HI-Blog

The board reviewed social equity applicant webinars, denied one petition before opening rulemaking based on a different one, and heard feedback criticizing the quality of their data.

Work group members organized a presentation on the policy history and state arrest data related to residential home grows before drafting a recommendation to the task force.

Panelists with experience in drug prevention and behavioral science couldn’t reach consensus on the question of what makes cannabinoids impairing during a final dialogue on the topic.

Board members adopted revisions to pesticide action level rules, planned to begin “hybrid” in-person and virtual events the following week, and heard public comments on retail licensing.

An outline of the education approach of the Enforcement and Education division was provided to the board, in addition to rulemaking updates and information on upcoming agency events.

Convened experts had no definitive answer for distinguishing impairing THCs or other cannabinoids, but agreed research was needed to create a legally defensible standard.

Panelists from previous talks returned to field questions on identifying and regulating impairing cannabinoids, goals much more difficult to reach for cannabis than for alcohol.

A last-minute hearing on a repackaged bill to regulate synthesized cannabinoids revealed shared public health concerns but testimony otherwise remained just as sharply divided.

Revised rules requiring pesticide testing for cannabis products were finally adopted by the board, and a variety of critical public remarks preceded a lengthy response from the chair.

Testimony on legislation to revise regulation of cannabinoids emphasized policy pitfalls versus prospective benefits, and hinted at fiscal fallout from litigious hemp industry interests.