Being Nice for Santa – Cannabis Retailers Nicer than Alcohol Retailers in November

Microbes Ingesting Solvents?
December 5, 2015
Cannabinoid Profile Test Results
December 18, 2015
Show all

Being Nice for Santa – Cannabis Retailers Nicer than Alcohol Retailers in November

I would like to congratulate Washington’s State-legal Cannabis Retailers on being the BEST IN WASHINGTON regarding Compliance.

Well done!  You have reason to celebrate.  Keep up your good work.

The following chart summarizes reported violations (failure rates) by Cannabis Retailers (and other businesses) for the first four months of this Fiscal Year (July – Oct) compared to those for the month of November.

While the overall violation rate for premises checks (presumably all I-502 businesses are subject to these) fell by over 12% in November, the rate of serving minors by Retailers fell by over 50%!   It is one thing to make a mistake entering data into the default traceability solution (and understandable, given the free software supplied by the state), it’s another to serve Cannabis to a minor.  This industry is getting better at avoiding the former type of violation, and it’s retailers are getting quite good at avoiding the latter.

For reference, the chart also includes the most recently reported failure violation rate for Spirits Retailers (represented by the red line — which was 7.2% when last reported for March 2015).

For the benefit of picture-hungry readers (Merry Christmas, XMO), the recent improvement in behavior for both Violations per “Premises Check” and for “Serving Children When Solicited By State-sponsored Underaged Cannabis Shoppers” is summarized below.  November is a relatively small sample, but I believe that Santa will notice.  I hope he will also notice that I did not spell out the acronym of the label I just penned for the little narcs.   I care about children, and would not want to hurt any of them.  That was nice, wasn’t it?


I love the symmetry of having a dangerous drug with side effects and negative medical impact galore being relatively nasty while a very very safe medicinal drug with few side-effects other than various mixtures of elation and sedation is relatively nice.

Nice Cannabis Retailers!  Good Cannabis Retailers!

You are winning vs. the Demon that is alcohol.  Keep up the good fight.  You are doing yourselves and this emerging industry proud.

You are better than alcohol.  This drug is better than alcohol.  This industry is better than the alcohol industry.

… and now your superior compliance reinforces the fact that you (and we) are better than “them”

…and that you (and we) might just be better than what many of the increasingly-less-ignorant-masses think.

Well done … you have reason to celebrate.  Keep up the good work.  This can only help with Karma, bans, moratoria, and future rules, legislation, and broadening public acceptance (and appreciation).

In further reinforcing my theme of being nice (and caring for rugrats), I hope the LCB offers cognitive counselling to the children they bait you with, as their regular and repeated failures to entice a sale may be harmful to their developing egos.

Their efforts are failing because your staff are being on-point and professional.

Give yourselves and your staff a pat on the back.


p.s. my cannabinoid testing analysis is now pretty much complete.

I’ll likely be posting the results this  Friday.  (Dec 11)  Interesting stuff … I’ve decided to show some lab-level data (still blinded), as different testing methodologies are causing huge differences in cannabinoid profiles across the labs (related to decarboxylation, I think).

Happy Holidays, all

Stay dry.  Stay compliant.











  1. eric says:

    We’d like to think that zero compliance failures is an achievable goal for cannabis retailers, but this is a positive trend. I think it would be awesome also if the WSLCB would publicize these ongoing failures in the mature beer, wine and liquor industry since their compliance is poorer than the new legal cannabis industry and is a clear danger to public welfare.

    • Jim says:

      Agreed, Eric.
      The WSLCB DOES report compliance data for spirits retailers … they just haven’t updated the link on their Frequently Requested Lists page since the March, 2015 data month.
      I look for updates every week … I guess they are just obsessing about Cannabis this year (I know that I certainly am). I’m also tracking liquor licensing trends in the State (on-premises and off-premises), as I see value (policy and commercial) in folding alcohol information into some of my Cannabis-centric work.

      We are an alcohol-centric society. Think if we could shift some of the use of alcohol to the use of cannabis. I expect that would be a world with less violence, less domestic strife, less liver damage, fewer traffic deaths and more munchies.

  2. SteveO says:

    Nicely done!

    • Jim says:

      Agreed, Steve. The Retailers have done very well.

      The rest of the industry is also showing recent improvement re: the Premises Checks …. but have further room for improvement.

      Overall, good news for this industry.

      We are, increasingly, respectable (in measurable ways).


  3. Travis says:

    nothing wrong with carding everyone. ID is required to be on the premises & this movement deserves to be represented responsibly. blanket policies can seem illogical to the individual being turned away. However, for someone who is working their 1st job & 1st day a blanket policy keeps them & you looking good.

    • Jim says:

      +100%, Travis!

      Even though my hair is more grey than black now, I do not mind being carded if they don’t know me personally.
      In some cases, I am flattered (but I’m always looking or flattery) .

      • Travis says:

        I’ve gotten to where I thank people for asking for my ID. When I purchase weed, I appreciate the legitimacy it gives our industry. When asked over a credit transaction, I appreciate that security on my credit.

  4. Cynthia says:

    Could you tell me which testing labs are reporting the highest THC?

    • Jim says:

      I certainly could, but I am not going to at the moment.
      I’ll likely be posting my Cannabinoid Profile / Potency testing post tomorrow (Monday Dec 14).
      I will include some lab-level information in there, but the labs will be “blinded”.

      The last thing that I want to do is to advertise high THC levels for a lab …. particularly as I’m seeing some things in the data that lead me to believe that some of the labs may be systematically reporting higher levels than is expected.

      I’m also seeing a relationship between reported potency levels and the market-share enjoyed by the labs.
      I refuse to publish stuff that might reinforce this apparently vicious circle.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *