The Washington Legislature's House Finance Committee convened on March 25, 2025, to discuss House Bill 2037, which proposes to eliminate the in-state residency requirement for cannabis business ownership. The meeting featured strong opposition from various stakeholders in the cannabis industry, who expressed concerns about the potential negative impacts of the bill on local businesses and state revenues.

Several speakers highlighted that removing the residency requirement could lead to an influx of out-of-state corporations and hedge funds, which they argue would undermine Washington's established cannabis market. Bethany Rondeau, a cannabis producer from Port Angeles, warned that the bill's vague language could create loopholes for criminal activity and money laundering, jeopardizing public trust in the industry. She emphasized the need for clearer definitions and more stakeholder engagement before moving forward.

Jason Hutto, CEO of Cultivar Farms, echoed these sentiments, stating that the bill could inject instability into an already volatile market. He pointed out that many cannabis businesses in Washington have struggled, with a high failure rate among licensees. Hutto questioned the rationale behind allowing out-of-state ownership, suggesting that it could exacerbate existing challenges rather than provide solutions.

Other speakers, including Carlondo Mitchell and Micah Tsai, emphasized the importance of protecting local ownership and small businesses. They argued that allowing out-of-state investment would further disadvantage minority-owned businesses and erode the progress made in social equity within the cannabis industry. Tsai specifically called for structural changes, such as lower taxes and vertical integration, rather than opening the market to external investors.

The committee members engaged in discussions about the implications of the bill, with some expressing concerns about the potential for job losses and profit extraction from Washington communities. The consensus among many speakers was that the bill, as currently proposed, could harm the local cannabis industry and should be opposed.

As the meeting concluded, stakeholders urged the committee to reconsider the bill and prioritize the needs of small and medium-sized operators in the cannabis sector. The future of House Bill 2037 remains uncertain as further discussions and evaluations are anticipated.