Monthly Archives: April 2017
Out of nowhere, Sen. Patricia Jehlen, chair of the Joint Committee on Marijuana Policy, tells the Boston Globe that she wants to eliminate the one-year head start that the adult use referendum gives to experienced medical marijuana operators to apply for licenses. She tells the Globe:
But there are areas where Jehlen is keen to see the law changed. One is leveling the playing field, so medical marijuana companies don’t have what Jehlen called “an artificial leg up” in the retail market.… More
Where We Are and Where We Are Going
With the passage of the 2016 referendum legalizing the adult use and regulated sale of cannabis and proposed critical changes to the referendum in Massachusetts pending now before the Legislature, the regulatory environment for cannabis is changing in Massachusetts.
Join us on Tuesday, May 9 for a webinar that will examine the current Massachusetts regulatory framework for both medical and adult use operators,… More
Although marijuana is becoming legal to varying degrees in an increasing number of states, your chances of getting a marijuana trademark registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) are still grim. In order to register a trademark with the PTO, the applicant has to show that the goods or services with which the mark will be used are permitted under federal law. Therefore, until marijuana gets reclassified by or removed from the federal Controlled Substances Act,… More
Earlier this March, officials from the Department of Revenue testified in front of the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Marijuana Policy, providing the first public estimate of the expected tax revenue from adult use marijuana sales. The numbers are significant. Massachusetts could expect between $45 million and $83 million in tax revenue during the first 12 months of the program. In the second year, tax revenues could rise to between $93 million and $172 million on sales ranging from $707 million to $1.312 billion.… More
The Boston Globe reports that the Legislature is very likely to strip the State Treasurer of Authority to appoint and oversee the Cannabis Control Commission in favor of an “independent” Commission funded by licensing fees and appointed by various state elected officials. The model appears to be the controversial Massachusetts Gaming Commission.