LCB deadlocks on petition to tighten medical-cannabis patient verification; board cites enforcement limits
March 04, 2026 | Board Council Commission Agencies , Executive, Washington
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board on March 4 heard a lengthy presentation and discussion about a petition from John Kingsbury that asks the board to amend WAC 314-55-090 to clarify when retailers must verify medical-cannabis recognition cards before granting an excise-tax exemption.
Kevin Walderback, the board’s policy and rules manager, told the board the director’s office recommends denying the petition because current WAC language already requires that excise-tax exemptions be offered only to qualified patients or designated providers with valid recognition cards in the Department of Health database. Walderback said limited enforcement capacity, rather than ambiguous rule language, appears to be the core problem: "If no one's checking is in fact the issue here, that's a matter of enforcement capacity, which is not a problem best addressed by rule amendments," he said.
Walderback said staff will issue a "friendly reminder" to medically endorsed retail cannabis licensees reiterating verification requirements and resources. He also noted that LCB auditors can hold licensees accountable during audits and require payment of tax when records verifying exemptions are missing.
Board member Garrett M. Holmes pressed staff on whether denying the petition could unintentionally signal lax enforcement and whether the recommended friendly reminder and audits would be sufficient. Holmes moved to deny the petition in deference to the rules team’s recommendation, but the motion did not pass because the chair did not concur and the board lacked a third member present to reach the required decision.
As a result, the board left the petition unresolved and directed staff to coordinate timelines and consider scheduling an additional meeting so absent board member Garrett (noting a different spelling in caucus) could participate in the decision before the Administrative Procedures Act 60-day response deadline. Kevin Walderback said the 60-day clock runs around March 12.
What happens next: the director’s office will send the outreach reminder to retailers, continue discussions with the petitioner, and the board may hold an extra meeting to secure a full vote before the APA deadline.
Kevin Walderback, the board’s policy and rules manager, told the board the director’s office recommends denying the petition because current WAC language already requires that excise-tax exemptions be offered only to qualified patients or designated providers with valid recognition cards in the Department of Health database. Walderback said limited enforcement capacity, rather than ambiguous rule language, appears to be the core problem: "If no one's checking is in fact the issue here, that's a matter of enforcement capacity, which is not a problem best addressed by rule amendments," he said.
Walderback said staff will issue a "friendly reminder" to medically endorsed retail cannabis licensees reiterating verification requirements and resources. He also noted that LCB auditors can hold licensees accountable during audits and require payment of tax when records verifying exemptions are missing.
Board member Garrett M. Holmes pressed staff on whether denying the petition could unintentionally signal lax enforcement and whether the recommended friendly reminder and audits would be sufficient. Holmes moved to deny the petition in deference to the rules team’s recommendation, but the motion did not pass because the chair did not concur and the board lacked a third member present to reach the required decision.
As a result, the board left the petition unresolved and directed staff to coordinate timelines and consider scheduling an additional meeting so absent board member Garrett (noting a different spelling in caucus) could participate in the decision before the Administrative Procedures Act 60-day response deadline. Kevin Walderback said the 60-day clock runs around March 12.
What happens next: the director’s office will send the outreach reminder to retailers, continue discussions with the petitioner, and the board may hold an extra meeting to secure a full vote before the APA deadline.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
