Marijuana industry brought to a standstill by new pesticide testing regulations

[Robrites]

Oregon revises marijuana rules after industry backlash

Oregon revises marijuana rules after industry backlash

Oregon on Friday issued temporary new rules aimed at easing what marijuana producers and processors say is a major backlog that has brought parts of the industry to a standstill, left store shelves empty and prompted some companies to lay off workers.

The rules issued by the Oregon Health Authority ease some potency testing requirements for processors, remove restrictions that unintentionally kept alcohol-based concentrates off the market and allow producers to test multiple strains in a single batch. Previously, each strain had to undergo testing.

The rules cover the medical and recreational marijuana markets.

"The intention was to provide relief," said Andre Ourso, manager of the state's medical marijuana program. "In practice do they do that? We will have to wait and see."

The industry had pushed hard for an overhaul to the state's pesticide testing requirements, the first of their kind in the country, by state official left them intact for now. The types of pesticides and the levels allowed, for instance, don't change under the revisions, which are in place until next spring.

Since October, 307 samples taken from marijuana products, from flowers to extracts, failed for either pesticides or residual solvents used in the extraction process.

Jeff Rhoades, Gov. Kate Brown's marijuana policy adviser, said his boss "has been clear about the importance of the marijuana industry to Oregon's economy."

"This approach keeps Oregonians employed, prevents marijuana product from slipping back into the illegal market, and continues to protect public health and safety," he said in a statement Friday.

But industry representatives were less than enthusiastic.

Some said the state didn't go far enough. Other said the changes increase their financial and testing burdens.

Read More

 

[MJPassion]

...if the black market is so good, why are so many growing for headstash? Like you in the 90s?

Have you seen the cost of weed over the years?
Compare that to the cost/quality of growing your own.

Legal weed isn't really bringing the prices down much. At least not within the legal market.
Good quality AAA nuggets are still going for $350-$400 an ounce, from what I've seen in the 'legal markets'.

Black market prices are only marginally lower.

 

[Picarus]

we are already seeing this in CA too. The labs can not keep up with the amount of products being tested. We used to have turn around within a week and now its 2-3, and this is after the lab we use expanded to better serve our area. Its slowing everything down big time. Once its mandatory with the new rules/regs the labs will be back logged. Frank is right, investors money is better served in the testing services arm of this industry. huge opportunity.

I do not use pesticides and do not condone using them, but with proper labeling the choice can be left to the consumer. I still don't remember anyone getting seriously ill from cannabis use, even in the days before any testing was performed.

 

[bombadil.360]

...Since October, 307 samples taken from marijuana products, from flowers to extracts, failed for either pesticides or residual solvents used in the extraction process...

Imagine that... I wonder about the time-frame where that 307 number came from, the area and amount of total samples tested in the same time-frame and area, and then we could have an idea on the amount of dirty product being pumped out as opposed clean product.

Thanks for posting!

 

[DocTim420]

Not saying politics has anything to do with it...but I wonder why the Democratically controlled state of Oregon (gov, house & senate) is unable to get their act together. Establishing a testing procedure is not rocket science (or brain surgery).

Those idiots in power created this mess and should have anticipated this snafu. Oops, forgot--bureaucrats are only capable of creating systems that mandate "maximum effort" by the government employees (aka SEIU members) while providing the "minimum service" to it's customer (aka citizens).

Same shit in California--those idiots in Sacramento are all about "themselves" and being "re-elected".

 

[bombadil.360]

Have you seen the cost of weed over the years?
Compare that to the cost/quality of growing your own.

Legal weed isn't really bringing the prices down much. At least not within the legal market.
Good quality AAA nuggets are still going for $350-$400 an ounce, from what I've seen in the 'legal markets'.

Black market prices are only marginally lower.

Would you rather buy an oz from legal market knowing that oz is clean, or from the black market, not knowing anything about it?

 

[bombadil.360]

we are already seeing this in CA too. The labs can not keep up with the amount of products being tested. We used to have turn around within a week and now its 2-3, and this is after the lab we use expanded to better serve our area. Its slowing everything down big time. Once its mandatory with the new rules/regs the labs will be back logged. Frank is right, investors money is better served in the testing services arm of this industry. huge opportunity.

I do not use pesticides and do not condone using them, but with proper labeling the choice can be left to the consumer. I still don't remember anyone getting seriously ill from cannabis use, even in the days before any testing was performed.

Labeling could be a good idea, but producers who spray would oppose it, much like how gmo does not want to label their stuff in the U.S, fearing consumer rebuke.

You don't remember people getting lung infections, deep head-aches, sore throats and even fever from smoking brick weed? I know I do...never happened with clean home grown though.

 

[DocTim420]

Would you rather buy an oz from legal market knowing that oz is clean, or from the black market, not knowing anything about it?

Labeling could be a good idea, but producers who spray would oppose it, much like how gmo does not want to label their stuff in the U.S, fearing consumer rebuke.

You don't remember people getting lung infections, deep head-aches, sore throats and even fever from smoking brick weed? I know I do...never happened with clean home grown though.

Reminds me of a "taxing situation" winemakers have--wine produced that is "not over 14% alcohol" is taxed at $1.07/gallon and allowed to have 1.5% variance in alcohol (between stated vs actual %--wine with 13.9% on the label could legally test 15.9%), but wine over 14% is taxed at $1.57/gallon and allowed 1% variance (14.1% on the label could legally test 15.5%). Funny how their ledgers were always in "pencil" and wine produced never was over 14% alcohol.

Moral of the story--even if you "know something about it"--it does not always make is so.

 

[bombadil.360]

Reminds me of a "taxing situation" winemakers have--wine produced that is "not over 14% alcohol" is taxed at $1.07/gallon and allowed to have 1.5% variance in alcohol (between stated vs actual %--wine with 13.9% on the label could legally test 15.9%), but wine over 14% is taxed at $1.57/gallon and allowed 1% variance (14.1% on the label could legally test 15.5%). Funny how their ledgers were always in "pencil" and wine produced never was over 14% alcohol.

Moral of the story--even if you "know something about it"--it does not always make is so.

I think in your example, the moral of the story is that you know for a fact that the wine's label could be off by 1% - 1.5%.

As opposed to legal herb tested vs. black market, black market you obviously have 100% unknown of course, in all variables.

Your wine example is 1 variable only (alcohol content) and the variance within than 1 variable is marginal.

In other words, apples and oranges.

 

[mowood3479]

Apples and oranges. U got that right

 

[DocTim420]

I think in your example, the moral of the story is that you know for a fact that the wine's label could be off by 1% - 1.5%.

As opposed to legal herb tested vs. black market, black market you obviously have 100% unknown of course, in all variables.

Your wine example is 1 variable only (alcohol content) and the variance within than 1 variable is marginal.

In other words, apples and oranges.

If you view everything through "rose tinted" glasses, then everything will have a "rose tint". What actually is the difference between "black market" and "legalized market"? Perception.

The idea that "black market" growers are "evil" (zero information is known about how their products are grown)....is a faulty perception. Just as is the notion that "legal warehouse" growers are all "saints" (they disclose everything truthfully). Both will tell a tale for the almighty dollar.

Once standards for testing contaminants and pesticides are widely established and accepted, then (as in my wine taxing situation) growers will do what they do to "make it work" (example--15.9% wine is legally be sold as 13.9%--thus saving the producer nearly 50% in excise taxes--$1.57 vs $1.07, many wineries do this...wouldn't you?).

Apples and oranges? Sure, but if human nature derives from the same "fruit salad"--then can we not agree there are those that will say/do anything--even if it is "wrong"...while being "legally" correct? IMO, these type of people exist in all industries--especially in the cannabis industry.

The mere notion that pesticide use by "legal" growers is more "honorable" than "black market" growers is...well, "interesting" at the very least. I wonder what ratio of growers on ICMag consider themselves "legal" vs "black market".

I grow exclusively for a collective, but no one knows who I am (my city outlawed all cannabis business activities earlier this year)...hmmm does that make me I a "black market" grower?

BTW--prior to my post, did you "know for a fact that the wine's label could be off by 1% - 1.5%", or did my words "enlightened" you?

 

[Weird]

Oh but I thought the black market was the freest and coolest because there are no evil regulations according to you...so it was not good enough you grew your own it seems though.

See, some of you contradict yourselves in your arguments because you want to make the subject about me; you don't realize no one cares about bombadildo (LOL) because most people come to the forums to discuss the subject matter: cannabis.

but you and woodtroll don't get that, so you miss the subject matter.

Again, if the black market is so good, why are so many growing for headstash? Like you in the 90s? If all is good and well and no shady characters involved? Can you answer without letting your dislike of me get in the way?

First and foremost I feel the same way about you as I did before we bumped heads. I do believe you have some unproductive and limiting beliefs but there is never a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

As far as the black market, back then it provided a far greater range of variety of cannabis from down down browns to the finest kind. I know because I was intimate with them all.

The cost of maintaining my head and the difficulty in providing a consistent supply of the finest marijuana was where the black market lacked, thus I decided to grow. Back in 91-92 I was smoking 2 oz a week minimum of "mids" quality pot, that is not including kind purchases. Even with great hooks it was a very costly proposition. Growing was the only logical conclusion and since I was gainfully employed I was able to spend a decade at least just perfecting the art of growing proper smoke absolutely clandestinely. While the black market couldn't provide for me like I could, the smoke back then rarely was so off that it was unpleasant. At worst it was weak and underwhelming. Harsh was the occasional seed. Today so many weeds and concentrates pass my nose and many of them are powerful but unsmokeable.

Now I am long over due a thread and some thank yous to the many people who have made life worth living and all of them are part of this sub culture. Not all of them are perfect but they always had alot of heart. With all that said, people at arms length with whom you have a relationship with are far more committed than those who live life behind a corporate charter.

How much weed in legal areas now are testing substandard?

This started to explode after legality and EZ MONEY was in the eye sights of many.

With that last line I would remind you of big tobacco and their campaign to make cast doubt on the dangers of smoking to keep market share, or big oil to hide proof of climate change, or big pharma to hide the proof of pharmaceutical detriment of their drugs. See legality is a line that corporate law allows big capital interest to push the envelope and avoid consequence.

So the consumer in the end gets a false sense of comfort in some corporate with no direct accountability to have integrity. Delusional at best.

The white paper world of legal is never as it is proposed and big corporations by proxy of power and wealth perpetuate the dynamic legality is supposed to eliminate.

In the end it is a big joke, much like many South American and the American governments, outward posturing while corruption lay rife underneath.

I could go into a number of other factors that are very powerful and important but I want to keep it simple and at face value.

 

[Weird]

I think fundamentally some things like natural entheogens need to be accessible freely to people for the purpose of removing societal imprints and validate reality outside of them.

I think every generation has need for this.

 

[bombadil.360]

The mere notion that pesticide use by "legal" growers is more "honorable" than "black market" growers is...well, "interesting" at the very least. I wonder what ratio of growers on ICMag consider themselves "legal" vs "black market".

The issue is the use of all types of not necessary chemicals to grow, which leave residues, by all growers. Whether black market or not.

The new parameters for testing in OR are so that liscensed growers won't be trying to pass dirty produce; because many do, didn't you read the article posted a few posts ago? 307 dirty samples since 10/01 from LEGAL growers who knew were gonna get tested.

Imagine what people who know for sure their product won't be tested in the black market, you can bet most are spraying shit...you think a little spidermites or mold will get in the way of $$$?

Talk about rose-colored glasses...

 

[bombadil.360]

Weird, I asked you a simple question, and you type some sort of manifesto...

After reading it, it is not clear if you trust the black market, that has no regulation whatsoever, over produce that has to pass a minimun level of quality control...it is not clear whether or not you think growing your own also frees you from the real dangers of getting pestice ridden herb from the black market, which was the intent of my initial question.

 

[corky1968]

Commercial growers probably only see $$ and not the quality.

Hence the pesticides to produce more plants mentality.

I hope they all get shut down.

 

[Jellyfish]

I definitely trust the black market (which has NEVER fucked me over), more than the government (which has fucked me in every orifice). Total no-brainer.

 

[DocTim420]

The issue is the use of all types of not necessary chemicals to grow, which leave residues, by all growers. Whether black market or not.

The new parameters for testing in OR are so that liscensed growers won't be trying to pass dirty produce; because many do, didn't you read the article posted a few posts ago? 307 dirty samples since 10/01 from LEGAL growers who knew were gonna get tested.

Imagine what people who know for sure their product won't be tested in the black market, you can bet most are spraying shit...you think a little spidermites or mold will get in the way of $$$?

Talk about rose-colored glasses...

Yes I read the article and I am not anti-testing. Just suggesting a couple of things--and words from both you and that article kinda prove my point.

First, lumping a class of people into a "good guy"-"bad guy" categories based on a "licensed" vs "black market" status is not an accurate way to analyze this particular situation. More to it than "black and white".

Second, the workaround response. Let's suppose one of your samples were among 307 that tested "dirty"...and you know you run a clean operation and use pesticides "honorably". Wouldn't you scratch your head and say, "Impossible--how can this be?"--and like most people, you would analyze and seek alternative solutions to your problem.

Now...let's suppose a solution you discovered was "legally correct", but not approved by certain principles you subscribed to (organic, biodynamic, etc). In a perfect world--most people would select morality over legality; but we don't live in a perfect world--and everyone's "morality" is different...and it changes over time.

All I am suggesting is---there are many licensed growers in Oregon with disappointing lab tests that are seeking workarounds to overcome their particular situation (ala wine taxing situation)....and it also supports my contention that--being a "licensed grower" does not equate to "honorable" pesticide use...as you said, samples submitted were "from LEGAL growers who knew were gonna get tested." Imagine that, legal growers testing positive for pesticide residue. Who would have thought?

Nor am I suggesting "black market" growers are any "cleaner"; just suggesting the same percentage of "honorable" and "dishonorable" people are about the same in both groups--and probably mirrors the same percentage of our "general population".

 

[bombadil.360]

Yes I read the article and I am not anti-testing. Just suggesting a couple of things--and words from both you and that article kinda prove my point.

First, lumping a class of people into a "good guy"-"bad guy" categories based on a "licensed" vs "black market" status is not an accurate way to analyze this particular situation. More to it than "black and white".

Second, the workaround response. Let's suppose one of your samples were among 307 that tested "dirty"...and you know you run a clean operation and use pesticides "honorably". Wouldn't you scratch your head and say, "Impossible--how can this be?"--and like most people, you would analyze and seek alternative solutions to your problem.

Now...let's suppose a solution you discovered was "legally correct", but not approved by certain principles you subscribed to (organic, biodynamic, etc). In a perfect world--most people would select morality over legality; but we don't live in a perfect world--and everyone's "morality" is different...and it changes over time.

All I am suggesting is---there are many licensed growers in Oregon with disappointing lab tests that are seeking workarounds to overcome their particular situation (ala wine taxing situation)....and it also supports my contention that--being a "licensed grower" does not equate to "honorable" pesticide use...as you said, samples submitted were "from LEGAL growers who knew were gonna get tested." Imagine that, legal growers testing positive for pesticide residue. Who would have thought?

Nor am I suggesting "black market" growers are any "cleaner"; just suggesting the same percentage of "honorable" and "dishonorable" people are about the same in both groups--and probably mirrors the same percentage of our "general population".

Let me be perfectly clear, pesticide use or fungicide or any other spray that leaves residues is not 'honorable' at all.

If you can't grow without spraying shit on the plants, you need to find something else to do.

Once I had a fungus issue and sprayed a solution of white vinegar and water, burnt the shit out of the plants. That was 1st and last time used. Also, scratched that spot from growing, did not get enough air or sun in the morning or evening. That was the real problem, shitty environment. You can't fix that by spraying shit on the plants. The sooner people get that, the better the available herb will be.

 

[DocTim420]

Let me be perfectly clear, pesticide use or fungicide or any other spray that leaves residues is not 'honorable' at all....

Exactly! And in this instance--the guilty were "licensed". So, it proves my point--there is zero correlation of "honorable pesticide use" and whether or not the grower is "licensed" or is part of the "black market" (both groups have good and bad characters).