Cannabis News

[Tranquility]

By 2020, the Cannabis Industry will be creating more jobs than manufacturing. During the election, I heard lots of crying about protecting the coal industry. The Cannabis industry already employs nearly 200,000 people. Coal? 50,000 tops. Who is out there trying to protect an industry with 4 times as many jobs?

While I support just about any program to help transition people out of the horrible coal industry (I think it a tie between support for coal and support to continue biofuel [corn] subsidies to be this administration's worst policies--so far.), most of the cannabis jobs talked about in those statistics are "entry-level" jobs. Even if it is true that the Cannabis Industry will ramp up so many jobs in a couple of years, there is no way they can substitute for the lifestyle of a coal miner (And, the majority of the industry.) who can spend his whole career there.

There is not going to be enough high-level jobs in an industry like cannabis to absorb the, rightfully, displaced workers from the coal industry.

That does not mean Cannabis is not going to provide jobs for a number of professionals and a number of people who are going to need specialized education. But, most are not going to find trimming buds in West Virginia to be a good substitute job they can raise a family on.

 

[florduh]

While I support just about any program to help transition people out of the horrible coal industry (I think it a tie between support for coal and support to continue biofuel [corn] subsidies to be this administration's worst policies--so far.), most of the cannabis jobs talked about in those statistics are "entry-level" jobs. Even if it is true that the Cannabis Industry will ramp up so many jobs in a couple of years, there is no way they can substitute for the lifestyle of a coal miner (And, the majority of the industry.) who can spend his whole career there.

There is not going to be enough high-level jobs in an industry like cannabis to absorb the, rightfully, displaced workers from the coal industry.

That does not mean Cannabis is not going to provide jobs for a number of professionals and a number of people who are going to need specialized education. But, most are not going to find trimming buds in West Virginia to be a good substitute job they can raise a family on.

First, I'm only comparing it to Coal because certain politicians seemed devastated that Government regulation was stifling an industry that only employs 50,000 people TOTAL, while ignoring that Federal regulations stifle an industry that employs 5 times that number.

Second, yes actual extractors and miners have a dangerous job that is highly compensated. But that only accounts for 16,000 people (in Coal anyway). Meanwhile there are currently 28,000 Cannabis BUSINESSES.

Third, @macbill just posted an article about the creation of 200,000 high paying Marijuana jobs. I think that number is a bit high... but 16,000? Totally reasonable. I agree that training coal miners to do this work would be hard though.

Fourth, you bring up a larger point. Wages have not grown with our economy. With automation technologies on the horizon that will permanently destroy many aspects of human employment... we are moving towards a world where service industry jobs (like "budtender") will make up the bulk of available jobs.

I largely agree with what you said though. I just wish politicians who say they support "jobs" and "businesses" would stand up for the Cannabis Industry that creates both in spades.

 

[Tranquility]

First, I'm only comparing it to Coal because certain politicians seemed devastated that Government regulation was stifling an industry that only employs 50,000 people TOTAL, while ignoring that Federal regulations stifle an industry that employs 5 times that number.

Second, yes actual extractors and miners have a dangerous job that is highly compensated. But that only accounts for 16,000 people (in Coal anyway). Meanwhile there are currently 28,000 Cannabis BUSINESSES.

Third, @macbill just posted an article about the creation of 200,000 high paying Marijuana jobs. I think that number is a bit high... but 16,000? Totally reasonable. I agree that training coal miners to do this work would be hard though.

Fourth, you bring up a larger point. Wages have not grown with our economy. With automation technologies on the horizon that will permanently destroy many aspects of human employment... we are moving towards a world where service industry jobs (like "budtender") will make up the bulk of available jobs.

I largely agree with what you said though. I just wish politicians who say they support "jobs" and "businesses" would stand up for the Cannabis Industry that creates both in spades.

It's not a matter of "regulations" but law. There is a core difference.

We don't regulate a contract killer out of the job of murdering, we have laws against murder. Even the most ardent jobs favorable politician is not going to listen to a jobs argument to shift coal industry jobs to contract killer jobs. The jobs argument only works for those who want to change the law against cannabis. If such were in the majority of those in the "How a Bill Becomes a Law" portion of our government, they'd just pass the law and let the market determine the proper allocation.

Finally, basic theory of (real) wage growth is not that it grows with the economy, but that it grows with productivity increases. In our free-market system, the productivity increase benefit is currently going to capital and high paid workers. That may or may not be a good thing. Some would say income inequality is an inherent problem while others would think that those who produce more should get the benefit from the production and equality of opportunity and not equality of result is all that one can hope for. The guaranteed income some put forward to deal with the issue is something that may have to be implemented at some point unless we want much of the population to die off in a future with jobs only in services or high-tech. Once that happens, however, we will live in a world Bob Seger felt he was in but we hadn't quite gotten there...yet.

 

[florduh]

It's not a matter of "regulations" but law. There is a core difference.

We don't regulate a contract killer out of the job of murdering, we have laws against murder. Even the most ardent jobs favorable politician is not going to listen to a jobs argument to shift coal industry jobs to contract killer jobs. The jobs argument only works for those who want to change the law against cannabis. If such were in the majority of those in the "How a Bill Becomes a Law" portion of our government, they'd just pass the law and let the market determine the proper allocation.

Finally, basic theory of (real) wage growth is not that it grows with the economy, but that it grows with productivity increases. In our free-market system, the productivity increase benefit is currently going to capital and high paid workers. That may or may not be a good thing. Some would say income inequality is an inherent problem while others would think that those who produce more should get the benefit from the production and equality of opportunity and not equality of result is all that one can hope for. The guaranteed income some put forward to deal with the issue is something that may have to be implemented at some point unless we want much of the population to die off in a future with jobs only in services or high-tech. Once that happens, however, we will live in a world Bob Seger felt he was in but we hadn't quite gotten there...yet.

I understand that regulations and law are different matters. But in this case, it's a distinction without a difference. "Big Government" is stifling the Cannabis Industry. Specifically Federal Law making banking and tax prep difficult for Cannabis Business Owners, not to mention... threatening their entire existence. You'd think that would outrage pro-business and pro-job politicians.

On wage growth... From 1950 to 1973, wage growth was on pace with productivity growth. Since 1973 Productivity has increased 5.9 times more than wages. Something is broken. There's always been inequality. But not like this.

And yes, I don't see a way around giving people a Universal Basic Income by the end of this century. If you know of a "free market" solution that counters UBI, please PM it to me. I'm honestly interested. But I don't want to totally derail the thread.

 

[Tranquility]

I understand that regulations and law are different matters. But in this case, it's a distinction without a difference. "Big Government" is stifling the Cannabis Industry. Specifically Federal Law making banking and tax prep difficult for Cannabis Business Owners, not to mention... threatening their entire existence. You'd think that would outrage pro-business and pro-job politicians.

The distinction is that cannabis is illegal. If that distinction did not make a difference, then you'd be right. Since it does, in fact, make a difference; there will not be any jobs help from the Congress to specifically aid the cannabis or other illegal industries.

It is not in the government's interest to make something illegal and then encourage its use.

Edit:
Not to continue on the "broken" part of income inequality, but, when the poorest in our rich country have a super-computer that can communicate with anywhere on earth that fits in their pocket, historical differences in income are less useful as a guide. Kings from the past would send teams to the mountains to obtain ice and rush it back for their use. I open my freezer. Who is richer?

I agree that getting into the subject is not appropriate in a cannabis news thread.

 

[florduh]

The distinction is that cannabis is illegal. If that distinction did not make a difference, then you'd be right. Since it does, in fact, make a difference; there will not be any jobs help from the Congress to add to the cannabis or other illegal industries.

It is not in the government's interest to make something illegal and then encourage its use.

The "jobs help" would be Congress enacting the will of the people into law, and legalizing cannabis thereby promoting small business creation and job growth... which is their stated goal.

 

[Tranquility]

The "jobs help" would be Congress enacting the will of the people into law, and legalizing cannabis thereby promoting small business creation and job growth... which is their stated goal.

The "will of the people" is not reflected by some poll at cannabis daily, USA Today or anywhere else but the voting booth. It is reflected by the law under our system of government.

Federally, cannabis is illegal.

It is NOT the "stated goal" of anyone in Congress to encourage illegal activity. (Well, maybe Democrats. #Resist #Sanctuary.)

 

[JCat]

The price of a pound of legal marijuana plummeted in January, according to a new report tracking the commodity’s U.S. spot price index.

The first month of 2018 has been marked by uncertainty in the cannabis industry after U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded Obama-era guidance on marijuana enforcement. But analysts at Cannabis Benchmarks, an independent price reporting agency, said that the policy shift has not yet had a major impact on legal cannabis prices nationwide.

Instead, an overabundance of cannabis sent wholesale prices into a free fall, the firm reported.

The U.S. spot index for cannabis last week stood at a national average of $1,292 per pound, a 3.5% decline compared to the week prior, according to Cannabis Benchmarks.

Similar to commodities like gold and oil, the Denver-based independent price reporting agency tracks spot prices — the current value in the marketplace at which an asset can be bought or sold for immediate delivery.

The overall drop in pot prices “was driven primarily by significant week-over-week decline in wholesale rates in Oregon, though most of the major Western markets saw decreases in their composite prices, with Colorado the only exception,” the report said.

Prices were also dragged down by Washington state, where they fell to $1,004 per pound, the lowest price Cannabis Benchmarks has seen in three years of reporting.

Demand for legal pot leveled off in some of the mature cannabis markets during the second half of 2017, report author Adam Koh told The Cannabist. While there may still be some growth in those markets, expect the downward trend in prices to continue through the first quarter of 2018, he said.

So based on this ... at 100% markup, average cost of a gram of cannabis should be about $5.70 (at least one would expect to get it for $6 when buying by the oz and up, as that's >100% for splitting it in 16 parts ...)

So prices in must be pretty low then now in the US? Must be able to get super premium cannabis for <$10/gram pretty easily?

 

[Tranquility]

So based on this ... at 100% markup, average cost of a gram of cannabis should be about $5.70 (at least one would expect to get it for $6 when buying by the oz and up, as that's >100% for splitting it in 16 parts ...)

So prices in must be pretty low then now in the US? Must be able to get super premium cannabis for <$10/gram pretty easily?

What do you mean by "super premium"? You could certainly find high THC flower for $10 gram. (It might not be organic, tested, large bud, proper cure, etc. that might otherwise be considered super premium.)

 

[Silver420Surfer]

So based on this ... at 100% markup, average cost of a gram of cannabis should be about $5.70 (at least one would expect to get it for $6 when buying by the oz and up, as that's >100% for splitting it in 16 parts ...)

So prices in must be pretty low then now in the US? Must be able to get super premium cannabis for <$10/gram pretty easily?

At one of favorite dispensaries, yes, I can get an ounce of organic grown, lab tested, top shelf premium for about a lil under $200, out the door. Comes out to like $6.80/g. Now thats not recreational, thats medical price. The $99 ounces are usually the ones that aren't cured great, grown organic, etc.

 

[florduh]

The "will of the people" is not reflected by some poll at cannabis daily, USA Today or anywhere else but the voting booth. It is reflected by the law under our system of government.

You really think the only way to accurately measure the opinion of the American People is by looking at Federal Laws in the United States Code? The majority of Americans absolutely want Cannabis legalized in one form or another. Don't be obtuse.

It is NOT the "stated goal" of anyone in Congress to encourage illegal activity. (Well, maybe Democrats. #Resist #Sanctuary.)

More intellectual dishonesty. I never said they should encourage illegal activity. I said they should simply legalize cannabis. Politicians absolutely SAY they want to promote job growth and small businesses. Legalizing cannabis, something that is within their power to do, would absolutely achieve both stated goals.

And give me a break about the Dems. Looking at legal troubles in the Executive Branch over the last 50 years (Congress is hard to get info on easily) . Republican Admins have had 120 indictments (yes, 76 were from the Nixon Admin), 89 convictions, and 34 prison sentences. Those terrible crime-encouraging Dems? 3 Indictments, 1 conviction, 1 prison sentence. I'll be generous and say neither Party can claim to be pure.

 

[Stu]

Possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read.

It's comments like this that will lead to getting this thread shut down.

Tread lightly folks, and remember above all to BE NICE.

Thank you.

 

[florduh]

It's comments like this that will lead to getting this thread shut down.

Tread lightly folks, and remember above all to BE NICE.

Thank you.

Apologies. I removed the offending statement. I just couldn't believe what I was reading.

 

[Tranquility]

In this first case at:
http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/15-3073_opn.pdf

Our "hero" has a conviction overturned for a speedy trial (6th amendment) violation. The guy was arrested (over 1,400 plants) at the end of the Bush administration (2008) and didn't get a trial until 2015 where he was convicted. This appellate decision overturns the conviction with prejudice.

The case is not that interesting from a cannabis perspective. I only bring it up because of the adage "Bad facts make bad law." What that means is the courts really bend over backwards to keep bad guys in jail. Here, while the court says this is the worst example of speedy trial violations they've seen, I suspect some of the reason for the release is that growers are not seen as much as "bad guys" any longer where the court bends things beyond recognition to keep a conviction in force.

The second is at:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/06/16/14-50585.pdf

Again, the cannabis component is not directly there other than to point out some of the limitations of the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment in dealing with the facts of how people actually do business. (Along with some of the cannabis-related facts being interesting.)

The more general issue that some apply to cannabis has to do with the specific issue of jury nullification and what a judge can say to the jury. The discussion is instructive and will help those who want to further nullification actions. The court held:

Although a court has “the duty to forestall or prevent [nullification],” including “by firm instruction or admonition,” Merced, 426 F.3d at 1080, a court should not state or imply that (1) jurors could be punished for jury nullification, or (2) an acquittal that results from jury nullification is invalid. Neither proposition is correct, and these are the only legal principles that protect a jury’s power to nullify. The last two sentences of the district court’s instructions could reasonably imply that the jury could be punished for nullification, or that nullification is a moot exercise because the verdict would be invalid. The court’s statement that the jury “would violate [its] oath and the law if [it] willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to [it] in this case,” may imply punishment for nullification, because “violate your oath and the law,” coming from the court in a criminal trial, could be understood as warning of a possible violation with associated sanctions. Additionally, the statement that “[t]here is no such thing as valid jury nullification” could reasonably be understood as telling jurors that they do not have the power to nullify, and so it would be a useless exercise. While jurors undoubtedly should be told to follow the law, the statement that there is no valid jury nullification misstates the role of nullification because an acquittal is valid, even if it resulted from nullification.

Thus, the last two sentences of the instruction were erroneous. The Krzyske instruction should not become the go-to instruction in trials where jury nullification is a concern, and courts should “generally avoid[] such interference as would divest juries of their power to acquit an accused, even though the evidence of his guilt may be clear.” United States v. Simpson, 460 F.2d 515, 520 (9th Cir. 1972).
​

 

[mitchgo61]

“If Attorney General Jeff Sessions hoped his latest encroachments on marijuana would make politicians back away from legalization, it’s not working.”



https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominichol...-backfire-in?utm_term=.fxKvGMykxe#.mb5OKrZb4m

 

[cybrguy]

Ooooo, maybe maybe...
Judge orders Illinois to expand medical marijuana qualifying conditions to include pain

A judge has ordered Illinois officials to add intractable pain as a qualifying condition for medical marijuana, a ruling that could greatly expand access to the drug.

The Illinois Department of Public Health had rejected intractable pain — defined as pain that’s resistant to treatment — but Cook County Judge Raymond Mitchell ordered the agency to add the condition.

A health department spokeswoman said Tuesday the agency will appeal the ruling. The change is expected to be put on hold while the appeal is pursued.

Ann Mednick, whose lawsuit resulted in the ruling, said she has taken opioid pills to cope with extreme pain caused by osteoarthritis but wants a treatment with fewer side effects that would allow her to be more functional. Rheumatoid arthritis is on the list of about 40 qualifying conditions for medical marijuana, but osteoarthritis is not, nor is general or chronic pain.

“Illinois is years behind the times,” the Rolling Meadows woman said. “The state needs to get (it) together.”

Mednick had previously petitioned the state to put intractable pain on the marijuana treatment access list, and the now-defunct Illinois Medical Cannabis Advisory Board agreed it should be on the list, voting 10-0 to recommend adding the condition.

But the health department’s director, Dr. Nirav Shah, denied the recommendation in January 2016, citing a “lack of high-quality data” from clinical trials to establish that the benefits outweighed the risks.

Mednick challenged the denial in court, and Shah agreed to review his decision. But last March, the director again rejected the petition.

The judge in his Friday ruling found that Shah’s decision was “clearly erroneous,” noting that the director said the condition was not listed in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, or ICD, by the World Health Organization, and was not recognized as a unique medical condition.

But the advisory board cited ICD codes that did recognize the condition as a form of chronic pain, the judge wrote in his opinion.

The request to add intractable pain cited papers by two medical journals that together reviewed 45 clinical studies of marijuana to treat chronic pain.

“The record shows that individuals with intractable pain would benefit from the medical use of cannabis,” the judge wrote, adding that the studies found that adverse effects generally were not serious and were well-tolerated.

The director’s decision misstates the advisory board’s analysis and “contorts” the record to minimize the evidence supporting the petition, the judge wrote.

The judge ordered Shah to add the condition to the list of 40 or so qualifying medical conditions but did not specify when the director must do so.

The health department spokeswoman declined comment other than to say the ruling will be appealed.

Pain accounts for the majority of medical marijuana patients in states that allow it as a qualifying condition.

The possibility that marijuana could be a viable substitute for highly addictive opioid painkillers has also prompted a proposed change in Illinois law: State Sen. Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, has submitted a bill that would allow medical marijuana to be given for any medical condition in place of prescription painkillers. He expects action on the proposal in the spring legislative session, scheduled to start Jan. 30.

 

[Tranquility]

I'm not sure we should get too excited over this as it is going to be a very state-centric issue that is not really going to address cannabis but the process an administrator must follow to make regulations in Illinois.

Federally, the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, held:

1. There is no medical necessity exception to the Controlled Substances Act's prohibitions on manufacturing and distributing marijuana. Pp. 5-11.

[19] (a) Because that Act classifies marijuana as a schedule I controlled substance, it provides only one express exception to the prohibitions on manufacturing and distributing the drug: Government-approved research projects. The Cooperative's contention that a common-law medical necessity defense should be written into the Act is rejected. There is an open question whether federal courts ever have authority to recognize a necessity defense not provided by statute. But that question need not be answered to resolve the issue presented here, for the terms of the Controlled Substances Act leave no doubt that the medical necessity defense is unavailable. Pp. 5-7.

[20] (b) Under any conception of legal necessity, the defense cannot succeed when the legislature itself has made a determination of values. Here, the Act reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception (other than Government-approved research). Whereas other drugs can be dispensed and prescribed for medical use, see 21 U. S. C. §829, the same is not true for marijuana, which has "no currently accepted medial use" at all, §811. This conclusion is supported by the structure of the Act, which divides drugs into five schedules, depending in part on whether a drug has a currently accepted medical use, and then imposes restrictions according to the schedule in which it has been placed. The Attorney General is authorized to include a drug in schedule I, the most restrictive schedule, only if the drug has no currently accepted medical use. The Cooperative errs in arguing that, because Congress, instead of the Attorney General, placed marijuana into that schedule, marijuana can be distributed when medically necessary. The statute treats all schedule I drugs alike, and there is no reason why drugs that Congress placed there should be subject to fewer controls than those that the Attorney General placed there. Also rejected is the Cooperative's argument that a drug may be found medically necessary for a particular patient or class even when it has not achieved general acceptance as a medical treatment. It is clear from the text of the Act that Congress determined that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception granted to other drugs. The statute expressly contemplates that many drugs have a useful medical purpose, see §801(1), but it includes no exception at all for any medical use of marijuana. This Court is unwilling to view that omission as an accident and is unable, in any event, to override a legislative determination manifest in the statute. Finally, the canon of constitutional avoidance has no application here, because there is no statutory ambiguity. Pp. 7-11.

[21] 2. The discretion that courts of equity traditionally possess in fashioning relief does not serve as a basis for affirming the Ninth Circuit in this case. To be sure, district courts properly acting as courts of equity have discretion unless a statute clearly provides otherwise. But the mere fact that the District Court had discretion does not suggest that the court, when evaluating the motion, could consider any and all factors that might relate to the public interest or the parties' conveniences, including medical needs. Equity courts cannot ignore Congress' judgment expressed in legislation. Their choice is whether a particular means of enforcement should be chosen over another permissible means, not whether enforcement is preferable to no enforcement at all. To the extent a district court considers the public interest and parties' conveniences, the court is limited to evaluating how those factors are affected by the selection of an injunction over other enforcement mechanisms. Because the Controlled Substances Act covers even those who have what could be termed a medical necessity, it precludes consideration of the evidence that the Ninth Circuit deemed relevant. Pp. 11-15.
​

 

[cybrguy]

I am frankly not that concerned about the Fed stopping states MJ legalization. I don't think they will do it. There is just too much money in it for cash strapped states. That being said, I expect Pence to kick Sessions to the curb when he gets the reigns regardless.

When our Republican Governor is replaced next year by a Dem, I suspect that the states medical law will be liberalized, and lead to a fairly quick move towards legalizing recreational. There are 2 bills currently in the house.

The most likely Dem candidate has made it clear he is for full legalization as are, apparently, the citizens of the state.

And yes, I'm sure my hopeful attitude is not universally shared, but that never stopped me before...

 

[unsorted]

If Pence ever does ascend, I wouldn't expect anything favorable to MJ users.

 

[cybrguy]

Sessions has a particular hard on for MJ prohibition. He really is driving the anti-mj attitude. He is not alone, of course, but he is among the worst haters of cannabis. If he goes, so should the resistance to natures gift, or at least the greatest resistance.

 

[howie105]

Sessions is a dinosaur closing out his career with the same anti pot presentation he has always used. In the end he will be as unsuccessful as he has always been and then he will exit the stage. Pence is a lot scarier, I think he is a lot more driven and ruthless in promoting his beliefs. If he gets the big chair things could get fucked up bad for users.

 

[cybrguy]

If only there were a way to get them both out. Our very existence may depend on it.

Pence's religious fanaticism is what worry s me with him. He may not be a problem with legalization. After all, his belief MUST be that MJ is a gift from God.

Here is someone else s view... https://www.civilized.life/articles/a-closer-look-at-mike-pence-on-marijuana/

 

[looney2nz]

tally the number of extremist 'Dominionist' folks in 45's cabinet

Pence is #1.
Betsy DeVos, (her brother Eric Prince from Blackwater, also being groomed for government).
I think Pruitt, and a number of others.

Read up on it, frightening as hell, and a clear indication of where they think this is all going

A theocracy, based on their interpretation of the Bible.
God's law is above Man's, the Constitution comes second to God.

The founding documents that make this country unique in the world, and they are wiped their asses with it.

Sorry, listening to the 'State of the Union' (retch!)

 

[Stu]

Let's please keep the posts in this thread about Cannabis News and not venture into political discussions.

I realize that there is overlap, but for the sake of the well-being of the thread let's try to focus only on issues directly related to Cannabis.

Thank you.

 

[Silver420Surfer]

Colorado marijuana deliveries could be arriving this fall, if legislature agrees
If enacted, new legislation would create a delivery pilot program for medical and recreational cannabis products

By Alicia Wallace, The Cannabist Staff

Colorado legislators are taking another spin through marijuana delivery regulations.

A new bill aims to establish a marijuana delivery pilot program in the state, allowing for home-delivered medical and recreational cannabis.

The language of House Bill 1092 is similar to some of the marijuana delivery provisions included in legislation proposed last year. They were scrapped after Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper expressed reticence about such a proposal. Marijuana delivery would be a “hazard” and could draw the ire of federal agencies, he said.

This time around, the delivery proposal is a standalone bill with guardrails on the geographic extent of the deliveries, the number of licensed operations and the length of the trial period.

If approved, a state-licensed delivery provider could pick up medical or recreational marijuana products from a licensed dispensary or store and deliver the products to ID-bearing registered medical marijuana card holders or adults 21 years of age or older at a physical address. The delivery license holders would have to adhere to certain security and tracking measures; limits imposed on the amount of product in a vehicle; health and safety standards; as well as training requirements.

“We’re not breaking new ground in Colorado on this,” said Rep. Jonathan Singer, D-Longmont, who co-sponsored the bill with Rep. Jovan Melton, D-Aurora, and Sen. Tim Neville, R-Littleton.

That distinction goes to Oregon, which last February granted delivery permits to more than 100 cannabis retailers across the state.

“Everyone said that they didn’t want Colorado to be the guinea pig on marijuana,” Singer said. “This time we let another state be the guinea pig, and we haven’t seen the negative effects from regulated delivery.”

Following Oregon’s move, licensed marijuana deliveries have occurred in Nevada; and in California, where some licensed medical marijuana deliveries have occurred, municipalities are exploring regulated delivery for recreational marijuana.
“Bottom line is that we haven’t seen an increase in public safety issues where this is rolled out,” Singer said. “Additionally, if there’s concern about federal attention, the federal attention would already be on Oregon where this happens.”

In Oregon, the implementation of marijuana delivery regulations came with very few hiccups and has not resulted in any significant challenges related to aspects such as compliance, safety, theft and unauthorized sale to minors, said Mark Pettinger, spokesman for the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, which oversees marijuana regulations in the state.

Oregon took a slow, calculated and deliberate approach to rolling out delivery regulations, and the state also established a robust set of checks-and-balances and regulations for the first-of-its-kind effort, he said.

For example, a licensed marijuana retailer granted state-authorization for delivery is allowed to deliver products to homes and apartments but not to “transient” dwellings, such as a hotel, dormitory or bed and breakfast. Deliveries are limited to between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. local time, and the delivery person has to verify the identification of the person who placed the order and cannot deliver product to a person who is visibly intoxicated. No more than $3,000 of product can be carried by the delivery person at at any given time in the vehicle, and those products need to be stored in a lock-box with a manifest be created for each delivery. The retailer is also required to keep the information about delivery transactions, including the name of the purchaser, for one year.


As of Jan. 26, Oregon had granted delivery licenses to 235 of Oregon’s 520 licensed retail marijuana operators, according to Oregon Liquor Control Commission data.

Delivery sales represent a tiny portion of Oregon’s monthly marijuana sales. In December, delivery sales were $102,413, or 0.2 percent of the overall $46.01 million in monthly sales, according to OLCC data. So far through January, delivery sales totaled $112,434, or 0.3 percent of the $40.03 million sales overall.

Under the provisions of the Colorado bill, the state licensing authority could enter into up to three memorandums of understanding with municipalities to allow marijuana delivery in those jurisdictions, according to the bill text as introduced Jan. 18. The memorandum of understanding could allow multiple municipalities to comprise a contiguous jurisdiction, according to the bill text.

Separately, the bill proposes limits for the number of licensed delivery operations. The state can issue up to 15 delivery licenses for qualified applicants, under the proposed pilot program.

If passed, the state could start issuing licenses on Sept. 1, 2018. By March 1, 2020, the state licensing authority officials would have to report back to the House of Representatives’ Business Affairs and Labor Committee and Senate Business, Labor and Technology Committee.

“This is hopefully going to decrease the incidence and the likelihood of DUIs, whether they’re related to alcohol or other substances,” Singer said, noting that the state currently allows for the delivery of alcohol and prescriptions.

The bill is scheduled for its first hearing on Feb. 7 in the House Finance committee.

Read the bill text for HB18-1092, “Marijuana Delivery Pilot Project.”