WA Senate - 
(February 29, 2024) - HB 2320 - Second and Third Reading

Senators made changes to data gathering requirements in a bill regulating “high THC” products before almost unanimously passing the measure and returning it to the House for concurrence.

Here are some observations from the Thursday February 29th Washington State Senate (WA Senate) Session.

My top 4 takeaways:

• No WA Senate committees granted an opportunity for public testimony on HB 2320 (“Concerning high THC cannabis products”) before it reached the floor.
  • The legislation was initially heard by the Washington State House Regulated Substances and Gaming Committee (WA House RSG) on January 16th. On January 29th, members recommended passage after approving a proposed substitute. Then, the Washington State House Appropriations Committee (WA House APP) heard the bill with less than a day’s notice, and voted to amend the measure on February 5th creating another substitute version. The measure was passed by the full House on February 9th.
  • Senators hosted hearings on SB 6220, the companion bill to HB 2320, which allowed committees to forego public hearings despite significant differences between the bills. Executive sessions were held by the Washington State Senate Labor and Commerce Committee (WA Senate LC) on February 19th where changes were made, and in a fiscal committee on February 22nd.

• During the second reading of the legislation, senators considered several amendments which had been proposed, approving two while a third change was withdrawn.
  • Senator Jesse Salomon moved the striking amendment by WA Senate LC authored by Senator Drew Hansen at the urging of prime sponsor Representative Lauren Davis (audio - <1m, video). The striker modified the bill so that:
    • “Legislative intent is provided regarding funding to be provided to the Department of Health (DOH) to allow DOH to issue requests for proposals and contract for targeted public health messages and social marketing campaigns directed toward individuals most likely to suffer negative impacts of high THC products including persons under 25 years of age, persons reporting poor mental health, and persons living with mental health challenges.
    • “Provides that the UW Addictions, Drug, and Alcohol Institute [ADAI], rather than the Health Care Authority, must develop guidance and health interventions for health care providers and patients at risk for developing serious complications due to cannabis consumption seeking care in certain settings.”
  • Senators then undertook additional amendments to the striker, starting with amendment S-5670.1 from President Pro Tempore Karen Keiser which was presented by Salomon and proposed “a technical change to require UW ADAI to include certain data gathering, rather than require this be included in a contract for the work” (audio - <1m, video). The language was added into the bill following a voice vote (audio - <1m, video).
  • Amendment S-5588.1 also by Keiser required the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) “to collect data on sales of cannabis products, including the amount of products sold in each category, the average tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration of products sold in each category, and the range of THC concentration in usable cannabis and cannabis concentrates, with a report due in November 2025.” She argued that lawmakers needed better data on cannabis sales because there was “no delineation of what kind of product [was] being sold” (audio - 1m, video). Republican Senator Curtis King seconded the need for the amendment (audio - <1m, video) and the Senate quickly agreed to incorporate the amendment into HB 2320 (audio - <1m, video).
    • This amendment integrated the original bill text of SB 6271, which was passed by the WA Senate on February 2nd, but wasn’t advanced in the House before a key legislative cutoff.
  • The third change, Amendment CRAN 193, was withdrawn by King (audio - <1m, video).
  • Senators voted to incorporate the new amendments into the striking amendment without objection (audio - <1m, video).

• Two senators offered their impressions of the legislation, including a wish that more was being done to restrict “high THC” products and a promise to revisit the issue.
  • Salomon started off by repeating an analogy which had been removed from the intent section of the bill that “the current product of 100% THC is like the way a Pop-Tart resembles a strawberry.” He said that public health interests felt “there is something to be concerned about here,” such as “higher levels of cannabis dependence; early onset psychosis and schizophrenia; and other long-term mental health conditions.” Salomon noted the State didn’t “allow 100% alcohol to be sold in stores and liquor shops. We should consider not selling a hundred percent THC, at least to younger people who are affected by this.” He viewed HB 2320 as a “small step forward” (audio - 3m, video).
    • Salomon also sponsored the companion bill, SB 6220, and provided similar remarks on that measure before the WA Senate LC on January 22nd.
    • Salomon correctly noted no alcohol for human consumption in Washington is 100%, but as a hydrophilic substance which pulls water from the environment as it evaporates, the equivalency implies such products exist. The strongest “spirits” defined in RCW 66.04.010 are those “including wines exceeding [24%] of alcohol by volume.”  Similarly, cannabis —never found to be 100% THC---also declines over time. Grain alcohols like Everclear with 95% alcohol content have been sold in Washington stores or shipped to people over 21.
  • King stated that elected officials still didn’t know enough about the impact high THC products were having, and this was "something that we need to look at,” even though “obviously like everything else it varies from one individual to another.” He added that he wished the legislation went further “because I am concerned that individuals [would] still be harmed by the use of these high THC products. But…I think it's a positive step forward” (audio - 1m, video).

• A single senator dissented in passing HB 2320, which was returned to the House to await a concurrent resolution and final passage before the end of the 2024 session (audio - 3m, video).
  • During a roll call vote, all members voted in favor of the measure except for Republican Senator Mark Schoesler. Senator Liz Lovelett was excused from the vote.
    • Schoesler was one of several members to vote without recommendation on HB 2320 in the policy and fiscal committees which took action on the bill.
  • With several changes made to HB 2320 in the Senate, the legislation required a concurrent resolution by the House. In the event representatives don’t agree to the new language, senators could be asked to recede from their changes or appoint members to a conference committee to produce a compromise version. All subsequent actions would have to be completed before the legislative session concludes on Thursday March 7th.

Information Set