►
From YouTube: Committee on Labor and Civil Service 3-14-2018
Description
The Committee on Labor and Civil Service of the Council of the City of Philadelphia held a Public Hearing on Wednesday, March 14, 2018 to hear testimony on the following items:
180012 An Ordinance amending Section 21-105 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Hero Awards," by increasing the amount that may be awarded to family members of firefighters, police officers, and prosecution detectives killed in the course of performing heroic deeds, and by making certain technical changes; all under certain terms and conditions.
170839 Resolution authorizing City Council's Committee on Labor & Civil Service to hold hearings regarding the State's recent legalization of medical marijuana and to address questions related to medical marijuana's potential impact on employers and employees in Philadelphia.
Committee on Labor and Civil Service
Chair: Councilwoman Cherelle Parker (9th District)
Vice Chair: Councilman Brian O’Neill (10th District)
A
B
Amending
section
21
one
zero:
five
of
the
Philadelphia
Code
entitled
hero
Awards
by
increasing
the
amount
that
may
be
awarded
to
family
members
of
firefighters,
police
officers
and
prosecution,
detectives
killed
in
the
course
of
performing
heroic
deeds
and
by
making
certain
technical
changes
all
under
certain
terms
and
conditions.
So.
A
A
We
want
to
thank
the
first
panel
for
being
seated
before
you
proceed
with
your
testimony.
We
will
ask
that
you
state
your
name
for
the
record,
but
prior
to
your
doing
that
we
wanted
to
wait
until
you
were
seated
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
give
the
undivided
attention
to
the
bill's
sponsor
councilman
Allen
down
put
some
confidence.
A
C
You,
madam
chairwoman,
first
I,
want
to
thank
you,
chairwoman,
Parker,
for
your
leadership
and
for
convening
the
committee
this
morning.
I
also
want
to
thank
everyone
who
has
waited
on
the
legislation
I,
along
with
my
colleague,
councilman
taubenberger,
have
put
forward
your
time.
Input
and
support
has
been
invaluable.
This
important
piece
of
legislation
increases
the
amount
of
money.
The
city
awards,
the
immediate
family,
members
of
firefighters,
police
officers
and
prosecution
detectives
who
are
killed
in
the
course
of
performing
heroic
deeds.
On
behalf
of
the
city
of
Philadelphia,
these
fallen
heroes.
C
Fellow
citizens,
fellow
Philadelphians,
are
performing
the
most
selfless
service
to
our
city,
putting
their
lives
on
the
line
day
in
and
day
out
to
protect
each
and
every
one
of
us.
This
legislation
increases
the
hero
awards
to
$100,000
I
wish
we
could
do
more,
but
at
least
increases
it
to
100,000,
while
no
amount
of
money
can
heal
the
grief
of
the
families
of
our
fallen
heroes.
Hopefully
this
may
provide
them
with
some
level
of
support.
C
B
Good
morning,
council
members,
councilman
Dom,
I'm,
sorry,
Sanchez,
Talbert,
Parker,
councilman
Heenan
on
behalf
of
President
John
Makdessi.
My
name
is
nick
de
Nova
I'm,
one
of
the
vice
presidents
of
certain
water
police.
I
would
like
to
personally
thank
this
committee
for
your
consideration.
In
the
heroes
award
bill,
increase
no
amount
of
money
can
ever
replace
a
family
member
who
was
suddenly
destroyed
by
violence.
This
is
particularly
true
when
the
family
members
are
public
servants
who
voluntarily
give
up
their
lives
for
the
fellow
citizens.
B
B
The
financial
assistance
provided
by
the
heroes
award
helps
take
away
one
burden
off
the
shoulders
of
a
grief-stricken
family.
However,
as
with
anything
else,
costs
have
steadily
rised
since
the
original
bills
passed
with
a
fixed
amount.
This
is
a
reason
we
are
respectfully
requesting
a
generosity
increase
in
the
amount
offered.
The
additional
funds
will
allow
you
to
compensate
future
families
with
the
same
level
of
generosity.
You've
shown
the
families
in
the
past
on
behalf
of
all
of
our
members
of
14500
and
their
families.
We
are
counting
on
your
continued
compassion
and
support.
We
thank
you.
B
Good
morning,
chairman
Parker
and
members
of
the
Committee
on
labor
and
civil
service
on
behalf
of
Commissioner
Ross
I,
would
like
to
thank
you
for
giving
the
police
department
the
opportunity
to
voice
its
opinion
regarding
build
number
one.
Eight,
zero
zero
one,
two
related
to
hero
words.
As
you
know,
the
current
hero
award
set
forth
in
City
Code,
section
21
105,
is
$50,000
awarded
to
the
surviving
spouse
or
dependent
children
or
dependent
parents
of
every
firefighter
and
police
officer
killed
in
the
course
of
performing
a
heroic
deed.
B
The
payment
of
this
amount
is
currently
one
thousand
dollars
stretched
over
a
50
month
period.
I'm
here
today
to
fully
support
increasing
this
award
to
$100,000
and
increasing
the
monthly
payout
to
$2,000
for
a
50
month
period,
the
fear
of
police
officers
and
I'm
sure
the
same
is
true
for
firefighters
is
not
the
danger
we
face.
Every
day
the
brave
men
and
women
of
our
police
and
fire
departments
run
towards
danger
willingly
to
serve
and
protect.
Rather,
the
top
fear
of
these
men
and
women
is
not
being
there
to
support
their
families
to
the
families.
B
Money
can
never
replace
the
heroes
we
lose,
but
to
those
police
and
firefighters
on
the
street
today,
this
bill
will
show
that
the
city
cares
about
them
and
equally
important
about
their
families.
So,
on
behalf
of
my
commissioner
and
the
police
officers,
I
would
like
to
thank
council
members,
Tom
Tom,
Berger,
Parker,
o
Scola,
Keenan
and
O'neill
for
sponsoring
this
bill.
This
concludes
my
testimony
and
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
D
Good
morning
my
name
is
Edward
Marx
I'm,
president
of
local
22,
the
International
Association
of
firefighters
and
paramedics
union,
here
in
Philadelphia
and
I'm
here
today,
to
testify
in
support
of
build
number
one.
Eight
zero
zero
one
two
which
looks
to
increase
the
death
benefit
awarded
to
our
members
of
our
union,
among
others
that
are
killed
in
the
line
of
duty.
I
would
like
to
take
a
moment
to
personally
thank
once
again
councilman
Tom
Topham,
burger
council
persons,
Queen
Rania,
Sanchez,
Parker
and
Bobby
Heenan
for
sponsoring
this
bill.
D
As
you
know,
this
bill
would
increase
the
award
bestowed
upon
our
city's
heroes
to
$100,000
I.
Ask
you:
what
is
life
worth
I?
Don't
think
anyone
can
truly
answer
that
question,
because
life
is
priceless.
I
have
had
been
blessed
with
the
fortune
to
know
many
of
these
people
over
my
30-year
career
in
the
fire
department,
as
I
sent
it
through
the
ranks
to
Battalion
Chief.
A
lot
of
the
members
in
our
department
who
died
in
the
line
of
duty.
D
Personally,
my
first
assignment
is
a
battalion
chief
was
deputy
director
of
training
up
the
fire
academy
and
our
duties
up.
There
was
to
handle
all
the
funerals
when
it
comes
to
line
of
duty
deaths,
so
I
was
on
the
funeral
team
for
12
years,
so
I've
been
through
this
many
many
times
before,
and
I
know
how
it
affects
the
families
and
the
loved
ones
that
are
left
behind.
It's
just
a
little
personal
thing
that
I
added
in
there.
D
The
individuals
that
make
the
ultimate
sacrifice
in
the
performance
of
their
duty
to
their
fellow
citizens
are
special
and
are
precious
gem
to
or
citizens
of
Philadelphia
as
a
city
and
the
citizens
as
a
city
and
as
a
citizen
I
feel
it
is
our
duty
as
public
leaders
to
show
our
appreciation
for
those
heroes
who
sacrificed
by
supporting
the
families
that
are
left
behind.
Once
again.
In
my
career,
I've
known
dozens
of
firefighters
who
have
lost
their
lives,
it
never
gets
any
easier
in
the
sadness
and
uncertainty,
their
loss.
D
The
followers
who
also
presents
in
a
problem
we
as
a
city
and
a
union
or
still
reeling
from
the
loss
of
lieutenant
Matt
Latour
Nell,
who
was
posthumously
promoted
to
captain
in
January
by
supporting
bill
18001
I,
believe
that
we
are
showing
our
first
responders
that
we
value
their
service
and
dedication
and
what
we
will
be
there
for
their
loved
ones,
said
something
tragic
before
in
the
line
of
duty.
I
appreciate
your
time
and
thank
Council
for
all
your
support
of
our
members.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
E
You
Councilwoman
Adam
teal
I'm,
the
fire
commissioner
for
the
city
of
Philadelphia
good
morning,
chairwoman,
Parker
and
members
of
the
Committee
on
labor
and
civil
service.
I
am
Adam
tiel
Commissioner
of
the
Philadelphia
Fire
Department
I
am
here
today
to
testify
answer
port
of
bill
number
one:
eight
zero,
zero
one:
two
sponsored
by
council
members,
dom
taubenberger
O'neil,
Parker,
Willa,
Heenan
and
O'neil,
which
seeks
to
increase
the
amount
awarded
to
family
members
of
firefighters,
police
officers
and
prosecution,
detectives
killed
in
the
course
of
performing
heroic
deeds.
E
The
hero
award,
which
currently
stands
at
fifty
thousand
dollars,
was
last
increased
in
2017.
Thank
you
for
that
as
well.
The
cost
of
living
continues
to
rise
in
bill
number
one:
eight:
zero,
zero
one
two
would
help
surviving
family
members
through
a
difficult
emotional
crisis.
By
alleviating
some
financial
concerns.
The
increased
funding
would
signal
strong
support
for
grieving
families.
Firefighters
have
been
serving
Philadelphia
for
more
than
280
years.
They
risk
their
lives
every
day
to
protect
the
residents
of
this
city
when
they
make
the
ultimate
sacrifice.
E
The
city
should
honor
that
loss
and
support
the
family.
Members
left
behind
our
colleagues
in
law
enforcement
deserve
the
same
recognition.
Thank
you
for
inviting
me
to
testify
in
support
of
this
important
legislation.
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
and
I
also
want
to
publicly
thank
all
of
you
for
your
support
during
our
recent
loss
of
lieutenant
and
now
captain
Matt
Latour
No.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
D
I
am
also
very
indebted
to
a
councilman
Tom
before
the
leadership
here
as
well,
and
there's
no
dollar
amount
you
could
ever
put
on
a
human
life,
but
in
some
ways,
as
a
small
matter
to
to
honor
in
many
ways
a
horrific
loss
to
a
family.
It
is
at
least
something
we
can
do
and
can
always
count
on
us
for
your
support
to
stock
what
your
needs.
So
thank
you
again
and
glad
to
be
voting
aye.
This.
A
A
It
has
been
moved
and
properly
seconded
that
bill
number
one:
eight,
zero
zero
one
to
be
reported
from
this
committee
with
a
favorable
recommendation
and
further
moved
the
rules
of
council
be
suspended
to
permit
first
reading
of
this
bill
at
the
next
session
of
council.
All
those
in
favor
of
the
motion
will
signify
by
saying
aye
those
opposed
the
eyes
have
it
into
motion
carries
bill
number
one:
eight:
zero,
zero!
A
A
A
I
want
to
make
clear
that
the
purpose
of
this
hearing
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
are
very
clear
about
this.
The
purpose
of
this
hearing
is
not
to
debate
the
pros
and
the
cons
of
medical
marijuana.
That
conversation
has
already
taken
place
in
the
public
and
in
the
General
Assembly
overwhelmingly
it
began
when
I
was
a
member
was
proud
to
support
it
then.
Instead,
today's
hearing
is
regarding
what
happens
after
of
the
implementation
of
medical
marijuana
and
it's
fully
implemented
and
running
in
our
state.
A
A
I
want
to
state
for
the
public
record
that
I've
been
very
clear
regarding
this
hearing
that
it
would
be
my
hope
that
the
public
sector
would
help
to
lead
in
this
effort
and
developing
any
potential
legislative
prescriptions
to
address
that
this
issue
relative
to
employers
and
employment,
and
that
we
work
hand-in-hand
with
the
private
sector
along
with
government
to
make
those
things
happen.
We
are
then
going
to
hear
from
representatives
from
our
city's
Human
Resources
office
and
the
Human
Relations
Commission.
The
office
of
risk
management
is
also
here
if
any
relevant
questions
arise.
A
I
also
want
to
a
note
that
for
this
information
session
and
I
want
you
to
just
charge
it
to
my
head
and
not
my
heart.
If
I
screw
up
your
last
name,
George
George,
Vogel,
Vogel,
II
of
Kosan
O'connor
is
present.
Today
he
will
present
he
be
presenting
along
with
Josh
Horne,
and
they
will
look
literally
getting
to
the
nitty
gritty
details
about
the
Medical
Marijuana
Act.
In
its
legal
implications,
we
will
hear
from
dr.
Richard
Cohn
a
forensic
toxicologist,
who
is
frequently
called
as
an
expert
witness
in
court
Samantha.
A
Thank
you
for
making
sure
he
got
here
today,
rounding
out
the
hearing
we'll
be
hearing
from
our
district
attorney's
office,
as
well
as
a
representative
from
organized
labor,
which
is
extremely
important
on
the
lost
potential
impact
on
workers
in
the
city.
Our
goal
for
this
hearing
is
to
understand
the
full
implications
of
the
Medical
Marijuana
Act
on
employers
and
employees
in
the
city
of
Philadelphia.
In
addition,
we
want
to
explore
what
the
city
can
do
to
protect
employees
throughout
Philadelphia
from
being
wrongfully
terminated.
A
If
they
are
medical
marijuana
patients,
we
may
determine
that
our
best
course
of
action
is
to
make
an
ass
of
the
the
state
of
Pennsylvania,
our
General
Assembly,
to
further
prove
and
prove
the
Medical
Marijuana
Act.
But
if
there
is
anything
that
this
body,
the
City
Council
of
Philadelphia
or
a
district
attorney's
office,
can
do
to
protect
employees.
A
The
goal
of
this
hearing
is
for
us
to
become
informed
today
and
for
us
to
act
from
a
position
of
information
base.
Human
resource
professionals,
those
from
the
the
legal
industry
along
with
government.
So
I
want
to
thank
you
all
so
very
much
for
being
here
and
will
the
clerk.
Please
call
up
the
first
panel.
A
Excuse
me
before
the
panel
begins.
Let
me
note
that
vice
chair,
councilman
O'neill
has
arrived
and
Councilman
O'neill.
We
want
to
thank
you,
along
with
Councilwoman
Helen
gem
and
want
to
ask
if
either
of
you
have
any
comments,
although
we
have
started
of
the
hearing
on
the
testimony
for
the
resolution,
if
you
wanted
to
make
any
comments
about
the
prior
a
bill
that
was
recently
passed
from
committee
relevant
to
the
heroes
award,
please
feel
free
to
do
so.
B
E
F
Morning,
chairwoman,
Parker
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
Yvette
Nunez
I'm,
vice
president
of
civic
affairs,
for
the
Chamber
of
Commerce
for
Greater
Philadelphia
I'm
here
this
morning
to
read
formally
into
the
record
a
letter
that
we
shared
with
the
chairwoman
and
can
make
available
to
members
of
the
committee
as
needed.
I
do
ask
that
you
excuse
me,
as
I,
have
to
leave
after
submitting
this
testimony,
but
I'm
available
at
your
convenience.
F
We
can
also
offer
that
there
was
concern
expressed
about
drug
use,
policies
and
substance
use
for
employees
in
critical
positions
or
jobs
that
require
the
use
of
machinery
or
vehicles,
as
the
effects
of
this
legislation
are
felt
amongst
the
employer
community,
we
will
continue
to
monitor
the
reactions
and
concerns
of
our
members
and
share
those
with
this
committee.
Thank
you.
A
G
Thank
you.
Thank
you
again.
Good
morning
my
name
is
Pedro
Rodriguez
and
the
director
of
the
office
of
human
resources
for
the
city
of
Philadelphia
I'm
pleased
to
provide
testimony
on
resolution
number
17:08
3:9
regarding
the
recent
legalization
of
medical
marijuana
in
pennsylvania
and
its
potential
impact
on
employment
matters
for
workers
and
employers
in
the
city
of
Philadelphia
I
will
live
in
my
remarks
to
the
considerations
of
the
potential
impact
on
our
city
workforce
in
operations
of
city
departments.
G
Almost
a
year
ago,
the
Pennsylvania
legislature
joined
25
other
states
in
the
District
of
Columbia
in
legalizing
the
medicinal
use
of
marijuana,
while
other
states,
most
notably
Colorado,
California,
Alaska
and
Oregon,
have
also
legalized
the
recreational
use
of
marijuana,
the
use
of
marijuana
in
any
form
mistiness.
It
is
still
prohibited
under
federal
statutes.
G
It
is
also
silent
on
federal
law
requirements,
federal
laws
which
which
the
state
of
Philadelphia
must
comply
with,
are
the
drove
free
workplace,
Act
of
1988
and
the
Honorables
transportation
act
of
1991.
The
drove
free
workplace
Act
requires
that
all
federal
grant
recipients
and
federal
contractors
at
that
is
zero
torrent
policy
in
a
workplace
and
certified
to
the
federal
government
that
their
workplaces
are
drove
free.
The
Act
also
requires
that
covered
entities
make
an
ongoing
good
faith
effort
to
maintain
a
draw
free
workplace.
G
By
doing
such
things
like
educating
their
employees
on
the
employers,
workplace,
drug
policy
and
notifying
employees
of
all
penalties
that
may
remain
resolved
with
drug
use.
Violations,
the
Act
does
not,
however,
require
their
employers
conduct
mandatory
drug
tests.
It
should
also
be
noted
that,
even
if
an
employer
is
not
required
to
comply
with
the
Act,
employers
can
still
institute
a
zero-tolerance
policy
for
those
workers
and
quote
safety-sensitive
positions.
A
safety-sensitive
position
generally
is
one
in
which
an
employee
is
responsible
for
the
safety
of
herself
or
himself
of
others.
G
Example
of
positions
that
will
be
considered
safety
sensitive
are
those
are
involved,
driving
or
the
use
of
machinery
of
Public
Safety
among
many
others.
Additionally,
the
nervous
transportation
employees
safety
ads
require
that
all
employers
drug-test
employees,
whose
duties
require
a
commercial
driver's
license
or
CDL
consistent
with
federal
laws.
The
City
draw
and
alcohol
policy
which
applies
to
all
non
uniform
employees,
prohibits
the
possession,
manufacture,
transfer,
distribution,
dispensing
sale
or
use
of
prohibited
substances
or
alcoholic
beverages,
while
city
premises
during
work
hours
or
while
operating
a
city
owned
or
leased
vehicle
or
personal
vehicle.
G
When
conducting
city
business,
this
policies
was
negotiated.
We
both
asked
me
District,
Council,
47,
industry,
council
33,
and
it's
part
of
the
collective
bargaining
agreement
the
city
has
with
both
unions.
The
city's
policy
requires
employees
to
disclose
if
they
are
prescribed
medications
that
might
alter
their
psychomotor
skills
or
ability
to
function,
and
they
may
not
operate
machinery
or
motor
vehicles,
while
taking
this
type
of
prescribed
medications.
G
Pennsylvania's,
Medical,
Marijuana
Act
does
give
the
employer
the
authority
to
determine
the
types
of
tasks
and
employees
should
not
be
permitted
to
perform
while
being
prescribed
medical
marijuana,
and
in
this
way
it's
consistent
with
the
city's
drawn
alcohol
policy.
For
example,
the
city
has
identified
several
non-uniform
titles
that
require
drug
testing
in
the
city's
policy
also
requires
that
all
known
CDL
title
employees
participating
in
a
drug
and
alcohol
treatment
program
due
to
disciplinary
actions,
be
subject
to
random
testing.
G
G
However,
recently
the
Massachusetts
Supreme
Court
found
that
an
employer
does
have
a
duty
to
accommodate
an
employee
is
to
use
acum
of
use
of
medical
marijuana,
and
this
is
the
first
state
court
that
has
ruled
in
such
a
favor
most
other
courts
in
Oregon
and
California
has
done
otherwise
and
sustained.
The
federal
law,
as
you
can
see,
balancing
federal
and
state
law
with
medical
needs
or
employees
is
not
easy,
but
we
worked
on
the
opportunity
to
be
part
of
this
important
conversation.
G
Our
hope
is
that
constructive
dialog
will
lead
to
policies
that
safeguard
the
rights
of
our
employees
to
receive
the
best
possible
course
of
medical
treatment
as
deterrent
by
a
licensed
physician
will
miracle
provider
and
the
city's
responsibility
to
comply
with
federal
law
and
to
maintain
the
general
safety
of
our
workers
and
the
public
we
serve.
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity.
I
am
happy
to
answer
any
questions
from
the
committee.
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony.
Let
me
just
a
note
for
the
record
that
for
all
of
the
panel's
who
will
be
testifying,
you
know
we
do
have
an
actual
copy
of
your
testimony.
If
you
decide
that
you
want
to
summarize
your
testimony,
I
want
you
to
feel
free
to
do
so.
I
do
know
when
you're
acknowledging
sort
of
legal
acts
you
want
to
make
sure
that
you
get
those
facts
accurate
and
entered
into
the
record.
A
We
will
make
sure
all
of
the
testimony
is
is
included
and
we
may
be
asking
after
the
human
relations
the
Commission
on
human
relations
testify.
We
may
be
asking
our
next
panel
to
scoot
up
because
I'm
sure
questions
that
may
be
posed
to
the
panel.
You
can
also
be
of
assistance
to
us
all.
Thank
you.
Please
proceed
great.
H
A
certified
medical
marijuana
user
may
fall
within
the
protective
category
of
a
person
with
a
disability
under
federal
and
local
state
and
local
law.
In
that
instance,
it
is
essential
that
the
employee
establish
and
document
their
medical
condition
as
a
disability.
The
law
governing
this
new
area
is
complicated
under
the
Pennsylvania
Mme.
Marijuana
is
not
an
illegal
substance
when
the
individual
is
certified
for
medical
marijuana
use
and
the
drug
is
taken
under
the
supervision
and
care
of
a
licensed
healthcare
professional.
H
However,
under
a
federal
law
under
the
Controlled
Substances
Act,
it
categorizes
marijuana
as
a
schedule,
1
drug
and
considered
as
a
drug,
with
a
high
potential
for
abuse
and
no
medical
use
state
marijuana
laws
vary
currently.
29
states
and
Washington
DC
have
enacted
legislation
and
regulating
some
form
of
medical
marijuana
use
within
this
conflicted.
H
The
law,
as
Pedro
already
indicated,
contains
specific
anti-discrimination
provisions
for
the
workplace,
namely
that
an
employer
not
terminate
threatened,
refused
to
hire
or
otherwise
discriminate
against
an
employee
solely
on
the
basis
of
the
employees
status
as
a
certified
user
of
medical
marijuana.
But
at
the
same
time
it
does
not
require
an
employer
to
make
accommodations
for
the
use
of
medical
marijuana,
while
the
employee
is
working,
especially
when
the
use
is
in
violation
of
federal
laws
such
as
Department
of
Transportation
regulations.
H
In
addition,
an
employer
may
discipline
an
employee
for
being
under
the
influence
of
medical
marijuana
or
if
the
employees
conduct
falls
below
normally
acceptors
accepted
standards
for
the
position.
While
there
have
been
some
Federal
Court
decisions
on
the
topic,
none
have
been
of
presidential
value.
To
date,
no
federal
court
has
determined.
There
is
a
duty
to
accommodate
medical
marijuana
users
under
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act.
In
fact,
multiple
cases
have
been
decided
in
support
of
the
employers
rights,
the
employers
rights
under
the
ADEA.
H
The
new
reality
of
legal
marijuana
will
continue
to
challenge
employer,
drug
testing
and
performance
policies,
while
the
employer
has
the
right
to
do
so.
The
termination
of
an
employee
for
failing
mandatory
drug
testing
effectively
denies
the
employee
with
a
disability
the
opportunity
of
a
reasonable
accommodation
and
therefore
could
be
considered.
Disability
discrimination
in
Philadelphia
were
legally
sufficient.
We
will
accept
and
investigate
these
cases
under
Section
9-11,
O
3
of
the
fair
practices
ordinance
as
cases
of
alleged
disability
discrimination.
H
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony.
I'm
now
going
to
ask
George,
Joshua
and
dr.
kanta
to
come
forward
and
just
join
the
panel.
Don't
move
you
guys!
I
want
them
just
at
the
table,
while
they're
there
panel
has
not
officially
informally
started
I
wanted
them
here.
Just
in
case
when
committee
members
are
asking
questions
that
they
could
all
be
helpful.
I
am
just
going
to
start
with
one
in
particular
two
as
one
is
there
precedence
and
in
any
of
the
other
states
that
have
legalized
medical
marijuana.
A
I
want
to
talk
about
the
recreational
use,
just
what
we
have
established
here
in
in
Pennsylvania.
Is
there
a
precedent
for
a
human
relations
commission
and/or
the
HR
department
for
a
municipality
to
develop
some
sort
of
the
do's
and
don'ts
a
fact
sheet
regarding
medical
marijuana
use
and
employees
is
there
precedent
for
that?
A
Is
that
something
that
you
have
considered
developing,
because
from
my
perspective,
and
very
practically
when
I
think
about
city
employees
and
and
quite
frankly,
other
employees,
I'm
thinking
about
home
health,
aide
workers
in
the
city
of
Philadelphia
security
offices
and
particularly
many
of
the
lower
wage
workers?
If
there
is
a
guide
right
that
that
simply
gives
you
a
checklist
of
what
you
you
know
you
can
or
what
is
recommended
that
you
can
and
can't
do,
then
that
provides
us
some
guidance.
A
H
I
Thank
You
chairwoman,
Joshua
Horne
from
the
law
firm
of
Fox
Rothschild
I,
just
for
the
record
I
coach,
our
cannabis
law
practice
group
I
also
chaired
the
subcommittee
to
the
philadelphia
bar
on
the
Employment
Law
section
under
the
medical
marijuana
and
hemp
law
section
on
the
Philadelphia
bar.
So
there
is
there's
not
a
lot
of
precedent,
but
there
is
a
handful.
There
are.
I
The
court
in
Rhode
Island
said
that
the
federal
law
did
not
preempted
islands,
medical
marijuana
statute
and
that
the
employers
discharge
of
employee
for
her
medical
marijuana
use
was
a
violation
of
the
state's
medical
marijuana
law
and
the
state's
civil
rights
statute,
and
the
important
thing
about
that
case.
That
case
that
is
called
Calahan,
see
a
double
la
GH,
aan
vs.
Darlington
fabrics
and
the
key
thing
I.
I
Importantly,
in
that
case,
held
that
the
federal
Controlled
Substances
Act
in
the
ad
a
did
not
preempted
etiquettes
state,
marijuana
law,
and
so
therefore,
the
the
dismissal
was
improper
under
the
state
medical
marijuana
statute.
So
those
are
probably
the
two
most
recent
cases
that
have
dealt
with
it.
I,
don't
judge,
may
have
something
more
to
add
to
that,
but
there's
not
a
checklist.
That
I
think
that
we
see.
J
K
J
J
The
area
has
evolved
so
rapidly,
so
I
think
many
cities
across
the
country
are
grappling
with
this
in
light
of
their
state
legislatures
efforts
to
move
forward
and
legalize
medical
marijuana
regime,
so
I'm
not
familiar
with
any
particular
cities
that
have
really
gone
out
and
and
provided
detailed
ordinances
or
detailed
regulations
as
of
yet
for
their
employees.
At
this
point,
we're
still
waiting
for
the
state
to
give
us
its
regulations,
after
which
I
think
we'll
be
in
a
better
position
to
determine
what
regulation
may
be
appropriate
at
the
local
level.
F
G
I
may
add,
I
mean
currently
we
will
bring
the
individual
under
our
current
drone
alcohol
policy,
because
it's
in
addresses
this
and
though
it
did
not
foresee
medical
marijuana,
and
specifically,
it
does
say
that
as
an
individual,
its
prescribe
marijuana
dependence
on
the
title
of
the
president
calls
in
the
city
that
person
will
approach
the
human
resource
office
in
that
department
or
the
ad8
person
and
ask
for
an
accommodation.
While
it's
being
used
having
say
that
you
know
it
depends
on
what
the
title
is.
G
If
you
work
at
the
airport,
it's
a
problem,
because
you
know
federal
well
in
policy
trumps.
Anything
else
that
we
can
do
here.
It
is
also
interesting
to
note
that
depends
of
any
statue.
Unlike
places
like
Oregon
or
California,
you
know
in
California
was
a
referendum
that
was
passed
to
legalize
medical
marijuana
when
it
was
taken
when
individuals
were
dismissed
for
employment
because
have
been
found
positive
for
marijuana,
the
state
court
in
California
say
that
the
voters
did
not
intend
to
interfere
with
employment
law.
G
A
Let
me
just
State
for
the
record
that
I,
you
know,
I
know
and
and
and
often
I
have
some
banter
with
electeds
and
other
regions
that
they
don't
believe
that
Philadelphia
is
usually
on
the
cutting
edge
of
most
but
I
firmly.
You
know,
disagree
and
I'm
sure
all
of
my
colleagues
are
would
too,
but
I
would
like
to
ask
mrs.
Landau,
particularly
for
the
Commission
on
human
relations.
A
If
we
will
consider
we
Commission
or
human
relations
along
with
the
city
of
Philadelphia,
while
the
state
law
is
continuance,
state
renders
continuing
to
unfold
and
I
just
read
an
article.
You
know
that
we,
you
know
the
discussion
relative
to
the
legalization
of
the
recreational
use
of
medical
marijuana.
You
know,
is
being
recommended
by
a
committee
in
Harrisburg
and
I.
Understand
is
being
given
serious
consideration
as
they
move
forward.
A
You
know
who
are
even
employed
in
in
the
private
sector,
again
I
wanna,
just
because
someone
will
leave
here
today
saying
that
the
city
of
Philadelphia
is
about
to
work
on.
You
know
you
know
developing
regulations,
for
you
know
the
use
of
medical
marijuana,
but
we
can
proactively.
You
know
publicize,
like
a
public
service
announcement
or
advisory
for
workers
in
the
city
of
Philadelphia
and
for
all
of
the
members
of
council
who
are
here.
A
And
we
want
to
be
able
to
say
that
our
guidance
from
a
proactive
perspective
is
being
shepherded
by
not
just
state
government,
because
sometimes
we
can
get
it
wrong
and
local
government
can
but
the
private
sector,
the
legal
community,
along
with
human
resource
agencies
or
civil
rights
agencies.
You
know
across
the
board.
So
that's
something
that
you
could
go
back
and
maybe
convene
a
group
or
from
a
civil
rights
perspective.
That
would
be
helpful.
Absolutely.
H
And
for
us,
it's
all
about
the
underlying
disability
and
what
somebody
needs
to
take
or
to
do
in
order
to
accommodate
that
disability.
Just
as
a
side
personal
note,
my
my
father
has
significant
disabilities
and
we
just
recently
started
giving
him
hemp
oil.
It
has
reduced
his
anxiety
and
reduced
some
of
the
pain
associate
with
his
disabilities.
H
It's
made
a
significant
change,
he's
just
happier
every
day,
obviously
too
old
to
work
and
also
not
fit
to
work,
but
you
would
just
hope
that
the
slight
changes
that
happen
with
him,
if
that
happens,
is
just
some
other
employee
who
has
to
overcome
a
disability
and
go
to
work
every
day.
It
does
not
produce
the
high
at
the
high
it's
not
making
somebody
fully
impaired.
H
A
We're
gonna
hear
from
Councilman
O'neill,
but
I
just
want
you
to
note
that
your
public
testimony
relative
to
your
personal
experience
with
your
father
is
the
perfect
example
about
why
some
guidance
for
the
public
is
necessary,
because
there
is
someone
who
is
listening
to
this.
Testimony
who
appreciates
what
you
just
said,
but
they
see
in
her
perspective,
is
subjective
right.
That's
our
perspective.
That's
why
it
is.
It
is
I
think
it
is
so
important
that
we
be
guided
right
and
in
a
very
structured
and
formalized
way
and
I
appreciate
your
sharing.
B
We
have
the
more
apparatus
than
anyone
else
and
if
the
state
is
still
mulling
over
regulations,
it
might
be
good
share
experiences
learning
with
them.
Unfortunately,
it
was
raised.
You
know
that
defense,
the
federal
government,
could
could
make
this
a
lot
easier,
but
you
know
they
can't
agree
that
it's
Wednesday,
okay
and
and
at
least
a
state.
B
Well,
it
may
not
be
the
most
effective
state
legislate
legislature.
It
really
shines
in
comparison
to
our
federal
Congress.
So
there
is,
there
is
a
chance
there
and
it
looks
like
what
we're
hearing
is.
It's
it's
going
to
come
down
to
finding
ways
to
in
this
period
where
this
fed
federal
government's
saying
one
thing
and
kind
of
leaving
the
states
alone.
I
think
courts
are
going
to
bend
over
to.
B
To
find
reasons
to
side
with
the
the
patient
in
these
in
these
cases,
and
that
would
be
in
enforcing
the
the
state
regulations
in
the
state
law
and
kind
of
just
letting
the
the
finding
reasons
not
to
pull
down
the
the
sledgehammer
of
some
federal
statutes
that
haven't
been
enforced
for
a
long
time.
Thank
you.
A
B
You,
madam
chair
and
I,
want
to
thank
you
for
bringing
this
attention
to
the
general
public.
You
know
with
this
resolution
because
I
think
it
is
important.
You
know,
through
the
testimony
that
we've
heard
here
today
and
through
the
constituencies
that
you
know
we
all
represent,
as
as
a
policymaker
body
that
you
know,
regulations
and
in
the
way
you
know,
we
have
to
determine
ourselves
as
the
council
members
just
eluding,
when
the
federal
government
is
not
making
those
tough
decisions
and
there's
a
lot
of
gray
area.
B
B
But
now
is
the
time
to
actually
bring
this
these
conversations
so
like
when
they
you
know
when
the
regulations
are
being
formatted
and
and
how
it's
going
to
be
implemented
and
enforced,
because
it
could
have
a
critical
unattended
consequence
on
when
workers
just
going
to
work
every
day,
we're
receiving
treatments
and
have
another
option
in
front
of
them
that
they
chose
to
chose
for
themselves
between.
You
know
patient
and
doctor
privilege,
so
I
mean
you
know
I
I.
B
E
Me
again,
yes,
thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair,
for
this
important
hearing.
I.
Think
that
I'm
going
to
echo
the
comments
of
my
colleagues
earlier,
but
I
also
want
to
thank
all
the
panelists
I
think
that
it
is
very
true
that
five
years
ago
and
the
terms
of
employment
law,
it
would
be
hard
to
imagine
that
we're
in
a
state
where
we
can
talk
about
legalized,
marijuana
and
also
how
it
has
assisted
people
working
today
and
dealing
with
you
know
a
different
illnesses
and
as
well
as
disabilities
in
the
workplace.
E
I
mean
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
is
important
at
this
time
is
that
it
is
really
I
think
a
lot
of
this
is
going
to
rather
than
look
at
this
issue
right
now.
It's
just
sort
of
legal
wrangling
between
state,
municipal
and
federal
authorities.
A
lot
of
the
time
that
we've
got
right
now
is
to
educate
our
employers
and
our
employees
about
the
issues
that
are
before
us.
E
I
also
want
to
echo
the
chairwoman
and
saying
that
this
is
a
particularly
important
time
for
us
to
highlight
and
emphasize
the
fair
practices
ordinance
to
emphasize
civil
rights
and
liberties
to
understand
the
role
of,
in
particular,
disability
rights.
Health
care
needs,
mental
health
supports,
particularly
in
the
workplace.
I
think
it's
an
extremely
opportune
moment
to
really
exercise
on
that,
because
people
are
looking
for
answers.
They
want
to
understand
boundaries,
but
there's
also
growing
awareness
that
you
can't
just
take
a
blanket
approach
right
now,
they're
complications
around
how
we
are
looking
at
particular.
E
You
know
controlled
substances,
and
it's
also
really
important
for
us
just
to
keep
on
the
issue
of
diversity
in
the
workplace
and
particularly
people
being
able
to
manage
and
work
at
their
fullest
capacity,
while
they're
dealing
with
assorted
issues
that
are
that
are
very
prevalent
across
the
city
of
Philadelphia
across
the
nation.
So
I
want
to
thank
you
for
that.
Thank
you.
A
A
But
we
are
also
you
know
fully
aware
of
the
federal
government's
verbal,
because
we
haven't
seen
much
formal
action
relative
to
rolling
back
some
considerations
that
were
allowed
to
states
that,
although
the
the
federal
classification
of
the
the
drug
had
not
formally
changed
considerations
that
were
allowed,
you
know
under
the
the
past
presidential
administration.
We
did
hear
some
comments,
read
some
some
articles
of
statements
that
were
made
by
our
Attorney
General
relative
to
this
issue.
And
so,
while
we
know
we
are
waiting
for
clarification
from
state
law
and
the
Commonwealth
is
mulling.
A
So
we
want
to
thank
each
and
every
one
of
you
for
testimony
ex
that
the
second
panel
just
sort
of
move
in
so
you
can
provide
your
testimony
and
we
are
also
in
a
very
unconventional
way,
because
we
think
that
the
second
panel
at
the
third
panel
may
be
able
to
add
value
if
this
panel
is
offered
any
questions.
So
we're
also
going
to
as
George
and
Josh
burn
doctor
kind
take
their
seats.
A
We
want
to
ask
Mike
Lee,
who
is
the
assistant
district
attorney
and
interim
director
of
legislation
and
government
affairs
for
the
Philadelphia
District
Attorney's
Office.
To
also
please
come
for
it
and
Samaria
Harris,
who
is
a
ICU
nurse
at
Einstein
Hospital
and
a
board
member
for
the
Pennsylvania
Association
for
staff,
nurses
and
allied
professions.
If
she
would
also
come
up
and
a
gentleman
if
you
can
now
just
formally
identify
yourselves
for
the
record
as
the
second
panel.
I
J
I
We
were
good
enough
to
give
the
committee
a
PowerPoint
which
we're
gonna
go
through
rather
quickly.
It
would
highlight
some
of
the
main
points.
I.
Think
chairwoman
Park,
you
really
hit
the
nail
on
the
head.
You
have
a
lot
of
uncertainty
at
the
federal
level.
I
think
the
part.
The
analysis
is
to
start
with
the
understanding
that
the
Controlled
Substances
Act
still
characterizes
cannabis
as
a
Schedule
one
substance,
which
means
paraphrase
that
has
no
viable
purpose
and
is
highly
addictive
or
subject
to
abuse.
I
But
so
that's
the
way,
that's
the
universe
that
we've
been
living
under,
that's
the
universe
where
all
these
states
have
come
forward
and
changed
their
laws,
and
now
in
January,
4
of
this
year,
Attorney
General,
Sessions
ripp,
and
so
there
was
a
hue
and
cry
that
you
know
the
the
sky
is
falling
for
a
medical
marijuana
here
in
Pennsylvania
wasn't
even
live
so
to
speak.
At
that
point,
and
our
analysis
is
that
really
you
know
you
have
to
understand
that
the
Cole
memo
was
only
a
policy
statement.
I
It
was
not
a
rule
of
law
was
not
an
act
of
Congress
and
by
attorney
general
sessions
ripping
it
up.
All
he's
basically
saying
is
not
a
priority.
To
the
priority
not
to
prosecute
is
no
longer
there,
but
that
doesn't
mean
they
can
prosecute
and
here's.
Why
there's
no
money?
The
federal
government
since
2014
there's
been
a
series
of
amendments
to
the
spending
bill
originally
known
as
the
Rohrabacher
far
amendment
mr.
afar
has
subsequently
to
retire
to
announce
world
barker
Blumenau.
I
Basically,
what
that
says
is
the
federal
government
is
not
going
to
fund
the
Department
of
Justice
to
prosecute
state,
regulated
medical
marijuana
programs.
So
that's
really
the
kind
of
the
federal
overlay
that
you
have.
It
is
a
little
bit
murky,
but
until
there's
money
for
for
the
Department
of
Justice
to
prosecute
it's
not
going
anywhere
and
notwithstanding
the
current
budget
battles
that
we've
been
seeing
on
the
federal
level,
this
is
always
is
still
remained.
But
with
that
being
said,
there's
still
an
issue.
I
If
someone's
subject
to
federal
law,
which
George
will
touch
on
in
more
detail
such
as
the
a
DEA,
Department
transportation
or
drug-free
workplace
Act,
you
still
have
those
issues
that
you
have
to
deal
with.
Notwithstanding
the
state
laws
on
the
subject,
so
just
kind
of
go
over
some
additional
things.
So
there
are
nine
states
that
have
a
recreational
program
and
subsequent
to
the
creation
of
this
slide.
In
the
last
eight
weeks,
both
Vermont
and
New
Hampshire
have
legislatively
approved
recreational
marijuana
or
adult
use,
marijuana.
I
They
don't
have
regulations
in
place,
but
but
it
certainly
shows
the
trend
that
we're
dealing
with
that
bait.
This
is
not
going
away,
and
then
here
are
the
29
states.
Now
we
don't
have
a
Porto,
Rico
or
Guam
on
here,
but
they
have
a
medical
marijuana
program,
and
even
you
know,
if
you,
if
you
think
about
some
of
the
states
or
ever
thinking
about
coming
online,
you
have
Utah,
which
is
one
of
may
be
at
one
of
the
next
States
to
come
online.
I
So
not
exactly
exactly
the
the
bastion
of
liberal
is
but
I
think
it's
important
that
there
is
a
there
is
a
recognition
on
a
national
basis
that
there
are
people
out
there
who
will
get
a
benefit
from
medical
marijuana
and
statistics
show
that
94
percent
of
people
in
this
country
support
medical
marijuana,
and
so
notwithstanding
the
uncertainty
of
the
federal
government.
I.
Don't
think
that
we
have
to
be
concerned
that
anything's
gonna
happen
to
our
program
anytime
soon.
So
let's
talk
about
what
what
you
have
to
do
in
Pennsylvania.
I
First
of
all,
to
get
a
medical
marijuana
card.
You
have
to
be
under
the
care
of
a
physician
that
who
is
registered
through
the
Department
of
Health
and
that
physician
has
to
have
completed
a
training
program
through
the
Department
of
Health.
The
physician,
then,
must
certify
the
patient
as
as
having
one
of
the
one
of
or
more
of
the
17
serious
medical
conditions
for
which
you
can
get
medical
marijuana,
and
that
is
then
certified
into
the
system.
So
the
state
knows
it
through
a
computer
system
that
is
in
place.
I
Next,
the
the
patient
has
to
apply
to
get
an
identification
card
and
the
important
thing
I
think
from
an
employment
standpoint
that
people
have
to
understand
is
that
card
is
only
good
for
one
year.
So
it's
not
a
perpetual
get-out-of-jail-free
card,
so
to
speak.
It
has
to
be
renewed
every
year
and
the
other
important
thing
is.
I
You
can
only
purchase
medical
marijuana
through
a
licensed
dispensary,
which
you
know
there
are
six
regions
throughout
the
Commonwealth
and
where
they'll
be
dispersed
throughout
those
regions
and
the
other
important
thing
you
know
it's
not
you
have
you
have
to.
These
dispensaries
have
either
a
physician
if
it's
the
primary
location
for
the
licensee
on
staff,
when
it's
open
or
a
certified
licensed
physician,
I'm.
Sorry,
a
pharmacist,
so
the
forms
of
medical
marijuana
that
you
can
currently
get
our
pills,
creams,
oils,
liquids,
tinctures
and
vaporized
form.
I
Are
this
the
17,
serious
medical
conditions
and
a
couple
of
important
things
from
an
employment
standpoint?
These
these
conditions
cannot
be
changed
unless
is
by
statute.
There
is
defined
by
statute,
and
if
you
look
at
some
of
them,
I
think
you
have
to
understand
that
a
lot
of
these
are
life.
Ending
events
they're,
not
it's
not
like
the
criticism
that
California
had
for
its
medical
marijuana
program
was
all
of
a
sudden.
I
Everyone
in
California
had
insomnia
overnight
because
it
was
so
liberal
here
it
is
a
very
highly
regulated
system,
and-
and
you
know,
many
of
these
ailments
are
rolling
them.
You're
only
going
to
really
get
palliative
care
or
pain
relief
from
the
from
those
treatments.
So
there's
a
distinct
possibility.
A
number
of
people
who
have
any
of
these
17
ailments
wouldn't
be
in
the
work
force
anyway.
J
Thank
you,
I
think
with
that
I'll
take
take
the
next
slide
here,
speaking
specifically
about
Pennsylvania's
law
and
the
employee
protections
it
provides
first.
Let
me
just
take
one
step
back
and
explain
to
to
Council
that
really
many
there's
there's
three
distinct
groupings
that
states
have
fallen
into
with
regard
to
the
protections
they
provided.
Employees
in
their
medical
marijuana
statutes,
there's
a
first
group
that
really
has
no
employee
protections
in
their
statutes.
There's
a
second
group
that
has
what
we're
calling
limited
protections
and
then
there's
the
third
group
that
has
enhanced
protections.
J
The
statute
goes
on
to
say
that
nothing
in
the
act
shall
be
construed
in
any
way
is
to
require
an
employer
to
violate
that
law
and,
as
we've
already
heard
today,
there
are
a
number
of
federal
mandates
that
require
drug
testing
of
employees
and
when
this
statute
was
first
passed,
the
advice
we
were
giving
many
of
our
employer
or
clients
was
that
you're
you.
You
still
must
abide
by
federal
drug-free,
workplace
laws.
J
Zero-Tolerance
policies
on
drug
uses
is
still
okay.
You
can
discipline
or
terminate
an
employee
for
failing
a
drug
test
and,
of
course,
you
can
still
discipline
an
employee
who's
under
the
influence
there.
Our
advice
on
that
is
starting
to
change
in
light
of.
What's
happened
in
some
other
states
and
I'll
touch
on
that
in
just
a
moment,
but
just
focusing
on
Pennsylvania
and
what
its
statute
provides
for
a
medical
marijuana
patient
in
Pennsylvania
may
not
handle
certain
regulated
chemicals.
J
They
may
not
operate
high-voltage
electricity
or
Public
Utilities,
an
example
that
would
come
to
mind
is
someone
perhaps
operating
a
nuclear
power
plant
control
panel
or
something
of
that
nature.
Individuals
who
are
operating
up
in
a
lift
and
fixing
wires
that
type
of
thing
and
the
Pennsylvania's
law
has
a
specific
cutoff
of
10
nanograms
of
medical
marijuana
and
really
the
only
way
to
test
that
is
through
drug
to
drug
testing.
J
Also,
Pennsylvania's
law
has
specific
carve
outs
that
say
a
medical
marijuana
patient
should
not
work
in
confined
spaces
or
at
Hight's,
so
these
have
important
implications
in
the
construction
industry.
A
few
more
specific
provisions
in
Pennsylvania's
law
give
employers
broad
discretion
in
identifying
physicians
as
safety
sensitive
and
allow
a
company
to
say
well.
No,
this
job
is
safety
sensitive.
J
J
Pennsylvania's
statute
also
provides
and
understands
that
there
are
going
to
be
unique
situations
and
unique
employers
such
as
schools,
correctional
facilities
or
youth
developmental
centers,
where
there
may
be
enhanced
concerns
about
having
individuals
with
who
are
who
are
using
medical
marijuana
in
in
the
workplace.
You
can
think
about
that
situation
in
a
prison
and
how
that
could
create
a
number
of
issues.
So
those
are
all
are
bouts,
I'll
say
that
are
contained
in
the
Pennsylvania
statute
and
are
important
to
understand
in
the
depth
and
level
of
the
protection
afforded
by
the
statute.
J
Now,
as
my
colleague
I'll
try
and
make
this
short
Josh
alluded
to
earlier,
when
I
say,
the
Pennsylvania
falls
in
this
second
category
of
providing
limited
protections,
many
of
the
other
state
laws
that
were
passed
especially
New,
England
states,
Massachusetts,
Rhode,
Island
Connecticut,
also
fit
that
model.
They
stated
that
they
only
protected
employees
solely
based
on
their
status
as
a
medical,
marijuana,
user
and
and
the
presumption
was
that
if
you
failed
a
drug
test
in
the
workplace,
you
could
still
be
terminated.
There
have
been
a
number
of
Court
decisions,
however,
in
Massachusetts
Connecticut,
Rhode
Island.
J
That
have
all
said
well.
That
may
be
what
our
statute
says,
but
we're
gonna
go
beyond
that
and
we're
going
to
find
that
even
if
a
medical,
marijuana
user
does
fail,
a
drug
test,
they're
still
protected
so
long
as
they're,
not
impaired
in
their
work
or
unable
to
do
their
job
properly
as
a
result
of
their
use
of
the
medical
marijuana.
J
So
the
point
of
all
that
is
that
the
it's
still
unclear
what
Pennsylvania
courts
are
going
to
do
in
that
regard
and
whether
they're
going
to
say
that
no
no
you're
only
protected
for
your
status
as
a
medical
marijuana
user.
So
if
your
employer
says
we're
not
hiring
you
because
you
have
a
medical
marijuana
card
period,
that's
unlawful,
but
we
don't
know
whether
the
Superior
Court,
the
Commonwealth
quarter
of
the
state
Supreme
Court,
are
ultimately
going
to
say.
Well,
no,
that's
not
enough
under
this
statute
to
really
provide
protections
you
need.
J
I
Just
wanted
to
add
one
thing
from
mr.
Boies
comments
that
the
statute
talks
about
you
know
under
the
influence
and
there's
only
one
instance,
which
he
touched
on
dealing
with
what
under
the
influence
actually
means
and
that's
in
the
context
of
chemicals
and
high-voltage
electricity.
You
can't
have
any
more
than
10
nanograms
of
Tetrick
tetra
cabinets
in
in
your
system,
now,
I
think
where
I,
what
I
want
to
explain,
there's
an
important
distinction
that
needs
to
be
made
because
marijuana
or
cannabis
has
different
components
in
it.
I
One
is
the
psychoactive
component,
which
is
otherwise
known
as
THC.
That's
what
these
drug
tests
typically
test
for
and
that's
what's
referred
to
in
the
statute,
the
other
component-
that's
in
cannabis,
is
called
CBD
s
or
cannabinoids,
and
those
are
generally
deemed
to
be
the
those
components
that
have
the
palliative
care,
pain,
relief,
sleep,
definitely
per
leaf
type
of
qualities,
and
the
issue
is
I'm
not
aware
and
dr.
I
Conklin
can
fill
in
the
gap
for
me,
but
I'm
not
aware
of
any
drug
test
that
actually
can
test
for
CBDs,
and
so
some
theoretically,
somebody
I
could
have
taken
CBDs
five
minutes
before
I
came
into
chambers
here
today
technically
been
under
the
info,
but
no
one
would
have
ever
known
because
of
its.
It
doesn't
have
that
it
doesn't
give
you
the
hi
effect,
as
TAC
would
and
I
think.
L
Wow
I,
don't
know
where
to
begin
here.
Oh
yeah
cut
me
off
if
I've
overstepped
my
bounds
in
terms
of
time.
I
didn't
have
a
formal
presentation
to
present,
because
I
was
just
notified
and
agreed
to
to
participate
in
this
panel,
but
there
are
many
instances,
areas
that
were
mentioned
here
and
I
want
to
draw
the
focus,
because
my
understanding
was
to
discuss
the
the
aspects
of
the
marijuana,
the
medical
marijuana
act
as
it
pertains
to
the
not
just
the
employee,
but
also
the
employer
and
under
those
circumstances.
L
There
are
many
aspects
that
were
talked
today
about
today
and
need
some
clarity
just
by
way
of
going
stepping
back
a
moment
or
so
I'm
a
forensic
toxicologist
doc.
Psychology
is
a
branch
of
pharmacology.
Pharmacology
is
the
basic
medical
science
that
deals
with
the
actions
and
uses
where
the
one
at
desire,
the
wanted
actions
of
foreign
substances
on
the
body,
so
pharmacology
is
the
study
of
therapeutics.
It's
that
medical
discipline
that
deals
with
therapeutic
agents.
L
Toxicology
takes
it
a
step
further,
where
it's
concerned
not
just
with
the
desired
effects,
but
also
with
the
adverse
effects,
and
then
forensic
toxicology
is
a
further
sub
branch
that
deals
with
the
detection,
the
measurement,
the
confirmation
and
the
interpretation
of
foreign
substances
in
body
tissues
and
fluids,
and
these
fluids
can
either
and
the
in
these
biologic
specimens
can
either
be
from
post-mortem
specimens.
I
used
to
be
a
toxicologist
with
the
medical
examiner's
office
or
Philadelphia
for
eight
years
and
or
they
can
be
from
any
mortem
specimens
and
I
practiced
in
that
realm.
L
For
the
last
30
plus
years
as
a
as
a
forensic
toxicologist,
the
I
also
am
the
author
of
the
collectively
bargained
national
master
freight
agreement
dealing
with
the
uniform
drug
and
alcohol
testing
guidelines.
It
was
agreed
upon
between
the
International
Brotherhood
of
Teamsters
and
the
organized
trucking
industry
at
some
point
after
that
that
was
in
the
mid
80s,
and
it
was
in
effect
for
five
years
or
so,
and
then
the
federal
guidelines
came
in
under
the
drug-free
workplace
guidelines
that
took
effect,
I,
believe
June
of
1989
I.
L
Want
to
that,
we
heard
discussed
today
failing
a
drug
test
if
an
employee
or
or
pre-employment
test
is
is
administered,
the
person
can
fail
that
test.
I
want
to
distinguish
here
between
urine
and
blood
and
what
the
Pennsylvania
statute
as
I
understand
it
versus,
and
you
have
to
help
me
out
here
if
I'm
interpreting
it
in
error
based
on
what
it
means
to
a
fail,
a
test
and
what
kind
of
test
is
being
done
in
a
pre-employment
tests.
L
Urine
isn't
is
used
a
non-invasive
test,
in
other
words,
you're,
not
doing
a
venipuncture
of
drawing
blood
you're
merely
obtaining
the
urine
to
test
for
a
variety
of
substances,
one
of
which
would
be
marijuana
products
in
that
urine.
We
are
looking
for
the
metabolite
of
marijuana,
one
of
the
cannabinoids
we're
looking
for
the
inactive.
L
Metabolite,
which
is
under
the
federal
guidelines,
which
is
tetrahydrocannabinol,
carboxylic
acid
I'm,
just
going
to
refer
to
it
as
carboxy
THC,
the
THC
doesn't
exist
in
the
urine
is
a
THC
is
pardon
me
is
a
fat-soluble
drug.
It
doesn't
want
to
reside
in
you
urine,
which
is
essentially
all
water.
So
the
species
of
the
marijuana
that
you're
looking
for
in
urine
is
the
carboxy
THC,
the
inactive
concentration,
but,
by
the
same
token
nobody
is
under
the
federal
guidelines.
Anyhow
and,
in
my
opinion,
what
should
be
adopted
by
by
the
council.
L
Is
that
the
those
guidelines
or
for
the
purpose
of
showing
use
the
part
where
you're
referencing
on
this
last
slide
were
talked
about?
10
nanograms,
per
ml
and
I
think
the
exact
wording
in
the
marijuana
Medical
Marijuana
Act
is
10
nanograms
of
tetrahydrocannabinol
per
ml
blood
per
milliliter
blood.
Then
it
says
in
serum.
I
L
So
what
does
that
mean
and
I
want
to
differentiate
between
the
two
types
of
tests
that
are
going
to
be
performed
from
the
standpoint
of
the
pre-employment
testing
or
random
testing?
If
that's
mandated
or
it's
utilized
by
a
company,
the
that
would
utilize
urine
and
the
purpose
of
that
test
is
to
determine
use,
not
impairment.
L
What
specimen
you
run
if
I
run
urine
if
I
run
that
blood
they
in
a
reasonable
suspicion
event
where
somebody
is
showing
at
word
manifestations
or
something
or
some
behavior,
that
triggers
an
in-service
test
according
to
the
way
I
read
the
statute.
The
only
way
you
can
say
that
he's
Intel,
he's
under
the
influence
quote
unquote,
is
that
you
have
to
have
10
9,
8
grams
in
serum
or
five-niner
grams
in
blood,
so
there's
a
difference
between
what
happens
under
federal
guidelines
versus
what
happens
in
the
alright.
You.
A
A
So
when
we
sort
of
talk
about
guidance
that
we're
looking
to
you,
the
legal
industry,
the
medical
industry,
to
help
to
provide
to
us
as
a
as
a
city
to
do
what
councilman
O'neill
so
aptly
described
as
making
recommendations
from
our
fat
gathering
that
we
conduct
here
city
to
the
Commonwealth
as
it
moves
forward.
That's
the
lens
through
which
we
want
you
to
think
about
our
actions
in
a
very
practical,
the
nature
of
the
response
that
we
can
see
from
the
ground
up.
A
So
when
you
think
about
PTSD,
which
I
was
happy,
you
sort
of
went
through
all
of
the
allowable
we'll
conditions.
That's
the
one
for
me
that
really
raised
the
raised
to
red
flag
and
wait
a
minute
from
an
education
perspective.
How
can
we
proactively
inform
our
citizenry
of
how
they
should
move
forward
if,
in
fact,
they
become
patients
and
how
it
will
affect
not
just
our
employees
but
we're
thinking
about
our
business
owners
too?
A
So,
if
you
could
just
any
recommendations,
ideas
concepts,
do
you
think
that
we
should
sort
of
form
us
here
at
the
local
level?
Do
we
need
to
form
an
advisory
committee
that
you
are
in
the
the
private
sector?
The
legal
community,
along
with
the
medical
community,
would
be
able
to
help
us
develop
a
guide
of
a
potential
educational
recommendations
that
can
be
used
as
a
tool
to
again
just
educate
residents
in
the
city
of
Philadelphia.
A
J
George
Whaley
speaking
again,
I
I
think
that
you
raised
an
excellent
suggestion
that
perhaps
some
type
of
an
ongoing
advisory
body
panel
or
or
just
workforce
within
the
Human
Relations
Commission,
may
be
abuse
and
help
you're
absolutely
right.
Many
of
these
conditions
that
we're
seeing
are
chronic
conditions
that
that
unfortunately
lead
to
well,
don't
don't
have
a
good
outcome.
At
the
same
time,
many
of
them
such
as
Parkinson's
epilepsy,
glaucoma
PTSD.
J
As
you
said,
people
go
to
work
with
them
every
single
day
in
the
city
of
Philadelphia,
and
so
these
individuals
will
help
and
guidance
in
managing
these
conflicting
legal
requirements,
and
importantly,
two.
There
are
a
number
of
different
interest
groups
in
this.
It's
it's,
of
course
the
patients
who
suffer
from
these
conditions
and
need
it
first
and
foremost.
J
So
we
have
to
balance
those
interests
as
well
in
public
safety,
along
with
employers,
interests
in
making
sure
that
they're
complying
with
the
law
and,
at
the
same
time
getting
the
best
out
of
their
employees,
giving
them
the
best
opportunities
to
to
do
their
best
in
their
careers
despite
these
conditions
and
having
to
work
through
them.
So
perhaps
that
type
of
a
group
or
advisory
panel
would
be
very
helpful
in
in
helping
everyone
navigate.
This
issue.
I
I
You
know
that
person
to
say
it's
something
else,
but
I
think
the
important
thing
you
have
to
understand
is
the
statute
itself
provides
for
a
special
license,
called
the
clinical
research
license,
and
hopefully,
I
would
I
hear
the
the
regulations
supposed
to
be
finalized
by
this
weekend
and
we're
going
to
start
that
process
and
so
what
the
clinical
research
registrar
license
will
be
would
be.
There
was
teaching
hospitals
throughout
the
Commonwealth
and
there's
going
to
be
a
company
affiliated
with
the
teaching
hospital
and
part
of
what
the
project
will
be.
I
Is
the
study
and
research,
the
effects
of
medical
cannabis
on
all
these
serious
medical
conditions,
so
my
hope
is
through
that
process.
There
will
be
some
reporting
at
least
back
to
the
Commonwealth
as
to
what
are
we
really
seeing,
and
can
we
treat
PTSD
with
a
CBD
only
so
people
getting
that
high
of
work?
Can
we?
Where
is
it
where
it
is
that
to
be
treated
differently?
So
that's
that's
the
the
clinical
registrant
license
now
there
is
an
aspirational
provision
within
the
statute
which
I'm
not
optimistic
about,
which
is
just
a
general
research
provision.
I
On
the
chapter
19
of
the
statute,
you
know,
I
think
it's
aspirational
that
the
Commonwealth
was
to
have
study
is
about
it,
but
I
think
it's
more
likely
you're
going
to
get
it
through
the
private
sector
through
these
clinical
research
registrants
and
then
there's
an
advisory
board
to
the
Department
of
Health
will
then
have
to
report
back
to
the
Department
of
Health.
Whether
changes
need
to
be
made
in
the
statute
or
additional
regulations.
The
view
made
to
to
actually
specifically
address
some
of
these
medical
conditions
if
they
need
to
be
dressed
in
a
particular
way.
I
L
Want
to
go
back
and
refocus
on
what
the
council
can
do
in
terms
of
employee
protections
and
employer
protections,
because
that's
my
understanding.
That
was
the
focus
of
what
we're
dealing
with
here.
None
of
us
should
be
dealing
with
trying
to
interpret
the
medical
conditions
or
evaluating
a
patient.
An
employer
certainly
shouldn't
be
responsible
for
determining
whether
or
not
a
one
condition
is
going
to
be
acceptable.
Another
is
not
that's
in
a
different
realm
and
that's
with
other
legal
aspects.
However,
there
are,
we
don't
have
to
reinvent
the
wheel.
L
There
are
processes
which
mimic
the
federal
guidelines
that
you
carry
over
into
the
into
the
non
federally
regulated
areas,
for
instance,
if
employees
should
be
protected
against
having
their
medical
information,
disseminate
it
to
their
employer
unless
I
think
of
one
instance
where
under
septic,
where
they
are
required,
if
their
drivers
to
to
notify
the
medical
department
prior
to
working,
whether
or
not
there
what
medication
they
are
taking.
Now
that's
been
an
effect
for
a
long
time.
L
I
don't
know
what
the
legalities
of
that
would
be,
but
what
we're
dealing
with
here
is
in
the
private
sector.
What
do
the?
What
are
the
responsibilities
of
the
employee
and
to
meet
their
medical
records
should
be
confidential
because
just
merely
saying
their
medical
marijuana
user
yeah,
you
may
have
protections,
but
they
could
also
trigger
adverse
effects,
whether
they're
going
to
be
employed
or
not
employed
based,
and
then
you
have
these
other
conditions.
L
So
I
think
that
if
they're
going
to
be
subject
to
a
test
now
there
was
a
pre-employment
test
that
the
results
of
that
test
goes
through
a
medical
review
office
or
somebody
who
reviews
the
nature
of
the
test.
If
it's
a
positive
test,
what
positive
or
negative
all
results
come
from
the
medical
review
office
or
that
way
the
employer
has
no
idea
whether
the
person
was
positive
or
not.
Let's
take
as
an
example
on
a
pre-employment
instance.
L
If
somebody
tests
positive
for
marijuana,
the
employer
isn't
notified,
the
employer
is
paying
for
the
tests,
but
he's
not
notified
as
to
the
findings
directly
from
the
laboratory.
It
goes
to
a
Medical,
Review
officer
who
then
talks
to
the
individual
that
individual
has
a
medical
marijuana,
ID
card
to
my
way
of
thinking
under
the
Pennsylvania
act
that
becomes
a
an
MRO,
a
Medical,
Review
officer
negative.
The
employer
never
sees
that
negative
that
never
sees
that
positive.
That's
not
no
longer
an
issue,
he
has
a
legitimate.
L
He
has
a
medically
documented
reason
for
having
that
positive
drug
test,
and
let
me
say
that
we
are
in
those
urine
tests
that
are
being
performed,
whether
it's
an
in-service
employee
or
a
pre-employment,
we're
not
looking
for
the
last
molecule
of
marijuana
of
carboxy
THC,
the
metabolites
in
the
urine.
There
are
cut-off
levels,
threshold
levels
that
must
be
reached
and
you
have
to
work
on
those,
however
I
think
under
the
Medical
Marijuana
Act.
L
If
that's
present,
that
becomes
a
negative
to
the
employer.
So
no
action,
no
adverse
action
is,
is
taken
against
that
employee.
By
the
same
token,
it
protects
the
employer
because
he's
no
longer
he's
out
of
the
situation
of
deciding
do.
I
use
this
as
a
reason
to
discharge
or
a
dying
or
not
to
hire,
and
it's
no
longer
a
situation
where
he's
making
a
medical
consideration
or
abusing
the
rights
of
the
employee.
L
So
I
think
there
there's
a
win
on
both
sides
when
it
comes
to
the
in-service
individual
who's
pulled
because
of
the
under
the
influence
designation
in
the
Act.
That's
that's
the
only
reason
that
I
see
where
the
person
can
be
terminated.
Her
action
can
be
taken.
The
legislature
is
actually
given
a
definition,
whether
it's
right
or
wrong.
It's
probably
wrong,
but
whether.
L
Or
wrong,
it's
given
a
definition
of
what
is
under
the
influence
and
what
is
under
the
influence
is
10
nanograms
per
milliliter
10
nanograms
of
THC
tetrahydrocannabinol,
the
active
constituent
per
milliliter
serum,
so
that
would
also
go
through
Medical
Review
officer,
but
that's
a
no-brainer
because
that's
established
those
values
he
has
Medical
Review
officer
has
no
right
under
the
Pennsylvania
statute
to
overturn
that
ten,
not
a
gram
or
higher
value.
So
that's
my
two
cents
worth
so
far.
Thank.
A
You
doctor
will
ask
the
panel
and
I'm
gonna
ask
again
if
you
all
could
just
come
up,
because
we
don't
want
you
to
leave
while
next,
our
next
two
members
of
testifying
been
councilman
down.
No,
please
don't
move
we'll.
Just
ask
the
other
two
to
move
yes
and
you'll
share
microphones.
Thank
you.
Thank.
C
You,
madam
chairwoman,
in
I,
had
two
questions.
Great,
very
simple
answers
to
these
questions.
One
is
for
you,
dr.
Cohn.
Another
question
will
be
from
mr.
Vogel
and
mr.
horn.
Dr.
Kawas
want
to
make
sure
I
understand.
Well,
your
testimony
was
saying
you
were
talking
about
two
types
of
tests,
your
intestine,
a
blood
test
and
I.
Think
what
I
learned
is
that
the
blood
test
is
a
much
more
accurate
test
than
a
urine
test.
Is
that
accurate.
L
L
You're
absolutely
correct.
It's
the
same
thing
as
driving
under
influence
cases
in
a
criminal
situation.
The
statute,
if
you're
driving
a
motor
vehicle,
doesn't
say
that
you
cannot
operate
a
motor
vehicle.
If
you
have
a
point,
oh
eight
percent
you're,
an
alcohol
concentration.
It
says
the
blood
concentration
to
determine
whether
or
not
there
is
a
circulating
level
of
the
drug
sufficient
to
cause
impairment,
whereas
urine
that's
been
removed
from
the
system
is
trap.
Yes,
so.
C
L
But
it
should
be
reserved
only
for
reasonable
cost
cases
because
of
the
expense
and
the
venipuncture.
The
fact
that
you're
drawing
you
don't
want
to
be
drawing
thousands
or
tens
of
thousands
of
of
blood
draws
indiscriminately.
So
the
urine
is,
as
I
said,
the
urine
is
used
to
determine
use
in
a
pre-hire
situation.
If
it's,
if
there
is
a
use
of
the
drug,
that's
determined
by
the
positive
urine
test,
and
there
is
no
medical
documentation.
There's
no
medical
medical
marijuana
identification
card,
then
that
becomes
a
positive.
L
The
positive
is
not
turned
around
if
there
is
a
matter
if
there
is
a
legitimate
reason
for
with
that
medical
marijuana
cart,
then
that
positive
test
becomes
a
negative
to
the
employer,
the
Medical
Review
officer
reports
to
the
employer
a
negative
finding,
even
though
it
was
there.
So
the
accuracy
is
there.
It's
just
that.
You
can't
use
the
urine
to
determine
impairment.
Okay,.
C
Thank
you,
my
second
questions
for
both
of
our
attorneys
two
very
good
firms,
so
that
the
city
has,
by
the
way-
and
my
question
is
based
on
what
you've
heard
and
based
on
what
our
madam
chairwoman
would
like
to
see
come
out
of
this.
This
is
which
is
a
guide.
Basically,
if
you,
if
I
wasn't
one
of
the
companies
in
Philadelphia
and
I
called
your
firms
and
say,
can
you
give
me
a
guideline
as
to
how
to
deal
with
this
issue?
Is
that
currently
available
from
either
of
your
firms
that
you
provide.
J
So
councilmen
are
our
firm
prepared,
a
white
paper
that
laid
out
some
of
the
basic
parameters
of
the
law.
I
think
we
may
have
updated
it
at
at
some
point.
I,
don't
know
that
we
have
anything
that
says
comprehensive
or
in-depth
that
that
perhaps
the
committee
is
considering
now
it
was
more
along
the
lines
of
hey.
These
are
the
new
requirements.
You
should
be
aware
of
this
and
you
know
if
you
need
help
complying
with
it.
I
Our
experience
is
consistent
with
mister
Volga's
firm
and
what
we've
been
focused
on
an
example:
companies
that
have
policies,
drug
statement,
policies
and
employee
handbooks.
We've
been
revising
those
issues
to
take
into
account
number
one
that
you
can't
discriminate,
but
at
the
same
time
you
know
one
of
the
gaps
in
the
statute.
Is
you
can't
discriminate
with
that?
It
doesn't
say
anything
about.
If
you
have
a
mandatory
zero-tolerance
drug
test,
the
you
hire
them
on
day,
one
you
give
them
a
drug
test
on
day
two,
you
fire
only
day.
I
Well,
I
think
what
we
start
doing
is
look
at
what
policy
to
have
in
place
and
then
look
at
what's
in
the
statute
and
try
to
frame
a
policy
consistent
with
what
the
statute
provides
based
on
our
interpretation
of
the
statute.
Unfortunately
I'm,
in
my
opinion,
I
think.
Ultimately,
judges
will
be
deciding
what
that
means,
because
and
I
think
the
statute
was
written
open-ended
in
a
sense
because
there's
so
much
uncertainty
so.
C
J
A
B
D
I
And
I'll
use
the
what
is
what
does
it
mean
to
be
under
the
influence?
And
so
there
is
a
definition
for
under
the
influence,
if
you're
in
a
chemical
industry
or
you're
operating
with
electricity,
one
way
to
tighten
it
up
was
you
define
define
under
the
influence
whatever
they
define
that
to
be?
If
it's
gonna
be
10
nanograms
of
THC
in
the
blood
serum
and
that's
it,
but
I
think
that
would
be
one
way
to
at
least
close
that
gap.
It'll
still
be
an
issue
because,
as
dr.
I
Kuhn
said,
it's
these
from
your
system
for
quite
some
time
right
and
if
you're,
a
heavy
user
with
people
who
are
suffering
from
one
at
serious
medical
conditions,
maybe
so
that
you
could
be.
You
could
have
a
very
high
level
of
THC
your
blood
and
not
be
high
that
work,
and
so,
but
I
think
you
know
if
there's
only
so
much
you
can
do
and
I
think
if
they
define
really
what
under
the
influence
means
I'd
be
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
L
L
Thc
does
not
stay
in
the
blood
for
a
long
time.
The
it's
it's
relatively,
it's
relatively
dissipates,
relatively
faster.
It's
sucked
into
the
non
water
compartments
of
the
body
and
small
amounts
will
leach
out.
You
probably
can
be
probably
by
the
routine
methods
detected
for
maybe
five
to
seven
hours
or
so
after
its
last
use.
L
That
said,
how
will
the
employer
know
that
it's
10
nanograms
you're
never
going
to
know,
but
the
test
is
what
proves
it?
But
if
you're
going
to
pull
that
individual
the
time
to
do
it
is
immediately
and
not
wait
and
not
bring
other
people
than
to
say
what
does
he
look
like?
If
maybe
I
should
do
this
or
maybe
I
should
because
those
levels
are
are
falling.
A
You
so
very
much
and
again:
I
hope
we're
not
holding
you,
but
I
do
want
you
if
you
will
to
just
remain
seated
while
we
acts
a
panel
3
mr.
Mike
Lee
from
the
DA's
office,
along
with
mr.
haire
sumeria
Harris,
to
give
their
testimony
because
I
think
responses
could
potentially
overlap,
and
we
can
start
with
mr.
Mike
Lee
from
the
district
attorney's
office.
K
Specifically,
the
district
attorney's
office
is
asked
to
testify
about
the
status
of
individuals
with
convictions
related
to
marijuana
and
their
ability
to
work
in
the
medical
marijuana
industry
and,
secondarily
how
we,
as
law
enforcement,
may
handle
cases
with
visa
holders,
daca
recipients
and
undocumented
immigrants,
as
it
relates
to
medical
marijuana
to
the
first
point
of
people
with
convictions
working
in
the
medical
marijuana
industry,
the
Act
as
I
understand.
It
defines
three
basic
categories
of
industry,
employment.
K
The
first
would
be
that
of
a
doctor
and
the
statute
is
or
the
Act
excuse
me
as
silent
as
to
if
a
prior
conviction
for
a
controlled
substance
will
prohibit
a
doctor
from
entering
into
the
training
program
to
become
certified
as
a
provider.
I
would
imagine
that
some
of
the
other
state
licensing
requirements
around
practicing
medicine
would
include
some
type
of
drug
testing
or
other
protections
for
the
public,
but
as
it
relates
to
the
medical
marijuana
act,
that
category
of
employment
is
silent
as
to
prior
convictions
for
marijuana.
K
The
second
category
would
be
that
of
a
caregiver,
which
is
a
person
authorized
to
pick
up
marijuana
at
a
dispensary
or
administer
it
to
a
registered
patient.
Those
individuals,
the
Department
and
I'm,
quoting
the
Act
here,
shall
deny
the
application
of
a
caregiver
who
has
been
convicted
of
a
criminal
offense
that
occurred
within
the
last
five
years
relating
to
either
the
sale
or
possession
of
drugs,
narcotics
or
controlled
substances.
K
The
department
also
may
deny
meaning
they
have
some
sort
of
discretion,
an
application
if
the
applicant
has
a
history
of
drug
abuse
or
of
diverting
controlled
substances
or
illegal
drugs.
So
essentially,
if
you
are
applying
to
be
a
caregiver
for
a
medical
marijuana
recipient,
a
conviction
within
the
last
five
years
shall
prohibit
you
from
getting
your
caregivers
license.
It
is
unclear
if
that
is
five
years
from
the
conviction
date,
five
years
from
the
offense
date
or
five
years
from
the
end
of
supervision,
all
of
which
could
would
be
different
moments.
K
Time
of
when
the
clock
would
start
ticking.
The
third
category
of
employment,
as
defined
by
the
Medical
Marijuana
Act,
is
a
very
large
catch-all
called
medical
marijuana
organizations
and
that
would
include
growers
of
medical
marijuana.
Processors
of
medical
marijuana
in
medical
marijuana
dispensaries.
In
this
instance,
convictions
come
up
very
broadly.
K
Essentially,
you
may
not
volunteer
or
hold
any
compensated
position
for
if
you
have
a
conviction
for
this
sale
or
possession
of
illegal
drugs,
narcotics
or
controlled
substance,
there's
no
time
limit
as
to
when
how
old
a
conviction
can
be.
That
would
allow
even
discretion
for
the
board
to
grant
a
permit
to
an
organization
or
individual
employee,
and
that
would
include
financial
backers
of
a
dispensary,
processor
or
grow
of
medical
marijuana.
Principal
officers
of
those
three
or
employees.
K
So
I
think
that
would
cover
everyone
from
someone
who's
driving
a
truck
to
and
from
a
dispensary
someone's
selling
or
providing
or
dispensing
medical
marijuana
and
a
dispensary
up
through
a
financial
backer
of
medical
marijuana
organization
applying
for
a
permit
to
grow
marijuana,
as
that
relates
to
the
residents
of
Philadelphia.
It's
a
little
difficult
for
us
with
our
current
technology
to
discern
a
couple
things
within
our
data.
K
We
still
haven't
quite
been
able
to
parse
out
if
someone
is
a
resident
of
Philadelphia
when
their
conviction
occurred
or
if
they
were
visiting
or
correspondingly,
if
there,
with
a
conviction
from
another
steep
another
very
important
barrier.
That
we
discovered
is
that
the
racial
data
and
identification
is
usually
determined
in
a
sign
that
time
of
arrest
by
an
arresting
officer,
so
it
can
be
self
disclosed
where
they
add
an
officer,
ask
an
arrestee
how
they
identify
themselves
but
from
what
I've
been
able
to
gather
more
often
than
not.
K
K
So
even
with
our
preliminary
information,
we
can
see
a
very
disproportionate
impact
on
african-american
men
as
it
relates
to
marijuana
convictions.
In
fact,
I
was
playing
around
with
the
numbers
and
you
can
add
up
the
top
five
other
categories
and
still
not
come
close
to
the
total
amount
of
convictions
for
african-american
men
for
marijuana
related
offenses.
K
Conversely,
diversion
programs
are
offered
substantially
less
for
African
American
men
than
any
other
group.
In
fact,
it's
the
only
group
where
diversion
is
below
30%,
so
every
other
demographic,
racial
demographic
we
were
able
to
analyze,
had
at
least
30%
of
marijuana
related
arrests
going
into
some
type
of
diversion
program,
but
not
only
26%
for
African
American
men.
We
can't
really
speculate
as
to
why
that
was
historically,
but
some
of
the
policy
changes
that
we've
made
since
January.
We
hope
to
impact
and
change
that
drastically.
K
K
Another
thing
that
we're
doing
is
expanding
access
to
diversion
programs
to
include
more
marijuana
related
offenses,
but
that's
a
dual
edged
sword.
What
we're
trying
to
do
is
get
more
marijuana,
offenses
out
of
treatment,
court
and
drug
court
so
that
we
can
free
up
treatment
beds
and
other
resources
that
are
available
in
treatment
court
for
people
with
different
types
of
substance,
abuse
issues.
K
So,
for
example,
someone
who
might
have
an
opioid
issue
would
be
competing
with
someone
with
a
marijuana
abuse
issue
for
bread
space
if
they
were
in
the
same
treatment
court
program,
so
moving
diversion
persion
of
marijuana,
offenses
from
drug
treatment
to
other
forms
of
diversion
like
accelerated
rehabilitative
disposition
or
ard.
We
hope
will
continue
to
allow
us
to
help
people
who
need
services
for
other
types
of
substance,
abuse
and
increase
the
number
of
diversions,
as
it
relates
to
the
sale
of
marijuana.
Where
we've
already
said,
possession
we're
not
going
to
prosecute.
K
For
the
second
question
that
we
were
asked
concerning
immigration
or
visa
holders,
daca
recipients
and
undocumented
immigrants
in
medical
marijuana,
it's
very
important
to
remember
the
federal-state
distinction
and
it
plays
out
very
much
in
the
immigration
context.
I
believe
the
immigration
takes
a
similar
stance
as
our
state
police,
which
followed
Alcohol,
Tobacco
and
Firearms,
and
the
analysis
is
that
a
unlawful
user
of
or
someone
addicted
to
any
controlled
substance
doesn't
have
the
character
or
standing
to
own
a
firearm.
K
So,
therefore,
if
you
have
a
license
to
carry
a
firearm,
you
should
consider
that
against
your
desire
to
get
a
medical
marijuana
card,
because
once
you
get
a
medical
marijuana
card,
you
probably
will
have
your
ability
to
carry
a
firearm
revoked,
because
receiving
treatment
is
viewed
as
having
an
addiction
as
it
relates
to
this
federal
law
and
the
interpretation
by
the
ATF.
The
for
someone
who
is
not
a
citizen,
any
citation
or
conviction
for
marijuana
possession
or
sales
can
trigger
removal
proceedings
for
undocumented
immigrants
and
those
living
with
visas
or
on
temporary
status.
K
In
some
cases,
a
citation
or
conviction
for
marijuana
possession
can
also
trigger
removal
proceedings
for
a
lawful,
permanent
resident
any
admission
to
immigration
regarding
the
possession
of
marijuana
regardless,
if
it
is
legalized
or
medically
approved,
it
can
trigger
removal
denial
of
admission,
and
this
includes
on
a
naturalization
application.
If
an
immigrant
is
never
cited,
arrested
or
admits
to
the
possession,
then
there
may
not
be
any
type
of
consequence
for
it,
but
we
have
seen
anecdotally
an
increase
in
immigration
officers.
K
Asking
people
about
marijuana
use
and
people
are
volunteering,
particularly
in
states
where
it's
legalized,
recreationally
or
medically
yes,
I
use
marijuana,
which
can
therefore
a
trigger
removal.
Proceeding.
The
same
would
be
true,
almost
de-facto
by
having
a
medical
marijuana
card
that
would
imply
that
you
are
using
or
possessing
marijuana
and
could
therefore
trigger
removal
proceedings
and
I.
Think
something
that
took
me
back.
Some
was
that,
even
if
you
were
employed
in
the
medical
marijuana
field,
so
let's
say
I
had
a
job
driving
marijuana.
K
C
A
F
Thank
you
so
much
Cheryl
and
Parker,
and
members
of
the
labor
and
civil
service
committee.
My
name
is
Samir
Harris
I'm,
a
registered
nurse
and
the
medical
intensive
care
unit
at
I'm,
Stein,
Medical,
Center,
Philadelphia
I'm,
also
a
member
of
the
Executive
Board
of
the
Pennsylvania
Association
of
staff,
nurses
and
allied
professionals,
and
on
our
local
Einstein
nurses,
union.
So
I'm
here
from
the
perspective
of
the
labor
force
and
from
the
employee
perspective
of
this
as
a
medical,
professional,
I
support
the
medicinal
use
of
medical
marijuana
for
patients
that
are
in
need.
F
However,
I
do
have
some
concerns
about
how
employers
may
handle
employees
who
are
also
medical.
Marijuana
patients,
for
example,
passing
up
has
thousands
of
members
and
it
stands
to
reason
that
some
of
them
will
be
medical
marijuana.
Patients
I
think
I
can
personally
identify
nurses
that
have
at
least
four
or
five
of
those
medical
conditions
listed
on
that
board.
F
That
I
know
passed
that
members
work
for
hospitals
and
other
institutions
that
employ
drug
testing
upon
hiring
and
on
a
random
basis
after
hiring
and
that's
what
good
reason,
a
medical
professional
should
never
be
at
work
while
under
the
influence
of
a
prohibited
substance.
However,
what
about
the
medical,
professional
who's?
Also
a
medical
marijuana
patient
and
only
uses
medical
marijuana
during
their
off
hours.
F
Additionally,
as
the
doctor
stated
here,
we
know
that
the
mere
presence
of
the
metabolites
in
one's
urine
does
not
equate
to
impairment
and
the
drug
tests
don't
distinguish
whether
one
consumes
an
hour
ago
or
five
days
ago.
What
our
employees
are
going
to
do
is
what
our
employees
going
to
do
if
their
employees
test
positive
for
marijuana
but
said
employee,
is
a
medical
I
want
a
patient.
What
protections
do
we
have
in
place
for
employees
who
are
medical
marijuana
patients
I
know
at
my
organization
at
Einstein,
which
I
actually
think
is
represented
by
thoughts
rothschild?
F
We
have
no
protections
in
place
as
of
this
moment.
It's
because
of
unanswered
questions
like
these
that
I
applaud
Councilwoman
Parker
for
holding
this
hearing
on
medical
marijuana's
potential
impact
on
employers
and
employees
in
Philadelphia.
Now
that
medical
marijuana
is
being
rolled
out,
it's
imperative
that
we
get
some
of
these
questions
answered
before
these
hypotheticals
I
just
described,
to
become
a
reality.
Thank
you
so
much
for
having
me
today.
A
A
Let
me
just
I
wanted
to
make
sure
I
noted
this
and
I
want
to
get
this
on
a
record
I'm
reading
an
article
that
was
dated
February
the
1st
2018
and
it
was
from
NBC
10
and
it
says
Philadelphia
rep,
Jordan
Harris,
who
is
also
the
chair
of
the
Pennsylvania
legislative
black
caucus,
introduced
a
bill
to
automatically
expunge
cannabis
convictions
for
medical
marijuana
patients
in
Pennsylvania
and
representative
Harris
is
quoted
as
telling
NBC
10.
It
will
be
for
anyone
with
a
medical
marijuana
recommendation.
A
So
I
wanted
to
note
that,
for
the
record,
I
wanted
to
come
quickly
if
I
could
I'll
come
back
to
it.
If
I
find
it
and
come
back
to
it.
I
wanted
to
ask
you
Mike
and
I,
wanted
you
to
help,
explain
it
as
simply
as
you
possibly
can,
if
I
according
to
the
law,
as
enacted
by
the
General
Assembly,
if
I
suffer
from
one
of
the
serious
medical
conditions
listed
in
one
of
the
physicians
authorized
to
prescribe
on
the
law.
K
First,
the
statistics
I
gave
you
are
for
conviction
totally,
so
it
is
possible
that
one
person
could
have
more
than
one
person
could
have
multiple
convictions
and
work
not
quite
able
at
this
point
to
discern
if
someone
has
repeat
offenses,
but
we
hope
to
provide
that
information
more
specifically
to
your
question.
I
believe
that
is
correct.
You
would
not
be
able
to
designate
that
individual
as
you
caregiver,
in
the
context
of
them
being
able
to
go
to
a
dispensary,
show
their
caregiver
authorization.
K
A
If
I
have
a
son
or
daughter
or
a
relative
or
someone
who
is
my
designated
caregiver,
because
I
have
one
of
the
serious
medical
conditions
listed
up
here
in
this
PowerPoint
and
they
were
convicted
I
think
you
talked
about
like
a
small
dosage
small
use,
they
were
convicted,
even
if
it
was
small
use,
they
cannot
go
and
get
my
prescription
filled
for
me
and
come
back
to
administer
it
to
me
even
with
one
of
the
diseases
that
are
listed
here.
Correct.
I
Joshua
Horne
for
the
record,
so
just
to
pick
up
on
the
point
that
the
statute
is
pretty
specific,
on
what
a
caregiver,
how
you
get
a
caregiver,
and
so
when
you
as
the
patient,
apply
to
be
certified
in
the
program.
You
would
also
include
that
in
your
request
for
certification,
and
so
then,
if
the
caregiver
is
disqualified
for
some
reason,
then
it
doesn't
necessarily
disqualify
the
patient
from
becoming
a
medical
marijuana
recipient.
It
just
disqualifies
the
caregiver
and
the
statute
is
clear
about
the
the
criminal
component.
I
C
K
C
The
other
question
I
have
is
right.
Now
our
prison
population
has
reduced
up
on
State
Road,
but
the
six
prisons
we
have
from
8200
down
to
6100,
with
the
MacArthur
grant
all
the
great
things
we're
doing.
How
many
people
do
you
think
we
currently
have
of
the
6100
that
would
not
have
been
arrested
if
that
policy
was
in
place,
I.
K
Would
using
the
51
arrests
in
one
week
that
we
were
able
to
identify
in
late
January
I
would
times
that
by
four
and
say
two
hundred
people
a
month
were
being
arrested
and
in
charge
with
small
amount
of
marijuana.
I,
don't
know
what
the
prior
bail
guidelines
would
call
for
in
that
instance.
So
it's
a
little
difficult
to
say
with
any
certainty,
but
that's
definitely
something
we
can
look
into
so.
C
Let
me
answer
this
question:
if
we
arrested
somebody
in
December
of
seventeen
onto
the
old
policy,
but
they
committed
the
same
exact
crime
in
February
of
eighteen,
they
would
have
gone
with
a
citation,
maybe
in
February
of
18th
and
not
gone
to
prison.
Can
we
find
out
how
many
people
are
currently
up
on
State
Road
under
that
that
would
not
have
been
arrested
and
is
there
a
way
I,
don't
know
the
legality
of
this
to
free
them?
Basically,
based
on
this
change
of
policy,
yes,.
K
And
yes,
we
are
currently
going
through
the
last
few
months
to
see
if
there's
any
ongoing
cases
where
we
stuff
an
opportunity
to
withdraw
petitions
and
we're
looking
into
ways
to
notify
people
who
are
still
within
the
appeal
period
to
say
you
had
this
small
amount
of
marijuana
conviction
which
is
graded
as
a
misdemeanor
in
Pennsylvania,
and
just
to
give
some
context
for
the
full
collateral
consequence
of
that
type
of
misdemeanor
conviction.
It
would
be
a
permanent
bar
from
jury
duty
if
you
have
a
smaller
marijuana
conviction.
K
So
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
identify
as
many
of
those
individuals
as
possible
who
haven't
been
convicted
yet
to
withdraw
prosecution
as
well
as
seeing
if
we
can
identify
other
individuals
who
are
still
within
their
appellate
rights
so
that
they
can
appeal.
And
then
we
can
withdraw
a
prosecution
at
that
point.
So.
C
There's
two
points
the
other
I
want
to
bring
up.
One
is
if
we
can
do
that,
I'd
like
to
see
what
we
can
do
it
about
getting
their
records,
changed
or
cleared
or
improved
based
on
this
new
policy
expunged
or
whatever
and
I
just
want
to
bring
to
light
that
the
costs
of
the
prison
system
is
currently
with
fringe
benefits,
because
we
never
count
that
three
hundred
and
seventy
million
dollars
we've
gone
from
eighty
two
hundred
to
sixty-one
hundred
that's
a
25%
reduction.
C
Our
prisons
budget
hasn't
changed
by
the
way
fact
it
went
up
four
million
dollars
the
last
budget
hearing
and
now
we're
averaging
60659
$5
per
prison
per
person
per
year
or
166
dollars
per
day
or
$5,000
per
month.
So,
if
we're
at
6,100
now
we're
supposed
to
go
down
to
5500
and
you're
gonna
find
this
500
or
so
people,
and
whatever
the
number
is
we
get
down
to
5,000.
C
We
can
start
really
seriously
closing
one
or
two
prisons
which,
by
the
way,
at
a
time
when
we're
talking
about
raising
taxes,
there's
a
tremendous
amount
of
money.
If
our
budgets
370
in
our
prison
reductions,
3035
percent
I,
would
challenge
the
department
to
cut
15%
of
that
budget
or
15
million
a
year,
which
is
250
million
over
five
years.
That's
2250
million
of
what
the
narratives
of
900
is
a
big
piece.
What
we
need
to
save
and
the
savings
should
occur.
C
K
And
to
respond
to
that
excellent
point:
first,
we
also
when
we
identified
those
51
cases.
We've
also
contacted
Philadelphia
lawyers
for
social
equity
and
the
defenders
Association
to
try
to
figure
out
a
way
to
also
alert
those
individuals
of
their
right
to
an
expungement.
It's
a
little
awkward
for
the
district
attorney's
office
to
bring
forward
that
motion,
but
we've
made
it
clear
that
we
won't
oppose
the
expungement
of
those
those
charges
in
particular,
but
more
generally,
a
broad
view.
K
Another
policy
record
implementation
that
we
have
done,
that
we
don't
quite
have
the
same
control
over
is.
We
are
recommending
that
positive
test
for
marijuana
not
violate
somebody
and
I
think
a
lot
of
the
population
that
we
might
see
impacted
by
use
of
marijuana
in
state
prison
or
federal
prison
or
a
county
jail
excuse
me
is
as
a
result
of
a
violation
of
a
condition
of
supervision
and
not
necessarily
a
new
arrest
or
the
existing
arrest
for
marijuana.
K
Only
so
we
are
looking
to
see
how
many
of
those
individuals
would
could
be
released,
but
for
the
violation
based
off
a
positive
test
and
I.
Think
it'd
also
be
interesting
to
see
what
that
department's
policy
would
be
for
medical
marijuana
recipients
and
positive
drug
tests
for
probation
or
parole.
How.
C
A
Thank
you
of
two
members
of
this
panel
I
just
for
the
record
wanna
note
that
the
what
we
hear
those
loud
voices
you
know
advocating
fervently
and
passionately
for
what
they
believe
in
our
students
from
our
region
who
are
participating
in
the
National
School,
a
walkout
for
gun
reform
and
reducing
gun
violence.
They
are
outside
marching
and
so
I
am.
When
I
heard
them.
It
was
like
hearing
a
baby
crying
councilman
down
there.
You
know
those
were
activists
there
and
we're
excited.
A
Let
me
just
say
for
the
record:
I
want
to
thank
each
and
every
one
of
you
and
I
just
quickly
want
to
go
through
these
names
again
for
the
benefit
of
not
just
those
who
are
here,
but
for
the
public
who
are
watching.
We
want
to
thank
you,
vet,
a
Nunez
VP
for
the
Chamber
of
Commerce
Pedro
Rodriguez,
who
is
our
director
of
human
resources
here
in
the
city
rule
and
all
the
NZ
executive
director
for
our
Commission
on
human
relations,
George
Vogel,
Vogel,.
A
I
was
a
member
of
closing
O'connor's
Labor
and
Employment
Department
Joshua
her.
He
is
the
co-chair
of
Fox
Rothschilds,
cannabis
law
practice
and
a
member
of
the
Philadelphia
Bar
Association's
medical
marijuana
and
hemp
committee,
I'm,
dr.
Richard
Kahn,
a
forensic
toxicologist
with
drugged,
skin
and
those
very
trying
statistics,
and
that
data
that
you
heard
came
from
a
gentleman
named
Mike
Lee,
who
many
of
us
has
fed.
If
his
face
is
familiar
to
you
and
the
public
will
watch
it.
A
Note
that
you,
you
know,
can
know
of
a
few
people
who
suffer
from
at
least
three
to
four
of
those
who
are
actually
working.
Nurses
right
now
in
the
nursing
industry
in
the
medical
industry,
who
could
be
impacted
by
the
unintended
consequences
associated
with
this
law.
I
think
you
affirmed
for
us
just
why
we
needed
to
have
this
hearing
and
to
begin
this
discussion.
I
also
want
to
give
credit
where
credit
is
due
and
say
a
special
thanks
to
a
lawyer.
A
I've
never
met,
but
it
was
an
article
that
he
actually
published
that
I
read
in
the
legal
intelligent.
His
name
is
John
McCreary.
He
is
a
lawyer
at
bats
and
kalyn
in
Pittsburgh,
and
in
that
article
he
wrote
the
imprecision
of
the
medical
marijuana
act.
Statutory
language
addressing
employment,
injects
needless
uncertainty
into
the
employer,
employee
relationship
and
will
likely
not
be
resolved,
absence
litigation.
It
was
reading
that
article
and
that
quote
in
particular
that
raised
the
red
flags.
A
We
were
dealing
with
this
issue
from
another
perspective,
but
we
thought
about
the
unintended
consequences
associated
with
employment
in
the
industry
that
you
know
adds
value,
has
positive
externalities
for
people
who
need
this
support.
But
how
could
we
in
the
city
of
Philadelphia
be
proactive
and
using
our
platform
to
educate
and
inform
or
developing
a
formal
process
whereby
we
inform
our
residents,
along
as
they
learn
to
live
in
the
realm
of
Pennsylvania's
new
law?
So
I
want
to
thank
each
and
every
one
of
you
for
your
testimony.
A
You
have
married
to
us
on
this
issue
now.
So
rest
assured,
council
will
not
be
attempting
to
make
any
recommendations
to
the
state
or
I
will
not
be
recommending
or
any
any
other
committee
members
for
labor
and
civil
service,
making
any
recommendations
to
the
state
of
on
the
development
of
any
guidelines
even
relative
to
employment.
If
we
have
not
called
you
all
back,
who've
added
value
to
hear
our
hearing
today
to
ask
you
to
be
a
part
of
helping
to
guide
us
as
we
as
we
move
forward.
D
Just
want
to
do
anvil
to
say
and
reiterate
what
the
chair,
lady
has
just
said,
chair
lady
Parker
I
really
want
to.
Thank
you
really
for
your
time,
which
I
know
is
valuable.
I
found
all
this
very,
very,
very
informative,
and
the
time
you
spent
here
and
I
had
to
wait
some
time
as
well
on
the
time
that
you
were
the
witness
table
was
very
productive
in
my
end
and
I
do
greatly
appreciate
you
being
here.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
all
again.
Also.
We
just
want
to
note
before
we
close.
Our
focus
was
very
much
on
unintended
consequences
associated
with
the
medical
marijuana
law
and
its
impact
on
employees
and
employers.
It
was
not
until
your
your
testimony,
mr.
Lee,
that
you
also
just
raised
another
flag
for
us
relative
to
the
the
negative
negative
unintended
consequences
for
people
who
are
highly
likely
and/or
probable,
to
have
someone
or
may
be
considering
one
to
serve
as
their
caregiver
and
who
needs
the
support,
but
may
have
been
impacted.
A
You
know,
or
have
a
previous
conviction,
particularly
for
the
small,
the
small
dose
that
you've
actually
stop
prosecuting
here
in
the
city
of
Philadelphia.
But
you
make
us
think
how
many
residents
of
the
city
of
Philadelphia
you
have.
One
of
those
serious
medical
conditions
are
under
the
care
of
a
physician
who's
certified
to
prescribe,
but
don't
have
anyone
close
to
them
or
or
near
them,
or
they
even
know.
Maybe
they
could
call
someone
at
PCA.
A
Maybe
they
could
call
a
social
worker
I'm
sure
there
are
options,
but
we're
in
government,
and
we
sort
of
think
that
way
the
average
Philadelphia
citizen
just
may
not
so
we
have
to
in
our
minds.
You
know
sort
of
figure
out
how
we
work
through
that
maze
and
the
delivery
of
that
service.
So
there
is,
you
know,
no
discrimination
and
those
who
are
having
access
even
to
the
medication
that
has
now
become
legal
in
the
in
the
Commonwealth
of
Pennsylvania
and
benefit
resident
could
benefit
residents
of
the
city.