S.B. 121 Medical Cannabis Program Amendments: transcript

Mr. Chair, with your permission, I've just, I've got some bill summaries that our staff have put together. I think it'd be very helpful on this type of bill that has kind of a lot of components in It. That's an order. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This, this bill is, uh, the one that Senator Escamilla always likes to Christen as the, uh, Christmas ornament bill, a Christmas tree bill. Uh, it's, it's essentially what we, each year as we go through looking at cannabis program, we talk to the industry. We work through issues. We, we meet with our cannabis, uh, working group and try to look at things that are, are helpful and, and moving the program forward. I, I will say that I, I hope that it's, I hope that it's a narrative that our program is becoming more mature and efficient, because the list of ornaments is getting a lot smaller. And if you look at, uh, this bill and the summary that I've given you that, and I really appreciate, appreciate Seth and, and Chris putting this together. But, uh, and our staff that working on this, um, it gives you the line numbers, it gives you kind of some specific things. Let me give you a little bit of, uh, of narration about it. Um, so, you know, if you're looking at the short title, and what, what the summary does is it basically takes the short title and gives you, you know, the specific areas where we're talking about. Uh, some of the things are, are, are pretty benign. Uh, like for example, in line 2 42, we're changing when a, a change of ownership takes place. The, the board, the licensing board has a, a certain period of time they have to look at, you know, redoing the license. And it's been 30 days, we felt like it just needed to be extended to 60 to get more time to make sure that we can review the potential new owners and those types of things. Um, electronic payments. This is an area where, you know, that was a big problem when the medical cannabis program started because nobody could really take, the banks couldn't take it. The credit unions wouldn't, uh, literally in, in other states, they were hauling wheelbarrows full of cash, you know, down to make payments and those types of things to pay their taxes. Um, you know, we have been fortunate that that has changed a little bit on the federal level. It's allowed, uh, you know, some credit card, uh, credit unions to facilitate banking with the, these types of, these types of elements here in the state. You know, whether it be a grower, a processor, a pharmacy. And, but at this point in time, the division of finance said we no longer need that in code. We need, because it used to say, only approved by the Division of finance. So, so for example, line 7 90, 93 takes that out. Um, safe storage, you know, we're, this is something that's come through as we look at storing products and making sure that it's, you know, safe for the public. And, and the right medication is getting the public, you know, we've just, we've looked at the, the agencies have looked at and, and recommended some lines, some line changes. So you're looking there at 9 45 to 9 87, um, you know, accessing the, the medical cannabis, uh, verification system, electronic verification system, some updates to that, you know, and also, uh, looking at the men amendment, the form of an id, we've added tribal government ID to that. Um, guardians talking about cannabis, medical cannabis guardians that work with patients, especially those that are incapacitated. There's some updates in those. And there's three different sections where we're talking about that. Um, one of the thing that's that's been a kind of a constant issue is, okay, how do we try to keep these products medicinal? How do we keep them from looking like candy or other things that might be attractive to a child? What kind of names can we use and, and utilize that don't sign indicate kind of a recreational type program. Uh, we're doing a couple of things with that. We're allowing, you know, them to adopt, to make rules, to, to gather this. And like lines 360 2, line 3 39 specifically says hash can be used in the name. And, and that's, you know, that's kind of hard because you know, that, and historically, hash has been, I think, deemed to be more of a recreational product. But we found is as we go through the program, it actually has some type of a, a connotation that works within the medical candidates program. So the department is, uh, is recommending we do allow that. Um, And then under certain circumstances, if, if one of these license holders comes in violation, in the past it's had that the, you know, the department or the agency may revoke the license, we're saying now it shall be revoked. And so those are pretty much the, the items that we're looking at in, in this particular bill this year. Uh, but like I say, it's a process that we've gone through with our, with the medical cannabis program and helping it mature and working with all the stakeholders to try to find a way to be more efficient and try to find a way to provide efficient products to patients that cost, uh, cost less. So with that, Mr. Chair, I'm open for any questions.

Uh, good afternoon. My name is Amber Brown. I'm Deputy Commissioner for the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, and I'm oversee the Specialized Products Division. And we just wanted to express our support for this legislation. And we appreciate Senator Vickers always working with us and, and listening to our concerns and needs. And, and he's done a good job of summarizing, um, the changes in this bill. I think there are things that will help us to manage our side of the program more effectively. Um, we've also gotten some, a couple of these come from feedback from industry as we, we talk to our licensees and, and think about ways that we can help them to be successful, while kind of striking that balance of, of making sure that products are, are, are safe and transparent for, uh, for the people that are using them. So we urge you to support this bill. Thank you.

Senator Vickers, you're, you're up. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee. Appreciate that. Uh, with your permission, Mr. Chair, I know this committee especially hasn't maybe heard a lot of these medical cannabis bills in the past, so I, I do have, if your permission, I have a, uh, some, a handout that I'd like to pass out to each one. The, the staff has just been so good. These, these bills tend to have some moving parts in them. And so this, this gives you a summary of everything that's included in the bill. Um, each year we look at, we have a, a group of legislators and members of both parties and members of both house and Senate that we do have a working group that we meet periodically throughout the year. We work with industry, we work with stakeholders, we work with, uh, patient coalitions and others in trying to, to develop policies that would make our medical cannabis program much stronger. And that is the goal behind these provisions. So, as you go through the details, you just keep in mind that we're, that each one of these have has been kind of vetted and we're trying to, literally trying to find improvements in efficiency and other things. So let me highlight some of the more important things and then see if I can answer any questions that you might have. Uh, when, if you're going down through kind of licensing review process changes. Um, currently, if, if an ownership changes hands, the, the, the department only has 30 days to review everything, so they don't have enough time really to vet the new owners what, you know, what their backgrounds are and, and those types of things. So this extends, that gives 'em 60 days. Uh, currently they're, you know, we do allow some radiation based methods and, and treatment and quality assurance. This is just clarifying that with UA and then allow them to set up an administrative rule, how to administer that. You know, this line 3 51 may give you pause. It says ads that a product name may continue the word hash. Well, let me tell you, this is one of, been, one of the challenges that we've had in the medical cannabis program is to make sure that products don't look like candy. They're not attracted to, to youth. They don't have, you know, kind of weird names. And, uh, so we've, we've gone through this. We've really been robust in trying to prevent any of that, that type of thing coming forward. For example, you know, we only allow cubes. We don't allow gummy bears, things like that, that, or anything. But the word hash has been founded. It actually, in some of these products, they, it actually isn't a name, a common name. So it's kinda lost its 1960s flavor of hash to moving forward to, to, to now. Um, the, we give the UD death rulemaking authority to address terms related to psychologic psychological effects on medical cannabis labels. And we're constantly trying to find the best way to get the right information on the label, get the information to the patient. So just for example, you know, and it's, and some of these things are far or small, and they come forward as we go, but, and it, and you seem like, why would we, why can't we just say fact panel instead of back panel? Well, it really goes back to the original bill when there was the negotiation was line by line, literally line by line, and over 6,000 lines of code. Uh, it goes back to the fact that we've been very, very definitive in the, in the lines as we go through. So that, that's changed. And so that's why you see a change from back panel to fact panel. It actually has the facts on the panel, so it makes more sense. But, uh, so we've, we're changing some things with, as far as an a license to being able to be revoked. Um, ef uh, will have the ability to revoke a license if certain, uh, uh, things have, they've found that, uh, there's been some deficiencies or some misconduct. Uh, we're changing a situation. Certain situations to shall instead of may. Um, there moves a requirement that medical cannabis pharmacy agent receive education as a condition of the license registration. This is, this is an update with the, the medical cannabis pharmacy. Just basically dealing with the tech, the technicians that are working in the pharmacy space. As you probably know, we have, we use the pharmacy model. We don't use the dispensary model. So we have a pharmacist, a full-time pharmacist on staff at, at all times that the pharmacist, the pharmacy is open. And that is different than many other states. Uh, we do follow a model similar to Connecticut and Pennsylvania in that way. Uh, and that's what has kind of helped us separate our program from other states, because we do have medical professionals working with the patient from start to finish. Um, lemme see what some other things I want to get to, um, made my Bill, My talking about, uh, we do have, allow for delivery, and we have a process. So a a, a prescription can go out to delivery, and then there are times that that product is not picked up. We're clarifying, you know, how long the, the, the product can be come back before the product can cannot be used again. So if it, if it comes back within that 14, 14 day period, then it can go back into stock. This is similar to what a term, a current pharmacy practice would be in a regular retail pharmacy. And that's another model that we've tried to find. We've tried to model our laws and things after what currently is practiced in regular Kanab or regular pharmacy to, to mirror that in a, in a medical cannabis pharmacy. Um, also, let's see. I want to, one of the hotlines we made in the first, uh, one of the changes we made in the first, um, sub is that currently a product, when it leaves the pharmacy has to be an o make an opaque package. So I guess kinda like leaving a liquor store in a brown bag. Well, think of it that way, I guess. But, uh, in an OPA package, uh, we had restrictions previous to that, that it had to stay in that PA container the whole time. Uh, common sense now moving forward, you know, if a person has their product at home, if they have a, a prescription product, and they may wanna put it in their purse when they go out, you know, that type of thing. So we're just, we're making it so that once the, the patient has taken that product home, they, they can, but they don't have to keep it in that same opaque container. Uh, there were some, uh, education components within the Department of Health and Human Services. They were doing some education and found out that, and we had to stipulate they had to be an hour found out that they can actually be more efficient. So we're just giving 'em some flexibility here. Again, you'd think that they ought to be able to do that in rule, or you do it, you know, just common sense kind of approach or do it within the system. But because we've been so prescriptive in our, our language, you know, we do have to put it in code. Uh, also it sets up, we do have, we've been partnering with, uh, patient coalitions that work with patients. There's patient, this is a cash business, so there's no insurance that covers this. To my knowledge, there's not any insurance that would, that covers it in the state of Utah. We don't require that. Uh, you know, I guess that's up to them if they choose to, and maybe in the future they will, but right now they don't. And so it, it does make it difficult for lower income patients to afford it. Uh, we're proposing to take some of the money outta the restricted account, uh, that, and put it into a voucher program where patients that do qualify, they would be, they'd have to be on Medicare or Medicaid and have meet some low income requirements. They could get some vouchers to help offset the cost of their medication, similar to what we do with regular medication and other, other situations. And just remind you that this, we chose that the very start, that we did not want to tax the product. Many states fund their program through a tax. We do not tax it. And this is by agreement between the stakeholders when we originally did the program, that is funded by license fees. And so that, that money all goes into a restricted account. And that's how we fund the program, is through that account. So, Mr. Chair, I, I think I've gone over most of the highlights with things, um, and, and I'd be open to any questions that you might have.

I only see one that wants to speak to it, and I'll be, nobody likes it. I'll be brief as well. I'm Dr. Brandon Forsyth, director of the Specialized Products Division for the Department of Agriculture and Food. Um, just want to thank the sponsor for bringing this bill forward. As he's indicated, it's just a lot of small changes to the program that we need to make every year. And these ones in particular, will benefit patients as well as make the program easier to run. So we appreciate them bringing it forward and appreciate your consideration for it.

No, no. We're ready to go. I just make a positive motion, a positive recommendation for Senate Bill 1 21 for substitute.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just to comment, I'm gonna support the bill. I just wanna make sure that, uh, the good senator sticks around a while. I know that his background gives this discussion, which at least for me, I have no idea what most of this stuff's about, but I know that it's, uh, I've seen patients that use the material and it works really well. And I think with his background in pharmacology, it brings some credibility to the discussion. So I appreciate his work. Thanks.

Just wanted to echo those comments that you just heard. I appreciate the good senator from Cedar City and his career as a pharmacist, and I'm not sure anybody else could navigate this as well as he has. And by the way, we have heard three of your cannabis pills now, so we're becoming more informed. Hey, you guys will be experts. Okay.

No, I appreciate your, your comments. Obviously, it's, it's not a, a space that has been, it's been a challenging space, but the one, I think the good thing is is, and I think you can see this with this bill as it comes forward, each year we've had these, you know, as it's from the very start, when we implemented that in 2019 and moving forward, it's, we've, it's one of that we've constantly had to change. And, um, I, you know, you can think about it, that's, that's one of the initiatives that did pass. But even then, the, the sponsors of the initiative recognized that there was challenges. And so that what's brought the working groups together, that, that brought these stakeholders together to come up with 6,000 lines. That literally is how that came about. And, uh, as we've moved forward, you, I've seen the, the program mature. And with that, you, you know, this year, for example, we sat down and we had, we had a room full of, uh, people from the industry. We had people from our agencies, you know, we had legislators and others who were in patient coalition and we're talking through, and we talked through these issues that are in this bill. And at the end, there just really wasn't any controversy. And so, I hope that means that the program is maturing to the point that we are working together and really, truly trying to have a good medical program. So, with that, I appreciate your support. Yeah, thank you.

Uh, Senator, I just wanna make a comment that, uh, during the interim, I had some questions and talked to many in the industry, uh, to the good doctor, foresight and some of them, and they were very forthcoming and had a good discussion and, and so forth. So appreciate what you're doing.

a substitute online that I'd like to move on this, uh, it, it adds, uh, three components, um, in our, this is the bill that we typically, uh, Senator Escamilla has, has coined at the Christmas Tree Ornament Bill. It's the things that we look at with throughout the year, look at the program and see the things that we can make it stronger. And this, this is that the substitute simply does three things. It removes the one honor or time requirement on education with DHHS. It just reason for that is they were finding that they didn't, that one hour is actually too hard and too lengthy, so they didn't really need that long. Um, it removes the, um, the court requirement that a medical cannabis product be transported at all times in the package that is given from the pharmacy. Right now, it's required to come from the pharmacy in an opaque, uh, container. But here again, common sense says, well, once you get it home, you may wanna put it in your purse or something like that. And so this would allow that. It, um, It allows for the, uh, guardian or a caregiver who with an incapacitated individual, uh, does not require a, a background check, requires an attestation. And then it also sets up a process where we can put funding into, uh, a program to help people that are not able to pay for medical cannabis. Right now, it's not an insurance coverage in some people. So this would set up a process where we'd do, uh, an RFP with a nonprofit that could manage that program. And the individuals would have to be Medicaid, Medicare, and low income. That's what the, that's the changes in the substitute.

And, uh, so I'd like to make a motion to delete entitled and Body Senate Bill 1 21 and replace it with first substitute Senate Bill 1 21.

You Mr. President

Prota. In light of, um, the hour, let me be as quick and brief as I can. So those are things that were in the new substitute. Some of the things that we're addressing trying to make the pro the program stronger and better as a medical program. Um, we're giving some timeframe changes to the licensing board to review an ownership change moving from 30 to 60 days. Here again, common sense, they just need a little bit more time to review all the owners that might be a part of the new, new operation. Um, addition to radiation based methods allows for additional quality assurance or remediation processes to be established by UDA, an administrative rule. Uh, lemme find the, were something, um, grants uaf, additional rulemaking authority to address terms related to psychological effects on medical cannabis labels. Finding that some of the information that's in co in statute on labels just needs to be tweaked. That's, that's one of those pieces. Another piece would be instead of term back panel, we're using Fact Panel, which there again seems like common sense. Um, also there are situations where U DAF has the ability to remove a license. In the past we've said May, and this is for certain, uh, activities committed by or violations committed by the license holder. Uh, we're moving that May to a shall yes, it should be Requires that a medical cannabis pharmacy agent to be designated by the pharmacist in charge and completes training and health information privacy laws in order to access electronic verification system, which is the system that all that, uh, the law both law enforcement and the medical cannabis program uses. And I think those, that's the highlight of the things that we're proposing to change this year in this bill. And with that, I'm open for any questions.

Thank you Mr. President ProAm I'D wa summation move that first substitute Senate Bill 1 21. Be read a third time

Vote. Senator Vickers Baldy Aye. Bwin brammer Aye. Bus Aye. Colmore Aye. Escamilla Aye. Fillmore Aye. Grover Aye. Harper Aye. Kins Aye. Ipson Aye. Johnson Aye. Quan Aye. McKay? Aye. Mikel Aye. Milner a Musselman Aye. Owen's Aye. Pitcher? Aye. Plum Rebe Aye. Sandal Aye. Stevenson Stratton Aye. Aye. Bickers Weiler Aye. Wilson Aye. Winterton Aye. President Adams

Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I think everybody knows the history of medical cannabis in the state of Utah, and it was, uh, came forward with an initiative that went through we all, at that time, we had the ability as legislature to make changes to that. There was a, you know, really a strong, healthy negotiation that went on and putting that piece of legislation together. It was a, a very long bill and it was line by line and a lot of different pieces in it. And since then, we've moved forward with the idea of every year as we review this, we've had some very thoughtful legislators over the years and currently that are looking at these pieces and with one goal in mind. And that is to make the medical cannabis program the very, the very best medical program, medical program that can be in the, in the country. Uh, through that process. You, you know, every year one of us stands here, either center Esker me or I stand here before you with what we've kind of christened the ornament bill. And, and most of the time they're smaller provisions. Sometimes they're, but they're all impactful and helping work toward that goal of, of reaching the very best medical program we can because we were able to originally make some changes to the initiative and take that language and move it forward. We've continued to modify that over the years. I, I, you know, there has been a lot of changes and as, as the program has matured and got better, uh, through both the, our, our business partners in it and also the regulator partners and those, and the stakeholders are out there outside that are watching carefully, it's been a good process, but there has been a lot, a lot of changes. And so I, I can, if you know this, it's been an interesting space to work in, but we're continuing to monitor that. And, and like I say, the goal is always one, one, and that is to make this program the very best medical program we can possibly have. This bill, uh, has a number of pieces in it that would move toward that. And, you know, and they're not, you know, they're not big headline grabbing type of things. So for example, you know, when we review a change of a, a license, you know, an ownership of a license, uh, we're looking, currently we only give the, the department 30 days. You know, it felt like that the, the licensing board ought to have more time. So we're approving increasing that to 60 days. Uh, we've found over the years that certain types of, of methods of, uh, radiation based methods and others that work best in producing these products and making sure they're, they're safe for the public, that that's included in this bill. Um, descriptions of products has, has been a, a key factor in something that we've looked at over the years, trying to make sure that these names don't sound attractive to children or do the products look attractive to children Anyway, we try, we've been kept that really tried to keep that in a tight box. There's some things, some things in the bill to address that. Uh, small things like instead of having rec, recognizing a back panel on a product, we're looking, actually the panel has all the facts on it. And so we're calling it a fact panel. Um, looking at when in situations, certain situations when UDAF or Department of Agriculture and Food, uh, has the ha has finds a violation, uh, it has been in the past that they, under certain circumstances, they may, uh, you know, revoke the license. This is changing that to a shall, uh, some of the new points that we talked about yesterday in the substitute just were, um, just removing a one hour time requirement on the, on the education piece. The Department of Health and Human Services gives to providers, um, found out that, you know, they just need a little bit of flexibility. So we're just taking that one hour outta statute. Uh, we're providing an opportunity for, uh, some funding that could go to help patients that can't afford products. They, right now, this is not it covered by insurance. So that those people that were, would be low income. So they qualify by being on Medicaid or Medicare and low income, then they would have a voucher program that would help them. Um, and then also with caregivers and, and guardians for incapacitated patients. Then we're taking, and also with other guardians and caregivers, but specifically with the incapacitated, we're take, we're removing the background check requirement, moving that to an attestation. This is something that's just kind of evolved over the years. Uh, those are just, those are the highlights of most of the major pieces that are in this, in this bill. So it, you know, they typically intend to be long bills and have a lot of, a lot of pieces in 'em. Those are the things that we're trying to do, always with that one goal in mind, originally from the very first when we took the initiative, even made some changes there. And moving forward throughout the years when we've had these bills, it's always with the one goal in mind is to make this the very best medical program we can possibly have. So with that, I'm open for any questions. Thank

Yeah. Will the sponsor yield

Uh, over the time that you've been involved in the legislation related to medical cannabis, can you estimate, you know, how many bills and how many changes there have been to the medical cannabis program?

We've tried to consolidate for the most part, but every year there's two or three, and they tend to be pretty big. Um, not all of them, but some, like today, you know, I just had one that only corrected one piece, but most of the time there's two or three bills, and you'll see that in this legislative session that are adjusting moving parts. And so I don't estimate here with this bill and maybe a couple of other bills that I'm aware of, at least one other bill I'm aware of. There's probably 30 components, but there, most of them are minor changes, but there's still changes. And, and so you've multiply that over the course of the number of years that we've been involved, including special sessions. I don't know. You, you could approach maybe a thousand.

Okay. And in some of those changes, does it change, uh, for example, the governance structure and how board members are, are, you know, committee members are selected in order to work on issues related to medical cannabis?

Um, we, thank you, Mr. President for the question. We did set up a working group and designated, uh, certain legislators from both parties and both House and Senate to continue to review that. And we do meet on a regular basis throughout the year. And that these bills tend to be the product of those discussions. We also have an advisory board that we've set up that makes recommendations to the board. Some of those are included here. We also have a compassionate use board and we also have a research component that we've just added, uh, the, at the University of Utah to help us give information back to the legislature trying to make, make additional good judgements. So yes, there has been that structure and we've also made changes in structure on, we have the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Department of Health and Human Services that monitor the program and regulate the program. We have changed some, uh, structure as to who does what over the years, but those, right now, at least those two pieces are still in place.

Senator Grammar, my last question would be, uh, you know, do you feel like you have clarity as to whether you're within the bounds of whether or not we are altering and reforming government with the hundreds, if not thousands of changes related to the medical cannabis program amendments?

Senator Vickers? Uh, that's more of a subjective question. I'm not sure, but I can tell you this, that when, from the, in on, on this particular one, when we're talking about this initiative, back then, when the initiative passed, uh, even the advocates recognized that there were some challenges with the language in the initiative. And Speaker Hughes at the time, um, stood up and got a good group of, from both, you might say, competing sides on the thing to put, to put together. He got legislators, uh, myself, others that are in the body today, and that worked on this. And we spent hours and hours and hours changing trying to get from where the initiative intent was to what the legislation should look like. So that process was something that was available to us. And I think it was very valuable at that time with this parti, especially with this particular product, this medical cannabis program, because it got us from where we could have been to where we've really now have just strongly focused on a medical cannabis program.

And, and my, you know, the only commentary I would have is, you know, this was, this came from an initiative we've received, uh, you know, a Supreme Court ruling that anytime that the initiative passes in certain circumstances, it may alter reform government and therefore the legislature can't amend it if it would do anything to impair the intent of the initiative, which is difficult to determine in and of itself. And then the language of the court left us with a lot of uncertainty as to how to interact with, you know, with the law. And, and now we have something where, uh, you know, I I I just think that the, the courts have taken us into a position with regards to initiatives where they have added chaos on all of these. And even, you know, on this one, everyone came to a consensus. Those that were in favor came and they reached a consensus as to does this serve the intent of the initiative? And, and the problem with that is, and I think that everyone has worked hard. I think that, that it's been a bipartisan effort to work hard to do it. When we go over to other initiatives that have been struck down by, or, uh, legislation related to initiatives that have been struck down by the court, those were also consensus bills that were bipartisan bills where the intent of the initiative was honored. And then the court came back and said, not so fast. Uh, we don't think that you honored what we perceive as the intent of the initiative, even though the sponsors of the initiative were there at the table speaking in favor of the fact that the legislature honored the intent of the initiative. And so they've left us in a position that is a no win position. And, and I think that this just highlights and the amount of work that it takes to try to adjust the law to the changing landscape, uh, you know, and, and the, the attempt to inhibit the legislature related to initiatives and what it can and can't do with a new category of how what we can and can't treat as statutes, that it was never set forth in our constitution is simply untenable at this time. And, and I think that this just highlights that fact. And so I appreciate all the good work on this. I I think that you're well within, you know, that, that this is treated as a statute and appropriately so, which means that it can be amended by legislation. But I think that we've been put into a realm of the unknown based on poor decisions by our Supreme Court. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. It took a little different twist than I was expecting, but at the same token, um, as I've looked at this, I, and I have to admit that I was really hoping that my legacy as a legislator would be something besides medical cannabis. Uh, I can think of a lot of other things. Uh, but the fact of the matter is, we've had a lot of legislators over the years work on this and work with me. I'm kind of the last guy standing from the original, uh, crowd that's, you know, worked in this space. But over the years, we've just had really conscientious good legislators. We've had minority party members, majority party members, house members, senate members that have really conscientiously worked in this space and been very effective. All of us kind of do our part, you know, to try to keep that goal in mind of having the very best medical program we could possibly have, which goes back to what the intent of the initiative was. And so I appreciate those that have worked with us along the way and those that have tolerated us along the way because it's, it's so confusing and at times, and so we appreciate that. I just wanna let you know how much a, um, it's there. I, I'm not gonna say it's always been fun to work in this space, but there have been a lot of times when it's been very enjoyable to see groups come together, have differences of opinion, but then find coalesce around something that works. And so with that, I would move that first substitute Senate bill 1 21 pass. Thank

Thank you Mr. President. I just wanna rise in support to, of this piece of legislation and more importantly, the process. I, I appreciate the, the discussion and I think Senator Bickers said it well at the end, where this is really a great example, a case study on how good public policy can happen when you bring everyone together. And it's not easy. And this is a all year conversation. Um, this group continues to work with the stakeholders throughout the whole year and, and it's been by design and we have evolved and it just, I think it's been one of, to me personally, as one of the group has been part of the group, one of the most fulfilling pieces in terms of public policy and also learning from mistakes. I mean, it takes a minute to get a program running and we are considered one of the best programs in the country when it comes to medical cannabis. And for that, I'll be supporting this bill. Aye.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. It's great to be over here where the sun shines. Um, this is the, the annual cleanup bill for cannabis. Senator Vickers and I have the great opportunity to, to chair this chill committee. And so, um, we go through each year and, and work with, uh, UDAF and the Health and Human Services to make the necessary changes and tweaks to make, uh, make this the medical cannabis system work. Um, a couple things I'll just point out to you. Um, it gives more time to the UDAF from their licensing board from 30 days to 60 days to review the ownership change. What we found that some ownerships of cannabis licensed companies were out-of-state companies and they're creating a conglomerate so they can control the market. So we wanted to prevent that. Um, the labeling on, on the product, um, hash is actually a word that's used in the medical world, and we had banned that before we changed. Um, from May to shall, if someone is a courier or an agent of a pharmacy and they have a felony and they're, or they're doing something that's not proper, um, they shall revoke their license. And there's several other things. Most of 'em are pretty minute changes. Um, one of the more significant ones is it does extend this working group from this year to next year. So it does give another year for the medical Cannabis structure group to continue working with that. I'm open to any questions.

I, I waive. Thank you, Sir. Summation has been waived.