Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.465 (2026)
Conducting or maintaining cannabis club—Penalty
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) It is unlawful for any person to conduct or maintain a cannabis club by himself or herself or by associating with others, or in any manner aid, assist, or abet in conducting or maintaining a cannabis club.
(2) It is unlawful for any person to conduct or maintain a public place where cannabis is held or stored, except as provided for a licensee under this chapter, or consumption of cannabis is permitted.
(3) Any person who violates this section is guilty of a class C felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(4) The following definitions apply throughout this section unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
(a) "Cannabis club" means a club, association, or other business, for profit or otherwise, that conducts or maintains a premises for the primary or incidental purpose of providing a location where members or other persons may keep or consume cannabis on the premises.
(b) "Public place" means, in addition to the definition provided in RCW 66.04.010, any place to which admission is charged or for which any pecuniary gain is realized by the owner or operator of such place.
Notes:
Intent—Finding—2022 c 16: See note following RCW 69.50.101.
Findings—Intent—Effective dates—2015 2nd sp.s. c 4: See notes following RCW 69.50.334.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1
case (1 in the last 5 years), 2025–2025 · leading case: Lyon v. Thurston Cnty. (W.D. Wash. 2025).
Lyon v. Thurston Cnty. (W.D. Wash. 2025). “The complaint was assigned to WSLCB Officer Robbie Satterly for 15 investigation into whether Plaintiffs were operating in violation of the Uniform Controlled 16 Substances Act, RCW 69.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.465(3) — 1 case
Lyon v. Thurston Cnty. (W.D. Wash. 2025). “The complaint was assigned to WSLCB Officer Robbie Satterly for 15 investigation into whether Plaintiffs were operating in violation of the Uniform Controlled 16 Substances Act, RCW 69.”
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.