Pot_Capitol.jpg
  • Illustration by Melissa Rachel Black

When legal pot shops spring up in Oregon sometime (probably) next year, the Oregon Liquor Control Commission might be lacking some of the key powers it relies on to regulate alcohol sales.

Under Measure 91, the legalization law Oregon voters passed easily in November, the OLCC "has no power to purchase, own, sell, or possess any marijuana items." So where today the agency runs stings, sending in minors to purchase alcohol, Measure 91, as written, closes that door for similar pot enforcement. And if the agency, in theory, were to find a future pot retailer had too much of a certain product? Or an unapproved product? It would have no power to seize it, according to a state attorney who briefed the commission at a packed hearing over Oregon's oncoming recreational pot market this morning.

Instead, the matter would have to be kicked to local law enforcement—something no one wants.

"For the integrity of the system, we need some type of peace officer authority," OLCC Chairman Rob Patridge told the Mercury during a lull in this morning's meeting. "Otherwise, we are a paper tiger."

The disconnect is just one of so many uncertainties still revolving around Oregon's legal pot experiment. With legal weed coming in July, and the OLCC required to begin issuing licenses to marijuana businesses by January, the rush is on to figure what the state's pot policies are going to look like.

Right now, that's a two pronged attack. Even as OLCC commissioners listened to hours of testimony over what legalization should look like this morning, the Oregon Legislature has its own schemes for how to alter Measure 91 in important ways.

Gov. John Kitzhaber is openly questioning how much marijuana people should be allowed to possess in their homes (right now—LITERALLY RIGHT NOW—you can grow four plants in your house and not fear repercussions if you live in Multnomah County). There is proposed legislation about how far pot businesses need to be from schools, and a bill, likely to be controversial, that would bring the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program partly under the purview of the OLCC.

Basically, it's a confused mess. But it's also a nascent business, meant to draw in untold millions in tax revenue for the state. The best quote of the morning went, hands-down, to OLCC Commissioner Marvin RĂ©voal, who recently returned from inspecting Colorado's legal pot system.

"This is not a joke," Révoal told his colleagues and the collected throngs (the meeting needed its own overflow space when the OLCC's smallish hearings room got packed out). "This is not the old 'I’m gonna smoke some dope and rah rah rah yipee hye-o. This is a business. This is our Silicon Valley. This is our Napa Valley."

Stirring words, but much of this morning's hearing was dull, with witness after witness calling for "robust regulation" and "safety requirements" curbing kids' access to pot—sentiments that lose their power when played on repeat. Still, these discussions hold huge sway over Oregon's future with marijuana. They're very important. So bullet points! Here are some of the more interesting points raised:

•Révoal, strenuously and repeatedly asserting legal pot must be an "economic engine," openly questioned whether the licensing fees Oregonians voted into law ($250 to apply for a license, $1,000 to get it once approved) should be increased. "It appears we're not even covering our own expenses with these fees," he said.

•Commissioners are concerned that businesses won't be able to obtain insurance—marijuana still being on par with heroine in the federal government's eyes. Colorado businesses that have insurance all get it through Lloyd's of London, Oregon Pot Czar Tom Burns told the commission.

•Should there be limits to how far growers, processors, and retailers can be from school? Probably, people seem to think, but there's nothing in Measure 91 saying so. Currently medical dispensaries have to be at least 1,000 feet, a take-off on Oregon criminal statutes that ramp up pot crimes when close to schools. But some lawmakers think it should be a mile for recreational pot.

•And how on earth is the OLCC going to get rules up in time? Shannon O'Fallon, an attorney with the Oregon Department of Justice, pointed out that the commission is under strict time constraints if it wants to begin taking applications for licenses by next January. The commission's not even sure what the Legislature's going to come up with, and it should have proposed rules out by November at the latest in order to solicit feedback, make changes, and formally enroll them.

Which is not going to happen. It's more likely, Patridge says, the OLCC will create a "rules advisory committee" to hash out sensible policy on a more laid back timeline, and enact temporary rules while that's happening.

•It's possible the agency could stagger what types of licenses it offers, too. Rob Bovett, an attorney with the Association of Oregon Counties, says the commission should first issue licenses to growers, then to businesses that want to process pot a few months after that, and then to retailers.

•Everyone's concerned about edibles, which Colorado didn't do a fabulous job regulating initially. It seems exceedingly likely the OLCC will adopt rules that establish what a single dose of edibles comprises (Colorado arrived at 10 mg), and how much a single edible product can contain (100 mg in CO).

•Jeff Kuhns, a deputy chief at the Keizer Police Department, says the agency needs to limit the amount of pot someone can buy at any one time, and create a system—like one used by Oregon pharmacies—that can track individuals and make sure they're not "smurfing" weed shops.

Kuhns and others are also really concerned that Measure 91 is too confusing, and they're using as much hyperbole as possible to make that point. What, Kuhns hypothesized, would happen if a cop stopped someone who was carrying pot, young plants, edibles, drinkable marijuana, full grown plants, and extracts, and who was able to prove they were licensed as a grower, processor, and retailer?

"How is a police officer going to figure out at 3 am if that person is or is not in violation of the law?" Kuhns said. "It’s a monumental struggle that we are going to be faced with."

•Should Oregon keep the taxing structure voters enacted, a relatively simple $35/oz assessment? Scott Winkels, a lobbyist with the League of Oregon Cities says nope.

"Taxing based on weight doesn't make a lot of sense to us," Winkels said. "It seems odd to me, and inefficient. Taxing on retail brings in more money to the program."

•All this might be small potatoes compared to a central question: Whether Oregon's existing medical pot program, regulated by the Oregon Health Authority, should be left alone or folded into the framework being created.

"Voters wanted to keep the medical marijuana program separate from the OLCC operated system," Anthony Johnson, Measure 91's chief petitioner, told the commission. "The medical marijuana program should not be about an economic engine. It should first and foremost be about the patients."

But it's not quite that simple. There's a fear that looser rules for medical growers and patients could lead to spillover to illegal markets, an outcome that federal authorities have warned could lead to enforcement of their dusty prohibition.

In Colorado, the state we're taking a bunch of cues from as we figure this marijuana thing out, people are apparently insistent that recreational and medical pot should have a similar set of rules. So says Burns, the state pot czar, who was there recently: "What I heard them say over and over again was 'as you build this, make sure you know what you’re going to do with the medical side."