7/27/2019 Kohl-Welles email on the LCB

1/3

From: Kohl-Welles, Sen. Jeanne

Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 10:59 AM

To: Hill, Sen. Andy; Braun, Sen. John; Hargrove, Sen. Jim; Nelson, Sen. Sharon;

Alexander, Rep. Gary; Wilcox, Rep. J.T.; Hunter, Rep. Ross; Sullivan, Rep. Pat;

Hesselholt, Claire; Makowski, Yona; Barnes, Courtney; Moore, Ryan

Cc: Schumacher, David; Wickstrom, Karen; Peterson, Ruth; O'Neill, Shawn; Hummel,

Elizabeth; Peters, Barb; Trask, Sharon; Pedersen, Marilyn; Roberts, Lesley

Subject: Budget Proviso Language

Importance: High

Dear Colleagues:

I am writing to address issues related to current budget proviso language on

regulation of medical marijuana. Similar floor amendments were adopted for the

House and Senate operating budgets.

Both provisos address the use of funds appropriated to the Liquor Control Board

(LCB) from the liquor revolving account to implement I-502. The Senate version

directs the LCB to develop recommendations regarding the interaction of medical

marijuana regulations and I-502. The House version directs the LCB to develop

legislation integrating the medical marijuana market with the recreational marijuana

market. The House language is more direct in that it requires legislation and that the

two markets be integrated. In theory, the Senate language could be satisfied with a

report and the report could recommend separate regulatory guidelines for the

medical and recreational markets.

Additionally, both budget provisos require the LCB to work with the Dept. of Health

and the Dept. of Revenue in carrying out this task. Other aspects to be addressed

include age limits, tax of medical marijuana, collective gardens and regulation of

health care providers.

As you may know, I have been working on medical cannabis legislation since the mid-

1990s, including bills to address some problematic issues with I-692, approved by the

voters in 1998. While I have not been a patient or a recreational user, I witnessedfirsthand as one of my closest and dearest friends as well as a sister-in-law

experienced profound relief from their cancer suffering through the use of cannabis.

I have advocated for patients since then by trying to create a workable, regulated

system for the distribution of medical cannabis. In 2011, SB 5073 would have done

just this, but it was unfortunately partially vetoed by Gov. Gregoire, mainly to remove

the regulatory system for production, processing and distribution of marijuana for

use by qualified medical patients. Many of you were here at the time and

undoubtedly remember the attention and debate the bill received, and I worked with

every possible stakeholder in that process.

While I introduced legislation this session, SB 5528, which mostly involved technical

and clean-up changes, the bill did not get a vote by the Senate. I had made the

decision to wait until the 2014 legislative session to introduce legislation to create a

7/27/2019 Kohl-Welles email on the LCB

2/3

regulated system for medical cannabis until the LCB releases its rules for the

recreational use system under I-502. I still believe this is the best approach and for

that reason did not sign on as a sponsor to Sen. Rivers legislation, SB 5887.

I also have concerns about the current budget riders regarding medical cannabis.

While I initially thought the Senate floor amendment was satisfactory, although I

hadnt known about it in advance, I now believe that even though the sponsors had

good intentions, the proviso is unneeded and could have negative unanticipatedconsequences.

It has also has resulted in a high level of concern on the part of many patient and

other advocacy groups including even outright opposition being expressed in

rallies and demonstrations. I am concerned that we would be handing over too

much of our responsibility to a regulatory agency. I also worry that too many

conclusions would be drawn behind closed doors, and that the process for creating

these rules would circumvent public input. In many ways, the LCB has a vested

interest in diverting business from the medical collectives now operating and into theretail stores when they open early next year. It is easy to argue the LCB also has a

vested interest in wanting to add to its regulatory scope, and bring the medical

cannabis industry into its system. This may turn out to be the end result down the

road, or it may be determined that another state agency should have that

responsibility.

For these and other reasons, I think it best to have the LCB focus on its task at hand,

that given to them by the voters in approving I-502 an initiative that specifically

mentions it will have no effect on medical cannabis laws. We can visit this next year

and, by doing so, have the advantage of determining then whether the system

developed for recreational users should be replicated. Let the LCB open the doors

for recreational-use business first and then determine what problems, if any, need

fixing between the two systems.

Finally, we need to see what reaction the federal government has to whatever rules

and system the LCB creates and implements. We do not even know if the LCB will be

able to implement the new system or if the federal government will stop it in its

tracks.

Once we are able to evaluate more of the developments and information that the

LCB will produce in its implementation of I-502, I will be meeting with stakeholders

and other members during the Interim about legislation for the 2014 session. The

LCB has its hands full, and I do not think we should hand it one of our responsibilities.

Sincerely,

Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles

Ranking Member, Senate Higher Education Committee36th Legislative District

Washington State Senate

(360) 786-7670 (206) 281-6854

7/27/2019 Kohl-Welles email on the LCB

3/3