Friday, December 1, 2017

Response to WSLCB Homegrow Recommendations to Washington Legislature

Originally this was presented as a video with accompanying text.  The video was removed off my youtube when it was pulled.  Now, it's just the commentary.

Here's some #realtalk breakdown of the #WSLCB recommendation on #homegrow today.

While the report has a ton of interesting information gathered during the process of reporting, it is pretty much flat, and leaves me highly dissatisfied with the LCB, for ignoring the voice of 60% of respondents. Read and watch on.

LCB started with 3 options for homegrow.
1 - highly regulated, permit, tracked homegrow overseen by state
2 - highly regulated, permit, tracked homegrow overseen by local
3 - no homegrow

There's very little flexibility in there.  However, they took input from the public.

Per the report (last page) -

Link to report

466   Total comments

65 supporting option 1 or 2

93 opposing homegrow or supporting option 3

26 no stance/other

282 Pro Home Grow, not supporting any listed option

That works out to be a bit over 60% of respondents offered support for home grow but did not support the listed options.


The CONCLUSION of the report is this :

In summary, the WSLCB’s recommendations include any of the three regulatory options included in this report.

This means that the WSLCB explicitly did not find any valuable or actionable input from 60% of the citizen respondents showing opposition to the proposed recommended rules.  This is, it's important to repeat, an aspect of a Citizen Initiative, I502.

They reviewed 282 written or verbal comments, many from experts and professionals, and they did not find a single impactful piece of citizen input that could influence them into making any change whatsoever to the original stance and recommendations from which they began.

I find that highly unlikely, and insulting on a few levels. I had a face-to-face conversation with Joanna, head of the rules making body, and Justin, head of the enforcement body, and they both claimed commitment to servicing consumer safety and ensuring citizen commentary is taken with the value it deserves.  I don't find that they've done either in this case. They're increasing regulation against citizen commentary and recommendation, as well as attempting to create criminals once again out of citizens in a state which has chosen to legalize and normalize their activities.

Link to report

No comments:

Post a Comment