CO’s Proposed Production Limits Spark Controversy

Colorado has proposed additional limits on cannabis producers in an effort to curb diversion to other states, drawing praise from large-scale cultivators and criticism from smaller growers.

The move comes as Colorado approaches the Oct. 1 threshold where commercial growers will be allowed to operate in the state without being tied to a specific retail location.

, CO’s Proposed Production Limits Spark ControversyThe proposed regulations would benefit large indoor grows – many of which are operated by established business owners – by allowing them to double their plant counts. The expansion must be tied to proven sales in previous reported periods, however.

Greenhouse facilities – operated by many new entrants to the industry – would not be allowed to expand their plant counts under the proposed rules.

Industry veterans appear to support the plan, pointing specifically to the diversion issue.

Greenhouse growers, however, decried the regulations as backward-thinking and protectionism for industry veterans, and said that the state should be favoring energy-friendly production methods.

The state’s Marijuana Enforcement Division is taking public feedback on the proposals, which also include reduced licensing fees for retail stores and growers. It has not set a timeline for finalizing the new rules.

Latest Headlines

One comment on “CO’s Proposed Production Limits Spark Controversy
  1. victoria smith on

    Two things. 1) CO’s retail cannabis regulations were designed to keep the feds out. Los federales are hyper-concerned about interstate sales. The production limits are supposed to limit the amount grown to what can actually be sold in-state. The limits do disadvantage smaller, newer grow ops; the trade-off is less likelihood of federal agents shutting down the entire industry. 2) Note this, “reduced licensing fees…”. The constitutional amendment that allows for retail sales (Amdmt. 64) states that fees will be charged only to regulate the industry, not to add to the state’s general revenues. Because the industry has taken off, fees have exceeded the cost of regulation. So, the state has to reduce the fees they charge. Same thing happened with medical – fees were reduced because the state collected more money than they needed to cover the cost of regulation. Because we (the people of CO) amended our constitution to allow for this, and we did not leave it to our legislature. State lawmakers trying to create a cannabis industry does not work. (I’m looking at you CT, with your no-bud policy).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *