The New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department (RLD), Cannabis Control Division (CCD), will hold a public rule hearing on August 31, 2023, at 9:00am. The rule hearing will be held at the Rio Grande Conference Room in the Toney Anaya State Office Building located at 2550 Cerrillos Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Individuals wishing to participate and offer comment on the proposed rules will appear in-person at the hearing location. A PDF of the proposed rule and meeting details may be accessed through the Cannabis Control Division website: https://www.rld.nm.gov/cannabis/ or from Victoria Kaniatobe at the contact information listed below.
The hearing will be live-streamed via Internet-based video and via telephone for those wishing to observe the hearing. Public comment will not be accepted for those observing via the live stream or phone. Join here.
The purpose of the public rule hearing is to receive public commentary regarding the proposals for amendments to rules related to licensing requirements and complaint procedures.
Legal authority for this rulemaking may be found the Cannabis Regulation Act, Section 26-2C-1 through Section 26-2C-42 NMSA 1978 (2021). Additional authority may be found at Section 9-16-6 NMSA 1978 (2021).
The Division will begin accepting public comment on the proposed rules beginning July 31, 2023. Please submit written comments on the proposed rules to Robert Sachs, Division Counsel for the Cannabis Control Division, via electronic mail at ccd.publiccomment@state.nm.us. Written comment may also be submitted by visiting the Division website at https://www.rld.nm.gov/cannabis/ or by mailing the comment to the following address:
Cannabis Control Division Public Comment
c/o Robert Sachs
P.O. Box 25101 Santa Fe, NM 87504
All public comments must be received by the close of the public rule hearing on August 31, 2023. Persons will also be given the opportunity to present their comments at the rule hearing. Comments received prior to the rule hearing will be posted to the RLD website at: https://www.rld.nm.gov/cannabis/.
No later than July 31, 2023, interested parties may obtain and review copies of the proposed rules and public comments by going to the Cannabis Control Division website at https://www.rld.nm.gov/cannabis/ or by contacting the Cannabis Control Division at RLD.CannabisControl@rld.nm.gov or (505) 476-4995.
Any individual with a disability who is in need of a reader, amplifier, qualified sign language interpreter, or other form of auxiliary aid or service to attend or participate in the hearing should contact Victoria Kaniatobe, Legal Clerk for the Cannabis Control Division at Victoria.Kaniatobe2@rld.nm.gov or (505) 476-4577 at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing.
Summary of Proposed Amended Rules
16.8.2 NMAC: LICENSING AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CANNABIS ESTABLISHMENTS
Part 2 provides the requirements necessary for issuance of a license under the Cannabis Regulation Act. Part 2 also governs the licensing and operational requirements for licenses. Amendments to this part will strike conditional licenses and variances to licenses. Additional amendments will change the requirements for the issuance and renewal of a license. Some of these changes include but are not limited to, adding that inspections will be required prior to the issuance of a license as well as requiring the completion of training courses prior to the issuance of a license.
Comments in the attached.
NMAA Comments on CCD Proposed Amendments 8.30.23
To whom it may concern,
I do not see mention of the oversaturation of the market, specifically in Albuquerque. Compliance is important–I understand that. I, along with many other small business owners, hope that the CCD addresses this issue soon. The market will correct itself with time, but damage can be mitigated. New business owners are still being allowed to open businesses while putting their life savings on the line and quitting their careers just to compete in this volatile market. These new businesses are forced to undercut their competitors to a drastic degree just to survive. The market is tanking as a result. Here is a estimated list contrasting prices during the first year (2022) and now (2023):
2022:
1 gram of flower ($9-$15)
1 pre-roll ($8-$10)
1 1g cartridge ($60-$80)
2023:
1 gram of flower ($3-$8)
1 pre-roll ($4-$8)
1 1g cartridge ($30-$50)
And the prices continue to drop. The businesses being hurt, are the ones like my own, where I spent months and months prior to legalization planning, preparing, and executing a plan to operate a cannabis retail business to open at the start of recreational cannabis sales. Now I suffer as my location is swarmed with multi-state operators, corporate cannabis, and the like opening all around me. I don’t mean to imply as if I own my area, I don’t, it’s the wild-west out here and no one is talking about it at the highest levels. I don’t doubt that many small businesses are in the same boat as myself.
Prices are at an all-time low. Small businesses are forced to slash their prices and sacrifice their (already not great) margins to compete. The supply continues to grow and the demand stays the same. What happens? The money is spread thin across the many, many dispensaries now operating in New Mexico. Something must be done; licenses must be restricted and distances between dispensaries must be increased, and those distances must be enforced.
The most prevalent issue is not businesses having their license hanging up or using the correct label (while those are important), we are facing a collapse in the market that will only benefit the major players who have capital/credit to rely on until the market turns back into their favor.
As a small business owner, I plead your division carefully considers acting in our favor and aiding us through this tumultuous time that is upon us.
I would like to strongly encourage the commission to not get rid of the ability for business owners to get variances approved for ecial circumstance.Mexico is a very large and diverse state with many different local attribute. To mandate a one- size-fits-all rules regime will disadvantage many of the smaller and more rural businesses. What is needed in Albuquerque will never be the same as what what makes sense on a small rural farm or village. To ignore the need for justifiable variances is to put the smaller businesses at a distinct disadvantage. The initial ethos of the NM cannabis legalization act was to encourage diversity and spread the opportunity of a new industry to all corners of the state and the people within it. To mandate rules with no flexibility for valid exceptions flies in the face of that inclusive spirit that makes New Mexico so different and more inclusive than its surrounding states.
Does a micro grow ,100 planets need a Val bus lic?
What is a val. Business lic?
Dear Sir,
Upon examination of the proposed changes, they seem ill advised. No explanation is provided for elimination of the Provisional License and Variance. These seem most useful for small owners, who struggle with your licensing mandates, as opposed to the large owners, who have legal staff, and even helped to write the mandates to their satisfaction.
At minimum, elimination of these provision ought, by law, to be explained, yet no explanation is provided. This seems to fly in the face, and certainly the sprit, of the Rules Act.
The additions, adding requirement for inspection and training, seem to be described inaccurately. The notices for the meeting, on the SSP and in the Register, state “adding that inspections will be required prior to the issuance of a license as well as requiring the completion of training courses prior to the issuance of a license.”
In fact, the text of the change provides that inspection MAY be required, and training MAY be required. This appears to allow CCD staff latitude for discrimination which favors their large clients, who were much involved in drafting these Rules.
As your notice description is clearly in error, it seems the remedy is to cancel the hearing, and resubmit the change. That would also allow you to provide a more complete and correct description of the proposed change.
There seems no urgency to these changes, so resubmission appears the best course.
Feel free to contact me.
Regards,
Chris Mechels
505-982-7144
1336 Bishops Lodge Rd
Santa Fe, NM 87506
Recently, outdoor cannabis cultivation close to private residences, within 300 feet from one residence and within a one-mile radius of a significant number of private residences in Las Cruces, has created interest regarding the health impact and the effects of cannabis plant emissions during blooming season. Vulnerable populations could be impacted by the increased risk of exposure to biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOC), especially terpene, associated with cancer, neurological manifestations, comorbidities, and increased risk of airway issues, I began to ask questions due to the close proximity of the outdoor cannabis cultivation.
Research has indicated emissions from outdoor cannabis cultivation can impact air quality for at least one mile during blooming season. Currently, water quality control has been the focus of the New Mexico Cannabis control division. Air quality control for outdoor cannabis cultivation has not been addressed. As a healthcare provider and researcher, my focus has been on optimizing healthcare for diverse populations. As a young nurse in the Veterans Health Administration, I remember obtaining tissue samples for veterans, with significant health issues, exposed to toxins during the Vietnam War, including Agent Orange and emissions from burn pits. Health issues from volatile emissions poses a significant risk for current and future generations.
The New Mexico Department of Health has the ability to monitor air quality and track air quality data based on the department`s collaboration with the CDC. The Public Health and Safety Advisory Committee for New Mexico will publish, by December 2024, an annual report on the impact of cannabis on the health of New Mexicans.
The mission of the New Mexico Department of Health is to “ensure health equity and improve the health outcomes of all people in New Mexico”. “Bothersome” was a response I encountered regarding cannabis cultivation in close proximity to private residences, which might be considered an understatement, based on the potential health risks associated with the emissions. The Sustainable Cannabis Coalition founded in 2021 could provide insight regarding best practices related to the environmental sustainability. Mitigating the health risks associated with cannabis cultivation without compromising the economic growth associated with cannabis industry should align with the mission statement and of the Cannabis Control Division. A goal which should be achievable, for all stakeholders, to ensure the sustainability of the cannabis industry in New Mexico.
Sincerely,
On behalf of SeedCrest, Inc. please accept the attached comments regarding the proposed changes in the 16.8.2.8 NMAC regulations.
SeedCrest, Inc. Comments on 16.8.2.8 Proposed Rules
Public Comment Submitted by Kristina Caffrey on August 22, 2023.
2023.8.22 Ultra Health Comments on CCD Proposed Rules for August 31 2023 Public Hearing
Regulating licenses in the cannabis industry will definitely have the CCD with there hands full but what about all the people that decided not to get license but are carrying out the same activities as a licensed operator just with selectively choosing of the rules. For example down here in the dirty south every year they have this “dank fest” pointless for any licensed operator because you have rules and regulations to follow like you cant have any product with you and so on and so forth. But had you gone down the unlicensed route, not only can you bring all your California and Oklahoma cannabis , you can sell it , hand it out , consume whatever floats your boat. But since these guys aren’t on the CCD list of licenses they go untouched to freely operate as if they were a legal operation without all the hardships. Possibly appointing outside law enforcement or other to monitor and shut down any unlicensed operation also will help with the market because as long as the black market has control we dont even need to worry about oversaturation
This rule is useless. People will still break rules even if shown the right ways. There just need a to be more enforced rules when caught. Shut down the ones who don’t follow the rules. Making more rules will not make people follow them. Enforcement needs to happen to make the point there is no wiggle room for regulations. Shut down the ones who are caught breaking the rules.
Saturation has hit new highs. We need to advocate for pausing licensing applications and increase inspections to ensure a safe and responsible industry. We feel The State of New Mexico has taken advantage of this industry by allowing all applicants to pay for licensure while not considering the outcomes of an over saturated market. While New Mexico receives payments for the licenses, numerous cannabis establishments will suffer greatly due to the uncapped and poorly regulated application process.
Entrepreneurs spend life savings into renovating buildings and getting their business started; only to have a competitor be allowed to open up right next door. New Mexico profits from licensure and renovated buildings, with no regard for the outcomes of every cannabis business that has already established themselves. We’ve been setup to fail unless businesses have enough capital to sustain this increasingly worrisome saturated market. Pause licensure and increase inspections to clean up this market.
My comments are directed towards “AA. Education programs prior to licensure:”
I feel that forcing people to essentially Re certify in cannabis annually or anytime really will be damaging. Companies will have to pay for this out of pocket, and the ones who have done the work and become educated get punished. There is also the fear of monopolies on the companies who maybe picked to administrate these classes. We are still learning things about cannabis almost monthly, who is to say the information we picked up with these mandatory classes will be accurate through the year, yet a lone annually or every 3 years.
Cannabis has been discriminated against for far too long now, we don’t require this for Micro Brewers or Distillers, servers permits makes sense, but we haven’t even figured out how to run consumption lounges yet. Simply put, it is too soon in our state’s industry to implement such requirements, we are still getting set up. Adding an additional burden on the cannabis businesses will only increase prices, and create more issues than we have now.
I get that this is because there are too many people in the industry right now who are either ignorant on the cannabis industry as a whole, ignorant or new to business, or they simply do not care that they are breaking the rules or laws. Unfortunately, not everyone will make it in the end, and these people are the first ones who are leaving the industry. It is not our fault that these people decided to get into the industry, but everyone has had a chance, but at least allow us to finishing weeding out the bad actors, bad businesses, and people who simply just can’t figure out how to run a business at all.
This also feels more or less like the education part will be a full time/part time thing for months because of the topics that are proposed. That will force owners, and employees to miss work, or shut down completely to finish this, resulting in lost in revenue, and some places who are barely making it now, but may have a chance, will lose that chance. Also, most of these topics you really only need to learn once, so I don’t get the point of forcing people to learn things over and over each year.
Again do not punish the ones who are educated in all of these topics for the few or many even, who are not and refuse to learn. You can’t force people to learn, they will just end up cheating. Instead allow the ones who are going to fail, fail. This is how capitalism works, may the ones with the best ideas, business plans, products, as well as great service win! If you really want to succeed at this, that means you will learn all you can on your own, all of this information is out there for free, there is no need for this at this time. We are trying to create an industry here, not a permanent education program that you may make some money with.
I am all for education, but forcing an entire industry that no one know’s how to run yet, to get education that may or may not be accurate will only be damming for an already rocky industry thats just leveling it’s self out.
in what aspects of growth in the industry would the new proposed rules be of value to the industry? If the CCD would crack down on the individuals who seemingly don’t care to follow the rules and regulations already in order, that would be more of a beneficial outcome for everyone. applying new rules and regulations for the owners who do follow the code of conduct will only put more trial and error on the licensed operators who have already completed the guidelines on the industry, but furthermore it would make new owners who are already in the process of waiting for permits to be cleared have to come to a stand still until they can find a way to take on a new set of guidelines that have to be met before proceeding with their businesses.
Variances are rights for businesses. Neighbors are notified properly on an individual basis. Each county should be in charge of this. They know the county and its economical needs.
The business to be effected here, were they notified the same as if they were to get a variance? To speak up for their business like their neighbors were notified to stand against them if they wanted? Were the businesses notified about this? The license holders? The ones whose lives depend on that variance?
So many people have their life involved in these businesses. Variances are not the problem, they are a business right.
We have a variance. They make us get one for the next door residences close. And they are all family. Nobody cares. They love our business growing here. We are bringing jobs to a small town that has none. Our variance works for the community.
Take away our variance and we lose our license in a place on a county road that nobody minds our business. It is welcomed. We create jobs.
Not everybody with a variance should be punished.
Complaints should be handled on a case by case basis. Not the right to obtain a variance removed.
That is not the American way.
Variances should stay because they are a normal part of the business world.
Informed neighbors who disapprove must become more involved in their neighborhood. Not control the outcome in all neighborhoods.
You would make so many people who have invested their all in this business, lose their all. And take away the chance for so many others. That is jobs for your community, gone.. That is taxes for your community, gone.
These people not wanting to allow variances may not be looking at the entire picture.
Variances have a hearing individually. Everybody has the chance to protest before the hearing. To change this right, changes the way business is done. Because some neighbors love Cannabis being next door.
Let those who don’t like it, actually make it to the hearings and stop it in their neighborhood. Not everyone’s.
Let variances continue.
They are a business right.
If the inspector is unable to make an inspection prior to expiration of my license, will a temporary license be issued?
How are new cannabis facilities able to get licensure in municipalities that require a state provisional license prior to issuing the local business license? Will there be a new rule requiring municipal governments to grant the cannabis business license/permit prior to the issuance of the new cannabis license by the state?
This comment is exclusively to support Comment #1 by Johathan Ortiz. I fully agree and encourage CCD to make that amendment allowing Free Cannabis Products to any adult. As I recall, the primary purpose of this restriction was to protect the supply of medical cannabis. Obviously, that is and will not be a concern. It would be a win/win amendment.
Thank you,
Tricia
Online or Over-The-Phone Medical Marijuana Card Application Process,Insurance Payment,Medical Marijuana Program for The Homeless,
“Free Cannabis Products” as per 16.8.2.40 (J) 1-2. States one cannot obtain a free cannabis product unless the person is a medical card holder, or part of the program. And as long as the product is tracked and traced using BioTrack.
What about 21 and older for recreational cannabis products? Should it be stated that as long as it is a compliant recreational cannabis product, the product is tracked and traced using BioTrack, and receiver is 21 or older with a valid government ID; free cannabis products can be given or gifted?