Missouri Marijuana Industry Fights Back against Proposed Labeling and Video Surveillance Rules

Colors are appealing to everyone, not just children. The colors are appealing to all, not only children .”

By Rebecca Rivas, Missouri Independent

Missouri’s constitution says that labels and packaging of marijuana-related products “shall not make them attractive to children”.

Amy Moore, Director of Missouri’s Cannabis Regulation under the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, explained that state regulators want to require “plain or uniform labels” similar to those of cigarette or medicine.

Moore told the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules that studies have shown plain packaging increases attention and perceptions about harm, and reduces social appeal among teenagers.

The Missouri Cannabis Trade Association (which represents marijuana professionals) is strongly opposed to the new rule, stating that it would “unduly burden” businesses and be unreasonable to force them to create new labels.

Eric Walter, attorney for the association, said: “In the beer aisle these craft beers offer these cool and intriguing designs.” “Colors appeal to all people, not just kids.”

Moore explained that the label changes are not a surprise for companies because DHSS had already informed them of the changes in labeling regulations after November’s constitutional amendment legalizing marijuana recreationally.

Moore suggested that consumers should “think about the cereal aisle in comparison to tobacco packaging and over-the counter medicines.” “I am skeptical of the association skepticism… about whether the concept that color is attractive to children for packaging really is at issue,” Moore said. We know it is true. “I can tell you that my five-year old’s current favorite color is rainbow.”

The DHSS’ 126 page proposed rule, which is currently being reviewed, includes several changes including video surveillance and increased responsibility during events organized cannabis companies.

The trade association sent a 46-page letter last week to members of the committee, stating that some proposed rules could cause financial hardship for businesses and were “recklessly devised.”

Moore was asked to respond to each of the concerns raised in the letter by lawmakers during the Monday hearing. This led to four-hours of questions, mostly from Republicans and Democrats, who defended the position taken by the association.

Walter was given the opportunity to rebut every argument Moore presented.

Walter’s opening statement stated: “What we represent today is 14 provisions…that are very problematic and costly for the industry.” “More expensive goods mean that a certain percentage of people do not buy them on the regulated market.” They turn to the illegal market. The goal is to lower our prices so that people will buy from the regulated markets.

Walter also praised DHSS in his opening remarks, saying that “they have done a fantastic job” in regulating this industry.

Moore stated that the tone in the letter we received Friday was very different. While we may not have always agreed and have certainly had different interests in the past, they have consistently described as being unusually responsive, competent, and collaborative.

Moore called the letter from the association “misleading.”

She said that DHSS had made many concessions and was trying to have as little impact on businesses as possible, while still meeting the constitutional requirements of health and safety.

She said that video surveillance is one of those requirements.

According to the proposed rule, companies will be required to install high-definition video cameras in the entire building. These cameras can also be accessed remotely. Moore stated that video monitoring is required by the constitution.

Marijuana Moment tracks more than 1,000 cannabis and drug policy bills that have been introduced in state legislatures, and Congress. Patreon supporters who pledge at least $25/month gain access to our interactive charts, maps and hearing calendar.

Discover more about our marijuana bills tracker. Become a Patreon supporter to gain access.

—

She said that after hearing concerns from businesses, the agency reduced the number of cameras needed. This meant that they were no longer able to allow motion-sensitive video systems.

Walter said motion-sensored security systems were more cost-effective, but Moore disagreed, stating that they weren’t as effective. This is especially true if they had fewer cameras, and they wanted to make sure products didn’t get onto the illegal market.

Moore asked if the burden was too great. “We’re also weighing the risks to public safety, product quality, and health of these products.”

Moore, in a separate article, gave the example of cannabis company owners who were involved in a heated argument.

The owner of the equipment removes it and locks the other owners out.

This is why DHSS added a sentence to its new regulations that says, “The department may suspend or restrict the operation of the facility licence until the dispute has been resolved, or deny a pending request.”

Rep. Peter Merideth (D-St. Louis) asked: “I don’t understand why you can suspend operations just because you are concerned that a dispute could impact operations.”

Moore replied that nearly everything in the operation had a safety and health impact.

She said that “if we find that an ownership dispute is affecting that in a way that’s not covered by specific rules elsewhere,” “we need to have the ability to take action, without having to jump to suspension or revocation.”

Moore said she has also seen regulations in other states that are more strict than Missouri’s.

She said that “a lot of what we are discussing today is the balance of having too detailed or burdensome regulation,” she said. “We’re balancing this with the legitimate interest of the state to ensure safety and security of the facilities.”

Sen. Nick Schroer (O’Fallon Republican) and chair of the Committee encouraged DHSS to reach a compromise with the Association this week.

He said that “our authority expires on Friday.” “So we’re trying to find a place to meet Thursday. We will then come back and discuss, and vote, if needed.”

The Missouri Independent first published this story.