WSLCB - Executive Management Team
(June 9, 2021)

Wednesday June 9, 2021 1:30 PM - 3:30 PM Observed
WSLCB Enforcement Logo

The three-member board of the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) and agency leadership meet weekly as the Executive Management Team to facilitate coordination between the appointed Board and staff.

https://lcb.wa.gov/boardmeetings/2021June_schedule

Observations

A “wave of interest” around the WSLCB-approved Joints for Jabs vaccination program provoked both media inquiry and criticism while the board and staff remained confident in the program.

Here are some observations from the Wednesday June 9th Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) Executive Management Team (EMT) meeting.

My top 3 takeaways:

  • Director Rick Garza and Chair David Postman talked about the public response to the vaccine program and how state officials were “not in the business of promoting cannabis use."
    • Garza mentioned his media appearances, including “a radio show in Vancouver, BC,” and talked about the unprecedented nature of the vaccine promotion. On mentioning it to members of the Cannabis Regulators Association (CANNRA), he had been told “Michigan allows one retailer” but most states weren’t even considering it. Stating that agency staff regularly heard they were “so far behind” on cannabis policies, Garza called Joints for Jabs “another example of innovation” from WSLCB leaders who were helping the state “get people vaccinated” through free cannabis or alcohol incentives (audio - 2m).
    • Postman noted the “critiques from all sides.” The “public health and prevention community is unhappy that we, we did anything of this sort that could look like we’re encouraging or promoting” cannabis consumption. In contrast “some of the retailers think we’re not doing enough,” he commented. Governor Jay Inslee wanted to “do everything we possibly could to encourage people” to get vaccinated. And while “having everyone mad is not necessarily the measure of striking the right balance,” Postman admitted, “I think we did.” He found the public statements from Smith and Garza struck a correct tone since the board was “not in the business of promoting cannabis use." He believed public health and cannabis use interests “do cross, momentarily” in the effort to achieve herd immunity against COVID-19 (audio - 1m).
  • Board Member Ollie Garrett shared her experience helping establish a popup vaccination site through her work for the group Tabor 100 (audio - 2m).
    • Admitting she wished “I had gotten more involved in the conversation,” Garrett addressed challenges finding appropriate staff to administer on-site vaccinations as expressed by licensees in public comment. In working with Tabor 100 to organize a vaccine pop-up site, she’d found “the only that’s required, we had to have a nurse or pharmacy here giving the vaccine and able to account that we’re letting anyone who comes in, there’s a seating area where they have to sit for 15 minutes” in case of an adverse reaction. Garrett indicated that a Tabor 100 member was a pharmacist “and had a nurse that they donate[d] to us when we were doing our pop-up site. But it’s not that complicated to have a site.” She did agree “some of the stores are so small” that vaccination administration indoors “would be difficult” due to the need for a seating area following a vaccine to “be observed for 15 minutes before they walk away.” Postman said he’d visited a drive through location where “it was just a place to park your car for 15 minutes” and believed there was “a lot of flexibility in setting those things up.”

Board members entertained a possible public relations effort around delta-8-THC before they learned what other states had done or were attempting to do to control use of the compound.

Here are some observations from the Wednesday June 9th Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) Executive Management Team (EMT) meeting.

My top 3 takeaways:

  • As board members prepared to hear more about cannabinoids synthesized from hemp biomass cannabidiol (CBD), they mentioned the potential for a public relations campaign.
    • In April 2020, licensed cannabis producers publicly voiced fears about the safety and legality of importing delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-8-THC) and delta-9-THC synthesized from hemp extracted CBD. In the following weeks, board members started discussing and learning more about the practice.
    • During the EMT meeting, Board Member Russ Hauge told Director of Communications Brian Smith agency representatives couldn’t “chase” all of the “misinformation” on the subject but that he’d appreciated Smith’s media statements on the “plain illegality of delta-9 produced from hemp being introduced into our system.” Hauge was curious whether the “campaign of misinformation that I see happening about what’s going on with delta-8 and delta-9 and what we’re doing about it” would involve “more of a plan to address it.” Smith said his communications team wasn’t “taking delta-8 on” with their full “communications tactics.” As Policy and Rules Manager Kathy Hoffman and her staff had “a lot of work ahead of it on this issue,” he observed, the Communications division at the agency would “be a partner in being able to help carry that message.” Smith had encountered “talk about this, good and bad” from entities in the cannabis industry, though “as far as it reaching the entire general public...I think it’s still got an uphill road to get there where people start thinking about ‘well, what the heck is this?’” Nonetheless, he said the topic was “swirling right now” around the cannabis sector and “was gonna be here a little while.” Smith was optimistic that the work of Hoffman and others would be “a good opportunity to be able to build on that” (audio - 2m). 
    • Board Chair David Postman considered there to be “a lack of good information” on the practice and officials were “all learning as we go along.” From what he’d heard the deliberative dialogue session “sounds like it was terrific” (audio - <1m).
  • Policy and Rules Manager Kathy Hoffman discussed synthesized cannabinoid policies developing in other states.
    • Postman introduced the topic of “what other states are doing” around delta-8-THC, noting that the idea of banning the compound as an additive had been called for during a board meeting earlier that day though he’d heard others ask for “a way to regulate it” (audio - 1m). 
    • Hauge established that he considered there to be “two separate issues” (audio - 2m):
      • “The delta-8 issue, selling stuff in gas stations [or] over the internet is really something that the legislature is going to have to address. The extent to which it’s in our [initiative-]502 stores is something we have responsibility for,” he said, finding that the policy statement had been “since watered down.”
      • “The delta-9 from hemp-based biomass, coming into the system and supplanting cannabis-based biomass,” was a threat that Hauge viewed as “almost existential for the market as we know it now.”
      • Adding that board members had “been instructed it’s not our business to determine what kind of market we have,” Hauge still perceived synthesized delta-9-THC as “a really big deal for everybody who holds a tier 1 or tier 2 producer/processor license.”
    • Hoffman began the presentation by stating there had been some statements reported in the media she considered to be not “factual. There’s a lot of misinformation out there.” She pointed out that claims of “states suddenly banning delta-8” belie that “most states have adopted some form of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) that lists tetrahydrocannabinol, including isomers” such as delta-8-THC and delta-10-THC. “So, this notion that a whole bunch of states are suddenly banning this product” wasn’t entirely true, Hoffman explained. She brought up the deliberative dialogue from June 9th and its “record” attendance which demonstrated there was “great interest” in the subject. Presenting a table reviewing other states’ policies, Hoffman told the board she would cover both “states where legislative bans or regulatory clarifications are currently being considered or have been enacted” in addition to a few “states where delta-8 is included, specifically included, under their controlled substances act.” Hoffman said another challenge for regulators broadly was “whether marijuana and hemp should be separated in statute and regulation” as well as a definition of “isomer and isomerization and synthetics” (audio - 9m). Hoffman next reviewed states where cannabis was available to medical patients only as well as states where it was also available to adults 21 and older (audio - 9m).
      • Alabama - Legislation, which was delivered to the governor April 29th, sought to separate cannabis based on whether it was above or below 0.3% THC but were “still heavily relying” on the definition of THC in the federal CSA.
      • Alaska - Delta-8-THC was specifically listed as a controlled substance already and “a carve out has been made for hemp.”
      • Arizona - Arizona law already defined cannabis inclusive of marijuana and hemp as well as accepting “any isomer of delta-9.”
      • Arkansas - The definition of narcotic drug in state law talks “about anything that’s produced, directly or indirectly, from a substance or vegetable origin or independently by means of chemical synthesis.”
      • Colorado - The CSA in the state gave regulators "very broad statutory authority" which had been utilized on May 14th “to outright ban delta-8.” The law also had exceptions for “what ‘synthetic cannabinoid’ does not mean.”
      • Delaware - State law had “similar language” to other states.
      • Illinois - Legislators sought to define “cannabis” as well as “industrial hemp” as separate products through a bill titled the CBD Safety Act. The state CSA, which “specifically speaks to delta-9-THC,” would expand the definition, a “reoccurring theme" across states.
      • Idaho - State law included a THC definition that matched Washington while being “a little more extensive.”
      • Iowa - Law there included part of the federal CSA.
      • Kentucky - With the “exact same” definition for THC as Washington, agriculture officials there had released guidance for hemp licensees “reaffirming that both the delta-8 was a schedule 1 drug...and therefore prohibited.”
        • On March 25th, House Bill 307 was signed into law further defining cannabis as “all parts of the plant Cannabis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant,” and banning all isomers of THC.
      • Michigan - Legislators were working on “active” legislation to “revise definitions extensively” for hemp and “marihuana” including “a carve out” for some products not considered cannabis under law. Legislators were also “moving into speaking towards ‘total THC’” and providing the Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA) “very broad rulemaking authority.” This included the power to “ban or prohibit the use of delta-8 if they wished.” She outlined the THC definition under consideration there, noting the “exclusion language” would permit MRA officials to look at cannabinoids "that [do] not have a potential for abuse,” speculating that would include CBD or “products that you might find in food.”
        • Postman asked about Michigan regulator authority to ban delta-8-THC, with Hoffman clarifying that she didn’t believe MRA leaders could under their existing powers “but by broadening the definition of THC” it could “become possible” (audio - 1m).
      • Mississippi - Voters passed a medical legalization measure in 2020 which was ruled invalid by the Mississippi Supreme Court. Their decision voided the citizen initiative process used in the state for two decades and reportedly invalidated “any other ballot initiative measure that has been passed since the state lost its fifth congressional voting district” including “initiatives to expand the state’s Medicaid program, permit early voting, and reinstate the 1890 Mississippi state flag.” The state continued to apply a definition for THC similar to the federal CSA.
      • Montana - Adult use cannabis laws had taken effect in 2021 while the state CSA scheduling language was similar to Washington.
      • New York - Officials were considering “synthetic” THC and “hemp-derived products” in the schedule of controlled substances.
      • North Dakota - State legislators introduced a bill to empower officials to ban the process of isomerization of THC while also mandating “that selling hemp or hemp products that were created using the isomerization of cannabinoids to create of tetrahydrocannabinol, including D8, D9, and [delta-10-THC] could also be prohibited.”
      • Oklahoma - Lawmakers were considering the Oklahoma Adult Access to Marijuana Act which had a broader definition for “marijuana” and was “trying to define ‘isomer’” and “further” define THC while “specifically including delta-8 and delta-10.”
      • Oregon - State legislators had been considering changes in law to expand the definition of THC during a session which would end June 27th. The proposal would “tightly” regulate hemp production, control “all artificial or naturally derived” THC, specifically citing delta-8-THC and delta-9-THC, and any cannabinoid “which may have an intoxicating effect.”
      • Rhode Island - Laws in the state, specifically the Hemp Growth Act, featured “specific” definitions for CBD and cannabis that were more “exciting or helpful” than equivalent definitions for Washingston.
      • Utah - Allowed “no exceptions” for hemp in their CSA.
      • Vermont - Regulators there adopted “rules in 2020 that ban the use of synthetic cannabinoid” in hemp products.
  • Public Health Education Liaison Sara Cooley Broschart spoke to the impression she’d received from public health representatives on why “action on THC isomers other than delta-9 is necessary in Washington state” (audio - 4m).
    • She said comments in the plant chemistry deliberative dialogue suggested delta-8-THC was regarded as “impairing" and "not well studied." Broschart told the board the compound possessed “similar impairing and psychoactive effects as delta-9-THC. The [World Health Organization] estimated that it’s about 50 to 75% as potent” and that products with delta-8-THC were available in vapor cartridges and infused in foodstuffs “that are being sold online and alongside CBD products outside of our licensed retail cannabis stores.”
    • The primary areas of concern outlined by Broschart:
      • “Youth and young adults under 21 have access”
      • “The lower cost of these products because they’re not subject to the excise tax” left them particularly “more attractive and accessible to youth...and anyone”
      • “Public safety is at risk” if consumers don’t appreciate “that they may be impaired or unable to operate machinery”
    • Because delta-8-THC products were already accessible, the public could believe “that they are less harmful” than items from licensed retailers, Broschart warned. Consumers had no labels, warnings, or testing requirements to protect them from “harmful chemicals, byproducts, or foreign contaminants.” She added that there had been “several reported cases from poison centers nationally.” Broschart mentioned agency staff had been working “to address THC isomers other than D8 inside our licensed retail cannabis stores and doing a really strong job of that” but that Washington was “behind other states...in addressing the outside-of-LCB aspects.” She suggested that it was important for the board to support regulatory development “as the knowledge holders on these products.”
    • Broschart suggested WSLCB staff should seek “to regulate any impairing...intoxicating product” as “the strongest course of action from a public health perspective.” She called attention to the “imperative” work studying delta-8-THC and public health issues by agency contractee Gillian Schauer, a research scientist at the University of Washington Addictions, Drug & Alcohol Institute (ADAI). Broschart added that Schauer was available to “meet with any board member individually.”
    • Postman wanted to know if a “preferred public health approach to this” had emerged in other jurisdictions, “or is it too soon to even know what’s the right approach?” Broschart found each state was different “but I do think from a public health perspective, really, bringing the regulation of any impairing and intoxicating substance" under a single agency “makes the most sense.” Such control would be “a big job,” she conceded, but found it would be “the simplest to deal with for licensees and community” and would allow WSLCB staff to “get ahead of these issues as they continue” (audio - 1m). 

WSLCB leadership learned about the process and timeline for agency request legislation, and the Chair called for a public presentation of the legislative agenda before the 2022 session.

Here are some observations from the Wednesday June 9th Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) Executive Management Team (EMT) meeting.

My top 3 takeaways:

  • Director of Legislative Relations Chris Thompson explained the process for agency staff to draft and request legislation for the following year’s legislative session.
    • Thompson described the legislative arena as “mercifully quiet right now,” given that the 2021 legislative session ended April 25th, though interim meetings which included lawmakers continued such as the Washington State Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) and the Washington State Legislative Task Force on Social Equity in Cannabis (WA SECTF). He gave a “look ahead” at the process for WSLCB to submit prospective legislation to the Governor’s Office for approval ahead of the 2022 legislative session (audio - 7m).
      • Thompson recalled that at this point in 2020, he had not expected request legislation, whereas “I think we will pursue agency request legislation in the upcoming cycle.” He explained the deadline to get requests to the governor’s office was September 13th, adding that a busy legislative session in 2021 made staff feel as though the month after the conclusion of the session “just evaporated, without warning. So, our timeline is a little more compressed than it has been in years past, but it has started.”
      • Thompson distributed “guidance to division directors” at the agency which included a “series of steps and timelines.” The system had been modified from prior years, he acknowledged, but was “broadly similar.” Directors were encouraged to work with their staff to develop ideas for request bills for submission by the end of June, Thompson stated. One difficulty was that he would “be out for a few weeks during prime season for developing agency request bills,” describing how Chief Financial Officer Jim Morgan would oversee the process “from mid-July to mid-August” in his absence. He pointed out, “key pieces of these efforts come from Jim’s staff in the finance division anyway,” so Morgan would be a suitable lead for the process.
      • After an initial review during the first week of July, deliberations would begin during “the second week of July” on “the fiscal implications” of possible request bills. In “probably late July, early August,” the WSLCB management team and board would review possible agency requests, including “what has come up so far in discussions about these ideas.” Thompson promised to ensure board members were “up to date, certainly, by key junctures in the process.”
      • By the middle of August, any “potential ideas” the board and management team wanted to pursue would be shared with the “stakeholder community,” Thompson said, allowing “a couple of weeks” for any “feedback or suggestions that they might want to offer to us.” “The week of August 30th,” Thompson and staff would complete a review of stakeholder feedback to “discuss with [the] management team any potential revisions and then take that to the board” in a public meeting for any other changes or “input at that point.”
      • From there, he observed that request bills were entered into the Washington State Office of Financial Management (WA OFM) Bill Analysis and Tracking System (BATS) through which WA OFM staff and the governor’s office would communicate to agency representatives if request legislation could be offered to legislators for sponsorship. Thompson said requested bills would include “legislative language, a fiscal note, a description of the proposal, information about stakeholder feedback” in addition to “how the measures connect with the governor’s priorities.” He added that WSLCB staff were attempting to have proposals for bills vetted and submitted by September 10th.
      • The request legislation process was described by Director Rick Garza in June 2019. See the 2019 agency request legislation timeline, policy analysis framework criteria, and analysis tool matrix.
      • In 2020, the WSLCB agency request package included
  • Board Chair David Postman asked for a presentation of any approved WSLCB request legislation to the public. 
    • Postman asked if there was “a point prior to the session” when the public could be introduced to what the agency “legislative agenda looks like” (audio - 2m).
      • Thompson responded that it was contingent on notification of approved request bills from the governor’s office, which “doesn’t impose upon themselves a specific timeline.” He speculated that approval could come anytime between the fall of 2021 and January 2022, just prior to the start of the legislative session. He told Postman he did expect “a good indication” from counterparts on the governor’s staff on whether or not proposals were likely to be approved by November. He anticipated WSLCB officials would only produce “maybe not more than one, or two” request bills. Once approved, a request bill couldn’t be changed by agency representatives and Thompson would offer it to prospective legislative sponsors as formatted by the Washington State Office of the Code Reviser (WA OCR). Thompson added that the governor’s office had “unforgiving timelines” to submit budget proposals to Washington State Legislature (WA Legislature) leaders.
      • Postman asked that whenever their request package was finalized “we do some public airing of that,” but empathized, “I know how those people over at the governor’s office can be.”
    • The legislative biennium utilized by the Washington State Legislature (WA Legislature) means 2022 has a shorter 60-day session than the 2021 session. See the 2020 cutoff calendar, the most recent short session at time of publication.
  • At least two agency request bills were likely on complex topics: the next step in the regulation of cannabis testing laboratories and oversight of synthesized cannabinoids.
    • The Cannabis Science Task Force (CSTF), which last met on June 11th, reached consensus on the need for a cannabis science interagency coordination team (ICT) to handle lab accreditation and testing standards. The new entity would include representatives from WSLCB, the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA), the Washington State Department of Health (DOH), and potentially dedicated staff to serve as the “client” of the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) in order to leverage their lab accreditation functions. At publication time, all ICT agencies were planning to independently submit request legislation and the subject matter to be undertaken by each was unclear. The ICT, which had been envisioned as a permanent entity and beneficiary of standing appropriations from the legislature, would accept the recommendations of the CSTF, adapt as necessary, and instruct the DOE on how to proceed. All of the recommendations of the CSTF presume an entity like the ICT is necessary, and---if the WA Legislature concurs---it would become the first permanent authority dedicated to cannabis in Washington state.
    • Synthesized cannabinoids in legal cannabis products, in particular delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC) and delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-8-THC), had been a topic of increasing urgency for cannabis stakeholders and board members in the first half of 2021. There had been repeated mentions that legislation would be needed for officials to effectively control or prohibit use of the compounds, which can be created from hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) in chemical conversion processes allegedly used by at least one licensed processor.
    • Board members had also voiced interest in moving quickly on implementation of recommendations from the WA SECTF. However, the final recommendations from the task force aren’t due to WSLCB, the legislature, and the governor’s office until December 2022, and it was unclear if task force members would be able to organize preliminary recommendations before the deadline for proposing request legislation. In advance of the 2021 session, the task force relied upon their legislative members to prepare and introduce HB 1443 to build upon the foundations established by HB 2870.

Engagement Options

Webinar

https://teams.microsoft.com/...2%3a%224bb5cd1e-4347-4ae1-b13b-813c9fbc89c0%22%7d

Phone

Number: 1.564.999.2000
Conference ID: 633 825 305

Information Set