Are there any additional considerations?

My submission sent by email: 3rd July 2020 Ministry of Legal Affairs Global House, 4th Floor 43 Church Street Hamilton HM12 Bermuda Attn: Hon. Kathy Lynn Simmons, JP “Cannabis (Licensing and Control) Act 2020” and corresponding draft “Cannabis (Licensing) Regulations” and “Cannabis (Retail Shops) Regulations” Dear Mrs. Simmons, I am writing to you today in response to the consultation the government is currently undertaken in regard the cannabis reform here in Bermuda. Upon reading the draft Cannabis (Licensing and Control) Act 2020, (“the Act”) along with the corresponding drafts of the Cannabis (Licensing) Regulations and Cannabis (Retail Shops) Regulations there are a number of issues I would like to address in hopes they will be amended or clarified before the documents are finalised. The key issues identified are broken down into the following sections for ease of review: Section I: Cannabis Advisory Authority Fees & Funding It appears that according to Section 19(1) of Schedule 1 to the Act that the funds of the Cannabis Advisory Authority (“the Authority”) shall consists of: (a) such sums as may, from time to time, be placed at the disposal of the Authority by the Legislature; and (b) all other sums and property which may, in any manner, become payable to or vested in the Authority in respect of any matter incidental to its functions. The first issue I have with this aspect of the Legislation is that it does not specify what specifically constitutes a sum that may become payable to or vested in the Authority in respect of any matter incidental to its functions. It is clear that Licencing Fees will constitute the majority of the revenue available for the Authority’s budget and as a result the Authority will rely on sums placed at their disposal by the Legislature until enough regular fees are collected. However, there is no mention of the other types of revenue sources the Authority may rely upon. As a result, I would ask the government to clarify what other sources of revenue they anticipate being able to generate incidental to the Authority’s its functions and if taxation of the sale of cannabis or duty on its importation would be included in such activities. Furthermore, Section 19(2) of the Act states: The expenses of the Authority, including the remuneration of members of the Authority and employees and agents of the Authority shall be paid out of the funds of the Authority and thereafter all remaining revenues received in respect of any matter incidental to the functions of the Authority shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund within such period as may be specified by the Minister of Finance, in writing. The main issue that I have with this Section is that it requires remaining revenues to be paid directly into the Government’s Consolidated Fund. Similar to the Sugar tax, I believe it is vital that these revenues be redirected to specific programs, similar to those stipulated in Section 19(3). By mandating that the excess revenue generated from any matter incidental to the Authority’s functions be used for educational programs or paying back the dept previous administrations have accumulated, it would ensure it is not simply dumped into the Consolidated Fund and actually put to good use. This is especially true if this revenue is eventually deemed to include taxation of the actual sale of cannabis as mentioned above. Therefore, I strongly believe that the government should not pay the excess/remaining revenues received in respect of any matter incidental to the functions of the Authority into the Consolidated Fund and instead earmark these funds to be used for specific beneficial purposes such as: i. Educational Programs or Public-School Education Initiatives ii. Improving Community Spaces or Social Programs iii. Relieving Longstanding Government Debt Section II: Taxation and Duty As mentioned in Section I above, the Act does not specifically cover the taxation of cannabis sales or the duty to be applied on the importation of cannabis. I am unaware if these issues will be handled in separate legislation or if they are dealt with by government Legislature. However, I feel it is important for the Act to state how these fees will be applied and handled as they directly impact cannabis consumers and various types of Licensees. As a result, the government should outline how it intends to tax cannabis sales and apply duty to cannabis imports before issuing licences for such activities as these decisions directly impact cannabis consumers and potential Licensees. Section III: Personal & Commercial Cultivation Another extremely important issue that has already partially been addressed during the consultation period is the need for two separate cultivation licences. I applaud the government’s amendments to the original Cannabis Licensing Regulations made on June 29th in regard to introducing a Personal Cultivation Licence. However, there are a number of issues that still remain that must be amended to allow for both the Personal Cultivation Licence and the Commercial Cultivation Licence to operate effectively and achieve their desired purpose. 1. Personal Cultivation Licence The inclusion of a Personal Cultivation Licence in the Act is an extremely important addition that will allow recreational cannabis consumers to grow and prepare their own product. However, as the specific details were not initially included within the Act there are a number of key aspects of the licence that I wish to ensure are either included or excluded. A. Geographic Limits Section 2(b) of Schedule 3 to the Act states that: (b) the premises where the cannabis or medicinal cannabis is to be cultivated is not [to be] situated within 2,640 feet (one half of a mile) of any school or place of worship; Although these restrictions were clearly made with good intentions, Figure 1 below illustrates how it is nearly impossible to be half a mile away from both a school and a place of worship on this island. Figure 1: Geographical Restriction Zones ½ Mile from Church or School It is clear from Figure 1 that these restriction zones will unintentionally benefit a certain segment of the population. Most notably, as is to be discussed in Section V below, certain wealthier areas of the island such as Tuckers Point, Riddles Bay, Ferry Reach and Ferryland’s will be able to cultivate cannabis while less economically developed areas will not be able to benefit from either Cultivation Licence. Furthermore, these types of restrictions make little sense as the impact that the cultivation of cannabis will have on schools and churches is almost non-existent. There is little evidence to show that cultivating cannabis near a school or church will have an adverse impact on students or churchgoers as long as it is contained and secured on the Licensee’s property. Section 2(e) regarding security provisions will also go a long way as to ensure that close proximity to schools and churches will not result in adverse impact on students and churchgoers. As a result, I recommend that the government remove the geographical restriction of ½ mile distance from a school or church required within a Cultivation Licence in order to more equitably and fairly impact Bermuda’s population.   B. Restrictions due to Presence of Minor Although the Act does not initially prohibit the cultivation of cannabis on a premise where a minor is permanently or occasionally present, the recent amendments made on June 29th state that: The Minister will not issue a personal cultivation licence for a premise where a minor is permanently or occasionally present. Again, although I understand the intention of such a restriction, like with geographical restrictions I believe it is ultimately unrealistic and unnecessary. If individuals are allowed to store alcohol on a premise where a minor is permanently or occasionally present, I see no reason why the person should not also be able to cultivate cannabis. Moreover, it seems more likely minors will be adversely impacted by alcohol storage and consumption than they will cannabis due to the ease of consumption of alcohol over cannabis. Furthermore, as mentioned above, Section 2(e) regarding security provisions will also go a long way to ensure that the minor in question cannot obtain or consume the cannabis being cultivated on the premises. The laws pertaining to supplying cannabis to or possession of cannabis by a minor will also help reduce the potential impact of offering Cultivation Licences to individuals whose plan to cultivate on a premise where a minor is permanently or occasionally present. Therefore, I suggest that the government remove the restrictions to Cultivation Licences in regard to not issuing a cultivation licence for a premise where a minor is permanently or occasionally present in favour of expanding the security requirements in such situations. C. Property Size Limits Section 3(b) states the Minister will only issue Cultivation Licences to premises: (i) comprising land of more than one half acre but not exceeding 1 acre (outdoor) or a building of more than 300 square feet but not exceeding 800 square feet (indoor). With the amendments announced on June 29th, it is unclear whether or not this Section will apply to the Personal Cultivation Licence as well. Furthermore, this is inconsistent with the 3 acres outdoor limit that was outlined in the Policy Document. Ultimately it seems unfair to limit individuals who wish to obtain a Personal Cultivation Licence based on the size of their property. The Government should ensure that Personal Cultivation Licences are not limited based on the size of individuals’ property as per Section 3(b)i. of the Act.   D. Definitions and Number of Plants/Planting Material The amendments made on June 29th state that: Limits on personal cultivation are proposed to include a plant limit of between 4-7 plants subject to approval by the Minister (based on the specifics of the premises where cultivation is carried out). I am aware that the Act does not define a plant. However, it does define both “planting material” and “medicinal cannabis” as including cannabis seeds and immature cannabis plants. This creates some confusion in regard to how seeds and immature cannabis plants will be dealt with in regard to both sale and cultivation. The lack of an explicit definition for what constitutes a plant makes limiting the number of plants an individual with a Personal Cultivation Licence can cultivate difficult to determine. The definition of “planting material” seems more appropriate to define seeds and young plants not yet 8 inches grown from seeds. This allows individuals to grow many seedlings into small plants without counting towards their plant limit, which is vital as not all seeds or young plants will ultimately grow into cultivatable female plants. Therefore, by allowing individuals to own as much planting material as necessary will allow them to successfully germinate and grow plants to maturity. Finally, it will also allow individuals to sex their plants as many individuals will not want to waste the limit prescribed to Personal Cultivation Licences on male plants for obvious reasons! Therefore, government should amend the definitions of fully grown plants and immature cannabis plants in the Act in order to accurately define what constitutes a plant and counts towards the limit prescribed by the Personal Cultivation Licence. Furthermore, the government should remove seeds and immature cannabis plants from the “medicinal cannabis” in favour of including them as only “planting material” in order to help facilitate successful personal cultivation. It would also be helpful to expand upon the definition of an immature plant in order to help facilitate the sexing of plants before they count towards the limit prescribed by the Personal Cultivation Licence. Finally, I believe government should not set specific numerical limits in regard to plant numbers and sizes within Legislation as this restricts the ability of the Authority to regulate the sector. Instead the Legislation should allow the Authority the flexibility to set and amend the limit on plant maturity height and number of plants allowed by a Personal Cultivation Licence. E. Sourcing of Planting Material and Plants The amendments made on June 29th state that: Licensees must purchase Cannabis seedlings from an official approved source (to ensure that plants are propagated from lawful sources). However, the Act does not define what constitutes an approved source for purchasing planting material. Furthermore, none of the proposed licences allows for the cultivation of cannabis plants and plant material for the purpose of sale rather than use. Therefore, it is my understanding that it will be impossible for individuals with a Cultivation Licence to source plants or plant material locally. As a result, the government should explicitly state how individuals with Cultivation Licences can source plants and plant material locally. This could potentially include offering a separate licence for the cultivation of plant material and plants for the purpose of their sale rather than cannabis products and material. Please see Section IV below for more detail on this additional Licence. 2. Commercial Cultivation Licence A. Geographic Limits The same points stated for Personal Cultivation Licence should also apply for Commercial Cultivation Licence in regard to removing Geographical Limits around schools and churches. B. Sourcing of Planting Material and Plants The same points stated for Personal Cultivation Licence should also apply for Commercial Cultivation Licence in regard to the sourcing of plant material and plants. C. Wholesale of Cannabis Products Section 4(1) of Schedule 3 to the Act states that: All cannabis or medicinal cannabis that is cultivated in accordance with a cultivation licence shall not be sold without the written approval of the Minister. As a result, an individual with a Commercial Cultivation Licence would require an additional licence or explicit written approval from the Minister to sell his products locally. It is my understanding that it is the intention of the Act to establish the Manufacturing Licence which an individual with a Commercial Cultivation Licence must acquire in order to wholesale his cultivated product to local Retail Licensees. However, this is not explicitly clear through legislation. Therefore, if it is the intention to require an individual with a Commercial Cultivation Licence to also obtain a Manufacturing Licence the Act should explicitly state this. Otherwise, the Act should allow for an Individual with a Commercial Cultivation Licence to also obtain an additional Wholesale Licence as described in more detail in Section IV below. Section IV: Additional Licences Although Schedule 3 and 4 to the Act list a number of potential cannabis related licences that Bermudian’s can obtain. However, in order for the cannabis industry to operate fairly, competitively, and effectively the Act should also allow for two additional licence types. 1. Nursery Licence As mentioned in Section III, there is significant ambiguity regarding where individuals with Cultivation Licences can source their plants and planting material locally. Once the Act correctly distinguishes between plants and planting material it should also allow the local sourcing of both by cultivators. However, currently there are no licence types that allows the cultivation of plants and plant material for the purpose of sale rather than the production of cannabis products. Just as Avertedly and Brighton Nurseries provide an important service and constitute a segment of our economy, so too should we allow other cannabis nurseries to establish themselves on the island. Furthermore, it is vital that government allow for as many new industries to develop on the island and must not limit the potential due to their oversight during the drafting phase of the legislation. Therefore, the government should create an additional Nursery Licence that allows individuals to cultivate plants and plant material for the purpose of sale to individuals with Cultivation Licences. It is important that this Licence allows the sale of both plants and plant material along with other products associated with growing and cultivating cannabis. Finally, a Nursery Licence must also be accompanied with a licence to import plants and plant material, similar to the one that currently accompanies the Cultivation Licence according to Section 11(3)b. 2. Wholesale Licence As mentioned in Section III, there remains ambiguity around the wholesale and distribution of cannabis once it has either been cultivated or imported. Although a Transport Licence allows an individual to move cannabis around the island, there is no licence that allows the wholesale of that product once it reaches a retail store. As a result, an individual who does not wish to retail imported or cultivated cannabis and would rather sell directly to retailers cannot due so. Again, it is vital that government allow for as many new industries to develop on the island and must not limit the potential due to their oversight during the drafting phase of the legislation. Therefore, the government must create an additional Wholesale Licence so that individuals who do not wish to obtain a Retail Licence can distribute locally cultivated or imported cannabis to retail stores. Section V: Fees In general, I believe the fees for various operations are quite high and may limit the potential for Bermudians to take part in this important new industry. However, the most onerous of these are outlined below: 1. Personal Cultivation Again, although applaud the government’s amendments to the original Cannabis Licensing Regulations made on June 29th in regard to introducing a Personal Cultivation Licence, I find the $750 fee to be extremely high considering the limited number of plants it allows. Furthermore, as outlined below, specific fees should not be set through legislation. Rather, the Authority should control the value of licencing fees through Administrative Determinations so that they can be adjusted as circumstances change. Thus, the Act should allow the Authority to set the Personal Cultivation fee which should be based on the number of plants the individual is allowed to have, also to be determined by the Authority not Legislation. 2. Importation vs. Cultivation/Manufacturing One of the most important policies of Bermuda’s current government is to encourage local businesses and industry. Therefore, I believe it is important when designing cannabis legislation we guarantee local products can compete with foreign products. However, under the current licencing regime, a retailer is heavily incentivised to import his cannabis product from overseas rather than buy it from a local cultivator. This is not only due to the fact that local cultivation is most likely more expensive than foreign cultivation, but also due to the large licencing fees local cultivators will need to pay to sell their product on the island. As mentioned above, in order for a cultivator to sell his product he must also obtain a Manufacturing Licence (assuming no Wholesale Licence is created). Thus, a local cultivator would have to pay a minimum of $35,000 in licencing fees per year to operate his business, whereas a retailer pays no extra fee for purchasing cannabis product from overseas. In order to rectify the advantage imported cannabis products have the government must either lower the fee for a Manufacturing Licence that allows cultivators to sell to retailers, create a separate Wholesale Licence or explicitly state that duty will be imposed upon imported cannabis so to make locally cultivated cannabis competitive. 3. Allowing for Regulatory Flexibility As mentioned above and in Section III, over prescriptive legislation can often limit the ability of a regulatory authority such as the Authority to effectively regulate the sector they are responsible for. By explicitly outlining the fee amounts through legislation the government is restricting the ability of the Authority to react to changes or issues that arise in the cannabis industry. As a result, the Act should allow the Authority to set all fees in regards to licences. 4. Economic Impact of High Fees The main concern, as stated in Section III above in regard to geographic limitation zones, is that wealthier individuals will have access to licences while economically challenged Bermudians will not be able to obtain them. As a result, the government should ensure that fees are low enough to allow all Bermudians to participate in the cannabis industry so that a certain segment of the population isn’t marginalised. Section VI: Periodic Assessment by the Authority Section 39 of the Act states that: The Minister shall carry out a comprehensive review of this Act within two years of its coming into operation. I completely agree that the Act should be reviewed within two years of it coming into operation. However, I feel the Authority should have legal expertise on hand to deal with licencing matters which would also give them the ability to conduct a review of the Act themselves. Furthermore, I believe that the Authority should conduct a regular periodic assessment of the Act and corresponding fees every 4 years (or as soon as is deemed necessary by the Authority). This would allow necessary changes to be made as the industry develops and also would allow the Authority to rectify any problems that may arise during day to day operations. I would like to thank the Ministry of Legal Affairs for awarding the public the opportunity to be consulted on such an important topic as cannabis reform. I them wish all the best in the drafting of the final documents and look forward to witnessing the changes they bring about. Kind Regards, Simon Clinton & James Gould

Public Education - unbiased informative classes about all the aspects of hemp and cannabis! Don't grow until you know!

Regarding the proposed cost of the personal cultivation license and limitations of said licenses on households with minors, I have a few thoughts. Ultimately, I’d like to think that one could grow a small quantity of Cannabis plants at home without the authorization of anyone. Although i do believe a home owner should have the right to deny a tenant permission if it is considered an issue. I would propose a basic honor system which expects home growers to register their plant propagation efforts in an attempt to build a data base for future considerations (whatever that may be). Having a limitation on plant numbers is acceptable in my view. I believe it would encourage home growers to also actively participate in the general market, as well as minimize any abuse of ones liberties and becoming a potential "nuisance". I believe that most home growers would be lucky to consistently be able to justify the cost of the proposed personal cultivation license. After all reasonable expenses are considered, most wanting to cultivate at home would unlikely be getting a very good return on investment. Many grow vegetables to save a few dollars, Sometimes they aren't the most flavorful, sometimes the crops fail completely, and every now and then they have a beautiful harvest. Regardless of the outcome, it ultimately is just a simple pass-time that few will take very seriously. Most would probably still choose to patronize retail establishments. I believe home cultivation should be looked at in the same light, as producing a quality product at home isn’t as easy as some may believe. If people want to experiment at home then they should be able to without having to pay large sums of money. The inability for a household with minors to produce their own Cannabis is in my opinion unfair. This is excessive and hypocritical considering the relaxed laws regarding other intoxicants, or even household chemicals for that matter. Considering the same person can go to a retail location and buy Cannabis to keep and consume at home, I don't understand this proposal. Cannabis needs to be put through a curing cycle in order for its bud to be at full strength. This typically takes over a week. Freshly grown plants or bud are unlikely to cause any detrimental effects if ingested. I can’t honestly say the same for other legal intoxicants possibly in the home. Just have basic requirements for any grow area to be secured and out of public view. Drawing a line through the population to determine who can partake in a “legal” activity is sure to create issues. I recognize the need to protect the young and vulnerable but these are the challenges we face every day in many aspects of life. Any responsible parent will educate their child as it becomes necessary. At the end of the day, I find this draft to be over complicating the legalization process in relation to home cultivation. It would be very difficult to enforce and would likely result in the continuation of illegal practices by individuals, and in turn lead to the prosecutions of those individuals. Wouldn’t this be contrary to what we are actually trying to achieve? If the true focus is really only about the financial benefit and attempting to bleed every possible dollar out of the community then we will only be abusing what is supposed to be a new found freedom. There are plenty of opportunities for financial gain without having to get so technical. Let’s just simplify the process (there are several successful ones that can be adopted) and allow a free market to evolve as it will. Structure is needed but let’s not begin by alienating the very people that this legislation is supposed to be supporting. Given our economic situation I guess some form of taxation is to be expected. $750 per year is excessive. I think something along the lines of $250 - $300 would be more palatable to the average consumer while still creating revenue for our economy. As it stands, this feels like another "sugar tax", which is designed as more of a money grab from those willing to participate and a deterrent for those less fortunate. It is important that we get this right for many reasons. I don't believe this should be a rushed process. Public consultation should be on-going, perhaps through specially formed groups. If we are too heavy handed with the regulations we will only be promoting the same black market that exists today and continuing to prosecute our people over technicalities. We have to ensure that the money generated is used in the most effective manner to benefit our community, The Sinking fund, education budget, and family services come to mind. I have chosen not to speak on other aspects of this draft as I believe much research is required to make a reasonable assessment. I will leave those issues to those of us whom are better prepared. There are also aspects that seem to set the stage for the same old power moves to occur. We don’t want to see this become another industry monopolized by the usual suspects. Give the common man a chance, Let’s not allow this to be all about the money, give us space and opportunity to have this be a positive change for all.

The Hon. Kathy Lynn Simmons, JP Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Good afternoon, The document at hand does not deal with the impact of the use of cannabis as it moves from a controlled drugs to a more liberal use and further study needs to be conducted: • There is concern among some members of the Council that liberalizing the use of cannabis may lead to more clashes among gangs as their illicit market dwindles, thus endangering the public and visitors. • An assessment of the potential social costs to all should be made in such areas as: police enforcement/road safety, addiction, domestic abuse and employment and as to how those social costs will be funded. o Businesses are not in a position to absorb more taxes. If Government decides to proceed with legislation after a study of the impact of more liberal use noted above, we recommend the legislation/regulations; • Should be clarified so that school protected zones, facilities where youth may congregate for recreation or other purposes and/or events should not allow the personal use or sale or advertising/promotion of cannabis in such areas by a retail shop or by any person; • Restrict a retail shop under the legislation to only sell cannabis thus restricting the sale of any products that would attract youth; • Restrict a retail shop under the legislation so that it is not a department or part of another operating establishment; • Not allow cannabis to be made available in such forms as candy or other edibles or drinks; • State that the current rights and obligations of employers and employees with respect to the use of drugs and alcohol in the workplace or the performance of work under the influence of these substances will continue since: o There are requirements within the Safety and Health Act for obligations of the employer and the employee to protect the health and safety of persons and in some cases the public. o It is important to ensure that in certain industries or jobs with performance risks, the prohibition, testing for drug/alcohol use or other substances will continue. o Policies that prohibit use or consumption of specified substances during the work day or breaks will continue and where necessary discipline policies. Best regards, Keith Jensen President Bermuda Employers' Council

Poverty We tell oonuu, Poverty just a blow them mind, Poverty a blow the youths dem mind, So in return all dem waan do is crime, Poverty a blow the people mind. Bills are fling left and right, We can't take the bill dem in a we eyesight, Just yesterday we done pay the light, And now dem send another one out there tonight, That no right, in Jah sight, And then dem raise certain price despite, Just so black youth dem can't enjoy it, So in return all what them waan do is fight, Me just come fe shine certain light. Haffe join unemployment line And pray fe a better pay this time Minimum wage can't pay attention to him mind Much less reconnect fe we telephone line Bill collecters dem deh pon di line Givin you calls just to remind say pon de payments we deh way behind Interest rate just a move up high Poverty just a blow them mind Poverty a blow the youths, them mind So in return all dem waan do is crime Poverty a blow the people mind. Dezarie.

This bit about not be able to grow if minors live in household is bs... why are there so many stipulations being put on cannabis that has literally killed no one... alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous but easily accessible... to minors .. no one in government is concerned about the alcoholics in this country... alcohol can be in anyone's house.. but your not worried about children getting access to that.... stop with the bs bermuda government... stop acting like you care when alcohol and tobacco are far more of a health issue to the entire community... NO ONE BATS AN EYELASH IF A PERSON GETS FULL DRUNK IN ESTABLISHMENTS OR AT HOME AROUND MINORS WHERE ALCOHOL IS USUALLY PRESENT AND ACCESSIBLE.... BUT SO MUCH CONCERN ABOUT THIS PLANT THAT HAS NEVER DIRECTLY FROM CONSUMPTION HAD A DEATH... SOMETHING JUST DONT ADD UP IN THE EQUATION

- Have a designated area for people to smoke. Especially for when tourist on cruise ships are in and they are not allowed to take cannabis that they have brought locally back on the ships. Maybe one area in the west, one central area and one area in the east. - In the legislation should stipulate the taxes which government intend to charge for each license (I.e. tax on imports, tax on exports, tax on retail shops, etc). As well as listing the requirements one must meet in order to have their license approved and reasons/categories/based in which their application can be denied. - Also the legislation on the different qualifications one must have in order to be considered to be apart of the cannabis authority. And also list the when and why they should be allowed to enter someone’s premises. Would notice be given? What would be some of the situations they can enter without notice? Will there be an area of people to voice their complaints against this Authority/Department?

Please extend the consultation period. Perhaps another month?

Feedback on Personal Cultivation Revision: The personal cultivation revision needs to be rethought and revised again. The notion that people with families will be unable to produce goods for their own consumption is draconian at best. Remember, this isn't just about recreation. Cannabis is a medicine for many people and provides medical benefits that shouldn't be withheld simply because someone has a family. Alcohol and tobacco are not illegal for people with children and nor will it be illegal for people with minors to go out and purchase cannabis from dispensaries and consume at their residences. People have to act responsibly and those who are responsible should not be penalized for those who are presumed to be irresponsible. Irresponsible parents and guardians should be addressed by the appropriate authorities, not by broad brush legislation alone. With that said, I do understand the concerns but believe there are ways to address them which have been implemented in other jurisdictions which have already legalized cannabis and personal cultivation. For example, all cannabis cultivation must take place out of public view and be secured from unauthorized access. If outdoors, the area must be fenced or walled from public view and locked to prevent unauthorized access by minors and/or pets. If indoors, the area/room must be locked to prevent unauthorized access by minors and/or pets. Violations could result in a warning, fine, and/or jail time depending on the circumstances. Further, the restrictions around where someone can procure the plants needs to be rethought. Firstly, once someone procures seedlings, a "mother" plant can easily by used to create clones and there will no longer be a need to acquire from an "approved source" as people can self-produce. Secondly, and again, cannabis is a medicine for many people and different strains of cannabis provide different medicinal properties and benefits. By limiting choice, we also limit people's ability to effectively medicate. The public should have the ability to import seeds of their selection from legal seed banks and authorized resellers. If the government MUST control this portion, then there should be an entity that acts as a middleman allowing people to select and order seeds for specific strains that meet their medical and/or personal needs from a government authorized seed bank or reseller. As a reference for the different types of cannabis used to treat different medical conditions: https://www.seedsman.com/en/medical-cannabis-seeds. I think concerns on this topic are generally over blown and the need for a $750 license is rooted in fears that the government's tax revenues will be severely impacted in a negative manner as people will just produce their own rather than purchase and pay the associated taxes. However, based on research and facts, it takes a significant amount of time, energy, and resources to grow and cure quality cannabis flower. Not to mention the need for experience as there can be challenges along the way which can result in poor quality or, in a worst case scenario, a complete loss of your crop. Many people will be more than happy to forgo the process of growing their own and simply purchase from a dispensary and pay the associated taxes. We already see this with the produce market in general...if it was so easy, everyone would grow their own fruits and vegetables but we know that's not the case and we all know that the grocery stores are doing just fine! For the amount of personal cultivation licenses the government will get, I suspect we'll end up losing money trying to administer and enforce them and therefore the requirement for a personal cultivation license should be removed from the Act and the allowances and restrictions associated with personal cultivation should be clarified. The government should focus their efforts on policing those who grow more plants than allowed and those who are attempting to grow for commercial purposes. I would suggest something along the lines of what is used in Massachusetts: Notwithstanding any other general or special law to the contrary, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person 21 years of age or older shall not be arrested, prosecuted, penalized, sanctioned or disqualified under the laws of the commonwealth in any manner, or denied any right or privilege and shall not be subject to seizure or forfeiture of assets for: (1) possessing, using, purchasing, processing or manufacturing 1 ounce or less of marijuana, except that not more than 5 grams of marijuana may be in the form of marijuana concentrate; (2) within the person’s primary residence, possessing up to 10 ounces of marijuana and any marijuana produced by marijuana plants cultivated on the premises and possessing, cultivating or processing not more than 6 marijuana plants for personal use so long as not more than 12 plants are cultivated on the premises at once in residences of 2 or more persons who are 21 years of age or older; (3) assisting another person who is 21 years of age or older in any of the acts described in this section; or (4) giving away or otherwise transferring without remuneration up to 1 ounce of marijuana, except that not more than 5 grams of marijuana may be in the form of marijuana concentrate, to a person 21 years of age or older, as long as the transfer is not advertised or promoted to the public." Restrictions on personal cultivation No person shall cultivate or process cannabis plants if the plants are visible from a public place without the use of binoculars, aircraft or other optical aids or cultivate or process cannabis plants outside of an area that is equipped with a lock or other security device. A person who violates this subsection shall be punished by a civil penalty of no more than $5,000 and forfeiture of the marijuana. Further Thoughts on our Approach to Medical Marijuana: I want to reiterate that this is a medicine. Medical patients need to be put first. There should be separate lines at dispensaries for medical patients and recreational users, with medical patients taking priority. There should be discounts for medical patients, with discounts tiered by seriousness of illness. The patients would need licenses from an approved medical practitioner. The licenses would indicate which tier they fall into. As an example: Tier 1 (5%): -Anxiety -Arthritis -Back Pain or other Chronic Pains -Depression -Headaches -Insomnia -Joint Pain -Mental Illness -Neuropathy (Nerve Pain) -PTSD Tier 2 (10%): -ALS -Cancer -Crohn’s Disease/Ulcerative Colitis -Glaucoma -Hepatitis C -HIV/AIDS -Multiple Sclerosis -Parkinson’s Disease Tier 3 (20%): -Any terminal illness Feedback on Manufacturing Licenses: Edibles and solventless extracts are typically viewed as healthier alternatives for consumption than the typical method of combustion and inhalation. These alternatives are also fairly easy and safe to produce at home. Therefore, their production should be allowed for personal use without the need for a manufacturing license. This should be clarified in the Act. Other Feedback: In general, cannabis products should be secured from unauthorized access by minors and/or pets for their health and safety whether in private residences, cars, bikes, boats, or in public. In practice this will be difficult to enforce as a whole so would suggest setting a threshold at 1oz and a large enough penalty to act as a deterrence. When people are found to be in violation, then a $10,000 fine applies for a first offence, $20,000 for a second offence, and $30,000 and 6-months in jail for a third offence. I've read the sentiment from others that public officials and their immediate family members should not be allowed to profit from this legislation. I understand where this is coming from, but I genuinely don't care who profits as long as they get the legislation right and it's a fair game. My only concern is that our legislators will purposefully get it wrong in order to stack the deck in favor of their own interests. If they do that, then we, the people, need to hold them accountable with our votes. It feels like we're trying to recreate the wheel at the moment and, based on the majority of feedback I've read, it sounds like we aren't doing a great job of it so I would implore our legislators to review and derive legislation from other jurisdictions that have experience in legalizing and regulating cannabis. Massachusetts and Canada have done a fairly decent job in my view and are far more advanced in their positions so I would suggest starting their research and review there. Massachusetts: https://www.mass.gov/law-library/mass-general-laws-c94g https://www.mass.gov/lists/medical-use-of-marijuana-laws-regulations-forms-and-guidance Canada: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/laws-regulations.html