WA House RSG - Committee Meeting
(February 2, 2023)

Thursday February 2, 2023 8:00 AM - 9:55 AM Observed
Washington State House of Representatives Logo

The Washington State House Regulated Substances and Gaming Committee (WA House RSG) was charged with considering issues relating to the regulation and taxation of alcohol, tobacco, vapor products and cannabis, as well as product safety and access, and issues relating to the regulation and oversight of gaming, including tribal compacts. Formerly the Washington State House Commerce and Gaming Committee (WA House COG), the scope of the committee was changed at the beginning of the 2021 state legislative session before the committee was disbanded at the end of 2024.

Executive Session

  • HB 1453 - “Providing a tax exemption for medical cannabis patients.”
  • HB 1563 - "Concerning arrest protections for the medical use of cannabis.” (added Jan 27)

Public Hearing

  • HB 1614 - “Concerning the home cultivation of cannabis." (added Jan 27)
  • HB 1641 - "Addressing public health challenges of high-potency cannabis products." (added Jan 27)
  • HB 1642 - “Regulating the sale of cannabis concentrates.” (added Jan 27)
https://app.leg.wa.gov/committeeschedules/Home/Documents/30607

Observations

Supportive testimony on a bill to legalize home cultivation of cannabis highlighted the restrictions in the bill, though two speakers were opposed on safety and youth access grounds.

Here are some observations from the Thursday February 2nd Washington State House Regulated Substances and Gaming Committee (WA House RSG) Committee Meeting.

My top 3 takeaways:

  • Committee Counsel Peter Clodfelter briefed on, and answered questions about, HB 1614, “Concerning the home cultivation of cannabis."
    • When voters passed Initiative 502 in 2012, there was no provision for adults to cultivate any plants for personal consumption. That same year, Colorado Amendment 64 was passed and allowed those 21 and older to grow three plants. Since that time, allowing limited home cultivation has become the predominant policy in legal cannabis states, with only Illinois and New Jersey not allowing any recreational home grows. With legislation as far back as 2015, the last bill before HB 1614 on the topic was HB 1019, which was advanced as far as a fiscal committee hearing by the Washington State House Appropriations Committee (WA House APP).
    • Clodfelter explained the bill analysis, which listed the effects of the legislation (audio - 2m, video).
      • Authorizes adults age 21 and over to produce up to six cannabis plants on the premises of their housing unit, subject to production and possession limits and other restrictions and conditions.
      • Establishes class 3 civil infractions related to plants or cannabis being visible within the ordinary public view or readily smelled.
      • Establishes class 1 civil infractions related to the unsafe storage of home grown cannabis.
      • Prohibits home grows by family day care providers and foster family homes, retains landlords' rights to prohibit home grows, and modifies the real property forfeiture statute as it applies to cannabis.
      • Prohibits the investigation and enforcement of home grow requirements by the Liquor and Cannabis Board, except for mutual law enforcement assistance upon request in certain circumstances.
    • Representative Kristine Reeves asked Clodfelter whether the bill had any “federal preemption clauses,” or “conversations around mortgages,” insurance, banking, or “other aspects related to home ownership that we might need to be taking into consideration?” Clodfelter responded that the bill didn’t address those topics beyond “rental issues”: rights of landlords to deny home cultivation as part of a lease agreement (audio - 1m, video).
  • Representatives of substance use prevention and law enforcement organizations spoke against the bill, though one suggested possible revisions to allow home grows based on residential distance from a cannabis retailer.
    • 19 individuals registered their opposition to the bill (testifying, not testifying).
    • Taylor Gardner, Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) Policy Director, said her members were “generally” opposed to home growing and preferred cannabis stay in a “well regulated, commercial setting” as they didn’t believe the measure would “make Washingtonians safer.” She appreciated the limits and requirements in the bill, but suggested that prior cannabis retail robberies targeting cash and packaged products could result in “threats and crimes” that “follow people back to their homes.” Should the bill be advanced, Gardner encouraged expanded mandates for secure storage of plants and cannabis, and noted that Nevada home growing policies only allowed personal gardens in homes 25 miles or more from a retail outlet (audio - 2m, video).
    • Linda Thompson, Washington Association for Substance Misuse and Violence Prevention (WASAVP) Board Member, didn’t want to allow adult cultivation because her members were “looking at youth access" and community safety. She commented that calls for greater education from cannabis industry representatives hadn’t kept them from advocating to “expand the cannabis market, delivery regulations, even a bill to eliminate the regulation on signage and billboards.” She asked lawmakers to invest more heavily in prevention organizations and programs, saying groups like WASAVP “cannot keep up with the prevention work we need to do" (audio - 2m, video).

Bills to restrict cannabis concentrates had the support of some health officials and an anti-legalization group, but industry members and a consumer advocate tagged them “prohibition bill[s]."

Here are some observations from the Thursday February 2nd Washington State House Regulated Substances and Gaming Committee (WA House RSG) Committee Meeting.

My top 3 takeaways:

  • Staff briefings covered two bills involving cannabis concentrates raising tax rates, age restrictions, and prohibiting general sale of cannabis concentrate products in alignment with recommendations from public health researchers.
    • In 2019, the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) organized a Potency Tax Work Group whose members looked into “varying the marijuana excise tax rate based on product potency.” A feasibility study from BOTEC Analysis was followed by a final report concluding the idea was “not feasible at this time in Washington State. Some work group members from the public health community were in favor of a tax structure that would discourage consumption of high potency cannabis, but did not have confidence that this tax would guarantee those outcomes.”
    • In 2020, Representative Lauren Davis sponsored HB 2546 which attempted to restrict any cannabis with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) “greater than 10 percent.” While not advanced, lawmakers approved an operating budget proviso funding “Frameworks for Future Cannabis Research” by the University of Washington Center for Cannabis Research (UW CCR) which recommended further study that was led by University of Washington Addictions, Drug, and Alcohol Institute (UW ADAI) and Washington State University (WSU) researchers. Those researchers published a “consensus statement” on cannabis products and health risks at the end of 2020, that statement reported higher risks related to “higher potency cannabis products” they considered “particularly concerning for young users and those with certain pre-existing mental health conditions.” 
    • In 2021, Davis cited the statement as justification for HB 1463, “Addressing serious mental health consequences of high-potency cannabis products by regulating the sale of cannabis concentrates,” which proposed caps on cannabinoid concentrations in products and would have raised the purchase age to 25. This legislation also wasn’t advanced, but a budget proviso that year allocated $500,000 to the Washington State Health Care Authority (WA HCA) and UW ADAI “to develop policy solutions in response to the public health challenges of high tetrahydrocannabinol potency cannabis.” This funded a September 2022 symposium chaired by Beatriz Carlini, a UW ADAI Research Scientist, head of the ADAI Cannabis Education and Research Program (CERP), who was the lead organizer on a more extensive report on the products.
      • During the symposium, Davis spoke and credited the event with “highlighting the myriad of concerns related to legalization that transcend the issues related to high potency cannabis products” and concluded the licensed cannabis sector was a “predatory industry…they’re preying on the vulnerable: the young, people of color, people predisposed to mental illness. And in my opinion, it is the job of policy makers to do the right thing and to respond to this, what is becoming a public health emergency quite quickly.”
      • In December 2022, Carlini spoke with legislators about research and recommendations on cannabis concentrate product education, taxation, and restrictions in what was then a draft of the report.
      • At time of publication, Davis worked as the Strategic Director of the Washington Recovery Alliance (WRA) and had a history of advocacy for substance abuse treatment. Her legislative biography says her initial “crusade” was for “an involuntary crisis commitment system for youth and adults with life-threatening addiction...one of the largest single investments in addiction treatment in Washington state history,” known as ‘Ricky’s Law.’ Davis was featured in a 2022 documentary about the law, Tipping the Pain Scale.
      • A January 31st Seattle Times article elaborated on an appeal to a domestic violence protective order Davis filed against a lobbyist.
    • At the hearing, Committee Counsel Peter Clodfelter relayed details of two bills sponsored by Davis, starting with HB 1641, "Addressing public health challenges of high-potency cannabis products" (audio - 3m, video, bill analysis, fiscal note).
      • Restructures the 37 percent cannabis excise tax to a tax of 37 percent, 50 percent, or 65 percent of the selling price, based on product type and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration.
      • Establishes marketing and advertising prohibitions on advertising a product that contains greater than 35 percent total THC.
      • Prohibits cannabis retail outlets from selling a cannabis product with greater than 35 percent total THC to a person who is under age 25 who is not a qualifying patient or designated provider.
      • Requires cannabis retailers to provide point-of-sale information to consumers who purchase certain cannabis products and requires the Liquor and Cannabis Board to develop optional training for retail staff.
      • Requires mandatory health warning labels for cannabis products that contain greater than 35 percent total THC.
      • Requires cannabis products to be labeled with the number of serving units of THC included in the package, and with an expression of a standard THC unit in volume or amount of product.
      • Directs $1 million annually from the Dedicated Cannabis Account for targeted public health messages and social marketing campaigns.
      • The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) couldn’t determine the fiscal impact from HB 1641, while WSLCB staff expected costs of $407,051 between fiscal years (FY) 2023-25, and expenditures of $185,538 in subsequent bienniums.  
    • He then went over HB 1642, “Regulating the sale of cannabis concentrates” (audio - 1m, video, bill analysis, fiscal note)
      • Prohibits licensed cannabis retailers from selling cannabis concentrates with a tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration greater than 35 percent, except for cannabis retailers with a medical cannabis endorsement who may continue to sell these products to qualifying patients and designated providers who are entered in the Medical Cannabis Authorization Database.
      • Limits licensed cannabis processors to only processing and selling cannabis concentrates with a THC concentration greater than 35 percent when those products are intended for sale as authorized in the bill.
      • WSLCB officials estimated there would be $15,529 in “one-time staff hours” to implement the measure.
  • Those backing both bills included public health researchers, substance use prevention advocates, and grieving parents wanting items with high levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) taken off the regulated market; they fielded questions on topics such as social equity, tax implications, and where youth were accessing high THC products.
    • 29 individuals registered their support of HB 1641 (testifying, not testifying)
    • 17 individuals registered their support of HB 1642 (testifying, not testifying)
    • Davis was joined at the hearing by a camera crew for a documentary as she spoke to the merits of both of her bills, which attempted to “solve the same problem in two different ways. So here's the issue: The potency of cannabis has skyrocketed in the last decade.” She described how products with high concentrations of THC that “flooded today's marketplace are an entirely different drug than the low potency, relatively innocuous cannabis plant that voters thought that they were legalizing 10 years ago.” Davis’ perspective was that “alcohol wasn't a significant societal problem until it was distilled, tobacco wasn't a significant problem until the invention of the cigarette, and cannabis was not an enormous threat to public health until the mass proliferation of cannabis concentrates” (audio - 7m, video).
      • “There is an overwhelming amount of incontrovertible scholarly research indicating that high potency cannabis carry significant health risks…impacts the physical health, impacts to mental health, and impacts to substance use disorder,” Davis told the committee. She stated use of concentrates “correlated with a disorder called cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome or CHS,” an “elevated risk of developing cannabis use disorder or cannabis addiction,” and “uniquely correlated with the onset of psychotic disorder.” Davis asserted that research indicated “between 12 and 50 percent of psychotic disorders could be prevented if high potency cannabis products were not available” and talked about how those with symptoms of early onset psychosis had 50% greater odds of being diagnosed with schizophrenia, a “lifelong debilitating mental illness that results in detachment from reality and causes incredible suffering for the individual and their family. There is no known cure.”
      • Talking about her engagement with members of the cannabis industry, she noted in 2020 “they committed to being thoughtful partners to address the public health impacts of their products.” But Davis found despite the “work led by the University of Washington to identify research and ways policy levers that can be pulled to address the public health issues posed by cannabis concentrates…every single cannabis industry representative here today has signed in opposed.” She called upon cannabis businesses to “cease rejecting the scientific consensus of our state's leading cannabis researchers, and to support common sense, evidence-based solutions to the public health problems uniquely created by their products.”
      • “We cannot change the past but it’s our responsibility to learn from it,” Davis testified, pledging HB 1641 and HB 1642 were an “opportunity to prevent up to half of the incidents of psychotic disorder in our state through evidence-based public policy. Let us be bold. Let us be brave and let us stand up for what is right, please join me in supporting house bills, 1641 and 1642.”
      • Davis’ remarks on the history of cannabis concentrates and regulation in the state were in line with her prior testimony on legislation she’d championed on the matter, and her statements at the 2022 UW ADAI symposium. The topic of plant cannabinoid levels had been reported as a concern in research as far back 1980, prohibition had a poor history of accurately monitoring potency before then, and an even worse record of stopping increases in substances’ concentration.
    • Representative Tina Orwall was curious how the bill would impact polydrug use, and alcohol use in particular. Davis explained that neither bill “pertain[ed] to alcohol, but it's a terrific question” (audio - 1m, video).
      • Orwall was the prime sponsor for HB 1772, “Prohibiting products that combine alcohol and tetrahydrocannabinol.”
    • Representative Kristine Reeves asked about the social equity impacts of the bill. Davis replied that speakers at the UW ADAI symposium touched on the  concentration of retailers in communities of color correlated with an "increase in utilization,” and blamed "this industry" for "targeting low income communities and communities of color" (audio - 1m, video).
    • Representative Jim Walsh questioned whether HB 1641 was “pigouvian taxation” that would hurt that market, considering the 65% proposed excise tax was a “pretty potent tax load.” With alcohol, he’d heard higher taxes could “give the bureaucratic agencies of the state a perverse incentive for the 65% tax product to be marketed and sold.” Davis said that it was “incredibly clear” that higher taxes motivated “consumer behavior in a way that supports public health aims. We've seen that with alcohol as well as with tobacco.” Walsh suggested lawmakers were “familiar with pigouvian taxes here; the scientific literature isn't really relevant to the public policy issue here, which is that pigouvian taxes are mixed in their effectiveness at best.” However, Davis believed that "it is private industry that is in this business, not the state of Washington" (audio - 2m, video).
    • Vice Chair Chris Stearns shared many of Davis’ concerns, asking for “any data that…studied the pathology of the introduction of high potency cannabis into any jurisdictions and…how that affects the populations.” She asserted that in “the early data that we saw was an increase in emergency department visits…increase in emergency department visits by 777% for suicidality associated with cannabis, and an increase in that cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome or cyclic vomiting.” Davis was rueful that “there is a long delay between initial psychotic break and development of a full schizophrenia diagnosis, about eight years…and we legalize 10 years ago with retail sales commencing in 2014, so it's coming” (audio - 1m, video).
    • Ranking Minority Member Kelly Chambers observed that Washington consumers paid the most in cannabis taxes of any legal cannabis state. Committee members had to consider the “nationalization of cannabis” and how their tax rate might affect the state’s cannabis market in the long term “when it seems almost inevitable that [federal reforms would be] happening with” more states legalizing the plant. “I disagree that federal legalization…is inevitable, actually,” Davis remarked. Promising to follow up with Chambers after the hearing, she added that she didn’t expect “under the current administration for cannabis to become…legal at the federal level” (audio - 2m, video)
    • Public health representatives urged action on the bill as a way to safeguard against the “unprecedented risk” to mental and physical health of a generation of underage youth and young adults in the state in what was “not a reversible process.”
    • Several parents attributed damage to their children’s health, and even a death, to frequent use of concentrates.
      • Don and Erika Danielson shared details on the 2019 death of their son, Brandon Danielson, similar to their testimony in 2021 (audio - 3m, video).
      • Mary Maas said “in 2012 I voted to legalize marijuana. I thought it was natural and safe,” but her son “came home from Washington State with a degree in math, and a severe addiction to marijuana. He was dabbing 80 to 90% THC daily” and was subsequently diagnosed with “cannabis induced psychosis,” experiencing “delusions and…hallucinations.” The situation had “devastated her family, and “many families across the country that have loved ones harmed by THC…and hopefully people will start to understand the dangers of high THC concentrates” (audio - 2m, video).
      • Veronica Munro insisted her son Cody was “not your typical stoner. He doesn't look like one or act like one,” describing him as “a very sweet person, very sensitive, polite, and he’d do anything for anyone. Except when he's high, and then he turns into a monster.” She knew Cody had been “self medicating since he was 16” and, now aged 27, had told Munro he “thinks marijuana oil helps his anxiety.” Munro acknowledged that he’d been “fired from his job for being stoned and drunk,” and spent tens of thousands of dollars on concentrates. She said since a “psychotic break” in 2022, her son “doesn't even remember to shower or brush his teeth” and urged passage of the bills so other families wouldn’t have similar traumas (audio - 2m, video)
    • Two speakers from Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) backed the bills due to a belief that "big marijuana relies on an addiction for profit model."
      • Jordan Davidson, SAM Communications and Legislative Affairs Officer, identified himself as a “marijuana policy expert…who was addicted to high potency marijuana." He’d been sober for years, he explained, and argued both bills “serve[d] as the last hope for the health and well-being of our youth” and would be “reorienting how Washington State treats dangerous, high potency marijuana products. This bill will save more young people like me from going down a road of addiction” (audio - 2m, video).
      • Will Jones, SAM Director of Community Engagement and Outreach, compared cannabis retail to challenges posed by consolidation of liquor stores in Washington, D.C. (audio - 2m, video)
      • Founded by former federal policy official Kevin Sabet, SAM states they’re made up of those “who seek a middle road between incarceration and legalization.” Sabet was caught in 2016 misleading audiences about cannabis edibles and the group has faced accusations of perpetuating false statistics around the societal costs of cannabis legalization. 
  • Most speakers against the bills rejected the arguments that higher taxation or removing concentrates from legal markets would diminish their accessibility or demand, finding that cooperating to develop education for consumers, parents, and youth was preferable.
    • 96 individuals registered as opposed to HB 1641 (testifying, not testifying).
    • 112 individuals registered as opposed to HB 1642 (testifying, not testifying).
      • Kloba mentioned that 31 people signed in ‘pro,’ and 115 people signed in ‘con,’ though one name was a repeat on the ‘pro’ side, and three were repeats on the ‘con’ side. Additionally, Nathan Andersen of PURP, signed in as both ‘con,’ and ‘pro,’ but since all other PURP members signed in ‘con,’ they were included in that count (audio - 1m, video).
    • Representatives of cannabis businesses or industry associations were uniformly opposed to both pieces of legislation. Some found it to be poor tax policy; others faulted the UW ADAI survey of stakeholders for underrepresenting their members or ignoring that certain concentrates were centuries old. Davis was called out for cancelling meetings with industry members wanting to improve the proposals and glossing over the high compliance rates of retailers not selling cannabis to minors. Some promised to collaborate on effective public and youth education around the high THC products, but were of the opinion that “prohibition does not work."
    • Legislators posed several questions to panelists regarding data and the impact of the bills.
      • Orwall asked about the impact of cannabis consumption by adults under 25, whose brains might still be developing. Eickmeyer advised additional educational warnings for that age group at retailers. He added that “if we increase the price of concentrates…and high demand products, the illicit market will step right in” (audio - 2m, video).
      • Chambers asked whether Eickmeyer knew of effective youth education programs on the topic. He wasn’t aware of any he considered effective, but advocated for more money to be invested. He faulted some parents whom he claimed “don't think weed is as dangerous for their teenagers, and they're giving it to their own kids. They're saying ‘hey, I'd rather you use weed than drink alcohol’” (audio - 1m, video).
      • Stearns wondered about cannabis business leaders’ ability to “self regulate” concentrates (audio - 1m, video).
      • Representative Kevin Waters wanted to know if Eickmeyer felt the bills “would create a black market.” Eickmeyer answered: “feed an existing illicit market immensely” (audio - <1m, video).
      • Walsh asked Sherman if he believed the data that had been collected by UW ADAI was “fully cognizant of the industry or do you think it's selective data?” Sherman’s view was that their report “lumps a lot of different things into the same categories and then combines the effects of distinct issues into one big category. And so it misunderstands the detail, and the nuance of the situation, and as a result puts forward some policies that I don't think are going to effectively address the issue.” Hunter noted he’d believed “some of the conclusions found at the symposium…were not significant” (audio - 2m, video).
    • Ramsey Doudar, Patients and Users for Reasonable Policy Founder, testified that consumers were unlikely to pay a 65% tax rate on items and “will be quick to abandon retail concentrates for black market rosin.” He also found trying to cap concentrate THC percentage “makes no sense from a physical standpoint. If the average potency of cannabis flower is around 20% and we concentrate that by removing most of the plant matter leaving just cannabinoids and residual lipids, we can expect the resulting product to consistently be at least 40 to 60%. The 35% cap is inherently unreasonable.” He further warned about the economic implications of “eliminating the entire product category from our state's cannabis economy,” mentioning Headset data showed “concentrates accounted for 11.8% of cannabis sales in the last 90 days.” Doudar gave his “layman stoner projection [of] a 29.1% decrease in annual cannabis tax revenue if this bill passes; roughly $149 million that go up in smoke” based on data from a WSLCB 2022 annual report. Noting the age increase in HB 1641, he advised “we stay consistent and raise the drinking age to 25 as well. Nobody here can deny that alcohol is empirically more dangerous, destructive, and deadly than cannabis, and yet none of us here are trying to further limit the potency of liquor or eliminate sales to the exact same 21 to 24 year olds” (audio - 2m, video).

Engagement Options

In-Person

O'Brien Building, 15th Avenue Southwest, Olympia, WA, USA

Hearing Room E

Livestream

https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2023021091

Information