Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

State

Analysis | Medical Cannabis licensing in Alabama: A closer look at the application process

Out of 37 applicants, fewer than a third have presented completely unredacted applications.

STOCK

In a recent turn of events, the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission has mandated that only proprietary information can be redacted in applications for medical cannabis integrator licenses. However, a startling revelation has emerged: out of 37 applicants, fewer than a third have presented completely unredacted applications. The remaining companies have kept various details under wraps, raising questions about transparency and adherence to guidelines.

Central to the application process are several key exhibits: “Exhibit 5, Form M” and “Form F,” which demonstrate the ability to secure and maintain a performance bond, and “Exhibit 31—Facilities,” which details the physical locations of cultivation and dispensary sites.

Among the applicants, 3 Notch Roots, LLC, and A.M. Sky, LLC, have disclosed only the cities of their facilities, leaving other details obscured. The situation is more opaque with Alabama Medical Grow, LLC, Alacann, LLC, and several others, where it’s unclear if they’ve submitted either Form M or F due to extensive redactions. Additionally, these applicants have only partially disclosed their dispensary locations, with key information redacted.

This pattern of incomplete disclosure extends to other applicants like ChromaCann Health, LLC, where the address of Dispensary #5 coincides with their cultivation site, claimed to be inaccessible to the public. ETS Holdings, LLC, and Evexia Plus, LLC, follow suit, providing scant details about their operations.

Insa Alabama, LLC, Justice Cannabis Alabama, LLC, and others have left “Exhibit 31—Facilities” entirely redacted, offering no insight into their proposed locations. Medella, LLC’s application doesn’t even open correctly, leading to a page to download Adobe Reader X instead.

Several applicants, like ML Jemison Properties, LLC and RX Connection, LLC, have completely omitted critical exhibits from their applications. ML Jemison Properties, LLC failed to even include “Exhibit 31—Facilities.” The trend of non-disclosure is concerning, highlighting a gap in compliance with the commission’s requirements.

This situation raises significant questions about the readiness and transparency of these companies seeking to enter Alabama’s medical cannabis market. The commission’s response to these incomplete and obscured applications remains to be seen, but it’s clear that a higher standard of transparency and compliance is crucial for the integrity of the state’s medical cannabis program.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Bill Britt is editor-in-chief at the Alabama Political Reporter and host of The Voice of Alabama Politics. You can email him at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter.

More from APR

Courts

The heart of the controversy pivots on the commission's alleged misuse of privilege to evade discovery and deposition requests.

Courts

Central to this legal face-off is the Commission's licensing process, which has been under scrutiny for months.

State

A cloud of confusion and apparent incompetence overshadows the licensing process, raising questions.

Featured Opinion

The biggest problem here is that the system, in its current form, is probably too broken to be repaired.