$8M later, this state has yet to open single cannabis dispensary

Droves of Alabama voters rejoiced when the governor signed a bill legalizing a regulated medical cannabis industry. Since then, the appointed Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission (AMCC) has overseen three license processes that have yet to become more than a promise.

After these failed attempts, a bill proposes that they scrap what they have and start again one more time. This comes much to the dismay of taxpayers hoping for access to medical cannabis after seeing the AMCC spend $8.4 million in state funds since FY2022.

RELATED: Science could ease the worst part of mushroom trips

Alabama medical cannabis licensing

The 2021 medical legalization law established the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission. Since then, the appointed experts in medicine, pharmacy, agriculture, and law have attempted to distribute all operator licenses from testing to transportation. As written, they are slotted to grant five integrated facility (vertical) licenses, with 20 percent reserved for Black entrepreneurs.

The first three attempts to license vertically integrated operators and dispensaries has remained tied up in litigation. Multiple lawsuits have been filed by hopeful applicants, stalling the start of the industry.

The Commission contracted the University of South Alabama to assist in the first try at licensing weed companies. Over 60 evaluators looked at the 90 license applications, considering solvency, stability, suitability, capability, projected efficiency, and experience against an AMCC baseline and other applicants. This process was deemed mathematically inconsistent days after completion.

Round two attempting to issue Alabama weed licenses

The AMCC voted to suspend the first round of license issuances after members claimed they wanted an independent review of the process. The commission stripped those who received the coveted spots of the honor and returned to the drawing board.

Two senior-level university accountants worked alongside third-party international accounting firm Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler (KPMG) to confirm alleged inconsistencies. The mathematical errors were deemed corrected, and licenses were reissued a few months later.

Those awarded licenses in this round were instructed they had 14 days to pay the annual fees of $30,000 to $40,000. Any denied applicant could request an investigative hearing with the AMCC, a point laid out in the law.

Instead, they took to the courts. Hopeful companies filed lawsuits against the Commission, sparking the group to try a third time.

RELATED: You could fail a drug test without getting high

The third attempt: live round robin

Commission members attempted to license operators once more during a December 2023 round table meeting. Commission members voted yay or nay one applicant at a time for the public to see. Five vertical licenses were awarded. The decision inspired more to join the lawsuit against AMCC. They have been barred by court order from issuing any further dispensary or integrated licenses since December 2023.

“The Commission has attempted to have the order modified in breadth to allow the statutorily-prescribed investigative hearing process to proceed, but to date, the court has refused to modify the order,” AMCC shared in a statement sent to GreenState.

Lawsuits have continued to gum up any movement toward accessible cannabis for prescribed patients and made up $1.4M of the AMCC total spend since FY 2022. The current license holders have paid upwards of tens of thousands in fees without the right to operate and no word of when they might start.

Vince Schilleci, chief legal officer for CCS of Alabama, a dispensary license award winner, recalled paying a $40,000 licensing fee within 14 days of winning to hold its space in the race.

While the plight of potential weed brands sounds harrowing, the concern should be for the citizens. As the legal battles continue, Alabama medical patients are in year four of waiting for some form of safe access.

“We are not able to access medical cannabis,” Chey Lindsay Garrigan, CEO of the Alabama Cannabis Industry Association, told GreenState. “No dispensary is open, and it’s like having Christmas presents you have not been able to open, and you don’t know when you will be able to open them, and Christmas has came and went for two years.”

Many are turning to the intoxicating hemp market, an increasingly popular choice in states sans legal weed. However, lawmakers are pursuing new legislation that seeks to take even this option off of the table.

Lawmakers step in with potential fixes

Senate Bill 132, introduced by Sen. Tim Melson in early February, seeks to ban all psychoactive derivatives of hemp by classifying them as Schedule I drugs. It is not groundbreaking, state lawmakers elsewhere have taken similar action, but the temperature is unique in Alabama. Patients waited for cannabis for years, and instead of receiving concrete information about when dispensaries may open, lawmakers are pushing to ban their alternative.

A Change.org petition opposing the bill has circulated. It is addressed to the governor, legislature, and regulatory agencies and has just over 2000 signatures. Citizens have also voiced concern in the comment plugin on the bill’s summary.

“We don’t need a few control-hungry politicians making something illegal that has never harmed anyone, and certainly never caused death,” Jennifer Hogan commented. “If the powers that be would concentrate on getting the meth and fentanyl off the streets, the citizens would absolutely be much safer. Put your task forces on those things.”

While SB132 is viewed as an attack on cannabis access, it is not the only weed bill moving through the state senate. If passed in combination with another move to ease this sticky process, SB132 could have a positive effect.

Potential legislation dictates: no more lawsuits

Senate Bill 72 actively addresses pain points that have halted medical marijuana in the state. As written, the bill would increase the amount of licenses from five to seven. However, Garrigan received information that a sub may be added to the bill today increasing the vertical integrator license cap to 10.

When GreenState asked for confirmation, the AMCC declined to speculate on legislative action. Lawmakers involved in the legislation did not respond to requests for comment.

Whether seven or 10 appointments are granted, SB72 negates the previously awarded vertical licenses. AMCC commented that it has not collected any license fees.

RELATED: New cannabis device disrupts widely used tech

If passed, the bill instructs the AMCC to hire a consultant to select the licensees from the original pool of applications from 2022. It also rules this selection as a “final determination” “for all legal purposes.” Its language removes the ability to challenge a denial with an investigatory hearing and deems any granted licenses “conclusive,” seemingly to button up any potentially stalling litigation.

Sen. Melson, who filed that hemp banning bill, also supports SB 72. In fact, it could potentially work in congruence with SB132 to set medical operators up for success without the competition of unregulated products. However, until medical dispensaries are open for business, those waiting for weed in Alabama see the ban as another affront to their right to get high.

When will Alabama have medical cannabis dispensaries?

Since 2021, people in the Yellowhammer State have been waiting for access to regulated, tested cannabis products. Instead they have seen millions in state funds go towards failed licensing and litigation. While multiple bills pursue avenues to closure, many have lost faith in the original bill altogether.

Alabama’s medical cannabis saga has only continued since the first blow to the licensing process years ago. However, there is currently building momentum from lawmakers as everyone works to get pot to patients.

Editor’s Note:  This article has been corrected. Previously the University of Alabama was listed as helping with the first attempt to license operators, it was actually the University of South Alabama. Additionally, the article has been updated for clarity pertaining to who allegedly collected licensing fees and the amount collected.