Ron Strider
Well-Known Member
In six weeks or so, state health officials will announce up to 36 winners from among the 200-plus applicants seeking a permit to grow and process medical marijuana or dispense it in Pennsylvania.
For the winners, it means landing a franchise of sorts – albeit a highly regulated one – in which they get exclusive rights to open a business selling a product in great demand.
For the losers, it means that months of planning, lining up investors and contracting architects, securing property, getting local ordinance approvals and putting together security and business plans will all go up in non-medical smoke.
Then, if the experience of other states' medical marijuana programs holds true, Pennsylvania can count on one more thing: Someone who doesn't get a permit is going to sue either the state or a competing applicant.
"It's a virtual certainty," says Philadelphia-based attorney Steve Schain.
Despite the forecast of looming lawsuits, Mr. Schain, with Hoban Law Group in Philadelphia, and others have praised Pennsylvania's work to date and its efforts to structure a fair, merit-based selection process.
"The state has tried really hard to make it as objective as possible."
That may not matter.
Just this week, the Baltimore Sun reported that an unsuccessful applicant there, Alternative Medicine Maryland, had filed an emergency motion asking a Baltimore Circuit Court judge to block the Maryland Medical Cannabis Commission from issuing final licenses because the commission failed to consider racial diversity in its preliminary license approvals.
This is only the latest legal speed bump for the Maryland medical marijuana program that was legalized in 2013 but has yet to dispense a single gram. Two other groups had sued earlier, saying lower-ranked applicants had been unfairly chosen over them in the interest of geographic diversity.
While there is no central repository of information about states that have been sued over their selection process, news reports across the U.S. illustrate the difficulty of avoiding litigation, in some cases even seeing suits filed by license winners.
Earlier this month, a group of five licensed dispensaries in New York sued that state's Department of Health to block it from registering additional medical marijuana dispensaries and manufacturers, saying the move "will have devastating consequences" on the fledgling industry. New York's medical marijuana program was legalized in July 2014 and has been up and running since January 2016.
Several other state agencies have been sued by losing applicants challenging the selection process, delaying the program's launch in some cases. Some cited undue outside political influence, but more often the suits argued that a lesser qualified applicant was chosen.
Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia now have legalized medical marijuana programs.
Not all have had to deal with subsequent legal action. One in particular stands out: Colorado, which also has legalized adult recreational marijuana use and has no limits on the number of approved licensees.
Pennsylvania, meanwhile, has structured its program more along the lines of New York, limiting the number of licenses while requiring a rigorous and thorough application process. State health officials, who did not respond to a request for comment, have said the program will be in operation in about a year.
Others are less sure.
"There is a very real possibility that there will be litigation," said Downtown attorney Patrick Nightingale, executive director of the Pennsylvania Medical Cannabis Society. "The risk of this slowing down the process is very real and that is something the Department of Health has no control over."
In Pennsylvania's selection process now underway, each application will be scored on a 1,000-point basis, with consideration on objective criteria such as the group's financial background but also on more subjective matters such as community impact. Applicants are scored up to 100 points alone for their diversity plan, a lesson apparently learned from Maryland's experience.
"I don't have any reason to believe that their evaluation process would be anything other than transparent and merit-based, and I also believe the Department of Health knows that the stakes are high," said Mr. Nightingale.
One feature that has been deliberately kept secret is the identity of the selection committee members, other than John J. Collins, director of the department's Office of Medical Marijuana.
"It's done to avoid any appearance of impropriety," said Mr. Nightingale, "but at the same time, circling the wagons will cause people to wonder, 'Wait a second. Is there something inappropriate going on that could affect our application?' "
The state recently named 22 groups who have applied for one of two grower/processor licenses or five dispensary licenses in southwestern Pennsylvania, and their investment so far already is substantial.
Applicants for grower/processor permits have to pay a non-refundable $10,000 fee and another $200,000 fee that will be refunded if their application is unsuccessful. They also must document they have $2 million in capital assets and $500,000 on deposit.
Dispensary applicants pay a $5,000 non-refundable application fee plus a $30,000 fee that is refundable if they are not selected. They also must have $150,000 on deposit.
"It is my hope that when the Department of Health releases the license winners that it allows everyone to walk away feeling like they were given a fair chance and a fair opportunity," said Mr. Nightingale.
"But if someone is a couple of points short and wonder if someone else had a better in with the department, or had a better connection, they may very well be willing to litigate because 'We have too much at stake.' "
News Moderator: Ron Strider 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Lawsuits 'a virtual certainty' as state reviews medical marijuana applications | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Author: Steve Twedt
Contact: Contact Us
Photo Credit: Philadelphia Inquirer
Website: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette | Local, National & World News
For the winners, it means landing a franchise of sorts – albeit a highly regulated one – in which they get exclusive rights to open a business selling a product in great demand.
For the losers, it means that months of planning, lining up investors and contracting architects, securing property, getting local ordinance approvals and putting together security and business plans will all go up in non-medical smoke.
Then, if the experience of other states' medical marijuana programs holds true, Pennsylvania can count on one more thing: Someone who doesn't get a permit is going to sue either the state or a competing applicant.
"It's a virtual certainty," says Philadelphia-based attorney Steve Schain.
Despite the forecast of looming lawsuits, Mr. Schain, with Hoban Law Group in Philadelphia, and others have praised Pennsylvania's work to date and its efforts to structure a fair, merit-based selection process.
"The state has tried really hard to make it as objective as possible."
That may not matter.
Just this week, the Baltimore Sun reported that an unsuccessful applicant there, Alternative Medicine Maryland, had filed an emergency motion asking a Baltimore Circuit Court judge to block the Maryland Medical Cannabis Commission from issuing final licenses because the commission failed to consider racial diversity in its preliminary license approvals.
This is only the latest legal speed bump for the Maryland medical marijuana program that was legalized in 2013 but has yet to dispense a single gram. Two other groups had sued earlier, saying lower-ranked applicants had been unfairly chosen over them in the interest of geographic diversity.
While there is no central repository of information about states that have been sued over their selection process, news reports across the U.S. illustrate the difficulty of avoiding litigation, in some cases even seeing suits filed by license winners.
Earlier this month, a group of five licensed dispensaries in New York sued that state's Department of Health to block it from registering additional medical marijuana dispensaries and manufacturers, saying the move "will have devastating consequences" on the fledgling industry. New York's medical marijuana program was legalized in July 2014 and has been up and running since January 2016.
Several other state agencies have been sued by losing applicants challenging the selection process, delaying the program's launch in some cases. Some cited undue outside political influence, but more often the suits argued that a lesser qualified applicant was chosen.
Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia now have legalized medical marijuana programs.
Not all have had to deal with subsequent legal action. One in particular stands out: Colorado, which also has legalized adult recreational marijuana use and has no limits on the number of approved licensees.
Pennsylvania, meanwhile, has structured its program more along the lines of New York, limiting the number of licenses while requiring a rigorous and thorough application process. State health officials, who did not respond to a request for comment, have said the program will be in operation in about a year.
Others are less sure.
"There is a very real possibility that there will be litigation," said Downtown attorney Patrick Nightingale, executive director of the Pennsylvania Medical Cannabis Society. "The risk of this slowing down the process is very real and that is something the Department of Health has no control over."
In Pennsylvania's selection process now underway, each application will be scored on a 1,000-point basis, with consideration on objective criteria such as the group's financial background but also on more subjective matters such as community impact. Applicants are scored up to 100 points alone for their diversity plan, a lesson apparently learned from Maryland's experience.
"I don't have any reason to believe that their evaluation process would be anything other than transparent and merit-based, and I also believe the Department of Health knows that the stakes are high," said Mr. Nightingale.
One feature that has been deliberately kept secret is the identity of the selection committee members, other than John J. Collins, director of the department's Office of Medical Marijuana.
"It's done to avoid any appearance of impropriety," said Mr. Nightingale, "but at the same time, circling the wagons will cause people to wonder, 'Wait a second. Is there something inappropriate going on that could affect our application?' "
The state recently named 22 groups who have applied for one of two grower/processor licenses or five dispensary licenses in southwestern Pennsylvania, and their investment so far already is substantial.
Applicants for grower/processor permits have to pay a non-refundable $10,000 fee and another $200,000 fee that will be refunded if their application is unsuccessful. They also must document they have $2 million in capital assets and $500,000 on deposit.
Dispensary applicants pay a $5,000 non-refundable application fee plus a $30,000 fee that is refundable if they are not selected. They also must have $150,000 on deposit.
"It is my hope that when the Department of Health releases the license winners that it allows everyone to walk away feeling like they were given a fair chance and a fair opportunity," said Mr. Nightingale.
"But if someone is a couple of points short and wonder if someone else had a better in with the department, or had a better connection, they may very well be willing to litigate because 'We have too much at stake.' "
News Moderator: Ron Strider 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Lawsuits 'a virtual certainty' as state reviews medical marijuana applications | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Author: Steve Twedt
Contact: Contact Us
Photo Credit: Philadelphia Inquirer
Website: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette | Local, National & World News
