Perhaps no process is more concerning than the vital overhaul of the regulations for testing cannabis
It is difficult to overstate how massively the Massachusetts marijuana industry was overhauled by recent legislation. From the much ballyhooed sale and possession limit increase to more obscure but nevertheless consequential changes, the landscape looks much different than it did even a month ago.
One of the most noticeable tweaks is at the Cannabis Control Commission, where all four board members were shown the door. Their replacements held their first public meeting last week, and are in the process of getting caught up to speed.
That won’t be an easy task with everything that’s going on, but luckily there’s plenty of expert advice around from stakeholders who have watched the agency closely for years. The following open letter to the new commissioners is by Jeff Rawson, founder of the Institute of Cannabis Science and a frequent TJM contributor. -TJM Editors
Dear Chair and Commissioners,
I’m writing to congratulate you on your appointments, and to offer you my frank perspectives as you begin your tenures as Commissioners of the CCC. My close observations of the agency and my training as an investigator inform these observations, and my lack of conflicting interests should assure you of my honesty.
The top priority of the Institute of Cannabis Science is transparency on behalf of consumers. Economic theory tells us that markets are most efficient and responsive to consumers when value is readily evident, while history teaches that corruption festers in government bodies that conceal. I agree with Chair Harding’s statement from last week’s meeting that the new composition of the Commission is replete with qualifications, but I fear their appointments might be part of an effort to stymy transparency in Massachusetts cannabis.
There are several, overlapping subjects that I’d like to raise in this letter which concern the CCC’s transparency with product safety information. I want to draw to your attention that the General Counsel interfered with the contents and recommendations of the 2025 Industry Report prepared by CCC’s Research Department for the Legislature. Evidence that some testing labs may have reported fraudulent results was removed, and a conclusion that economic incentives could influence cannabis testing results was trimmed.
The explanation offered in public meetings was that the General Counsel concealed this information from the Legislature to protect the CCC from liability. Similarly, GC has invoked liability to prevent releases of aggregated testing data with identifiers that could be traced to producers. In public meetings, GC has supposed that a testing lab might sue the CCC under the tenuous pretext that such a release constituted disclosing lists of labs’ clients to their competitors. GC deployed a similar argument in a failed attempt to prevent the listing of the Certificates of Analysis from product testing on a consumer-facing website.
Perhaps no process is more concerning than the vital overhaul of the regulations for testing cannabis. It’s crucial because the current regulations are fragmented and not centrally available. In fact, I cannot put my fingers on one comprehensive “book” of regulations for testing of cannabis in Massachusetts, in contradistinction to almost any other adult-use state.
Instead of revealing a starting point or initial draft document for the new testing regulations, CCC began by releasing a list of 14 possible changes for public comment. Some of the 14 were absurdly narrow or obvious, while others were too vague to interpret meaningfully. We’ve been told to expect the regulatory rewrite to continue in this fashion, with all the real choices made using no apparent process and concealed from all stakeholders. Perhaps if you inquire into the reason the rewrite is conducted behind closed doors, you will hear about more “liabilities.”
As the head of a consumer protection organization, I suggest to you that the recorded statements of the GC during public meetings constitute their own liabilities for the CCC. Several attorneys have expressed interest in the way that CCC has abdicated its responsibilities to consumers in favor of the interests of its senior staff and the cruelest industry participants, and GC’s statements support a powerful narrative of self-preservation over due-diligence.
I have heard from industry insiders who wanted an end to the investigations being aired in public by previous Commissioners. Some believe that transparency and accountability open a vulnerability to the ballot effort to end adult-use cannabis. They are wrong.
The best way to protect our marketplace is to demonstrate its care for consumers and its safety over alternatives. This is why I urge you to seize this opportunity for a change of direction in the General Counsel’s office. Continuing the CCC’s pivot toward consumers is how you make the cannabis marketplace in Massachusetts the envy of other adult-use states.
Thank you for your attention to this letter, and please contact me any time with questions.
