Comité Health and Human Services del Senado, 28 de enero de 2026

Transcripción

728 turnos. Seleccione un tiempo para reproducir ese momento del video.

1. 0:16:41

   Order. It's 4:02 on Wednesday afternoon, and we are happy to be here this January 28th. And, uh, we have one bill for us, but before we do that, we have some, uh, we'd like to ask our, one of our newest members, uh, Chairman Russ Goodman, if he wouldn't mind, uh, saying prayer for us. You are on mic-

2. 0:17:07

   Number four

3. 0:17:08

   ... number four.

4. 0:17:08

   Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you will, pray with me. Dear Heavenly Father, we just thank you for today, Lord. We thank you for loving us. We thank you for the gift of salvation. We thank you for the opportunity to be here, Lord, and discuss the people's business. And as we go about it, we just ask for your wisdom and discernment so that we go about making the best decisions possible, Lord, on behalf of the people that we serve, the people of the state of Georgia. And God, we just thank you for loving us. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.

5. 0:17:36

   Amen. Thank you. Uh, so let's go with the little introductions. Uh, Senator Goodman is one of our two newest members here. We almost all have, uh, connections to healthcare, whether it's, uh, Senator Hodges on a, uh, hospital board, or to my right here, our vice chair, uh, is a physician, a hand surgeon. Uh, and Senator Goodman, I understand, watches a lot of Grey's Anatomy, so he is well-connected.

6. 0:18:07

   Uh, we also have, uh, Senator, uh, Robertson, our majority whip, and, uh, his niece is a charge nurse in labor and delivery. So, uh, she takes charge just like, uh, he does, uh, if you know, uh, Senator Robertson, Robertson. So, uh, we do also have, uh, several other folks. I'll sort of start over here in the corner. Colin, uh, Marcum is our, uh, Senate research. I think we go by OPLA now or something like that, and his boss, Haley, uh, Williams here, uh, over here to the left.

7. 0:18:43

   And then, uh, Sydney's on a monitor. Uh, you can blame her for all that bad music that we're hearing. Sydney, uh, Harrell, which does a great job with Senate Press, and her aide is Annabelle Hodges, uh, I'll say senior at Georgia Tech.

8. 0:18:57

   Just graduated.

9. 0:18:58

   Just graduated. That's great. Oh, yes. Yes, that is, that is good. And then Paris was here a second ago. Paris, Paris is our aide here for HHS, and she is from Seattle, Washington, but goes to Emory undergrad. You are a-

10. 0:19:18

    Senior

11. 0:19:19

    ... a senior, uh, at Emory, so thank you, uh, for helping, uh, us. And of course, we have Victoria Jones also, uh, at Georgia Tech. Uh, she helps mostly, uh, Senator Anderson, but she, uh, we all sort of work together in our office and all, uh, work together. Royce Crowe, uh, second year with us. Seems like he's been here for quite some time. Uh, our aide and keeps us, uh, on time and running smoothly. So our first bill is by Senator Kirkpatrick. Uh, absolutely.

12. 0:19:50

    Uh, you recognize, uh, the lady from, uh, Atlanta, Ms. Orrock. We're, we're actually in your district, right? Or close to it.

13. 0:19:58

    That's right.

14. 0:19:58

    Okay. Are you on, on one? Yes.

15. 0:20:00

    Right here.

16. 0:20:00

    Okay.

17. 0:20:01

    Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. And, uh, I just wanted to, uh, uh, add a moment of levity that possibly those who have been, who are, uh, compulsive viewers of The Pit on television might, uh, ha- Uh, there's one. There's one. Uh, m- might also, uh, uh, bring some wisdom to our deliberations.

18. 0:20:24

    They might qualify.

19. 0:20:25

    Is that right?

20. 0:20:25

    Absolutely. I get it.

21. 0:20:27

    This is called The Pit, isn't it?

22. 0:20:28

    Yeah, it is The Pit in many different ways, not to get confused with the armpit. I gotcha. So all righty. Thank you. Uh, we appreciate that. First Bill, uh, 2026, SB 395, Senator Kirkpatrick.

23. 0:20:44

    Roll.

24. 0:20:44

    Chair Lady, that'd be perfectly fine. Wherever you want to be. Uh, you're on W2 there.

25. 0:20:50

    Testimony sign-up sheet.

26. 0:20:54

    And just FYI, we do have sign-up sheets. They are-

27. 0:20:58

    On the podium

28. 0:20:59

    ... on the podium. So if, uh, if you have not signed up, we certainly encourage you to sign up. That's, this is the only bill we're doing today. Uh, and, um, uh, we'll collect that in just a couple minutes. So thank you. The floor is yours, Vice Chair.

29. 0:21:14

    Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee members. Um, and let me start by saying I have some friends on the front row back here from DPH and the medical board who can, uh, if there are questions I can't answer, they can probably help me. And I wanted to begin by just letting you all know that this bill has nothing to do with Senate Bill 220 or any other medical cannabis bill, and it is not an effort to restrict the legitimate certification of patients for our medical cannabis program.

30. 0:21:46

    This bill came out of a year of conversations with a number of different agencies, including DPH, the medical board, the Marijuana Commission, the Georgia Drugs and Narcotics Agency, and the pharmacy board. And what we identified is a disconnect between the administrative process of certifying patients for medical cannabis cards, which is handled by DS- DPH, and the compliance process with the composite state medical board. The physicians certifying the patients have to be Georgia licensees, and for out-of-state physicians, that's usually a telemedicine license.

31. 0:22:27

    They, uh, the board has rules that specify that there must be a physician-patient relationship, that the physician must be treating the patient for a condition on the list. You know what the list is, of all the conditions that are in our medical cannabis program. And they must be continuing to follow the patient. However, these specifications are not in our code. They're just in the board rules. Currently, DPH handles the application process and issues the card.

32. 0:22:57

    However, they do not have a data-sharing agreement with the medical board allowing them to share the information that the medical board needs to effectively do their job of making sure that the physicians certifying the patients are compliant. I have a report that, um, you have a copy of that has to do with reporting, and it shows that about, uh, the most recent data is 54% who, uh, have been reporting through the process that we have in our law now.

33. 0:23:35

    I think that's right. Yeah. And then, um, there are a number of out-of-state physicians who are certifying thousands of patients, and you don't have that report. But we have a physician in New York who has certified almost 4,000 patients. And-

34. 0:23:55

    In Georgia

35. 0:23:57

    ... In Georgia.

36. 0:23:58

    Georgia patients.

37. 0:23:59

    Yes. And I would bet that that doctor can't possibly be treating all those patients for the phys- position, the condition that they have or doing any follow-up. In fact, there are many telemedicine services that offer for a fee to provide a certification in 15 minutes. This bill does three things. It streamlines the reporting. It changes it to annual from semi-annual to make it easier for physicians to comply and for the agencies to compile the data.

38. 0:24:30

    And the second thing it does is it codifies the board rules stating that there must be a physician-patient relationship. The physician must be treating the patient for the condition on the list, and it removes the specific information that was in place originally for research purposes. The board would still have the ability to add items to the reporting forms as needed by their rules. And the third thing it does is it allows DPH to share the information that's needed for enforcement with the medical board subject to HIPAA, of course.

39. 0:25:05

    This bill has gone through a lot of changes to ensure that the appropriate information can be shared between the administrative agency and the enforcement agency while protecting patients by making sure that the certifying doctors are appropriately following the medical board rules. And with that, I'll answer any questions from the committee.

40. 0:25:23

    So why don't we do this? Why don't we answer some, uh, questions from the committee, and then we'll go to testimony? I think we have about six people or so that favor it or are neutral or opposed. Uh, and, um, so we'll go to them and have commentary. They can, we can ask questions of them, and then we'll circle back to you if that's okay. Questions from the committee? Senator Cowsert on number 12.

41. 0:25:47

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could ask a couple. Um, I, I'm curious as to why you want to reduce the frequency of the reporting. It would seem like we would be able to keep on top of it more the more frequently you reported than the less frequently.

42. 0:26:01

    Well, people don't seem to be able to comply with the semi-annual reporting for, and for whatever reason, I have no idea. But, uh, this information's very likely gonna be compiled once a year anyway, and so annual reporting just streamlines the process. I'm not married to, uh, annual reporting. It, it could be s- continue to be semi-annual. I'd be willing to change that if it's-

43. 0:26:27

    One further

44. 0:26:27

    ... gonna serve to the community.

45. 0:26:28

    Can I, can I, can I follow up on that?

46. 0:26:29

    Yes, you may.

47. 0:26:29

    Uh, just as a practicing physician-

48. 0:26:31

    Chairman

49. 0:26:31

    ... you know, when I have patients with high blood pressure, you know, I'm seeing them at least, uh, you know, twice a year. When I have a patient with diabetes, I'm seeing them at least every three or four months. Uh, and you have better quality of care. But th- that's, so I, I get your point, so I agree with what you're saying. Uh, on the flip side of that, most of these patients will have other physicians that are, they're tag-teaming with them, like me tag-teaming with an oncologist. They, neither th- the oncologist nor myself, uh, prescribe CBD, low-THC oil, uh, yet someone else may be treating them for that.

50. 0:27:07

    Though it's the same condition that we're all treating, say lymphoma or something like that.

51. 0:27:11

    Yeah.

52. 0:27:11

    So I get that, uh, but I also share your concern.

53. 0:27:17

    Mm-hmm.

54. 0:27:17

    Uh, you had another question?

55. 0:27:18

    Well, the second question was, it troubles me, uh, part of the value of this reporting was the information received, 'cause we're in kind of a cutting edge of this, uh, medical marijuana to begin with. Does it work? Does it, you know, is it effective? And we, you striking the requirement to tell about the dosages, the clinical responses, the levels of THC, the test results, the responses to treatment, the side effects, the drug interactions, and all that seems to me to be incredibly important information for us to learn and to track.

56. 0:27:53

    You're eliminating that requirement that those be included in the reporting?

57. 0:27:58

    No, it's actually in the board rules already, and the form that we currently have the physicians filling out incorporates the amount or concentration, any adverse effect, an- any drug interactions. Those physicians are never gonna have access to any THC levels. That's just not possible. And if we put those very specific things in code, it really makes it much more difficult for the board to add things that they think would be helpful or subtract things that they think wouldn't be helpful.

58. 0:28:33

    Um, just like we find out on many of our other bills where we make them so specific that we have to change the law if we wanna change a form. So, um, I'm, uh, this bill says sufficient information, and I trust the medical board to decide what sufficient information is. But we know that the physician should have a relationship with the patient and be treating them for the conditions, and that's why that's in the bill. And just a comment Mr. Chairman, on what you said.

59. 0:29:04

    This really doesn't have anything to do with how often you would see a patient or what your routine would be for following a patient. This is a report that's submitted to the agency that is, um, responsible for-

60. 0:29:18

    So it's-

61. 0:29:19

    ... monitoring

62. 0:29:19

    ... less, less bureaucracy, ease of reporting, making it easier for DPH and composite board and the physician, and they should be seeing the patients more frequently. You're right.

63. 0:29:31

    Yeah, but that-

64. 0:29:31

    Yeah

65. 0:29:31

    ... but the second question was we're now delegating to a agency what we previously had in statute. We required it. Now if they decide to eliminate all these reporting things, they can.

66. 0:29:43

    Well, except-

67. 0:29:43

    Whatever they deem to be sufficient

68. 0:29:45

    ... except that we're codifying things that aren't in there now, which are the things that we want to see. We want the physicians to not be internet physicians that are just doing this for 200 bucks.

69. 0:29:58

    Right.

70. 0:29:59

    But we want them to be, as much as possible, Georgia physicians who are taking care of these patients.

71. 0:30:06

    Yeah.

72. 0:30:08

    Any other questions from the committee? Uh, Senator Setzler is on number five.

73. 0:30:13

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, to my friend from Cobb County, um, I, I would share, uh, Chairman Cowsert's concerns. Um, you know, in 2015 when Haley's Hope Act passed, we, the, we rolled a sweet little girl in the back of the r- of the house who was wheelchair-bound, um, as kind of the, the poster child for why we needed to take this step for low-THC oil. This is oils that are less than .5, less than one half percent, um, that they could take by tincture in little drops under their tongue to help bring some things, uh, to pass.

74. 0:30:45

    As you've known, we've accelerated the state. Um, we have levels that are 10 times that, that, that are potentially legal now. And, uh, when, when you th- you think about dosage, um, you know, one THC cartridge in a, in a vape pen, um, has the amount of THC that delivers the same as 30 marijuana joints in the 1980s. I mean, p- people in this room who grew up in the '80s and might have had distant friends who might have, uh, had some, some contact with marijuana, it's... We're, we're talking about levels that are dramatically higher than what the public thought they were getting.

75. 0:31:20

    And part of the covenant, um, among legislators to take this step was to carefully track what was given, carefully track dosages. Not just the THC level, but the dosage. That for the specific thing recommended, that the THC level could be looked at because all that's important for a clinician to understand. So if clin- clinicians are, are prescribing things that they don't know the dosage of, they don't know the THC content of, I don't think c- uh, I, I don't think that's following the, the kind of the covenant that this general assembly put in place to say, "Hey, we're gonna, we're gonna open the door for THC products for some specific conditions with some very careful safeguards." And these, the specifics that Chairman Cowsert spoke to, uh, that are being stricken, you know, we're taking away the s- the legal, the statutory requirement, um, to report dosages.

76. 0:32:11

    Taking a- away the, um, um, responses to treatment, um, and then the levels of THC within each, you know, wi- within each, um, substance that's prescribed on lines 15 through 17. I've got concerns about what's stricken in 15 through 17. Madam Chair, I'd just would like your thoughts on that.

77. 0:32:29

    So, um, so the... Th- this is not a prescription, first of all, right?

78. 0:32:37

    The, yeah, the, the, the, the, the term in, in THC-

79. 0:32:40

    Yeah

80. 0:32:40

    ... is not prescription.

81. 0:32:41

    It's not.

82. 0:32:41

    It's called, it's called what? It's a-

83. 0:32:45

    It's, it's-

84. 0:32:48

    Recommendation

85. 0:32:48

    ... re- recommendation

86. 0:32:48

    It's a, it's a certification. It's not a prescription.

87. 0:32:51

    Yeah.

88. 0:32:51

    And so the, uh, levels of THC, that's not gonna be available in test results, so that doesn't... I, I, I would be opposed to leaving that in there. Test results are not... Nobody's measuring that who's certifying these patients.

89. 0:33:08

    But does this not speak to the level of THC in the substances that are being consumed?

90. 0:33:16

    We have a few of these questions I think can be answered by some of the folks who have testimony.

91. 0:33:19

    Yeah, and-

92. 0:33:19

    Any, any other questions related to testimony?

93. 0:33:21

    So just one more thing. And the original intent of this w- whole section was for research purposes, and that's not really happening. Um, I'm not sure how that even would happen or who would be doing said research or how much money that would cost the state.

94. 0:33:41

    Yeah.

95. 0:33:41

    So there are things in here that are not really operationally, uh, making sense. If you wanted to leave the dosages, the clinical responses, and, uh, the drug interactions, side effects, I don't have a problem with that. It's already in the form anyway.

96. 0:34:01

    I, Mr., I, I just want to share my concerns, but lady, I have great respect-

97. 0:34:04

    Okay

98. 0:34:04

    ... for the chair. I just, that, that's what I'll be listening for as we talk to these folks.

99. 0:34:07

    I, I'll just say that where, where we started with this bill, and I talked to my colleague over here, Senator Brass, is that we just get rid of all the out-of-state prescri- uh, you know, certification for these drugs. But then we started thinking of examples where that might be problematic if kids were at college or whatever. So we're trying to find a way to rein in the bad actors that are not following our state board rules and to improve the communication so that the department can give the information to the medical board that they need to police this area, which they can't do now.

100. 0:34:43

     A- and I think the last point's well taken. Thank you. Uh, we're going to testimony now. Gary, uh, Chairman Brass, I certainly don't wanna forget the rules chairman. We're happy to entertain your question there.

101. 0:34:56

     Aw, I feel so loved. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I did wanna- Kind of say something on, uh, you had mentioned, um, Madam Chair, that the, you know, the research isn't being done. And part of that, I, I believe, is 'cause it's in Schedule 1 currently. And once it comes out of Schedule 1, which the president has already indicated, uh, that he wants it to go to Schedule 3, then the research can be done. So I actually, um, you know, do agree with the two gentlemen on us collecting this data.

102. 0:35:33

     Is, uh, is needed and, and, you know, for, if we- For me, who is a believer in the, in, in this as a medicine, um, I would also like to see data that backs that up at some point. And so I do agree with them on, on that. And so-

103. 0:35:50

     Okay

104. 0:35:51

     ... I just wanted to say that.

105. 0:35:52

     Point is taken. Thank you. So, uh, Mr. Herbert, uh, he is at the podium and is, uh, uh, registered recipient. I want you to show us your card and tell us about your story. We're gonna try to limit everybody to, you know, three or four minutes plus questions. Um, if you need to go longer than that, uh, we'll see what we need to do. Thank you.

106. 0:36:17

     No, thank you. And, uh, senators, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for letting me speak today. And, uh, my name is Gary Herbert. I retired as a sergeant from the US Army. Um, I served in Afghanistan in 2009 as part of the 10th Mountain Division and, uh, came home with a traumatic brain injury and also several other neurological conditions that, uh, shortened my time in the service. I appreciate your, your continued service to, uh, to our state and, uh, and I look forward to seeing how other veterans like myself can be treated and, and find peace, uh, through this medical cannabis program, low-THC program.

107. 0:36:54

     Um, I'm a card-carrying member. I'm proud of that. Before I was a card-carrying member, I was a ve- I was a, uh, obviously, a wounded veteran and also a, um, patient of the VA system. I'm still in the VA system. That's where I get my primary healthcare. That's where I get all my medications. That's also where I got my diagnosis of a tr- traumatic brain injury, um, o- occipital neuralgia, uh, other, other neurological conditions. And m- my main concern today is hearing about this bill coming forward is, i- is my treating physicians are all federal employees.

108. 0:37:30

     If I have to have a treating physician prescribe this medicine for me or this treatment for me, that makes it very difficult. It, not just for my- myself, I'm pretty well acclimated to, to life in general. But for the veterans that I work with, the veterans that I served with, and the veterans that I continue to, to strive to help on a daily basis, the more hoops these guys and gi- gals have to jump through, the more unlikely it is that they find this help in a, in a reasonable and legal way.

109. 0:38:02

     Marijuana in the veteran society is, is, um, goes back for decades, way before I was ever here, and many of you too. But, um, now it's legal. Now it's sustainable. It's affordable. There's a, there's a proper way to do it, and I'm, I'm living proof. So seven, seven years at the VA, uh, got me addicted to morphine. Morphine turned into, uh, stronger opiates and eventually onto Dilaudid. I was a Dilaudid patient for four years.

110. 0:38:34

     Uh, since 2017, I've been able to beat that habit, beat those drugs, beat that, that lifestyle, and cannabis has been a very, very, um, big part of that life change for me. Fortunately, now I can do it legally. Fortunately, now I don't have to jump through hoops or worry about or wonder what I'm actually buying from whoever I might be buying it from. So I appreciate the work you guys have already done to help the veteran community and guys like me, and I just encourage you to think about folks in my, in my specific, uh, situation when we're talking about treating physicians who are also federal employees.

111. 0:39:14

     And, uh, with that, that's, I guess, what I had to say, and I appreciate your time.

112. 0:39:18

     Thank you. Thank you so much. I, I'm sure there'll be some question. Number one, thank you for your service, and I couldn't imagine, you know, being on, you know, morphine and Dilaudid or, uh, and your mental status compared to then compared to now w- is just, uh, I'm sure is astounding. So thank you so much for that, and we're really ... Uh, you know, that should give us a feel-good story here in the legislature f- uh, for your health. Uh, and, um, thank you. So do we have any questions at all? Um, questions from, uh, our newest member, Senator Robertson.

113. 0:39:53

     Sir, thank you. I appreciate you coming today. Sergeant, where do you currently get your medication from, your cannabis medication?

114. 0:39:59

     Um, I live in Douglasville on the west side of town, so I travel to Paces Ferry Road. At the corner of Paces Ferry and Atlanta Road is a dispensary called Fine Fettle of Smyrna.

115. 0:40:10

     Okay.

116. 0:40:10

     And that's where I currently get my medication.

117. 0:40:12

     And does your, your primary care physician prescribe it?

118. 0:40:17

     No. No, my primary care physician can't prescribe it.

119. 0:40:22

     So what I'm saying is this-

120. 0:40:22

     He's, he's in the-

121. 0:40:23

     Y- you're in the system, but-

122. 0:40:25

     Correct

123. 0:40:25

     ... so, but, but you have a treating physician that knows all the-

124. 0:40:29

     Who's, who's the registered physician or-

125. 0:40:31

     Yeah. Who's the registered physician, I guess you-

126. 0:40:33

     Honestly, I met with my registered p- physician on a telehealth call, uh, almost two year, maybe a year and a half or two years ago.

127. 0:40:40

     And-

128. 0:40:40

     And honestly, I don't remember her name. Um, I-

129. 0:40:42

     So that's the only relationship you've had-

130. 0:40:44

     Abso-

131. 0:40:44

     ... with her? Okay.

132. 0:40:45

     Honestly, it, it is. Now, I do have a relationship, and if you don't, you don't mind me speaking a little bit, uh, with the folks that work at the Fine Fettle Ph- uh-

133. 0:40:53

     Okay

134. 0:40:53

     ... dispensary, and these guys are, uh, state licensed from what I understand.

135. 0:40:58

     Right.

136. 0:40:58

     And they're also, honestly, subject matter experts, and they help me, um, achieve desired results.

137. 0:41:07

     All right. Any other questions? Senator Mangham, you're, are you on mic 12?

138. 0:41:15

     12. It's 12. Thank you.

139. 0:41:17

     12? Okay.

140. 0:41:18

     Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, you seem quite lucid as you sit here today, to me. To me, I have, uh, clients that are TBI and, uh, they can't be as lucid as you are. Can you tell us where you were in 2017, and why can't your current treating physician have an understanding or a scope what I... of what's going on with you with respect to this, uh, uh, treatment?

141. 0:41:52

     S- so, and hopefully I didn't misspeak. My current treating ph- uh, uh, primary care physician absolutely knows what my regimen is, and absolutely is on board with, uh, me taking the steps that I've taken since 2017. In 2017, I was, uh, I was privileged, or in 2016 honestly, I was privileged to become a, um, patient at the Shepherd Center right here in Atlanta. And the Shepherd Center offered, uh, treatment to me that the VA had not. And, um, it started turning my life around.

142. 0:42:23

     They also helped me, um, start working a plan to reduce my dependency on those medications that honestly I was taking more than I needed, but that happens over time with those type medications. So I started working a plan to, uh, clean my life up and clean my system out. And during that time, that's when I also started treating with medical cannabis. Uh, I'm sorry, actually just treating with cannabis, not medical cannabis at the time. But, um, as I was...

143. 0:42:54

     Honestly, for lack of a better term, as I was beating those demons, I needed help. I needed something. And I was able to find it, uh, through the veterans community, uh, friends of mine that helped me kinda steer in that, in that direction. And like I said, now I'm so thankful to you guys for allowing me to do this legally.

144. 0:43:13

     Ma'am, Mr. Chair, what was life like in 2017 compared to now-

145. 0:43:19

     So first-

146. 0:43:20

     ... for you?

147. 0:43:21

     First of all, I wouldn't be at the State Capitol. I wouldn't be in a room with this many people. Okay? Not any room with this many people. Uh, from 2009 until t- 2017, I had isolated myself to the point of, um, almost no social interaction, almost no public interaction. I wouldn't even go into a grocery store. I was the guy that was at the Walmart at 3:00 in the morning, thankful that they were open 24/7 so I didn't have to interact with anyone for any reason at all. Um, you know, my life has changed a lot, uh, since then.

148. 0:43:55

     In the past 10 years, my life has flipped completely back right side up. I lived in an upside down world for a very long time, and I blame a lot of that on myself, but also a lot of that came with, uh, the, um... It's the demons you fight when you're over- overmedicated and misdiagnosed, u- underdiagnosed, whatever, whatever-

149. 0:44:17

     Thank you.

150. 0:44:18

     I'm-

151. 0:44:18

     We appreciate that.

152. 0:44:19

     Yes, sir.

153. 0:44:19

     Thank you, Mr. Harber. Um, all righty. All right. Senator Brass, chairman.

154. 0:44:26

     Thank you. And thank you for your service. Um, my brother-in-law with T- was 10th Mountain, so.

155. 0:44:32

     Cool.

156. 0:44:32

     Uh, anyway, uh, the person, the doctor that signed your, for your card, I guess the telehealth doctor-

157. 0:44:41

     Yes, sir

158. 0:44:42

     ... were, were they Georgia cert- were they board certified in Georgia?

159. 0:44:47

     I wouldn't know. I've, I, I'm-

160. 0:44:48

     It would've had to been though, right? Yeah.

161. 0:44:50

     I wouldn't have known to ask-

162. 0:44:52

     'Cause the current, the, the current law is you have to be Georgia-

163. 0:44:54

     Just-

164. 0:44:54

     ... licensed in Georgia. Okay.

165. 0:44:56

     Should be. All right.

166. 0:44:57

     Okay.

167. 0:44:57

     Okay, thanks. Um, th- thank you so much.

168. 0:45:01

     No, thank you.

169. 0:45:02

     Okay. Uh, Elmore Alexander, D.O, MD. All righty, neither favors nor opposes.

170. 0:45:12

     Okay.

171. 0:45:12

     But you may enlighten us.

172. 0:45:18

     I appreciate this time that you've given me, and to all the esteemed people of the committee. Uh, I'm Dr. Alexander, and wasn't prepared to speak like this. Um, but since we're talking about how cannabis helps you, I'm gonna change my speech just a little bit because it looks like the direction of this particular bill is probably not, uh, what I thought we were going to talk about as much. So, uh, in 2018, I had a thriving practice.

173. 0:45:46

     Mm.

174. 0:45:46

     Um, had moved into aesthetics. Uh, I've been a, uh, practicing physician with the United States Olympic Committee since 1991, so did sports medicine, had a family practice, a very large pediatric practice as well as an adult practice, and, uh, started moving into aesthetics. Uh, for about six years, uh, it become very successful to the point I had, uh, patients coming from out of town, from Washington, DC, to obtain my services. Uh, I was very, very skilled at, um, facial rejuvenation, non-surgical facelifts, uh, as well as, um, sexual rejuvenation using various alternative therapies.

175. 0:46:28

     2018, uh, a driver was distracted, pulled out in front of me in Stone Mountain Park. I landed on my head-

176. 0:46:36

     Oh

177. 0:46:37

     ... and, uh, had a severe TBI. Could not practice. Uh, I have some metal in my neck now. I have a three level, uh, fusion of my neck. Uh, tore the meniscus in my knee. I have back problems. Um, but it didn't deter me. I wanted to get back practicing, except I couldn't remember anything.

178. 0:46:55

     Mm.

179. 0:46:56

     Mm.

180. 0:46:56

     I had a very strange injury. The physicians proctored me. They wanted to see how I did. And I could remember new procedures. I was learning from the Koreans all these new procedures, but I couldn't remember who I did them on. I would spend six hours on a patient, and an hour or two later I couldn't remember anything about what I did on them, but I could remember the procedures. Uh, there's a part of the brain that does that.

181. 0:47:21

     So I started, uh, on some neurological, um, rehab, and, uh, it was okay. The doctors were saying that I had a 95% chance of having dementia.

182. 0:47:34

     Oh.

183. 0:47:34

     So I remember reading some things about Joe Namath and him having concussions.

184. 0:47:40

     Mm-hmm.

185. 0:47:40

     And he was getting dementia, and they put him in hyperbaric treatments. So I added that to my regimen, and they put a hyperbaric chamber in my, my house. And lo and behold, after about, uh, 40 treatments and a lot of psychological, uh, help because I could not stay in the chamber, all of a sudden I had claustrophobia, um, and literally had to wear Depends to get into the, uh, to the chamber because by the time it would decompress, I didn't think I could get out and get to the restroom. Uh, I started getting a little better. Some of the memory started coming back.

186. 0:48:13

     But the sharpness wasn't there, the quickness, the ability to be able to answer questions quickly, and to be able to stand in front of a committee like this-

187. 0:48:20

     Mm-hmm

188. 0:48:21

     ... it wasn't there. And I did those, those treatments for about two years. And finally, I went back to my old college days, because I started reading things about cannabis and how cannabis was an anti-inflammatory to the brain. It actually protected neurons for people who had concussive injuries, TBIs, and I said, "I'm gonna try it." But at the time I didn't have a card, and so I had to go to my street pharmacist in order to get, uh, treatment.

189. 0:48:53

     Okay.

190. 0:48:54

     And occasionally I would have some people send me some stuff from out of town. Um, I used very, very low dosages of what... Now, that's kind of a misnomer, because, um, as the gentleman said, it's different for, uh, than it was back in the days when we were smoking. It was only about 5% THC then.

191. 0:49:12

     Mm-hmm.

192. 0:49:12

     Now it's 15 to 35%. And so, uh, I had to be very careful because it wasn't about getting high, it was about getting the protection, and it was about whether or not I could utilize it to reinvigorate the neurons in my brain. And so there is a process called neuroplasticity, what we've learned about in the, the last five years. The neuroplasticity of the blan- brain means that you can actually gain new neurons-

193. 0:49:40

     Mm-hmm

194. 0:49:40

     ... when you get that. And so that happened, and now I'm standing in front of you right now, and I am a practicing physician. I am now a specialist in cannabis, but we have some issues. One is there are obstacles to getting people into the program, and I know that we wanna add more a- administrative oversight to what we're doing, but it is really causing a bridge between us and our patients. It's causing us to not have the ability to be able to get patients into the program.

195. 0:50:15

     For instance, the waiver. The waiver is unprecedented in medicine. We already have implied consent. When you sign that paper, you have implied consent. Whether you are treating for opioids, whether you're coming in for just general, um, health to your physician, whether you're getting a surgery, whether it's elective or emergency, or whether you decide that you wanna be in a pharmaceutical test program, a clinical trial-

196. 0:50:44

     Trial

197. 0:50:44

     ... you do not have to sign a signed, notarized waiver. You may sign a waiver, but it doesn't have to be notarized.

198. 0:50:53

     Yeah, I think this one's, this has to do, this right over here w- as the chairman. Hey, uh, so the bill that we're on right now though is related more to communication between DPH and Composite Medical Board, uh, for-

199. 0:51:07

     That's a communication-

200. 0:51:08

     ... for communication

201. 0:51:08

     ... because we have to have that-

202. 0:51:10

     It is

203. 0:51:10

     ... in order to be able to-

204. 0:51:11

     Absolutely

205. 0:51:11

     ... get the patients in.

206. 0:51:12

     And that is not, is, and that's lacking right now. We're clarifying that-

207. 0:51:16

     Mm-hmm

208. 0:51:17

     ... and making that better hopefully.

209. 0:51:18

     Okay, that'd be great.

210. 0:51:19

     Um, but, uh, w- we appreciate your thoughts and, uh, and concerns, and, but I think there will be other legislation that will be coming, uh, that may address some of those other concerns that you have, you know, ease of usage, and we much appreciate that. Um-

211. 0:51:35

     May I address, uh, one of the issues that you do have on the table?

212. 0:51:38

     What is that? Yes, sir.

213. 0:51:39

     Okay. So, uh, we're, we're talking about the regulations in order to be able to, um, um, follow up with patients. And so one of the issues that I have is that when we have patients, as was stated, we do not have a prescription that we're giving patients. So we don't have the ability to be able to track what patients are getting. Once they go to a dispensary, they get whatever they want.

214. 0:52:12

     Oh.

215. 0:52:12

     That's not on us.

216. 0:52:14

     Uh-huh.

217. 0:52:14

     And they're being helped.

218. 0:52:15

     And we, we may, I, I agree with you.

219. 0:52:16

     Okay.

220. 0:52:16

     And we may have an amendment or changing DAC, so-

221. 0:52:20

     Okay

222. 0:52:20

     ... concerning continuity care is, is what you're describing. Thank you so much. We appreciate that. Yeah. Um- Next two please. Next is Yolanda Bennett, uh, GMCS.

223. 0:52:38

     And then we, on deck is, uh, Avivad Scribbles.

224. 0:52:45

     Aviva.

225. 0:52:46

     Georgia hero.

226. 0:52:47

     Aviva.

227. 0:52:48

     Aviva.

228. 0:52:49

     Okay.

229. 0:52:49

     Okay? All right. Thank you.

230. 0:52:53

     Um, good afternoon, um, Chairman and the members. My name is Yolanda Bennett, and I'm the co-founder and director of operations at the Georgia Medical Cannabis Society. We are a patient-led nonprofit guided by one core principle, patients must always come before p- profits or administrative convenience.

231. 0:53:15

     Mm.

232. 0:53:15

     I am a former correction officer also, and a disabled haul, long haul driver. We're not opposed to oversight. Oversight matters. What concerns us is oversight that unintentionally restricts access, discourages physicians' parti- participation, or weakens the physician's patient's relationship that safe medical care depends on. SB 395 is not an expansion bill. It does not add qualifying conditions, improve affordability, expand access, or modernize care.

233. 0:53:54

     Instead, it focuses on administrative reporting and oversight. While the intent may be to streamline or reduce certain reporting burdens, particularly to those that are tied to the six-month certification cycle, the bill does not clearly consolidate existing requirements and risk adding new layers of paperwork before the program has been meaningfully expanded. Physicians in low dose THC program already renew patient certifications every six months and comply with ongoing Department of Health requirements.

234. 0:54:31

     These obligations are time-consuming and uncompensated. Any effort to reduce duplicate, the duplicity when it comes to reporting, and I'm g- glad that you did clarify the fact that it's every 12 months, so a lot more physicians may participate. But that raises an important question. At the state of Georgia's medical cannabis program, should administrative changes move forward before expanding qualifying condition, increasing provider participation, and improving patient access?

235. 0:55:03

     There is also a need of clarity. While Georgia law requires physician certification and ongoing clinical in- involvement, expectations around the physician-patient relationship are not always clearly defined. As additionally oversight is considered, we should ensure the law is clear, consistent, and workable in real world clinical set- settings. Telehealth has helped keep this program viable by expanding access for rural and underserved patients.

236. 0:55:34

     As we consider changes to reporting oversight, we must c- be careful not to undermine the tools that have allowed patients to receive care where participation has been limited. We need to add a safety measure for patients in online exams, and many patients have been taken advantage of because of the fake psychs, so adding clarity if it is supposed to be a bonafide relationship with your doctor. If the goal of SB 395 is better data, there are better pathways.

237. 0:56:09

     In Medicaid and Medicare programs, physicians often incentivize for qualify- for quality reporting. Similar to incentives-based approaches, combined with voluntary patient engagement tools like Tetragram, Strainpoint, Relief, and Jointly, could provide real-life anonymous data while preserving the physician-patient relationship and reducing administrative burden. You all spoke quite a bit about who's gonna collect this data, where's this data's gonna go.

238. 0:56:39

     There are apps already available right now that collects the data that works with different companies now. So if you want live data tracking, you have apps to do that. And then instead of adding this type of paperwork, make it more so voluntary for the patient and the doctor, 'cause it would involve them more so together.

239. 0:57:03

     Thank you very much. W- your time is up. Uh-

240. 0:57:06

     Okay

241. 0:57:06

     ... we appreciate that. Um, if we can try to, uh, stay on what's relating to this bill, that would be great, and it's, rather than the whole discussion of, uh, CBD, uh, and THC again, that would be great. Okay, Ms., uh, Scribbles.

242. 0:57:26

     Hi, Chairman Watson and committee. Thanks for allowing us to speak today. My name is Aviva, and I'm with the Georgia Hemp Economic Revival Organization, and I'm very privileged to be here, and it's my pleasure.

243. 0:57:39

     And my name is Scribbles, and I'm very embarrassed to be here.

244. 0:57:42

     Scribbles, why why are you embarrassed?

245. 0:57:45

     It's very embarrassing to be me. I know so much about cannabis, maybe more than anyone in this room.

246. 0:57:51

     Well, you should be honored, that knowledge is power.

247. 0:57:54

     Yeah, but people make fun of me for it. You should hear the kids at school. They hear me coming and they whisper, "Shh, what's that smell? It's Pepe Le Pewnicorn."

248. 0:58:03

     That's not very nice, Scribbles.

249. 0:58:05

     Yeah, and last week, Barry the Bully, you won't believe what he said.

250. 0:58:10

     What did he say?

251. 0:58:12

     And what he did.

252. 0:58:13

     What did he do, honey?

253. 0:58:15

     Oh, my goodness. He said, "What's that smell? I sense a meow-run hemp-ite know-it-all monster. Get him." And all the kids attacked me, and they pretended to arrest me. It was so scary.

254. 0:58:31

     Take a deep breath.

255. 0:58:34

     And just one more thing that's horrible, and then I'll get to the bill. What happened was, I said, "You guys have a lot to learn about hemp. Let me teach you." And they said, "We don't wanna hear it, you super cosmoronic nucleus hard."

256. 0:58:51

     Oh, my God, what an insult, Scribbles.

257. 0:58:54

     Yeah, really affected my circadian biology. I need some sunshine.

258. 0:58:59

     Well, maybe these legislators can shine some light on your issue. It seems like these children are just committed to misunderstanding you, but I think that we can get some clarity maybe today.

259. 0:59:11

     Okay. Well, I have a problem with the bill, legislators.

260. 0:59:15

     What's the issue, honey?

261. 0:59:18

     Well, you see, it's about the education. I don't wanna be called names. I think we need more education. And you see, if you limit the doctor's visits to once a year, then they even get less educating, and they need the education from the patients because it's very important.

262. 0:59:36

     That's a good point.

263. 0:59:38

     And, and, you know- What, when I got attacked in the playground, I was thinking all the kids that actually use the medical cannabis, they might be criminals too, and how, how are they protected if it's not decriminalized?

264. 0:59:51

     That's a really good point, honey. So what I'm getting, if you guys don't understand what Scribble's saying, is that it's really hard to be here at the hearings when you know so much about cannabis and you're worried about people getting arrested for something that's criminalized, and that should be the priority. Um, and we talked about expanding the quali- qualifying conditions, decriminalizing, and then also, um, expanding to the natural flower that God gave us.

265. 1:00:26

     And don't you remember when James Ja-

266. 1:00:28

     You can tell them.

267. 1:00:29

     Thank you, Elena.

268. 1:00:29

     Hey, hey, guys.

269. 1:00:30

     And Mr. Scribbles or Mrs. Scribbles, uh, we appreciate that. That's sort of not what this bill is about either, but, uh, we appreciate your thoughts.

270. 1:00:38

     That's true, and we have a list of all the people who are discriminated against who can't use the current medicine.

271. 1:00:44

     Thank you so much.

272. 1:00:45

     Thank you so much, you guys.

273. 1:00:46

     Where's...

274. 1:00:51

     Is y'all here?

275. 1:00:56

     Robin Fowler is next.

276. 1:01:00

     Appreciate that. And then Micah Gravely, if he still is here. I see him raising his hand. And Karen Drexler is the last one. Thank you. Dr. Fowler.

277. 1:01:10

     Thank you, Chairman. Um, I wanted to, uh, bring up a couple of concerns I, I, I've had with reading this current legislator- uh, legislative bill. Um, I'm a practicing physician here in Georgia, have always practiced in Georgia for greater than 20 years now. Um, and just three examples that I wanted to give is that, uh, when we look at patients in the rural setting, a lot of times patients in the rural setting do not have, uh, access to some of the physicians on registry. So the, the telemed is very, very helpful for those patients and give them the access they need.

278. 1:01:44

     Uh, I wanted to use an example. Uh, for example, I am a physician, part of the Piedmont Clinic, and we have 5,000 physicians in our network. Uh, another example directly relating to the medical cannabis program is like the WellStar system, which has thousands of physicians. Those physicians are not allowed to be on the registry from their compliance, uh, direction from corporate. So, you know, that leaves a big gap for patients, and typically telemed is an option that has been successful.

279. 1:02:18

     Uh, and I, and I will mention, um, I don't think anybody is proud of hearing any outliers, like a, a physician that may have been, um, acting outside of the norm or in an atypical behavior as, as was mentioned earlier in the, in the New York example, but I would really hate to see Georgians suffer from, from that type of, uh, or limiting access because the behavior of something like that that was, uh, isolated. Um, when we look at the, the VA system, we have, right now, PTSD is number two on the registry, and so many of these, these, these patients, as was testified earlier, they go to the VA system, and the VA system does not allow that to happen.

280. 1:03:03

     Uh, or excuse me, does not allow those patients to register up underneath them. And I was gonna even use an example of my own practice, where we have 22 attendings. Uh, when we're seeing patients, you know, room after room, we're, you know, doing epidurals, we're obviously, you know, practicing pain management. It, it is a bit burdensome. Uh, it, it's very burdensome to deal with the, the registration process. So when you're using telemed, like for example, patients that we have, all that information is charted, that's followed.

281. 1:03:35

     Those patients have consults with our attendings. So telemed can be used in a good way. Uh, a couple of other simple statistics right now, uh, we see it would be restrictive if this passed as is because 62% of the physicians in Georgia are associated with an affiliate healthcare system. So that puts a big limitation on the, uh, physicians who can be registered. Uh, secondly, and this was really surprising to me, that 43% of the physicians that are, uh, licensed in Georgia do not live in Georgia.

282. 1:04:14

     They've met the-

283. 1:04:16

     47%?

284. 1:04:16

     43% of licensed physicians in Georgia do not live in the state. So, um, you know, other things about this bill I did wanna mention is we do encourage the, uh, communication amongst the state agencies, whether it be Department of Community Health, with the Georgia Composite Board, as well as the Medical Commission, uh, Georgia Medical, uh, Commission. But it is a little bothersome to me the way the language currently is that the doctor-patient relationship is, is just not very well defined in the fact that it doesn't give some of these examples I gave earlier of rural medicine, uh, WellStar system, the VA system, those patients having good access to, uh, the, the, the medical cannabis as our program allows.

285. 1:05:02

     And then I just was gonna leave with a suggestion. A suggestion I thought of an option may be that the physician's primary, primarily practicing in Georgia, so therefore maybe it would get rid of some of those outliers of concern, but not necessarily restrict our rural, our VA, and our s- uh, healthcare system patients that are affiliated with the larger healthcare systems. Thank you.

286. 1:05:24

     Thank you, Dr. Fowler. Um, Micah Gravely.

287. 1:05:36

     And Karen Drexler's on, in the chute.

288. 1:05:40

     Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Uh, my name is Micah Gravley. Um, I worked on this issue for a little bit while I was in the House, and, uh, spent the better part of my entire time in the House working on this issue. Uh, I wrote down neu- neutral on the bill, and I, I simply wanted to just say, um, I still am very much involved. I work with, uh, Dr. Fowler and Gary Long, uh, in, in patient advocacy in, in helping push our patients to the registry, those that still call me from my community and across the state, uh, with the network that we had built with the parent advocacy groups, uh, at all ages.

289. 1:06:15

     Uh, the, the one problem or the concern that I have would be, like the speakers before me have said, is the patient-doctor relationship. Many of the patients that, uh, I'm still in contact with, many of those that brought their children or a loved one down here to the capital when we, we passed the bill over the last several, or the last decade really, that we worked on this legislation, um, they have relationships with their, their treating physicians. They, they, they get their six-month checkup. A lot of the children with autism or various diagnosia- di- diagnosis, these are folks that have the diagnosis that are within our law, that are, that are eligible under our state law, but that their physician is not allowed because of the network that they're in to register them.

290. 1:07:03

     The physic- In some instances, the physician is even kept up to speed on what that patient is dosing with. They know where the patient is getting it, but they're not the registered physician. Those patients were, were registered through a tele- telemedicine physician. Uh, some of the patients that I've talked to and still in contact with today, I had a, a member of my community, um, who supported me on the legislation, was diagnosed with, uh, stage four breast cancer. She called. She says, "I don't know what to do.

291. 1:07:34

     I, I supported you, but I don't know the first step to take." So I helped walk her through, "Here's the website with the state. You need to register and get your card. Here's some... Here are the, the cultivators and with the phar- uh, with the dispensaries, and here's where you should get it." And I'll say this: we, we spent, all of us, pretty much all of us in this room spent 12 years putting together a program in our state with state licensed cultivators, approved dispensaries.

292. 1:08:05

     The Chevron station, the quick, the, the little quick mart or the convenience store on Highway 61 or 92 was never supposed to be a viable option for these folks to go and get some substance that they don't know what i- is in it, how it was made, or where it was made because they can't get a card or because they were kicked off the registry. They... We've had some that have been removed from the registry, and so they lost access to their card.

293. 1:08:36

     And so when that happens, they turn to the illegal market. They're not allowed to enter the dispensaries where the state approved medicine is being distributed, is being sold. And so those are the folks that I'm continuous, that I continue to deal with, that I worked with as I was carrying this bill in the House, and I just wanna make sure that we're being mindful of, yes, there's oftentimes is that, that relationship is there. Oftentimes, that doctor knows what the, the patient's treating with, but that's not the registered doctor.

294. 1:09:12

     That's not the, the doctor that approved that patient. So l- let us think about that as we're going forward. And again, remember, and I tell these folks, "Do not go down to that service station because they have something that's listed that says medical cannabis or this is a viable option. It's not safe. You don't know what's in it." If folks in our state have a medical cannabis card, they need to be getting their medicine from the f- dispensaries and the cultivators that the state has approved.

295. 1:09:46

     So that's my testimony. I'll stand for any questions, Mr. Chairman, if there are any.

296. 1:09:54

     I have no questions.

297. 1:09:55

     Okay. Thank you so much.

298. 1:09:56

     Thank you, uh, former representative. We appreciate that. Um, and Karen Drexler's the last one. Thank you very much, Dr. Drexler.

299. 1:10:05

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Madam Co-chairman, um, for introducing this bill. I share your concerns about, um, physicians who are misusing their medical licenses and not having an actual treating relationship with patients, and I applaud the efforts to close that loophole by giving the Composite State Medical Board access to the detailed information so that they can do an investigation.

300. 1:10:36

     I, uh, signed up as neutral to the bill because although I support that effort, I share the concerns of several members that striking all of the language in lines 15 through 17, the details of the reporting requirements, and moving that to statutory responsibility, um, opens the door for not getting the reporting that we need in order to make informed decisions. So I support the effort. I'm concerned about that detail, and thank you for the opportunity to express it, and I'll pause for any questions.

301. 1:11:10

     Thank, thank you so much. We appreciate that. Uh, and I think we have, uh, some li- Whoops, cut myself off. That, uh, thank you so much, Dr. Drexler. Uh, so I'm gonna shift back to, uh, our- the author, and, uh, does, uh, do we want some clarification? Do, do you wanna clarify anything, or you're, you're good? Oh, okay. Kar-

302. 1:11:30

     Well, I do want... Sorry.

303. 1:11:31

     Yeah, just stand up, uh, if you don't mind, uh...

304. 1:11:36

     Um, I'll stand down.

305. 1:11:39

     Sure.

306. 1:11:39

     Hope I can get back up.

307. 1:11:40

     Absolutely

308. 1:11:41

     So just about the rule and, and taking this out of the-

309. 1:11:44

     Excuse me.

310. 1:11:44

     I'm sorry. I'm Jason Jones, the, uh, executive director for the Georgia Medical Board. Um, been here almost two years.

311. 1:11:50

     And he has, he's been there for...

312. 1:11:52

     Almost two years

313. 1:11:53

     ... almost two years. Done a fabulous job.

314. 1:11:55

     Feels like 20.

315. 1:11:56

     Yes.

316. 1:11:57

     Um, but, but, uh, just wanna clarify the, a lot of the, the board's, uh, laws and rules kind of mirror each other. So what we're trying to do is clean some of that stuff up, too. So, um, the, taking this out of the, the law itself, it's still in the rule. We're not gonna take it out of the rule at all. So, um, it just gives us the, the, um, ability to add things to the rule if we need to, to help, uh, with patients, uh, to help with physicians or however we need to do it.

317. 1:12:28

     So it's not to, to get rid of it totally. It's actually just to move it to the rule so that we're focused on the rules.

318. 1:12:36

     Question over here from witness one.

319. 1:12:38

     Yeah. Thank you, sir. Uh, the, the doctor that spoke earlier did bring up, I thought, a great point. Uh, like, I agree we need to be getting this information, but how would the physician even have the ability to get this information? 'Cause all the doctor's doing is signing off on, "You have the illness or the diagnoses." They're not following up, so if we want this information, to me, it should be, it's gonna have to be collected at the dispensary level. So if it's at your rule, it may be a rule which you say you wanna add to it, the including but not limited to allows you to add to it, so you're covered.

320. 1:13:18

     But I don't under- Can you explain, how would a physician even go about obtaining this information?

321. 1:13:24

     So the-

322. 1:13:25

     I think I understand where you're coming from on it now.

323. 1:13:27

     Yes, sir. Um, so the doctor-patient relationship in the rule means a physician must be the patient's primary care or specialist physician treating the patient for the specific condition requiring treatment by low-THC oil and must be maintaining patient records supporting the diagnosis and treatment of the patient. So the one that's approving the, "We can treat you for this, um, with low THC," should be the one that's treating that patient for that condition on- ongoing. So they should have that record, and they should know, um, what they're treating for, and they should probably know the, the level, um, from the patient.

324. 1:14:05

     So that, that's, that, I think that's the gray area.

325. 1:14:07

     What if, what if that doctor is treating that patient for that diagnoses but they're not on the registry because they can't for... either they don't wanna be, or they, or, or maybe their facility won't allow them to be. How, again, going back, how would they collect that if they're not on the registry?

326. 1:14:29

     So that's part of the problem, I believe, is they, they need to be on the registry. They need to be the registered physician that's-

327. 1:14:34

     But what if they can't be?

328. 1:14:36

     Uh, that's a-

329. 1:14:37

     That's a problem

330. 1:14:37

     ... bigger problem than what the medical board can do because that would be a policy issue just with the VA. I don't think the VA allows it, so-

331. 1:14:46

     That's all.

332. 1:14:46

     Well, I feel like section... I feel, I feel like the bill's contradicting itself then a little bit.

333. 1:14:52

     Let me see if I can... Help me understand this, too, because s- say a VA physician who can't be on the registry, um, uh, is treating them for, we'll pick a diagnosis, neuropathy. And, uh, I can't treat you with CBD, low THC, or I can't a- approve you for that, but this, uh-

334. 1:15:11

     They can refer

335. 1:15:12

     ... they refer or they find somebody on the registry, and they do it. And they come back, and they manage it. I don't think that's against, uh, w- VA policy for them to manage it. Uh, so, uh, so they would not be able to... They would have that documented in their record, uh, you know, from that standpoint.

336. 1:15:30

     They should.

337. 1:15:30

     Right.

338. 1:15:30

     And, and they can refer to a specialist that is on the registry, but that physician that is on the registry should also have the records of that patient and be seeing that patient to make sure it's correct. But they can coexist together-

339. 1:15:42

     Right

340. 1:15:42

     ... uh, and, and still get the patient what they need.

341. 1:15:44

     Right. That, that-

342. 1:15:45

     But a follow-up, Mr. Chairman.

343. 1:15:46

     Uh-huh.

344. 1:15:46

     To your point, though, if that person goes... is being treated by the VA doctor but is not being treated by this other doctor that is going to make the recommendation, then does the... on line 20 where it says, "Is treating such patient for the specific condition requiring treatments or is treating such patient in hospice care," that, that doctor would not be able to, to recommend it under the second part of this law. They could if they had that prior relationship, which is the, the first part of that statement on line 19 and 20, but the second part on 20 and 21 would n- in that case, would not, the way I'm reading this, would not allow that doctor to make that recommendation.

345. 1:16:32

     He's not gonna make the recommendation, but he certainly can manage it and, uh-

346. 1:16:35

     That's-

347. 1:16:35

     ... and provide it.

348. 1:16:36

     No, I know, but the way this is written, correct me if I'm wrong, and I, I will ask this in the form of a question, but is it not true? It say, it says that the physician has a doctor-patient relationship with the patient, which in, in this case, both could have that.

349. 1:16:54

     Sure.

350. 1:16:54

     No problem. But then it goes on to say, "And that such physician is treating such patient for the specific condition requiring treatment." So in this case, he's not or she is not treating that person. The o- the doctor that referred it is the one treating for that diagnoses. So that second doctor could not make the recommendation based on lines 20 and 21.

351. 1:17:20

     So do, will the, uh, changes that you proposed fix any of that? No.

352. 1:17:29

     Did, could I, could I ask a clarification?

353. 1:17:31

     Sure.

354. 1:17:32

     In-

355. 1:17:32

     Is that right?

356. 1:17:33

     I wanna-

357. 1:17:33

     Am I, am I reading that right?

358. 1:17:34

     I wa- I wanna ask a clarification from the physicians. If, if I, if you were my primary care physician, and I come in, and you determine I have a, a cardiac issue, and you send me to a cardiologist

359. 1:17:46

     And the cardiologist is addressing that issue. Are you not still my treating physician just because you've recommended me to a specialist?

360. 1:17:54

     Sure, I'm treating you.

361. 1:17:55

     And you are treating me for my cardiology issue also?

362. 1:17:58

     Yeah, and we, we share patients. Uh, sometimes cardiologists don't manage heart failure.

363. 1:18:02

     Right.

364. 1:18:02

     They want their primary care doctor to do it, or their high-

365. 1:18:05

     Right, so-

366. 1:18:05

     ... blood pressure. Same as, you know, chronic kidney disease, and nephrologist, and diabetes-

367. 1:18:09

     So, so-

368. 1:18:09

     ... and primary care. Integrality

369. 1:18:10

     ... in Senator Brass' question-

370. 1:18:12

     Yeah

371. 1:18:12

     ... wouldn't that second specialist, they're doing their thing, but that does not take the responsibility away from the VA physician that he or she is treating that patient by recommending them to the doctor who's on the registry that can provide the product.

372. 1:18:28

     That's right.

373. 1:18:29

     Correct?

374. 1:18:29

     And, and the board's not gonna take action against that, 'cause they're both treating, uh, the condition-

375. 1:18:33

     For that condition

376. 1:18:34

     ... for that condition.

377. 1:18:34

     Okay.

378. 1:18:35

     Yeah. And that-

379. 1:18:35

     They just... Just the first physician cannot get it-

380. 1:18:38

     Follow

381. 1:18:38

     ... because of not being on the registry.

382. 1:18:39

     Yeah.

383. 1:18:41

     It's like referred to a specialist.

384. 1:18:43

     All right, let me, uh, let me... Chairman Setzler. Sorry.

385. 1:18:47

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, one thing I would just share, share to the author, and I appreciate the author's willingness to engage in this discussion. I, I mean, I think the, the, the concern that the, uh, chair lady raises in the language highlights a concern we've got, is that where else in our system do we have doctors that are treating people with s- sup- drugs, substances, where there's no management of the substances they get? I mean, the system we've got now is if a doctor says, "Okay, you've got a condition.

386. 1:19:20

     Um, go forward, get your card," you, you then go into the... Excuse me. You, you go into the dispensary, and you go browsing through and grabbing what you want. I mean, when... If someone's been prescribed with pain, they don't go down to the drugstore and browse through the OxyContins and the hydrocodones, and, "I'll have some 10 milligram Oxys." They don't just go buy what they want. I mean, our system today, our s- we have a structural problem in our system of cannabis, because the doctor is not prescribing dosages, amounts.

387. 1:19:50

     There's no doctoral care. Once they've been ratified to go into that dispensary, they have do whatever they wanna do, and there is no system anywhere else like that.

388. 1:20:01

     I think, I think we all agree with you there.

389. 1:20:03

     I just, I, I think, I think there's some structural issues

390. 1:20:05

     I think, I think-

391. 1:20:05

     ... maybe.

392. 1:20:05

     I think we all agree with you. There are structural issues, and again, the Schedule 1, uh, was part of the issue. And remember, we wanted to put pharmacists in there. We're the only state, I understand, that has pharmacists in there, but because they were still Schedule... Because it is still, still Schedule 1, it, uh, pharmacists are not allowed to be in there. That may actually, uh, if it does go to Schedule 3, that may be a positive that comes out. You, they get pharmacists in there that can help with this. All right, but so again, that's what I'm not... Uh, I agree with you.

393. 1:20:36

     I think we're probably all in agreement in this whole room about that. So I think, let me, um, thank you very much. Uh, you're welcome to stay there or move on. Um, and back to, back to-

394. 1:20:47

     I did. My knees started giving out.

395. 1:20:49

     Time to move.

396. 1:20:50

     Yeah. Uh, the-

397. 1:20:52

     No quick sleeps

398. 1:20:53

     ... we appreciate that from our, uh, us right there. Here we go. Uh, you may have some changes.

399. 1:21:00

     I, I was just gonna say, if you don't wanna try to amend this on the fly-

400. 1:21:05

     No, we can, we can do it. I, uh, we can have legislative council here. I, uh... And-

401. 1:21:11

     I mean, I'm not sure we can-

402. 1:21:12

     We can do it two ways. You had proposed about, uh, leaving in the semi-annual.

403. 1:21:17

     Well, I was just, uh, there was concern expressed-

404. 1:21:19

     Just drawing that out?

405. 1:21:19

     ... about moving that to annual.

406. 1:21:21

     You want it-

407. 1:21:21

     And if we need to leave it semi-annual, we could just, um-

408. 1:21:27

     Uh, we'll go with the will of the committee-

409. 1:21:27

     We could leave it as-

410. 1:21:28

     ... on this. And, uh-

411. 1:21:29

     Yeah, that'd be the will of the committee. And then the other thing was-

412. 1:21:32

     One, one-

413. 1:21:32

     ... if you all wanted to unstrike the language on, um, 14 through 19, I'm okay with that, except for the part about the test results, because that is not happening, and it's not gonna happen anytime soon. So, uh, if that would help, I'm willing to make those concessions. If you, um, want to go back to-

414. 1:21:59

     Well, actually, why don't we do this?

415. 1:22:00

     ... the drawing board, we can do that too.

416. 1:22:02

     Why don't we see if we can do this? Why don't we v- vote on each one of those, like will the committee on this one go? And just, uh, the semi-annual that appears on line 13, um, the author had changed from semi-annual to annual, and that's the only place it appears in there. That's a pretty easy, uh, uh, change. If that's, uh, the will of the committee, we can do that. Uh, does anybody have a motion to that effect?

417. 1:22:31

     I have questions, yeah.

418. 1:22:33

     All right, I'm, I'm looking for a motion.

419. 1:22:35

     Restating the

420. 1:22:36

     Um, I'm restating, uh, that, uh, on line 13, uh, this bill proposes to strike semi-annual and make it an annual report to the board. If this would, I guess-

421. 1:22:50

     I'll make a-

422. 1:22:50

     ... for lack of better terms, to unstrike it, uh, and leave it as semi-annual. Uh, we have a m- motion here. A motion here. Do we have a second?

423. 1:23:02

     Senator

424. 1:23:02

     Got second. We have a second. Um, and we have questions, discussion?

425. 1:23:11

     Yeah.

426. 1:23:13

     Uh, Senator Orrock.

427. 1:23:14

     Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I, I, I, I'm just... It, it feels like this bill needs a, a further work. Uh, we've, we've heard from several different perspectives, and, uh, uh, uh, you know, I would offer a substitute motion to, uh, um, uh, l- lay it on the table until-

428. 1:23:36

     Motion to table. All right, so that, that-

429. 1:23:38

     Lay it, lay it, yeah

430. 1:23:38

     ... that's present-

431. 1:23:39

     Lay it on the table. We'll sign off

432. 1:23:40

     ... uh, it has presence over. And do we have a second on that?

433. 1:23:42

     Second.

434. 1:23:43

     Second on that. All those in favor of the motion to table?

435. 1:23:49

     Let's count them up. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. All right. And so what is it? What do we have? All right, then motion not to table. That's gonna be the others. You gotta vote. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Is that right?

436. 1:24:08

     That leaves it seven-

437. 1:24:10

     Seven to seven. All right, I'm gonna vote to-

438. 1:24:12

     Kay, Kay voted.

439. 1:24:13

     Kay voted to not table. Okay, so that's eight to seven, the motion's defeated. All right, so we're back to, uh, semi-annual, annual.

440. 1:24:21

     Already there.

441. 1:24:22

     Are we clear on that, uh...?

442. 1:24:26

     Yes. We also had line four strike to provide for annual reporting.

443. 1:24:31

     Okay. Line four, so we would strike that to provide for annual reporting.

444. 1:24:36

     Mm-hmm.

445. 1:24:36

     Okay. So that would g- be struck there.

446. 1:24:40

     Thank you.

447. 1:24:40

     Thank you.

448. 1:24:41

     So we're under discussion.

449. 1:24:41

     Oh, we're still under discussion.

450. 1:24:43

     Yes.

451. 1:24:43

     Um, just, Mr. Chairman, question. Are we trying to do all this in one, one amendment or take each piece? 'Cause that, there, there's a grammar thing I think could be helpful on line 19. I wanna make sure for clarification the lady's-

452. 1:24:55

     Yeah

453. 1:24:56

     ... intentions are included.

454. 1:24:56

     We're, we're, we're doing this one at a time.

455. 1:24:58

     One at a time, okay.

456. 1:24:59

     We need to do three things, we'll do it.

457. 1:25:00

     Okay.

458. 1:25:01

     Back to the other discussions.

459. 1:25:02

     Okay, still under discussion.

460. 1:25:05

     And, and the reason I s- the reason I support, uh, Senator Kirkpatrick on this on the annual testing is something that Senator Cowsert brought up about the information. And I listen to, who I will always call my good friend, uh, Representative Gravely. It took 12 years to get this to where it's at, but we still are a long way from home in getting this thing perfected in the way it needs to be. Every, every time I go in for a physical or whatever, they draw blood from me before, the day before my physical, and they can tell everything that's in my system when I go in there, and I think because of whatever conditions I'm being treated for.

461. 1:25:43

     And shockingly, it's not mental health issues. Um, so when I go in there, they have all the information. And I think with something we're dealing with like this, this informa- robust information gathering is what we need to do at this stage-

462. 1:25:57

     Yeah

463. 1:25:57

     ... which is why I feel that, that semi-annual is the, the, the best way.

464. 1:26:02

     Thank you. Thank you. Any other discussion?

465. 1:26:05

     I got a question.

466. 1:26:06

     Uh,

467. 1:26:09

     okay.

468. 1:26:10

     11.

469. 1:26:11

     11.

470. 1:26:12

     11.

471. 1:26:12

     What, what I wanna find out i- i- if we do this, will it be that they will make the decision rather than come back to this committee prior to making a, a, a decision and putting it in statute?

472. 1:26:29

     You wanna clarify that? I, uh, who's, who's they?

473. 1:26:32

     The medical board. The medical board.

474. 1:26:34

     I would... The board.

475. 1:26:34

     The medical board will do what now?

476. 1:26:36

     Will, will they make the decision rather than coming back to us?

477. 1:26:41

     About what?

478. 1:26:43

     About what we're talking about in this bill.

479. 1:26:45

     I think he's saying if we take it out, do we leave the decision to the medical board?

480. 1:26:48

     Well, the decision is with the medical board right now is semi-annual. And, uh, so we're gon- we're voting on whether to keep it semi-annual, and that is a board decision. We're, uh, we, certainly the committee doesn't do that. They would circle back with us if needed. Okay. All righty, uh, we got a motion on the floor, uh, and it's been seconded. We've had discussion. Uh, all those in favor, uh, the motion, uh, raise your hand in favor of the motion.

481. 1:27:18

     To keep it semi-annual.

482. 1:27:19

     Yes.

483. 1:27:19

     To keep it semi-annual. This will keep it semi-annual. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. Okay, I, I mean, got nine, so that passes. Okay. We're assuming that everybody else nine to six, so everybody has to vote. All right. Uh, so, um, there we go. That's that one. Do you wanna offer another amendment, uh-

484. 1:27:50

     I do.

485. 1:27:50

     Or does anybody else wanna offer an amendment?

486. 1:27:52

     I do.

487. 1:27:53

     All right. Let, let me recognize-

488. 1:27:56

     Senator Cowsert

489. 1:27:56

     ... Senator Cowsert is on, uh, witness three or 12?

490. 1:27:59

     On 12.

491. 1:28:00

     12. There you go.

492. 1:28:02

     I think what the consensus is, and what I believe the author's, um, agreeable to, is if we would strike from line 14 beginning on the word including.

493. 1:28:15

     No, actually-

494. 1:28:17

     That's-

495. 1:28:17

     ... leave including, but not limited to.

496. 1:28:19

     That's strike.

497. 1:28:21

     Yeah.

498. 1:28:21

     Okay.

499. 1:28:21

     Strike the strike.

500. 1:28:21

     We're, we're, unstriking is what we're trying to do, okay? I don't know how you word that. Legislative counsel might. But starting with the word including, we need to re- remove the striking all the way through line 15.

501. 1:28:33

     Restore the language of yes as well.

502. 1:28:35

     Right.

503. 1:28:36

     Yes.

504. 1:28:37

     It would, it would by m- matter, matter of law be restored if it wasn't stricken.

505. 1:28:41

     Okay.

506. 1:28:41

     Um-

507. 1:28:42

     So it goes beyond that then.

508. 1:28:44

     No.

509. 1:28:44

     I'm not the-

510. 1:28:45

     That's the, that's the testing.

511. 1:28:46

     Okay.

512. 1:28:48

     Okay.

513. 1:28:48

     On line 16, leave it alone. So that is removed. Uh, and then go back, start on line 17 and remove the strikes or restore the language all the way from line 17-

514. 1:29:01

     19

515. 1:29:01

     ... through 19, the word conditions. And then after the word conditions, insert and. So we leave the author's other purpose for the reporting. We don't take that out.

516. 1:29:19

     So if that makes sense.

517. 1:29:19

     I, you know, you do that, uh, sh- we sure are gonna miss you next year 'cause that sure was- ... eloquent and let me-

518. 1:29:26

     So-

519. 1:29:26

     Let me restate it. Line 14, we're going to unstrike. Is that a, a proper term?

520. 1:29:31

     Restore. Restore 14.

521. 1:29:33

     Which one?

522. 1:29:34

     Line 14.

523. 1:29:34

     She says that's fine, and we'll go with that. All right, so unstrike, uh, from line 14- Uh, is that after the comma?

524. 1:29:43

     Yep.

525. 1:29:44

     After the comma.

526. 1:29:45

     The word including.

527. 1:29:46

     So you, we will put back in, including but not limited to dosages recommended for a particular condition, patient clinical responses, and then, uh, we're gonna end the unstrike. So we'll continue to strike, uh, the 16, line 17 at, and then at the word-

528. 1:30:02

     Just, just line 16

529. 1:30:04

     ... such.

530. 1:30:04

     Just-

531. 1:30:04

     Line 16.

532. 1:30:05

     Just line 16, yeah.

533. 1:30:06

     Line 16, not 17?

534. 1:30:08

     Not 17.

535. 1:30:09

     Okay, you're right. Line, not line 17. So, and that's going to begin with compliance responses to treatment, side effects and drug interactions. Uh, such reports shall be based for research purposes to determine the efficacy of the use of low THC oil as a treatment for conditions. A- and that's where we end the unstrike, and we're adding in the word and.

536. 1:30:31

     That's it, that's correct.

537. 1:30:31

     And then her language will be there.

538. 1:30:33

     That, that's the intent.

539. 1:30:34

     Is that, so that's your motion?

540. 1:30:36

     That, that is my proposed amendment.

541. 1:30:37

     And I'll recognize a second.

542. 1:30:39

     I was the first person-

543. 1:30:40

     Second.

544. 1:30:41

     We have a second. All right, and now discussion.

545. 1:30:44

     Okay. To the gentleman.

546. 1:30:46

     If I, Mr. Chairman. To the gentleman's point, I'm, I'm, support the gentleman's motion. However, to, to the lady's que- question, um, to support the lady's bill, and, uh, the, on line 19 where you're transitioning and adding the word and, would it be better at the end of the unstricken part to put a period and then put in, "The board shall confirm," so that you start a new sentence which is very clear the board shall confirm? I think the lady's bill is stronger that way to make it very clear that the purpose-

547. 1:31:19

     Yeah

548. 1:31:19

     ... is not lost by a string of ands.

549. 1:31:21

     Yeah. Uh, yeah, okay. All right. Do we... I- is that, you can make that as a motion?

550. 1:31:26

     I just w- wanna ask the lady's opinion and the author's opinion.

551. 1:31:28

     Uh, you know, uh, I'll let me ask the author of the, of that 'cause I'm not getting-

552. 1:31:33

     It's mine.

553. 1:31:33

     Yeah, that's what I'm, that's what I'm thinking. Uh-

554. 1:31:36

     Into here.

555. 1:31:37

     I'm just thinking- ... Chairman Cowsert.

556. 1:31:40

     What would you like?

557. 1:31:40

     I like it the way I stated it, but that's-

558. 1:31:42

     Is it?

559. 1:31:42

     ... uh, semantics.

560. 1:31:44

     Yeah.

561. 1:31:44

     Yeah.

562. 1:31:45

     I agree.

563. 1:31:45

     Well-

564. 1:31:45

     This sounds like judiciary. Okay. All right, so, uh-

565. 1:31:50

     You're using it for both purposes.

566. 1:31:52

     All right.

567. 1:31:52

     And so by saying and, you're saying you're using that data for, it's including, but not limited to-

568. 1:31:58

     Mkay

569. 1:31:58

     ... all this information. Uh-

570. 1:32:01

     All right.

571. 1:32:01

     It says for research purposes-

572. 1:32:01

     So he w- he withdraws. That was a discussion purpose. He did not make it a motion.

573. 1:32:06

     Sure.

574. 1:32:06

     Thank you. And so any further discussion, please. Oh, Ms., uh, Senator Orrock's got more discussion. Here we go.

575. 1:32:14

     Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I just have a question, is, is this accomplishing, uh, uh, the, the, what the d- the department and the, and the board, uh, had hammered out that needed to be fixed? Because I thought the whole argument was that, uh, the, the, it, that it needed to-

576. 1:32:34

     Mkay

577. 1:32:35

     ... not reside in the statutory language-

578. 1:32:37

     J-

579. 1:32:37

     ... but rather in-

580. 1:32:38

     Thank you

581. 1:32:38

     ... the authority of, uh, you know-

582. 1:32:41

     Chair Lady.

583. 1:32:41

     I, I think the, uh, the composite board would prefer the thing. Have more flexibility, but I think there's concern about delegating all of that to them, and I'm okay with us handling it. The thing that no one has objected to, so far the only thing, which is probably the most important thing in the bill, is the part about communication between the two agencies to allow Department of Public Health to provide the medical board with the information that they need to do their job.

584. 1:33:14

     Which is the purpose of the bill. All right. Okay. You sure nobody wants to, like, add some more diagnoses or anything like that or, I mean

585. 1:33:29

     Ah, I was just, uh, trying to- ... you know, a little levity to the, uh, situation. Uh, yes, uh, Senator Hatchett, witness three.

586. 1:33:39

     Uh, just on the most recent amendment policy question or I guess the intent of the bill. If you're striking line 16 and then you look at line 18, to be used for research purposes to determine the efficacy of the use of low THC oil, wouldn't the efficacy of the low THC oil kind of be the, a, a factor that you would need to determine that would be what was, what is on line 16 now, the levels of the THC?

587. 1:34:11

     I mean, I-

588. 1:34:12

     She, the, the author has, uh, shaken her head.

589. 1:34:15

     No.

590. 1:34:15

     Okay.

591. 1:34:16

     And I, and I concur.

592. 1:34:17

     Just leave it at that.

593. 1:34:18

     Uh, we're just not there in the science yet, so maybe one day in my opinion. Uh, so all right, so there's a motion on the floor, and I've read it, and I think everybody understands it. Does anybody have any questions on it? If not, let's, uh, let's vote on this.

594. 1:34:34

     I have a question.

595. 1:34:35

     All right. Uh-

596. 1:34:36

     Wasn't the original intent of the board was, back to your question, uh, Senator Hatchett, wasn't it the intent of the board to determine the effi- efficacy of THC? Was- wasn't that the intent of this bill when it was put in? So back to his question, why are we striking that? The part about-

597. 1:34:56

     We aren't

598. 1:34:56

     ... the efficacy.

599. 1:34:57

     We aren't. We, we restored it.

600. 1:34:59

     Well, we restored it. Well, we, okay. That's right, we're restoring it. Okay. I got you.

601. 1:35:02

     All right.

602. 1:35:03

     But I thought-

603. 1:35:03

     Please move the board

604. 1:35:04

     ... we unstruck it. I got you.

605. 1:35:05

     Yeah.

606. 1:35:06

     You said that there's rules and fears about it. Is there another statement?

607. 1:35:10

     All right, so we have a motion do pass, uh, these changes. Is that, am I saying that-

608. 1:35:16

     We don't have a motion

609. 1:35:16

     ... appropriately?

610. 1:35:17

     We haven't voted on Cowsert's amendment.

611. 1:35:19

     Cowsert-

612. 1:35:19

     We don't have a motion do pass yet.

613. 1:35:22

     We need to vote on it.

614. 1:35:23

     No.

615. 1:35:23

     You need a motion do pass.

616. 1:35:24

     Well, we've already voted on that.

617. 1:35:25

     Well, we don't have-

618. 1:35:26

     No. No, we're, we're still voting on the amendment.

619. 1:35:28

     I know.

620. 1:35:28

     All right.

621. 1:35:29

     But you need a do pass motion-

622. 1:35:30

     Hold on, hold on

623. 1:35:31

     ... to vote on the amendment.

624. 1:35:33

     That's what she said.

625. 1:35:35

     Right, Mr. Rules Chair? You need the do pass motion first.

626. 1:35:38

     We have after Howard and then we give 11.

627. 1:35:40

     Exactly

628. 1:35:42

     That's, that's, that's some sort of-

629. 1:35:44

     We've got the rose chair sitting right there.

630. 1:35:47

     That's some pictures though, right here.

631. 1:35:47

     No. We're gonna get it cleared up. You'll be all right. We'll bring the puppet back. It's only two pages.

632. 1:35:57

     They can add two if that's included, but not printed. They can make that the law. Anything

633. 1:36:06

     can be added.

634. 1:36:10

     We need a due pass motion first on the bill, right-

635. 1:36:13

     Before we do anything

636. 1:36:14

     ... before we can amend it.

637. 1:36:15

     We've already voted on an amendment.

638. 1:36:17

     I know.

639. 1:36:17

     They do it.

640. 1:36:19

     So what we'd need to do is a due pass, and then put them both-

641. 1:36:24

     All righty. Let's come back to order, and, uh, there's a motion to due pass, um-

642. 1:36:32

     As amended.

643. 1:36:33

     We don't have a motion on this.

644. 1:36:36

     So are you the expert on the due pass here? I think that person and that person's expert. Here we go. What are we doing?

645. 1:36:42

     As long as you had a motion due pass already-

646. 1:36:45

     Okay

647. 1:36:45

     ... and those amendments that you already adopted are good to go.

648. 1:36:48

     And we had a motion to due pass earlier?

649. 1:36:50

     Says the law.

650. 1:36:51

     Okay. Sorry.

651. 1:36:53

     Okay. I don't remember doing that. All right, so let's do a motion to due pass, and, uh, and second motion to due pass, and then we're gonna do amendments here. Motion to due pass.

652. 1:37:04

     Motion to due pass. Second.

653. 1:37:05

     Second. All those in favor of-

654. 1:37:09

     Now we do the amendments.

655. 1:37:11

     And now we do the amendments. Uh, the amendments, uh, actually already voted on, but we're gonna vote again on the semi-annual to, uh, changing that back, uh, unstriking that. Uh, so let's vote on that first. All those in favor of that, uh, changing the annual back to semi-annual, and we also did in line four to provide for annual reporting, we struck that. All those in favor of that?

656. 1:37:40

     All right. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. One, two, three, four, five, six.

657. 1:37:48

     Opposing's the same.

658. 1:37:49

     All right, that's nine. Okay. Um...

659. 1:37:53

     Make a brace or hand for nine.

660. 1:37:54

     Okay. Opposing is the same sign. And you gotta vote. One, two, three, four, five, six. That's it. Okay. Nine to six. We got 15.

661. 1:38:09

     All right, now we're doing, uh, the Cowsert Amendment is what we'll call it. Uh, everybody clear on the Cowsert Amendment?

662. 1:38:15

     Uh, I'm not.

663. 1:38:17

     Okay. So on line 14, uh, after the comma, we're unstriking including but not limited to dosages recommended for a particular condition, patient clinical responses, and then we're leaving, uh, line 16 struck and after the word results and on the line 17 before the word, uh, compliance, we're unstriking compliance responses to treatment side effects and drug interactions.

664. 1:38:47

     Uh, such reports shall be used for research purposes to determine the efficacy of the l- uh, the use of low THC oil as a treatment for conditionings. And then we're going to add the word and, uh, between conditions and for. Any questions now? All right, so we have a amendment, a motion on that one.

665. 1:39:12

     That was a second, I believe.

666. 1:39:13

     He was a second.

667. 1:39:15

     Attor- uh, Attorney General, I mean, uh, Senator Cowsert.

668. 1:39:18

     All right, Senator Cowsert, Chairman Cowsert. Uh, and all those in favor of the Cowsert amendment, uh, raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11. All those opposed? All those opposed? One, two...

669. 1:39:39

     The poll boy.

670. 1:39:39

     One, you gotta vote. One. One.

671. 1:39:41

     She voted for it.

672. 1:39:43

     One. Two.

673. 1:39:45

     Butch and Sundance the way it is.

674. 1:39:48

     Did we not, uh, who didn't vote?

675. 1:39:50

     I did.

676. 1:39:50

     Okay, she got to vote. You gotta vote or leave the room.

677. 1:39:53

     I did. I was-

678. 1:39:54

     Okay

679. 1:39:54

     ... she was voting, but I did. I know

680. 1:39:55

     Just vote or leave the room. So let's, all those opposed.

681. 1:39:59

     I'm good for delay of action.

682. 1:40:00

     All those opposed. Let's do raise your hands, all those opposed. One.

683. 1:40:04

     Unwillingly so.

684. 1:40:05

     Uh, this against, uh, this amendment.

685. 1:40:07

     This amendment.

686. 1:40:08

     Against Cowsert's amendment.

687. 1:40:09

     Yes.

688. 1:40:10

     One, two, three.

689. 1:40:12

     I'm for the amendment because we should put it-

690. 1:40:13

     Okay. So-

691. 1:40:15

     I want that

692. 1:40:16

     ... okay.

693. 1:40:16

     I want it stricken.

694. 1:40:17

     So we can, we can put you in the for it. Okay. One, two, three. Okay, so 10 to whatever that was, 11. 12. 12 to three. Poof.

695. 1:40:27

     Now we have to vote on the bill.

696. 1:40:27

     Did we get that?

697. 1:40:28

     Yeah, I think.

698. 1:40:29

     Okay. We got it.

699. 1:40:30

     Now we have to vote on the bill.

700. 1:40:30

     Now we're voting on the overall bill. Oh my goodness. All right. Here we are. Uh, I'll... Yes. Witness one.

701. 1:40:41

     Uh, so we kept hearing testimony about this preventing telemedicine. I don't, I don't see how it does. Does-

702. 1:40:50

     Yes

703. 1:40:50

     ... does the bill in any way prevent a doctor who's on the registry refer a patient to a doctor that is on the registry, and then provide telemedicine to recommend it?

704. 1:41:03

     No.

705. 1:41:03

     No.

706. 1:41:03

     It does not. Okay. That's what I need to know.

707. 1:41:06

     No changes in that.

708. 1:41:07

     What it does do, it stop you from making a decision after we get out of session, to change the rules, and we can come back and say, "You had no business doing it."

709. 1:41:19

     Yeah.

710. 1:41:20

     That's what that does.

711. 1:41:21

     All right. All those in-

712. 1:41:22

     You can drop that bill next time.

713. 1:41:24

     Yeah. I don't...

714. 1:41:25

     Really.

715. 1:41:27

     All those in favor of this bill as amended, am I saying that correctly?

716. 1:41:35

     Yes.

717. 1:41:35

     This bill. All right. As amended, uh,

718. 1:41:41

     raise your hand, all those in favor.

719. 1:41:44

     How instead of you, you realize a bit.

720. 1:41:50

     Five, six, seven, eight, nine. All those opposed? One, two, three, four-

721. 1:41:56

     You gotta vote

722. 1:41:57

     ... five, six. Okay. Nine to six.

723. 1:42:00

     There you go.

724. 1:42:01

     Okay.

725. 1:42:07

     This is called ready to contact.

726. 1:42:08

     Thank you for this. Uh-

727. 1:42:11

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

728. 1:42:12

     You're welcome. All righty. Uh, we're meeting next, uh, Monday at the usual time, and I think we have the schedule Monday and Wednesday next week. And thank you very much. Meeting's adjourned.