WSLCB - Board Caucus
(August 8, 2023) - Summary

The intention of staff to replace CCRS with a traceability system was questioned by board members, who next learned about the new staff and portfolio for the in-house research office.

Here are some observations from the Tuesday August 8th Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) Board Caucus.

My top 3 takeaways:

• Director of Enforcement and Education Chandra Wax briefed on the request for information (RFI) the agency released related to replacing the Cannabis Central Reporting System (CCRS) with a third-party traceability vendor.
  • Members of the public called attention to the traceability-focused RFI on July 19th, encouraging more transparency and integrator engagement by WSLCB staff in any system change.
  • Wax explained that their current network, CCRS, was the “reporting mechanism that the industry uses to report all the steps that regulated cannabis plants and products follow throughout their lifespan, from seeding to retail sale.” The system had been used since December 2021 and was created “by the LCB with input from the industry,” she stated (audio - 4m, Video - TVW).
    • Wax stated that it had served “its intended purpose to bridge the gap between our former vendor’s product and LCB’s next traceability system,” but was never “never intended to be LCB’s long-term traceability solution.”
      • The initial announcement of CCRS didn’t suggest the system would serve on a temporary basis. In communications with Cannabis Observer Founder Gregory Foster, then-Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Jim Morgan and Chief Information Officer (CIO) George Williams indicated in August 2021 that CCRS would be the agency’s primary means for industry compliance reporting for the foreseeable future.
    • Wax continued, “While the reporting requirements are less stringent in CCRS than previous platforms…it's not fully meeting the needs of the industry, nor the LCB.” She then outlined several issues regulators perceived with CCRS:
      • “Industry members can't see what they have reported”
      • “Delays in data entry of an event occurring at a licensed business causes a delay in necessary enforcement or education actions”
      • “LCB IT staff say that CCRS can reasonably be expected to function for approximately one year, but with ongoing maintenance it can continue for additional years”
    • Mentioning the July RFI “to learn more about what services are available” to replace CCRS “for long term use,” Wax noted the agency “received responses from seven vendors.” Staff were reviewing the provided information to “determine a scope and propose an eventual decision package for a new traceability system…as we plan for what steps we should take to prepare for the 25-27 biennium.”
    • Wax promised to listen to stakeholders, “including licensees, labs, integrators, other state agencies, LCB staff, our board, and lawmakers.” Staff would also leverage “information gathered from the prior cannabis [Traceability 2.0] work group and determine the needs of traceability for Washington State prior to issuing” any request for proposals (RFP), she said. Wax added that WSLCB might hire consultants “to support this process.”
    • “The key reason we're not pursuing CCRS’s replacement now is because the agency cannot build this new traceability system while we are also building phase three of SMP, our systems modernization project,” Wax told the board. The third phase of the long running project was the “enforcement and education phase” which staff would be working on in “late spring or summer of 2024,” she explained.
    • Wax promised WSLCB officials would be “committed to communicating with licensees, labs, and integrators when we build the scope and pursue the decision package and eventually the RFP.” She welcomed feedback from stakeholders, who had been “valuable in testing and providing feedback” when deploying CCRS.
  • Board Chair David Postman wondered if there was a way to ensure when implementing the enforcement and education phase of SMP, that their new system "ha[d] some flexibility built into it" to support subsequent traceability software. Board Member Jim Vollendroff echoed this concern (audio - 4m, Video - TVW).
    • Wax first highlighted how SMP and CCRS didn’t interface, but that was being considered “for the scope of both systems.” Her staff wanted to leverage “technology to our advantage instead of simply just recreating what we have.” She continued, remarking that staff were discussing the question and ensuring it was in the scope of SMP and any RFPs “to see if those…are ways that we can be more efficient and effective.” Wax mentioned having a desired “capability where some of the data that we use for education for a particular case feeds into our reporting systems so that the officer, or the compliance consultant, doesn't have to retype all that.”
    • Postman worried the “flexibility” of a new traceability platform would be limited once phase three of SMP was implemented, “because those sorts of things happen sometimes.” Wax mentioned that “delaying [traceability] a little bit will help with the timing to make sure that we can look at that.”
    • In looking for a traceability vendor, Postman saw an opportunity for “really in-depth front end work of seeking feedback from licensees, integrators,” as well as “talking internally to see the needs of all the divisions, integrating with SMP,” or hiring a consultant for “really robust” engagement. “I completely agree, Board Chair,” Wax replied, deeming it “really work we need to do and…we're just building time in the project to do some research and stakeholder work.”
  • Postman acknowledged that CCRS "was not meant to be permanent" but asked staff to consider its longer-term viability: could it be modernized or used in some way going forward? Wax assured him that there would be “things that we do to keep it up to date…moving forward, and then are there things to make it more useful for our licensees and staff in the interim” (audio - 3m, Video - TVW).
    • Postman wondered whether making CCRS into a permanent reporting solution for WSLCB would be included as an option, just in case “that seems to be the best one.” Wax understood what he was saying, but cautioned she had “never seen the agency refer to hanging on to CCRS as a potential long-term solution as one of our options.” She indicated that staff were “writing the scope for the project and the charter right now,” and if CCRS viability should be contemplated later on, “we need to write that in right now.” Postman felt it was appropriate to solicit some stakeholder feedback before “we write that down…in stone.”
  • Vollendroff brought up the inclusion of board members in the internal work on traceability as they had “varying degrees of experience” in reviewing and developing RFIs and RFPs, curious whether there was “a role for board members moving forward in any part of the process of review and development” of the requests. “Our board is listed as a stakeholder,” Wax said, “as we move forward to finalize the charter and all of those things, we will involve you in that” (audio - 1m, Video - TVW)

• Board members heard about two new hires that would round out an in-house research office led by Research Manager Kathy Hoffman.
  • Former Director Rick Garza first publicly discussed a potential research unit on February 1st.
  • Hoffman informed board members she’d hired two members of the research team, and shared introductions they’d written (audio - 1m, Video - TVW).
    • Sarah Okey, the new Operational Research Specialist, had a PhD in clinical psychology, and over a decade of expertise in “conducting scientific research, disseminating substance use education, and spearheading program development” in areas such as the “healthcare industry and academia with expertise on both the benefits and consequences of substance.” Okey had published research, “presented at several national conferences,” and taught undergraduate students at Arizona State University, as well as “conducting intervention and research for a range of mental health and substance use problems.” She considered herself to be “a strong advocate for using science to inform public policy and to disseminate trustworthy education to the public,” and would begin her new role at the agency on August 16th (audio - 1m, Video - TVW).
      • Research articles noting Okey as an author include:
        • Distress intolerance moderation of motivated attention to cannabis and negative stimuli after induced stress among cannabis users: an ERP study (2018)
        • A within-person comparison of the subjective effects of higher vs. lower-potency cannabis (2020)
        • Event-Level Risk for Negative Alcohol Consequences in Emerging Adults: The Role of Affect, Motivation, and Context (2022)
        • I Smoke Alone: Indirect Effects of Solitary Cannabis Use on Negative Consequences Through Coping Motives (2022)
        • Subjective effects of simultaneous alcohol and cannabis versus alcohol-only use: A qualitative analysis (2023)
        • An Ecological Examination of Indica Versus Sativa and Primary Terpenes on the Subjective Effects of Smoked Cannabis: A Preliminary Investigation (2023)
    • Hoffman identified the Research Analyst as Stephen Ziegler, “a medical legal expert and a social scientist who has over 20 years of experience in drug control policy research and development that focused on ensuring safe access while also preventing abuse and harm.” Ziegler had “over 35 peer-reviewed articles; delivered talks domestically and internationally; and served as the medical legal consultant to industry, government, and both the legal and medical communities.” He was a research fellow “at the University of Zurich Institute of [Forensic] Medicine, was a national pain fellow, a former prosecutor, defense attorney, and federal task force officer” for the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Ziegler would also start on August 16th (audio - 1m, Video - TVW).
      • Studies with Ziegler as a researcher include:
        • Please Release Me, Let Me Go: How the Failure to Discuss and Treat OIC Can Result in Adverse Medico-Legal Outcomes (2018)
        • Pain management, prescription opioid mortality, and the CDC: is the devil in the data? (2022)
        • Drug trafficking, good faith, and legal standards to convict: How the United States Supreme Court is about to affect every prescriber in America (2022)
        • An Examination of State and Federal Opioid Analgesic and Continuing Education Policies: 2016–2018 (2022)
      • Ziegler was also involved in a 2019 presentation in Denver, Colorado on the State of Evidence for Cannabinoids - Scientific and Regulatory Issues, and a PAINWeek2019 post comparing cannabis and hemp. At the same event in 2020, he presented Lost in the Weeds - The Past, Present, and Future of Hemp in Pain Management.
  • Postman was excited to have the research team in place, joking how he expected to see ”the three of you doctors sitting in your wood panel faculty club” (audio - 1m, Video - TVW).
  • Vollendroff was curious what Hoffman told her new staff about the regulatory role played by WSLCB, “just so we can get a sense of where they stand in regard to that” (audio - 5m, Video - TVW).
    • Hoffman relayed that she’d talked to Okey and Ziegler about “bridging the gap" between published research, what WSLCB staff were encountering in the field, and “informing legislation as well." Beyond this, the research unit would support other divisions within WSLCB because “the work that we're doing, and what we need to know, and what we need to do, there are those research gaps that we're trying to fill in.”
    • Additionally, there were “language gaps" she’d recognized during a Colorado conference “between academia, scientific research,” as well as “enforcement language” common among regulators or legislators. “We are doing data-driven policy, but data isn't limited just to numbers,” she commented. Hoffman told Vollendroff the research office planned “to weave some of the qualitative data into our work as well.”
    • Vollendroff elaborated that when he’d been interviewed for a position on the board he’d had the clear impression that the Governor’s office had “no interest” in appointing a “prohibitionist.” He asked if the new research staff understood that their role included supporting licensees “around regulating and education” so they could “thrive.” Hoffman answered that the “full authorizing environment was presented and discussed” to emphasize the unit wouldn’t just focus on "substance use”---she paused—”or how products are grown.” She expected her team would support businesses within the boundaries of their statutory authority.
    • Postman saw WSLCB as serving a “mandate from the voters," noting their Public Health Education Liaison Mary Segawa appreciated that as well. Hoffman pointed out that the interviews with research staff were about “finding that balance" between business success and public health and safety “across our line of business,” rather than focusing on any one drug.
      • Segawa's retirement was announced the next day on August 9th, with a job listing for her position added soon after.

• Hoffman provided a research update on the group’s new role at WSLCB, touching on internal and external outreach, prioritizing research topics, collaborating with other agencies, and government counterparts in the Cannabis Regulators Association (CANNRA, audio - 6m, Video - TVW).
  • Hoffman announced that the team would be arranging quarterly meetings with University of Washington (UW) and Washington State University (WSU) researchers to review the latest research findings. These meetings would help inform monthly updates of publicly available studies modeled after the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (WA LNI) Safety and Health Assessment and Research for Prevention (SHARP) office, as well as bi-weekly caucus updates.
  • Hoffman then talked about creating “decision tools” to “prioritize the work that we do both internally and externally.” An outward facing website for the research team would eventually be available, and an internal research library would be set up as well.
  • Partnering with the Washington State Institutional Review Board was underway, with a meeting set for the following week, but Hoffman anticipated it would be several months “before we do any sort of original research, but we want to make sure that that conversation happens.”
  • “In the not too distant future,” Hoffman said her unit would be in contact with lawmakers in collaboration with Director of Legislative Relations Marc Webster, specifying cannabis policy committees in the Washington State Legislature. The research team would also work with other state and local agencies, and Hoffman mentioned having just met with Julia Dilley, an Affiliate Instructor in Epidemiology at UW as well as Multnomah County Health Department and Oregon Department of Human Services researcher.
    • In 2019, Dilley participated in the agency Cannabis Potency Tax Work Group and reviewed that year’s Healthy Youth Survey (HYS) with the board that October, and she’d briefed board members on a multi-state study of the effects of policy frameworks on cannabis in September 2018.
    • In 2022, Dilley was part of a research team studying “Associations of cannabis retail outlet availability and neighborhood disadvantage with cannabis use and related risk factors among young adults in Washington State,” which was published in March, she gave remarks on cannabis access, use, and public health in remarks at a research symposium on September, and presented an update to the board that November.
  • “The other thing that we’ll be doing on a continual basis is just scanning our authorizing environment,” Hoffman remarked, whether at the local, national, or international levels, looking for “emerging issues, emerging products, and emerging practices” they needed to learn about. Along with their CANNRA counterparts, she expected the research unit to be “at the forefront" of cannabis compliance issues “to the extent that we can.”
  • This workload represented “a tall order for a three person unit,” but Hoffman was candid that “we have high aspirations and some pretty lofty goals for what we'd like to see the unit do in the first year.” She added that their first research presentation to the board would be in September and would delve into a conference she’d attended in Denver in early August.

Information Set