Snowy and icy roads Friday morning made for a short, and yet to be completed, public comment period for medical cannabis rule changes.
New Mexico’s Medical Cannabis Program (MCP), which is run by the state Department of Health, convened a meeting for public comments on a number of proposed changes, including patient reciprocity, consumption areas and testing standards. The program’s director, Dominick Zurlo, began the meeting by announcing a second meeting to give those who could not make it due to the weather a chance to add input. Friday’s meeting was only about an hour long and comments largely focused on testing standards and mostly came from producers.
Ben Lewinger, executive director of the New Mexico Cannabis Chamber of Commerce, told the MCP that the proposed microbiological, heavy metal and pesticide testing and labeling standards were problematic.
“We feel like labeling is a very important component, but the labeling restrictions are simply unrealistic for what needs to go on a vast amount of products that are sold as medicine,” Lewinger said.
Lewinger added that the increased amount of product producers are required to pull for testing would not only harm producers, but would increase costs to patients.
Jennifer Merryman, from Mountaintop Extracts, agreed with Lewinger about testing sample sizes and suggested the MCP have more frequent and thorough conversations with those in the medical cannabis industry before proposing rules.
“Perhaps we could add a little bit of local, New Mexico common sense,” Merryman said. “We’re all willing to work with you.”
Zurlo later invited those in the crowd to reach out to him with their concerns.
Merryman told NM Political Report the proposed rules would significantly cut into the supply of smaller production companies.
“Normally we send one and a half grams, sometimes [testing labs] will ask for two grams but not anymore than that per batch testing,” Merryman said. “Now, they’re looking to have a 23 gram sample per batch test.”
She said that standard would hurt small operations who have smaller yields.
“That’s taking away product from that dispensary who has to compensate the loss of that money on to the patient,” Merryman said.
Other producers also spoke about their concerns about labeling and testing standards and their common message was that increased sample sizes would ultimately equal higher prices for patients.
What was almost non-existent in the meeting were the topics of patient reciprocity, producer fee structures and consumption areas. Zurlo said those issues as well as what was discussed on Friday will all be fair game during the next MCP hearing, which has yet to be scheduled. Zurlo also said the next hearing will have to happen before the next legislative session with 30 days notice to the public. He said that probably means another meeting will be scheduled for mid-January. Next month a cannabis medical advisory board is scheduled to meet and consider petitions for additional qualifying conditions.
