BUREAU OF MEDICAL CANNABIS REGULATION SETS UP PRE-REGULATORY MEETINGS TO DISCUSS ISSUES REGARDING MEDICAL CANNABIS

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version Share this

 

By Janis Russell

October 10, 2016 (San Diego) - Close to a hundred people turned out on Wednesday October 5 at the Jacob Center for a pre-regulatory meeting on medical marijuana regulatory issues.  The public meeting was convened by the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation (BMCR) in the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the Office of Medical Cannabis Safety, Department of Public Health.

The meeting covered issues related to general licensing requirements and regulation of medical cannabis dispensaries, distributors, manufacturers, testing labs and transporters. 

This was not related to California Proposition 64, which would legalize recreational marijuana by adults age 21 and older (http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/64/).

According to the packet agenda, in 2015, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law three bills (Assembly Bills 243 and 266, and Senate Bill 643) that created California’s first regulatory framework for medical cannabis. It is anticipated that regulations will be developed by January 1, 2018.

The meeting objectives were to: 1) provide an update on the development of the regulatory framework for the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, and 2) gather input and explore alternatives on specific regulatory concepts related to dispensaries, distributors, manufacturers, testing labs, and transporters.

According to a BMCR handout, the Medical Cannabis Regulatory Act provided for licenses to be issued by three licensing authorities: Bureau of Medical Cannabis (BMCR), California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), and California Department of Public Health (CDPH). The licensing authorities are responsible for developing the regulations and rules regarding state licensing under the new law.

These meetings have been held throughout California since September. Their last meeting will be in Orange County later this month.

ECM covered the dispensaries’ breakout session that day. For this breakout session, topics covered were: subtype of dispensary licenses, employee requirements, delivery requirements, and transaction limits. Mindy Meyer from CSU Sacramento was the facilitator over the groups and Meagan Wylie from the Center for Collaborative Policy wrote down people’s responses.

Participants in the breakout included people in healthcare, medical marijuana dispensary representatives, an attorney, and a representative from county government. 

The first topic had to do with determining whether additional subtypes of dispensary licenses are necessary for implementation of the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act. An option for that was to: create a subtype of dispensary license for delivery-only dispensaries. This license would require brick and mortar premises but would allow for delivery, non-storefront retail sales to qualified patients and primary caregivers. BMCR and law enforcement would maintain the right to inspect the premises at any time.

One group recommended registering all operating vehicles. Another group was concerned about where a brick and mortar might be and that it should be locally determined for operations. A third group recommended that there be criteria for the brick mortar inspections. A fourth group felt an economic analysis should be done for delivery service versus retailer, and that a delivery service should not run out of a home. The last group said a virtual dispensary license is ok but with the same hours of operation. “I know a lot of people who work 24 hours,” said one man. This group also felt that there should be heavy insurance for the virtual dispensary as well as mandatory reporting for robberies like crime statistics.

Topic # 2 had to do with employee requirements. The Act states that the protection of the public will be the highest priority for the licensing authorities. The Act requires licensees to maintain accurate records of commercial cannabis activity. The BMCR thought the licensees should maintain accurate, up-to-date roster of all employees (contractors, full-time and part-time employees, delivery employees etc) and accompanying information on each employee as part of their records. That information would be the start date of the employee, all applicable training, job description, and any employee information maintained by the licensee. 

One response was that the employer should do a background check on the delivery driver for DUIs or drug trafficking. Also, the number of employees should be tracked with titles. It was recommended that employees go through product training. A woman suggested, “Whatever you apply to employees, you apply to independent contractors” with equivalent training etc. Someone else suggested to have an employee who is OSHA certified. One group said that the employer should keep their employees’ records confidential, but to give to the state upon request. It was also recommended that it be a requirement to have a certified cannabis nurse on site. Someone else said, “Licensees should conduct background checks on all employees” as well as require workers comp insurance and sexual harassment training.

Topic #3a was about delivery requirements/manifests. BMCR thought that the following information be on all delivery manifests (cargo document): 1) name and license number of dispensary, 2) name of primary caregiver or qualified patient who ordered medical cannabis or medical cannabis products, 3) number of units or weight of items being transported, 4) strain and product type of medical cannabis and medical cannabis products in shipment, 5) unique identifiers of all products in shipment, 6) travel route, start and end time, and 7) all planned stops on travel route. One group that the name of the patient be removed and instead use a medical card number for #2. Someone else said to report all stops for #6. Another group said to develop a system to verify delivery, like a biometric screening. Someone felt that the manifests were okay, but there were concerns with cash privacy and to maybe have an electronic manifest.

Topic #3b was about delivery requirements and storage. BMCR thought that all dispensary delivery vehicles be equipped with: 1) refrigeration, 2) specialized locking system for storage of medical cannabis and medical cannabis products, 3) vehicle alarm system, and 4) separation between the people in the vehicle (i.e. drivers and passengers) and the shipment. Someone thought that “refrigeration requirements should be appropriate to the product.” Someone thought #4 should have more specification. Another person suggested to have a lock box/drop box for money for crime prevention, or can take it back to the delivery company. Another group thought that #4 was unnecessary, and have a dashboard camera for safety and accountability. There should also be GPS tracking for delivery, and the vehicle should be commercial probably with a commercial license. Another group suggested mandatory risk disclosures for the staff and drivers. The last group said they agreed with the mandatory liability insurance in the Act, and they felt that motorcycles don’t have to follow the refrigeration requirement. There should also be security training for the driver.

Topic #4 was about transaction limits. BMCR thought that transaction limits for an individual patient within the following range for all dispensaries should be set, based on other states. Examples from other states include: 1) 2.5oz per month of usable medical cannabis regardless of product type, 2) 5oz per month usable medical cannabis regardless of product type, or 3) Limitations like 24oz of dried flower, 16 oz solid or 72oz of liquid a medical cannabis product, 16oz of a cannabinoid concentrate whether sold alone or an in inhalant delivery system, 5 grams of a cannabinoid extract whether sold alone or in an inhalant delivery system, and 4 immature medical cannabis plants; and 50 seeds. One group thought there should be a built in process to monitor the products which should be tied to a clinical guide. Another thought was to register all delivery services in a linked database. Another group thought that there should be no limit because it’s hard to know between patients. They thought there should also be no limits on alcohol and that consideration should be given to lack of access for some persons.

For more information and background, go to: http://www.bmcr.ca.gov/.


Error message

Support community news in the public interest! As nonprofit news, we rely on donations from the public to fund our reporting -- not special interests. Please donate to sustain East County Magazine's local reporting and/or wildfire alerts at https://www.eastcountymedia.org/donate to help us keep people safe and informed across our region.