Upload
420leaks
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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