Wash. Rev. Code » Title 69 · Chapter 69.50
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.3251 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or as permitted under an agreement between the state and a tribe entered into under RCW 43.06.490, no person may manufacture, sell, or distribute cannabis, cannabis concentrates, useable cannabis, or cannabis-infused products, or any cannabis products without a valid license issued by the board or commission.
(2) Except as permitted under an agreement between the state and a tribe entered into under RCW 43.06.490, any person performing any act requiring a license under this title, without having in force an appropriate and valid license issued to the person, is in violation of this chapter.
(3) The producing, processing, manufacturing, or sale of any synthetically derived, or completely synthetic, cannabinoid is prohibited, except for products approved by the United States food and drug administration.
[ 2023 c 365 s 5.]

Notes:

Construction—2023 c 365: See note following RCW 69.50.326.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2024–2024 · leading case: Peridot Tree WA Inc v. Washington State Liquor & Cannabis Control Bd. (W.D. Wash. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Peridot Tree WA Inc v. Washington State Liquor & Cannabis Control Bd. (W.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 4× “RCW § 69.50.3251. This regulatory 3 system helps Washington adhere to the enforcement priorities outlined in the Cole Memo, which 4 the State describes as continuing to be “the hallmark guidance that states follow” to “prevent 5 federal interference” in the state-level…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.3251(1) — 1 case
Peridot Tree WA Inc v. Washington State Liquor & Cannabis Control Bd. (W.D. Wash. 2024). “RCW § 69.50.3251. This regulatory 3 system helps Washington adhere to the enforcement priorities outlined in the Cole Memo, which 4 the State describes as continuing to be “the hallmark guidance that states follow” to “prevent 5 federal interference” in the state-level…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.