Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission awards five integrator licenses
On Tuesday, the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission (AMCC) met, ranked applicants, and voted to award medical cannabis business licenses to five integrated facility applicants. The state authorizes a holder of an integrated facility license to cultivate, process, transport, and dispense medical cannabis all in-house without having to rely on other businesses in the supply chain. Rex Vaughn is the chairman of the AMCC. “First, I thank all of the integrated facility applicants for their diligent efforts throughout this lengthy licensing process,” Vaughn said. “Second, I cannot emphasize strongly enough how much I appreciate the commitment and hard work of each Commissioner as we have navigated through this phase of the program. The result of these efforts has led to the award of licenses to entities who the Commission has determined are well-suited to serve patients through Alabama’s medical cannabis program.” The license awards went to: Trulieve AL, Inc. Sustainable Alabama, LLC Wagon Trail Med-Serv, LLC Flowerwood Medical Cannabis, LLC Specialty Medical Products of Alabama Following this award of licenses, the procedural timelines associated with the post-award licensing process will begin along with the pre-issuance site inspections. AMCC staff will be performing onsite inspections over the next few days. Those applicants awarded a license will have 14 days to submit the appropriate license fee. Any applicant denied a license has 14 days to request an investigative hearing before the Commission for reconsideration of said denial. Since the statute limits the AMCC to a maximum of five integrator licenses that it can give, reversing their decision on a denied applicant would mean taking a license from one of the awardees – a procedure that is fraught with litigation ramifications. Only doctors who have had special medical cannabis training will be allowed to make recommendations for medical cannabis to their patients. Under the rules promulgated by the Alabama Board of Medical Examiners, physicians who want the authorization to make medical cannabis recommendations may begin the certification process to recommend medical cannabis to patients after business licenses have been issued. For a patient to qualify for medical cannabis, the patient must have at least one of the qualifying conditions and be recommended for medical cannabis by a certified physician to purchase any cannabis product. The qualifying conditions are limited to autism spectrum disorder; cancer-related pain or nausea; Crohn’s Disease; depression; epilepsy or conditions causing seizures; HIV/AIDS-related nausea or weight loss; panic disorder; Parkinson’s Disease; persistent nausea; post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); sickle cell anemia; spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis or spinal cord injury; Tourette’s Syndrome; a terminal illness; or conditions causing chronic or intractable pain. No smokable product or raw plant product may be legally sold in the state of Alabama. Food products such as cookies or candies will also not be allowed. The Commission hopes that the first lawful Alabama-grown medical cannabis will be available this spring. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission meets today for integrator license awards
In June, the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission (AMCC) awarded licenses to 21 business entities to kick off Alabama’s legal cannabis industry. Failed applicants turned to the courts. Those June awards, as well as the ones in the August do-over meeting, were all rescinded, and the state is not any closer to having legal medical marijuana than it was six months ago. On Tuesday, the AMCC will try again. The AMCC is scheduled to meet at 1:00 pm in Room 200 at the Alabama State House to issue the integrator awards. The integrator awards allow the possessor of the license to cultivate, process, dispense, and transport medical cannabis. These are the most desired of the six license categories and, thus far, have been the most litigated. The statute limits the number of integrator licenses the AMCC can award to a maximum of five. Thirty-six business entities have applied for those five cannabis integrator awards. On December 1, the AMCC awarded the cultivator, processor, laboratory, and secure transporter awards. To settle ongoing litigation, the scores given by independent evaluators hired by the University of South Alabama (USA) cannot be considered by the commissioners. Instead, the twelve commissioners will rank the 36 applicants from 1 to 36, with 1 being the best and 36 being the worst. The scores will then be averaged, and the top five applicants will receive the integrator awards. Alabama Always LLC sued when they failed to win a license in June, and they have already filed a lawsuit before Tuesday’s meeting. In June, they objected to the scoring that did not rank them among the top five applicants. The AMCC rescinded those awards and agreed not to consider the USA scoring. In the latest lawsuit, Alabama Always alleges that a minority of commissioners and the AMCC staff are biased against them. They want the 1 to 36 rankings discounted and the awards made in up or down majority votes. Any applicant denied a license has a 16-day period to appeal the decision to the Commission. The Commission is hopeful that the licenses can be issued during their next meeting on December 28 and that Alabama’s first legal cannabis crop can be planted in greenhouses and indoor grow facilities in January. That timeline could be further delayed by litigation. One failed processor applicant has already filed a federal lawsuit after not receiving a cannabis processor license. If a court issues a temporary restraining order on issuing the licenses while litigation makes its way through the courts, this process could be substantially delayed. The legislation legalizing medical cannabis was passed in 2021. No smokable product or raw plant material will be legally sold in the state. Patients must receive a recommendation from a doctor to obtain cannabis. Alabamians with a demonstrable medical need will not be able to obtain cannabis products until late March at the earliest. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Alabama Always sues state again over cannabis program
Alabama Always LLC is one of thirty-six applicants for an integrator license from the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission (AMCC). Twice, the Commission has voted to give the coveted integrator licenses to five other business entities, and both times, Alabama Always has sued to block the issuing of the licenses. The AMCC is set to meet on Tuesday to make new license awards after the Commission rescinded all awards in June and August to settle earlier lawsuits. This time, Alabama Always is not waiting to lose a third round of cannabis awards. They have filed a lawsuit in anticipation of not being given one of the licenses limited to a maximum of five by the authorizing statute. The lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County alleges that the AMCC staff and some members of the Commission are biased against Alabama Always. The twelve Commissioners are being asked to rank the thirty-six applicants from 1 to 36, with 1 being the best and 36 being the least qualified. The scores will then be totaled and averaged, with the number closest to 1 being the best. Those top five applicants will then get the licenses. Alabama Always claims that this rule violates state administrative code and allows a minority of commissioners to so devalue their application that Alabama Always cannot win. At least one application must go to a minority-owned group, even if they are not in the top five. “The Rule threatens Alabama Always with irreparable harm,” Alabama Always claimed in their latest lawsuit. “The entry of a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction would preserve the status quo and would not inconvenience the Commission, particularly since no party before the Commission has the right to have its application ranked and voted on in a manner that violates Alabama law. The balance of the equities therefore favors the issuance of a temporary restraining order and an injunction.” Previously, the AMCC contracted with the University of South Alabama (USA), which hired independent marijuana application evaluators to evaluate and score all the applications. Alabama Always did not have a top score in those independent USA scores, so the Commission did not award them a license in either the June or the August awards meeting. They sued, and during court-ordered mediation, the Commission agreed to rescind the earlier awards and not consider the independent evaluators’ scoring. Now, Alabama Always is filing a new suit objecting to the ranking system. The Commission is scheduled to meet tomorrow to make the awards. That timeline could now be in jeopardy if the court agrees to put an injunction or temporary restraining order on the awards in order to have a hearing on Alabama Always’ latest complaint. The Commission has already awarded the cannabis cultivator, processor, secure transporter, dispensary, and state test laboratory licenses. An integrator license allows a business entity to cultivate, process, transport, and dispense its medical cannabis products. One of the failed processor applicants has already filed a separate lawsuit. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
New lawsuit filed against the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission
In May of 2021, the Alabama Legislature passed, and Gov. Kay Ivey signed legislation making medical marijuana legal in the state. It is now 31 months later, and not one Alabamian has legally made the first dollar selling medical cannabis, but a lot of lawyers have been paid for their services. The newest lawsuit challenging the Alabama Cannabis Commission’s awarding of licenses was filed in federal court on Monday. On Friday, the Commission made license awards for cannabis cultivators, processors, state testing laboratories, and secure transporters. Enchanted Green, which was rejected for a processor license on Friday filed the suit. Four business entities were awarded medical cannabis processor licenses. These were: · Organic Harvest Lab, LLC · Coosa Medical Manufacturing · 1819 Labs, LLC · Jasper Development Group Inc. The original statute limits the Commission to a maximum of four processor licenses that it may award. In June the Commission announced that 1819 Labs, LLC; Enchanted Green, LLC; Jasper Development Group Inc.; and Organic Harvest Lab, LLC would get the four processor awards. Those previous awards were later rescinded by the Commission after failed applicants objected to the process and filed suit in Montgomery Circuit Court. Applicants who were denied licenses in June brought lawsuits complaining about the process. To settle those lawsuits, the Commission agreed to rescind the old awards and issue new awards without considering the scoring by the independent evaluators hired by the University of South Alabama. This time, Enchanted Green and Jasper Development tied in rankings compiled by the Commission for the fourth spot. Coosa Medical Manufacturing leapfrogged both of them to get the award. The Commissioners then broke the tie between Enchanted Green and Jasper Development Group by pulling names out of a bowl. The lawsuit claims that after the drawing, the Commissioners voted to award the license to Jasper Development and did not vote on Enchanted Green. Enchanted Green is claiming that their right to due process rights were violated and they asked the court to issue an emergency injunction to stop the AMCC from issuing the licenses. Enchanted Green has already paid $40,000 to the state for the license that was previously awarded and then rescinded. The previous U.S.A. rankings had Enchanted Green in second place. The new Commission rankings had them tied with Jasper Development for fourth place. They also objected to how the drawing was handled and that they were not allowed to inspect the ballots being drawn. “There was no evidence or indication that both applicants’ names were actually contained on pieces of paper in the bowl, that the pieces of paper were folded so the selecting commissioner could not see which one he was choosing, that the pieces of paper were the same size, weight, shape, character, and indistinguishable from one another other than the differing names on them, or that any other parameter(s) of a fair drawing were followed by the Commission and its commissioners,” the lawsuit said. If an injunction is placed on the licensing then it could be well into next year before Alabamians with a demonstrable medical need will be able to obtain legal medical cannabis. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission ratifies agreement
On Monday, the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission (AMCC) voted to ratify an agreement with plaintiffs’ attorneys to allow the AMCC to move forward with presentations from cannabis applicants as part of its new timeline to make license awards in December. Attorney Mark Wilkerson is representing the AMCC. Wilkerson said that after a day of court-ordered mediation, he and AMCC staff have reached a settlement with most of the plaintiffs to allow the AMCC to proceed with new license awards if the commission votes to ratify the agreement. Two major sticking points were addressed in the recent closed-door negotiations between all the attorneys. The first issue was the ten-megabyte limit on marijuana application size. The AMCC provided flexibility to help applicants work around the limit – but that information was not distributed, so some applicants submitted applications that were far smaller than what they would have preferred – or did not apply at all because they could not figure out how to downsize their application to ten megabytes without leaving out vital information. In the agreement, there is no limit on the application sizes, and applicants were allowed to submit material initially left out of their applications. The second sticking point was the scoring. The independent application evaluators hired by the University of South Alabama graded the applications, assigning them a numerical score and ranking them from first to worst based on that scoring. In the settlement, commissioners cannot consider any South Alabama scores when they make their awards. Any of the lawsuits over the scoring or the file size limit were dismissed with prejudice by the court in exchange for agreeing to those two final points. The Commission voted unanimously to ratify the agreement, meaning that the restraining order was lifted by the court. The Commission then began hearing presentations from applicants seeking cultivator licenses and the applicants seeking the marijuana testing laboratory license. Chey Garrigan is the founder and President of the Alabama Cannabis Industry Association (ACIA). “We are happy that the Commission ratified the settlement,” said Garrigan. “This was the only way that we could move forward with issuing the licenses.” “We were pleased with all of the presentations and look forward to working with all of the licensees in the future,” Garrigan added. The Commission willreturnk Tuesday to hear presentations from the secure transporter and processor applicants. On Wednesday, the Commission will listen to presentations from the dispensary Applicants. The Commission is expected to meet on December 1 to make those awards. Next week, the Commission will meet to consider applications from the thirty applicants vying for the integrated facility license. The integrator license allows a business entity to grow, process, transport, and dispense medical cannabis. The Commission can give a maximum of five integrated licenses – thirty applications for vertically integrated licenses were turned in. The Commission will meet on December 12 to award licenses to the integrators. AMCC Executive Director John McMillan has said he hopes that Alabamians will be able to purchase Alabama-grown medical cannabis products as early as March. All of the awards made by the AMCC in the June and August meetings have already been rescinded as part of the negotiations to end the litigation. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Alabama medical cannabis licensing process reset: All 90 applicants back in the running
Alander Rocha, Alabama Reflector All 90 applicants for commercial medical cannabis licenses are back in the running after the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission (AMCC) Thursday reset the license process. The AMCC rescinded all awarded licenses and denials from an Aug. 10 meeting, setting the stage for a third round of license grants under rules adopted at a commission meeting on Oct. 12. “We decided to start all over as far as the award,” said Rex Vaughn, the chair of the AMCC, after the meeting. “It doesn’t matter if [uncontested in court] or not, they’ll all be taken into consideration after the presentations. The new procedures will allow commissioners to use the previous scores to decide on awards, but Vaughn, speaking from a prepared statement during the meeting Thursday, repeatedly stated the commissioners had full discretion “when evaluating the suitability of all 90 applicants.” The new rules also give applicants an opportunity to contest deficiencies identified in their application and their score results. Presentations will be open to the public. Applicants can also respond to preliminary pass/fail and submit application material that were not previously filed due to the file size limitation. Presentation Schedule: Nov. 27 – Cultivator and State Testing Laboratory Applicants Nov. 28 – Secure Transporter and Processor Applicants Nov. 29 – Dispensary Applicants Dec. 4 – 8 – Integrated Facility Applicants Will Somerville, an attorney representing Alabama Always, a company that has sued the commission after being denied licenses in previous rounds, sent a letter to the commission Wednesday urging it to throw out the scores provided by the University of South Alabama earlier this year. “If the scores remain, or if they are considered in any way, the scores will be used by applicants who are not awarded a license to attack the award winners,” Somerville wrote. “The reality is that this process will, regrettably, be subject to unending litigation if the Commission continues to use the scores.” After the Thursday meeting, Vaughn said that he felt confident that the licensing process is in better shape now that issues have been addressed. Litigation, he said, will be part of the commission’s work. “Litigation will be ongoing. We know that. That’s just going to be part of our lives on the commission for the foreseeable future,” Vaughn said. Vaughn also addressed how the commission will conduct site inspections, a point of contention with companies that have argued in court that the AMCC did not inspect sites before awarding licenses. Under state law, inspections must be completed before licenses are issued, but the commission is not required to inspect them before. Vaughn said that inspections will occur between the time licenses are awarded and when they are issued, about a month’s time. “We have inspectors lined up, investigators ready to do their work, but we have to get to the point of issuing the license,” he said. The commission will begin accepting public comments for or against particular applicants on Friday. Comments must be made electronically through the AMCC website by Nov. 26. Antoine Mordican, CEO of Native Black Cultivation, a hemp company that wants to move into medical cannabis cultivation, said that he’s happy to learn the direction the commission is going in. The commission should have the final say on how they award the licenses, not a third-party evaluator. “For them to be able to pull everything back and to be able to look at everything again — even with the potential of them not considering the license —because ultimately the commission has the last final say, in which that should always have been the case,” Mordican said. Aretha Dix, a former Alabama Medical Cannabis Study Commission member who was denied a dispensary license, said she was excited to show the commission “what she stands for.” “I feel like it’s now fair. It’s officially fair,” she said. “I think it’s how it should have been initially, but I’m excited that we get a chance to say ‘Hey, this is who we are.’” She said that she’s been patient through the process, and she understands that before patients can have something in place, the process had to be ironed out first. But she didn’t expect her application to be scored as it was. “I knew my intentions. I came in with honesty and transparency. Most importantly, with the desire to really make a difference and make a change for the citizens of the state,” she said. Alabama Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Follow Alabama Reflector on Facebook and Twitter.
Cannabis licenses might be issued in coming weeks
There is currently a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission (AMCC) issuing medical cannabis licenses. However, that could change in the coming days for some license categories. On Wednesday, Montgomery Circuit Judge James Anderson heard arguments from attorneys for both the AMCC and the plaintiffs suing the Commission over cannabis license awards made in August. The state is issuing six categories of medical marijuana licenses: grower or cultivator (the term is used synonymously by parties involved), processor, transporter, laboratory, dispensary, and integrated facility. An integrator can grow, process, transport, and dispense cannabis. Applicants who were denied permits for processor, dispensary, and integrator have all filed suit against the AMCC, arguing, for various reasons, that their application was wrongfully denied and the Commission violated the state open meetings law in its August awards meeting. Those lawsuits have all been consolidated into one case challenging those award results. Anderson placed a temporary restraining order on the AMCC issuing any licenses in August and a stay on further AMCC action while the court considers the plaintiffs’ arguments. Under the AMCC’s current proposal before the court, the Commission will rescind the license awards for integrator, dispensary, and processor at its October 26 meeting. Meanwhile, the Commission would be free to issue the August awards for growers, transporters, and laboratories. Alabama Today asked AMCC Executive Director John McMillan if there was a possibility that some of those growers could build their facility, plant their marijuana crop, harvest that first crop, and then have nowhere to legally process it and no market for it to sell it as a grower’s license does not allow the grower to sell it to the public. “Hypothetically,” McMillan answered. Alabama Always, the original plaintiff in this case, was denied an integrator permit in the June and August awards meetings. Their attorney argued that the most important criteria for the award should have been how fast the applicant could get up and running with their first crop. Alabama Always began building a $7 million building a year ago, before the applications were even turned in. “I know since that some people have said that nobody told Alabama Always to build a structure, but they did,” the attorney stated. “In the fall of 2022, my client already began construction.” Alabama Always claims they began construction early to meet the AMCC requirement that an applicant must be able to start operating within 60 days of being issued a license. “They don’t give you a single point (in the scoring) for being able to commence growing within 60 days,” the plaintiffs’ attorney argued. “Some of these plaintiffs’ attorneys don’t know what they’re talking about,” McMillan told Alabama Today. “Getting started within 60 days is not that difficult. You could start a crop in here,” referring to the courtroom, by bringing in grow lights, irrigation, drainage, growing medium, and other greenhouse materials. McMillan said if the court allows, the Commission could issue the grower, transporter, and laboratory licenses as early as November. McMillan cautioned, “The Commission could do whatever it wants to do.” On the advice of counsel, McMillan said he expects the Commission to rescind the awards for integrator, processor, and dispensary at its October 26 meeting. Judge Anderson gave the applicants who were denied the grower, transporter, or laboratory licenses until October 26 to file a motion asking to extend the TRO on those three licenses beyond that date. Anderson said, “If they want to file something before the 26th, we will deal with it. “ The most desired license is the integrated facility license, but the statute limits the number to a maximum of five licenses statewide. Approximately thirty business entities applied for that license, and it seems like most of the two dozen that were denied have hired an attorney and joined the consolidated case. Attorney Bill Espy announced that he had a client joining the case on Wednesday. Anderson said the problem is the legislature did not allow enough licenses in the original statute. “The legislature could fix this,” Anderson said. “They don’t want us legislating from the bench.” The statute allowed the AMCC to award as many as twelve grower licenses. Only twelve applied, and of those, only seven were granted licenses. Alabama Today spoke with Antoine Mordican at Native Black Cultivation, who was denied a grower permit. Mordican said that, at this time, he is not interested in filing litigation. Mordican said that he is working to address the issues in his application that the AMCC said were deficient and that he hopes to be awarded a license when the AMC makes a second round of grower awards. “They are not following the statute,” Mordican, who is Black, said. “The statute requires that 25% of the licenses be awarded to minorities. Of the seven, only one is minority owned.” One of the roughly 20 plaintiffs’ attorneys objected to the growers being issued licenses, arguing that it was unfair to the five integrators because they could potentially lose market share. Several plaintiffs’ attorneys asked the court to bar the Commission from considering the scoring prepared by the University of South Alabama when considering the applications for integrator, processor, and dispensary. “We have been waiting for four months to do something about the scores,” said the attorney for Alabama Always. “The grading of the scores is inconsistent with the statute. If they are allowed to consider the scores, we are going to be back here again. You can avoid that.” “Unless the use of the scores is prohibited, we think that there will be a lot of tendency on the part of the commissioners to rely on the scores,” he added. Michael Jackson is an attorney for the AMCC. “They are not going to be happy with the scores unless they get an award,” Jackson said. “The Commission has absolute discretion on what they consider.” “If there is a problem with the scoring, it doesn’t matter,” Jackson continued. “If the scoring is wrong, it doesn’t matter. If the scoring is bad, it doesn’t matter.” “They are not articulating
Court to allow Marijuana Commission to make rule changes
On Tuesday, Montgomery Circuit Court Judge James Anderson allowed the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission (AMCC) to proceed with its planned consideration of new rule changes at the scheduled Commission meeting on Thursday. “As I see it, we have a meeting of the Commission on Thursday,” Anderson said. There are two distinct cases. The first is the consolidated case where Alabama Always and other entities denied marijuana permits are plaintiffs objecting to how the AMCC made the awards. The second, separate case is the case brought by Verano, which was awarded an integrated facility license in the June meeting of the AMCC but had that taken away in the August meeting of the AMCC. Verano’s attorney said their “interest is distinct” from the parties involved in the consolidated case. “Verano is claiming that they were awarded a contract, a license, and the Commission cannot go back and claw that back,” Anderson explained. Verano’s attorney agreed with that explanation of the Verano case. “We were issued an invoice, and we paid a $50,000 fee,” Verano’s attorney said. “Our rights were simply taken away from us when they had no authority to do that.” “A license is a privilege, not a right,” Anderson said. “ Verano’s attorney said his client was denied in August because of a “mysterious story that has come up.” “My client has a right to being heard to refute it.” Anderson said, “The only thing that is fair is between first and third base.” The AMCC’s attorneys have filed a motion to dismiss the Verano lawsuit. Anderson gave both sides until noon on Wednesday to file their briefs for and against that motion. “I will have a ruling before the commission meeting,” Judge Anderson promised on the motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs in the consolidated case would like to see a new awards meeting held – in the hope that they do better in the third round of awards than in the previous two. The AMCC appears to be headed towards that outcome in its November meeting. Judge Anderson said there was a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) filed the morning before the hearing by Southeast Cannabis. Southeast Cannabis was awarded a license by the AMCC in both the June and August meetings by the Commission. They are represented by Patrick Dungan. “Our position is that it is an unnecessary delay,” Dungan said of the AMCC’s not going ahead and issuing the licenses to the award winners. “We have asked you to stop what they are trying to do on Thursday.” Dungan argued that the 2021 statute legalizing medical cannabis does not give either the court or the Commission the power to vacate the license awards once they were made in June. “I think in this pleading he agrees with the Verano position,” Verona’s attorney stated. Anderson said he would “defer to the commission and let them do what they are going to do on Thursday.” “I am going to allow everyone to have time to get ready for the hearing,” Anderson said. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Stay on marijuana licenses extended again
On Wednesday, lawyers representing all the litigants in the ongoing medical marijuana license legal saga attended a hearing in Montgomery Circuit Judge James Anderson’s courtroom. Anderson, with the agreement of all parties involved, extended his temporary restraining order (TRO) on issuing medical cannabis licenses until at least the next scheduled meeting of the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission (AMCC). After much discussion and a couple of conferences between the various attorneys involved in a back room outside of open court, all the counsels for the parties involved agreed to a continuation of the TRO. “The parties are in agreement to continue the TRO until the Commission’s next regularly scheduled meeting,” an attorney for the AMCC said. “There will be a meeting and probably a series of meetings to discuss what is going to happen in that meeting.” Judge Anderson said, “There needs to be four days to comply with the agreement.” The Commission’s attorneys agreed that the agenda for that future meeting should be released four days before the meeting. The AMCC has issued its own stay on the issuance of the medical marijuana grower, processor, transporter, dispensary, laboratory, and integrated facility licenses in acknowledgment of the pending litigation. Attorneys for Redbud made a motion to allow the failed marijuana applicant to join the ongoing plaintiff’s lawsuit. Redbud had intended to apply for a medical marijuana license but could not figure out how to make the AMCC’s website upload their application. The Redbud group was represented by Albert “Bert” Jordan of the Birmingham law firm of Wallace, Jordan, Ratliff, & Brandt in Wednesday’s hearing. Jordan explained that his clients tried to upload their application but was prevented by the AMCC’s limit on uploading files to no more than ten megabytes of data. “The ten-megabyte limit, it is really strange,” Jordan said. Jordan said that other applicants went to the AMCC and were given a workaround method of getting their applications submitted. “If we had known there was a workaround,” Redbud would have done it and gotten their application in Jordan claimed. “We are asking you to open the door,” for consideration of Redbud’s application, Jordan continued. “I felt like the facts showed that Redbud did not attempt to file,” Anderson said. “The relief that you are asking for is too late. The horse is already out of the barn.” Mark Wilkerson is representing the AMCC. An attorney for the AMCC said that Redbud’s people “were in the portal for less than 15 minutes total and none at all on the day that the application was due.” “Your honor should absolutely deny this motion,” the AMCC’s counsel added. “We did not wait too long. We exercised due diligence,” Jordan said. Jordan claimed that the AMCC allowed other applicants to add to their applications and make changes after December 31. Anderson said he would rule on Redbud’s motion sometime next week. Another applicant told Alabama Today that they made their application fit the 10-megabyte limit by submitting less information than they would have liked to have submitted. If they had known that the AMCC had allowed a workaround method to submit more information in their application, they would have done so. Their competitor, who was allowed to use the workaround, was able to submit more information with their application and then scored just ahead of them when the AMCC scored the applications. Other applicants whose applications were not accepted by the AMCC by the deadline also brought legal action but were allowed to have their applications considered by the AMCC because the court felt that they made a reasonable effort to comply with the AMCC’s demands. Redbud appealed their decision to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals. The attorney for Verona asked that they not be consolidated with the other lawsuits. “We object to being consolidated,” their attorney said. “My inclination would be to do that with all of them except Verona,” Judge Anderson said. Verona sought and was awarded an integrated license application by the AMMCC in a meeting in June. The AMCC then vacated those awards and made new awards in August. Verona was the only one of the five business entities who were awarded integrator licenses in June who were not also awarded a license in the August awards. Anderson asked, “Is there any objection from all the other cases to be consolidated?” “No sir,” the other plaintiffs’ attorneys responded. A Mobile attorney asked that his client, who had applied for a dispensary license, be added to the growing number of plaintiffs in the lawsuit. “The cutoff for interventions was August 23,” Judge Anderson said. “My order had a cutoff date.” There is a calendar meeting of the AMCC on September 19r 19. The TRO is extended through at least that date. At some point in the future, the AMCC will do the license awards for a third time, under our current understanding of this ongoing Alabama legal drama. In this next meeting, the AMCC will be instructed by the court to comply with the Alabama open meetings statute, which the plaintiffs claim the Commission did not do in its previous awards meetings. The AMCC is limited in the number of licenses it can award by the 2021 statute legalizing medical marijuana in Alabama. That statute created the AMCC and tasked it with writing the rules for issuing medical marijuana licenses in the state of Alabama and then regulating the new industry. The AMCC has been restrained by the court from issuing any licenses for now. No one may grow or even possess seeds to lawfully grow marijuana in the state of Alabama until those licenses are issued. All efforts to get the medical cannabis industry up and running in Alabama are effectively on hold while the TRO remains in place. Any Alabamian with a documented medical need that cannabis might alleviate will have to wait until 2024 to purchase Alabama medical cannabis products legally. Homegrown or individual possession of any cannabis plants or plant material outside of the AMCC’s licensees will remain illegal in the state of Alabama even after medical cannabis is legalized in the form of Alabama.
Medical Cannabis Coalition votes to stay license awards
On Thursday, the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission (AMCC) once again voted to stay the issuing of medical cannabis licenses in Alabama. The AMCC is facing a growing host of lawsuits from applicants who claim that they were wrongly denied cannabis licenses by the Commission at their meeting on August 11. On Tuesday, attorneys for the AMCC told the court that they intended to “go back to square one” and award the licenses for a third time, addressing concerns that the procedures for the Commission had violated Alabama’s open meetings law. The plan was tentatively set to again award the licenses on September 19. That plan now appears to be on hold, and no date has been set for the third license awards meeting. Montgomery Circuit Court Judge James Anderson extended his temporary restraining order on the final issuing of the licenses to September 6. “The commission’s action today, while pausing the process, furthers that goal by attempting to avoid additional legal challenges,” said Commission Chairman Rex Vaughn. “We understand that litigation is an obstacle, just as it has been in every other state that has a medical cannabis program. However, we appreciate and join in the court’s commitment to seeing that Alabama’s program becomes operational sooner rather than later.” Chey Garrigan is the Executive Director of the Alabama Cannabis Industry Association (ACIA). “Every day, I get letters and emails from Alabamians who are seeking relief from medical cannabis,” Garrigan said. “We should have had this up and off the ground in September 2021. The people who were not in the courtroom today are not being represented. How many times are we going to have to go through these applications?” Marty Schelper is the President of the Alabama Cannabis Coalition. Schelper disagreed with Garrigan. “The Alabama Cannabis Coalition does not agree with Ms. Garrigan’s position on just hurry this up without fully resolving the matters at hand,” Schelper said. “This legislation was set up to fail because the state decided to create a “Legal” drug cartel, limiting licenses and picking who could participate (and yes, we know there was and is a grading process).” “Free Market Capitalism and competition in the market is good for business and the consumers,” Schelper continued. “Open the markets up to anyone who passes the “litmus test” to operate in Alabama, that has the capital to pay the exorbitant state licensing fees and develop their business model. The position of the Alabama Cannabis Coalition is that the Alabama Legislature needs to be called back to Montgomery in a special session and resolve this once and for all. These lawsuits will continue until this legislation is amended, and the sick, suffering, and dying citizens will remain the victims. Garrigan responded, “Calling a special session to amend the cannabis bill is not realistic. We need real solutions.” The Alabama Legislature passed, and the Governor signed landmark medical cannabis legislation in May 2021, creating the AMCC to regulate the new industry in the state. Most observers understood even then that applicants who were not awarded a license would turn to the courts to seek injunctive relief. That very predictable process is what is playing out now in the courts. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Judge extends restraining order on issuing cannabis licenses until September
On Thursday, a Montgomery Circuit Court heard arguments from plaintiffs that the court’s temporary restraining order (TRO) on the state’s issuing of medical marijuana licenses be extended. Montgomery Circuit Judge James Anderson gave permission to the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission (AMCC) to meet on Thursday and vote to implement their own stay on the issuing of cannabis licenses. Anderson extended his temporary restraining order to a hearing on the afternoon of September 6. The AMCC initially issued the licenses in June but then halted the license awards after an issue was detected in the tabulation of the awards. One of the aggrieved parties, Alabama Always, sued to block the issuing of the awards, claiming that the Commission did not follow the Alabama Open Meetings Law. The licenses were awarded for a second time in August. Alabama Always’ application for an integrated facility license was again rejected by the Commission. Verona was awarded a license in June, but not in August. They have since filed suit calling into question the process by which the awards were made in August. Attorney Mark Wilkerson, who represents the AMCC, told Judge Anderson that the commission intends to go back to “square one” and issue the licenses again. An attorney who represents one of the groups awarded a processor license asked that since the suit has been brought by parties seeking integrated facility licenses, and that there has been no complaint from growers or processors, that the growers, processors, transporters, and dispensary licenses be allowed to proceed. An attorney who represents a hemp processor in the Phenix City area whose application was denied then stood up and said that she had filed Sunday to enter this case and was seeking relief from the court. Judge Anderson took no action to release the processor, grower, transporter, or dispensary licenses from the TRO. An attorney for the plaintiffs expressed his disappointment with the process, stating, “In the last two or three days, we thought we had something in place.” That proposed agreement became unraveled at a conference with the judge held earlier on Monday at 11:30. One attorney said, “The director is not here. The deputy director does not appear to be here. We don’t know where we are getting this information from.” “I don’t want to negotiate in public,” the plaintiffs’ attorney said. “…..but that is what we are doing,” Judge Anderson quipped. “I would like for the commission to put a stay in play so the court does not have to order it.” Chey Garrigan is the Executive Director and founder of the Alabama Cannabis Industry Association. Garrigan held a press conference at the conclusion of the court proceeding. “We got everybody in the state fired up, asking, ‘When am I going to get my card?’” Garrigan said. “Let the growers go ahead and grow, let the processors go ahead and process, and let the dispensers go ahead and dispense.” “Every day, I get letters and emails from Alabamians who are seeking relief from medical cannabis,” Garrigan said. “We should have had this up and off the ground in September 2021. The people who were not in the courtroom today are not being represented. How many times are we going to have to go through these applications?” At the close of the hearing, Judge Anderson said, “I heard that Mississippi passed this six months after Alabama did. I heard that they were issuing prescriptions in January, so for once, we can’t say thank God for Mississippi.” To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Alabama medical marijuana licenses put on temporary hold again
A judge said Thursday he will temporarily block Alabama from issuing licenses to grow and distribute medical marijuana as he reviews an allegation that the state commission illegally deliberated in secret before selecting winners. Montgomery Circuit Judge James Anderson said he will issue a temporary restraining order to block the issuance of the licenses for 10 days while he hears the complaint. He scheduled a hearing for later this month. The development is the latest legal skirmish in the battle over who will get the potentially lucrative licenses to grow and distribute cannabis for the state’s developing medical marijuana program. The Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission last week nominated and approved companies for the licenses. The public vote came after commissioners met behind closed doors for several hours. Alabama Always, a company that was not among the winners, said the commission violated the Open Meetings Act, which requires deliberations to be done in public. Attorneys for the commission argued commissioners acted properly. They said commissioners met in private to receive information about the name and character of license applicants — an allowed reason under the Open Meetings Act — but did not deliberate behind closed doors. It is the second time the licenses have been delayed because of a dispute over the process used to select winners. William Webster, attorney for the commission, in a moment of frustration, suggested that board members won’t retreat behind closed doors if they have to redo the vote. “We will put forth everyone’s dirty laundry, and everyone will hear about it,” Webster told the judge. John McMillan, director of the commission, said they had hoped to issue the licenses to selected winners later this month, but that will be postponed. Anderson cautioned during Thursday’s hearing that he did not want the court case to drag out for a long time. “My concern is to move this along,” Anderson said. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
