Among other questionable proposed regulations, stakeholders decry proposed potency limits for Massachusetts cannabis venues
At a public hearing held by the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission last week, community members, business owners, and advocates contributed ideas and insight to a review of draft rules for social consumption licenses. Unveiled in July after years of false starts, the regulations covering the Adult Use of Marijuana and the Medical Use of Marijuana out in the world would create three distinct Social Consumption Establishment license types and subcategories as well.
Supplemental On-Site Consumption would be for existing Marijuana Establishments (MEs) to add on-site consumption into their operations. Hospitality On-Site Consumption is for new or existing non-cannabis businesses to host consumption activities in partnership with qualifying MEs, and the Event Organizer classification is for qualifying MEs to organize and host temporary consumption events.
In addition to those classes, the rules would also establish four separate types of consumption areas including indoor and outdoor smoking. Generally, businesses will be able to sell cannabis products to customers who can then consume them on premise. But the whole ordeal is far from simple; among other catches, extensive rules covering indoor smoking areas currently include detailed requirements on ventilation systems meant to remove smoke and vapor and mitigate odor at property lines.
Serving limits and the push to make social consumption profitable
At last week’s hearing, some of the proposed rules drew ire from business owners, like that addressing language around serving limits. Current draft regulations would allow no more than 3.5 grams of flower, and no more than two servings of infused products that do not exceed 10 mg of Delta-9 THC. In response to those strict limitations, some speakers mentioned other opportunities that the state has offered to Social Equity businesses first, only to bungle things and hamper profitability for cash-strapped startups.
(After we published this story, a CCC spokesperson clarified: “The limits apply to each transaction at a Social Consumption establishment. The daily limits in place now (1 oz of flower/500mg worth of edibles) would still apply at Social Consumption establishments. It’s similar to how baseball stadiums limit the number of beers you can buy at each trip to the concession stand but don’t limit the overall number of beers you can have during the game.” The current regulation language is as follows (emphases theirs).):
Social Consumption Establishment agents shall only sell Marijuana or Marijuana Products to individuals in an amount not to exceed the limitations of 935 CMR 500.140(3), 500.140(4) and 935 CMR 500.150(4)(a) and (b). Notwithstanding 935 CMR 500.105(6)(c)2.c., and in accordance with 935 CMR 500.105(6)(e), a Social Consumption Establishment shall offer no more than 3.5 grams of Marijuana flower to a Consumer at one time, or no more than two servings of Marijuana-infused Products, that do not exceed 10 milligrams of delta-nine-tetrahydrocannabinol, to a Consumer for consumption at one time.
Lisa Mauriello, a co-owner of Paper Crane Cannabis, operates the small Hubbardston-based farm under a Social Equity license. She said she and her husband Boey’s team would like to hold a consumption license to offer a vineyard-style experience, but said previous experiences in the industry have been traumatic and made them reluctant to pursue the opportunity.
“We had interest in obtaining a delivery license since it was intended for equity folks, but we abandoned it before we invested and lost a ton of our friends’ and family’s money, like many others did, due to regulations like the two-driver rule that was required upon launch,” Mauriello told commissioners. “All of this is to say, please think about the equity operators who will hold these social, consumption licenses. Please center us in your discussions. … I’m asking to please make this license type profitable and not overly burdensome for operators.”
Alcohol and “Cooling Down Areas”
Another contentious draft rule is effectively a ban on a business with an Event Organizer license sharing a space with another entity that is serving alcohol—“unless there is a physical barrier separating the spaces or alcohol sales are not offered at the same time as consumption of marijuana.” It’s hard to imagine how that would work at an outdoor concert, where you’d have to choose between your friends who smoke weed and the beer drinkers.
Additional regulations call for “designated Cooling Down Areas,” where a consumer would spend time to allow the effects of consumption to dissipate. That proposal drew a lot of criticism from the gallery, including from Home Grown Boston founder Ethan Vogt. A longtime advocate and experienced event organizer, he said the “required cooling down space idea is a terrible idea.”
Vogt continued: “Scrap it. … Social equity operators need a helping hand into this industry, and this opportunity for a social consumption license type is a wonderful thing. And we should be able to see it as a profitable thing.”
He suggested social equity licenses be extended to an exclusivity period of 10 years from the currently proposed 60 months.
“Social consumption is happening now in spaces, the few spaces that were mentioned earlier, and then also all over the place,” Vogt said. “Every bar, you can go out back and smoke a joint, and the security guard won’t yell at you. So to make an opportunity for these licensees to do it in a regulated environment, we are competing with bars. What a bar does, their cooling down period is from 1:30am to 2am.”
As for that awkward “cooling down” space concept, he said it would further stigmatize usage and likely drive away potential customers.
“A cooling down period should look like a taco truck outside of the establishment that’s allowed to operate late in the city,” Vogt said. “Not some room that you have to sit in and feel like a baby.”
