-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
wow
That's on the level of chinese good citizen score. Orwellian
But in the vast majority of the country it's illegal, so things don't tend to be marketed directly at us if you can buy it in a brick and mortar. I've been in shops that will kick you out for saying the word bong.
Oregon headshops will just have to go the way my state does it, might be the way they did it once upon a time idk.
Aota1
Member
I'm going to a meeting tomorrow night put on by ORCA (oregon retailers of cannabis association) where a number of items will be discussed and Rep. Julie Fahey, who's on the Joint Commission on Marijuana Regulation, will be there for questions and concerns. There's talk of raising the local tax from 3% to 8% already and that's insane. We just started collecting the local tax on Jan. 1 and total tax dropped from 25% to 20% on that day. To immediately spike it again would be damaging. They might get a bigger cut, but it'll drive frustrated customers away to their black market connect and the local take probably won't change much. Total sales will go down for certain. We're in a strange time in history with herb regulation and a big part of me wishes I was still just growing/making hash. I am thankful I'm not an investor. Just a manager who has my whole heart into this thing. We'll see how it shakes out. Let me know if anyone has any questions for the rep?
Aota1
Member
Information from my ORCA contact
Federal Bi-Partisan Cannabis Caucus
Last week we also saw the launch of a bi-partisan cannabis caucus emerge in Congress, including (and led in no small part by) Oregon's very own Rep. Earl Blumenauer.
This formal caucus is designed to create a venue where federal legislators can begin exploring, among themselves, rational policy changes that are supported largely by members of both parties. While most of these policies are created at the state and local level, there are certainly large aspects of federal policy that conflict with and often pose problems for states' legalization efforts thus far - particularly with regards to research, banking, taxation, and federal non-intervention.
HB 2203 and HB 2204 - Taxes Taxes Taxes
[currently in the House Committee on Revenue]
This is where the real action has been happening, as far as I have been concerned. The bills that would most impact on our sector of the cannabis industry have been assigned to the House Committee on Revenue, and we have seen a full court press from some in the legislature to increase the sales tax on cannabis as well as a redistribution of the revenue.
HB 2203 is the bill aimed at redistributing the revenue from the money collected from cannabis sales taxes, and initial drafts of the bill involved gutting the percentage of funding that was going towards our state's public education, and instead sent most of the revenue back to cities and counties. However - in light of the state's crippling budget shortfall of over $1.5 Billion, that version has already been replaced with an amendment that keeps the education funding intact, but instead reapportions the remaining revenues to send more back to localities.
Our primary interests in this bill are twofold. One, I believe it is within the interest of our industry to ensure that the money is spent on what the voters chose to have it spent on - primarily education, public safety, and drug education and prevention programs. Secondly, we have also introduced a request to help shave off a small percentage of the funds prior to their distribution to fund a public education campaign encouraging consumers to participate in the legal market (rather than illegal).
Again, given the tight nature of this year's budget, there's no shortage of special interests and lobbying groups at the table looking for a small piece of funding and there isn't much to go around. I have some doubts about our ability to secure the additional funding we requested, but I think it moves the conversation in the right direction - continuing the cultivation of this nascent industry.
HB 2204 is the one that we want to ring ALL of the alarm bells if it's called up for a vote. THIS IS THE TAX INCREASE BILL, which proposes allowing localities to raise the tax on cannabis sales from 3% up to 8%, bringing it up to a total of 25% as applied to purchases.
We have said this before but I am happy to say it again - it is our Number One priority for this legislative session to do everything we can to help stop this bill from passing. We all know how fragile the retail market is at present, how the underground market is thriving, and how competitive the prices have gotten on there in an effort to undercut and undermine the legal system.
We testified to that effect and I have been meeting privately with lawmakers on the committee to help them understand how available and inexpensive these products are on the illegal marketplace, and how the state's legal regime can't compete if illicit dealers can beat the price of a legal retailer by half or more. I also brought around half-a-dozen recent craigslist postings for flower and shatter (which I decided not to enter in to the public record - I'm no snitch) which I think brought home the point for many of them with underaged by tech savvy children or grandchildren.
There is significant support for the bill presently, and that's going to be a major challenge as we proceed. On Tuesday, testimony was provided in favor of the bill by Sen. Burdick as well as Sen. Ferrioli, normally on the opposite ends of the political spectrum but happily working together to get more revenue for localities. We'll be going up against some of the most powerful voices in the building, so it will be critical for us to be as united in our message, loudly and clearly as possible, that this bill cannot proceed. We need to be citing the specific terms the harms it would cause for our businesses, and compile as much data on these unintended consequences as possible.
SB 301 - Ending Employment Discrimination Against Off-Hours Cannabis Use
[currently in Senate Judiciary Committee]
This bill - which many supported but few suspected would have the political momentum necessary to get far in the legislative process - saw a public hearing this Tuesday morning in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill, while not brought up immediately for a vote, saw exactly the amount of outrage from pro-business groups upset about potential violation employer's rights, did see more support than we expected with some key committee members remaining undecided.
Those conversations regarding how we can muster more support for this bill - should it be called for a vote - are ongoing and we will be sure to alert our members when it is time to make noise. It will be important to show our support not just among the members of the committee, but also the larger legislative body to make sure it can pass through the Senate and go on to the House.
Joint Committee on Marijuana Regulation - This Week's Hearing
This week the committee held a hearing that was aimed primarily at allowing the state agencies and other stakeholders to explore the possibility of placing medical marijuana production within the purview of the OLCC. Several different iterations of this were explored and the agencies made their recommendations for how that would work in a system of their own design.
The recommendation offered a variety of ways that mom-and-pop growers who had been registered as medical growers in the past could become a part of the OLCC licensing regime as a micro-tier production licensee - subjecting them to fewer regulatory hurdles than a full production license while incorporating their inventory into the OLCC's tracking system.
The end goal appears to be a system where these small growers can become OLCC licensed at a cost that is similar to what they would have paid in the past to register a medical marijuana grow site - and in a way that allows them to sell excess product into the OLCC recreational system.
Federal Bi-Partisan Cannabis Caucus
Last week we also saw the launch of a bi-partisan cannabis caucus emerge in Congress, including (and led in no small part by) Oregon's very own Rep. Earl Blumenauer.
This formal caucus is designed to create a venue where federal legislators can begin exploring, among themselves, rational policy changes that are supported largely by members of both parties. While most of these policies are created at the state and local level, there are certainly large aspects of federal policy that conflict with and often pose problems for states' legalization efforts thus far - particularly with regards to research, banking, taxation, and federal non-intervention.
HB 2203 and HB 2204 - Taxes Taxes Taxes
[currently in the House Committee on Revenue]
This is where the real action has been happening, as far as I have been concerned. The bills that would most impact on our sector of the cannabis industry have been assigned to the House Committee on Revenue, and we have seen a full court press from some in the legislature to increase the sales tax on cannabis as well as a redistribution of the revenue.
HB 2203 is the bill aimed at redistributing the revenue from the money collected from cannabis sales taxes, and initial drafts of the bill involved gutting the percentage of funding that was going towards our state's public education, and instead sent most of the revenue back to cities and counties. However - in light of the state's crippling budget shortfall of over $1.5 Billion, that version has already been replaced with an amendment that keeps the education funding intact, but instead reapportions the remaining revenues to send more back to localities.
Our primary interests in this bill are twofold. One, I believe it is within the interest of our industry to ensure that the money is spent on what the voters chose to have it spent on - primarily education, public safety, and drug education and prevention programs. Secondly, we have also introduced a request to help shave off a small percentage of the funds prior to their distribution to fund a public education campaign encouraging consumers to participate in the legal market (rather than illegal).
Again, given the tight nature of this year's budget, there's no shortage of special interests and lobbying groups at the table looking for a small piece of funding and there isn't much to go around. I have some doubts about our ability to secure the additional funding we requested, but I think it moves the conversation in the right direction - continuing the cultivation of this nascent industry.
HB 2204 is the one that we want to ring ALL of the alarm bells if it's called up for a vote. THIS IS THE TAX INCREASE BILL, which proposes allowing localities to raise the tax on cannabis sales from 3% up to 8%, bringing it up to a total of 25% as applied to purchases.
We have said this before but I am happy to say it again - it is our Number One priority for this legislative session to do everything we can to help stop this bill from passing. We all know how fragile the retail market is at present, how the underground market is thriving, and how competitive the prices have gotten on there in an effort to undercut and undermine the legal system.
We testified to that effect and I have been meeting privately with lawmakers on the committee to help them understand how available and inexpensive these products are on the illegal marketplace, and how the state's legal regime can't compete if illicit dealers can beat the price of a legal retailer by half or more. I also brought around half-a-dozen recent craigslist postings for flower and shatter (which I decided not to enter in to the public record - I'm no snitch) which I think brought home the point for many of them with underaged by tech savvy children or grandchildren.
There is significant support for the bill presently, and that's going to be a major challenge as we proceed. On Tuesday, testimony was provided in favor of the bill by Sen. Burdick as well as Sen. Ferrioli, normally on the opposite ends of the political spectrum but happily working together to get more revenue for localities. We'll be going up against some of the most powerful voices in the building, so it will be critical for us to be as united in our message, loudly and clearly as possible, that this bill cannot proceed. We need to be citing the specific terms the harms it would cause for our businesses, and compile as much data on these unintended consequences as possible.
SB 301 - Ending Employment Discrimination Against Off-Hours Cannabis Use
[currently in Senate Judiciary Committee]
This bill - which many supported but few suspected would have the political momentum necessary to get far in the legislative process - saw a public hearing this Tuesday morning in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill, while not brought up immediately for a vote, saw exactly the amount of outrage from pro-business groups upset about potential violation employer's rights, did see more support than we expected with some key committee members remaining undecided.
Those conversations regarding how we can muster more support for this bill - should it be called for a vote - are ongoing and we will be sure to alert our members when it is time to make noise. It will be important to show our support not just among the members of the committee, but also the larger legislative body to make sure it can pass through the Senate and go on to the House.
Joint Committee on Marijuana Regulation - This Week's Hearing
This week the committee held a hearing that was aimed primarily at allowing the state agencies and other stakeholders to explore the possibility of placing medical marijuana production within the purview of the OLCC. Several different iterations of this were explored and the agencies made their recommendations for how that would work in a system of their own design.
The recommendation offered a variety of ways that mom-and-pop growers who had been registered as medical growers in the past could become a part of the OLCC licensing regime as a micro-tier production licensee - subjecting them to fewer regulatory hurdles than a full production license while incorporating their inventory into the OLCC's tracking system.
The end goal appears to be a system where these small growers can become OLCC licensed at a cost that is similar to what they would have paid in the past to register a medical marijuana grow site - and in a way that allows them to sell excess product into the OLCC recreational system.
Aota1
Member
I can ask at the meeting tomorrow. The rep. Coming is on the committee that this is being decided by.
I believe that it will not. Reason is that all OLCC licenses are only available and issued in counties and cities that opted in. The OLCC will not issue any weed licenses in any county or city that has opted out of rec marijuana.
Also in the case of Douglas Co, they also banned all OHA medical dispensaries and growing in the last general election. So the only grows allowed there are the four plants per residence personal grows, and purchasing medical and rec weed in cities that did not also ban sales in that county.
Also having gone through a lot of hurdles and hoops for getting a grow license here on my property (I bailed out as they kept piling up more requirements and increased the fees), there are not any fewer hurdles that I am aware of in getting a micro-tier license than a tier I or tier II license. The same requirements apply for all grow licensing, outlined in OLCC Division 25 rules. The only difference I see is the one exception that the two micro-grow licenses are less. In descending order of cost: it is currently $5,750 a year for a Tier II grow license, $3,750 a year Tier I grow license, $2,000 a year for a tier II micro grow license, and $1,000 a year for a micro grow tier I license.
Amusing as well that the legislature is using the bait and switch tactic on marijuana tax revenues to fill the state coffers. Just like the lottery being passed to go to schools and now being distributed to float all kinds of pet programs, marijuana sales will go to pay for PERS, and all the other perks for retired state employees, as well as other stuff. I also believe that counties and cities that opted out of marijuana now get revenues from the state taxes on marijuana sales. They obviously do not get anything from the local sales taxes though.
And sales taxes in Oregon, get used to it. Its only a matter of time before they tax all sales here. The unions tried again last round with the tax on large company sales in Oregon. They will be at it again. As it is, they have sales tax in Oregon on hotels/motels, gas, booze, marijuana, and utilities. Also license fees keep going up and up and up for autos, trucks, boats, hunting, fishing, drivers, real estate, special event, contractor, medical, food handling, business, and have already increased almost 6 fold for tier II MJ grow licenses (was $1,000 a year to start, now is $5,750).
Welfare and pensions make up almost 30% of the state costs. Medical care costs make up another whopping 36% as over one million people, or over 1/4 of the state population is now on Medicaid. So that leaves roughly 1/3 of the expenses paying for ~everything~ else (education, police, transportation, government costs, interest on bonds, and misc). Its a gravy boat here for the homeless, illegals, and the retired state employees, sucking the state dry. Rather than cut back and spend less, its TAX MORE!
Welfare and pensions make up almost 30% of the state costs. Medical care costs make up another whopping 36% as over one million people, or over 1/4 of the state population is now on Medicaid. So that leaves roughly 1/3 of the expenses paying for ~everything~ else (education, police, transportation, government costs, interest on bonds, and misc). Its a gravy boat here for the homeless, illegals, and the retired state employees, sucking the state dry. Rather than cut back and spend less, its TAX MORE!
900 Court St NE, H-385, Salem, OR 97301
Phone: 503-986-1419
Email: [email protected]
Here's the details to Jodi hack, the chick who introduced this scam of a bill (2556) that's going to cripple the glass shops and grow stores.
Anyone else who is against this bill I strongly recommend emailing her and describe why. She can't ignore all of us. Pass out her info on your social media accounts, she needs to be brought into the publics attention.
Phone: 503-986-1419
Email: [email protected]
Here's the details to Jodi hack, the chick who introduced this scam of a bill (2556) that's going to cripple the glass shops and grow stores.
Anyone else who is against this bill I strongly recommend emailing her and describe why. She can't ignore all of us. Pass out her info on your social media accounts, she needs to be brought into the publics attention.
Aota1
Member
It sounds like they may be looking for alternatives to the present micro tier licensing strictly for those former oha growers that would still allow those from banned areas to participate. She said it may get complicated(talk of dept. Of ag oversight) but is an issue the joint Committee wants to solve this session.
But where would their market be in a banned county if they do that? No rec stores to sell to locally, no more medical stores to sell to locally, so they will be SOL. In the 2 counties west of the Cascades, Douglas Co. specifically voted out medical grows as well as rec grows. So that leaves what, Marion Co.? Urban rec grows are specifically banned by the state (you have to be zoned ag or farm/forest). Seems like a waste of time and effort to me. Micro and single larger growers are destined to be wiped out by big growers anyway. Grow operations with licenses are already being bought up by large out of state inventors. Also if the OHA wants out, they may as well just hand it all over to the OLCC. Its what they say that they want. Why linger?
Also Trump seems to have decided to come down hard on rec weed now from the federal level (even though he says he supports state's rights), and IMO Oregon should reverse course and stay with the OHA medical plan that they had. Or else they will have to come up with a new one if the Feds raid all the OLCC licensed distributors and stores. Or hunt down grow operations. The Untouchables, Part II.
Agreed,
Operation green merchant part 2 lmao
Aota1
Member
The market would be to operating stores or through distributors that deliver throughout the state. I'm not sure how it's all going to work out and who knows what the feds will do. Time will tell. The state isn't shutting it down and they definitely don't want to lose that tax money. I delivered our state and city tax for january on monday and it adds up quick. I understand the frustrations with how everything has gone, but the state isn't just capable of bullshit. They've been adapting and maybe you guys will benefit this time. I hope so. I don't think they have my best interests in mind. I never have. They want money. Sure i could still be black market but am grateful, for my 2 year old daughter's sake, to not be taking enormous risks like that anymore. The whole thing could come crashing down but I'd never know if i hadn't tried. I wish you all the best! I'm thankful that herb legalization is a conversation in my lifetime. It comes down to the part where we have always wanted herb for all. Keep growing yours
Last edited:
R
Robrites
Oregon proposes less pesticide testing for pot, prompting criticism for allowing 'poi
Oregon proposes less pesticide testing for pot, prompting criticism for allowing 'poi
Oregon proposes less pesticide testing for pot, prompting criticism for allowing 'poison product'
The latest proposed changes to Oregon's marijuana testing rules reduce key requirements, prompting a fierce backlash from some lab owners and extract producers who say weaker rules will lead to contaminated cannabis reaching the market.
The Oregon Health Authority's rules advisory committee will take up the changes at a meeting Thursday in Portland. The health authority sets pesticide rules for both medical and recreational marijuana.
Among the proposals: Instead of requiring that every batch of marijuana extract and concentrate be screened for pesticide contamination, the products would be randomly tested annually. But all of the marijuana used to make those products would first be screened for pesticides.
The state also has proposed new rules for marijuana flower headed to the market.
Current rules require about 33 percent of all batches of marijuana flower be tested for pesticides. The change would give authority to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission to require less testing. Under the proposal, at least 20 percent of marijuana flower would undergo pesticide testing.
Some industry representatives say the proposals represent a departure from what Oregon public health officials have hailed as the country's toughest pesticide testing rules for cannabis.
"It's a complete evisceration of everything we put into place," said Rodger Voelker, a chemist and lab director of OG Analytical, a Eugene testing lab.
At the same time, many in the industry support the revisions. Don Morse, a marijuana retailer and director of an association that represents cannabis businesses, said labs are pushing back on the changes to protect their own "pocketbooks."
"They want the most testing at the highest cost they can charge," Morse said.
Andre Ourso, manager of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program, said industry complaints about the cost of testing and delays faced by concentrate and extract makers getting their products to stores drove the proposals.
Also, more testing means more expense for the consumer, he said. By law, the state is supposed to consider consumer cost, as well as public safety, in drafting its rules.
He said the public may comment on the rules between March 15 through April 30. New rules are expected to go into place June 1.
"The agency will evaluate the public comment," he said. "If it comes out that this is not something the public wants, the agency won't adopt" the changes.
Voelker said the changes would gut testing provisions intended to identify tainted extracts -- products especially vulnerable to pesticide contamination.
When marijuana is processed into highly concentrated oils, pesticide levels can spike. If the finished product isn't retested, pesticides may go undetected.
Kevin Walsh, a founder of CO2 Company, a southern Oregon company that makes cannabis extracts, said the revisions take Oregon "10 steps backwards."
He said his company has made significant investments in its process and equipment to meet the standards set in earlier drafts of the rules.
"We put a ton of time and energy into building a quality control system that is super robust," he said.
Last month, the health authority told Oregon lawmakers that about 10 percent of marijuana flowers fail to meet state pesticide requirements; the fail rate for extracts and concentrates is about 26 percent.
"It's truly amazing," Voelker said. "Let's pick the worst problem we have and let's make it go away by ignoring it."
Cedar Grey, who owns a cannabis company in Williams, said the new requirements for extracts and concentrates translate into "almost no testing at all."
"For good actors, there is no need for these kinds of rules, but obviously we can see there are bad actors in the industry," Grey said. "There is a lot of poison product."
-- Noelle Crombie
http://www.oregonlive.com/marijuana/index.ssf/2017/03/oregon_proposes_major_change_t.html
Oregon proposes less pesticide testing for pot, prompting criticism for allowing 'poi
Oregon proposes less pesticide testing for pot, prompting criticism for allowing 'poison product'
The latest proposed changes to Oregon's marijuana testing rules reduce key requirements, prompting a fierce backlash from some lab owners and extract producers who say weaker rules will lead to contaminated cannabis reaching the market.
The Oregon Health Authority's rules advisory committee will take up the changes at a meeting Thursday in Portland. The health authority sets pesticide rules for both medical and recreational marijuana.
Among the proposals: Instead of requiring that every batch of marijuana extract and concentrate be screened for pesticide contamination, the products would be randomly tested annually. But all of the marijuana used to make those products would first be screened for pesticides.
The state also has proposed new rules for marijuana flower headed to the market.
Current rules require about 33 percent of all batches of marijuana flower be tested for pesticides. The change would give authority to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission to require less testing. Under the proposal, at least 20 percent of marijuana flower would undergo pesticide testing.
Some industry representatives say the proposals represent a departure from what Oregon public health officials have hailed as the country's toughest pesticide testing rules for cannabis.
"It's a complete evisceration of everything we put into place," said Rodger Voelker, a chemist and lab director of OG Analytical, a Eugene testing lab.
At the same time, many in the industry support the revisions. Don Morse, a marijuana retailer and director of an association that represents cannabis businesses, said labs are pushing back on the changes to protect their own "pocketbooks."
"They want the most testing at the highest cost they can charge," Morse said.
Andre Ourso, manager of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program, said industry complaints about the cost of testing and delays faced by concentrate and extract makers getting their products to stores drove the proposals.
Also, more testing means more expense for the consumer, he said. By law, the state is supposed to consider consumer cost, as well as public safety, in drafting its rules.
He said the public may comment on the rules between March 15 through April 30. New rules are expected to go into place June 1.
"The agency will evaluate the public comment," he said. "If it comes out that this is not something the public wants, the agency won't adopt" the changes.
Voelker said the changes would gut testing provisions intended to identify tainted extracts -- products especially vulnerable to pesticide contamination.
When marijuana is processed into highly concentrated oils, pesticide levels can spike. If the finished product isn't retested, pesticides may go undetected.
Kevin Walsh, a founder of CO2 Company, a southern Oregon company that makes cannabis extracts, said the revisions take Oregon "10 steps backwards."
He said his company has made significant investments in its process and equipment to meet the standards set in earlier drafts of the rules.
"We put a ton of time and energy into building a quality control system that is super robust," he said.
Last month, the health authority told Oregon lawmakers that about 10 percent of marijuana flowers fail to meet state pesticide requirements; the fail rate for extracts and concentrates is about 26 percent.
"It's truly amazing," Voelker said. "Let's pick the worst problem we have and let's make it go away by ignoring it."
Cedar Grey, who owns a cannabis company in Williams, said the new requirements for extracts and concentrates translate into "almost no testing at all."
"For good actors, there is no need for these kinds of rules, but obviously we can see there are bad actors in the industry," Grey said. "There is a lot of poison product."
-- Noelle Crombie
http://www.oregonlive.com/marijuana/index.ssf/2017/03/oregon_proposes_major_change_t.html
You can't help but notice that only the Well Connected Labs got accredited. Funding was not given to the one person to accredit other labs. High testing standards were put in place benefiting those few labs. I wish I could follow the money on that one.
I look forward to the day when a serious investigation starts. This is the most corrupt State in the Union. Makes Illinois look like Church.
I look forward to the day when a serious investigation starts. This is the most corrupt State in the Union. Makes Illinois look like Church.
