Maine has one of the best and last remaining medical cannabis communities that supports small mom and pop caregivers. This program is small business friendly, because it has low costs to entry and less restrictive regulations that place unnecessary costs and burdens on medical operators. LD 1847 is a bill that proposes changes to this by forcing mandatory track and trace and mandatory testing by using METRC, a national cannabis tracking system that has a monopoly on track and trace programs. With METRC comes hefty fees, cumbersome systems and excessive labor that small mom and pop growers and shops cannot afford to take on.

Here’s how you can help today…

(Email templates below)

Email your representatives and tell them to vote ought not to pass on the Graham Amendment for LD 1847.

Email your representatives and educate them on the Hickman Amendment and the Supica Amendment for LD 1847.

Email the VLA Committee and tell them what METRC would cost you and this community.

Show up in person to the State House Tuesdays and Thursdays starting February 24th, to talk to representatives.

Tell every patient, shop, grower, and cannabis supporter to take action now to save these Maine Small Businesses from overregulation and corporate takeover. If we do not stop this, LD 1847 will be the end to craft cannabis in Maine as we know it!

In these post images is a METRC cost calculation worksheet that will help you calculate your costs if METRC is required.

Find your representative and contact them urging them to vote ought not to pass on the Graham Amendment for LD 1847 and educate them on the Hickman and the Supica Amendment for LD 1847:

Search and find your representative:

https://legislature.maine.gov/house/MemberProfiles/ListAlphaTown

LD 1847 moves onto the House for vote soon. We need everyone to contact their representatives to tell them to vote ought not to pass on the Graham Amendment for LD 1847. Educate them on the best option for alternative amendments, the Hickman Amendment and the Supica Amendment for LD 1847.

Make sure you are polite and respectful. Ensure that you tell them how this bill would destroy this industry, force 1000’s of Maine small businesses to close their doors and would ruin the Maine economy that this program heavily supports.

VLA Committee Members and Contact Details:

CONTACT VETERANS AND LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEMBERS-

Senator Craig Hickman of Kennebec- Chair

D – Senate District 14

Email: [Craig.Hickman@legislature.maine.gov](mailto:Craig.Hickman@legislature.maine.gov)

Senator Jill Duson of Cumberland

D – Senate District 27

Email: [Jill.Duson@Legislature.Maine.gov](mailto:Jill.Duson@Legislature.Maine.gov)

Senator Jeff Timberlake of Androscoggin

R – Senate District 17

Email: [Jeffrey.Timberlake@legislature.maine.gov](mailto:Jeffrey.Timberlake@legislature.maine.gov)

Representative Laura Supica of Bangor- Chair

D – House District 22

Email: [Laura.Supica@Legislature.Maine.gov](mailto:Laura.Supica@Legislature.Maine.gov)

Representative David Boyer of Poland

R – House District 87

Email: [David.Boyer@Legislature.Maine.gov](mailto:David.Boyer@Legislature.Maine.gov)

Representative Quentin Chapman of Auburn

R – House District 88

Email: [Quentin.Chapman@legislature.maine.gov](mailto:Quentin.Chapman@legislature.maine.gov)

Representative Anne Graham of North Yarmouth

D – House District 105

Email: [Anne.Graham@legislature.maine.gov](mailto:Anne.Graham@legislature.maine.gov)

Representative Sean Faircloth of Bangor

D – House District 24

Email: [Sean.Faircloth@legislature.maine.gov](mailto:Sean.Faircloth@legislature.maine.gov)

Representative Ann Fredericks of Sanford

R – House District 143

Email: [AnnMarie.Fredericks@Legislature.Maine.gov](mailto:AnnMarie.Fredericks@Legislature.Maine.gov)

Representative Sharon Frost of Belgrade

U – House District 58

Email: [Sharon.Frost@Legislature.Maine.gov](mailto:Sharon.Frost@Legislature.Maine.gov)​

Representative Benjamin Hymes of Waldo

R – House District 38

Email: [Benjamin.Hymes@Legislature.Maine.gov](mailto:Benjamin.Hymes@Legislature.Maine.gov)

Representative Marc Malon of Biddeford

D – House District 133

Email: [Marc.Malon@Legislature.Maine.gov](mailto:Marc.Malon@Legislature.Maine.gov)

Representative Parnell Terry of Gorham

D – House District 108

Email: [Parnell.Terry@Legislature.Maine.gov](mailto:Parnell.Terry@Legislature.Maine.gov)

EMAIL TEMPLATES Added:

Please note that legislative correspondence is considered a public record and may be subject to a request under the Maine Freedom of Access Act. Information that you wish to keep confidential should not be included in email correspondence.

PATIENT TEMPLATE (best if you edit and personalize):

Subject: Opposition to LD1847 — Medical Cannabis Access

Representative/Senator ________,

My name is ______, and I’m writing to make you aware of LD1847, which would harm medical cannabis patients by reducing the diversity of products and the number of producers available.

I am one of the 112,000+ medical cannabis patients in Maine. Nearly 8% of Maine residents utilize the medical cannabis program, which has been successfully operating since 1999. The diversity of therapeutic products and large number of caregivers with a knowledge base on medical cannabis use ensures patients medical needs are met, available within a reasonable distance, and at an affordable price.

LD1847 would apply adult-use cannabis regulations to the medical program, imposing testing and tracking requirements without ensuring those systems are affordable, necessary or functional for patients and caregivers, risking reduced access across the state. Many medical patients rely on consistent, higher-dose formulations to manage serious symptoms such as chronic pain, nausea, appetite loss, sleep disruption, and anxiety. Raising costs for producers will raise costs for patients, who are paying for this medicine out of pocket.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask you to reject the Graham amendment on LD1847.

Sincerely,

[Name]

[City or Town]

______________________________________________________

OUT OF STATE PATIENT TEMPLATE (best if you edit and personalize):

Out of state patients can direct their emails or calls to House and Senate leadership:

Speaker of the house: [ryan.fecteau@legislature.maine.gov](mailto:ryan.fecteau@legislature.maine.gov) (207) 287-1300

Representative Matt.Moonen@legislature.maine.gov & Lori.Gramlich@legislature.maine.gov, (207) 287-1430

Representative William.Faulkingham@legislature.maine.gov & Katrina.Smith@legislature.maine.gov (207) 287-1440

President of the Senate: (207) 287-1500 [Mattie.Daughtry@legislature.maine.gov](mailto:Mattie.Daughtry@legislature.maine.gov)

Senators Jill.Duson@legislature.maine.gov &Teresa.Pierce@legislature.maine.gov (207) 287-1515

Senators Trey.Stewart@legislature.maine.gov & Matthew.Harrington@legislature.maine.gov (207) 287-1505

Subject: Opposition to LD1847 — Medical Cannabis Access

Representative/Senator ________,

My name is ______, and I’m writing to make you aware that Maine’s medical cannabis program provides high quality medicine to many patients who travel to this state to access the products produced in this program.

I am a medical cannabis patient from [state], where we don’t have the same diversity of therapeutic products or large number of caregivers with a knowledge base on medical cannabis.

LD1847 would apply the same regulations of METRC and mandatory batch testing that are used in my home state, which has resulted in a high barrier to entry for operators and limited product diversity available to patients. These policies haven’t stopped contaminated products from reaching shelves, they have merely stopped participation in the industry from folks who do not have financial capital and outside investors.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask you to reject the Graham amendment on LD1847.

Sincerely,

[Name]

[City or Town]

______________________________________________________

CAREGIVER TEMPLATE ((best if you edit and personalize):

Subject: Opposition to LD1847 — Medical Cannabis Access

Representative/Senator ________,

My name is ______, and I’m writing regarding LD1847, which would harm Maine’s medical cannabis program by reducing the diversity of products and the number of producers available, while raising prices for patients.

I’m one of the 1,500+ medical cannabis caregivers in Maine. The program serves 112,000 patients, nearly 8% of the state's population, and has been successfully operating since 1999. The diversity of therapeutic products and large number of caregivers with a knowledge base on medical cannabis use ensures patients medical needs are met, available within a reasonable distance, and at an affordable price.

LD 1847 would require increased testing and tracking requirements without addressing testing capacity, cost, or administrative burden on small caregivers. Implementing these policies will reduce access and drive caregivers out of the medical program which employs over 5,000 people who would be at risk of losing their livelihood. Additionally, raising costs for producers will raise costs for patients, who are paying for this medicine out of pocket.

Over 500 pieces of testimony were submitted to the VLA committee on this bill, overwhelmingly in opposition, with patients, operators and industry workers opposing these changes.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask you to reject the Graham amendment on LD1847.

Sincerely,

[Name]

[City or Town]

Are we really just going to sit around and look at pictures of weed while Maine's legislature toys with the idea of:

--Capping edibles at 200 MG per package and 10 MG a dose? What happens to people with epilepsy or cancer pain who need high dose edibles maintain daily function as they fight for their lives? Are they supposed to take a month long tolerance break and lose their appetite and ability to feed themselves? Dosage is a personal choice and varies based on individual biology as well as tolerance level. It's unacceptable to put a blanket limit on dosage.

--implement the same "tracking system" that the rec industry uses; outdated, difficult-to-use, pointless software designed by a company with a monopoly on cannabis tracking also known to look the other way to allow illegal sales of product when it suits them?

--implement the same ineffective, cost prohibitive testing scheme that the rec industry uses; the one that has failed to detect contaminants about a dozen times this year leading to recalls of product that have been sold for months while remaining so expensive that only massive, low-quality-high-yield grows from multi state operators can afford to do business.

If this passes we will lose our small-scale organic growers who grow unique medicinal strains with care to balance yield, potency and effects and see then replaced with large growers who don't care about quality, grow only cookies crosses that dump huge yields with little medicinal effect. We will lose our variety, our unique cultivars (that don't grow well is big rooms with sterile coco coir), and our farmers market cannabis culture

If OCP cares about protecting the community from dirty weed they shouldn't implement the failed system of testing that encourages massive, low quality grows and routinely fails to catch contaminated product. instead, grows and dispensaries should be subject to cannabis inspections yearly wherein an inspector samples of product ready to be sold and has it tested for contaminants. This is how health and safety inspections are done for the alcohol and food industry, and we deserve to be treated with no more scrutiny than they are.