The Week Ahead
(April 25, 2022)

False Dichotomy - This or That

WSLCB staff planned to renew public dialogue about impairing versus non-impairing cannabinoids, providing an opportunity to question how helpful that dichotomy actually is.

Here’s a look at cannabis-related policymaking events on the calendar in the week ahead.

Monday April 25th

At publication time, no cannabis-related policymaking events were scheduled.

Tuesday April 26th

WSLCB - Board Caucus

On Tuesday at 10am PT, the weekly Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) Board Caucus was scheduled to recur.

WA HCA - DBHR Listening Session

On Tuesday at 1:30pm PT, the monthly Washington State Health Care Authority (WA HCA) Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery (DBHR) Behavioral Health Service Provider Listening Session was scheduled to recur.

  • [ Event Details ]
  • The event announcement indicated “The Washington State Department of Veterans Affairs will present on suicide prevention and participants will learn about the pharmacy pilot program.”

WA SECTF - Public Meeting

On Tuesday at 2pm PT, the Washington State Legislative Task Force on Social Equity in Cannabis (WA SECTF) was scheduled to convene.

  • [ Event Details ]
  • The full task force last met on January 24th.  Since that time, the Licensing Work Group convened four times (cancelling once) and the Community Reinvestment Work Group convened twice (cancelling twice).
  • In their latest meetings, both of the active work groups angled towards finalizing their recommendations for inclusion in the final task force report due in December.  Those recommendations would be presented for the consideration of the full task force on Tuesday.  Subsequently, these particular work groups planned to shut down.
  • But, at publication time, the task force’s work was not done.  RCW 69.50.336(8) defined the task force’s responsibilities, which included several required recommendations which had yet to be publicly addressed by task force members:
    • (c) The social equity impact of altering residential cannabis agriculture regulations;
    • (d) The social equity impact of shifting primary regulation of cannabis production from the board to the department of agriculture, including potential impacts to the employment rights of workers;

Wednesday April 27th

WSLCB - Board Meeting

On Wednesday at 10am PT, the bi-weekly WSLCB Board Meeting was scheduled to recur.

  • [ Event Details ]
  • On Wednesday, board members would be presented with the opportunity to approve the filing of a CR-105 for the implementation of HB 1210, “Replacing the term 'marijuana' with the term 'cannabis' throughout the Revised Code of Washington.”

WSLCB - Deliberative Dialogue - Cannabis Impairment

On Wednesday at 1pm PT, Policy and Rules staff were scheduled to convene a WSLCB Deliberative Dialogue on Cannabis Impairment.

  • [ Event Details ]
  • The subject of the future of cannabinoid regulation in Washington state had not been publicly addressed since the frenzied close of the 2022 legislative session which saw substantial resources expended in a final unsuccessful push to get a WSLCB-endorsed bill introduced late and advanced through the checks of the bicameral legislature.
  • Building on the success of two deliberative dialogues on the subject of Cannabis plant chemistry in 2021, WSLCB staff have organized a new dialogue on cannabis impairment to address the concept which, helpfully or not, was made central to legislative efforts to enhance and/or restrict WSLCB authority to regulate cannabis products.
    • WSLCB versions of the legislation relied on multiple variations of the term ‘impairing’ to distinguish cannabinoids of potential interest for regulatory oversight - but left the term undefined with the promise to do so thoughtfully in rule.
    • Competing versions of the legislation attempted to define ‘impairing’ cannabinoids using a combination of chemical notations intended to identify a common structural feature of molecules of interest along with additional tests intended to encompass the function of the molecule in the human body.
    • Neither approach gained broad legislator endorsement, which should invite questioning about whether attempts to distinguish particular impairing cannabinoids in law and rule would actually be helpful at addressing underlying concerns.
  • At publication time, three of the same panelists who had been invited to previous dialogues were scheduled to make themselves available for questioning from and discussion with WSLCB staff and the public.
  • Following the initial dialogues, these three researchers recognized the likely centrality of the concept of impairment in the future of cannabinoid regulation, and set out to see if they could come to agreement on a definition.  It’s Cannabis Observer’s understanding that the alternative structure and function test in the legislation which competed with the WSLCB agency request legislation was a variation of the approach outlined through the private deliberations of these three researchers.
  • The deliberative dialogue event format should provide a helpful context in which to explore and convey better understanding about different ways to define impairing cannabinoids.  But we’re hopeful that the event could also provide an opportunity to question whether the impairing/non-impairing dichotomy is a helpful frame in which to constrain the regulation of cannabis.
    • The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) notes that “Testing for drug impairment is problematic due to the limitations of drug-detecting technology and the lack of an agreed-upon limit to determine impairment. The nationally recognized level of impairment for drunken driving is .08 g/mL blood alcohol concentration. But there is no similar national standard for drugged driving. Drugs do not affect people consistently. Drugs such as marijuana can also stay in the system for weeks, thus appearing in roadside tests while no longer causing impairment.”
  • Mixed into, and somewhat obscured within, the conversation about the safety profile of particular cannabinoids is their situation within plant material, products extracted from Cannabis plants, and/or products of synthesizing processes.  Product safety concerns transcend any distinctions between impairing/non-impairing cannabinoids because chemists can likely create any cannabinoid—or slight variation thereof intended to evade a constraining definition—given sufficient incentive and resources.
  • Both laws and rules are purposefully slow and methodical instruments of state power.  Ascribing characteristics to particular cannabinoids in code—when those cannabinoids remain poorly understood precisely because of decades of prohibition which remains active in that same code—may not be a wise or helpful approach.  There may be other approaches that make more sense if we reconsider what we’re trying to accomplish.

Thursday April 28th

At publication time, no cannabis-related policymaking events were scheduled.

Friday April 29th

At publication time, no cannabis-related policymaking events were scheduled.