►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
C
A
Here
in
the
room,
thank
you.
Everybody,
I'm
going
to
go
over
my
general
rules
for
this
committee.
First
and
foremost,
if
you
have
a
cell
phone
with
you,
please
turn
it
to
quiet
or
vibrate.
We
try
to
not
let
those
phones
interfere
with
the
equipment.
A
Secondly,
the
microphones
that
are
at
the
presenters
tables
please
make
sure
that
they
are
on
and
that
you
pull
them
close
to
you
when
speaking
into
them,
so
that
we
can
record
all
of
the
information.
Thirdly,
we're
not
permitted
to
have
any
signage
in
the
room,
I
don't
see
any,
but
we're
not
permitted
to
have
any
signage
in
the
room.
A
Fourth,
if
you
signed
up
to
speak,
they'll
be
delivering
that
sign
up
sheet
up
here
to
me,
we
will
probably
keep
it
somewhat
brief,
because
at
least
for
one
of
these
bills,
we've
heard
it
in
interim-
we've
heard
it
previously,
and
so
with
regards
to
that,
we'll
probably
keep
the
comments
brief
and
not
repetitive,
with
that,
the
order
we're
going
to
call
the
bills
in
today
is
as
follows.
We
will
start
with
house
bill
730.
A
We
will
then
move
to
house
bill
31
and
we
will
wrap
up
today
with
house
bill
136
and
with
that
I'm
going
to
invite
those
on
house
bill
730
to
come
to
the
podium
to
come
to
the
table,
and
I
know
we
have
representative
bray
and
I
believe
representative
hevron.
A
And
as
they're
coming,
I
know
that
we
have
a.
We
have
a
house
committee
substitute
on
house
bill,
7
30.
motion
on
the
sub.
We
have
a
motion
of
the
sub
by
representative
demaster
of
second
second,
with
a
second
by
representative
banta,
all
in
favor
of
the
committee
subs
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
opposed.
C
I
would
like
to
think
that
the
crowd
here
is
because
of
the
interest
in
house
bill
730,
but
somehow
I
kind
of
doubt
that
so
what
this
bill
does
and
what
the
committee
sub
does
is
over
the
summer
started
having
some
issues
with
our
from
my
local
sheriff's
department,
I'd
attended
a
fiscal
court
meeting
and
they
were
there
to
request
more
funding
because
they
were
having
to
transport
202a
patients
further
than
what
the
regulation
calls
for
and
so
began
talking
about
what
we
could
do
to
kind
of
look
at
those
districts.
C
They
haven't
been
evaluated
since
at
least
the
80s
in
25
years,
and
so
what
what
the
committee
said
does
is.
It
requires
the
cabinet
to
redraw
these
districts,
taking
into
consideration
distance,
traveled
census
data
hospital
loads,
that
kind
of
stuff.
It
would
be
a
great
help.
You
know
just
kind
of,
as
as
an
example,
you
know
currently
by
reg.
If
you
have
a
202,
a
patient
in
rockcastle
county
you're
ordered
to
take
them
to
hazard
if
hazard's
full
and
so
that
to
hazard's
about
an
hour
and
a
half
drive.
C
So
we've
got
two
deputies
having
to
transport
a
patient
an
hour
and
a
half
if
hazard's
full,
they
have
to
go
to
harlan
or
prestonsburg,
which
is
two
and
a
half
hours
at
best.
When
lexington's
40
minutes
up
the
up
the
road
you
know
the
city
of
ashland
or
boyd
county,
they
have
to
take
them
to
ashland
with
the
opening
of
a
prestonsburg
facility
from
arh
that
would
save
them
about
80
minutes
round
trip
motion.
A
We
have
a
notion
on
the
bill
representative
davis,
who
is
second
representative
mccoy
all
right.
I'm
looking
for
questions
representative
call
carney.
A
My
understanding
is,
it
was
sent
out
by
email.
We
have
sent
a
staff
member
to
go,
get
printed,
copies
and,
and
part
of
that
was
because
of
just
the
special
call
meeting,
but
that's
what
he
was
trying
to
explain.
I
will
try
to
add
to
that
momentarily
and
then
hopefully,
we'll
get
the
copies
here
in
just
a
moment.
Thank
you.
So
I
I
worked
with
this
group
as
they
were
doing
it.
A
One
of
the
problems
we've
had
in
kentucky,
which
has
become
a
huge
problem,
is
the
cost
of
transportation
and
tying
up
our
public
officials,
whether
it
be
ems
or
sheriff's
members,
and
trying
to
take
people
to
facilities
that
can
house
or
deal
with
their
concerns,
and
because
of
that,
we
are
trying
to
find
ways
in
bringing
all
of
these
people
together
to
lessen
the
cost
to
the
taxpayers
and
to
free
up
the
time
of
the
emergency
services
and
the
sheriff's
departments.
So
they
can
go
about
their
other
work.
A
Obviously,
if
they're
away
doing
one
of
these
202
a
transports,
then
they're
not
doing
something
else.
So
that
was
the
purpose
of
this.
The
reason
it's
come
down
to
a
one-page
committee
sub,
I
believe,
is
because
we
have
not
yet
reached
the
point
that
we
could
get
everybody
in
consensus
on
a
very
complex
problem
that
they
will
continue
to
work
on
as
we
go
forward
with
that
I'll
turn
it
back
over
to
the
presenters
because
they
might
be
able
to
answer
the
question
much
better
than
I
can
well.
E
And
just
kind
of
representative
call
carne
it's
a
great
question.
I
appreciate
it
so
it
was
currently
it
was
an
18-page
bill.
E
We
took
it
down
to,
I
think
it's
a
page
and
maybe
a
quarter
now
the
process
really
started
in
july,
and
so
this
has
been
an
active
working
group
during
the
interim
and
we've
had
five
specific
groups
of
people
of
stakeholders
that
were
involved
in
this,
and
that
includes
law
enforcement,
public
officials,
cmhcs
hospitals,
advocates
and
chfs,
and
so
when
we
started
looking
at
202a,
because
I
think
you
know
when
this
was
created
in
the
1980s
mental
health
wasn't
talked
about.
E
Obviously
it's
still
hard
to
talk
about
in
2022,
but
we're
starting
to
try
to
work
on
it
more
and
bring
the
conversation
to
light,
especially
here
in
the
kentucky
general
assembly,
and
so
202
truly
does
need
an
overhaul,
we're
just
not
at
the
point
where
we're
ready
to
to
release
this
language
until
everyone's
more
happy
about
it,
because
I
think
that
this
is
starting
the
conversation
that
we
need
to
move
mental
health
away
from
being
criminal
unless
the
person
has
actually
been
charged
criminally.
E
In
other
words,
I
don't
know
that
these
people
need
to
be
picked
up
by
a
law
enforcement
officer,
and
so
with
that
conversation
we
just
still
have
more
work
to
do,
and
after
talking
to
several
of
the
hospitals
and
seeing
community
mental
health
centers,
I
think
they
feel
the
same
way,
and
so
with
this.
I
think
that
it
does
help
on
the
transportation
issue
in
regards
to
making
sure
they
get
to
the
correct
hospital
regionally,
but
there's
just
so
much
work.
E
That
needs
to
be
done
and,
while
we've
put
in
the
effort
for
several
months,
we're
just
not
there
yet
and
both
representative
bray
and
I
we
don't
want
to
put
out
a
legislation
just
to
say,
hey,
let's
put
a
sticky
tape
on
this
or
a
band-aid.
We
actually
want
this
to
be
meaningful
legislation,
and
I
want
to
say
today
I
was
really
touched.
Steve.
Shannon
stopped
me
in
the
hallway
he's
been
a
big
part
of
this
working
group.
He
said
in
my
lifetime
or
about
in
the
25
years.
I've
been
here.
E
E
This
came
up
with
my
sheriff
walking
up
to
me
one
day
in
both
both
grayson
county
and
hardin
county,
and
they
were
like
samara.
We
don't
have
the
manpower
to
be
able
to
deal
with
this,
and
you
know
when
we're
gone
12
hours
at
a
time,
but
is
this
really
the
way
that
we
need
to
be
dealing
with
mental
health
issues?
So
a
long
answer
for
the
question,
but
just
kind
of
put
in
perspective.
E
A
And
we
will
have
those
to
you
momentarily.
We'll
also
tell
you
representative,
that
part
of
this
is
a
record-keeping
thing,
with
the
facilities
to
make
sure
we
can
get
the
data
and
hold
them
accountable
to
make
sure
that
the
facilities
that
we're
transporting
to
are
actually
appropriate
facilities
to
house
these
types
of
of
persons.
So,
representative,
scott,
did
you
have
an
additional
question.
A
We
do
have
the
committee
subs
coming
around
to
you,
I'm
going
to
give
you
about
a
minute
if
that's
okay,
just
to
take
a
look
at
the
sub
to
make
sure
there's
no
questions,
and
I
know
that
mccoy
is
already
looking
at
this
watch
and
we
do
have
a
member
of
our
committee.
A
That
has
a
a
celebration
this
evening,
and
so
we
have
to
get
at
a
reasonable
time
to
celebrate
that
that
individual.
So
I
want
you
to
look
at
it,
though,
and
we'll
give
you
just
a
moment
and
then
we'll
call
for
the
vote.
Unless
there's
further
questions.
E
A
Also,
I've
just
been
pointed
out
to
me
that
the
committee
sub
actually
mirrors
mostly
of
section
8
of
the
original
bill.
So
you
do
have
the
original
bill
in
front
of
you,
so
it
does
mirror
section
8..
So
while
we're
doing
that,
as
is
that
prompted
any
additional
questions
that
we
need
to
discuss
here
today
before
calling
for
a
vote.
A
D
F
G
A
I
Thank
you
so
much
chairman
and
committee.
I've
got
some
amazing
guests
with
me
who
are
actually
much
more
important
to
hear
from
so
you
will
hear
from
them
in
just
a
moment.
They're
some
of
my
favorite
people
in
the
whole
wide
world,
but
I
just
want
to
share
with
you
a
little
bit
of
background
very
quickly.
You
all
know.
I
don't
take
too
much
time
in
committee,
so
I
won't
do
that
today
either,
but
I
do
want
to
share
a
little
context
about
the
crown
act.
I
So
race-based,
hair
discrimination
is
the
denial
of
educational
and
employment
opportunities
because
of
hair
texture
or
protective
hair
styles,
including
braids
locks
twists
and
bantu
knots.
We
already
know
that
black
students
and
students
of
color
are
disproportionately
affected
by
school
suspension
and
expulsion.
I
I
The
crown
act
stands
for
creating
a
respectful
and
open
world
for
natural
hair.
Thank
you
to
vice
chair
banta
and
representatives,
bojanowski
brown,
fleming
flood
hatton,
jenkins,
cool
carney,
marzian,
jerry
miller,
minter,
nemes,
raymond
roberts,
shirlen
stevenson,
pam
stevenson,
wheatley
and
wilner
for
signing
on
as
co-sponsors
of
house
bill
31..
I
When
my
daughter
was
15
and
preparing
to
start
her.
Sophomore
year
in
high
school,
we
went
to
orientation
to
pick
up
all
of
the
new
school
year
documents.
Shockingly,
she
was
met
with
the
new
dress
code
policy,
which
read
no
dreadlocks
cornrows
twists
mohawks
and
no
jewelry
can
be
worn
in
hair.
These
are
hairstyles
that
have
deep
historical
significance
in
my
culture.
Beyond
the
cultural
importance
of
these
hairstyles,
there
is
the
need
to
protect
our
hair
from
chemicals
and
heat
damage.
I
This
discretionary
dress
code
had
a
negative
impact
on
my
daughter
and
many
of
her
classmates,
especially
their
outlook
about
school
and
their
sense
of
belonging.
Sadly,
employers,
schools
and
places
of
public
accommodation
have
restricted
or
stigmatized
black
hairstyles
for
years
it
strips
people
of
their
dignity
and
inflicts
financial
physiological
and
psychological
harm.
A
We
have
a
motion
on
the
bill
and
a
second.
So
at
this
point
I
know
there's
going
to
be
some
additional
presentation,
so
I'm
gonna
let
them
I
don't
wanna.
I
don't
wanna,
not
let
students
present
if
they
are
here.
I
think
we're
about
kids
in
this
general
assembly
and
we
wanna
make
sure
that
students
or
kids
can
present
if
they
prepare
for
this
testimony.
So
as
soon
as
they
do
that
we'll
take
any
questions
and
we'll
vote.
J
Hello,
my
name
is
diaz
mcmillan,
I'm
12
years
old
and
I
go
to
james
academy
of
excellence.
J
J
J
J
Do
you
know
that,
in
order
my
hair
to
be
straight,
it
costs
time
and
money,
because
it's
not
easy
process,
it's
not
healthy.
For
my
hair,
my
confidence
was
gone
until
my
mom
spoke
to
me
and
told
me
that
if
I'm
fighting
for
the
chronic
hb31,
then
I
have
to
tell
people
when
they
are
wrong.
Even
adults.
J
J
K
Hello,
I
am
jarya
mcmillan,
I'm
15
and
I
go
to
w.e.b
du
bois
academy.
I
am
asking
you
for
your
support
for
your
supporting
the
crown
net.
The
crown
act,
which
is
hb
31,
has
bipartisan
support
of
senator
whitney,
westerfield,
senator
moore,
morgan,
mcgarvey
and
representative
representative
attica,
scott
and
representative
kim
banta.
This
is
a
major
problem
and
we
need
to
fix
it,
which
is
why
I'm
here
talk
talking
to
you
today.
Adults
or
businesses
should
not
be
able
to
tell
us
what
what
is
professional
and
when
it
comes
to
our
hair.
K
The
same
way
is
with
balor's
cheerleading
team,
which
is
a
which
is
a
school
in
jcps,
and
they
and
they
truly
the
coach,
told
them
that
they
all
had
to
put
on
wigs
or
they
could
not
finish
day
season
now.
I
am
here
today
to
tell
y'all
that
the
crown
act
can
not
only
protect
african
americans.
It
would
take
all
races
from
being
discriminated
against
their
hair.
L
L
It
is
supported
by
senator
mcgarvey
and
westerfield
representative
edica,
scott
and
representative
kim
benta.
It
is
supported
by
senator,
oh
I'm,
sorry,
it
has
bipartisan
support.
It
has
already
been
passed.
You
know
unanimously
coveton,
kentucky
and
louisville.
Many
companies
are
starting
to
change
their
policy.
For
example,
ups
changed
their
policies
and
now
ups
allows
employees
to
wear
natural
hairstyles
and
beards
ups
now
allows
its
employees
to
wear
beards
longer
than
longer
hair
and
natural
hairstyles,
like
afros
braids,
locks,
twists
and
knots.
L
This
is
important
to
me
because
I
am
a
young
black
teen
that
is
growing
into
a
great
young
man,
and
I
wear
my
hair
in
many
different
styles
with
me
wearing
my
hair.
In
these
styles,
I
get
a
little
like
as
a
thug
and
me
being
african-american.
I
already
get
stereotyped,
so
my
hair
should
just
get
looked
like
it's
my
cream.
L
L
I
am
a
law
student
at
the
historically
black
central
high
school
in
louisville
kentucky,
and
there
are
many
styles
that
I
see
from
a
day-to-day
basics
from
different
colors,
textures
and
styles.
This
is
a
way
that
people
express
themselves.
So
if
hb31
is
not
passed,
this
could
keep
taking
aways
people,
freedom
and
happiness.
So
I
today
with
that
being
said,
we
are
asking
for
your
support
by
passing
hb31.
Thank
you.
M
Yes,
thank
you.
I
have
met
several
times
with
representative
scott
and
enjoyed
each
conversation,
and
I
thank
you
for
talking
with
me.
I've
also
talked
with
several
of
you
who
are
on
the
panel
today,
and
I've
appreciated
that.
M
I
think
that
I
remember
on
your
sheet
that
you
gave
out
representative
scott.
You
talked
about
girls
who
were
going
to
a
school
and
then
they
wanted
to
straighten
their
hair.
Well,
I
can
tell
you:
I
have
often
wanted
to
curl
mine
because
of
how
beautiful
that
is
other
people.
I
don't
think
that
was
race
discrimination
that
I
had
felt,
but
just
social
pressure,
so
I
believe
the
bill
as
I've
expressed
to
you
goes
too
far
by
amending
the
kentucky
civil
rights
act.
M
M
M
I
ask
if
you
would
limit
this
bill
to
one
that
applies
to
schools
and
government
organizations.
I
understand
why
you
said
no
and
I
but
I
appreciate
the
conversation
and
I
regret
the
need
to
say
no
to
these
beautiful
children,
young
young
people,
but
I
just
feel
like
it
is
unconstitutional
to
do
so.
Thank
you.
I
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
comment
and
I
will
say
that
protective
styles,
a
lot
of
people,
don't
understand
what
a
protective
style
is
and
that's
what
I
wear.
So
it's
not
something
that
I
change
even
from
year
to
year.
I've
had
this
for
decades,
because
it's
safer
and
healthier
for
me
not
to
use
chemicals,
which
are
very
dangerous
for
me
to
put
on
my
scalp
or
to
use
a
straightening
comb
to
straighten
my
hair,
which
will
burn
my
hair.
I
A
I
do
have
another
question
I'm
going
to
ask,
but
I
do
also
have
some
people
that
signed
up
all
of
them
that
signed
up
were
in
support
of
it,
but
one
is
asked
to
testify.
So
I'm
going
to
briefly
let
them
testify
in
just
a
moment,
but
for
now
I'm
going
to
turn
to
representative
nemes
you'll,
wait!
Okay,
mr,
is
it
sullivan?
If
you
want
to
come
up
we'll
give
you
the
the
floor
for
a
moment.
A
And
we'll
give
you
just
a
couple
of
minutes,
if
you
don't
mind
to
present,
maybe
you
will
answer
some
of
the
the
comments
that
have
been
made
and
then
we
do
have
another
question
from
representative
nemis.
You
may
proceed
identify
yourself
and
you
may
proceed.
N
I
am
the
director
of
the
commission
on
human
rights
and
our
agency
is
actually
in
empowered
to
enforce
kentucky
civil
rights
act
and
we
follow
kcra,
and
we
also
follow
the
rules
that
are
put
forth
by
the
eeoc
to
protect
the
rights
of
people
in
the
commonwealth
and
this
house
bill
31
and
the
crown
act
falls
strictly
within
our
jurisdiction,
because
those
are
things
that
we
see
every
day.
N
We
have
cases
where
there
could
be
employers
and
they
use
this
hair-based
discrimination
as
a
proxy
for
race
and
that's
something
that
the
civil
rights
act
was
enacted
to
protect
against,
and
so
by
saying
that
we
can
only.
We
only
want
it
to
apply
to
schools
or
whatever,
that's
still
it.
This
goes
within
everything
that
we
were
that
we
were
established
to
protect
in
1960.
N
N
But
right
now
we
have
cases
where
people
have
filed,
because
they've
tried
to
work
at
a
place
and
then
they've
been
sent
home
because
of
the
way
that
their
hair
grows.
And
I
know
personally
I
keep
my
hair
short
because
I
knew-
and
it
was
reaffirmed
to
me
when
I
was
in
law
school-
that
I
needed
to
keep
my
hair
short
to
look
professional.
N
N
I
think
that
people
should
be
able
to
exist
as
they
are
in
school
in
the
workplace
when
they
go
out
to
eat
and
they
shouldn't
be
judged
by
the
way
that
their
hair
grows
out
of
their
head
and
so
to
some
of
the
question-
and
I
think
kylie
was
going
to
get
to
this
and
her
remarks
that
she
had
prepared.
But
there
are
limits
on
which
employers,
the
eeoc,
for
example,
regulates
and
so
for
really
small
businesses
of
20
or
fewer
they
might
have
they.
They
wouldn't
be
subject
to
that.
N
But
for
larger
scale,
employers
and
not
the
small
private
companies.
They
would
be
subject
to
these
types
of
provisions,
and
so
this
is
something
that's
necessary
and
again,
I
really
don't
think
I
would
be
where
I
am.
If
I
wouldn't
have
cut
my
twists
off
when
I
was
in
middle
school,
and
that
should
not
be
something
that
you
should
ever
have
to
decide
between
is
being
who
you
are
and
being
able
to
be.
Who
you
want
to
become,
and
so
by
having
the
crown
act
to
protect
these
people,
and
you
saw
them
speaking.
N
It's
definitely
something
that's
important,
and
so
there
are
ways
and
the
this
is
been
enacted
in
other
states
and
has
it's
just
something.
That's
pretty
much
common
sense,
and
I
do
want
to
thank
you,
chairman
massey,
for
calling
this,
and
I
want
to
thank
you,
representative,
scott,
for
your
tireless
efforts
to
get
this
heard.
I
know
you've
been
pushing
this
since
I
worked
here
and
that
was
a
while
ago
and
I'm
just
so
happy
that
this
is
even
being
heard
in
committee,
and
I
just
urge
you
all
to
vote
in
favor
of
house
bill.
31.
A
O
Yes,
thank
you,
sir.
My
name
is
kylie
boss
and
I
am
a
legal
fellow
here
at
the
aclu
of
kentucky.
I
am
also
an
attorney
currently
licensed
in
maryland
and
just
recently
received
authorization
for
supervised
practice
here
in
the
commonwealth
and
I'm
actually
published
on
this
issue
in
william
and
mary's
journal
of
race,
gender
and
social
justice.
O
My
notice
entitled
black
heritage,
career
liability
or
civil
rights
issue
discussing
the
unique
employment
discrimination
specifically,
and
I
really
appreciate
representative
decker's
comments
about
the
immutability
requirement
of
title
vii.
My
remarks
do
address
that
most
anti-discrimination
statutes,
including
title
vii,
expressly
protect
against
discrimination
on
the
basis
of
race,
sex,
religion
and
national
origin
and
states
are
free
to
give
broader
civil
rights
protections
to
additional
traits
like
sexual
orientation,
gender
identity
or
familial
status
if
they
so
choose,
but
the
protected
characteristics
that
title
vii
covers
it's
the
floor,
and
so
essentially
the
immutability
requirement.
O
O
It
allows
for
so
many
forms
of
discrimination
to
remain
legal,
even,
for
example,
accent,
discrimination,
that's
legal
under
title
vii
and
anti-discrimination
statutes
when
it's
actually
derivative
from
national
origin,
for
example.
And
so
that's
just
one
example.
O
Here
we
have
dress
codes
and
we
have
grooming
policy
standards
that
exclude
people
that
look
like
me,
black
employees,
black
women
and
school
children
and,
and
what
that
says
to
people
like
me.
It
says
that
we
don't
belong
in
spaces
when
we
use
natural
hair
and
we
use
it
as
a
proxy
for
what
is
professional
and
what
is
acceptable,
essentially
we're
using
whiteness
as
a
yardstick
of
what
is
allowed
in
the
workplace.
O
What
should
be
allowed-
and
I
just
want
to
implore
the
committee
to
think
about
the
message
we're
sending
if
we
don't
support
the
crown
act
in
brown
versus
board
of
education.
We
cared
as
a
society
about
the
message
that
we
sent
to
children
in
schools
and
the
harmful
and
tangible
consequences
of
racial
discrimination.
O
Our
supreme
court
said
that
these
ramifications
of
racial
discrimination
would
impose
a
badge
of
inferiority,
and
you
heard
the
students
that
testified
before
me
so
eloquently
that
this
makes
them
feel
less
than
is
this
the
type
of
message
that
we're
comfortable
sending
with
our
children
that
they
are
less
than
by
how
they
choose
to
wear
their
hair?
Naturally,
I
definitely
understand
your
constitutional
concerns
with
regard
to
how
far
this
bill
goes.
Representative
decker,
however,
title
vii
is
intended
to
give
protections
in
the
employment
context.
O
Crown
act
is
to
cover
not
only
employees
but
children
and
and
we're
not
asking
for
you
to
create
a
new
federal
right,
we're
asking
for
you
to
codify
and
protect
one's
right
to
wear
their
hair,
as
it
naturally
grows
from
their
head.
This
is
such
an
important
piece
of
legislation,
and
I'm
so
glad
representative
scott
is
introducing
it
and
bringing
it.
Thank
you
so
much
for
hearing
it.
It
is
so
important.
O
We
have
to
think
about
the
messages
that
we're
sending
to
our
children
and
the
messages
that
we
send
to
people
who
want
to
do
a
good
job
they
want
to
show
up.
They
want
to
work
and
the
way
that
they
wear
their
hair.
It
we
shouldn't
police
them
with
these
arbitrary
and
covert
and
blatantly
racist
grooming
standards
and
policies,
and
so
for
that
I
would
yield
for
questions.
G
Thank
you.
I
have
a
question
for
director
sullivan,
but
also
I'd
like
the
young
folks
to
come
back
up,
and
I
have
something
to
say
to
them.
If
I
might,
mr
chairman,
up
director
the
my
understanding
is
what
we're
doing
here
with
the
bill
would
do.
Is
it
would
not
add
a
category?
It
would
just
say
within
the
category
that
already
exists
of
race
discrimination
it
would.
G
It
would
disallow
using
hair
as
a
wink
wink,
not
nod
or
a
front
or
proxy,
in
your
words,
in
the
words
of
the
law,
but
a
business
could
still
have
cleanliness
and
safety
standards.
I
think
representative
scott
was
talking
about
the
hair
net
for
restaurants,
so
we
could
still
have
standards
provided
they're
university
applied
to
all
people,
so
is,
is
that
right.
N
That
I
couldn't,
I
couldn't
even
said
it
that
well,
but
that
is
correct,
that
it's
just
really
defining
or
including
these
protective
hairstyles
within
how
we've
already
defined
race
and
how
what's
already
protected.
So
it's
not
extending
anything.
It's
just
further
clarifying
that
under
race,
or
this
is
how
we
can
address
this,
and
so
it's
not
again.
G
G
So
I'm
going
to
judge
a
book
by
its
cover
and
what
I
see
is
a
young
man
and
a
young
woman,
another
young
man
who
I
think
going
to
be
wildly
successful,
so
you
know
proceed
through
your
life
with
extreme
confidence
because
I
have
it
in
you
and
and
the
people
behind
you
do
as
well.
So
anyway,
thank
you
for
that
and
thank
you
for
the
clarification
director.
Thank
you,
representative.
I
It
is
it's:
creating
a
respectful
and
open
world
for
natural
hair.
G
Okay
and
then
on
page
two
section:
nine,
it
says
race
includes
trace
traits
historically
associated
with
race,
including,
but
not
limited
to
hair
texture
and
protective
hairstyles,
but
is
nine
just
basically
talking
about
hairstyles
or
what?
What
does
the
could
not
include
not
not
limited?
What
does
that
mean.
I
I
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you
all
for
bringing
this.
I
just
need
one
point
of
clarification.
First
of
all,
I
do
plan
on
voting
to
move
this
out,
believe
it
or
not.
I
wasn't
always
gray-headed
and
I
had
a
mullet
at
one
time.
So
all
right
so
but
but
I
do
have
a
question
director
for
you
along
the
lines
of
similar
what
representative
nemes
said.
I
know
our
state
police,
our
national
guard,
part
of
their
training
and
things
requires
them
not
to
shave
their
head,
but
get
a
pretty
close
haircut.
N
So-
and
I
feel
like
I
shouldn't
answer
that
question
unless
you
provide
pictures
of
the
mullet,
but
there
are
very
few
of
those
in
existence,
I
will
say
that,
but
for
jobs
like
that,
especially
if,
when
they
have
articulated
reasons
for
why
they
would
have
those
types
of
needs,
I
know,
for
example,
for
safety
reasons
for
the
military.
They
have
sometimes
the
close
crop
requirement.
N
Those
types
of
things
they're
a
little
bit
more,
it's
a
little
bit
harder
to
enforce
against
those
types
of
things
because
there's
a
legitimate
purpose,
that's
articulated,
so
those
types
of
things
if
they're
in
their
uniformly
applied.
That
makes
it
a
little
bit
more
able
to
be
followed.
So
it
shouldn't
impact
that
okay.
E
Thank
you.
I
just
want
to
comment
briefly
on
the
bill.
First
off.
Thank
you
all
for
advocating
on
this.
Thank
you,
representative,
scott,
and
thank
you
all
to
the
young
adults
that
were
here
today
advocating
I
love
to
see
our
youth
be
civically
engaged,
and
this
is
a
prime
example
of
that
during
the
interim.
I
am
the
co-chair
on
the
commission
on
race
and
access
to
opportunity,
which
I
believe
mr
sullivan
helped
with
along
the
way
last
session,
and
I
just
I
think
this
is
a
prime
example
of
access
to
opportunity.
E
You
know,
I
love
what
you
said,
that
your
hair
is
you
and
you
should
embrace
that.
We
have
a
lot
of
hurdles
in
life
that
we
don't
always
get
to
pick
and
your
hair
shouldn't
be
one
of
them,
and
so
thank
you
for
your
bravery
for
standing
up
today
and
thank
you
for
bringing
this.
You
know.
I
think
it's
your
hair,
your
hair
is
the
freedom
that
you
get
to
have.
So
thank
you
for
that,
and
I'm
going
to
make
my
vote
today.
E
C
L
My
teacher
is
joe
gutman.
A
C
M
Yes,
for
the
reasons
I
stated,
and
for
those
reasons
only,
I
will
be
a
no,
but
I
do
think-
and
we
talked
about
this
today
with
I
did
with
representative
scott-
I
think
that
the
private
market
will
take
care
of
this.
I
think
you
all
are
beautiful.
It
is
perceived
that
way.
I
think
that
our
culture
is
changing
and
I
do
not
believe
we
should
abrogate
the
private
property
rights
when
this
is
already
being
taken
care
of
in
the
market.
Thank
you.
H
H
I
just
want
to
say
that
most,
if
not
all,
of
the
laws
in
this
country
for
the
majority
of
the
history
of
this
country
have
been
rooted
in
racism,
and
there
are
small
incremental
steps
that
we've
taken
to
get
us
to
this
point
in
2022
moving
further
and
further
towards
equity
and
fairness,
and
I
think
this
bill
is
one
big
step
along
those
lines.
So
thank
you
all
for
for
moving
us
forward
today.
N
C
P
Briefly,
explain
my
vote.
Yes,
thank
you
for
bringing
this
to
get
to
to
us
today.
P
This
has
been
a
really
enlightening
conversation,
and
I
agree
that
you
all
look
beautiful
and
I'm
a
little
jealous
that
I
have
to
flat
iron
my
hair
every
day,
and
so
I
you
know,
and
and
as
you
were,
you
were
talking
and
and
by
the
way,
I'm
a
yes
vote
but,
as
you
were
presenting
I
I
was
thinking
and
you
know
not
exactly
an
employer,
but
you
know
how
I
continually
tell
my
five
boys
to
get
a
haircut
and
and
clean
up
their
act.
P
I
would
like
to
address
some
of
the
concerns
that
were
raised.
I
would
like
to
see
perhaps
a
clarification,
but
for
for
today
I
am
a
yes
and
I
thank
you
all
for
coming
today.
G
Q
Q
A
A
A
Our
remaining
bill
on
the
day,
which
is
certainly
drawn
some
folks
as
well.
No
no
surprise,
has
been
heard
before
in
prior
sessions,
has
been
heard
in
the
interim
and
is
now
going
to
be
heard
in
committee
for
a
vote
today
and
that's
house
bill
136.,
we
do
have
a
committee
sub
on
this
bill.
A
G
G
All
right,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
appreciate
you
calling
the
bill.
This
is
house
bill
136.
This
is
the
medical
cannabis
bill.
We've
talked
about
this
a
number
of
times.
It's
passed.
It
passed
in
2020
through
this
committee
overwhelmingly,
and
it
passed
on
the
house
floor
with
over
68
of
the
vote.
The
senate
was
discussing
it
and
covid
got
in
the
way
we
are
so
we're
back
at
the
table
here
today.
Mr
chairman,
I
think
the
debate
is
over
with
respect
to
whether
or
not
medical
cannabis
helps
people.
G
G
There
are
37
states
that
have
medical
cannabis
laws
that
includes
mississippi.
That
includes
alabama.
That
includes
oklahoma.
It
includes
a
whole
lot
of
other
states,
but
kentucky
will
not
be
the
only
state
in
the
south
and
it
will
not
be
the
only
conservative
state
that
has
medical
marijuana
when
we
pass
the
bill.
Hopefully,
this
session,
but
that
doesn't
mean
kentucky,
should
pass
it.
That
means
kentucky
should
have
the
right
bill.
G
We
went
to
work
on
this
bill
representative
gentry
and
I
and
others
eric
crawford
on
the
shoulders
of
representative
john
sims,
who
was
here
today,
and
we
made
this
bill
very
tight,
very
kentucky
specific,
it's
tighter
than
I
would
like.
I
must
say,
but
I
want
to
I
want
to
just
I
wanted
to
start
with
that
before
I
go
into
what's
in
the
bill,
just
a
little
bit
I'll
also
say
by
way
of
preface
I
do
not
support
recreational
marijuana.
I
have
never
used
marijuana
in
my
life.
G
If
my
sons
use
marijuana,
recreationally,
there's
going
to
be
some
big
problems
with
mom
and
dad.
I
do
not
support
recreational
marijuana.
I
believe
in
medical
marijuana.
What
this
bill
does
is
it
sets
up
for
four
businesses.
It
has
the
farmers,
the
folks
that
grow
the
product.
It
has
the
people
who
process
the
product,
that's
the
second
and
it
has
the
dispensaries.
G
Somebody
can
get
one
two
or
three
of
those
licenses.
Then
it
has
a
fourth
one,
which
is
the
safety
tester.
No
one.
There
can
be
no
pardon
the
pun,
there
can
be
no
cross
pollination.
You
have
if
you're,
if
you're
a
safety
tester,
that's
all
you
can
be
no
physician,
no
pharmacist,
that's
involved.
No
one
can
be
involved
in
this
in
these
in
the
in
this
industry,
if
they're
involved
in
another
way,
so
a
physician
cannot
have
an
ownership
interest.
G
G
They
have
to
be
reapproved
every
year,
everything
that
they
log
on
behalf
of
their
patient,
everything
they
recommend
on
behalf
of
their
patients.
They
have
to
log
into
casper,
so
law
enforcement
and
the
kentucky
board
of
medical
licensure
and
the
kentucky
board
of
nursing
can
look
at
those
things
just
like
we
do
with
opioids
this
bill.
Mr
chairman,
ain't,
no
joke
this
is
a
law
enforcement
heavy.
This
is
a
medication
heavy
build.
This
is
not
a
wink.
Wink
nod
nod
to
get
to
recreational.
I
don't
want
to
slouch
toward
recreational.
G
We
have
a
pharmacist
role
here,
pharmacists
role
here,
because
we
stole
from
the
best
air
the
best
states,
the
best
components
of
the
bills
from
every
state,
and
I
think
the
best
state
perhaps
is
connecticut
and
we
stole
their
pharmacist
provisions.
What
we
do
there
is
a
dispensary
representative
lewis
has
to
have
a
collaborative
collaborative
agreement
with
a
pharmacy
with
a
pharmacist,
and
the
pharmacist
has
to
see
the
patient
before
just
to
make
sure
that
all
the
the
medication
that
they're
using
doesn't
have
negative
side
effects.
G
They
have
to
meet
with
the
pharmacist
and
and
so
they
can
go
over
the
whole,
the
whole
care
that
the
patient
is
receiving.
We
also
have
home
rule,
and
what
does
that
mean
in
this
bill?
G
So
once
we
pass
this
bill
this
session,
it
will
go
into
effect
on
july
the
first
now
there
have
to
be
some
administrative
regulations
put
in
place,
and
so
people
won't
be
able
to
get
the
product
the
medication
on
july,
the
first,
but
it
will
be
legal
july,
the
1st
and
then
there
will
be
a
process
to
get
it
into
into
actual
into
actuality,
but
it'll
be
legal
in
all
120
counties
in
the
commonwealth
representative
decker.
If
shelby
county
doesn't
want
it,
then
shelby
county
can
vote
against
it.
G
The
fiscal
court
can,
but
if
shelby
county
votes
against
it,
then
shelbyville
can
decide
to
bring
it
back
in.
So
it's
ultimate
home
rule,
it's
the
it
starts
with
being
legal
in
a
particular
area
and
then,
if
the
people
of
that
county,
if
the
fiscal
court
of
that
county
doesn't
want
it,
then
they
can.
Then
they
can
vote
to
make
it
unlawful
in
that
county
in
that
particular
jurisdiction.
G
I
want
to
talk
about
three
objections
that
I
had,
because
when
I
ran
for
office
representative
elliott,
I
didn't
support
this
bill.
I
didn't
support
marijuana.
I've
never
never
taken.
It
thought
people
that
use
it
were
less
than
ambitious,
didn't
want
to
be
around
them.
G
My
father
would
have
would
have
had
some
words
with
me
if
I
had,
if
I
had
done
these
types
of
things,
and
so
I
was
against
it,
and
and
I
and
I
went
and
I
met
with
some
constituents
in
crestwood
and
when
I
had
this
list
of
reasons
I
was
against
it,
and
I'm
gonna
tell
you
these
reasons,
because
I
think
some
of
you
probably
have
some
of
these
objections
as
well
in
no
particular
order.
I
had
banking.
How
are
we
going
to?
How
are
these
companies
going
to
bank?
We?
G
Don't
we
don't
need
them
to
have
be
totally
cash
heavy.
How
are
they
going
to
bank?
That
was
a
concern.
It's
no
longer
a
concern.
According
to
the
department
of
treasury,
there
are
over
500
banks
in
the
in
the
united
states
that
do
business
with
medical
marijuana
companies
and
there
are
over
150
credit
unions
that
do
the
same.
So
banking
is
no
longer
a
consideration.
It
used
to
be
in
this
industry
in
this
space,
but
it's
no
longer
a
problem.
Another
problem
I
had-
and
this
was
the
biggest
problem
I
had
this-
violates
federal
law.
G
How
can
I
set
up
our
kentucky
citizens
to
comply
with
state
law,
but
then
violate
federal
law
that
felt
wrong
to
me?
Well,
I
did
some
studying
and
again
I
was
against
the
bill.
I
did
some
studying
and
there's
something
called
a
rohrabacher,
far
amendment
and
what
is
the
rohrabacher,
far
amendment
that
has
been
placed
under
the
budgets
by
u.s
congress
every
year
since
2014
and
here's
what
it
does
representative
hevron?
What
it
does
is.
It
says
anybody
any
state
that
has
a
medical
marijuana
program.
G
There
will
be
no
federal
dollars
enforcing
federal
law
in
those
states
which
effectively
legalizes
medical
marijuana
in
states
that
have
the
program
now
in
kentucky
where
we
don't
have
the
program,
obviously
their
their.
The
federal
dollars
are
being
spent
for
marijuana
eradication
and
things
of
that
nature,
but
in
states
that
have
medical
marijuana
programs,
it
doesn't
violate
federal
law.
That's
the
rohrbacher,
far
amendment
I'd
be
happy
to
to
provide
it
to
any
member
who
seeks
it
out.
That
was
important
in
my
transformation
in
going
from
an
opponent
to
a
proponent
of
the
bill.
G
The
last
thing
I
would
say-
and
I
addressed
this
a
little
bit
earlier-
and
I
want
to
hit
it
hard
here-
I
don't
want
a
bunch
of
unsafe
marijuana
in
kentucky.
I
didn't
want
a
bill
that
I
supported
to
bring
more
marijuana
to
kentucky,
but
I
realized
you
know,
let's
not
kid
ourselves,
this
we're
not
going
to
bring
marijuana
to
kentucky
it's
here
and
what
this
does
chairman
massey.
Is
it
lets
the
mother
who's
getting
it
for
her
child?
It
lets
the
wife
who's,
getting
it
for
her
husband.
G
It
lets
her
go
to
a
place
where
the
lights
are
bright,
the
products
have
been
tested
and
the
kentucky
board
of
medical
licensure
and
the
law
enforcement
has
the
keys.
Isn't
that
what
we
want?
There'll
be
no
fentanyl
in
these.
In
these
in
these
packages,
there'll
be
no
products
that
we
don't
know
laced
in
here.
This
is
safe
product,
safe
product
that
was
grown
in
kentucky
soil
by
kentucky
hands.
That's
what
this
product
is,
and
so
I
we
won't.
G
G
Most
of
some
have
heard
me
say
this
story,
but
it's
not
only
about
the
the
the
hard
facts.
It's
also
about
what
does
this
mean
for
regular
kentuckians
and
representative
decker?
I
was
campaigning
in
in
anchorage
one
of
the
wealthiest
areas
in
kentucky,
and
I
saw
on
my
phone
that
there
was
one
registered
voter
in
the
house
he's
85
year
old
republican
man
and
he
knocked
on
the
door.
He
comes
to
the
big
six
foot.
G
Four
six
foot,
five
got
a
big
old
boy,
still
strapping
at
his
age,
and
I
said:
hey,
I'm
jason
nemes,
I'm
your
state
representative
running
for
reelection.
I
started
the
pitch.
He
interrupts
me,
I'm
not
going
to
tell
you.
He
started
tearing
up
the
man
started.
Bawling
I'd
never
met
the
guy
before
and
he's
bawling
representative
stevenson,
and
I
said,
what's
on
your
mind,
buddy
tell
me.
G
G
We
don't
break
the
law,
that's
not
who
I
am
it's
not
who
we
are,
but
our
sons.
They
have
two
sons.
Our
sons
brought
medical
marijuana
to
their
mother.
Who
was
going
through
cancer
treatment
in
the
last
few
months
of
her
life,
it
enabled
her
to
live,
she
could
get
off
the
couch
she
could
eat
and
I
thought
to
myself
how
righteous
hb
136
is
how
right
it
is
had
to
get
the
bill
right
and
it's
right.
G
But
how
good
is
it?
It's
an
unqualified
good
that
that
man's
wife
could
live
at
the
end
of
her
life
last
story,
I
met
a
fundraiser
at
st
margaret
mary
and
a
43
year
old
man
walks
up
to
me
and
he's
shaking
and
he's
nervous.
So
you
you,
the
sponsor
of
the
medical
marijuana
bill.
Yes,
sir,
and
he's
strong
man
shaking
representative
carney,
he
again
starts
crying
you've.
G
G
It
lets
me
take
care
of
my
wife
and
my
children,
and
I
couldn't
do
it
without
it.
Here's
two
men,
two
fine
upstanding
law-abiding
folk
who
are
telling
their
state
representative
I'm
committing
a
felony
to
do
better
for
myself
and
my
family,
and
I
say
to
you
today:
what
would
you
do
if
you're
one
of
those
people?
G
What
would
you
do?
I
know
what
I
would
do.
I
know
what
every
one
of
you
would
do,
because
I
know
your
hearts,
you
do
what
needed
to
be
done,
you'd
break
the
law,
that's
what
I
would
do,
I'm
not
gonna
lie,
and
so
let's
get
it
right,
we
had
to
get
the
right
bill.
This
is
the
right
bill,
and
this
is
the
right
thing
to
do
for
kentucky
with
that.
That's
representative
gentry
for
his
remarks.
R
Thank
you,
representative
nemes,
and
I
know
you
have
said
the
the
argument
is
I
mean
the
the
debates
are
over
whether
medicinal
purpose
is
there
I'll.
Tell
you
just
a
few
a
few
moments
here.
How
I
got
involved
in
all
this
representative,
john
sims,
came
to
me
in
2017.
R
I
lost
my
arm
in
1993
in
a
work
accident.
I
was
28
years
old,
didn't
know
where
I
was
going.
What
I
was
going
to
do
had
an
elderly
gentleman
who
was
a
a
world
one
arm
golfer
a
world
champion,
one
armed
golfer.
He
came
to
my
hospital
bed
and
he
introduced
me
to
disabled
golf.
It
saved
my
life
so
when
I
went
and
I
played
and
competed
in
the
sport,
I
met
several
people
from
all
over
the
country
and
back
in
the
1990s.
R
R
We
have
a
variety
of
of
chronic
pain
issues,
inflammation
issues
and
we
started
seeing
people
disappear
in
our
little
circuit,
our
little
fraternity
and
later
we
would
hear
stories
horrible
stories.
I
could
tell
you
many
stories
of
friends
of
mine
that
had
a
variety
of
different
issues
that
came
from
opioid
addiction
and
then
in
the
early
2000s.
R
You
started
seeing
several
of
them
come
back
and
you
would
hear
their
stories
incredible
stories
of
despair,
treatment
and
coming
back
from
the
problems
that
they
were
in
and
now
all
of
a
sudden
they
were,
they
were
back
to
work.
They
were
doing
well
back
with
their
families,
and
you
know
what
it
was:
medical
cannabis.
R
Like
I
said
I
could.
I
could
go
on
and
on
about
these
individual
stories,
but
but
it
was
there
and
I
never
knew
why
or
how
I
wasn't
a
user
of
it.
Luckily,
for
me,
I
do
have
chronic
pain
issues.
I
don't
have
them
very
bad,
yet
I
have
I'm
a
one-armed
guy.
I
have
a
what
you
would
call
a
degenerative
issue.
R
You
know
when
you
have
one
limb
for
many
many
years
the
other
side
starts
breaking
down.
I
tell
everybody
all
the
time
this
is.
This
is
my
bad
arm.
This
is
the
arm.
I
have
all
the
ailments
on
that.
I
have
partially
torn
rotator
cuff.
I
have
all
these
different
issues,
but
so
when
I
play
golf,
if
I
play
two
three
days
in
a
row,
I
have
a
lot
of
challenges.
R
R
R
It's
important
that
we
have
an
industry
already
in
place
because
I've
been
told
by
several
people
that
are
in
this
business
for
a
few
years,
that
kentucky
would
be
a
great
place
and
it
could
be
an
export
product.
We
are
because
of
our
geographic
location
because
of
our
unique
climate
because
of
the
accessibility
and
cheap
accessibility
to
water,
it
could
be
a
future
export
crop
when
this
gets
rescheduled.
R
G
S
S
S
S
S
God
has
always
had
me
in
the
palm
of
his
hand.
There
were
other
plans
meant
for
me
now,
I'm
here
at
the
state
capitol
in
frankfort
wearing
a
tie
trying
to
get
medical
cannabis,
legal
for
sick
people,
medical
cannabis,
relaxes
my
continuous
uncontrollable
muscle,
spasms
medical
cannabis
relieves
my
constant
chronic
pain.
Cannabis
helps
me.
S
My
well-respected
kentucky
doctors
support
my
choice
of
medicine.
Medical
cannabis
allows
me
to
be
a
more
productive
member
of
society
and
gives
me
a
better
quality
of
life.
It
helps
me
a
better
husband,
son
and
friend
than
the
pharmaceutical
route.
There's
not
one
on
you.
There's
not
one
view
on
this
committee.
That
would
surely
think
I'd
be
better
off
taking
opioids.
S
Medical
cannabis
is
already
helping
lots
of
other
sick
kentuckians,
but
we
need
house
bill
136
to
pass
so
that
we
aren't
criminals.
We
can't
forget
about
the
little
children
with
epilepsy
or
those
living
with
chronic
pain.
We
can't
forget
about
kentucky's
cancer
patients
or
the
veterans
that
have
served
us.
S
S
A
M
Yes,
thank
you.
I
have
been
hoping
to
be
able
to
vote
yes
on
this
drug
for
for
many
reasons,
but
I
have
a
on
this
bill.
Excuse
me,
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
that
still
linger.
You
talked
about
the
roar
barker
amendment
and
I
remember
when
there
was
a
debate
about
cannabis,
oil
and
I
think
at
the
time-
and
maybe
it's
the
same
here
so
enforcement
is
not
going
to
be
in
kentucky
for
those
with
license,
so
is
it
by
coordinates?
How
do
you
I
mean?
M
G
Yes,
this
is
going
to
be.
I
want
to
read
the
roar
biker
for
a
moment
real
quickly.
If
I
can,
because
that
was
so
important-
and
I
know
you
as
a
lawyer-
it's
important
to
you
as
well.
I
hope
it
is
was
for
me
says
none
of
the
fun,
and
this
has
been
in
every
budget
since
2014
from
the
united
states
congress
and
it's
also
in
the
current
budget.
G
So
how
it
work
is
the
department
of
health
is
the
is
the
agency
to
which
we
have
assigned
responsibility,
and
they
will
be
licensing
the
growers
and
the
processors
and
the
dispensaries,
and
also
the
safety,
the
safety
testing
components
and
there
will
not
be
a
proliferation
of
them.
It
will
only
be
as
many
as
are
necessary
in
the
initial
bill.
G
We
we
said
it
had
to
be
15,
and
so
that
was
one
per
ad
district,
but
we've
left
it
to
the
department
of
health
to
make
the
determination
as
to
how
many
there
ought
to
be.
We
don't
want
to
over
saturation,
no
doubt
about
that.
We
want
it
to
just
meet
the
need,
so
that
I
hope
that
maybe
that
answers
your.
M
So
the
other
thing
I
wanted
to
ask
you
about:
I
have
a
friend
most
people
in
the
room.
A
lot
of
people
know
him.
He
had
his
nose
removed,
he's
had
18
surgeries,
he's
left
with
a
hole
in
his
face,
he's
been
in
chronic
pain.
He
has
never
taken
an
opioid.
He
has
taken
nothing
but
cannabis
oil.
It
stops
the
inflammation,
it
tops,
stops
his
pain.
It's
been
an
amazing
thing
for
him,
the
man
who
produces
it
stopped
his
son
from
having
epilepsy.
So
my
question
is:
why
can
we
not
use
cannabis
law?
M
I
think
you
said
representative
that
that
this
helps
you
more
the
the
medical
marijuana.
Is
that
what
you
said,
and
so
I'm
wondering
is
it
the
thc
level?
Does
it
become
medical
marijuana
at
a
certain
thc
level?
So
it's
the
same
exact
thing
just.
How
is
that
different?
And
why
and
perhaps
it's
just
him,
but
can
it
can
the
cannabis
oil
work.
S
Cbd,
cannabis
oil
can
contain
thc,
cb
cannabis
oil
in
general,
contain
cbd
or
thc
you're
talking
about
cbd.
Aren't
you
representative,
decker,
ma'am?
Okay,
it
doesn't
work
for
everyone.
I've
tried
tried
it
a
hundred
times
experimented
with
it
a
lot.
It
did
nothing
for
my
spasms.
It
did
nothing
for
my
pain.
In
fact,
I
found
out
it
was
harmful
for
me
because
when
I
went
and
got
my
glaucoma
checked
my
my
pressure
raised
over
the
limit
and
I
found
out
20
percent
of
people
that
use
over
40
milligrams
of
cbd
there's
been
studies.
S
G
Representative
I'll
tell
you
what
dr
block
said
when
he
testified
before
this
committee
two
years
ago,
he's
a
doctor
from
florida
and
what
he
what
he
said
was
it
works
for
some
people,
just
the
cbd,
and
if
it
does
that's
wonderful,
but
it
doesn't
work
for
everyone
and
what
a
physician,
what
most
physicians
do
in
this
space?
Is
they
start
low
and
then
they
slowly
meet
the
needs
of
in
as
they
do
in
other
areas.
Amita
needs
a
particular
patient.
G
Sometimes
thc
higher
levels
of
thc
are
needed,
which
is
why
the
multiple
sclerosis
foundation
and
the
in
the
epilepsy
society,
the
both
two
national
groups,
endorse
house
bill
136.
So
it's
it's.
It's
sometimes
it's
needed
for
the
individual.
H
Thank
you
chairman,
and
thank
you
rep
nemas,
for
bringing
this
I'm
I'm
just
a
couple
of
quick
questions.
I'm
a
yes,
I'm
a
co-sponsor
on
the
bill.
I
want
to
thank
you
for
your
hard
work
year
after
year
on
this
issue.
I
was
glad
to
see
the
provisions
in
your
bill
about
cardholder.
I
guess
the
registered
individual,
who
would
be
eligible
for
the
medical
cannabis
designated
caregivers
would
also
be,
I
guess,
exempted
from
any
kind
of
criminal
action.
H
And
I
might
that
leads
me
into
sort
of
the
the
criminality
portion
of
it,
and
I
want
to
address
something
that
rep
gentry
brought
up,
which
is
the
scheduling
of
this
of
this
of
this
wheat
of
cannabis,
which
is
you
know,
a
remnant
of
the
1972
shaffer
commission,
which
had
temporarily
placed
it
in
schedule,
one
and
never
took
it
off,
which
is
why
we
don't
have
any
studies
about
the
medical,
efficacy
or
benefits
to
date,
and
it's
also
why
that
commission,
by
the
way,
also
called
for
decriminalization
of
cannabis.
H
But
it's
also
why
we
have
a
situation
now
where
people
are
sitting
in
jail
potentially
or
have
convictions
on
their
record
for
this.
But
we
are
allowing
certain
folks
to
be
able
to
benefit
from
the
medical
efficacy
of
cannabis.
So
I
just
I
want
to
know:
is
there
anything
in
this
legislation
or
is
there?
And
this
could
be
further
conversation?
I
understand
if
it's
not
for
expungement
provisions
or
anything
that
would
kind
of
level
the
pla
the
playing
field.
H
G
Yeah,
so
this
bill
is
only
medical
cannabis,
and
so,
if
anyone
is
using
it
for
medicinal
purposes,
then
they
would-
and
anyone
is
using
it
for
medicinal
purposes
who
has
a
card?
Who
has
a
bona
fide
relationship
with
a
physician
and
the
physician's
been
lined
up
and
they
get
it
from
a
dispensary
product
is
double
sealed
and
tested
as
long
as
they're
within
under
the
apparatus
of
under
that
apparatus,
then
they're
they're
going
to
be
fine.
With
respect
to
the
the
larger
question
that
you've
asked:
that's
not
this
bill.
G
There
are
a
number
of
things
that
we've
done,
representative
moser
and
I
been
working
on
it
for
a
long
time.
I
know
representative
brancher
as
well
to
bring
much
more
treatment
options
to
people
who
have
who
have
addictions
that
are
may
or
may
not
be
related
to
a
medical
need
or
a
medical
medical
reason.
G
So
those
are
other
bills
that
we
work
on.
But
this
bill
is
is
only
about
the
person
who
has
a
medical
need,
as
identified
by
their
physician
and
already
following
all
the
rules
that
I've
already
identified.
P
You,
mr
chairman,
and
I'll,
try
to
keep
my
comments
brief.
I
have
a
question
and,
and
then
I'd
like
to
just
speak
on
the
bill.
If
I
may
just
a
quick
question,
have
you
had
conversations
with
kbml?
How
do
they
feel
about
this
provision?
Kentucky.
G
Board
of
medical
licensure
we've
talked
to
them
about
regulating
the
physicians
and
creating
the
the
list
of
physicians.
I
have
not
asked
them
if
they
support
it
or
not.
I
know
the
kentucky
medical
association,
which
is
the
association
of
physicians,
does
oppose
the
bill,
but
I
don't
think
to
my
knowledge,
representative,
moser
kbml
hasn't
taken
a
position.
I
don't
know
if.
G
Have
talked
to
their
their
leadership
about
the
the
governing
parts
of
the
bill.
P
Okay,
well,
I
mean,
but
the
feedback
I
get
from
physicians
is
that
they
they
know
that
their
medicinal
qualities
and-
and
I
don't
think
that
we're
all
that
far
apart.
Actually,
they
know
that
there
are
medicinal
qualities,
but
they
just
don't
know
how
to
dose
it.
They
don't
know
how
to
prescribe
it
and
they
they
for
my
feedback.
Is
they
don't
want
to
be
in
the
middle
of
it?
P
P
P
I
I
you
know
like
I
said:
I
don't
think
that
we're
as
far
apart
as
as
it
seems,
maybe
or
that
we
this
proposal,
I
have
concerns
that
it
creates
a
bureaucracy,
a
pretty
big
government
bureaucracy,
and
I
I
don't
know
how
it's
funded
exactly.
It
seems
to
me
that
it's
taxpayer-funded,
so
you
know
for
for
those
reasons
I
have
some
concerns.
P
I've
talked
for
a
long
time
about
research
and
the
need
for
research,
and
I
actually
have
a
proposal
for
research.
It
would,
of
course,
advance
the
the
study
and
research
of
all
cannabis
products
cannabinoids.
You
know
for
all
of
all
the
various
potential
medical
conditions.
It
pulls
all
all
the
stakeholders,
all
the
researchers,
medical
professionals
together
in
one
place.
I
think
it
would
be
a
really
good
thing
for
kentucky
to
be
a
leader
in
in
research.
P
It
would
even
expand
the
application
process
for
the
public
for
the
general
public
to
be
able
to
you
know
if
they
wanted
to
participate
in
clinical
research
to
to
be
able
to
to
be
assessed
and
screened
and
put
in
the
right
research
protocol.
So
I
I
think
that
you
know
we're
we're
all
moving
in
the
right
direction.
I
think
we're
we're
hoping
to
get
to
a
good
place
where
we
can.
We
can
actually
dose
and
and
prescribe
like
I've,
said
and
really
understand
how
it
works.
P
My
proposal
would
include
increase
clinical
trials
and
expedite
research,
hopefully
getting
like.
I
said
to
the
point
that
we
can
actually
call
it
a
medicine
there
are
some
states
university
of
mississippi,
has
had
a
cultivation
center
and
has
done
research
since
1968,
and
they
they
did.
Research
first
and
only
I
think
two
years
ago,
actually
got
to
the
point
where
they
legalized
medical
marijuana,
because
they
knew
how
it
acted.
They
knew
how
it,
how
it
helped
individuals.
So
that's
that's
my
idea
of
of
how
we
should
move
into
this
space.
P
G
Thank
you
representative.
I
appreciate
that
and
we're
trying
to
get
the
same
place
you
and
I
have
talked
about
this
a
great
deal.
I
would
note
I
have
a
lot
of
the
same
concerns
that
you
have.
I
mean
I'm
not
without
concerns
here
and
that's
why
I
grabbed
this
bill
by
the
horns
and
and
made
it
and
worked
with
a
lot
of
people
to
get
it.
What
I
think
it
is
where
it
is
where
it
is
today,
and
I
think
it's
the
best.
G
I
think
it's
the
best
bill
in
the
country,
because
we've
stolen
from
the
best
areas,
but
I
would
note
that
there
are
a
lot
of
physicians
who
don't
want
to
be
involved.
There
are
some
that
do
want
to
be
involved.
The
physicians
that
don't
want
to
be
involved,
don't
have
to
be.
In
fact,
if
you
want
to
be
involved,
you
have
to
affirmatively
step,
take
a
step
to
go
to
kentucky
board
of
medical
licensure
to
get
approved
so
for
the
physicians
that
don't
want
to
be,
they
won't
need.
G
They
won't
have
to
be
the
dosage
issues.
Those
those
are
certainly
issues
for
not
only
medical
cannabis.
For
a
lot
of
other
medications,
we
there
are
dosage
guidelines
that
are
published.
We
have
37
states,
obviously
so
they're,
not
just
you
know,
flying
out
willy-nilly,
just
figuring
out
figuring
out
on
the
fly.
They
have
standards
that
our
that
our
department
of
health
and
the
kentucky
board
of
medical
life
center
kentucky
board
of
nursing
will
will
latch
on
to
and
improve.
G
I
wanted
to
talk
about
the
funding
real
quickly
because
I
think
that's
really
important,
and
that
is
the
funding
starts
on
section
20
29
and
goes
through.
I
think
section,
30,
5
and
so
with
resp
and
I'll.
Just
be
very
brief
about
that,
we
have
a
trust
fund.
That's
established
that
funds,
the
administration
of
the
program
not
only
at
the
department
of
health
level,
but
also
at
law
enforcement
level,
because
that'll
be
needed,
but
for
research,
and
I
think
this
is
extremely
important.
G
On
page
84
of
the
committee
sub
in
section
31
2.5
of
the
monies
that
come
from
the
the
the
license
fees
and
the
excise
go
toward
the
university
of
kentucky
for
research,
more
research
on
medical
cannabis.
I
do
want
to
highlight
what
you've
said
about
the
university
of
mississippi,
but
they
just
about
three
weeks
ago,
went
legal
and
so
they've
used
that
research
and
and
realized
that
it's
helpful
to
their
people
as
well.
G
So
we
do,
we
do
have
the
the
the
research
component
in
here
I
tried
to
keep
it
low.
I
mean
2.5
is
not
a
great
deal,
but
the
reason
I
wanted
to
keep
it
low
is
because,
unfortunately,
until
schedule
one
is
changing.
This
is
taken
off
schedule.
One
insurance
companies
don't
pay
for
it
I'll
be
able
to
afford
it.
People
like
me,
will
be
okay
if
my
son
ever
needs
it
and
for
the
record
I
don't
know
anybody
in
my
personal
life
outside
of
people
who
have
who
I've
met
now.
G
Eric's
in
my
personal
life,
now
is
a
really
close
friend
but
outside
the
people
who
I've
met.
As
a
representative,
I
don't
know
anybody
who
this
will
help.
I
won't
want
to
put
that
on
the
record,
but
but
if,
if
my
son
would
need
it,
I
would
be
able
to
afford
it,
but
someone
who's,
indigent,
wouldn't,
and
so
this.
G
This
funding
mechanism
tries
to
provide
as
much
access
to
indigent
people
as
possible,
which
is
why
you
know
I'd
put
50
in
research,
but
we
have
to
try
to
get
it
to
people
who
are
in
need.
Representative.
Q
You
could
be
a
farmer
process,
a
dispensary
or
you
could
be
a
safety
organization,
and
I
spoke
with
the
minorities
for
medical
marijuana
and
they
said
one
of
the
big
issues
that
they
have.
Is
that
it's
difficult
for
them
to
get
in
the
business
now
that
it's
legal
and
they
recommended
that
something
be
done
because
they
were
in
jail
when
it
wasn't
legal.
Q
So
do
you
have
any
provisions
for
any
set-asides
for
minority
business
owners
so.
G
So
I'm
going
to
get
to
directly
answer
your
question,
but
let
me
put
up
a
preface
first,
and
that
is
I
make
no
changes
to
this
bill
without
vetting
it
to
the
people
who
are
or
key
people
who
bring
other
voters,
because
I
don't
want
to
lose
votes,
I'm
trying
to
pick
them
up.
So
I'm
talking
to
those
people
to
make
sure
that
we
can
get
that
provision
in.
I
have
two
provisions
that
would
that
would
allow
just
like
we
have
in
many
other
aspects
of
government.
G
Some
a
percentage
of
contracts
would
go
to
minority
owners,
business
owners,
and
so
I'm
talking
to
a
number
of
people
about
making
sure
everybody
feel
comfortable
feels
comfortable
with
that.
I
do
so
it's
not
in
the
bill
as
it
exists
representative,
but
it's
something
that
we're
talking
about
as
an
amendment.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
think
we've
been
discussing
this
issue
for
five
or
six
years
back
when
I
was
chairman
of
this
committee,
I
think
we
had
the
first
hearing
on
medical
marijuana
and
the
same
question
keeps
popping
up
in
my
mind,
out
of
concern
that
this
might
morph
into
legalization.
Total
legalization
of
marijuana.
Are
there
any
medical
conditions
for
which
medical
marijuana
may
not
be
prescribed
to
treat.
G
Yeah
yeah,
so,
representative
fischer,
thank
you
for
that
question.
This
is
something
that
we've
discussed
a
number
of
times
you
you
and
me,
but
also
a
number
of
other
people,
and
so
one
way
of
looking
at
it
is
to
say
let
the
physician
decide.
That's
where
I
come
down.
I
think
the
patient
and
the
physician
should
make
the
decision.
That's
not
what's
in
the
bill.
I
want
to
be
very
clear.
I
want
the
physician
to
make
that
decision,
not
in
the
bill.
G
What's
in
the
bill,
is
you
have
to
have
one
of
four
conditions,
and
so,
if
you,
if
it's
not
one
of
those
four
conditions,
then
then
you
can't,
then
then
you
can't
get
it
now.
Those
conditions
were
the
ones
that
we
had
in
the
bill
in
2020,
that
was
representative
petrie's
or
representative
goforce
amendment.
I
don't
remember
so.
Unless
you
have
one
of
those
four
conditions,
you
can't
get
it
so
your
question
is:
are
there
any
conditions
that
you
can't
get
it
for?
G
F
Did
you
have
a
question
representative
lewis
comment,
mr
chairman,
please
proceed.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
representative,
nemes
gentry.
Thank
you
all
for
your
hard
work
on
this.
I
see
representative
sims
back
there
hiding
too
and,
of
course,
eric
and
jamie
and
julie.
Thank
you
all
for
your
tenacity
and
dedication
on
this
issue.
It
is
very
important,
representative
gentry.
You
brought
up
a
great
point.
F
It
means
more
than
anything
and
it
becomes
really
a
patient
access
and
a
patient
safety
issue.
Representative
nemes,
you
know,
you
said
if
you
had
a
family
member
sick,
what
would
you
do
and
I
think,
we're
all
in
the
same
boat
that
you
would
do
whatever
it
took
to
get
your
family
member
relief
in
my
district
when
I
polled
it
pulled
88
percent?
D
Just
to
follow
up,
mr
chairman,
on
page
75,
it
says
the
list
of
qualifying
medical
conditions
shall,
at
a
minimum,
include
the
following
five
conditions.
So
it's
not
limited
to
this.
These
five
conditions
that
the
list
can't
include
others
is
that
what
this
bill
says.
G
My
intent
representative
fischer
for
it
to
be
limited
here
and
then
the
the
board
that's
set
up,
can
remove
any
that
are
on
here
or
add
as
a
science
that
comes
in
so
that
language
at
a
minimum.
It
was
not
in
my
mind
and
I'm
gonna,
remove
it
from
the
bill
all
right.
Thank
you.
A
A
C
Representative
nemas,
three
years
ago,
when
we
first
talked
about
this,
I
said
no,
no,
no!
You
have
made
every
change
that
I
could
conceivably
think
of.
You
did
everything
but
make
it
an
enema,
and
I
really
appreciate
everything
that
you
have
done
and
you
listened
to
people
and
you
did
it
so.
For
that
reason,
I'm
a
yes.
G
M
Second,
hardest
vote,
I'm
concerned
because
I
talked
to
my
doctor
about
this
and
he
told
me
that
honestly
he
could
not
prescribe
this
medication
because
he
is
not
sure
of
the
harm
that
he
might
do.
M
I
love
this
bill
that
representative
moser
has
filed.
I
hope
it
goes
forward.
I
do
worry
about
the
taxpayer
fund
of
bureaucracy,
but
I
don't
want
to
stop
the
bill
at
this
time.
I
think
you've
done
an
amazing
job.
Mr
crawford,
I
appreciate
your
testimony
a
great
deal.
I
want
you
to
have
what
you
need
to
be
comfortable,
can't
imagine
being
in
that
condition.
So
I
think
at
this
point
I
vote
yes.
C
May
I
explain
mr
chairman,
yes,
I
want
to
compliment
you,
representative
nemes.
I
also
want
to
compliment
you
representative
gentry
and
also
my
former
colleague
john
sims,
who
is
here,
who
worked
very
hard
on
this
bill
and
also
want
to
complement
the
crawfords
for
really
excellent
citizen
advocacy.
I
know
someday.
C
You
probably
don't
want
to
be
here
in
the
capitol,
but
I'm
going
to
miss
you
if
this
this
ever
goes
through,
because
you
know
I
think
you've
been
here
as
as
much
as
I
have
over
these
years
advocating
for
your
advocating
for
this
I'm
going
to
vote.
Yes,
I'm
going
to
vote.
I
I
think
that,
in
terms
of
the
bureaucracy,
we
need
a
bureaucracy
because
of
we
need
to
regulate
this
in
a
form
that
doesn't
allow
it
to
go
to
recreational
marijuana,
which
I
do
not
support.
C
D
I'll
explain
my
yes
vote
pending
looking
at
the
floor
amendments
that
may
be
filed
to
this
I'll
vote,
yes
to
get
out
of
committee.
Thank
you,
joe.
E
Yes
and
quickly,
quickly
explain
my
vote
because
I
know
it
is
getting
to
a
late
hour.
I
take
my
vote
today.
Yes,
I'm
a
yes
vote.
I
take
my
vote
today
in
honor
of
baby
colby
and
her
mom
alex
in
litchfield,
and
I
take
the
vote
today
in
honor
of
my
former
constituent
julie,
cantwell
and
her
husband
and
her
son
and
their
family
eric
and
michelle.
Thank
you
all
for
all
the
advocacy
you
all
have
done.
E
E
H
Explained
chairman:
yes,
I
vote
yes,
and
I
want
to
thank
you
again,
rep
nemesis
gentry
and
john
sims
back
there
and
mr
crawford
for
your
tireless
efforts
over
the
years
to
bring
this
bill.
As
far
as
it's
gotten,
I
do
have
a
lot
of
people
that
I
know
are
impacted
by
this
there's
constituents
in
my
district
that
come
up
to
me
all
the
time
talking
about
how
much
pain,
they're
suffering,
how
much
they
need
this
in
their
lives
and
so
for
all
of
them.
I
vote
yesterday.
Thank
you.
F
Can
I
explain
my
vote,
mr
chairman?
Yes,
representative
nemes,
this
is
not
a
criticism.
My
friend
I
I
know
what
you've
got
to
do
to
get
a
bill
across
the
line,
but
I
hate
this
bill.
I
think
it's
too
restrictive.
I
think
it's
too
narrow.
I
think
it's
too
much
government,
but
for
the
third
time
in
committee.
Yes,.
C
Yes,
this
is
my
third
yes
vote.
I
would
like
the
next
two,
the
next
one
to
be
my
very
last
vote
on
this,
because
I
want
it
to
go
all
the
way
and
I
wanted
to
go
all
the
way
for
my
favorite
citizen
lobbyist.
I'm
gonna
miss
you
terribly,
but
I
want
you
to
get
on
with
your
lives
when
we
get
this
done
for
you
for
representative
gentry
and
for
every
tearful
person
I
ever
met
at
the
door.
It's
for
you.
A
P
I'm
I'm
a
no
today,
and
you
know
I
guess
I'm
the
only
one,
but
you
know
I
just
I
still
I'm
I'm
getting
text
as
I
sit
here
from
doctors
who
are
saying
you
know
the
apa
is
against
this
because
it
exacerbates
ptsd
and
other
psychiatric
disorders
and
the
ophthalmologist
excuse
me
say
it
makes
glaucoma
worse.
I
just
think
that
we
need
to
know
for
sure
before
we
call
something
a
medicine.
P
You
know
if
the
fda
would
take
a
stand
on
this
and
actually
make
it
a
medicine
like
they
do
any
other
natural
product,
then
we
wouldn't
have
to
change
39
statutes
and
create
this
bureaucracy,
and
so
that's
what
I
want
to
get
to
you
know.
I
want
to
get
to
the
point
where
we
have
a
medicine
like
everything
else.
That
does
not
take
a
government
bureaucracy
to
run.
So,
for
those
reasons,
unfortunately,
I
am
a
no
today.
I
do
appreciate
all
of
your
work.
G
Yes,
I
I
would
want
to
say
that
some
ophthalmologists
are
for
it,
including
mr
crawford's.
I
want
to
also
mention
the
name
of
shannon
and
tim
and
chris,
who
are
also
here.
Their
names
haven't
been
mentioned
as
being
people
who
are
on
the
team
to
get
this
done.
Thank
you,
mr
yes,.