ShareThis Page
Trib editorial: Ruling puts pot facilities in proper perspective |

Trib editorial: Ruling puts pot facilities in proper perspective


A decision by Pennsylvania’s Office of Open Records clears the clouded reasoning that effectively obscured reams of information about the state’s nascent medical marijuana industry. If there was ever a case for transparency — from a state administration that supposedly champions it — this would be it.

Under a ruling from appeals officer Kyle Applegate, Gov. Tom Wolf’s Health Department is to republish applications released last year from companies seeking to operate medical marijuana production facilities and dispensaries. The department had allowed growers/processors, themselves, to “self-redact” anything they considered to be proprietary information, in addition to what the Health Department redacted, according to PennLive. Subsequently there was no telling from some of the heavily redacted applications who would manage these operations or who would fund them.

Now the state will be required to provide the names, addresses and “points of contact for all owners, financial backers and key operators of firms named in the appeal,” PennLive reports. Details on facility operations, apart from specific building and security information, are also required.

The state and affected applicants have less than 30 days to comply or appeal to Commonwealth Court. We’re talking about providing due attention to the roots of a new industry that likely will grow into a multibillion-dollar enterprise.

The level of transparency ordered should have been the rule going forward when the state signed off on these grower/processor applications.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.