Pennsylvania Health Department ordered to grant access to medical marijuana providers |

Pennsylvania Health Department ordered to grant access to medical marijuana providers

Ben Schmitt
Associated Press
A leaf of marijuana

The Pennsylvania Department of Health must reveal more information about organizations that applied for licenses to be medical marijuana growers and dispensaries, according to a state Office of Open Records ruling.

Over the summer, the Health Department released the names of 27 statewide medical marijuana dispensaries and 12 growers. But much of the information was redacted, as the department allowed applicants to black out information they wanted kept confidential.

A ruling Thursday by Office of Open Records appeals officer Kyle Applegate orders the state to republish the applicants with more information, including financial backers, principals and operators.

The state has 30 days to comply or appeal to Commonwealth Court.

“We are reviewing the order and weighing our options,” Health Department spokeswoman April Hutcheson said Monday.

“The medical marijuana industry needs to get up and running in full sunlight — not behind a smoke screen,” said Cate Barron , vice president of content for PA Media Group, the corporate parent of PennLive and The Patriot-News, according to a PennLive report. “But that’s what resulted when the people going after the grower and dispensary permits were allowed to censor their own applications.”

PennLive was one of the media outlets that filed a Right-to-Know request seeking more information from the list of applicants.

Gov. Tom Wolf signed a medical marijuana bill into law in April 2016.

Under state law, patients can apply for a state-issued medical marijuana card if a doctor certifies they have one of 17 medical conditions, including epilepsy, cancer, multiple sclerosis and seizure disorders.

The program is expected to be operational sometime this year.

Potential growers were required to submit a nonrefundable $10,000 application fee; pay a $200,000 permit fee, which was refundable if the permit was not granted; and show proof of $2 million in capital.

Dispensaries had to pay a nonrefundable $5,000 application fee; submit a $30,000 permit fee, which was refundable if the permit was not granted; and show proof of $150,000 in capital.

The Health Department has already appealed a separate Office of Open Records ruling that it must identify the members of a panel that evaluated applications for state medical marijuana permits.

Ben Schmitt is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 412-320-7991, [email protected] or via Twitter at @Bencschmitt.

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.