Public Health Oriented Comments on State Cannabis Regulations from PHI

Our colleagues at the Public Healh Institute have prepared several public comments on California's cannabis regulations that they have offered as models for others.  In addition to the comments themselves, Lynn Silver's transmittal email (below) sums up the current state of play in California pretty well.  The point about preempting local laws is particularly troubling as is the fact that BCC plans to run the research program rather than relying on an independent agency like UC.

Comment to California Department of Public Health, Bureau of Cannabis Control, Department of Food and Agriculture.

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

As promised, attached are model comments for your organizations to use in response to the proposed regulations put out by the Bureau of Cannabis Control (covering retailing, other licensees, marketing and other issues), the California Department of Food and Agriculture (cultivation) and the California Department of Public Health (manufacturing).  Comments are due next Monday August 27th.

 

While the proposed regulations do continue to build the basic licensing infrastructure and  include some valuable advances, such as a specialized store model for retailing,  modest improvements on issues related to attractiveness to children in  marketing, and requiring age verification on delivery in marketing, most of the key issues we have raised continue unaddressed.

 

Some new and unexpected serious problems were introduced. Most notably, the BCC regulations try to accomplish what the legislature did not do, which is to undermine local control and the autonomy of California cities and counties to prohibit or otherwise regulate cannabis by allowing delivery by licensees from other jurisdictions. In our legal analysis (as well as that of the League of California Cities)  this would violate the express intent of Proposition 64 and the will of the voters, and the plain language of current law. It should be urgently opposed.

 

BCC also proposes to take upon itself the duty of  administrating  the $10 million in annual research funding, a task for which it has  no qualifications, staff or experience, rather than delegating that task, for example, to the office of the President of the University of California, which has successfully administered tobacco tax research funding with a high level of competency and independence for many years through the Tobacco Related Disease Research Program. We should build on what works. TRDRP has been a fundamental part of building healthy tobacco policy and understanding the impact of tobacco on health. We should expect no less from tax-funded cannabis research.

 

BCC also continues to lack language to limit the number of retailers or to promote equity in licensing. Equity continues absent from all three  sets of regulations. Prominent health warnings to consumers in stores continue absent, as do health warnings on advertisements.

 

CDPH's regulations strengthen language on products that are attractive to children or likened to existing food products, and requires manufacturers to provide up to date product lists, amongst other positive provisions. However they still fail to prohibit more dangerous products and products that are clearly designed to attract youth, including high potency flower and concentrates, flavored non-edible products, "cannapops" (cannabis beverages) and infused pre-rolls. They continue to require health warnings only in illegible 6 point font (this is 8 point the smallest n my email), and allow these warnings to be relegated to inserts or tags, again in our reading, in violation of the requirements of the law.  Shockingly, to me as a pediatrician, they eliminate the requirement for child resistant primary packaging, shifting it to stores to place sales in child resistant exit packaging that will likely  be rapidly disposed of.

 

CDFAs regulations fail address  stemming massive shift of cannabis agriculture to high potency plants or to consider equity in licensing.

 

We express our appreciation to UCSF's Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education. Several sections of our comments were taken from or adapted from their valuable work.  They have also just submitted comments to BCC.

 

We strongly encourage public health advocates to submit comments. In previous rounds and hearings it has rained comments form the cannabis industry with limited input from those concerned about health impact or equity.  If we want to be heard we need to multiply our voices. Our model comments are for that purpose, and although lengthy,  feel free to use, cut or modify as you feel is appropriate for your organization. Highlighted sections in yellow should be filled out and the instructions deleted prior to submission by August 27th. If you can, please send us a copy of your comments or post them.

 

If you have suggested comments, additions  or corrections on our comments, please send to [email protected]. We have not yet officially submitted ours but will shortly.

 

Best regards,

 

Lynn &  Alisa Padon  & the newest addition to our project team - Amanda Naprawa, JD, MPH Policy Associate

 

 

Lynn Silver, MD,MPH, FAAP

Senior Advisor

Public Health Institute

555 12th Street, 10th Floor

Oakland, CA  94607

[email protected]

+1 917-974-7065

 

Clinical Professor

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics University of California San Francisco