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?

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

We've grappled with it frequently.

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.

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.

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

I think this bill will help make that clear.

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.

I want to thank all the public witnesses.

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

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.

So thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh thank you, Councilman Allen.

So I'm gonna call witnesses until I have four people sitting at the table, and I say that because sometimes they're witnesses participating online, although I don't see any at the moment.

Uh Grace Hyde, who's vice president of manufacturing at Phytocultivation LLC.

Caroline Crandall, who's owner of Green Theory.

Uh Justin Cox, who is founder of Atlas Brewworks.

Mark Nageeb, who is CEO of Pink Fox.

I'm not done.

Uh Martha Fitzgerald.

Uh James Kahn, who's with Tacoma Wellness.

Karen Hughes, who's an ANC commissioner with 6P09.

Uh Will Jones, who is director of community engagement and outreach at Smart Approaches to Marijuana.

Alright, I'm gonna stop there.

Ms.

Hyde, you're up and good morning.

Yes.

Okay, can you hear me?

Yeah, and I didn't say.

I guess we have folks on a four-minute timer, and there are clocks everywhere.

I think there's a clock right below me, which I can't see, but you all can see, so please be mindful of the time.

Sometimes I've been numb to cut people off.

Yes, there's a clock here.

But I think there's a clock right there.

Correct.

At any event, please be mindful of the time, please.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman Mendelson and members of the committee of the whole.

Thank you for taking the time to talk to us today about continuing to improve our cannabis program.

Um there's four bills in discussion today, and then um a couple more things that we think are important to discuss.

Uh so first bill being the cannabis product uh cannabis beverage product amendment act.

In general, I think this great this bill is great.

It creates a pathway uh to produce beverages in the district when producing infused beverages at scale using an alcohol production facility.

It's a really creative solution.

Um can beverages production lines consume a lot of capital expenditure in physical space, both of which are often in short supply for medical cannabis operators, so this is a smart solution to the problem.

It's also optional.

I think there's perhaps a misunderstanding out there about what this bill does and does not do based on other testimony that I've read.

One, this is optional, it's not a required pathway to produce a beverage, and two, beverages are actually already allowed to be produced today.

Department of Health has already approved the first beverage for production in the district, and it'll be coming out into the market later in July.

Um, so this bill does not, you know, this is not a uh pass go for beverages.

There will be beverages already in the marketplace later this summer.

This just makes it easier for operators to produce them.

Um the one challenge that I find with this bill is the second part of the bill where it allows operators to bring in less or non-psychoactive minor cannabinoids such as CBD, CBG, things that do have great therapeutic benefit.

Um my issue with this part of the bill that it does not define THC broadly enough.

Um it prohibits bringing in THC as one of these um minor cannabinoids, but it doesn't define it broadly enough.

And what we really don't want to do is recreate what has happened with the farm bill and hemp and hemp-derived THCA nationwide.

So we would recommend amending the language to just include all isomers of tethydrocannabinol and including tetrahydrocanol.

Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid.

That's a mouthful.

Um so just really close that loophole and make sure we don't invite into the district what has happened nationwide, which we all know to be very problematic.

Um the next bill that I wanted to comment on is the Process Improvement Amendment Act.

As written, this bill would have a retroactive effect to certain retailers who have applied for their license after December 31st, 2024, who may then have to relocate their retail establishment, which just simply isn't fair.

These retailers have invested millions of dollars into opening their retail establishments, they're paying DC taxes, they're employing district residents.

Um if this bill were to pass, we would hope to see the effective date for this to be the date that the bill passes and not apply retroactively to people who have already opened or are in the process of opening their business.

Um let's see, I'm gonna skip the craft preparation endorsement act.

I think that that is that is just fine.

Um, one minute left.

Okay.

Moving on.

There were a couple other misleading facts in some of the other testimony presented that I just wanted to note.

Um the first is that uh smart approaches to marijuana lists that one in five district adults are registered with the medical cannabis program.

That is false.

That's partially because the program statistics that are released can be a little bit misleading.

Um, in one section, it seems to indicate that there are 125,000 registered DC patients that is actually 25,000.

It's a few lines below, which is one in every 22 adults or 4.5% of the adult population.

Pennsylvania's medical program is 4.2% of adults.

So we really have parity with another successful medical program.

This is not, you know, blown up blown out of proportion based on self-certification.

And by contrast, 8.4% of adults of the U.S.

regularly use a prescription sleep medication, and 10.7% of adults regularly take a prescription pain medication in any given 30-day period.

I cite these specific statistically because pain and sleep are the top two reasons that people use medical cannabis.

And that's my time.

And we have your statement, so thank you.

Thank you.

Caroline Crandall, I believe, is online.

Yes.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes.

Good afternoon, Chairman Mendelson and members of the committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for taking the time to hear directly from those of us working every day in DC's medical cannabis industry.

My name's Caroline Crandall.

I'm the CEO and co-owner of Green Theory, a licensed dispensary in Ward 3.

I'm also a Ward 6 resident and have lived in DC for more than 15 years.

I want to begin by putting today's discussion into context.

Virginia recently passed legislation to launch an adult use cannabis market beginning July 1st, 2027.

That means we have roughly one year before DC begins competing directly with yet another neighboring cannabis market.

Virginia residents currently account for approximately 35% of all out-of-state patient registrations in DC, representing roughly $750,000 in annual sales.

Many of the out of state customers who currently travel to DC will soon have another option, one that is without the restrictions of our medical-only system.

Every policy decision made today should be viewed through one simple question.

Will this make DC's regulated cannabis market more competitive while still preserving safe patient access?

When the regulated market becomes less competitive, consumers do not just stop purchasing cannabis.

They simply purchase it elsewhere, whether that is another state or the illicit market.

First, regarding Bill 26654, the Medical Cannabis Beverage Product Amendment Act, I support this legislation.

Beverages are an exciting product category that will encourage innovation, expand patient options, and create opportunities for collaboration with the beverage industry.

However, I also urge one important amendment.

As Grace mentioned, the definition of THC should be expanded to include all isomers of tetrahydrocannabinol and tetrohydrocannabinolic acid, so we do not create another loophole for products that circumvent the intent of the law.

Regarding Bill 26346, the medical cannabis conditional licensure extension amendment.

I oppose any additional extensions of conditional licenses.

Our market is already oversaturated with retailers, and many conditional license holders have allowed their licenses to sit idle for years while waiting for market conditions to improve.

Businesses that committed to the market have already invested millions of dollars and opened their doors.

Continuing to extend inactive licenses rewards speculation rather than investment.

For Bill 2652, the Medical Cannabis Process Improvement Amendment Act.

I oppose the bill as written.

However, if it were to move forward, the grandfathering date should be based on the date of enactment rather than an arbitrary 2024 cutoff.

Finally, regarding Bill 26259, the medical cannabis retailer craft preparation endorsement act.

I respectfully request two amendments.

First would be to increase the allowable edible potency from 20 milligrams per serving and 200 milligrams per package to 40 milligrams per serving and 400 milligrams per package, which would then be consistent with Maryland's medical program.

This is a medical market and patients should have access to the dosage that best meets their needs.

Second, and most importantly, we need to modernize DC's self-certification process by allowing licensed retailers to register non-resident patients at the point of sale and remit a simple $3 per transaction fee to ABCA.

Today, retailers collect all the required information, yet visitors often wait hours simply because of unnecessary administrative processing.

I also recognize that you'll hear concerns today about dispensaries located near schools and about DC's medical cannabis program more broadly.

While those concerns deserve to be heard, licensed dispensaries are among the most highly regulated businesses in the district.

We verify every customer's age and registration, maintain extensive security, and are accountable to ABCA every single day.

If our goal is to protect children and promote public safety, we should be strengthening the regulated market, not making it less competitive and unintentionally driving consumers back to the illicit market.

You will also hear that self-certification means DC no longer has a legitimate medical program.

I respectfully disagree with this.

The council made a deliberate policy decision to remove barriers for patients who may not have a primary care physician, adequate insurance, or the time and resources to obtain a physician certification.

Medical need does not disappear simply because someone cannot obtain another doctor's appointment.

Self-certification has expanded access while keeping patients within a regulated system where products are tested.

In closing, DC's licensed cannabis operators want to succeed here.

We have invested heavily in our communities, paid taxes, created local jobs, and complied with one of the most highly regulated markets in the country, and committed ourselves to operating the right way.

I respectfully ask that you consider these recommendations to improve upon that.

Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Ms.

Crandall.

Justin Cox, I believe, is on my own.

Yes, thank you, Chairman Millson and Councilmember Allen for having me when we testify today.

I'm Justin Cox.

I'm the founder of COFEO.

That is Broomworks, and also the president of the DC Brewers Guild.

I'm testifying today in support of especially the medical cannabis beverage production amendment act of 2026 to echo some of Ms.

Hyde's points.

I think it's a pretty ingenious way for uh craft brewers in DC who have invested pretty heavily both in their infrastructure and the capital expense of canning equipment to be able to help the medical cannabis industry by using some of our waiting capacity.

Um we're already canning beverages.

We know that world, we have the equipment, and so being able to partner with these other businesses to help fulfill the needs of the market, we think is a really great idea.

And that's a pretty short testimony, but that's very short, except we don't have a copy of your statement.

If you want to provide that, I will do that.

Great.

Uh Mark Nageb.

Uh thank you, uh Chairman Mimelson, and thank you to the council and uh Samla to some of my colleagues here.

It's great to see those faces and business owners.

Um my name is Mark.

I'm the CEO of Pink Fox.

We're a type one manufacturing uh company here in Northeast Washington, DC.

Um, we're really proud of uh the cannabis community that we've built in DC.

We're really proud to be a member of it.

Um we have a couple positions on a couple pieces of uh legislation that are in front of us in reference to the craft preparation endorsement act.

I think that um, you know, we we strongly oppose this.

You know, manufacturing is a difficult, difficult thing to do.

We um obviously are really proud of our manufacturing license.

I think that we built into our business model the ability to manufacture, and I'd like to see those license those manufacturing licenses honored in such a way.

Um, if people wanted to manufacture, they had the opportunity to apply for licenses when that was available.

Also, this, you know, I do have concerns with um the burden this will create on the laboratory.

DC's only got one working laboratory that all of our products will be tested through to add 60, the potential of 60 new manufacturers will create a really big burden on the lab's ability to get uh products accurately tested and through the pipeline.

Um it also creates some zoning issues that I don't know if we're appreciating or or necessarily uh discussing.

The position um that we're taking on the beverage production amendment act, um we also oppose this.

Uh, we again have worked really hard opening a manufacturing facility.

We've invested an unbelievable amount of resources and getting it open to pass out what we consider a pretty strong revenue stream, is really difficult for us to accept.

Um, we are very fortunate and have gotten the beverage approved by DOH.

We will hit the market with it this summer.

So while I appreciate different outlooks and perspectives, I don't know that we need help necessarily.

Let us do what we signed up to do.

We're capable business owners.

Give us a shot to do it, and I promise you we won't let you down.

The third thing I want to mention, and this is what I want to mention most urgently.

Uh, we need some payment protections for uh operators in the city.

Um, these payment protections are already on the alcohol side of things.

Um, they're very easy.

Um, they are, in my opinion, non-punitive.

It's more informational.

But as a B2B operator in the city, um, there are times when these payment protections are extremely important to let everyone know uh where different people are at in the market.

And and I can't stress enough that we would really love to see what's already been implemented on the alcohol side of things here for cannabis.

Other than that, I'm happy to make myself available for any questions, concerns.

Um and again, we're really proud of the DC cannabis community, so anything we can do in support of it, you can count on us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I do have your statement.

Uh Martha Fitzgerald.

Hi, can you hear me okay?

Yes.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Council, for holding a hearing on these bills.

Uh, I'm a resident of Ward 6.

I came here today in a record heat wave, eight months pregnant on a historic holiday week when travel is exceptionally difficult, and many DC residents are on vacation.

And I'm here because the cannabis licensing laws are irrational and unsafe, and they need to be amended.

I'm not the only one who feels this way, but many won't find it possible to participate today.

I've submitted verdant testimony that was a minute too long to read through, so I will provide an abbreviated version.

Uh, hopefully leave time for any questions.

First, what I think the council should do.

Uh, two things.

Number one, it should immediately pass Bill 2652 to prohibit dispensaries from opening near daycares and other places where children learn and play.

Currently, it is on already overburdened daycares to police the system through protests.

And as my personal experience shows, that doesn't work.

Uh and second, it should amend the law to align with alcohol licensing.

I'm really encouraged by Councilman Allen's comments today on this point.

Uh specifically, residents should have standing to protest, and the grounds for protest should be expanded beyond the extremely narrow categories the law currently provides to include grounds that would rationally be concerns for the community.

At a minimum, that should include public health and safety and effects on nearby residents, their children, and small businesses.

These are not abstract problems.

They have had real world consequences for my family, my neighborhood, and Southeast Capitol Hill, and other areas of Capitol Hill and other areas across DC.

My family's personal experience with cannabis licensing in DC in brief.

I live on a block that is primarily single-family homes.

Traffic is minimal.

Young children play on our street all the time at all hours.

Yet ABCA granted a cannabis dispensary a license to open there, and the business intended to operate until 9 p.m.

most days.

A daycare center and a childhood educational nonprofit were both a stone's throw away.

My neighbors and I were extremely concerned about exposure to our kids.

We misunderstood the process for protesting and went through the procedures for alcohol licensing.

We prepared a protest in only nine days and obtained 43 signatures from people who live in the immediate area, including a majority of the homeowners on our block.

ABCA rejected our petition outright because residents inexplicably have no standing to protest a cannabis license.

ABA could also not consider the major causes for our concern because the scope of accepted protest is so insanely narrow.

The daycare center was not aware of the planned dispensary until after the protest deadline had passed.

It sought to join our petition but was refused as untimely.

So the dispensary got its license, and I believe we lost one nearby family who moved away as a result.

To state what I hope is obvious, this is not how the process should work.

I have no problem with Canada's dispensaries opening in DC, but the government should care where they open and how they operate.

It is a matter of community safety and well-being.

It was entirely inappropriate and damaging to grant a license to a dispensary on a primarily residential street.

Daycare should not be burdened with protecting our kids from exposure to drug marketing and drug use.

That's the government's job, so please pass bill 2652.

Additionally, ABCA should be able to hear from the community about how a dispensary is likely to affect residents, children, and small businesses in the immediate vicinity.

And I believe you are the only ones who can fix that, so it's imperative that you do.

And for more information, I would refer you to my written testimony.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Ms.

Fitzgerald.

And I do have your statement.

James Kahn, who's, I believe, on the internet.

Hi.

Chairman Nendelson and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify.

My name is James Kahn.

I co-chair the regulated cannabis association of the District of Columbia.

In 2013, my family opened uh Tacoma Wellness Center, DC's oldest licensed medical cannabis dispensary.

And last July, I opened Cookies DC on U Street.

For the last 14 years, I have worked to improve medical cannabis in the district.

And I think we have a lot to be proud of, and we also have a lot left to do.

Across the country, regulated cannabis has become dominated by a relatively small number of large corporations with deep pockets and powerful lobbying organizations.

That was almost never the intention.

Like DC, many states hoped cannabis would become an engine for small businesses and entrepreneurs with special efforts directed to communities that have been historically disproportionately harmed by the war on drugs.

Unfortunately, in nearly all cases, the economics won.

Independent operators have disappeared.

Consolidation followed.

DC has a chance, still has a chance to write a different ending.

Due largely to thoughtful policymaking, you guys have helped create one of the most diverse regulated cannabis markets in the country.

But creating that market is not the same as sustaining it.

And today, many locally owned cannabis businesses are hanging on by a thread.

If we don't improve patient access, expand opportunities for innovation, and protect independent operators, we will eventually become what nearly every other state has become: a market controlled by a few corporate interests.

Today you have an opportunity to help strengthen independent dispensaries through Bill B260259, the Medical Cannabis Retailer Craft Preparation Endorsement Act.

I support this bill because it recognizes that retailers need new ways to compete and innovate.

But as drafted, the operational limits are so restrictive that many, if not all retailers simply won't be able to use the endorsement in an economically viable way.

Rather than locking uh arbitrary production and inventory limits into statute, I urge the council to work with ABCA, who needs to work with retailers to establish standards that protect public safety while allowing businesses to operate sustainably.

I also encourage the council to permit solventless mechanical extraction using only heat, pressure, water, or ice, and to carve out a pre-roll preparation using already tested flour, uh, and permit refrigerated products that comply with DOH food safety standards.

Those changes will improve flexibility without compromising safety.

Finally, I support the cannabis beverage legislation.

If adults are going to consume cannabis beverages, they should be able to obtain them from licensed dispensaries where products are tested, accurately labeled, consistently dosed and sold by trained professionals, not the illicit market where none of those protections exist.

I also want to briefly respond to some of the testimony you're going to hear today.

As the father of a 14-year-old and 17-year-old, keeping cannabis away from kids is deeply important to me.

And that's precisely why I have supported a strong regulated market.

To my knowledge, since DC's regulated medical program began in 2013, not a single licensed dispensary has been found to have knowingly sold cannabis to a minor.

Restricting licensed dispensaries does not eliminate cannabis.

It simply pushes consumers towards the unregulated market, where there are no ID checks, no laboratory tests, no labeling standards, and no accountability.

Our job today is not to debate whether cannabis should exist in the district.

The council answered that question years ago.

Our job is to ensure that cannabis is sold through licensed, inspected, accountable businesses, viable businesses rather than the illicit market.

My request to you today is simple: work with us, the DC license holders to build a regulatory framework that works in practice, not just on paper.

If we do, DC will remain a national model for a diverse locally owned cannabis industry instead of repeating the mistakes made across the country.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Karen Hughes.

Hi.

Good afternoon, Chairman Mendelson, Councilmember Allen, members of the committee of the whole.

My name is Karen Hughes.

I'm a commissioner for 6B09.

I'm here to testify in support of B 260522, the Medical Cannabis Process Improvement Act of 2025.

I want to start by saying ANC6B strongly supports a well-regulated medical cannabis market.

We have a good working relationship with the many open and operating cannabis dispensaries in our jurisdiction, and understand that the process of integrating cannabis into the legal economy is part of building a more just and equitable society.

To assure that this is well implemented, we urge the council to undertake steps to reduce friction in neighborhoods where cannabis businesses are investing.

There are two areas that ANC 6B specifically supported in a unanimous letter that it sent to the council in May.

The inclusion of the child development facilities in the 400-foot buffer rule and granting ANCs standing on internet retailer licenses.

On the codification of child development facility, we see this as a clear and fair way to close gaps that exist in current regulation.

Child development facility is defined in statute as a center, home, or other structure that provides care or other services, supervision and guidance for children, infants, and toddlers on a regular basis, regardless of its designated name.

By adding this definition to the list that currently includes preschools, primary schools, secondary schools, and recreation centers, the council will reduce the chance of conflict with ANCs and neighbors.

Public health research on alcohol and tobacco has consistently shown that children's routine proximity to alcohol and tobacco storefronts and advertising shapes their attitudes and later use.

And more recent cannabis-specific studies, including work in Washington State and Oregon, are showing a similar pattern when it comes to problematic marijuana use, particularly in teens.

This rule change is important because the oversight of site selection rests exclusively with ABCA.

By the time the ANC's review license application, businesses, business owners have already negotiated a lease.

They've already invested real money into a location.

In ANC6B, over the last two years, we've had two cases where licenses came before us only to find out that in one case, which uh Martha referenced, it was across the street from a daycare center.

And in another, it shared a property line with a Montessori school.

Adding child development facility to the current list of protected education and recreation institutions would provide a simple clean fix that will protect children from undue exposure to cannabis storefront advertising and protect businesses from coming into conflict with neighbors.

In our letter, ANC 6B also calls out support for the bill's proposal to give ANC standing on internet retailer licensing.

Those operations bring the same traffic and parking questions that already justify ANC input for storefronts, and this bill closes that gap.

And finally, I'd like to lend my support as a commissioner and chair of the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Committee to the proposed addition of peace order and quiet as grounds for protests by parties with standing.

I would also encourage the council to consider in what ways it would be fair to both applicants and neighbors to make the cannabis protest rules the same as alcohol protests, including standardizing the requirements for protest letters.

Currently, alcohol protest letters simply require an identification of grounds, while cannabis protest letters require an explanation of the grounds.

This is the kind of tiny procedural distinction that can void a protest and represents an unnecessary administrative burden for residents and the ANCs.

Thanks for holding this hearing today.

I urge the council to move forward with the medical cannabis process improvement amendment act, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Words must have meaning.

And in DC, the word medical has lost all meaning to the detriment of public health and danger of public health and safety in our city.

My name is Will Jones.

I'm a third generation Washingtonian, a resident of Ward 4.

I'm the director of community engagement and outreach at Smart Approaches to Marijuana, the nation's leading organization that advocates for a health-first and science-based approach to marijuana policy.

I want to begin by painting a picture for everyone listening that may be watching this on video or in the room.

Imagine here in DC, every time that you see a McDonald's, we can visualize the arches in our heads, right?

Well, we have four times as many cannabis dispensaries in DC as standalone McDonald's.

So that picture that you're seeing, maybe driving down Georgia Avenue or driving down New York Avenue, you see a McDonald's.

We've got four times as many dispensaries, medical marijuana dispensaries as in McDonald's in DC.

And if we talk about CVSs which are fulfilling legitimate prescriptions from doctors, uh we've got more than double, nearly double the amount of that.

We've got about 35 CVSs in DC, and again, over 65 medical marijuana dispensaries in DC.

This is uh over saturation of an addiction for profit industry and market here in DC.

And I understand how we got where we are with the term medical in 2014.

We passed initiative 71, which was for legalization, Congress blocked it.

The issue is we understand that as policymakers, you understand that as policymakers.

It's been over a decade since then.

Some people that are now 21 were 10 when that was passed.

People see stores that say medical.

They see products that say medical that do not require a doctor's prescription, that have no dosage requirements or anything.

This is a kind of self-served type of medication thing.

There's no other legitimate medication in our country or in the city that has this kind of free-for-all self-certification that you can have uh with uh medical marijuana here in DC.

And so that's the first thing.

Now, even if this was purely a recreational market uh without the label medical, which I think is important, though, because again, as policymakers, we have the responsibility to uh protect the meaning of words like medical for the public.

Everyone does not know the behind the scenes stories of that.

Um, but even if this was a recreational marketplace, there are many documented public harms that uh we're seeing from this in DC and across the country in places that have legalized and commercialized marijuana.

I have these all submitted in my written testimony.

I will go through a few highlights really quickly.

We've seen a 4.7-fold increase in places uh that have commercialized with cannabis hyper cannabis hyperemesis syndrome, which is um when people are vomiting, cannot stop vomiting.

Some people have died from this.

I worked for nine years as a sergeant uh and firefighter here in DC.

I worked at the third busiest firehouse in the United States, which is right here in DC, right off of East Capitol Street by the shrimp boat.

Uh, and I personally saw many people that we would take to the emergency room with cannabis hyperemesis syndrome.

Uh, between 22 to 30% of people developed cannabis use disorder, there's 4.5 times higher risk of type 2 diabetes.

This study just came out.

Over 4 million people was published.

This study was published last year.

Uh 50% increased heart attack risk for users under 50, elevated stroke risk, and other ones that are listed here as well.

And then cannabis uh induced psychosis is another thing that is doubled in places where we're seeing this uh commercialization and legalization.

Again, all of this is peer-reviewed research, which I have cited all the research, and it's documented here.

Uh, the last thing is traffic fatalities.

We've seen in the decades since we commercialized, we saw it nearly double.

The latest report about toxicologies in 2020 showed that it was marijuana was the number one intoxicant.

This is not an anomaly in place, city after city and state after state, where it's been commercialized.

Marijuana has been identified, they've had significant increase in their fatalities, and marijuana has been identified as a thing uh that's um most increased uh in the toxicology reports after that.

And I want to just close with personal stories there here with three quick personal stories because I shared a lot of data in research and science, it's all cited here.

I hope you go through it.

But on personal stories, I was talking with someone, a very dear friend, last night.

She said one of uh one of her sister actually tried a cannabis product.

She thought that uh her sister was coming to kill her.

The person that she had an episode of cannabis induced psychosis and was afraid that her sister was coming to kill her.

Fortunately, no one died that was able to go away safely.

Another story, I just talked with a mother last month.

Uh, her son took his life after using cannabis products, and if we look at Colorado, it's now the number one intoxicant in youth suicides in Colorado.

This is also documented.

I will close with my own personal.

So you're a minute over your time, sorry.

I understand.

I am gonna cut you off.

I understand.

I do have tests from you.

May I close with 30 seconds of a personal story?

No.

But thank you.

Um Councilmember Helen has a hearing to go to, so I'm gonna let him go first with questions.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, and yeah, I apologize.

I don't have to duck out and go gabble in a hearing that's supposed to start two minutes ago.

Um, so thank you very much for letting me go first.

I'll try to be very brief too.

Um, one of the things I don't know enough yet about the proposal related to beverages.

I'd like to learn a little bit more.

I will say, Grace, what you talked about about making sure we don't replicate some of the disparity that we see with the Federal Farm Act and others.

I think that does make sense, and so happy to kind of make sure I learn a little bit more about that, um, so that we don't create unintended consequences of that kind of uncertainty there.

So thanks for flagging that.

Um, I'm gonna focus just uh, frankly, on my own bill.

Uh so I'm focused there.

And commissioner, I might turn to you first, but one of the things that I want to be careful about, and this is what I think we're trying to do with the bill is focus on not creating a situation where residents are just going to protest a cannabis retailer just because it's a cannabis retailer.

Like that's not what I'm interested in, and we want to be very careful about the grounds essentially that we're trying to do.

And that's where I'm seeing from a child care perspective, child development facility.

Um, is there a fundamental difference between a daycare center and a formalized public education facility for the exact same age, exact same function of young people from a practical impact as you talk to your constituents and community, is there a distinction?

I think this is the tough thing that we encountered, which is that you know there are these buffers around public schools, and my understanding is that when a cannabis applicant comes to APCA, they have to present a bunch of information, including potential proximity to schools, and then APCA reviews it against the GIS data that they have.

And that data only really includes these very sort of concrete categories.

And I don't know if it was the intention of the council when they said preschool to exclude Montessories, but it seems that there's just a very um technical licensing definition that's been included in what is given that buffer.

And so from our perspective, you know, I don't know if there is a more precise definition than what has been offered in this bill, but the intent of this bill to make sure that the Montessori and the daycare are included, I think is really important because it does, we know from you know, especially alcohol and tobacco advertising, we know it just has an impact on kids, and we just want to see children legislated for equitably across the board.

Yeah, I I mean I think the intent behind this is to clarify that.

I think it's a distinction without a difference.

Yeah, and I think that's where the legislation can help be shaped to clean that up and clear that up for community.

Um I appreciate the testimony around the as drafted being retroactive.

I'll be honest, that's less important to me than it is about making sure we close this so the distinct so there is not a distinction without a difference.

Um, in terms of the concerns we heard around the retroactivity piece in legislation, I'll just be up front, like that's not as important to me as it is making sure that we actually don't create this situation where there's two same organiz uh similar uh right all intents of purposes organizations and they are in very different buckets.

Um, I also think about this the way this currently is set up as well, our daycare centers have to protest on either the three grounds a violation of the medical cannabis code, a violation of laws directly related to the business operation, or vehicular and pedestrian safety.

It feels a little bit ridiculous that we're saying that a child care facility can't say the reason why we're protesting is our concern around proximity.

Um, and so we end up in these kind of really backward kind of conversations when let's just all talk about what we're talking about and be able to have those conversations.

Certainly what I see from our ANCs who routinely go through protests on alcohol businesses.

Um, if an ANC were to say, I don't want any business selling alcohol, you'd well, one, you get voted out of office pretty fast.

Um but like that wouldn't make any sense.

But you're able to use the protest process as a way to help make sure there are different types of reasonable considerations made, and it largely works pretty well for ANCs.

And that gets to the other part about aligning these a little bit better.

Um, I do think that uh there are gonna be times when we need to distinguish between a cannabis application and an alcohol application, but the more that we can align with a process and procedure looks like I think both creates predictability and certainty for the applicants themselves as well as for the community in the ANC.

Our ANCs are all volunteer organizations.

Some of them are lawyers, not all of them are.

Um, and you're the ones that we have chosen to say our ANCs are gonna handle this, not the council.

Um so I think the more that we can have those processes look more streamlined and work creates a better predictability for the marketplace overall.

Um I have gone to the map and said, listen, I want to see a legal, licensed, trusted industry.

Uh, and I think that is part of what we have seen and parts that are succeeding.

But I've also said you gotta have predictability.

You can't have illegal and unlicensed businesses.

So we need to be able to steer people into that license process, but be able to have the right way for the community.

The last thing I was gonna just ask around this, the internet retailer license, I think is important.

Again, we're kind of sometimes chasing the innovation that is happening.

So I don't know if a couple of years ago you would say that we actually could anticipate the way that you'd have internet uh retailer licenses or the way that those businesses operate, but now we do, and they are essentially all either a pickup or delivery model, and so they are having an impact on um on traffic on the vehicular and pedestrian safety.

So just making sure the ANC is able to weigh in on that.

I think I don't know what the uh what the objection would be to have the ANC be able to.

I'll come to you, Grace in one second, but Commissioner.

Um I will say that I, you know, when we first wrote that letter and we were first considering this, when I went to Google Maps and I just searched dispensary in our jurisdiction, um there were probably seven um sort of advertised uh internet dispensaries in the neighborhood that we have no in insight into or or oversight over.

And um I went back today and I found one.

Um and I went to APCA's website, it's unlicensed, so I went ahead and reported it.

It's also at an address that doesn't exist.

So, you know, I I don't have a lot of um, you know, aside from sort of what we see that's available to everybody, um, we uh don't have a lot of insight into that internet retailer um experience.

But if there are houses that are going to be accepting deliveries, then they are the exact same situation um as the delivery uh services in the rest of the neighborhood that do have parking and and um and traffic challenges.

So we would want to be able to weigh in on that.

Yeah, okay.

And then yes, Grace, and then I'll I'll wrap up here, Mr.

Chair.

Internet retailers are not permitted by law to have pickups.

They are only allowed to deliver to a patient's home.

So an internet retailer should essentially be an unmarked warehouse.

The only activity going on there should be them receiving wholesale deliveries, which aren't required to be in an unmarked vehicle.

They cannot do any manufacturing, they cannot do any cultivation, there should be no odor associated with the business.

And other than you know, their fleet of maybe one or two vehicles, they shouldn't have any parking constraints.

So I think that maybe there might be some misunderstanding around what they are allowed to do, or maybe there was one who was breaking the rules, that's entirely possible.

Um, but they are not supposed to be allowing pickup.

There should be no customer interaction happening at those businesses whatsoever.

I appreciate that.

I will say the what retailers are already allowed to do deliveries.

So if I can real fast, I what should be and what is happening are different.

Okay.

So I appreciate your point on that.

Um, and if that's the way that it were working, I don't think I would have probably written it the way that I have because I think in practice we're seeing something very different.

And again, an emerging marketplace, uh, that's why we have to legislate about this a lot.

Um, and so as we see it, to me, this is an issue where I think having it seems odd to have an ANC not be able to have the type of standing they would for a different type of space.

Um so to me, it's just it helps align that.

I take your point though that there's a different type of use, and perhaps maybe that was the intended use, but we're seeing it in practice a little bit differently.

So I just want to make sure that we're we're thoughtful about it, and we can certainly follow up after the hearing too to kind of get a good understanding of where distinctions could be drawn.

And that just seems like an enforcement problem.

I mean, if if there's somebody with an internet retailer license, they are allowing customers to come pick up at their facility.

That doesn't seem like something that needs to be solved by the law.

That seems like something that needs to be reported to APCA so we can have enforcement come take care of it.

Don't think we need to over-regulate to.

As I learned a couple of years ago, um, we had to legislate, all right.

We had unlicensed illegal businesses all over the place, and they didn't actually have the enforcement mechanism.

And we had to change the laws so that they could actually go enforce, which blew my mind to be able to enforce the illegal unlicensed businesses, but we were able to do that through a legislative process, right?

So that's that's what we'll do here.

Um, and I take your point about making sure we take a look at what that uh intended use is, but I do feel like I gotta draw a distinction between what I've seen in practice versus versus that.

So I know I took up a lot of time.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I gotta run to go start my hearing upstairs in 500, but thank you very much.

And thanks to all of our witnesses over the course of today.

Uh, thank you, Councilmember.

Um, I'm not sure where I would be where I want to begin.

I just have a couple of questions.

Um let me start with this.

Uh I'm I'm concerned about neighborhood objections, so I don't want to sound insensitive to that, but this is a hearing where I'm trying to understand the issues better.

So I want to push back a bit on um the uh prohibition around uh daycare centers.

First, it's my understanding.

We keep talking about uh parity with ABC with alcohol.

It's my understanding that there's no prohibition in the law or regulations with regard to proximity to a daycare center.

Does with regard to alcohol?

anybody disagree with me on that?

I think they're different provisions, there's sort of different pieces of the of the bill that we're talking about in that regard.

Yeah, I don't understand what you're saying.

Uh so the the pieces where um the issues with parity with alcohol are about the protest process, it's about who has standing, it's about the what paperwork gets filed.

I thought it was also about what proximity to what.

Not as far as I'm concerned, because there are no yeah.

Maybe I heard that from the it's about the the current the current law um has a buffer zone around preschools, uh primary, secondary, and recreation centers.

We're just asking for that buffer to be extended to um not public schools.

Correct.

Um part of the council's reasoning, and the council did discuss this a couple of years ago, was that uh we should treat uh dispensaries similar to uh the way we treat ABC stores, and ABC stores are have a uh limitation near schools, but they don't have a limitation near daycare centers.

The other concern that we had was um the just the land area of the District of Columbia.

We need to if we're going to have a robust program, then we need to be able to have locations where dispensaries can locate.

And um there are a whole lot more uh day, there are a whole lot more prohibited areas if you have um uh you include daycare centers in the in the buffer.

That was what the thinking was.

Uh I should probably add a little bit more, and this is just about my own thinking.

Uh I but I would hope others would agree.

The um district decided years ago that we were going to um allow, we were going to legalize uh cannabis, even recreational cannabis.

We have a congressional writer prohibits us on the recreational side being able to legislate much, which is why all the attention is on the medical side.

If we're going to have a legal market, then uh we have to be mindful of the competition from the illegal market.

And what do we do to make sure that we have a robust legal market and that it is not undercut or that we're not driving sales to the illegal market?

Um so if we make it difficult, I remember years ago that there was a debate in the council because we allow um uh the menu uh uh cultivation, I guess it's cultivation in industrial zones.

Um, but then uh somebody got upset in Ward 7 and said we couldn't have this was horrible to have a uh cultivation center in an industrial zone.

So we had legislation before the council to prohibit it.

Well, where are we gonna put put these facilities if we're gonna have a robust market?

So that's what we're dealing with, yes.

I could just respond very briefly.

I so um in in our in my personal case, there was already a cannabis dispensary yet another block away.

I I'm I'm essentially on GN 14th, and it uh leads into Pennsylvania Avenue where there are numerous doorfronts open for rent, and there was already a cannabis dispensary in an area that I believe did not implicate a daycare center or schools.

And I'll also note that on Barracks Row, there are multiple cannabis dispensaries uh operating.

I don't believe that this would.

If you were to um include this buffer for daycare centers, I agree it would narrow the properties that were possible, but I think that there's actually a huge vacancy in DC for commercial real estate at the moment.

And I in just witnessing our neighborhood, there is not a dearth of cannabis dispensaries that seem to be operating legally um and finding storefronts to operate out of.

Yes, sir.

Um yes, I think also relevancy, I understand the concern about the black market.

We want people to be able to purchase at a legitimate, put legitimate places.

Again, as in my testimony, we've got uh 65 plus uh locations where people can make legal purchases.

So I don't think the issue is that uh there's a lack of availability.

So when it comes to zoning specifically for this, I don't think we should be concerned that because there's a 400-foot rule around daycares that that's gonna drive people to the black market.

Again, we've got four times as many as McDonald's, double the amount of CVSs.

And regarding your question about proximity, I may be reading the wrong code, but uh what I'm looking at now says that uh for alcohol, no license shall be issued for an establishment within 400 feet of a public, private or per parochial primary, elementary, or high school, college, or university or recreation area operated by the District of Columbia of Parks and Rec and Recreation, uh, and the rest of that is in this as well.

So I believe that is actually uh in comparison to what we have with alcohol.

I don't think you I didn't hear you say daycare.

So let me just bring up a it says day, it says I maybe I didn't read it, but it says the in clientele schools, recreation centers, daycare centers, public libraries, or other similar similar facilities.

I will take another look at that.

Uh the other um question that I had, I think was just um commissioner.

In your testimony near the end, you protect children from undue exposure to cannabis storefront advertising.

But there are strict limitations on advertising.

So my understanding, I was just checking with um Mr.

Stum sitting next to me.

A uh dispensary can't even have a leaf in its sign, it can only have its name.

Uh ABC, as you know, most as I know.

I go by a liquor store and I see all kinds of advertising on the windows, but all that's prohibited from um a cannabis dispensary.

Now there's a challenge because we have in the city some illegal establishments, but in terms of the legal ones, there shouldn't be.

I believe in my testimony I said storefronts and advertising.

Um, the public health research that I looked at before putting this testimony together um made that distinction that storefronts proximity to um schools does have an impact on children's use, um, children's problematic use.

Um I believe there's some public health testimony coming later today, so I won't uh overstep my expertise.

Um, but I think you know, the it's availability, it's awareness that that it can be purchased, it's sort of an understanding that it's nearby, shapes a young person's um interest and potential misuse.

I totally get that, but my experience, which is not extensive, when I do see a cannabis dispensary, it strikes me as almost anonymous.

It's got a name on it and not much more.

I see head shaking, Miss Hyde.

Um, we are also prohibited from allowing any products or pricing from being visible from the street.

I would be hesitant to apply some kind of national average because state by state advertising um is so different.

Like if you were to be in California five years ago and walk by a medman, you could see every product in the store.

That is not the case in the district, that has never been the case for a licensed dispensary.

I absolutely agree about an unlicensed dispensary and you know the problems that that could create, but we can have nothing but our store name on the front of our building.

You we have a hard time getting the customers who are supposed to be shopping with us to even know where we are.

So respectfully, I disagree that our facade and our storefronts are encouraging um minors to partake in cannabis use.

Mr.

Kahn, you have a dispensary, yeah.

And can you speak to what sort of advertising or public display you have?

Um we you cannot see into the dispensary.

Um all of our windows are um have a film uh so that's you give you're just unable to see.

Um there's also a uh a room, uh, essentially a waiting room or a um uh that that basically serves as an in between between the dispensary floor and the public space.

So even if someone were to open a door and take a look inside, you wouldn't you wouldn't be able to see what's on the floor, what's inside the dispensary.

Um we're mainly limited to being able to display our name, and certainly no um no prices or products.

So uh my understanding of of what of the studies that have come out is that the best way to keep cannabis away from children is to make it highly regulated, and that's what DC's done, and I think we're seeing the trends go down and down with with team uh cannabis use.

Ms.

Crandall, you're online.

Um you're on McArthur Boulevard.

Yes, that's correct.

Yeah, I think I'm gonna probably see your storefront because of the parade this weekend.

Um, my recollection is that's pretty anonymous as well.

It just has uh green theory on the outside.

That's correct.

And we actually um had, you know, several members of the community who were concerned when we were opening.

Um there's plenty of news articles about that.

Um, and I will just say we've been open for over two years now.

We've never had an issue, whether it be from an announced or unannounced inspection from ABCA.

We've never had an instance of an underage person coming in and trying to access our store or products.

Um we've never had any issues to speak of and have become um, I would say a shining example of what a small business should be like in a community, including investing and supporting donating, all of those things.

So I definitely disagree with a lot of the sort of fear mongering that I think is going on right now.

So I thought that was helpful, but I don't know if Commissioner, do you want to say anything else or Ms.

Fitzgerald?

I mean, I I'd fully acknowledge that there's a balance to be struck here.

I think um, you know, from from my perspective, the ANC is responsible for speaking to the interests of both businesses who are investing in the neighborhood and also with uh for the neighbors.

And I think you know, my goal as the chair of the ABC committee is to not go to protest to have a very collegial relationship with businesses that are investing.

Um and this change would mean less friction for us.

If there were no opportunities for uh cannabis dispensary to open up right next door to a Montessori, we would have fewer challenges with how the neighbors feel uh about about um that cannabis dispensary going on and going in.

And you know, we have so many, we have six or seven or eight uh cannabis dispensaries in 6B, and we welcome them and they operate really responsibly in our neighborhood.

Um it is just a few areas where this has cropped up and it was an issue, and it seems like a shift that would include these additional child serving institutions would would help to remedy that.

And just to add, I I agree that what I'm advocating for is parity between the alcohol licensing process and the cannabis licensing process, specifically because of issues like the ones that we were confronted with, where we have toddlers on tricycles in front of this property daily, um, and and just the daycare center issue is not going to address that.

Um it would be perfectly appropriate for the same business to operate just around the corner.

Um, and I think that that's something that APCA should be able to hear about um when considering whether to grant a license.

Uh give me just a second.

Uh I don't have any other questions for you.

Your testimony's been helpful in those of you online as well.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Uh June Ekanabi, uh President CEO of Hadagoki Holdings LLC.

Caroline Phillips, founder and executive producer of National Cannabis Festival.

Nora Green, listed as a public witness.

Reverend Karen Curry.

Reverend Curry here.

Hallison Lipowitz.

Brandon Duff.

Check your email.

Andre Murphy.

Civa Bology.

Kellia Murphy.

Oh.

There's no room for you, so I'm gonna stop.

I'll get you in the next group.

Sir, you are Brandon Doug.

I'm Brendan Duff from District Canagopia.

Got it.

I didn't get that.

Can you try again?

I said nothing to provoke her.

All right.

Umline, Mr.

Akinagby.

Yes.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Please proceed.

Stop it.

Hi.

Hi, my name is Jimai Kinagby.

Thank you for this opportunity to be able to test the apply for the board.

I apologize for the technical difficulty down extra.

Can you hear me?

You're breaking up.

Okay.

I am unable to testify due to technical problem I'm having.

I've submitted my testimony.

Thank you for your time.

Yeah, we're just going to have it.

Thank you.

Caroline Phillips.

Good morning, Chairman Mendelson and members of the committee.

My name is Caroline Phillips, and I'm a resident of Ward 6.

Although I'm listed as representing the National Cannabis Festival, today I'm here in my capacity as a consultant for District Cannabis.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Today I'll be speaking on the bills in question.

But first, I think it's important to debunk some inaccuracy inaccuracies that have been shared in testimony submitted prior to this hearing and also during this hearing today.

I was particularly taken by this image of the golden arches and McDonald's as compared to our cannabis dispensaries in DC, because the fact is that there are stringent guidelines around signage and advertising for our dispensaries that we heard about from some of our operators earlier.

So that comparison just doesn't fit.

In addition, a one-pager submitted by Smart Approaches to Marijuana claims a market saturation in DC based on the number of medical cannabis storefronts.

They tried to compare dissentery storefronts to CVS pharmacies, but that doesn't make sense.

Patients can get pharmaceutical pharmaceutical prescriptions filled at grocery stores, places like Giant Walgreens, Safeways, Harris Teeter, Costco, Walmart, hospital outpatient pharmacies, independent neighborhood pharmacies, specialty pharmacies, and online pharmacies.

Currently in Washington, DC, there are 145 pharmacy locations serving patients, and that does not include online options.

So that information is inaccurate.

Smart approaches to marijuana also claims that driving fatalities have nearly doubled in DC since cannabis was legalized 10 years ago.

We agree that impaired driving is serious and should be enforced, but it is misleading to claim that traffic fatalities have increased due to cannabis legalization.

Traffic deaths rose nationally during and after the pandemic for many reasons, but there has been no big headline in DC connecting traffic fatalities to medical cannabis.

Smart approaches to marijuana also claims that cannabis hypermesis syndrome proves that medical cannabis is harmful.

Cannabis hypermesis syndrome is a real condition that impacts chronic, heavy, long-term cannabis users.

The existence of CHS no more justifies banning regulated cannabis beverages than alcohol related liver disease justifies banning beer.

Instead, we need robust patient education, product labels, and responsible regulations.

Smart approaches to marijuana also claims that 22 to 30% of cannabis users develop cannabis use disorder.

The statistic they use refers to all cannabis users over their lifetime, not patients using cannabis under medical supervision.

Cannabis use disorder exists, but so does alcohol use disorder, nicotine dependence, and prescription opioid dependence.

The risk of dependence is further argument for regulation, not prohibition.

Lastly, of the many inaccuracies, I just want to focus on this one.

SMART approaches to marijuana claims that real medical oversight requires FDA approval.

Perhaps they do not understand that state medical programs exist precisely because cannabis remains federally illegal.

No state medical program operates like FDA prescription drugs.

If FDA approval became standard, state medical cannabis programs would disappear.

Nearly all of their approaches and their arguments are about cannabis generally.

The arguments do not explain why allowing cannabis licensed dispensaries to manufacture craft products or how permitting beverages would materially change any of the outcomes in their document.

Further, their document selectively cites studies showing potential risks while omitting a substantial body of evidence supporting medical cannabis for certain conditions.

I think I am down to my last 16 seconds, so I won't be able to go through all of the points in my testimony, but I believe that you have a copy of that in front of you.

So I'd like to thank you for your time today and remind you that DC has spent years replacing an unregulated market with a regulated one.

Every product sold is tested, labeled, tracked, and packaged, and only sold to registered patients.

Thank you for your time today, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Ms.

Phillips.

Nora Green.

Good afternoon, Chairman.

Um, and council members, thank you for this afternoon.

Um, today uh I'm a I'm a prevention specialist, but I'm speaking as a mother and a resident of Ward 7.

Uh I respectfully urge the council to oppose bills 26654 and 26259, or at a minimum, delay their passage until stronger public health protections.

Youth prevention measures and independent research are incorporated.

My life's work is prevention.

Every day I work to prevent the early initiation of alcohol, marijuana, tobacco, opioids, and other drugs among our children and youth because prevention worked.

And we know that the longer we can delay first use, the less likely a young person is to develop a substance use disorder.

As a mother, I want my son to grow up in a city where public policy protects healthy brain development rather than normalizing substance use.

Every parent wants their child to have the opportunity to thrive, succeed in school, build healthy relationships, and enter adulthood with every opportunity to reach their full potential.

The policies we adopt today will shape the environment, our children will inherit tomorrow.

I recognize that medical marijuana has a legitimate therapeutic benefits for some patients.

My testimony is not about denying access to medicine.

It is about the expansion that does not outpace public health protections.

These bills represent another step toward increasing the commercialization, visibility, and normalization of cannabis products.

The U.S.

Surgeon General in 2025 reported and warned that alcohol consumption causes risk are risk factor for at least seven types of cancer.

After decades of addressing the devastating consequences of alcohol, tobacco, and other products, we need to really consider the collaboration of cannabis and alcohol coming together and combining these two industries that market psychoactive substances.

The district has made over 42 million in revenue for marijuana.

However, as stated earlier, let us plan sensibly for expansion with public health at the forefront and our use future always.

As we know today's cannabis products are not our grandparents' products.

Scientific evidence also continues to raise concerns about youth.

Research has found that marijuana use is associated with a higher risk of developing psychotic psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia.

And early initiation of marijuana before the age of 18 is associated with increased likelihood of developing opioid use disorder.

Every day I work to reduce opioid overdose in the district, and I cannot ignore this evidence.

As both a prevention specialist and a mother, I ask you to remember the children who cannot testify today.

They depend on us to create policies that delay first use, reduce risk, and promote healthy development before expanding the commercial cannabis marketplace.

Let us first strengthen prevention education, youth mental health services, and product safety standards, and public awareness and investments in prevention, because the industry will need new consumers, and those new consumers are often young people.

Finally, with a few seconds left, I urge council to put prevention first and oppose these bills until the district can fully enact safely prevention policies.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You were registered as NeuroGreen.

Yeah, I forgot.

When I originally submitted, I press call press before I put the last name lane.

So my main name is Green.

Green Lane.

Yeah, you were before me a few months ago, I think, for appointment to.

I was uh Health Equity?

Health Equity, a commissioner in health equity.

Yes.

Appointed.

Thank you, sir.

Nice to see you.

Um Reverend Curry.

Yes, good afternoon.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, great.

Good afternoon, Council Chair Mendelson.

Um I coordinate a Ward 7 drug-free community coalition, but today I'm testifying as a concerned resident.

And I just wanted to say before I get into my written uh testimony, uh, just in response to some of the things shared.

Uh, I know that we're looking at the importance of regulating the business, but uh it does not address what happens to the product once it leaves the dispensary.

And so businesses may be able to not afford to care about what happens after that, but residents can't afford not to care about what happens to the products once it leaves the regulated environment.

And uh also there are no big headlines about the toxicology report showing cannabis uh in uh the traffic fatality victims, but there should be, and so that's one of the things that uh some of us are here to advocate for more awareness and uh education and heeding the warnings that you will hear from the medical professionals at children's uh national medical.

And then also with regard to dispensaries in Ward 7, there is a dispensary with a bold colorful lettering and youth-oriented graphic images that clearly appeal to youth, and so not all of the dispensaries are very clinical in their appearance.

But at any rate, again, I'm testifying as one who uh appreciates and understands that there are those who use cannabis products for pain relief and medicinal uses, but I also see the underside of cannabis use in the individuals and families that I minister to who are devastated by its physical, psychological, social, academic, and economic impact, and I'm particularly concerned about some of the research that we're seeing about today's marijuana.

Uh, the chief medical examiner did identify marijuana as the most prominent drug detected in toxicology screens of traffic fatality victims in the last year that those reports were provided.

And so that happens to coincide with that doubling of traffic fatalities in the last decade since we've had legislation.

Uh there's also concern that research is showing the THC infused drinkables carrying unique risks, such as delayed peak effects, higher overconsumption potential, accidental poisoning.

The CDC warns that these pose special hazards for new users, especially youth who may not recognize that edible and drinkable products are intoxicants until the symptoms are severe.

There's also research linking cannabis use to type 2 diabetes, a four time higher risk associated with cardiovascular events, heart attacks and strokes, and then even psychosis, which we've already heard from and may hear from some more as well.

And so there's a lot of research that is very important that some of us are asking our council to take the time to look into.

Councilman Allen mentioned that he wanted to learn more about the cannabis beverages, and I urge the council to do so to not move hastily in approving this legislation, but to learn some more about the impacts of a cannabis and uh even uh medical cannabis.

Uh I won't belabor the point about the self-certification that was already shared, but again, I think that we want to be sure that it's not the dollar signs enticing us into continuing this train where we look at this as strictly a business uh proposition, because with business, there's no end to the amount of product offerings, to the way that you make it available.

It's always about more, more.

Whereas if this were returned to what we believe is its rightful place, many of us residents, as a medical issue, then you can return the physician-patient relationship and engagement, as is with any other prescription medication, certainly one that has the potential for the level of abuse and misuse that can again happen once it leaves those regulated environments.

And so uh we're concerned about how things have morphed away from the medical perspective, and so uh licensing and having the cannabis beverages without child protection devices on them, making them more child proof or child resistant.

Those are all the things that we really would like the council to look into because again, with the diverse product offerings that are already there, we don't see an urgent need for the cannabis beverages.

Uh, there's time to slow the train down so that we can look more at how we protect those children whose hands it's bound to get in.

Some of the youth that I work with in the community uh have expressed concerns because they know that these products may not be supposedly made for them, but they know they often end up marketed or provided to them and the pressure to engage in them without fully understanding what it is that they have in hand.

So we just encourage uh the council to exercise due diligence and really looking at the research and being willing to take some unpopular stances and make some headlines about some of the underside of the cannabis products so that people can make more informed decisions and so that again we are not led only by the dollar sign, Reverend.

Telling the true cost.

I'm gonna have to cut you off here a minute over your time.

Thank you.

It's nice to see you.

Um Rissa Hurrow.

Is it good morning or good afternoon?

It's good afternoon.

Okay, well, good afternoon, everyone, and good afternoon, Chairman Mendelssohn.

Uh, my name is Risa Hiral on behalf of the DC Association of Beverage Alcohol Wholesalors.

As alcohol and medical cannabis regulation increasingly overlap in the district, these laws should not be considered in isolation.

Changes to medical cannabis framework should not undermine the alcohol beverage regulatory system, which has long balanced public safety, orderly markets, and competition.

A core principle of that system is preventing any one individual or entity from dominating or controlling the alcohol supply chain.

Standing alone, this bill appears, and I'm talking about B 26654, appears to allow DC alcohol manufacturers to produce medical cannabis beverages by contract or perhaps in partnership for a licensed medical cannabis manufacturer.

Considered alongside another bill, DC Hospitality Amendment Act, B 26648, the proposal for under this bill raises serious concerns about the degree of interest and control of ABC manufacturers could gain across both medical cannabis and alcohol beverage supply chains.

If both measures are enacted as written, a ABC manufacturer could gain access to operations across all three tiers, including restaurants, retail stores, third party delivery companies, and ABC internet retailers.

Also, hospitality enterprises and contract brewing.

Combined with a weakened and confusing alcohol conflict of interest and trade practice protections, this expansion could leave the market vulnerable to undue influence by dominant suppliers.

It could also become a pathway for a similar expansion in the medical cannabis market and eventually the adult cannabis market.

The lack of consultation with DC alcohol wholesalers as well as cannabis manufacturers further heightens these concerns.

With these proposals, cannabis operations opening up to alcohol manufacturers, and possibly restaurants with brew pub licenses.

Purchases made from alcohol wholesalers may be placed at a risk.

Their TTB license for basic permit could be at risk as well as the insurance coverage for their activities.

Now, on another note, responsible legislation in a highly regulated industry such as alcohol and cannabis should not be rushed in the name of production diversification.

Cannabis products in DC should be subject to the same safeguards, at least as strong as those governing alcohol beverages.

There's also a federal THC hemp product deadline, or it's a fan, that will take place November 12th, 2026.

With this state in mind and also the remaining topics I addressed in my statement, we urge this committee to proceed cautiously and focus on the regulatory interplay between alcohol and cannabis markets.

These issues require careful review and should not disrupt the framework on which the industry members rely upon.

Thank you for the time and I am open and available for questions.

Thank you.

Alison Lippowitz.

He was online.

Hi there.

Good afternoon, Chairman Mendelson, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

My name is Alison Lippowick and I serve as co-chair of the Regulated Cannabis Association of the District of Columbia.

Our association represents more than 50 licensed retailers, cultivators, manufacturers, and testing laboratories operating in the district.

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the bills before the council today.

Before discussing the individual bills, I think it's important to acknowledge just how dramatically the district's cannabis market has changed over the past several years.

For many Washingtonians, their perception of the cannabis industry was shaped largely by the unregulated gifting market that emerged after Initiative 71 was passed.

That market consisted largely of untested products and consistent standards and little to no oversight.

That is not the market that we have today.

Through the Medical Cannabis Amendment Act of 2022 and enforcement efforts that followed, the district successfully transitioned gray market businesses into a regulated framework and closed more than 100 unlicensed operators.

Today, licensed cannabis businesses operated under comprehensive testing, tracking, security, and regulatory requirements.

I think it's important that the bills before you today be evaluated based on the regulated market we've built and not the unregulated market that we've already worked so hard to replace.

On the craft preparation bill, we are in support of a craft preparation bill because it gives retailers the opportunity to better serve patients through additional product offerings.

We simply ask that any expansion occur alongside clear food safety standards, product approval requirements, and practical regulations governing governing on-site preparation and packaging.

We are also requesting a specific carve out for rules on pre-roll manufacturing, which is detailed in my written testimony.

Regarding conditional licenses, we are in opposition to the conditional licenses extensions.

Continually extending deadlines alone does not address the underlying challenges facing applicants.

Rather than continually extending conditional licenses, we encourage the council to encourage license the examine the licensing process itself and identify opportunities to streamline approvals without expanding an already saturated retail market.

The district's current priority should be supporting successful compliant operators rather than increasing the number of retail store friends.

Regarding the Process Improvement Act, we respectfully oppose the Medical Cannabis Process Improvement Act because it appears to address concerns that no longer reflect how licensed cannabis businesses operate today.

Licensed dispensaries are among the most highly regulated retail businesses in the district.

We verify age before customers enter the sales floor, consumption and loitering are prohibited, odors are regulated, inventory is tracked from seed to sale, security systems, surveillance, and product testing are mandatory, and storefront advertising is prohibited.

Our largest concern would be that should this bill pass as written, existing licensees would be at risk of having to close after already having invested heavily into their businesses.

We would ask that that if this provision stands, it's given an effective date of the passing of the bill that it and that it not be applied retroactively.

Finally, we are in support of the beverage product amendment act with one technical recommendation regarding the statutory definition of THC, which is detailed in our written testimony.

We are also in favor of allowing manufacturers to import minor cannabinoids to help support their production efforts.

In closing, I would like to acknowledge the concerns about youth access and to high potency cannabis products and they deserve our thoughtful consideration, but I do feel that these concerns largely reflect risks that arise from an unregulated market, not from the licensed industry operating today.

Our regulations require us to refuse entry to persons under 21, clearly label all THC products, and vend all products in child resistant and tamper evident packaging.

Every unnecessary barrier placed before licensed operators makes it more difficult for patients and consumers to access tested regulated products and increases the likelihood that purchases will shift back towards unregulated regulated sources.

The district has made tremendous progress over the last several years, and I would encourage the council to continue building on that success by supporting policies that strengthen the regulated market, promote patient access, and maintain bigger the vigorous health and safety standards that protect district residents.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ms.

Slipowitz.

Brandon Duff.

Good afternoon, Chairman Mendelson and members of the committee.

My name is Brandon Duff, and I am the founder and managing member of District Canacopia LLC, a licensed social equity medical cannabis cultivation company here in the district.

I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding these four important pieces of legislation.

I appreciate the council's continued commitment to strengthening the district's regulated medical cannabis program while working to advance the goals of the social equity program at the same time.

Over the past two years, District Canacopia has worked diligently through every stage of developing a compliant business cannabis business.

We have navigated financing challenges, architectural and engineering design, permitting regulatory compliance, lease obligations, capital raising while working towards becoming operational.

These experiences have given us a unique perspective on both the successes of the district cannabis program and the challenges that remain.

Overall, I support each of the bills before the committee today.

However, I respectfully offer several recommendations that I believe will further strengthen the district's medical cannabis industry while preserving the original intent of the medical program.

First of all, I'd like to say opening the compliant cannabis business requires a significantly more time than originally anticipated.

Financing permitting, construction, inspections, and regulatory approvals frequently extend well beyond the original licensing period, despite operators making good faith efforts to comply with every requirement.

Because cannabis cultivation and retail operations are very different, I believe there needs to be a level of parity as well as a level of distinction between the needs of each individual license class.

The legislation recognizes those realities and protects legitimate businesses that have invested substantial time and capital into becoming operational.

I appreciate the council's willingness to acknowledge these challenges and encourage favorable passage of this bill.

For B 260259, I also support creation of the retail craft preparation endorsement.

I can just skip ahead because this is going to echo what most of my colleagues have said before me, but I'll just get to the recommendation.

I respectfully recommend that the council direct the alcohol beverage and cannabis administration to establish equivalent craft preparation opportunities for cultivation centers and manufacturers where appropriate or otherwise clarify that future implementation of this legislation will preserve the equitable opportunities across all licensed classes.

As far as B 260654, I also support the rec the creation of medical cannabis beverage production endorsement.

Licensed cannabis manufacturers who invest in compliant production equipment should retain the ability to manufacture cannabis beverages independently if they choose to do so and satisfy all applicable safety and regulatory requirements.

Maintaining this flexibility will encourage competition, innovation, and entrepreneurship while preserving opportunities for all licensed classes in the district.

I support the proposed medical cannabis or cannabinoids import endorsement, which provides licensed cultivators and manufacturers additionally to manufacturers additional flexibility to develop an innovative medical cannabis products while maintaining rigorous and quality safety standards, but I do echo the request of some of the other people with codifying the uh cannabinoids and the other word that I'm not going to try to pronounce as well.

Basically, for B 260522, I feel one of the things that we need to do to look into addressing this issue is to look at the approach through the lens of education and advocacy.

I believe that medical cannabis has evolved from the perception of the dubious corner smokers of what it was during the I-71 compliance days, and through education and advocacy, we can hopefully achieve some of what everybody's looking for in the parody for um the code for B260522.

But uh, let's see.

In closing, I think the district has made remarkable progress over the past several years in transforming its cannabis marketplace into a regulated system that prioritizes patient safety, consumer protection, and social equity.

It's my last page here.

There we are.

These four bills represent another meaningful step forward.

As the district continues modernizing its medical cannabis program, I respectfully encourage the council to ensure that every expansion of opportunity strengthens the regulated cannabis venue value chain.

Cultivators, manufacturers, processors, retailers, laboratories, couriers, and social equity businesses all play essential roles in building a sustainable and competitive industry.

By ensuring equitable opportunities across every licensed class, the council can promote innovation, create quality jobs, encourage local investment, and preserve the original vision of the district's social equity program.

Thank you again for your leadership and continued commitment to improving the district's medical cannabis program.

I appreciate your time and welcome any questions that the committee may have.

Thank you, Mr.

Duff.

Andre Murphy.

Yes, sir.

Thank you, Chairman Minnesota for having me.

I am a lifelong resident of the DC area.

I'm speaking from a personal point of view, and also I'm speaking for the voiceless, which are the children that seem to that are affected by the drugs in the marijuana in the DC area as a result of drugs being decriminalized or legalized.

Personally, I experienced marijuana at the age of 14 years old.

And when I did try, they said, Oh, it's just, you know, it's in the sense nothing's gonna happen.

Well, 16 years, I spent 16 years trying every other drug after that.

I have 34 years of being clean now.

Thank God.

I have 34 years.

I now do everything in my power to help young men and young women that are now experiencing what I experienced to get them some kind of help.

And everybody that has um said this doesn't harm people, they haven't been to these neighborhoods where when I go into some of these apartment buildings, and the parents are laid out because they've been smoking marijuana or they have a child that has not been changed or cleaned because the parents are no longer able to take care of the child.

I'm seeing this on a regular basis.

I have four brothers that have gone through the same thing that I've gone through.

And I'm not necessarily saying that it's anybody's fault, particularly with the marijuana, because they started using prior to drugs being legalized in the DC area.

What I've really wanna see more of for DC youth residents is more educational programs like trade programs, teaching young kids a trade, some kind of a skill set versus having a uh dispensary near their neighborhood or in their school area.

This is the kind of things that we really need to focus on.

We shouldn't be focusing on whether or not we can have a drug uh marijuana, whether it's medical or otherwise, in our neighborhood.

We should be focusing on building the next generation and making sure they have every opportunity that they can to be productive and to do something positive in their lives and not have to worry about drugs being filtered in and out of their neighborhoods.

We as leaders have to take a stand for these young people because they didn't ask for this.

They're just they they're bought into this uh unwillingly, and and on top of the fathers, a lot of the fathers not being at these homes, the mother is doing the best she can, and these kids are growing up fatherless, they don't have a good family structure, they're in a lot of uh they're in a lot of bad situations from the start, and then to have them get caught up in drugs before they're even older than us to really understand what it means is is unthinkable.

And I think that we need to do more to build programming educations in our community, um, buildings of education and trades in our community versus liquor stores and drug dispensaries.

Thank you for that opportunity.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Murphy.

Yes, and I do have a statement from you, so thank you.

Yes.

Uh, I just have one question for you all.

Um the um Miss Phillips, you spend all of your time speaking to testimony by that uh other group, smart whatever it is.

Um you didn't talk about uh the bills.

I don't want you to take all this time talking about the bills.

Um, there's been testimony from several in the medical cannabis community.

Do you disagree with any of that testimony?

I strongly support a lot of the testimony you've heard today.

I thought it was important to go on record to debunk some of the claims today that were not based on fact.

Sure.

So like um, I don't know that I want to go through all this, but the um there was one where uh there was some testimony about a technical clarification.

You agree with that?

I do agree with that, yes.

I believe that you're referring to the testimony about the um qualification of new edible products.

It's the terms that I can't pronounce.

I think that, and then we're also talking about the Tetra Canaba.

I'm with you on the not being able to pronounce it, but I think it's a clarification around the THC and derivatives being included when we are talking about cannabis beverages.

There seemed to be mixed testimony with regard to the bill that would extend the provisional licenses.

Do you have a view on that?

I support the bill to extend provisional licenses.

I think that the opportunity to enter the market is a great one, but I also think that it's been riddled with red tape and some inconsistencies in our policies.

Just today, we've been talking about moving back the radius around daycare centers to 400 feet.

That's going to immediately impact several conditional licenses that currently exist in the city.

Okay, give me a second.

I don't have any other questions for any of you.

Thank you all, all those of you in person and those of you who were uh online.

Thank you.

Steve Balaji Kalia Murphy.

And Aishwara Thakur, and I apologize for mispronouncing all those names.

Uh you're all with children's, I believe.

So I called three people.

I see two people sitting down.

Okay.

So, Steve Balaji Kalia Murphy, is that you?

If I ask you how to pronounce it, I still will mess it up.

That's all right.

I'll I'll introduce myself and start when you're ready.

When you're ready.

Great, thank you.

Um, good morning, uh, Chairman Mendelssohn and members of the committee.

My name is Dr.

Siva Kalia Murthy, and I'm a pediatric addiction psychiatrist and medical director of the addiction programs at Children's National Hospital.

As you know, for over 150 years, Children's National has been an integral part of the health care safety net, serving children and families in the Washington DC metropolitan region.

As a top children's hospital in the nation, Children's National is deeply invested in the mental health and well-being of children, youth, and families in the District of Columbia.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on three of the pieces of cannabis legislation that have been introduced.

Across Children's National Hospital, we are caring for an increasing number of children and adolescents affected by cannabis.

We see these patients throughout our healthcare system, from the emergency department to our inpatient medical and psychiatric units, and our outpatient addiction program.

We care for young children with accidental cannabis ingestions, adolescents with cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome and cannabis use disorder, and youth presenting with psychosis, suicidal ideation, and other serious mental health concerns associated with cannabis use.

Our experience reflects a national trend.

Cannabis is now the most commonly used substance by US adolescents are passing tobacco.

The 2023 Youth Risk Behavior Survey found that nearly 18% of high school kids reported recent cannabis use.

And among youth who use cannabis, one in five meet criteria for cannabis use disorder, and our belief is that that number is rising.

A 2024 analysis of over 100,000 substance use-related visits to U.S.

children's hospitals found that cannabis accounted for 52% of all substance-related visits among youth.

And this is a significant increase from previous years, and uh cannabis accounted for the biggest growth among any substances between 2016 to 2021.

At the same time, pediatric cannabis exposure reported to US poison centers increased by 1300%.

And cannabis legalization has been associated with a four-fold increase in pediatric poisoning.

It is through this frontline clinical experience and the weight of the published evidence that I offer my perspective on the legislation before you today, and you will also hear from my colleagues, Dr.

Thakur, who's a pediatric primary care provider, and Dr.

Rollin, who's a pediatric emergency medicine provider.

On the bill, the medical cannabis retailer craft preparation endorsement act of 2025.

Children's National opposes this bill because it would expand the retail production of cannabis edibles, topicals, and pre-rolls at retail locations without adding sufficient safeguards to protect children and adolescents.

If the council chooses to advance this bill, we strongly recommend the following amendments consistent with the American College of Medical Toxicology's 2025 position statement on preventing cannabis exposure in children.

That's requiring child-resistant packaging to meet the Poison Prevention Act, opaque packaging that does not resemble commercial snacks, candies, or beverages, and prohibit product shapes, colors are designed that are appealing to children, requiring clear label of THC content per serving, and include prominent warning that the product contains THC and the Poison Center Health Line.

Next, the B 26522, the Medical Cannabis Process Improvement Amendment Act of 2025.

Children's National supports this act.

And finally, the cannabis beverage product amendment act of 2026.

Children's National opposes this bill as currently drafted, because it would create an entirely new production pathway for medical cannabis beverages, authorizing manufacturers to produce them under endorsement without establishing the safeguards necessary to protect children.

And cannabis beverages have the potential to be the most dangerous product type for pediatric exposure due to many of the stated reasons before.

And if going through, we recommend the following amendments.

Establishing a maximum THC content per serving per container, consistent again with the American Medical College Medical Toxicology's recommendation of five milligrams per serving and 50 milligrams per package, and requiring similar packaging that we talked about in the previous bill.

Finally, we urge the council to place the health risks to children as the highest priority in considering this legislation.

Children's National remains committed to partner to the Council and the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration to protect the district's youngest residents.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Dr.

Rowland.

Thank you, Chairman Mendelson and the members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today.

My name is Dr.

Alicia Roland.

I'm a pediatric emergency physician at Children's National Hospital.

I'm an assistant professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine, and I'm a National Institute on Drug Abuse funded researcher who studies adolescent substance use.

I'm also a resident of Ward 1.

Every week I care for children and adolescents experiencing cannabis related emergencies.

My testimony today is informed both by my clinical experience and by my research.

I'm here to express my support for B-26-522 and my opposition to B26-259 and B26-654.

I want to begin by telling you about an 18-month-old little girl I cared for in the emergency department just earlier this year.

She'd been healthy that morning, playful, curious toddler, and her parents noticed that she had been acting unusually sleepy that couldn't keep her awake.

When she tried to walk, she would stumble and fall.

And as the day went on, it became harder and harder to wake her up.

By the time that she arrived in our emergency department, she was cold, barely responsive, and her breathing had become dangerously slow.

When a toddler arrives in that condition, we worry about life-threatening illnesses.

She underwent an extensive evaluation, including brain imaging and a spinal tap.

Despite her efforts, her breathing became so slow that we had to place a breathing tube, place her on a ventilator, and move her to our pediatric intensive care unit.

Only later did we discover the cause.

It wasn't meningitis or rare neurological disease.

Rather, she had eaten what appeared to be an ordinary chocolate bar, but instead of plain chocolate, it was actually a cannabis edible.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated event.

Over the past 12 months, our pediatric emergency department at Children's National has cared for at least 15 young children with unintentional cannabis ingestments, nearly 300 adolescents with cannabis-related emergency department visits, and about 50 adolescents with cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome.

We also routinely screen adolescents for substance use in our emergency department, and over the past 15 months, nearly one in two adolescents who screen positive for substance use report cannabis use.

And our experience reflects what is happening across the country.

Between 2017 and 2021, more than 7,000 children under the age of six in the United States were exposed to cannabis edibles, with nearly one in four requiring hospitalization and one in 12 requiring intensive care.

With these numbers and statistics in mind, I am particularly concerned about legislation that expands the variety of cannabis products available, especially products that closely resemble everyday food and beverages.

Children cannot distinguish between cannabis products from ordinary-looking products.

They're simply too young to recognize the danger.

And as the variety of cannabis products expand, so do the opportunities for these preventable exposures.

For this reason, I support B26-522.

This legislation improves protection for children by ensuring a buffer zone requirement applies to all childhood development facilities, helping to reduce children's exposure to cannabis retail locations.

However, B26-259 and B26-654 expand the variety of cannabis products available, including products that closely resemble food and beverages, creating additional opportunities for accidental pediatric exposures and preventable emergency department visits.

As a pediatric emergency physician, I meet families on the worst day of their lives.

And as physicians, we're often the ones who care for children after unintended consequences occur.

I urge the council to place the health and safety of children at the highest priority when considering this legislation.

Thank you for your time and the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Dr.

Rowland.

And Dr.

Sakur.

Who's online?

Yes.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you, Chairman Mendelson and the members of the committee.

My name is Dr.

Ashwarya Hawari Talker, and I'm a pediatrician and adolescent addiction medicine physician at Children's National Hospital.

Also a proud resident of Ward 1.

We support B26522, and we oppose B26259, the Medical Cannabis Retailer Craft Preparation Endorsement Act, as well as oppose B26 654, the Medical Cannabis Beverage Product Amendment Act.

So as a pediatrician, my work centers on youth health prevention and reducing substance use risk.

Current data shows that cannabis use in Washington, DC, particularly exceeds national averages among young people.

Among young adults 18 to 25, nearly 49% in DC report use compared to 37% nationally.

And among adolescents 12 to 17, the rate in DC is 13% compared to 11% nationally.

This trend is especially troubling because the adolescent brain continues to develop until approximately age 25, making it particularly vulnerable to the effects of cannabis exposure.

In the past six months, our adolescent addiction clinic at Children's National has been seeing roughly two new patients each week with cannabis use disorder.

This is an increase from two new patients we saw per month for cannabis use disorder in 2024 to 2025.

The proposed expansion of on-site cannabis preparation is likely to increase the availability of products, particularly edibles and flavored formulations that are more appealing to youth.

I would like to note that even within a regulated system, greater product presence in communities creates an increased risk of diversion, accidental ingestion, and normalization among adolescents.

As cannabis becomes more visible and accessible in adult use, it further lowers perceived risk among young people.

Importantly, this bill does not include limits on THC potency, allowing for continued escalation as businesses compete in the market.

In the absence of THC caps, adolescents are increasingly exposed to high potency cannabis products, even in the medical market, which is contributing to significant downstream mental and physical health consequences.

Outcomes I'm already seeing in the adolescents I care for.

I recently cared for a young adult patient who began using cannabis as a teenager to cope with stress and anxiety.

He obtained cannabis from his mother who had his best intentions in mind and hoped to help him manage his symptoms.

However, five years later, this individual is now experiencing worsening anxiety, difficulty managing everyday stressors, and significant sleep disturbances.

This is not an unexpected.

We have strong scientific evidence that early and chronic cannabis use can exacerbate anxiety and impair coping over time.

What is concerning is that the general public is often unaware of these risks, and the widespread availability and marketing of cannabis products can create the impression that cannabis is safe, low-risk solution for stress and mental health concerns.

I urge the council to carefully consider the downstream effects of these policies and ensure that any expansion is paired with meaningful guardrails to protect and educate our communities.

Similarly, the cannabis-infused beverages raise additional concerns.

These products are easier to consume quickly and often resemble traditional beverages, increasing their appeal to youth and the likelihood of accidental or intentional misuse.

For these reasons, we urge the council to place the health and safety of children at the highest priority when considering this legislation.

Appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony.

We'd be happy to answer any questions you have today.

Thank you.

Listening to the testimony, I certainly can't disagree with anything that you've said.

And Dr.

Secur, I think it was you who said greater product presence in communities creates an increased risk of diversion, accidental ingestion, and so forth.

But I can't help but wonder how much of what you're seeing is a result of what I will call the illegal market.

So in the district, we only have medical cannabis.

That is all that we can regulate.

Um I get it to the first Dr.

Kelly Murphy, you talked about a child who got a chocolate bar in edible to their parent.

That was a legally obtained chocolate bar from here in DC.

What we are seeing is uh it might have been Maryland, because we see patients in Maryland, DC, and Virginia.

But what we're seeing through studies is that decriminalization of marijuana is associated with higher cannabis use in adults and young adults and adults.

And so it's not a question of legal versus black market.

It's actually increasing use and increasing presence in homes.

And in states where there has been true legalization, there's a significant increase in unintentional pediatric edible exposures because they're you're more likely to have brownies, cookies, chocolates in the homes that you wouldn't otherwise have.

They're not something that you get as much in the black market.

I think where I'm going is uh if I can use the metaphor of flood.

I don't know how you stop that flood.

So every every every product in the district does it doesn't come from a medical cannabis dispensary is illegally sold.

Um, we would like to change that.

We would like to be able to regulate that, but that's not the issue for this hearing.

Um I am sure there's somebody who purchases legally through a medical cannabis dispensary, an edible that is um gotten hold of by a child, but I'm sus I suspect that most of what you're seeing.

Uh a very high percentage of what you're seeing is not from the medical cannabis market.

You disagree.

I strongly disagree in the emergency department.

Most pediatric um cannabis exposures are through parent legally purchased products because edible products are legally purchased in the district of Columbia.

That's correct, yes.

And I can also speak to the younger adolescents that we are seeing.

We often ask them where do they get their substances from?

Because as we know, kids don't have access to regular income or money, and that's a screening question for us to talk about stealing, lying, gang involvement, et cetera.

And many of them do tell us that they are able to walk into many dispensaries and not get carded and get access to cannabis.

And others also buy it from adults who walk into the cannabis uh dispensaries and are able to get it for them.

So it's really hard to say what percentage of the products that our kids are using that enters an environment is from retail, uh legal versus um an illegal market.

But we do know that there it's it's hard to put a number, but we can't say it's big or small, but it definitely exists.

You two are saying two different things.

You're saying, Dr.

Rowland, you're saying that most of it's coming from parents who are purchasing it legally.

For young children under the age of six with accidental exposure, it's typically so that's what we see often in the emerging department, separate from the adolescents, but young children under the age of six with accidental exposure, those are usually from edible products that were legally purchased by their parents.

Okay.

And I'm in the outpatient side.

I see kids who struggle with addiction to cannabis and other drugs.

And this is the experience of those kids that I'm sharing, which is very different from the emergency room.

Okay, and you mentioned to go into a dispensary, but I'm guessing it's probably not a licensed medical dispensary.

It's hard to say.

I I mean, I asked them why do they think they got away with that?

They some of them look like adults, they're still in high school and they haven't been carded, and they just shrug their shoulders.

Yeah, but you've got to have a medical card to be able to access uh a medical dispensary.

Theoretically.

Theoretically, I believe that's that that's that is the distinction between what is legislated and what is happening on the ground.

We had a challenge in the city with a lot of illegal dispensaries.

And so somebody walks in.

So not all dispensaries are the same.

Yeah, that's true.

Um we have potency limits in the law, and we also have child proof packaging requirements that are based on federal regulations.

If your testimony suggests that's not good enough.

So we we also need to be studying about the potency limits more.

Historically, all the science that was done on high potency products set the cap for THC at 10% in the products, and what we see now is significantly higher in across all markets for cannabis.

So if you have to uh think about that, plus the American uh medical toxicology association's recent 2025 recommendations on maximum uh milligrams and percentage of DHC in products need to be taken into consideration.

So is that last part again?

So uh the American Medical Toxicology Association, they had an expert group come together to talk about what is the maximum uh amount of THC that should be in um placed per package, so that even with accidental consumption, they cause less harm to kids.

So that's what we listed in our testimony as being part of the bill.

If an amendment of this was to go through.

What about the child proof packaging?

So one of you testified.

Yes, I did.

I think if it's there, it's good.

I think we need just to make sure that it's strengthened and it's uh, you know, just wanted to reiterate that that's very important.

Just add on to that diversion piece.

Um also without any um any limits on how much someone can purchase and how much they can have, it increases the amount of product presence in the market, even if originally it was uh was purchased from a medical market.

Um we also um, like Dr.

Kellyworth you said, I just want to echo that there is um no good evidence about the dose of THC and what we're seeing even at the medical dispensary market is very, very high doses and potency of THC products.

Give me a second.

I don't think I have any other questions for you.

Your testimony is helpful.

I appreciate it.

So thank you.

The two of you in person and the one of you online.

Um I'm gonna move now.

So you all excuse, thank you.

Uh I'm gonna move now to uh the government.

And that's Fred Moussali, Director of the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration.

When you're ready, I suspect three of these bills came from you.

Uh yes.

Uh good afternoon, Chair Amin Meldelson, members of the council staff, and members of the public.

My name is Fred V.

Sally, and I am the director of the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration.

I would like to thank the committee for holding a hearing on these important pieces of legislation.

The executive and the council's collaborative efforts on medical cannabis legislation have allowed the district's medical cannabis program to expand, increase sales, and create new businesses.

However, additional legislative changes are needed to continue the program's positive momentum.

Our agency looks forward to working collaboratively with the council on these four medical cannabis bills to make changes that improve the current program for businesses, advisory neighborhood commissions, and members of the public.

I'm here to testify and support a Bill 26-259, the Medical Cannabis Retailer Craft Preparation Endorsement Act of 2025, Bill 26654, the Medical Cannabis Beverage Product Amendment Act of 2026, and Bill 26346, the Medical Cannabis Conditional Licensure Extension Amendment Act of 2025.

While our agency supports some of the provisions contained in Bill 26-552, the medical cannabis process improvement amendment act of 2025, it does not support this legislation in its current form.

First, I would like to thank the mayor for transmitting the medical cannabis craft preparation beverage and conditional license bills to the council that makes several important changes to the district's medical cannabis program.

Our agency supports the craft preparation bill, which was drafted in collaboration with the Department of Buildings Office of Zoning Administration as introduced.

The craft preparation bill will help to expand the variety of medical cannabis products offered to patients and caregivers by allowing medical cannabis retailers to obtain an endorsement to make such products as pre-rolls, baked goods, chocolates, lotions, and soaps.

Eligible medical cannabis products made by the retailer would be required to be tested by a licensed testing laboratory and could not be sold to other medical cannabis businesses.

Our agency has one additional recommendation to the beverage bill, which would be to provide medical cannabis manufacturers with the option to partner with a brewery, winery, or distillery to make medical cannabis beverages for sale only to registered patients at medical cannabis dispensaries.

The agency's recommendation is to amend the legislation to also allow medical cannabis manufacturers to partner with brew pubs, wine pubs, and distillery pubs to make a medical cannabis beverage for sale at medical cannabis dispensaries.

Our agency also has one additional recommendation to the conditional license bill that would extend the period of time that conditional licenses are valid for medical cannabis businesses from two years to three years.

Similar temporary legislation is currently in effect until August 13th, 2026.

The agency's recommendation is that the current statutory requirements to apply to APCA to convert a conditional medical cannabis license to a permanent license be amended to allow the applicant to submit a zoning certificate instead of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed location.

This change balances requiring conditional license applicants to obtain a permitted location within three years with potential construction delays that preclude the applicant from obtaining a certificate of occupancy from the Department of Buildings prior to the conditional license expiring.

With regard to the process improvement bill, our agency agrees that it is both important and necessary to make changes to the current protest process for medical cannabis business applicants.

Along these lines, our agency supports provisions in the bill that would allow new, renewal, and transfer to new location internet retailer licenses to be protested with parties withstanding.

And two, add peace order and quiet as a basis for protesting a medical cannabis retailer or internet retailer license.

These two changes are consistent with the feedback that the agency has received from advisory neighborhood commissions and the public that the medical cannabis protest process should be made more consistent with the alcohol licensing protest process.

Our agency does not support those provisions in the bill that would one prohibit medical cannabis retailers and internet retailers from locating within 300 or 400 feet of a child development facility, depending upon the date that their application was filed, and two, add a new protest ground of the inability of existing law regulations to prevent proximity or undue exposure to children.

Both of these proposed provisions would make the medical cannabis protest process less consistent with the alcohol licensing protest process and would be difficult to implement or enforce.

Of the new child development facility distance program of note, the new child development facility distance prohibition would apply retroactively and unlike the district's alcohol law would not have an exception where the child development facility is on property zone commercial.

While our agency supports expanding the grounds that a medical cannabis retailer, internet retailer can be protested, the proposed protest ground of the inability of existing laws or regulations to prevent proximity or undue exposure to children is legally problematic due to vagueness and does not adequately inform applicants and the public what the standard is.

A better solution would be to expand the protest grounds to include the effect of the location's proximity to schools, daycare centers, and recreation centers as grounds for filing a protest.

Our agency has alternative language to the council wish to further expand the grounds for protesting a medical cannabis retailer or internet retailer license.

In addition to the four bills above, our agency would like to highlight three legislative items that warrant the committee's legislative consideration.

First, the change increasing the distance prohibition from 300 feet to 400 feet between medical cannabis retailers and internet retailers and schools and recreation or centers contained in the Streetery Program Endorsement Extension and Medical Cannabis Clarification Temporary Amendment Act of 2025 is set to expire on July 24th, 2026.

Our agency requests that the council adopt this change on a permanent basis and consider emergency legislation on this issue prior to council recess.

Second, the continued growth of the district's medical cannabis program is heavily tied to strong enforcement against the illegal cannabis market.

To maintain strong enforcement, APCA is requesting that the language set forth in the unlicensed establishment enforcement clarification temporary amendment act of 2025, which was also adopted by the council as an emergency measure be adopted by the council on a permanent basis.

Making this language permanent will help to ensure that cannabis is sold and distributed through safe and regulated channels and protect the district's legal medical cannabis market from competition by the legal market.

Third, current law provides little guidance on whether and to what extent a medical cannabis retailer or internet retailer may sell non-cannabis products.

Our agency is requesting the statutory authority to fill this void and provide clarity to medical cannabis retailers and internet retailers regarding the types of non-cannabis products that they can sell.

APCA has legislative language on this issue that can be provided to the committee.

Thank you for allowing me to speak on these important pieces of legislation.

I'm available to respond to the committee's questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Musale.

So if you have legislative language, share it.

Absolutely.

We'll do it and um you mentioned that the provision in the Streetery program needs to be renewed on an emergency basis prior to recess.

That is correct.

That uh currently there's temporary legislation in effect that expires in August.

August 13th, yes.

So we would need to renew that as well.

That is correct.

While we're considering this legislation, that would be the hope.

Um so I have some other questions.

Um, regarding Bill 26-259, the medical cannabis retailer craft preparation endorsement.

So my sense from your testimony is nice to have.

Is it needed to have?

So let me kind of get through the background of this.

I think it's helpful.

So we have very limited areas in the district that medical cannabis manufacturing can take place.

We're limited to these PDR industrial zones.

Um when we looked at areas where manufacturing could go, we worked with the Department of Buildings, the zone, you know, the Office of Zoning Administrator.

Um, they indicated that they would only be able willing, which obviously zoning is through them, so they had to agree on the language to allow additional manufacturing where in coordination with a retailer, right?

It's similar on the alcohol side to like that the brew pub, which you may have heard of brew pubs.

Um, that's kind of the similar concept on the alcohol side.

When you look at how many medical cannabis manufacturers that we currently have that are not tied to a cultivation center, you can count them on one hand, right?

There's only three or four of them.

So it's very difficult for a manufacturer to find a location.

Um the relevance here is we want to make sure as we have a program that all the retailers aren't selling the exact same products.

We have a limited amount of manufacturers making products.

So the thought here was that you could have a retailer have a um them have the ability to make certain products.

Um obviously did not want in these um areas or zones that are not PDR zones, retailers making products that you know have butane or any type of refrigeration or anything that should be limited to a PDR zone.

Um all the products would have to be tested, right?

They all have to be tested.

The other key thing to address um the main some of the manufacturer concerns you heard today is not letting them sell their products to other retailers because if you allow that, then that would potentially really impact manufacturers in the supply chain.

Um but when you look at the market, um the one of the reasons it's being proposed is to continue to expand the variety of products.

So we have very, like I said, you can count the number of manufacturers not associated with the cultivation center on one hand.

So that was kind of you know part of the issue too, and take into account that there's limited areas that you can put a manufacturing license in the district, so still focusing on bill twenty-six-259, the uh craft retailer craft preparation endorsement.

What do you anticipate that the fee will be for a craft preparation endorsement?

Uh that is in the bill.

Let me let me pull it up here real quick.

It is in the bill.

I believe so.

Let me verify that.

Yeah, I stand corrected.

I don't see that.

We're happy to talk to the committee about that.

That's something we can get back to the committee on.

All right, so get back to us on that.

The bill restricts the holder of a craft preparation endorsement from devoting.

More than 20% of the gross floor area of its licensed premises to the preparation of medical cannabis products.

How did you arrive at the 20% threshold?

That was language insisted on by the Office of the Zoning Administrator working with the Department of Buildings, as is all this language was.

I think the intent there was, as they look at it from a zoning perspective, is that the primary aspect of the business is for retail use, and that the manufacturing of products is a secondary use and not the primary use of the business.

And I misspoke in my question.

It's no more than 20%.

Right, no more than 20% of the gross floor area.

Right.

I'm looking at it right here.

It's line 59 of the bill.

So the idea was that it would be a secondary business.

Correct.

That would be a secondary use of the business, correct?

I'm going to turn to Bill 26-54.

How would this bill is drafted work in practice?

For instance, how would a class A or B manufacturer receive cannabis or THC from a licensed cannabis manufacturer?

How would they produce the beverage?

How would they deliver the beverages back to the licensed cannabis manufacturer?

Sure.

So how this would work in practice is a medical cannabis manufacturer would partner with, work out an agreement with a medical the alcohol manufacturer A or B.

Let's just go with a brewery.

So they would work with the brewery.

The cannabis would be provided by the medical cannabis manufacturer.

Essentially, what they are working with the medical cannabis manufacturer is they're basically contracting for canning and bottling services, right?

That's really the reason that they're doing that.

They have the equipment, the space to make the beverage.

The beverage goes back to the medical cannabis manufacturer.

Cannot be sold to anybody but registered patients.

Only the medical cannabis manufacturer would be able to sell the product.

But they would provide the THC to the alcohol manufacturer.

And how do you think this legislation will benefit the licensed medical cannabis manufacturers?

Sure.

So I think it's helpful to talk about why where this legislation comes from.

So you have medical cannabis manufacturers that are interested in making beverages.

Beverages are currently legal.

So as you heard from the testimony today, while we don't have any beverages currently, the first medical cannabis beverage is expected to come in the next 30, 60 days, right?

I think we heard that today.

So it allows those medical cannabis manufacturers that don't have the equipment, don't have the space, don't have the room, don't have the expertise, to partner with a brewery who does have the expertise in terms of canning and bottling beverages to make a beverage.

One of the other reasons, just by way of background, how we got here were some of the medical cannabis manufacturers in terms of looking at making beverages.

They were looking at having beverages made without THC.

In other states making that making those beverages in other states without THC, shipping them into the district, and then trying to get the THC into the container when it came back to the district from out of state.

It seemed to make much more sense looking at this to actually do the whole process here in the district instead of having outsourcing business to other states and trying to bring stuff into the district.

On the grounds that, quote, it shifts potential cannabis manufacturing revenue from licensed cannabis manufacturers to alcohol producers, unquote.

What's your reaction?

Yeah, I think what you've heard, which I think is really important to clarify, is and that's even in some of the testimony related to that, is this is 100% optional.

So in some of the testimony that you looked at, it later says that if you're going to allow this, make sure that the those that choose not to use an alcohol manufacturer have the same rules and the same circumstances apply, which is 100% the case.

This is completely optional.

If I do not want to do anything with a medical with an alcohol brewery, I don't have to.

I can do the whole process myself.

It's just that some medical cannabis manufacturers want to partner with a brewery because they don't have the space, they don't have the equipment, they don't have the resources, they don't have the know-how.

If you look at other states, a number of um breweries have been making, you know, cannabis beverages in other states.

Um, and that's how we kind of knew that this this was a model that would work by willing them partner.

I think the other key thing here is the medical cannabis manufacturer, they're the only ones who can sell.

It can only be sold to medical cannabis dispensaries.

All they're really doing here is they're contracting for bottling and production services.

That's what they're doing.

But the key thing is it's optional, it's not required.

I think that's the main the main point.

For alcoholic beverage producers, the bill establishes a $500 annual fee for a medical cannabis beverage production endorsement.

Why was the fee set so low when medical cannabis license fees are much higher?

Sure.

Um, one our agency's never opposed to higher fees.

So if you want to raise it, that's fine.

But um, the reason why is that the alcohol manufacturer, they're not actually selling anything.

They're not selling anything to restaurants or grocery stores, as I think I heard in one testimony.

All they're doing is providing bottling and production services for the medical cannabis manufacturer.

They're not actually able to sell these products.

They're just providing bottling and canning services.

Um, but if you want to increase the fee slightly, I'm I have no issue with that.

So given the uh what do I say, limited scope of work, that's why you thought $500.

You're correct.

That is exactly correct.

The legislation creates a medical cannabinoids import endorsement.

What specifically is this endorsement needed for?

Sure.

So you have um some cannabinoids like CBN, CBG, um, by way of example, that don't contain THC, um, that are believed to, I'm not gonna, you know, say in terms of scientifically proven, but are believed to have some medical benefits in terms of sleep, pain, what have you.

And so those cannabinoids are not currently made in the district and are very hard to extract and make and extract those cannabinoids, that there's no one in the district that could do that.

But they um are purported to have medical benefits to the patient.

So this allows the medical cannabis manufacturer or um cultivation center to bring in these cannabinoids to make their products.

I mean, and that's the key thing is these these are being used to help make the product.

The product has to be tested by a testing lab.

Um they can't bring in products containing THC, can't do that.

Um, but it allows them to bring in these products to help make um a product to be sold to patients that's tested.

With regard to Bill 26-522, uh the bill uh would prohibit cannabis licensees from locating within 400 feet of a child development facility.

Does the district law currently or your regulations currently prohibit alcoholic beverage licenses from locating within 400 feet of a child development facility?

No, we've been hearing a lot about this today.

I'm so happy to get to talk about it.

So the one thing, you know, one of the reasons we're here with this bill, um, which I've continued to hear, um, is that we want to make the alcohol process and the cannabis process more consistent.

And you know what?

When you say that, it makes a lot of sense and it's right.

But then we have things that are introduced that are not even don't do that.

So I think the thing here is one of the reasons we're here today is which you heard is the protest criteria are too limiting.

They're they're not broad enough.

And so you get residents and ANCs, they get frustrated because the law doesn't allow them to protest or they protest on grounds that are in the alcohol law, not realizing that you know the same protest grounds don't work in cannabis.

Um but to answer your question, the answer is no.

Where I think it's helpful is on the alcohol side, the proximity to daycare centers can be um a basis to protest, um, it can be a factor for the board to consider, but it is not an absolute bar to the application.

Does that make sense?

Yes.

So there are over 400 licensed daycare centers in the district.

How would such a prohibition impact the ability of licensees to find compliant commercial properties?

I would significantly narrow that ability.

Um you've got two issues.

You have one, you have the re the bill's currently retroactive, so you'd be um put that aside.

Putting that aside, it would make it much, much harder to locate.

The other issue, too, which I want to highlight, which would make it extremely difficult to implement and enforce.

We use the 400 foot from schools and rec centers.

It's a geographic information system, that's what we use, right?

And so that information is entered into um, you know, by by DC schools in terms of where all the schools are, all the other, you know, other types of schools are all get put in there.

Um these facilities are not in there.

I think the other thing you need to keep in mind is depending on how you do child care daycare center, it's it's gray.

I could be taking care of um whatever, watching for you know, you know, infants, you know, my daycare center.

So, and you know, how did how does that work?

And so the reason I bring that up is if you don't have a system to check and these don't come up on a map and we can't identify them, then you have an applicant that thinks they can apply.

They apply, they enter into a lease, we go through it, then you're going through a protest process, and then somebody identifies this daycare, whatever you want to call it.

Um, and then you have to, you know, stop the process.

So um, as I heard from the ANC and others, you know, you need clear rules, both for applicants, the ANCs, um, and businesses.

But I think the most important point which you've made is we should be trying to get things more consistent between alcohol and cannabis, and daycare centers are not an absolute bar under alcohol.

But our basis for protest.

Um, correct, which which would be fine.

So I'm a little bit over my time, but I just want to finish this test vein of questioning.

Um, I said earlier that the dispensaries are pretty much anonymous given the restrictions on signage.

Am I right?

Uh, for the most part, in most cases, that's 100% correct.

Well, you didn't say 100% of the cases.

Where is it not correct?

I'm just covering my basis because you know, I haven't visited personally visited every dispensary.

But um, to your point, the advertising, the pricing, none of that's there, right?

None of that's permitted.

So you pretty much have the name of the place.

In almost all cases, it's very, you might not even know what is a cannabis dispensary, right?

You may not even know that.

And then the other point I think which was mentioning is in all these places you have a lobby.

So you hear about access to children.

One, you have security.

In a lot of cases, you'd have to get buzzed in.

Then you have to go to a lobby, right?

And there's a lobby, you know, where you get registered and they check your card before you could get through another door where you would actually go in and see the product as a patient.

So I'm over my time.

I don't want this to be very long, but you get complaints with um, what do you what are they called uh package uh stores for ABC?

People loitering in front.

Correct?

That's correct.

And um, I'm just gonna say other visible signs of people at the at the package store.

Do you get complaints like that at all with dispensaries?

No.

I mean, the the thing is uh chairman, they the complaints we get about legal cannabis stores are are very, very limited compared to alcohol establishments, it's it's there's very, very, very few.

Now the unlicensed establishments is a different story.

Correct.

And that's another thing.

I mean, we haven't gotten into that, but I don't want to I'll I'll save that for your second round.

All right, well, yeah, it's kind of hard to talk about laws to deal with law breaking.

Um, I'm gonna turn to my colleague, Councilmember Henderson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, because some of us were watching and might have a meeting, so we're trying to come out at the appropriate time, but when you go over, you know, anyway.

Um, how are you doing, Director?

Good to see you, council member.

Thank you for being here.

Good afternoon.

Um I wasn't planning to start on child development facilities, but since we're talking about it, let's talk about it.

Um I know that the idea is that alcohol and cannabis would be treated the same, but and in fact, in some cases, they are a little bit different.

Um, alcohol, for instance, uh, it could be sold in a variety of different formats, right?

So it could be a convenience store that happens to also have a license from you to sell alcoholic products, but they're also selling chips, toilet paper, and cereal.

True.

True.

Okay.

Um, but I think also one of the other things that has come up has been around um sharings of wall space, and um scents, fumes, etc.

Um, recognizing, yes, you're correct, there is a lobby process, you have to be buzzed in to go back, etc.

But um the smell of cannabis is undeniable.

Would you agree with that?

Um, particularly from a cultivation center, um, but but it's possible.

I mean, depending on you know whether they had cannabis out and open, yes, versus package, yes.

Um, if you had a toddler, would you go to a child care center that was right next to a cannabis dispensary?

Would I can you repeat the question?

If you had a toddler, would you feel comfortable um enrolling your child in a child development facility that was directly next to a cannabis dispensary?

100%.

Why?

Because I think the thing which I think is, you know, lost here.

Just to be clear, I have two kids, so just this to be clear.

So when I look at this really, and keep in mind I've been doing this a while, is the goal is to prevent alcohol, cannabis, whatever from miners, teens, what what have you, right?

We have we've heard testimony today, um, obviously critically important with the unlicensed establishments.

We go in, right?

They're not carding anybody.

They're selling the miners.

I get I've gotten calls from council members, others where kids have um, you know, and it touches me because they can be the same.

You know, my kids are in middle school, right?

And it's middle school kids getting this product, sharing it with other kids, and then, you know, they're like in the emergency room or what we've heard, you know, testimony today, buying from unlicensed established.

Yeah, I think there's a difference between.

Yeah, that's what I'm trying to get at.

So the point is when you got middle school, high school, university, even elementary school, right?

Um, you're trying to prevent the impact on those kids.

Those kids are walking around, okay?

They may have money.

When we're talking about infants, okay, like two-year-old, three-year-old, they're not what I mean, they could be, but I don't know many two-year-olds that are just walking around on by themselves, right?

They're not walking by themselves, but they are in the area, they're in the neighborhoods.

Every chocolate center, well, maybe not on a day like that.

They're all going out for a wall.

They're with adults, but they're traversing their environments and in their particular communities.

I also, and I don't want to necessarily Yeah, no, I mean, I'm just saying, in terms of how these are, and like if I was talking, I would answer your question differently.

If I was talking about an illegal I-71 place or on one, I would give you a different answer.

But the point I'm making is that two-year-old, you know, um.

I think the unfortunate thing for a lot of residents is that while we have started the enforcement on the illegal businesses, they still very much exist, and they are popping up in places either right next to and bringing in terms of undesirable extracurricular activity in close proximity to children.

I agree with you 100%, and that's what we're battling.

We've closed over 113 establishments, but we're still closing places.

And to your point, you know, these places aren't carding.

We see kids coming out of them, and that's why we know we take enforcement.

And I mean, I was just pushed back on the sort of idea that, like, oh, the dispensaries are conspicuous, you don't really know it's a dispensary.

No, I've seen some with bright neon, flashing light.

Like it's undeniable in terms of what they what it is.

Um, and and Mr.

Chairman, you know this, right?

Um, to your testimony, Director Musali, to suggest that we have no idea where these child development facilities are.

They're all licensed, unlike most of the cannabis places, right?

So there's a whole state superintendent of education's office that does the licensing, they have a list, they know where they are.

And so if it's a question of getting it in the GIS system, that's something that we can definitely um talk about.

Um, I want to change um and ask a couple of other questions on some other issues.

So, the medical cannabis process amendment act, so the one that would expand um who has the ability to protest, um, would it also expand the grounds uh for standing?

Um, if a person asserts that the establishment affects peace and order, um do you think that's a little too broad?

Yeah, so I I think here's how I look at it.

So the current protest grounds need to be expanded, they're too narrow, right?

So I think part of why we're here talking about the child development facilities protests, all that, is because people feel disenfranchised when they have something coming into their business that they want to um, you know, they want to be heard about, and then they get dismissed and they feel it's on technical grounds, right?

Because they didn't meet the law.

Right.

And I heard that from Ward Six, from ANCs, from neighbors, whatever.

Um, for me to say the protest grounds are too are too currently too narrow, I wouldn't be saying that unless I've been hearing from tons of ANC commissioners and tons of residents, right?

So they need to be made expanded.

The opposite side of that is that people just put peace or in quiet, right?

And they just put that down.

So what I could say is one of the compromises could be if you decide to go that route, um, is you could have them actually expand upon what that is.

And what I mean by that is I'm gonna give you examples.

So when we talk peaceful and quiet in terms of to me, what that means is you're talking about litter, you're talking about loitering, you're talking about trash, you're talking about noise.

So the point I'm making is you could actually require them instead of just putting those three magic words, is actually put what the issue is.

What about though proximity?

And I don't want to necessarily limit it, but this morning when I was coming in and I was driving down North Capitol Street and past McMillan, and I was like, when we allow for just anybody to protest, we see kind of what happens.

Also though, putting a pin on that to say there's someone who may not live directly in the area, but they own a business that's on the same block, or their kids attend some, you know, something that's like right next door.

Do those folks have standing because you have an interest, an active connection.

Does that make sense?

Oh, 100%.

Okay.

Yeah, I think the thing we're making, I think the important thing is there's two different issues, right?

One is what are the grounds to protest, which you know, like I said, we're saying needs to be expanded.

The other ground is who can file a protest, right?

So those are the those are the really two different issues.

But um right now you have the ANCs and they're they're you know, they're trying to speak for the neighborhood, and you look at the protest grounds, they put down peace or in quiet, because that's what we used to do on the alcohol side, right?

Yeah.

And then it's like you're like, yeah, that's not a protest grounds.

And so when you look at the the other issue too, we're talking about daycare centers.

If a daycare center protests, which they can do on cannabis but not alcohol, what are the criteria they're gonna protest on?

Frankly, I think that there probably are some uh daycare centers who would want to protest on outside.

Right.

So the point I'm making is if you're gonna let if you're gonna let daycare centers protest, which is fine, then you have to make sure there's there's protest factors that actually relate to that.

Does that make sense?

Yep.

Um, are there any concerns uh with expanding uh the grounds for protest and who can has standing would extend the timeline for processing license applications?

No, I I think that because we've got it knocked down on the alcohol side, yeah.

I think um, yeah, I think I think we're good there.

Okay.

I want to ask um really quickly a question about the beverage bill.

Um so, you know, one of the things as we sort of introduce these new products into the system.

I'm curious if ABCA feels comfortable enough that there is a comfortable capacity and supply of testers in our ecosystem for some of these particular products.

Yeah.

So I think the most important thing here is when we talk about these bills legislation, we tech talk to the testing lab and make sure they have capacity to do this, right?

Yeah.

So they've confirmed that or oh yeah, I I've talked to the testing laboratory on a regular basis for a variety of issues and reasons, and they have the capacity to do this.

Is there only one testing lab we've licensed?

There is only one testing lab, but they are not anywhere close to capacity in terms of testing.

Okay.

Um, I know that you said to Chairman Mendelson that the beverage one is only uh, you know, it's 500 only because they're doing the the canning and bottling services, but I'm also uh not new to this medical cannabis issue, and in a year somebody's gonna come to us and ask for on premise is consumption or sale, right?

Well, we have a rider, so um, but the past is a prologue.

We always start with like you're gonna come back and ask for on-premises consumption, or at least I'm assuming some of these um distilleries and breweries will do so.

Yeah, I think that's if if you look at it, we intentionally kept this within the medical cannabis program where um it can if they these beverages can only be sold at medical cannabis retailers.

But to your question, we do on the medical cannabis side have safe use treatment facilities, right?

So you would have um, you know, beverages potentially consumed there.

Okay.

Mr.

Chairman, I just have one other question and then I have a three.

Um, one of the things that um has been raised, uh, as you know, I chair the health committee, so one of the things that has been raised um from uh substance use uh prevention advocates is around um safety caps and packaging, um, particularly we're talking about children, teens, et cetera, right?

Now you're producing a beverage that looks like a Gatorade, but nope, not really a Gatorade, or those types of things.

Um, are those with those safety cap rules and labeling rules being regs?

Yeah, they're they're in the regs.

Um, happy to work with your committee on that.

Obviously, it's supposed to be child resistant.

I mean, I think the other thing which I think came up, you know, is you need to make sure that advertising um is not enticing to children.

Um I don't wanna get too of track, but if you look at the unlicensed illegal market, there's all sorts of products and packaging that are attractive to children, right?

So loops, they put the characters on it.

We got from a we got a complaint from a company that makes chocolates.

I won't get who they are, you know, well-known brand, and they took their brand versus the unlicensed market, and the brands almost looked exactly the same, right?

This is the illegal market, just to be clear.

Yeah.

But um the point I'm making is you you have all these products that are enticing the children, you can't have that, right?

So what is a child-resistant beverage bottle look like or keeping it?

Um, there's actually there's actually a in one of the testimonies, there's actually um pictures of it.

Okay.

So it's in there, but I'm happy to work with your committee.

I I think as you've heard today, it's imperative that we do whatever we can to um keep these products out of the hands of children.

So um, you know, whatever we need to do, you know, happy to work with you know both committees on that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

Appreciate it.

Uh thank you, Councilmember.

Uh so I was nearly done, but I'm gonna come back to it.

I'm still a little bit mystified by this.

Complaints about um the dispensaries.

So uh I heard in the question in that last round about uh one dispensary with lights flashing.

Would that be a legal establishment?

No, that's not allowed in the uh in the in the laws, you can't have flashing lights.

Um, if that yeah, I'm not aware, I'm I'm not aware of what you're talking about.

That's not permitted in the legal market.

So if somebody sent that to us, we would obviously address it, but I'm I'm not aware of that.

I'll go back to what I'd asked earlier.

So the dispensaries are supposed to be pretty much anonymous from the street.

It's just gonna be the name of the dispensary.

No advertising, no signs, signs like uh, you know, with the liquor store where they usually have signs of product.

Um it's just gonna be the name of the establishment.

Yeah, let me let me clarify.

So I I think that everything you said is correct.

I think the one caveat which um council member Henderson kind of noted is that you know, somebody may be creative with their sign name, right?

I think that's the distinction we need to make.

Is some of these signs and names you look at them, you would have no idea that it's cannabis, but somebody may have, you know, a a sign that's maybe more creative.

I think that's all we're talking about.

Now, as I think that came up, you know, we're not, you know, we're not letting you do like cannabis leaves or any, we don't let you put cannabis leaves on anything outside, right?

So we don't let you put cannabis leaves in your name or anything like that.

Um, but I think the one caveat we wanted to make is somebody may get creative in terms of their name.

Give me a second here, I'm trying to.

There was some testimonies that talked uh about um to visibility of some of these establishments.

And I meant to ask the witness where they were talking about and whether a complaint had been filed.

Uh to go back to the question whether you would if you had a preschooler, whether you would enroll them in a preschool um a childcare center next to a dispensary, uh would anybody actually know that it's a dispensary?

Um in some cases they absolutely would not.

Um I mean they only know it if they knew it was a dispensary.

I know that didn't actually make sense, but yeah, no, I mean, in in some cases, they wouldn't know that's correct.

You know, I'm in a little different world because we obviously deal with protests and and folks raising objections to businesses.

Um, but to your point, yeah, there are there are definitely some residents they would have no idea.

I asked you earlier, so there aren't a lot of people hanging out in front, loitering in front.

That is not a complaint we received, that is correct.

And you were asked about smell or odor for dispensary.

Yeah, generally, we don't get any complaints related to that.

Um, the odor issues we get are related more to cultivation centers, and we work with um the district's environmental agency where they come up with odor plans, they require cultivation centers to.

Nobody's talking about um banning cultivation centers from next door to child care centers.

I do I do not receive, yeah, to be clear for the record, I don't receive, I don't receive odor complaints about dispensation.

The law does allow for on premises consumption, as I recall, but aren't there um some requirements around uh odor there?

Yes, so to um to have a safe use treatment facility, you have to have a ventilation system, uh, and there's steps you have to take to make sure that um any smoke or what have you wouldn't be traveling, and there's only a handful of those, just to be clear.

Uh one of the bills extends the uh license, the conditional licenses.

All right, I think I had the impression that it was extending it by two years.

It's one year, it's from two years to three years, and just to be clear, um all we're asking for is to keep in effect on a permanent basis, what the council's already passed on an emergency and temporary basis.

So it's it went on an emergency and temporary basis from two years to three years.

We're asking for the permanent to be three years.

We're not asking to extend it any further than it already is on a temporary and emergency basis.

Well, I was gonna say, why should we keep extending the term of conditional licenses?

But your answer would be no, we're not.

We're not.

We're just asking you to make permanent what what's already been passed on an emergency and temporary.

We're not asking for any more time.

How many conditional licenses are remaining right now?

I do have that.

Let me pull that up, hold on.

And I'm gonna ask you how many are for retailers, for cultivation centers, and for manufacturers.

I got it.

Um, so the breakdown is as follows.

There are currently 313 conditional licenses in total.

Three are for couriers, 64 for cultivation centers, 52 are for manufacturers, 165 are retailers, 27 are internet retailers, and two are testing laboratories.

Shouldn't so the next question I have here is how many of the people holding conditional licenses are currently applying for an approved location?

Shouldn't they all be?

That is correct.

So your answer was yeah, they should all be looking for a location.

They should all be.

That doesn't mean they all are, but they should be.

Um, like I said, we're not asking to extend the time past the three years that's already been passed on an emergency and temporary.

Um we're not asking for any additional time.

We think three years is sufficient, uh and you in the meantime until that three years expires, uh you're not looking to whether they're actually applying for a location.

So we regularly work with people that have applied.

Um if there's not action being taken on applications for a variety of reasons, we have the ability to cancel those.

Um if we request documentation, they don't provide it, we can cancel it.

If we take enforcement action, there's some that have gotten that have been operating illegally and we're going after their conditional license and trying to cancel their conditional license for operating unlicensed.

So we go after conditional licenses that way.

OAG brings those cases, and then we have some that are just for whatever reason qualifications hearing in terms of whether or not they qualify for a license.

And then, like I said, if they if they owe us documentation, we can you know cancel them that way.

So other than the last couple of categories, which was like operating illegally, have you canceled any conditional because they're not really looking?

Um there, I know there are several that are in the process of being canceled.

That is correct.

I don't have the exact number here, but there are some, and then there's others.

Well, I already mentioned the other categories.

So if I'd asked you this question a year ago, how many conditional licenses are there?

It would be higher than 313.

Substantially higher than 313.

Um I can get we can get the committee that information.

We actually, I think if on an annual basis provided that.

So I'd I'd want to look at last year's numbers.

I'm happy to do that.

If the holder of a conditional license cannot find an approved location within the term of the conditional license, what happens?

It expires, it's not good anymore.

And then they're illegal operation.

Or not operating at all, correct.

But just to be clear, I just want to make clear for the record on that.

Nobody should be operating illegally right now.

Nobody has the ability to continue to operate illegally.

I just want to make that point.

Yeah.

Um several witnesses today have asked the council to amend the bills that are before us to increase potency limits from 20 milligrams per serving and 200 milligrams per package to 40 milligrams per serving and 400 milligrams per package.

Now there was some testimony earlier from um the children's hospital about uh dosages being too strong.

What's what's your reaction to this?

Yeah, that's something I'd have to talk to the board and happy to talk to the committee on.

Um where that comes from is the current regulations only let you buy um the higher dose if you have a um health care practitioner recommendation.

So um, you know, that's really the issue is should you should you be allowed to buy the higher dose by self-certifying versus currently having to get a health care practitioner recommendation?

Um, but to take a position on what was proposed today, I'd need to talk to the board, but I'm happy to talk to the committee, work with the committee on it.

Several witnesses asked uh council to codify meaningful collection protections because payments made by retailers to manufacturers, for example, may not always be prompt, and this hurts to manufacturers.

Have you heard from licensees or industry groups about this?

Yeah, we have.

We actually have language on this issue, which we'd be happy to share with the committee.

I think this is something important.

We um I'm smiling because this is a set second or third time you said you have language.

I have a lot of language.

We've we we have a lot of language.

Um, share it.

Happy to share it.

No, this is something I've heard, and it's it's um it's a real issue for some uh manufacturers and cultivation centers.

So I we have something similar already in the alcohol law, and so we can kind of work off that.

Well, that was my next question.

Would you support the council including language in one of these bills that mirrors the protections afforded to alcohol manufacturers and wholesalers?

Yes.

I think you answered this earlier.

How many unlicensed cannabis stores has APCA closed to date?

113.

And how many unlicensed stores do you believe are still operating in the district?

That's a tough question.

Um what I'd say is almost all, there's always exceptions that I may not be aware of, but pretty much almost all of the um brick and mortar stores are gone.

Really, the main issue we have now, and we actually will have a case going to the board on July 8th, is the delivery services.

Those are really the ones I think you heard on from some of the testimony today.

You go online and you find all these delivery services.

One of the challenges for us is they'll list addresses that aren't their real address.

They give you the impression there's an address, but there's no address, it's just a delivery company.

So the challenge is the delivery companies.

We've had some success, but that's when you when you look at some of the products that are enticing the children that are in problematic, you know, you'll you'll see on the on their websites these unlicensed um facilities.

So we've been working with MPD.

Like I said, we've had some success.

We have a really good case that'll go to the board on Wednesday, where they had I think 77, 77 burner um cell phones that they were using and millions of dollars a product, um, that um it was all on the all unlicensed.

So um, you know, we're gonna continue at it, but it's um that's why you see.

I mean, one thing I just want to highlight is you've heard today.

You know, we had medical cannabis sales um continue to go up in terms of where we are.

That's a lot due to enforcement, right?

That doesn't happen without enforcement.

I thought you were gonna say something else, which is a lot of the complaints we're hearing about um product that is attractive to children, uh that uh a lot of this product that's becoming available, that's coming from the diesel legal.

Yeah, so that's a great point.

So the product that we're getting complaints about, like you said, almost all of that is related to the unlicensed market.

What if anything does APCA need legislatively to close remaining unlicensed cannabis stores?

So one of the uh we talked about making sure the school distance stays from 300 to 400 feet, addressing the conditional license.

The other piece we'd like to be done on emergency is there is uh legislation the council did pass on emergency and temporary um that is recently expired.

Um that is critical to our enforcement efforts, and so um we'd like that um that piece to um be put back.

So, mentioned in your testimony, it sure is absolutely.

Uh recently expired or about to expire.

Expired in 26.

Set to expire on July 24th, 2022.

No, it's um let me put my testimony here.

I didn't I don't think I listed the expiration date in the testimony.

Um, but it's in the three things we'd like to see list.

Similar temporary legislation is currently in effect until August 13th, so it's not that.

It's the second one, it's on page six in the middle.

Um's requesting that the language set forth in the unlicensed establishment enforcement clarification temporary amendment act of 2025, which was also adopted by the council on an emergency measure be adopted by the council on a permanent basis.

But I think we it would be helpful if we could have that also included in an emergency.

Yeah, you skipped over the phrase expire on July 24th, 2026.

That's the one above it, that's a different bill.

That's that's the uh school distance issue.

So you know what he's talking about.

Okay, because I don't.

There's yeah, there's okay.

Anyway, go ahead and move on.

I can move on.

Oh, but there's nothing else legislatively.

Uh as part of the enforcement bill, we as I've noticed many times we have language, and we'll we'll get that to the committee.

Okay.

In April, the acting attorney General for the United States, we're not talking about the DC attorney General, issued a final order reclassifying FDA approved cannabis products and state licensed medical cannabis from schedule 1 to schedule three.

What if anything does the council need to do to our medical cannabis statute in light of this rescheduling?

I think just at this point, just monitor and continue to have communications.

So we have had conversations, we've been involved, we're members of Canera, where all the other jurisdictions have either had meetings or um had some communications with the DEA on this.

So I think it's just something to monitor.

We did have staff did have a meeting with DEA, but I don't think we have.

Related is how will this impact medical cannabis licensees in the district who register with the DEA?

Are you aware of how many district-owned cannabis licensees have registered with the DEA?

I know some have.

Some definitely have, but I don't have the exact number.

Have you looked at and will the district's self-certification process hinder licensees' ability to benefit from this rescheduling order?

Uh, it's too early to say.

I think a couple of things.

We're waiting to obviously see what the guidance is from Treasury in terms of what Treasury requires as it relates to the 280E issue.

Um, so I think that's one aspect.

Um, I would say that one of the advantages we do have because I on these calls we hear from other states where we are in much better position is we actually have a medical cannabis license.

There's some states they don't have a medical cannabis license or they just have adult licenses, and so we actually the district's been highlighted of having some advantages compared to other states, because we actually currently have a medical cannabis license, which is one of the criteria.

But on self-certification, it's too early.

Um, we've brought that up in terms of our meeting that we had with the DEA, but um, yeah, it's too early for us to tell if that's going to be.

Yeah, my impression, and I'm almost over my skis here, is that where the feds are is physician prescribed as opposed to self-certification.

And that's correct.

That's correct.

That's a fair statement.

I think if you looked at um what's in the language, it does have that.

So that could be it could be an issue, but it's too early to tell.

Do you have a sense of when we'll have a better sense?

I do not.

The I think I think what I've gotten from the feds is they're gathering information and finding things out.

Um they're not answering a lot of our questions.

I shouldn't chuckle when you say they're not answering your questions.

Uh, one other question.

So Risa Harrow, who might know you know, yes, testified, and she included this in her statement, which I didn't fully understand.

If both measures, what would both measures be?

Uh 26-654 and 26-658, 4.8.

If both measures are enacted, an ABC manufacturer.

Oh, I know one of these is not in the committee here.

That's correct.

Um, if both measures are enacted, an ABC manufacturer could gain access to operations across all three tiers, including restaurants, retail stores, third-party delivery companies, internet retailers, hospitality enterprises, and contract brewing.

Combined with weakened and confusing alcohol conflict of interest and trade practice protections, this expansion could leave the market vulnerable to undue influence by dominant suppliers.

It could also become a pathway for similar expansion into medical cannabis, eventually.

Adult use cannabis, eventually adult use cannabis markets.

The lack of consultation with the DC alcohol wholesalers and cannabis manufacturers further heightens these concerns.

You want me to comment on that?

Sure.

Well, I think she's getting ready next Wednesday in Councilman Bernado's committee is a hearing on uh the hospitality bill.

So I think that's what most of her um testimony is related to the hearing next next Wednesday.

Um I don't understand that she's going to have concerns with that bill.

Um, I don't really see the tie in here.

I mean, we're talking about providing bottling and production services for medical cannabis manufacturer.

She mentions in her testimony, I think grass groceries, restaurants, none of that, none of these products under the beverage bill can be sold in those in those locations.

So I think she's just trying to tying in about, I guess, the overall increased, I guess, um, scope of manufacturers.

When you look at this bill and the hospitality bill that we'll have to hear that the hearing is on next week.

Okay.

Um, let me just check.

Uh, thank you very much.

I have no other questions for you.

Are there a couple of things you said you would get back on?

Yes.

Um, and I know how you I know that you know how to work with our staff, so thank you, Mr.

Mousali.

Thank you for holding this hearing today.

I appreciate it.

This is going to conclude this hearing.

And this has been a hearing on four cannabis related bills that are pending in the council and in the committee as a whole.

The record in this matter, as I said at the beginning, will close at 5 p.m.

on Thursday, July 16th, 2026.

That doesn't mean the end of conversation, but it does mean that the record we file, we will only have to pay attention to that which we receive in the next two weeks.

I again want to thank all of the witnesses who've testified.

The time is 3.25 p.m.

and this hearing is adjourned.