Archive for Washington State Liquor Control Board

Officer Testifies on Toxic Culture, Corruption Within WSLCB

Can’t believe this didn’t make the news. On March 19, 2019, Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) Officer Officer John Jung exposed corruption at a public hearing in front of the WA ST House Commerce and Gaming Committee, fears retaliation to the point of hiring an attorney to help him. Start watching from the 25 minute mark…
https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2019031223

Hey i502! Your Genetics Are Crashing!

When i502 was first implemented years ago, licensed producers were allowed a very limited window for new licensees to obtain genetics, basically a 15 day window where the state promised to “look the other way” and allow for i502 producers to obtain their genetics, basically by any means.  Once that window closed, the only way for a licensee to obtain a new strain would be finding them from other producers.

That window is now completely closed.

So now even legislators are starting to notice. I had a meeting with one not long ago who told me they have not smoked in many years, but went and purchased some “top shelf strains”. In their own words: “I barely felt anything. This is not what pot used to be like even 3-4 years ago.”

Time to open the window. In fact, break the damn window.

I warned the WSLCB and legislators in detail, both in writing and in person, about this back in 2013 that closing access to new genetics would cause problems.  Creating a new license specific to breeding seeds and having an open window for these breeders to obtain genetics from anywhere in the world could help alleviate this problem.

By the way, homegrowers would love to help breed. Home horticulturists have contributed many new varieties of plants of all kinds throughout history. Many flowers, trees and shrubs that we see in garden nurseries were first developed by hard core gardening geeks and nerds at home.

We need access to the worldwide seed market to keep the genetics strong!

Just Say NO to ID Scanners

The biggest threat to patient and consumer privacy at the licensed cannabis shops is actually not the patient registry, but something much simpler that targets EVERYONE that comes in to the cannabis stores, not just patients.
The ID scanners the shop uses to check your driver’s license does more than check the math for your age. It actually gathers and stores all information on the card.  That way, they get both patients and adult purchasers.  And many of the stores ask for and scan your ID twice:  once at the door and again to log in your purchase.
In Washington state, fhis is not required by law, so you can refuse if they want to push it.
This shop appears to understand, but the vast majority use the scanners…
Why do these ahops need your information?  Are they selling lists of people to marketers?
That might be the best you can hope for.
It may end up being used to prevent your 2nd amendment rights.
Worset case scenario:  There has been a cottage industry for paid police informant rings for years now, who get up to $5000 for every tip leading to a marijuana forfeiture and they get to remain anonymous!  This describes the one for Washington State…
So don’t forget…
Just say NO to ID scanners at the shops!

Department of Health Confirms it, No Privacy for Patients In State Registry

From: Weeks, Kristi (DOH) <Kristi.Weeks@DOH.WA.GOV>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:43 PM
To: John Novak
Subject: RE: Questions

The traceability system (under the authority of the LCB) lists the purchases and patient identification number. The database (under the authority of the Department of Health) lists the patient information including the patient identification number. The LCB cannot access the database. DOH could receive information from the LCB’s traceability system, and DOH employees with access to the database could connect the two dots. However, we have no reason to do so because an individual patient’s purchasing habits are of no interest to us.

From: John Novak [mailto:changingplanet@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 12:22 PM
To: Weeks, Kristi (DOH)
Subject: RE: Questions

Thanks for the quick reply.

One follow up revised question: Can the State determine which products an individual patient has purchased?

“Can you determine which products a patient has purchased? Can I personally? No, I cannot tell what an individual patient has purchased.”

-John

——– Original message ——–
From: “Weeks, Kristi (DOH)” <Kristi.Weeks@DOH.WA.GOV>
Date: 8/10/2016 8:58 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: John Novak <changingplanet@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Questions

See below.

From: John Novak [mailto:changingplanet@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 11:49 AM
To: Weeks, Kristi (DOH)
Subject: Questions

Ms. Weeks,

If you have a few moments, I have some questions and hope you can provide some clarity. Still a lot of confusion out there.

Do you have a way to track each patient’s purchases? When a patient with a recognition card makes a purchase, the identification number on the card (but no other patient information) is entered into the traceability system in order to audit purchases that are made without sales tax. In other words, for the store to later prove (if requested by the Department of Revenue) that the sale was appropriately sales tax free.

Which information about the transaction does the system provide about the patients’s purchases? The items purchased and the patient’s recognition card number.

Can you determine which products a patient has purchased? Can I personally? No, I cannot tell what an individual patient has purchased.

Are patients in the registry able to get a sales tax discount on all products in any i502 shop, or just the endorsed shops? Just endorsed shops although some stores without an operational endorsement are offering patients a 10% discount in lieu of the sales tax relief.

If just the endorsed shops, then is that only on “medical” products, or any product in the shop? Any product in the shop.

Thank you again for your time. It is most appreciated.

-John Novak

206-915-3450

Court witnesses requested for Worthington VS WSLCB August 17th

In late 2014, a Thurston County Superior court judge ruled that the WSLCB violated the Washingtin State Open Public Meetings Act at least 17 different times by holding secret meetings with law enforcement and the substance abuse community.

 Shortly after, John Worthington and others with the 420leaks project filed public records requests asking for the complete i502 rule making files.  These files must be mainatined by law.  See RCW 34.05.370
By their own words, they no longer have the original file, have deleted and altered files in what Worthington believes is a clear case of the agency once again running roughshod over the Sunshine laws in our state.
He tried to get a resolution by filing an administrative appeal directly to the WSLCB, but they dismissed his claims out of hand.
Thurston County Superior Court ruled that decision was “arbitrary and caprecious” and ordered the WSLCB to hear the case again.
With no legal rule making file to work with, Worthington is asking the court to make a desicion instead.
If there is no valid rule making file for I-502, then it follows that the rules are also invalid.
The court has an overhead projector that will be used. The court of public opinion must be there to witness the fact that Worthington did challenge the rules for I-502, so the Court of Appeals cannot bury the rules validity challenge.
The oral arguments in this case will be heard
at the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II on August 17th.
Washington State Court of Appeals
Division II at 9:00 AM950 Broadway, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98402

More information is available here:
Read John Worthington’s motions here:
*****

RCW 34.05.370

Rule-making file.

(1) Each agency shall maintain an official rule-making file for each rule that it (a) proposes by publication in the state register, or (b) adopts. The file and materials incorporated by reference shall be available for public inspection.
(2) The agency rule-making file shall contain all of the following:
(a) A list of citations to all notices in the state register with respect to the rule or the proceeding upon which the rule is based;
(b) Copies of any portions of the agency’s public rule-making docket containing entries relating to the rule or the proceeding on which the rule is based;
(c) All written petitions, requests, submissions, and comments received by the agency and all other written material regarded by the agency as important to adoption of the rule or the proceeding on which the rule is based;
(d) Any official transcript of oral presentations made in the proceeding on which the rule is based or, if not transcribed, any tape recording or stenographic record of them, and any memorandum prepared by a presiding official summarizing the contents of those presentations;
(e) All petitions for exceptions to, amendment of, or repeal or suspension of, the rule;
(f) Citations to data, factual information, studies, or reports on which the agency relies in the adoption of the rule, indicating where such data, factual information, studies, or reports are available for review by the public, but this subsection (2)(f) does not require the agency to include in the rule-making file any data, factual information, studies, or reports gathered pursuant to chapter 19.85 RCW or RCW34.05.328 that can be identified to a particular business;
(g) The concise explanatory statement required by RCW 34.05.325(6); and
(h) Any other material placed in the file by the agency.
(3) Internal agency documents are exempt from inclusion in the rule-making file under subsection (2) of this section to the extent they constitute preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, and intra-agency memoranda in which opinions are expressed or policies formulated or recommended, except that a specific document is not exempt from inclusion when it is publicly cited by an agency in connection with its decision.
(4) Upon judicial review, the file required by this section constitutes the official agency rule-making file with respect to that rule. Unless otherwise required by another provision of law, the official agency rule-making file need not be the exclusive basis for agency action on that rule.