New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) took marijuana reform supporters by pleasant surprise when he endorsed legalization last year after previously calling cannabis a “gateway drug” that should remain prohibited. But for advocates, there was at least one major disappointment in store when he got around to revealing the details of his plan: the proposal, unveiled as part of his budget last month, would ultimately include a ban on home cultivation of recreational marijuana.
Home growing—seen by many as a commonsense policy that ensures access to cannabis for individuals who can’t afford retail prices, live too far from a dispensary or just want to flex their green thumbs—has been a feature of almost all legal adult-use marijuana systems operating in the U.S., with the exception of Washington State’s. So what’s behind the New York governor’s opposition to letting adults cultivate their own crops?
It could be that Cuomo took a page from the commercial cannabis industry. Literally.
Roughly a month before the governor announced the details of his legalization proposal, a New York-based marijuana business association—led by the executives of the state’s major licensed medical cannabis providers—sent a policy statement to Cuomo’s office in the interest of offering “some thoughts on various issues associated with a transition from medical to adult-use.”
One of those thoughts centered on the businesses’ desire to prevent consumers from growing their own marijuana.
Politico first reported the existence of the document, created by New York Medical Cannabis Industry Association (NYMCIA), in December. This month, Marijuana Moment obtained the full 29-page memo through a state freedom of information law request.
There are some broad recommendations that most legalization supporters would take no issue with, such as encouraging individuals from communities disproportionately impacted by prohibition to participate in the legal industry and leveraging partnerships to expand research into medical cannabis.
But a chapter titled “The Fallacy of Home Grow” makes very specific—and, in the eyes of advocates, misleading—arguments against allowing marijuana cultivation for personal use.
The group recognized that people want home cultivation because of “currently high prices of medical marijuana” or because they see it as an “individual civil liberty.” But according to NYMCIA, home cultivation “creates a significant public safety and black market risk.”
The industry organization listed five claims to support that argument:
1. Home grow will make it impossible for the state to eliminate the black market.
2. Home grow will make it impossible for law enforcement to distinguish between legal and illegal products, thus frustrating enforcement efforts.
3. Home grow will undermine the state’s harm reduction goal of ensuring that cannabis sold in New York State is grown without noxious pesticides or other contaminants.
4. Home grow will undermine the state’s public health interest in ensuring that cannabis sold in New York State is tested, packaged, and and labeled correctly.
5. Home grow will cost the state tax revenue, thus hindering the state’s ability to fund priorities such as drug abuse treatment and community investment.
Per that last point, it’s entirely reasonable to assume that New York state would miss out on some sales tax revenue if residents decided to grow their own plants. But the other side of that dilemma is that it’d likely mean missed profits for cannabis businesses, including those affiliated with NYMCIA.
“From our perspective, it’s really hard to see any real reason—other than individual and corporate greed—to be against home cultivation at this point,” Erik Altieri, executive director of NORML, told Marijuana Moment in a phone interview. “There’s not a lot of rational concerns when it comes to allowing a limited amount of plants for an individual to grow at home.”
Melissa Moore, New York deputy state director of the Drug Policy Alliance, also pushed back against NYMCIA’s claim that a home grow option would make eliminating the illicit market “impossible.”
It’s the “fallacy of ‘The Fallacy of Home Grow,'” as she put it. It would make more sense to attribute difficulties reducing illicit market sales to state tax rates on retail cannabis, she said in a phone interview.
“It’s really disingenuous to try to say that it would not be possible to eliminate the illicit market if we allow for home grow. That certainly hasn’t been the experience of other states that allow home grow.”
Moreover, NYMCIA’s position is not consistent with that of other marijuana industry groups such as the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA), which argues that allowing home growing can actually benefit businesses.
“NCIA does not oppose limited home cultivation,” Morgan Fox, media relations director at the group, said in an email. “In fact, it can act as an incubator for people to develop skills which can be used in the legal cannabis industry, which benefits businesses as well as individuals looking to enter the market. Much like home brewing has helped spur interest the craft beer market, limited home cannabis cultivation can do the same in legal states.”
Who is involved in NYMCIA and why do they want to ban home cultivation?
Marijuana companies Columbia Care, Etain, PharmaCann, The Botanist and Acreage NY, Vireo Health and MedMen were all listed as members of NYMCIA in the memo to Cuomo’s office. (MedMen later acquired PharmaCann, and more recently, NYMCIA urged MedMen to leave the association amid a controversy over racist remarks allegedly made by the company’s executives).
(A separate controversy previously enveloped Columbia Care, which owns dispensaries and grow facilities in multiple states, after its Massachusetts-based subsidiary, Patriot Care, was discovered to be advocating against letting certain people with past drug convictions work in the legal cannabis industry).
Acreage Holdings, a cannabis firm that Republican former U.S. House Speaker John Boehner joined as a board member, declined to comment for this story through a public relations firm that represents the company.
A MedMen spokesperson said in a statement to Marijuana Moment that it “respects the right of those who choose to cultivate cannabis for their personal use,” but did not respond to specific questions about the company’s involvement in drafting the policy statement that urged New York officials to continue prohibiting such activity.
Jeremy Unruh, director of public and regulatory affairs at PharmaCann, told Marijuana Moment that the document “was our industry association’s first go at formulating some broad policy positions” prior to meeting with the governor’s office and that the company’s “position on home grow is far more nuanced than a simple approve/oppose.”
“Those policy points you have are sound, but our positions have evolved (and will continue to do so) as we’ve had a chance to socialize these concepts” with other stakeholders, Unruh said. He argued that New York has superior quality control standards in place for medical cannabis and that while the company recognizes “the nature and value of civil liberty” of home cultivation, allowing it would pose public health risks.
But ultimately, “Our position is this: We support the governor’s homegrow proposal,” he wrote in an email.
While recommending that lawmakers ban personal cultivation of recreational marijuana, Cuomo did include a home grow option for medical cannabis patients in his budget plan.
(Full disclosure: Several members of the companies involved in NYMCIA support Marijuana Moment through monthly Patreon pledges, or have in the past.)
Cannabis reform advocates aren’t buying NYMCIA’s claims.
It is quite obvious that NYMCIA’s affiliates have a financial stake in the shape of whatever marijuana law eventually emerges from the New York legislature. And their opposition to a home grow option is a point of concern for advocacy groups.
“[T]o advocate against home cultivation given all we know about how it works in practice from the industry side really just is kind of despicable and illustrates their greed, that they’re willing to sacrifice individual freedoms for the slightest increase in their profits,” NORML’s Altieri said.
The association’s recommendation also runs counter to what Marijuana Moment was previously told by the vice president of corporate communications for Vireo Health, Albe Zakes.
Asked about the memo following the initial Politico report that only vaguely described the document, Zakes wrote in an email that “our CEO and COO assured me that we’ve never lobbied against home grow and in fact support home grow as part of larger legislation, as long as it is regulated and controlled in a responsible manner, the same way medical or recreational markets would be, in order to protect consumers.”
(Vireo CEO Aaron Hoffnung signed an Internal Revenue Service financial disclosure form for NYMCIA last year as one of the association’s directors.)
Marijuana Moment sent a follow-up request for comment after obtaining the policy statement through the public records request, but Zakes said the he was unable to reach the company’s executives and so Vireo would have to decline the opportunity for further comment.
Advocates question whether NYMCIA leveraged its influence for the right reasons.
Is the worry really that a home cultivation policy would sustain an illicit market or complicate law enforcement activities in New York? Are concerns about the public health impact genuine? Or is it that cannabis businesses want the entire market to themselves?
“We need to make sure that we have a check on the potential greed of the industry that we can already see in these early stages based on this advocacy document,” Altieri said. “We need to make sure that the market in New York not only begins to address all the harms caused by the war on cannabis but also is oriented toward the consumer and not large industry interests.”
“Banning home cultivation benefits no one but corporations and large industry groups.”
Despite Cuomo including the home grow ban in his proposal, it seems that advocates may get more time to voice their concerns about the policy. Some leading lawmakers such as Senate President Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D) are increasingly doubtful that marijuana reform will make it into the final state budget, meaning that negotiations on separate legalization legislation could end up resulting in a law that allows consumers to grow their own cannabis.
Marijuana Moment reached out to NYMCIA itself, Cuomo’s office, Etain and Columbia Care for comment, but representatives did not respond to multiple inquiries by the time of publication.
Read the full NYMCIA policy statement, including the section on home cultivation, below:
New York Medical Cannabis I… by on Scribd
Legalization Activists Push Marijuana Industry To Uphold Social Responsibilities
A new memo from pro-legalization advocates offers some insight for marijuana businesses, investors and consumers on how they can better support social responsibility in the increasingly legal industry.
The four-page document unveiled by the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) on Friday proposes guidelines to help assess whether a business is operating in a manner that recognizes the historic harms and injustices caused by prohibition. Specifically, the memo asks industry players to take a harder look at their policy positions, internal operations and practices, whether their company supports up-and-coming marijuana businesses and how invested they are in the local communities in which they operate.
As the document notes:
Repairing the harms of prohibition entails:
1) ensuring that the harm is not continuing;
2) supporting the development of an accurate historical record of the harms caused by marijuana prohibition, including how it has oppressed black and brown communities; and
3) supporting initiatives that create a remedy for past harms.
DPA, along with the Marijuana Policy Project, has been a driving force in funding moves pass marijuana legalization ballot measures and shepherd cannabis bills through state legislatures. Without its work, the market for legal cannabis in the U.S. would be much smaller, if it existed at all.
“Marijuana policy reform was not done to get people rich,” Justin Strekal, political director for NORML, which maintains a cross-country grassroots advocacy network that has helped push legalization, told Marijuana Moment. “It was done to end the oppression of those who choose to consume it. While reform has led to a growing marketplace, tragically the oppression continues and is even perpetuated by some in the industry itself.”
Other measures that address the costly effects of the drug war, according to the DPA guidelines, include opposing any rules or laws that would intentionally shut out people who have been arrested or convicted on marijuana-related charges from working in the industry, investing in communities that have been disproportionately impacted by cannabis enforcement and creating opportunities to help people from marginalized communities participate in the industry.
“The harms of marijuana prohibition have been devastating, particularly for Black and Brown people who have suffered dramatic rates of arrest, mass criminalization, heavy-handed policing, seizure of property with little or no process, and large-scale deportations,” DPA Executive Director Maria McFarland Sánchez-Moreno said in a statement. “Given this history, those investing and operating in the cannabis sector have some responsibility to support repairing the harms of prohibition.”
The organization suggested a list of questions for companies to consider concerning a range of topics: Among them, whether they support home grow—which ensures access for those who can’t afford retail marijuana or live too far away from a dispensary—how inclusive they are in who they hire and if they support scaled license tiers.
Other questions include:
• Does the company support a free and fair marijuana market that does not give it disproportionate advantages?
• To which causes or candidates is the company donating money?
• Does the company have a policy against drug testing employees?
• Is the business a social benefit corporation? B-Corp? Non-profit? Cooperative? Or collective? If not, what percentage of its profits is donated to nonprofits?
Jag Davies, DPA’s director of communications strategy, said the new guidelines are part of a broader shift in the organization’s work over the past few years toward emphasizing racial and restorative justice provisions in any legalization bill they’re involved with.
“It started with Prop 64 in California in 2016, which we played a leading role in making sure that it had a number of criminal justice and restorative justice provisions that other previous legalization bills didn’t have,” Davies told Marijuana Moment in a phone interview. That work continues with their campaigns for legalization in New York, New Jersey and New Mexico, he said.
“The debate is really not about whether legalization is going to happen. It’s how it’s going to happen and to what degree it’s going to repair the harms of criminalization and to what degree it’s going to repair harm among the people who were worst harmed by marijuana criminalization,” Davies said.
The National Cannabis Industry Association, which works to represent the interests of legal cannabis businesses, said in a statement shared with Marijuana Moment that the organization “fully supports social responsibility and equity in the industry, as well as repairing the harms caused by prohibition, and we will continue promoting those values to our members.”
In addition to supporting limited home cultivation and federal legislation like the Marijuana Justice Act, the association also helped the Minority Cannabis Business Association draft a model social equity ordinance for cities that was published this month.
But there’s still a long way to go before all of the cannabis industry’s major players start walking the walk, advocates say.
“The Drug Policy Alliance correctly identified one of the biggest problems emerging in the reform movement: the ‘I got mine and you’re on your own’ mentality,” Strekal, of NORML, said. “It’s a travesty to see business leaders making millions of dollars and bragging about how great they are while they do nothing to stop the practice of arrests in a nearby state or bring wholeness to their neighbors who have had their lives disrupted or destroyed by criminalization just a few years earlier for essentially the same activity.”
Photo courtesy of Nicholas C. Morton.
U.S. Postal Service Issues Advisory On Mailing Hemp-Derived CBD
The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) quietly issued an advisory earlier this month clarifying rules around mailing cannabis preparations, saying that “some CBD products derived from industrial hemp can be mailable under specific conditions.”
The memo also signals that USPS will further loosen restrictions in the future in light of the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, which federally legalized industrial hemp.
For now, the current advisory, which was first reported by the marijuana law blog Kight On Cannabis, stipulates that it is legal to mail hemp-derived CBD products in compliance with research-focused provisions of the earlier 2014 version of the federal agriculture legislation.
However, postal customers must first take certain steps such as providing a signed self-certification statement and documentation confirming the hemp producer is licensed through a state agriculture department.
Hemp mailed through USPS must also contain 0.3 percent THC—a policy that’s consistent with both the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bill definitions of hemp.
“The Postal Service has received an increasing number of requests to transport CBD oil and products containing CBD in Postal Service networks,” Travis D. Hayes III, a USPS business program specialist wrote in the March 4 advisory.
The federal agency said that the new instructions are due to change, given the broader legalization of hemp and its derivatives through the 2018 Farm Bill.
“Postal employees should be aware that the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 was recently signed into law,” the memo says. “This legislation removes industrial hemp from regulation under the Controlled Substances Act.”
But the agency said that it would wait until the legislation “is fully implemented” before it will “modify the mailability criteria for CBD and other cannabis products.”
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is in charge of creating and implementing general regulations for hemp—instead of the Justice Department, which formerly oversaw enforcement against the crop—but it’s not clear when those rules will be formalized. Lawmakers and stakeholders have pressured the department to get the ball rolling, and it held a listening session last week to gather input from states and other interested parties.
But Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue has tried to temper expectations, emphasizing the need to “proceed slowly” given the crop’s complexity and saying that USDA plans to have its regulations ready for the 2020 growing season.
“We’re proceeding very judiciously obviously because of the uniqueness of the crop hemp and its relationship to other crops that we’re not encouraging,” he said last month, referring to marijuana.
While the USPS said that it issued the advisory because it was receiving an influx of inquiries about the rules governing mailing CBD, Kight On Cannabis suggested that it was prepared as a response to a legal dispute from last year surrounding the postal service’s seizure last year of hemp-derived CBD products that had been lawfully mailed.
Read the full USPS memo on mailing hemp-derived CBD below:
USPS CBD Hemp Clarification by on Scribd
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia/Kevin Payravi.
Marijuana Activists Protest John Boehner’s SXSW Speech
Advocates for social equity in the increasingly legal marijuana economy are protesting keynote speeches by former Republican House Speaker John Boehner and MedMen CEO Adam Bierman at South by Southwest (SXSW).
The Equity First Alliance, a group that promotes racial and social justice in the cannabis industry, said that Boehner and Bierman’s scheduled Friday appearances at the festival are a reflection of an ongoing trend where mostly white men are profiting off a market while people of color continue to disproportionately face criminalization for marijuana offenses.
Boehner has been the subject of ongoing criticism from marijuana advocates, who point out that he failed to act on cannabis reform, and opposed certain criminal justice reform legislation, during his 24 years in Congress. While he never introduced, cosponsored or voted in favor of marijuana bills in that time, he joined one of the largest cannabis firms, Acreage Holdings, as a board member last year.
Bierman has been accused in a lawsuit filed by a former employee of making racist and homophobic remarks. His company, which was valued at $1.6 billion last year, was also a member of a New York-based medical marijuana industry association that advocated against allowing home cultivation in a memo submitted to Gov. Andrew Cuomo. (The company told Marijuana Moment that it supports the right to home cultivation, but did not answer questions about its involvement in drafting the document. It was later asked to leave the group over Bierman’s alleged remarks.) Acreage remains a member of the same association.
“Our protest at SXSW sends a bold message in support of cannabis equity, justice, and repair,” the Equity First Alliance’s Felicia Carbajal said in a press release. “We stand together, recognizing that by defending the most marginalized among us, we defend all of us. We support the advocacy and resistance movements that reflect our multiple and intersecting identities, and we call on all defenders of human rights to join us.”
Activists held protest signs over a nearby highway and at a hotel where Boehner’s speech—which covers “the likely paths to national legalization and the challenges and opportunities America’s fastest growing industry face today”—will take place on Friday. The signs condemn “big marijuana” and call for social equity policies such as community reinvestment.
— Ministry of Hemp (@MinistryofHemp) March 15, 2019
“It’s clear this market is going to expand,” Boehner told CNBC in an interview ahead of the event. “And as it does, lawmakers in Washington have to look up and realize that the federal government is way out of step. It’s time for the federal government to get out of the way.”
In the press release, Equity First Alliance listed additional reasons they’re protesting as well as policies they support.
“In protest of:
—Those profiting off of cannabis without an intentional plan to repair and make whole individuals, families, and communities that have been devastated by the War on Drugs;
—Those profiting off of cannabis who once participated in prohibition;
—And those who would profit before freeing all cannabis prisoners and vacating all cannabis convictions
And calling for:
—10% of companies’ annual revenue to be reinvested in communities disproportionately harmed by the
War on Drugs;
—A new paradigm of social responsibility in the cannabis industry;
—And public policies that create an equitable, just, and reparative industry.”
“It’s hypocritical for an Austin based company like SXSW, a company imbedded in a city that preaches diversity and inclusion, to neglect the work of committing to create an inclusive space, and instead give a keynote platform to John Boehner,” Chas Moore, executive director of the Austin Justice Coalition, said. “This is disgusting.”
— AcreageHoldings (@AcreageCannabis) March 15, 2019
Marijuana Moment reached out to Acreage for comment, but a representative did not respond by the time of publication.
Photo courtesy of Gage Skidmore.