Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Bill would require verified owner consent before psilocybin or marijuana licenses issued

2364676 · February 20, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senate Bill 907 would require applicants for psilocybin manufacturer licenses and marijuana production/processing registrations to submit verified ownership information and written owner consent when the license premises are not owned by the applicant, the sponsor said at a Feb. 20 public hearing.

Senate Bill 907 drew a lengthy Feb. 20 public hearing before the Senate Labor and Business Committee, where sponsor Sen. Kim Thatcher said the bill would require applicants for psilocybin manufacturing licenses and for medical marijuana grow or processing registrations to provide verified ownership information and, when the premises are not owned by the applicant, to obtain specified consent from the property owner.

Thatcher said the change is aimed at protecting landlords who say tenants have sought licenses using rental addresses without adequate, verified permission. She described the bill as requiring landlord verification — such as a notarized signature — so that owners cannot be falsely implicated if a tenant operates an illicit grow. Thatcher cited several existing license forms and said the current system often relies on an unverified attestation by the applicant.

Anthony Taylor, legislative director for the nonprofit Compassionate Oregon and patient-seat chair on the Oregon Cannabis Commission, testified in opposition to the measure as introduced. Taylor said the Oregon Health Authority and the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission already require disclosure of a property owner if the applicant is not the owner and have existing forms and procedures; he argued additional requirements such as certified mail and notarized responses would impose an unnecessary administrative burden on agencies and licensees and urged the committee to vote no.

A member of the public, James Crawford, offered extended testimony describing hazards he attributes to unregulated grows and urged stronger protections for landowners; committee members followed up to obtain contact information so staff could follow up with him. No formal action or vote occurred at the hearing.