Good morning Chair postman member Garin, staff and guests. The lobbyists are open and recording has begun.
thanks this morning everybody will convene on Tuesday July 18. Meeting of the liquor and cannabis board. Member Vollendroff could remember there's only today
Our first item up here is a rules petition review and consideration. And I will call on Jeff Kildahl policies and those coordinator to brief us.
Good morning Chair postman, board member Garrett. This morning I am presenting the response to a petition for adoption, amendment, or repeal of a state administrative rule we received on April 29 2024 from Michael Lucero. This petition requests changes to WAC 314 55 106 regarding what the so called principal display panel of a cylinder shaped cannabis package, or container as that's referring to the about the external package. So for, for nack, or for background, excuse me, in 2018, the board amended whack 314 55 106 To streamline packaging and labeling requirements for cannabis and cannabis products, reducing the amount of information required to be displayed on the packaging, and ensuring that products have enough space on the label to allow required product information to be displayed legibly. This rulemaking project back in 2018. On product labeling was a collaboration with the Washington State Department of Health and the Washington poison control center. It addressed warning labels the requirements warning consumers about the cannabis content of products and protecting from an accidental exposure to cannabis especially infused cannabis products. As a result, WAC 314 55 105 and WAC 314 55 106 were amended to require all cannabis products to include the cannabis universal symbol displayed on the principal display panel of the product package. Additionally, these rule changes also require the reproducible not for kids warning symbol created by the Washington poison center to also be placed on the principal display panel for infused medical cannabis products. Consistent with the rule amendments, the board updated the cannabis packaging and labeling guide in 2020, with illustrations and descriptions, showing how the principal display panel is determined for different styles of cannabis packaging. In analysis, the board has clear authority under RCW 69.50.345. Subsection seven to determine the nature form and capacity of all containers to be used by licensees to contain cannabis, cannabis concentrates, usable cannabis, and cannabis infused products and the the liberal labeling requirements for these products. The term principal display panel is commonly used in the food industry and other businesses to describe the position of labeling on packaged foods and other consumer products and is defined currently in WAC 314 55 106, subsection three as the portions of the surface of the immediate container or any outer container or wrapping, which bears the labeling designed to be most prominently displayed, shown, presented or examined under conditions of retail sale. In addition, the board's existing cannabis packaging labeling guide provides more direction about the meaning of principal display panel as applied to a cylindrical cannabis package. On a curved surface is the main that is the front main area and does not wrap around to the sides or the back of the packaging or labeling. The illustrations presented in the packaging and labeling guide show the principal display panel clearly outlined on the cylinder of the package. The petition requests here is for a rule amendment to whack 314 55 106. To clarify the principal display panel is the oblong portion of the cylinder versus the top or bottom, and the petition states that the effect of the requested rule change would be that cannabis processors could compliantly sell pre roll tubes with a warning symbol appropriately placed on the cylinder of the tube. Under existing rules, the principal display panel must already appear on the curved or oblong surface, those cylindrical packages such as tubes, and in turn, the universal cannabis warning symbol must appear on this principle display panel positioned on the curved surface of the cylinder and not on the top or bottom of the cylinder as the petition suggests, WAC 314 55 106 subsection three requires the position of the principal display panel to be designed to be most prominently displayed, which will not include the opposite curved surface of the cylinder, or the ends of a narrow tube shaped package that is suitable for packaging a single pre rolled cannabis joint as shown in the illustrations in the packaging and labeling guide, the universal cannabis warning symbol for cylindrical packaging must appear on the principal display panel, meaning it must be positioned on the curved or oblong surface of the packaging. The request of the petition to change the meaning of the term principal display panel to allow the warning symbol to appear on the oblong or curved side of the cylinder is not necessary as this is already required by the rule. So include a conclusion. For the reasons described above. Director's office staff recommend that consistent with RCW W RCW. W 3405 330. The board deny Michael new Searles petition for amending wack 314 55 106 submitted on April 29 2024. And thank you and I can answer any questions about this petition later.
I don't see any questions on this one. I think you've given us a thorough briefing on this and appreciate the recommendation and I will then entertain a motion to accept the staff recommendation to decline the petition request to amend What 314 55 106
I move that we accept the staff recommendation to deny the petition.
Great. I'll second that. That's approved. Thanks for coming on.
Thank you.
Okay, we don't get to several more petitions we're going to act on in Cassidy West, the policy rules manager is here to set those up Morning.
Morning and board member here. So today I'll be presenting a petition in response to three separate petitions that we received in may find money for for adoption and amendment or repeal of the state administrative rule that's submitted to the court. These petitions requested that the board consider, consider vagueness and modify the social equity license mobility requirements in WAC 314 55 570. The aim is to grant social equity licensees who applied under the previous legislation before 5080 So that was 2870 The same flexibility to locate their license as those applying under 5080. And that gives us the flexibility or to allow the licensees 100 official equity program to locate their business anywhere in the state. So I'll just provide a little bit of some legislative context. Engraved second substitutes and adult 5080 was enacted in 2023. And it amended our CW 6953 feedback to allow social equity license license applicants and licensees to locate their license in any city, town or county within a state. However, under the current rules license mobility requirements are more restrictive, reflecting the pre 50 ad requirements. licenses issued under the earlier legislation must be located in any county County where they were originally allocated, which has posed significant challenges due to local zoning restrictions and bans preventing the licence holders from securing a location for the retail outlet. Just to go into the petition request a little bit more on May 17 and petitioners Zachary's at Steve submitted a request they just fill out license holders the same flexibility to locate their license anywhere in the state as 5080. David Rose, who submitted a petition on May 2 May 22, also had a similar request, requesting the additional flexibility due to license holders facing difficulties securing of location. And then the third petition received on May 27. From Casey Calhoun requested either amending WAC 314 55 570 to allow statewide license mobility for all social equity applicants or repealing the rule entirely argued, arguing that the current rules conflict with the amended statute under a second substitute Senate Bill 5080. So when considering what the issue being presented today is whether the board should consider initiating the rulemaking process to amend or repeal WAC 314 55 570, subsection four D in response to the changes made to licensed mobility resulting from 5080. So when considering a petition for rulemaking, the director's office evaluate several factors, including but not limited to LCD statutory authority and obligations, alignment with the agency's policy goals and priorities, immediacy, immediacy of safety, environmental or security concerns, potential impact on public health outcomes, potential impact on criminal activity, level of public interest, and whether the issue is already under consideration other rulemaking activities, we also consider merits of the petition and equity impacts. LCB has the authority to consider these changes, both 2870 and 5080. Grant, grant the agency authority to establish rules implementing the social equity program, these petitions pertain directly to the design and functioning of this program. Currently, rulemaking, 80, is underway, the CR one or one was filed on November 8, as WSR 2323 06. To help clarify, November 8, 2023. So we've already engaged in the rulemaking process and have planned additional stakeholder engagement to gather feedback on petitioners request. In addition, since briefing before last week, we received a fourth petition with similar requests, as well as written comments on this topic. As such, there's no need for an analysis at this time. If accepted, the proposed changes would be considered as far as the ongoing rulemaking activity for 5080. Thank you, I'm happy to answer your questions.
I don't see any questions. I have one. Do we need to do separate motions on each petition?
Okay, yeah. Okay. Then I would like to put them all together for one. Motion and then and recommendations. Same for all three, because don't check in here. Yes to decline these. So I would.
I'm sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Oh, recommend.
Sorry. Yes. Okay. So the motion is, is there a motion to accept the staff recommendation to accept the three petitions related to mobility and social equity applicants?
Yes, Mrs. Ali I move that we accept
Great, and I second that are approved. All right. Thank you.
Now we will move to consideration of a CR 103. Daniel Jacobs policy and rules coordinator was here morning.
Good morning Chair postman. Remember Garrett. I'm here to request approval of the CR 103 for the medical cannabis endorsement rulemaking project. If approved today, the final rules will be filed today and the changes to WAC 314 55 080 will be effective July 19. The board voted to accept a petition submitted by John Kingsbury in March 2023 to address requirements for retailers to maintain their medical cannabis endorsements and see our one on one was filed back in October. After several team meetings and consultation with our partners at the Department of Health. The draft rule language was posted on the website at the end of February. Two stakeholder engagement sessions were held on March 11 and march 14. feedback received during those sessions was incorporated into the proposed draft rule language that was filed April 24. as identified in the CR 102 memo and the CR 102 form there are three main changes that are being done with this rule language. Firstly, a new requirement is being created that wherever this store hours are currently required to be posted the cannabis consultant hours also have to be posted. This requirement can be satisfied by posting a window of time during which appointments can be made to meet with the cannabis consultant. The second change is to the current existing in stock requirement that states that endorsement holders have to have medically compliant product in stock. The rule language is being amended to state that that requirement can be satisfied by having department of health medical product on order. The third main change is adding in a variable cure period to allow endorsement holders to fix whatever issue they're notified of being deficient in this cure period will range from seven to 30 calendar days depending on the violation at issue. So because there are several different requirements for holding it in medical cannabis endorsement, such as having a cannabis consultant on staff, having the ability to create medical recognition cards, that it takes longer to hire a new cannabis consultant than it does to place an order for medical products or fix a broken current machine. Additionally, if a licensee has their endorsement discontinued after this cure period has passed, it's been tried to get their endorsement again, they'll have to submit additional information showing that the original non compliance is no longer an issue. Since the CR 102, was filed on April 24. We The public hearing was held June 5 And no testimony was received. The specific requested changes have not been incorporated into the final rule. And I'll explain why. The current form that licensees need to fill out for getting a medical cannabis endorsement is called the LIQ 1276 form. So, for this presentation, I'll just refer to the 1276. For this rule, this form is already is going to need to be amended as a result of this rulemaking to accurately reflect at a minimum to new cannabis consultant hours. While many endorsements exist for liquor licensees and those endorsements also have separate sections of rule dedicated to them. None of the existing rules specifically require that a licensee fill out the form in order to get an endorsement. So creating such language in the rule wouldn't be a first or the LCB. Additionally, the form already includes the following language above the licensees signature block, it says quote, I understand that there are continuing requirements and the failure to meet any of these requirements at any time may result in the revocation of this authorization by the LCB. This language already serves as a de facto attestation. And so when an applicant signs this form in order to get the endorsement, they already are saying that they understand that these requirements are in place and that if they don't meet these requirements, they can have the endorsement polled. So some of the changes that ask the form to turn into an attestation are unnecessary because the form already serves as an attestation. In response to the same concerns that actually prompted the initial filing of this petition in the first place. The licensing division has revised its process for for processing medical cannabis endorsements to now requiring the submission of the cannabis consultant certificate with the LIQ 1276 form. This addresses a comment received on the CR-102 about identifying the cannabis consultant because licensing is process already has been revised to require the certificate to be submitted with the 1276. Additionally, our enforcement and education divisions have as part of their process, during the final check through before a retail licensee opens their doors, they provide additional information about the requirements on holding a medical cannabis endorsement holders for those who have medical cannabis endorsements. Additionally, in conjunction with Licensing's new process Enforcement and Education Division contacted 26 licensees beginning in January 2024, who hadn't issued any recognition cards during the previous quarter. The data about who had had an issue recognition cards was provided by the Department of Health as part of licensing this new process. 16 of the licensees asked to surrender their medical cannabis endorsements and the remaining 10 have provided evidence of their ongoing compliance. Given that the cannabis consultant certificate is already required to be submitted with the 1276 to get the medical endorsement in the first place, it doesn't seem necessary to change the 1276 to identify the cannabis consultant, or to add a space, especially given the improved compliance results that have been achieved from the new cross agency and cross divisional processes that have been put in place. It folks may remember when I first presented the CR 101. For this back in October, that Licensing and Enforcement had said that they were in the process of revamping their they were in. They were underway of revamping their process as much as they process twice. And when presenting the CR one on one, I said that depending on what we saw from this improved process, it might decrease the need for more rule language. And I think that the results from you know, great collaboration between the Department of Health and between our licensing enforcement education divisions show that that's exactly what's happened here. If we hadn't seen these results, we may very well have wanted to add more to the rule language. But we've already seen through our agencies on improved processes that compliance results have increased. Lastly, I also wanted to mention that since 1453, has become effective licensing has seen a dramatic increase in the number of retailers applying for medical cannabis endorsements. I think the numbers were something like in the first half of the year or something like 17 in one month. And I think in the past two months, it's been 40. So additionally, adding further requirements. At this time when we're already seeing an increase in licensees trying to get the endorsement, I think would would add further workload when we're already seeing results from licensing and enforcement education as new processes I mentioned. So therefore, I'm requesting the board's approval for the CR 103 on the medical cannabis endorsement rulemaking. Thank you. And I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. I had one I just want to make sure I'm understanding this right. And talking about the last piece that you're discovering here and what you have to show at the time of application. Do I understand correctly? You're saying there's already today you cannot get licensee could not get that endorsement unless they have the information that had been requested to be which is a cannabis consultant on staff.
They the cannabis consultant certificate. So my understanding is that the certificate is the certificate that's issued to the cannabis consultant by the Department of Health. I don't know if the consultant certificate identifies their employer, by understanding is the cannabis consultants certificate, as you know, saying for example, Daniel Jacobs has a cannabis consultant certificate issued by the Department of Health. And I think that assuming that a licensee isn't going to submit some other person's cannabis certificate.
Yeah, do that just because they want to so then that gives which says Oh, is the licensee gives me Daniel Jacobs certificate before they get their endorsement for the store?
Yes, that's correct. That's what that's what makes it takes process currently. That's correct.
And then you said it even after that enforcement education makes the visit at the end, which you need to make sure that they have everything they need to get that endorsement, which would include the equipment necessary to do a card, right.
So enforcement does this final visit before a retailer opens? So we're talking. Okay
right.
So that's it. Pre the retailer opening.
right
Versus if you have a retail as it's already open. So for example, the folks right now or who are already open or adding their medical cannabis endorsement because they see what 1453 happens. Those folks need to submit the full 76 form, and they need to submit a cannabis consultant certificate.
Great. So that is seems to address the comment that we received on the concern of this and that for first time applicants again, you won't get that endorsement if you're new licensee until you've completed the same work, including giving us your duplicate showing there's cannabis consult.
Yes.
Okay. Thank you. I think that covers the concerns. I had another around that. And the reason I was a little bit confused was that in the end, he said, you know, the staff has changed the way that we've been chatting the system and it's working and showing improvements and adding additional requirements. This one would be further workload for the staff. That's why I'm confused, why would- there is no further workload because they're already doing it sounds like, right?
Right. So one of the suggestions was, for example, that specifically the attestation would be, would have next to each sort of requirement on the form a space for someone to initial. And what what I was getting at was, if we weren't that adding that, at a time when we're also seeing an increase in volume of applications is going to increase the amount of time that licensing staff gonna have to spend on each application, when we're already seeing returns on investment for the new process.
Right, great. And I think in general, we're just increasing the visibility of the program and our enforcement of it. And I hope that helps everybody understand what's going to be required, and I bet they meet that requirement. So okay. Appreciate all that. Thank you, and appreciate your hard work on especially at the end to try and get some of these things answered. Seeing no other questions for you. Is there a motion to adopt the CR 123 Many wack 314 1105 This is written wrong on here. Excuse me?
Is that okay? Standby? Do you have what is the WAC? It's we're amending the
medical shirt. The endorsement mark here is 314 55. Alito 1103 314 55 1011.
I went to the wrong one. Sorry. Let's go back. This is not the walkthrough 14. This is the 0123 for medical cannabis endorsements or motion.
I move.
Thank you.
A motion for the CR 103 for medical cannabis endorsement.
And I second it's approved. I apologize. Mr. Jacobs. I don't know what's going on into it. Okay, moving ahead. Alcohol related rulemaking. And this is a board consideration of a CR 123 314 1105.
Thank you, and good morning again. And hereby I'm here this morning to request approval of the CR 103. On the prohibited conduct rulemaking. Approved today will be filed immediately and then prohibited conduct rule at 314 11 o Vibo. Will be repealed effective July 19. Consistent with engrossed substitute Senate Bill 6105. In addition to repealing the prohibited conduct rule, we're removing cross references to it and six other rules. I've identified those six other rules few times publicly, but if you'd like I'm happy to do so again at the end here. Cr 101 was filed on February 14, following some enforcement activities in Seattle at the end of January and engrossed substitute Senate Bill 6105 was amended in the second half of February to instruct LCD to repeal the prohibited contract rule. And the governor signed that bill at the end of March. While the board's initial intention with the cry one was to explore the possibility of amending or repealing the prohibited conduct rule 6105. In addition to the nearly unanimous public feedback we received or to inform full repeal has led us towards repeal CR one or two was filed on April 24. We received two written comments both supporting the repeal between the CR 102 filing and the public hearing held June 5. During the public hearing. One person testified in favor of the repeal. Therefore, we haven't made any changes. And I'm requesting the board's approval for the CR 103 on the prohibited conduct rulemaking. Thank you and I can answer any questions.
I don't see any questions. Let's see if I get this one right. Is there a motion for board adoption and CR 103 For went through 1411? Oh 509 is prohibited conduct.
I move that we adopt.
And I second to that is approved. Thanks, Mr. Davis. Appreciate the work.
Thank you.
We're to the public comment period. Everyone who signed up will have up to four minutes to speak. We ask that you limit your comments to LCB business. And please refrain from any personal attacks on anybody else who testified or otherwise all will in fact, mentioned, I think someone has wandered off that and we'll save your time so you can get back on track. Reminder for those in the room, the microphones and ceiling are really sensitive. I'll pick up paper rustling or just about any else, including side conversations. So side conversations and go outside meetings being recorded, as always be available online. And if you're online, which we're getting first all calling you don't raise your hand, please. But Dustin, I'll find you in the queue that we have here and we will call on you and then we'll give you a second to make sure you're connected. And we'll give you your four minutes. When you get to 30 seconds left. Dustin will break in just to give you a heads up that you have 30 seconds left, and then we'll ask you to stop right at that point. We'll get our first person signed up online and as Vicki Kristofferson.
The Morning, Chair, postman and member Garrett and Vicki Kristofferson here today on behalf of the Washington cannabis Association, happy to be here to address you today. First, I wanted to thank Deputy Director Toni hood and CFO Rachel Swanner, for joining us in Walla Walla a couple weeks ago, for our spring meeting. We appreciated them representing the agency, as we talked about issues addressing is up to the industry across the state. I just wanted to bring up a couple of issues for you to consider as you continue to deliberate on important issues, one, you know, as the regulated industry, both parents and grandparents and those who have chosen to be regulated. In this industry, there continues to be a really strong concern about the rampant continued availability of unregulated, untested, untaxed product in outlets across our state and online. And it's extremely troubling to all of us, I know it is to you. And it also presents an unfair competition to our industry. Additionally, it presents a threat to the health and safety of our children and to all of us across our state. Sorry, hold on.
I'm so sorry. So sorry, if I could have a couple of minutes in my time left. Sorry about that. Anyway, issues presenting a continued presenting problems to us across the industry. I just wanted to address the rule set that's before you now, you know, we worked really hard in concert with this agency in 2023. For legislation to address this issue, this legislation passed by the legislature 5367, that expanded the definition of THC to try to capture these products that are outside the regulated market. You know, this, this rule set that we've seen before, you seems to be more focused on expanding, testing and requirements on our regulated industry, rather than the sense of urgency around getting the products outside the regulated industry. We've submitted comments around this issue, but really would like to see a renewed focus and sense of urgency around this real problem. Because no matter what you do to us to continue to strengthen regulations on the regulated industry. If we don't get our hands on what's happening outside, it really doesn't make any difference. So just want to reiterate the need to really keep that strong. The other piece, I just want to flag for you. And it really came up we spent a lot of time talking about in Walla Walla and we're going to continue to talk about it and appreciate all of the conversations we've had with your staff as well as those that Department of Health and Department of Agriculture is that we all really need to keep an eye to the integrity of the regulated market as we work to implement 1453 and implement the really well meaning tax break for medical patients I'll age date myself here and say listening to KZOK, this weekend, heard some very interesting ads, targeting those that were promised a medical card. And I think we just need to be really careful and work very carefully to make sure that only those intended to get medical cards are getting them and that we're keeping the integrity of the system in mind while we implement this bill. So thank you for your time and apologize for the interruption. In this zoom outsell Thank you very much.
That's okay, it happens, thank you. The next person signed up is Brooke Davies
you should be able to go
Hi, good morning. Chair postman and board member Garrett. My name is Brooke Davies here today on behalf of The Washington cannabusiness Association. Just wanted to cover a couple other items that Vicki was unable to cover and her time. Specifically, again, thanks to LCB staff for coming to Walla Walla and participating in our conference. I wanted to chat briefly a little bit about the packaging and labeling conversation. I heard at the ante meeting last week, this subject came up. So just wanted to provide some additional context specifically to the concerns that were raised in Walla Walla. I think that Deputy Director hood mentioned it, but I wanted to clarify what those concerns were to get that on your radar, the concerns that were discussed in Walla Walla around the packaging and labeling submission and approval process, were specific to edible products that are already approved that plan to seek a DOH compliance under this new 1453. So if they're able to do the additional testing, they'll be required to then put a sticker on that says that that product is doh to conform in, in the question that we're coming up, where will those then be required to be submitted for a new approval just because they're adding the sticker? And our understanding was that we have not gotten a clear answer on that yet. And so that was kind of what folks were asking and Walla Walla, and are, you know, just sort of as to the agency would be that considering you saw sort of the number of submissions and the volume. And that's, you know, taking up a lot of time, we would ask that if the packaging is already approved, that the addition of that doh compliance sticker not be required to then be reapproved, as long as it's not covering up any important information and things like that. So just wanted to kind of clarify what that question was. And then moving on to talking more about packaging and labeling in general, I sent you on an email this morning, documenting the history of WACA's advocacy on this issue. Listening to the presentation last week, I think, you know, one of the things that stood out was the number of submissions that are then required to be resubmitted, or make changes and things like that. And so we've long advocated that a lot of that is due to what we see as being kind of the subjective process of not really understanding what the rules are. And sometimes a package is approved, and then you submit another one that's very similar, and it's not approved, and kind of that process seems to be a little bit arbitrary. And I also included a document that sort of shows this is from 2020, when we were advocating on the same issue, but what the cost of a redesign is, and it's really significant. And so I know that also there was some discussion around well, what if licensees paid for the submissions without onus on them, and hopefully, you know, decrease the amount of resubmissions that have to take place. And so just want to make sure that you're also aware that each time a licensee has to redesign a package, even if it's just changing the color, there are significant costs associated with that. So it really is the desire to get it approved on the first time, if possible. And I think charcoal is when you really spoke to this in your comments, but we would definitely be interested in kind of working with the agency and looking back at the rules and figuring out like what really is the goal of the patent the packaging rules, and are there places where we can streamline it a little bit, I think we all agree that you know, the real purpose of those.
Brooke, you have 30 seconds.
The products aren't overly appealing to children and all those sorts of things. And so if there's a way that we could work together on kind of really diving into those and and making them you know, a little bit more streamlined, we'd be happy to do that because I think if we could remove some of that subjectivity that would really decrease the amount of resubmissions and going back and forth and so thank you so much for your consideration.
Thank you. Next person signed up is Christopher king.
Terrific
Okay, alright guys, I just have a couple of questions here. And first off, I guess we'll start with question of whether or not Mr. Postman reveals that the board has the notion of, again reducing the speaking time to three minutes for any reason going forward. And if you did so as opposed to what you do it in a way that doesn't just impact Black and Brown speakers that there our issues, any thoughts on that
you're not going to answer your questions to this forum. You I told you 100 times, all you have to do is email me not 400 people email me and I'll answer any question you send.
I'll ask you what I want to ask me what I want to ask you. That's how that goes. Next. You don't recall ever doing that? The boots outside of black and brown, do you? That's rhetorical. Let's move it on. What we have with the LCB I got my shackles today is basically you guys are regulatory capture agency. Okay, you created this oligarchy and things where you and your mostly white cronies, you know, get all the money. Everybody knows that. Okay, let's talk about Libby Haynes rebleeding. Olivia is not original pioneer. Bottom line is y'all manipulated something back when she was the only black person to get through the so called lottery. And you had a spousal requirement that you didn't be scented during COVID. And guess what? When you consented she still never got a license. Okay. Now you've got a situation in her appeal, where I think like, I think the figure like 75% of the applicants have valid issues between Ponder and LCB on the appeal. Okay. But yet, nobody's being heard, nobody's being reversed. And the end product is illusory anyway, because you can't get a store. Okay, so that's the problem there. Everything with you with illusory, that? That's the thing. Okay. So, gosh, Gosh, gosh. So now what they did with Libby on the scoring, is that they went in there, and they said, Oh, look, first off, she proved by preponderance of the evidence that of the cannabis eviction, and she had a jail sentence, she had prison sentence there. And so under the rubric, the first way she should, you know, the top scorer in our region, but now you'd be worth it. And they took off the cannabis, and they're just monkeying with things to keep her out of the out of the winner's circle. It's just ridiculous. All right. Yeah, the whole partner process, these be bartering how this even happened. But then between you and my partner, you guys are both jointly and severally liable, I'm sure. So some of our co op 138 It's back that these people came before you. All right, and I was with them. When your agent shed and Angel wrote an erroneous report saying that there was no licensed entity there. Regarding license number 412691, their license number is not that it's something else. I don't have it right in front of you. We just got back there. My number is 428651 Okay. And based on this erroneous thing, there was a raid on their facility with Frank black and State Patrol a bunch of people all right, and they stopped this heart guy could have died because of your actions. And at the time Ollie Garrett stands up reaches out "Oh, I'm gonna reach out to you guys." She looked up Facebook a couple of times we're Roxanna Now Roxanna to Hispanic woman and Michael you know White boy but you got a White boy like your favorite White boys like Windmere by by criminal Alright, so you ran him over because you did nothing to help him even though your own your own agency's fault that he's in the predicament that he's in and four people who need care got kicked out of the system because one of your new stores moved in in their neighborhood you know they keep the nuisance they kick the nuisance out and now medical people are not getting the treatment that they need everybody shackled up when it comes to you guys. shackles on my feet shackles on my hands that's what you do
Chris that's your time.
Oh, you'd have a good day, SHACKLES!
The next person signed up is Sami Saad.
Good morning everyone. Can you guys hear me
do that go ahead.
Good morning. Well, I have just feedback and that's from all of us here in the like as East African American so I wanted to have those slides of the equity mobilewe we need to tend to be happening first of all if you guys want to approve something like this, we should be after three years from now but to have it mobile in your same county right away by to have it all mobile all over. I want to I have a shop I'm associated with the winner and I'm the first five days is when he was medical back then and by being you know my We are not being given equal opportunity and it wasn't about justice. I just went my life so we cannot even find location even the location we find every shop Oh, this is 350 feet you cannot have here. We need to remove this. We need to have equal opportunity. There is no limit you can be right next to him this is a free market. We cannot be being done to us like that event they have three locations in in close to rental and one that they weren't together why us now we cannot have location together. The second thing is having people to be mobile all over the state that says no I don't think so. is fair for us. It should be okay. Let's go do that because I love them to have the same thing. But after three years from now, but they can you can move in your the same county right away because right now it became hard for us you know for example they have somebody's holding location because waiting until this to happen and we cannot even get location. You know me as mostly I cannot go and get the loot you know so it was not just what you need you got to work with a second. Why is too much regulation on the for the endorsement for the medical because we both back then I was the first medical you don't need all that the only thing it needs the right age and if he's that person qualified to have you know this one and this this this to be retested that they cannot be to be tested. That's all but having this department that department okay they can have a certification. Yes, you are old enough. And you can verify and you can read the word and you know, this is what you need. And this is what they did because it's this is for release in vain for them. And as long as you haven't read it and you take the taxes at the same way that what he got was a miracle God one more thing to do for the health department other than to make sure this is been approved by be tested there is no anything affecting human being. I think is too much rule and regulation to something is making it hard for us and we need this lesson as our social equity first because it's not fair for us we've been closed in the past and now all those people have in shops been open. They every license is five license every personal five bison that was super kinky said a long time ago this a nickel is a nickel, it mean five and this nickel whatever it is what is a double standard with no justice I'm not a given scholars another give us interesting but I'm looking forward to be thrilled to be treated assembly or.
Sami, you have 30 seconds.
Okay, the second thing is I really would love to see the next license and to be like how for the pioneers the one they used to have sharp like Libby and Kevin Shelton before 2016 and the other half to be fought for the point for the people that have conviction. This has been justice because since the HB 2870 From the beginning it meant for those pioneers the one they used to be referred to some of the 60 and and the world has changed that's made us lose the choices and the legislation Thank you
Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay, that's it from people that have signed up online and in the room here we have two The first is Paul Brice.
Hello, everyone attending today was pulverize. I am a retailer currently happy trees also SCA applicant one of the reasons on your day is to be a face also for the Black or Brown already existing retailer who was targeted fined and again attacked by LCB so much in the past that this is the group we've been working with and you guys had your chance to see how it rolled out in you know it was nothing nice so I hope to be a face for a lot of other Black and Brown as a reminder that we cannot be treated this way it's in my thought it's a lot like a pumpkin patch of SCA is just because the pumpkin patch comes in everyone's afraid ghost goblins and Green Smoke and all this other bad stuff that's going to happen and I felt it was a stereotype for being Black is a major thing especially still with the LCB. I want to talk about the DIA are on rubric. Having places like South Tacoma where qualifies for a DIA then all of a sudden, because some years go by they have some parts and so forth they can now remove the status is not for this decade is no longer a DIA. It's like surviving the hilltop and then just because you clean up the hilltop some and get rid of all the Black, Brown and remove some violence and all of a sudden people who survived it no longer get credit for being in that DIA again that survived and helped make that guy a better area than it is today. Two minutes left I want to talk about SB 5052. Sponsored by Ann Rivers when LCB just gave additional two pot licenses out to a lot of people who were not deserving. Were not pioneers to receive those. Because that was already in effect, I would hope with additional licenses for the retailer's coming out. Again, as Sam even said, a lot of this doubling up for licenses should go to the pioneers, someone like myself, again, missed the last round, and we're even talking about making the rubric easy, you just seem silly. The rubric should be tougher than before. If anything, it should have a letter to explain who you are or whatnot and make sure that we get it right because again, it's getting further and further from the true intent. And that is to help the Black or Brown that were so left out and without seeing the actual numbers. But meeting a lot of the sca personally myself already. It does not seem to me that it went to the tent that was supposed to be and nor does the next rollout seem as if we're trying to protect what all that work was done for the attempt for this. And another thing, just real common sense wise to keep getting back in line again, I've been in the line from very beginning for the rollout of digital license and this they're just social equity for for people who applied who didn't get in. There should be some bearing for the people who applied and did not get a license to always have some way to bring in new people and think we all just want new people to that can just come in and dilute the intent or squander the intent seems the most unreasonable thing. It needs to be locked down. It needs to be tighter and we need to again help what we want. The goal for this is to have Black or Brown involvement and legacy wealth for Black and Brown people who helped champion to get the legalization for cannabis. Thank you.
Thank you, Mike Asai.
Good morning Chair postman board member Garrick and I guess bounce off on here members in the audience. My name is Michael side with Mo city collective first downtown dispensary downtown Seattle dispensary. I'm also the Vice President by excellent cannabis. Starting on October 26 2020, the Washington State Liquor cannabis board was repeatedly urged to make House Bill 2870 social equity licenses mobile. Despite this this advocacy over more than two years, the board's refusal to act as led to significant decisions faced today. This situation could have been addressed in 2021 and 2022 legislative sessions. So equity in cannabis is fundamentally about rectifying injustices suffered by the black descendants of slaves and brown communities who are disproportionately targeted and harmed by the war on drugs, which was effectively the war on cannabis. The LCB issue licenses to bad actors from the medical cannabis area who did not qualify under Senate bill SB 32 state law, further marginalizing those already affected. This agency continues to only partly listen to the very communities the social equity program is meant to support. Former legislative director Chris Thompson consistently consistently misled us claiming legislative action was necessary to make House Bill 2070 licenses mobile. This was never true. The persistent disregard for the needs and voice of the black and brown community members raises the question is the LCB serving the public? Or is it swayed by WACA? Black Excellence in Cannabis is here to hold LCB accountable for past, current and future actions. We stand firm because no one else will. This agency has retaliated against cannabis pioneers and advocats and is currently retaliate retaliated against me. Mike Asai, the vice president of Black Excellent in Cannabis simply for speaking the truth. The refusal to engage with Black Excellence in Cannabis because of my, Mike Asai's, tort claim shows a continued disrespect by the LCB to Blacks in Washington State. We have tried on many occasions to have positive dialogue about past issues. But this agency brushed us off. Like it has always done to the Black community. But these actions will not obscure the truth. Darkness will always be exposed by the light, and the light is shining brighter every day. As rulemaking for Senate Bill 58 is underway, it is crucial to emphasize that certificate holders should not our repeat should not be included in the social equity program, including him to lose the true intent of social equity licenses. High rubric scores should determine eligibility, not minimum qualifications without proper evaluation. Our initial support for certificate holders was based on the assumption that they included Black descendants of slaves and Brown individuals. Since this is not the case, we have revised our stance remove certificate holders from this program. We hope the LCB is genuine listens. Thank you. We hope the LCD is now genuinely listening to the communities. The program is intended to benefit through concrete actions rather than empty words. Typically holders must pay their own way and not exploit the black and brown community struggles. The true victims of a war on campus deserve real equity and justice.
Thank you and that is the last person signed up to the end of the agenda. So we are adjourned. Thank you everybody.
