►
From YouTube: 3/29/2021 - Assembly Committee on Judiciary
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
C
C
D
E
A
Here
please
mark
assemblywoman,
hanson
absent
excused
until
she
arrives.
She
did
them
for
me,
she's
running
a
little
bit
late
this
morning
and
please
mark
assemblywoman,
krasner
absent
when
she
arrives
I'll.
Try
to
remember
to
note
for
the
record
that
she
is
here.
That
means
we
do
have
a
quorum
good
morning
to
committee
members,
guests
joining
us
on
the
zoom
and
anyone
who
may
be
watching
on
the
internet
or
on
the
legislature's
youtube
channel,
welcome
to
day
57
of
the
81st
session
of
the
nevada
legislature.
A
We
hope
you
had
a
great
weekend
and
we
look
forward
to
an
action-packed
week
in
judiciary
this
week.
So
before
we
get
started
on
today's
agenda,
just
a
few
housekeeping
matters,
if
you're
joining
us
on
the
zoom
today,
please
mute
if
you're,
not
speaking,
that'll
help
with
the
audio
feedback.
If
you
are
presenting
today.
If
you
could,
please
remember
to
state
your
name
each
time
before
you
speak,
particularly
when
you
answer
a
question
that
will
help
accurate
preparation
of
the
minutes.
A
I'll,
try
to
remind
you
to
do
that,
because
I
know
it's
not
a
natural
thing.
We
we
do
in
conversation.
We
do
expect
courtesy
and
respect
in
our
interactions
with
one
another.
We
don't
always
agree
on
policy,
that's
perfectly
acceptable,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
we're
being
respectful
of
one
another
of
the
legislative
process
and,
most
importantly,
of
our
hard-working
staff.
Last
but
not
least,
many
members
will
be
using
multiple
devices
to
access
this
virtual
meeting,
including
additional
monitors,
laptops,
desktops,
ipads
iphones.
A
Please
don't
see
it
as
a
sign
of
disrespect
if
members
appear
to
be
looking
away
during
the
presentation,
they're,
most
likely
accessing
exhibits
or
other
notes
to
help
them
participate
in
the
meeting
with
that
behind
us
committee,
we're
going
to
move
on
to
our
agenda
this
morning.
As
you
can
see,
we
have
three
bills.
It
is
my
intent
to
take
them
in
order.
A
B
The
original
language
of
ab-324
defines
digital
asset
and
virtual
currency
in
nrs.
It
establishes
the
authorization
for
a
financial
institution
to
provide
custodial
services
for
digital
assets.
It
also
allows
for
the
establishment
of
best
practices
by
regulation
and
provides
for
a
property
tax
exemption
so
that
digital
assets
are
treated
like
their
more
established
counterparts.
Among
many
things.
B
Over
the
past
week
we
have
worked
with
several
interested
parties
and
we
do
have
an
amendment
in
the
works.
We're
confident
that
our
amendment
will
satisfy
their
concerns,
and
we
thank
them
for
working
with
us
to
make
this
a
better
bill
for
everyone.
Those
testifying
after
me
will
discuss
the
finer
points
of
the
amendment.
B
I'm
bringing
ab
324
before
you
today,
because
I
believe
that
we
must
make
sure
that
nevada's
economy
is
open
and
ready
for
the
changes
that
are
taking
place
in
finance
and
technology.
We
definitely
do
not
want
to
get
left
behind
with
that.
Mr
chair
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
john
sandy
with
argentine
partners,
and
he
will
then
introduce
our
subject
matter
experts
who
can
walk
you
through
the
more
technical
points
of
this
legislation.
A
F
F
I'm
really
excited
for
this
opportunity
to
be
here
today
to
start
your
week
out
with
what
I
think
is
just
a
tremendously
fascinating
conversation.
It's
going
to
take
place
around
where
law
and
technology
are
going
to
intersect
the
technology.
We're
going
to
talk
about,
isn't
actually
all
that
new,
it's
origins
can
can
be
traced
back
all
the
way
to
the
early
1980s.
F
However,
with
the
rapid
expansion
of
personal
computing
and
the
power
of
computers
throughout
the
world,
the
applications
of
blockchain
technology
have
manifested
themselves
much
much
more
and
now
we
can
talk
about
application.
Applicabilities
and
finance,
real
property
transactions,
shoot
movie
tickets,
all
kinds
of
different
opportunities
to
use
this
technology
to
to
the
benefit
of
commerce.
F
Now
excuse
me,
I
I
you
know,
I
it's
all
these
applications.
I
think
that
give
a
lot
of
people
some
confusion
about
what
blockchains
is,
and
I've
done
some
research
trying
to
educate
myself
on
on
everything
about
blockchain.
I
came
across
this
ted
talk
from
a
professor
who
really
simplified
it
for
me
and
gave
me
my
aha
moment,
and
that
was
that
blockchains
offer
trust,
trustfulness,
trustfulness
trustworthiness.
F
Our
current
system
is
a
trust
but
verify
system
with
heavy
emphasis
on
on
verify.
For
example,
my
my
wife
and
I
we
just
recently
refinanced
our
house,
and
I
got
to
be
honest.
F
But
the
banks
know
that
those
records
are
fallible,
that
you
know
they
they're
capable
of
being
changed
or
or
that
there's
mistakes
that
could
happen
and
all
number
of
things
that
make
banks
go,
have
to
hire
title
companies
and
insurance
companies.
Lawyers,
notaries,
you
name
it
to
get
a
simple
transaction
completed.
F
What
blockchains
offers
is
the
ability
to
create
trustworthiness
in
the
system
that
individuals
can
transact
amongst
each
other
and
when
one
person
says
that
they
own
something
the
other
person
can
can
take
that
and
literally
and
know
that
that
is
the
case,
and
so
what
we're
addressing
is,
as
assemblywoman
dickman
indicated,
our
digital
assets
currencies
to
provide
in
law
what
ownership
means
and
how
ownership
can
be
proven,
and
these
are
really
the
foundations
and
the
building
blocks
from
which
we
will
be
able,
over
the
course
of
several
sessions
to
to
craft
and
incorporate
blockchain
technology
into
our
our
everyday
systems
of
commerce.
F
So
I
hope
you're
all
as
excited
as
I
am
to
get
into
the
nuts
and
bolts
of
this.
It's
a
fascinating
conversation.
I've
been
privileged
enough
to
talk
with
individuals
such
as
senator
orrin,
shaw
and
shea
baka's,
who
is
the
chair
of
the
uniform
commercial
committee
and
the
legal
experts
that
they
brought
in
with
us.
The
chair,
the
commissioner
of
financial
institutions,
was
very
gracious
with
her
time.
All
these
people,
I
think
we're
incorporating
their
thoughts
and
are
very
encouraged
with
that.
F
We
will
come
back
with
a
with
a
very
strong,
comprehensive
bill.
That's
going
to
really
put
us
move
us
forward,
and
so
we're
very
excited.
Once
again,
we
want
to
thank
assemblyman
dickman
for
agreeing
to
run
this
legislation
and
want
to
thank
all
of
you
for
your
time
and
your
your
consideration
at
this
point.
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
nick
spanos.
G
Oh,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
having
me
thank
you,
chairman,
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee.
Thank
you
jill
dickman
and
her
office
are
all
presenter
team
for
being
so
helpful.
I
want
to
thank
matt,
of
course,
and
argentum,
and
I'm
nick
spanos.
G
I
opened
the
first
cryptocurrency
exchange
100
feet
from
the
new
stock
exchange
in
2013.
G
I'm
an
activist
I
didn't,
I
don't
know
anything
about
exchanges,
but
I
understood
at
the
time
because
I'm
also
a
computer
programmer,
and
I
consider
myself
an
inventor
and
I
have
at
one
point-
I've
had
30
percent
of
all
the
blockchain
patents,
including
blockchain
voting
and
blockchain
paperback
ballot
voting,
multi-branch
blockchain,
and
you
know
many
more
and
I've
been
educating
people
from
all
walks
of
life.
G
As
a
matter
of
fact,
I'm
in
dubai
right
now,
where
we're
educating
members
of
the
the
sheik's
office
and
in
dubai
and
other
places,
and
also
abu
dhabi
in
a
couple
days
and
we've
been
coming
back
and
forth
here
and
many
other
places.
Sri
lanka,
I
mean
belarus
all
over
the
world
and
you
know
it's
a
difficult
thing
to
understand:
to
bring
it
to
a
simple
place.
G
If
it's
it's
dna
for
data
and
the
private
key
is
the
password.
So
if
you
believe
that
you
own
your
data
or
you
own
your
property
or
you
own,
the
right
to
sign
for
it,
you
would
have
the
password,
but
somewhere,
it
says
that
you
shouldn't
have
the
password
and
only
bank
should
have
a
password.
G
I
think
that
would
that
wouldn't
go
that
well
with
people
who
own
things
such
as
a
property
or
cattle,
or
I
mean
meaning
commodities
and
the
way
commodities
are
traded
futures,
and
you
know
they
have
with
blockchain
technology.
The
underlying
asset
is
so
easily
transferable
that
you
know
even
cattle
would
have
a
password
for
the
livestock
each
livestock
could
have
its
own
password.
If
it's
the
system
set
up.
That
way,
I
mean
for
the
computer.
G
To
move
around
doesn't
have
to
be
a
human,
remembering
it
to
type
it
in,
but
the
computer
to
move
around
that
asset.
You
know
the
owner
would
have
to
have
the
private
key
for
it
and
it
looks
like
there's
been
some
type
of
mistake
and
it's
we're
working
to
get
that
fixed
with
you
guys
to
codify.
You
know,
property
rights
in
the
state
of
nevada
and
I
think,
we're
on
the
right
track
so
far
we're
meaning
it's
there's
a
little
way
to
go
here.
G
There's
been
some
work
with
the
universal
law
committee
to
to
get
the
language
a
little
better
and
to
get
everything
in
a
way
that
we
can
have
an
incredible
inevitable,
transparent
future,
and
thank
you
for
for
having
me
today.
Brittany
kaiser
is
going
to
speak
next.
Who
is
the
director
of
our
group
here
the
blockchain
center,
and
I
think
I
spoke
about
that
right.
We've
been
next
yeah.
A
H
Good
morning,
thank
you,
chairman
yeager,
thank
you,
members
of
the
committee,
and
especially
representative
dickman,
and
your
office
for
supporting
this
bill,
matt
robinson
and
their
team
and
and
the
rest
of
the
blockchain
center
foundation,
who
have
helped
bring
this
forward,
as
well
as
the
uniform
law
commission,
the
commissioner
and
team
who
spent
hours
with
us
over
the
weekend
actually
looking
through
and
revising
this
bill.
My
name
is
brittany.
Kaiser
I
am
also,
as
nick
spanos
is
an
activist
in
the
digital
asset
space.
H
For
the
past
three
years,
we
have
now
seen
thousands
of
companies
either
starting
in
the
united
states
or
repatriating
to
the
united
states,
which
is
incredibly
exciting.
I
currently
sit
on
multiple
subcommittees
of
the
wyoming
congressional
standing
committee
on
blockchain,
fintech
and
digital
innovation.
H
So,
firstly,
in
in
addressing
ab324
as
we're
discussing
today,
I
would
like
to
let
the
committee
know
that
we
have
already
been
significantly
revising
this
bill,
because
we
took
into
account
the
letters
that
we
have
already
received
that
had
specific
concerns
or
questions
about
the
bill,
and
we
have
spent
the
past
week
making
sure
that
all
of
those
questions
were
addressed,
especially
spending
this
saturday
with
the
uniform
law
commission,
making
sure
that
everyone
on
their
team
was
completely
comfortable
with
what
we
were
actually
trying
to
do
in
the
end
and
that
there
was
nothing
in
the
bill
that
would
unjustly
be
affecting
industries
that
we
do
not
seek
to
create
further
definition
within.
H
So,
although
maybe
not
all
of
you
have
access
to
the
revised
version.
Yet
I
really
do
think
the
amended
bill
is,
is
succinct,
it's
very
to
the
point
and
it
helps
protect
not
just
individual
rights
but
the
rights
of
companies
in
a
widely
growing
industry
that
are
bringing
tens,
if
not
hundreds
of
billions
of
dollars
into
the
united
states,
which
is
incredibly
exciting
and
something
that
I
think
the
state
of
nevada
will
definitely
want
to
be
a
part
of.
H
So
what
we
think
is
most
important
about
this
bill,
I'm
going
to
address
the
sections
that
we
kept
in
our
amended
version.
First
in
11c,
we
think
it's
incredibly
important,
that
we
are
codifying
virtual
currency
and
clarifying
that
it
is
an
intangible
asset,
but
also
an
intangible
personal
property
in
12
136.
H
H
So
I
I
really
think
that
when
most
big
financial
institutions,
these
days
are
using
bitcoin
and
other
virtual
currencies
to
create
financial
instruments
and
to
create
loans
and
entire
new
industries.
Out
of
it,
it's
not
surprising
that
individuals
would
like
to
take
advantage
of
their
personal
digital
assets
and
to
use
a
an
example
that
was
used
earlier
by
one
of
my
colleagues.
H
On
section
12,
we
think
it's
incredibly
important
that
we've
defined
control
of
a
digital
asset
to
allow
people
to
transfer
control
if
they
were
to
become
a
debtor
that
they
don't
have
to
give
away
their
private
keys,
which
is
their
password,
but
they
would
enter
into
an
arrangement
that
is
both
legal
and
technical.
That
would
give
up
that
control
and
implement
that
process
to
transfer
full
control
that,
for
some
reason,
anyone
were
to
default.
H
H
In
section
23,
we
are
exempting
peer-to-peer
virtual
currency
platforms
that
don't
use
any
fiat
currency
or
legal
tender.
They
they
don't
act
as
custodians
and
therefore
they
shouldn't
need
a
money.
Transmitter's
license,
that's
both
for
the
platforms
and
businesses
themselves,
as
well
as
individuals.
H
In
fact,
this
entire
legislative
process
and
kicked
off
when
a
colleague
of
mine
called
caitlyn
long
found
out
that
she
needed
to
have
a
money
transmitter's
license
in
order
to
donate
to
her
alma
mater
in
bitcoin.
H
She
was
just
trying
to
donate
to
her
university
to
create
a
fund
for
female
engineers
and
found
out
that
she
needed
to
change
a
lot
in
order
to
do
that,
and
so
we
believe
that
nevada
should
extend
those
same
rights
that
we've
now
achieved
in
wyoming,
and
so
I
wanted
to
thank
those
committee,
the
committee
and
thank
everyone
testifying
again
as
well
as
representative
dickman's
office,
uniform
law,
commission
and
our
colleagues
for
working
so
hard
on
this
to
make
sure
that
nevadans
and
the
industry
that
exists
in
the
state
of
nevada
have
clear
legal
rights
under
the
law
for
digital
asset
ownership
and,
of
course,
for
being
able
to
perfect
security
interests.
H
We
really
understand
that,
of
course,
ab324
is
in
the
refinement
process,
but
we
have
done
everything
we
can
up
until
this
point
to
make
sure
that
we
are
not
impeding
upon
other
industries
that
we
are
just
clearly
defining
the
industry
that
we
seek
to
provide
rights
for,
and
I
think
we've
really
made
huge
gains
with
the
ulc
and
the
ucc
commissioners
to
make
movements
towards
being
able
to
codify
this
and
to
make
sure
that
people
can
transact
in
virtual
currencies
without
the
need
of
an
intermediary.
H
A
Thank
you,
miss
kaiser.
I
had
a
quick
question.
You
had
mentioned
that
there
were
some,
I
guess
some
edits
being
made
to
the
language
and
assembly
bill
324,
and
I
don't
know
if
you
can
answer
this
or
perhaps
assemblywoman
dickman
can.
But
I
just
wonder,
was
there
an
amendment
that's
being
presented
at
this
time
or
is
it
still
being
worked
on
as
we
speak.
H
I
I
believe
it
was
circulated
this
morning,
representative
dickman.
Do
you
know
if
that
was
accessible
by
the.
B
I
keep
muting
my
unmute
anyway
assemblywoman
dickman
for
the
record.
Perhaps
john
sandy
can
answer
that.
I
believe
we
are
still
working
on
that
amendment,
but.
F
Yes,
mr
chair
to
you,
john
sandy
iv,
with
argenta
partners,
for
the
record
we
have
drafted.
We
have
not
had
an
opportunity
to
have
further
discussions
with
the
individuals
that
we
wanted
to
take
a
look
at
it
and
then
we
will
distribute
it
once
they've
had
a
chance
to
sl,
we've
solicited
their
feedback,
and
so
it's
still
in
the
works
is
the
simple
answer.
A
Great,
thank
you,
and
so
is
there.
Anybody
else
left
to
present
or
is
is
now
the
time
for
questions
looks
like
looks
like
mr
sandy
waved
his
head.
Yes,
so
I'll
take
that
as
a
sign
that
it's
time
for
questions,
thank
you
to
the
four
of
you
for
presenting.
I
had
a
a
couple
questions
that
I
think
will
be
kind
of
quick,
but
so
let
me
just
get
those
out
of
the
way.
A
A
H
Thank
you,
chairman
yeager,
brittany,
kaiser
for
the
record,
so
that
is
actually
one
of
the
one
of
the
parts
that
we
have
removed
from
the
bill.
We,
we
don't
want
to
put
undue
strain
on
any
of
the
government
institutions
or
agencies
that
that
don't
currently
have
capacity
for
this
and
it
it
really
was.
H
It
really
was
there
when
we
were
trying
to
go
further
into
digital
securities,
where
we
decided
instead
to
focus
just
on
on
virtual
currencies
in
order
to
make
sure
that
we
are
making
narrow
definitions
and
that
we
are
able
to
push
forward
without
controversy
and
provide
rights
without
impeding
on
any
other
industries.
A
Thank
you
and
then
the
other
question
I
think,
is
in
section
12
of
the
bill
and
I'm
sorry.
I
have
some
version
of
an
amendment
in
front
of
me,
but
it
may
not
be
the
one
that
you
all
want
to
advance,
but
I
think
it's
section
12
of
the
original
bill,
subsection
4.
It
talks
about
perfecting,
I
don't
wanna
say
perfecting,
but
I
guess
there's
a
two
year
waiting
period
where
basically
the
transferee
would
take
the
asset
and
if
they
don't
have
actual
notification
notice
of
an
adverse
claim.
I
take
it.
A
They
own
the
asset,
free
and
clear.
So
I
wondered
if
that
two-year
time
period
is
going
to
stay
in
the
bill
once
it
gets
amended
and
if
so,
how
you
came
up
with
that
particular
time
period.
H
Language,
thank
you,
I'm
just
checking.
I
believe
that
section
section
12.
Sorry,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you,
brittany
kaiser
for
the
record,
so
section
12
of
the
current
bill
that
you're
holding
has
become
section
seven
and
we
have
we
have
kept
in
the
the
two-year
time
period.
H
From
from
what
I
understand,
that's
exactly
the
same
as
what
we
have
passed
in
the
state
of
wyoming
and
also
what
other
states
are
considering
at
the
moment,
which
is
why
we've
decided
to
keep
it
uniform
with
with
the
interest
to
make
sure
that,
upon
upon
our
opportunity
to
achieve
federal
law
in
this
area,
that
states
are
in
agreement
upon
this.
A
Thank
you,
miss
kaiser
and
before
I
take
additional
questions,
I'll
note
for
the
record
that
we
do
have
assemblywoman,
hanson
and
assemblywoman
krasner
here
joining
us.
They
did
join
us
shortly
after
the
presentation
started.
So,
madam
secretary,
if
you
could,
please
mark
them
as
present,
and
I
believe
that
means
we
have
all
committee
members
present
at
the
moment,
so
I'm
going
to
take
some
additional
questions,
I'll
start
with
assemblywoman
cohen
and
then
we'll
go
to
assemblyman
wheeler.
J
Thank
you
chair,
and
I'm
not
sure
who
to
ask
this
to,
but
so
my
understanding
is
there's
no
agreement
between
the
american
law
institute
or
you
are
the
uniform
law
commission
and
you
at
this
point,
but
that
the
ali
and
the
ucc
or
the
ul's
ulc
have
been
working
on
this
for
for
a
while.
Just
this
the
same
topic
to
have
some
uniform
law
in
the
state
between
the
states
for
the
benefit
of
businesses.
So
they've
got
some
clarity.
J
So
would
you
be
willing
to
kind
of
instead
of
trying
to
push
this
through
this
session
work
with
them
over
the
next
two
years
to
come
up
with
something
that
maybe
is,
is
again
more
uniform
so
that
businesses
throughout
the
country,
as
they
want
to
deal
with
nevada,
basically
know
what
they're
getting.
F
Into
mr
chairman,
to
you,
or
through
you
to
assemblywoman
cohen
john
sandy,
the
fourth
for
the
record,
we
definitely
look
forward
to
working
with
the
uniform
law
commission
in
the
interim
and
they
extended
an
offer
to
participate
in
some
of
their
committees
and
subcommittees,
which
I
think
we
were
very
excited
for
for
that
opportunity.
With
regards
to
what
we're
looking
at
here,
our
hope
is
that
we
can
at
least
start
the
the
ball
rolling.
F
There
are
other
states
that
are
getting
head
starts
on
us
and
we
think
that
there's
an
opportunity
possibly-
and
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
the
law.
Commission,
I'm
sure
they
you
know-
will
come
and
testify
as
well,
and
you
can
ask
them
directly,
but
I
think
there
are,
as
we
stated
some
probably
non-controversial
points
that
we
we
would
like
to
see
if
we
could
explore
this
session.
J
Thank
you
and
and
and
chair
I
I
guess
I
just
want
to
express
my
concern
about
instability
and
then,
if
we're
changing,
you
know
priorities.
That
of
you
know
creditor
priorities
that
type
of
thing
that
it's
j
and
choice
of
law,
that
almost
every
you
know
every
other
shape,
but
but
wyoming
is
following.
That's
that's
really
got
me
concerned
about
that
businesses
will
find
that
just
really
unstable
and
untenable.
K
The
assemblywoman's
question
raised
another
question
for
me.
I
only
had
one
but
now
I
have
to
let's
start
with
my
original
question
on
section
10,
subsection,
three
of
the
original
bill,
you're
defining
any
type
of
cryptocurrency,
is
not
recognized
by
as
legal
tender
by
the
united
states
government.
I'm
wondering
if
you're
not
limiting
yourself
in
that
and
if
there's
any
plans
to
have
any
kind
of
cryptocurrency
recognized
such
as
some
precious
metals
are,
for
instance,
that's.
My
first
question.
H
Thank
you,
assemblyman
wheeler,
brittany,
kaiser
for
the
record.
Firstly,
we
we
would
like
to
leave
that
decision
up
to
the
federal
government
from
all
public
reports.
It
looks
like
the
the
treasury
might
be
producing
this
summer,
at
least
one
or
two
possible
versions
of
what
a
digital
dollar
would
look
like,
which
would
be
a
virtual
currency
on
the
blockchain,
but
I
believe
also
intended
to
be
a
digital
legal
tender.
So
we
don't
seek
for
any
of
the
current
virtual
currencies
to
become
a
legal
tender
under
a
federal
definition.
H
But
of
course
you
know
that
that
is
up
to
the
the
agencies
that
that
regulate,
and
we
will
continue
to
be
in
conversations
with
them
to
see
if
anything
changes,
but
for
now
the
the
property
or
intangible
personal
property
definition
makes
the
most
sense
in
order
for
commerce
to
continue.
Thank
you.
K
Okay,
I
I
understand
that
ms
kaiser.
I
also
understand
that,
like
you
said
that
the
federal
government
is
looking
into
making
some
digital
recognized,
that's
why
I
say:
aren't
you
limiting
yourself
here,
because
if
they
make
that
change
all
of
a
sudden
you've
got
some
things
that
are
not
in
your
law
here,
so
you've
got
you'll
have
some
cryptocurrency
that
you
won't
be
able
to
exchange
in
nevada
because
it
wouldn't
fit
the
definition.
K
But
the
other
question
I
had
for
mr
sandy,
even
though
he's
got
a
helmet
behind
him
there
that
I
really
don't
want
to
look
at,
but
he's
but
john
or
mr
sandy,
I'm
sorry
the
if
we
wait
two
years
and
go
through
much
more
negotiations
with
other
people
et
cetera.
Instead
of
getting
this
bill
passed
and
then
do
those
negotiations
and
coming
back
in
two
years
to
make
the
changes
that
are
necessary
for
more
uniformity.
F
Mr
chair,
through
you
to
assemblyman
wheeler
john
sandy,
the
fourth
for
the
record-
I
I
wish
I
could
tell
I
think
the
only
thing
I
could
point
to
is
maybe
the
experience
that
wyoming
is
is
having
right
now
and
you
heard
miss
kaiser
reference,
the
amount
of
investment
and
money
and
startup
businesses
that
are
coming
to
that
state
because
of
their
their
recognition
of
of
digital
assets.
As
as
personal
property.
F
I
I
think,
there's
it's
just
there's
tremendous
opportunity,
especially
with
the
industries,
the
new
industries
that
have
already
started
coming,
and
I
think
more.
That
would
want
to
come.
So
I
I
I
I
would
be
concerned
that
you
know
two
years:
biennial
sessions
are
are
good
in
a
lot
of
fashions
and
and
others
they're.
They
don't
allow
for
expedited
reviews.
F
Sometimes,
so
I
think
we
want
to
be
at
the
forefront
of
this
and
I
think,
there's
an
opportunity
for
us
to
be
consistent
and
have
uniformity
working
with
with
folks
and
and
we
look
forward
to
doing
that
as
we
hope
to
progress.
K
A
Do
we
have
further
questions
from
committee
members
if
you
could
raise
your
hand
in
front
of
your
screen?
I
think
I
have
I
see.
Assemblyman
or
laker
has
a
question.
Please
go
ahead.
I
Thank
you,
chair
david
orion,
liquor,
assembly,
district
20
for
the
record,
so
I
think
it
was
miss
kaiser.
You
said
that
you
hoped
to
advance
the
non-controversial
part
so
that
might
have
been
mr
sandy.
So
does
that
mean
that
when
you
come
back
with
an
amendment,
it
will
be
with
all
agreement
by
you
and
the
ulc
and
ali
representatives.
F
Mr
chair,
through
you
to
assemblyman.
That
is
absolutely
our
hope.
I
think
and
again
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
them,
but
having
participated
in
in
a
very
robust,
very
detailed
conversation
with
some
of
the
experts
in
secure
transactions,
the
ucc
and
all
that
I
I
took
away
that
we
had
a
lot
more
in
common
than
than
we
didn't
and
at
least
as
far
as
intent
goes
and
what
we
are
hoping
to
accomplish.
I
think
there
was
a
lot
of
agreement.
F
A
And
that
was
mr
sandy
for
the
record.
I
know
it's
a
little,
it's
a
little
harder
on
zoom
to
remember
to
do
that,
mr
sandy,
so
perfectly
okay,
other
questions
from
committee
members
on
assembly
bill
324.
A
J
Thank
you
chair,
so
I
apologize.
If
I
I
can't
seem
to
find
the
amendment
you're
speaking
of,
but
one
of
the
first
things
you
said
was
you
were
defining
this
as
a
tangible
asset,
but
in
section
20
it
says
that
this
will
be
an
intangible
asset,
intangible
property
which,
which
is
not
subject
subject
to
taxation.
C
Taxation,
when
the
cryptocurrency
is.
H
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
krasner,
brittany,
kaiser
for
the
record.
Firstly,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I
didn't
misspeak
before
that.
We
we
are
intending
completely
for
digital
assets
to
be
defined
as
intangible
personal
property
and
therefore
to
to
fall
under
the
the
same
exemption
that
some
forms
of
you
know.
Digital
securities
stock
certificates
also
fall
under
in
the
state
of
nevada,
which
is
a
property
tax
exemption
and
that
that
is
what
we
seek
to
move
forward
with.
H
As
soon
as
that
law
was
passed
in
the
state
of
wyoming,
there
were
hundreds
now
thousands
of
companies
that
have
moved
to
the
state
to
work
under
those
laws
that
worked
so
well,
because
wyoming
was
already
an
attractive
state.
Just
like
nevada
is
so.
I
really
do
believe
that
the
the
state
of
nevada
has
as
a
huge
opportunity
right
now
to
attract
business,
not
just
from
other
states
in
the
us,
but
from
americans
that
have
built
their
companies
abroad
that
have
been
waiting
to
move
back.
H
H
We
even
have
some
of
them
about
to
list
on
the
nasdaq
for
exponentially
more
of
that,
so
I
do
believe
that,
by
by
moving
forward
with
these
definitions
in
the
state
of
nevada,
if
if
we
do
that
now
that
you'll
see
in
a
really
exponential
amount
of
commerce
coming
into
the
state,
instead
of
waiting
for
two
years
where
we
will
probably
already
have
federal
decisions
in
this
area,
thank
you.
J
Record,
so
if
it
will
be
an
intangible
property
in
section
21,
it
says
that
then
all
intangible
property
has
an
exemption
from
taxation,
so
would
any
transaction
be
exempt
from
taxation
where
funds
would
then
not
be
taxed
by
the
state
and
federal
government?
Is
that
your
intent,
please?
Thank
you.
H
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
costner,
brittany
kaiser
for
the
record.
We
would
seek
for
that
to
be
a
state
exemption.
Of
course,
there
are
other
types
of
business
taxes
that
would
still
apply
to
these
assets,
which
would
be
helpful
for
the
state's
economy
and
on
the
federal
side.
Of
course,
we're
still
waiting
for
definitions.
Most
federal
agencies
are
are
still
debating
on
their
definitions,
so
we
would
expect
that
all
of
these
would
still
fall
under
federal
taxation
and
perhaps
other
different
tax
law
within
the
state
of
nevada
when
running
a
business
that
deals
in
virtual
currencies.
A
Thank
you
any
additional
questions.
Before
we
move
to
testimony
all
right,
I
don't
see
additional
questions,
so
I
want
to
thank
our
presenters
for
presenting
this
morning,
we'll
just
ask
you
to
sit
tight
for
a
moment,
we'll
take
some
testimony
and
then
we'll
have
a
chance
to
come
back
for
concluding
remarks.
A
So
at
this
time,
I'm
going
to
open
the
hearing
for
testimony
in
support
of
assembly
bill
324.
Is
there
anybody
on
the
zoom
with
us
who
has
not
yet
spoken?
Who
would
like
to
testify
in
support
of
the
bill?
If
so,
if
you
could,
please
turn
your
camera
on
unmute
and
let
me
know
we'll
give
that
just
a
minute.
A
B
J
While
we
have
not
had
the
ability
to
review
the
proposed
amendment
discussed
today,
we
are
generally
supportive
of
the
intent
to
provide
clarity
around
the
individual
digital
assets.
Rights
we'd
like
to
thank
assemblywoman
stickman
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
and
and
look
forward
to
working
with
all
parties
moving
forward.
Thank
you.
A
J
A
Thank
you,
bps.
I
will
close
testimony
in
support.
I
will
now
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
opposition.
I
believe
we
do
have
two
individuals,
I
believe
with
us
on
the
phone
in
opposite
or
excuse
me
on
the
zoom
with
us
in
opposition.
So
I'm
going
to
take
those
two
first
I
see
mr
henning
has
turned
his
camera
on
and
unmuted
sir.
If
you'd
like
to
please
state
your
name
and
provide
your
testimony
in
opposition.
L
I
yes
thank
you,
chairman
yeager,
and
thanks
to
the
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
bill
henning.
I
am
a
professor
at
the
texas,
a
m
university
school
of
law,
but,
more
importantly,
I'm
here
representing
the
uniform
law
commission,
which
has
been
discussed
a
bit
already
this
morning,
I'm
a
life
member
of
the
organization,
a
former
executive
director
and
am
on
the
drafting
committee
that
is
working
on
amending
the
uniform
commercial
code
to
deal
with
virtual
currency
and
digital
assets.
L
Generally,
I
drafted
a
letter
that
was
sent
to
the
committee
expressing
our
concerns,
but
while
I'm
the
the
person
who
signed
the
letter,
it
really
was
the
consensus
view
of
a
number
of
members,
who've
been
working
on
this
project,
expressing
our
concerns
about
upsetting
existing
transactions
and
upsetting
expectations
created
by
the
uniform
commercial
code
in
its
current
form.
L
I
I
do
want
to
say
that
we,
we
are
not
opposed
to
the
other
aspects
of
the
bill
other
than
those
dealing
with
the
uniform
commercial
code,
and
we
are
not
in
opposition
to
nevada
nevada.
I'm
sorry,
I
mispronounced
that
to
nevada
doing
something
that
is
non-uniform
in
this
space.
Nor
are
we
concerned
about
the
fact
that
it
promotes
blockchain
technology.
L
I
know
that
there
was
a
very
constructive
meeting
saturday
morning
that
I
had
hoped
to
attend.
Professor
keith
rowley
of
unlv
who's.
Also,
a
commissioner
is
here
and
did
attend
that
meeting
and
can
perhaps
talk
more
specifically
about
it,
but
I
know
that
several
members
from
the
ulc
and
several
of
the
folks
who've
testified
this
morning
were
present,
and
I
have
heard
that
it
was
a
very
constructive
discussion.
L
We
certainly
would
like
any
proponent
of
the
bill
to
work
with
us
in
our
project.
It's
an
open
project.
Everyone
has
a
seat
at
the
table.
Everyone
has
a
say
with
regard
to
the
revised
bill
that
has
been
discussed.
We
have
not
yet
seen
the
language
while
the
testimony
was
going
on.
I
sent
sort
of
a
quick
email
to
everyone
involved
in
saturday's
meeting
and
the
leadership
of
the
uniform
law.
L
L
But
I
do
want
to
make
clear-
and
I
have
this
from
the
chair
of
the
drafting
committee
from
the
executive
director-
of
the
uniform
law
commission
and
from
everyone
within
the
ulc
who
was
a
party
to
the
meeting
on
saturday
morning
that
that
we
have
not
carefully
reviewed
the
language
and
and
have
not
given
our
our
approval
to
it.
So
I
want
to
be
positive.
I
want
to
be
constructive
again,
we
are,
we
are
very
willing
to
cooperate
and
work
with
the
proponents.
L
A
A
Obviously,
professor
henning
has
a
wealth
of
experience
in
this
realm,
so
it
asks
you
to
continue
those
conversations
with
him
and
thank
you
so
much
for
your
testimony
this
morning,
sir,
and
I
see
that
I
think
give
me
one
second
here
professor
rowley
has
turned
on
his
camera,
sir,
if
you'd
like
to
unmute
and
state
your
name
and
provide
your
testimony,
please.
I
Yes,
good
morning,
my
name
is
keith
rowley,
I'm
a
professor
at
the
university
of
nevada,
las
vegas
school
of
law.
We
miss
boyd
school
of
law,
where
I've
taught
commercial
law
for
the
last
20
years,
having
previously
taught
it
elsewhere.
As
commissioner
henning
professor
henning
said,
I
am
also
a
uniform
law.
Commissioner,
I'm
part
of
the
nevada
delegation
and-
and
that
has
given
me
more
cause
to
be
involved
in
the
legislative
process
than.
C
I
Had
prior
to
becoming
a
commissioner,
but
when
the
several
amendments
and
revisions
to
other
articles
of
the
uniform
commercial
code
were
being
circulated
in
the
in
the
early
2000s
former
senator
karen
former
former
senator
amada
reached
out
to
me
and
asked
me
for
advice
and
counsel
on
what
nevada
should
do
with
regard
to
those
things
you
know,
even
though
I
was
at
the
time
much
younger
than
I
am
now
they
had
not
yet
a
uniform
law.
I
I
Commissioner,
I'm
also
here
for
the
sake
of
nevada
law,
I've
taught
more
than
1
500
practicing
attorneys
in
nevada,
who
graduated
from
the
boyd
school
of
law,
just
in
my
classes,
since
I've
been
here
several
of
whom
are
are
now
in
the
legislature,
some
of
whom
are
on
the
bench-
and
you
know
I'm
very
much
concerned
that
that
you
know
we
get
nevada
law
right
and
and
the
bill
that
was
as
it
was
originally
drafted,
created
a
significant
number
of
very
serious
complications,
some
of
which
I
I
think,
based
on
the
the
the
very
productive
conversation
that
we
had
saturday
morning
with
my
friend
and
colleague,
juliet
moringello
who's,
the
vice
chair
of
the
ucc
and
emerging
technologies,
drafting
committee
that
that
professor
henning
was
referring
to
ben
warzewski,
who's,
chief
counsel
of
the
ulc
and
and
then
the
various
speakers
who
are
several
of
the
speakers.
I
Mr
sandy
miss
kaiser,
mr
poole,
who
hasn't
spoken.
I
don't
think
unless
I
I
blinked
out
momentarily,
but
you
know
we
had
a
very.
It
was
a
very
constructive
conversation.
I
you
know,
I
think
everybody
on
on
our
side.
If
we
want
to
characterize
it
that
way,
you
know
came
out
of
it.
I
You
know
hopeful
and-
and
I
and
I
think
that
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
about
cooperation
and
trying
to
work
out
a
you
know,
a
product
that
would
serve
the
primary
goals
of
the
proponents
of
ab324
without
hitting
all
the
trip
wires
in
the
uniform
commercial
code
that
the
current
that
the
original
version
of
the
bill
was
was
was
triggering
but
as
as
with
professor
henning,
I
have
not
seen
the
revised
version,
and
so
I
cannot
opine
as
to
you
know
whether
the
the
things
that
that
we
were
most
concerned
about
have
been
addressed,
and
you
know,
while
I
I
take
you
know,
take
on
good
faith
and
very
seriously
the
representations
from
miss
kaiser
and-
and
I
I
think,
to
a
lesser
extent,
mr
sandy,
that
that
he
made
this
representation.
I
But
I
I
could
be
mistaken.
You
know
that
this
new
version,
whenever
we
see
it
we'll,
have
extracted
from
the
original
version,
the
things
about
which
you
know
we
expressed
our
concerns
and
and
that
implicated
commercial.
The
uniform
commercial
code
that
the
the
f
my
well,
I
can't
say
the
fact
of
the
matter,
because
again
I
haven't
seen
it
my
my
first
take.
I
Is
that
can't
be
true,
because
we
just
had
a
conversation
between
assemblywoman,
krasner
and
and
and
I'm
sorry
and
miss
kaiser
about
the
actually?
I'm
sorry?
No
I'm
sorry
it
wasn't
it
wasn't
this
only
one,
I
beg
your
pardon
it
was
about
to
take.
This
is
the
chair
about
the
take,
take
free
provision
in
what
was.
I
I
My
pages
here
I
beg
your
pardon,
what
was
section
1274
about
the
you
know,
the
two
years
after
taking
the
asset
after
you
know,
after
acquiring
the
asset,
take
free
of
all
claims
that
you
don't
have
actual
notice.
That's
a
commercial
law
proposition
that
fundamentally
changes
the
way
that
that
that
that
title
works
and
that
and
that
filings
back
to
another
prior
question
filings
with
the
secretary
of
state's
office.
I
I
I
think
that
there
is
still
a
a
good
chance
that
we
can
work
out
the
thing
that
the
issues
that
we're
concerned
with
and-
and
I
and
I
think
that
the
the
proponents
of
the
bill
are
you
know-
are-
are
acting
in
good
faith,
perhaps
overstating
exactly
what
we've
agreed
to
and
how
much
you
know.
I
Consensus,
we've
reached
other
than
consensus
on
the
facts
that
we
ought
to
work
together
and
try
and
make
this
a
a
bill
that
that
serves
the
the
purposes
that
that
the
proponents
seek
without
causing
problems
in
the
commercial
law
area
and
also,
you
know,
a
shared
general
enthusiasm
for
these
new
technologies.
I
I
was
on
the
drafting
committee
for
the
revised
for
the
regulation
of
virtual
currency
businesses
act
and
testified
two
years
ago
on
that,
and-
and
you
know
there
are
some
common
themes
in
that
act
and
in
portions
of
this
bill
that
deal
with
you
know
the
use
of
virtual
currencies
and
and
prudential
regulation.
I
So
I
I
don't-
I
don't
I
think,
I'll
I'll
stop
and
and
and
try
to
answer
questions
that
you
have
or
professor
henning,
and
I
will
try
and
answer
questions
that
you
have,
because
speaking
to
particular
issues
is
going
to
be
difficult.
Not
knowing
what
the
revision
looks
like.
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony,
professor
rowley,
and
thank
you
for
your
work
on
the
uniform
law.
Commission.
I
don't
think
it's
going
to
be
too
productive
to
ask
questions
at
this
point.
Just
given.
We
don't
know
where
the
language
may
land,
but
again
would
just
thank
you
for
your
willingness
to
work
with
the
sponsors,
and
I
would
just
ask
everyone
involved
in
this
bill
to
keep
us
updated
on
whether
consensus
can
be
reached
or
not
remains
to
be
determined,
but
I
think
we'll
leave
it
there
for
the
testimony.
A
Is
there
anybody
else
on
the
zoom
other
than
the
two
we've
heard
from
who'd
like
to
testify
in
opposition
to
assembly
bill
324?
I
don't
see
anyone,
but
let
me
just
scroll
through
to
make
sure.
Okay,
I
don't
see
any
other
activity
on
the
zoom
bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
phone
line
to
see
if
there's
anybody
there
who
would
like
to
offer
testimony
in
opposition?
A
B
B
M
Oh
excellent,
my
name
is
adam
barrington
a-d-a-m-b-a-r-r-I-n-g.
M
Thank
you
for
your
time.
There's
all
this
talk
about
how
we
can
diversify
the
state
economy
and
how
we
have
to
make
the
state
economy
appealing
for
blockchain
and
other
corporations,
and
I
mean
we
hear
this
stuff
from
nevada
politicians.
All
the
time,
and
this
more
or
less
has
just
continued
to
make
nevada
a
an
attractive,
hot
carcass
for
these
vultures
to
come
pick
the
bones:
clean,
nevada
politicians
continually
talk
as.
M
Itself,
an
extremely
attractive
and
attractive
state
for
predatory
businesses
like
tesla
nevada
bends,
over
backwards
to
make
sure
that.
A
M
A
M
All
right,
no
problem
well,
anyway,
I've
I
yield
my
time
in
that
case,.
A
A
A
B
J
We
have
met
virtually
with
the
requesters
of
the
bill
and
with
stephen
wood
of
assemblywoman
woman
vickman's
office
to
discuss
the
bill.
There
are
several
items
that
need
further
clarification
on
and
the
requester
is
working
on
those
items.
We
are
anticipating
amendments
to
the
bill
and
look
forward
to
reviewing
those
and
continue
to
work
with
the
stakeholders.
A
B
B
D
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
mary
fetchner.
B
F-E-C-H-N-E-R
I
am
registered
as
neutral
in
this
position.
My
concern
is:
if
this
bill
is
a
workaround
for
the
marijuana
industry
to
be
able
to
have
a
way
to
actually
store
money,
I
don't
know
much
about
it,
but
it
seems
like
my
understanding
is
they
cannot
bank
the
money
they
have
because
marijuana
is
against
federal
law.
B
B
A
B
M
Good
morning,
chair
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
jimmy
lau,
j-I-m-m-y,
last
name,
lao
l-a-u
with
ferrari
public
affairs
representing
the
nevada
credit
union
league,
the
nevada
credit
union
league
is
neutral
at
this
time.
We
are
supportive
of
the
concept
of
further
establishing
a
regulatory
framework
for
digital
assets
in
nevada,
but
would
like
to
ensure
all
financial
institutions,
including
credit
unions,
are
afforded
the
ability
to
participate
under
the
provisions
of
this
bill
as
more
consumers
adopt
the
use
of
emerging
technology.
M
It
is
important
for
all
financial
institutions
to
have
clear
guidance
on
how
they
may
interact
with
these
assets
and
provide
services
to
the
consumers.
We
thank
the
assembly
woman
and
the
bill
proponents
for
working
with
us
to
ensure
credit
unions
are
specifically
included
and
look
forward
to
moving
our
position
to
support.
Should
the
bill
be
amended
to
include
our
members.
A
B
For
those
who
have
recently
joined
the
meeting,
we
are
taking
testimony
in
the
neutral
position
on
assembly
bill
324.
to
provide
testimony
in
the
neutral
position
press
star
9
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue.
B
B
B
Good
morning,
this
is
julie,
butler
director
of
nevada
department
of
motor
vehicles,
and
I
are
we
on
ab400.
A
A
B
B
So
sorry,
I
forgot
to
turn
that
on,
but
I'd
also
like
to
take
the
time
to
acknowledge
everyone.
Who's
worked
so
hard
on
this
with
us,
mr
henning,
mr
rowley
secretary
of
state's
office,
mr
sandy,
just
we've
had
so
much
help.
It's
just
been
great
and
I
believe
it's
critical
for
nevada
to
keep
up
with
economic
changes.
The
fact
of
the
matter
is
the
technology
advances
our
economy
evolves
and
we,
as
a
legislative
body,
need
to
do
our
best
to
stay
ahead
of
it.
B
We
must
ensure,
for
the
sake
of
those
that
we
represent,
that
our
state's
legal
framework
doesn't
leave
them
out
in
the
proverbial
cold
as
the
free
market
advances.
As
you
heard
during
the
hearing,
this
technology
has
brought
billions
of
dollars
in
assets
back
to
the
us.
Let's
make
sure
that
nevada
is
a
leader
in
this
effort.
Thank
you.
So
much.
F
Yes,
mr
chair,
just
just
real
briefly
first
to
address
the
caller's
concerns
she's
more
than
welcome
to
reach
out
to
me,
but
this
is
not
intended
to
apply
to
marijuana
companies
solely.
In
fact,
I
believe
in
wyoming.
Marijuana
is
still
illegal,
and
so
those
companies
are
are
not
going
to
wyoming
for
that,
it's
more
of
the
fintech
companies
that
that
we're
attempting
to
attract
and
that
are
are
currently
going
to
wyoming.
I
I
hope
I
didn't
misstate.
Obviously
my
optimistic
optimism
from
the
conversation.
F
It
was
a
very
interesting
conversation,
intellectually
and
otherwise,
and
I
I
I
really
enjoyed
it.
My
intent
was
not
to
speak
for
others.
I
tried
to
go
out
of
my
way
to
say
that
my
perception
of
the
meaning
was
was
what
it
was
and
I
didn't
intend
to
put
words
in
other
people's
mouths,
but
I
will
guarantee
and
put
on
the
record
that
we
look
forward
to
working
with
them.
F
They
will
see
the
amendment
as
as
soon
as
we
can
get
it
to
them,
and
we,
you
know,
I
think,
from
our
perspective,
the
important
parts
are
to
define
digital
assets
and
the
property
rights
that
people
can
obtain,
that
those
assets
can
be
transmitted
without
using
an
intermediary,
and
those
are
those
are
the
main
issues
that
we're
hoping
that
we
can
address,
and
you
know,
and
obviously
in
a
more
scaled
back
fashion
with
that.
Mr
chair
again,
thank
you
all
for
your
time
and
attention.
H
Thank
you
so
much
chairman
yeager
members
of
the
committee
and
to
everyone
that
has
participated
today.
In
conclusion,
I
would
just
like
to
say
that
we
are
really
looking
forward
to
working
with
the
uniform
law,
commission
and
anyone
else
that
is
interested
in
playing
a
part
in
how
this
bill
develops.
We
do
believe
that
our
amendments
are
something
that
are
going
to
be
not
just
amenable
but
very
interesting
and
positively
impactful
for
the
state
of
nevada
and
just
to
specifically
comment
on
on
mr
henning
and
professor
rowley's
comments.
H
First,
I
want
to
thank
both
of
them
for
being
so
open
to
working
with
us
and
especially
for
being
available
on
the
saturday.
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
the
biggest
concerns
that
came
out
of
professor
rowley's
letter
and
and
some
of
the
ulc's
comments
were
things
that
we
specifically
sought
to
remove,
such
as
the
definitions
of
consumer
digital
assets,
which
could
accidentally
disrupt
the
shadow
paper
industry.
H
So
we
decided
to
take
out
all
of
that
going
too
far
into
digital
securities,
where
there
isn't
a
lot
of
agreement
on
those
laws
and
that's
where
some
of
the
secretary
of
state
registrations
came
out
of
the
bill.
So
if
that's
required
under
nevada's
ucc,
for
for
perfecting
of
a
security
interest
very
happy
to
to
put
that
back
in
and
of
course,
to
make
sure
that
the
perfection
of
the
security
interest
so
to
make
sure
that
we
can
take
out
debts
or
liens
on
our
digital
assets.
H
That
is
what
we
actually
agreed
upon
on
saturday,
which
I
was
very
excited
about,
and
I
think
everyone
wanted
to
work
together
to
make
make
sure
that
those
provisions
were
in
agreement.
So
that's
what
we
decided
to
keep
and
pursue,
and
in
the
end,
what
our
bill
amendment
does
allow
us
to
do
is
to
make
sure
that
we're
passing
a
bill
codifying
digital
asset
property
rights
that
we
are
allowing
individual
ownership,
perfection
of
security
interests
on
those
intangible
personal
properties,
tax
exemption
and
transactions
without
an
intermediary.
H
So
if
we
can
all
work
together
on
that,
I
think
we
will
really
be
bringing
something
forward
that
will
be
great
for
the
state
of
nevada's
economy
and
also
be
able
to
show
thought
leadership
for
the
state,
as
many
other
states
are
starting
to
look
at
passing
these
laws,
and
certainly
in
two
years
from
now,
most
of
them,
if
not
federal,
will
have
already
passed.
So,
thank
you
so
much
for
your
participation.
A
Thank
you
to
our
presenters
this
morning
for
presenting
the
bill
and
for
spending
some
of
your
monday
morning
with
us.
We
hope
you
all
have
a
great
rest
of
the
day
and
with
that
I'll
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
324
before
I
hand
the
virtual
gavel
over
to
our
vice
chair
committee,
I
did
receive
a
bdr
while
we
were
in
that
hearing.
So
in
front
of
me,
I
have
bdr
14-376
revises
provisions
relating
to
the
issuance
of
certain
citations.
A
A
A
I
I
I
K
A
Yes,
and
I
did
not
hear
a
response
from
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod,
could
you
let
me
know
if
you're
a
yes,
I
think
we're
having
audio
problems
just
give
me
a
thumbs
up
if
you're
a
yes.
So
I
have
a
yes
from
the
assemblywoman
billbray
axelrod
and
that
assemblywoman
cassava.
I
don't
believe
I
heard
a
response
from
you
as
well.
Were
you
a
yes
on
the
motion.
A
And
she
may
be
frozen,
maybe
I'm
frozen.
I
don't
know
it's
monday
morning,
so,
okay,
well
we're
the
motion
does
carry.
A
We
have
a
majority
vote
for
sure,
so
those
who
are
able
to
cast
their
votes
voted
in
favor
of
it
and
in
the
interest
of
time
I
think
we
should
probably
move
on
and
hopefully
assemblywoman
kasama
can
get
the
video
or
audio
fixed,
as
well
as
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod,
where
I
was
not
able
to
hear
you
when
you
unmuted
okay,
so
that
with
that
behind
us,
I'm
going
to
hand
over
the
gavel
to
our
vice
chair,
as
I
will
be
presenting
the
next
two
bills.
A
C
And
I
will
move
to
my
virtual
chair
position,
which
is
the
same
chair
I'm
in
right
now.
At
this
time
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
400.
This
revises
provisions
related
to
the
pro
prohibited
acts
concerning
the
use
of
marijuana
in
the
operation
of
a
vehicle
or
vessel,
and
with
that
I
will
turn
it
over
to
you,
chair,
yeager,.
A
A
In
today's
hearing,
I'm
first
going
to
give
you
some
background
on
nevada's
dui
law,
then
I
will
circle
back
and
talk
about
the
science
of
detecting
impairment.
I
also
have
an
expert
with
me
paul
armantano,
from
normal.
He
probably
knows
more
about
the
science
behind
this
more
than
anyone.
I've
ever
spoken
with
on
this
topic,
so
I'll
be
happy
to
hand
it
over
to
him
before
we
take
questions.
A
So
just
by
way
of
background,
many
of
you
are
familiar
with
alcohol
duis
in
every
state.
It
is
illegal
to
drive
with
the
blood,
alcohol
concentration
or
bac
of
0.08
or
higher,
with
the
exception
of
utah,
which
recently
lowered
theirs
to,
I
believe,
0.06
or
maybe
0.04,
but
generally
speaking,
the
higher
your
blood
alcohol
content,
the
greater
the
impairment.
This
is
well-established
based
in
science
relationship
that
has
been
developed
over
decades
of
study
and
has
provided
the
basis
for
laws
prohibiting
driving
with
a
bac
of
0.08
or
above
now,
cannabis.
A
What
this
means
in
practice
is
that
you
have
little
to
no
ability
to
defend
yourself
against
dui
charges
if
your
blood
test
comes
back
with
results
above
those
numbers,
your
only
real
defense
is
that
you
were
not
the
one
driving
or
that
the
blood
tested
was
not.
In
fact,
your
blood-
you
are
not
able
to
make
any
argument
that
you
were
not
impaired
due
to
a
built
up,
tolerance
or
a
history
of
heavy
usage,
even
if,
for
medical
purposes
simply
stated.
A
If
you
are
above
those
levels,
you
are
going
to
be
guilty
of
a
dui
one
study
and
I
put
this
up
on
nellis
as
a
slide.
One
study
shows
that
cannabis
users
with
high
body
mass
indexes,
who
are
heavy
users,
can
have
more
than
the
two
nanograms
of
thc
in
our
law.
They
can
have
that
in
their
blood
more
than
48
hours
after
they
stop
consuming
cannabis.
A
I
have
seen
those
prosecutions
when
I
used
to
practice
in
criminal
court.
I
remember
where
one
of
my
clients
was
charged
with
the
dui
based
on
xanax,
even
though
she
had
a
lawful
prescription
law
enforcement
officers
in
this
state
are
already
trained
to
recognize
the
signs
of
impairment
due
to
drug
usage
illegal
or
otherwise.
A
They
do
this
by
interacting
with
the
driver
and
by
conducting
field
sobriety
tests,
and
of
course,
there
must
have
been
something
about
the
driving
itself
that
led
to
a
traffic.
Stop
nothing
in
this
bill
in
front
of
you
would
change
those
things
during
the
last
interim,
which
I
will
acknowledge
was
a
very
interesting
interim
for
the
legislature.
Due
to
the
pandemic,
I
chaired
a
committee
to
conduct
an
interim
study
on
this
issue.
A
I
invited
dr
norbert
kaminsky
from
michigan
to
join
us
at
our
meeting.
The
reason
I
invited
him
was
because
he
was
a
commissioner
for
michigan's
impaired
driving
safety.
Commission
he's
also
a
professor
in
the
department
of
pharmacology
and
toxicology
at
michigan
state
university,
as
well
as
a
number
of
other
titles,
so
he
is
more
than
qualified
to
opine.
On
this
topic,
the
commission
in
michigan
was
directed
to
establish
a
per
se
standard
for
marijuana
in
the
state
of
michigan.
A
However,
after
extensive
research
the
commission
concluded
there
is,
there
is
no
blood
level
value
for
thc
that
can
determine
impairment.
I'm
just
going
to
read
a
quick
takeaway
from
that
michigan
report
and
by
the
way
you
can
find
that
on
nellis
I
have
included
it
as
an
exhibit.
It's
not
too
terribly
long.
A
Therefore,
because
there's
a
poor
correlation
between
delta
9,
thc
bodily
content
and
driving
impairment,
the
commission
recommends
against
the
establishment
of
a
threshold
delta,
9
thc
bodily
content
for
determining
driver
impairment
and
instead
recommends
the
use
of
roadside
field
sobriety
tests
to
determine
whether
a
driver
is
impaired.
So,
despite
the
charge
to
that
commission,
the
commission
did
not
recommend
a
per
se
level
for
the
state
of
michigan,
but
instead
recommended
using
roadside
sobriety
testing
to
determine
impairment
if
the
bill
in
front
of
you
ab-400
were
to
pass.
A
A
A
So
let
me
quickly
go
over
the
bill.
It's
there's
three
main
provisions
and
it
is
pretty
straightforward,
thankfully,
section
one
through
three
and
five
through
seventeen
remove
the
per
se
levels
in
the
law
and
otherwise
make
conforming
changes.
So
what
you'll
see
there
is
the
two
nanograms
and
the
five
nanograms
would
be
removed
from
nevada
state
law,
section
sections,
11
and
14:
remove
the
mandatory
12-hour
hold
in
jail
when
someone
who
is
is
arrested
is
over
those
existing
per
se
limits
in
practice.
A
Typically,
they
take
months
so
we're
removing
that
as
a
conforming
change
and
certainly
would
would
ask
anybody
to
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
don't
think
it's
used
in
practice
and
then
finally,
section
17
makes
a
conforming
change
to
our
workers
compensation
laws
because
those
laws
are
tied
to
the
per
se
levels
that
currently
exist
in
our
statute.
This
means
that
employers
would
no
longer
be
able
to
rely
on
the
arbitrary
numbers
and
law
to
deny
workers
compensation
claims.
A
Instead,
they
would
need
to
prove
that
the
person's
workplace
injury
was
a
result
of
actual
impairment.
I
am
still
in
discussions
with
individuals
about
this
section
and
I'm
open
to
further
discussions
that
might
address
concerns
that
I've
heard
from
employers,
and
you
will
hear
from
them
today,
mostly
in
opposition.
I
believe
so.
You
know
in
conclusion,
and
before
I
hand
it
over
opponents
of
this
bill
and
to
be
sure
there
are
many
they're
going
to
state
that
the
need
that
they
need
the
per
se
standard
to
prosecute
and
hold
impaired
drivers
accountable.
A
A
The
consequences
of
not
fixing
nevada's
per
se
standards
is
that
impaired
drivers
who
may
not
be
detected
due
to
blood
tests
for
thc
and
drivers,
whose
thc
blood
levels
are
higher
in
general,
such
as
medical
marijuana
users,
could
be
convicted
even
when
not
impaired,
thus
passing
assembly
bill.
400
is
a
matter
of
equity,
fairness
and
enhancing
public
safety.
C
N
As
I
said,
my
name
is
paul
montano,
I'm
here
to
testify
in
support
of
assembly
bill
400,
which,
as
explained,
removes
nevada's
arbitrary
and
unscientific
per
se
standards
for
thc
and
for
thc's
metabolite
for
over
25
years.
I
work
professionally
in
the
field
of
marijuana
policy,
with
a
particular
emphasis
on
the
science
specific
to
cannabis,
effects
on
driving
performance
and
traffic
safety.
N
N
In
fact,
there
is
no
legitimate
scientific
debate
on
this
issue,
specifically
the
premier
traffic
safety
agency
in
the
united
states,
the
national
highway
traffic
safety,
administration
or
nitza
is
clear
and
consistent
on
this
issue,
going
all
the
way
back
to
their
groundbreaking
study,
marijuana
and
actual
driving
performance
that
was
performed
40
some
odd
years
ago.
Now
it
was
concluded
by
this
study
where
researchers
actually
administered
cannabis
to
drivers
and
had
them
drive
on
the
road
in
real
world
traffic
situations
and
measured
their
blood
in
urine
to
see.
N
N
It
is
inadvisable
to
try
and
predict
effects
based
on
blood
thc
concentrations
alone
and
currently
impossible
to
predict
specific
effects
based
on
thc
metabolite
concentrations.
Again,
that's
not
my
position.
That's
not
normal's
position.
That's
the
position
of
the
national
highway
traffic
safety
administration.
N
They've
repeated
this
position
on
more
than
one
occasion,
and
yet
another
nitza
study,
they
conclude
quote
one
of
the
programs
objectives
was
to
determine
whether
it
is
possible
to
predict
driving
impairment
by
plasma
concentrations
of
thc
or
its
metabolite
in
a
single
sample.
The
answer
is
very
clear:
it
is
not
plasma
of
drivers
showing
substantial
impairment
in
these
studies
contain
both
high
and
low
thc
concentrations
and
drivers
with
high
plasma
concentrations
showed
substantial,
but
also
no
impairment,
and
even
some
improvement.
N
They
determine
quote
there
is
no
evidence
from
the
data
collected,
particularly
from
subjects
assessed
through
the
dre.
That's
drug
recognition,
evaluation,
exam
that
any
objective
thresholds
exist
that
establish
impairment
based
on
thc
concentrations,
I'll
make
it
clear
aaa
is
no
friend
of
marijuana
legalization.
N
N
N
Two
recent
state
appointed
task
force
task
forces
on
drug
driving,
one
in
michigan,
as
was
just
mentioned,
and
another
here
in
california,
have
reaffirmed
this
position
in
their
recommendations
to
lawmakers.
In
california.
The
recommendations
of
a
task
force
led
by
the
california
highway
patrol
concluded,
quote
drugs
affect
people
differently,
depending
on
many
variables.
A
per
se
limit
for
drugs
other
than
for
ethanol
should
not
be
enacted
at
this
time,
as
current
scientific
research
does
not
support
it.
N
Similarly,
in
michigan,
as
was
mentioned
earlier,
the
conclusions
from
the
state's
impaired
driving
safety
commission
determined
quote
because
there
is
a
poor
correlation
between
delta,
9,
thc
bodily
content
and
driving
impairment.
The
commission
recommends
against
the
establishment
of
a
threshold
of
delta
9
thc
for
determining
driving
impairment.
N
N
These
questions
have
been
asked
and
they've
been
answered
for
over
four
decades,
and
this
point
was
best
summarized
recently
by
dr
marilyn
hustis,
who
has
spent
over
25
years.
Studying
this
issue
at
the
united
states
national
institute
on
drug
abuse-
and
she
is
one
of
the
leading
scholars
in
the
world
on
this
issue-
she's
the
sort
of
person
I'd
like
to
see
testifying
in
future
hearings
to
discuss
these
matters,
she
said
quote:
there
is
no
one
blood
or
oral
fluid
concentration
that
can
differentiate
impaired
and
not
impaired.
It's
not
like.
We
need
to
say.
N
N
B
N
N
By
contrast,
the
pharmacokinetics
of
thc,
when
it's
consumed
orally
as
opposed
to
smoking,
are
entirely
the
opposite.
When
someone
consumes
thc
orally,
there
is
no
rapid
spike
in
their
thc
levels.
In
fact,
their
thc
blood
levels
rarely
rise
at
all,
so
that
somebody
could
be
under
the
influence
of
thc
having
taken
it
orally
and
never
trigger
a
per
se
standard,
because
their
thc
blood
levels
seldom
rise
at
all.
N
Second,
because
thc
is
lipid
or
fat
soluble
trace
quantities
of
it
because
remain
present
in
blood
for
days
after
past
exposure
long
after
the
intoxication
has
worn
off.
Specifically,
scientific
studies
have
documented
the
presence
of
residual
quantities
of
thc
in
the
blood
of
more
frequent
cannabis
consumers
at
levels
exceeding
nevada's
existing
standards
for
a
period
of
time
exceeding
seven
days.
N
Three
subjects
response
to
thc
is
far
more
variable
than
it
is
for
alcohol,
for
example,
experienced
cannabis.
Consumers
such
as
those
patients
legally
protected
under
nevada's
medical
cannabis
access
law
who
consume
it
daily,
tend
to
display
little
to
no
change
in
psychomotor
performance
following
cannabis
administration,
while
more
naive
subjects
do
experience,
changes
in
reaction
time,
break
latency
trouble,
maintaining
their
lane
position
and
a
number
of
other
changes.
N
N
N
I
also
want
to
mention
that
police,
as
was
said
earlier,
already
possess
a
number
of
tools
that
allow
them
to
identify
drug
driving
and
to
remove
drug
drivers
from
the
road
and
to
provide
enough
evidence
for
prosecutors
to
prosecute
these
drivers.
We
have
field
sobriety
tests.
We
have
drug
recognition
evaluators.
N
We
have
different
programs
to
train
law
enforcement
officers
with
respect
to
how
to
identify
these
drivers.
We
have
the
dre
program.
We
have
the
arrive
program
in
virtually
all
of
these
cases
of
drug
driving.
There
is
evidence
of
impaired
driving
at
the
scene
that
leads
to
the
pull
over
and
eventually
to
an
arrest,
even
in
cases
where
toxicology
tests
are
performed,
they
are
only
performed
post-arrest.
N
Finally,
it
should
be
acknowledged
that
nevada's,
arbitrary
and
unscientific
thc
thresholds
were
enacted
absent
any
scientific
input
at
that
time.
None
of
the
expert
agencies
that
I've
cited
today
were
called
upon
to
testify.
None
of
the
scientists
that
I've
cited
today
were
called
upon
to
testify
or
to
participate
in
that
legislative
debate.
N
In
fact,
my
recollection
of
the
debate
was
that
the
thresholds
that
are
currently
imposed
were
decided
upon
solely
based
upon
the
llqs
available
at
that
time.
Llq
stand
for
lowest
levels
of
quantification
and
an
llq
simply
refers
to
the
lowest
amount
of
an
analyte
in
a
sample
that
can
be
quantified
with
acceptable,
precision,
precision
and
accuracy.
N
This
wasn't
about
setting
a
standard
that
if
someone
was
above
it,
they
were
impaired.
If
they
were
below
it,
they
were
not
impaired.
The
standard
was
simply
set
based
on
the
available
technology
at
that
time
and
how
accurate
that
technology
was
and
to
set
a
standard
where,
if
somebody
was
above
it
the
in
court,
they
would
not
challenge
the
accuracy
of
the
test.
N
That's
what
the
debate
was
about.
It
wasn't
about
science,
it
wasn't
about
impairment
to
be
clear.
These
limits
have
nothing
to
do
with
either
science
accurately
determining
impairment
or
promoting
public
safety.
These
arbitrary
limits
were
enacted
at
a
time
when
nevada
imposed
a
blanket
prohibition
on
the
possession
and
use
of
cannabis.
For
any
purpose,
this
is
not
the
case
any
longer.
It
hasn't
been
for
some
time
today.
N
They
are
opposed
by
experts
in
the
field
and
they
are
entirely
inconsistent
with
separate
state
statutes
that
legally
permit
for
the
consumption
of
cannabis
and
private
I'd
also
add
they're
entirely
out
of
a
step
with
what
other
states
are
doing
with
this
issue.
Nevada
is
one
of
only
five
or
six
states
in
the
country
that
impose
these
arbitrary
limits,
because
the
majority
of
qualified
patients
recommended
medical
cannabis
consume
the
substance
either
daily
or
near
daily.
N
It
is
probable
that
most,
if
not
all,
of
this
patient
population
is
vulnerable
to
criminal
prosecution
under
nevada's
existing
per
se
statute
anytime,
they
operate
a
motor
vehicle,
absent
any
impairment
of
absent
any
evidence
of
behavioral
or
psychomotor
impairment.
Most
adult
users,
including
those
who
only
consume
cannabis,
occasionally,
are
also
equally
vulnerable
to
prosecution.
Under
this
statute,
accordingly,
I
urge
lawmakers
to
advance
ab400
to
repeal
these
arbitrary
and
unscientific
standards.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Any
of
you
may
have.
C
K
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair.
I
appreciate
it.
I've
got
some
questions
for
mr
armantado
here
in
nevada.
No,
I'm
sorry
if
this
is
actually
nevada
by
the
way,
not
nevada
just
want
to,
let
you
know
a
little
pet
peeve
of
mine,
but
what
we're
looking
at
federal
law
still
has
obviously
marijuana
as
a
schedule.
One
drug-
and
I
think,
when
we
look
at
things,
have
we
done
any
kind
of
analysis
to
see
if
this
would
put
any
highway
funds
in
jeopardy.
K
Were
we
to
enact
this
law
and
also
the
way
I
read
this
and
versus
federal
law
or
dot
regulations?
Actually,
the
wouldn't.
We
have
a
problem
issuing
commercial
drivers
licenses.
If
we
put
this
into
effect,
has
there
been
any
studies
along
that
you've
quoted
a
lot
of
studies
so.
N
Sure
so
in
nevada
and-
and
I
did
make-
I
made
a
mental
note
and
a
written
note
in
my
testimony-
to
try
to
get
the
pronunciation
right.
So
I'm
sorry,
if
I
slipped
on
that,
but
to
be
clear,
nevada
is
one
of
only
a
handful
of
states
that
impose
these
statutes,
the
majority
of
states
about
45
or
so
do
not,
including
the
majority
of
states
that
have
legalized
marijuana
for
either
adult
use
or
for
medical
use.
N
None
of
those
states
have
run
into
any
problems
with
any
sort
of
loss
or
the
threat
of
loss
of
highway
funding.
So
no,
I
do
not
believe
that
is
an
issue.
It
certainly
has
not
been
an
issue
in
practice
with
respect
to
cdl
licensed
drivers.
Yes,
you
are
correct.
They
are
subject
to
federal
drug
testing,
guidelines
and
standards.
N
Those
standards
prohibit
individuals
who
possess
those
licenses
from
using
cannabis,
even
if
they
are
in
a
jurisdiction
where,
under
state
law,
the
use
of
cannabis
would
be
legal.
So
those
individuals
who
possess
those
licenses
remain
under
the
federal
guidelines
and
they
can.
Punitive
action
is
and
can
be
taken
against
those
individuals
if
they
use
cannabis
and
test
positive
for
the
presence
of
cannabis.
C
K
K
Okay,
I'm
not
exactly
sure
what
you
said
here.
It
seemed
like
a
little
move
around
the
issue,
the
wouldn't
we
actually
be
put
in
jeopardy
of
the
issuance
of
cdls
if
we
were
to
put
in
the
type
the
wrong
type
of
standards
as
far
as
basically,
what
we,
what
we'd
be
doing,
is
we're
allowing
someone
to
use
marijuana
and
drive
us
an
over-the-road
truck
and
wouldn't
the
feds
look
at
that.
As
you
know,
maybe
we
can't
issue
cdl's
in
this
state.
C
Do
you
have
any
other
follow-up
questions?
I
know
that
assemblyman
o'neil
had
to
step
out
and
he
indicated
that
you
were
going
to
ask
that
question.
Is
that
the
question
he
intended
to
ask.
C
Okay,
I
have
a
question
that
kind
of
like
piggybacks
off
of
what
assemblyman
wheeler
had
asked.
This
does
not
make
it
lawful
for
someone
to
consume
marijuana
and
be
impaired
and
drive,
isn't.
M
A
Steve
yeager
for
the
record
impaired
driving
will
continue
to
remain
illegal
in
our
state.
It
doesn't
matter
what
the
substance
is.
You
know
you
can.
You
can
be
impaired
on
anything
I
shouldn't
say
anything,
but
I
mean
you
can
be
impaired
on
prescription
drugs.
You
can
be
impaired
on
alcohol
and
cannabis.
Nothing
allows
nothing
changes
that
in
this
bill.
What
this
bill
simply
says
is
that
a
prosecutor
cannot
rely
on
a
number
in
the
blood
test
to
conclusively
prove
that
impairment
like
other
driving
under
the
influence
cases.
A
They
would
have
to
prove
impairment
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt.
How
would
they
do
that?
They
would
do
that
by
talking
about
why
they
stopped
the
vehicle.
They
would
do
that
by
talking
about
their
observations
of
the
driver.
You
know
the
driver
had
bloodshot
eyes.
Was
the
driver?
Tired
was
the
driver
falling
asleep?
Did
the
driver
seem
confused?
A
They
would
do
that
by
referencing
the
results
of
field
sobriety
tests.
How
did
the
driver
do
on
the
field
sobriety
test
and
they
could
still
take
a
blood
test
to
show
the
presence
of
thc
or
of
metabolite,
and
that
would
be
admissible
as
well.
The
judge
would
be
able
to
look
at
that
or
a
jury
would
be
able
to
look
at
that
what
this
bill
does.
A
It
says
you
can't
just
assume
that
somebody
is
impaired
if
they're
over
a
specified,
non-scientifically
supported
level
that
exists
in
the
law,
so
hopefully
that
sheds
a
little
bit
of
light,
but,
like
mr
armantano,
I
don't
want
impaired
drivers
on
the
roads.
Here
I
mean
I
drive
on
these
roads
every
day,
and
the
last
thing
I
want
is
impaired
drivers,
but
what
this
bill
will
do.
C
And
then
I
have
a
follow-up
question.
I
I
sat
on
a
panel
where
you
had
described
some
of
these
other
like
areas
of
industry
and
work.
I
think,
specifically,
you
had
pointed
out
what
the
acceptable
levels
were
for
like
ufc
fighters
for
thc.
I
know.
Currently
we
have
like
two
nanograms
per
milliliter,
which
is
our
per
se
limit.
Can
you
do
you
remember
approximately
what
it
was
for?
Ufc
fighters.
A
Professional
sports
organizations
are
taking
a
second
look
at
this
and
saying:
look.
We
don't
want
to
penalize
individuals,
for
you
know
use
of
this
substance
as
long
as
they're
not
impaired
when
they're
performing
their
athletic
endeavors,
and
you
know
I
sort
of
analogize
this
to
the
same
way.
We
don't
want
to
penalize
drivers
for
something
they
did
two
weeks
ago
when
they're
not
impaired
at
the
time.
We
are
there
driving,
but
vice
chair
I
can
find
those
numbers.
It's
an
ever-evolving
science,
and
you
know
I
think,
we're
not
at
the
forefront
of
this.
A
C
And
this
might
be
a
question
for
rochelle
wynn
for
the
record,
this
might
be
a
question
for
one
of
the
callers,
if
you
don't
know,
but
our
current,
like
police
officers,
receive
during
basic
training
like
upwards
of
40
hours
on
examining,
and
you
know
being
able
to
look
at
that
impairment,
because,
right
now
our
police
officers
have
to
determine
impairment
for
things
like
soma
or
xanax,
or
even
certain
types
of
opioids,
and
so
they
do
receive
that
training
and
there
is
upgraded
training.
A
Steve
yeager
for
the
record.
I
think
this
will
be
flushed
out
a
little
bit
by
some
of
the
callers,
but
essentially
there
are
three
levels
of
training:
there's
the
standard
field,
sobriety
training
and
every
officer
gets
that
as
part
of
their
training.
So
that's
you
know
your
your
walk
and
turn
test
your
stand
on
one
foot,
the
horizontal
test
where
they
put
the
light
in
front
of
your
face.
Everybody
gets
training
on
that
and
then
there's
the
drug
recognition
protocol.
Now
that's
a
way
more
advanced,
very
time
consuming
and
expensive
training.
A
There
aren't
a
lot
of
drug
recognition
experts
in
our
state
due
to
the
cost,
but
the
good
news
is
there's
a
training
in
the
middle
and
it's
called
a
ride.
A-R-I-D-E
and
mr
armantano
described
that
a
little
bit,
but
my
understanding
is
that
training
is
currently
or
it
will
be
made
available
to
all
officers
in
the
state.
I
believe
I
confirm
that
with
the
department
of
public
safety,
so
hopefully
we'll
have
that
training
in
the
middle.
That's
a
stepped
stepped-up
drug
recognition
training,
but
not
the
full-fledged
drug
recognition
expert
and
certainly
would
encourage
anyone
who's.
J
Thank
you
madame
vice
chair
chairman
yeager
and
mr
armantano,
for
the
very
interesting
presentation
I
would
like
to
just
respond
to
assemblyman
wheeler
before
I
ask
answer,
ask
my
question,
and
that
is
in
my
other
life
I
I
do
work
and
we
in
the
organization
I
work
with,
has
policies
and
procedures,
because
we
receive
federal
dollars
that
our
employees,
whether
they
are
able
to
have
a
prescription
or
not,
cannot
use
this
substance
because
it
could
put
those
dollars
in
jeopardy,
and
I
believe
that
is
commonplace
policy
in
in
all
of
the
organizations
that
receive
federal
dollars
because
federally
this
is
a
prohibited
substance.
J
So
for
that
you
don't
have
to
worry.
I
think
you
can
check
and
you'll
you'll
get
confirmation
on
that
across
the
board.
My
question
mr
armantano,
or
to
chair
yeager,
is
the
issue
of
sobriety
test
when
it
comes
to
workers
compensation
situations.
J
If
there
is
someone
who
is
using
machinery
and
they
become
injured
because
of
on
the
job,
how
do
we
now
apply
this
standard?
In
that
case,
for
instance,
if
someone
is
is
working
machinery
and
they
get
hurt,
there's
not
necessarily
someone
on
the
spot
at
their
place
of
employment.
That
can
administer
a
test
that
would
check
for
their
sobriety.
J
J
How
do
we
address
that
so
that,
for
two
reasons
number
one
that
the
employee
is
not
if
they
don't
work
in
a
dot
situation,
that
the
employee
is
not
unlawfully
or
prohibited
from
bringing
a
claim,
but
also
that
the
employer
can
know
whether
or
not
this
employee
was
using
this
machinery
in
a
manner
that
they
weren't
able
to
effectively
because
of
intoxication,
and
I
think
that
that's
a
kind
of
a
concern
for
me.
So
if
you
could
speak
to
that
I'd
appreciate
it.
N
Sure
this
is
paula
montano,
for
the
record,
I'd
be
happy
to
try
to
address
it.
I
would
stress
that
the
issue
of
how
in
the
workplace
impairment
is
determined
post
accident
is
in
many
ways
very
different
than
the
sort
of
per
se
standard
that
we're
talking
about
for
traffic
safety.
It's
a
little
bit
of
apples
and
oranges.
N
J
I
understand
your
your
position,
mr
armantano,
but
I
think
that
that's
still
an
area
that
has
to
be
addressed
as
far
as
immediacy
is
concerned
when
it
comes
to
to
workplace
issues,
because
I
believe
that
many
of
the
policies
and
procedures
of
workplaces
use
the
same
levels
to
determine
intoxication
for
workplace
injuries
and
and
workplace,
workplace
accidents,
and
I
know
that
one
of
the
places
that
I
I
know
that
they
use
the
same
standard
for
for
judging
whether
or
not
someone
is
considered
intoxicated,
and
so
I
think
that
they're
they're,
if
we're
going
to
use
if
we're
going
to
get
rid
of
that's
the
standard
for
driving,
there
has
to
be
something
in
its
place
for
to
help
with
workplace
safety.
N
N
N
N
So
if
we
were
to
get
rid
of
these
state
this
threshold,
this
per
se
standard
for
driving,
we
still
are
going
to
have
toxicology
tests
being
performed
to
determine
if
somebody
has
exposure
to
thc
and
other
drugs.
The
drug
recognition
evaluation,
12-step
protocol,
the
12th
step-
is
a
toxicology
exam.
So,
regardless
of
whether
this
per
se
standard
is
or
is
not
on
the
books,
these
same
tests
are
going
to
continue
to
be
performed
and
the
same
threshold,
that's
in
place
is
going
to
continue
to
be
the
llq
regardless
of
the
situation.
C
J
Thank
you
vice
chair
for
the
opportunity
to
ask
a
question,
so
my
question
kind
of
follows
up
what
assembly
women
summers
armstrong
was
talking
about,
so
how
would
this
affect
like
an
employer's
liability
if,
in
the
regular
course
of
their
job,
they're
driving
a
lot
or
say
you
know
like
our
store,
we
do
deliveries.
A
Steve
yeager
for
the
record
and
I'll
just
say
on
this
topic:
you
know
I've.
Obviously
this
bill
came
out
quickly
and
we're
hearing
it
quickly.
So
I'm
still
having
discussions
with
lots
of
folks
who
are
interested
on
the
employment
side.
I
think
you're
going
to
hear
from
some
of
them
in
opposition
today,
but
I
want
to
make
a
couple
things
clear
number
one.
Nothing
in
this
bill
would
prohibit
an
employer
from
adopting
a
drug-free
workplace
policy.
So
you
know,
if
you
tested
positive,
for
really
anything
they
could
terminate
you.
A
They
have
a
right
to
do
that.
At
least
private
employers
do.
But
you
know,
sort
of
answer
your
question.
I
I
think
you
know
that
would
be
sort
of.
I
mean
the
liability
side
of
it.
I
don't
think,
would
change
for
an
employer
as
a
result
of
the
change
in
this
bill.
You
know
really.
The
employer
is
only
going
to
be
liable
if
they
have
some
kind
of
notice
beforehand,
that
an
employee
is
engaging
in
reckless
or
dangerous
driving
behavior.
A
A
So
you
know
the
employer
would
be
able
to
defend
on
the
fact
that
that's
not
within
the
scope
of
duties,
but
I
don't
want
to
say
too
much
more
because
I
don't
want
to
get
us
twisted
and
turned
around,
but
I
think
some
of
the
testifiers
in
opposition
will
probably
shed
some
light
on
some
of
their
concerns
in
that
regard,
and
again
just
trying
to
work
on
a
solution
that
accomplishes
the
objective,
which
is
to
not
wrongfully
prosecute
drivers
who
are
not
impaired
but
also
accommodate.
Some
of
the
concerns
of
employers.
J
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
hardy
for
the
record
yeah.
That
would
just
be
my
concern
that
you
know
we
don't
have
employers
than
having
to
go
in
and
say
you
know
what
I
didn't
know
or
you
know
why
didn't
you
know
didn't
they
appear
impaired,
you
know
and
I'm
so
I
appreciate
that
I
mean
you're
being
willing
to
work
with
employers,
because
that
could
be
a
pretty
sticky
and
costly
situation
if
that
were
to
happen.
So
thank
you.
C
Thank
you.
I
also
have
assemblywoman
hanson.
B
J
You
vice
chair
for
the
opportunity
good
up
or
good
morning,
everyone,
I'm
actually
gonna,
go
off
a
little
bit
of
what
my
colleague
assemblywoman
hardy,
that
line
of
questioning
and
I
think
her
and
I
on
the
committee-
are
probably
the
two
that
pay
insurance
premiums
for
our
employees
and
and
those
vehicles
that
they
drive,
and
so
I
think
that
this
conversation
I
know
we
can
talk
a
lot
about
impairment
levels
and
is
it
really
still
in
their
system?
That's
like
a
that's
a
different
conversation
and
I
can
get
where
you're
going
with
that.
J
But
this
the
thing
that
makes
me
really
nervous
about
this
bill
is:
are
you
you
need
to
convince
the
insurance
companies?
What
impairment
is
what
those
levels
are,
because
until
they're
convinced
business
is
going
to
pay
tremendously
for
this?
I
I
don't
know
if
you
know
how
much
we
pay
right
now,
because
rates
are
high
because
of
all
kinds
of
things,
and
so
getting
business
owners
comfortable
with
legislation
and
sure
aaa,
I'm
sure
is
fine.
J
B
J
A
This
is
steve
yeager
for
the
record.
I'll
just
make
a
couple
of
points
one
I
mean
legalization's
already
happened,
so
I
don't
expect
anything
in
this
bill
to
change.
You
know
general
car
insurance
rates.
If
there
was
an
adjustment
made,
I
think
that's
likely
already
been
done,
given
where
we
are
number
two.
You
know
our
workers
compensation
laws,
don't
have
to
be
tied
to
these
per
se
laws.
That
was
a
decision
that
was
made.
I
think
before
any
of
us
arrived
at
the
legislature,
so
you
know
that's
a
discussion.
A
We
can
have
to
sort
of
untether
these
two
because
workers
comp
looks
at
the
per
se
level,
but
it
doesn't
have
to
be
that
way.
You
know
this.
There
could
be
a
different
standard
in
workers
compensation,
so
I
think
that's
potentially
an
option,
and
then
you
know
just
on
the
last
point.
I
guess
I
would
ask
you
know
we
have
the
same
problem
with
prescription
medication
right.
A
A
So
you
know
I
guess
I
would
look
at
it
that
way-
and
you
know
employers,
I
know,
will
weigh
in
on
this
and
they
can
open
to
that
as
well.
But
I
don't
see
this
as
as
a
significant
shift
in
insurance
coverage.
It's
just
a
shift
in
in
the
way
that
we're,
I
guess,
analyzing
impairment
and
the
way
that
we're
dealing
with
workers
compensation
issues
which
again
it
doesn't
have
to
be
tied
together.
But
it
is
currently.
C
I
Thank
you
vice
chair
david
oren
liquor
for
the
record
assembly
district
20..
So
it
seems
clear,
as
you
indicated,
with
the
testimony
that
just
measuring
somebody's
marijuana
level
is
not
predictive
that
there,
if
you
just
had
a
random
stop
of
drivers
on
a
weekend
evening
and
you
tested
everybody
you'd
get
a
lot
of
people
who
who
failed
the
test,
but
weren't
impaired
and
a
lot
of
people
impaired
who
passed
the
test.
I
I'm
curious,
though,
if
you
apply
these
tests
to
a
population
of
people
who
you've
already
identified
as
impaired
through
your
field
tests
and
other
evidence,
are
they
more
predictive
in
that
population,
which
is
the
population?
We
want
the
test
to
be
used
and
therefore
can
we
give
more
precise
guidance
to
a
court
because,
as
you
indicate,
the
evidence
will
come
in
of
the
of
the
test.
A
N
N
N
But
what
we
should
not
do
is
look
at
this
one
piece
of
information
that
has
such
poor
predictive
value
and
say
that
we
are
weighing
this
information
so
much
greater
than
any
other
evidence
to
the
point
that
even
absent
any
evidence
or
demonstrable
evidence
of
driving
impairment.
If
somebody
has
the
presence
of
this
compound
in
their
blood
above
this
arbitrary
amount,
we
are
saying
they're
guilty
of
violating
the
traffic
safety
laws
that
they
are
in
effect
impaired.
When
again,
the
standard
itself
that
is
in
place
does
not
provide
any
substantiation
for
drawing
that
conclusion.
C
Thank
you
and
with
that
I'm
going
to
begin
testimony
in
support
opposition
and
neutral
of
assembly
bill
400
again,
I
would
encourage
everyone
to
feel
free.
We
do
have
quite
a
few
people
on
the
line
to
they
need
to.
Yes,
submit
your
comments
in
writing.
It
would
be
very
much
encouraged
again.
Please
try
to
do
that
within
24
hours
of
today's
meeting.
If
you
are
planning
on
doing
that
in
writing
and
with
that
I'm
going
to
take
a
start
with
the
zoom
and
just
kind
of
see.
C
If
I
have
anyone
here,
that
hasn't
already
spoke,
who
would
be
testifying
in
support
of
assembly
bill
400.
and
cherry
yeager?
I
don't
see
anyone
on
here
so
broadcast
services.
If
we
can
go
ahead
to
our
lives
and
support
again,
I
would
remind
our
callers
to
clearly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
I
will
be
limiting
you
to
two
minutes,
so
we
can
get
through
as
many
people
as
possible
within
the
time
that
allowed
thanks.
B
M
Good
morning,
madam
vice
chair
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
this
is
john
pirro
j-o-h-n-p-I-r-o
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office.
I'm
testifying
in
support
of
ab-400
the
2017
national
highway
traffic
safety
administration
report
shows
a
poor
correlation
of
thc
in
the
blood
to
be
indicative
of
impairment.
M
Thus
setting
per
se
limits
like
those
currently
in
nevada
law
are
not
meaningful
and
criminalize
people
who
may
not
be
impaired
well
using
marijuana
and
especially
medical
marijuana
users.
It
could
also
lead
to
an
equal
protection
issue,
because
you
have
people
who
use
their
normal
prescriptions
at
a
therapeutic
level
being
treated
differently
than
people
who
are
using
medical
marijuana,
medical
marijuana
within
therapeutic
levels.
M
B
M
Good
morning
to
the
members
of
the
committee
and
vice
chairwin
for
the
record,
my
name
is
scott
rutledge
s-c-o-t
r-u-t-l-e-d-g-e
with
our
gentem
partners,
and
I'm
here
today
representing
the
chamber
of
cannabis
in
support
of
ab400
chambers.
Membership
is
a
diverse
group
representing
all
aspects
of
nevada's
cannabis
industry
focused
on
strengthening
commerce
and
diversifying
the
industry,
while
advocating
for
social
equity,
medical
cannabis,
users,
rights
and
cannabis
law.
Reform
we'd
like
to
thank
osama
bin
laden
for
sponsoring
this
piece
of
credible,
critical
cannabis
law
reform
in
2016.
M
When
nevada's
voters
approved
question
two,
they
did
so
with
the
understanding
that
legalizing
cannabis
referred
to
as
marijuana
in
the
initiative,
language
would
decriminalize
the
substance
that
many
view
is
safer
than
alcohol
and
has
provided
countless
nevadance
relief
through
medical
cannabis
programs.
Since
the
legalization
of
adult
use,
cannabis,
nevada
has
benefited
from
a
well-regulated.
M
Additionally,
workers
who
choose
to
use
cannabis
while
at
home
should
not
be
at
the
risk
of
being
ruled
impaired
at
work
based
on
nevada's
per
se.
Law
we'd
like
to
quickly
share
some
information
from
the
national
conference
of
state
legislatures
website,
an
article
dated
november
9,
2020,
titled,
drug
driving,
marijuana,
impaired
driving,
quote.
Testing
for
drug
impairment
is
problematic
due
to
the
limitations
of
drug
detecting
technology
and
the
lack
of
an
agreed-upon
limit
to
determine
impairment.
M
The
nationally
recognized
level
of
impairment
for
drunk
driving
is
.08
blood
alcohol
concentration,
but
there
is
no
similar
national
standard
for
drug
driving.
Drugs
do
not
affect
people
consistently.
A
high
concentration
may
significantly
impair
one
person,
but
not
another.
Drugs
such
as
marijuana
can
also
stay
in
the
system
for
weeks.
Thus
appearing
in
roadside
tests
will
no
longer
cause
an
impairment.
M
C
B
J
J
B
M
B
M
Level
of
impairment:
this
is
not
actually
something
that
impairs
public
safety.
Ab400
keeps
the
existing
prohibition
on
driving,
while
actually
impaired
in
place
passage
of
ab400
would
leave
public
safety
exactly
as
protected
as
it
currently
is,
but
the
existing
per
se
limit
is
not
protecting
anyone's
safety.
We
are
simply
prosecuting
people
for
the
sake
of
prosecuting
people.
This
practice
is
an
outdated
relic
of
a
time
when
science
understood
less
about
this
area.
B
J
K-E-N-D-R-A-V-E-R-T-S-C-H-Y
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office,
as
in
nevada,
and
I
can
say
that
no
one
wants
impaired
drivers
on
our
road.
We
strongly
urge
your
support
of
this
bill.
We
appreciate
chairman
yeager
for
continuing
to
spearhead
legislation,
reforming
our
laws,
grounded
on
evidence-based
scientific
research
and
the
scientific
research
simply
states
that,
with
our
per
sale
standards,
it's
arbitrary
and
punishes.
Individuals
who
are
not
impaired
are
vulnerable
citizens
who
are
using
medication,
as
prescribed
under
the
guidance
of
physicians.
J
By
punishing
our
citizens
freezing
cannabis
under
per
se
statutes.
We
are
not
punishing
those
who
are
actually
impaired,
but
rather
those
who
are
just
surviving
and
using
medication
as
necessary
as
a
policy
matter.
We
should
not
continue
allowing
for
a
law
that
traps
innocents
and
innocent
users
and
makes
nevada
an
equitable
dui
charges
are
treated
extremely
seriously
as
they
should
with
significant
punishments
and
collateral
consequences.
J
So
we
urge
this
committee
to
follow
the
research
from
the
american
automobile
association
foundation
for
traffic,
the
national
highway
traffic
safety
administration
and
all
the
others
indicating
that
we
should
delete
the
requirements
of
having
a
per
se
level
for
cannabis
levels.
It
is
time
we
joined
the
numerous
other
estates
in
deleting
those
per
se
limit
limits
for
cannabis
from
our
laws.
We
urge
your
support.
Thank
you.
B
C
Okay,
I
will
note
that
it
is
10
27
a.m
and
we
started
testimony
and
support
supported
1007,
so
our
10
17,
I'm
sorry
at
this
time.
I
will
start
and
give
an
equal
opportunity
for
testimony
in
opposition.
If
we
can
begin
that
testimony,
I
don't
see
anyone
on
the
zoom,
but
if
we
could
go
ahead
and
start
that
testimony,
that
would
be
great.
B
B
D
D
I'm
a
court
certified
expert
on
the
subject
of
impaired
driving,
especially
for
marijuana
impairment.
Ab400.
As
I
read
it,
removes
the
per
se
for
marijuana
impairment,
drivers
of
drivers
and,
if
passed,
it
would
not
be
fair
to
the
the
other
driving
community
that
we
share
the
roads
with
I'll
relay
a
a
recent
case.
We
had
it's
a
fatal
detective.
Most
of
my
subjects
are
either
no
longer
with
us
or
they're,
really
critically
injured.
So
I
don't
have
the
opportunity
to
administer
field
sobriety
tests
to
these
people.
D
We
had
a
lady
who
was
driving
a
camaro
down
the
road
at
100
miles
an
hour.
Speed
is
actually
the
number
one
violation
for
cannabis:
impaired
drivers.
That's
because
cannabis
impaired
people
typically
cannot
multitask.
They
can
focus
on
one
thing
or
another.
So
if
she's
focusing
on
maintaining
her
lane,
she's
not
focusing
on
her
speed,
so
she's
going
well
over
100
miles
an
hour
and
she
passes
a
school
bus
enters
into
a
school
zone,
striking
a
car
that
was
conducting
a
left-hand
turn.
It
killed
the
kids
inside
the
car.
D
D
D
I
don't
think
that's
fair
to
the
innocent
people
that
was
killed
in
this
particular
case,
and
this
is
only
one
of
many
many
many
cases
that
I
have
seen
in
my
years
on
the
fatal
detail.
It
could
be
the
cannabis
impaired,
pedestrian
that
walks
out
in
front
of
traffic.
It
could
be
the
cannabis
impaired
driver
that
that
strikes,
the
pedestrian
and
so
on,
and
so
on.
As
we
go
on
changing
the
laws,
in
my
opinion,
is,
is
premature
as
scientists
trying
to
catch
up
with
the
legalization.
D
In
section
9
of
this
amendment
that
we
have
in
front
of
us
line
number
six,
it
says
if
presence
of
marijuana
is
in
the
blood
the
person
is
in
issue.
The
officer
may
request
a
person
to
submit
to
a
blood
test.
That's
been
scratched
out,
so,
basically,
if
the
law
is
amended,
I
wouldn't
be
able
to
get
a
blood
test
from
my
drivers
and
be
able
to
prosecute
for
impairment
of
a
dui,
dr
marilyn
huses.
D
I
had
the
pleasure
of
watching
one
of
her
presentations
and
she
did
speak
about
the
per
se
levels
and
she
mentioned
that
below.
Two
nanograms
per
milliliter
is
two
level,
but
she
also
said
that
above
two
level,
two
nanograms
per
milliliter
is
too
high
of
a
level,
meaning
that,
if,
if
it's,
if
you
make
the
level
too
low,
then
you're
going
to
be
arresting
too
many
people.
D
But
if
you
put
it
too
high,
there's
too
many
people
that
are
are
driving
on
our
roadways
that
are
impaired
and
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
prosecute
that
so
marilyn
used
this
standpoint.
When
I
seen
her
presentation
was
that
the
two
nanograms
per
milliliter.
D
C
You
wrap
this
up
and
I
will
encourage
that
if
our
committee
members
would
like
to
speak
with
you
outside
of
the
committee,
I
would
ask
them
to
reach
out
to
you.
If
that's
okay,
we.
J
C
A
few
people
in
line
to
testify
in
opposition,
I
want
to
make
sure
everyone's
given
a
fair
and
equal
opportunity.
I've,
given
you
a
little
bit
more
than
four
minutes
right
now,
so
if
you
could
just
wrap
it
up.
D
I
appreciate
that
I
appreciate
that
and
I'm
going
to
wrap
it
up
right
now,
so
I
believe
that
the
two
nanograms
per
milliliter
is
a
fair
and
just
level
for
impairment,
and
I
believe
that
the
law
should
read
as
it
is
today
and
not
be
amended
to
strike
out
the
per
se
levels.
D
C
Thank
you.
I
didn't
hear
that
if
we
could
go
to
our
next
caller
in
opposition,
that
would
be
great.
B
E
Good
morning,
madam
vice
chair
chairman
and
committee
members,
my
name
is
sean
meng,
that's
s-h-a-u-n-m-e
and
I
represent
nevada's
self-insurers
association
and
its
members,
who
are
nevada,
employers
and
governed
by
the
nevada
industrial
insurance
act,
which
is
contained
in
nrs616a
to
617..
E
I'm
a
state
bar
nevada,
certified
specialist
in
workers,
compensation,
and
I
run
a
law
firm
in
the
state
of
nevada
that
specializes
in
litigation
of
workers.
Compensation
claims
throughout
our
entire
state,
both
up
north
and
down
here
in
las
vegas,
simply
put
their
serious
concerns
with
the
effect
of
this
law
on
nevada
on
the
nevada,
industrial
insurance
act
and
the
workers
compensation
system
that
we
have
currently
in
place
in
nevada.
E
E
E
E
C
B
D
Thank
you
and
good
morning
vice
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
jeremiah
merritt,
j
e
r
e
m.
I
a
h
last
name
merit
m
e.
I
m-e-r-r-I-t-t
representing
sierra
nevada
construction,
a
heavy
civil
construction
company
union
contractor
regarding
the
driving
aspect.
We
believe
there
is
a
lack
of
clarity
between
the
proposed
legislation
and
the
related
statutes
regarding
the
impact
of
marijuana
and
driving.
This
is
a
concern
for
those
of
us
who
work
in
an
industry
where
there's
a
substantial
amount
of
vehicle
use.
D
Undefined
levels
of
impairment
create
a
danger
to
those
on
the
roadway
and
for
those
working
in
the
industry,
such
as
construction.
The
ambiguit
ambiguity
on
what
constitutes
impairment
is
concerning.
Marijuana
was
legalized
in
nevada,
but
we
cannot
create
these
type
of
broad
changes
of
impairment
or
to
dui's
without
standardized
tests
for
impairment.
D
If
we
want
to
treat
marijuana
legal
similarly
similar
to
alcohol,
then
we
need
to
have
the
same
expectations
about
impairment,
but
without
providing
a
standardized
test
for
impairment,
we're
placing
our
employees
and
federal
fellow
citizens
at
risk.
Thank
you.
Vice
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
B
D
A
heavy
contractor
in
northern
nevada.
We
would
like
to
oppose
the
proposed
legislation
based
on
what
we've
heard
everyone
say
today
so
far
as
well
as
our
concerns
primarily
for
the
workers,
comp
law
changes
and
our
ability
to
defend
ourselves
against
accidents
that
may
or
may
have
been
caused
by
marijuana
use
in
the
workplace.
D
Qmd
has
a
safety
first
approach
to
everything
that
we
do
reading
through,
not
only
the
driving
part
of
this
and
workers
comp.
There
is
really
no
way
that
we
see
that
this
makes
the
roads
a
safer
place.
It
also.
D
Areas
less
safe
as
well,
so
we
would
like
to
oppose
this
and
urge
the
committee
to
go
back
to
the
drawing
board
on
this
until
we
get
a
little
more
standardized
test.
One
of
the
things
that
was
brought
up
is
there's
several
different
potential
ways
to
determine
impairment
by
the
expert
brought
forward
by
the
committee.
D
A
lot
of
those
probably
are
not
things
that
are
going
to
be
readily
available
for
anybody
in
the
industry
and
seem
to
be
probably
pretty
far-fetched
to
be
able
to
obtain
in
a
timely
manner.
So
again,
we'd
like
to
oppose
this.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
speak
on
this.
M
B
M
M
I
want
to
start
off
by
saying
over
the
past
several
sessions
we
have
sessions.
We
have
been
engaged
in
efforts
to
review
our
dui
marijuana
laws,
law
enforcement,
supported
ab135
from
the
2017
session
and,
as
chairman
yeager
indicated,
with
the
help
of
toro
university
doctoral
students,
we
updated
our
dui
per
se
marijuana
laws
to
include
specific
compounds
that
directly
relate
to
impairment.
M
If
you
go
back
and
listen
to
those
toro
students
during
that
testimony
and
other
medical
professionals
by
the
way
the
delta
9
thc
and
the
11
hydroxy
compounds
that
we
added
into
statute
are
indicative
of
the
subject
being
under
the
influence.
Virtually
everybody
who
testified
at
that
hearing
agreed
that
both
delta
9
and
11
hydroxy
are
psychoactive.
M
During
the
last
session,
we
also
supported
efforts
to
establish
a
committee
to
look
at
this
issue
during
the
interim,
but,
as
chairman
yeager
indicated,
unfortunately,
due
to
the
covet
19
pandemic,
they
were
not
able
to
complete
their
work,
but
da's
encouraged.
This
committee,
to
complete
that
work
prior
to
passing
ab400
this
bill
is
currently
written,
would
really
hinder
our
dui
marijuana
prosecutions,
as
indicated
by
the
metro
detective,
especially
where
the
impaired
driver
was
involved
in
an
accident
or,
worse,
cause
bodily
injury.
M
In
our
most
violent
crashes
we
tend
to
have,
we
don't
have
the
ability
to
make
all
the
physical
observations
and
perform
all
the
physical
tests
necessary
to
prove
a
dui
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
in
the
absence
of
blood
results,
this
could
be
because
of
the
injuries
to
the
suspect,
drivable
driver
or
disorientation
resulting
from
the
crass
hitting
their
heads,
something
along
those
lines.
M
Finally,
we
have
major
concerns
with
not
training
our
office
officers
to
the
most
exacting
drug
detection
standards.
If
we
were
to
adopt
ab-400s
defense,
attorneys
will
have
a
field
day
in
court,
pointing
out
that
a-ride
certified
officers
have
not
received
the
same
level
of
training
that
dre
officers
have.
So
again.
We
are
in
opposition
to
ab-400
and
look
forward
to
working
with
chairman
yeager
on
some
potential
potential
amendments.
Thank.
J
C
To
ab400,
for
many
of
the
reasons
already
stated,
our
members
have
drug
free
policies
and
tests
their
employees,
but
no
policy
is
foolproof
to
presume
sobriety
when
an
employee
completes
positive
for
marijuana
when
there's
been
a
workplace
accident
injury.
This
is
too
great
a
liability
on
employers.
We
welcome
the
opportunity
just
to
discuss
our
concerns
in
more
detail
with
the
sponsor
and
stakeholders.
Thank.
C
B
M
M
Since
january
of
2020,
because
of
a
new
drug
clearing
house
with
the
federal
motor
carrier
safety
administration,
we
have
eliminated
34,
000
and
18
drivers
who
have
tested
positive
for
marijuana.
We
do
believe
that
this
would
put
the
state
of
nevada
in
non-compliance
with
the
federal
motor
carrier
safety
administration.
They
audit
all
our
laws
or
regulations
to
see
if
we
are
doing
it
right
and
we
could
potentially
not
just
lose
funds
that
we
use
to
enforce
motor
vehicle
safety
programs.
M
So
the
nevada
high
patrol
last
year
was
2.6
million
dollars,
but
we
could
potentially
lose
our
ability
to
issue
commercial
drivers
licenses,
which
would
be
huge.
So
this
is
why
we
oppose
this
bill.
I
would
ask
for
to
be
included
in
a
working
group
with
a
sponsor
and
other
interested
parties
as
we
try
to
move
forward.
M
I
understand
that
there
are
definitely
some
issues
with
the
per
se
test
and
we
need
to
find
a
better
way
to
do
it,
but
I
do
think
this
law
has
a
number
of
unintended
consequences
that
could
harm
nevada's
ability,
not
just
get
federal
funding
not
just
to
issue
cdls
but
even
potentially
use
highway
funds.
So
I
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
testify.
C
Thank
you,
mr
enos.
Thank
you
for
your
testimony
at
this
time.
I
will
just
note
that
it
is
10
51
and
I've
given
about
21
minutes,
22
minutes
towards
opposition
testimony,
I'm
going
to
go
to
neutral
testimony
first
next
and
then
I
am
also
going
to
ask
the
chair
to
be
open
to
some
questions
based
on
some
of
that
opposition
and
neutral
testimony.
I
imagine
we
are
going
to
hear
so
at
this
time.
Broadcast
services
can
we
go
to
any
neutral
testimony
in
neutral
of
assembly
bill
400?
C
B
J
Morning,
assembly
committee
on
judiciary,
for
the
record,
I
am
tonya
laney
t-o-n-y-a-l-a-n-e-y
and
I
am
the
administrator
of
the
field
services
division
for
the
nevada
department
of
motor
vehicles.
We
are
neutral
on
av-400,
but
need
to
make
the
committee
aware
that
nevada
dmv
is
subject
to
decertification
of
the
state
cdl
program
under
cfr.
J
384.405,
section
b
conditions
considered
in
making
decertification
determination,
subsection
2
the
state
does
not
disqualify
drivers
convicted
of
disqualifying
offenses
in
commercial
motor
vehicles.
Smcsa
makes
it
clear
marijuana,
including
a
mixture
or
preparation
containing
marijuana,
continues
to
be
classified
as
a
schedule,
one
controlled
substance
by
the
drug
enforcement
administration.
J
This
can
be
found
in
21cfr
1308.11
under
the
federal
motor
carrier
safety
regulations.
A
person
is
not
physically
qualified
to
drive
a
commercial
motor
vehicle
if
he
or
she
uses
any
schedule.
One
controlled
substance
such
as
marijuana.
This
can
be
found
in
49
cfr,
391.11,
section
b,
subsection,
4
and
391.411
section
b,
subsection
12..
Accordingly,
a
driver
may
not
use
marijuana,
even
if
it
is
recommended
by
a
licensed
medical
practitioner.
B
D
The
impairment
standards
for
cmp
drivers
is
a
lot
more
strict
than
they
are
for
non-cdl
drivers
and
currently
our
laws
encapsulate
that-
and
this
is
due
to
the
you
know,
the
size
and
weight
of
a
commercial
motor
vehicle.
The
likelihood
of
a
serious
injury
or
fatality
occurring
when
the
cmb
is
involved
in
a
in
a
crash
is
much
more
likely
than
a
than
a
non-cmb.
D
D
Or
use
any
of
the
following
drugs
which
which
they
they
deem
as
schedule,
one
because
petrol
still
see
marijuana
as
a
schedule,
one
substance,
so
they
cannot
use
it
possess
it
or
be
under
the
influence
of
it.
So
this
would
affect
us
on
roadside
because
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
take
any
kind
of
enforcement
action
unless
they
were
showing.
D
You
know
outward
signs
of
impairment,
you
know,
but
we
for
safety
purposes.
They
shouldn't
have
any
amounts
on
them.
It
also
in
tfr.
383.51
would
would
eliminate
our
ability
to
disqualify
those
types
of
drivers
for
those
offenses,
because
there
would
no
longer
be
a
standard
to
convict
and
get
them
off
of
the
road.
D
Thus,
you
know
making
safety
a
concern
for
future
for
future
drivers
and
then
the
350
cfr
350.305
they
do
give
variances
to
the
state
to
make
their
own
their
their
own
laws.
You
know
for
like
hours
of
service,
size
and
weight
type
stuff,
but
they
do
not
allow
a
variance
for
federal
laws
to
go
to
go
in.
You
know
in
contradiction
of
federal
law,
so
there's
no
variance
for
alcohol
or
drug
use,
testing
or
convictions
type
things
and.
D
For
us,
as
it's
been
mentioned
on
the
cfr
350.309,
we
rely
on
on
a
federal
grant
every
year
to
to
conduct
commercial
motor
vehicle
safety
and
it's
a
very
successful
program.
However,
this
will
put
us
out
of
compliance.
Therefore,
it
would
would
have
an
impact
on
us
getting
federal
funding
in
the
future
to
provide
safety,
commercial,
motor
vehicle
safety
for
the
citizens.
C
Thank
you
for
your
testimony
and
do
we
have
any
other
colors
in
testimony
in
neutral.
C
Thank
you,
and
I
know
that
we
had
an
extra
long
kind
of
version
of
opposition
testimony.
I
know
that
there
were
some
complex
nature
and
concerns
regarding
the
presentation
of
this
bill,
so
I
did
allow
for
a
little
bit
more
information
and
a
time
on
that
side,
and
with
that
I
know
that
we
have
a
couple
of
questions,
at
least
from
two
members.
I
believe
regarding
some
of
the
opposition,
testimony
that
if
lee
chair
yeager
might
be
able
to
answer
at
this
time,
so
if
we
can
go
to
assemblywoman
kasama.
J
And
vice
chair
and
chairman
yeager,
I
know
this
is
your
bill.
So,
based
on
some
of
the
testimony
that
I
heard,
I
have
a
question:
if
a
person,
let's
say
an
exam
example,
they're
in
an
accident
and
the
person
that
is
impaired
and
presumed
impaired
is,
is
injured
so
severely
that
they
are
transported
immediately
to
the
hospital.
So
there's
no
roadside
testing
for
impairment.
They
they're
they're
in
a
concussion
or
they're
injured
in
cases
like
that
are
those
parties.
A
Steve
yeager
for
the
record.
Typically,
there
is
a
blood
test
done
by
the
hospital
staff
because
if
they
bring
someone
in,
they
want
to
see
what's
going
on
with
that
person.
So,
aside
from
the
law
enforcement
angle,
usually
the
hospital
does
a
blood
test
and
then,
of
course,
as
you
might
imagine,
if
there's
not
a
court-ordered
or
law
enforcement
blood
test,
then
the
issue
becomes.
Is
that
blood
test
that
the
hospital
did?
A
Can
law
enforcement
get
that
can
prosecutors
get
it
and
would
it
be
admissible
and,
as
you
might
imagine,
that's
the
subject
of
litigation
quite
often
when
the
parties
would
go
to
the
court
and
say
there
is
a
blood
test,
here's
why
we
weren't
able
to
get
one.
So
that
does
happen
and
then
sometimes,
if
the
circumstances
merit
it,
a
law
enforcement
officer
could
also
get
a
warrant
and
have
an
additional
blood
draw
done
at
the
hospital.
But
that
would
depend
on
the
facts
and
circumstances
of
the
case.
J
Correct,
I
was
just
wondering
in
that
case
and
then
just
in
general,
you
know
I'm
hearing
all
the
testimony.
I
understand
there's
some
problems
with
the
testing
having
you
know
per
se
testing,
but
it
just
seems
to
me.
There
are
so
many
issues
I
hear
from
employers,
workmen's
comp
insurance,
and
so
I
asked
the
chair
to
work
with
them
because
it
just
seems
we
can't
leave
them
hanging
out
there.
A
And
steve
yeager
for
the
record
certainly
willing
to
do
that.
You
know
I.
The
employers
have
been
around
longer
that
I've
been
around,
but
my
understanding
was
that
workers
compensation
law
was
tied
to
dui
law
in
this
fashion,
because
there
was
a
desire
at
the
time
for
everyone
to
say:
let's
update
our
laws
as
science
updates
and
they,
I
think
correctly,
assume
that
dui
law
would
probably
be
the
place
where
science
would
update
quicker.
A
So
you
know,
obviously
this
change
does
have
some
implication
on
workers,
compensation
law,
so
I'm
willing
to
have
those
discussions
and
again
those
two
don't
have
to
be
tied
together.
That's
just
the
way
that
they
do
it
in
the
statute,
so
I'm
happy
to
continue
to
have
those
conversations.
My
main
concern
with
this
bill
is
to
make
sure
that
drivers
aren't
being
unfairly
convicted
of
impaired
driving
when
they're
not
actually
impaired.
C
Thank
you
and
do
we
have
any
other
questions?
I
think
one
of
them
might
have
been
answered.
I'm
canvassing
here
to
see
if
there
are
any
follow-up
questions
based
on
that
opposition
and
neutral
testimony
nope
seeing
none
at
this
time.
I
will
turn
this
back
over
to
you,
chair
yeager,
for
any
closing
remarks.
A
N
N
N
As
I
mentioned,
the
overwhelming
majority
of
states,
including
states
that
have
legalized
marijuana
for
medical
or
adult
use,
do
not
include
a
per
se.
Standard
michigan
does
not
include
a
per
se
standard.
California
does
not
include
a
per
se
standard
law
enforcement
and
prosecutors
in
these
states
successfully
prosecute
dui
cannabis
cases.
Without
such
a
standard
in
nevada,
there
is
no
per
se
standard
for
prescription
drugs
like
opioids
and
ambien
and
benzodiazepines,
yet
nevada
prosecutors
successfully
prosecute
dui
cases
were
ab-400
to
pass.
It
also
would
not
stop
the
use
of
toxicology.
N
As
I
mentioned,
any
dre
can
administer
a
toxicological
test
following
accidents.
Toxic
toxicological
tests
are
administered.
The
data
gleaned
from
those
results
would
still
be
admissible.
It
would
still
be
part
of
the
prosecution.
The
only
difference
is
it
would
be
one
piece
of
the
evidence
in
the
prosecution.
N
I
would
conclude
by
saying,
even
though,
throughout
this
hearing,
we've
heard
testimony
that
these
are
impairment
standards.
They
are
not.
These
are
detection
standards.
They
were
never
meant
to
be
impairment
standards.
There
was
never
any
legislative
debate
or
scientific
discussion
about
whether
these
thresholds
were
indicative
or
not
indicative
of
impairment.
Again,
these
were
lowest
levels
of
detection
standards
that
were
put
in
place.
N
This
would
be
analogous
to
nevada
in
imposing
a
0.01
per
se
standard
for
alcohol,
not
because
of
any
evidence
that
someone
above
0.01
is
impaired
by
alcohol,
but
simply
because
the
technology
allows
us
to
accurately
test
for
alcohol
at
that
trace
a
presence.
That
is
what
the
current
statute
does.
This
is
not
about
impairment
or
keeping
our
roads
safe.
It's
about
having
an
evidence-based
policy
that
doesn't
inadvertently
prosecute
individuals
for
driving
under
the
influence
who
are
simply
not
under
the
influence
and
when
there
is
no
evidence
that
they
are
under
the
influence.
N
Again,
I
appreciate
having
the
time
to
speak
with
you
today
and
I'm
happy
to
follow
up
individually
with
any
of
you
that
might
have
additional
questions.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair,
appreciate
mr
armantano
being
here.
I
have
five
very
quick
remarks.
I'd
like
to
make
before
we
rack
up
number
one,
I
don't
understand
the
consternation
about
cdl
and
federal
funding,
because
of
course,
35
plus
states
don't
have
a
per
se
law
on
the
books
and
they're,
not
at
risk
for
federal
funding
or
their
cdl
program.
A
So
I
frankly
don't
understand
those
concerns
and
I
think
they're
unfounded
based
on
what
this
bill
is
trying
to
do,
and
perhaps
based
on
a
misunderstanding
of
how
the
bill
would
be
enacted
number
two.
With
respect
to
employers,
I
would
just
note
that
they
have
the
same
issue
every
day
with
prescription
drugs
with
hydrocodone
with
xanax,
with
other
pain
medications.
So
you
know
this:
isn't
new
territory
for
employers?
A
I
don't
discount
the
fact
that
these
are
tricky
issues,
but
our
employers
here
in
nevada,
have
showing
they
have
shown
the
ability
to
be
able
to
figure
this
out.
I
will
continue
those
discussions
number
three.
I
just
wanted
to
stand
up
for
lcb.
I
think
there
was
a
remark
that
perhaps
they
I
don't
know
what
the
comment
was.
They
were
lazy
in
their
drafting
or
something
to
that
effect.
Lcb
drafted
the
bill
that
I
asked
them
to
draft.
They
reference
workers,
compensation
law,
because
these
two
things
are
tied
together.
A
That's
why
it's
in
there
so
just
want
to
stand
up
for
our
drafters.
You
know
they
gave
me
the
bill
that
I
asked
for,
and
here
we
are
considering
it
number
four.
You
know
I
certainly
want
to
respect
the
difficult
job
that
our
law
enforcement
agencies
have,
particularly
when
responding
to
fatal
crashes.
That's
obviously
something
that's
very,
very
difficult,
but
you
know
with
all
due
respect.
A
I
have
to
disagree
with
the
metro
individual,
who
testified
that
somehow
this
bill
would
leave
them
unable
to
prosecute
somebody
driving
a
hundred
miles
an
hour
illegally
passing
a
school
bus
crashing
into
the
back
of
a
car.
I
mean
that's.
There
are
a
whole
bunch
of
traffic
infractions
there
and
of
course
they
would
still
be
able
to
get
a
blood
draw
and
prosecute
that
case.
So
I
don't
want
to
leave
the
impression
that
somehow
this
ties
the
hand
I
mean
that's
going
to
be
a
felony
offense,
even
without
drugs
being
involved.
A
As
the
way
it
was
described,
and
then
you
know
the
last
thing
I
want
to
say-
and
you
know
I'm
going
to
quote
somebody
else
here,
because
I
can't
really
say
it
better-
I'm
looking
at
a
september
7th
2014
review
journal
article
and
the
title
of
the
article
is
d.a
wants
to
wants
states,
marijuana,
dui
laws
changed
and
there
is
a
quote
from
clark,
county
district
attorney,
steve
wolfson
and
I'll
end
with
this.
This
is
his
quote.
A
Everybody
recognizes
there
needs
to
be
a
review
of
the
law
with
regard
to
driving
under
the
influence
of
marijuana.
Wolfson
said
right
now
the
law
is
vague.
With
regard
to
whether
a
person
has
ingested
marijuana
and
whether
that
by
itself
means
the
person
is
impaired,
I
couldn't
agree
more
and
that's
what
assembly
bill
400
does.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration.
In
your
time.
Madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
A
Thank
you
so
much
matt
and
vice
chair
for
running
that
hearing
committee
members.
You
will
note
that
we
have
another
bill
on
the
agenda
assembly
bill
402.
We
are
not
going
to
get
to
that
bill
this
morning,
given
the
time
so
that
bill
is
going
to
be
rolled
to
a
future
agenda.
So
thank
you
for
those
who
did
the
prep
work
and
we'll
try
to
hear
that
bill.
Hopefully
sometime
this
week,
but
given
the
time
and
the
fact
that
we
have
floor,
we
cannot
hear
that
bill
today.
A
So
having
got
through
the
bills
on
the
agenda,
I'm
going
to
now
go
to
public
comment.
By
way
of
a
reminder,
we
reserve
up
to
30
minutes
for
public
comment
at
the
end
of
each
meeting.
Callers
on
the
public
comment
line
will
have
two
minutes
to
provide
public
comment.
Public
comment
is
a
time
to
provide
comment
of
a
general
nature.
It
is
not
a
time
to
testify
on
a
bill
that
has
already
been
heard
and
closed
bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
phone
lines
to
see
if
there's
anybody
there
in
public
comment?
Please.
B
And
we
will
go
to
the
caller
with
the
last
three
digits
of
zero.
Three
seven,
please
fully
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
We
will
have
two
minutes
and
you
may
begin
tanya
brown
t-o-n-j-a-b-r-o-w-n
advocate
for
the
inmates
and
the
innocent
good
morning,
terry
yeager,
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary.
I
know
that
you
just
announced
that
you
were
going
to
place
ab402
somewhere
down
some
in
a
meeting
somewhere
this
week.
B
I'm
not
sure
if
I'm
going
to
be
able
to
attend
that,
but
I
just
want
to
say
I
I
think
I
may
have
found
a
loophole
to
this
bill
and
I
just
wanted
to
bring
it
to
your
attention
in
the
event
that
I'm
raw
I'm
right,
hopefully
not,
and
so
I'm
just
going
to
say
that
you
know
with
everything
that's
been
going
on
with
our
country
dealing
with
police
brutality.
B
B
I,
by
doing
this,
I
believe
it
will
strengthen
section
two
from
a
peace
officer
obtaining
a
recording
device
and
deleting
it
that's
all.
I
really
have
to
say,
because
under
the
for
those
who
don't
know
what
a
cpc
is
a
civil
protective
custody,
it
means
you
are
not
under
arrest.
B
They
are
taking
you
in
for
your
own
protection,
because,
possibly
you
are
too
drunk
to
take
care
of
yourself.
You
have
some
mental
health
issues.
Things
like
that.
It
would
make
this
person
if
there
was
an
officer
who
was
doing
something
wrong
and
the
person
was
filming
it
who
has
now
been
taken
into
cpc,
something
valuable
for
him
on
his
recording
to
lose
it.
By
way
of
this,
I
believe
this
bill.
If
we
don't
include
cpc,
thank
you
have
a
good
day.
A
B
A
A
A
We
have
three
bills
on
that
agenda
and
we
might
add
the
fourth
one
that
we
didn't
hear
today,
we'll
see.
I
do
expect
we're
going
to
have
committees
meetings
every
day
this
week
at
eight
o'clock,
we're
just
working
on
building
out
those
agendas,
so
you
should
see
the
rest
of
the
agendas
here
pretty
soon
and
again,
thank
you
committee
with
all
of
this
behind
us.
I
will
see
you
back
here
in
this
committee
at
8am
tomorrow
morning
have
a
wonderful
day.
This
meeting
is.