51 NJR 5(2) May 20, 2019 Filed May 2, 2019 HEALTH PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES BRANCH DIVISION of MEDICINAL MARIJUANA Medicinal Mariju
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
51 NJR 5(2) May 20, 2019 Filed May 2, 2019 HEALTH PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES BRANCH DIVISION OF MEDICINAL MARIJUANA Medicinal Marijuana Readoption with Amendments: N.J.A.C. 8:64 Adopted Repeal and New Rule: N.J.A.C. 8:64-5.1 Adopted Repeal: N.J.A.C. 8:64-10.7 Proposed: June 18, 2018, at 50 N.J.R. 1398(a). Adopted: April 26, 2019, by Shereef M. Elnahal, MD, MBA, Commissioner, Department of Health. Filed: April 26, 2019, as R.2019 d.049, with non-substantial changes not requiring additional public notice and comment (see N.J.A.C. 1:30-6.3), and with the proposed amendment at N.J.A.C. 8:64-7.9 not adopted. Authority: N.J.S.A. 24:6I-1 et seq., particularly 24:6I-3, 4, 7, and 16. Effective Dates: April 26, 2019, Readoption; May 20, 2019, Amendments, New Rule, and Repeals. Expiration Date: April 26, 2026. Summary of Public Comments and Agency Responses: The Department received comments from the following: 1. Justin Alpert, Livingston, NJ 2. Rebecca Barnes, Lawrence, NJ 3. Raul Barreiro, Livingston, NJ 4. Chris Beals, President and General Counsel, and Dustin McDonald, Dustin McDonald, Vice President, Government Relations, Weedmaps 5. Kate M. Bell, Esq., Marijuana Policy Project, Washington, DC 6. Mara Brough, Senior Manager of Advocacy, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Woodbridge, NJ 7. Anthony Bennett, Monmouth Junction, NJ 8. Cristina Buccola, Esq., New York, NY 9. Patricia Cancelli, Pennsauken, NJ 10. Aubrey Conway, Parlin, NJ 11. Laurent Crenshaw, Senior Director of Government Affairs, Eaze Solutions Inc., San Francisco, CA 12. Robert Devine, Mount Laurel, NJ 13. Evelyn De-Souza, Linden, NJ 14. Hilary Downing, MAMMA (Mothers Advocating Medical Marijuana for Autism), Whitehouse Station, NJ 15. Nicholas J. Etten, Vice President, Government Affairs, Acreage Holdings, New York, NY 16. Nancy S. Fitterer, President and Chief Executive Officer, Home Care & Hospice Association of NJ, Cranford, NJ 17. Peter Furey, Executive Director, New Jersey Farm Bureau, Trenton, NJ 18. Agustin Garcia, President, Garcorp International, Inc., Miami, FL 19. David Green, East Brunswick, NJ 20. Patrick Haugh, North Brunswick, NJ 2 21. Andrew Holsman, Mount Laurel, NJ 22. Eric Karsh, Point Pleasant Borough, NJ 23. David L Knowlton, Chairman and President, Compassionate Care Foundation, Egg Harbor Township, NJ 24. Jeanne Van Duzer Lang, Chief of Staff, Patients Out of Time, Washington, NJ 25. Gaetano Lardieri, Newark, NJ 26. Charles Latini, American Planning Association — NJ, West Trenton, NJ 27. Scott Ledbetter, Glassboro, NJ 28. Giselle Marmolejos, Elizabeth, NJ 29. Danielle McBride, Voorhees, NJ 30. Deborah Miran, Lutherville, MD 31. Terry Morriken, Morris Plains, NJ 32. Hugh O’Beirne, President, New Jersey Cannabis Industry Association, Trenton, NJ 33. Lisa Parles, Glassboro NJ 34. Shiel Patel, Marlton, NJ 35. John W. Poole, MD, President, Board of Trustees, Medical Society of New Jersey, Lawrenceville, NJ 36. Oleg Rivkin, Ridgewood 37. Teri Roach, Vineland, NJ 38. Peter Rosenfeld, Coalition for Medical Marijuana—New Jersey, Collingswood, NJ 3 39. Jessica Rumer, New Jersey Cannabusiness Association, Westmont, NJ 40. George Schidlovsky, President, CuraleafNJ, Inc. 41. Alan Silber, Esq., Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, Hackensack, NJ 42. Laramie Silber, Patients Out of Time, Washington, NJ 43. Brett Stein, Toms River, NJ 44. David Stetser, Mantua, NJ 45. Michelle Tihanyi, Red Bank, NJ 46. Edward N. Tobias, Esq., East Brunswick, NJ 47. Bharat Vasan, Chief Executive Officer, PAX Labs, Inc., San Francisco, CA 48. Christian Velasquez, Sativa Cross, Dover, NJ 49. Ken Wolski, Coalition for Medical Marijuana — NJ, Trenton, NJ Quoted, summarized, and/or paraphrased below, are the comments and the Department’s responses. The numbers in parentheses following the comments below correspond to the commenter numbers above. General Support 1. COMMENT: A commenter states, “[the] Murphy administration inherited a flawed [medicinal] marijuana program limited by an extremely small number of licensed businesses, leading to some of the highest prices for medical cannabis in the country, as well as severe restrictions on the types of cannabis and cannabis products available to patients. These and other factors, including the obvious hostility toward medical cannabis evinced by the previous administration, contributed towards extremely low participation in the program. [The commenter] commends the New Jersey Department of Health [(Department)] and Governor Murphy for their commitment to improving 4 patient access to the [medicinal] marijuana program and for the steps they have already taken toward that end. [The commenter] supports the regulatory changes being proposed [and the] additional changes suggested in the EO 6 [Report] that will require action by the legislature. [The] proposed [rulemaking is] a step forward in improving New Jersey’s [medicinal] marijuana program.” (5) 2. COMMENT: A commenter “supports the rights of people with [multiple sclerosis (MS)] to work with their healthcare providers to access marijuana for medical purposes in accordance with [State] law, where such use has been approved. The [Guideline Development Subcommittee of the] American Academy of Neurology [published a 2014 report stating] that some forms of marijuana may relieve MS-related symptoms such as … spasticity, pain[,] and urinary frequency. Additionally, individuals living with MS have personally reported that the use of [medicinal] marijuana has lessened many MS symptoms and provided pain relief … The [commenter] applauds New Jersey for moving forward with improving the [medicinal marijuana program]. [Many] of these changes are a start to making the program more accessible and affordable for New Jerseyans living with MS.” (6) 3. COMMENT: A commenter notes the assertion in the proposed rulemaking that it is “designed ‘to realize the goal of expanding patient access [(citation omitted).]’ And many of the [proposed amendments, repeals, and new rule] are extremely pro-patient: N.J.A.C. 8:64-5.1 [would empower] the Commissioner to propose [and/or] adopt debilitating medical conditions … without requiring a lengthy petition process; N.J.A.C. 8:64-7.9 [would allow] ATCs to have satellite locations; the repeal of N.J.A.C. 8:64-10.7 [would enable] ATCs to produce [and/or] dispense multiple strains of [medicinal 5 marijuana] and [would eliminate] the limit on [tetrahydrocannabinol] in [medicinal marijuana] and [medicinal marijuana-containing] products.” (8) 4. COMMENT: A commenter “[applauds] the [State’s open-mindedness] to embrace something that has saved so many[;] was so very excited and almost relieved to know [the State] would be expanding the program for [patients’] ease of access[; is] very proud of this Administration and the steps [toward] progress regarding the [State medicinal marijuana program; and is] excited for the future of the program while the State is still hearing from the ones IN the program, not just politics and businesses.” (10) 5. COMMENT: A commenter “[applauds] the Department’s efforts to liberalize the [rules] regarding [medicinal] marijuana,” and states that many patients and their families “have benefited from New Jersey’s [medicinal] marijuana program.” (16) 6. COMMENT: A commenter states that it is “pleased with the proposed repeal and new rule [at N.J.A.C. 8:64-5.1] and the proposed repeal [of N.J.A.C. 8:64-10.7 because these would] enhance the ability of [ATCs] to more adequately provide medicinal cannabis to appropriate, permitted New [Jerseyans].” The commenter states that the expansion of “the conditions for which medicinal marijuana can be authorized and the elimination of barriers to physicians authorizing such use are long-overdue.” The commenter “[applauds] the change that the Department contemplates. The medicinal marijuana program in New Jersey suffered from unnecessary restrictions that hampered safe access to medical marijuana for all patients in need. The proposed changes go a long way toward changing those restrictions.” (23) 6 7. COMMENT: A commenter states, “[although] cannabis has been legal medically in California and Oregon for over [two] decades (!) it has been very hazardous … to be a cannabis[-consuming patient] in [the State. Therefore, the commenter] was heartened when Governor Murphy issued Executive Order No. 6 …, in which he directed the Department and the Board of Medical Examiners to ‘undertake a review of all aspects of New Jersey’s medical marijuana program, with a focus on ways to expand access to marijuana for medical purposes.’” (24) 8. COMMENT: A commenter “[thanks] the Department … for its work putting together the [proposed rulemaking].” (28) 9. COMMENT: A commenter is “very pleased with the fact that New Jersey is finally expanding its [medicinal marijuana program, which] has been a vital necessity since the program’s inception.” (31) 10. COMMENT: A commenter “[thanks] the Department for the proposed rule changes, which reflect best practices that are drawn from but also improve upon the experiences of other states. [The] regulatory context that will develop from the proposed rule changes will significantly improve the quality [and] increase [the] supply [of medicinal marijuana,] and further ease patient accessibility to New Jersey’s [medicinal] marijuana program. In particular, … the rule changes pertinent to industry architecture will enhance supply chain and market efficiencies, which will benefit patients through an increase in industry participants and result in fruitful competition.” (32)