OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Council of the District of Columbia Public Hearing on Four Medical Cannabis Bills - July 2, 2026

Council of the District of Columbia — Thursday, July 2, 2026
BodyWashington, District Of Columbia
SessionCouncil of the District of Columbia
DateThursday, July 2, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 3:02:38
Transcript — Verbatim
0:12

I'm calling to order this hearing.

0:13

This is a public hearing of the committee as a whole of the Council of the District of Columbia.

0:18

I am Phil Mendels, Chair of the Council and Chair of the Committee as a whole.

0:22

Today is Thursday, July 2nd, 2026.

0:27

The time is 1223 in the afternoon, and we are in room 412 of the John A.

0:31

Wilson Building.

0:32

This hearing is being recorded and will be available on the Council's website, which is www.dccouncil.gov.

0:41

The subject of this hearing today is consideration of four bills, all dealing with medical cannabis.

0:49

The bills are Bill 26-259, Medical Cannabis Retailer Craft Preparation Endorsement Act of 2025.

0:58

This legislation was introduced on May 22nd at the request of the mayor.

1:03

The second bill is Bill 26-346 entitled Medical Cannabis Conditional Licensure Extension Amendment Act of 2025.

1:12

This legislation was introduced.

1:17

If I said the last one was on May 22nd, it was May 22nd of 2025.

1:23

This bill, Bill 26 346, was introduced on September 16th, 2025 at the request of the mayor.

1:30

The third bill is 26-522, Medical Cannabis Process Improvement Amendment Act of 2025.

1:38

This bill was introduced last November 25th by Councilmembers Allen or by Councilmember Allen, joined with by Councilmembers Pinto, Lewis George, Bonds, and Henderson.

1:50

And the fourth bill is Bill 26-654 entitled Medical Cannabis Beverage Product Amendment Act of 2026.

1:59

This bill was introduced on April 2nd of this year at the request of the mayor.

2:04

The stated purpose of Bill 26-259, the Medical Cannabis Retailer Craft Preparation Endorsement Act, is to create a new medical cannabis retailer craft preparation endorsement, and to establish specific requirements that must be satisfied for the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board to approve and issue a craft preparation endorsement to the holder of a medical cannabis retailer license.

2:30

The stated purpose of Bill 26-346, that's the medical cannabis conditional licensure extension amendment act, is to extend the expiration date on conditional licenses for medical cannabis cultivation centers, retailers, internet retailers, manufacturers, couriers, and testing laboratories to extend it from two years to four years.

2:52

The stated purpose of Bill 26-522, that's the medical cannabis process improvement amendment act, is to add child development facilities to the list of sensitive sites that a medical cannabis licensee may not locate within 300 feet of to permit advisory neighborhood commissions to protest the issuance renewal or transfer of an internet retailer license, and to allow advisory neighborhood commissions or any person withstanding to protest on the basis of the effect of the applicant on peace order and quiet and the inability of existing law or rules to prevent proximity or undue exposure to children.

3:33

The stated purpose of Bill 26-654, which is the Medical Cannabis Beverage Product Amendment Act, is to create a medical cannabis beverage production endorsement.

3:46

All four of these bills, as I noted, refer to or relate to medical cannabis in the District of Columbia.

3:53

The record in this matter will be open for two weeks.

3:55

That is, it will close at 5 p.m.

3:57

on Thursday, July 16, 2026.

4:00

And what does that mean?

4:01

Anyone who's testifying today, and anyone who's not testifying today, if they wish to submit anything for the record following this hearing, they have two weeks to do so.

4:12

Uh the council is a political body, so it's not like we then suddenly uh shoe the mailman away and won't consider anything else, but we have to file a record.

4:23

And the record that we file is whatever we receive on this these bills by 5 p.m.

4:30

on Thursday, July 16th.

4:32

Uh, we've been joined by Councilmember Charles Allen, the introducer or author of one of the bills.

4:38

Uh if you have a statement, please proceed.

4:41

Thank you very much, Mr.

4:42

Mendelssohn.

4:43

Uh thank you.

4:44

I appreciate you holding today's hearing on several bills.

4:47

I'm going to focus on one of those, and that's that I introduced Bill 26 522, the Medical Cannabis Process Improvement Amendment Act of 2025, which I introduced alongside Council Mrs.

4:57

Pinto, Louis George, Bonds, Henderson, Freeman, and Parker in November of last year.

4:59

It was actually not that long ago that I introduced emergency legislation giving ABCA the authority to close and padlock unlicensed illegal retailers, and boy, have we come a long way from that point.

5:12

I very much appreciate ABCA stepping up to the plate combined with stronger enforcement tools to protect the licensed retailers as well as community from the unlicensed retailers that were skirting the law and refusing to play by the rules.

5:24

I think that for the most part, our enforcement approach has worked mostly well.

5:27

There are always issues though that are popping up that we need to be able to address.

5:30

And I think that's what today's conversations are around.

5:33

It may also be why it seems like the council's always moving legislation at one point or another in this council period or in previous on cannabis.

5:40

I think that's likely because it's a dynamic industry, and we need to be flexible in how our statutory framework is set up to be able to respond to the needs of the industry and the community.

5:48

It's with this spirit in mind that I introduced the bill after having experienced and worked with advisory neighborhood commissions in Ward 6 on multiple proposed medical cannabis retailer applications.

5:58

The bill specifically addresses what I see as two main issues.

6:01

I'm going to speak to both of them real quickly.

6:03

First, how do we treat daycare centers or child development facilities in the context of the prohibition banning proposed retailers from locating within 300 feet of a preschool, primary or secondary school or recreation center?

6:15

The issue of proposed retailers locating next to a daycare facilities is not a new issue for this council.

6:21

We've grappled with it frequently.

6:22

However, now I think it's the time for us to put this issue to bed and give clarity to those in both the industry and in the community.

6:28

I don't think this council meant to distinguish between an unformalized and formalized education setting for the purposes of determining where a proposed medical cannabis retailer should be located.

6:39

I think our primary concern was proximity to where a substantial number of children congregate, with the goal of preventing undue exposure.

6:47

I think this bill will help make that clear.

7:39

So I'm gonna have to step away and will not be here for the entirety of the hearing, but want to be here to be here for the first portion of the hearing.

7:46

I want to thank all the public witnesses.

7:47

I have staff and my team monitoring and listening to all the testimony that'll be given over the course of the day.

7:51

Uh, and want to thank in advance Director Musale and your team for your testimony, and I'll make sure that we follow up on that as well.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Cannabis Regulation█████████████████████████████████████████████87%
Public Health████7%
Community Engagement█2%
Procedural█2%
Public Safety█1%
Youth Programs█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Council of the District of Columbia Public Hearing on Four Medical Cannabis Bills - July 2, 2026

On July 2, 2026, at 12:23 PM, Chair Phil Mendelson convened a public hearing of the Committee as a Whole in Room 412 of the John A. Wilson Building. The hearing considered four bills related to medical cannabis: Bill 26-259 (Medical Cannabis Retailer Craft Preparation Endorsement Act of 2025), Bill 26-346 (Medical Cannabis Conditional Licensure Extension Amendment Act of 2025), Bill 26-522 (Medical Cannabis Process Improvement Amendment Act of 2025), and Bill 26-654 (Medical Cannabis Beverage Product Amendment Act of 2026). The record will remain open until 5:00 PM on July 16, 2026.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Grace Hyde (Phytocultivation) supported the beverage bill but urged expanding the definition of THC to include all isomers and THCA to avoid loopholes. She opposed the process improvement bill’s retroactive effect and corrected a statistic: the number of registered DC patients is about 25,000 (one in 22 adults), not 125,000.
  • Caroline Crandall (Green Theory) supported the beverage bill, opposed conditional licensure extension citing market oversaturation, and opposed the process improvement bill as written. She requested amendments to increase edible potency limits to match Maryland (40mg/serving, 400mg/package) and to allow point-of-sale patient registration for non-residents.
  • Justin Cox (Atlas Brew Works) supported the beverage bill as an efficient use of existing brewery capacity.
  • Mark Nageeb (Pink Fox) opposed the craft preparation endorsement and the beverage bill, arguing they undermine existing manufacturers. He urged adding payment protections similar to alcohol laws.
  • Martha Fitzgerald (Ward 6 resident) urged passage of Bill 26-522 to prohibit dispensaries near daycares and to expand protest rights for residents. She described a personal experience where a dispensary was licensed on her residential block despite a nearby daycare, and a protest was rejected on procedural grounds.
  • James Kahn (Tacoma Wellness, Cookies DC) supported the craft preparation bill but urged removing restrictive operational limits and allowing solventless extraction and pre-roll preparation. He supported the beverage bill and emphasized protecting the regulated market.
  • Karen Hughes (ANC 6B09) supported Bill 26-522, urging inclusion of child development facilities in the 300-foot buffer and granting ANCs standing on internet retailer licenses. She also supported adding "peace, order, and quiet" as a protest ground.
  • Will Jones (Smart Approaches to Marijuana) opposed the bills, arguing that DC’s medical label is misleading due to self-certification. He cited statistics: 4.7-fold increase in hyperemesis syndrome, 22-30% cannabis use disorder, 4.5 times higher risk of type 2 diabetes, 50% increased heart attack risk for users under 50, and doubled rates of cannabis-induced psychosis in commercialized states. He also noted 65+ dispensaries in DC—four times the number of McDonald’s.
  • Caroline Phillips (District Cannabis) rebutted claims by Smart Approaches to Marijuana, stating that dispensary signage is strictly limited, that pharmacy access is broader (145 pharmacy locations), and that the statistics on fatalities and use disorder are misleading without context.
  • Nora Green (Ward 7 resident, prevention specialist) opposed Bills 26-259 and 26-654, urging delay for stronger public health protections and youth prevention measures. She noted the U.S. Surgeon General’s 2025 report linking alcohol to cancer and warned against combining cannabis and alcohol marketing.
  • Rev. Karen Curry (Ward 7 resident) expressed concern about youth impacts, citing toxicology reports showing cannabis as the most prominent drug in traffic fatality victims, and the risk of cannabis-induced psychosis and accidental pediatric poisoning. She urged the council to prioritize health over revenue.
  • Risa Horrow (DC Beverage Alcohol Wholesalers) raised concerns about Bill 26-654’s interaction with a separate hospitality bill (B26-648), warning against vertical integration and market dominance by alcohol manufacturers.
  • Alison Lipowitz (Regulated Cannabis Association) supported the beverage bill (with a THC definition amendment), opposed the process improvement bill and conditional license extensions, and supported the craft preparation bill with clear food safety standards.
  • Brandon Duff (District Canacopia) supported all four bills with recommendations for equitable opportunities across license classes and for codifying cannabinoid definitions.
  • Andre Murphy (lifelong DC resident) opposed the bills, sharing personal experience of addiction and urging more educational and trade programs for youth instead of cannabis dispensaries.
  • Dr. Siva Kalia Murthy (Children’s National Hospital) testified against Bills 26-259 and 26-654, citing data on pediatric cannabis exposures (1,300% increase in poison center calls) and recommending child-resistant packaging, opaque labeling, and potency caps (5mg/serving, 50mg/package per American College of Medical Toxicology). Supported Bill 26-522.
  • Dr. Alicia Rowland (Children’s National Hospital, pediatric emergency physician) shared a case of an 18-month-old who required ventilation after ingesting a cannabis edible. She reported 15 unintentional ingestions, 300 adolescent ED visits, and 50 hyperemesis cases in the past 12 months at Children’s. Supported Bill 26-522, opposed Bills 26-259 and 26-654.
  • Dr. Aishwarya Thakur (Children’s National Hospital, adolescent addiction physician) noted that DC exceeds national averages for youth cannabis use (13% among 12-17 vs. 11% nationally; 49% among 18-25 vs. 37% nationally). She reported seeing two new cannabis use disorder patients per week and warned that expanded product availability normalizes use.

Discussion Items

  • Councilmember Charles Allen introduced Bill 26-522, explaining its goals: adding child development facilities to the sensitive site buffer and expanding protest rights. He emphasized that the intent is not to allow residents to ban cannabis but to provide predictable community input.
  • Chair Mendelson questioned witnesses about the impact of daycare buffers on site availability and the distinction between illegal and licensed establishments. He noted that dispensaries are largely anonymous (no signage beyond name, no product visibility) and that ABCA receives very few complaints about licensed dispensaries (loitering, odor) compared to alcohol establishments.
  • Councilmember Christina Henderson asked Director Moussali about the feasibility of implementing a daycare buffer given GIS data gaps, and about expanding protest grounds. Director Moussali stated that the alcohol law does not have an absolute prohibition on daycare proximity, only a protest ground, and that a blanket buffer would significantly narrow compliant locations and be difficult to enforce.
  • Director Fred Moussali (ABCA) testified in support of Bills 26-259, 26-346, and 26-654, and supported parts of Bill 26-522 (protest expansions) but opposed the daycare buffer as written and the retroactive application. He requested permanent codification of temporary enforcement measures, extension of the 400-foot school buffer (expiring July 24, 2026), and authority to regulate non-cannabis product sales at dispensaries. He reported that 113 unlicensed stores have been closed, and the remaining challenge is unlicensed delivery services.

Key Outcomes

  • No votes were taken; the hearing was for testimony. The record will close on July 16, 2026.
  • Director Moussali committed to providing the committee with legislative language on payment protections, enforcement measures, and non-cannabis product sales.
  • ABCA recommended amending Bill 26-346 to change the conditional license extension from two to three years (consistent with existing temporary law) and to allow a zoning certificate in lieu of a certificate of occupancy for conversion to permanent license.
  • ABCA recommended amending Bill 26-654 to allow brew pubs, wine pubs, and distillery pubs to partner with cannabis manufacturers (not just class A/B manufacturers).
  • ABCA opposed the retroactive child development facility buffer in Bill 26-522 and suggested alternative language to expand protest grounds to include proximity to child-serving facilities as a factor, not an absolute bar.
  • Several industry witnesses asked for amendments: expand THC definition to include all isomers (to prevent farm bill loopholes), increase edible potency limits to match Maryland, provide payment protections, and avoid retroactive application of new site restrictions.

Meeting Transcript

I'm calling to order this hearing. This is a public hearing of the committee as a whole of the Council of the District of Columbia. I am Phil Mendels, Chair of the Council and Chair of the Committee as a whole. Today is Thursday, July 2nd, 2026. The time is 1223 in the afternoon, and we are in room 412 of the John A. Wilson Building. This hearing is being recorded and will be available on the Council's website, which is www.dccouncil.gov. The subject of this hearing today is consideration of four bills, all dealing with medical cannabis. The bills are Bill 26-259, Medical Cannabis Retailer Craft Preparation Endorsement Act of 2025. This legislation was introduced on May 22nd at the request of the mayor. The second bill is Bill 26-346 entitled Medical Cannabis Conditional Licensure Extension Amendment Act of 2025. This legislation was introduced. If I said the last one was on May 22nd, it was May 22nd of 2025. This bill, Bill 26 346, was introduced on September 16th, 2025 at the request of the mayor. The third bill is 26-522, Medical Cannabis Process Improvement Amendment Act of 2025. This bill was introduced last November 25th by Councilmembers Allen or by Councilmember Allen, joined with by Councilmembers Pinto, Lewis George, Bonds, and Henderson. And the fourth bill is Bill 26-654 entitled Medical Cannabis Beverage Product Amendment Act of 2026. This bill was introduced on April 2nd of this year at the request of the mayor. The stated purpose of Bill 26-259, the Medical Cannabis Retailer Craft Preparation Endorsement Act, is to create a new medical cannabis retailer craft preparation endorsement, and to establish specific requirements that must be satisfied for the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board to approve and issue a craft preparation endorsement to the holder of a medical cannabis retailer license. The stated purpose of Bill 26-346, that's the medical cannabis conditional licensure extension amendment act, is to extend the expiration date on conditional licenses for medical cannabis cultivation centers, retailers, internet retailers, manufacturers, couriers, and testing laboratories to extend it from two years to four years. The stated purpose of Bill 26-522, that's the medical cannabis process improvement amendment act, is to add child development facilities to the list of sensitive sites that a medical cannabis licensee may not locate within 300 feet of to permit advisory neighborhood commissions to protest the issuance renewal or transfer of an internet retailer license, and to allow advisory neighborhood commissions or any person withstanding to protest on the basis of the effect of the applicant on peace order and quiet and the inability of existing law or rules to prevent proximity or undue exposure to children. The stated purpose of Bill 26-654, which is the Medical Cannabis Beverage Product Amendment Act, is to create a medical cannabis beverage production endorsement. All four of these bills, as I noted, refer to or relate to medical cannabis in the District of Columbia. The record in this matter will be open for two weeks. That is, it will close at 5 p.m. on Thursday, July 16, 2026. And what does that mean? Anyone who's testifying today, and anyone who's not testifying today, if they wish to submit anything for the record following this hearing, they have two weeks to do so. Uh the council is a political body, so it's not like we then suddenly uh shoe the mailman away and won't consider anything else, but we have to file a record. And the record that we file is whatever we receive on this these bills by 5 p.m. on Thursday, July 16th. Uh, we've been joined by Councilmember Charles Allen, the introducer or author of one of the bills. Uh if you have a statement, please proceed. Thank you very much, Mr. Mendelssohn. Uh thank you. I appreciate you holding today's hearing on several bills. I'm going to focus on one of those, and that's that I introduced Bill 26 522, the Medical Cannabis Process Improvement Amendment Act of 2025, which I introduced alongside Council Mrs. Pinto, Louis George, Bonds, Henderson, Freeman, and Parker in November of last year. It was actually not that long ago that I introduced emergency legislation giving ABCA the authority to close and padlock unlicensed illegal retailers, and boy, have we come a long way from that point. I very much appreciate ABCA stepping up to the plate combined with stronger enforcement tools to protect the licensed retailers as well as community from the unlicensed retailers that were skirting the law and refusing to play by the rules. I think that for the most part, our enforcement approach has worked mostly well. There are always issues though that are popping up that we need to be able to address. And I think that's what today's conversations are around. It may also be why it seems like the council's always moving legislation at one point or another in this council period or in previous on cannabis. I think that's likely because it's a dynamic industry, and we need to be flexible in how our statutory framework is set up to be able to respond to the needs of the industry and the community. It's with this spirit in mind that I introduced the bill after having experienced and worked with advisory neighborhood commissions in Ward 6 on multiple proposed medical cannabis retailer applications. The bill specifically addresses what I see as two main issues. I'm going to speak to both of them real quickly. First, how do we treat daycare centers or child development facilities in the context of the prohibition banning proposed retailers from locating within 300 feet of a preschool, primary or secondary school or recreation center?

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com