Truth Seeker
New Member
An unflattering audit of the medical marijuana business in Colorado has apparently had an unintended but positive side effect: It has emboldened some lawmakers to challenge key recommendations of the governor's Amendment 64 task force that gave an advantage to existing cannabis operators.
The task force urged lawmakers to give current medical-marijuana suppliers a one-year head start in applying for the new commercial licenses before others can jump into the business. In addition, the task force favored vertical integration for recreational marijuana, a structure that exists today for medical pot. Indeed, retail cannabis shops must grow most of their product.
However, members of a legislative committee considering the legal framework for Amendment 64 unexpectedly broke with the task force last week and discarded vertical integration. They also supported giving owners of medical marijuana businesses only a three-month head start over would-be competitors.
Vertical integration was mandated for medical marijuana as a way to create a seamless chain of production that minimized the possibility of diversion into the black market. It was also thought to make regulation easier. But with the passage of Amendment 64, which legalized pot possession, diversion is no longer the same issue it once was (except to minors, of course).
Nor is it clear that vertical integration was actually successful in its goals given the woeful regulation documented in a recent state audit.
Mike Elliott, executive director of the Medical Marijuana Industry Group, disputed that conclusion in a recent Denver Post article, claiming that changing the current regulatory framework would be "dangerous." Yet we don't see how that could be case. So far as we can tell, Colorado would simply be moving from one unproven model to another, with each holding promise for different reasons.
Beer and liquor manufacturers don't own retail stores, of course. And it's hard to think of any industry in which vertical integration is required.
For good reason. The people who develop expertise at one point in a supply chain aren't always experts at another point. In the marijuana business, that means growers won't necessarily be good at running stores, and vice versa.
We have no problem giving medical marijuana owners a head start into the post-64 cannabis field, but the question is whether a full year is optimal. And while three months might not be long enough, a shorter period does seem closer to the mark.
The full legislature doesn't have to support any divergence from the task force recommendations, which are, we should note, mostly sound. But we do hope a majority of lawmakers remain open to change on a few key issues.
News Hawk- Truth Seeker 420 MAGAZINE ®
Source: denverpost.com
Author: The Denver Post Editorial Board
Contact: Contact Us - The Denver Post
Website: A different model for sale of recreational marijuana - The Denver Post
The task force urged lawmakers to give current medical-marijuana suppliers a one-year head start in applying for the new commercial licenses before others can jump into the business. In addition, the task force favored vertical integration for recreational marijuana, a structure that exists today for medical pot. Indeed, retail cannabis shops must grow most of their product.
However, members of a legislative committee considering the legal framework for Amendment 64 unexpectedly broke with the task force last week and discarded vertical integration. They also supported giving owners of medical marijuana businesses only a three-month head start over would-be competitors.
Vertical integration was mandated for medical marijuana as a way to create a seamless chain of production that minimized the possibility of diversion into the black market. It was also thought to make regulation easier. But with the passage of Amendment 64, which legalized pot possession, diversion is no longer the same issue it once was (except to minors, of course).
Nor is it clear that vertical integration was actually successful in its goals given the woeful regulation documented in a recent state audit.
Mike Elliott, executive director of the Medical Marijuana Industry Group, disputed that conclusion in a recent Denver Post article, claiming that changing the current regulatory framework would be "dangerous." Yet we don't see how that could be case. So far as we can tell, Colorado would simply be moving from one unproven model to another, with each holding promise for different reasons.
Beer and liquor manufacturers don't own retail stores, of course. And it's hard to think of any industry in which vertical integration is required.
For good reason. The people who develop expertise at one point in a supply chain aren't always experts at another point. In the marijuana business, that means growers won't necessarily be good at running stores, and vice versa.
We have no problem giving medical marijuana owners a head start into the post-64 cannabis field, but the question is whether a full year is optimal. And while three months might not be long enough, a shorter period does seem closer to the mark.
The full legislature doesn't have to support any divergence from the task force recommendations, which are, we should note, mostly sound. But we do hope a majority of lawmakers remain open to change on a few key issues.
News Hawk- Truth Seeker 420 MAGAZINE ®
Source: denverpost.com
Author: The Denver Post Editorial Board
Contact: Contact Us - The Denver Post
Website: A different model for sale of recreational marijuana - The Denver Post
