Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
  • Welcome to VaporAsylum! Please take a moment to read our RULES and introduce yourself here.
  • Need help navigating the forum? Find out how to use our features here.
  • Did you know we have lots of smilies for you to use?

Law Washington state has legal cannabis

Washington State Homegrow For 2019
September 1, 2018, 7:00 pm Miguel a.k.a Miggy420 Marijuana Legalization
marijuana-prohibition-1-678x381.jpg

The fight for proper legalization of cannabis and homegrow continues in the State of Washington, even though tourists can come to buy an ounce of cannabis here, citizens don’t have a right to grow for themselves. Washington State citizens don’t have a chance to be adequately educated through experience on what it takes to grow the plant.

Just-A-Bill-691x410.jpg


Passing A Bill

Homegrow almost happened last legislative session with bills in the House and Senate by homegrow activists and NORML’s lobbyist but its a convoluted process.

First, there were the bills. Two separate bills went through were HB2559 and companion bill SB6482, based off of HB1212. One for the House of Representatives and the other for the Senate, a bill needs to go through both to be considered by the legislators. With the same verbiage, the two were needed to pass through their perspective chambers simultaneously, so it could be later merged as one to be signed by the Governor. You could run one bill through both, but this will take twice as long.

Another reason for the two bills is that each chamber is presently pointing fingers at the other as to why they should care about this, why should they even bother. According to NORML lobbyist Bailey Hirschburg “With homegrow, we were regularly told, “Why should we vote for it if the other chamber won’t take action?” Hence two bills both trying to move simultaneously.”

But wait there’s more (said in a coked out Billy Banks voice) before their perspective legislators will hear a bill, it has to be approved by several committees in each chamber. The House and Senate both have committees on various topics, and both have a Rules (leadership) committee. The rules committee decides if it needs to be assigned to other sub-committees, and which ones. Those committees can do any of the following: Not hear the bill, hear it but not take any action, hear it and pass without recommendation (meaning committee members are indifferent) or give it a pass (With or without Amendments or suggestions for change).

Once it passes each assigned committee the bill is returned to the Rules Committee where they decide to pass it on to the legislator to be voted on the floor or on to another Committee, this is where things get murky. The Rules Committee is comprised of the chamber’s party leadership, people who are supposed to look out for the will of their constituents (people they represent) which in this case is the Washington State citizen who in turn is the Washington State cannabis consumer. At this point in the process, the Rules Committee can let it pass for a floor vote or send it to another committee for some rulemaking consideration for the financial concerns.

The bills failed in their perspective chambers, not due to any lack of will of the people (which can be seen by the outnumbering pro messages sent to the WSLCB via their “Homegrow Study Report”); but due to the still lingering reefer sadness that resides in the minds of those in charge of enforcing policy for cannabis and the politicians who are suppose to serve the will of the people.

Transparency is weak, a bill can be passed from committee to committee until it dies or as in the case of the Senate, the Rules Committee assigned the bill to a Committee that didn’t even hear the bill making it, so politicians don’t have to take a stance against a billion dollar industry or one for social reform.

The people supporting SB6482 couldn’t get a hearing in the assigned Labor and Finance Committee, stopped by Senator Karen Keiser the Committee leader who represents parts of Burien, Normandy Park, Seatac, Kent, and Des Moines. In her infinite wisdom, she chooses that this is not important enough to be considered by the people when her district holds recreation shops.

In the House of Representatives the Rules Committee didn’t send the bill to die; instead, it was passed by the Commerce and Gaming which you think would be efficient enough but from there was handed to the Finance Committee headed by Representative Kristine Lytton where it died.

In both cases where the bills died the Committees were headed by Democrats, the supposed justice warriors of politics but yet don’t find it important enough for me to have a fundamental right in my home with this thing we call legalization in the United States of America or at least in Washington State.

If not for the passion of activist (or business as in the case of SB5052) and NORML nothing cannabis related would ever get through the bicameral State process and as seen on the Federal level. You can’t drain a swamp there’s no plug for. Cannabis issues are not issues for State legislators when they have potholes, budgets, and campaign promises to fill but it is to me, it’s one of the few ways where we could invoke positive change for all in the country and state we live.

Homegrow for 2019

The homegrow effort is underway and you can help by joining the conversation. Big marijuana is not stepping up for you. Yes, many stores and grows support homegrow but last year I mostly saw activist with no ties to the industry and NORML lobbyists stand up for what’s right, and that’s putting the nail in prohibition.

Washington State is the last holdout State when it comes to an individual’s right, and this is our greatest stain when it comes to equality for its citizens. We need you to help give ideas, contact your legislators in both the House and Senate, be involved. If you would like to help and be a part of the grassroots effort to get homegrow passed please contact Homegrowwashington@gmail.com and ask what you can do or come to the first meeting on September 9th in North Seattle.



The passing of a homegrow bill is more important than ever for the Washington State consumer as the recreational market thrives the average citizen remains ignorant of a product they’re consuming. The present Washington State recreational has created a market of willful ignorance. The average consumer isn’t a gardener but should have a chance. I am more concern about azamax in my cannabis than I am fentanyl and that should be everyone’s priority because it’s more of an actual hazard to my life.


Oregon Ban on Azamax
Azamax-In-Washington-State-Cannabis-308x410.jpg

Washington State label showing the use of Azamax
It’s Up To Washington State Citizens To Shape Washington State Law

One of the most common replies to complaints in the original I502 was “we can fix that later.” That the will of the people will prevail to change things and after seeing the actual process and seeing politician’s enthusiasm for the passing homegrow, especially that of the democratic party, it is more evident that people need to step up as consumers and be more involved. We are six years into this so-called experiment, 20 years into Washington State having a form of marijuana legalization.

During the days when medical marijuana was the rule of the land, I was able to buy seeds and clones through storefronts, during this 14 year period before the creation of the recreational market, homegrows, clone and seed purchases were never an issue for the average citizen. Instead, it gave the citizen a chance to be a part of the market because they had a better understanding of the plant by working with the plant.

Homegrow will give the end consumer who chooses to be an enthusiast a better understanding of this beautiful plant because one thing is for sure, not everyone has a green thumb or time, some have higher standards than others, and that’s o.k.
About Miguel a.k.a Miggy420
My name is Miguel but I go by Miggy420 on the interwebs. My mission is to end prohibition through education, entertainment, and spreading awareness of those facing injustice, we are stronger as a whole when we're all informed.I don't have a degree but my resume includes 8 years of blogging, 10 years in the military, and presently working in the tech industry.
PREVIOUS
Senator To Trump Administration: Stop Cherry-Picked Anti-Cannabis Data Effort



Alert: Patients And Consumers of Washington State Give The LCB Your Input

There’s No Place Like Home(grows) In Washington State


https://www.amazon.com/Cannabis-Encyclopedia-Definitive-Cultivation-Consumption/dp/1878823345/
 
This isn't really law related.... but rather than make a thread for this, I thought I'd stick it here...
Widespread Illegal Pesticide Use Uncovered in Washington State

Over 40 percent of cannabis samples tested by the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) in the 16-month period between March 2017 and July 2018 contained unacceptable levels of legal or banned pesticides, The Stranger reports.


Data released by the medical marijuana advocacy group, Patients United, details a total of 387 pesticide tests carried out on cannabis samples by the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) laboratories on behalf of the state’s Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB). The data reveals that 43 percent of the samples tested contained either banned pesticides or illegal levels of state-approved pesticides. Banned pesticide use accounted for 37 percent of the 387 tests, with the rest accounted for by high levels of approved pesticides. In one case, Patients United says, a sample contained over 90 times the allowable limit of a certain pesticide.


Pesticide Testing in Washington State

Washington state has traditionally being a groundbreaker in terms of cannabis legislation - with the state’s first medicinal cannabis legislation being passed by ballot measure as early as 1998. In 2012, Washington also became the first in the country, alongside Colorado, to legalize recreational cannabis use.


Despite this, the state’s current cannabis pesticide testing laws lag behind those used in other states with active cannabis markets. In California, which has arguably the strictest cannabis testing programme in the United States, cannabis pesticide testing is mandatory for both recreational and medicinal cannabis. As well as pesticide testing, medicinal and recreational cannabis samples in California are also tested for residual solvents, processing chemicals, and microbial infection risk. At the end of 2018 California also plans to introduce mandatory tests for mycotoxins and heavy metals, as well as full terpenoid characterization and water activity testing for edibles.


Contrastingly, in Washington state, pesticide testing is only mandatory for medicinal cannabis, and even then the testing only screens for a set list of unapproved pesticides. For recreational cannabis, Washington state mainly relies on randomized testing, with additional tests carried out in the event of a complaint or report being given to state officials by consumers or cannabis business employees.


Reaction to the WSDA Test Results

In an e-mail to The Stranger about the WDSA test results, Brian Smith, a spokesperson for the LCB, referenced this testing procedure when responding to the findings of the Patients United group. While he did not protest the findings of the report, Smith did say that due to the current complaint-motivated testing system that is used by the LCB this “could result in positives for pesticides results in greater frequency than the average population [of cannabis samples]”. Hector Castro, speaking on behalf of the WSDA, reiterated that while the WDSA does conduct pesticide testing for the LCB, their labs are not tasked with providing any analysis of the testing results.


Following the report, Patients United are urging the LCB to reconsider their pesticide testing system by adopting pesticide testing as a mandatory requirement for cannabis producers in the state. John Kingsbury, a prominent cannabis advocate and organizer with Patients United, labeled the pesticide contamination situation a “public health emergency” in a letter sent to the LCB, which was uncovered by The Stranger.


“Likely tens of thousands of Washington consumers are consuming regulated recreational cannabis during any one day. With pesticide testing failure rates of 30-43%, it is statistically guaranteed that those consumers will consume a product with illegal amounts of pesticides in it every third use,” Kingsbury postulated later on in the letter.


The 30% figure mentioned by Kingsbury is thought to come from a separate pesticide report conducted by the cannabis lab Confidence Analytics, which found illegal pesticide contamination on 30% of the products randomly tested in their study. Figures from this Confidence Analytics study were reportedly included in the Patients United letter to the state.


While Analytical Cannabis has been unable to secure a copy of this report to confirm the data, an additional report from Trace Analytics, commissioned by the Clean Cannabis Association, did find that of their randomly selected samples, roughly 3 in 10 cannabis flower samples contained some levels of illegal pesticides, with this figure rising in cannabis concentrate products.


The Future of Pesticide Testing in Washington

A spokesperson for the Department of Health (DOH), Kristen Maki, told The Stranger that the DOH has been made aware of the Patients United report and that as a consequence the DOH is currently “having ongoing discussions” with the LCB surrounding cannabis product testing.


The LCB recently filed an inquiry into the possibility of making major changes to its cannabis legislation, which could see the introduction of mandatory pesticide testing for all cannabis products, as well as reform of other matters such as packaging and labeling, and an adjustment to the pass/fail criteria for cannabis quality control. The inquiry ended at the end of October and an announcement of any resultant proposed rule changes is expected imminently.



 
Washington cannabis regulator approves new marijuana candy regulations

Good news edible fans: Washington state will not ban pot-infused candies and gummies after all. But there will be some changes coming to the treats.

The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board finalized a policy on Wednesday which limits the colors and shapes that edibles can have, but doesn't forbid pot-infused candies, like an earlier policy did.

As expected, the new rules stipulate that pot companies to avoid bright colors, working instead with a "standard pantone color book that sets the list of colors and specified ranges within those colors" for both product and packaging.

There will also be limits on the shapes, with exceptions for things like non-profit collaborations or naturally-occurring colors.

WSLCB said that the official color list and other materials will be available in January.

Ahead of their formal announcement, LCB released a memo that reviewed the process of the past few months, including draft policy decisions that outlines the proposed regulations. The document also outlined the implementation for the policy, which the LCB expects to take about 10 months once the new requirements are adopted and standard operating procedures are in place.

During that time, retailers would have nine months to sell off existing inventory. Anything remaining after that time (assuming it's not expired and meets the new rules) should be allowed to be re-labeled and re-sold.

Currently, the LCB expects all edible makers will have to resubmit their products for approval by January 2020.

This is a boost to organizations like Washington CannaBusiness Association, one of the handful trade groups in the state that opposed the state's action on candies.

"We applaud the Liquor and Cannabis Board for their careful re-evaluation of their announcement earlier this year regarding cannabis-infused edibles," Vicki Christophersen, executive director of the Washington CannaBusiness Association, said in a statement earlier this month.

"The agency's new interim policy decision, informed by the input of bipartisan elected leaders and regulated industry representatives, provides a transparent review and approval process going forward for safe, quality-controlled products for adult and medicinal use. Our shared goal is to support the long-term viability of our state's cannabis marketplace while also keeping cannabis out of the hands of minors."
 
It blows my mind that they DON'T already have mandatory pesticide testing....the fuck is up wid' dat'?

WA state cannabis regulators will soon take up mandatory pesticide testing


Washington state regulators are discussing changes to the recreational marijuana program, including implementing mandatory pesticide testing in the near future.

The prospect of mandatory pesticide testing has been a cause for concern among smaller cultivation operations.

They worry that any added operational costs could eat away at already slim profit margins.
On the other hand, one retailer in the Seattle area has begun self-testing cannabis products for pesticides.

In an interview with The Spokesman-Review of Spokane, members of the state’s Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB) discussed problems facing cultivators in an increasingly tough market as wholesale cannabis prices continue to fall.

Here’s what you need to know:

  • While Washington-grown cannabis is tested for microbials, it isn’t tested for pesticides. Rick Garza, the LCB’s director, said the board planned to consider mandatory pesticide testing soon. One sticking point: There’s a lack of data to gauge what are acceptable, safe levels of certain substances.
  • Growers are joining together in protest of air pollution regulations, saying the market is tough enough to make a profit without added regulations.
  • Regulators admitted that not allowing for vertical integration – meaning one business could hold a production, processing and/or retail license – was a program “fault.”
 
2_37.jpg
UP IN SMOKE. A display at the Have A Heart dispensary in Seattle unwittingly evinces the frustrations of many cannabis entrepreneurs.

Cannabis sales in the state could reach $2.28 billion by 2020, according to Washington, D.C.-based New Frontier Data, mainly from increased production and competition that will drive down prices and encourage consumers to buy weed legally instead of on the black market.

The article is from Jan. 2019 but a good one.

Tight Regulations, High Taxes May Keep Washington State's $1.4B Cannabis Industry from Really Blooming | Seattle Business Magazine

From pesticide requirements to potential new rules restricting edibles to the nation's highest tax burden on cannabis businesses, marijuana entrepreneurs say Washington state is strangling the growth of a new industry
 
New Washington state law worries marijuana growers over cross-pollination from hemp farms


A new Washington state law has marijuana cultivators concerned over the potential of cross-pollination from hemp growers, which could prove disastrous to their bottom line if it occurs – potentially costing them up to tens of thousands of dollars in damages.


In April, Gov. Jay Inslee signed Senate Bill 5276 into law, opening up the state to hemp production in response to the 2018 Farm Bill, particularly by removing the previous 4-mile buffer between outdoor marijuana and hemp farms.


With this change, hemp industry watchers expect a proliferation of hemp cultivation in the state, which has only a dozen farms compared with the 750 of Oregon.





“Obviously this’ll open up the spaces where hemp cultivators can operate, and it could also have some negative impacts on the cross-pollination side,” said Seattle-based cannabis and hemp attorney Daniel Shortt.



He pointed out there are more than 1,000 marijuana growers in Washington State compared to the relatively few hemp growers.


While final rules have not been released, primary concerns include:


  • Hemp fields with both male and female plants could send airborne pollen into marijuana fields and cause flowering female plants to seed, which would make the MJ flower unattractive to retail stores and less valuable for extraction.
  • Will hemp farmers have the resources, including adequate labor, to remove all the male plants from larger-scale farms? Will day laborers and seasonal help be able to even distinguish between the two plant genders?
  • Marijuana farms that cross-pollinate hemp fields, meanwhile, could cause the hemp THC levels to spike over 0.3%, though the potential for risk there is small and would take another growing season for that to show up.

Marijuana growers already struggling


After the change in the law, the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) and the Liquor and Cannabis Board are expected to review the potential risk for cross-pollination.


Under the new law, the farmer who was on their land and operating first would win a dispute over possible cross-pollination.


The majority of current hemp production nationwide is geared toward the CBD market.


According to the 2018 Hemp & CBD Industry Factbook, about 84% of hemp was planted for the CBD market in 2017.


However, the small percentage of hemp farmers who grow for grain and fiber plant both male and female seedlings to encourage seed production, and those farms could have a dramatic negative impact on neighboring cannabis cultivation operations.


Shortt cautioned against jumping to conclusions about how this could impact the industry, since the final regulations have yet to be released.


He expects state lawmakers could wait for federal guidance before making related rules.


Also, an amendment to SB 5276 would allow the WSDA to reimpose the setbacks, though that remains to be seen.


Shortt understands why cannabis growers are concerned over the potential for cross-pollination in light of the struggles they’re already facing.


Wholesale prices for marijuana have continuously declined since Washington state legalized recreational marijuana in 2014.


“It’s really competitive and difficult to successfully operate a marijuana facility, and even if (cross-pollination) could ruin one crop, that could be devastating,” Shortt said.


“When things are so competitive and the margins are so thin, it’s reasonable to be concerned over something like this.”


One county zones out hemp


Anders Taylor cultivates sun-grown marijuana in Okanogan County, a region in the state with several outdoor marijuana farms.


He said the county zones hemp production to tribal lands only out of concerns about cross-pollination and the impact it could have on the cannabis growers.


Seeing what was coming, the growers in his county worked with the county commissioners so they wouldn’t be in the same position as the rest of the state if the 4-mile setback was removed.


“There are a lot of other areas in the state that are on pins and needles about where hemp farmers are going to locate,” said Taylor.


“The rest of the state is running into a potential issue.”


While Taylor acknowledges that the majority of hemp production is directed toward CBD and the female plants needed to create flower, he still sees it as marijuana growers placing their faith in neighboring hemp farmers to do the right thing.


He gave this example: If a nearby hemp grower plants 50 acres and doesn’t have the time, money or laborers with the know-how to remove the male plants, then the potential for cross-pollination is high.


“If a hemp farm is within a few miles of a marijuana farm and it’s growing a lot of male plants, it will create enough pollen to significantly damage that marijuana crop,” Taylor said.


Although he acknowledges that a savvy hemp farmer would remove the male plants – CBD buyers will pay less for hemp plants with seeds in them, for instance – that’s no guarantee.


“You would lose money by leaving them in,” Taylor said.


Also, if the hemp farmer is growing for seed and fiber, the risk for cross-pollination and destruction to the marijuana grower’s field goes up considerably.


‘CBD-driven’ market


Cory Sharp, a hemp farmer and consultant based in Moses Lake, restated the point that the majority of the hemp market at the moment is focused on CBD, meaning that most hemp farmers are growing females using feminized seed, the same as marijuana growers.


Sharp doesn’t see much of a risk for hemp growers who are considering planting next to a marijuana farm.


He isn’t concerned that cross-pollination from a marijuana farm could make hemp test “hot,” or over 0.3% THC.


Marijuana farmers with neighbors growing small amounts of hemp say that 5-20 acres shouldn’t be too concerned, according to Sharp, because the effort required to remove the males from smaller fields isn’t burdensome.


But a hemp farmer with 200 acres will find removing all the male plants challenging.


“This harvest season is going to be interesting,” Sharp said. “There’s going to be some fights.”
 
It just got easier to wipe that weed conviction off your record in WA. Here’s how
A new Washington state law lets people vacate their misdemeanor marijuana convictions, with no questions asked.

weeeeed_0.jpg


A man smokes a marijuana joint at a party celebrating weed in Seattle, April 20, 2016. (Photo by Elaine Thompson/AP)

More than six years have passed since Washington voters approved legalizing marijuana use for adults 21 and older. Yet for thousands of people, past convictions for possessing the drug continue to follow them.

For many in Washington state, that won’t have to be the case anymore. Starting this week, a new state law will allow people convicted of possessing marijuana before it was legalized to wipe their records clean.

Under Senate Bill 5605, those convicted of marijuana possession in Washington state can apply to have those misdemeanor convictions vacated from their record, as long as they were 21 or older at the time of the offense.

Unlike in the past, courts will be required to vacate the convictions — regardless of whether people have had other convictions vacated before, or if they’ve committed additional criminal offenses since.

More than 68,000 people in Washington have misdemeanor marijuana convictions on their records and are eligible to have those convictions vacated under the new law, according to the Washington State Patrol.

The change in law took effect Sunday.

The process is straightforward, said state Sen. Joe Nguyen, D-West Seattle, who sponsored SB 5605 in the Legislature earlier this year.

To get started, a person needs to visit the court where the criminal sentence was handed down and fill out a formal petition.

“You go there, you apply to vacate the conviction, and they have to give it to you,” Nguyen said.

Nguyen said it was important to pass the measure to help address the disproportionately high rates at which people of color — especially Black people — have been prosecuted for drug offenses over the years. “I just believe that was the most egregious examples of inequality in our society,” Nguyen said this week.

For state Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon, D-Seattle, it simply didn’t make sense to have people continue to face serious consequences for an offense that Washington state law no longer considers a crime.

“There are a lot of people who have a conviction on their record that makes it harder for them to do a lot of things that we take for granted, like get an apartment or apply to college,” said Fitzgibbon, who sponsored a version of the legislation for several years in the state House. “If the voters of the state have decided this isn’t a crime any more, why are we still holding this against people, when the voters have decided it is not a serious offense?”

Under Washington’s legal marijuana law, adults over 21 can purchase up to an ounce of marijuana flower.

That same amount would have been enough to charge someone with misdemeanor possession before Initiative 502 passed in 2012.

Most of the misdemeanor marijuana convictions eligible to be vacated were handed down in county district courts or in municipal courts. People unsure of where they were charged and convicted usually can look up their sentencing court online using the search function at www.courts.wa.gov. A directory of courts in Washington state, organized by city and county, can be found here.

Upon arriving in person at the sentencing court, a person looking to vacate a judgment needs to file a formal motion — that’s the application Nguyen spoke of. This form should be available through the court clerk's office. A generic version is also available online.

A court hearing will then be scheduled. Yet there shouldn’t be much suspense involved. Under the new law, as long as a person was over 21 at the time of the original offense, the hearing’s outcome essentially will be predetermined. When the applicant appears before the judge, the court must grant the request to vacate the conviction.

The bill to make it easier to vacate past pot convictions didn’t receive universal support this year. A fair number of lawmakers — mostly Republicans — opposed it, as did the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC).

Steve Strachan, WASPC’s executive director, said the group preferred the older system, in which judges had discretion when deciding whether to vacate a conviction.

“With this bill, there is no examination of the circumstances,” Strachan wrote in an email. “There may have been multiple offenses, or as is often the case, the misdemeanor may have been pled down from a felony.”

The group’s other objection to the bill was more philosophical. “It was illegal when the offenses occurred, and even though now it is legal, that does not change the act at the time it was committed,” Strachan wrote.

While there have been other efforts to help Washington residents clear their records of marijuana convictions, those initiatives affected fewer people than the new state law.

In January. Gov. Jay Inslee offered to pardon certain people convicted of misdemeanor marijuana offenses. But the governor’s offer extended only to those with a single conviction, leaving out those who may have multiple offenses on their record.

A pardon is also different than vacating a conviction: While a gubernatorial pardon removes the conviction from the criminal history records accessed by the public, the conviction remains in official court files. Unlike people whose records have been vacated, those who are pardoned do not have the legal ability to say they have never been convicted of a crime when applying for a job.

Inslee’s office said 26 eligible people have applied for pardons so far under his initiative; all of those requests have been granted.

Meanwhile, Seattle officials have already vacated misdemeanor possession convictions for 542 people prosecuted in the city’s municipal court. Those people represented everyone convicted of misdemeanor marijuana possession in the municipal court from 1996 to 2010, the year the city attorney stopped prosecuting the offense, a spokesman for City Attorney Pete Holmes said.

To vacate those convictions, Holmes and Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan petitioned the court on behalf of the people convicted.

By contrast, under the new statewide law, people looking to clear their records need to petition the sentencing court themselves.

More information about vacating convictions can be found at the King County District Court's website (some of the listed conditions won't apply to vacating marijuana convictions under the new law). The necessary forms can be downloaded from the state courts website.
 
00-Seattle-Hempfest-Main-Stage-Festival.jpg


Contact: Vivian McPeak (206) 295-7258, director@hempfest.org
Media Advisory for Release: July 30, 2019


World’s largest annual cannabis protestival threatened with extinction by travel giant Expedia’s denial of access

Seattle HEMPFEST struggles against last-minute denial of service road use expected to impact businesses on the Seattle waterfront

“The Seattle HEMPFEST® is taking place this year but with an extreme burden that will be disruptive to waterfront businesses and locals in the area. Hempfest has made good faith efforts to negotiate solutions, but even the most modest accommodation has been rejected by Expedia and the Port of Seattle,” says Seattle HEMPFEST director, Vivian McPeak.

“Forty-five days before the event, Expedia informed us via the Port of Seattle that they are not allowing HEMPFEST access to the road it has used for 25 years to bring supply vehicles, vendors, and staff into the back of the event. Expedia is blocking access because they say HEMPFEST will interfere with their construction and employee vehicle traffic for a few days,” he continues.

“First Expedia took away all of HEMPFEST’s parking, now they are declining access for its production. This last-minute denial is costing Seattle HEMPFEST thousands of dollars in extra fees and is creating a logistical nightmare likely to lead to unnecessary traffic snarls on a major arterial along and near the central waterfront.”

Over 100,000 attendees are expected at the August 16, 17, 18 Seattle Special Event, now in its 28th year, and the 25th year at its current venue, Myrtle Edwards and Centennial Parks. Expedia’s denial of access may jeopardize the future of this historic event.

“Expedia purchased the former Amgen facility that is adjacent to Centennial Park and is undergoing a massive development project. Seattle residents have been severely impacted by the recent relocation to the city by giant tech companies, threatening the city’s culture, history, and historic buildings as gentrification and congestion runs rampant across the city,” says McPeak. “Expedia is apparently willing to end HEMPFEST rather than endure a few days of temporary inconvenience.”

At Expedia’s bidding, the Port of Seattle, which issues a permit for HEMPFEST to use Centennial Park, is only granting Hempfest use of the north service road Alaska Way West between the hours of 7 PM and 4 AM ―impossible hours to load event equipment such as staging, fencing, scaffolding, portable toilets, tent canopies, and wash stations in and out of the venue. Even the most meager requests, such as a few band parking spots, have been ignored by Expedia. Organizers believe Expedia is working to end the world-renowned free speech event.

Hempfest supporters have created a MoveOn.org boycott petition:
https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/expedia-stop-discriminating-1/?source=search&fbclid=IwAR2OVn-pdC0yE_FtyNznKfbEanRWpdNkLdvttLzTTQyyBxAged-e_nE0hUA
 
Report: Legal Cannabis Sales in Washington State Displacing Illicit Market
Thursday, 15 August 2019
Olympia, WA: Adult-use cannabis retailers in Washington sold an estimated 26 metric tons of cannabis and cannabis-infused products between July 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017, according to a report by the RAND Corporation.
The report, prepared for the Washington State Liquor and Control Board, determined that licensed retail sales doubled from the prior year. Nearly 70 percent of all cannabis sales were for marijuana flower.
Comparing market sales data with self-reported data on marijuana use, authors estimated, "In the third year after implementing a regulatory system for cannabis, between 40 percent and 60 percent of THC obtained by state residents was likely purchased in Washington's state-licensed stores." Marijuana not obtained via retail sales presumably "came through the illicit market or from those authorized to grow for medicinal purposes."
Commenting on the report, NORML State Policies Coordinator Carly Wolf suggested that various factors, including elevated tax rates and local moratoriums on cannabis retailers, play a role in the perpetuation of the illicit cannabis market. "That said, it is encouraging to see that, over time, licensed retail sales are gradually displacing a significant portion of the underground market. Moving forward, one would expect this trend to continue and or the illicit market to become further marginalized."
 
Nearly 70 percent of all cannabis sales were for marijuana flower.

Wow, that's surprising as it seems that the industries analysis is that 'trates and particularly carts and pre-filled disposables are the fastest growing market.

Me....I'm primarily a flower guy. Once my state when med legal and I had regular access to high quality 'trates, I found that while I like them for the kick, I really like flower he best for overall effect.

Perhaps in a more mature market like WA, others have found the same thing.
 
Washington State bans the use of CBD in foods and drinks for general public

RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF HEMP CBD AS A FOOD INGREDIENT AUGUST 1, 2019

Recent federal and state legislative changes regarding hemp have generated many questions about cannabinoid extracts, like CBD, and whether or not they may be used as ingredients in food products. To be clear, CBD is not currently allowed as a food ingredient, under federal and state law.

Below is more information to explain what is allowed and what is not.

HEMP AND THE 2018 FARM BILL
The 2018 U.S. Farm Bill removed hemp (with a THC concentration of no more than 0.3 percent) from the federal Controlled Substances Act. The Farm Bill also explicitly preserved the federal Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) authority to regulate ingredients in food, including hemp and hemp extracts like CBD.

FDA HAS NOT APPROVED CBD AS A FOOD INGREDIENT
The FDA has approved a drug comprised of CBD as a prescription drug for treatment of specific health conditions, but has not approved CBD as an ingredient in food. Federal laws clearly prohibit adding drugs to food, except in limited circumstances defined in the law. The FDA continues to work on this issue. For more information from FDA, and to stay up to date, please check the “FDA Regulation of Cannabis and Cannabis-Derived Products: Questions and Answers.” Search for it by name on the FDA website, www.fda.gov.

WASHINGTON STATE HEMP LAW
A new state law allows hemp production, consistent with the federal Farm Bill. It authorizes WSDA to regulate the processing of hemp for food products that are allowable under federal law in the same manner as it regulates other food processing. If the FDA approves food ingredient uses for hemp extracts like CBD, those uses would be allowed under state law.

SOME PARTS OF HEMP CAN BE USED IN FOOD
While CBD is not allowed as a food ingredient, WSDA licensed food processors can currently use other hemp products in food, such as hulled hemp seeds, hemp seed protein power and hemp seed oil , provided they comply with all other requirements. FDA has determined that these components are Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) based on federal requirements. Search for “GRAS notices for hemp seed derived ingredients for use in human foods” on the FDA website, www.fda.gov.
Other parts of the hemp plant, including CBD, cannot be used as a food ingredient under a Washington State Food Processor License. Foods containing unapproved parts of the hemp plant may not be distributed in Washington State under a Washington State Food Storage Warehouse License.

Recognizing that these recent changes in law may have caused some confusion in the manufactured-food industry, WSDA has been reaching out to the industry so they can take appropriate actions, such as removing CBD ingredients from their products or discontinuing distribution of CBD-containing food products in the state. WSDA is committed to working with our food industry partners during this transition.
 

5 years in, Washington considers overhaul of cannabis regulation


Five years after Washington launched its pioneering legal marijuana market, officials are proposing an overhaul of the state’s industry rules, with plans for boosting minority ownership of cannabis businesses, paving the way for home deliveries of medical cannabis and letting the smallest growers increase the size of their operations to become more competitive.

Liquor and Cannabis Board Director Rick Garza detailed the proposals — part of what the board calls “Cannabis 2.0” — in an interview with The Associated Press. It’s an effort to picture what the legal marijuana market will look like over the next five years, after spending the past five years largely regulating by reaction as the difficulties of building an industry from infancy absorbed the agency’s attention.

“We’ve typically been so challenged with the issues of the day we haven’t been looking out long-term to determine what the future looks like,” Garza said.
The board has been freeing up its bandwidth by coordinating with other agencies to share the responsibility of regulating the market, such as having the Department of Ecology oversee the certification of marijuana testing labs and the Department of Financial Institutions examine the sometimes complicated ownership structures of licensed cannabis businesses.

One big-picture issue the board could rethink is whether to abandon the state’s seed-to-sale marijuana tracking program, which has long been beset by software issues, sometimes grinding business to a halt, in favor of a system where businesses report their transactions to the board and are then audited. Another is whether to prepare to allow marijuana exports, as Oregon did this year, in the event the federal government approves it.

For the next session of the Legislature, the board has proposed two bills. One would create what some critics describe as a long-overdue “social equity” program, encouraging greater ownership of marijuana businesses by minorities, women and military veterans. Part of the rationale of legalizing marijuana in Washington state in 2012 was to remedy the disproportionate effect the drug war has had on people of color, but minority ownership of cannabis businesses in the state remains paltry.

While Washington is not currently issuing any more marijuana licenses, 11 of the more than 500 retailers have surrendered their licenses, Garza said. Under the board’s proposal, those could be reissued, or, if cities or counties agree to increase the number of marijuana shops within their boundaries, new licenses could be granted — this time, to participants in the social equity program.

Businesses would be eligible if they are owned by a woman, minority or veteran, or if a majority of its ownership group are members of a “protected class” under state anti-discrimination law. Applicants would be barred from consideration if any owner already has a majority share of another cannabis retail license.
The legislation would also create a technical assistance program run by the Department of Commerce that would provide grants totaling at least $100,000 per year to help minority-, woman- or veteran-owned businesses navigate the licensing process, receive compliance and financial training, and buy equipment, software or facilities.
The Washington CannaBusiness Association, an industry group, said it agrees there is a need for a social equity program, and it’s been working on its own version.
“We think there’s an opportunity to go even beyond” what the board is proposing, said spokesman Aaron Pickus.
Another legislative proposal would allow struggling “tier one” producers — the smallest size, limited to 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of plants — to sell medical-grade product directly to the state’s 36,000 registered marijuana patients. The patients have long complained that they have a hard time finding medical-grade cannabis, which must go through additional testing for pesticides and heavy metals, in retail stores, and Garza said the proposal could help the patients while giving the growers an incentive to offer more medically compliant product.

The tier-one growers could sell to patients onsite, with other growes at indoor farmers-market-style locations, or by delivery, Garza said. Local jurisdictions would have to approve, and to avoid competition with other licensed retailers, the growers or farmers markets would have to be at least 3 miles (4.8 km) away from established retailers.

Any proposal to allow delivery or sales by small growers is certain to be controversial, as other retailers might object to additional competition. Garza said the board will consider industry feedback.

“There’s going to be real concerns by retailers out there,” he said. “If we’re going to do that, we’ve got to be cautious.”
Even more significantly for the smallest growers, the board wants to allow them to expand, first to 5,000 square feet (465 square meters) and then possibly to 8,000 square feet (743 square meters). Those producers have long complained the tier-one licenses, designed to ensure craft growers have a place in the market, are so restrictive that they can’t succeed. Though they must make similar investments in security, insurance and product tracking as the largest growers, they are allowed to grow and sell only tiny fraction of what the largest growers produce.

Paige Berger, CEO of Hygge Farms in Onalaska, said she’s excited about the board’s proposal. She initially obtained a tier-one license because she didn’t have enough money to invest in a larger operation. Now, she said, she’s hamstrung by her limited size: She can only produce enough marijuana to have product in 10 licensed cannabis shops.

“I can’t get out there and expand my brand to what I think it could do,” Berger said.
 
Sorry Mom....but I have to say that these people are assholes. I mean, what....do they own stock in the black market and want to force everybody back to that....the stupidity of this idea...the abject failure to see the obvious consequences...just boggles my mind.

Washington State Lawmakers Propose Bill That Would Limit THC in Certain Products

A bill proposed last week by a group of Washington lawmakers would limit the THC content of all non-medical cannabis sold in the state to 10 percent.

The legislation, co-sponsored by 22 Democrats in the state House, cited “health professionals and researchers [who] continue to find an association between the use of high potency marijuana and the occurrence of psychotic disorders.”

The bill, introduced on Wednesday, would prohibit cannabis retail outlets in the state from selling marijuana concentrates, like those used in vape oils, with a THC concentration greater than 10 percent—unless the customer is a patient with a valid medical marijuana prescription.

Washington has had legal medical marijuana since 1998; in 2012, it became one of the first two states (the other being Colorado) to legalize recreational pot use.
In the bill, the Democratic lawmakers said that “ sales of high-potency marijuana concentrates represent nearly forty percent of total sales of marijuana products,” and that the aforementioned study “defined high-potency cannabis as a potency greater than ten percent.”

“The legislature finds that high potency marijuana products are increasingly prevalent in the market. Whereas the THC concentration of marijuana-infused edible products is limited to ten percent by state law and the THC concentration of marijuana flower is biologically limited, there is currently no limit on the potency of marijuana concentrates such as THC-infused vape oils,” the bill reads.

“These types of high-potency marijuana products are available with a THC concentration of almost one hundred percent THC. Prior to Washington and other states legalizing marijuana sales, many of these high-potency products did not exist or were not widely available. In 2019, sales of high-potency marijuana concentrates represent nearly forty percent of total sales of marijuana products.”

The Blowback
The bill has already inspired opposition. A Change.org petition with nearly 1000 signatures argues the proposal “would force thousands of legal consumers into the illegal market, which has killed dozens with tainted vape cartridges,” and “would dramatically alter the face of Washington’s legal cannabis landscape by outlawing the vast majority of state-licensed vape cartridges, dabbable extracts, and other concentrated products.”

“This is an attack on consumers and cannabis enthusiast [sic], it would have no measurable affect [sic] except for less tax revenue and more health issues with black-market, unregulated products as well as the potential for deadly fires as individuals may try to make there [sic] own product,” the petition says. “The High Potency numbers used were for any concentrate above 10% and it seems lawmakers have chosen such numbers arbitrarily than anything based on science.”
 
Ok, one set of WA legislators want to restrict THC to 10% or less. Another set wants to all but require unionization for all but the smallest MJ businesses.

I think WA citizens should pay their politicians to stay home and do nothing....they would do less damage to the state of the State that way.

Now, personally I think this is the most telling.......as in, wouldn't it be interesting to see the political donations that this union made to....???? Yeah, them.

"The law is largely being pushed for by United Food and Commercial Workers 21 (UFCW 21)"​


Lawmakers Are Looking to Unionize Washington's Weed Industry

Washington’s legal cannabis industry employs over 10,000 people, yet only a small fraction of those workers are members of unions. But that could soon change if state lawmakers pass a bill that would place strict employment standards on legal pot businesses and heavily incentivize owners to sign contracts with unions.
The bill is being pushed by the state’s largest private sector union, which says it’s necessary to improve working conditions in the industry. But the law is causing panic among owners of pot companies, who say they're being unfairly singled out for labor laws that other businesses won’t face.

“This prejudice bill against Washington cannabis licensed companies will force the majority of us to close,” said Zahra Kohl, owner of the legal pot company Kohl Processing, during a hearing in Olympia last week. “As an emerging industry with so many hurdles to overcome, [this proposed law] is a stab in the back.”
The law is largely being pushed for by United Food and Commercial Workers 21 (UFCW 21), a local trade union that already represents employees of one Washington pot shop chain and is openly courting workers at other legal weed businesses.

Samantha Grad, UFCW 21’s legislative action director, told The Stranger that the stringent labor standards are needed in the legal weed industry because employees are currently not treated fairly.

“We are hearing from a lot of workers that used to be in this industry and left that this is not a stable workplace," Grad said. "A stable workplace comes from workplace standards and good jobs.”

The proposed law would require that pot businesses in the state with more than 20 employees to improve their working conditions—by earning 100 points on a grading system based on 20 different criteria—or have their pot licenses cancelled.

The grading scale is heavily weighted towards pot businesses unionizing their private businesses, with criteria like having a unionized workforce governed by a collective bargaining agreement worth 70 points and signing a labor peace agreement with a union, a type of agreement in which the company agrees not to attempt to block unionization, worth 50 points.

The grading scale then has some 18 other criteria worth significantly fewer points, such as: establishing a workplace health and safety plan (worth 20 points), paying employees 150 percent of the state minimum wage (worth 20 points), and providing retirement benefits (worth 15 points).

The grading scale is being called a de-facto requirement for unions thanks to its heavy weighting towards pro-union policies. Bob Battles, the government affairs director of the conservative Association of Washington Businesses trade group, said the scale’s union-friendly weight could open it up to a challenge at the federal Labor Relations Board.

“We have real concern about this bill that sets a different standard for one industry than for all other industries,” Battles said. “If safety and wage and hour issues are the big issue here, if you look at the point system those are some of the lowest points you get. Yet you have the highest points for a CBA [Collective Bargaining Agreement] and 50 points for labor peace agreement.”

When a company signs a labor peace agreement they form a contract with a specific union in which they agree to not actively fight against attempts by their employees to unionize. Collective bargaining agreements are the contracts unions sign with employers that govern workplace standards like pay and benefits.
Sarah Cherin, a lobbyist for UFCW21, said that it was inaccurate to say the bill would all-but require unions.

“That is tangibly false,” Cherin said at a senate hearing last Thursday. “Having labor peace and CBAs is just one way to earn the required points. In fact, having a community engagement program, having asexual harassment policies, or having a health and safety plan... all of those will get you points under this system.”
Under the latest version of the bill, having a community engagement plan (20 points), a sexual harassment policy (20 points), and a health and safety plan (20 points), is worth less combined than having a collective bargaining agreement (70 points).

Daniel Shortt, a Seattle attorney specializing in cannabis law at the firm Harris Bricken, said he saw the bill’s point system as either “a massive incentive or a default requirement” for companies to sign labor peace agreements or collective bargaining agreements.

“It does provide these other means to meet the threshold, but the fact that those are the two highest point tallying conditions to satisfy this [license] renewal, I don’t think that’s lost on the bill’s drafters,” Shortt told The Stranger.

Public testimony for the bill has been largely negative during two hearings at the state legislature, but some workers have testified positively about the law. Amirah Harris, who said she worked at Lucid, a legal pot shop in Puyallup, said the law provided necessary protections for the industry.

“I had to leave the industry because wages were too low and there were no benefits like health insurance or a retirement plan, just free or discounted weed,” Harris said. “I can’t pay my rent with weed and I certainly can’t pay my doctor either.”

Not all workers are in favor of new laws regulating their workplace. Casey Jennet, who said he works at Seattle’s Craft Elixirs pot company, said it was unfair to apply these strict employment regulations to only the cannabis industry.

“If you want to do this to this industry but not do it in restaurants then there isn’t a legislator in this state that isn’t a hypocrite,” Jennet said. “Because restaurant workers get abused in a tremendous manner. [While working in restaurants] I’ve dealt with sexual harassment, I’ve dealt with wrongful termination… But now less than a year into the cannabis industry, and I’m in a business with 22 or 23 employees, and I’m looking at what faces are going to get cut to get us below the 20 number.”
When asked why the cannabis industry needed workplace protections that are more stringent than other industries, UFCW organizer Anna Minard said it's because the industry has “unique and strange workers rights violations.”

“People can get paid in cash and we feel like it’s hard to regulate if you are getting paid in cash,” said Minard, who was a former Stranger writer. “People can get paid in product.”

A spokesperson for the Liquor and Cannabis Board said it is already illegal for companies to pay their employees with cannabis products.
 
Ok, one set of WA legislators want to restrict THC to 10% or less. Another set wants to all but require unionization for all but the smallest MJ businesses.

I think WA citizens should pay their politicians to stay home and do nothing....they would do less damage to the state of the State that way.

Now, personally I think this is the most telling.......as in, wouldn't it be interesting to see the political donations that this union made to....???? Yeah, them.

"The law is largely being pushed for by United Food and Commercial Workers 21 (UFCW 21)"​


Lawmakers Are Looking to Unionize Washington's Weed Industry

Washington’s legal cannabis industry employs over 10,000 people, yet only a small fraction of those workers are members of unions. But that could soon change if state lawmakers pass a bill that would place strict employment standards on legal pot businesses and heavily incentivize owners to sign contracts with unions.
The bill is being pushed by the state’s largest private sector union, which says it’s necessary to improve working conditions in the industry. But the law is causing panic among owners of pot companies, who say they're being unfairly singled out for labor laws that other businesses won’t face.

“This prejudice bill against Washington cannabis licensed companies will force the majority of us to close,” said Zahra Kohl, owner of the legal pot company Kohl Processing, during a hearing in Olympia last week. “As an emerging industry with so many hurdles to overcome, [this proposed law] is a stab in the back.”
The law is largely being pushed for by United Food and Commercial Workers 21 (UFCW 21), a local trade union that already represents employees of one Washington pot shop chain and is openly courting workers at other legal weed businesses.

Samantha Grad, UFCW 21’s legislative action director, told The Stranger that the stringent labor standards are needed in the legal weed industry because employees are currently not treated fairly.

“We are hearing from a lot of workers that used to be in this industry and left that this is not a stable workplace," Grad said. "A stable workplace comes from workplace standards and good jobs.”

The proposed law would require that pot businesses in the state with more than 20 employees to improve their working conditions—by earning 100 points on a grading system based on 20 different criteria—or have their pot licenses cancelled.

The grading scale is heavily weighted towards pot businesses unionizing their private businesses, with criteria like having a unionized workforce governed by a collective bargaining agreement worth 70 points and signing a labor peace agreement with a union, a type of agreement in which the company agrees not to attempt to block unionization, worth 50 points.

The grading scale then has some 18 other criteria worth significantly fewer points, such as: establishing a workplace health and safety plan (worth 20 points), paying employees 150 percent of the state minimum wage (worth 20 points), and providing retirement benefits (worth 15 points).

The grading scale is being called a de-facto requirement for unions thanks to its heavy weighting towards pro-union policies. Bob Battles, the government affairs director of the conservative Association of Washington Businesses trade group, said the scale’s union-friendly weight could open it up to a challenge at the federal Labor Relations Board.

“We have real concern about this bill that sets a different standard for one industry than for all other industries,” Battles said. “If safety and wage and hour issues are the big issue here, if you look at the point system those are some of the lowest points you get. Yet you have the highest points for a CBA [Collective Bargaining Agreement] and 50 points for labor peace agreement.”

When a company signs a labor peace agreement they form a contract with a specific union in which they agree to not actively fight against attempts by their employees to unionize. Collective bargaining agreements are the contracts unions sign with employers that govern workplace standards like pay and benefits.
Sarah Cherin, a lobbyist for UFCW21, said that it was inaccurate to say the bill would all-but require unions.

“That is tangibly false,” Cherin said at a senate hearing last Thursday. “Having labor peace and CBAs is just one way to earn the required points. In fact, having a community engagement program, having asexual harassment policies, or having a health and safety plan... all of those will get you points under this system.”
Under the latest version of the bill, having a community engagement plan (20 points), a sexual harassment policy (20 points), and a health and safety plan (20 points), is worth less combined than having a collective bargaining agreement (70 points).

Daniel Shortt, a Seattle attorney specializing in cannabis law at the firm Harris Bricken, said he saw the bill’s point system as either “a massive incentive or a default requirement” for companies to sign labor peace agreements or collective bargaining agreements.

“It does provide these other means to meet the threshold, but the fact that those are the two highest point tallying conditions to satisfy this [license] renewal, I don’t think that’s lost on the bill’s drafters,” Shortt told The Stranger.

Public testimony for the bill has been largely negative during two hearings at the state legislature, but some workers have testified positively about the law. Amirah Harris, who said she worked at Lucid, a legal pot shop in Puyallup, said the law provided necessary protections for the industry.

“I had to leave the industry because wages were too low and there were no benefits like health insurance or a retirement plan, just free or discounted weed,” Harris said. “I can’t pay my rent with weed and I certainly can’t pay my doctor either.”

Not all workers are in favor of new laws regulating their workplace. Casey Jennet, who said he works at Seattle’s Craft Elixirs pot company, said it was unfair to apply these strict employment regulations to only the cannabis industry.

“If you want to do this to this industry but not do it in restaurants then there isn’t a legislator in this state that isn’t a hypocrite,” Jennet said. “Because restaurant workers get abused in a tremendous manner. [While working in restaurants] I’ve dealt with sexual harassment, I’ve dealt with wrongful termination… But now less than a year into the cannabis industry, and I’m in a business with 22 or 23 employees, and I’m looking at what faces are going to get cut to get us below the 20 number.”
When asked why the cannabis industry needed workplace protections that are more stringent than other industries, UFCW organizer Anna Minard said it's because the industry has “unique and strange workers rights violations.”

“People can get paid in cash and we feel like it’s hard to regulate if you are getting paid in cash,” said Minard, who was a former Stranger writer. “People can get paid in product.”

A spokesperson for the Liquor and Cannabis Board said it is already illegal for companies to pay their employees with cannabis products.
THC is getting a bad wrap?
CBD is getting most of the press?
Both chemicals are needed for some of us!
 
THC is getting a bad wrap?
CBD is getting most of the press?
Both chemicals are needed for some of us!

The 10% restriction on cannabis concentrates doesn't look to me as though it will make it out of committee for a vote. The public hearing had something like 49 cannabis advocates against & only 6 "public safety reformers" for this act of stupidity. Those for this 10% restriction presented less than scientific info bordering along the lines of "Reefer Madness".

Yes, some of us need one or both and there may be other cannabinoids that may be found to be beneficial in the future.
 
While I agree that there are valid arguments for it, I cannot find the dishonesty in myself to see it as other than a race based cut out.

So, the spin doctors now call it "social equity" because the phrase "affirmative action" is so passe' ??

Washington Legislature passes bill aiming to diversify cannabis industry

Advocates for equity in the cannabis industry hope to see more diversity among licensees if a bill approved by the Legislature gets the governor’s signature.
The legislation, which passed through the House 57-40 Tuesday, creates a task force that will help create the Marijuana Social Equity Program. It would allow the Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB) to issue forfeited, canceled and revoked retail licenses to applicants in communities disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs. The program would last for eight years.

Among other things, the program would consider the applicant’s personal or family history with the criminal justice system and in which neighborhood they plan to operate. A technical assistance grant program would also be created for new licensees.

If signed by Gov. Jay Inslee, the new licenses could be issued as soon as Dec. 1.

Rep. Eric Pettigrew, D-Seattle, who sponsored House Bill 2870, said the road to the final bill was long and confusing, but “worth it.”

“With marijuana, I was just thinking of it as a potential revenue source,” Pettigrew said Tuesday.

He originally sponsored a bill that would allow out-of-state money to flow into the industry. But Pettigrew received fierce pushback from advocates and minority-owned businesses, who said the move would lead to consolidation and success only for wealthy white investors.

“That was an awakening for me,” Pettigrew said.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, Black people were almost four times more likely than white people to be arrested on charges of marijuana possession before it became legal in Washington.

Recreational marijuana has been legal in the state since 2012, and last year the state took initiative to wipe misdemeanor marijuana charges from people’s records.
The state’s Commission on African American Affairs estimates that about 1% of recreational cannabis licenses are held by Black and brown people.

Paula Sardinas, from the Commission on African American Affairs, worked with Pettigrew and other stakeholders to craft the bill, and said she was scared it would be stripped down to something powerless. One proposed amendment would have eliminated the social equity program and instead fund a group to study social equity in the cannabis industry.

“We don’t need any more studies,” Sardinas said.

For Sardinas and other advocates say Black people were excluded from the legal recreational marijuana industry from the get-go.
Rick Garza, director of the Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB), agreed, telling lawmakers that the state “missed an opportunity” to address social inequities when the state legalized recreational marijuana.

But many think the LCB is part of the problem. An independent review released last December suggested the LCB was in need of a culture change, pointing out that the agency operated more like a law enforcement agency than a regulatory one.

The report also described how some licensees felt like the agency was overly eager to find businesses out of compliance, and that some officers are “anti-cannabis,” treating legal business owners like criminals despite legalization.

Sardinas and Pettigrew said the legislation is a good start, and that the next step is addressing the LCB.

“People are concerned that the LCB will hand them a license with the right hand and claw it back with the left,” Sardinas said.

During floor debate Monday, Republican lawmakers expressed frustration that a the task force responsible for helping develop the social equity program would be required to have representation from a labor organization. Democrats said including a labor organization in the process would ensure that workers’ interests and rights were considered.

But Sen. Maureen Walsh, R-Walla Walla, argued that the move invited unionization into the industry.

“This is premature,” said Walsh. “We have not had folks in this industry clamoring to be unionized.”
 
Washington May Redefine What It Means To Own A Marijuana Business


On May 20, 2020, the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB) held a virtual listen and learn forum on Draft Conceptual Rules Regarding Marijuana Licensee True Party of Interest Rules. Cannabis Observer covered the forum and a summary is available here.
The move to change the true party of interest (TPI) rules started in October 2018 when the LCB issued a rulemaking proposal considering changes to WAC 314-55-035, which is home to the current definition of a TPI. This is a big deal because the current TPI definition broadly defines what it means to own a marijuana business and has made it very challenging to own or invest in a Washington marijuana business. This post will examine the landscape in Washington under the current definition of a TPI and what we may see in the near future under these draft rules.
The Current Status of Washington True Parties of Interest
Under WAC 314-55-035, a TPI means any of the following individuals:
True party of interestPersons to be qualified
Sole proprietorshipSole proprietor and spouse.
General partnershipAll partners and spouses.
Limited partnership, limited liability partnership, or limited liability limited partnershipAll general partners and their spouses.
Limited liability companyAll limited partners and spouses.
Privately held corporationAll members and their spouses.
Publicly held corporationAll managers and their spouses.
Multilevel ownership structuresAll corporate officers (or persons with equivalent title) and their spouses.
Any entity or person (inclusive of financiers) that are expecting a percentage of the profits in exchange for a monetary loan or expertise. Financial institutions are not considered true parties of interest.All stockholders and their spouses.
Nonprofit corporationsAll corporate officers (or persons with equivalent title) and their spouses.
All stockholders and their spouses.
All persons and entities that make up the ownership structure (and their spouses).
Any entity or person who is in receipt of, or has the right to receive, a percentage of the gross or net profit from the licensed business during any full or partial calendar or fiscal year.Any entity or person who exercises control over the licensed business in exchange for money or expertise.For the purposes of this chapter:
“Gross profit” includes the entire gross receipts from all sales and services made in, upon, or from the licensed business.
“Net profit” means gross sales minus cost of goods sold.
All individuals and spouses, and entities having membership rights in accordance with the provisions of the articles of incorporation or the bylaws.




A TPI must be vetted and approved by the LCB in order to hold a license. All TPIs must qualify to hold a license, which includes a six-month durational residency requirement. As you can see from the table above, the legal owner of any shares or membership interest in a business is a TPI, along with their spouses.
Currently, there is no de minimis exception to any of this. If you own even .0001% of a marijuana business, you are a TPI and must go through a rigorous application process. If you are a TPI and get married, your new spouse becomes a TPI and therefore must be vetted. If he or she doesn’t qualify then you can no longer be a TPI. An individual or entity can also become a TPI based on business relationships. WAC 314-55-035 also states that anyone who has the right to receive any percentage of the gross or net profits from a licensed business a TPI.
It’s worth noting that in 2019, the Washington Legislature passed HB 1794 which allows marijuana licensees to pay royalty fees of up to 10% of gross sales of specific products as part of intellectual property or trademark licensing agreements. WAC 314-55-035 does not, at least in my opinion, currently make clear that this carve-out exists in the law.
The Draft TPI Rules
Under the draft rules, a person with an ownership stake (e.g., a member in an LLC) or anyone who has “a right to receive revenue, gross profit, or net profit, or [exercises] control over a licensed business” will still be a TPI. However, their spouses would not also be considered TPIs solely based on marriage which is a significant change from the current model. “Control” in this context means “the power to independently order, or direct the management, managers, or policies of a licensed business.”
In addition, the draft rules make some carve-outs to the definition of a TPI. These include exceptions for:
  • anyone receiving rent under lease or rental agreement, a person receiving a commission-based bonus in writing for the sale of products (capped at 10%)
  • a person receiving a commission for the sale of a business or real property
  • a consultant receiving a flat or hourly compensation under a written contract
  • a person “with an option to purchase the applied for or licensed business, so long as no money has been paid to the licensee under an option contract or agreement for the purchase or sale of the licensed business, or a business that is applying for a license”
  • any person with a contract for services with a licensed business (e.g., branding or staffing agreements) so long as the licensee retains control.
Many of these provisions codify industry norms. For example, option agreements are commonly used to transfer marijuana businesses where an option holder pays a licensee for a right to buy a license, pending LCB approval of the buyer as a TPI.
The draft rules also expand on how a licensee can notify the LCB when funds are invested in or loaned to a licensed business. The draft rules clarify that a licensee must disclose the source of all funds used by a marijuana business unless the business is reinvesting its own revenues. In addition, the proceeds of a revolving loan that has been vetted within the last three years do not need to be vetted unless the source of funds has changed or the amount of the loan has increased. The draft rules also codify an LCB policy that allows previously approved TPIs to invest or loan their own money to a licensed business, so long as they have notified the LCB. This means the money can be used, pending the LCB’s investigation.
Bottom line
It’s important to remember that this process is ongoing. These rules are still in draft. The most significant change appears to be the removal of spouses as TPIs. However, the regrettable residency requirement remains in the draft rules and it will continue to restrict ownership of a licensed business to Washingtonians. The LCB claims that this is required by statute, but there is debate as to whether or not the LCB has the authority to remove or limit that requirement. (Take a look at RCW 69.50.331(1)(b)(ii) to judge for yourself). The draft rules also consider even the most remote ownership interest to create a TPI relationship. That still means that every shareholder of a corporation would need to be vetted, regardless of ownership percentage.
We’ll continue to monitor this process and report on new developments.
 

Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
Back
Top