WA Senate LC - Committee Meeting
(February 13, 2023) - Summary

[ Event Details ]

Four cannabis-related bills were advanced during executive session including changes to bills on cannabinoid regulation and retail theft, while bills on infused beverages and advertising were unchanged.

Here are some observations from the Monday February 13th Washington State Senate Labor and Commerce Committee (WA Senate LC) Committee Meeting.

My top 4 takeaways:

  • A proposed substitute to SB 5367, “Concerning the regulation of products containing [tetrahydrocannabinol] THC,” was recommended with new definitions as the sponsor acknowledged being open to lowering the proposed THC threshold for hemp cannabinoid consumables.
  • SB 5340, “Regarding limits on the sale and possession of retail cannabis products,” was recommended for passage without changes by the committee.
    • The bill on packaging of beverages with four milligrams or less of THC per serving received a public hearing on January 30th, and with no amendments or substitute language, was moved for passage after a staff review by Shepard-Koningsor (audio - <1m, video).
    • King, the sponsor of the legislation, called it "a good little bill" (audio - <1m, video) before a committee vote recommended passage unanimously, sending the bill to the Washington State Senate Rules Committee (WA Senate RULE).
  • The proposed substitute for SB 5363, “Concerning cannabis retailer advertising,” was considered but not adoptedas a majority of members preferred the original bill language.
    • Another bill heard by the committee on January 30thmoving regulation and oversight for outdoor cannabis signage to local governments, Shepard-Koningsor acknowledged the proposed substitute by MacEwen“strikes the entire subsection in current law limiting the number, size, content, and location of certain outdoor signs posted by licensed cannabis retailers instead of only the size requirements” (audio - <1m, video).
      • Vice Chair Steve Conway asked about signage near schools. Shepard-Koningsor responded that local jurisdictions could regulate that, and other parts of the law would still restrict indoor signage and billboards (audio - 1m, video).
    • MacEwen told colleagues the change “just gets everything back to local control on the signage regulations. They can choose to be more restrictive or less restrictive” (audio - <1m, video). However, both Keiser (audio - <1m, video) and Conway (audio - <1m, video) expressed their preference for the initial legislative language.
    • After the proposed substitute wasn’t adopted, MacEwen reiterated his intent to give “more local control on the usage of signs, and I think that's a good thing” as local authorities could determine what worked for their communities (audio - <1m, video). The committee recommended passage unanimously, transmitting the legislation to WA Senate RULE.
  • A proposed substitute on SB 5259, “Ensuring commerce and workplaces are safe from product theft,” was amended and recommended for passage.
    • The public hearing on the bill was on January 26th, and Committee Counsel Jarrett Sacks presented the proposed substitute by Keiser, which differed from the first version (audio - 2m, video):
      • Requires the Attorney General to transmit the data the Organized Retail Theft Task Force receives under the bill to the Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs for remittance to the appropriate law enforcement agencies. Excludes employees who single out or profile a person for intervention based on a listed protected class from the protections for employee interventions to prevent retail theft. Prohibits retail establishments from suspending without pay, terminating from employment, or discriminating in employment against an individual who notifies law enforcement of organized retail theft incidents or who otherwise cooperates with law enforcement investigations into organized retail theft.
      • Changes, for the purposes of the employee intervention protections, the prohibited actions of a retail establishment, prohibiting a retail establishment from suspending without pay, terminating from employment, or discriminating in employment against an individual who engages in a protected intervention to prevent retail theft under the bill. Modifies, for the purposes of the employee intervention protections, the definition of reasonable grounds to include knowledge that a person has possession of unpurchased merchandise, rather than knowledge a person has concealed possession of the merchandise.
      • Requires an employee to exhaust administrative remedies before engaging in a civil action for violations of the employee intervention protections. Provides that the employer has the burden to establish that an adverse job action against an employee for intervening was lawful. Provides that an employer is not liable for civil claims or actions resulting from an act by an employee that is protected under the bill, as long as the action was not directed by the employer. Requires retail establishments to provide training to employees at the commencement of employment and at least annually on the protections provided by the bill. 
      • Sacks also discussed three proposed amendments to SB 5259:
        • Amendment A.1 by King “Removes the provision prohibiting certain retail establishments from disciplining an individual who intervenes with a person for the purpose of investigating or questioning the ownership of merchandise at a mercantile establishment, or who notifies or cooperates with law enforcement related to organized retail theft.”
        • Amendment A.2 from Keiser “Allows employers to designate through policy certain employees or classes of employees who are not to engage with customers suspected of theft. Requires employers to train employees on the policy.”
        • Amendment A.3 by Senator Mark Schoesler “Modifies, for the purposes of the criminal code, the definition of theft to include concealing the property of another intending to deprive the other person of its use or benefit.”
        • Conway asked about cost implications of Amendment A.3, but Sacks was uncertain what they would be, while recognizing “changing the criminal code…would maybe increase the number of…crimes prosecuted for theft” (audio - 1m, video)
    • The committee debated and voted on the amendments, resolving to only incorporate Keiser’s additional language:
      • On Amendment A.1, Keiser objected to the change removing an “entire section…that adds protections for workers in the retail sector” (audio - 1m, video). Conway relayed that protections for workers had been a stakeholder concern he’d heard, and “I think that by removing this section, we're not addressing their concerns” (audio - 1m, video). The committee voted not to adopt the King amendment.
      • Keiser said Amendment A.2 had been a “request of employers who want to designate which…workers are basically frontline workers, and which ones don't engage with customers and would not be needing any kind of training” (audio - 1m, video). The amendment was included into the proposed substitute bill following a voice vote.
      • “We need to get to a lower level of tolerance for shoplifting overall,” Schoesler explained as he advocated for Amendment A.3 (audio - 1m, video). However, Keiser called the amendment “too broad” for legislation on organized retail theft (audio - 1m, video) and it wasn’t approved.
    • When the amended proposed substitute was moved for passage, Keiser talked about the conversations she’d had with business representatives in drafting the proposal. She remarked that SB 5259 was “not perfect," but "we have to do something" to deal with “on-going, almost everyday” criminal thefts (audio - 2m, video).
    • The committee voted to recommend passage of the legislation and sent it to WA Senate WM, but by a party-line vote: King, MacEwen, and Braun voted without recommendation, and Schoesler voted against passage of the bill.

Information Set