
Body passes recommendation for Cannabis Control Commission to “prioritize previous [Cannabis Advisory Board] recommendations”
The 25 members of the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission’s Cannabis Advisory Board represent every corner of the industry and consumer base imaginable. They don’t have the power of the actual commissioners, but these advisors and their subcommittees—Cannabis Industry, Market Participation, Public Safety & Community Mitigation, Public Health, and Research—help steer and set the tone for upcoming regulatory adjustments, many of which are potentially critical.
Among other assignments, the latter subcommittee has been “tasked with developing recommendations on the medical cannabis industry in Massachusetts and the … adult use industry to inform the changes in the … regulations that are ongoing.”
It’s an expansive charge, but over the past few years, the nine-member Research Subcommittee has made recommendations pertaining to various facets of cannabis regulation. In March 2023, they submitted seven specific points of suggestion to the CCC regarding issues spanning the agency’s open data portal and transparency to a feasibility study around the implementation of a cannabis standards lab.
A quick review shows that to date, none of the research squad’s recommendations have been fully implemented. Still, the group has seemingly helped shift the dialogue on several topics, and in the past few months has continued its work and increasingly engaged commissioners—including in “the area of cannabis lab testing and product labeling,” which it has monitored since as early as 2022.
Laser-focused on lab testing
Responding to “reports of inconsistencies and potential safety issues in how cannabis and cannabis product samples are tested, how test results and contaminants are reported, and how operators are presenting testing and potency data to patients and consumers on product labels,” the Research Subcommittee approved a number of cannabis lab testing recommendations in June 2023.
The current members are still leaning on this issue; earlier this year, they voted on a new definition for the group that includes testing, and in October, they invited MCR Labs VP of Marketing and Technology Yasha Kahn to speak on the subject. “Either regulators step in and solve this problem, as we have seen in multiple states,” Kahn said, “or honest labs go out of business, which we have also seen in multiple markets.”
At that meeting, the Research Subcommittee took action tied to Kahn’s findings, with members unanimously passing a motion recommending “that the Cannabis Control Commission make all cannabis compliance testing data available to the public in the most expeditious manner possible. … that the data be made public within 60 days … [and] that the compliance testing data be made available on both the Cannabis Control Commission website and during the Cannabis Control Commission monthly meetings.”
With the subject remaining a priority, Committee Chair Ellen Brown said the group would continue the discussion around testing at a later date.
A glitch with medical patient ID cards
At their September meeting, the Research Subcommittee began to discuss how, currently, “Massachusetts medical cannabis cards list the expiration date for the date the patient registered with the Cannabis Control Commission, not the date their recommendation expires. The difference in dates has caused confusion for patients.”
To help minimize confusion, members are now considering a recommendation “that the Cannabis Control Commission update the Medical Use of Marijuana Online System by implementing: (1) an opt-in feature that allows patients to have their certification expiration date printed on their registration card alongside the registration expiration date; and (2) a separate opt-in feature that allows patients and caregivers to possess a digital registration card instead of a plastic ID card.”
More feedback for the CCC
In addressing the Research Subcommittee in October, Kahn of MCR Labs suggested that the CCC’s testing team and leadership meet regularly with Independent Testing Labs. Though commissioners and their supporting staffers frequently engage with stakeholders, there are still widespread requests for more two-way communication—especially from ITLs.
The Research Subcommittee is responding, and this week members mulled over a recommendation “that the Cannabis Control Commission identify key stakeholders and constituents from both the medical and adult use programs and hold meetings on a regular basis with these stakeholders to discuss their unique needs and concerns.” Those consulted would include: “Medical Stakeholders (patients, clinicians, advocacy groups); Adult Use Stakeholders; [the] Cannabis Advisory Board.”
Some potential issues that came up around making such a request included vagueness; there’s no point in passing something that the CCC can simply wave off by saying it’s already happening. The group is also considering other feedback methods, like including a form that licensees get with renewals where they can report on their experience. The group will bring the topic up again at the next subcommittee meeting in the new year.
In the meantime, with those proposals on the table, the research group voted on a general recommendation which should apply to all of its forthcoming work—“that the Cannabis Control Commission prioritize previous CAB recommendations that touch on public health, safety and welfare concerns.”
The measure passed with unanimous approval.