In drafting regulations, commissioners consider how weed and booze might coexist at events
Up to this point in the process of drafting regulations for licensed social cannabis consumption in Massachusetts, the inclusion of alcohol has been a non-starter. Versions so far have included language such as that a “Social Consumption Establishment may not allow the consumption of alcohol or the smoking of tobacco, or the sale of alcohol or tobacco on the Premises.”
Much of the sentiment behind an outright exclusion of alcohol in social consumption settings can be traced back to research that commissioners did prior to the drafting process. In communicating with operators and experts in markets like California and Nevada where these establishments are up and running, the consensus was that booze and weed mix like oil and water.
The need to making social consumption operations sustainable
But more recently, commissioners along with outside stakeholders have increasingly considered the viability of social consumption businesses. And in exploring ways to write regulations that make for increased opportunities at a time when dispensaries are shuttering at an alarming rate, in their public meeting on Monday to edit the draft rules, CCC members and supporting staffers revisited the subject of how alcohol and cannabis can coexist in certain establishments and situations—specifically, at larger happenings or in cases like music festivals or sporting events.
When the topic came up, Commissioner Ava Callender Concepcion asked what the initial thinking was behind the blanket booze ban. To which Commissioner Nurys Camargo, who along with Commissioner Bruce Stebbins spearheaded the social consumption regulation process, said they’d been concerned about mixing both “in the same places” for public safety reasons. Over the last few months, however, in coming to understand “the reality about these spaces and places where these things are going to happen,” she’s grown more comfortable with the prospect.
The conversation raises countless questions. For example, consider a wedding venue that hosts multiple concurrent parties. If a couple in one part of the place decides to have an infused reception, will that mean they can’t serve alcohol as well? What if there’s a dab bar outside and a vodka ice luge inside? And how about other parties that are potentially planned for the same catering facility—would they be able to have alcohol on the same night that the other couple is having a weed wedding?
How social consumption work at a place like Fenway Park
Putting some scaffolding around the subject, Commissioner Stebbins suggested there are three potential levels of incorporating alcohol in the social consumption regulations: strict with no booze accommodations whatsoever; semi-malleable, such as a catering space that can be used for cannabis consumption on some days and alcohol consumption on others; and finally, a more fluid simultaneous commingling, as would likely have to be an option if large concert halls, for example, were to take the plunge.
Even with those factors and considerations in play, however, Stebbins noted that the CCC should stay in its lane. “Our authority only extends so far,” he said. “So we can look at examples of how people want to allow social consumption at a concert venue … or Fenway Park, where there is alcohol consumption … but for me, we have to focus on where we have regulatory authority.”
Drilling deeper into that tangent, Stebbins used the example of whether it would be in the commission’s purview to dictate if the Red Sox, for example, would be able to accommodate cannabis consumption in just one section of Fenway while keeping alcohol sales in the other. “This is kind of where we need to weigh in on this policy decision,” he said.
Regarding possible changes to the original draft, Concepcion said, “I have some concerns. I understand the public safety concerns and like that there was language about a physical separation, and now we are essentially saying there is commingling. I’m having a hard time formulating how this resolves an issue that was addressed with the original language.”
Addressing the possibility of an event where, for example, there may be a cannabis section separated from a drinking area, Commissioner Kimberly Roy asked: “Are we trying to stop the smoke [from entering an area where it’s not supposed to be]? Or are we trying to stop the commingling?” Assuming it’s the latter, Roy said she would be comfortable with there being a physical barrier between the two.
All variables considered, CCC Director of Government Affairs and Policy Matt Giancola conceded that these regulations and separations will be hard to enforce. Relatedly, he noted how the state’s Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission doesn’t crack down on licensees in real time, but rather after the fact as instances warrant.
Different rules for different license classes
Looking to address some of the open questions, Commissioner Roy suggested that the regulations may need to be tweaked differently for the three proposed license types—Supplemental, Hospitality, and Event Organizer. It’s under the latter where this commingling might take place in some form.
Supplemental is for “Existing, qualifying [Marijuana Establishments] MEs, including Cultivators, Product Manufacturers, Retailers, Microbusinesses, Craft Marijuana Cooperatives or Delivery Operators.” (Examples given by the CCC include “Lounge, Café, Tasting Room, etc.”) The Hospitality license is for “Qualifying Consumption Licensee[s] in a new or existing non-cannabis commercial business space.” (Examples given by the CCC include “Lounge, Café, Entertainment/Recreational Space, Yoga Studio, Theater, Lodging Space.”) And the Event Organizer class is for “Qualifying Entities [to] organize and host Temporary Consumption Events.” (There are multiple configurations possible in the draft.)
The social consumption draft wording before the commission on Monday included the following blanket language concerning alcohol: “A Social Consumption Establishment may not allow the consumption of alcohol or the smoking of tobacco, or the sale of alcohol or tobacco on the Premises. Social Consumption Establishments shall not allow consumption by Consumers in a space that is shared with another entity serving alcohol unless there is a physical barrier to the Consumption Areas or alcohol sales are not offered at the same time as consumption of Marijuana or Marijuana Products by Consumers.” On Monday, they solidified that language even further, changing the words “may not allow” to “shall not allow.”
Next steps for social consumption in Massachusetts
Following the discussion, members agreed to have their attorneys and policy team adjust the language to allow for more considerations in the Event Organizer classes, while keeping it for Hospitality and Supplemental businesses. Those tweaks will be reflected in an upcoming version, which will also address other considerations around events that are still in flux. After that, several steps in the process remain before people can smoke one at a licensed establishment on Main Street—from a formal comment period, to public hearings and final edits.
For now, Commissioner Stebbins said at a press availability following Monday’s meeting that he is excited for the body to have finally made it through a first full read-through of the social consumption regulations, and he anticipates the upcoming conversation to nail down specifics for event permissions.
Other questions that came up on Monday include whether vendors would have to train employees to determine if people are too high as well as too drunk to serve. Meanwhile, commissioners also addressed a range of other social consumption subtopics including permissible hours of operation, whether to allow for the sale of hemp drinks, if servers should have to wear body cameras, and how they might leave leeway in the rules for evolving smoke mitigation technology.
“I think it’s a good conversation,” Commissioner Camargo said. The member, who announced last week that she’s leaving the commission later this month, joked that the alcohol commingling piece has kept her up at night. She added, “Sometimes we are overprescriptive with these [regulations].”
