All commissioners are present – Dr. Ronda Henry-Tillman, M.D. is presiding.
The commissioners were briefed on legal actions brought against other states in regards to the rollout of medical marijuana – in hopes to avoid similar mistakes in Arkansas.
To the point, the rules have to be applied evenly to everyone. Other examples where the high-point winner was not the recipient of the license, and the unsuccessful applicant sued. The grading rubric should be clear and concise. About subjectivity, not many issues as long as the application is clear. Background checks must be applied consistently across the board.
Cultivation applications will continue to be strictly merit-based – no discussion otherwise. Seems to be agreement that scores will be added together from all of the commissioners, as opposed to averaged together. Travis Story made the point that if he graded consistently high or low compared to the other commissioners, it wouldn’t matter is all the scores were summed together.
On to the draft dispensary rules, the consensus is that successful dispensary applicants who opted not to grow MMJ could change to a growing dispensary at the annual license renewal. They clarified that someone applying for both a cultivation license and a dispensary license who wanted to hedge their cultivation bet would have to apply for a dispensary with grow. If they were successful in attaining a cultivation license and a growing dispensary license, they could simply opt not to grow at the dispensary, but it wouldn’t change the application process.
ABC Attorney Mary Robin Casteel, Commissioner Dr. Carlos Roman, and Commissioner James Miller
Commissioner Dr. Stephen J. Carroll and Commissioner Travis Story
Chairwoman Dr. Ronda Henry-Tillman
For dispensaries, they agreed that the performance bond would have to remain in place for a year, until the first license renewal. Dr. Carroll is making the point that he wants to make sure that the minimum requirements for a dispensary are adequate enough since they will be awarded through a lottery.
Reminder, in the event that a dispensary applicant wins the lottery, they will be subject to a hearing with the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Commission (AMMC) afterwards. The lottery will be conducted by geographic zone. If the AMMC doesn’t find the applicant’s testimony adequate, the commission will move on to the next lottery winner.
The dispensary application creation work will not start until the rules are finalized – they are pretty close.
Legislative update – the bill that contemplates separate transportation, processing, and distribution of MMJ from the cultivation facility is being considered in committee tomorrow.
The commission is now asking about the prospects of employing a consultant to help guide them through this process, again, in order to avoid mistakes that have been made in other states.
After publicly posting the proposed rules and regulation, they will be published for written comment. Most likely, there will be public oral comment accepted (if 25 individuals request such).
Rules must be in place by May the 8th.
The next meeting will be Tuesday, February 21st at 3:30PM.
Motions passed:
- none
I find it odd that the commission is briefed on legal action taken against other states over the rollout of their MMJ program yet they make no attempt to mirror the regulations that have been successful at establishing a working program for other states. Instead, they choose to make up regulations seemingly from thin air that aren’t included in any other state’s program. They are effectively regulating our program to the point that I believe will prevent it from functioning.
I’d like to know how anyone can put $1M of assets at risk of forfeiture by listing those assets under a company that intends to violate federal law. Writing a bond for a company that intends to violate federal law is a violation of federal law itself. How will any of these requirements be met by a company that isn’t allowed to even open a bank account because the profits they generate will be from violating federal law? Why are any such requirements necessary when the commission intends to evaluate each application to determine who receives licenses? It seems to me that the application process itself should be sufficient for the commission to determine who is most likely to be successful in this endeavor. Those who have been successful in other business ventures and have a clear understanding of what they’re getting into with this will be the most likely to succeed. They shouldn’t be asked to risk $1m assets or have someone write a bond in violation of federal law because these things can be used to measure the probability of success.
Perry, thanks for your comments about the issue.
The commission has looked to other states for inspiration in crafting their rules and regulations, specifically Illinois and Connecticut.
Also, on several occasions, the commissioners have asked for an industry consultant to come in to counsel them on this process. Each time, the ABC has dissuaded them because of funding constraints, time constraints, and potential conflicts of interest. I don’t think these concerns voiced by the ABC outweigh the potential benefit of an outside consultant, but it is clear that the commissioners are trying to make good policy with the limited information they are privy to.
Look to Colorado and Oregon who have proven success