on labels and the safety concerns brought about by noting the facility/establishment’s address on
packaging, it is suggested that this requirement be omitted. If patrons want to find a
facility/establishment’s address, they can look up the license number on the MRA website.
Set #6 MARIHUANA SALE OR TRANSFER
•
•
Different Warnings for MM and AU Products (R 420.504(k)): Currently, there are different
warnings required for MMFLA and MRTMA products. This requires the generation and application
of different labels for the different products, which will otherwise be identical. Enforcement has
previously instructed that, under the current rules, operators cannot combined the warnings (“For
use only by registered qualifying patients or individuals 21 years of age or older”) to streamline
the labeling process. This should be reconsidered in the Dual Rules.
Prohibits Health Claims in Marketing (R 420.507(3)): This is a new marketing limitation, which
runs head first into the concept of “medical marijuana” itself, as embodied by the MMMA and
MMFLA. In fact, as the MRA is well aware, there is a LARA/Medical Marihuana Review Panel made
up of experts who are responsible for approving debilitating conditions for which a patient might
be eligible under the MMMA. Yet, the FDA is not supporting any cannabis-based health claims
right now, so any such marketing statements will constitute regulatory violations. Further clarity
on what constitutes a health claim (“wellness,” “holistic,” “calming,” “pain management,” etc.)
should be provided by the Agency to avoid inconsistent compliance and enforcement efforts.
•
What Does it Mean to Advertise a “Marihuana Product?” (R 420.507(4, 6-9)): There have already
been several instances where the Agency, and an operator, disagreed as to whether or not the
latter was advertising its brand generally, or advertising a “marijuana product” within the context
of the limitations on public advertisements. The Agency should provide further guidance here, or
disputes will continue to arise. Also worthy of note, in both the Emergency MRTMA Rules and
here, the following prior limitation in the MMFLA Rules has been removed: “A licensee shall not
advertise a marihuana product where the advertisement is visible to members of the public from
any street, sidewalk, park, or other public place.” (R 333.276(3)). This change is appreciated as
that prior restriction was overly restrictive in many respects.
•
•
Trade Samples (R 420.508): This rule is identical to the one in the Emergency MRTMA Rules, but
for the following provision, which has been deleted: “Except for a licensed designated
consumption establishment, the samples may not be consumed or used on the premises of a
licensed marihuana establishment.” (R 53(3)). This is a good rule change.
Allowance of Internal Product Samples (R 420.501(1)(j); R 420.509): This was not allowed in the
MMFLA Rules, and seems like a welcomed accommodation for testing new products. Note, the
“results of internal product sampling” must be documented and kept on hand. Does this mean a
survey of employees’ impressions of the products? Also, the Trade Samples rule clarifies that
those samples need to be tested and entered into METRC. This rule does not have similar
language, so clarification on testing and recordation requirements for Product Samples under this
rule would be helpful. Also, what is the difference between a Trade Sample and an Internal
Product Sample for a Sales Location? Provisioning Centers and Retailers do not generate
products, so they would either be given trade samples by up-stream operators, or purchase
products and then circulate to their employees as Internal Product Samples before stocking on
the sales shelf? Seems odd. More clarity should be provided on these issues.