New York Times Speaks Up for Legalization

We were excited to see the New York Times’ endorsement of legal marijuana in their Sunday Editorial Repeal Prohibition, Again.  In its brief position statement, the NYT Editorial Board boldly states:  “It has been more than 40 years since Congress passed the current ban on marijuana, inflicting great harm on society just to prohibit a substance far less dangerous than alcohol.”  The article advocates legalization on the federal level, giving states the responsibility to regulate marijuana.

Supporting their argument, the editorial board cites to the systemic racial inequality in marijuana prosecution and criminal enforcement (unduly affecting young black men).  The article also discredits the unsubstantiated concerns that marijuana is a "gateway" drug and acknowledges that addiction and dependency of marijuana pales in comparison to alcohol and tobacco.

The newspaper plans to print six articles addressing specific issues pertinent to the legalization of marijuana, including Sunday’s Let States Decide on Marijuana and The Injustice of Marijuana Arrests.

First Licenses Issued for Retail Marijuana Shops

The wait is almost over. Early this morning the Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) provided licenses to the first small group of 24 retail marijuana stores. It's been six long months for these applicants, who could open their doors and begin selling marijuana for recreational use as early as tomorrow, July 8, 2014. This will mark the first time that adults can legally purchase marijuana grown, processed, and sold by state-licensed businesses under I-502. (Keep in mind that marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance, subject to federal prosecution and civil forfeiture.) 

First, a little background: the Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) has been reviewing retail applicants based on the results of April’s retail license lottery (see map). The board announced its intention to issue retail licenses in groups of 10-30 beginning this week. We expect to see licenses issued for approximately another hundred stores during the next 30-60 days, and the remainder sometime in the fall.

The total number will likely fall short of the WSLCB's proposed 334 stores statewide. This discrepancy is due to a number of factors, including a lack of applicants in some jurisdictions and local zoning prohibitions. More details to follow.

Where will the first stores open?
On April 2, 2014 the WSLCB stated:  “The initial retail licenses will be issued in batches (10-20) in the most populous areas.”  First reports indicate 14 stores in western Washington and 10 stores in the eastern part of the state. By WSLCB rules, retail stores may be open 8:00 am – 12:00 midnight.

Why are there so few stores (and when will there be one in my neighborhood?)
The allocation of only 334 retail stores across the state was based on population and demand estimates prepared by BOTEC, a consulting team hired by the WSLCB shortly after I-502 passed.

Unfortunately, local zoning moratoriums and permanent bans significantly decrease the public's access to state-licensed, legal marijuana.  If you are curious about whether your own local government has banned marijuana or enacted a temporary zoning moratorium, a good place to start your search is the MRSC Marijuana Guide for Local Governments (although this page may not be up-to-date, since local marijuana zoning is changing weekly).

Note that although a county (Pierce) may ban marijuana sales, such a ban may not apply within the municipal limits of a city in that county (Tacoma).

How many stores will there be?
The WSLCB limited the state to 334 retail licenses, although we may have significantly less than that when all is said and done.  It's important to understand that the 334 licenses were allocated to specific cities or counties-at-large, so presumably, if a city institutes a ban, any licenses allocated to it would be removed from the equation, reducing the state-wide count.

Taking into account the current permanent and temporary bans, as well as jursidictions which failed to attract an initial applicant, we estimate the state-wide number to be closer to 250 retail stores.  This could change, however, if local jurisdictions lift their temporary bans or the WSLCB readjusts the allocation of licenses by jursidiction.

How much will marijuana cost?
Current prices for medical marijuana are roughly $8-12 per gram. General consensus is that when stores open, the starting price for recreational marijuana will be $12-25 per gram. This takes into account the additional overhead, excise taxes, and expected product shortages during the first year of sales.

Shortages?
On average, it takes 3-4 months to bring a crop to harvest, and the first producer’s license was issued on March 4, 2014. Do the math. This recent AP story about testing labs provides some data about the state-wide harvest so far. As of June 28, eleven producers had harvested and submitted samples for testing. The WSLCB has now licensed 79 producers, so the production rates will increase, in time.

Will they sell out?
Most likely.

How much marijuana can I buy?
Under Washington State Law, individuals over 21 years of age may buy up to one ounce of marijuana, 16 ounces of solid marijuana-infused product, 72 ounces of infused liquid, or 7 grams of concentrates. Sales of amounts in excess of transaction limits can result in the retailer’s immediate loss of license.

When the stores open on July 8, only usable marijuana will be available, as no extracted or infused products have been approved.

How much marijuana can I have on me?
An individual 21 years or older may possess no more than one ounce in Washington state. You may not take it over the border to Canada. Possessing more than one ounce may result in jail and fines.

An individual providing marijuana to an underage person may be punished with up to ten years imprisonment and up to $10,000 fine under state law. Penalty for a retailer selling to an underage person is a 10-day suspension or $2,500 fine (first offense).

Can I smoke it or use it anywhere I want?
Opening a package of marijuana or consuming marijuana within view of the public is a civil infraction and you may receive a ticket and a fine of up to $100. Individuals consuming marijuana should be on their own property, or on the property of someone who permits consumption.

What are the limits for legal driving?
If an officer suspects someone of driving impaired, he may obtain a search warrant for a blood sample. Drivers with blood tests that show more than 5 nanograms of active THC per milliliter of whole blood will be charged with a DUI – regardless of the driver’s performance on other sobriety tests.

One study compared the 5 nanogram THC limit to an equivalent 0.05 percent blood-alcohol level, less than the state DUI limit for alcohol in Washington. In short, do not drive if you are even slightly impaired. 

Emergency Changes to Liquor Control Board Rules

The Washington State Liquor Control Board ("WSLCB") adopted emergency rules on June 25, 2104, which changed and added requirements regarding marijuana infused products and security measures for marijuana licensed premises.

Because these rules were enacted on an emergency basis, there is no opportunity for public input and feedback.  In other words, the rules become effective immediately.  Under permanent rule changes (non-emergency), the public is given the opportunity to comment, based on which, the WSLCB may revise the proposed changes.  Emergency rules, however, expire 120 days after filing, at which point a permanent (non-emergency) rule is usually adopted.  You will be given the opportunity to comment during the permanent rule-making process, which the WSLCB should initiate shortly.

 

Rule Changes for Processors

1.      The WSLCB must pre-approve all infused products, labels, and packaging.
This rule change presents a number of questions.  For example, how long will it take for the WSLCB to approve products…a week, month, or more?  What efforts will the WSLCB take to ensure this delay will not negatively impact licensed businesses?  Going forward, as products and packaging are revised and tweaked, what changes will require additional approval?  This will be important for limited edition products, or holiday packaging, etc.

2.      Solid infused edibles must be scored to indicate individual servings.
It is unclear how you would “score” snack mix, pretzels, popcorn and similar products.  Presumably these products would not apply to this rule, but more clarification would be helpful.
Remember, a single serving of a solid infused product is limited to 10 milligrams of THC; one package of such product cannot be more than 100 milligrams of THC (or 10 servings); and a single consumer transaction is limited to 16 ounces of such product (which may include multiple packages or just one package, depending on the product size).
This rule does not address liquid infused products or concentrates.  Concentrates are defined as “products consisting wholly or in part of the resin extracted from any part of the plant Cannabis and having a THC concentration greater than sixty percent.”  ESHB 2304, Sec. 1 (2014).

3.      All infused products must be homogenized.
It is unclear, at this time, what specific technology must be employed to ensure homogenization and the uniform disbursement of cannabinoids in certain products.  For example, is a thorough blending of ingredients prior to baking sufficient to satisfy the homogenization requirement?

 4.      In addition to the other warnings, infused products must also contain the warning: “This product contains marijuana.”
For the list of other warnings, go to WAC 314-55-105(15)

5.      Infused edibles “designed to be especially appealing to children” are PROHIBITED.
The decision on what snacks and products are appealing to children is subjective.
The WSLCB’s issue paper on this emergency rule states that “lollipops, gummy bears, and cotton candy are very appealing to children.”  Presumably those items are prohibited.  But what about other popular infused products like jolly ranchers, gummies/chews, chocolate bars, cookies, popcorn—where will the WSLCB draw the line, and will this rule become a prohibition on all infused candy?

6.      Infused edibles which contain certain food items are PROHIBITED.

Food items prohibited under this rule change include:
Any food that has to be acidified to make it shelf stable,
Food items made shelf stable by canning or retorting,
Fruit or vegetable juices,
Fruit or vegetable butters,
Pumpkin pies, custard pies, and any pies containing egg,
All dairy products, including butter, cheese, ice cream, or milk, and
Dried or cured meats.
Many of these food items were already prohibited under the prior rule change that prohibited “potentially hazardous foods” as defined in WAC 246-215-01115.

7.      Certain infused vinegars and oils are permitted.
Vinegar and oil derived from natural sources may be infused with dried marijuana if the plant material is removed from the final product and the vinegar and oil is not infused with any other substance, including herbs and garlic.

8.      Infused jams and gellies made from scratch must utilize a standardized recipe in accordance with 21 C.F.R. Part 150.

9.      A processor may infuse dairy butter or fats for use in the preparation of other infused edibles, but the butter and fats may not be sold to consumers as stand-alone products.

10.  All processors producing infused edibles must pass a processing facility inspection and ongoing annual compliance inspections.
This rule change already went into effect under the WSLCB’s earlier policy decision.  For more information on the requirements of a commercial kitchen, visit the Department of Agriculture’s website.

 

Rule Changes for All Licensees

1.      All visitors must display an identification badge while on the licensed premises.

2.      Licensees must maintain a visitor’s log.

3.      Finally, the emergency rule made slight adjustments to camera surveillance requirements.
In what appears to be an effort to streamline and clarify the camera surveillance requirements, the WSLCB revised the language regarding video surveillance system requirements.  These revisions do not appear to be material.

Multiple Challenges to DEA Control Over Medical Marijua

The Drug Policy Alliance’s new report, The DEA: Four Decades of Impeding and Rejecting Science, is released at a pivotal time, as federal legislators consider limiting financial support of the DEA. On May 29, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a bipartisan appropriations measure to withhold funding from the DEA’s raids of state-legalized medical marijuana facilities. The Senate followed suit last week with the proposal of a similar funding amendment prohibiting the DEA from pursuing providers and patients of medical marijuana and extracted cannabididol oil. Also last week, New York became the 23rd state to legalize medical marijuana. 

The Case Against the DEA
The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) advocates for drug law reform, including legalization, sensible regulation, and harm reduction. The Alliance challenges the DEA’s willful disregard of scientific evidence that has kept marijuana in the federal list of most-highly controlled substances. Their report reviews the basis of the DEA’s authority and details five cases: three unsuccessful petitions to reschedule marijuana, a researcher’s application to create a licensed research-grade marijuana production facility, and – as a point of comparison – the speedy process through which MDMA (Ecstasy) was classified as Schedule I. 

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970 granted the U.S. Attorney General with responsibility over classification, scheduling, and enforcement of drugs; Nixon created the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in 1973 as the designated agency for handling these matters.  Drugs are classified into Schedule I – Schedule V based on medical and scientific evidence.  The distinction of interest between Schedule I and Schedule II-V is that Schedule I drugs have “no currently accepted medical use,” a fact that was the focus of the 1995 and 2002 petitions to reschedule marijuana.  In its 2011 response, the DEA brazenly claimed the following:

According to established case law, marijuana has no ‘currently accepted medical use’ because the drug’s chemistry is not known and reproducible, there are no adequate safety studies, there are no adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy; the drug is not accepted by qualified experts, and the scientific evidence is not widely available.

The DEA’s position seems patently ridiculous, given just a few touchstones from the past decade.  First, the medical use of marijuana has been legal in the state of California since 1996, supported by the Institute of Medicine’s 1999 recommendation that marijuana be allowed for some patients.  Second, the 2009 AMA Policy: Medical Marijuana, calls for a review of marijuana’s Schedule I status to facilitate further medical studies of marijuana.

In contrast to the lethargic pace at which the DEA responds to rescheduling petitions (6-22 years), the report documents the DEA’s speedy action to schedule drugs new to the market, such as MDMA (two years), synthetic cannabinoids such as Spice, K2 (less than one year), and synthetic stimulants like mephedrone and MPDV (less than two years), with control of the latter two substances dictated by the Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011.

DEA’s Control over Research
The report reveals a systematic effort to undermine and obstruct scientific research. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is the only legal producer of marijuana for research. Studies of marijuana require review by the FDA, NIDA and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). A 1999 HHS directive stipulates that NIDA should not provide research marijuana to studies with the goal of developing an FDA-approved medicine. This has resulted in what the report labels as a catch-22:  only FDA-approved studies may apply to NIDA for marijuana product, yet NIDA is compelled to reject the majority of those studies.  NIDA has repeatedly delayed delivery or refused to provide approved studies with product. Finally, the low-quality marijuana produced by NIDA is not representative of the marijuana currently available to the public:  NIDA has only a limited number of low potency strains (7% THC) compared to the market (15-24% THC).

Recommended Action
The report states that the DEA is “incapable of accurately assessing the state of medical and scientific knowledge about those drugs and scheduling them appropriately.” The DPA recommends that the United States Attorney General designate a different agency as responsible for classifying drugs and making schedule determinations, perhaps even commissioning a non-governmental agency, such as the National Academy of Sciences. NIDA’s current monopoly on research-grade marijuana should be eliminated, instead contracting to licensed private producers. 

WA Court of Appeals: Medical Cannabis is Illegal

The Washington State Court of Appeals, in three recent decisions, determined that medical cannabis continues to be illegal in Washington State, despite language in RCW 69.51A.040 stating that compliance with the state’s Medical Use of Cannabis Act “does not constitute a crime.”

State v. Ellis, Court of Appeals No 31280-1 (Div. III, January 9, 2014)

Cannabis Action Coalition v. City of Kent, Court of Appeals No 70396-0 (Div. I, March 31, 2014)

State v. Reis Court of Appeals No. 69911-3 (Div. I, March 21, 2014). As is evident by public record, our office represents the defendant, Mr. Reis, in this matter.

In all three of these decisions, the court held that state law does not legalize medical cannabis, but rather, continues to provide patients only an affirmative defense, meaning that patients may be arrested, but not convicted for violating the state’s Uniform Controlled Substances Act.
Some history on Washington’s medical cannabis law is helpful in understanding these decisions. In November 1998, the citizens of Washington enacted Initiative 692, the Medical Use of Marijuana Act.  This Initiative provided patients and caregivers with an affirmative defense when charged by the state with possession or manufacturing medical cannabis.  Accordingly, courts interpreted the law not to prohibit the arrest of those found with medical cannabis, but to provide for their eventual exoneration through court proceedings.  See State v. Fry, 168 Wn.2d 1, 228 P.3d 1 (2010).

In an effort to correct this issue, which led to the arrest without prosecution of numerous medical cannabis patients, the legislature amended the law in 2011 under Senate Bill 5073 (“SB 5073”).  The applicable statutory provision now reads:

The medical use of cannabis in accordance with the terms and conditions of this chapter does not constitute a crime and a qualifying patient or designated provider in compliance with the terms and conditions of this chapter may not be arrested, prosecuted, or subject to other criminal sanctions

RCW 69.51A.040 (emphasis added).

This language appears to legalize medical cannabis—so long as such use and possession is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the law—which is distinguishable from an affirmative defense.
In that same legislation (SB 5073), however, the legislature created a state-wide patient registry.  As many of you know, the governor vetoed large portions of SB 5073, including the state-wide patient registry (found in section 901 of the bill).

Despite this partial veto, non-vetoed portions of the bill still reference section 901 and the registry.  See generally, RCW 69.51A.040(3) (“The qualifying patient or designated provider [must] keep[] a copy of his or her proof of registration with the registry established in *section 901 of this act . . . posted prominently next to any cannabis plants.”)

References to section 901 continue to exist in the law because line item vetoes, which would have been required to remove reference to section 901, are constitutionally prohibited.  Our firm argued, in State v. Reis, that as a result of the veto, any remaining references to section 901 are meaningless and were incidentally vetoed. The court disagreed, and held that the vetoed state-wide patient registry was crucial to legalization.

In other words, the court held that even though no registry exists, the registry is a “term and condition of the chapter.”  As a result, if there is no patient registry, no one can possess cannabis “in accordance with the terms and conditions” of chapter 69.51A RCW, and therefore, no one can legally possess medical cannabis.
In so holding, the court relied upon the governor’s veto message and RCW 69.51A.043, which states generally that a qualifying patient who is not registered with the registry established in section 901 may only raise the affirmative defense.

RCW 69.51A.043(2)states:

A qualifying patient or designated provider who is not registered with the registry established in *section 901 of this act, but who presents his or her valid documentation to any peace officer who questions the patient or provider regarding his or her medical use of cannabis, may assert an affirmative defense to charges of violations of state law relating to cannabis through proof at trial, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she otherwise meets the requirements of RCW 69.51A.040.

So what is an affirmative defense in practical terms?  Under an affirmative defense, if a patient is compliant with the law, she may be arrested, but may not convicted for violating the state’s Uniform Controlled Substances Act.

A well-known affirmative defense is self-defense.  If you injure someone, but you were acting in self-defense, your actions may be excused.  Similarly, here, if you are growing, processing, or distributing medical cannabis, law enforcement has probable cause to search your home, collective garden, and to arrest you.  Once arrested, you must prove compliance with the Act (chapter 69.51A RCW) to avoid a conviction.
Of particular importance, an affirmative defense does not legalize the activity.  As a result, even though patients may be in full compliance with the law, they may be searched, arrested, and criminally charged.

Colorado Gives OK for Lawyers to Advise on State's Marijuana Laws

We were pleased to learn of the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to adopt a new comment to the Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2, pertaining to the scope of a lawyer's representation. This comment officially permits a lawyer to counsel clients concerning Colorado's medical and recreational marijuana laws, despite the conflict with federal law.




 
"[14] A lawyer may counsel a client regarding the validity, scope, and meaning of Colorado constitution article XVIII, secs. 14 & 16, and may assist a client in conduct that the lawyer reasonably believes is permitted by these constitutional provisions and the statutes, regulations, orders, and other state or local provisions implementing them. In these circumstances, the lawyer shall also advise the client regarding related federal law and policy."

Our office is an advocate for similar leadership in Washington state.

Positive Advances in Banking

In May, Colorado legislators approved House Bill 1398 to create an alternative banking system for companies doing business in the marijuana and hemp sectors. These “cannabis credit co-ops” will operate similarly to credit unions; businesses will form a cooperative financial services entity to manage their funds.  However, in order to be a viable financial institution (in practical terms, to provide credit card processing or checking accounts), each cooperative must have access to the federal reserve system, controlled by the Federal Reserve Bank. Industry representatives expect that the Federal Reserve Bank will not permit this access to cannabis credit co-ops without deposit insurance, such as that provided by FDIC or NCUSIF.  This insurance is not required in the legislation, and most likely will be inaccessible to these fledgling co-ops through usual (federal) channels.   Governor John Hickenlooper is expected to sign this bill, although the banking lobby’s request for a veto may carry some weight.

Given the Federal Reserve Bank's influence on this process, this may not prove to be the solution for Colorado’s cash-heavy marijuana businesses, but it will force the conversation to move forward in federal circles.

On a side note, the Numerica Credit Union has generated interest in eastern Washington State, as the first financial institution to publicly work with marijuana businesses. This Spokane-based credit union is willing to serve only producers and processors – not retailers – and they are subject to several limitations regarding proximity to a branch, account size and account access. In addition, the account holders will not be eligible to use the credit union network and will not be issued debit or credit cards.

In western Washington state, Salal Credit Union recently announced that it also has plans to provide bank accounts for producers and processors – once again, not retailers.  Salal Credit Union began by opening trial accounts for a few licensed marijuana businesses in mid-May, with the goal of offering similar services to others in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties as the licensing process continues.

Lottery for Marijuana Retail Licenses

Eyes are on the Washington state Liquor Control Board (LCB) this week as applicants await the result of the lottery to determine the recipients of licenses to operate recreational marijuana retail stores.  The process of selection will be an independent, double-blind lottery to produce ordered lists of applicants for each jurisdiction, for a total of 334 stores across the state.  The lottery will be performed by the Social and Economic Sciences Research Center of Washington State University and the accounting firm Kraght-Snell of Seattle, who currently oversees Washington’s state lottery.

2,171 applications for retail licenses were submitted to the LCB in late 2013. Starting in late February, applicants were asked to complete pre-qualifying packets, providing five pieces of information: applicants’ personal criminal history, over-21 age verification, proof of Washington state residency, proof of Washington state business licensure, and a leasing agreement for a location address outside the 1,000’ buffer on sensitive areas. In March, LCB deputy director Randy Simmons reportedly stated that more than 500 applicants had failed to submit the information within the timeframe allotted. Of the applicants who did submit by the deadline, roughly 20-50 percent did not provide the agency with all of the required information.  Finally, this week we learned that an undisclosed number of applicants with completed packets have been administratively withdrawn from the lottery process, due to incomplete packets or failure to meet one or more requirements. Despite much public conjecture, no firm number has been released for the number of applicants who will participate in the lottery this week. We estimate that 800-1,250 applicants are qualified to participate at this time.

The state will release the results of the lottery on May 2, at www.liq.wa.gov. All pre-screened applicants will be notified of their rank in the jurisdiction for their location. Licenses will be issued in batches of 10-20 in the first week of July, beginning with the most populous areas.  The lottery will produce ranked lists for jurisdictions under bans or moratoria, which will be used to issue licenses when permitted. In cases where applicants are found to be ineligible for the retail license, they will cede their position on the list to the next qualifying applicant. State officials expect the first retail stores to open in July 2014, but many anticipate that supply will be limited until a larger number of producers and processors are licensed and operational.

State Legislature Fails to Pass MMJ Bill by Deadline

Originally posted at www.keblaw.com on March 17, 2014.

Despite intense lobbying and countless public hearings, the state legislature failed to pass a bill addressing medical marijuana by Thursday’s midnight deadline.   This means that SB 5887 and HB 2149 (the “Cody Bill”) have been shelved, at least for now.

The next regular legislative session starts in January 2015.  This session will last 105 days, as opposed to this year’s 60-day session.  In the meantime, the Governor may call an extraordinary session. Extraordinary sessions are to address specific issues, usually the budget. There is no limit on the number of extraordinary sessions in a year, but they only last 30 days.  In other words, today’s development is by no means the end of the story.  We may see the legislature address medical marijuana in the coming year during an extraordinary session (assuming one is called) or in the next regular session starting in January.
Despite how you felt about SB 5887 and HB 2149, the legislature’s failure to act was problematic.  The consequences of this inaction are addressed below. 

Do not interpret the legislature’s failure to pass a bill as an endorsement of our current medical marijuana laws.  The failure to pass a bill was likely the result of disagreement on the severity of changes to our MMJ laws, as opposed to whether change is needed.  During this session, both the house and the senate individually passed bills making significant changes to the laws, including the elimination of collective gardens (the house proposed to eliminate gardens in May 2015 and the senate in Sept. 2015).  Thus, as a whole, there is legislative agreement that our current MMJ system should be reworked; specifics on timing, taxes, and a patient registry remain uncertain.

Cities and counties will likely fill the void left by the state legislature.   Countless local authorities have already passed moratoriums on medical collective gardens, including King County. Even Seattle, a city with arguably the most pro-pot policies, enacted legislation that could eliminate collective gardens by January 2015.  

Expect the Department of Revenue and local zoning code enforcement officers to continue to play a role on curtailing MMJ growth.  In the last year, as MMJ has grown, the state Department of Revenue and local zoning code enforcement officers have targeted medical marijuana establishments and organizations.  Expect this to continue.  Tax assessments and code enforcement actions are effective at shutting down businesses, incur minimal expense, and result in less public outcry than criminal prosecution. 

Even though the state failed to act, the Feds may—which is worse.  Washington has been fortunate to avoid the erratic and aggressive criminal prosecution of MMJ, like you see in California and Montana.  However, if the state legislature continues to ignore Washington’s largely unregulated MMJ industry, it’s uncertain how the DEA will respond. 

On the plus side, the legislature did manage to adopt HB 2304.  This is a welcome development.  The bill expressly allows for concentrates, and distinguishes those from infused products by a 60% THC threshold.  Prior to this change, the Liquor Control Board ("LCB") had created a work-around, allowing for concentrates as “infused products for inhalation.”  The LCB will likely replace this term with “concentrates,” which would result in few changes, other than allowing processors to avoid adding small amounts of inert oil into concentrate for the purpose of qualifying the product as “infused.” 

Under the bill, marijuana concentrates are defined as “products consisting wholly or in part of the resin extracted from any part of the plant Cannabis and having a THC  concentration greater than sixty percent.” 

Infused products are defined as “products that contain marijuana or marijuana extracts and, are intended for human use, and have a THC concentration greater than 0.3 percent and no greater than sixty percent.” 

The consumer transaction limit for concentrates mirrors what the LCB already put into place:
·         1 ounce of useable marijuana (flower)
·         16 ounces of solid infused product (like a brownie)
·         72 ounces of liquid infused product (like a soda)
·         7 grams of concentrates

In addition to allowing for concentrates, HB 2304 expressly protects a license applicant’s financial information from public disclosure.  As a result, the law now expressly grants marijuana license applicants the same privacy protections afforded to alcohol license applicants. 

Specifically, the law was revised to state that “financial information, including but not limited to account numbers and values, and other identification numbers supplied by or on behalf of a person, firm, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, or other entity related to an application for a . . . marijuana producer, processor, or retailer license” is not subject to public disclosure under our states public records act.

When Will the Market Open?

Last week, the Washington Liquor Control Board ("LCB") granted the first license to produce and process marijuana for recreational use.  The licensee, Sean Green of Kouchlock Productions, will grow 21,000 square feet in his Spokane facility. He reports that he’ll market starter plants to other producers initially, and later expand to supply the retail market as it opens this summer.

This announcement is slightly behind schedule, as the LCB was expected to begin issuing producer/processor licenses in February.  By all accounts, the LCB was not prepared to handle the volume of over 7,000 applications it received.  After the recent policy change limiting producer applicants to only one license, 900+ applications were removed from the list.  However, this still leaves almost 1,900 producer applications alone – and some of them have not yet begun the review process.

Brian Smith, spokesperson for the LCB, set the expectation for a 90-day review period in a December Seattle P-I article: “when you combine the extra work with the glut of applications within a short application window you get the estimated 90 days for the average application.”

Based on this statement, we should expect most licenses to be issued next week for approved businesses that applied during the window that closed December 20, 2013 . . . but don't hold your breath.  Hundreds of producer applicants are still waiting for their initial contact from the LCB.   It is likely only a handful of producer licenses will be issued over the coming weeks.

Our hope is that the LCB will provide the public with additional transparency regarding the schedule under which the agency expects to issue licenses for the producers, processors, and retailers, many of whom have made significant investments in property and equipment.

LCB representatives have noted that they expect the retail lottery to occur in April and to begin issuing retail licenses in June/July.   These statements appear a bit aggressive, considering how slowly things have moved thus far.  We can speculate that the bulk of retail will not open until late summer or early fall (August-October).

Likely, the producer and processor licenses will trickle in over the coming 6 months, with the bulk of producer/processor licenses being issued also in late summer and early fall (August-October).

At this point, our best guess (with the limited information available) is that the licensed recreational marijuana market in Washington will be in full swing by December, 2014.