fbpx

Medical marijuana in the North Carolina Senate 

Medical marijuana in the North Carolina Senate 

Medical marijuana passed the North Carolina Senate, 35-10, after this hearing in the Rules Committee, where I speak at the 36’45” mark — mostly about how state retail sales are safer, more lucrative, and maybe faster than issuing licenses to just 10 vertically integrated corporations.

https://www.wral.com/nc-senate-committee-votes-on-legalizing-medical-marijuana/20309778/

My two-minute appearance starts this way: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I’m Pat Oglesby, a lawyer with the nonprofit Center for New Revenue.Marijuana is coming.  Iit makes people nervous but we’re gonna have it and the patients are gonna be getting their medicine — and I like to think about where the money goes.  And right now [under SB711] you’ve got these 10 corporations set up.  Antitrust? [Maybe] you can’t bring an antitrust action for selling a federal illegal product. But the antitrust policy of not concentrating all this economic power in these 10 companies:  It’s the same policy.”

Full transcript:

DISCLAIMER: This transcript is automatically generated and may contain spelling and grammatical errors, and mistaken words. WRAL can not guarantee the accuracy of the transcript.
Transcript:

Dwight grain dane Peterson ha Matthew lee and linda Matthews, thank you. Our pages today are john Eagle, Bessemer City sponsored by Senator Cathy Harrington uh telecheck from Saulsberry sponsored by Senator carl ford and David smith from Lexington sponsored by senator steve Jarvis. Thank you all I think you all three were here yesterday. Uh and so you’re you’re having a a good oversight of what’s going on in the Senate this week. So thank you Two bills on the agenda today. We will start with Senate Bill 774 D. O. T. Legislative changes and agency Bill, Senator Mcinnis. Good morning. You have that. Thank you. Mr Chair ladies and gentlemen, the committee. This is the annual D. O. T. Agency bill. It’s pretty self explanatory. It is non controversial. Uh We did amend the bill yesterday for uh some clarity and uh issued the bill to you for your consideration and appreciate your support. Glad to answer any questions. Thank you questions and comments. None are anyone in the audience. Anyone from the agency in the audience who cares? Okay, Senator Waddell don’t go now. Right. Oh I hope the cameras are rolling because that’s the first mr. We clarified, we clarified in regards to the fee for record request where they’re charging a dollar for somebody to uh to get the records request of a of a of a official document. And uh they they’ve been doing it and we just codified that with the amendment yesterday and make sure it was clarified nothing new. Thank you. Find bill. Well thank you any further discussion or debate. I see no one from the audience that cares to speak on a motion from so what they offer a favorable report uh for Senate Bill 774 D. O. T. Legislative changes. Agency bill all in favor. Please say I oppose no motion carried. Thank you. Thank you. Senator. Uh I’ll call this bill and ask senator heist if he will chair please because I will present along with some other Senate bill 7 11, the N. C. Compassionate Care Act and Senator lee and Senator love. And I will just get us all through this help. Mm hmm. Okay. Thank you. Lord. Thank you. Members of the committee bill before us. Senate Bill 7 11. I will recognize Senator raven to speak first on the bill. Thank you. Mr Chairman uh Members and members of the public uh public Member thank you for being here. Uh No bill in my tenure of of the Senate has gone through more committees. Uh I’ve been more open to comment and uh I’ve been adjusted and readjusted more than this bill had. Uh It’s personally very, very important to me. I want you to know that going in. Uh and I hope that I have been fair and giving everyone uh their chance to uh be for it or against it. And having said that I will give you an overview of the bill and what it does the purpose of the bill is to allow carefully regulated use of medical cannabis for the treatment of debilitating diseases. The recreational sale or use of marijuana will remain illegal under north Carolina law to receive medical cannabis patients must have at least one qualifying debilitating condition as certified in writing by bona fide physician with a patient. Uh relationship qualifying conditions Are defined in the bill. There are 15 of them. Uh we don’t need to go through all of them, but I will uh just highlight some uh cancer, hospice care, uh Ataxia, Crohn’s disease, A. L. S. Uh and other end of life diseases uh that are very debilitating, very horrible ways to die. And this is just a compassionate way to address that. Uh and and help these folks that need it. And I certainly don’t want to leave out the veterans and the PTSD that is associated with some of the problems that are veterans and first responders and other members of society have the patients And design caregivers must apply to DHHS for a registration card in order to receive cannabis from the center. Uh qualified patient caregiver may only possess 30 days. Uh 30 day supply of cannabis. We uh we realized that in the past some of the other uh Bad drugs that have been uh available in cannabis is not one of those by the way have been pretty much a free free prescription from uh physicians in 90 days, 120 days refill as you want. This is not the case and this this is very tightly regulated and designed to be used as necessary again uh in most cases uh in in in end of life hospice care uh for various things. Uh The bill establishes the medical cannabis uh production commission within the D. H. S. To develop a supply system that authorizes uh suppliers to produce cannabis and cannabis infused products uh in the production facilities and produce them uh through uh provide them through medical medical cannabis centers. The bill calls for uh 10 licenses to be issued issued stay wide, and a supplier may only sell cannabis through its own medical centers and not for resale and other centers by another supplier. Each supplier may operate uh no more than eight uh centers that will be an amendment right now. The bill as it reads as four, which will put 80 statewide Uh DHHS will charge an initial non refundable license fee of $50,000 plus $5,000 for each medical cannabis facility. Um And the licensed cannabis suppliers shall pay to DHHS a monthly fee of 10% of gross revenues from the sale of the cannabis or cannabis and Hughes products In in inhalation of cannabis. And that has been a sticking point with some folks is prohibited uh in anyone under 18. Uh it is also uh the smokable products are prohibited in uh many places that you would assume ah like all public places ah nowhere near school grounds. Uh huh. It’s it’s pretty tightly done. Uh And I think if you if you have read it and I think everyone in here, probably everyone in the room has uh good, pretty darn good thing. Closing it, what the bill does, 37 other states have already done this. Uh It is my opinion that no state has done it as well as we are attempting to do it. This is the tightest uh the best written following the models of other states and talking to other states and seeing what they did wrong. We have tried to admit those pitfalls and come up with something that will do just what the bill title does and just what the intention of this bill is. And that is give the citizens the citizens of this state who need and deserve compassionate care just that and it is nothing more than trying to help those people ah with the care that they need ah and augment their treatments as decided upon by the patient and buy a a physician uh and some very very very sad and serious situations. So I would thank you for your support. I will give you a couple of statistics Before I turn it over to the other two about this bill. And I will give you the question on this pole because it was not a push poll. This was not done for my benefit or the other sponsors benefit. This was a straight up question and the question to the voters was this quote, would you support or oppose the General Assembly legalizing medical marijuana for patients with a prescription from a doctor. The end quote, 82% of the voters supported the legislation of medical marijuana, including 57% of the voters who strongly supported the measure, 75% Republicans, 87% unaffiliated, 86%,, democrats backed the measure, At least 78% of male and female, white and black. Matted, moderate conservative voters support medical marijuana. 77% of evangelical voters support medical marijuana. It’s hard for me to say that I have ever seen a poll In my 40 years of the political spectrum one way or another, The polls, 82-77% on anything other than maybe is water wet. Those are amazing numbers. And it shows uh it shows that uh north Carolina and north Carolinian voters do have compassion for their fellow man. Ah and I think that we’re going to have overwhelming support for this measure and I appreciate everyone that has helped me work on this uh for the last five years or so, and I certainly hope that it moves forward and mr chairman, I will turn this over to my other two committee members if they would like to sara low was recognized explains. Mhm. My the reason that I have taken part with this bill is because I believe it will help north Carolinians. I think there are individuals with chronic ailments and other kinds of conditions. And cannabis will help someone and that’s why I support it. Um Other states have done it and as far as I’m concerned, there’s no reason in the world why we shouldn’t open things up so that our citizens can take part in medicine that will help them. Now. I know that a lot of times people when we look at things like this, we in our system of medicine, all kinds of things have been used. One of the things that have been used is opiates which are extremely dangerous, but they’re used and they continue to be used. And those of you that are in this room that have had operations, opiates were used in most cases. Um I think cannabis is much safer and I think that it is something that will help our citizens. So I would encourage you to support this bill as we move forward. Under the thank you mr Chairman, um Over the memorial day weekend, I was hanging out with a friend of mine who was diagnosed with cancer, had surgery about, I think it was six weeks ago, had a scar from here to here. And he was talking about, you know, Delta eight and things that you can buy in the store gummies. They’re completely unregulated to help him through um the chemo that he’s getting ready to go through and for us as a state to be able to find a way where patients can consult with their physician as opposed to their friend on something that they’re going through is incredibly important and so a lot has already been said in committee meetings and other places. But hopefully you would support the bill and to open up this access for physicians to be able to speak with their patients on the best course of treatment may not always be this particular the path that they head down, but at least it’ll be an option for a lot of those folks. Thank you. Questions or comments from members of the committee still dives. Um Thanks so much. Mr Chair I just have three questions in particular. I would like to maybe start out with today, ask your first question. Thank you. Um The first question is when I look at the list of no and I’m just trying to pull it up on my screen. Medical conditions on this is on page two on this listed. Um I’m just curious because often sometimes you know and dealing with other bills that list out conditions. Um The feel that this is an exhaustive list of david deep until they the um but debe Attila I’m gonna get it right the basilica di but I’m gonna get it, your work on me afterwards. Um Is this an exhaustive list. Um Is it a comprehensive list or is this something we’re gonna I mean I may not be here but find ourselves just coming back every session to amend. Thank you on that question. Uh I think that list is uh numerically a through oh with elm and then being halfway through the alphabet, which means that’s 15. So there’ll be 17 of both. Oh right. uh and those 17 things are things that are Mhm. Have some scientific evidence of medical cannabis having a positive effect on or Ameliorating. Ah those diseases somewhat it lists things like growing disease, A. L. S. Hospice care end of life. Uh Cancers. It’s at the uh if you go down that list and those are things that uh let’s say we know that medical cannabis can be useful for and can give some relief or completely satisfied. PTSD is a big one among that as well. Uh And and that is not the end of it all. Um Glaucoma is one that is not on that list that it has been proven that cannabis can help with. But in order for cannabis to work on glaucoma, it has to be a constant a constant infusion or profusion. And that simply can’t happen with today’s uh methodologies and and delivery methods that we have for this product. But the uh the commission. Mhm. It does have the ability to add as they see fit uh other conditions and that will be a plus when you look at the makeup of the commission. Uh It it’s not just one that you’re gonna be put on because you just want to an appointment is gonna be one, you’re gonna be put on to work and help people in north Carolina. Okay. Follow up to that question. So based on this list is currently that’s listed in the bill of debilitating. How do we do that time um conditions? Is this consistent would you say? What other states? Um I think what you’ll find is there’s kind of a hodgepodge around the United States. Although there’s a core group of those that I think are within that. And as Senator raven mentioned the advisory board which has medical professionals, pharmacists and others that will be kind of looking at the research moving forward to be able to make those determinations As two additional debilitating conditions that may qualify. Okay. And if if I actually that was some subsequent questions that they have a question specifically, I do have a question specifically about PTSD. And the question regarding the PTSD is what exactly is the purpose of um In line 43 and 40 for it says details of the Trauma shall not be required because if I understand correctly wooden a veteran in this case or military personnel go to a physician. And would this limit then that conversation with the physician. I’m just trying to understand ah what the the purpose or the intent of quote details of the trauma shall not be required. So while while the commission will be adopting rules, I think if you’ll look on the written certification, it talks about um, mm about how the physician has to outline what the debilitating condition is. And I think the intent is that it’s not required to release that information to the commission. Um, excuse me to DHHS for purposes of the written certification. So you go to a physician, you talk to them about what has given rise to the PTSD, they write your certification, the state’s PTSD, but they don’t have to go into the in depth with DHHS as to what that is. That that’s my understanding of what’s there. Okay. And then the last question then. Okay, looking at the advisory board. Um, I’m just curious and especially with the commitment the General assembly has already made in particular. Um, and I think everybody here voted for it and supported eight spot. Um, if we believe there could be some positive benefit, you know, from veterans, I’m still curious. Um, looking at the composition of the board, you know, we do have some patients that are identified to be participants of the board. Um, is there any specific reason why we would not have a veteran um, on the board? Mm hmm. Let me check back through. And I hate, I hate to air on this with without being exact, but I believe in the seven, uh, in the seven positions, uh, I’m mistaken, but appointed by the governor, that one of those, uh, either is or treats, um that specifically I think he’s human with. Yeah I think you’re I think we’re okay on that. I think you’re talking about the advisory, I’m talking about the advisable and page four you can handle that. Uh No there’s not a specific reference um There is a reference to a cardholder, a patient and then also um a parent of a minor qualified patients. Um You know, I don’t know that we we dug that deep into the advisory board. It’s not exclusive. Such that subsection f on page for uh you know that that particular patient maybe a veteran or someone suffering from PTSD, it’s not excluded but it is not specifically included at this time. Just a final comment. Final final final. Now the question that’s a comment. No, you know I put it as well, I understand what you’re attempting to do, you know? But again I would just emphasize, you know, we understand that Um the number I tend to hear 22 or so veterans, you’ll on average commit suicide a day across the nation and we have made a commitment as a general assembly, you know, just trying to do what we can to address, you know the veteran population out there. So when it’s gone um served the country, they they’ve come back and if you know we think there’s some benefit here and we’ve already made a commitment with the hyperbaric oxygen therapy treatment and we now think perhaps you know those with um debilitating conditions, medical conditions could benefit. I I would just wonder if there would be utility and if if you all would consider, you know, opening, you know, some opportunity for a veteran. So that’s just a thought for you other questions or comments from the committee. Senator Children. Mhm. Thank you. Mr Chair. Um I want to just thank the bill sponsors for the work on this and especially you Senator raben. I um no from my personal experience when I first began to serve here in the legislature. Uh some of the early meetings I had were with patients that um had used medical marijuana to deal with the conditions that they had in place and it was really eye opening to to see how cannabis can heal the pain that so many people experience. And I want to thank you for this. Um Just one a couple of questions I think related to the economics of the bill that you and I have uh chatted about. Uh I know that this is what’s called a vertically mandated um Bill, vertically integrated mandated bill in the sense that uh there will be 10 licenses that are gonna be issued for those that will go that will provide seed to sale. And um and I and I understand, I believe the argument really is that it allows for efficiency and also consumer safety um if the state were to go forward because I guess there is some concern that with the vertically integrated model that growers will be excluded manufacturers will be, were excluded. Um My question to you is, I guess the medical cannabis production commission cannot make that decision and we would have to make those changes would have to be made through state through legislative changes. Is that is that correct? So senator, Yes, it is, but we would certainly, I think those changes would cut them about upon the recommendation of that commission. Uh and and that’s what I see going forward. You know, this is uh I think it is necessary to do the uh beginning to the end the the seed to sale product to absolutely ensure quality control and to know that uh that the product that we are producing uh is safe and that the amount uh of THC in that product is going to be the same every time. And just standardization is part of it. I’m sure that if the industry grows as, I think it will grow, um changes will come. Uh but I don’t know what those are, the commission will, will have to in order to change that, Make recommendations to the legislature and this body will then decide, okay, just 1, 1 other follow up. I know that this vertically integrated model I believe exists and um the mandated model exists in florida and new Mexico. Are we aware of any and maybe literally you can answer this if if there had been any any trust challenges for the fact that a limited licenses have been issued. That that may or may not be concerned just a question. Yeah, I’m not aware of that. I mean the process and the bill provides for 20 recommendations to come out of the HHS and the commission has, you know, the ability to choose up to 10 of those from a vertical integration perspective. I don’t know that, that I’m not sure that that any other state is, has had any kind of inquiry um, with the Department of justice or whatever federal agency handles that. Thank you center. Whatever my questions were similar to what um my colleague senator charge we just mentioned, but I have something to other questions concerning that. I did visit a marijuana plant in las Vegas when I went to training and we saw how they were doing what they did from start to finish. But I’m concerned about the business aspect of it in that um, it said here that for business to get licensed, all medical marijuana companies must manage every aspect from farming to the final sale, including owning and operating storefronts and expensive barrier for entry and sometimes the majority of north Carolina farmers are not ready to do so. So is there any sense that this would be like so that the small farmer or the person who’s entering it for the first time would have an opportunity. So I think what the bill allows for is for to be able to work with those who have the expertise that’s required in the application process. Um, So I do think there are opportunities and options in that regard. However, I will say that this is an expensive operation. Um, so you want to make sure that, that the licenses have the ability to produce a product that is of of the quality that you would expect for a physician to write a recommendation for. So the requirements in the application process does not exclude anyone allows them the ability to bring in those with the expertise um, that are required in the application process. But again, it is a, an expensive venture to begin in order to hit the quality measurements that will be needed for a physician to write a recommendation. All right. Thank you. Yes, follow up. And then there’s further stated here that um, The commission will be allowed to issue 10 medical cannabis supplier license. Each supplier would be allowed to operate no more than four medical centers, one of which must be located in a tear one county. So if you’re limited 1 to 81 county. What about the others? Is there any specifications for them? So, um, I think Senator raven mentioned we’re going to increase that to eight. So double the amount of, of access points for patients. Um, the idea behind having at least one in a tier one county was so that um, the suppliers, we’re not just focused around the larger areas and so that folks in rural areas would still have access. So that was kind of the gist behind that having at least one follow up, but it does not say specifically If you have one in one tier one county that some of the others could not Be operating and then in addition to go to till one county. So there’s no limitations. I’m not sure I understand the question. You think there’s not a limitation on how many you can have it here with? There is not, there’s not. So you could put them all in a tier one county if if a licensee wanted to. The idea was that most licenses you’re gonna want to be in in where the major medical centers are because most of the debilitating conditions are those of which folks would be going to some of the major cities not just have a comment. I’m concerned because I had several constituents who approached me, they’re in business already, but not this kind of business. They know how to operate a business because they’ve been doing it that they will be not included and not have the opportunity to be included in this. And we are explicit that we are open. Even if you are running another kind of business, it does not allow you to do this. I think we should open it up and that’s my comment. Any other questions, comments center, Fitch. Look to the legal side I believe similarly responded there was they were not aware of any that’s for coming in. Any other questions or comments. I’ll hold. I’ll come back to you for the motion any other questions or comments from the committee. I don’t have a list up but any members of the public who have signed up for others to speak on this bill. Uh huh. Three. Okay, excuse me. Thank you. Mr. Chairman members of the committee. My name is jerry Royal. I’m counsel for the north Carolina Family Policy Council. Yeah, Based on current medical research and the cost of the harmful effects have been found. We strongly encourage you to oppose Senate Bill 7 11. We all want to be compassionate and to help people in need. As we look at potential health benefits of medical marijuana. We must also weigh the harms and costs to individuals, their families, their community in our state. To find the facts, we need to look to medical professionals and see what they have found so far in their research. We have provided information for you from the Food and Drug Administration, american Academy of neurology, american psychiatric association and american Medical Association. All of these groups encourage continuing research but currently do not support medicinal use of marijuana. A good overview is provided at 2021 article on the A. M. A. Website about a friend of the court brief. They have filed quote. While it is possible, there may be beneficial medicinal uses of marijuana, numerous evidence based studies demonstrate that significant deleterious effects abound. The brief tells the court going on to say without question. The public health risks are immense. Drug abuse and addiction change in brain function, lung disease, intoxication and impaired driving developmental interference, impaired cognition, psychological illness, cardiovascular abnormalities, negative social functioning effects and cancer. The A. M. A. Brief went on to say a massive amount of future systemic research and controlled trials are needed to study the safety and efficacy of cannabis for medicinal purposes. At this point in time, the research clearly shows that the harms and costs to individuals, families and the state greatly outweigh any potential benefits. We therefore encourage you to oppose Senate Bill 7 11. Thank you. Next up, I have reverend Mark Creech, thank you. Mr Chairman and members of the committee reverend Mark Creech, executive director of the christian Action League. Over recent months we’ve heard some emotional testimonies in favor of this bill but I just want to remind you that all of these testimonies are anecdotal evidence, not scientific. I believe that everything that the christian Action League has meant to say on this proposal is summed up in a statement by Dr Samuel Wilkinson and Deepak Cyril D’Souza of the Yale School of Medicine in the Journal of the American Medical Association. If marijuana is to be used for medical purposes, it should be subjected to the same evidence based review and regulatory oversight as other medications prescribed by physicians. Potentially therapeutic compounds of marijuana should be purified and tested and randomized double blind placebo and active controlled clinical trials. Towards this end, the federal government should actively support research examining marijuana’s potentially therapeutic compounds. These compounds should be approved by the F. D. A. Not by popular vote or state legislature, produced according to good manufacturing practice standards distributed by regulated pharmacies and dispensed via a conventional and safe route of administration. Otherwise, states are essentially legalizing recreational marijuana but forcing physicians to act as gatekeepers for those who wish to obtain it. And I would just refer to you. There was a poll mentioned earlier which seemed to indicate complete or vast support on this. But uh that pole that was mentioned suggest if you will that a physician can prescribe uh medical marijuana. But I’m reading for the from the american Association Journal of of Ethics. Currently it is illegal for physicians, even in states where medicinal marijuana is legal to prescribe the drug because it is a scheduled one and prescribing it would constitute aiding and abetting the acquisition of marijuana which could result in revocation of D. E. A licensor and even prison time time has expired. Next. I have Pat Oglesby. Okay, thanks, thank you. Mr chairman, I’m Pat ogles beyond the lawyer with the non profit center for new revenue and marijuana is coming. I mean it makes people nervous but we’re gonna have it and we’re gonna have um the patients are gonna be getting their medicine and I like to think about where the money goes And right now you’ve got these 10 corporations set up now, antitrust, you can’t bring an antitrust action for something of federal illegal product. But the pope, the antitrust policy of not concentrating all this economic power in these 10 companies. It’s the same policy. And I wonder what would happen if if if I mean this state setting it up? Well, I’m an old timer, I’m older than that. I’m not probably not the oldest person here, but I but I keep thinking about a safe model of the state store, fixing up the abc model and doing that where you have patients can get the medicine where you provide the medicine to the patients, but you don’t have these for profit entities promoting it and pushing it because you get a I mean, I love the free enterprise system, I’m gonna go buy things from it today, but when you when you have it, when you unleash the full power of it to deal with a with a drug that we don’t know a lot about and that people are nervous about. It makes me nervous When these, when these folks get there when these 10 companies get their feet in the door, they’re gonna be standing right in line to get first to sell recreational and pushing for that licensing has been, you know, so you’re gonna get this board, give out these licenses, what happens over and over in state after state as lawyers? Well, that’s our hearts come after him and say, well that’s you, you did this wrong, you hold off, there’s abuse of discretion, don’t issue this license and it’s been, they put them on hold and so you said the government can be clunky and slow, but it may be that that state sales could get started even faster and licenses in a in a situation where you’re trying to figure out who gets them and it’s not quite sure who could, who should. So we don’t know, I’d say let’s let’s keep the profit moving down here, keep the noise down marijuana sells itself and thank you all for all your work and and the support of this effort, thank you. Thank you back to the committee. Any other questions or comments from the committee? Senator Harrington, thank you. Thank you Mr Chair. And I’d like to thank the bill sponsors for bringing us through. Um it’s been quite an interesting um, journey to see this bill move through and we’ve seen and heard some of the most compelling and moving testimony in the 12 years that I’ve been here um in favor of this bill and I just wanted to thank you any other questions or comments? Um I hadn’t signed up beforehand, but um I’ll give you one minute, um my name is Sean Perich um I’ve been an entrepreneur in the hemp industry for the last five years and I wasn’t planning on saying something but because of senator chaudhary bringing up the issue or not an issue, but bringing up vertical integration, I just wanted to speak on behalf of how, I don’t necessarily think that might be the best long term thing for the patients. Just seeing what’s happened in other states, seeing what’s happened in the hemp industry, even in this state, the processing of growing is so intricate, there’s like 100 different strains, there’s turbines, the process of processing is so intricate, there’s ethanol extraction, there’s C. 02 extraction in the process of retail is so different in itself or like yes, a physician can give you a prescription, but do we expect all physicians to be up to date with the latest um you know, different types of strains that might work for a certain illness or different types of turbines or different ratios between CBD and THC, I don’t think that’s long term feasible to have that level of quality. Um when you vertically integrate, I believe things would slip up in the cycle and it’s just my fear that that’s something that if it’s still something that can be looked at which earlier didn’t think so, but if it can I would strongly strongly or just all to look at that and I’m happy to give anyone like evidence based on this and other states. Thank you. Thank you very much. I’ll hold I’m holding center Fitch for the motion but any other questions or comments, Senator Newt. So just just one comment, it really goes to whether you’re for this bill is gonna vote for it or against it. I just wanted to commend the bill sponsors. Um I have seen this, you know, sort of not from the beginning because they worked on it before it ever became visible to the rest of us all the way through to today. And I have never seen such a respectful, thorough process of listening to members, uh making changes to the bill every step of the way to try to alleviate concerns that were raised about the bill. So I just want to commend you for that best in class in terms of how to bring a bill through listening to members and the public. And so again, when you’re gonna vote for it or against it. The process has been a plus and I just commend you for the way you handled it. Thank you other questions or comments from the committee scene. Unrecognized center Fitch for emotion. No bill is perfect. That’s why we are in fact the legislative body. I do believe that this is the right thing to do if there are problems that crop up from the latest standpoint, be a legislative body ready, willing and able to make the adjustment. Mr Chairman. If I may at this time, I would move for a favorable report as the bill. I believe it was this a committee substitute. It is not here to it is uh Bill as the bill is before us. Alright, I would move for a favorable report for the bill as before. Um Any final comments from bill sponsors. Seeing none all those in favor of the passage of Senate Bill 7 11. Please signify by saying Aye opposed. No. The eyes have it. The bill will be referred to the floor. I believe senator Ravens running it on the floor. Is that coming in? So I believe it’s scheduled for tomorrow. I would turn the gavel back over to center raven for bringing this thing. Uh Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attendance today and for the comments from the public. We appreciate everyone being here and pages And our sergeant at arms staff concludes. The agenda of the meeting is adjourned. Thank you


#CBD #Hemp
Medical marijuana in the North Carolina Senate 
June 5, 2022 12:52 pm

বাংলা简体中文繁體中文EnglishFrançaisDeutschहिन्दीItaliano日本語한국어मराठीPortuguêsਪੰਜਾਬੀРусскийEspañolSvenskaతెలుగుไทยTürkçeУкраїнськаTiếng Việt