Adult Use Residency Rules Are Bad Business

If you saw our previous post on the residency requirements in the proposed adult use rules, you know that they severely restrict the ability of non-Maine residents to own equity, operate, or exert “more than minimal influence” over a Maine cannabis business. Putting aside the legality of the rules (and the legality of the residency requirement in the statute, which may also be questionable), these residency rules are bad business and will harm Maine’s burgeoning cannabis industry.

Maine cannabis companies do not qualify for bank loans or other traditional sources of financing. The typical way cannabis companies raise capital is through equity investment and, for many companies, at least some of their equity investors live out of state. It is also customary in the industry to have management or consulting agreements in place with companies from other states who have expertise in an area of processing, cultivation, or product development that your company does not have, with royalties paid to consultants in return for their time and expertise. In addition, many cannabis companies are beholden to private lenders for equipment loans or leases. The expansive residency rules go far beyond the statute’s mandate to have 51% of owners be Maine residents, and would arguably prohibit or severely restrict Maine cannabis companies from having or entering into any of the foregoing arrangements. And existing caregiver and dispensary operations may be required to rethink their ownership structures and contractual relationships before entering into the adult use market, as DHHS has historically allowed consulting and management agreements with out-of-state vendors.

The legislature created residency requirements focusing on ownership, rather than control, because this allows outside investment to come into Maine in certain forms so long as it does not upset the 51% residency requirement. This balance is necessary to the growth of Maine’s cannabis industry. Other states have taken restrictive approaches to outside investment when they launched their adult use cannabis markets, only to loosen these restrictions down the road. Oregon initially required 51% of a cannabis business to be owned by two-year residents but repealed the requirements in 2016. According to the Cannabis Association Executive Director, Amy Margolis, the residency requirement was a failure because it stifled investment and hurt Oregon business owners. Margolis said: “[f]or every five people who came into my office, three or four of them were looking for capital, and they couldn’t find it here in Oregon. It became clear that unless people could reach outside the state for investment money, we weren’t going to have a very successful market.” Colorado similarly loosened its residency requirements to allow for out-of-state investment. We shouldn’t disregard the hard lessons learned by other states.

Prohibiting out-of-state investments for cannabis companies will only result in reduced investment into the Maine economy and will result in Maine having an industry that’s less competitive than states with more lenient or no residency requirements. A less healthy industry means fewer jobs for Maine people, fewer choices for Maine consumers, and an industry susceptible to falling behind other states. This is why the legislature struck a balance and did not effectively prohibit outside investments in Maine cannabis businesses. The Office of Marijuana Policy Department of Administrative and Financial Services should not substitute its judgment for that of the legislature and slow the growth of Maine’s adult use marijuana industry before it even starts.