WA Senate WM - Committee Meeting
(February 3, 2024) - SB 6220 - Public Hearing

Lawmakers heard similar testimony during the fiscal considerations of a high THC regulation bill as was given in the policy hearing and later decided not to move the measure.

Here are some observations from the Saturday February 3rd Washington State Senate Ways and Means Committee (WA Senate WM) Committee Meeting.

My top 4 takeaways:

• Staff briefed on the policy committee substitute for SB 6220, “Concerning high THC cannabis products” (audio - 2m, video).
  • The legislation initially provided worker training on risks associated with concentrated cannabis products; guidance on medical treatment and intervention; and raised the age of purchase for such products to 25. It was first heard by members of the Washington State Senate Labor and Commerce Committee (WA Senate LC) on January 22nd, who later recommended a proposed substitute on January 30th.
  • In the fiscal committee hearing, Committee Outlook Coordinator Corban Nemeth explained the revised effects of the bill.
    • Provides legislative intent related to high THC cannabis policy and funding.
    • Requires the Department of Health to develop optional training for retail cannabis staff about health and safety impacts of high THC cannabis products.
    • Requires the Liquor and Cannabis Board to define high THC by July 1, 2026.
    • Increases the minimum legal age of sale of cannabis products with a high THC concentration, to be age 25, with an exception for qualifying patients and designated providers.
    • Requires, subject to funding, the University of Washington Addictions, Drug & Alcohol Institute to develop and implement guidance and health interventions for health care providers and patients at risk for developing serious complications due to cannabis consumption and to provide reports to the Legislature.
    • Nemeth also pointed out the “bill provides that the Governor may seek government-to-government consultations with federally recognized Indian tribes regarding raising the minimum legal age of sale of cannabis products with greater than 35% THC in tribal-state cannabis agreements,” and would report back to lawmakers by December 1st, 2025.
  • Nemeth referred to the fiscal note that indicated a “cost of $800,000 to the general fund in the 23-25 biennium, and $2.7 million over the four-year outlook period.” These costs covered:
    • “$120,000 in general fund…over four years for [WSLCB] enforcement provisions under the bill
    • “$570,000 for the Department of Health training development,
    • “$2 million to the University of Washington for the development and evaluation of interventions for people at risk of developing a psychosis associated with high THC cannabis.”
  • Senator Rebecca Saldaña mentioned she was collaborating with the bill sponsor, Senator Jesse Salomon, “to work on an amendment to address some of the fiscal impacts,” and suggested, “if people want to follow up with me directly with their comments, that would be helpful” (audio - 1m, video).

• Public health and research interests asserted the educational components of the bill were important because risks around THC content in cannabis products wasn’t well understood by the public, and they hoped for sales of the items to be restricted to reduce youth access.
  • Most of those testifying also spoke during the WA Senate LC policy hearing on January 30th.
  • Amy Brackenbury, Washington State Public Health Association (WSPHA) Lobbyist (audio - 1m, video)
    • Brackenbury emphasized the fiscal assessment of the bill included the “loss of revenue from people ages 21 to 24 not purchasing high concentrate products and the cost of the public education point of sale campaign side of things. I want to reiterate that.” She said the educational pieces were important because “public understanding of THC is actually very low, not just the health of the high potency products, but also the knowledge of one's own tolerance and limits is also very low.”
      • In the fiscal note, WSLCB staff offered no firm estimate of the the revenue impact, instead stating it was “unknown if the under-25 demographic would buy less cannabis product, or shift their buying habits to other cannabis product with a THC concentration less than 35 percent, which could be cheaper or more expensive than the products they would no longer be able to buy.”
      • In November 2022, a researcher presented WSLCB members with a report on Washington consumer responses that suggested, “very low levels of what I call ‘THC literacy,’” leading to further probing of the topic by board members.
  • Linda Thompson, Washington Association for Substance Misuse and Violence Prevention (WASAVP) Board Member (audio - 1m, video)
  • Beth Ebel, UW Pediatrician and Washington Chapter of the American Academy of PediatricsBoard of Trustees President (audio - 2m, video)
    • Calling the restrictions in the bill “sensible regulation,” Ebel had concluded “our journey with legalization has come at the expense of health problems for kids.” She commented that the bill was “being fought hard by industry…because it works, regulation works,” and that restricting high THC items for those 21 to 24 would “reduce them getting to kids.” Having worked with those suffering from “psychosis and really lifelong…concerns,” Ebel favored “reducing the money coming into the coffers on selling these really untested, unknown high potency products to kids is money well spent, and will be money saved in the future.”
      • Cannabis products have always been required to undergo testing for THC content and other substances. Standards in this process continue to evolve with a transfer of lab accreditation authority underway, and WSLCB having accepted a rulemaking petition to explore adding mandatory heavy metals testing on January 31st.
    • Senator Karen Keiser asked about the “harm to people using high THC, do you know what the age of those people have been?” Ebel testified that she’d “personally taken care of patients who had attempted suicide in the middle of one of these psychotic breaks after high potency products. Sometimes even after the first or second use.” Keiser again asked about the age of these patients, to which Ebel replied she’d only worked with “pediatric patients,” but had seen “national data showing that it increases the risk of psychosis in general, but it has a particular impact on the growing brain.” Keiser suggested there were already laws against “selling these products to people under the age of 21. If people under the age of 21 are getting these products, where are they getting them?” Ebel repeated, “the risk includes kids up through 25, that developing brain, is what we’ve seen,” and believed those “who are younger also tend to get them from…young adults who are close to their age” (audio - 2m, video).
  • Beatriz Carlini, UW ADAI Research Scientist, ADAI Cannabis Education and Research Program (CERP, audio - 1m, video)
  • In addition to four who testified, two people also signed in as supportive of SB 6220 (Testifying, Not Testifying).

• Cannabis sector representatives perceived the age restriction in the bill as a fatal flaw that would incentivize illicit production without the intended impact of lowering underage use of the products covered by the bill.
  • The same people also testified against the bill in the WA Senate LC hearing.
  • Vicki Christophersen, Washington CannaBusiness Association (WACA) Executive Director and Lobbyist (audio - 1m, video)
    • Christophersen said WACA member opposition “simply comes to the piece that prohibits the sale of products,” and claimed, “the whole premise of Initiative 502 was to bring these products into a regulated, safe market, so we oppose prohibition.” She supported “extensive public education,” as well as SB 6271 (“Modifying the cannabis excise tax to consider THC concentration”) which senators had passed a day earlier on February 2nd. This other bill could “influence public behavior that way rather than trying the prohibition route,” Christophersen added.
  • Ezra Eickmeyer, Producers Northwest Founder (audio - 1m, video)
    • “It is estimated that 25% of all cannabis sales in our state are still happening in the illicit market,” Eickmeyer alleged, where “any and all of the products that the licensed cannabis industry has the ability to create” could be made. He didn’t want to see purchase habits of young adults move towards less regulated sources. Eickmeyer shared that his group “wholeheartedly support, enthusiastically support the house proposed substitute version of this bill,” HB 2320, as that was “all about getting resources out to get teenagers to quit experimenting with drugs and alcohol, especially cannabis.” 
  • Caitlein Ryan, The Cannabis Alliance Executive Director (audio - 1m, video)
    • Ryan explained that her organization was “a broad coalition of not just industry, but consumers and patients as well.” She called attention to findings from staff at the Washington State Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) on Appropriations and Expenditures of the Dedicated Cannabis Account that “prevention, education, and treatment received a little more than $283 million from the Dedicated Cannabis Account, which is nearly $170 million more than local governments, agency administration, research, and equity initiatives combined.”
    • Ryan was amenable to SB 6271, or “specifically House Bill 2320 features an RFP [request for proposal] process for the proposed research to ensure a more rigorous and fiscally responsible approach to funding meaningful data, which would impact policy.”
  • Along with the three people who spoke, five individuals signed in opposed to the bill. Patient advocate John Kingsbury signed in as ‘other,’ but wasn’t available when called to testify (Testifying, Not Testifying, written comments).

• Later that day, SB 6220 was scheduled for an executive session on Monday when two amendments were offered, but members declined to act on the legislation at the last opportunity before a key deadline.
  • One of the benchmarks legislation is expected to meet under the legislative cutoff calendar was passage by a fiscal committee in the chamber where the bill was introduced. When WA Senate WM convened on Monday February 5th, SB 6220 was on their agenda, along with two amendments:
    • The amendment by Saldaña proposed to strike sections two, three, and five in the bill regarding public education, budtender education, and research, leaving only the legislative intent and elevated age restriction for high THC cannabis products.
    • Another amendment offered by Senator Lynda Wilson took the opposite approach, removing only the age increase requirement while leaving educational and research effects unchanged.
  • After staff briefed members on the amendments and following a caucus, Chair June Robinson announced committee members wouldn’t take action on the bill.
    • In order for the bill to be advanced after February 5th, it would have to be designated ‘necessary to implement budgets’ (NTIB), a nebulous designation for any bill WA Senate leadership would like additional time to consider.

Information Set