WA House RSG - Committee Meeting
(February 2, 2023) - HB 1614 - Public Hearing

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).

• Supportive testimony came from cannabis industry representatives, consumer advocates, and citizens who felt the move was overdue and helped reverse the trend of society treating cannabis activities as crimes.
  • 93 individuals registered their support of the bill and one as ‘other’ (testifying, not testifying).
    • Vice Chair Chris Stearns indicated 98 individuals signed in support of the bill (audio - 1m, video) but five individuals signed in twice.
  • Co-Chair and bill prime sponsor Shelley Kloba provided her view that cannabis remaining “illegal to grow...at home" didn’t seem “logical,” especially given that “most of the states that legalized after us” had included personal cultivation. She noted how “South Dakota allows three plants, Michigan allows 12, most of them allow six.” Kloba had responded to opposition to past legislation with the addition of bans on gardens in a “daycare or foster [home] setting” and the inclusion of a civil infraction intended to help prevent youth access modeled on laws covering “access to a firearm.” She stressed how the bill was about personal use and would not allow unlicensed sales, viewing six plants as “not commercially sustainable”  (audio - 4m, video).
    • Kloba brought up Reeves’ “thoughtful, deep” questions about mortgages and insurance as she had expected other states with personal cultivation laws to have set policies on these topics. Unfortunately, “I have not been able to find anything,” she said, expressing surprise at the lack of any specific “trend of some sort.”
    • Reeves followed up to say concerns were raised about home appraisals “if photos are taken that may include this product.” Kloba expressed her interest in addressing that, and promised to continue discussions with Reeves about whether more specific language could be added to HB 1614 (audio - 1m, video).
    • At time of publication, identified resources on home cultivation of cannabis and its implications for mortgages, home appraisal, and insurance were largely opinions of representatives for private companies and associations, with several involving Canada where all provinces except Manitoba and Quebec allowed home growing.
      • Marijuana and Appraising (2014)
      • How cannabis legalization impacts your insurance coverage (2018)
      • How Growing Cannabis Might Affect Your Home Insurance (2019)
      • Does My Home Insurance Cover My Legal Cannabis Plants? (2020)
      • Cannabis and your mortgage, it could cost you some green (2020)
      • Are marijuana plants covered under your homeowners policy? (2021)
      • BC Financial Services Authority - Cannabis (Residential) Guidelines (2021)
      • National Association of Insurance Commissioners - Cannabis and Insurance (2022)
  • Several individuals spoke to the necessity of not treating personal cannabis gardening as a criminal offense, comparing it with craft brewing. They found the policy was “a well worn path” towards “harm reduction and normalization,” and continued legislative inaction on the issue amounted to a “Groundhog’s Day” of legalization repeatedly deferred.
    • Branden Bond (audio - 1m, video)
    • John Kingsbury (audio - 2m, video)
    • Jim MacRae, (audio - 2m, video)
    • Arthur West (audio - 1m, video)
  • Members of the cannabis industry and associations suggested the bill was a reasonable expansion of cannabis legalization, "an enthusiast's pursuit" that would aid society in “updat[ing] our understanding about this plant.”
    • Burl Bryson, The Cannabis Alliance Executive Director (audio - 1m, video)
    • Caitlein Ryan, The Cannabis Alliance Adjunct Board President (audio - 2m, video)
    • Micah Sherman, Raven Co-Owner and Washington Sun and Craft Growers Association (WSCA) Board Member (audio - 2m, video)
  • Cannabis advocates from the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) viewed the bill as a needed continuation of cannabis reform.
    • Board Member Kevin Oliver noted there "has not been a significant rise" in cannabis use by minors whom had been allowed on the premises of licensed producers around “thousands” of plants (audio - 3m, video).
    • Washington NORML member Bailey Hirschburg asked for an exemption to the safe storage provision to allow youth supervised access to cannabis gardens, similar to one for firearm access in RCW 9.41.360(3)(b), so there could be chances for “education, for discussions about health and safety” with those under 21 (audio - 2m, video).
  • Testifying as ‘other,’ Don Skakie of Homegrow Washington supported the bill, but wanted to see a lower monetary penalty for the civil infractions around safe storage. A $750 fine in the bill related to unsafe storage and youth access of cannabis was higher than the fine for the same manner of infraction established for unsafe firearm storage. Remarking he was “hard pressed to believe that cannabis is more dangerous to youth access than firearms would be,” Skakie asked that the fine be reduced (audio - 2m, video).
  • Four people signed up to testify in support of HB 1614, but were unavailable when called upon.
    • Eric Johnston, Patients and Users for Reasonable Policy (PURP)
    • Leslie La Duke Banionis, Stella Maris LLC
    • Scott MacKinnon
    • Antonio McAfee

• 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).
    • Beyond cannabis delivery being featured among recommendations by the Washington State Legislative Task Force on Social Equity in Cannabis (WA SECTF), at time of publication Cannabis Observer had identified no legislation, nor rulemaking based on establishing cannabis delivery policies. And the only active advertising legislation would transfer authority to regulate cannabis business signage to local governments.

Information Set