Last week, Curaleaf, a medical cannabis producer and processor in Miami, Florida, announced they have earned the Safe Quality Food (SQF) Level II certification. In the press release, they claim they are the first and only medical cannabis company in the state to achieve that certification.
Curaleaf’s products include a line of low-THC and full strength medical cannabis products. They have dispensaries in Miami, Lake Worth, Fort Myers and St. Petersburg, as well as delivery of products from Jacksonville south to Key West.
According to Lindsay Jones, president of Curaleaf Florida, patients ask frequently about the level of safety of cannabis products. “Every day patients express interest and assurance of wanting to know that the foods and medicines they consume are safe and of the best quality available,” says Jones. “This SQF Level II certification that Curaleaf has earned is particularly important for patients and demonstrates that our medical marijuana processing expertise delivers superior quality products for patients in need across Florida.”
Florida’s regulations on medical cannabis producers and processors actually require a form of certification demonstrating proper food safety protocols. “Within 12 months after licensure, a medical marijuana treatment center must demonstrate to the department that all of its processing facilities have passed a Food Safety Good Manufacturing Practices, such as Global Food Safety Initiative or equivalent, inspection by a nationally accredited certifying body,” reads Rule 9 in the 2017 Florida Statute. Edibles producers in Florida “must hold a permit to operate as a food establishment pursuant to chapter 500, the Florida Food Safety Act, and must comply with all the requirements for food establishments pursuant to chapter 500 and any rules adopted thereunder.” The rules also lay out requirements for packaging, dosage and sanitation rules for storage, display and dispensing of edible products.
Looking at SQF Level II certification and GFSI could be a step in the right direction for many cannabis infused product manufacturers, as they are some of the more recognized programs in the food industry.
Last week, the California Bureau of Cannabis Control released their proposed emergency regulations for the industry. The Bureau, the government agency tasked with regulating California’s cannabis industry, announced the proposed emergency regulations ahead of the highly anticipated January 2018 start date.
Temporary licenses will allow businesses to operate for 120 days while their annual license application is being processed. Not surprisingly, local jurisdictions have considerable autonomy. Getting a license seems to be contingent on first getting local approval to operate. According to Josh Drayton, communications and outreach director at the California Cannabis Industry Association (CCIA), working with local governments will be crucial to making progress. “Now that the Brown Administration has created the framework for medical and adult use cannabis, the main challenge we face as an industry is getting local municipalities to move forward with regulations,” says Drayton. “California has a dual licensing process which means that cannabis operators must receive a local permit/license/authorization before being able to apply for a state license. A majority of California cities and counties have yet to finalize their regulations which will delay state licensing.”
The initial reactions to these proposed regulations seem positive, given that this is a culmination of efforts over several years. “The California Cannabis Industry Association welcomes the release of the emergency regulations,” says Drayton. “These regulations represent years of hard work and collaboration between the administration, the regulating departments, and the cannabis industry.”
A-type licenses are for businesses in the adult-use market, while M-type licenses are for the medical market. Laboratory licenses don’t have this distinction, as they can test both medical and adult-use products.
The record keeping and security requirements seem relatively straightforward, requiring normal surveillance measures like 24-hour video, commercial-grade locks and alarm systems. The rules also lay out guidelines for disposing of waste, including securing it on the premises and not selling it.
Distributor licenses appear to have a number of compliance documentation requirements, such as arranging for all product testing, quality assurance and packaging and label accuracy. “Cannabis and cannabis products must pass through a distributor prior to being sold to customers at a retail establishment,” reads the overview the Bureau published. There is also a transport-only distributor license option. Those regulations appear to be more comprehensive than others, with a number of regulations pertaining to appropriate transportation and security measures.
Everything has to be packaged before it gets to retail; Retailers are not allowed to package or label cannabis products on premises. Microbusiness licenses will be available, which should be an exciting new development to follow as the market matures.
The state will require ISO 17025 accreditation for testing labs. A provisional license is required for a lab to operate in the short term, expiring after 12 months. Laboratory personnel are required to go in the field and do the sampling. Documentation requirements, sample sizes, sampling procedures and storage and transportation rules are also laid out.
Testing labs are required to test for cannabinoids, foreign material, heavy metals, microbial impurities, mycotoxins, moisture content and water activity, residual pesticides, residual solvents and processing chemicals and terpenoids (terpenes). Infused and edible products are required to be tested for homogeneity in THC and CBD concentrations as well. Drayton and the CCIA welcome these new testing regulations, hoping it might improve overall public safety. “We believe that these regulations will address public health issues by mandating the testing of all cannabis products,” says Drayton. “The evolution of the cannabis industry will continue, and we will continue to advocate for good policy that creates solutions for the problems that arise. I believe that we will be visiting and revisiting cannabis regulations for many years to come.”
Certificates of analysis (COA) will be required, showing whether a batch passes or fails testing requirements. Harvest batches that fail testing can be processed for remediation. “Testing laboratories are required to develop and implement a quality assurance program that is sufficient to ensure the reliability and validity of the analytical data produced by the laboratory,” reads the statement on QA and QC.
The Bureau, at the end of their regulatory overview document, lays out some possible enforcement actions, disciplinary actions and citations that could come from noncompliance. “These emergency regulations create a framework for both medical and adult use consumers,” says Drayton. “January 1, 2018 will be the first date that adults 21 years and older will be able to purchase cannabis without a medical card.”
In the coming weeks, we’ll be breaking down and analyzing the other proposed emergency regulations that the state released. Stay tuned for a breakdown of the California Department of Food & Agriculture (CDFA) regulations on cannabis cultivation, as well as The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) cannabis manufacturing regulations.
Josh Drayton, deputy director of the California Cannabis Industry Association, has an extensive career in local and state-level politics, with his origins in Humboldt County as a political organizer. As a coffee shop owner about ten years ago in Humboldt, he let city council candidates use his space for community engagement, which eventually steered him towards a career in politics. As a heavily involved resident of Northern California and an advocate in local and state matters, he came to understand cannabis as a strong economic driver for the region and beyond.
Drayton saw firsthand how local economies benefit from cannabis as a source of income, economic activity, and providing occupational opportunities for many families in Humboldt County. After running a handful of local campaigns in the Humboldt region, Drayton served as deputy director for a state senate campaign in Riverside.
Towards the end of his tenure with the Democratic Party in California, the state legislature began working on medical cannabis regulations. “As we saw those regulations moving through, cities and counties began to ban cannabis throughout the state, which was a very unintended consequence,” says Drayton. “The goal was to put regulations forward that would create a framework for the industry to survive and function under, but they were not very fond of cannabis at the time. It was clear that we had a lot of work to do.” Politicians shying away from cannabis issues and a lack of real representation in the legislature for those stakeholders drove him to leave the state’s senate for the California Cannabis Industry Association (CCIA).
In January of 2016, he jumped on board with the CCIA as their deputy director. Ahead of the California Cannabis Business Conference, September 21-22 in Anaheim, we sit down with Drayton to hear his take on the future of California’s cannabis regulations.
CannabisIndustryJournal: Give us a quick update on the regulatory framework in California and the changes we should expect.
Josh Drayton: One of the biggest challenges that California has faced has been the reconciliation of medical regulations with adult use regulations. Although California had medical cannabis legalized in 1996, we did not get those regulations put forward until 2015. That was called the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act. That was approved by the state legislature and signed by the governor into law. It was created in the legislature. When Prop 64 passed, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, in November of 2016, it was passed through by a voter initiative. Any time that a piece of legislation goes to the voters, it trumps any legislation or regulations written by the state legislature. The real work has been to reconcile these two pieces of legislation into one regulatory structure. With that being said, we saw the initial trailer bill, attempting to reconcile these regulatory structures. That trailer bill is meant to address the new framework. Currently, we are waiting for the second viewing of the updated trailer bill SB 94 with all current amendments. Then we are anticipating those in the next couple weeks and we will see the regulations that will affect all these changes by November.
CIJ: How strong will local and municipal control be in the future?
Josh: It is incredibly strong and it is meant to be. I will say that California is like its own country. In Northern California, what they are willing to accept is very different in comparison to Southern California. Every city and county still has the ability to fully ban adult use and they can create and draft their own ordinances and regulations as long as it doesn’t go above state requirements. They can craft an ordinance to fit the needs of their city or county. Lets say you are in a rural area, delivery services might be important for patient access. Some areas might not allow brick and mortar dispensaries, and all that control lies in the cities and counties.
CIJ: Will there be a dosing limit for patients buying infused products? What about for adult use?
Josh: For adult use, there is going to be a limitation. Every edible has a maximum potency of 10mg of THC. For example, a chocolate bar can have a maximum of 100mg [of THC] but must be perforated in to 10mg pieces.
We have been advocating for, and what has been a priority for CCIA, is a lift of any sort of limits on medical infused products. Many patients have a higher threshold or tolerance and they may need 100mg and we don’t want them eating an entire chocolate bar to get that. We are anxiously awaiting the new trailer bill to see if we have been able to lift that concentration limit.
CIJ: Some have said the first draft of lab testing rules is extreme and overreaching. Can you speculate how those have been modified?
Josh: The lab testing is a huge educational issue for the industry and regulators. No state right now has been able to fully analyze the effects of different pesticide levels for a product that is smoked. We are basing all of our standards currently on food consumption. A lot of testing labs are concerned they are unable to test at the state’s threshold for some of these contaminants and pesticides; the detection limits seem very low. The testing portion will take years to work out, I am sure we will remove and add different pesticides and contaminants to the list. But again, the data and research isn’t fully there. There is a big push across the board that we will be able to do more research and testing so that the future of regulations can reflect reality, and ensure that consumer safety is priority.
CIJ: What do you think of the lack of residency requirement? When Oregon lifted it, outside investors flocked to the market. How might that impact local, California ownership and smaller businesses?
Josh: Well I do think that is a concern across the board. That is something that cities and counties have been adding to their requirements for the matrix of items needed to get a license. I think there is a very gray area when looking at investors opposed to operators. At what threshold does an investor become an owner? And if that person is from outside the state, how will that reflect on the evolution of the industry? It is a concern. Keeping limitations on the size of outdoor cultivation might help limit folks from outside the state coming into that arena. After living in Humboldt County for years, and living next to Mom and Pop growers for a long time, I don’t want to see them displaced by businesses coming from another area. We have been doing this a long time and I believe we have the best operators in the world.
CIJ: How is the CCIA helping businesses gear up for changing regulations?
Josh: Well one of our biggest areas of focus is education. Educating our own industry is one of the biggest parts in making sure the industry will be successful in this regulated market. Our legislative committee will take a position of support or opposition, which goes to our board, and those recommendations go to the state. The manufacturing committee has worked very closely with Lori Ajax [director of the Bureau of Cannabis Regulation] and her office, to educate on a variety of areas, guiding the way for state departments on how to properly regulate the industry. We have a Diversity and Inclusion Committee, Retail/Delivery, Testing, Distribution and Agricultural committees; across the board our committees create white papers that we submit to the regulatory departments of the state. We take regulatory officials on tours of facilities to get a hands-on view of what they are regulating. They have been speaking with scientists and growers, who often have a better understanding of current industry standards. We see these tours as very helpful. We have brought groups of regulators from LA County, Long Beach, Napa, Alameda and many others on tours of Bay Area commercial manufacturing facilities, dispensaries and nurseries. They have a lot of questions and we want to make sure we are a resource for them. Putting folks in touch with the right people and, in moving forward with this process, in an educated manner. Cannabis is a foreign language to many people and I get that.
CIJ: If you have one recommendation for regulators, what would that be?
Josh: My recommendation to regulators: do not over-tax this industry. Do not make taxation the priority for regulation. Over-taxation will strengthen the illicit market and that is not the goal. We need to make sure the taxes are reasonable to encourage businesses to operate in this market, not in the illegal one. If cities decide to ban, they need to know they can be hubs for illicit activity. Cities with bans might draw the illicit market because illegal operators won’t have to pay taxes or license fees. It is a long play, but responsible taxation is the best path to draw people out of this illicit market. We want to help protect public safety and health, safe medicine, safe products and keep cannabis out of the hands of children.
Marketing cannabis and the products that accompany recreational use is set to become one of the biggest industries in the United States. With 29 states promoting legal medical cannabis, 14 with it decriminalized and 8 having legalized it completely, you might be thinking this will be the easiest ad-campaign of all time. Unfortunately, science suggests otherwise.
The Science of Marketing
You heard correctly, marketing is a science, but almost half of what we know about the process cannot be applied to cannabis. Why? Because cannabis lives in the grey area of the American psyche. How do I know this?
In 2015, I completed and published The Safe Haven theory, a socio-demographic linguistic analysis of attitudes toward recreational drug use in the United Kingdom. I won’t bore you with the intricacies of the study, but the findings are important.
The study, using theoretical sociological trends, found that even non-recreational drug users in the United Kingdom favor cannabis legalization. A great number of police jurisdictions have chosen to not longer punish cannabis users, meaning that the law is (mostly) on our side – the side of full legalization and taxation of cannabis as a product for recreational usage, not so dissimilar from alcohol.
In the UK, we could easily put a huge billboard of someone’s grandmother smoking a spliff and make a million on the first day.
Unfortunately, the same can’t be done in the United States.
Advertising law aside, Americans just don’t have the same view of cannabis as Brits. In the last two years, I applied the same framework to a host of American demographics, and – as I hypothesized – localism rules the American market.
If you live in a Red town and you’re a recreational cannabis user, stigma will prevail over the scientific data, and changing that stigma is almost impossible without hard scientific evidence to back-up the marketing campaign.
Qualitative research is key when understanding why people buy into particular industries. This might not be the general belief held by most folks in advertising, as stats and numbers are distinctly easier to work with. However, as last year’s General Election and Brexit vote showed: numbers can lie. Therefore, the best means of understanding what people really want is to actually talk to them – and I mean in-person.
Marketing rules are shifting. More and more, the heads of marketing departments are turning to scientific and scholarly data to assess the current trends in social development, molding their campaigns around this data as a means of showing that they are industry leaders in understanding the phenomena, as well as speaking to target buyers in their own language.
Am I being too wordy? Let me put it simply.
Say your new product is an indoor indica strain with sleep/stress aid properties, this is how you should market it to three specific demographics:
Californian recreational smoker in the 50+ age demographic with a moderate knowledge of cannabis strains,“Indoor indica, grown locally with minimal chemical input, good as a sleep aid and positive for stress reduction.”
New York medical user, 30+, business background,“This strain is an excellent sleep aid, can decrease stress without taking off the edge of your day-to-day workload; highly recommended for those employed in a full-time, private sector position.”
Small town with predominantly low-income demographic employed in blue-collar industry, “affordable means of relaxing after a tough day at work that won’t give you the same cancer risk as tobacco.”
We market the same strain to each of these demographics, but the language used in the campaign is more important than the product itself. In the UK, the same strain would be marketed across the country using something like:
“Dank strain with sleep aid and relaxation properties, best for chilling out at the end of the day – definitely not recommended prior to work!”
What this means for the United States cannabis marketing specialist is simple: you need to invest as much as you can in getting scholarly researchers out into the field and figuring out the local socio-demographic linguistic trends for your target buyers. Luckily, this can be a fairly affordable means of research.
Marketing specialists have two options in uncovering this data:
Use students currently enrolled in universities and colleges, either offering paid internships or college credit for bulk research.
Hire an academic consultancy corporation. This is rapidly becoming a norm in for companies looking to expand their marketing by using scientific data, particularly in industries related to sport and the outdoors.
Just like how Pepsi really missed the mark with their latest failed advertising campaign, cannabis companies are at significant risk of ostracizing themselves from a wealth of demographics that would otherwise be open to recreational or medical cannabis use as an alternative to harsh pharmaceuticals, alcohol and even some forms of therapy.
Language is key, and if you can’t talk to your buyers on their level then you’ve already lost your edge over the competition.
On Election Day last year, voters in Massachusetts approved a measure to legalize recreational cannabis. With recreational sales beginning in July of 2018, lawmakers have tried to get a bill through the state legislature to settle on, among other things, a tax rate and regulatory framework.
On Wednesday, multiple news outlets reported that the legislature has reached a compromise on a bill that would change the measure that voters passed to allow for lawmakers to implement higher taxes, a strategy on local bans and a regulatory framework, reports The Boston Globe.
In a statement to supporters, Matt Schweich, director of state campaigns at Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), the biggest changes are in local control and taxation. “After weeks of persistent advocacy from Massachusetts residents, the Senate and House have reached a compromise that largely respects the will of the people,” says Schweich. “The legislation adjusts the local control policy, allowing local government officials in towns that voted “no” on the 2016 ballot initiative to ban marijuana businesses until December 2019. For towns that voted “yes” in 2016, any bans must be placed on a local ballot for voters to approve.” Therefore if a town wants to ban cannabis sales, they need to bring it to a vote for the people to decide. 72% of the population voted in favor of the ballot initiative. “The maximum tax rate — which depends on whether towns adopt optional local taxes — will increase from 12% to 20%,” says Schweich. “Under the bill, the state tax will be 17%, and the local option will be 3%.” A major push behind increasing the tax rates concerned lawmakers’ worries that the original 12% tax rate would not cover regulatory costs and government expenditures on the industry.
The ballot initiative created the Cannabis Control Commission, the regulatory body overseeing the industry, with three board members. That agency will remain in the new bill, just with five board members that will write the rules on things like marketing, safety, fines and penalties and fair business practices.
Schweich says the MPP helped orchestrate over 1,000 calls to legislators, urging them to reject the House’s version of the bill, which some have called draconian. “The bill isn’t perfect, and we preferred the original language of the ballot initiative,” says Schweich. “However, given how problematic the House bill was, we are satisfied with the final compromise.”
The bill is expected to pass votes in both the House and Senate on Thursday and Governor Charlie Baker is expected to sign the bill that same day.
Last week, Governor Brown’s Administration released a set of proposed rules for the medical cannabis, attempting to provide some oversight to the once unregulated market. In 2015, the governor signed three bills into law that established a regulatory framework via the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act. That legislation set up the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation inside the Department of Consumer Affairs as the overseeing regulatory agency.
According to the press release, the proposed regulations for manufacturing and cultivation have also been published. “The proposed licensing regulations for medical cannabis are the result of countless hours of research, stakeholder outreach, informational sessions and pre-regulatory meetings all across the state,” says Lori Ajax, chief of the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation. “And while we have done quite a bit of work and heard from thousands of people, there is still so much more to do. In order to make our program successful we still need your feedback.”
According to their website, the legislation divides responsibility for licensing businesses between three regulatory bodies: The CA Department of Food and Agriculture the CA Department of Public Health and the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation, which will be the leading body in charge of licensing. The proposed regulations are not set in stone, but give us an important glimpse into how the state hopes to regulate the market.
Among the proposed rules are a number of regulatory compliance nuances expected to raise prices, but provide extra measures to protect consumer safety. According to the SF Gate, regulators expect prices could climb $524 per pound. But with that price jump comes a lot of regulations that other states have so far successfully implemented. The laboratory testing and traceability stipulations are presumably designed to safeguard public health, preventing things like black market diversion and off-label pesticide use.
In addition to the medical regulations, the proposed manufacturing regulations set some notable requirements. Those rules are set by the Office of Manufactured Cannabis Safety, established in the Center for Environmental Health of the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) after the 2015 legislation was signed into law. Good Manufacturing Practices, food product standards, operational and labeling requirements are included in the provisions, along with a list of licensing tiers, application requirements and fees. They have a handy summary of the proposed regulations for those looking for the key highlights.
Omar Figueroa, an attorney with a cannabis law practice in California, says his clients in the industry are preparing to suggest changes to the proposed regulations and possibly legal challenges. “They are looking at this as overregulation by people that are not in the cannabis industry,” says Figueroa. “These are outsiders with a limited knowledge base creating somewhat uninformed regulations.” He says a good example of this is the potency limit on infused products. “They make perfect sense for [the recreational market] but for the medical market it is simply unacceptable. Patients develop a tolerance to THC and would have to increase their caloric intake and buy more infused products if this proposed regulation becomes final.” He says there are a number of regulations that seem kind of arbitrary. “Like prohibiting cannabis-infused caffeine products; there doesn’t seem to be a necessity in the rulemaking for this,” says Figueroa. “A lot of these regulations are going to be susceptible to challenges because California requires regulations to be necessary and alternatives to be considered.”
Although the lab testing regulations won’t be published for another few days, Figueroa expects them to be a huge disruptor for the market. “Most labs in the state are not ISO 17025-accredited, which means many labs might not be able to issue certificates of analysis when the regulations get enforced,” says Figueroa. He says it is safe to say California regulators are looking at other jurisdictions, like Colorado and Oregon for example, in crafting these rules, but we can expect a sea change in these regulations before they get enforced.
Manufacturers will be required to use a cannabis product symbol with a ‘THC!’ marking on their labels. There is also a 100-milligrams-per-package limit for THC in infused products, which is similar to rules we saw Colorado and Oregon roll out during a preliminary period of legal recreational cannabis.
For those looking to get involved in the regulatory process, there is a 45-day comment period on the proposed rules.
Pennsylvania Department of Health Secretary Dr. Karen Murphy recently released a draft of temporary regulations for physicians, asking for feedback via a survey from the medical community. “The process for a patient to obtain medical marijuana will begin with the physician, so it’s vital to ensure that our regulatory process for those physicians is open and transparent,” says Secretary Murphy. “Our focus remains to implement a patient-focused medical marijuana program that gives help to those who need it, and these temporary regulations mark an important step forward in achieving that goal.” The temporary rules, published on April 11th, outline physician and practitioner registration, patient certifications, physician training and other key regulations.
In the temporary rules lie some stipulations for doctors, which seem intended to limit corruption or financial conflicts of interest. According to Steven Schain, Esq., consumer finance litigation, banking law and cannabis law expert practicing with Hoban Law Group, the market’s growth will hinge on doctor participation. “The entire program will rise and fall based on the speed in which we involve doctors,” says Schain. “If the doctors don’t certify for medical conditions and make recommendations, the market won’t go anywhere.” Pennsylvania’s program, under the current language, requires doctors to issue patient certifications, similar to what other states might call a doctor recommendation or prescription.
According to Schain, other states with similarly worded regulations experience a lack of physician participation, and tepid market growth at best. “If you look at New York, New Jersey or Maryland, they run into issues where there just is no incentive for doctors to participate,” says Schain. “If you look at the existing language of the regulations, there is no financial incentive for doctors to get involved, they can’t charge for a recommendation, which is good and bad.”
“The good part is it reinforces that doctors can’t really be a financial backer of a grow operation or a dispensary,” says Schain. Under the current language, physicians can’t solicit, accept or offer any form of compensation from any patient, prospective patient, caregiver or anyone involved in a medical cannabis business if they intend to register with the Department to issue patient certifications for cannabis. “Some doctors thought this would be a cottage industry for them, it’s not.” Doctors are also not allowed to advertise as a practice issuing patient certifications for cannabis. “Another benefit of the language in the proposed regulations is the continuing care of a physician,” says Schain. “They want the people doing the bulk of referring or recommendations to be primary care physicians. Those are the people doing most of the recommendations, as it should be.”
Those rules contrast starkly with what many are familiar with in California’s regulations where doctors could advertise freely and charge fees without the need for ongoing care. “Looking at previous regulations in a state like California, where there were no requirements for ongoing care, we saw doctors making a business out of writing recommendations for cannabis,” says Schain. “The PA regulations are much stricter, which I think is great.”
In addition to those preventative measures, the temporary rules require physicians to actively use the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. This means doctors must consider a patient’s history of controlled substance prescriptions to see if that might impact their medical cannabis use. Doctors have to take this into account before issuing or modifying a patient certification. The rules also provide for a 4-hour training course, required for all physicians seeking to register as a practitioner who can certify patients for medical cannabis use. The Department of Health expects the program will be fully implemented by 2018.
BioTrackTHC, partnering with the Hawaii Department of Health, is deploying the first live seed-to-sale traceability system for cannabis in a FedRAMP-authorized environment, according to a press release. The Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) is a government-wide risk management platform that provides standards for security assessment, authorization and continuous monitoring for cloud products and services. “BioTrackTHC, utilizing Amazon Web Service’s Government Cloud (AWS GovCloud), has met all necessary requirements to host its live government cannabis seed-to-sale Traceability Systems in one of the most secure cloud platforms in the world,” states the press release.
“The BioTrackTHC team invested an incredible amount of time and effort into this high priority project, and we are excited to see it transform from last year’s concept to clean execution,” says Patrick Vo, president and chief executive officer of BioTrackTHC. “We are grateful for the Hawaii Department of Health’s trust in us to get it right the first time.” Hawaii working with BioTrackTHC and AWS GovCloud essentially affords them an ultra-high level of data security in their state traceability program.
“We’re pleased to know that our state’s seed-to-sale Traceability System is now housed in the most secure cloud server available,” says Keith Ridley, chief of the Hawaii DOH Office of Health Care Assurance. “This ensures safety and comfort for our licensees, business operators, and our patients, who can all be confident in knowing their business data and protected patient information is being stored in the most secure traceability system in the world.” The FedRAMP decision-making body is comprised of the Chief Information Officers (CIOs) from the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and the General Services Administration, with additional collaboration from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Security Agency, Office of Management and Budget, and the Federal CIO Council.
The FedRAMP standards include “400 security measures and allows government agencies to use these and only these cloud environments for high-impact data where the loss of data confidentiality, integrity, or availability could be expected to have a severe or catastrophic effect on organizational operations, assets, or individuals,” according to the press release. Essentially this means that they meet the highest security requirements of the program.
Voters in Florida passed Amendment 2 last year with an overwhelming majority of over 70%. The constitutional amendment went into effect on January 3rd this year and regulators have until July 3rd to promulgate the rules.
The Florida Department of Health set up the Office of Compassionate Use (OCU) in July of 2014 after the passing of the so-called Charlotte’s Web measure (HB 843). That bill allows use of low THC/high CBD cannabis for treating seizures. The OCU is charged with the task of writing and implementing medical cannabis rules. Ongoing public hearings and workshops at the Department of Health (DOH) are meant to give stakeholders the opportunity to chime in on the proposed rules.
On January 17th, the DOH published proposed rules and announced public hearings, seeking input from the public on the matter. The OCU is required to implement rules consistent with Amendment 2, but they would defer to the legislature if a bill were passed, promulgating rules consistent with Amendment 2 and the bill.
After the passing of Amendment 2, Sen. Jeff Brandes (R-St. Petersburg) filed SB614, a bill that establishes four license categories instead of the currently required vertically integrated business model. Notably, Sen. Brandes’ bill requires laboratory batch testing, whereas other proposed rules do not include such a measure. Sen. Brandes sees the DOH’s proposed rules as more of the same from the current medical program, according to a quote from FloridaPolitics.com. “Any proposal which seeks to mold the spirit of Amendment 2 into the narrow and flawed law on the books today should be rejected, and a more comprehensive strategy must take priority,” says Sen. Brandes. “I will support no bill, nor any rule, that maintains the established state sanctioned cartel system we have today, and I urge my colleagues to join me in proposing a free market solution for Florida.” He is referring to the seven licensed nurseries from the low THC/high CBD medical program, all of which are vertically integrated.
According to Matthew Ginder, senior counsel in the cannabis law practice at Greenspoon Marder, the biggest question for the legislature is how many licenses will they issue and what kind of structures are required for the licensees. Another big issue is the process by which patients access medical cannabis through their physicians. “The current program requires physicians to register as the orderer of medical cannabis, specify dosing and order medical devices, which is highly uncommon in other state programs,” says Ginder. “Sen. Brandes’ bill removes these requirements and is more consistent with other states by requiring a physician’s recommendation.” He says that bill would create four licenses: cultivation, processing transportation and retail.
Sen. Robert Bradley (R-5th District) also filed legislation (SB 406) to implement Amendment 2, but this bill is very different from Sen. Brandes’ bill. “Bradley’s bill is built upon the statutory framework that is already in place,” says Ginder. “Bradley’s is keeping vertical integration intact, seeking to also limit the amount of vertically integrated license based on a patient ratio of about 20,000 registered patients per license issued.” Bradley’s bill does not provide for independent lab testing requirements. Some might characterize Bradley’s bill as more of the same, allowing for the consolidation of existing monopolies.
Ginder says these are just two bills from the Senate, the House still has not proposed any bills. “We will most likely see more bills,” says Ginder. “We still don’t know what iteration of the bill or what language might be adopted and you can expect them to change as it moves through the committees.” With the legislative session beginning on March 7th, we can expect to see these bills debated on the floor and likely the filing of other legislation.
On February 1st, Greenspoon Marder announced the launch of their Organization for Safe Cannabis Regulation (OSCR) in Florida. By hiring lobbyists and making contributions to certain political candidates, the OSCR aims to advocate for a broad and fair marketplace, specifically “advocating for laws that create independently “registered” entities that perform specific functions along the production and distribution chain.”