Senate committee hears split-over-liquor-and-cannabis proposal as industry and public-health groups clash

The Washington State Senate Labor & Commerce Committee heard extensive public testimony on Senate Bill 6290, a proposal to separate oversight of liquor and cannabis by restructuring the Liquor and Cannabis Board.

Supporters, including Caitlin Ryan, executive director of the Cannabis Alliance, told the committee the current combined structure has become a bottleneck that slows decision-making and produces inconsistent enforcement. "The current structure diffuses responsibility, slows decision making, and turns the agency into a bottleneck rather than a facilitator of public policy," Ryan said, urging a single accountable executive director and clearer divisions for cannabis, liquor, vapor and tobacco products.

Sean DeWitts, representing the Washington Hospitality Association, said the proposal would free committees and agency staff to modernize alcohol policy. "Expecting a single board to manage both leaves too little time to modernize alcohol policy while keeping pace with the dynamic cannabis market," DeWitts said.

Industry groups offered mixed views: Vicki Kristofferson of the Washington Cannabis Business Association supported expanding board membership to allow broader representation and to avoid open-meeting constraints that limit two-member participation at conferences. Bethany Rondeau of the Washington Cannabis Licensee Association (WCLA) said WCLA is taking a neutral/other stance for now and called the two-5-member-board approach "an interesting approach that deserves careful consideration and stakeholder discussion." Rondeau asked for more interim engagement with the bill sponsor.

Opponents raised governance and accountability concerns. Scott Waller, a board member of the Washington Association for Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention, said SB 6290 risks changing the LCB from an executive-branch agency accountable to the governor into a board heavily shaped by legislative appointments. "This bill risks undermining that structure," Waller said, recommending a joint study group instead of rushing the governance change.

Small producers also testified against splitting the agency. Sean Denae Wagonseller, co-owner of Washington Bud Company, said the current WSLCB structure is responsive to licensees and that a larger, separate agency would add administrative cost without improving compliance. He did endorse adding two board members as a useful improvement.

Procedurally, the committee first voted to waive the five-day notice requirement to consider SB 6290 and then took testimony from pro and con witnesses. The chair closed the public hearing and the committee moved into executive session to read in additional bills and proposed substitutes; the transcript records the public hearing’s conclusion but does not show a final committee vote on SB 6290.

Why it matters: SB 6290 would change how the state organizes regulatory authority over alcohol and cannabis, affecting enforcement, industry stakeholders and coordination with public-health agencies. Proponents argue the change would create clearer accountability and allow specialized staff and rulemaking; opponents say it could politicize the agency and add cost.

Next steps: The committee concluded public testimony and moved to executive session. The transcript does not record a final committee vote or recommendation on SB 6290; future committee action was indicated as the bill moves through the process.