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

Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.406 (2026)

Distribution to persons under age eighteen

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Any person eighteen years of age or over who violates RCW 69.50.401 by distributing a controlled substance listed in Schedules I or II which is a narcotic drug or methamphetamine, including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, or flunitrazepam, including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, listed in Schedule IV, to a person under eighteen years of age is guilty of a class A felony punishable by the fine authorized by RCW 69.50.401(2) (a) or (b), by a term of imprisonment of up to twice that authorized by RCW 69.50.401(2) (a) or (b), or by both.
(2) Except as provided in RCW 69.50.475, any person eighteen years of age or over who violates RCW 69.50.401 by distributing any other controlled substance listed in Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V to a person under eighteen years of age who is at least three years his or her junior is guilty of a class B felony punishable by the fine authorized by RCW 69.50.401(2) (c), (d), or (e), by a term of imprisonment up to twice that authorized by RCW 69.50.401(2) (c), (d), or (e), or both.
[ 2019 c 379 s 3; 2005 c 218 s 2; 2003 c 53 s 340; 1998 c 290 s 2; 1996 c 205 s 7; 1987 c 458 s 5; 1971 ex.s. c 308 s 69.50.406.]

Notes:

Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Application—Effective date—Severability—1998 c 290: See notes following RCW 69.50.401.
Severability—1987 c 458: See note following RCW 48.21.160.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases, 1972–2020 · leading case: State of Washington v. John Mark Crowder, 385 P.3d 275 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Washington v. John Mark Crowder, 385 P.3d 275 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 11× “The statute governing distribution to minors (RCW 69.50.406) incorporates the distribution statute (RCW 69.”
State v. Jacobs, 115 P.3d 281 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 2× “may be punished by a fine of up to twice the fine otherwise authorized by this chapter, but not including twice the fine authorized by RCW 69.50.406, or by imprisonment of up to twice the imprisonment otherwise authorized by this chapter, but not including twice the imprisonment…”
State v. Atsbeha, 142 Wash. 2d 904 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 2× “to a person: “(3) Within one thousand feet of a school bus route stop designated by the school district; “may be punished by a fine of up to twice the fine otherwise authorized by this chapter, but not including twice the fine authorized by RCW 69.”
State v. Atsbeha, 16 P.3d 626 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 2× “"may be punished by a fine of up to twice the fine otherwise authorized by this chapter, but not including twice the fine authorized by RCW 69.50.406, or by imprisonment of up to twice the imprisonment otherwise authorized by this chapter, but not including twice the…”
State v. A.M., 448 P.3d 35 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 2× “For example, RCW 69.50.406 makes it a felony for an adult to distribute drugs to a juvenile.”
State v. Bennett, 275 P.3d 1224 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “204, except leaves and flowering tops of marihuana to a person: (c) Within one thousand feet of a school bus route stop designated by the school district; may be punished by a fine of up to twice the fine otherwise authorized by this chapter, but not including twice the fine…”
State v. Martinez, 123 Wash. App. 841 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “401(a)(l)(i), RCW 69.50.406 and RCW 9.94A.030. U.S. Const, amend.”
State v. Hugdahl, 458 P.3d 760 (Wash. 2020). · cites it 2× “204, except leaves and flowering tops of marihuana to a person: "(a) In a school; "(b) On a school bus; "(c) Within one thousand feet of a school bus route stop designated by the school district; "(j)... may be punished by a fine of up to twice the fine otherwise authorized by…”
State v. Vanoli, 937 P.2d 1166 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “Finally, the purpose of the age enhancement statute, RCW 69.50.406, is to punish not just deliveries but deliveries to minors.”
State v. Becker, 935 P.2d 1321 (Wash. 1997). “(4) Within one thousand feet of the perimeter of the school grounds; . . . . ...”
State v. Becker, 132 Wash. 2d 54 (Wash. 1997). “(4) Within one thousand feet of the perimeter of the school grounds; may be punished by a fine of up to twice the fine otherwise authorized by this chapter, but not including twice the fine authorized by RCW 69.”
State v. Lua, 813 P.2d 588 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “ntrolled substance listed under that subsection to a person in a school or on a school bus or within one thousand feet of a school bus route stop designated by the school district or within one thousand feet of the perimeter of the school grounds is punishable by a fine of up to…”
Show all 36 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.406(1) — 3 cases
State of Washington v. John Mark Crowder, 385 P.3d 275 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “The statute governing distribution to minors (RCW 69.50.406) incorporates the distribution statute (RCW 69.”
State v. Bennett, 275 P.3d 1224 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “204, except leaves and flowering tops of marihuana to a person: (c) Within one thousand feet of a school bus route stop designated by the school district; may be punished by a fine of up to twice the fine otherwise authorized by this chapter, but not including twice the fine…”
State Of Washington v. Marc Mckee, 413 P.3d 1049 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.406(2) — 2 cases
State of Washington v. John Mark Crowder, 385 P.3d 275 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “The statute governing distribution to minors (RCW 69.50.406) incorporates the distribution statute (RCW 69.”
State of Washington v. Jason Allan French (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.406(a) — 3 cases
State v. Martinez, 123 Wash. App. 841 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “401(a)(l)(i), RCW 69.50.406 and RCW 9.94A.030. U.S. Const, amend.”
State v. Bernal, 33 P.3d 1106 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Martinez, 99 P.3d 418 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
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.