In a recent House Finance meeting held on March 25, 2025, members of the Washington Legislature engaged in a heated discussion regarding House Bill 2037, which proposes changes to cannabis ownership regulations. The bill has sparked significant concern among local cannabis industry stakeholders, who argue that it could destabilize the market and harm small businesses.

The meeting featured testimony from various industry representatives, including Sean Denae Wagenseller, CEO of Washington Bud Company, who expressed strong opposition to the bill. Wagenseller highlighted the unique challenges faced by cannabis businesses compared to other sectors, such as beer and wine, emphasizing that cannabis growers are subjected to stringent regulations and high tax burdens. He warned that allowing non-resident ownership could lead to market saturation, driving prices down and ultimately harming local producers.

Bill Wagenseller, co-owner of the same company, echoed these sentiments, stating that the introduction of publicly traded companies could exacerbate the existing supply-demand imbalance. He argued that the bill is driven by a minority of operators seeking capital rather than addressing the needs of the broader industry. He urged lawmakers to consider the potential negative impact on tax revenue and market stability.

Brandon Park, owner of a small cannabis business, also voiced his opposition, warning that the bill would favor larger multi-state operators at the expense of smaller, locally-owned businesses. He predicted that this shift would push consumers toward the illicit market, further reducing tax revenue for the state.

Jana House, COO of Evergreen Market, raised additional concerns about the bill's failure to address social equity challenges within the industry. She argued that eliminating residency requirements would disadvantage local businesses and lead to market volatility, as seen in other states that have opened their markets to out-of-state corporations.

Scott Waller, representing the Washington Association for Substance Misuse and Violence Prevention, highlighted the legal complexities surrounding cannabis as a federally classified Schedule I drug. He cautioned against the timing of the bill, given the proposed cuts to state programs and the uncertain fiscal landscape.

The discussions during the meeting underscored the deep divisions within the cannabis industry regarding the future of ownership regulations. As lawmakers consider the implications of House Bill 2037, the voices of local business owners and industry advocates continue to call for a cautious approach that prioritizes stability and equity in Washington's cannabis market. The committee's decision on the bill remains pending, with significant implications for the state's cannabis landscape and its economic health.