►
From YouTube: House Criminal Committee- April 27, 2021
Description
House Criminal Committee- April 27, 2021
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
B
House
bill
1143,
as
amended,
is
a
simple
bill
that
increases
the
penalty
when
a
person
with
a
conviction
for
vehicular
salt
aggravated
vehicular
assault,
vehicular
homicide
aggravated
vehicular,
homicide
or
driving,
while
intoxicated
is
caught
for
a
third
time,
while
driving
with
a
canceled
suspended
or
revoked
license.
This
bill
enhances
the
penalty
from
a
slap
on
the
wrist
class,
a
misdemeanor
to
a
class
c
felony.
To
be
clear.
This
bill
only
enhances
the
penalty
because
of
the
violent
dangerous
actions
that
the
licensee
already
been
convicted
for.
A
Thank
you
very
much
for
that
explanation.
Members.
You
have
any
questions
for
the
sponsor
of
the
amendment.
Seeing
none
we're
ready
to
vote
all
those
in
favor
of
attaching
amendment
coded
7538
to
house
bill.
1143,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
those
opposed
you
adopt
members
you've
heard
the
explanation
of
the
bill
hasn't
amended
any
further
questions,
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor
of
sending
house
bill.
1143
is
amended
to
finance,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
those
opposed,
sir.
You
had
to
finance.
B
A
D
A
A
E
A
My
jokes
were
funnier
at
the
beginning
of
the
year,
but
you
weren't
here
then
so
yeah
no
sir
we've
had
questions
been
called
on
your
amendment
without
objection,
we're
ready
to
vote
all
those
in
favor
of
attaching
amendment
coded
6228
to
house
bill.
924,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
those
opposed
you
adopt.
Members
you've
heard
the
explanation
of
the
bill
as
amended.
We
have
any
further
questions
for
the
sponsor
representative,
dixie
you're
recognized.
B
E
B
E
A
A
E
A
E
So
this
this
bill
and
the
amendment
essentially
redefines
aggravated
animal
cruelty
to
be
those
acts
very
specifically
that
kills
mames,
tortures,
crushes
burns,
drowns,
suffocates,
mutilates,
starves
or
otherwise
causes
serious
physical
injury,
a
substantial
risk
of
death
or
a
death
to
a
companion
animal,
or
fails
to
provide
food
or
water
to
the
companion
animal,
resulting
in
substantial
risk
of
death
or
death.
There
is
no
escalated
penalties
or
enhanced
penalties.
Instead,
it's
just
very
clear,
very
clarifying
definition.
A
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
on
your
amendment.
It
says
it
includes
intentionally
or
knowingly
failing
to
provide
food
or
water.
What
is
somewhat
my
only
question
is
what,
if
someone's
poor,
can't
afford
dog
food?
You
know
we
have
a
lot
of
homeless
people
who
have
animals
kind
of
walking
with
them,
and
things
like
that.
Well,
they
get
in
trouble
because
they
know
they
have
an
animal
and
they
know
they
can't
really
feed
them
because
they
don't
have
the
money.
Can
you
kind
of
just
talk
through
that?
For
me,
please.
E
E
G
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
chair
and
my
good
friend
from
shelby
county
that
on
that
situation,
the
failure
to
provide
food
or
water
to
the
companion
animal
has
to
result
in
a
substantial
risk
of
death
or
actual
death.
So,
while
not
an
ideal
situation,
it
has
to
be
a
serious
deprivation
of
food
and
water
that
it
jeopardizes
animals
is
the
way
I
read.
Is
that
correct?
Mr
sponsor
representative
smith.
Thank.
E
You
chairman,
and
I
would
agree
with
my
colleague
and
and
again
there
there's
this.
This
is
not
meant
to
ensnare
individuals.
Instead,
this
is
a
law
that
allows
a
prosecutor,
a
very
much
more
subjective
means
to
be
able
to
prosecute,
rather
than
the
very
broad
definition
of
sadistic
and
depraved
manner.
That
many
times
results
in
having
to
bring
in
a
psychologist
and
or
a
mental
health
expert
to
be
involved
in
the
case.
A
Members
you've
heard
the
explanation
any
further
questions
for
the
sponsor
seeing
none.
We
are
ready
to
vote
on
attaching
amendment
coded
6819
to
house
bill
733,
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
saying
aye
aye.
Those
opposed
you
adopt.
Members
are
on
the
bill
as
amended
any
further
questions.
Seeing
none
was
there
a
question.
Okay,
all
those
in
favor
of
sending
house
bill.
733
is
amended
to
calendar
and
rules.
Please
signify
by
saying
aye
those
opposed
ma'am.
You
had
to
calendar
rules.
A
G
B
A
Thank
you,
representative
chisholm.
Yes,
I've
got
jimmy
on
the
list.
I
also
have
a
kathleen
murphy.
Is
that
correct?
That's
correct,
okay!
Without
objection,
we're
gonna
go
out
of
session.
We
are
out
of
session
and
if
mr
closure
and
miss
miss
murphy
are
in
the
room,
looks
like
they
are
come
on
forward.
If
you
could,
please
sit
down
the
microphone
in
front
of
you
if
you'll
press
the
button
that
looks
like
a
mouth
talking,
the
red
light
will
illuminate
whichever
one
of
you
will
speak.
A
I
Thank
you.
My
name
is
jimmy
klosser,
I'm
a
advanced
emt
registered
in
the
state
of
tennessee,
I'm
also
a
registered
nurse
a
certified
emergency
nurse.
I
work
at
vanderbilt
university
medical
center
in
the
er.
I
also
coordinate
the
stroke
program.
There
go
okay,
I
guess.
The
reason
I
was
called
here
today
is
to
kind
of
tell
my
story:
I've
about
13
years
in
the
fire,
ems
and
nursing
community.
I
I
love
what
I
do.
I
love
taking
care
of
my
patients.
I
love
helping
get
patients
well,
what
happens
in
the
er
and
other
units
is
sometimes
incredibly
demanding.
We
are
attacked.
There's
many
many
many
cases
of
nurses
being
attacked
egregiously
that
goes
unprosecuted.
It
goes
unreported
many
times
because
they
feel
like
nothing,
will
happen
other
times
it's
just.
They
feel
like
it's
not
worth
their
time.
I
I
So
when
I
entered
the
room,
I
was
detaching
some
of
the
iv
tubing
and
all
of
a
sudden
out
of
nowhere.
I
was
punched
multiple
times
in
the
face.
I
was
then
grabbed
by
my
lanyard,
which
unfortunately
wasn't
a
detachable
lanyard,
and
I
had
my
stethoscope
around
my
neck
and
so
both
of
those
things
pulled
me
down.
We
went
down
to
the
bed
as
the
patient
did
so
and
increased
the
tightness
around
my
neck,
the
patient
kept
saying
I
wanted
to
kill
you.
I
I
hope
you
effing
die,
there's
a
lot
of
other
expletives
in
there
that
I
will
just
withhold
from
in
the
testimony,
but
luckily
there
was
a
security
officer
walking
by
and
tried
to
help
separate
us.
The
problem
was
the
security
officer
landed
sort
of
in
the
elbow
area
of
the
patient,
and
so
that
even
increased
the
amount
of
leverage
on
me.
If
it
wasn't
for
my
stethoscope
breaking
in
half,
I
would
have
probably
died.
I
was
about
to
gray
out.
I
was
blacked
out.
I
I
woke
up
in
the
middle
of
the
hallway
somehow
without
a
shirt
on,
and
I
had
a
bunch
of
lacerations
to
my
neck.
I
had
to
be
checked
into
the
emergency
department
where
I
worked
and
give
up
taking
care
of
my
three
patients
who
were
incredibly
sick.
I
remember
waking
up
and
trying
to
go
check
on
one
of
my
other
patients
because
they
had
a
heart
problem
and
we
were
trying
to
slow
their
heart
rate
down,
but
anyway
it
was
incredibly
traumatic.
It
was
incredibly
emotional,
I'm
a
tall
guy.
I
Ultimately,
I
press
charges
and
after
a
couple
years
there
was
really
nothing
that
materialized
as
far
as
accountability,
for
that
particular
patient
each
case
is
different.
I
realized
that,
but
I'm
really
hopeful
today
that
you
guys
are
supportive
of
increasing
the
penalty,
because
the
here's,
the
other
thing
guys
is
when
this
happens
to
us
it
makes
us
want
to
get
out
of
the
career.
That
is,
we
have
a
huge
nursing
shortage
in
the
state
of
tennessee
and
every
time
this
happens,
I
mean
I
wanted
to
quit.
I
I
took
a
six-month
sabbatical
in
2017
because
of
this,
and
I
haven't
been
the
same
since
you
know
I
battled
some
depression.
I
battled
you
know
emotional,
whatever
you
want
to
call
it,
I
feel
the
best
I've
ever
felt
now,
but
that's
you
know,
four
years
later
so
or
five
years
later
now,
so
that's.
Thank
you.
Basically,
what.
A
E
I
Recognized
yes,
sir,
I
just
talked
to
a
nurse
walking
out
of
the
hospital
today
that
had
been
punched
and
she
knew
of
my
case
and
with
vanderbilt
police
department.
They
did
not
press
charges
because
they
didn't
think
anything
was
going
to
happen
from
it.
She's
very
tiny,
she's,
probably
like
4
foot
11..
I
I
just
feel
for
everyone.
That's
not
as
big
as
I
am.
You
know.
It
happens
all
the
time
I
have
probably
10
or
11
people
that
have
come
up
to
me.
Just
at
vanderbilt
alone.
That
have
kind
of
said:
hey,
like
this
happened
to
me
too,
whether
it
be
punched
or
slapped
or
spit
on
there's
lot
objects
thrown
at
healthcare
providers.
I
I
Are
you
recognized?
Thank
you,
sir
yeah.
I
took
that
sabbatical.
As
I
mentioned
mentioned.
I
love
what
I
do
and
if,
if
it
wasn't
for
kind
of
taking
over
some
of
the
roles
in
the
stroke
department,
I
probably
would
be
out
of
the
profession
at
this
moment.
If
it
wasn't
for
my
incredible
boss
now
and
the
support
that
I
had
from
my
institution,
I
would
not
be
in
the
health
care
industry.
I'd
probably
be
selling
something
or
whatever.
E
G
I
suspect
that
what
happened
to
you
is
not
an
uncommon
occurrence
throughout
the
medical
industry
and
if
we
don't
set
a
bright
line
and
say
you
know
we're
simply
not
going
to
tolerate
this.
This
kind
of
actions
against
our
health
care
workers
and
protect
them.
You
know
we
we're
going
to
fall
on
our
mission,
so
we
need
to
do
that
and
I
appreciate
you
coming
and
giving
us
your
testimony.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
K
Thank
you
chairman,
and
thank
you
for
being
here
today.
My
favorite
folks,
as
most
of
my
colleagues
know,
are
nurses
and
teachers
right
both
of
you
choose
a
career
as
opposed
to
a
job,
and
it's
that
dedication
with
that
passion
that
causes
us
to
have
one
of
the
best
health
care
systems
in
the
world.
K
I
would
suggest
that
it's
not
only
about
the
physical
abuse,
but
it's
about
the
emotional,
the
psychological
trauma.
Any
of
those
items
would
keep
you
from
doing
the
very
best
job
you
can
do
so.
I
would
ask
that
my
colleagues
would
give
this
bill
the
favorable
vote,
so
we
can
show
our
support
for
you
and
we
can
put
a
deterrent
in
place
that
will
allow
our
first
responders,
not
no
one's
more
important
than
our
health
care
workers
and
there's
no
health
care
worker
more
important
than
the
nurses.
K
B
B
I
G
L
L
Could
you-
and
I
know
that
the
main
focus
of
our
conversation
today
has
been
around
the
er,
but
as
a
nurse
and
your
medical
experience
there,
if
there
are
other
places
that
we
may
not
see
here
in
this
committee,
that
that
a
nurse
would
maybe
come
into
contact
with
somebody,
that's
being
combative
or
or
being
assaultive
on
them.
Could
you
share
some
other
places
that
that
nurses,
that
this
would
help
nurses
in
other
areas
of
the
medical
field
as
well
sure.
I
I
It
happens
quite
often
we're
very
fortunate
to
have
a
great
police
department
in
our
hospital
that
is
trained
in
de-escalation
and
is
trained
in
a
in
a
healthcare
setting
for
specific
tactics
that
are
de-escalating,
but
many
hospitals
don't
have
that
luxury
and
they
actually
have
to
call
like
the
local,
sheriff's
department
or
police
department
for
them
to
respond
in
they're,
not
in-house,
so
that
response
time
is
extremely
lengthy
at
times,
so
that
that's
an
internal
process
per
hospital,
but
you're
absolutely
right.
It
happens
all
across
the
hospital
nursing
homes.
B
And
chairman,
if
I
may
add,
the
statistics
are
that
one
in
four
nurses
are
assaulted,
on
the
job
and
about
13
of
sick
leave
or
time
off
is
caused
because
of
workplace
injuries
or
workplace
violence.
And
so
this
those
statistics.
I
think,
very
clearly
demonstrate
that
this
isn't
just
in
the
emergency
room
to
kind
of
reach
those
statistics,
and
so
so
it
is
happening
not
just
from.
A
A
M
M
M
A
M
A
L
L
If
they're
assaulted
by
a
student,
are
there
any
provisions
that
deal
with
that
in
this
bill,
or
is
it
something
totally
different?
Maybe
that
would
go
through
juvenile
but
but
that,
just
if
we're
making
an
enhancement
here
would
it
have?
Would
it
carry
over
to
the
juvenile
realm?
If
there
was
maybe
a
student
assaulted,
a
nurse
while
she
was
in
the
process
for
duties
or
his
duties?
Thank
you.
L
Okay,
thank
you
and
I
have
one
other
question,
mr
chairman.
Yes,
sir
you're
recognized
and
also
I
noticed
in
there
the
cnas
certified
nurse
assistants.
I
did
not
see
that
listed
in
here.
It
said
title
67,
section
11.,
something
along
those
lines
was
where
the
or
section
7,
maybe
it
was
or
no
it
wasn't
lit.
L
N
A
K
K
K
A
A
A
O
A
A
This
partnership
resulted
in
the
governor's
use
of
force
policy
committee,
which
issued
recommendations
on
september,
the
10th
2020
in
the
form
of
sample
use
of
force
policy
for
law
enforcement
agencies
to
adopt
across
the
state.
This
bill,
as
amended,
seeks
to
codify
these
best
practices
to
ensure
that
the
men
and
women
of
law
enforcement
continue
to
excel
in
their
role
of
keeping
tennesseans
safe
and,
quite
frankly,
I
think
it
goes
a
long
way
to
show
in
the
rest
of
the
country
that
in
tennessee
we
lead.
We
do
things
correctly.
H
Thank
you,
mr
vice
chairman
to
our
chairman.
Thank
you
for
all
your
hard
work
on
this,
and
we
actually
really
appreciate
your
work
throughout
this
entire
year.
You've
led
our
committee
very
well.
So
thank
you.
I
know
you
did
a
deep
dive
in
this.
I
was
uncomfortable
with
the
last
section
in
language
and
subcommittee.
I
still
believe
that
no
knock
warrant
should
have
guardrails
on
them.
I
think
we
should
put
that
bar
extraordinarily
high.
H
There
are
rare
circumstances
where
there
are
direct
threats
to
law
enforcement,
where
individuals
articulate
before
a
search
warrant
or
any
action,
that's
taken
by
law
enforcement
that
they
intend
to
kill
members
of
law
enforcement
anywhere
else
that
comes
in
that's
the
circumstance
that
a
no
knock
warrant
should
be
utilized.
We've
seen
stories
in
the
news
and
in
the
media
where
literally
lives
would
have
been
saved,
had
a
no
knock
warrant
been
used.
H
H
I
hope
that
it
is
not
an
issue
that
puts
someone
in
a
situation
where
it
costs
their
lives
and
I'm
asking
all
of
our
law
enforcement
officers
to
pay
very
close
attention
to
this
bill,
follow
the
tenets
of
it
and
literally
literally,
do
what
you
do
best
every
day,
which
is
go
out
there
and
save
lives,
but
keep
your
keep
our
officers
safe
too,
because
this
is
a
bit
of
a
shift.
I
mean
these
no
knock
warrants
are
extremely
rare
to
be
used
and
it
will
change
the
way
law
enforcement
approaches
this.
H
I
actually
hope
that
long
term
it
will
mean
that
folks
are
safer.
I
really
do
and,
mr
chairman,
I
know
that's
what
your
goal
is,
so
I
I
had
raised
questions
and
concerns
in
the
subcommittee
and
so
merely
wanted
to
state
on
the
record
that
I
appreciated
your
work
and
will
stand
in
favor
of
this
bill
today.
H
B
Thank
you.
I
would
like
to
echo
what
the
leader
just
said
behind
me.
This
is,
I
know
it
took
a
lot
of
work
to
go
in
here,
and
I
know
it
took
a
lot
of
movement
to
get
especially
nina
lambert
to
where
he
is
now.
I've
talked
to
him
too,
so
I
know
he's
hard
to
move
on
certain
things,
but
I
think
this
is
a
great
bill
and
I
appreciate
everything
that
you've
done
for
it
because
last
year,
several
of
my
democratic
members.
B
B
K
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
certainly
appreciate
the
sponsor
bringing
the
bill.
The
contents
of
the
bill-
they're
not
perfect,
but
they're
certainly
light
years
away
from
where
we
are
now,
and
they
will
get
us
eventually
because
there's
a
data
collection
and
data
analysis.
The
ability
to
measure
how
this
works
out.
K
O
A
A
Thank
you
chairman
terry
for
that
explanation
and
yes,
I
have
actually
filed
an
amendment.
It
is
untimely,
so
the
committee
would
need
to
vote
whether
or
not
to
consider
that
amendment
I'm
happy
to
explain
what
the
differences
are.
It's
in
the
the
final
section
of
the
bill
dealing
with
a
patient's
right
to
carry
and
use
a
firearm,
and
I've
spoken
with
chairman
terry,
about
this
and
and
and
chairman
terry.
A
We
were
saying
that
folks
could
carry
a
weapon
if
they
were
under
the
influence
and
that's
not
how
we
treat
any
other
drugs,
and
I
don't
think
that
was
the
intent
of
your
language,
and
so
I
think
this
amendment,
if
you
all
consider
to
hear
it
more
closely,
reaches
the
chairman's
intent
with
regard
just
to
that
carry
piece.
The
second.
Q
A
Thank
you.
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
to
consider
the
amendment
all
those
in
favor
of
considering
the
amendment
say,
aye
those
opposed
okay.
We
will
now
consider
the
amendment
members
again.
You've
heard
really.
The
rest
of
the
amendment
is
identical
to
the
chairman's
language,
but
this
is
amendment
coded
7768
and
would
just
tighten
up
that
language
about
not
being
able
to
carry
if
you
were
under
the
influence.
A
Sorry,
a
motion
on
the
amendment.
Do
I
hear
a
second
okay,
all
those
in
favor
of
adopting
amendment
coded
7768
to
house
bill
880,
please
signify
by
saying
I
I
those
opposed
you
adopt.
The
amendment
is
on
the
bill
chairman,
terry,
we're
back
to
you
again.
Everything
else
is
the
same,
and,
and
it
was
in
your
original
bill.
P
Thank
you
and
thank
you,
chairman
committee,
and
again
I
appreciate
you,
that's
why
these
bills
go
through
several
committees,
because
folks
on
other
committees,
can
dive
down
a
little
bit
deeper
and
appreciate
you
enhancing
the
intent
or
finding
the
intent
of
what
I
was
looking
at
at
its
heart.
This
bill
is
a
criminal
justice
reform
bill
for
patients
and
an
opportunity
to
advance
science
by
allowing
tennesseans
to
participate
in
cannabis,
medical
research.
P
It
sets
up
a
book
in
study
program
and
directs
the
department
of
health
to
conduct
a
baseline
study
of
medical
cannabis
licensure
in
contiguous
states,
due
by
december
15
2021
and
a
follow-up
study,
including
any
positive
and
negative
effects
of
medical
cannabis.
Utilizing
section
two
of
the
bill
on
patients
and
physicians
in
tennessee
by
december
2024.
P
A
qualified
patient
or
the
caregiver
must
possess
a
letter
of
attestation
from
their
physician
that
includes
their
qualified
disease
or
diagnosis
that
the
patient
has
received
conventional
methods
of
treatment
for
the
patient's
qualifying
medical
disease
or
condition,
and
those
methods
have
insufficiently
addressed
the
patient's
disease,
condition
or
symptoms,
or
that
the
patient
is
enrolled
in
a
medical
or
clinical
trial
and
has
is
dated
and
signed
by
the
physician.
There
are
a
list
of
11
qualifying
diseases.
P
Again,
as
I
said,
it's
non-smokable,
non-vapable
non-edible,
there's
a
list
of
acceptable
forms
that
the
cannabis
can
be
in
and
it's
limited
to
2
800
milligrams
of
thc,
the
cannabis
medicine
must
be
in
the
original
container.
With
dosage
information.
Again,
the
bill
is
not
allowed
for
smoking
or
vaping
of
cannabis.
The
patients
are
still
subject
to
the
drug-free
workplace
program.
P
All
hipaa
rules
do
apply,
as
we
said
in
the
the
amendment.
Firearms
rights
are
protected
and
this
is
under
the
soul.
If
it's
the
sole
reason
for
that
and
the
dui
laws
will
still
be
enforced.
What
the
bill
does
not
do.
It
does
not
allow
for
tennesseans
to
grow.
It
does
not
allow
tennesseans
to
smoke,
vape
or
eat
cannabis,
and
it
doesn't
set
up
any
system
for
licensure
or
dispensary
or
facilities,
and
I
believe
I
mean
I
have
to
take
questions.
I
believe
there
are
people
here
that
would
like
to
testify.
Yes,.
A
A
A
A
You
are
all
very
familiar
to
this
committee,
but
if
you
could,
please
make
sure
your
microphone's
on
introduce
yourself
for
the
record.
You
will
have
four
minutes
a
piece
if
you'd
like
to
take
that
long
and
then
there
will
be
an
unlimited
time
for
question
and
answer
at
the
end
of
the
third
testimony
so
who's
up.
First,
ms
schmid,.
R
S
S
The
list
of
conditions
still
gives
the
department
concern.
We
would
like
to
see
the
normal
fda
processes
for
safety
and
efficacy,
be
tried,
we're
treating
this
drug
differently
than
every
other
drug
in
history.
By
doing
this
kind
of
piecemeal
approach,
a
number
of
the
conditions
listed,
there
is
very
limited
evidence
that
it's
beneficial
most
of
them.
It
doesn't
actually
treat
the
illness
itself
some
of
them.
S
It
has
limited
evidence
that
it
may
help
symptoms,
things
of
that
sort
and
they're
already
synthetic
approved
fda
products
such
as
marinol,
epidiolex,
so
forth
that
are
have
gone
through
the
processes
for
safety
and
efficacy.
So,
ultimately,
we
do
not
see
the
need
for
this
at
this
time
and
would
like
to
see
the
drug
rescheduled
on
the
federal
level
and
again
those
normal
safety
and
efficacy
processes
followed.
J
Now
on
this
topic
and
and
then
I
respect
the
chairman
very
much
and
his
intent
with
this
bill-
and
you
know,
as
we've
said
kind
of
similar
to
what
callan's
saying
as
soon
as
it
is
rescheduled
and
treated
like
a
drug
law
enforcement
will
be
the
first
ones
to
come
to
the
table
and
make
sure
that's
done
safely
and
you
know
under
the
supervision
of
doctors.
But
I
wanted
to
focus
on
not
the
intent,
because
I
know
the
intent
is
very
good.
J
You
know
not
getting
into
that
aspect
of
it
because
I'm
not
health,
and
but
if
you
know
they
are,
and
they
are
impaired,
which
we
know
that
this
drug
does
impair
your
cognitive
functions.
We
wouldn't
be
able
to
follow
those
state
and
federal
regulations
in
regards
to
someone
who
may
be
addicted
to
a
controlled
substance.
J
The
other
piece
of
the
firearm
portion
is
that
we
cannot
charge
them
with
the
offensive
carrying
with
the
intent
to
go
armed
solely
based
on
their
status,
as
a
user
of
under
this
bill
which
again
not
going
towards
that
portion
of
it.
But
it's
kind
of,
like
patrick
said,
every
other
drug
legal
prescription
or
not.
J
Somebody
is
still
held
to
be
responsible
for
those
for
for
their
actions,
and
the
piece
was
included
in
here
for
duis,
because
we
have,
I
think,
the
past
five
years
we've
seen
about
1200
accidents
where
marijuana
was
a
contributing
factor
and
a
hundred
of
those
were
fatalities.
And
so
we
know
it
does
impair
people.
And
so
we
would
ask
that
people
driving
or
carrying
weapons
be
considered
like
anyone
else
using
any
other
drug,
legal
or
not,
and
that
law
enforcement
be
able
to
make
sure
people
are
safe.
A
few
other
things.
J
Another
big
problem
is
hiring
in
our
own
employees,
since
you
have
you
know,
ptsd
or
some
other
diseases
that
people
may
have
and
qualify
under
this
bill
and
legally
be
using
under
this
bill
or
having
under
this
bill.
There's
also
a
provision
that
says
everything
is
hipaa
protected
and
while
it
says
you
can't
impact
hiring
or
firing
or
drug-free
workplace
everything's
hipaa
protected.
So
let's
say
you
have
a
an
officer
who
has
ptsd
and
you
know
he's
commissioned
he's
a
patrol
officer.
Would
we
even
be
able
to
ask
him
while
he
may
legally
have
it?
J
He
may
need
to
be
while
he's
using
it?
He
or
she
be
put
on
desk
duty
or
not
driving
or
not
be
a
commissioned
officer,
and
we
would
like
to
at
least
be
able
to
ask
to
make
sure
they're,
safe
and
everyone
else
interacting
with
them
is
safe,
and
so
that's
another
kind
of
inconsistency
with
the
bill
with
the
two
sections,
just
not
going
together
and
one
one
other
final
things.
I
know
I'm
probably
getting
short
for
time
here:
they're
you're
talking
now.
A
F
J
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
but
we
don't
know
if
it
was
marijuana
alone,
we're
saying
it
contributed,
but
we're
not
stating
that
marijuana
alone
is
the
cause
of
accidents.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
clear
that
we're
not
saying
mary
you're,
not
saying
these
accidents
were
just
marijuana
by
itself.
J
J
J
J
G
G
A
O
O
O
N
O
With
with
that
said,
we
know
that
there's
other
states
that
have
passed
like
legislation
and
so
they're
not
being
prosecuted
on
the
federal
side.
So
I
think
that
tennessee
and
we
do
have
states
rights.
I
believe
that
we'd
be
well
within
our
rights
to
say
that
we
have
states
rights,
because
evidently
the
federal
law
is
ignoring
it
and,
while
I
don't
agree
with
ignoring
some
and
not
on
the
others,
I
believe
that
tennessee
ought
to
do
as
we
please
or,
as
we
see
best
for
our
state.
J
Yeah
and
I
want
to
clarify,
because
the
100
number
is
100
fatalities,
that
is
not
100
where
marijuana
was
solely
contributing
the
solely
contributing.
I
would
just
have
to
go
back
and
pull
that
that
information-
I
just
don't,
have
it
off
hand.
I
just
have
where
it's
at
least
a
contributing
factor
and
you're.
I'm
trying
to
remember
your
question,
oh
on.
If
they
were
under
the
care
of
a
doctor
or
if
it
was
smoked
or
vape.
J
I
don't
that
may
be
a
better
question
for
tbi
when
they
come
up,
but
I
don't
believe
that
you
can
tell
that
and
as
far
as,
if
they're
under
the
care
of
a
doctor,
maybe
if
you
go
and
talk
to
the
court,
they
might
know,
but
law
enforcement
is
not
going
to
know
on
the
side
of
the
road.
Unless
that
person,
volunteers,
that
information,
when
they're
stopped
or
arrested
or
whatnot.
K
All
right,
thank
you,
and
I
would
agree
that
on
the
side
of
the
road
they
may
or
may
not
know.
But
if
we're
going
to
cite
statistics
then
we
should
have
it
broken
down.
If
these
individuals
have
been
prosecuted,
then
that
information
surely
should
be
available.
So
I'm
going
to
suggest
that
well,
some
may
have
been
prosecuted.
Some
may
have
been
the
victims
of
individuals
who
were
under
the
influence
of
something
or
the
other.
K
K
The
issue
of
firearms
and
the
ability
for
those
individuals
who
are
under
the
care
of
a
doctor
to
have
those
second
amendment
rights
available
to
them.
I
don't
quite
understand
the
argument
against
that,
unless
we're
arguing
that
any
medicine
that
could
lead
to
an
addiction
or
could
lead
to
a
situation
where
you're,
not
in
control
of
your
your
faculties,
that
if
you
have
a
prescription
for
any
of
those
that
you
lose
your
second
amendment
rights,
I
don't
see
how
you
you
single
out,
marijuana
medical
marijuana
for
that.
J
Was
just
trying
to
didn't
want
to
go
out
of
order
here,
a
few
things
that
you
mentioned
the
person
while
they're
under
the
care
of
a
doctor
they're
under
the
care
of
a
doctor
for
a
listed
condition
in
the
bill,
they're
not
being
advised
on
marijuana
or
if
it
would
help
them
or
hurt
them,
and
it's
not
being
prescribed
to
them
by
this
doctor
they're
under
the
care
of
a
doctor
for
one
of
the
listed
diseases
or
conditions
in
the
bill.
So
that's
a
little
bit
of
a
difference.
J
Is
they
may
not
know
what
the
problems
are,
because
the
doctor
is
not
advising
them
on
that
and
to
your
second
point.
Actually
it
actually
is
federal
law
and
state
law
that
you
cannot
be
a
known,
addict
or
user
of
a
controlled
substance
to
purchase
possess,
transfer
firearms.
So
yes,
like
every
other
drug.
J
No,
it
only
deletes
the
section
of
it
that
said,
state
agencies
or
law
enforcement
could
not
infringe
on
somebody's
right
to
purchase
possess
transfer.
It
still
has
a
section
that
says
you
cannot
charge
them
with
the
offense
of
carrying
with
the
intent
to
go
arm,
and
it
still
has
a
section
that
you
cannot
use
any
state
funds
to
to
use
or
enforce
any
federal
requirements,
and
I
could
be
misreading
that,
but
that's
how
it
was
explained
to
me
is
that
it
still
would
be
inconsistent
with
those
federal
requirements.
A
K
S
And
representative
hardway,
the
way
the
bill
is
written,
it
is
the
physician
and
state
would
diagnose
with
the
condition
but
does
not
prescribe
the
marijuana.
The
marijuana
would
be
obtained
out
of
state,
so
there
is
no
kind
of
requirement
that
the
person
would
continue
treatment
with
any
kind
of
physician
out
of
state.
S
There
is
no
kind
of
requirement
about
any
kind
of
dosing
or
anything
with
the
physician
in
state.
It
is
merely
for
lack
of
a
better
description,
a
blank
check
where
the
physician
has
diagnosed
you
with
a
qualifying
condition,
and
then
you
are
free
to
go
outside
of
the
state
and
then
free
to
possess.
The
marijuana
you've
brought
back
in
the
state.
K
A
A
R
R
A
F
S
F
S
L
L
And
use
the
example
of
a
trooper
that
may
have
had
experienced
post-traumatic
stress
syndrome
in
the
past,
or
had
that
to
be
diagnosed
with
that
at
one
time
and
that
under
this,
their
doctors
know
that
would
be
hipaa
protected
so
that
you
as
the
employer,
the
agency,
would
not
know
that
information.
Can
you
expand
on
that
a
little
bit
for
me,
please,
mr.
J
Yes
and
and
it's
it's
one
of
those
where
another
piece
of
the
bill
where
it's
just
it's
not
clear
and
the
language
is
inconsistent
between
sections
of
the
bill,
because
when
you
start
reading
it,
it
does
say
that
it's
what
it
wouldn't
impact,
drug-free
workplace
or
an
employer's
right
to
hire
or
fire.
But
then
you
continue
to
read
on
and
see
that
everything
is
hipaa
protected
and
so
we're
put
in
that
situation,
where
that
the
section
on
drug-free,
workplace
and
hiring
and
firing
is
great.
O
A
J
Sorry
so,
yes,
you
are
correct.
Yes,
if
you
are,
you
know,
under
the
care
of
a
doctor
who
is
prescribing
your
medicine
and
telling
you
what
you
can
and
can't
do
and
what
the
side
effects
may
be.
There
could
be
parameters
around
the
job
you
could
do
while
you're
using
and
whatnot.
This
does
not,
as
stated
earlier,
it
doesn't
have
a
doctor
prescribing
it.
It
doesn't
have
a
doctor
talking
with
them
about
the
impact
of
the
marijuana
and
the
bill
specifically
says
everything
in
this
section
is
hipaa
protected.
O
Thank
you.
So
what
you're
saying
is-
and
I
think
this
potentially
could
be
a
problem.
What
you're
saying
is
that
since
there's
not
a
doctor's
prescription,
you
really
don't
know
what
the
levels
are
or
could
be
all
that
the
prescription
would
say
that
the
doctor
has
diagnosed
them
with
the
condition
and
so
any
level
whatsoever
they
could
use.
I
guess
is
that
correct.
O
At
some
point,
as
with
alcohol,
they
have
certain
guidelines
that
they
go
by.
I
see
your
point
and
I
think
it's
a
valid
point-
that
there
needs
to
be
some
guidelines
that
are
put
in
place.
Otherwise
you
don't
have
a
way
of
determining
whether
this
person
is
impaired
or
not.
Maybe
so
I
think
it's
a
good
point.
I
think
it's
a
very
tough,
tough
situation,
but
thank
you.
H
J
J
S
From
a
health
perspective,
obviously
because
there
is
so
still
so
much
still
unknown
about
appropriate
treatments
with
marijuana,
a
prescription
is
still
very
much
of
an
air
because
they're
very
unsettled
dosing
amounts
and
things
of
that
sort.
There's
just
not
enough
knowledge
out
there.
It
would
not
help
with
health.
I
don't
think
leader
lamborghini
may.
H
H
I'm
not
asking
whether
or
not
you
recommend
a
prescription.
I
ask
from
a
legal
standpoint,
which
is
all
this
committee
deals
with.
If
a
prescription
was
something
that
was
authorized
by
state
law
and
there
was
a
prescription
that
was
issued,
does
that
alleviate
a
large
amount
of
the
concerns
because
there's
a
database?
There
is
a
list
there's
a
specific
prescription
that
goes
back
to
a
doctor
with
a
specific
dose,
those
that
alleviate
the
concerns
or
most
of
them,
that
you
would
have.
J
A
K
J
I
was
looking
back
to
the
colonel
for
definitive
answers,
but
I
know
that
obviously,
law
enforcement
is
held
to
a
very
high
standard
and
we
have
you
know:
zero
tolerance,
policies
for
drugs
and
alcohol,
and
so
I
don't
know
the
specifics
of
what
we
can
ask
and
what
we
do
ask.
But
I
know
we
do
a
lot
of
drug
testing.
We
do
a
lot
of
screening,
but
I
can
certainly
figure
out
exactly
what
we
ask
and
get
back
to
you
on
that.
I
just
don't.
J
And
that's
what
I
just
don't
know
right
off
the
top
of
my
head,
I'm
hoping
I
can
find
out
while
other
people
are
testifying,
but
since
we
do
have
a
very
hard
zero
tolerance
policy
for
drugs
and
alcohol,
I'm
sure
there's
something
that
we
ask.
I
know
in
certain
situations
we
require
testing
depending
on
your
job,
depending
on
a
situation
that
may
have
happened
and
yeah
I'm
getting
an
answer
that,
yes,
we
do.
We
do
request
that.
M
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Maybe
this
should
be
to
the
sponsor,
but
since
we're
talking
about
law
enforcement,
I
I
have
a
hard
problem
with
this
bill
anyway,
but
I
was
looking
at
the
practical
side
of
it.
Some
some
patient
goes
with
his
letter
to
colorado
and
buys
some
dope
or
in
oil
to
say
and
he's
coming
back
and
he
gets
pulled
over
in
the
state
arkansas
for
speeding
and
they
run
a
dog
around
the
car
and
he
hits
on
this
stuff
and
the
guy
says:
look.
M
J
J
This
committee
is
always
entertaining.
I
will
give
it
that
it's
always
a
joy
to
be
here
and
to
your
point
it.
That
is
where
kind
of
our
questions
with
the
bill
come
is
how
do
we
enforce
it
because
it
we
don't
know
if
that
person
is
telling
the
truth.
We
don't
know
if
that
information
is
accurate
and
really
it
would
kind
of
just
be
on
that
state
what
their
laws
are,
and
I
guess
figure
it
out
at
court,
but.
G
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
chairman,
and
this
one's
for
ms
stroker
with
legal,
miss
stroker.
Let
me
let
me
ask
you
this,
because
I'm
looking
through
the
the
legislations
as
it's
drafted
and
it's
going
to
say
that
it's
not
going
to
be
an
offense
for
a
person,
who's,
a
qualified
patient
or
a
qualified
patient's
authorized.
G
Caregiver
to
having
that
individual's
possession
lawfully
obtain
medical
marijuana
paraphernalia
decide
to
facilitate
the
consumption.
If
the
person
meets
these
conditions
and
then
it
says,
a
caregiver
means
a
person
who
is
authorized
by
a
qualified
patient
or
the
qualified
patient's
legal
representative
to
obtain
and
possess
medical
marijuana
on
the
patient's
behalf.
G
G
Suppose
somebody
meets
the
one
of
these
requirements
to
have
a
condition,
but
they
want
to
use
that
condition
to
exploit
and
sell
medical
marijuana
to
people
in
tennessee,
and
they
could
they
could
couldn't
the
unauthorized
patient.
Couldn't
that
could
that
patient
give
out,
maybe
they
give
out
100
or
200
letters
to
anybody
that
they
deem
is
going
to
be
an
authorized
caregiver,
and
then
that
person
has
marijuana
on
their
possession
they
get
pulled
over
by
a
thb
on,
for
you
know,
swerving
and
reckless,
driving
or
something
like
that,
and
the
person
goes.
G
J
But
again
it's
going
to
be.
Do
they
know
what
the
laws
are
in
that
other
state?
Is
this
person
really
related
to
that
person?
You
can't
call
and
check
with
the
doctor,
because
the
doctor's
not
going
to
disclose
that
information,
especially
if
you're
a
caregiver,
because
it's
not
you
it's
someone
that
you're
caring
for
and
so
it
that's
kind
of
the
problem
that
law
enforcement
is
coming
from.
Is
that
it's
really
difficult
to
enforce
this,
because
there
are
so
many
loopholes
and
inconsistencies
with
it
that
create
those
exact
problems.
L
Thank
you.
I
apologize
for
asking
more
questions,
but
you
have
to
be
a
tennessee
resident
for
this
to
apply
for
this,
for
this
bill.
Is
this
specific
for
tennessee
residents
or
could
anyone
that's
passing
through
from
let's
say,
pennsylvania
or
virginia
or
colorado
that
maybe
came
here
to
a
titans
game
and
had
their
had
their
card
with
them
or
their
their
letter?
And
well,
I'm
not.
A
N
Under
this
amendment,
a
practitioner
is
a
physician
who's
licensed
under
our
title,
63
chapter
6
or
an
osteopathic
medicine
licensed
under
our
title,
63
chapter
9.,
so
the
practitioner
in
this
language
would
have
to
be
licensed
under
our
state
as
far
as
whether
or
not
someone
can
enter
our
state
with
a
medical
marijuana,
authorization
from
another
state-
that's
not
addressed
by
this
amendment,
and
that
is
a
whole
different
deal.
Yes,.
N
They
would
be
in
violation
of
tennessee
law
if
they
were
to
come
to
our
state
with
a
medical
marijuana
authorization
from
colorado.
They
would
be
in
violation
of
tennessee
law
because
we
do
not
that's
not
allowed
under
our
law.
The
practitioner
who
signs
the
letter
under
this
amendment
would
have
to
be
licensed
under
our
title:
60
3,
either
chapter
6
or
chapter
9.,
so
for
the
language
and
this
amendment
to
apply,
they
would
have
to
have
a
letter
from
a
practitioner
licensed
in
our
state.
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
What
I
came
a
little
more
prepared
for
was
to
discuss
the
controlled
substance,
side
of
testing,
solid
dosage
drugs
and
specifically
in
reading
this
bill.
It
had
some
things
in
here
that
confused
me.
It
states
that
you
cannot
be
in
possession
of
2
800
milligrams
or
more
of
thc
of
tetrahydrocannabinol.
C
What
it
doesn't
specify
is
what
flavor
of
thc
we're
talking
about.
As
we
have
seen
in
the
crime
lab
with
past
cannabis
legislation
we've
run
into
delta,
9
thc
we've
run
into
thc
acid
we've
run
into
delta,
8
thc
and
we're
expecting
to
run
into
delta,
10
thc.
So
so,
there's
a
wide
list
of
potential
thc
compounds
out
there
that
behave
differently
and
some
are
more
impairing
than
others.
C
As
far
as
the
2800
milligrams
is
concerned,
what
we
run
into
in
the
crime
lab
and
what
we've
run
into
in
the
past
with
other
cannabis
laws,
is
that
in
our
attempts
to
enforce
it,
we
really
become
default
regulation
and,
as
we've
gone
with
hemp
regis,
we
have
to
come
up
with
quantitative
methods
to
determine
what
this
is.
When
you
present
to
me
a
material
and
ask
me
if
there's
2800
milligrams
of
thc
present,
the
first
thing
I
have
to
do
is
determine
what
the
concentration
of
thc
is
and
then
multiply
that
times.
C
C
We
have,
over
the
past
year,
come
up
with
methods
for
plant
material,
we're
working
on
methods
for
oils.
Over
the
last
year,
we've
been
presented
with
over
8
200
samples
of
plant
material,
and
what
we're
finding
is
that
about
85
percent
of
those
are
consistent
with
marijuana
and
about
15
percent
of
those
are
consistent
with
hemp.
C
B
Thank
you,
sir
maggie
duncan
I'm
the
executive
director
for
the
tennessee
association
chiefs
of
police
chairman
I'd
like
to
and
committee.
We
know
that
the
sponsors
places
and
his
hearts
in
the
right
place
with
his
intent
as
we
are
been
graciously
waiting
for
the
federal
government
to
address
the
rescheduling
of
this
of
this
drug.
B
We
still
see
this
bill
is
making
an
illegal
drug
legal
that
presents
a
great
deal
of
issues
for
us
and
the
fact
that
we
obviously
would
prefer
the
fda
to
take
care
of
this,
because
it
puts
us
in
conflict
with
what
our
our
oath
of
our
oath
of
office
is
to
enforce,
federal
and
state
law.
We
can't
just
blindly
not
enforce
federal
law.
B
B
B
S
Donald
trump,
hello,
my
name
is
stephen
crump,
I'm
the
district
attorney
general
in
the
10th
judicial
district.
I
also
serve
as
the
legislative
chairman
for
the
district
attorney's
general
conference.
I
will
not
repeat
any
of
the
of
the
information
that's
been
previously
given
to
you
by
my
law
enforcement
colleagues,
but
I
would
say
this
from
the
district
attorney's
perspective.
S
We
consistently
try
to
evaluate
things
based
upon
what
are
those
things
that
are
purely
within
the
province
of
the
general
assembly
as
to
whether
or
not
something
is
in
fact,
a
policy
choice
or
not.
This
falls
within
that.
However,
this
is
a
circumstance
where
we
have
seen
the
drastic
difficulties
of
of
enforcement.
When
you
all
make
a
choice,
as
you
did
with
hemp,
hemp
became
very
difficult
for
law
enforcement
to
deal
with.
It
also
became
virtually
impossible
for
us
to
prosecute
on
the
criminal
side.
S
When
I,
when
I
look
at
this,
when
I
look
at
at
this
bill,
it
raises
the
same.
Very
specific
questions
we
do
not
where
we
will
be
forced
to
choose
is
to
try
to
determine
who
is
the
person
who
is
a
lawful
person
who
desperately
needs
this
medication
and
who
is
using
it
not
for
purposes
that
are
wrong,
but
for
the
right
purpose
and
for
hope
the
problem
will
be.
It
will
be
impossible
for
an
officer
on
the
side
of
the
road
or
somebody
to
go
back
to
chairman
doggett's
question.
S
If
somebody
flies
in
here
from
some
other
place,
this
bill
will
cover
them.
You
cannot
simply
restrict
this
protection
to
a
tennessee
resident
from
an
equal
protection
perspective.
We
will
be
required
to
look
at
every
person
that
comes
in
here.
The
enforcement
under
trying
to
figure
out
who
is
a
qualified
caregiver,
who
is
a
qualified
practitioner
in
another
state?
Did
they
have
an
actual
assessment
when
they
were
in
that
state?
How
often
are
they
assessed?
Q
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
committee.
I
will
be
very
brief
and,
mr
chairman,
if
I
seem
distracted,
there
is
a
red
laser
light
right
here,
and
I
hope
somebody
doesn't
have
a
gun
pointed
at
me,
but
I
don't
know
what
that
is:
I'm
gonna
th.
This
is
a
tough
issue
and,
and
we
don't
envy
the
position
you're
in
this.
This
is
a
tough
issue
for
us.
Q
We
struggle
with
the
term
and
we
have
the
utmost
respect,
as
has
already
been
said,
for
the
sponsors,
both
in
the
house
and
the
senate
on
this
bill.
They've
carried
many
bills
for
law
enforcement,
but
we
struggle
with
the
term
medical
when
the
only
involvement
of
a
doctor
is
to
sign
a
piece
of
paper
to
say
I
have
a
disease
and
he
doesn't
even
have
to
know
why
he's
signing
it.
I
don't
have
to
tell
him
and
there's
no
pharmacist
involved
in
this
at
all.
Q
I
go
to
the
dispensary,
they
give
me
whatever
and
I
may
or
may
not
know,
what's
in
it
if
I'm
administered
to
a
family
member
or
whatever,
we
appreciate
the
intent,
but
the
way
this
bill
is
structured.
We
think
that
it
would
be
virtually
impossible
for
us
to
enforce
and
be
able
to
determine
between
who
are
the
people
that
are
using
this
for
the
right
purpose
from
the
ones
that
aren't
so
with
that.
I
thank
you
for
your
time
and
your
attention.
A
E
E
I
just
want
to
stop
and
say
thank
you
to
all
of
our
law
enforcement
officers
that
are
here
today.
We
appreciate
every
one
of
you
and
what
you
do
and-
and
we
want
to
say
I
very
much
appreciate
it
to
our
law
enforcement
in
the
great
state
of
tennessee.
We
have
a
great
bunch
and,
and
we
we've,
we
need
y'all,
and
we
want
you
and
we
want
to
try
to
protect
you
and-
and
this
is
a
very
serious
situation
and
and
being
in
law
enforcement.
E
And
if
we
were
to
pass
this
bill,
it
would
be
hard
for
a
law
enforcement
officer
to
know
what
to
do
in
a
situation
if
this
was
in
a
car
that
you
stopped
and
I'll
have
to
say
that
you
know
not
trying
to
pass
this
off
to
the
federal
there's,
a
lot
of
problems
in
the
federal
up
there.
But
I
think
if
we
were
to
pass
this
law
here
in
tennessee
we'd
be
getting
the
cart
before
the
horse.
E
I
S
Mr
chairman
and
chairman
farmer,
it
it
would
depend
upon
what
the
report
said
it
would
depend.
There
are
two
basic
things
that
we
look
at.
One
is
the
point:
zero
three
one
is
the
point:
zero
nine,
which
is
the
current
medical
amount
that
is
there
and,
and
if
it's
above
0.10,
then
that's
typically
where
we,
where
we
would
look
to
prosecute.
S
There,
have
been
circumstances
where,
where
there
is,
there
have
been
some
hemp
stores
that
have
advertised
actually
on
their
packaging
greater
concentrations
of
thc
than
was
allowed
under
the
law
without
without
a
doctor's
authorization
under
the
under
those
statutes.
We
have
prosecuted
those
as
as
well
we
prosecuted
either
as
selling
something
that
of
a
designed
amount
that
it
didn't
meet
up
to
criminal
simulation
or
we
we
did
it
as
possession.
A
I
A
L
L
C
We
won't
know
how
many
total
milligrams
of
thc
are
present,
so
the
first
step
that
we
would
have
to
do
in
all
of
these
cases
is
determine
quantitatively,
what's
the
percentage
of
thc
and
then
multiply
that
times
the
total
amount
of
sample
that
we're
presented
with
and
again
to
make
that
more
complicated.
Thc
is
a
vague
term
as
presented
here.
We
have
seen
carboxy
thc
we've
seen
thc
acid
we've
seen
delta
9,
thc
delta,
8
thc
delta,
10
thc.
L
C
L
L
I
do
yes,
sir,
which,
if
you
again,
if
you
can't
determine
that
amount,
I
was
trying
to
see
what
the
correlation
was
between
2
800
milligrams
of
this
and
a
half
an
ounce
of
for
simple
possession
purposes
that
we
normally
have
I'm
trying
to
get
that
correlation.
But
if
you
can't
determine
that
based
off
of
what's
in
it,
that
I
it.
C
Would
depend
on
the
concentration.
A
half
of
an
ounce
is
14
grams.
It's
14
grams.
If
it's
10
percent,
then
it'd
be
1400
milligrams.
If
it's
20
to
be
2800
milligrams,
if
it's
30
percent,
it
would
be
whatever
three
times.
14
is
so
so
we
have
to
first
know
that
concentration,
because
you
can't
tell
looking
at
it
whether
that
oil
or
lotion
or
whatever,
is
10
20
30,
40,
50,
thc.
Okay,
thank
you.
Miss
jim.
A
A
A
A
T
T
T
I
understand
what
this
state
is
going
through
and
the
state
is
important
to
us
and
to
our
family.
We
have
three
children
who
are
here
with
us,
and
one
of
them
is
suffering
in
a
way
that
only
you
can
help
us
with,
because
we
love
tennessee,
because
I
believe
in
the
mission
of
the
police
department,
because
we
clearly
understand
my
husband
clearly
understands
the
issue
that
marijuana
has
presented
in
this
state.
That's
why
I'm
begging
all
of
you
to
help
him.
T
T
T
T
That
device
has
been
there
for
about
two
years.
He's
tried,
13,
anti-epileptic,
drugs
or
aed,
and
for
tj
the
side
effects
of
the
aed
is
worse
than
the
seizure.
In
fact,
after
the
last
hospital
stay,
we
were
advised
that
we
had
exhausted
all
of
the
current
classes
of
anti-epileptic
drugs
and
we
should
look
at
cbd,
oils
and
medical
cannabis,
and
this
was
from
a
physician,
the
leading
epithologist
in
this
state
out
in
memphis.
T
Okay,
I'm
not
I'm
not
moving,
we
love
being
here,
but
we
can
use
enough
aeds
to
control
his
epilepsy,
but
when
doing
so,
we
will
lose
him
completely,
and
you
see
a
lot
of
children
that
that's
the
only
choice
their
parents
have
to
make.
They
got
to
drug
him
so
much
to
stop
the
seizures
that
they
lose
their
personalities
and
hey
for
those
of
you
who
met
him
today.
T
You
know
that's
not
an
option,
we're
not
losing
that
personality,
so
in
2014,
tj
has
cbd
oil
ready
to
take
the
minute
that
the
senate
bill
2531
was
signed
into
law
and
that
all
almost
stopped
his
seizures
completely
and
again.
Tennessee
led
the
fda
in
that
tennessee,
legalized
our
opportunity
to
use
that
cbd
oil
before
the
federal
government
and
also
before
the
fda
had
approved
epidialex.
I
can
talk
more
about
that
if
you
want
later,
but
when
he
took
it,
he
had
gotten
a
bottle
from
the
stanley
brothers
that
was
older.
T
T
But
we
tried
up
about
alex
for
several
months,
because
I
don't
quit
easily.
Eventually,
we
went
back.
Did
the
plant-based
cbd
oil,
which
is
at
least
taking
the
edge
off
the
seizures,
even
if
it
wasn't
stopping
them?
There
are
three
fda
approved:
synthetic
thc,
drugs
on
the
market
which
target
nausea
and
patients,
and
we
found
that
synthetic
thc
combined
with
epidialex
still
does
not
prevent
the
same
therapeutic
effect
as
the
plant-based
extract,
and
we
believe
that
is
due
to
the
synthetic
nature
of
those
medications
emitting
the
plant's
terpenes.
D
D
D
It
came
to
me
from
doug
gunnell's
family.
All
of
you
recognize
him
as
our
liaison
with
tdot,
and
it
was
for
his
son
corey,
who
at
43,
has
passed
away
from
after
a
10-year
battle
with
neuroendocrine
carcinoma
the
day
he
passed
was
the
day
that
we
heard
this
bill
in
full
health
and
was
passed
on
to
this
committee,
but
didn't
didn't
move
in
the
senate.
So
so
we
didn't
go
any
further.
D
He
left
two
children
and
a
grieving
family
and
we
asked
him
during
the
process.
Would
he
let
us
name
the
bill
after
him?
Corey
gunnels
and
he
said
no.
He
said
this
bill
is
not
about
me.
It's
about
the
people.
He
said
this
bill.
He
said.
All
I
want
to
see
is
something
good
come
from
this
struggle
that
I've
had
for
10
years
and
the
the
bill
that
you
see
before
you
would
have
served.
Corey's
needs
for
a
more
peaceful
resolution
and-
and
let
me
make
clear
that
resolution
doesn't
mean
cure.
D
We,
the
folks
that
need
these
things
fully
understand
what
the
situation
is.
880
is
a
better
bill
than
the
one
I
had.
239
is
a
better
bill
and
john
wayne
wendell's
service
related
veterans
bill,
and
it
helps
more
people.
It
have
has
11
diagnoses
instead
of
one
provides
access
to
more
products,
not
including
smoking,
smokable
or
vaping
products,
and
the
there
are
many
questions
here
answered
today,
a
whole
lot
more
than
we
got
answers
for,
but
but
the
answers
are
in
the
other
40
odd
states.
D
I'm
total
44
that
have
already
dealt
with
this
issue
and
the
beauty
of
this
bill
is.
It
requires
the
department
of
health
and
health
related
boards
to
perform
a
study
on
licensure
and
regulation
of
cannabis,
for
medical
use
and
and
study
the
impacts
and
of
providers
and
patients
as
we
go
forward.
The
bill
is
about
access
to
patients,
not
growers
not
to
infrastructure,
but
at
some
time
we're
going
to
need
to
address
those
issues
in
tennessee
is
one
of
the
last
states
to
consider
the
issue.
D
This
is
a
bill
about
people.
The
federal
government
has
no
magic
wand
that
over
40
states
have
ignored.
We,
we
always
want
to
fall
back
on
what
I'm
going
to
wait
on
the
federal
government,
which
this
is
a
rare
case
that
we
do
that
and
and
the
all
the
questions
have
answers.
This
bill
initially
asked
the
department
of
health
to
get
those
answers
from
other
states
before
december
of
2021.
D
A
A
O
Q
T
N
O
T
T
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
for
your
testimony.
Tj
is
just
absolutely
adorable
and
you
know
I
hope
the
committee
boasts
an
affirmative
to
help
you
and
your
family.
I
had
a
friend
who
in
college
slipped
in
the
bathroom
and
hit
her
head
and
she
got
epilepsy
and
she
was
having
seizures
and
she
lives
in
a
state
where
it's
completely
recreational
by
the
way
and
they
prescribed
her
medicines
and
she
was
still
having
seizures.
F
She
started
using
marijuana
to
help
her
stop.
Having
constant
seizures,
I
mean
she
was
falling
out
in
class
having
seizures
one
time,
she
was
walking
to
class
on
campus
and
had
a
seizure
in
the
middle
of
campus
and
she
doesn't
have
them
anymore.
She
has
a
healthy
baby
boy
and
is
living
her
best
life
because
of
many
of
the
advances
that
we've
been
able
to
make
using
marijuana
to
really
curb
some
of
these
diseases.
F
So
I've
seen
it
firsthand
to
the
people
closest
to
me
how
this
can
help
cure
many
of
the
listed
issues
that
were
stated
in
this
bill.
So
I
understand
your
need.
I've
seen
it
worked
and
I
hope
that
the
committee
votes
and
affirmative
support
you
tj.
My
people,
like
my
friend
and
other
folks
around
the
country
who
could
use
this
and
don't
want
to
use
opioids
to
cure
that.
A
Thank
you,
representative
lamar
ma'am.
I
just
want
to
thank
you
for
being
here
today.
I
I
think
I
think
what
I
hear
you
saying
is
that
locks
are
for
honest
people.
That's
what
my
dad
used
to
tell
me
when
I
was
a
kid
and
I
don't
think
from
where
you
sit.
You
really
care.
If
anybody
else
decides
to
break
the
law,
that's
not
what
you're
deciding
to
do.
You
wish
to
follow
the
laws
of
this
state,
and
we
appreciate
you
and
many
many
others
like
you.
A
So
thank
you
very
much
for
your
testimony
today.
In
my
own
district,
I've
had
several
friends
with
first-hand
experience
I
have
a
dear
friend
who,
unfortunately,
is
no
longer
with
us.
He
was
a
physician
himself,
but
he
was
diagnosed
with
brain
cancer
and
for
a
long
time
he
was
bedridden,
was
unresponsive
unable
to
speak
to
his
children
or
his
grandchildren
or
his
wife,
but
with
the
use
of
marijuana.
A
Suddenly
he
got
about
the
six,
the
last
six
months
of
his
life
back
and
was
able
to
get
up
move
around
his
house
go
to
restaurants
with
his
grandchildren.
Now
he
was
still
very
very
much
a
sick
man,
but
it
helped
him
with
his
symptoms,
and
I
had
many
conversations
with
him
during
that
kind
of
twilight
period
of
his
life,
and
I
can
say
that
he
advocated
very
very
strongly
for
tennessee
to
get
its
act
together
in
this
regard.
So
thank
you
for
being
here
today.
A
K
K
A
Thank
you,
representative
hardaway,
any
further
questions,
seeing
none.
Thank
you
again
for
being
here
members.
That
brings
us
to
the
end
of
our
folks.
You've
requested
to
testify
so
we'll
go
back
into
session,
we're
back
in
session.
That
means
we
are
back
on
the
bill
which
is
house
bill
880
by
chairman
terry,
as
amended.
I
do
have
a
list
going
for
folks
who
want
to
ask
questions
on
the
bill
and
I'll
work
my
way
through
that
as
quickly
as
possible.
Q
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
It
is
impossible
to
remove
emotion
from
the
issues
that
we
debate
down
here.
In
fact,
emotion
drives
much
of
what
we
do
and
we
are
not
immune
to
this
motion,
but
we
must
balance
practical
application
with
these
feelings.
As
we
look
to
craft
the
best
policy
that
will
be
enacted
for
all
tennesseans.
Q
A
F
My
only
comment
before
we
decide
to
do
that
is,
is
that
you
know
over
36
states
in
this
country,
if
not
more,
have
either
legalized,
complete
recreational
medical
or
decriminalized
marijuana
stated
earlier.
The
federal
government
isn't
taking
any
action
on
any
state
that
is
making
those
decisions,
including
the
states
in
the
south,
such
as
missouri
arkansas,
mississippi
florida
georgia,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
kentucky
if
I'm
not
mistaken.
This
is
a
very
a
good
opportunity
for
us
to
test
this
out.
This
bill
is
so
limited
in
this
scope
and
sure
it's
not
perfect.
F
It's
the
it's
not
perfect
any
of
the
other
states
across
the
country,
but
let's
use
this
opportunity
to
figure
out
how
we're
going
to
get
used
to
this
before
the
federal
government
opens
up
the
floodgates
and
we
have
it's
taken
off
and
we're
opening
it
up
for
complete
use.
Yet
we've
never
had
an
opportunity
to
handle
this
in
our
state.
This
is
a
very
limited
opportunity
that
is
being
used
to
help
individuals
who
have
health
issues.
F
F
The
data
shows
that
this
could
really
help
those
individuals
who
are
sick
and
suffering
from
the
listed
medical
issues
in
this
bill,
and
this
is
an
opportunity
for
our
state
to
pilot
how
we're
going
to
handle
marijuana
before
we
are
forced
to
handle
it
by
the
federal
government.
So,
let's
give
ourselves
an
opportunity
to
say
that
we
took
the
first
step
and
not
the
biden
administration,
taking
the
first
step
on
tennessee.
Let's,
let's
do
this
ourselves,
and
this
is
just
a
very
limited
way
to
do
that.
F
H
Lamberth
famous
chairman-
and
I
would
support
my
colleagues
motion
for
summer
study
at
this
time
and
there
are
multiple
other
vehicles
out
there.
That
would
do
this.
I
commend
the
sponsor
on
the
work
he's
done.
It
is
99
there.
The
one
thing
this
bill
is
missing
is
an
actual
prescription
by
a
doctor.
H
There
is
no
reason
in
the
state
of
tennessee,
while
we
should
not
literally
impose
our
10th
amendment
rights
on
the
federal
government,
not
wait
for
the
federal
government,
but
free
our
doctors
up
to
help
tj
and
everybody
else
and
genuinely
guide
them
through
the
medical
decisions.
I
have
spoken
on
these
type
of
bills
over
and
over
and
over
again,
this
bill
legalizes.
H
These
substances
that
have
thc-
and
we
have
heard
the
testimony
today-
it
will
legalize
any
oil
in
any
car
anywhere
in
this
state,
because
they
can't
tell
the
difference,
there's
no
way
to
tell
on
the
side
of
the
road
if
it's
2,
800
milligrams
of
thc,
it
is
an
impossibility.
That's
the
testimony.
We've
heard,
why
not
take
the
shackles
off
of
our
patients
here
in
these
particular
circumstances
and
free
our
doctors
up
to
prescribe
these
patients
the
exact
dose
the
exact
amount,
the
exact
time
frame
on
what
medicine
they
need.
H
I've
studied
this
for
a
decade
as
part
of
the
legislature,
and
just
personally
with
friends
and
everyone
else,
and
folks
in
other
states
in
other
countries
where
this
is
handled
as
actual
medical
marijuana,
which
is
what
the
sponsor
is
headed
towards,
and
I
trust
him
more
than
anybody
else
on
the
planet
to
get
this
right.
A
prescription
is
how
this
is
the
best
handled
where
a
doctor
and
a
patient
can
actually
make
that
determination
together
on
how
ptsd
is
included
within
this.
H
The
studies
are
all
over
the
place
on
the
effect
of
thc
on
someone
that
is
suffering
ptsd
in
some
instances
it
can
help
in
other
instances
it
can
have
disastrous
effects
and
severely
worsen
the
condition.
That's
true
for
many
of
the
illnesses
that
are
in
this,
so
we're
not
the
health
committee,
that's
for
others
to
decide,
but
from
a
legal
standpoint,
this
is
not
there.
Yet
a
prescription
solves
all
of
that.
I'm
not
asking
for
us
to
wait
on
the
feds.
H
Every
single
one
of
our
doctors
can
prescribe
the
medication
that
they
feel
is
necessary,
even
if
it
even
if
it
includes
thc-
and
I
will
go
a
step
farther-
I
don't
think
we
should
control
what
type
or
version
that
that
has.
If
a
doctor
feels
like
someone
should
have
green
leafy
substance,
thc
or
something
else.
If
that
is
a
doctor
and
a
patient
making
that
decision
and
the
doctor
is
willing
to
stand
behind
that
based
on
their
medical
oath.
H
Based
on
what
science
has
said,
then
the
laws
of
the
state
of
tennessee
should
not
get
in
between
a
doctor
and
a
patient.
This
bill
doesn't
do
that.
Yet
I
am
still
waiting
for
that
time.
When
we
have
a
bill
that
will
say
yes,
a
doctor
can
prescribe
tj
or
anyone
else,
the
medicine
that
they
need.
So
that's
the
reason
why,
at
this
juncture,
I
would
support
a
summer
study.
I
appreciate
the
motion
to
do
so.
I
think
that
is
most
appropriate.
H
However,
there
are
other
vehicles
out
there
this
year
and
we
are
still
in
session,
so
there
is
no
reason
if
this
motion
is
successful
today,
that
we
can
still
not
continue
this
conversation
over
the
next
few
days
and
weeks
before
we
adjourn
this
session,
but
if
we
are
not
able
to
do
so,
then
absolutely
I
feel
like
this
is
something
we
have
to
get
right
over
the
summer
over
the
summer
and
we
genuinely
study
it.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,.
A
O
O
I
have
great
admiration
for
dr
terry,
I
know
I
know
his
heart
and
I
know
why
he's
doing
it,
or
at
least
I
think
I
do,
and
I
also
know
those
on
this
panel
that
have
the
concern
to
get
it
right.
I
know
they're
hard
as
well,
but
when
we
see
people
like
tj
and
others,
we
have
to
find
a
way
and
we
need
to
find
a
way
to
make
it
work.
A
Thank
you,
mr
vice
chairman,
and
I
I
I'm
actually
wanting
to
speak
up
on
this
as
well.
I
mean
the
notion
of
summer
study.
I
respect
the
the
spirit
in
which
it
was
given.
I'm
reminded
when
I
came
into
this
body
as
a
freshman.
There
was
a
summer
study
done
on
medical,
cannabis
and
and
marijuana
at
that
time.
A
A
A
Q
Q
Q
Q
Everyone
in
here
has
a
tent
has
listed
very
attentively
to
this
discussion.
I've
got
folks
back
home
that
are
strongly
have
strong
feelings
on
both
sides
of
this
issue.
You
can't
get
beyond
that,
but,
as
was
said
earlier
in
this
committee
by
one
of
my
colleagues
seats
down,
this
is
the
criminal
justice
committee.
Q
Q
Q
A
G
A
No
sir,
the
parliamentary
situation
we
find
ourselves
in
is
that
representative
hawk
moved
a
motion
to
summer
study.
I
moved
that
motion
to
the
table
that
cuts
off
all
debate,
except
for
that
of
the
sponsor
of
the
motion.
We
will
then
vote
on
the
tabling
motion.
If
you're
for
tabling
you
would
vote
yes,
if
you're
against
the
tabling
motion,
you
would
vote
no
at
that
point.
If
the
yeses
prevail,
we
are
back
on
the
bill
as
amended.
A
A
A
K
B
K
S
E
B
I
T
R
T
B
J
B
B
B
B
A
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
patience.
We
are
back
in
session
during
the
recess
conferred
with
legal
services,
and
I
would
like
to
go
out
of
session
for
a
moment
for
to
address
legal
services
on
a
question
that
was
brought
up
during
debate
so
out
of
session,
and
the
question
is
there
was
a
recommendation
made
that
another
vehicle
or
this
vehicle
be
used
to
create
a
program
or
a
process
whereby
a
tennessee
physician
can
write
a
legal
prescription
for
marijuana,
and
you
had
some
counsel
for
me.
A
A
L
N
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
chairman
dog,
and
I
think
the
difference
would
be.
The
physician
would
lose
their
license
not
be
able
to
make
their
livelihood.
If
we
pass
the
bill
as
amended,
the
person
is
not
in
violation
of
state
law
and
not
likely
to
be
prosecuted
by
the
federal
government.
I
think,
I
think,
is
the
distinction
between
the
two
not
advocating
one
way
or
the
other
next
on
my
list
of
leader,
lamberth.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
thank
you
both
relatively
made.
The
question
I
was
going
to
ask
legal
is
that
this
entire
thing
is
in
violation
of
federal
law,
the
entire
bill-
and
we
are-
I
mean
I
know
you're,
giving
us
the
best
legal
advice
you
can,
but
is
it
fair
to
say
that
right
now,
if
a
state
taxes
marijuana,
if
they,
you
know
legalize
marijuana,
I
mean
if
they
commingle
funds
that
they
take
in
in
taxation
or
you
know
and
mix
that
with
state
dollars.
H
N
H
A
F
Thank
you.
My
question
for
legal
is
say,
for
example,
if
we
were
to
pass
this
bill,
is
it
up
to
the
federal
prosecutor's
discretion
to
hold
them
accountable
is
my
so
say,
for
example,
there's
obviously
states
across
the
country
that
have
allowed
medical
marijuana
and
it's
still
and
we're
saying
it's
still
federally
illegal,
say,
for
example,
a
federal
prosecutor
here
wanted
to
and
we
passed
this
bill
wanted
to
come
after
a
physician
or
something
like
that.
N
Whether
or
not
to
prosecute
would
be
a
decision
to
the
of
the
federal
with
within
the
prosecutorial
discretion
of
the
federal
prosecutor.
A
dea
licensor
is
within
the
realm
of
the
dea,
so
I
guess
it
would
be
up
to
the
dea
to
decide
whether
or
not
they
wanted
to
revoke
a
physician's
license
or
ability
to
write
prescriptions.
A
O
N
A
physician's
ability
to
write
a
prescription
is
based
on
licensure
from
the
dea.
So
if
a
physician
is
not
licensed
by
the
dea
to
write
a
prescription,
then
he
can't
write
a
prescription
for
anything.
So
if
he
writes
a
prescription
for
marijuana,
he
is
violating
federal
law
and
under
the
dea
regulations
he
could
lose
his
licensure
to
write
prescriptions.
O
N
A
P
Thank
you
and
I've
got
two
points
to
make,
and
and
claire
try
to
get
clarification
on
this.
One
of
the
questions
was
as
far
as
violating
federal
law.
This
bill
is
decriminalizing
the
possession
and
prosecution
in
the
state
of
tennessee,
and
when
we
go
talk
about
violation
of
federal
law,
we
have
already
passed
something
that
the
state
will
not
enforce
that
it's
public
chapter
380,
dealing
with
firearms,
says
that
we
will
not
use
our
personnel
our
property
or
funds
if
that
violates
state
law,
tennessee
constitution
or
tennessee
common
law.
P
N
P
A
B
A
N
A
N
A
Thank
you,
sir,
for
the
clarification
no,
the
summer
study
motion
was
was
tabled.
We
are
voting
on
the
bill
as
amended.
A
roll
call
vote
has
been
requested.
If
you
are
for
the
bill
as
amended,
you
would
vote
yes.
If
you
are
against
the
bill
as
amended,
you
would
vote
no
any
further
questions.
Okay,
seeing
none!
Madam
clerk,
please
call
the
roll
take
the
vote.
A
A
L
A
H
Mr
chairman,
I
know
folks
are
filled
in
a
room,
we're
short
on
time,
but
I
want
to
thank
you
for
your
leadership
of
this
committee.
What
we
have
just
seen
over
the
last
few
hours
is
the
courage
of
a
man
who
I've
come
to
count
as
a
dear
friend
of
mine,
and
we
have
disagreed
on
issues
before,
but
there
is
never
a
time
in
my
life
that
I
have
ever
doubted
your
heart
and
your
soul
to
the
service
of
this
state,
and
I
admire
you,
sir,
for
the
way
you
have
run
this
committee.
H
You
certainly
have
done
a
much
better
job
than
your
predecessor
did,
and
I
have
I
have
literally,
and
I
mean
this
whatever
fiber,
my
being
have
always
been
impressed
at
how
you
make
sure
that
all
of
us
get
a
fair
shot
in
here
and
that's
all
of
us
could
any
all
of
us
could
ever
ask
for.
Is
that
and
mr
chairman,
thank
you
for
that,
because
all
of
our
verses
have
always
been
heard
in
here.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.