|
Chaos
Continues in Nevada’s Marijuana Derby
By Chuck Muth
November 10, 2014
In the 2013 session, the Nevada Legislature approved
Sen. Tick Segerblom’s bill to establish and regulate medical marijuana
dispensaries. It was an historic vote -
and Sen. Segerblom was kind enough to invite my then-13-year-old daughter to
sit right next to him as it passed.
Thanks again, Senator.
Sen. Segerblom’s objective was clearly to make
Nevada THE regulatory model for legal medical marijuana use in the
country. At the time, that bill was
probably the best we could do. Unfortunately,
the law of unintended consequences has kicked in.
In order to get *something* passed, Sen. Segerblom’s
bill included a limit to the number of dispensaries that would be allowed to
operate in Nevada rather than letting the free market work its magic.
And that’s where today’s problems began.
By limiting the number of dispensary licenses that
would be issued, the government made itself the arbiter of who would win and
who would lose in the competition for one of the prized “Golden Tickets.” And what a mess it’s made of the whole thing.
First, the state decided that it would evaluate the
proposed business plans - submitted anonymously for various sections - of the
applicants and issue provisional operating licenses.
For their part, the local city and county jurisdictions
would evaluate the proposed business plans to see if they met local zoning and
other concerns and also issue provisional operating licenses.
What nobody, unbelievably, apparently saw coming is
what would happen if the state OK’d an applicant that was rejected by the local
folks…or vice-versa.
And that’s EXACTLY the problem we now have on
our hands.
For example, the Department of Public and Behavioral
Health (DPBH) determined that of all the applications for dispensaries
submitted to it for Clark County, Trykes Companies was #1. However, the Clark County Commission – which
was given 18 Golden Tickets to award to local dispensary applicants – rejected Trykes.
On the other hand, those same Clark County commissioners
tapped Nevada Medical Marijuana Dispensaries as its #1 pick. But the DPBH rejected that group even though
it’s made up of five medical DOCTORS, one of whom would be on call at
the MEDICAL marijuana dispensary at all times during operating hours.
Yeah, we can’t have THAT at a medical office,
can we?
So the state picks applicant A and the county picks
applicant B.
Who gets the Golden Ticket?
Of equal concern is the whole discombobulated system
the DPBH used to evaluate the submitted dispensary applications.
A number of applicants I have spoken with since last
week have told me they thought the state was going to, essentially, simply
issue a “Qualified” or “Unqualified” rating, provide a provisional state license
to all who met the minimal qualifications for operations, and then the local
authorities would make the final decisions on who would be approved to actually open
for business.
After all, the locals are the ones who not only know
the applicants themselves, but will have to deal with any and all day-to-day
operating problems that might come up.
That didn’t happen.
Instead, the DPBH determined how many dispensary
licenses were available for each local jurisdiction and only issued provisional
licenses for exactly that many operations.
Another unexpected surprise was that the DPBH’s
rating system turned out to not be an all-or-nothing proposition for each of
seven scoring categories as some applicants expected.
For example, in the category of assessing if the
business had sufficient plans for security at the proposed dispensary, 75
points were at stake. Some applicants
were under the impression that if their business plan included sufficient plans
for providing sufficient security that they would receive 75 points. If not, they’d get zero in that category.
Instead, the individual reviewer of the security
plans of each application was given the power to rate the security proposal on
a sliding scale. So one applicant might
receive a score of 42 while another received a score of 57.
Worse, it wasn’t the same reviewer who reviewed each
of the security plans for each applicant.
So one reviewer might have been looking for one thing in the security
plan while another was more interested in something else entirely. In other words, each brought a certain level
of personal bias in each review.
I’m not sure that’s what the Legislature intended.
In any event, the real problem here is that the DPBH
is refusing to release the details of each score assessed to each dispensary
applicant. So those unsuccessful applicants,
who spent thousands and thousands of dollars preparing their applications, have
no idea whatsoever why their applications were rejected or who the evaluators
are who gave them low scores.
That is simply unacceptable.
DPBH needs to release the full details of the scores
it assigned to each application BY CATEGORY, as well as identify the
evaluator who assessed that grade to each category BY CATEGORY.
And not only should those scoring details be
immediately made available to the applicants themselves, they should be made
available to the general public if the applicant signed the “consent to release”
form allowing the DPBH to post the scores on their website.
In addition, not only should the scores of
applicants be made public, the IDENTITY of every applicant should be
made public.
As it is, unless the applicant specifically signed a
“consent to release” form, the names of the applicants to whom the state has
issued licenses remains hidden from Nevada’s citizens!
That is simply not acceptable.
The identities of every applicant who was scored
should be disclosed to the public whether they signed the release form or not.
And by the way, such transparency is not some
radical notion.
In fact, Massachusetts not only rates applications
and posts the scores on its website, it breaks down the scoring by category for
EVERY applicant and identifies them by name.
For example, 1Relief, Inc. scored 6 out of 9
possible points in the Category of “Applicant’s Corporate Background” and 25
out of a possible 65 points in the Category of “Location and Physical
Structure.”
In fact, Massachusetts posts on its website the
entire application that was submitted, as well as a “Scoring Detail Report,” a “Scoring
Narrative” and a “Scoring Summary” so that EVERYONE knows exactly what
is going on – including/especially the public.
There is NO REASON whatsoever for the DPBH to
hide the same such information from Nevada’s citizens.
DPBH’s secrecy on this matter – especially in hiding
the scoring details by category from the applicants themselves – is appalling
and totally unacceptable. This failure
to disclose is now a week old and it is outrageous that the applicants are
still being kept in the dark.
If the Legislature’s intent was to establish a model
regulatory system that would be the envy of the nation, the DPBH has
implemented the exact opposite. Nevada
is on the verge of becoming a national laughingstock when it comes to
transparency in this matter.
Or at least on par with Chicago, as evidenced by
this headline in today’s Chicago Tribune:
Does Nevada really want the reputation of regulating
marijuana “the Chicago way”?
It’s long past time for the Governor and Legislators
to start making some phone calls to DPBH.
In case they don’t know the number, let me help them
out. It’s (775) 684-3487.
Ask for Pam Graber.
She is the Education and Information Officer for Medical Marijuana
Program who has been stonewalling requests for this information. She’ll be
expecting your call.
Did someone forward you this copy of the Cannabis Education Project e-newsletter? Click below to get your own FREE subscription...
 |
No comments:
Post a Comment