WSLCB - Board Caucus
(September 24, 2024) - Budtender Training Requirements

A cannabis postdoc presented research on state-level budtender requirements, eliciting specific interests of board members and agency research staff on implementing training policies.

Here are some observations from the Tuesday September 24th Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) Board Caucus.

My top 3 takeaways:

• WSLCB Research Manager Sarah Okey introduced Cassidy LoParco, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Milken Institute of Public Health at George Washington University, to discuss her comparison of qualifying requirements and training standards for non-medical cannabis retail staff (audio - 1m, video - TVW, video - WSLCB).
  • Okey explained that LoParco’s presentation was prompted in part by the results of a survey released earlier in the summer that suggested that cannabis consumers and retailers alike are interested in learning more about budtender training requirements.
  • Okey noted that LoParco had previously presented on a related topic at the 2024 Research Society on Marijuana (RSMj) Conference.
    • At that conference, Okey chaired a panel where LoParco talked about “the quickly evolving online cannabis market space and share[d] findings on the prevalence and change in health warnings, benefits, and promotions across 175 U.S. cannabis retailors [sic] with online storefronts.”
  • LoParco's presentation to the WSLCB was based on a peer-reviewed research article entitled "State Requirements for Non-Medical US Cannabis Retail Personnel" that she and her co-authors published in July in the Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. The article looked at budtender qualifications in 20 states with active recreational cannabis markets.
    • Learn more about training and credentialing specific to medical cannabis consultants required by WSLCB for medically endorsed retailers and overseen by the Washington State Department of Health (DOH).
    • In 2023, FlowHub published the guide: “Budtender Training: How to Build an Effective Dispensary Onboarding and Education Program.”
    • Companies like Take Root and Academy of Cannabis Science also advertise budtender training courses.

• LoParco's presentation focused on the importance of budtenders and described four key topics related to their job requirements across the country before emphasizing social equity implications of training policies (audio - 8m, video - TVW, video - WSLCB).
  • LoParco established that retail staff “play a key role in regulatory compliance, such as maintaining required signage in retail settings [and being] sources of cannabis related information to consumers…However, some do fail to provide information.” She then commented that “studies conducted in 2015 and 2016 indicated that only about half of the budtenders received any formal training.” LoParco added near the end of her remarks that researchers hadn’t looked at local training requirements, only state-level ones.
    • A 2022 study led by University of Washington Addictions, Drug, and Alcohol Institute (UW ADAI) researcher and Cannabis Education and Research Program (CERP) Director Bia Carlini evaluated “Cannabis Retail Staff (‘Budtenders’) Attitudes Towards Cannabis Effects on Health and Experiences Interacting with Consumers - Washington State, USA.”
  • Minimum Age Requirements: LoParco's research team found that of the 20 states with a regulated non-medical cannabis market, 17 require budtenders to be at least 21 years old while three states only require budtenders to be at least 18 years old. Drawing on data from state government and cannabis licensing board websites, LoParco explained that her team found this discrepancy to be "notable" given that the minimum age to purchase cannabis is 21 in all states.
  • Background Check Requirements: LoParco reported that the majority of states (16 out of 20) require budtenders to undergo a background check, with Washington, Missouri, New Mexico, and New York as the exceptions to this practice. She explained that there was wide variation in terms of which specific criminal convictions disqualified an applicant from working as a budtender and whether individuals who had been convicted of a disqualifying crime could petition for an exception. Acknowledging she could understand the rationale for conducting background checks, LoParco was concerned about vague language used by some states to define disqualifying offenses, noting for example that Oregon law allows for the denial of a budtender application based on the applicant's "quote unquote ‘reputation and moral character.’" LoParco also pointed out that 12 of the states require budtenders to be fingerprinted, which may result in additional costs for applicants. 
  • Application Fees: LoParco's research indicated that 13 of the 20 states included in the study required budtenders to pay an application fee that can range from a one-time payment of $25 to a recurring fee of $300 every two years. She indicated “states that did not have an application fee included California, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington.”
  • Training Requirements: According to LoParco, only seven states required budtenders to participate in structured training programs. Of those seven states, only five require budtenders to pass an exam, though her team had been unable to locate detailed information on training content on most state licensing board websites. LoParco shared that researchers had been able to access some training syllabi, which sometimes included information about how to comply with state regulations, interact with customers, and answer customer questions about topics such as product testing and labeling.
  • Social Equity Implications: “Findings have implications for equitable employment,” established LoParco, who expressed concern that the lack of consistency in training requirements, background check policies, and the costs associated with becoming a budtender could disproportionately impact individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds and create barriers to employment. She went on to explain that "another study indicated that budtenders who had versus had not received training were more likely to identify as White or Hispanic—vs. Black or another race—and were less likely to have health insurance." LoParco acknowledged the complexities of developing equitable policies, stating that "allowing individuals who have cannabis-related felony convictions to serve as budtenders may facilitate equity-related goals; however, careful consideration may be needed regarding the nature and severity of convictions and whether particular oversight is needed for budtenders with such prior convictions" (audio - 2m, video - TVW, video - WSLCB).
    • Find out more about the WSLCB social equity program, including a September 11th briefing by agency leaders.

• A question-and-answer session with members of the WSLCB board and staff followed, revealing interest in how the older Washington state regulated market compared with other jurisdictions and semi-synthetic cannabinoid retailers, along with approaches to implementing training regimes.
  • Okey asked whether any states offered optional training programs that had been developed or endorsed by the state for budtenders in states that did not have mandatory training requirements (audio - 1m, video - TVW, video - WSLCB).
    • LoParco responded that, based on her team's research, she had not seen any such programs but could not definitively say they didn’t exist.
  • Okey was curious about LoParco’s thoughts on what would constitute high-quality training curriculum for budtenders (audio - 1m, video - TVW, video - WSLCB).
    • LoParco argued that role-playing and other interactive training methods that simulated real-world interactions between budtenders and customers would be beneficial.
  • Okey next asked if LoParco thought it would be valuable to include information about the risks and effects of different types of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), such as delta-8-THC and hemp-derived THC products in budtender training programs (audio - 1m, video - TVW, video - WSLCB)
    • LoParco stated that this was likely to be "one of the biggest questions that consumers will have in these shops" and that training budtenders on the differences between these products had value. LoParco also pointed out that there is not much research on the effects of these different types of THC, but there could be "some basic information about maybe the different types of risks” to help budtenders "compare the substances.”
  • Board Member Ollie Garrett asked if LoParco’s research examined the outcomes of background checks, specifically whether her team had looked at "the results of those disputes" from individuals who had been denied employment based on their background check (audio - 2m, video - TVW, video - WSLCB).
    • LoParco responded that her team did not analyze those results, but she reiterated her belief that it would be beneficial for states to adopt more "comprehensive" background check policies that reduce variability and clearly outline disqualifying factors.
  • Garrett wanted to know if LoParco had observed any patterns with respect to which states were more likely to place restrictions on budtender employment based on past cannabis-related criminal convictions, in particular if states that had legalized more recently were more likely to have such restrictions (audio - 1m, video - TVW, video - WSLCB).
    • LoParco clarified that her team's research had not focused on that specific question, elaborating that "a lot of [states] did have background checks" and the primary distinction between states was "whether cannabis-related felony exclusions in the past apply.”
  • Board Chair David Postman inquired if her research had looked at whether there was any correlation between training mandates and consumer behavior or compliance with state regulations (audio - 1m, video - TVW, video - WSLCB).
    • LoParco answered that her team had not analyzed those specific outcomes but acknowledged it “would be really important to see if there are differences.”
  • Postman then asked LoParco about the prevalence of budtenders providing customers with information about different cannabis strains and if there was a way to train budtenders to provide this type of information in a way that was accurate and evidence-based (audio - 2m, video - TVW, video - WSLCB).
    • LoParco agreed it was essential for budtenders to be able to distinguish between "scientific information" and "personal anecdotes,” suggesting that budtenders should focus on conveying information that is based on "peer reviewed science.” Regulators ought to be “really clear about the types of information that budtenders are allowed to provide,” she argued, “and making sure that these personal anecdotes, ‘he said, she said’…is not the type of information that they're allowed to provide.”
  • Garrett asked Okey if the WSLCB had conducted any research on Washington state retailers' views about budtender training (audio - 1m, video - TVW, video - WSLCB).
    • Okey responded that staff were in the process of developing such a survey.
  • Research Analyst Nick Glodosky was curious to hear LoParco’s view on the most important aspects of a budtender training curriculum, as well as how to measure the success of such programs (audio - 3m, video - TVW, video - WSLCB).
    • LoParco responded that while "a lot of people turn towards testing" to measure training outcomes, she had doubts on the usefulness of that approach. She voiced a preference for "one on one personal or…synchronous classes" as a more effective way of ensuring that budtenders retain and can apply the information they learned.
  • “Have you looked at all at what budtenders do or don't do in the hemp-derived THC markets that have popped up around the country,” Postman asked (audio - 1m, video - TVW, video - WSLCB).
    • LoParco replied that while her team had not focused on those stores employees specifically, they had conducted surveillance of hemp-derived THC retailers, which involved calling stores to inquire about the products being sold. She stated that this led her team to conclude that there was "a lot of misinformation out there regarding those substances.” In most cases, she’d found employees in hemp markets "don’t know" much about the products beyond the selling point that "it gets you high.”
  • Postman concluded by wondering if LoParco thought there would be value in developing a budtender certification program (audio - 1m, video - TVW, video - WSLCB)
    • LoParco responded with her opinion, “it would be important to at least have something showing [budtenders] did this training,” but didn’t feel qualified to say what would be most appropriate.

Information Set