MURIEL BOWSER
MAYOR
May 18, 2023
The Honorable Phil Mendelson
Chairman
Council of the District of Columbia
John A. Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 504
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Chairman Mendelson:
Enclosed for consideration and approval by the Council of the District of Columbia is a proposed
resolution entitled the “Medical Cannabis Regulations Approval Resolution of 2023.”
The proposed resolution would approve the Medical Cannabis Notice of Final Rulemaking, which
the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board (Board) adopted on January 25,
2023, on a vote of six (6) to zero (0). The proposed rulemaking was published in the D.C. Register on
March 10, 2023. The Board did not receive any comments that necessitated changes to the
rulemaking.
The proposed rulemaking amends Subtitle C of Title 22 of the District of Columbia Municipal
Regulations to comprehensively modify and update the regulations governing the District of
Columbia’s Medical Cannabis Program.
I ask that the Council act favorably on this resolution. If you have any questions on this matter,
please contact Donovan Anderson, Chairperson, Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board, at (202)
442-4423.
Sincerely,
Muriel Bowser
Enclosures
 1
2
3
#;;!?~
Chairman Phil Mendelson
4 at the request of the Mayor
5
6
7 A PROPOSED RESOLUTION
8
9
10
11 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
12
13
14
15
16 To approve the proposed final rules of the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board to amend the
17 District's medical cannabis regulations .
18 RESOLVED, BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That this
19 resolution may be cited as the "Medical Cannabis Regulations Approval Resolution of 2023".
20 Sec. 2. Pursuant to section l 4(b) of the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment
21 Initiative of 1999, effective July 27, 2010 (D.C. Law 18-210; D.C. Official Code§ 7-1671.13(b))
22 the Council approves the proposed final rulemaking of the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis
~~­
23 Board, transmitted to the Council by the Mayor on --------------, to comprehensively amend and
24 update the regulations governing the District's medical cannabis program.
25 Sec. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately.
 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE REGULATION ADMINISTRATION
NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING
The Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board (Board), pursuant to Section 14 of the Legalization
of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1999 (the Act), effective July 27, 2010 (D.C.
Law 18-210; D.C. Official Code § 7-1671.13); and Mayor's Order 2020-099, dated September 30,
2020; hereby gives notice of the adoption, on an emergency basis, of amendments to Chapters 1
(Department of Health General Provisions), 2 (Conditions of Registration), 3 (Use of Medical
Marijuana), 4 (Disposal of Medical Marijuana), 5 (Qualifying Patients), 6 (Caregivers), 7
(Registration Cards), 8 (Recommending Authorized Practitioners), 9 (Denial of Applications), 10
(Enforcement Actions), 11 (Confidentiality of Records), 12 (Investigations and Inspections), 13
(Fees), 14 (Medical Marijuana Advisory Committee), 50 (Registration, Licensing, and
Enforcement of Cultivation Centers, Dispensaries, and Testing Laboratories), 51 (Registration and
Permit Categories), 52 (Registration Limitations), 53 (General Registration Requirements), 54
(Registration Applications), 55 (Registration Changes), 56 (General Operating Requirements), 57
(Prohibited and Restricted Activities), 58 (Advertising), 59 (Records and Reports), 60 (Director
Approval Procedures), 61 (Mandatory Revocation and Mandatory Suspension), 62 (Enforcement
Proceedings and Hearings), 63 (Sliding Scale Program), 64 (Testing Laboratories), and 99
(Definitions) of Subtitle C (Medical Marijuana) of Title 22 (Health) of the District of Columbia
Municipal Regulations (DCMR).
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 28, 2020, the Council of the District of Columbia (Council) passed legislation which
transitioned the District's Medical Marijuana Program (Program) from the District of Columbia
Department of Health (Department of Health) to the Board. See Medical Marijuana Program
Administration Amendment Act of 2020, effective December 3, 2020 (D.C. Law 23-149; D.C.
Official Code §§ 7-1671.01, et seq.).
The Board acquired jurisdiction over the Program on October 1, 2020. Immediately after acquiring
jurisdiction of the Program, the Board adopted a series of emergency rulemakings to ensure that
qualifying patients were able to receive their medical marijuana, without disruption, during the
COVID-19 pandemic. See Medical Marijuana Delivery Notice of Third Emergency Rulemaking,
68 DCR 00158 (January 1, 2021); and Nonresident Notice of Emergency Rulemaking, at 67 DCR
14549 (December 11, 2020).
After adopting the above-referenced emergency rulemakings, the Board determined that additional
changes to the program were warranted. Therefore, the Board drafted the Medical Marijuana
Program Notice of Emergency and Proposed Rulemaking, which the Board adopted on March 3,
2021. See 68 DCR 4361 (April 23, 2021) [EXPIRED]. The Board held a public hearing
concerning the proposed rulemaking on April 28, 2021.
II. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Board reviewed and duly considered the comments it received at the public hearing.
1
Below is a summary of those comments and the Board's response in italics:
A. DAWN LEE-CARTY
Dawn Lee-Carty is the mother of a minor qualifying patient. Ms. Lee-Carty testified that her child
ingested contaminated medical marijuana that resulted in the child being hospitalized. Ms. Lee-
Carty raised concerns about the possibility of patients receiving contaminated medical marijuana,
and as such, recommended that the Board revisit the District's testing requirements. Specifically,
she requested that the Board amend the regulations to require that testing laboratories test for the
presence of piperonylbutoxide (PBO), which was the contaminant that was found in the ingested
medical marijuana that led to Zoe's hospitalization.
Ms. Lee-Carty further recommended that the Board amend the regulations concerning the
District's liability so that the District is held liable for harm(s) that may befall customers,
registrants, and families participating in the Medical Marijuana Program.
Lastly, Ms. Lee-Carty recommended that the regulations be amended to permit one to grow
marijuana for their own medical needs, or if they are a caregiver of a minor, for the minor's needs.
Ms. Lee-Carty believes her child would not have become ill from contaminated medical marijuana
had she been permitted to grow her own.
Although the Board is sympathetic to Ms. Lee-Carty's concerns, it does not agree with amending
the medical marijuana regulations to change the permissible PBO levels. The regulations already
require testing laboratories to test for PBO among other contaminants. Subsection 6409.5 of 22-
C DCMR sets a limit for PBO at 1.0 PPM, which is consistent with other jurisdictions, including
Maryland - a leader in testing and updating its testing requirements. A review of other
jurisdictions' medical marijuana laws and regulations revealed PBO limits in excess of 1.0 PPM,
including 3.0 PPM in California and Nevada. For these reasons, the Board rejected this
recommendation.
The Board rejected the recommendation that the medical marijuana regulations be amended to
allow the District to be potentially liable for harm that one may suffer from participating in the
Program. The Board notes that the District does not distribute, produce, or sell medical
marijuana products itself; therefore, it is not liable for any harms caused by such products or
errors in the manufacturing process. The Board further notes that as an administrative agency,
the Board lacks the authority to waive immunity or change the District’s liability status. Finally,
the Board notes that the Board is not aware of anything in the District’s medical marijuana laws
that protect cultivation centers and dispensaries from products liability and similar lawsuits based
on harms caused by their products.
Finally, the Board rejects Ms. Lee-Carty's recommendation that the District's medical marijuana
regulations should be revised to allow one to grow their own medical marijuana for their personal
use at this time. This recommendation would require a statutory amendment. The Board would
not be able to revise the regulations unless and until the statute is revised. The Board further notes
that current law already allows individuals to grow up to six marijuana plants at one time.
2
B. RABBI KAHN AND STEPHANIE KAHN
Rabbi Kahn and Stephanie Kahn are the co-owners of Takoma Wellness Center. They testified in
general support of the rulemaking, especially as it relates to the proposed changes to the fines,
show cause proceedings, fact finding hearings, and qualifying patients being allowed to administer
or have medical marijuana administered at a location other than their residence. They did,
however, request that the Board amend the regulations to allow dispensaries to sell medical
marijuana to patients who have received a medical marijuana card from their home state.
The Board agreed with this recommendation because it will allow persons who have been
approved for a medical marijuana card outside of the District to be able to receive marijuana for
their medical needs from a District dispensary. As such, the Board revised the definition of "Active
Medical Marijuana Program" in 22 DCMR C § 9900.1 to recognize medical marijuana cards that
were issued by a state or U.S. territory that allows the use of marijuana for one's medical needs.
C. ADRIAN SALSGIVER
Adrian Salsgiver, a qualifying patient in the District's Medical Marijuana Program, testified in
support of the Board's proposed rulemaking and suggested amending the regulations to allow
patients to administer medical marijuana at additional locations, permitting dispensaries to provide
educational classes, and removing the cap on dispensary delivery vehicles that provide delivery
services. Mr. Salsgiver did suggest that the Board revise the regulations to eliminate the limit on
the amount of medical marijuana a qualifying patient is permitted to have (e.g., two ounces (2
oz.)).
Although the Board agreed with Mr. Salsgiver's recommendation, his suggested amendments
regarding the medical marijuana limits cannot be addressed by rulemaking. The Council will
need to revise the statute before the Board can revise the regulations.
D. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CANNABIS TRADE ASSOCIATION
The District of Columbia Cannabis Trade Association (CTA) testified at the public hearing and
submitted written comments to the Board. The CTA supported various aspects of the proposed
regulations, including allowing qualifying patients to administer medical marijuana at a location
other than their residence, repealing the mandatory training program for recommending authorized
practitioners, authorizing medical marijuana trainings and demonstrations at dispensaries, and
renaming the Board and the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration.
Additionally, the CTA suggested that the Board incorporate the following revisions to the
regulations:
1. Establish penalties for unlawfully operating establishments and the building owners where
they are located;
2. Require that at least one individual within the medical marijuana industry (e.g., dispensary,
cultivation center, or testing laboratory) serve as a member of the Advisory Committee;
3
 3. Address all forms of social inequities which present barriers to persons entering the medical
marijuana market, as opposed to those disenfranchised based on race, ethnicity, and criminal
background;
4. Allow dispensaries to use their own drivers for medical marijuana dispensaries;
5. Permanently allow for temporary registration cards, rather than limiting their use to periods of
public health emergency;
6. Allow qualifying patients to self-certify in order to obtain a medical marijuana patient card;
7. Increase the thirty (30)-day patient allowance from four ounces (4 oz.) to six or eight
ounces (6 oz. or 8 oz.);
8. Remove the tax on medical marijuana;
9. Make the medical marijuana program card valid for two (2) years;
10. Allow cultivators to grow hemp and for dispensaries to sell it;
11. Allow dispensaries to throw away unused medical marijuana if the ratio of by-product to the
other content of trash is less than fifty percent (50%);
12. Revise the sliding scale requirements in 22 DCMR § 6300.1;
13. Revise the regulations to allow for deliveries to one's porch, driveway, or walkway, and
remove the requirement that one affirm that there is not a gun in the residence;
14. Fully regulate CBD shops; and
15. Lastly, the CTA opposed the proposed regulation to increase the number of dispensaries.
The Board appreciated CTA's concerns regarding the illicit marijuana market and the adverse
impact it has on the community, qualifying patients, and lawfully operating medical marijuana
businesses. The Board, however, believes that the Metropolitan Police Department is engaged on
this issue and that these concerns should be addressed legislatively rather than amending the
regulations. As such, it rejected the CTA's recommendation to penalize illegal operations and the
building owners whose buildings are being used for these activities.
The Board agreed with CTA's suggestion that a member of the industry should be a member of the
Advisory Board, and thus, revised 22-C DCMR §1400.1 to reflect this change. The Board also
agreed with the recommendation to allow dispensaries to use their own employees to delivery
medical marijuana. This change is reflected in 22-C DCMR § 5703.3. The Board also agreed with
the CTA's recommendation to allow for deliveries to be made on one's porch, walkway, or
driveway, and to remove the requirement that one attest that guns are not present in the residence.
These changes are reflected in 22-C DCMR § 5703.3(l).
4
Additionally, the Board agreed with the CTA's recommendation for a new third-party delivery
license. The Board notes, however, that this is included in the Medical Cannabis Amendment Act
of 2021, which was discussed in a November 19, 2021 hearing. Any future amendments to the
regulations would be dependent on the Council's decision on the pending legislation. Finally, with
respect to the CTA's recommendations concerning the disposal of unused marijuana, the Board
decided not to take any action at this time. Instead, it will work with the Department of
Environment and Energy (DOEE) and the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to further
amend the disposal requirements.
CTA's other recommendations, although valid, cannot be addressed via rulemaking. Instead, they
would require statutory amendments by the Council. These include:
1. Allowing qualifying patients to self-certify;
2. Changing the number of dispensaries;
3. Not taxing medical marijuana, and therefore treating it like other pharmaceuticals;
4. Making the medical marijuana cards valid for two (2) years;
5. Removing the requirement for criminal background checks for medical marijuana patient
caregivers;
6. Changes to the sliding scale requirement; and
7. Allowing cultivation centers to grow hemp.
E. PHYTO CULTIVATION LLC
Phyto Cultivation LLC, (Phyto) a District cultivation center, submitted written testimony.
Specifically, Phyto suggested increasing the limit of THC in certain products, eliminating the 250
patient recommendation limit and audit requirement on practitioners that issue a certain number
of medical marijuana patient recommendations, and continuing to allow telehealth services. Phyto
also suggested allowing the use of cannabidiol (CBD) as an ingredient and adding additional
packaging and anti-tampering requirements for cultivation centers and dispensaries. Lastly, Phyto
raised similar concerns as CTA as it relates to the disposal of medical marijuana.
The Board agreed with Phyto's recommendation that medical practitioners should not be subject
to a recommendation limit in a 12-month period and an audit for exceeding this amount. The
Board notes that even if this requirement is lifted, medical practitioners will still be subject to
professional standards and oversight by the appropriate medical board. As such, the Board is
seeking to repeal 22-C DCMR § 806.
F. PATRICIA C. FRYE, MD
Dr. Patricia Frye, a practicing physician, submitted written comments to the Board. Specifically,
Dr. Frye asked the Board to permanently allow telehealth medicine.
5
The Board agreed with this recommendation, which is reflected in the proposed new section 22-C
DCMR § 807.
III. THE BOARD'S DECISION
In addition to the comments received by the Board in response to the initial rulemaking, the
Council of the District of Columbia passed a series of emergency and temporary bills concerning
the Program. The comments received by the Board as well as the Council's legislative action
required further review by the Board. Thus, the Board renewed the emergency rules on June 23,
2021, to maintain the status quo while it completed its review of additional submitted comments
and Council enacted legislative amendments. See Medical Marijuana Program Notice of Second
Emergency Rulemaking, 68 DCR 007493 (July 30, 2021) [EXPIRED].
Having completed its review and after further amending the rules, the Board adopted the Medical
Marijuana Program Notice of Third Emergency and Proposed Rulemaking, by a vote of six (6) to
zero (0) on October 20, 2021, (69 DCR 013529 (November 4, 2022)) These emergency rules
expired on January 23, 2022; prompting the Board to take additional emergency action.
Specifically, on January 26, 2022, the Board adopted the Medical Marijuana Program Notice of
Fourth Emergency and Proposed Rulemaking by a vote of six (6) to zero (0), (69 DCR 013624
(November 4, 2022)).
Since adopting the Fourth Emergency Rulemaking, the Board determined that additional changes
were necessary to the proposed rulemaking. These changes, which are substantive in nature, are
in response to the comments and feedback the Board and the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation
Administration received concerning the Program. Given the necessary substantive changes, the
Board adopted the Notice of Fifth Emergency and Proposed Rulemaking on March 16, 2022, by a
vote of six (6) to zero (0). The emergency rules took effect at that time and were published in the
D.C. Register at 69 DCR 013716 (November 4, 2022).
On July 13, 2022, the Board adopted the Medical Marijuana Notice of Sixth Emergency
Rulemaking, by a vote of six (6) to zero (0). These emergency rules were unchanged from the
Notice of Fifth Emergency and Proposed Rulemaking. The Board determined that immediate action was
necessary for the continued administration of the District’s Program. Although the Notice of Sixth
Emergency Rulemakin