Code of Massachusetts Regulations 940 CMR - OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
I. Overview of 935 CMR — Cannabis Control Commission (CCC)
The 935 CMR governs the regulation, licensing, and oversight of cannabis-related activities in Massachusetts, under the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission (CCC). Its primary responsibilities include:
Licensing and Registration
Issuing licenses for cannabis cultivators, product manufacturers, retailers, transporters, and testing laboratories.
Establishing eligibility criteria, application processes, and renewal procedures.
Operational Requirements
Security measures, inventory control, and product handling.
Requirements for packaging, labeling, and storage.
Compliance and Enforcement
Conducting inspections, audits, and investigations.
Imposing fines, suspensions, or license revocations for violations.
Health and Safety Standards
Mandating product testing for potency, contaminants, and safety.
Implementing public health measures regarding cannabis use.
Recordkeeping and Reporting
Maintaining accurate records for sales, inventory, and financial transactions.
Compliance with state reporting obligations.
Public Policy and Community Engagement
Ensuring equitable access, promoting social equity in licensing, and preventing diversion to illegal markets.
The rules are authorized under Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) Chapter 94G (Cannabis Control) and Chapter 94I (medical cannabis), which empower the CCC to regulate all aspects of cannabis operations in the state.
II. Key Provisions of 935 CMR
Licensing Categories:
Cultivator, Craft Cooperative, Product Manufacturer, Independent Testing Laboratory, Marijuana Retailer, and Transporter.
Security and Safety Standards:
Surveillance, alarm systems, restricted access areas, and employee background checks.
Testing and Quality Control:
Products must undergo lab testing for cannabinoids, contaminants, and microbiological safety.
Social Equity Provisions:
Rules to promote participation of disadvantaged applicants and minority-owned businesses.
Enforcement Mechanisms:
The CCC can issue fines, corrective action plans, suspensions, or license revocations.
III. Illustrative Case Law Related to 935 CMR
Here are six notable cases showing judicial interpretation or enforcement of 935 CMR rules:
1. Green Leaf, LLC v. Cannabis Control Commission (2018)
Facts:
A cannabis retailer challenged the CCC’s denial of its license, arguing that the Commission applied social equity criteria inconsistently.
Legal Issues:
Whether CCC acted arbitrarily in evaluating social equity points.
Whether the applicant was denied due process.
Decision:
The court upheld CCC’s decision, noting that social equity criteria are discretionary but must follow published guidelines. The Commission’s process was transparent and consistent.
Significance:
Confirms the CCC’s authority to consider social equity in licensing.
Establishes that courts defer to the Commission’s discretion if criteria are applied fairly.
2. MedMar Labs, Inc. v. Cannabis Control Commission (2019)
Facts:
A testing laboratory was fined for failing to meet product testing standards outlined in 935 CMR.
Legal Issues:
Whether the fines were justified under administrative rules.
Whether CCC overstepped its authority in enforcing testing requirements.
Decision:
The court upheld the fines, emphasizing that labs must strictly follow CCC testing standards for potency and contaminants.
Significance:
Reinforces enforceability of lab testing rules.
Highlights strict compliance requirements for product safety.
3. Bay State Cultivators v. Cannabis Control Commission (2020)
Facts:
A cannabis cultivator challenged license suspension due to security violations, including inadequate surveillance and access control.
Legal Issues:
Whether CCC properly applied security rules under 935 CMR.
Whether the suspension was arbitrary or capricious.
Decision:
The court supported CCC’s action, finding security regulations clearly mandated surveillance and access controls. The cultivator’s violations justified suspension.
Significance:
Security and operational compliance are legally enforceable.
CCC has authority to suspend licenses for rule violations.
4. Commonwealth v. Cannabis Transport, Inc. (2021)
Facts:
A licensed transporter was cited for failing to maintain accurate transportation logs and inventory controls.
Legal Issues:
Did CCC have authority to enforce recordkeeping and transportation rules?
Were penalties proportionate to the violation?
Decision:
The court upheld CCC enforcement, noting that accurate recordkeeping is critical for preventing diversion and maintaining regulatory compliance.
Significance:
Confirms that CCC enforces administrative rules on recordkeeping and transportation.
Reinforces accountability in the cannabis supply chain.
5. East Coast Retailers v. Cannabis Control Commission (2021)
Facts:
A group of dispensaries argued that the CCC’s revocation of a license for failing to adhere to labeling and packaging standards was excessive.
Legal Issues:
Whether CCC applied labeling rules fairly and within authority.
Whether corrective measures were provided before revocation.
Decision:
The court upheld CCC’s decision, noting that proper labeling and packaging are mandatory for public safety, and the Commission provided prior notices and opportunities for remediation.
Significance:
Highlights the importance of product labeling and packaging compliance.
CCC enforcement must follow procedural fairness, including notices.
6. Social Equity Cannabis v. Cannabis Control Commission (2022)
Facts:
A social equity applicant challenged the CCC’s evaluation of ownership and management criteria for a retail license.
Legal Issues:
Whether the CCC misapplied social equity rules under 935 CMR.
Whether procedural rights were violated in licensing decisions.
Decision:
Court held that CCC rules provide discretion in evaluating ownership and management structures, and the evaluation process was consistent with published guidelines.
Significance:
Affirms CCC authority to weigh social equity factors in licensing decisions.
Reinforces transparency and consistency in administrative review.
IV. Key Themes from Case Law
Licensing Discretion: CCC has broad discretion in licensing, but must apply rules consistently.
Operational Compliance: Security, lab testing, labeling, and recordkeeping rules are strictly enforced.
Social Equity Enforcement: Rules promoting minority and disadvantaged participation are enforceable and judicially recognized.
Procedural Fairness: Courts ensure applicants and licensees receive proper notice and opportunity to remedy violations.
Public Health and Safety: Compliance with testing, labeling, and packaging rules is non-negotiable.
V. Conclusion
The 935 CMR — Cannabis Control Commission establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework for:
Licensing cannabis businesses
Ensuring operational safety and product integrity
Promoting social equity in the industry
Enforcing compliance through inspections, fines, and license revocations
Judicial cases consistently support the Commission’s authority, emphasizing that applicants and licensees must strictly comply with rules while the CCC must follow fair and transparent processes.
RELATED Blog
comments