WSLCB - Board Meeting
(April 23, 2025) - Summary

The board denied two rulemaking petitions, placing their concepts in a ‘parking lot’ for future consideration, before approving a supplemental CR-102 and adopting lab authority transfer rules.

Here are some observations from the Wednesday April 23rd Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) Board Meeting.

My top 4 takeaways:

• Policy and Rules Coordinator Denise Laflamme recommended denying a petition to allow cannabis edibles “in solid form to be packaged loosely in multi-use, resealable, child-resistant (CR) packaging without requiring individual wrapping or case-by-case approval,” suggesting the request could be considered in future broader packaging and labeling (PAL) rulemaking efforts (audio - 6m, video - WSLCB, video - TVW, Petition).
  • Laflamme established that a petition submitted by Caitlein Ryan, Executive Director of Cannabis Alliance, requested the board initiate rulemaking to amend cannabis product packaging rules in WAC 314-55-105. She presented the concept as aiming to remove the requirement that WSLCB “approve cannabis infused edibles packaged loosely on a case-by-case basis.” Laflamme indicated the reasons provided for seeking the change included reduced plastic waste, enhanced child safety through increased use of resealable packaging, and streamlining of the agency packaging review process.
    • Laflamme explained that under WAC 314-55-105, cannabis edibles must be packaged in child-resistant packaging; and in plastic of a certain thickness; and sealed to protect persons under 21 from accidental exposures.
    • Edibles packaging would continue to be approved by WSLCB representatives, and the petition sought to have one outer child resistant package, rather than separate pieces of packaging for individual servings both needing approval. Instead, the proposed change meant products “must be packaged loosely within a resealing outer package that is child resistant,” and still be approved by agency staff.
  • Laflamme stated that staff didn’t “receive many requests for this type of case-by-case review of edibles packaged loosely," and estimated "less than 1% of the packages submitted to them for review are packaged loosely in this way.” She posited that removing this review would have "essentially no impact on the LCB packaging review process, as all edible products are reviewed currently as part of their packaging review, regardless of the type of packaging.”
  • Additionally, Laflamme said staff were uncertain whether a change would have “significant impact on overall packaging waste,” as resealable outer packaging would continue to be required. She also raised potential concerns that switching to resealable packaging for loose edibles "may result in over consumption among adults, and accidental exposures to children,” citing how the Washington Poison Center “posted on their social media accounts last April that one of the most common calls they receive about cannabis is about little kids mistaking an edible for candy.”
    • While the center reports “receiv[ing] thousands of calls on a variety of different toxic and poisonous substances” annually, the exact percentage of calls involving cannabis is unclear. Data on cannabis cases handled by the center from 2017 to 2021 was analyzed by researchers at the University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (UW ADAI). Though this analysis didn’t include minors under 13, a nationwide review of poison control calls involving minors suggested the frequency of cannabis cases had increased between 2017 and 2019. However, a 2024 study found the “rate of delta-8-THC exposures reported to PCs was significantly lower among states where delta-8-THC was banned and among states where cannabis use was legal.”
  • Packaging waste "appears to be an ongoing concern related to cannabis products, and we believe this issue warrants further consideration.” Laflamme mentioned that agency leaders were considering broader packaging and labeling rulemaking, and the concerns raised by the petition could be addressed there. However, the "likely priority for beginning this type of project is currently low based on other rule making needs, including legislative implementation from this session,” she said.
    • Public Health Education Liaison Kristen Haley had begun recruiting for a PAL work group from the closed Public Health and Prevention Roundtable attendees by March 24th, with several participants professing interest in the effort.
    • Chair Jim Vollendroff was the Board representative at the roundtable events, and was present at the meeting when Haley mentioned the possibility of a PAL work group. He’d previously suggested converting the closed roundtable into a public advisory council, but had reconsidered by the time he proposed advisory council reforms on April 15th. At publication time, Vollendroff had made no public mention of the roundtable event nor the PAL work group.
  • Laflamme told the board members accepting the petition only for it to be delayed could cause “stakeholder frustration,” and that the recommendation was to deny it, “and to address this request as part of future packaging and label making efforts when we can when those can be scheduled.”
    • The most recent overhaul of PAL rulemaking was adopted in December 2019 following 14 months of development.
  • Board Chair Jim Vollendroff asked about outreach to Ryan, as he was appreciative of her arguments related to packaging waste, and wanted to give her assurance the board was "interested in pursuing this, and perhaps through rulemaking, will be addressing this” (audio - 1m, video - WSLCB, video - TVW).
  • Board Member Pete Holmes made a motion to "accept the Director's recommendations to deny the petition,” which was seconded by Board Member Ollie Garrett, and announced as approved by Vollendroff (audio - <1m, video - WSLCB, video - TVW).

• Laflamme recommended denying a similar petition to remove the one-gram unit limit for cannabis concentrates, citing current workload constraints and the intention to consider the request within aforementioned potential future PAL rulemaking efforts (audio - 6m, video - WSLCB, video - TVW, Petition).
  • Laflamme presented the second of Ryan’s petitions on behalf of the Cannabis Alliance, which requested the board amend WAC 314-55-095 to remove the requirement that a single packaged unit of cannabis concentrate could not exceed one gram. She cited the reasons given for seeking this change included diminished packaging waste, improved customer convenience, potentially reduced use of non-recyclable batteries, and alignment with other states that didn’t have this restriction. Laflamme added the one gram limit was among the first cannabis packaging rules adopted by WSLCB in 2013, but was not a statutory limit in law.
  • Laflamme stated it was "uncertain whether making this requested change to packaging will significantly reduce packaging waste," because products with larger amounts of concentrates would still need packaging meeting requirements. She further pointed out that multi-gram packages would likely "cost more for consumers than one gram products, and it is unknown what demand there will be for these larger, more expensive packages.”
    • Laflamme offered no data substantiating her assumptions. She offered no guess at the frequency with which consumers purchased more than a single gram package of concentrates in a retail transaction, though such data should be readily obtainable from Cannabis Central Reporting System (CCRS). Laflamme also avoided presuming the likelihood of lower pricing for larger volume products as compared to the cost of purchasing multiple items to obtain an equivalent quantity.
  • In reiterating staff recognition of potential value in addressing packaging waste, Laflamme highlighted a previous petition on “eliminating the use of plastic tubes for prerolls, as well as the petition to ban disposable vapes because of disposable batteries,” submitted in March 2024, and denied by the board that May.
  • Laflamme articulated how the same potential to include petition ideas in future PAL rulemaking existed, and reiterated constraints around the existing rulemaking workload. She relayed the team was also recommending denial of the petition, and to instead “address this request as part of future packaging, labeling rule making efforts, when those can be scheduled.”
  • Vollendroff wanted a better idea of the potential timeline for future PAL rulemaking in light of denying the petition, directly asking Director of Policy and External Affairs Justin Nordhorn for “any idea, like, if we did open up the rule making process related to packaging, what kind of timeline might we be looking at right now?" (audio - 3m, video - WSLCB, video - TVW)
    • Nordhorn spoke to his team’s workload, remarking that they had "at least six laws that are passing that we're going to have to implement with rule development" from the 2025 legislative session, adding potentially up to ten bills requiring implementation. He predicted that staff time for a PAL project might not occur "until at least 2026 if not late 2026,” but cautioned that he did not want to "over promise and under deliver" on the timeline.
    • Nordhorn indicated he was interested in cannabis waste, “I think it can even go beyond just the edible packaging, because the predominant amount of waste, I believe, would be coming out of flower, since it's the predominant [cannabis product sold] in the state, and are there options on that type of waste reduction.”
      • Oregon retail rules allow for cannabis to be packaged on site at time of sale, allowing for bulk transactions with less mandatory disposable packaging.
  • Following this discussion, Vollendroff called for a motion on the recommendation and Holmes moved to "accept the staff recommendation to deny the petition.” Garrett seconded the motion and Vollendroff noted it was approved (audio - <1m, video - WSLCB, video - TVW).
  • Near the end of the meeting, Garrett inquired about the process for reconsidering denied rulemaking petitions, curious whether new petitions were required, or how topics would eventually be addressed (audio - 1m, video - WSLCB, video - TVW).
    • Nordhorn clarified denied petitions were kept in what staff  “called [a] ‘parking lot,’ so we have ideas that [are] pending, that we would incorporate at a later time, so they don't need to draft a new petition.”

• Laflamme also presented the proposed supplemental language for the minors on wholesale licensed premises rulemaking project, and the board subsequently voted to approve the filing (audio - 9m, video - WSLCB, video - TVW, Rulemaking Project).
  • Laflamme presented a request for approval of a supplemental CR-102 with language to amend WAC 314-55-015, "related to allowing minors...on non-retail cannabis license premises provided certain conditions are met.” She stated the rulemaking was initiated in February 2024 based on "two petitions from…Crystal Oliver," and aimed to expand upon "a COVID [pandemic] allowance that was in place through December 2022 which allowed children and grandchildren under 16 years of age to be on the licensed premises of producers and processors.” 
    • The agency hosted two focus groups on the project in September 2024, followed by direct engagement with interested parties.
  • According to Laflamme, the initial CR-102 was filed in January 2025, with a public hearing on February 26th. This draft “made several changes, including adding language from the temporary COVID allowance related to children and grandchildren of licensees,” while prohibiting them from “possessing products associated with production processing or sales of cannabis.” New conditions were included, including supervision of minors by the licensee, and prior notification of the agency each time minors were present, covering “information about when the children would be present, and also violations for not meeting these conditions.” She named other requirements around supervision of contractors over 18, but under 21, including how “licensees must note on the visitor log if a contractor employee was under the age of 21.” Laflamme concluded this review by stating “language was added to clarify that the entire premises remains off limit to weapons.”
  • Based on "comments received from stakeholders during the public comment period, as well as input from the board," Laflamme reported rule language was revised for the supplemental CR-102, notably adding "processor premises as a location where children and grandchildren may be present,” amending language to allow children and grandchildren in areas where cannabis is present if "accompanied by, and under the direct supervision of the licensee,” and removing the requirement for licensees to notify the WSLCB prior to children or grandchildren being on premises. A requirement was also added that the licensee "must be on premises when children or grandchildren are present.”
  • Laflamme said that with board approval, there would be “a public comment period open” through a public hearing scheduled for Thursday, June 5th. This would be the first rulemaking hearing “outside of the usual board meetings,” she remarked, and assuming substantial alterations weren’t needed after the hearing, "final rules will be requested for approval during a June 18[th] board meeting, and will be effective” on July 19th.
  • With no questions from board members, Holmes made a motion to "approve the supplemental CR-102,” and Garrett seconded the motion. Vollendroff then confirmed the motion was "so moved" (audio - <1m, video - WSLCB, video - TVW).

• Laflamme then presented the proposed final rule language to implement HB 2151 transferring cannabis lab accreditation authority to the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA), and the board subsequently voted to adopt the rule (audio - 7m, video - WSLCB, video - TVW, Rulemaking Project).
  • Laflamme requested approval of the CR-103 to implement the law, explaining how the measure moved statutory authority for cannabis laboratory quality standards and accreditation from WSLCB to WSDA. She shared that the department had adopted rules under WAC 16-309 and 16-310 to implement their new authority in 2024. Under RCW 69.50.348, testing laboratories had to obtain and maintain accreditation with WSDA, Laflamme elaborated, and their final rules clarified that laboratories must first be accredited by WSDA in order to be certified by WSLCB.
    • After the rulemaking was initiated in July 2024, staff published two versions of proposed rules, first in September, then in October 2024.
  • Laflamme told board members how WSLCB officials had hosted two focus groups on February 3rd and 6th, along with a public hearing on April 9th. She mentioned, “we received a total of 15 comments on the proposed rules during the public comment period, 12 written comments and three oral comments at the public hearing…Nine of these comments indicated concerns that the proposed rule language changed reporting requirements related to R&D [research and development], and non-mandatory samples.” Laflamme stressed that this was “existing language that had been moved verbatim from a repealed section in WAC…314-55-103, to an amended section, 314-55-0995, and while our intent was never to change existing policy, the LCB recognizes that this proposed rule language change may have been interpreted that way based on the broader context of the rule.” She noted the word ‘required’ was added into the final rule “for clarification and consistency,” but “no other changes were made to the…proposed rules.”
    • Laflamme mentioned that additional rulemaking was planned related to reporting of R&D and non-mandatory samples into the reporting system. “This new rule making will be initiated with the CR-101 to be presented to the board this summer after these current rules…go into effect as they impact some of the same rule sections.”
  • With board adoption of the CR-103, Laflamme commented the new rules would take effect on May 24th.
  • Vollendroff acknowledged the significant feedback and effort involved, stating there’d been "a lot of comments related to this, and so a lot of effort went…into crafting this” (audio - <1m, video - WSLCB, video - TVW).
  • Garrett then moved to "accept the recommendation to approve the adoption of the CR-103 to implement second substitute House Bill 2151.” Once Holmes seconded the motion, Vollendroff confirmed the rule change was adopted (audio - 1m, video - WSLCB, video - TVW).