations without being advised by the full membership of the Cannabis Regulatory Advisory Committee.

    TIMELINE
    “B. No later than January 1, 2022, the division shall promulgate rules that are consistent with industry standards necessary for the division to carry out its duties pursuant to the Cannabis Regulation Act”

    “C. No later than January 1, 2022, the division shall promulgate rules that are consistent with industry standards relating to cannabis training and education programs, including”

    “E. No later than January 1, 2022, the division shall adopt rules in consultation with the department of health to establish standards and determinations on requirements for reserving cannabis products for sale to qualified patients, primary caregivers and reciprocal participants.”

    “G. The “cannabis regulatory advisory committee” shall be created no later than September 1, 2021. The committee shall advise the division on the development of rules pursuant to the Cannabis Regulation Act, including best practices and the promotion of economic and cultural diversity in licensing and employment opportunities and protection of public health and safety while ensuring a regulated environment for commercial cannabis activity that does not impose unreasonable barriers that would perpetuate, rather than reduce and eliminate, the illicit market for cannabis. A person appointed to the cannabis regulatory advisory committee shall not hold any ownership interest or investment in a licensed person pursuant to the Cannabis Regulation Act; provided that the superintendent may appoint a person who holds an ownership interest in a licensed person as a nonvoting member. The committee shall consist of the following members”
    (Source for B, C, E, and G: Laws 2021 (1st S.S.), ch. 4, § 3, , retrieved on 08/06/2021.)

    “(1) no later than September 1, 2021, accept and begin processing license applications for cannabis producers, cannabis producer microbusinesses and any person properly licensed and in good standing as a licensed cannabis producer pursuant to the Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act;
    (2) no later than January 1, 2022, accept and begin processing license applications for all license types;”

    “(5) allow commercial cannabis activity retail sales no later than April 1, 2022 and otherwise allow activities authorized by the Cannabis Regulation Act or the medical cannabis program as of the time of licensure of a licensee, so long as a minimum of twenty-five percent of monthly cannabis sales are to qualified patients, primary caregivers and reciprocal participants or sold wholesale to other licensees that meet or exceed the twenty-five percent sales to qualified patients, primary caregivers and reciprocal participants until December 31, 2022.”
    (Source for 1, 2, and 5: Laws 2021 (1st S.S.), ch. 4, § 7, , retrieved on 08/06/2021.)

    The Hearing Officer assigned to this meeting has a legal duty to halt the current preceding of this proposed rules hearing for Adult-Use Cannabis Producer Licensing Requirements until the New Mexico Regulation & Licensing Department is in compliance with the State Rules Act and the Cannabis Regulation Act Timeline for promulgating proposed rules by completing the legal requirement of forming Cannabis Regulatory Advisory Committee.

    The Need for Diversity in New Mexico’s Cannabis Industry Rules and Regulations can not be ignored any longer.

    White privilege, need for diversity in pot industry | By Jason Barker
    https://www.abqjournal.com/2406943/white-privilege-need-for-diversity-in-pot-industry.html

    Legalization must address adequate supply, social justice and protect medical users | By Jason Barker
    https://www.abqjournal.com/2362345/legalization-must-address-adequate-supply-social-justice-and-protect-medical-users.html

    Cannabis legalization must include social justice and protect medical use
    Jason Barker Your view Feb. 19, 2021
    https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/opinion/2021/02/19/cannabis-legalization-must-include-social-justice-and-protect-medical-use/4499298001/

    Respectfully,
    Jason Barker

13. Erica Rowland on August 6, 2021 at 6:59 am

    Regarding commercial water verification: there are multiple entities, ie MRGCD, and Alb water Authority etc that are unaware of what RLD is requesting and requiring for application for cannabis production. For example, section 16.8.2.15 (5) (a) lists options for certification of water rights. The additional request of permission from the water suppliers to agree and admit and allow the water use for “cannabis is compliant with the providers rules” use specifically. Every water supplier I spoke with said they do not supply a letter like this and ” they do not discriminate against plant type”. Agricultural use does not have to be specified. Please consider what you are requiring being unavailable by water suppliers, and outside of regular operations for them.

14. erica rowland on August 6, 2021 at 6:45 am

    After speaking with municipalities, inspectors, contractors, engineers, and architects, please consider a 90 day provisional license not being sufficient to accomplish much if anything with current construction and material/supply delays. It is imperative to allow for a 12 month provisional license, with one emergency renewal option due to the nature of the construction industry currently.

15. Phillip Sanchez on August 6, 2021 at 6:30 am

    Consumption lounges are important as far as NM making its mark among states with already legalized cannabis. With some states slowly opening lounges we need to be at the forefront. If we want a tourist economy for cannabis. We need to provide safe and relaxing places to consume. All to often people go to states with legalized cannabis and are still consuming in the shadows being there is not legal place for them to be if they do not have a home in said state. Also this is a huge equity aspect to the bill. Consumption lounges is an area where a beginning entrepreneur with less capital can establish a business.

16. Shoshanna Silverberg on August 5, 2021 at 10:09 pm

    To Whom It May Concern:

    I am a New Mexico attorney and a long time Cannabis advocate and regulatory consultant. Yet again, I applaud the work being done in New Mexico to decriminalize Cannabis as well as to create a diverse and sustainable marketplace for it. The strides being made in New Mexico are significant.

    This comment is intended to address one particular issue that originated in HB 2 which continues to present open questions in the current draft of the state’s producer regulations. It will also likely affect any subsequent regulations that are drafted by the Division for other license types. And that is, a general lack of access to resources such as water as well as capital, and technical assistance for social equity applicants, New Mexico residents, and aspiring microbusiness operators in New Mexico’s cannabis space. While HB 2 did attempt to address this issue proactively, it did so as much legislation does – in a way that leaves significant room for discussion and interpretation.

    Specifically, HB 2 requires the Division to develop “procedures” that promote and encourage full participation in the cannabis industry by communities that have been disproportionately harmed by rates of arrest through the enforcement of cannabis prohibition, rural communities likely to be impacted by cannabis production, and agricultural producers from economically disadvantaged communities. Moreover, “procedures” are to be developed that promote and encourage racial, ethnic, gender and geographic diversity (within New Mexico), and New Mexico residency among license applicants, licensees and cannabis industry employees. The legislature even went so far as to call for a certification process to identify cannabis products for consumers from integrated cannabis microbusinesses or cannabis producer microbusinesses owned by representatives from communities that have been disproportionately harmed by rates of arrest through the enforcement of cannabis prohibition. The bill names as well underserved communities that include tribal, acequia, land grant-merced and other rural historic communities. See Sec.3 of New Mexico’s Cannabis Regulation Act (also known as HB 2).

    The current iteration of draft producer regulations addresses this by characterizing the Division’s goal in the following words: To accomplish these mandates, the division establishes a goal that at least 50 percent of applicants for licensure, licensees, and cannabis industry employees will represent these groups. See NMAC 16.8.1.8.

    The Division has reiterated in its proposed producer regulations that with the advice of the cannabis regulatory advisory committee, it shall solicit public input to create and implement a social and economic equity plan. The plan will include guidelines to determine how to assess which communities have been disproportionately impacted, how to assess if a person is a member of a community disproportionately impacted, and proposed incentives to promote social and economic equity for applicants, licensees, and cannabis industry employees (IBID).

    Additionally, HB 2 provided that yet one more facet of the Division’s charge would be, in consultation with the state’s economic development department, the development of a technical assistance resource guide for rural New Mexico residents who are seeking to establish vertically integrated and/or micro cannabis businesses.

    It is reassuring that the Division recognizes the need for these procedures to be developed in a stakeholder model, and that provisional licensing is being considered as a means of enabling entrepreneurs to move forward in their business plans and not fall behind due to the volume of applications the Division anticipates receiving.

    What would provide an even greater level of reassurance is if a more robust support system existed for microbusiness, social equity, and New Mexico resident applicants. To that end, I advocate for a revision to the proposed regulation so that the words “applicants for licensure” are removed and the goal of the Division reads instead: To accomplish these mandates … at least 50 percent of applicants for licensure, licensees and cannabis industry employees will represent these groups.

    A clear distinction between how many New Mexicans we want engaging in the process of applying for a license versus how many we want to become licensed and operational in a profitable, sustainable manner, is necessary to consider and address as this first set of adult use cannabis regulations are carved into stone.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

    Shoshanna Silverberg
    Blackgarden Law

17. Chance on August 5, 2021 at 9:31 pm

    If anyone, or multiple people, want to go in on something, either near Madrid or in SF, email me at weirddrawingsofskeletons@gmail

18. Cree Myers on August 5, 2021 at 6:40 pm

    Hello, the following are some concerns I’d like to submit.
    1. There is a lack of a definition for a “vault”. If all non-growing cannabis and cannabis products are to be held in a “vault” that would be a vault of considerable size and prohibitive cost. Please go into further detail on what a vault is.
    2. I didn’t find the rules quite clear about whether an Integrated Microbusiness with a retail establishment could sell another licensed producer’s cannabis. Microbusiness retail should be able to buy from other microbusiness producers to create a stable market. I also found it unclear whether a microbusiness producer was allowed to transport their own cannabis if they are selling it to a retail facility.
    3. Why should a business come up with its own “recall procedures”? The recall of a product should be something the RLD outlines. It’s pretty serious. Please just write it and enforce it so that it’s consistent and sufficient.
    4. The new section ‘K’ in General Operational Requirements is another burden for small microbusinesses if there is no effort to find and approve affordable “track and trace equipment, software and services”. Please make an effort to find vendors with affordable services, or consider allowing businesses to keep records in another way. I mean, if you can’t figure out how they’re tracing their products, you can just take away their license, right? So why not give them a chance to kind of “do their own taxes”, at their own peril?
    In general I’m pretty disappointed to see that there isn’t any difference between a micro-business and a regular business.
    If I, with my life-savings and land I already own, can’t get into this business, how can anyone but a rich person or an established business get in? Guess it’ll be back to the food-truck dream for me, but for many people like me, it’d be back to the black market.
    Thank you for your consideration.

19. Roadrunner on August 5, 2021 at 5:49 pm

    For all those who are done with the restrictions and corporate greed that comes with legalization, head over to Overgrow . Com, and keep an eye out for the NMCC thread. We are organizing a group of locals to help get knowledge, genetics, and exclusive deals out to the public. We already have stuff the disposable won’t/can’t have, and connections with the true OGs who a lot of these big money punks are buying seeds from through the internet. We are here to help everyone in NM learn to grow their own, but we also want to support local small businesses. Outsiders, big money, and those who would monopolize the industry can shove it.

20. Joby Elliott on August 5, 2021 at 5:49 pm

    While these rules are better than the first draft, I still feel that the CCD are being disgustingly negligent of social and economic equity concerns in their refusal to treat microbusinesses any differently from full-size businesses.

    The intention of microbusinesses was to provide an avenue for individuals and communities harmed by prohibition a chance to enter the industry, and the current rules do not do that. In fact they do the opposite by making the industry only accessible to those with pretty large amounts of existing capital.

    This is a difficult industry to procure outside funding or credit for, and placing a bunch of capital-intense rules on microbusinesses effectively shuts out the very people this law was intended to help. If somebody just got out of jail after having their charges expunged, what makes you think they’re going to be able to come up with tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to meet all these requirements?

    A microbusiness is less than 1/10 the scale of a full size business, and if both require the same up-front investment and the only difference is a few thousand in licensing fees (which is a drop in the bucket compared to the other spending necessary to meet these rules), then please explain to me what the point of a microbusiness even is? If anybody has $100,000 to start a business, they can probably scrounge up another $2,000-3,000 to grow ten times as much. It just doesn’t make sense.

    Microbusinesses need meaningfully different licensing requirements, because they are operating at a meaningfully different scale. For instance the security requirements of a room that has $10,000 worth of cannabis curing in it are clearly different from the security requirements of a room that has hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cannabis curing in it.

    Punting social and economic equity to the future, as these rules do, is also woefully inadequate. Giving big corporations a head start of potentially several months is by itself a massive equity problem. They’re already snatching up all the real estate, and will surely have largely cornered the market by the time you get around to thinking about anyone else.

    You say you’re going to address equity with public input, but you’ve already gotten massive amounts of public feedback about how to address equity. You just don’t seem interested in listening to any of it.

    Sure, those big corporations will give us jobs. That’s all well and good I guess, but it could have been so much more. Getting marginalized New Mexicans $12/hr jobs while out-of-state corporations ship the profits off to Colorado and Arizona is a travesty when marginalized New Mexicans could have actually carved out and owned real slices of this industry. I guess that was never even an option though, now that the CCD have made it abundantly clear who they work for.

    You’ve clearly only been getting input from established large-scale indoor growers, writing rules that cater to their way of doing things, and not even considering any other scales of doing business or growing techniques. It’s disgusting. I’m outraged.