1 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

CHAIRPERSONS: Senator Gary Winfield, Representative Steve Stafstrom

SENATORS: Anwar, Bradley, Champagne, Haskell, Kasser, Kissel, Lesser, Sampson, Winfield,

REPRESENTATIVES: Blumenthal, Callahan, Conley, Currey, Dillon, Doucette, Dubitsky, Fiorello, Fishbein, Fox, Godfrey, Harding, Howard, Labriola, Luxenberg, Miller, O'Dea, Palm, Porter, Quinn, Rebimbas, Riley, Simms, Veach, Walker, Young, Candelora

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Good morning, everyone. I'd like to call to order the Judiciary Committee Public Hearing for February 26, 2021. We have one item on our agenda today. And that's Senate Bill 888, which is AN ACT RESPONSIBLY AND EQUITABLY REGULATING ADULT-USE CANNABIS. It is a Governor's Bill that is before us today. And I know we have a number of folks in the administration here with us. So, we're going to start there. Before we do though, I just want to remind the Committee that we have nearly 150 people who are signed up to testify today at three minutes a pop, that's seven and a half hours of testimony straight through without any questions or delays or the like.

I would ask the Committee today so that we can get to hear from the public sooner rather than later that if you have questions, that they be brief, they be direct, and they be to the point and they not be repetitive. I understand members may be in and out of this Committee and other Committees today, that's fine. But for the interest of the public, and for those who are testifying, if you've missed something, we can go back and watch it, or we can follow up, particularly with the administration 2 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

officials, we can follow up offline. I would ask folks to stay to the Bill before us today. And again, keep your questions pointed and direct so that we can get to the public and hear from them before the wee hours of the night and into tomorrow morning.

With that, comments from my Co-Chair, the ranking members before we begin.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Chairman Stafstrom. I don't have any comments, except to put it, to echo what you suggested. And to remind people that the seven and a half hours is actually probably longer given the technology platform that we're on. So, I don't think we're banning question, but we're asking people to consider that because there will be an impact on those who come to tell us what their perspective is on this Bill. Thank you.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, sir. Do you want to thank him and then I will?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Go ahead Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): You know, I have no problem with, you know, non-repetitive questions. But you know, this is the process that we are unfortunately left with in a pandemic, and I understand that it's cumbersome and all of that. You know, I -- there is seven people in here from the Governor's office, there’s six. It would be helpful if the Governor himself was here to answer a lot of these questions, perhaps that would truncate a portion of this. So instead of handing off and all that stuff, but we'll proceed accordingly. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Representative. All right, we will begin then. First up, I think to introduce the Bill and to give the high-level overview is the Governor's Chief of Staff, Paul Mounds. Mr. Mounds, you may proceed. 3 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

PAUL MOUNDS: Thank you, Chairman Stafstrom. I want to thank Chairman Winfield; I’d like to thank the Ranking Members and all the members of the Committee. My name is Paul Mounds Jr. I’m the Chief of Staff for Governor Ned Lamont and I’m also joined by quite a few members of our administration representing being able to answer all your questions and represent the Governor directly. And starting with the Senior Advisor, Jonathan Harris, Senior Policy Adviser Mohit Agrawal, Policy Adviser, Patrick Hulin. From our agencies that are going to be represented today, we have quite a few agencies. So, I won't go through everyone's names, but I’ll say just the agencies that are represented. Office of Policy and Management Marc Pelka, the Undersecretary of Criminal Justice, Department of Emergency Safety and Public Protection, Commissioner Rovella representing being able to take on any questions and concerns that deals with criminal justice issues.

Traffic Safety, we have Garrett Eucalitto, who's the Deputy Commissioner, as well as Commissioner [Inaudible] from DMV. Market regulation, we have Commissioner Segal, Department of Consumer Protection. Revenue portions we have now official, Commissioner Mark Boughton of DRS. And we also have various members of their teams and their staff represented today.

I think that's a perfect example to go into this Bill. It's a comprehensive Bill. It's a Bill that will look as the title says responsibly and equitably regulating the adult-use cannabis. We have seen across the country and in our region that the regulation of cannabis is here. And this year alone, New York will be pursuing legislation, New Jersey this past week signed their legislation, the law, we know what's going on in Massachusetts, and Rhode Island will also be presenting legislation. But that's not the real reason in terms of to regulate a marketplace. Real reason is to right wrongs. What 4 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

cannabis and the war on drugs has done to our communities is unconscionable. We have to take steps to not only right those wrongs but take steps to make sure that individuals are not only among the marketplace but are part of the marketplace.

So, the overall problem, the Governor will say directly, prohibition has failed us completely. The war on campus has did little to protect public health and safety. Instead, it has caused significant and justices for many of our residents, especially people in our black and brown communities. Cannabis already is or will be soon legal in our neighboring states, as I stated, and it's time for Connecticut to join this regional and national movement.

The overall solution, we feel is necessary to put forth a comprehensive, well-regulated marketplace. So the Governor has proposed a comprehensive framework for cultivation, manufacture, sale, possession, use, taxation of adult-use cannabis that prioritizes public health, public safety and social justice. This proposal will build on the significant work that the legislature has done in previous sessions, particularly this Committee, as it deals with adult-use of cannabis and ensures alignment that the approaches pursued by states in our region. So how do we get here?

I mentioned members of my team, my direct team, as well as members of our administration who have worked comprehensively to put forth a starting framework. And the key word is starting, the beauty of the legislative and deliberative process that makes sure that we hear our voices, and hear all angles, to make sure all concerns are taken under account and all questions are answered.

This is not a final Bill. I’ll say it again, this is not a final Bill. There's a Bill that has to go through multiple Committees, this is a Bill that will have to have multiple voices a part of it and 5 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

multiple people at the table. This is a Bill that the administration feels is saying to the legislature at whole and those who are advocates and those who are part of wanting to bring about this change in Connecticut, we want to sit at the table, we want you at the table. And we want to get a Bill to the Governor's desk that he will be able to sign that really have a full, well-regulated marketplace here in Connecticut that takes on all of those elements that I’ve stated previously.

You have the Governor's formal testimony. And I know Ranking Member Fishbein who stated that he would love to have the Governors here, sorry that the Governor couldn't be here today. But you have his whole team. You have the very people who worked on this legislation. You have the very people in the agencies that will have to regulate this legislation. You have the very people who have to promulgate this legislation. They will be here to answer all your questions, go really into details, and really have a full comprehensive conversation with the Committee and the public at large.

What I would like to do right now, with the permission of the Chairman, is pass it off to Jonathan Harris to talk about some other elements of the Bill. And you have our whole team and our full administration ready to answer any and all questions.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): So, I think -- thank you, Mr. Mounds. I think yes, I think the most streamlined way to do this is there's a number of members of the administration who are signed up to testify, and I know there's some overlap. And I’m sure some of the questions will. We want to make sure they're addressed to the right people. So, I think what we should do is we will give each of the folks signed up to testify from the administration three minutes. We are going to clock them, we asked them to be brief and to the point with their testimony, and then we will open it up to -- we will 6 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

open it up to the members to ask questions of the administration. And hopefully the appropriate agency can answer because as you said, this is a comprehensive Bill with a number of, number of moving parts. So, with that, I'd like to give Mr. Harris three minutes to testify.

JONATHAN HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Winfield, Ranking Members Kissel and Fishbein and to the distinguished members of this Committee, I also want to give special thanks to Administrator Blanchard, who helped put together this panel in this virtual world she was great working with and kudos to her and other staff.

I just really wanted to supplement what the Chief of Staff said and start off this important discussion today, actually continue the discussion of over the years and set the context by how we got here in the recent months. You know, we were very occupied as you know, we all were with the 24/7 effort to address COVID. And in the fall, the Governor realized that the equity discussion had advanced as he had contemplated under his Bill last year, SB 16. And we didn't want to start these conversations in the heat of the session. It's a complicated issue. There are many different opinions on what equity is and how we can achieve it.

So, what the Governor did is he asked me, Dave Reyers and some others to pull together the Cannabis Equity discussion group. And we met from November of 2020 into January of 21. We met weekly we pulled in experts, we divided into subgroups. There was a front-end subgroup licensing with Jason Ortiz, headed up a back-end revenue, what we do with the proceeds that Harper Council President, Malley Rosado held -- headed up and we had productive discussions.

The message from the beginning was that given the timeframe of the discussion group, given the fact that we needed to get the Governor's Bill to LCO in 7 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

January, and the fact that we had to take into account all fiscal implications, because we also in the Executive branch have to produce a balanced budget on time, which needed to be locked before the end of January. It was highly unlikely that we'd be able to get sufficient details into the original Bill. But we would lay out equity markers, as the Chief described, we continue the discussion with joy and fable substitute language and beyond that.

And that's exactly what happened. There was actually an email that Jason Ortiz sent on January 26, when the budget was pretty locked. He said thanks, again, to everyone who participated on today's call, we had an excellent group with a wide variety of stakeholders. And I’m looking forward to making these well thought out ideas a reality. We already had the Bill pretty much done and locked. But the one thing that actually that we were able to get complete consensus on and we did have well before the budget lock, a social equity study did make it into the budget $75,000.

So, Governor is not ignoring this discussion group, not ignoring social equity. We want to continue that discussion. And I’ll conclude here that we have two Bills, we have the Governor's Bill 163 pages, probably have some other Bills and ideas out there. And we have a Cheri Bustos’ Bill from Labor, a 24- page Bill. One that has a full regulatory structure takes into account other areas of law, like criminal law, traffic safety, product safety.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Mr. Harris.

JONATHAN HARRIS: Yep.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I’m gonna be interrupt just quickly, because we are at the three-minute mark. But also, I want to stick to the Bill before us here in this Committee today. I understand folks may want to compare and contrast, but in the Judiciary Committee, we hear book Bills that are drafted and 8 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

presented to this Committee. And so, I would like as our conversation continues today, I know folks who want to talk about different topics or issues that may or may not be in this Bill. But I’ll ask folks who are testifying to try to stick to the Bill that is before this Committee here today for our public hearing, because that's what has been noticed for here.

JONATHAN HARRIS: Yes, I apologize. I wasn't trying to bring in the details of the Bill. I just, I wanted to get to the notion that there are people out there that are saying these are competing, conflicting Bills, they're actually complimentary. They were forged under different timeframes with different responsibilities. And I’m not just saying that as a member of the executive branch, I spent six years in the Senate, six years before that, as a trainee in the House.

So, I understand the different timeframes, but what I’m saying is that this is the process. And as Paul said, this is what we want to continue the discussion with competing with that competing, but with complimentary ideas. And that's all of us. The Governor wants to sit down and go beyond this.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Understood, and I appreciate that. All right, we are going to move on. I think next on criminal justice issues. We have Marc Pelka from the Office of Policy Management, who has three minutes.

JONATHAN HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MARC PELKA: Thank you also, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Winfield, Chair Winfield, Ranking Members of Fishbein and Kissel for the opportunity to present to you on the Criminal Justice sections in the Bill which cover Sections 2 through 14.

The Bill overall creates a robust framework for regulating the adult-use of cannabis with licensing 9 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

and highway safety taxation, revenue, public health. This section helps the criminal justice system to prepare for the state to regulate the adult-use of cannabis in four key areas. Number one, responses and sanctions for possession of cannabis above the limit, erasure of existing criminal records, establishing a regulated market without risk of criminal liability for retailers and focusing criminal justice system resources.

Under the Bill, possession of up to one and a half ounces of cannabis is permitted for those 21 years of age or older. Possession of between 1.5 and 2.5 ounces is an infraction with increasing financial penalties for second violations and possession above two and a half ounces as an infraction and then a misdemeanor first set second subsequent offenses. The penalties for underage possession are modeled very similarly to the penalties for underage possession of alcohol involving infractions, a subject to suspension of a driver's license, with the ability to refer to a JRB, or the diversion or the court for resources.

The part I think I’ll be focusing my testimony the heaviest on in my limited time is the clearance of criminal records. It is important now for us to address the wrongs involved in the war on drugs and the impact that criminal convictions and enforcement have had on our state, specifically on communities of color. There are two provisions Section 4 and Section 5 regarding criminal records for people with convictions for possession of cannabis of four ounces or less; from October 1, 2015 forward, they could petition the court for erasure. For people with older records prior to 2015, they would be benefiting from an equity efficient and effective solution using an automated or ratio process.

Many states that enact adult-use of cannabis provisions do include erasure. Connecticut would be a leader in establishing an automated process using synchronized synchronization from [DESPP], the 10 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Judicial Branch using [SEJAS] to notify criminal justice agencies regarding the erasure of these older records. This will enable people to move past these convictions, less unburdened. We couldn't address the hardship as a whole but enable them to pursue housing employment education program and much more.

The Governor has included $2 million for the implementation of using IT to provide an equitable solution to the impact of criminal records. We continue to work with the executive branch agencies and judicial branch to implement and plan for this effectively. And there are still some concerns from agencies around the specifics of implementation and we will work very hard with them to address those areas.

Because the automated erasure must cite a specific statute, there are other control substances in the automated erasure non-hallucinogenic, non-narcotic, and cannabis accounts for the majority anecdotally of those convictions. But this will allow Connecticut to address past wrongs, enable people to move forward productively and effectively without those hardships. Regarding the regulation of the cannabis market --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Mr. Pelka, you’re at the three-minute mark. So, if can just wrap up for me.

MARC PELKA: All right. Thank you, sir. The following two sections areas I'd mentioned enable people to work in the cannabis market without risk of a criminal liability. And it helps to focus the criminal justice system resources more effectively under a legalization of adult-use. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Next, we will turn to Commissioner Rovella of the Department Emergency Services and Public Protection. Commissioner. 11 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

COMMR. ROVELLA: Thank you, Representative Stafstrom. Good morning, Chairs, Ranking Members and all those folks that are on this call today. I’ve submitted a letter of support for Governor's Bill 888. Last year, I got a sense of the questions that kind of went across all of [DESPP], right to include the state police posts and scientific services. So, this morning, what I decided to do is bring along a host of experts to answer your questions.

You know, I introduce a few of the people, my Executive Assistant, Scott Vigo is behind me, my Chief of Staff, Major Harbeck and other people wo aren’t here are Dr. Guy Valero who's the Director of Scientific Services, Dr. Michael Reichenbach, who's in the Toxicology Assistant Director of Toxicology at Scientific Services, Karen Bovaird, is the Director of Post which is Police Officer Standards and Training, Dane Silcox who is also in line, he's the Manager of SPBI, which is State Police Bureau of Identification and he can tell you about erasures and criminal records, Lieutenant Bartolotta from the Connecticut State Police and his knowledge of the erasure and DRE programs and not to be overlapping will overlap with some of the DOT testimony today. Sergeant Geonode, who's in the SLFU, State Police Special License and Firearms Unit.

These are kind of the breadth of questions I saw last year. And I want to make sure we get those answers for you. So, we'll do our best to stay in our lane as you share our testimony. And sometimes like I said, it'd be overlapping with especially DOT and some with DMV. And as always, if we can't answer a question, we'll conduct our research and get it back to the Clerk of the Commission in a timely manner. Thank you very much.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Commissioner. Yes, I’m sure there will be plenty questions on the driving element to this and we appreciate bringing your team along. Next up will be Garrett Eucalitto 12 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

from the Department of Transportation to introduce himself. Mr. Eucalitto? Okay.

JONATHAN HARRIS: Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yes, sir.

JONATHAN HARRIS: The DMV and DOT have some probe hearings this morning. So, timing wise, that might be what's happening here.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Okay, well, we can I know they're around for questions and like I said, I’m sure there will be questions. So, let's get down to Commissioner Seagull on Department of Consumer Protections piece to this Bill. Commissioner.

COMMR. SEAGULL: Good morning. Thank you. And thank you to the Chairs, Ranking Members, Honorable Members of the Judiciary Committee. Commissioner of Consumer Protection, we have actually a fair amount of experience regulating cannabis based on our oversight of Connecticut's medical marijuana program. Our intent is to take a lot of that learning and apply it to this new adult-use marketplace. So, the key areas we're going to be focused on is ensuring product safety. So, lab testing of products, limiting serving size potency, steps to avoid diversion to security requirements, seed to sale tracking of the product, licensing these businesses, there's going to be focused on avoiding sales to underage users. So, requirements on checking ID, child resistant packaging. There's a lot of rules around what kind of advertising would be permissible.

And then another really important part of our role will be protecting the medical market and making sure that patients continue to have access to the medicine they need and ensuring that part of the market works.

With that I’m happy to answer questions about how we 13 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

would envision regulating this market and what our role would be in that. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Commissioner. And finally, before we open it up to questions, I'd like to welcome Commissioner Boughton to certainly his first appearance before the Judiciary Committee as Commissioner.

MARK BOUGHTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's my pleasure to be here today and I’ve submitted written testimony. So, you certainly can peruse that. So, I’m not gonna bother reading it. I know we're on a tight timeline. We have a lot of people that want to speak. And I’m sensitive to that.

Our takeaway here from our discussion with me as John Biello, who's our Deputy Commissioner, as well as the Louis Bucari is our Chief Legal Counsel and of course, everybody knows Susan and Ernie who are watching on YouTube, they can also get back to you with questions -- answers to questions that you might have later on.

If I had to take away it would be this, that the IRS is prepared to fairly and equitably administer tax provisions in a legalized, regulated cannabis market. I’m not going to go through all the tax provisions that have been drafted in this Bill, I will tell you that the IRS is in a stronger position now than it was a year ago to fulfill our responsibilities as they have been outlined. We've launched a first phase of a transformative multiyear modernization project., it'll improve how we administer taxes. It has a module specifically designed for the sale and taxation of cannabis. Massachusetts has been down the same road and we actually are using a lot of their technology that they've already implemented. So, we have a system that will work. We certainly will benefit from resources that have been put in the Governor's budget as they relate to personnel technology. And of course, we're grateful for that. 14 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

We stand ready to answer questions or concerns that the Committee or may have, and we'll be monitoring here for the entire time of the meeting. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. At this point, I would like to open it up to questions. Representative Fishbein, you're up first.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair, I guess a general overview question for the panel is if they read the Bill, and they agree with the content of the Bill. If not, what portion they would disagree with?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I guess we'll direct that to Chief of Staff, Mounds. It's my understanding that there are different hands that have written different sections of this Bill. I know in the past when we've done this, we've bifurcated this across Committees of the legislature and the like. I think the thought was to try to streamline that this year and put it all in in one Bill. So, you know, I don't want to speak for the administration. But

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, there is a representation for the administration, this is a working document. So, I’m trying to figure out what parts are workable.

PAUL MOUNDS: I’ll be happy to address that Ranking Member Fishbein. Thank you for the question. Without mentioning or talking about any other concept that's out there the administration feels that the regulatory portion of this Bill is the most comprehensive regulatory Bill for marijuana structure that's currently within the legislative process. When I think when we talked about a working process, I think it goes to the fact that this Governor in this administration respects the deliberative process of the legislature. And so I think it's more the fact of us really saying this, 15 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

this is us putting forth a Bill for the Committee, as the Chairman Stafstrom has stated, in the past, the Bill has been split up for various sections based upon the agency of cognizance of that usual section. But this year, put it all as one.

And I think the other thing is, obviously, there has been a lot of respectfully, I will say respectfully chatter, as it deals with the approach by the administration towards this Bill, particularly, as Senior Advisor Harris was demonstrating as it deals with equity. And I think the key that this administration is saying is, if there are other items that people would like to talk about, or other items that they feel is lacking in the Bill, we will love to sit at the table and do it in a respectful manner. Obviously, there has like I said, there's been a lot of chatter that's been outside of the legislative process, to put characterization on the Governor, his staff and his administration.

So, I think that's what to answer your question, I think that's what we're getting to is that we feel that this is a very comprehensive Bill. We feel that is a Bill that we should get through legislative process. But we also feel that this is a Bill where if individuals, legislators, caucus leaders, and others feel that needs to be modify or change, we are all ears.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, am I to understand from that answer that the Governor and the administration is comfortable with all aspects of this document, as drafted?

PAUL MOUNDS: Yes, we would not put anything in front of the legislature if we weren't comfortable presenting it to the legislature.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, we'll get there in a little bit. So how do I deal with the fact that I don't know if you took an oath of office? I did. Did you get sworn into to abide by the Federal 16 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Constitution?

PAUL MOUNDS: I will say this as someone who previously worked in the federal Congress, both chambers, someone who's worked in public service all my life, and I’m here with a bunch of my colleagues who work under me and the Governor who've worked in public service. While there's not an official oath in the Connecticut constitution that civil servants have to take, we do take an oath of saying that we will work as strong public servants on behalf of the people of the state of Connecticut.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Understood, and that's the troubling aspect of the Governor not being here, because he's the only member of the administration that I believe, does take an oath to the Federal Constitution, which, you know, Article 6 clause 2 of our Federal Constitution, the supremacy clause says, generally that when the federal government creates a law, that it is supreme, and that a state cannot pass a law in contravention to that. Are you aware of that? I don't know if you're a lawyer.

PAUL MOUNDS: I am not a lawyer, but I can short play one on TV.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So how do I, as an elected official, who took an oath to abide by the state as well as the Federal Constitution in any way, shape or form support the concept without there being an allegation that I’ve violated that of?

PAUL MOUNDS: I will pass it off to our senior advisor, Jonathan Harris, who is a lawyer, for that question.

JONATHAN HARRIS: Thank you, Ranking Member Fishbein. I think you need to delve in a little bit more. What are we violating? Are you claiming a preemption argument here? I don't want to go into like a back and forth on this with you. But you know, what are we violating? 17 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

We have a medical marijuana law that has been in existence for a while, you can make the argument on that too I guess if that’s what you're trying to do.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Was it that other state -- sorry.

JONATHAN HARRIS: No, that’s okay. You can continue.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, has a medical marijuana law ever been challenged in federal court?

JONATHAN HARRIS: Not that I know of sir.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, it has ever been upheld by any federal court, any state's medical marijuana system.

JONATHAN HARRIS: I know no challenges. But again, I’m not. I’m not here as a lawyer, nor have I been following all the case law around the country.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, under federal law, marijuana is a controlled substance, it's on schedule one, which under the schedules means that it has no medicinal value under federal law. Just to put that into perspective, cocaine is on schedule two, which means that at least under federal law it has some medicinal value, which I perhaps differ with quite frankly. But that is the law of the land. So, you know, while I think I agree with the underpinnings of the movement, how do I vote for this without violating my oath of office?

PAUL MOUNDS: Commissioner Seagull, I saw that you are unmuting.

COMMR. SEAGULL: Oh, I can leave it to Jonathan to answer that and everybody obviously needs to make their own kind of decision on what that means. I will say that the federal government is aware of state's medical and recreational laws, and has not - 18 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

- I’m not aware of -- I’m certainly not aware of a federal challenge to Connecticut medical marijuana program, the country with the federal government has done way back, you know, many years ago without guidance in terms of how federal authorities will kind of use their enforcement authority in recognition that a lot of cannabis laws do exist throughout the state.

So, there was a Cole memo issued back during the Obama administration, where the federal government acknowledged and there's been follow on ones with regard to banking and other things, acknowledging that these laws exist, and how federal government should respond to them.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, have we reached out to, you know, the President. I know the President has talked about going to Congress legalizing this product, which would have, you know, alleviate my concern. But certainly, right now, I mean, we are the United States of America. You know, I think we've fought the civil war over, you know, states not agreeing on what federal laws we were going to abide by. I just, you know, I don't want to go in a circle here, but I’m having a lot of problems with our state, my state, saying, we're just not going to abide by a federal law, we're going to do our own thing and then claim to be part of this United States of America. So we're moving forward, because I know we're gonna be here for a while.

Under this language, a 21-year-old or older, can possess or use or consume this this product. Correct?

PAUL MOUNDS: Correct.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. And I know the last time we talked about this Bill, a couple of years ago, there was a lot of testimony about the mind of a youth and development and there was a lot of talk about 25 as opposed to 21. Why is the Governor 19 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

picking 21 instead of the 25, here?

PAUL MOUNDS: Jonathan.

JONATHAN HARRIS: I will turn that over to the criminal justice panel. And I have a response also Representative Fishbein, but I tried to raise my hand before but what Commissioner Seagull spoke, but I can get back to that after.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Sure.

MARC PELKA: This is Marc Pelka. 21 was selected to align with other states laws regarding adult-use of cannabis and aligns with use of alcohol as well. And there would be a public awareness campaign associated with the legalization of adult-use of cannabis that would -- and there are a number of other regulations and requirements regarding where the centers could be -- the storefronts could be located and ways to really ensure that there is full public awareness about the dangers of use of this substance.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, what is the fear? I mean, we talked about being a leader, but here we're being a follower. Why was it Connecticut's decision to select 25? Is there a fear that a 23-year-old I mean, to select 21 instead of 25? Is it a fear that if we select 25 that a 20-year-old is going to do it? I’m just trying to, you know, supposed to be leading here. Why instead of following another state, why did we select 21?

MARC PELKA: Mr. Chairman, this is, I think, an awareness that well, for example, state borders are permeable. And that's something we're challenged with. Now there are Billboard advertisements around stores and Massachusetts already, we would know that person who is Connecticut were to make cannabis possession legal for 25 and older, then people falling in lower ages could be easily crossing the borders to make purchases and bring it back. We 20 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

wanted to -- there's been a number of examples of recognition within our tightly concentrated region, that people can easily move across borders. So, on areas you want to lead, and I mentioned some of those in my remarks where I think we're a leader. And there are other areas where it for safety for effectiveness and consistency is the right approach.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, if Massachusetts changed to 18, then that would be our move as well?

MARC PELKA: I think 18 would then I think that's just what a reduce at 18, there would be a number of implications that would differ from us having a higher than 21-year age. You know, your original Ranking Member’s question, there is a concern, what if Connecticut works at a higher age than a neighboring state? This question involves kind of setting a lower age, which would I think unveil a number of other considerations that would make it a different proposition.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Jonathan, did you want to add to that? You said you do?

JONATHAN HARRIS: Yeah. I just wanted to go back into point. I’m glad that Commissioner Seagull brought in the Cole memo, which I remember from my days that, you know, that that took the attitude that laid out that if states are acting or people are acting within the parameters of state law, then the feds were taking a hands-off approach. But the reality is that I don't believe we have to follow federal criminal laws. The feds, you know, kind of can enforce those laws, and they've chosen not to.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, your opinion is that Connecticut does not have to follow federal criminal laws.

JONATHAN HARRIS: We can have our own set of laws that the feds want to enforce their laws in the state of Connecticut. That's their prerogative, as 21 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the Cole memo showed and as the lack of enforcement shows the feds have taken a hands-off attitude.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): That's an enforcement issue, but that's different than the state. We'll go on.

Under our Bill, or the Governor's Bill, it deals with the Equity Council. And I believe the Equity Council is supposed to be guided by the study that is referenced on lines 534 to 541. Do we know how much that study is going to cost?

JONATHAN HARRIS: Can you say that again? The social equity study?

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yes, sir.

JONATHAN HARRIS: $75,000 in the budget.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And while it's in the budget, have we actually put out any RFP or anything like that? Or is that just a earmark at this point?

JONATHAN HARRIS: That's just in the proposed Governor's budget right now. We've been discussing ways to get that done.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And the intent of that study, and then the Commission is to give preferential treatment to individuals that currently live in disproportionately harmed towns, or at any time lived in those towns.

JONATHAN HARRIS: It is not designed to give preferential treatment, it is not a disparity study, it is designed to identify those communities that have been, you know, most severely impacted by the war on drugs.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yes, yeah.

JONATHAN HARRIS: It is not about places, it's not about preferences for people. 22 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. But once those places are identified, what is the utilization of that information in the context of this Bill?

JONATHAN HARRIS: It would not be based on race; it would be based on --.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I didn't say anything about race, sir, we talked about a place. What would be the utilization of that identification of a particular place in the context of this Bill?

JONATHAN HARRIS: The utilization would be to identify areas to help try to define what social equity applicants might be, to help try to define where revenues might be skewed to, to help redress the injustices of the, you know, disproportionate enforcement of the cannabis laws.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, so that's where I started, the social applicants, once a town is identified--.

JONATHAN HARRIS: It. might not be a town, it could be a could be a neighborhood, it could be a census tract. It's trying to target where social equity should be applied.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, and once that area is identified and the social applicants, how is that employed here? That was my original question, do they had to have lived there? Do they have to presently be located there? I can't tell from this language, how that identification is supposed to be utilized for identifying an applicant.

JONATHAN HARRIS: First of all, that is part of what the Equity Commission will be doing. They're going to be making recommendations based on that. The Bill does not flesh that out in detail.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Why wouldn't it isn't that the job of the legislature? 23 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

JONATHAN HARRIS: As I said before, representative, we were having these discussions on how to best proceed to define social equity. And the details could not be fleshed out before this Bill was raised to the extent that those discussions can occur through the legislative process, as Chief of Staff Mounds discussed, then there could be more detail by the end of the session in this Bill. But right now, the way we have it structured to mark the commitment to equity, to mark the intent to get to these issues, is having a study and a Cannabis Equity Commission to be able to oversee that study, to be able to make recommendations to future legislators to next session is what we have eyed on to make more detailed decisions. Something could happen before that as we proceed through the legislative process this session.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, I don't know who would answer this question. In line 583 it indicates that any person shall be 18 years of age or older to hold a cannabis establishment license. A cannabis established license means that an 18-year-old can get a license to manufacture, grow, sell, under this language that you all support that the Governor supports that can't possess unless you're 21. Can you put that together for me? Am I reading that wrong?

COMMR. SEAGULL: I can speak to that one. So, you're not reading it wrong. And that's currently in the medical marijuana you can be a 18 to be an employee. And that's consistent like 18-year-olds can be working in restaurants that may serve liquor. So even though you can't use the product, you could be for example, in our medical businesses, a pharmacy tech, and so that's a job that's available to someone who's 18 even though they themselves, you know, really anybody who doesn't have debilitating condition actually couldn't use the product. And so, the law matches up where people who are currently employed in the medical program could remain 24 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

employed in the cannabis industry.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And that's your interpretation of what that says.

COMMR. SEAGULL: That you can be 18 to be licensed as an employee, but you would have to be 21 to actually use the product. Yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, so where in this Bill is cannabis establishment licensee defined?

COMMR. SEAGULL: So, cannabis, this stuff, it's all in the definitions section. So, cannabis establishment is defined in the definitions and it basically lists out the different types of businesses and then employee is defined there as well.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, but with this 583 says, is that any person shall be 18 years or older to hold any cannabis establishment license issued pursuant to this act. So, the question is, what is it a cannabis establishment license? So, let's go back to the definitions. Cannabis establishment means a producer, dispensary facility, a cultivator, a micro cultivator, a retailer, a hybrid retailer, food and beverage manufacturer, a product manufacturer, a product packager and a delivery service. So where is that 18-year-old under this language that the Governor supports that you're all here to talk in favor of say it's only the employee.

COMMR. SEAGULL: What’s in -- it basically what it's saying is that to have any of the licenses that are being created, you need to be 18. So, it lists establishments, it lists backers or key employees or regular employees. So, it's just pulling off, obviously a human person can't be a business, but they are going to be the people who work at own or invest in those businesses and get the licenses associated with that.

25 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I understand what you're saying. But that means that a 18 year old can be a producer, a dispensary, a cultivator, a micro cultivator, a retailer, a hybrid retailer, food and beverage manufacturer, so on and so forth. But because they're not 21, how do they possess? You see the conflict?

COMMR. SEAGULL: Well, they wouldn't be able to put to that -- they wouldn't be able to for personal use if in conjunction with their role as an employee.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): But they could sell to others.

COMMR. SEAGULL: Right, just like people now can work in the medical marijuana businesses, not be medical marijuana patients. So, they're allowed to sell the product, they're allowed to handle the product, but they're not allowed to use the product. So, it would be similar. Similarly, if you had a waiter who was 19, they could serve a drink, but they couldn't drink it themselves.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, right. It doesn’t make sense to me, but I guess it does to the administration. Moving on.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Representative Fishburne, this is Mohit Agrawal with the Governor's office. I am just pointing out the language in Section 6 of the veil starting at line 368, which specifically --.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Line 368.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Specifically allows for individuals who hold an establishment, cannabis option license or work there or invest in them to not be subject to the state's criminal laws on cannabis so long as they're doing their jobs.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, that's an interesting question, sir, because it doesn't have the word 26 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

state in there, which is interesting. It is certainly challengeable because it says that none of these individuals or entities that get involved in this may be subject to arrest or prosecution, penalized in any manner were denied the right or privilege including but not limited to being subjected to a disciplinary action. There is no way that the state of Connecticut can guarantee that the feds won't revoke a license. It just, I mean, so maybe the word state should be in there, which you just read in there, which made sense but it's not in there. So, you know, one of the reasons also that we shouldn't be treading upon federal law.

Moving on to line --.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Just to elaborate quickly, Section 18 of the Bill starting in line 590 also speaks to - -.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Line 590. Hold on.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Speak to the state and federal nexus.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah, I circled that one too. I had the same concern with that one. And that is a standalone does have the word state in it, but the other one did not.

So, moving on to line 827 with the Billboard situation, it appears that you selected a particular medium to ban advertising of this product. Why?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Representative, I can speak to that as well. To our understanding, no Billboard in the state would meet the criteria under subdivision 2 line 800, but where we are directing the 90% or more of the market, the unit be composed of individuals 21 years of age or more. And so, in order to clarify our intent, we thought it was clear enough just to say Billboards for one our medium which would not satisfy that requirement. That is an area, again, 27 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

emphasizing with the Chief of Staff and the Senior Advisor mentioned already, you know, the reason we are here, and the reason the Governor’s Bill is in front of this Committee is for these discussions and so we are very willing to discuss with the law of this industry could be in regards to the advertising canvas.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, is there a study or something that would indicate that it wouldn't be in compliance with the 90% rule as shown in line 801? Because that was, I mean, a newspaper, you know, this arguably, because you didn't pick on newspapers, I would think probably gets more potential view by someone under the age of 21 than a Billboard. I mean, newspaper open in the kitchen table. Where did this singling out come from? Because I’ve got equal protection First Amendment issues surrounding you just picking on Billboards.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: So, there's a good question, Representative, we are still in both a legal review process and a discussion process on these advertising restrictions. Our conversation with the Outdoor Advertising Association makes us understand that Billboards do not meet the 90% standard.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): That comes from them?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: It does, sir.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And what about radio?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: I can't speak directly to radio. My understanding with advertising media in general is that there are mechanisms to identify audiences and different kinds of demographics. And so, radio I’m sure has something that they can point to. But this is -- these are standard features of both alcohol, pretty much the alcohol industry as well. And so, there are metrics in the advertising industry to identify the age of the of the individuals who are seeing the advertising. 28 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): But a child can turn on a radio and a child can turn on the television, but a child can't drive a car, you know, that's going down the street on a Billboard, and see the Billboard. So, I just don't -- I still don't understand the basis for singling that out. I did some poking around. I didn't see any industry stuff, but they would support that.

But moving on to the ban on names. Well, I’m going to go on from there. The on line 20 --853. It indicates that under this proposed language, the July 1, of this year, licenses will for the purposes of where we are, one through eight, which starts with the retailer and the delivery service, would start to -- the department would start to receive applications. Under this language, when would the licenses nine through 13 be available to apply for it because that is not -- I didn't see that in here at all?

COMMR. SEAGULL: I’m not sure what you mean by nine through 13. But so, one through eight are the new ones being created. There are existing licenses. So, producers, dispensaries, laboratories. So, because those already exists, we don't need a start date for those.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, so the backer license already exists?

COMMR. SEAGULL: Yeah, backer license. So, right now, existing medical businesses already apply for backers.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, so the licenses that I’m referring to nine to 13 would start on 890 through 896. And they're all you know, line 890 is parent time, 891 is parent 10. So that from getting the nine through 13, so all of those licenses presently exist.

29 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

COMMR. SEAGULL: Yeah, I mean, the way this is set up is elsewhere talks about employees, backers, key employees getting licensed or registered. And so that would sort of happen as a follow on once the, you know, the business itself is licensed, we would need to then at that point, people work at the individuals working there and sort of once you, you get to the later sections, talking about employees, and key employees and backers. It just sort of flows from that.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, I’m trying to figure out the licenses in nine through 13 starting at line 890 through 896; do they presently exist because then one can apply for them now. That's all I need to know.

COMMR. SEAGULL: They exist in a medical language. These are going to be ones for employees, key employees and backers. So right now there are backers and employees in the medical program, key employees a slightly different delineation here. But those licenses would start being issued once the businesses are licensed so that we are then licensing the individuals working at those businesses. So that's the way you kind of do sections work in conjunction is there's the date, we can start accepting applications, to identify the businesses that will be part of the industry. As those businesses are identified, they would need to start getting their relevant employees and investors licensed or registered.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, so I guess the route question is on July 1, of 2021, can I apply for an employee license, which is indicated on or key employee license on line 891; can I do that on July 1, of 2021?

COMMR. SEAGULL: No cannabis business yet. So, we're not going to license you to be an employee till we know where you're working.

30 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, you can't even apply?

COMMR. SEAGULL: So once there, so you could apply to be an employee at an existing medical business, you can apply to be a backer in existing medical business, but you would need to have been hired by or you know, have now an investment interest. We don't just have a whole bunch of individuals licensed to work at these places. And then they go out and get hired, the way it works is once you're hired, you apply to us to get a license to work there.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): How does one know they're gonna pass the background check, which is required in here if they're --.

COMMR. SEAGULL: The disqualifying conditions are listed in the statute. So, you'd see if you had one of those.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, you would have to know if you have one of those before you apply, you get hired and then the background check is done, which would indicate that you didn't have what you thought you didn't have. I don't get this, why wouldn't you tell somebody to apply?

COMMR. SEAGULL: There's not a free clearance process on background checks anywhere in the state of Connecticut.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): My last question has to do with home grow. You know, Vermont passed the law, arguably legalizing this product and they allow for home grow. Why is that not contemplated if all of a sudden, this product is now appropriate, why isn’t home grow, contemplated? And why is this just if the state gets a piece of the pie.

PAUL MOUNDS: I’ll jump in and anyone else on our team feel free. I would say obviously we put forth a Bill that the Governor is comfortable with. 31 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And he's not here to talk to us about that issue.

PAUL MOUNDS: The Chief of Staff is. He's put forth a Bill that the Governor is comfortable with at this time.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, why is and you’re unwilling to share the uncomfortability with a couple plants in my backyard?

PAUL MOUNDS: I think there's still there's more that needs to be looked at thoroughly as it deals with the homegrown related issue. But at this time, the Governor felt comfortable putting forth a Bill in the structure that's before the Committee at this time.

JONATHAN HARRIS: Chief of Staff, Mounds, I can just pick up on that I, first of all, that's a good question, Representative Fishbein, but homegrown is correct. It's not allowed, but the criminal penalties are substantially reduced. And our criminal team, justice team can tell you about that. And DCP will conduct a study on the subject.

One of the thoughts, you know, especially since we have a viable medical marijuana program right now, and we want to get up and running a well-regulated, safe, adult-use market that protects the public health and safety by allowing home grow, it's contrary to that purpose, because you're not going to have a safe, clean regulated product in the way that you would or the way that we do under medical marijuana, in the way that you would under this well-regulated market that's being set up under the Governor's Bill. And that we did not want to jump into that right away. But again, we've reduced the penalties, and we have tasked DCP to take a look at that.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I just did have one for Alex 32 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Giannone. Alex, are you still with us?

SGT. GIANNONE: Yes, I am.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Good morning, Sergeant.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Before we go there, can you just identify yourself for the record, please?

SGT. GIANNONE: Yes. Good morning, Sergeant Alex Giannone. Sergeant within the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit Connecticut State Police further within DESPP.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Proceed Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you. Alex, are you -- what is the department's position with regard to holders of medical marijuana cards and simultaneously holding a pistol permit? How are you addressing that?

SGT. GIANNONE: Yes, good question. So, there is actually a specific state statute which we rely upon that when someone has a medical marijuana card and they've done it within the confines of the law, the statute says and I forget the exact language; we shall not deny, prohibit any license, discriminate upon in any manner, way shape, or form.

So, in understanding that law and respecting that law, we do not revoke someone's pistol permit based upon the sole purpose of having a recreational marijuana, oh I’m sorry, a medical marijuana card, apologies.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): We say the sole purpose. Are you denying it or revoking based upon the usage of that medical marijuana card?

SGT. GIANNONE: Yes. Our understanding is one of the guidelines that the ATF and the FBI provide is that 33 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

a user of controlled substances is -- can be determined by one of a various number of manners, one of which is a conviction for a marijuana related crime. Our agency has or our unit has been revoking pistol permits pursuant to the federal guidance for people who have received medical marijuana convictions. The convictions if they aren't a misdemeanor or infraction, per the guidelines recommend 12 months of dispossessing themselves with a firearm or not possessing a firearm for 12 months. Certainly, if it's a felony, or 21A 279C, I believe is a statutory, a state statute misdemeanor disqualifier. You are then prohibited currently from possessing a firearm and a permit.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, your department is abiding by federal law with regard to the fact that this product is illegal and one who is a virtual user of or addicted to that substance and your determination is unable to possess a firearm, therefore, should not be issued a pistol permit?

SGT. GIANNONE: Right. There's a bit of a dichotomy. So, with medical marijuana, there is a state statute that says we shall not prohibit deny or revoke the license for any reason, and it's very broad. So, for medical marijuana, we're not taking any action based upon the state statute providing guidance to us as the executive. With respect to convictions for marijuana, we are abiding by the guidance that the federal guidelines suggest, which is 12 months, and we would be revoking a pistol permit for that 12- month period.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): But understanding just having a medical marijuana card is under the statute, not actionable to revoke or fail to issue a permit. You can revoke or I guess the purpose position if that card is used, let's say it's, you know, I think under the law, they can buy an ounce a day or something like that. They're smoking pot every day. And that comes to your department's attention, you're going to revoke or deny, correct? 34 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SGT. GIANNONE: No, if they have a medical marijuana card, and they are doing it lawfully and there are no conditions of suitability that are presented; meaning they are using marijuana under the influence and carrying a firearm or doing something deemed unsafe. We are not revoking exclusively because someone has a medical marijuana card.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, thank you. I just, I promised last for Commissioner Seagull. We were talking about the one having a license to engage in commerce, or cannabis establishment license, but they can't possess and you're talking about the waiter situation? Isn't it true that a 18 year old cannot get a liquor license?

COMMR. SEAGULL: Right. They couldn't own, for example, a package store, but they can work as a waiter. So, this allows people who are 18 or older to participate in the market, but not actually use the product.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): In effect, own a package store to vend this product.

COMMR. SEAGULL: Here in theory, they could have an investment. Yeah, they could be an investor.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): They could own the whole kit and caboodle they wanted to. But anyway, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. I think I had Senator Champagne next if he's ready. Let's go to Representative Quinn, followed by Senator Champagne.

REP. QUINN (82ND): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The questions that I have are concerning operating under the influence and how we're going to deal with this. So, I’m not sure which one of our panelists wants to jump in on this. But obviously, currently, if someone is operating under the influence of alcohol 35 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

police officer makes us stop. If they have reasonable suspicion of alcohol, they can then institute field tests. And if there's failure on the field test, and they decide to arrest, and we've got a breathalyzer that can be easily used.

For marijuana, it's going to be different though. As I understand it, there really isn't any simple test, like a breathalyzer equivalent for marijuana. So, you're going to have to obtain a urine sample or a blood sample and send it off for analysis. And right now, that takes months to do that. Are we going to treat operating under the influence of drugs exact - - operating under the influence of marijuana the same way is operating under the influence of alcohol? Are we going to change that?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Thank you for the question. Representative Quinn. Chair Stafstrom, can we introduce the team from the Department of Motor Vehicles, I believe that's joined the line. And Commissioner Rovella, if you want to introduce any members of your team on traffic safety, I believe the Department of Transportation has had to go to Appropriations Committee.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Let's do this. I don't know who wants to start with fielding that question that seems like a pretty broad one. Whether it's Commissioner Rovella or someone else but let's if folks have not spoken yet, when they if they're going to speak just make sure you identify yourself for the record. Commissioner let me start with you. Commissioner Rovella.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will start with a quick framing to the Bill. And to emphasize what the Senior Advisor was saying in his introductory remarks, the Governor's Bill is a comprehensive proposal for legalization of adult-use cannabis. And that includes a significant and important contribution to traffic safety. And there are significant amendments that we're making to the 36 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

state traffic safety laws, particularly the 14-227A and 14-227B. What we are doing in Connecticut is establishing -- what the Governor proposing to do is that we established a behavioral impairment standard. This is a standard that would apply to the use of any drug that goes beyond just the use of cannabis. And we have to recognize that just scientifically, cannabis behaves in the body in a much different way than alcohol does, which is why a nanogram per se level is an approach that we do not support in the administration.

So, with that, I know the commissioners here I know DMV is on the line, we have a lot of expertise to share on impaired driving.

COMMR. ROVELLA: So, if I may, at first like you to turn you over to Lieutenant Bartolotta who will talk to you a little bit about ARIDE and DRE for the first portion of Representative Quinn's question. And then I probably leak into Dr. Guy Vallaro for some analysis answers. And Rick Bach, Dr Rick Bach for, you know, where we're going. He's on a task force and where we're going with field testing or those presumptive tests. Lieutenant, are you there?

LT. BARTOLOTTA: I am Commissioner. Thank you. Representative Quinn, you are correct. Currently --.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Lieutenant just introduce yourself in your title for me, please.

LT. BARTOLOTTA: My apologies, Lieutenant Christopher Bartolotta, Department Emergency Services of Public Protection. I am currently the Commanding Officer of TRUE BAY in Southbury. But I have an extensive background both with the SFTs, ARIDE program as well as the DRE, which is the Drug Recognition Expert program. I’ve been declared an expert in this state and another state for testimony on the standardized field sobriety test and drug enforcement.

37 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Go ahead, please proceed.

LT. BARTOLOTTA: Representative Quinn, you are correct. We basically use the standardized field sobriety tests. We have several officers throughout the state who are then additionally trained in what we consider the ARIDE program, which is the advanced roadside impairment, enforcement, detection and enforcement. And then subjects police officers, troopers who then go to the additional phase of becoming DRE or drug recognition certified. So that would be at the highest level. And that addresses what Mohit spoke about earlier about behavioral analysis.

We then do have our blood and urine test. And the language in the law allows us the officers to select if impairment is detected, and they believe that the impairment is caused by drug something other than alcohol, they can switch to urine or blood. There is nothing available, although they are researching multiple different angles and the lab can speak better to that to assist officers both in the field and then later on when they get processed at a barracks or a police department.

REP. QUINN (82ND): Thank you. And you know, I know as an attorney who handles these types of cases that as it stands now, if there's an OUI arrest for alcohol, you're going to seize the license for 24 hours, and you're going to send it on to DMV, if there's been a positive test or a refusal. I think I read in here that that is not the plan with a situation where you think it's marijuana or some other drug that the urine or blood test is going to be sent off for analysis. If it comes back positive, then it would be turned over to DMV. So, there's no 24-hour hold.

From a punishment standpoint, you know, operating under the influence for alcohol, it's an unclassified crime, but I see that we're going to be 38 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

classifying this as a C or D misdemeanor. Is it the intent of this law that if someone has stopped for operating under the influence of marijuana or some other drug that they as a first-time offender that they would still be able to use the Alcohol Education Program, which I’m not totally sure would be appropriate under this set of circumstances, or would they be doing some sort of other drug education program?

In other words, is there a diversionary road for a first time operating under the influence of marijuana or some other drug? Or do we go right into the conviction phase?

LT. BARTOLOTTA: I would defer that question to DMV officials, they would probably give you a better answer than I could.

COMMR. GEANURACOS: Hi, good morning. My name is Sharon Geanuracos. I’m an Attorney with the Department of Motor Vehicles. I think at this point, the Bill doesn't change anything about the criminal prosecution, there are still criminal prosecutions of drug cases every day. What's really changing about this is the administrative per se process. And so that's the part that's handled by DMV.

So, I think in answer to your question, I think, whatever programs drug offenders are sent to now, criminally, they will still go to, I don't think that's changed.

REP. QUINN (82ND): And also, in reading this, it seems to me that there's an intention to, as part of the suspension process also require the interlock device.

COMMR. GEANURACOS: Right, that is, because our statute is combined driving under the influence of alcohol and or drugs, the penalties under that section are the same. And all I can say to that is, you know, in many cases of -- let me back up. We get 39 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

about 8000 DUI reports a year, about eight to 10% of those we can't do anything with because the person is under the influence of drugs. And by the way, we do when a urine test is administered, we do get the results in time to process if we could process those cases. But we can't. So, in 25% of those cases, there's also alcohol present albeit in levels below the 0.8.

So, you know, the fact that there are, you know, poly substance users, we would probably keep the ID requirement. I know there's a company now that's just come out with a THC breath analysis device. So probably not too far down the road, you will see technology catch up to what's going on with the law. It's usually the other way around.

So, I also think there's some other things to consider, like, what are the alternative programs for a drug offender? You know, we ten or 15 years ago started to get away from lengthy license suspensions. And so, we want people to be the road, be able to go to their jobs, and leave lead a normal life. And so, I IDs helped very much with that. The lengthy suspensions, you know, go back to what we used to do, which wasn't effective.

The other alternative is a monitoring program. And I know I think it’s South Dakota has a pilot program where they're monitoring drug offenders, they have to go in twice a day and be drug tested. I mean, this kind of a program is very intensive and expensive, I assume. So, I’m not sure that there's a perfect alignment at this point. As I said, I think in the future, those things will change.

REP. QUINN (82ND): Okay. Yeah. Because I would be of the opinion that the IID is probably not appropriate for someone who's -- does it necessarily have an alcohol problem or was he even arrested for being under the influence of alcohol.

Have there been any studies done in the states that 40 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

have legalized recreational use about uptakes in a number of operating under the influence of marijuana arrests that have occurred?

COMMR. GEANURACOS: Yeah, I think there have been and I believe that, um, I don't I don't know all the results of those studies. But I think overall, there's a -- there's been an uptick in the number of people arrested for driving under the influence. I don't know. Again, I don't know what those stats are.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: I can jump in with a couple of points here. So there have been several studies on traffic incidents and arrest while they are driving in other states. The challenge here is causality. The states would first on legalizing cannabis are states that are younger that are on the West Coast usage was already booming in those states. And so, it's very unclear what the causality is between impaired driving, and the increase in impaired driving and the underlying, you know, change in culture, and any change in enforcement patterns, because there's new training provided and there's new equipment provided to police agencies.

And so, some of these numbers are difficult to assess our perspective, the Governor’s perspective here is that cannabis is already used in Connecticut, cannabis is soon to be legal or is legal in neighboring states. And so, we need to put in place a regime for traffic safety, that helps our state's police and our state's criminal justice organizations really move forward and keep the roads safe.

And in regard to your earlier question on the on the criminal penalties, we have not amended the criminal penalties in 14-227A. And so, what we're doing in the criminal statute is creating a -- creating the use of a DRE evaluation as grounds for behavioral impairment. And we're doing something similar in 14- 227B. And of course, as we know, the per se process 41 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

that the visual process that DMV leads is the frontline defense for traffic safety. And it is critical for us to have a process to assess behavioral impairment and get those drivers off the road.

To your question about IIDs, you know, that is a conversation that we are willing to have that requires as COMMR. mentioned, a full rewrite of 14- 227B. That is a conversation we're willing to have. However, there is some public policy value in having IIDs for individuals, even if they weren't pulled over for alcohol. So, alcohol is often used as a [inaudible] combination with cannabis and other drugs. And under 14-227O, there are programs in place to help individuals afford their IID programs, their IID requirements. And to the extent that we need to review 14-227O, that is something we're willing to do.

I’ll just very quickly on police training. You know, it is very important to the Governor that we get this right, that we get traffic safety right. And so what we have in the Governor's budget is a significant investment in CSP, in ARIDE training, there's a significant investment for DRE training. And what we intend to have is by the time the market opens, I think a sufficient number of DRE officers available to respond to any situation when behavioral assessment needs to be made.

And on the A-RIDE side with the Governor's Bill suggests or requires, is that every police officer by the time they do a first recertifications within the first three years that they are on the road, that they be ARIDE trained. And so, after a period of time, we will have the best trained police officers in the state, in the country and police officers who are able to assess for behavioral impairment and direct individuals towards the DRE when necessary.

REP. QUINN (82ND): Okay, and so getting back to my 42 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

original point, though, a first-time arrestee for operating under the influence of marijuana, are they going to use -- are they going to be able to use the Alcohol Education Program? And if so, is that program going to be tailored to address these circumstances?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Yeah, I believe that program and NDMAs, there are a couple of other programs on -- it is not; okay. There are a couple of other diversionary programs that are NDMAs that we are looking into. But that's a topic that we want to continue to consider.

REP. QUINN (82ND): Okay. All right. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Representative. Obviously, I think the individual could be AR eligible as well. But you certainly raise a good point that probably Substance Committee need to take a deeper look at. Senator Champagne appears to be back. Senator Champagne.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Thank you. Representative Quinn asked some of my questions, but I want to touch base on the DRE recognition expert again, because you said -- somebody said that the CSP is going to get financing for this. Now it's over $6,000 per officer to send them out of state. So, I guess I have two questions. Number one, are we going to bring that training into Connecticut, so we don't have to send them to Arizona and Florida? And question number two, is there going to be money provided for local police departments as well?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Thank you, Senator. I’ll start on that. The State of Connecticut has a fund through DOT to provide for the training costs of DREs. I’m sure Lieutenant Bartolotta can speak more to what that program looks like. In terms of some of the costs to local police agencies and for DRB training, the direct training costs or cost that the state is 43 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

able to support, we're in continuing conversations around if there are additional costs and perhaps backfill costs to local police agencies that we need to support.

So those are ongoing conversations, Lieutenant or others who are who can speak to the DRE training program in the state

LT. BARTOLOTTA: Well, I would concur with what you're saying. It’s through -- the funding is usually federally funded through DOT and DOT grants on that normally offsets the majority of the training costs involved with the officers, both whether it be municipalities or with state police.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay, but we're talking majority of costs. Right now, we're talking about a program that's going to be need well financed to get enough officers out there to take care of the situation. I mean, most studies show that the number one reason that people don't use drugs is because they're illegal. Now, we're going to legalize it, which means we're going to have a lot more people using. And to me, I want to make sure that we're able to keep our roads safe. Do we have somebody from the State's Attorney, State's Attorney's office on?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I think they're gonna testify later today, Representative, oh, Senator. It is just the Governor's office and administrative staff? I think the State's Attorneys signing up with us later.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay, so I have to wait on that question. Because I guess one of my questions is going to be how they view the DRE, and the ARIDE programs and which ones they're going to use, you know, during prosecutions, which one they're going to rely on the most. From what I understand, most departments would go with the DRE, the Drug Recognition Expert. 44 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Alright, so I guess a primary on this needs to be you know, you know, as government officials, you know, our primary job is public safety. That is our primary job. And I want to make sure that before this law goes into effect, if it is passed, that we're going to get enough officers on the road, they can recognize this and keep our roads safe, that is a primary for me. Do we have somebody from Public Health on, Public Health Commissioner?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): We do not.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): We don’t? I don’t understand why we wouldn’t do that. But I guess my question to them is, what comprehensive studies has the Department of Health done on the commercialization of marijuana? Does anybody else have an answer to that?

JONATHAN HARRIS: So yeah, exactly. We will, we'll get back to you. There is so many written testimony. But we'll get back to you on that.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): I think that'd be important. Part one as part of this Bill being submitted, you know, commercialization of it is some products that 100% THC. And that's the Delta nine tetrahydrocannabinol. And you know, there's some different aspects to that, than regular marijuana, marijuana from the 60s and 70s was three to 5%. Now we're talking 100%. And there's a lot of different, you know, results from that.

I guess, number two, how are we going to identify this marijuana, the legal marijuana from the black market, because in every state it is legalized, we still have tax large black market? Are we going to have tech stamps like we do in cigarette, or they're going to have to keep it in those containers?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: I understand Marc Pelka can speak to the possession component of the Bill, and I think 45 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the DRS commission can speak to tax stamps.

MARC PELKA: Mr. Chair, the criminal justice sections do not require the person to present receipts or a stamp or any label to indicate where the cannabis was purchased from. The challenges that it would impose on the person and also the law enforcement official reviewing it seems difficult to implement. So, there are established limits on the amount that can be possessed, but there is not a required stamp or receipt of purchase.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Why wouldn't we do that? I mean, really, the you know, you want to identify to make sure that, you know, we want to do everything we can against the black market, because obviously this has been put into law, I think mainly for the revenue.

So, why wouldn't we put something like that we do it in cigarettes, why can't we do that with marijuana? I mean, it doesn't sound like it's a hard job because the dispensaries are going to be the ones responsible for you know, putting it into -- putting it on the packaging of the materials.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: So, just very quickly, to make a point here, the primary purpose of legalization of adult-use, cannabis is not revenue. That is an incidental outcome. Of course, revenue is important. The primary purpose is to stop the prohibition of cannabis. We can clear on that that there is an important public policy rationale to make sure that we treat all of our residents in the state equally and there is a disparate impact.

The Governor's proposal removes some statute repeals, the controlled substances Tax Act that include the tax stamps as you are mentioning. I know DRS can speak to this more deeply. But just very quickly, that act has been on the books for 26 years or so. And in no way has been an effective deterrent 46 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

to the use of cannabis or any other drug under his purview. And the impact of that of those provisions 12-550 to 560 have been disparate. And the cost, frankly, on DRS has been higher than any revenue we've raised. So, the Governor is proposing to remove the tax stamp portion of the state statute.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): So, we're not putting a tax stamp on it. So, we're not going to -- it doesn't matter where it comes from. Then I don't understand why you just don't allow people to grow a plant at home. If you're gonna legalize it, if it has nothing to do with revenue, we’re not going to put a tax stamp on it, it doesn't matter where it comes from, then then why are we allowing them to grow at home if it's not a revenue? That doesn't make sense to me. Anybody gonna answer?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Yes. Mr Boughton, do you want to come in on tax stamps or?

MARK BOUGHTON: Yeah. I would definitely defer to Attorney Bucari about the history of the cigarette stamps and --.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): I don't want to I don't want to interrupt you, but I think we're kind of beyond the tax stamp. Now we're on to the point of, if we're not going to regulate where it's coming from, if we're not going to regulate because it doesn't matter, we're not going to say, Hey, we want to stop the black market. Then why aren't we allowing people to grow at home like they do in Massachusetts? That's, that's my question.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Yeah, so let me make your point, sir. I know that the Chief of Staff is here, and senior advisors spoke to this as well. The Governor's Bill does not propose home grow, it does not. It does move forward with lower criminal penalties on home grow and requires the Department of Consumer Protection to study the issue. The 47 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

standing up of a legal market for adult-use cannabis is a major ordeal. This is 64 staff members that COMMR. and her need to hire. This is a major new industry, hundreds of millions in revenue that we need to get stood up. It will take time for us to get this right. And home grow is one of those issues that we are proposing to further study and be reviewed by the legislature in future sessions.

We are starting at a different point on home grow than other states. Connecticut, unlike other states does not allow home grow for medical. And home grow, there's no question that home grow can lead to greater use and distribution on the black market. So, you know, one goal of the Governor's Bill is public safety and public health. And that means that we have safe regulated product.

You know, are we against small manufacturers? Absolutely not. We have a micro cultivator license in the Governor proposal. But we need to make sure that we're doing this market safely and on home grow, that is something that we are not able to do at this point in time. It is something that you know, we think has negative public policy consequences. But it is something that is under further review, and something that we intend to speak about with the legislature in future years.

Commissioner, do you want to come in on home grow?

MARK BOUGHTON: If I could just mention quickly, at the risk of sticking my nose into something that isn't DRS related. One of the responsibilities that we have in implementing this policy is to protect the market. And when you look at comparative states, and I give Mohit a lot of credit for the research and work he's done. And we've caucused many a night talking about what's happening in other states.

One of the challenges that they found was closing down the back door to the production facility so that there wasn't a black market. So, if you were to 48 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

roll out a full, homegrown policy, I think that's very organized, very regimented to be able to protect the market as a whole so that we can build capacity in the legal market. And that's, I think probably one of the biggest reasons why you don't see it right off the bat. Although there, I don't think the Bill says no to it. I think it just says it's got to require a little more study to make sure it's done correctly.

Mohit, I didn’t want to speak for you.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): But I keep hearing the word equity and when I think of equity, I think of, you know, the whole thing is equity. And you know, for legalizing this for somebody to grow at home, I think where that would create equity across because now people would be able to afford it because they can cultivate and make their own. You know, not that I’m for this, but I know they do it in Massachusetts as well. And somebody already said this isn't about the money. And if it's not about the money, why are we protecting the industry? Why are we doing all the rest of this? Allow somebody to grow at home and they can make their own.

You know, I mean, I’m just that's one side of the argument that I was just looking at. And I know like I said Massachusetts does that too. And we keep referencing, you know, our, the surrounding states and what they're doing.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): So, Senator, I appreciate where you are coming from, I think we're devolving into debate here on this.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): I know that's why that's why I’m moving on to the next thing.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Somebody had talked about the, during the discussion, you know about the war 49 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

on drugs and the fact that, you know, some areas have been affected more than others. I guess my next question is, how many people in the state of Connecticut are locked up under the possession of less than four ounces of marijuana?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Under Secretary Pelka, is that for you?

MARC PELKA: It would be difficult to pass cannabis convictions because they're part of a larger statute that includes other drugs. That was a challenge we came across with kind of criminal histories on it. So, low level possession would not carry a lengthy sentence. And so there would be a small proportion of people and the overall number in the DOC and that's a credit to waste Connecticut a stood up front end diversion options use of probation, use of the diversion programs we discussed earlier.

Connecticut has long moved away from the use of jails and prisons as a response to drug possession. The challenge, though, is that this the criminal records remain on the books for people who were brought into the justice system under different policies and practices.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Actually, wasn't it switched to the possession under four ounces switched to an infraction.

MARC PELKA: Possession of cannabis under half an ounce is an infraction. Less than four ounces. Yes, sir.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): So, basically there's nobody locked up in our prisons for the mere possession of marijuana. Isn’t that correct?

MARC PELKA: The number is small, I can't say nobody, because the person could be -- there are other ways you could be --. 50 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): For the one charge of possession, a simple possession of less than four ounces of marijuana. It's been an infraction for what, eight years now.

MARC PELKA: Mr. Chairman, in 2015, less than half an ounce of cannabis became an infraction.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Six years. Okay, so basically, nobody should be locked up for the simple charge of possession of marijuana, isn't that correct?

MARC PELKA: Well, I would, I would hesitate to say yes, Mr. Chairman, I’m not trying to be difficult. But the reason also is that people can be on probation or on parole or special parole and use marijuana and they could be subject to ratification. And that is a way that people would wind up inside yellow prison. So, I can't be as definitive and saying the numbers for that reason, and that's why we do have a provision on that.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Is there somebody here for prisons? Did you guys bring somebody in from the prison department?

PAUL MOUNDS: Just so you know, Undersecretary Marc Pelka OPM is the Undersecretary of Criminal Justice. So, when he's giving his answers, he is giving his answers from OPM.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Senator, let me interrupt. What I’m hearing is, they don't have that data available right now.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay. I was gonna make another point. The point being that they're not locking people up for violation probation parole right now and haven't been for the simple, bad urine for marijuana. That was the next point I wanted to 51 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

make. But --.

JONATHAN HARRIS: Senator Champagne, I can get you some exact statistics on this, but it's not just people being locked up. Of the approximately 70,000 arrests last year in Connecticut, about 10% involved cannabis. So, there are people going through the system, there are people that are taking up times in the courts, they might not be ending up in prison. But there still is a legal burden in the system.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Now, what I’m trying to do my purpose on what I’m doing right now is making the point that there's nobody in prison right now, for the simple possession. Infractions are issued, I understand that, but there this whole argument always goes back to you know, there's so many people locked up in our prisons. And that's not true. You know, and I just want to make that known right from the very beginning that that was my whole point in questioning on that.

All right, so the next point. I’m sorry, I’m jumping around here, because, as I -- as people were talking, I was trying to write as many notes as I could.

So, erasure, I will just go to the erasure contained within this Bill on the marijuana. This is an erasure for the possession. Is that is that the only thing being erasured or are we erasing the drug dealers’ criminal history as well?

MARC PELKA: Mr. Chairman, only possession.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay, so just the mere possession. Okay. So, we're just basically erasing these infractions for the last six years?

MARC PELKA: No, Mr. Chairman, because infractions are for less than half an ounce and both of these are convictions, higher than infraction prior to 2015. And they go back years and even decades that 52 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

people had this on the records. And then it is misdemeanor convictions, post 2015. So, infractions remain on your record. So, it's --.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): If that possession is contained within a grouping of other charges, such as dealing drugs, because if you're dealing drugs, you also get possession in there. Are we erasing just the possession charge? Or are we erasing the dealing charge as well?

MARC PELKA: Mr. Chairman, only the possession, the other charges remain, other charges in the case, other charges and record speaks only to the specific possession conviction.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): The $2 million is being provided to erase these, how much of that is going to local police departments who contained the local records and will have to actually probably use overtime to remove those records from the police departments?

MARC PELKA: The automated erasure portion applies to electronic data. So not all departments, but many of them are connected to the network of criminal justice electronic data systems. So, we are relying on electronic data for the erasure, beginning with DESP, and using the multiple pathways. So, the intention here is to not include -- it doesn’t erasure does not mean physical destruction of the record, it means a notation that the record has been erasured, that can be accomplished through the electronic systems.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): So, we don't want to erase the local. So, if I go to a local police department where somebody lives, and I asked for the records, I’ll still be able to get that marijuana charge.

MARC PELKA: Under current law, absolute erasure should lead to an erasure in the local systems. We 53 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

recognize these are agencies are part of a network of electronic data systems, many of which are connected to the local PDs. And we've tried to focus on electronic data systems, not the paper records.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): So, what do we do about that? Are we going to provide money to get those records off local PD? If we are erasing it, and we don't want this on somebody's record, we should erase it completely. And if we're going to do that, we should make sure that we provide enough money to get that done. That's what I’m saying. So are we going to provide money to the local PDS to erase those paper records?

MARC PELKA: Many of the PDs are connected to the electronic data system called CGS. So, they would receive an automated way, which is the aim of it. The way a PD could use it is to look at the database electronically and see if that's a noted erasure case, and they would not, they would know not to provide that information.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): So, it's not really going to be erasured on the paper side, it's going to be erasured so that if I go in looking for it, and they pull up that -- if they pull up that record, then I don't get it.

MARC PELKA: That is correct. We’re trying -- and this is an improvement over having to do it in a manual, one by one petition process. So --.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): As long as every department in the State of Connecticut is connected to the system, and that's the way they're going to do it. But if not, we should be providing money to assist them in doing that. Just, I am looking at everything here. All right, so we have all this money that's going to come in from marijuana. And I’ve seen some people saying we should send it here; we send it there. In the in the Governor's budget 54 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

how much this money is set aside for rehabilitation? I didn't go through the whole thing.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Senator, I’ll start there and I know others in the Governor's office will want to speak about this as well. In the Governor's proposal, there is only a single use of revenue. That is a 50% portion of the excise tax, they'll be collected by the state every year will be used to support municipal pilot funds. The other revenues that floated the state, floated the general fund. The general fund, of course, funds the entire state government. And so, there are a variety of ways that general funds can be used.

There are about a million dollars in the Governor's budget for DEMAS to support prevention and education programming on; in terms of treatment, we don't think there'll be any significant increase currently not immediate and a treatment costs and so there are no immediate treatment costs on budget in the DEMAS budget.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): We have a major problem right now in the State of Connecticut with drug use, with and stuff and this is money coming in from the legalization of a drug no matter where you know, what people's mind is set on it. And, you know, in effect, marijuana affects everybody differently. And I think a large portion of this should go directly towards rehab programs. I think a large portion should go into our prisons for rehab, you know, you know, solving, you know, things beyond marijuana. I mean, we're legalizing a drug here and we're not putting any monies, large amounts of money of the revenue towards helping people that that are addicted to drugs, it just doesn't make sense here.

So, I will be making it when this gets to the floor. I will be making a motion to add in a large percentage of the funds that are going that would be collected from this to go towards, you know, helping people with addiction issues. That's an important 55 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

thing, we are losing people across Connecticut constantly. And I think this should be already be considered in this Bill, but if not --.

So, I’m going to save the rest of my questions, because I know there's a lot more people coming along. And I know people have a lot of questions in this. We're probably going to be at this until tomorrow. So, I want to thank everybody for coming on. And, you know, good luck to everybody throughout the night.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Representative Porter.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you all for being with us today. My first question is in drafting this Bill, how did you define equity?

JONATHAN HARRIS: Good question, Representative Porter, thank you. We don't have a firmest definition of equity in this. That's what the reason that we're putting together two things. One, the disparity study, or the equity study, investing $75,000 in that, and also, the Cannabis Equity Commission to further drill down on that. The idea would be, again, as I said before, that we would continue these discussions through the session between now and JF deadline, and thereafter. And perhaps there'll be more detail that we can put into this Bill, drawing from other Bills out there and those discussions.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Perhaps, okay, so I think the biggest concern I have is this Bill being put forward as a comprehensive Bill to include equity, and equity has not been defined. It's on the back burner, I would say. And I’m just going to move on to the next question.

The only thing I will say is that I hope that we're not dependent on other states where we have had experts in equity at the table during the drafting of this Bill. How were the voices of the formerly 56 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

incarcerated included in drafting this Bill?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Representatives very quickly on what you mentioned there. The Bill has equity. The Bill has erasure. The Bill removes the tax provisions in the inhale 12. There are a number of steps we have taken in this Bill to promote equity. To Jonathan Harris's point a second ago, there is more to be done when it comes to equity in the licensing process. And that is either discussions that we need to continue to have. John, so you want to speak to the stakeholders.

JONATHAN HARRIS: [Inaudible]

[crosstalk]

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Wait, sorry, Representative. Just a second, I understand this medium is a little difficult. And we've got a number of people, but we do have to get a transcript and a record here. We got a we got to try not to talk over each other. So Representative Porter, you have the floor? Go ahead and ask your question.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to go back to Mohit because he's describing things that are being done in an effort to produce equity. And my question was, how is equity defined? So, it's my understanding from the answer that I received from Jonathan Harris, that they're not there yet. Is that correct?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Mr. Harris, you want to address that?

JONATHAN HARRIS: I think I answered that. The only thing I want to clarify is the use of the word perhaps, the discussions will happen. And there will be I’m sure it changes. I was not using the word perhaps, Representative Porter to say like perhaps 57 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

we're going to get together and try to work out more detail.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you for that clarity, Jonathan. I appreciate that. So, I don't know if the question was answered. The second question that I asked were, how were the voices of the formerly incarcerated included in drafting this Bill?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Does anyone want to answer that?

PAUL MOUNDS: Jonathan.

JONATHAN HARRIS: What we have, Representative Porter, besides just discussions that have been ongoing over the years on numerous Bills, you know, as part of the cannabis equity discussion, discussion group, we brought in a broad range of stakeholders and went through various aspects of equity on the front-end, licensure on the back end, what to do with revenue; to the extent that there need to be more specific drilling down with different stakeholders. That's part of this continued discussion and the legislative process to produce the best Bill possible.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you, Jonathan. So, I just want to be clear. Were any of the stakeholders that you're referring to formerly incarcerated individuals?

JONATHAN HARRIS: I did not ask whether they were formally incarcerated, I do know because some were clergy that they've dealt with the formerly incarcerated population. And I’m sure others in the cannabis equity discussion group did too. But I did not specifically ask that of them.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you. Of the 64, new full- time positions being added to DCP, how many of them will specifically be to support the equity program?

58 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

JONATHAN HARRIS: Representative Porter, I can yield to Commissioner Seagull, if she wants to talk about the positions, but the Equity Commission actually will be staffed by two positions and administered within the Office of Policy and Management.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Okay, and I think that answers my question. So, thank you out of 64 new full-time positions, only two will be to support equity.

PAUL MOUNDS: If I may, Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Please.

PAUL MOUNDS: There's still a regulatory portion that has to be taken into account when you come to this Bill, Representative. And obviously, this is now creating a large, huge marketplace, that has to be heavily regulated. And that's the reason why there are those positions. Which while there are positions in here that has dealt with the medical marijuana system here in our state. With this expansion, you have to have the relevant staff expertise, and individuals to be able to regulate it. And so, this is still a regulatory portion. DCP is a regulatory agency. And based upon what we've seen in other states, Michelle Seagull, Commissioner Seagull in dealing with her counterparts who have a -- who are regulating this marketplace, that is how you get to the number of staff based upon the expansion was in the state of Connecticut.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you for that Mr. Mounds. The next question, I would pose to Commissioner Seagull, about what their specific powers and responsibilities be?

COMMR. SEAGULL: Well, our powers and responsibilities are going to go broadly to regulating the market. So, we will be -- there are going to be eight new license types, in addition to some existing license types that may enter the 59 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

market. So, we would need to put out applications and kind of licensed those businesses all of whom will presumably have investors and employees. So, we could be talking ultimately, you know, hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs and people. In addition, we're going to be regulating the quality of the product. So, there's going to be lab testing requirements, requirements on how it's manufactured. You know, one of the license types, for example, is food manufacturer. So, somebody purchases cannabis and puts it into a bake good, we want to make sure that the safety around that bake good is the same as a non-cannabis baked good so that all the sort of food safety rules are going to be there for people. So that's going to be a big part of it, we want to protect against diversion.

So, we would -- there's going to be a seed to sale system that we need to implement and put in place so that as product flows through the system from a cultivator, or micro cultivator to possibly a manufacturer, then maybe to a retail or delivery service, we can keep track. One with regard to diversion. Also, if there is a problem with the product that we learned about later, we could institute things like a product recall. So, we will be dealing with that.

Inevitably, in any market, especially a new one, we would expect a lot of questions coming from licensees or potential licensees from consumers, there will inevitably be some sort of consumer complaint or confusion with things. So, we will need to be addressing all of those. There was discussed earlier, there's a lot of advertising and packaging requirements in there. So, a lot of study requirements. So, we need to be thinking what is the serving size? What are the potency limits be? How do we protect the medical programs? So, we need to have that sort of monitoring to make sure our commitments in that regard are appropriate and being met. We need to deal with complaints on the advertising or 60 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

packaging and to the extent it's being marketed towards people who can't be using it.

As I said, there's gonna be a lot of work around just, you know, this is not just a product but entire marketplace and supply chain that's being created that's going to be new to Connecticut, and that unlike a lot of the other pretty much most of the other products and services we regulate, there isn't an overlay of federal oversight. So, we need to be doing this all within Connecticut to ensure that all the health and safety is being met.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Okay, that was a very general [inaudible]. My question was specifically about the two full time positions that are currently going to be for the equity program. And the question was, what will be their specific powers and responsibilities?

COMMR. SEAGULL: That's a question for OPM, those position positions will be an OPM, I think it's, you know, as I understand their role is to really --.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): We can address at OPM, if you prefer.

JONATHAN HARRIS: Or I can take that one, she tried to start off. First of all, I just want to go back, Representative Porter that, you know, while the Equity Commission, and the oversight of the equity study will be done to OPM, which is part of what those two employees will be doing. Commissioner Seagull will be overseeing a licensure structure with eight licenses, and three of those licenses, micro cultivator, food and beverage manufacturer delivery, while they're not specifically at this point in the Bill tied to any equity applicant status, they are equity type licenses in that there are lower barriers to entry, enabling more people to be able to get into the market.

61 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

And that's part of the discussion that will occur through the Equity Commission, administered by the Office of Policy and Management, overseeing this study and making specific recommendations to the General Assembly to further define equity on the front-end licensure. And on the back-end revenue where that revenue goes to. They also will be making sure this Equity Commission with the help of these two staff members that the existing medical marijuana producers and other facilities, if they're proceeding forward, will have an equity plan to make sure that we have a focus to build equity into the medical marijuana existing system.

So, these are the details that will be fleshed out by the Equity Commission. But also, will be on the table in the upcoming legislative discussions, both pre-JF and post. And as I said at the beginning not to get into specifics of details, this Bill, 163 pages, prevents --- presents a comprehensive market structure. There are other Bills out there, as you know, that have maybe less market structure, but have more detail on equity. These Bills are complimentary and will be the basis of our discussion going forward.

REP. PORTER (94TH): I definitely agree with that statement and wholeheartedly look forward to working collectively because I believe that both Bills that you're referencing have some really great stuff than including the Governor's Bill.

The next question that I wanted to ask was, why is there no mention of labor peace agreements or project labor agreements in this Bill? Or is there?

JONATHAN HARRIS: Representative Porter, we actually never were given any project labor agreement language, that's something that we would discuss through the legislative process. Labor peace language, actually, the labor and another Bill that you might be familiar with, is language that I actually was working on, that didn't get into the 62 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Bill at this point, with UFCW and AFLCIO. So those are discussions that we had, and that we'll continue to have.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you for that. Because I do remember you and I having a conversation where I asked you about labor peace agreements, and the importance of them being included in this legislation. And you did advise me that you had spoken to labor about that. So, I was really confused when the Bill actually came out. You know, there was no labor peace agreements in there after we had had that discussion. My next question.

JONATHAN HARRIS: I’m glad you could utilize indeed the language though, that we're working on.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Well, actually, that was language that I worked on.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Guys, I’m gonna interrupt for a second. This is if you want to have this discussion offline. Feel free to but let's, let's stick to questions about the Bill and what's in it or not, as opposed to who worked on what, please. Representative.

REP. PORTER (94TH): I agree. You know, I am not initiating that. So, I agree, Mr Chair. So, I guess I want to go back to something that came around. And this is under the criminal justice piece of the Bill regarding blood tests. Will this Bill allows police officers to take blood of a person as a roadside test?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: I see. State police or DMV -- Representative, this is for my purposes, I couldn't hear the exact question. Can you repeat the question?

REP. PORTER (94TH): Yes, I can. The question is, 63 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

under blood test, will this Bill allow police officers to take blood of a person as a roadside test.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: I see. State police or DMV.

COMMR. GEANURACOS: Yeah, this Bill does not authorize police officers to take blood roadside.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you for that response, Commissioner. So, do -- okay, I guess one of the questions because we talked about the prison pipeline. How will this Bill reduce the school to prison pipeline, if at all?

MARC PELKA: Mr. Chair, this is Marc Pelka. The penalties for or the response I guess, to possession of cannabis for people under the age of 21, or for underage, treats it as an infraction. So, financial sanctions would be applied. In response, judges retained the ability to respond, to refer appropriate people to diversion or other services. And youth who are found in possession could be referred to a JRB, or local services for youth and families.

The acquisition of a response with a misdemeanor charge occurs only for people over the age of 21. So that maintains Connecticut's increasing efforts to use non system means responding to youth.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Okay, thank you for that, Mr Pelka. I guess the next two would be, how will this Bill address selective enforcement?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): What do you mean by selective enforcement, Representative?

REP. PORTER (94TH): A better for it, selective enforcement; when the question is coming from the fact that in this Bill, it's my understanding that we have graduated levels of infractions, one and a 64 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

half to two and a half. Possession would lead to an infraction. So --.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I think this Bill is under two and a half. I think that was last year's Bill, if I’m not mistaken.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Okay. Well, you get the gist of what I’m saying two and a half, if that's what it is, in making those determinations. What my concern is, is that there's going to still be a disproportionate impact on who gets an infraction and who doesn't. And I’ll refer to that as selective enforcement.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Mr. Pelka, somebody want to address how the two-and-a-half-ounce limit was wrapped up in this draft? Mr. Harris.

JONATHAN HARRIS: Well, I was just gonna say that a lot of what we did when looking at highly formed, the well-regulated market was take a look at what was being done in other states and pick and choose different aspects of that. Mohit might have a little more example of the states that we took a look at with that, but we were trying to be consistent with neighboring and other states.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you for that.

MARC PELKA: For me too. And I got the sense that perhaps the Representative was asking about enforcement. And there was a section of the Bill we haven't talked about yet, to a great degree in this probably in part because of I needed to speed up my testimony toward the end. But Section 13, does address stops and searches of vehicles or persons.

And the effort of this is to focus on impaired driving, and not to use the odor of cannabis, to as a prompt to conduct a search of a person or a 65 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

vehicle. And this was informed by input I think of over the several years that Connecticut has invested in the traffic stop report.

So, we've highlighted a great deal with the highway safety enforcement, Criminal Justice portion that I think would provide focus on enforcement of impaired driving, but not kind of, so the concerns that the Representative mentioned earlier, perhaps.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you for that Mr. Pelka. On that note, can you tell me if there was a criminal justice group in a study group?

MARC PELKA: I don't know. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe there was a group convened to produce this recommendation. I believe that efforts to work on the Bill consulted a variety of sources for it. But I don't think there was an organized kind of groups providing that input. But I may have lapses in my knowledge of the development of it, but that's my best understanding.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Pelka. So, is it true that growing even one plant under this legislation is still punishable by jail time?

MARC PELKA: I’m going to look for that section for the response when -- Mr. Chairman, so I’m gonna pull up that section.

Well, the effort and this is to remove home grow of a cannabis plant by removing it from a section of the statutes that imposes more serious penalties regarding manufacturer and cultivation. So, the effort is to try to mitigate the impact of the criminal justice system on people who grow in their homes. So, growing up to six cannabis plants would be a Class C misdemeanor for the first offense, it would, it would increase from there and there would be more serious penalties involved with growth outside of the home. 66 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

So, Class C misdemeanor could have a term of incarceration of up to three months. But I think the success is that it does reduce the penalties for home grow compared to where it currently falls in the statute under cultivation manufacturer.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Right, but there's still the possibility of going to jail. So, I guess I want to know how many will the current medical industry be able to grow under this proposal?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative, the question was the current medical program?

REP. PORTER (94TH): In this proposal, they're going to be permitted to grow. I want to know, is there a limit that has been placed on them? Or is that not correct?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): The commercial cultivators or under the medical program. I’m not following your question.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Well, let them define it for me because what my understanding is, if you currently hold a medicinal license, you have a track, right. That will press dibs on legalization for adult-use cannabis.

With that being the case, is there a limit on the number of plants that they will be able to grow?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Commissioner Seagull, are you following us?

COMMR. SEAGULL: There's no home grow in the medical programs so that -- but there's not a limit on what you know. So, the producers in the medical program are the ones that grow the plant, it'll be cultivators and micro cultivators. But none of those will have restrictions based on number of plants.

67 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. PORTER (94TH): [Inaudible] recreational licenses.

COMMR. SEAGULL: So, in all of them, sorry, I’m not catching the full question, but in a neither program, will there be home grown and neither program will there be restrictions based on plant count?

REP. PORTER (94TH): Okay, I’m not. I thought I was making it clear, but obviously, I’m not. I’m gonna move on in the interest of time. How many records involving cultivation or sales, will this legislation expunge?

MARC PELKA: Mr. Chairman, the non, the policy applies to possession.

REP. PORTER (94TH): And when we talk about possession, Mr Pelka, how does that work when we talk about expungement of record?

MARC PELKA: Mr. Chairman, it depends on when the record was created. If it was pre-October 1, 2015, it would apply to the possession statute, and that record would be subject to automated erasure. For records from October 1, 2015 forward, the individual would be able to petition the court for erasure of the record.

There are reasons why it's divided that way, I'd be happy to elaborate further, but that's the contours of the erasure of drug possession.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you, and I’ll definitely take you up on this as an offline conversation regarding that in further detail. Can you tell me how many dollars this plan specifically set aside for re-entry support services?

MARC PELKA: Mr. Chairman, there is no direct sort 68 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

of online in this Bill for reentry services. We'd spoken earlier regarding many of the existing programs for drug education, for diversion, and for existing lines, but there's no new dedicated line for reentry under this Bill that I’m aware of.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you for that response, Mr Pelka. I want to talk a little bit about the ownership and licenses part. And this is really DCP how many licenses was DCP authorized to award by the original medical marijuana legislation? And I want to know how many actually got awarded.

COMMR. SEAGULL: So, right now we have four producers in 18 dispensary facilities, the legislation didn't place -- well, placed a cap that they're on the producers, who are the growers, again, of between three and ten. no limit on the number of dispensary facilities, which are the retailers, those are the only two licensed types in medical. No limit on the number of dispensary facilities, which are the retailers, those are the only two licensed types in medical.

I mean, there's labs and research, but in terms of kind of businesses.

REP. PORTER (94TH): How many of the business is already owned by people of color that were awarded licenses?

COMMR. SEAGULL: So, we don’t -- that's just not something we ask on the application. So, I don't have that information. And I appreciate, I understand social equity, you know, it definitely needs to be part of the conversation. And while I don't have the numbers, I’m not going to dispute that. Our program, probably the medical program is probably not particularly diverse in that regard. And so, I do think the Equity Commission in looking at how to do that is important, the way the medical statute was set up, it didn't really put kind of criteria, or give any authority for the department 69 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

to award licenses based on kind of people's race, ethnicity, gender, etc. And so that's not even something we ask them the applications.

REP. PORTER (94TH): I think it is a little concerning when we talk about social equity and a comprehensive Bill and the importance of equity, that is pretty much on the backburner and seems to be an afterthought. And I’m just and I’m asking these questions, because I want to make sure as we move forward, you know, in the process of this legalization of recreational adult-use, that we put that on the front burner, because those are the communities that have been disproportionately impacted.

Moving on, I wanted to know how many Billionaires own a cannabis business in Connecticut.

COMMR. SEAGULL: I’m sorry, how many Billionaires?

REP. PORTER (94TH): Billionaires, yeah.

PAUL MOUNDS: Can I ask a clarification question? What are you defining as ownership percentage? Like, I just we want to be able to understand where you're going with your question. So, we can either look it up or get back to you, or try to provide an answer at this time. I get there's a slant that you're going but I’m just trying to get what it is. So, we can answer your question completely.

REP. PORTER (94TH): You get there's a slant, but you don't know where I’m going. [crosstalk] Connecticut.

COMMR. SEAGULL: Honestly, I’m not. I wouldn't know if to what extent they're Billionaires. I’m not going to dispute that it's you need a lot of access to capital to get into this program. And I won't dispute bank loans are not really a viable option, given the federal challenges. So, while I can't 70 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

speak to kind of the diversity, I can't speak to the wealth, we understand -- I understand your point, and I’m sure whatever those facts would turn out to be. It would certainly reflect that, you know, social equity part is important and making sure access to capital is available to people who don't fall into higher income brackets, but that can be part of the industry.

REP. PORTER (94TH): I guess [Inaudible] clearly is one of the businesses in Connecticut.

COMMR. SEAGULL: Clearly is one of the businesses.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Okay, so I guess we can say at least one Boris Jordan is the --.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative, I’m going to jump in at this point. We're getting a little afield. I gave some latitude, but we seem to be talking about the existing medical program as opposed to the provisions of the Bill before us this Committee's hearing today. I’m sympathetic to the argument you're trying to make. I’m just not sure, you know, this is the forum.

As I said, we've got a lot of people to testify today. So, I will give some latitude. But we, we do need to stay focused on this Bill and allow others to testify as well.

REP. PORTER (94TH): And I do believe that's what I’m doing. So, I will ask somebody to speak to the connection between the current medicinal licenses we have, and what the application process looks like, for licenses under this legislation for recreational.

COMMR. SEAGULL: I can speak to that though. The way the medical program was set up, it required a competitive process to get a license. And it is a capital-intensive business. I’m not, you know, I don't think there's any argument on that. And so, it 71 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

did turn out the people who probably were able to put in the best plans had, you know, significant resources, also a number as the industry has grown nationally, a lot of these businesses have been, you know, they've been bought and sold. And there's, you know, large companies sort of forming as it's grown nationally.

And so again, that there is that a big shift that would happen with the adult-use market is that that process is eliminated, and it's going to be a lottery system is set up so that every all the applications gonna get submitted during a timeframe and outside sort of lottery or a ranking process would work to identify who should be reviewed for final licensure. And those will be reviewed just on a sort of essentially a pass-fail basis. So, it's not going to be you know, if we get 100, that only the top 20 get it, it's going to be the lottery rule. We will pull 20 and as long as they meet, kind of the minimum bar of what needs to happen to operate, you know, depending on whatever the business is, whether it's retail, or a micro cultivator, or cultivator, maybe a food manufacturer, as long as that's met, and they can work their way through the licensing process, and they would get the license.

REP. PORTER (94TH): I’m glad you brought up the lottery, Mrs. Seagull, because how does I mean, you know, we talking about equity, well, I’m talking about equity, and I don't see a lottery of equity. Can you just explain the process of the lottery to us? Like, from our understanding is retail a provisional and then a final licensing. Can you go through that, please?

COMMR. SEAGULL: Yeah, so your first point, yeah. The Equity Commission ultimately needs, we need a definition of who an equity applicant could be both in terms of like the very specifics of who qualifies. And then you know, what percent ownership they have to be. Most of these businesses are not 72 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

owned by a single person. So, if there's a board of directors, and then there are certain key executives, we need a really clear definition. So right now, that sort of pieces being going to be worked out by the Equity Commission, so it doesn't play in.

But in terms of the second part of your question, the way it works is, the first step is entering the lottery. And what we've seen a lot of states, there are ends up being a lot of people interested in getting various license types. So, what it may be is that just to get the market up and running, we may only want 10, 20 of a certain license type, but 200 people apply with say, it's too much for DCP, we, you know, we'd be there forever and would need, you know, the 64 people would be nothing to get through all those. So, the lottery would kind of a random number generator or random process, rank them. And if we wanted 20, those first 20 would be submitted to DCP, we would do an initial cursory review, is the application complete? You know, are there any like kind of initial problems with it, and if not, they would get a provisional license, and then they would have a year.

So, 12 months is how long that would last to then kind of complete their application. And that's sort of, you know, finding a site and getting a location, having zoning approval, filling out their work chart, putting together their business plan, their security plan, the seed, the vendor they would use to track product, etc.

And I mean, that's another important difference in the recreational. All of that part is really expensive. And what you know, it became clear in the medical program, because the way that is set up, is that you just send in a complete application and you get a license or don't. There was a lot of upfront cost before you really knew if you were on a path, a license. So, this is it, those higher costs, you already sort of know been selected for licensing, 73 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

sure. But if you meet all those then at the end and you do it within that year that your provisional is in place, then you would get the final license.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Once the course is over [Inaudible].

COMMR. SEAGULL: Sorry, you were cutting out a little bit. If you're asking the cost sort of the fees are set out in Section 26 in there. It's sort of a lower fee to just initially to enter the lottery. But it varies by license type, and then a bit more for the provisional license, and then the final license.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Okay. Can you give a dollar on that please? That’s what I’m trying to get to what is the cost?

COMMR. SEAGULL: Okay, well, if you want it to be a delivery service, you would pay 250 to enter the lottery, 1000 for the provisional license, and you're in the lottery in your in that one year period. And then once you get to the final license, it would be 5000. If you wanted to be, let's say like a retailer, it would be $500 to enter the lottery, and 5000 for the provisional and 25,000 for the final license. So it goes through, and it varies so that with all the different license types.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you for that response. And the point I’m making is that there's no equity in that process. That's pretty much a pay to play. And when you don't have the money, we have to figure out how to get the people that need to be in business and deserve to be in business legally a pathway. So, thank you for clarifying on the loan process.

I think the last thing that I want to ask, Mr Chair, 74 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

through you, we talked about the stakeholders that were at the table, we talked about social equity in a study and we're gonna lay out equity markers, and all of this is come from how many -- there were some recommendations that were made around equity from that table of stakeholders, the staff with the Governor's office. I want to know how many of those recommendations are included in the Bill that we're looking at here today?

JONATHAN HARRIS: I can now answer that, Representative Porter, I don't know if you heard the beginning. I was trying to get that out in my opening remarks. We received the main set of recommendations through Jason Ortiz, he and his licensing group did a very good job of going through; there was no consensus vote ever. But we got a list of those recommendations by email that I referenced on January 26th when this Bill was already, as I was telling the equity discussion group, from the beginning in November, the Bill was already probably 99.9% hardened at that point, given the timing and what we have to do in the executive branch to run things through LCO, one.

And two, to be able to make sure since we're required to provide a balanced budget to make sure that all the provisions in the Governor's Bills are taken to account in his budget and the budget was being locked out probably around that time. The goal is to do it before the end of January. So that is why there was never an opportunity at that point, as I said throughout the discussion process to put any of those specific recommendations in, but they're in some other Bills. We have the recommendations, and they're the basis for discussion going forward with this Bill and other recommendations and other proposals.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you. And thank you for restating that, Mr. Harris. So, are there any 75 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

priority licensing in this language for equity African?

JONATHAN HARRIS: There are not, there are the three licenses that I said that are lower barriers to entry and are looked at as equity. But part of the discussion will be going forward in the legislative session. The information that we get from the social equity study, which was one of the recommendations that we reached a consensus for much earlier in the cannabis equity discussion group and were able to get that into the budget. That was something that everybody wanted to see happen. So that's the process unfolding, through the legislative process, through this equity study, and through the cannabis Equity Commission.

If we don't have all the answers done by the end of session, and while I think we'll have many more, I don't think we'll have all of them by the end of the session.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you. What about DOT programs for those with the adverse criminal history?

JONATHAN HARRIS: That is not in the Bill.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Any support for our native tribes in this language?

PAUL MOUNDS: Can you define support for our native tribes?

REP. PORTER (94TH): Partnership, how will they participate and be able to take advantage of this very lucrative market that we're talking about opening here in Connecticut.

PAUL MOUNDS: We have not had direct conversations with the tribal nations in the state, both state 76 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

recognized or federally recognized, and they have not approached us to have a direct conversation as it deals with the Bill for this current year.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Okay, well, I’ll be sure to make that connection for you because they're having some very deep intellectual conversations with us. And I’ll leave it there for now, Mr. Chair, thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Representative O’Dea.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, everyone for your attendance. And I mean this, you know, so my question is going to be pointed, but I have the utmost respect for you. And I appreciate all of you being here and testifying for us.

Mr. Agrawal, am I pronouncing your last name correctly? I apologize.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: That’s right.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Thank you, you spoke about neighboring states or doing the legalization. And I kind of got the impression from your comments that because they're doing it, we need to get ahead of it and do it as well. Is that -- was that your comment?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Representative, there's two points here. One is simply as a cultural matter, the use of cannabis is -- exists in our communities. And as a practical matter of the use of cannabis is easier when our residents have access to markets in nearby states. And so, so both from a cultural perspective and practical one, it's simply, you know, it is simply reality. We have to respect that cannabis is something we need to get in front of, something we need to regulate, something we need to make sure is done in a safe manner for the state's residents. And the Governor's Bill put forward a comprehensive 77 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

proposal that represents our best efforts on public safety, public health, traffic safety, as well. And so, yes, I mean, it matters. The other states have done this. Absolutely.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): So, I mean, that begs the question, if, look, I grew up, I went to school in the 80s, I spent a year abroad and Amsterdam was known as the place to go for hard and soft drugs. Okay. And certainly, I didn't want to go there for that. But my question is, you know, we got to be careful. Would you agree that in looking at other states, teen use increased when there was legalization?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Representative, I will have to issue and get back to you. As I mentioned earlier on different question, causality is extremely difficult to ascertain due to the underlying change in culture and behavior across the country.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Let me ask it to everybody. Is there anyone here that would dispute the fact that so far, no one has, but I have yet to meet a person who disputes the fact that teen use increases in states that have legalized. Does anybody dispute that fact?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Representative, let me say what's in the Bill that responds to the concerns around teen use. There are significant advertising restrictions in the Bill. There are restrictions on locations of dispatch dispensaries, and retailers and there restrictions on warning labels on product types. And most importantly, frankly, the regulated market for cannabis is a market that is not -- that doesn't you know, it doesn't start cheap. So, we expect an eighth to start somewhere in the $50 range. And these are prices that are not necessarily accessible by teenagers. And so just, you know, as a comprehensive manner, the market that we are constructing in Connecticut, pursuant to the 78 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Governor's Bill is a market that is not accessible to teenagers.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Well, alright, well, I’ll take that as the response is, everyone here admits that teen use will increase as it did in Colorado and every state that I know of that legalized marijuana. But let me get to you on that.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Representative, I won't admit that because I don't know. What I do know is that the Governor's budget has support for a marijuana module in a couple of different surveys the Department of Public Health runs in collaboration with CDC, that is an issue that we will stay on top of, is an issue we are aware of, but it's an issue we'll stay on top of and the legislature will know what those numbers are.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Okay, so let me put it this way. Please forward to us any studies that anyone has that disputes the fact that teen use increases in every state that legalized it and I’ll leave it at that.

The next thing I want to get into is, did anybody look at in the Governor's office the experiment that was Colorado over the last proximate decade?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Can you be more specific?

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Sure. Mr. Agarwal, how long has Colorado had the recreational, legal recreational marijuana policy law?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: I believe it started in 2012. I’m gonna have to look at the exact date of sale, but it's been a few years now.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): So, I presume that Connecticut, the Governor's office, looked at what worked and didn't work in Colorado with regard to their legislation. 79 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: We did significant research.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): That's all I needed significant research. I assume hundreds of hours looking at across the country what happened particularly in Colorado as they were the first state is that fair to say?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: I believe Colorado and Washington both legalized at the same time, I’m not sure about for sale.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): So, isn't it true that the black market actually increased in those states that legalized?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: I can't speak to that, just as a general comment. The west coast in the US has a vibrant black market. California in particular had an approach to marijuana legalization that really undercut the regulated market and let the black market prosper. And one thing we're doing in this Bill is s not making the mistake that, particularly California made, Oregon had mistakes in terms of producing volumes. So, there are things we have learned from certain states. You know, home grow is part of that, and it's something we need to be aware of and concerned about. But certainly, we want to make sure to respond to the question. So, if you will have a follow up?

REP. O’DEA (125TH): No, thank you Mr. Agrawal. And sincerely, I’m very thankful, because that was one of my concerns. California was a disaster in how they rolled it out, because they put the taxes so high then the black market just exploded.

COMMR. SEAGULL: It was a tax situation in California, there was no legal retailer for I believe the first three years of the market. But 80 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

there was also no enforcement. And so, the market was full of illegal brick and mortar retailers, which is situation that we in Connecticut do not face.

So, in Connecticut we have 18 dispensaries, they're the only legal sellers of medical marijuana. And would under this Bill be able to convert to the adult-use market as a hybrid retailer. And we don't face a situation California had. And in general for the East Coast of New England particular has had a better approach to both medical and adult-use recreational cannabis so that some of these issues on the West Coast were we'd be able to avoid.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): I didn't get a chance to go through all 4,914 lines of the Bill. But I didn't see any regulation limits of THC content. Can anybody speak to what the limits are in the THC content in this legislation, if any?

COMMR. SEAGULL: I can speak a bit to that. I mean, what it's the Bill is doing is requiring DCP to set up through right, eventually regulations, but through requirements, what would be appropriate dosage potency, serving size among a bunch of other things. So, it's not in the Bill itself. But it's sort of teed up for DCP to be set before the market sort of launches.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): How does the Bill handle the gummies and edibles?

COMMR. SEAGULL: For what is being set up for DCP to do, there are requirements, you know, it can't be products that are geared towards people who would be under 21. So, it to the extent they're you know, using, you know, characters, for example, that would appeal did that, but you probably will start to see some things different, you know, in the medical market, there was a similar sort of thing, and we 81 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

really tried to keep it to medical products. I would anticipate to be a little looser in a recreational market. But that's sort of how the Bill does it unless you have more you want to add Mohit.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Well, my concern is, other states have found, the edible market is problematic for youth. And I will tell you from the get-go, my, if you could promise me that nobody under 25 would be abusing marijuana. And I know it's the legal limit is 21, but I think the health experts all agree that particularly with males, and I would say on the O’Dea family tree in particular, 25 is really the age where you mature. And I see Mr. Mounds, hopefully smile a little bit at that that was intended to be a joke.

PAUL MOUNDS: That's a joke.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): So, you know, if you promise me, we would have some educational programs in place and there wouldn't be that the exposure in teen use that some states have seen, I'd be much more comfortable. I frankly have been very disappointed in the testimony so far in what's going to be done to address protecting our teens. And the failure to acknowledge that teen use increases with legalization. It defies common sense to say we don't know. But and I understand, Mr. Agrawal, the struggle with the conflicting evidence because of the legality of marijuana use, it's not as examined. But, frankly, it's common sense that legalization increases teen use, but --.

JONATHAN HARRIS: Representative O’Dea, it's Jonathan, how are you? It's good to see you.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Hi Jonathan, it’s good to see you.

JONATHAN HARRIS: It’s good to see you in person. It's been a while. I think the issue is, we don't -- 82 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

we're not we're not the experts on this. And there are studies all over the place on this. And we don't want to, you know, give a false conclusion. But even recently, in December, and it was reported in Forbes magazine, there was a study that showed that new data reveals no link between increased cannabis use in teens that illegal and illegal markets. So, there is data out there on both sides. And we'd like to work with you on that and mind some more of it for you, because I think you're asking some valid questions that we want to do the right thing here.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Harris, and I do appreciate hearing from you. And obviously, I respect and everything you have to say, and trust you implicitly. And so, I appreciate that.

Is anyone familiar with the 2016 study by Barry and Glance along those lines, Mr. Harris, if anyone here is aware of that study?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Not me. Anyone else must speak up but I’m not.

JONATHAN HARRIS: Not specific.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): So, that study emphasize that you need Department of Public Health to speak, and regulate so that you don't have a tobacco 2.0 problem. And so, Senator Champagne was saying, asking about if anybody from DPH was here, and there's not. I gotta tell you, my biggest concern with this legislation is teen use and abuse. It's as someone with teenage children I am petrified that because the THC content that's out there, gummies having -- Let me ask it this way, can we acknowledge that in a gummy pack one gummy bear, or one piece of marijuana or gummy will have a different THC content than another one simply because of how they're made. And it's almost impossible to regulate that. Is that everybody's understanding, does everybody agree with that?

83 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Commissioner, do you want to the product standards and those things.

COMMR. SEAGULL: It complicates things. You know, we're looking at how other states do it and sort of before the market opens up, the Bill anticipates we will have sort of conversions figured out as to kind of one equivalent of dry weight is in different product types. So, we are looking, and you know, in particular, it's the THC amount that are in different things. So, as we think through what potency limits should be, we also are going to need to require a sort of delineations of single size, single sized servings, so that obviously, teen use would be of concern, but even with adults, you'd, you don't want them to take more than they realize either, which sometimes happened with an edibles if they're not used to sort of a delay and when that happens.

So, that's one of the things we're going to be looking at, we're gonna be putting out requirements and eventually regulations on.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): So, can anyone tell us whether this legislation was modeled after how we handle how alcohol policies or how we handle tobacco, tobacco use policies?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: In Part, so that's certainly an area we looked at. I want to point out, in particular, the underage possession portion of the Bill, I’ll get section numbers in just a second. 77 through 83. Those sections are directly from the alcohol statutes. And that includes, for example, the social consumption component, you know, parents or other adults giving products to children under 21. So, there we learned from alcohol. You know, alcohol has been on the books for 90 years now. Commissioner Seagull and her team have a lot of experience with alcohol. And we learned a lot from regulating alcohol in Connecticut and putting together this 84 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

proposal.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): So, and from a criminal justice standpoint, I understand why, but from a from a public policy, public safety standpoint, would you agree that we should treat marijuana more like tobacco.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: I don’t understand the difference you are trying to draw between alcohol and tobacco.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): So, tobacco -- so, can anyone talk to how tobacco use, and alcohol use and marijuana use are related or unrelated? Or is that something that hasn't really been looked at?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: I’m not sure I fully understand still. Like I said a second ago, there are a couple of services that you can get runs on drug use and drug behavior. And some of these questions around correlations between different drug use, we can look at the data and get back to you on that.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): All right, fair enough that this is more along the study, that Barry and Glance study that I think everybody would agree, we had a tobacco problem that took decades to fix, and with youth. And then we had the problem with vaping, with youth, because we didn't have the proper education that went out ahead of the problems with vaping and the addiction of nicotine with our youth. I mean, in my own town in New Canaan, we had a problem for two, three years where kids were all vaping, because they thought it was safe. And kids got addicted to it.

So, I guess that's where I’m leading with it. I did anyone with the Governor's office, look at comparing how we handled tobacco, with in comparing it with how we should model our marijuana legislation, as opposed to modeling it after alcohol because I think we need to look at it more as how we handled tobacco continues. Is that fair to say? Or does it make more 85 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

sense?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Let me make a couple of comments and then obviously my others, as well. So, the Governor's proposal includes funding for DEMAS to undertake education and prevention of at least a million dollars a year, and they'll be targeted, particularly towards individuals who are under 21. The proposal also requests or requires the Alcohol Drug Policy Council to make recommendations, you know, science based public health harm reduction strategies, in order to reduce, you know, these harms, and the Bill requires that there'll be a particular focus placed on the under 21s.

And so, I think we can all agree that there is an intentionality here to try to make sure that the products are only used by individuals who are of age. And there's also intentionality to make sure that we address the risks of substance use disorder, overuse, you know, any of the other risks that come from any other drug. Now, the reality is cannabis is used and abused today, all over the state. And that's the reality that we're trying to respect and the reality that we're trying to respond to.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): And Mr. Agrawal, I appreciate that. And please, if there's anything you get away - - come away with on this most important thing for me is, what is the administration going to do to prevent that. what you just said, is my most important, you know, legalizing drug use for people over 25, marijuana use, I am not anywhere near as concerned about as a father, I am petrified of what this will do to the teens and what it does to them. So, if you could just help us understand what the program or what the plan is going forward on preventing that what you just said, that would be fantastic. If we could get some more details on that.

86 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I believe you said that there were some negative public policy consequences for homegrown use, what are those negative public policy consequences for homegrown use?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative, we've been through this I think extensively, the key answered this. If you want to summarize, Mr. Agrawal quickly, but we are getting a little repetitive here. So, I do want to keep this moving.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We can certainly follow up with you on that. The public policy concerns the Governor's office has on homegrown include support for black markets or more product with black market and conservative public safety. You know, those are now products that are grown in an a more sanitary condition and are processed. They're not necessarily processed using, say solvents. You know, there are a lot of steps to happen to get to a safe market. And that's one reason why Michelle needs safety for people to make sure that the market is done right.

JONATHAN HARRIS: I would just add one of the things Mr. Chairman, if I can that in the black-market piece of course, it's a concern in the adult-use portion also, but we've been very careful to make sure that we have a highly regulated and nationally recognized medical marijuana program where it really truly is medical, the three P's the patient, the physician pharmacist, and you know, the more you allow home grow, there is a risk that people will go away from that and self-medicate and within their own houses not as controlled without the safeties that we have to. So, we're concerned about the impact on the medical market also.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Let me ask an open-ended question to Mr. Harris. You and I had exchanged when the Regs review, some good questioning on the handling of medical marijuana and expanding the conditions that allow it. 87 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Let me ask you, currently do we, does the Governor's office believe the Department of Consumer Protection is doing a good job with the medical marijuana use?

JONATHAN HARRIS: Yes. Without a doubt.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): All right. And one of the problems we had number years ago was we didn't have enough doctors qualified to take a look at what the medical marijuana is being used for. My understanding is that's been rectified, and the panel has -- the panel that reviews that has been filled with doctors with the right qualifications. Is that correct, Mr. Harris?

JONATHAN HARRIS: I don't remember an issue over qualifications. But I would yield to Commissioner Seagull on that.

COMMR.SEAGULL: If you are talking about the board of physicians, yeah, we've -- we're fully staffed, and they're all terrific and highly qualified.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Thank you. I would just point out for the record, I think if you reached out to the medical community they would disagree with, you know, with the comment or the statement that that we're doing a good job as a whole in handling the medical marijuana situation here in Connecticut. I won't get into that, Mr. Chairman, at this point, but I think I would, I would hope -- I would like the Governor's office to reach out to medical community and get their input on this legislation as well. And I wish we could hear from the --

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Just on that. I’ve had a slew of conversations on behalf of the Governor's office, with individuals in the medical community, including Representatives of the CPA, CSMs, and others. And so, I’m happy to follow up on your specific concerns. But I think there's a strong consensus that so long as cannabis is in our communities, and 88 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

of course it already is, then we need science-based harm reduction strategies in place. And that is something that the Governor's office strongly supports.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Thank you. Look, I actually had a lot more questions, but I in respect to the Chairman's comments earlier, I’m going to I’m going to ask those questions offline. And I’ll send them to Mr. Mounds, I’ll reach out to you. I appreciate it. And I see that I’m probably boring 90% of people on this call. So, I’ll just end with a comment. And maybe a question to the group. And I don't want to put words in Secretary McCaw’s mouth because I have the utmost respect for her. And I think she's doing a good job.

When she gave her budget presentation, she said one of the main reasons for this Bill was to rectify and fix the injustice and impact of the drug use on our urban communities. And I just and I agree with that statement that we need to -- we need to help the communities and rectify and I’m all for erasure of the simple possession charges and more education.

But does anybody really believe that by legalizing recreational marijuana, we're gonna help those urban communities that were so devastated by marijuana and drug use?

MARC PELKA: Mr. Chairman, I’m Secretary McCaw’s my boss. So, I will associate myself with her remarks and agree with her. And I spoke in the criminal justice matters earlier. And I believe if cannabis is removed from 21A to 79 and move into a separate category with less penalties, then it was, they would be imposed before. I think the responses that we develop for the possession and use of infractions and graduated penalties is reasonable. I think that the fact that to say nothing of the regulated markets, I’m -- I got -- you spoke favorably.

89 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

The good Representative spoke favorably to the erasure components. And I think that's that cyber addresses the past harms that were inflicted because it does it in an automated way. So, I mean, I'd be happy to continue to expound, but I fear that I already said those things earlier. And I don't want to just keep repeating.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): No, my point is, do we, well, my point isn't about the criminal aspect of things because we already -- I think Senator Champagne had said, and I just want to clear up for everybody, there's not a single person in jail right now for simple possession of an ounce or two or three of marijuana or is anybody aware of someone in jail right now for simple possession. I’m not.

MARC PELKA: It would be very low for a direct sentence. But people could be returned on a probation, special parole violation or halfway houses have very strict drug penalty, you know, drug restrictions on them. For example, so a direct sentence, and that's a benefit. And that's the work that Connecticut's criminal justice system and policymakers have done to evolve our penalty structure and responses to it. But that's why the erasure piece is so important because even as our justice system evolves, those records remain and follow those people, limit their ability to access employment, housing.

So, even if the direct sentences are low, there, are there plenty of ways on enforcement of drug laws lead to people coming in.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): And like I said, I agree erasure makes sense. I don't agree with the general premise that legalizing marijuana is going to help our urban communities that were devastated by drug problems. And I don't see any of the education piece that we got with tobacco and finally learned how devastating tobacco is for the health of everybody. I don't see that education prevention piece here. 90 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

And Mr. Pelka while I have you, just real quick, Mr. Chairman, I am almost done. Did you say that we're not going to be able to use the smell of marijuana is probable cause for an arrest when pulled over for driving erratically?

MARC PELKA: Mr. Chairman, I think I just if I could just one thing that we talked about earlier, I think jails and prisons are one part of the criminal justice system and the impact that is brought, there are arrests, stops, referrals to programs administered by the criminal justice system or to probation; are all ways that there was the enforcement of drug policy has effects, disproportionate effects.

So even though Connecticut's evolution of policy has reduced significantly to very small number of people who are incarcerated for simple possession of cannabis, there are other effects that I would like to just make sure I stated on the record as having effects.

To the good Representative’s question. It does limit the justifications or use of probable cause for a stop or a seizure, simply on scent of cannabis alone would not be sufficient, there would need to be other indicators to prompt that stop with the search, including that cannabis possession being someone underage or amount of money along with that cannabis amount, or exceeding the amount. So simply the odor on itself would not just be sufficient for a searcher’s stop.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: I’m gonna just jump in there as well. Subsection C of Section 13 of the Governor's Bill does specifically have language around a traffic stop and the smell of odor or the odor of cannabis. And so that was a provision that we did look into, we want to make sure that there is no, not constraint, but we want to make sure that our police agencies can do the work they need to on traffic 91 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

safety. Representatives --.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): What line is that? If I may.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Let me get you a line number. It's Section 13 Sub C. But let me get you a line number; 475.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Alright, but I just want to make sure I understand the line. And Mr. Agrawal I don't want to cut you off. I want to get back to what you're saying. Very important. But Mr. Pelka, I got to understand so we can use the smell of alcohol for peace probable cause, but we can't use the smell of marijuana. Is that what you're telling me?

MARC PELKA: That's correct on itself, you would need to have an accompaniment of a sense of impaired driving, we're trying really to focus the reasons for a stop and a seizure and to apply it to impairment. And this this is the criminal justice section that involves this and the other kind of highway safety pieces, I think make build out the whole framework, but that's right.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Can anyone honestly tell me right now that that makes any sense?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative, we’re getting --.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): I know it's --.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): We are getting argumentative here, as opposed to -- I think you got an answer to your question.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Oh, all right. I’m sorry. I didn't mean to be offensive, but that does not make any sense. It just boggles my mind. 92 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative, there'll be plenty time to debate this Bill.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): I will move on. Mr. Agrawal, I’m sorry, I cut you off.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Two comments. One is on Section 13, Subsection C. If you're being pulled over for impaired driving, the odor of cannabis remains a factor. If you're being pulled over for a busted taillight, you know the odor of cannabis is not indicative of impairment. It may be indicative of a violation of I believe it's Section 90 of the Bill that you that there's cannabis in the vehicle.

So, there are you know, there are measures here that we can take to make sure that we are balancing the needs for individuals to not be, you know, subject to criminal prosecution for simply, you know, being around someone who's smoking cannabis a few hours earlier. You know, cannabis smoke is something that lingers. And we don't criminalize the smell of tobacco smoke. And I think that is the best corollary here, rather than the smell alcohol, which is just, it's different, and it doesn't stick to you. It doesn't stick to someone who's near you, in the same way.

The earlier to your comments around no communities, local communities of color, you know, I want to clarify that, you know, drug use behavior is not something that's concentrated in our cities or in certain communities, but rather, you know, drugs are used across the state. And, you know, people handle in different ways. And what the Bill does is make sure that individuals who shouldn't be using drugs, that there's marketing, there's education provided there.

93 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

The State of Connecticut already has significant education in our schools, and Driver's Ed, you know, there, we have programs in place here. And we're certainly always willing to have further conversations. But I don't want to underscore that I think the line of questioning you are going down, you know, made it seem like these are there are specific communities in the state who are somewhere suffering from the use of drugs or abuse of drugs. Rather, the problem is that there's some counties in the state who are suffering from some the disparate impact of possession laws and cannabis prohibition. And that is what we're trying to address.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): And Mr. Agrawal, if earlier you took my intent, or my comments to mean, I’m not concerned about drugs in my town. That's, not true. I recognize that. And I’m petrified for my children to have access and more access to marijuana, if it's made recreational. And that's, I certainly did not mean to, to imply in any way that this is related to our cities or any in a way, it's a problem throughout the country. And I didn't if anybody took it that way. I apologize.

Just let me understand if someone from Connecticut State Police, or someone from law enforcement can just clarify here. So, if I get pulled over, and for say erratic driving, or and I rolled down my window, and you smell alcohol, my understanding is I be asked to step out of the car and walk a line, do some testing. And that's obviously appropriate. And something I would encourage the officer to do. Is that a fair kind of summary of how that could go down or we go down? Officer, is it Bartolotta?

LT. BARTOLOTTA: It’s Chris Bartolotta, yes. Yes, it's a fair assessment, it would be an indicator, something that would enhance the officer’s perceptions, and then the start looking for additional clues, through questioning or whatever to see if alcohol is in fact causing that erratic behavior or the erratic driving. 94 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): And if I say, you know, yeah, I had a drink or two at dinner, but you know what, I got distracted, I had a sneeze. And that was the reason for my erratic driving. And you made me do the test, the alphabet test and the physical test, and you determine, you know, what, he's not over the influence. I’d be on my way.

But if we do that same scenario, and you don't have alcohol, but you smell marijuana, under that scenario, in this legislation, would you be allowed to ask me to get out of the car and do a physical test, do a specific test?

LT. BARTOLOTTA: Based upon your question, no, it would have to, you would have to have some additional. The officer would be trained and that's part of the reason why we're talking about ARIDE and the DRE, but they would notice and look for some of the cannabis indicators of smell would be one, eyes are watery red would be another, looking at the tongue to see if there's any type of indicative ingestion.

So yes, you would build upon that. But just solely, as Mr. Agrawal said, if it's a motor vehicle stop because of a taillight and you smell the cannabis odor, no, we could not be -- the officer could not go forward with his investigation unless he found something additional that will allow him to do that.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): So, if the taillight is out and you smell alcohol, you can ask me out. If the taillights out, and you smell marijuana, you can't ask me out? Is that what you're saying?

LT. BARTOLOTTA: That's my interpretation of the law. Yes.

PATRICK HULIN: And Representative, let me just jump in here is Patrick Hulin. I’m a Associate Policy 95 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Director in the Governor's office.

This is really about keeping, you know, there are couple issues here which you want to keep separate, right? There's the, you know, a traffic stop for having a taillight out and an associated possible search of a vehicle, right. That's something that can happen in traffic stop, whether or not there's suspicion of the driver being impaired. But there's also the field sobriety test, right? That's another thing that can happen with a traffic stop.

And there's specific language in this section to enable you -- to enable an officer to progress from a, from a stop for impaired driving or for something else to a field sobriety test. But what we don't want is that, you know, someone has, you know, someone has smell on their clothes from they were with someone else who was who was consuming cannabis prior. We don't want that to turn into, you know, someone's vehicle getting searched unnecessarily for their association with a totally legal consumption of a product.

But if there's any suspicion of impaired driving, right, that's already enough for an officer to order a field sobriety test. So, if they pull you over for erratic driving, that's already reasonable suspicion enough to do a field sobriety test.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Is Mr. Doyle on here?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Judge Doyle, State’s Attorney, I believe they'll be joined later.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Okay. All right. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I know I’ve been fairly lengthy; I apologize for that. I do want to truly, sincerely thank all of you. I do truly have the sincerest respect for all of you. And if I offended anyone, I apologize. That was not my intent.

As you can tell, I’m pretty passionate about this, 96 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

because of petrified about the impact on our youth. And I very much appreciate Mr. Agrawal, thank you so much for your responses. And please go forward with the intent to help us prevent further teen use. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Thank you, Representative. We're now three hours into hearing from the Governor's office on this and have not gotten to the general public yet. So, I just want to remind the members of that. Again, if you have direct questions, preferably on topics that we have not covered yet, we obviously will continue on, but I am imploring the members not to rehash or dwell on topics that we've already covered if they can avoid it.

Representative Blumenthal.

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I’ll be very brief with my question. And I believe it should be only one. And I think it would be addressed to Mr. Pelka. There was spirited crosstalk on -- with a couple of my colleagues about the current criminal justice consequences of possession of certain amounts of cannabis. My understanding of the current state of the criminal law is that if someone possesses under a half an ounce of cannabis, that is only an infraction, but if they possess an amount in excess of one half of one ounce, that is a class a misdemeanor that is punishable by jail time. Am I correct in that?

MARC PELKA: Mr. Chairman, the Vice Chairman is correct. It is between half an ounce and four ounces; simple possession misdemeanor A, and marijuana is in that class.

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): Thank you. Sorry, go ahead. I didn't mean to interrupt you.

97 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

MARC PELKA: No, no under current law and what this this Bill would do was remove cannabis possession from that into a separate sub-statute with a different set of penalties.

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): Okay, thank you. So, you know, I understand that the actual rate you spoken to the collateral consequences that can come from simple possession or from possession of an amount in excess of one half ounce, it appears to me that possession of certain amounts of cannabis can also lead to jail or prison time potentially, I think you committed to getting back to my colleagues on what the actual enforcement priorities and policies and how those have actually reflected in people being punished with imprisonment for possession of cannabis. I look forward to that information. But I just wanted to clarify the current state of the law, and then it can lead to imprisonment for as amounts in excess of one half of one ounce.

Thank you, Mr. Pelka. And thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m not exactly sure who my questions are directed to so I’ll just kind of throw them out and, hopefully, hopefully, the right person will respond. I do want to talk about an area that I don't believe has really been discussed yet which is growing and cultivation.

Looking at the definition of cultivator. It talks about the propagation of cannabis plant at an establishment with not less than 15, 000 square feet of grow space. That the 15,000 square feet of gross space sounds an awful lot like indoors.

Do we know if we're talking about indoor or outdoor or if there's a difference, how do we know? It doesn't seem to say.

98 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

COMMR. SEAGULL: My expectation is, we would be talking about indoor just given the needs for security and other sort of product safety requirements.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, is there any requirement of being indoor.

COMMR.SEAGULL: I don't recall that it's set out in the statute but, so, a lot of that you know would come again through all these DCP kind of regulations and requirements, so we would need to take a look, but thinking through how we have it with medical and what we have in place to ensure you know products are secure and aren't getting contaminated whether it's with heavy metals, pesticides, other things. We've generally looked for pretty controlled environment.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Now with regard to pesticides and things like that, with regard to growing. I note that the Commission in this, the Commissioner, in this instance is the Commissioner of the Department of Consumer Protection and the department is the Department of Consumer Protection. So, this entire operation is under the auspices of DCP and I’m wondering why, at least the growing end of this is not administered by Department of Agriculture.

COMMR.SEAGULL: So, this is -- this program is under DCP because these won't necessarily be grown on farms, these will be grown and given our experience with medical marijuana; a lot of what's going to be required, particularly on the product safety and other ends are gonna correspond with what we're already doing with marijuana in the medical program. So, it's a more logical extension of that program that some of the I think farmer agricultural programs that existed, the Department of Agriculture.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Doesn't the Department of 99 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Agriculture have the experience with regard to the growing of hemp.

COMMR.SEAGULL: They have hemp and that sort of federal law requires sort of Department of Agricultural involvement, but they that the manufacturing of hemp products and that piece of it is regulated by the Department of Consumer Protection.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, and why -- how was the decision made not to follow that model where the growing end was Department of Agriculture and the processing and sale is as consumer protection.

COMMR.SEAGULL: It's really following with the model that exists for medical marijuana were on a front end the regulation is occurring at the Department of Consumer Protection and so that's sort of how this one is modelled. Although obviously the user end is broader than just medical patients.

It also just, it creates a way for us to have consistency and how we're doing inspections testing kind of watching the flow of products, so it becomes regulatory much easier to administer when sort of the full pieces of that are being handled in one place.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. With regard to grow space, it appears to imply that grow space must be owned and controlled by the producer. So, is it the intention not to allow any type of leased property that it must be specifically owned by the producer, cultivator or micro cultivator?

COMMR.SEAGULL: They would just need the right to occupy. I can take a closer look at the precise language being used, but I would anticipate and that's how we have it in the medical program where you don't technically need to own the space, but you need to have the right to occupy in the right to exclude others from the property. 100 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay yeah that's why 97 it says, specifically that seems to imply that it has to be owned by and controlled by the producer.

COMMR.SEAGULL: Okay, I see the one you're talking about.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, I know I got a bunch of the notes here, give me one second. It’s a long Bill, I gotta page through it. There's a section here and it’s Section 20 which reads, that says no cannabis or cannabis product shall be sold from or obtained from or transferred to a location outside of the state.

How does the seed and other materials get into Connecticut to start growing if it can't be obtained from out of state?

COMMR.SEAGULL: That would -- right now there is a fair amount within the state through -- because of the medical program. But just like the medical program there's a little, there may be a little less transparency on how all of that is happening, but this is really meant to be like once you have your product, what we don't want is it moving across, you know, moving across state lines unless federal law changes and that sort of interstate commerce becomes available.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, so is it the intention that you can buy seed from out of state?

COMMR.SEAGULL: The law doesn't address that intent at all.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. And Section 35,the cultivator is authorized to cultivate, grow, propagate cannabis in an establishment that meets the physical security controls and protocols set forth and required by the Commissioner. Have those been established, yet? 101 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

COMMR.SEAGULL: No, that's one of the many things that will need to be in place before this launches. And again, we would look to a lot of the requirements we have in medical at least as a starting point.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. How many establishments, do you anticipate there being in the state?

COMMR.SEAGULL: Over time it's hard to know I mean eventually with like a well working competitive marketplace, so we'd like to have kind of supply and demand matching up well. So, we'll have to see as the market evolves how that plays out, you know how demand unfolds and supply, so I don't know at the end of the day, how many we would end up with.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Oh, you are anticipating dozens, hundreds, thousands?

COMMR.SEAGULL: Of each, which license -- so across the different license types I would expect eventually into the hundreds, you know, it's going to evolve over time. So, you know it's hard to know in your one what it will be necessarily as opposed to as the market matures and went into your five or six or if federal laws change, other opportunities open up there may eventually be different even license types.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): On what section is this? Section 43, when it talks about electronic tracking system shall track each cannabis seed clones seedling and other commencement of growth of cannabis plant. So, if you've got a bag of seed, every single seed has to be electronically tracked. How does that work?

COMMR.SEAGULL: Well, it would begin as you sort of plant the seeds. It will be the kind of the way these are discussed and it's fairly common in most 102 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

states, if not all states that have, you know, adult-use market is a seed to sale tracking is what they're referred to.

What you really want to keep track of is from the moment you kind of start growing the product to until it reaches a consumer’s hand. You want to know where it's going and that's just one of the many ways that protect against diversion. It can be possibly of assistance to revenue services, and it can be helpful on a public safety. And if there are let's say we have a problem with a product, you want to be and you need to do a recall, you could track back to a bad product or to wherever maybe the contamination may have happened so that you can address that issue as well.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, so you're not proposing that when a producer obtains a bag of seed, you know, let’s say contains a ten-pound bag of seed which has tens of thousands of seeds in it that each one of those seeds is somehow electronically tracked.

COMMR. SEAGULL: I mean if they are equally planted and are intending to be plants, that would happen. The seed to sale tracking system is among the many things that you know DCP, is going to be working on if this Bill passes to kind of finalize, get into shape and get those requirements out to our cultivators so that they'll know, you know, the point in time when they need to start tracking that.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, but I just to be clear, so you're talking about tracking it once it's planted. So, you have little pot with soil in it, you put the seed in it and you start tracking you're not talking about tracking each seed wallets in a bag.

COMMR.SEAGULL: I would expect so, we need to work it out, but sort of that seems the more logical way.

103 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Just a second, I had a couple more. In Section 73, I’m a little confused about Section A and Section B. Section A appears to say that hotels, motels and similar lodging facilities can't prohibit possession and consumption of cannabis. But Section B says that they shall prohibit the smoking of cannabis.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Representative Dubitsky, I can speak to that. If cannabis are consumed in a variety of manners, smoked and healed ingested and the concerns any kind of location like a hotel, is the secondary impacts of smoke inhalation. And so the goal with Section 73 is to make sure that individuals, including new tourists who may come to Connecticut and choose to consume legal cannabis; and when it is legal, have the ability to do so in their hotel rooms, but that hotels should still prevent any kind of second-hand smoke, or they think situation.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Are hotels currently allowed to regulate or prohibit the consumption of alcohol?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: I can't speak to have alcohol. I can speak to tobacco. So, I’ll get you the section numbers in just a second, but the Governor’s proposal includes an update to the state’s Indoor Clean Air Act which also regulates secondhand smoke, so, in certain locations, including hotels and other kind of public locations.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay well, I’m more concerned with alcohol than with tobacco. So, you've got a motel, let's say it's down near the beach and you've got a bunch of college kids that are drinking. I would assume that the hotel can say no drinking in my hotel. It would seem odd that there would now be a law that said, but you can't prohibit the consumption of cannabis.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Representative, I will get back to you on that. 104 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay I'd appreciate it. Now, with regard to employment. It says nothing -- Section 84C. Nothing in this act requires an employer to, oh I’m sorry, nothing in this act shall limit an employer from taking appropriate action, including but not limited to requiring an employee, to take a drug test upon reasonable suspicion that an employee's usage of cannabis, while engaged in the performance of the employee’s work responsibilities.

So, let's say the employer knows that or suspects that the employee is using cannabis quite frequently in his or her off hours and is concerned that that is leaking over into work hours. How if they take a drug test, if the employee is smoking marijuana off hours, isn't going to show up in the test regardless of when it the drug test is taken?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: It was a great question, Representative. So, we provide some framing around - - the Governor’s suggested approach here on the employment and drug testing and provisions of the Bill. First, we have been in constant collaboration with the business communities, CBI and others on these provisions, and we know we continue to look into these provisions to make sure that we meet the Governor’s primary goal, which is workplace safety. And we had every intention of maintaining the ability of employers to have safe workplace. That is absolutely critical to us.

In, you know, a general perspective that we have both here and in the traffic safety sections, is that the level of THC in one's blood or urine or whatnot, is not indicative of impairment. You know, impairment, is a mental status that is not a number you know from a drug test and alcohol is very unique in that respect, because alcohol has a linear relationship in these drug tests in a little impairment. So, that is why we have to think about drug testing in the context of cannabis, you know, 105 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

in a more complex and then when it comes to alcohol.

So, to your question specifically sub-section B of Section 84 allows an employer to establish at will, employment policies and these policies can include in no drug use on or off site. And so, Section 84 would cover the use case that you suggested in section, sorry, sub-section 84B will cover at for the situation you describe.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. So, as an employer, I can say I’m not hiring anybody who smokes pot, even at their own house off hours.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: You can, and you know there's certainly a business rationale that any business owner and used to think through on what they are doing to their access to human capital, their access to the labor market by having restrictive hiring standards that are not related to the demands of the job.

Certainly, any safety related position needs some kind of standard around drug use, and of course we agree with that. But what this Bill is trying to do is say employers can have that, but let's just be careful about when that's used.

And so, 84 is you know, a very -- 84 sets forth you know employment policy as we just mentioned that it allows the employer that right to your question around when can an employer do a drug test. That's addressing Section 85, and so there are some restrictions there and that we can talk about.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. And we can moving on to Section 85. I interpret this to say that even if somebody test positive for marijuana, it isn't proof that they smoke marijuana or that caused impairment of any type. So, what good is the drug test if the drug test is no good?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Representative, impairment is 106 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

impairment if an individual is impaired, and employers take action, and a drug test is not the necessary standard under which an employer needs to ac. So, I think when it comes to impairment, we just have to recognize employers to take action.

What 85 speaks to is a drug called THC CHEO, using non-active metabolite of cannabis, it is long lasting in the blood and urine. And 85 is saying you know, in a situation when a drug test is being done, you know, at random time you know it is not linked to any kind of situation around impairment, that drug test itself cannot determine impairment.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, so how does an employee, an employer determine impairment.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: It's a behavioral process as described in that section you spoke about earlier 84 C3.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): 84 C3. Now, with regard to police officer, police officers takes special training to identify and recognize people who are impaired by marijuana; don't they?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Absolutely. In the Governor’s Bill proposes that we increase the number of individuals trained ARIDE into their retainers.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. About how many of them are there at the moment?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: I’ll let the DESPP or DOT perhaps speak to that.

COMMR. ROVELLA: Lieutenant Bartolotta, can you tell us how many for CSP. I know Deputy Commissioner owns two.

LT. BARTOLOTTA: Yes, Commissioner, currently CSP has 13 officers that are trained as DREs with one instructor. As for ARIDE I believe Karen Boisvert 107 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

has the better numbers on that I saw her just go live as well.

Mr. Chairman, if I may. I just would like to clarify and answer Mohit gave to Representative O’Dea just to make sure that we're all on the same sheet of music. The Bill does have wording specifically line 472 when we talk about the odor of cannabis. An officer cannot search the vehicle based upon the odor of cannabis, but the odor of cannabis does allow the officer to for continue his investigation into a OUI matter, whether it be alcohol and/or drugs.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, well, I thank you for that and I will, let me just follow up on behalf of Representative O’Dea who I’m sure will jump in on this when he gets an opportunity. But does that mean that if an officer pulls somebody over and they roll down the window and a big cloud of smoke or the smell of cannabis is apparent to the officer, that the officer can ask the driver to get out of the car and give them a field sobriety test.

LT. BARTOLOTTA: That is correct statement, sir, yes.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. I appreciate that hopefully that answers Representative O’Dea’s question. My question, so there are 13 officers currently in the state that are trained in the identification of intoxicated people that are intoxicated by marijuana is that right.

DEPUTY COMMR. EUCALITTO: Representative Dubitsky, [Inaudible]

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Gentleman, I am sorry. Hold on one second. I’m sorry.

DEPUTY COMMR. EUCALITTO: Representative Dubitsky, this Garret Eucalitto, I am Deputy Commissioner at the DOT. 108 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Yes, sir.

DEPUTY COMMR. EUCALITTO: So, we have in Connecticut currently we have 60 DREs in Connecticut and we do not have a specific number of ARIDE trained officers, we believe it's 950 to a thousand. But DOT working with [POST] is going to be finalizing that information moving forward and asking each agency in the state to get us the specifics.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Then, so there are 60 now of the DREs. Is that what they're called?

DEPUTY COMMR. EUCALITTO: Yes, Sir.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, and just very briefly, if you could just give me a, you know, a quick summary of what it takes to become a DRE, what training is involved.

DEPUTY COMMR. EUCALITTO: Yes, Sir. So, and my colleagues at DESPP can jump in as well. But it's a very detailed and extensive training. You have to go through numerous steps to reach the point where you can become a DRE. First, you need to become certified through standard field sobriety tests, you have to go through your wet lab which is conducting field sobriety tests on individuals who are intoxicated. Then you need to also get your ARIDE certification, which is I believe a 16-hour course. Following that is the DRE training is a three-week course; two weeks in the classroom, one week in the field. And so it's not for everyone, it requires a very highly skilled individual, and so it, but it is a very detailed training.

The program is put together through the International Association of Chiefs of Police, as well as the national highway traffic safety administration. And there's a technical advisory panel which has medical specialists and optometry emergency room medicine and toxicology will help 109 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

with the curriculum for that course.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): And without that training an officer wouldn't be qualified to recognize somebody who is intoxicated by marijuana.

DEPUTY COMMR. EUCALITTO: The training is to help you identify which substance they're intoxicated by. The standard field sobriety test, as well as ARIDE allow officers to determine impairment and then from that point once you have probable cause for impairment and then you can place them under arrest, but then the DRE training, as well as the breathalyzer test to use for alcohol that's what determines what you are impaired by. Lieutenant Bartolotta, if I’m misspeaking please correct me.

LT. BARTOLOTTA: No, you're 100% correct. ARIDE standardize field sobriety test looks for impairment. There is a piece within standards field sobriety testing that is drug-related, and it gives a basic overview. ARIDE then takes that to the next level, again, allowing the officer who goes through the training to look for specific roles or levels of impairment due to certain drugs. And then very specifically the DRE will allow the officer to make an assessment on one of the drug categories, whether it be multiple or singular that is causing that impairment level.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, so what kind of training is necessary for to determine basic intoxication under a field sobriety test.

KAREN BOISVERT: If I can speak to that please.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Karen Boisvert can talk about that.

KAREN BOISVERT: Yes, if I can speak to it. My name is Karen, can you hear me?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): You're very faint. I need 110 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

you get a little closer to the microphone if you can and give us your -- introduce yourself there, please.

KAREN BOISVERT: Thank you, can you hear me now?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yep.

KAREN BOISVERT: My name is Karen Boisvert. I’m the academy administrator for the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. I’m assigned to the division of Post. And it should be noted that every basic training program has the field sobriety test. So, officers currently have to base on the post curriculum and regulation, they must take the basic training program for the field sobriety test. It's about a 40-hour program. It does include a wet lab. So, every recruit going through a program graduates with this particular training, which is the first step that will lead them to the ARIDE.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. So, the basic course is 40 hours.

KAREN BOISVERT: Yes.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay all right, well, thank you for that. I appreciate it. So, I’m going to go back to Sections 84 and 85 with regard to an employer's ability to determine if the employee is intoxicated on the job with cannabis. I think I was told that it -- that the test for cannabis cannot be used to determine impairment. And now I’m being told that the -- that in order to determine impairment, you need a 40-hour course. So, what does an employer to do to determine whether or not one of their employees is intoxicated on the job?

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Representative, we would be happy to follow up with more details, but I can speak to what's in statute, excuse me, in the proposed legislation. What the proposal requires is 111 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

reasonable suspicion of use of cannabis while on the job or specific articulable symptoms of impairment and then there's a list thereof. So, those are the standards that we are establishing in the Governor's proposal for how an employer can go about establishing impairment at work.

Impairment or use, excuse me, at work. More generally, there is, there are programs in place for employers to have staff trained to identify impairment. But the National Safety Coalition, in particular, is quite active in the space and they are developing and will soon launch a DRE equivalent program for lay individuals who work at employers who want that level of specificity in identifying impairment.

But these are open questions that you know, we need to continue to look into. But we believe the Governor’s proposal puts forward strong standards that employers can implement.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. All right, I think that exhausts my questions, let me just check my notes. Give me one second. I think that's it all right. Well, I appreciate your time, and thank you, Mr Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Representative. Now, Representative Fishbein has a very brief follow up on a second round. Is there anyone else who has not, if not? Representative Fishbein briefly, please for a second time to.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mounds, the Governor's staff and Commissioners being here today, was that by their choice or invitation or direction.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I’m not sure that's directly related to the Bill.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): It is directly related 112 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

because I do notice and I will have I mean it's gonna be part of the record that there is absolutely no one here from the Department Public Health which Commissioners appointed by the Governor and they have not submitted any written testimony based upon what I see on the system, which I find to be very troubling here.

So, I mean I don't need Mr. Mounds to answer the question, I guess, whether or not an invitation or direction, I would hope that the Commissioner at least would have sent somebody so that they can represent Public Health.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative, I’ll make this representation to you. If you have trouble getting in touch with the Commissioner directly, we will have the Committee directly follow the Commissioner to answer any public health related questions on this Bill.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I think the Committee itself should have the ability to ask those questions. I think that was the purpose of today but anyway, moving on. Does the product --.

MOHIT AGRAWAL: Representatives

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yes, sir.

PAUL MOUNDS: Wait. I’ll take that Mohit. Representative, obviously we're still in the midst of a pandemic. Obviously, the Commissioner of Public Health and her team have been solely very much focused on that. Every Commissioner here is not here based upon any coercion or any duress by me, I’ll say me, personally, as the Governor Chief of Staff.

This has been build as you can see from its comprehensive nature that has been worked on by all of these agencies. All of these agencies have provided direct input, including Department of Public Health. We will be happy; I know Department 113 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

of Public Health was supposed to provide written testimony that will be on the record, and that will happen. If there's any follow up questions for the Department of Public Health, the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and down the line, we will make sure that we will have it. Not only asked by you, but yes, but I think, to the greater point I think this panel of our members of our agencies kind of shows directly the collaborative nature that the Governor has driven in me to make sure that show by our agencies when it comes to working on policies of consequence for the people of Connecticut.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Understood, sir. And you know, I have to say that you don't get any sympathy over the pandemic issue, because the fact of the matter is this Bill is not necessary, right now. The pandemic, addressing the pandemic certainly is, but this is the Bill that is before us at this time. And if the Department of Public Health, you know, can't be here, then maybe we shouldn’t be here having this. But I don't want to belabor that.

Does the product have to be produced in Connecticut in order to be sold in Connecticut?

COMMR. SEAGULL: Yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Where's that in the law, because I do not see that.

COMMR. SEAGULL: It’s kind of in the section that says everything has to happen in -- can't cross state lines, I forget the exact number, now. We discussed, it was discussed earlier.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I know there's a provision that says you can't bring it outside of the state of Connecticut. But when I look at possession and usage particularly, it doesn't say cannot possess or use. May possess, use or otherwise consume yada yada. And I’m looking at lines 199 through 206, product that is created, cultivated, whatever in the state of 114 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Connecticut. It doesn't, it just doesn't say that at least in that section. So, I’ll continue to look for that. The --.

JONATHAN HARRIS: Representative Fishbein and Michelle, Commissioner Seagull; everything has to be done by licensed entities and we don't license out of state entities. They have to be licensed Connecticut entities.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Understood, but can a license Connecticut entity, a retailer, purchase the product from outside of the state for sale in Connecticut.

COMMR.SEAGULL: No, they can only purchase it from Connecticut licensed cultivator or producer.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And you're saying that somewhere in here.

COMMR. SEAGULL: Yes. So, with if you look within each section where it talks about the license types, it talks about who they are allowed to buy from and who they are allowed to sell to and it's a closed loop system of licensees that the whole supply chain is being licensed by DCP and will be within the state of Connecticut.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. I’ll take your representation. I will continue to look for that. The -- my last area for Mr. Pelka or perhaps Sergeant Gian. When I look at 29-28 having to do with the issuance of a pistol permit. It bars one who has been convicted of a violation of Section 21A-279 from being issued a pistol permit. Now, I heard a lot before about what erasure is under this. How am I to put these two things together by this automatic erasure for provision. Is one who was previously convicted of 21A-279 legally able to get it pistol permit? I don't know which one of you can answer that question.

MARC PELKA: Mr. Chairman, to the Ranking Member’s 115 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

question; this is Marc. Looking at the pistol permit application, there are a number of different criteria that disqualifies them from -- one of them is a felony conviction another are set of misdemeanors. So, if the only disqualifying feature was a conviction 21A-279C, my impression to be that that record would be erasured and that, therefore, that person would be eligible to submit for pistol permit. We would certainly want to verify that, but that would be, you know, my read of erasure would work is that someone receives that erasure that would apply. Only in the case where there's no other disqualifying feature.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Understood. So, okay we'll -- I’ll look further into that because the statute doesn't just deal with Section C, you know, that's the old statute. Right now, it says, a violation of Section 21A-279C so that would be A B or C.

So, that means that somebody who was convicted of having an excess of an ounce and a half, would that not be a C? I don't know the answer. I know, Marc you and I’ve talked about this this in the past and I’m just trying to figure out where we're going with this.

So, I put the bug in your ear and thank you, Mr Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Chairman Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry, my kid’s in the background. I just want to first thank you all for spending so much time with us today, and just point out a couple of things that I think that, in the last couple of years and excuse me, because I have a back issue, so I know so I’m trying to make it through hearing.

But point out that in the last couple of years that I have pointed out that there are studies that suggest that 10 years actually go down very easily 116 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

found in the state of Colorado and in other places. And also, point out that the Barry and Glance study, which I did happen to have a chance to read makes a lot of good points, especially about the way in which we regulate cannabis in the United States versus what we could do from a more public health standpoint, so I think all of us should actually read it, because, beyond what was talked about in the study, there's a lot to really glean from it. But thank you very much for joining us and happy to hear from the public now.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Chairman Winfield. I want to certainly associate myself with the remarks and almost four hours in and go back to where we started with the Governor's office, which is, I agree.

I think what has been presented to us by the Governor's office is a very good starting framework of Bill. I think it builds upon the work this Committee and others have done in the past, particularly, on the criminal justice piece, which is obviously front and center for this Committee.

I think, you know I certainly speak for myself on when I say I agree, I don't think this is a final product. I think there are certainly; we've heard some sections that can be improved upon already here today and I’m sure we will hear others. But I am appreciative of the Governor's office for recognizing the role that this Committee plays in the deliberative process for spending as long and bring as many experts to the table, as you have this morning so that we can work through this and hopefully come out of our Committee process where they end even stronger Bill than what has been presented to us here today.

You've done your work, it's time for us to do ours. So, Chief Staff Mounds, Mr Harris, Commissioners, thank you all again for being with us. Thank you.

117 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

We are going to take just a 30-second break, we're going to let them out and the administrator is going to let our next batch of public testifiers in and she'll give us a signal one ready to go on.

DEB BLANCHARD: Next on the list is Ms. Ann Marie Rosado is not available. Next being Christine Perra Rapillo followed by Karen O’Keefe and Bernice Wright.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): All right, thank you, madam administrator, so we are going to we're up to number 22 on our list. Ann Marie Rosado. Ann, if you're with us.

DEB BLANCHARD: She is not here. Ann Marie Rosado is not here.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Michael Oretade. No. All right, so we're up to Christine Perra Rapillo, the Chief Public Defender. Wait I see Michael Oretade.

MICHAEL ORETADE: Hello.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yeah, go ahead, sir. Mr. Oretade, you have, I have you next on my list you have three minutes. Go ahead.

MICHAEL ORETADE: My name is Mike Oretade and I’m here before you today to testify in opposition of Governor Lamont’s Bill SB 888 and in favor of House Bill 6377.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Sir I’m going to interrupt you, and I understand there may be folks who are tempted to do this, but I wanted to do this early. We are not -- we are testifying on the Bill that is before us today. The only Bill on our agenda is 888 and it would be in my mind. It would not be appropriate for us to talk, to testify in favor or against a Bill that's not on our agenda today. There are four issues in others with that. So, if you want to talk about Senate Bill 888, you're welcome to do 118 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

so, but I can't have you testifying on a Bill that’s not before us.

MICHAEL ORETADE: All right. The inclusion of equity in the title was laughable. It does little to nothing to rectify the wrongs done the communities of color impacted by the war on drugs, which doesn't make sense to me. All this talk about a new market structure we already know what the market structure is going to look like in other states; other states have it.

What bugs me most is that it doesn't expunge records of individuals and so minute amounts of it, when in reality if impoverished communities were supportive properly, then individuals wouldn't have to resort to selling cannabis in the first place.

Instead of rectifying that by prioritizing entrance of disenfranchised communities to the legal market, we're allowing an already established businesses to monopolize the market. It's ignoring the root of the problems in the communities of color and giving crumbs to us and calling it equity.

I’m here to say we want the whole damn cake. That's equity. We deserve access to the kitchen that's equity.

The language and other Bills that I won't reference is loose enough for it to be used to map out the legalities of the market with a sense of inclusion. That's what the people want, repetitive action.

In short, SB 888 is inequitable. It does not right the wrongs done by cannabis prohibition. It does not allow discrete home grow, it criminalizes the youth, which is statistically racist. It does not outline funding from the taxation that will go directly to disenfranchised communities, it does not mention the inclusion in support of our indigenous communities in this industry, it does not mention protections for parents, children and individuals in public 119 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

housing Meanwhile, other Bills do.

Other Bills create programs and reinvest into communities that prohibition affects the most and I support that. I yield my time.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Are there questions from the Committee? Seeing none --.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Let me just say thank you for coming and just say this. I know that there are a lot of people who are thinking about what the Chairman’s instruction means for their testimony. I just want to be clear that what we're saying is not that you cannot say that you are opposed to the Bill. We're not saying that you cannot make suggestions about what you want to see in the Bill. That's not what we're saying.

We're saying that this is not structured in a way that it's this Bill versus that. But I just want to be clear, because I think some people will get the impression that we are saying that you can only come in and say things that we're not limiting you to. So, I just wanted to put that on a record for anybody who's testifying.

And thank you, Michael. I know you're doing a lot of work around this and other issues.

MICHAEL ORETADE: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Mr. chair and you're absolutely right, you said it more articulate than I did. I just want to be careful about what our roles are and what our constraints are and not to put this Committee in a position where we're taking up or we're discussing a Bill that's not before us, it would not be proper for the legislative body to do that and could run afoul of, like I said, freedom of information and open government issues. That's the only reason for my admonishment on referencing 120 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

other Bill numbers or titles in other Committees.

Representative Dubitsky, do you have a question?

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): I do thank you, Mr Chairman. And thank you for coming in to testify today, I very much appreciate it. Now, one of the things that you mentioned and a reason why you oppose the Governor's Bill is that there isn't a provision for home grow. can you explain to me why you think that it would be more equitable and better to have a provision with home grow in it?

MICHAEL ORETADE: Because it just in my opinion it doesn't make sense that we're going to criminalize specific amounts being driven between places whilst in vehicles and it just to me it doesn't make sense of people are able to grow it in their homes and there's no excuse for people to be traveling with large amounts of it. It doesn't really make sense to me that we wouldn't be able to grow it in our homes to avoid that likelihood.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, well, one of the things that is supposedly part of this Bill is an equity provision which is supposed provide some type of recompense for communities that have historically been the victim of the war on drugs.

Do you think that having a home grow provision in there and allowing people to grow their own at their houses would advance that equity position at all?

MICHAEL ORETADE: I believe it would. For one, our communities enjoy cannabis, you know, it's not just about selling. It's more so just about consumption. I wouldn't see a problem with it at all I think it's absolutely equitable.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Thank you for your answers, thank you for coming in and testifying. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.

121 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Thank you, Michael. I don't see anyone else. No, I don't see anyone else. Thank you, Michael for joining us today. Next, we will hear from Christine Rapillo. You may begin, you have three minutes.

CHRISTINE RAPILLO: Thank you, Senator. I’m Christina Rapillo, I’m the Chief Public Defender and I’m here on behalf of the Office of the Chief Public Defender in support for the spirit of this proposal, which will legalize regulated amounts of marijuana for use by adults.

We think this is in line with our neighbor states. We will produce much needed revenue for Connecticut, but most importantly, the decriminalization of marijuana will alleviate the disparate negative impact and enforcement of this has had in our communities of color.

Now, there's been some talk today, and I think you truly realize that there are very few people who are currently incarcerated for small amounts of marijuana today in Connecticut. But the real impact here are the collateral consequences of the criminal convictions that people have accumulated over time.

This has impacted folks’ ability to move through other programs in the criminal justice system, impacted ability to get school financial aid, housing and a whole host of other consequences that would flow from criminal convictions. This will not only erase those convictions for folks who had convictions in the past and allow them to move forward with the fresh start but will end the practice going forward.

We do have two concerns about the enforcement sections of this Bill which are outlined in my testimony. And because I know we're pressed for time, I mean the biggest, there's two. The use of the interlock device, we believe doesn't help public safety at all and puts a real burden on folks moving 122 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

through the criminal system. It doesn't do anything to measure the use of marijuana. And it would simply be another requirement that would make it more difficult for our clients, particularly poor clients as they try to make their way out of the criminal justice system when they have contact with it. It's expensive. Oftentimes they don't have cars. we've presented testimony in legislation on that before we think that it doesn't provide any additional level of public safety related to the Bill.

Our other concern is in sub-section 91 that provides for automatic admissibility of the drug recognition expert testimony. And we believe that that's a problem that infringes with a criminal defendant right to confront and cross examine the evidence against them. Expert testimony is subject to courts determinate gets admissibility it's proffered by a party; it can be challenged by a party and we don't think that there's a good policy justification to treat this drug recognition evidence any different I mean, it is its basis, not even a scientific test. It is a trained expert who conducts behavioral observations and then would render their opinion and their expert observations.

There's no problem with that, but it ought to be subject to the same types of cross examination and test reliability tests to make sure that the expert stays true to the model that they're supposed to follow and just subject, as I said to the test of reliability than any other piece of expert evidence that would come into court would be subject to.

As I said, our agency does whoever support the general spirit of this Bill and I’m happy to answer any questions that the Committee might have.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you attorney Rapillo. I see Representative Fishbein has a question.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman. 123 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Good afternoon, Christine.

CHRISTINE RAPILLO: Good afternoon.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): With regard to your --the last part of your testimony the DRE testimony coming to evidence, specifically where is that what lines are you referring to?

CHRISTINE RAPILLO: Just I have Bill in front of me. I apologize I’ve been going back and forth. Our budget testimony is today as well, so I’ve been moving back and forth between the two hearings.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah, no problem, and I just you know for anybody else a line number would be helpful.

CHRISTINE RAPILLO: So, it's a few places that Section 91 and the first place that appears is line 3508. I’m sorry, I thought I had that marked.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): 3508. I didn’t run across that.

CHRISTINE RAPILLO: My copy.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I see it. If law enforcement officers would carry, officers’ testament shall admissible and competent. Well, that doesn't -- shall be admissible. So, that's --I don't read that, with all due respect, I don't read that as extreme as you do, and I’m just trying to -- it says it shall be admissible and competent So, that gets rid of the objection, the blanket objection that it is inadmissible and incompetent. But it's always challengeable.

So, what you said was that it couldn't be challenged, right.

CHRISTINE RAPILLO: So, what I’m saying is that under this it couldn't be excluded. So, saying that 124 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

it's admissible means that would automatically come in.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): No, it says admissible. If that's the case -- if that was the case, yeah admissible, it would say shall be admitted without objection would be the language. I don't understand it as well.

If that said what you said, I would have trouble with that, with all due respect. But I don't read it, that's a pretty common phrase that I have seen. Okay we’ll go on.

CHRISTINE RAPILLO: So, this context we’re concerned that it would mean that it wouldn't be able to be excluded, it would just be able to be argued. And that if it's not liable, it shouldn't be admitted at all, and we need to have the ability to test that and we are concerned that in the context of a criminal prosecution, this would limit the ability to challenge the evidence.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): What would that argument be over, it would be over? Whether it's going to come into evidence, right, that's the concern right and the ultimate constitutional concern would be that it comes into evidence, no matter what

CHRISTINE RAPILLO: That’s right.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And that's not what this language says, it says it shall be admissible incompetent as evidence yada yada.

Admissible means one can admit it or attempt to admit it, at least, the way in my experience. But anyway, I understand your position on that language.

CHRISTINE RAPILLO: If it would change to could be admissible, instead of shall be admissible, we would probably feel better about it, but I think the mandatory shall leave that up to question and that 125 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

that could be interpreted as not being able to challenge it.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah, I mean not to belabor it, but I think it's the gatekeeper function, you know, so if you said that it may be admissible incompetent, then it would be questioning in the statutory language that it is competent. So, I understand your concern I’ll certainly be on the lookout for that, so thank you and thank you, Mr Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Fishbein. Representative Porter.

REP. PORTER (94TH): I was having difficulties getting to my mute button. Hello there.

CHRISTINE RAPILLO: Hello, Representative.

REP. PORTER (94TH): How are you?

CHRISTINE RAPILLO: Fine, thank you.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Good to see you. I just wanted to ask real quick, I mean because we haven't been able to define equity in this this Bill yet. As the public defender, how would you propose bringing equity to what to do, because I know, five years later Colorado has recorded that blacks are still being arrested at double the rate as white people for cannabis offenses. So, I just want to know you know who, yeah, what types of programs will be necessary to do the collateral consequences of the war on drugs that you are talking about?

CHRISTINE RAPILLO: So, I think this Bill makes a good start, it ends it going forward. So, you know, generations of people who would have been coming through the system now would not.

I think this ability to easily get records erasured for folks who have these type of convictions would 126 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

be very helpful. I think our office will have to be involved in helping people with that in some way, although it is fairly slowly, its court process is hard intimidating. I think we're well set up to be able to assist people with that and wouldn't asked for any money for it, which is always important.

You know, but I think some efforts, you know, probably to look back and make sure that folks who have passed consequence, one of these collateral consequences, particularly employment or perhaps student aid; there may be some additional efforts to try to remedy that. To try to go back and make sure that they're now going to have more opportunities, based on the fact that convictions were erasured and that we're not criminalizing this going forward.

As far as what we do, I mean we will have to carefully watch what happens with ongoing enforcement of what is now still criminalized. And we will need to keep data, I mean I think there's been a good push in Connecticut to do a better job of tracking criminal data. We keep some data in our agency, it's only a snapshot, it's not everybody that goes to the system. But I think through what the prosecutors, are doing with their data system and what judicial does, we should make a point of tracking that and seeing what happens and making sure that if we see disparate enforcement that there's an immediate policy response to that.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you for that, and in my last question to you. Is there other candidates have frequent offence that requires the public defender?

CHRISTINE RAPILLO: It's definitely, a sale of cannabis is definitely an offense that we see. I couldn't tell you off the top of my head, how many I can certainly get you that information that we can retrieve that out of our case management system.

REP. PORTER (94TH): That would be great. Thank you so much for being with us today. Thank you, Mr. 127 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Chair.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Porter. I don't see any other hands, so I want to thank you, Attorney Rapillo for joining us. I’m sorry.

CHRISTINE RAPILLO: [inaudible]

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): No, I’m talking about Members of the Committee asking questions. So, thank you Attorney Rapillo for joining us today.

CHRISTINE RAPILLO: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): We will next here from Karen O’Keefe followed by Bernice Wright. You have three minutes. Go ahead.

KAREN O'KEEFE: Thank you. Good afternoon, my name is Karen O’Keefe. I’m an attorney and I direct the state legislative department at the marijuana policy project where I’ve worked for 17 years.

According to [Gallup] more than two-thirds of Americans support legalizing marijuana. Like alcohol prohibition, cannabis prohibition has been an epic failure and waste Billions of dollars, tears families apart and has been unequally enforced. Prohibition also makes control impossible. Only legalization and regulation allows for protections for communities, the environment, consumers and workers. Penalizing adults for using cannabis is also offensive to one of our core values, liberty. Cannabis as far safer than alcohol, tobacco and many medications and grownups should be allowed to make their own decision about whether to consume it.

15 states have legalized cannabis and five of them have done so last year alone. The sky has not fallen in the states that legalized. There's no serious effort to repeal any of the laws and their popular 128 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

support has increased substantially. In Colorado alone there are more than 40,000 badged cannabis workers and the State brought in 360 million dollars in cannabis tax revenue in 2020 alone.

Legal cannabis has also improved the well-being of large numbers of people. Research shows that adult- use cannabis consumers are often using it as an over-the-counter medicine. In Denver 65% of surveyed adult-use, not medical consumer reported taking cannabis to relieve pain and 74% used it as a sleep aid. More than 80% of them said they could stop or reduce their use of prescription and over the counter medicines as a result.

I Live in California and I’ve seen this first-hand my husband Mark has suffered for chronic back pain for decades. For years, he took substantial amounts of over-the-counter pain medicines which can cause liver damage, kidney damage and stomach bleeding. After legalization he switched to cannabis. I don't have to worry anymore that he might be destroying his organs to reduce his pain. And thanks to cannabis after he had kidney surgery, he didn't even take the opiates he was prescribed.

Many individuals are like Mark and they use cannabis as an over-the-counter medicine but didn't ever enroll in states medical cannabis Program. Mark’s doctor admitted he isn't knowledgeable about cannabis and many people don't even have a primary care physician or don't want to spend the money or get on a government list to do so. Other people have conditions that don't qualify like insomnia, or post-surgical pain. With legalization adult consumers have safe lab tested product.

We support the goals of SB 888, but, as my colleague Divine Award will later testify, we urge the Committee to revise the Bill to ensure social equity in the industry and reinvest investment and communities hard hit by the war on drugs. Thank you.

129 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there questions or comments from Members of the Committee?

I do not see any. Thank you very much for joining us today. We will next hear from Bernice Wright, followed by Jack Doyle.

BERNICE WRIGHT: Hello.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Hello.

BERNICE WRIGHT: I’m Bernice Wright I currently live in Bridgeport, Connecticu.t I am a participant of the medical marijuana distribution. I do have lupus and I support this Bill, but I also agree on what the young lady said before me. This Bill needs to be revised and a lot of ways to me. For the cost of it is very high to maintain. And the ability to be able to smoke in your home or in a public pace is not allowed. You could smoke cigarettes and you can drink, but you can't smoke marijuana.

And I also just wanted to say that I very proud of Connecticut for even discussing this Bill and bringing it up because there's too many people fall into the systems of small amount of marijuana, and it shouldn't be. I just would like better Bills to help us to get rid of them some situations and those barriers.

Other than that, as far as the equity for this Bill, I think we should also include other things that will allow people to form a business-like cafes where other people can be able to smoke. Have a ventilator system things like that. To help give people an outlet. We have places, for instance in New York, where people just doing crack and they can go to different sites and get their supplies, I think we should pay attention to some of this. I’m not trying to advocate all drugs to be legalized or anything like that, where marijuana has no effect on our bodies like is portrayed. 130 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Like the lady just said before, I was, and I could show you a fighter, if I may, I can show you a bag of medicine that I used to take, and I don't really take them anymore. It's because I am on marijuana and due to the fact that I don't have to take all these medicines, they are just sitting here. And I’ll just give you a view if you can see. These are bags a medicine that I no longer have to ask to take anymore, you know, due to the fact that I am my marijuana. It helps me my appetite, it helps me with my pain and it also I don't have any side effects of anything like that so.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Ms. Wright, if you can summarize your testimony.

BERNICE WRIGHT: Yep. In conclusion, I just -- I would love to support the Bill, just revise it like I say and just give more support to. Medical patients.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Representative Porter.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Quick question, thank you for your testimony. I just want to know, the medicinal patient, would homegrown make a difference, because you did reference the cost of having to purchase it as medicine. How would it help you if you were able to grow it instead of having to purchase new prescription?

BERNICE WRIGHT: Well, you’re correct. That's totally correct too as well. I mean it would gladly take somebody that I can save because I’m right now every license that we have to do to get recertified crosses over 150 something dollars and we have to pay our doctor another 150 dollars. And then, in order to get prescriptions done or refilled, that cost us like $150 every time we go get a prescription. So, it could run us over $6,000, a year just on medical marijuana. 131 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

So, to be able to have the ability to grow at home will be tremendous. It will cut down a lot of the costs, you know. I am not taking away from going to dispensary and getting the medicine, but at least it will cut down some of the costs.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Right, it will help alleviate the financial burden. Thank you so, much Ms. Wright for your testimony and your time today, thank you.

BERNICE WRIGHT: Thank you.

REP. PORTER (94TH): You're welcome.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Porter. I don't see any other questions. I just want to thank you for participating and sharing us with us a little bit of your experience. Thank you.

Next, we'll hear from Jack Doyle, followed by Sal Luciano. Mr. Doyle, you have three minutes.

JACK DOYLE: Thank you, Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Ranking Members kissel and Fishbein and distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is jack Doyle, I am an Executive Assistant State's Attorney and the division of criminal justice state prosecutor. I’ve been a State Prosecutor for 22 years. And, on behalf of the division and criminal justice, the Chief State's Attorney, the Deputy Chief State's Attorney and the State's Attorneys for the 13judicial districts in the state, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to testify Senate Bill 888.

We submitted written testimony several pages long, I know that all the members of the Committee have that. So, I would just summarize what I would have to say on a few points.

First, I think it's important for our agency to recognize that the Governor's office did several 132 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

weeks back allow us to have an advanced copy review of this Bill, so we can address some of those issues. And we did look at some prior versions of it and we greatly appreciate that, so we can provide input to this Committee.

One of the recommendations that the division has offered is include a section in the Bill that would mirror 14-11E. We didn't notice that this morning, but I will recall for the Committee there that Under Secretary Pelka did address this particular issue. This was the issue of underage individual happens to be in possession of marijuana to mirror an individual underage in possession of alcohol. So, I believe, at some point, maybe perhaps patient proposal that would be addressed.

In regard to an additional section of the Bill, the division recommends that lines 314 to 315 be revised to, state convicted on or after October 1st, 2015 and then add the language but prior to January 1, 2022. This would allow for the erasure of any conviction under 21A-279 that occurred prior to the anatomy of the regions that statute on the Bill, it's our position as drafted, an individual can be addicted under 21A-279A as meant by this Bill would be able to immediately petition for the erasure of that conviction. And sub-section C and D, as amended, which allow for penalties for subsequent offenses would be rendered superfluous. We did that something, we don't know if that was the intent to the Bill, but I think it's something that should be looked at.

Most importantly, for our agency, turning to Section 13 of the Bill, the division fully agrees that the mirror smell of cannabis or the presence of illegal mana cannabis should if it legalized upon the passage of this Bill should not be served as the probable cause alone to search a person or a vehicle.

However, our courts have established that the 133 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

determination of whether reasonable suspicion or probable cause exists is not based on a simple factor, but at totality of the circumstances. That is a well-grounded state and federal case law.

In preventing police from ever considering these factors, Section 13 of the Bill fails to account for the fact that these factors when combined with additional factors may create reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

That being said, we recognize the policy behind that particular section, concerns about police activity concerns about searches of individuals merely for being smelling or having that odor of marijuana.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Attorney Doyle, I'd ask you just to summarize.

JACK DOYLE: Yes, in addition we strongly support all the sections in us build that relate to traffic safety predominantly in Sections 88. 89 and through 97, especially the provisions regarding that DRE and the ARIDE instructors.

I’m happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you for your time.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Representative O’Dea.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Doyle for your testimony your service to the state of Connecticut. On Section 13, I don't know if you were on when I was questioning the Governor's personnel on this section. How would you change or what would you ask for a change to the Section 13?

JACK DOYLE: Well, as we noted in our particular testimony, we think that, and we have had conversations with the Governor's office and some OPM Representatives. What we are concerned about 134 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

there, Representative O’Dea is those three sections. We believe that should be part of it, if there's any other substantial or additional factors.

Those alone should not justify a search or a seizure unless on seizure obviously unless something seen in plain view, one of the case law. But those factors alone, we understand the focus and the intent of this policy, but they should be part of the totality of the circumstances in part of additional factors.

So, if we, what you say hypothetically we have a situation for particular factors that could give rise to reasonable suspicion and probable cause. If we take those other, those first three out that are focused in Section 14, all we have is that one and that one may not lead to probable course or reasonable suspicion during any particular type of investigation.

So, we think that we had suggested or have been discussing terms, involving off wording that they'd be -- that can be added in that'd be not one of substantial factor. That would be our recommendation.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): So yeah, so if we just put in nuts, not one of the substantial factors, then that you'd be satisfied with the legislation.

JACK DOYLE: Yeah, those three, yeah, those three factors should be added in. I, the best way to explain it as well, I think, is if we were to is that those three factors can be used in addition, in conjunction to other factors, but not solely by themselves.

We understand, our agency understands, you know the policy decisions on whether to legalize adult marijuana that's completely the policy being in the legislature we take no position on that. But we are concerned about how we enforce DWI enforcement statutes, and perhaps other types of cases where 135 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

evidence may be indicative of another type of crime or another type of situation. So, that's our concern.

But we would also point out, with body cameras and things like that and the influx of those coming in and becoming more relevant, we can ensure that law enforcement police officers follow through with the spirit of what this with the legislature the Governor wants to establish.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Thank you very much, Mr Doyle for your testimony you and I share the same concerns with Section 13. Thank you.

JACK DOYLE: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative O’Dea. Senator Champagne.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Thank you and thank you attorney for appearing today. I have a question in concerned with the DRE drug recognition expert and the ARIDE programs and how you're dealing with that on the prosecutor’s side.

Can you tell me, have you relied on the drug recognition expert in -- when you were prosecuting a case?

JACK DOYLE: In I -- Senator, I should indicate, I have been a prosecutor for 22 years. I’m newer up to this position prior to this, I spent 10 years in New Haven in the party office. So, I think the last time actually handled the DWI itself was about 10 years ago, but I do know that it is a process and something that we were using.

Based on previous testimony, I do sit on some boards and Committees, where we do address that on, and it is as you've heard from previous testimony today, we highly recommend it, we think it's very important, although we do recognize there's a physical 136 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

component to making sure there's enough officers and troopers in the state trained in that recognition.

But it is used by prosecutors every day and we'd not only that our agency trains police officers and receives training from police officer on how that system works, itis vital to these types of cases.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay, and if you have just the training coming out of the police academy the field tests, how strong are those end up holding a DUI for marijuana?

JACK DOYLE: You mean field tests on the road?

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Yeah, the basic field test you get out of the Academy. How strong are those field tests for a conviction for a driving under the influence of marijuana?

JACK DOYLE: They're not very strong, they are not produced very often because as we've indicated previously, the ARIDE and the DRE training is necessary in order to support a prosecution of operating under the influence of marijuana or any drop.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Right. Then I understand they have some new tests coming out. But I haven't seen any of those and I think we were going to have some people come later on and testify on that. But you know, one of my pushes is you know, we need to provide as a state, we need to provide money to get more DRE trained officers and ARIDE. And you know before this law goes into full effect, we should have enough out there that can deal with the problem that I believe this is going to create.

I think as far as simple possession of marijuana. You know it's essentially an infraction now. Yeah, are you guys seeing anybody even above just the simple possession even above the four ounces, are you seeing anybody going to prison on that that's 137 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

not related to drug distribution?

JACK DOYLE: As I’ve indicated I’ve been a prosecutor for 22 years and even going back to the beginning I prosecuted, I’ve had lots of drug cases and I would indicate to you that, even as far back as when I started in 1998, it is rare for somebody to go to prison just solely for the offense of possession of controlled substance and that has been the case since the beginning.

There are always exceptions to the rules, and I think one of the things as I’m sure this body recognizes that even under the simple possession of drugs, even under the marijuana that part of the infractions and the misdemeanors and even when it was felonies; we have opportunities through the judicial branch for diversionary programs. So, it is usually several times, if you are arrested for simple offences; we use the diversionary programs before you ever even getting the conviction.

What I will indicate, there are times where somebody might be serving time for, say, a marijuana offence back in the day, but it's usually in conjunction with something else, another serious offense kind of with that. It's very rare.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay, and I know somebody earlier testified that you know well, we would have it, because those on probation or parole who get about urine are actually doing time, for the simple possession. And I disagree with that because they wouldn't be on parole or probation with you, because, due to the original arrest.

Now, what is your take on that? Do you see the same thing that they see or that it would be a marijuana going to prison for a violation of probation or parole?

JACK DOYLE: Well, I wish to clarify. Parole is a little bit different than probation. 138 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): I meant probation. Let's just stay with probation.

JACK DOYLE: Okay, so in my experience, and all that time, no, that would be, I think it can be highly unlikely for an individual on probation, no matter what they are on probation for, to be sentenced or incarcerated for a just getting a dirty urine. I think would be additional factors failure to comply with whether anger management treatment or drug treatment or show up somewhere or miss an appointment.

And you know, one of the things that the officer with adult probation in the judicial branch has had for years is the technical violations limits. And that's where, you know, they're supposed to be following through with drug treatment for probation and you're reporting once a month. But you don't do it, and you are in that violation status, you know, they are going to report you to technical violation unit and you're going to have to come in once or twice a week and either give you means to go to treatment.

I would indicate, probation or judicial branch may have more the status of information on that, but I would posit that individuals are usually going to prison for violation of probation are more going for a new criminal offense in conjunction with violation probation. That is majority will say.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): And technically probation you're still actually a prisoner.

JACK DOYLE: Whether you got a suspended sentence and probation or you are now released from prison after what we call a split sentence and start probation, you're under the supervision of a probation officer through the judicial branch and generally under state case law all you have less liberty interests, so to speak. 139 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Right Okay, thank you I’m going to leave it at that, thank you.

JACK DOYLE: Yes, sir. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Senator Champagne. Representative porter.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Doyle for your testimony. Just a follow-up on what the Senator was questioning you on. I am interested to have an answer as it relates to parole. If you come back with a dirty urine due to cannabis, are people being reprimanded back to prison for that for that kind of violation.

JACK DOYLE: Representative, I’m not positive about it, but I would presume that just there probably are situations where that is done. Parole is treated a little bit different than probation because I think that was alluded to before as opposed to the judicial branch or under the supervision of the Department of Corrections.

What I surmise that at times somebody gives dirty urine, whether it's for one type of drug or another, are they perhaps remanded into correctional custody; that could happen.

At times, though, do I believe that parole officers may -- you're out on parole, they may or may not know that you have a substance abuse problem, you may have had one in the past. Now you haven't dirty urine, you may be referred to treatment, as opposed to remanded back. You may be remanded back for a period of time until they locate treatment. But I think all of those are possibilities. So, it is possible, yes.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Okay, thank you for that response. I do have a very close family member that has advised me that that is customary under parole, 140 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

but not necessarily probation as you stated, I just wanted to put that on the record that bit. It is customary for people to get reprimanded back to prison for dirty urine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Porter. Attorney Doyle you been prosecutor for two decades, plus. And you've operated in an area where I live, and so I think you have a lot of experience.

So, there's been a lot of conversation about whether or not simple possession is what put puts people in prison or not. And a lot of decisions related to the comments on social equity. I want to ask you about social equity, as a manner, as a means of righting some of the past wrongs and not about whether simple possession has put people in prison or not. But from your experience, particularly given what you've seen in more urban areas, has simple possession, been a means by which, and we know police don't operate the same in all areas, by which interactions have been begun that may have led to other things. And as a professional I’m asking you an opinion here; I know it's not a fact. But as a professional, do you know or believe that it may be the case that the way in which it happened in one area it might be different than the way in which it happened in another area.

JACK DOYLE: Senator, by that you mean one area of New Haven or one area of the state?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Well, I think that I think the truth of the matter, from my perspective would be the same, probably be the same answer.

JACK DOYLE: There's no doubt on that, from my perspective, having been and you know I should clarify up until this position, New Haven was where I was for 22 years, in both the GA and then the [inaudible]. At times during my career, I was focused on prosecuting drug crimes and drug offenses for the other part of my career.

141 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Have I seen what I think the legislature of this body is concerned about motor vehicle stops or situations where things have occurred and taking a next step, based on smell of marijuana? Yes, I’ve seen that, and I have occurred that.

And that's why I think our agency understands and appreciates and respects the position that this Body has been talking about just the smell of marijuana. But I have seen difficult situations, I have seen individuals coming into courts for just simple possessions versus -- so, in our case we've always tried to, as a prosecutor I’ve always tried to distinguish between that who is somebody where it's a simple possession matter. Who is somebody needs to be referred to me diversion A program, by the difference between who are traffickers, who are dealers?

But do I think that there's been some inequities, obviously, okay. It's seen throughout the country in different levels, I don't know if everything in this Bill is going to solve that or reduce that. I don't know whether or not as far as legalizing marijuana is going to make a big difference there; but that's a policy decision that this body would have to make.

I don't know if I’ve answered your question, or what.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Yes, you did. I didn't mean to cut you off, you did and I’m asking you, because I have some sense of your history and the level of professionalism that you're bringing in front of us, because I think a lot of conversation has been focused around whether or not people are sitting in jail, right now, and I think the issue of equity is much bigger than that. And I think whether people are in jail, right now, or whether people experience; even experiencing anything right now there's still vestiges of the policy that we have had that are still in place and having real impacts on community. 142 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

And there is no way to have a society where we're equal if you don't deal with the issues of the past, so I think you as someone who might have a perspective that might be slightly different than mine for engaging in a conversation and helping us to understand better the issue of equity. Thank you.

Are there questions or comments from others? I do not see any. If that is the case, thank you again Attorney Doyle for joining us today.

JACK DOYLE: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Well, here next from Sal Luciano followed by Ron Petronella.

SAL LUCIANO: Good afternoon Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom and Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Sal Luciano and I’m proud to serve as the President of the Connecticut AFL-CIO, a federation of hundreds of local unions representing more than 220,000 members in the private sector, public sector and building trades.

The Connecticut AFL-CIO supports the concept of legalizing recreational adult-use of cannabis, but we think the Governor's Bill requires modification. We encourage the General Assembly to add the missing equity standards and worker protections as conditions for authorizing the new industry If Connecticut is going to join our surrounding states and legalizing marijuana it's important that we build the foundation to ensure that the jobs created will be a net positive for our state and those most adversely impacted by the war on drugs have opportunities to create new careers, establish thriving businesses and build economic security.

The best way to create good jobs in this industry is to make labor peace agreements a condition of licensure and require the construction or renovation of cultivation and retail facilities include 143 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

prevailing wage standards and project labor agreements. The marijuana industry is a job generator without labor peace agreements there's no guarantee these jobs will be well paid safe and respectable, provide livable wages health insurance retirement benefit and paid leave and access of minimum state requirements will provide stability that will lessen turnover and reduce involvement in the underground market.

Labor peace also protects the health and welfare of workers and consumers. A well trained workforce will be able to produce quality products that meet product safety standards. Prevailing wage standards of home local wages protecting local contractors and construction workers for more bids that reduce the market price for labor.

They also support safety and skills training program improve economic outcomes for veterans and provide pathways to the middle class. Project labor agreements establish basic terms and conditions of employment for all employees engaged in building a renovation project. PLAs commonly include local hiring requirements which can be adjusted by zip code or specific geographical area with commitments to hire workers of color and women. They also promote job opportunities in the apprenticeship programs to ensure skilled job training within the local community.

I’ve included a bunch of language and written testimony that I'd like to see there. California and New York require these worker protections in their cannabis statutes. On Monday New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed legislation legalizing the adult- use of cannabis in the state. Section 16 of A21, page 57 includes the labor peace and project labor agreement protections we are seeking.

Surely it only makes sense that Connecticut cannabis workers enjoy the same protections as those in our neighboring states. SB 888 is the beginning, there's 144 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

much more that can be done and should be done to ensure that legalized recreational cannabis in Connecticut rights the wrongs of the past and moves forward in a way that delivers the equity promise in the title of this Bill.

As part of that effort, we respectfully request that the Committee amend this Bill with the language we have provided. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much Sal. I see Representative Porter.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair and I don't have any questions because you answered the questions that I was going to ask you. I just wanted to thank you for being with us today, Sal and bring what is important to this platform and to this Committee why labor piece and project labor agreements are so important to the industry, especially being the amount of jobs that it will present as a Billion dollar industry. So, thank you for being here today, thank you.

SAL LUCIANO: Thank you and thank you for all that all of you do.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you Representative Porter. Are there comments or questions from other Members of the Committee? Just being a little careful, I missed a hand last time. I don't see any. So, thank you, Sal, for joining us again and offering an important perspective. Thank you.

SAL LUCIANO: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Next we will hear from Ron Petronella followed by Dave Roche.

RONALD PETRONELLA: Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom and Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Ronald Petronella. I’m President of UFCW 145 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Local 371, a union representing over 8,000 workers in retail food, food manufacturing, healthcare and other industries. Nationwide our Union represents over 10,000 cannabis workers. Those are growing rapidly as the industry grows and more workers choose to organize.

I’m writing to share my thoughts regarding SB 888, AN ACT RESPONSIBLE AND EQUITABLE REGULATING ADULT- USE CANNABIS.

The UFCW supports the legalization of recreational cannabis in Connecticut, only with the addition of a labor peace agreement as a condition of cannabis licensing and renewal.

I’m here to address our unique opportunity to create an entirely new industry in our state from the ground up and our ability to make sure it employs a diverse workforce and creates family sustaining jobs, it’s my hope that this Bill we are able to create jobs that encourage young people from all backgrounds to put down roots in our state and raise their families on the income they will make as cannabis workers.

Labor peace agreements are an agreement between an employer in a Union where the Union agrees not to strike, picket, boycott or otherwise disturb an employers’ business. In exchange, the employer agrees to allow its workers to decide whether or not to join a Union free from intimidation or interference.

The unionized cannabis workforce has been rapidly growing in the United States as a result of labor peace agreements and cannabis workers’ wages and benefits have been growing too. Unionized workers make 13% more than non-Union counterparts. Our members working in the cannabis industry are able to join our Union health benefit plans to find pension plans which will allow Connecticut workers who may currently be working a low wage jobs to get off the 146 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

public health insurance plans and to finally have retirement security.

Local 371 also supports the addition of project labor agreements to this Bill. A project labor agreement added to the construction of these new facilities will ensure that those constructing the building will be hired locally and well trained.

Many of our members currently live in the communities which were disproportionately affected by the war on drugs. Enacting a Bill that encourages equity, it creates good family sustaining Union jobs is important to the right to write those wrongs. And we are excited to be part of those changes in our state and I’ve attached language with both labor peace agreements and project labor agreements.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Mr. Petronella. Representative Porter.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you for your testimony Mr Petronella. You mentioned that UFCW actually has done this in other states around cannabis and that you actually have Union workers in the industry. Is that correct?

RONALD PETRONELLA: That's correct.

REP. PORTER (94TH): So, what would you say, would you say that it would be expedient and wise for us to make sure that we do include labor at the table through this process that you guys already have a highlight into what works and what doesn't work.

RONALD PETRONELLA: Yes, I mean we do have experience in the industry with the workers in the industry, and we know how the industry works, so we do have experience in the industry.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Okay, and I think that's the -- 147 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

RONALD PETRONELLA: We have contracts where we represent workers in other parts of the country.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Yes, thank you. I think that's important especially around workers’ rights and what all what you have just stated stands for.

RONALD PETRONELLA: I’m also a trustee on the national pension fund that we have members in the cannabis industry in the fund.

REP. PORTER (94TH): That is good to know. Thank you for your testimony and thank you, Mr. Chair for the time.

RONALD PETRONELLA: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Porter. Are there comments or questions from other Members? I do not see any. Thank you, Mr. Petronella for joining us this afternoon.

RONALD PETRONELLA: Thanks for having me. Continue all your hard work.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. David Roche.

DAVID ROCHE: Good afternoon Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Members of the Judicial Committee. My name is David Roche, President of the Connecticut State Building Trades and Business Manager of the Sheet Metal Workers Local and transportation union in Connecticut I am a 42- year member. So, I represent 30,000 men and women and their families in Connecticut throughout everywhere to every town and city around Connecticut itself.

I’m here today to tell you I like this Bill. The concept of it is good, but once again it falls short. The labor peace agreements without them is wrong way to do this Bill. If you look at what New Jersey does and New York does, they did it for a 148 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

reason. They did it because it's going to build up their lower class to middle class and that's a gateway for us in Connecticut to take advantage of. Again, not just to get to the middle class is taking you out of the poverty class.

When you talk about what you just heard what Ronald Petronella said, they already have the training in place. So, instead of not having these peace agreements and some other workers coming up from other states in some of this industry, we will be able to bring the training up here and train our people, our residents of Connecticut.

So, I urge you to look at the labor peace agreements are very important to us, be successful while helping our communities as well. As far as the project labor agreements go. I think most of you who know me know how I feel about them. I think that is another gateway we can tailor the project labor agreements to any community. We're one of the biggest supporters of Ohio veterans minority women and getting them into our business for a long career.

As I said, I have a 42-year one and I come from that. I was born and raised in Hartford, lived over on Park Street, lived off the Hillside avenue I got the nickname Hillside Dave. These things I go back and play me. I may look this way but, but I know what happened to me was, I got the opportunities that the other people that I went to school with didn't and I think we owe that to them to everybody have that opportunity, so I urge you to do that.

One thing I wanted to go back to earlier. One of the Governor's senior staff advisors was testifying and I believe somebody asked him about if there was ever any contact with us in the administration to include some of this language, and I believe it was Jonathan Harris, and he said there wasn't and I just wanted to clarify that and I have them in front of me emails that was sent to him on February 4th, and that 149 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

he acknowledged that included language. And if you wanted copies, I’d be more than happy to send. I’m not trying to put Mr. Harris down, I know they're busy, but it was a false statement and I wanted to clarify that.

So, thank you for hearing my testimony today and I’ll answer any questions, if you like.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Mr Roche. Representative Porter.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. No questions as you actually did answer what I was going to ask you about any communications with the Governor’s office related to CLAs. So, thank you for stating that for the record, and thank you for your testimony and thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Porter. I do not see any other questions, or any other hands raise actually. Seeing none, I would like to thank you Mr. Roche for joining us this afternoon and thank you for your opinion.

DAVID ROCHE: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Next we'll hear from William Huhn followed by, I think that's correct. Followed by Rudy Marconi and Emily Sabo.

WILLIAM HUHN: Yes, Mr Chairman, thanks, Members of the Committee. I’ve worked in the field as volunteer on the issue of teen about abuse of alcohol and drugs and the effort has been to see whether it was to be possible in Guilford to change the culture here and actually reduce the use. And we found for the surveys that we take that we actually ended up with like a 50% reduction. So, it's been a fun thing to work on, I think, an important thing and something I care passionately about.

As I listened to the testimony from the Governor's 150 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

people this morning, it explained to me why there's a hole in Senate Bill 888 and that hole is a public health aspect. Is, there are a lot of reasons why legislators want to legalize marijuana and I recognize that. But there's one major reason why you really probably shouldn't take the step and that's the public health impact that comes out of it. And I noticed that that the Department of Public Health wasn't part of the Governor's team, wasn't part of the testimony this morning.

It's also, something that they, the task force appeared to have missed out on was taking a hard look at what's going on in the states they have legalized in the past three years. In Colorado there's been an industry war to increase the potency of their product, the THC in the product of a close to half of the stuff being sold as cannabis is, shatter, wax, high tea, THC potency oils and vape products. And those aren't plants, those are really highly processed chemicals that have a significant impact on public health.

The impact on kids was discussed by Representative O’Dea and there's very easily accessible data from survey by SAMHSA that shows that the tenant states with the worst record on teen marijuana use are the ten states that have legalized marijuana; Vermont, Maine, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Montana, Colorado. Massachusetts, Nevada, Colorado, California are the order in which that occurs.

The consumption data also something that Governor's Task Force easily could have gathered up show.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Mr. Huhn, I would advise you to [inaudible] three minutes if you could testify. Summarize, rather.

WILLIAM HUHN: Yep, it shows that in Colorado, use of marijuana approximately doubled following legalization and use by heavy users also approximately doubled and you end up with 151 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

approximately 145,000 people, additional people with substance use disorders. And I feel like that's something you all in the task force really need to dig into and understand.

Thank you for your time.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Mr. Huhn. Representative O’Dea.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Huhn, thank you very much for your testimony. Could you -- where did you get that information about the 145,000substance abuse disorder?

WILLIAM HUHN: Yeah, it's really very interesting. There's a record from the Department of Revenue in Colorado on the marketplace and they've done this report, I think, since 2014, and that has extensive statistics on a lot of different things but including use. And they're not, it's not like they're a pro marijuana organization or an anti- marijuana organization. They’re really just the people gathering up the taxes, trying to figure out what's going on.

So, I think it's really good data for the Connecticut legislators to look at, if you want to understand what's going on in Colorado not hard to get that hard to get and not hard to do. And I’ll email you a -- actually to my testimony so in my written testimony you will have the wording reach that link.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): And what, what is your background, Mr. Huhn?

WILLIAM HUHN: I’m a lawyer, I was a lawyer for Pfizer for many years and I had a kid who my youngest daughter got addicted to crack as a high school sophomore and I saw what had happened to her. She dug her way out, she is in recovery, she's doing 152 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

great. Good mother, professional job that lost her childhood and some of her friends didn't make it back. So, I saw firsthand what can happen kids and I decided that my volunteer work here in town was a deal with that problem.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Well, thank you very much, was there any part any other part of your testimony that you wanted to relay to us that you didn't get a chance to say.

WILLIAM HUHN: No, it really is the point that that you've been making about the public health piece of this and I think it's a shame that the Public Health Committee isn't going to get this Bill, and I think it's really wrong for the Governor to have left that out of the group working on this. Because the public health part is the one real dark side of the issue and even the proponents that you know, the strongest proponents I know care about their kids and their constituents, and they don't want to see people get destroyed by this stuff.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Huhn. And thank you Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to ask questions. I know it's gonna be a long night I promise to be here till the end. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): All right, as long as you're here with us Representative O’Dea, you know. Mr. Huhn, I have a question for you so and I appreciate you bringing the information before the Committee. And we've had conversations, as you know, for many years about this particular aspect

The information about the ten states and where they are in terms of drug usage and the issues that they have, do you know if those States before they legalize were sitting in those positions or similar positions? Because it's important, I think that when we bring the data that we're aware that it's possible. I’m not suggesting this is the case. I’m going to ask you this question, but it is possible 153 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

that you could be at the bottom and have legalized still be at the bottom, but even have made progress.

So, what can you tell us about that data that you have, as it relates to my question?

WILLIAM HUHN: Well, I know that legalizing does change the state's position on the list because Massachusetts wasn't on it, two years ago, and now it is on it. So, I saw that happened with that state. Vermont, I don't think was on it, and now they are. Vermont is actually number one.

It's -- and it just can't be coincidence that the states that have flagged last one through ten. And it would be easy enough to have an aide to look up this SAMHSA national survey on drug use, and they have the state data. And have them, it would really be very interesting to see what it was 10 years ago, five years ago, and you know, the most recent stuff they've got.

And that I think would, I mean, I think that's the kind of thing that you all really should understand it be thinking about it in because it's so important, if this is going to hit the kids and make things worse, you know and --.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Sorry, but I didn't mean to cut you off, and I would agree with you. And for the last and I’m not really doing this, this year, but for the last three times this Bill has come before us, I’ve actually broken down the data and show not just what the big thing that people are talking about, but inside of the data, how I think we're missing part of this right. And a lot of people are focused on Colorado and when you look at teen usage it stayed relatively flat with a slight dip in it, not an increase right.

So, I think I think if we're going to bring data, what I’m asking people to do is to help me to understand how they interpret the data so that I can 154 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

get a fuller sense of what they're suggesting to us. Because my read of the data in the last three years of work that I’ve done on this Committee to talk about that since has indicated, something different than what has been brought in front of us.

But I’m not trying to argue with them, I’m just trying to understand the perspective that people have having worked on the data that's been in front of us, but I see there's several other questions for you. So, I’ll let other Members ask you some questions.

WILLIAM HUHN: I asked if I could just quickly respond.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Absolute.

WILLIAM HUHN: I think that would be a perfect question for you to bounce to the Department of Health and there may be other ones that you'd have that like I know they could do that in an hour or two of one person's time. It isn't something that takes a six months’ study, they can you know they can do that and get back to you on what's happened and it really should be easy to do.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, I see a question from Representative Porter, followed by Representative Dillon.

REP. PORTER (94TH): You made this point that I was actually going to make because I’ve actually been looking at data myself that shows that Colorado and they they've actually reported a 20% decrease in arrest around on youth and a slight decrease in youth use. So, you pretty much made the point.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Porter. Representative Dillon.

REP. DILLON (92ND): I just wanted to thank you for your testifying today. I think and thank you for 155 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

your concern for our young people too and taking your own pain and using it to try to help others. I think it would be mental health and addiction that's not necessarily the Public Health Department.

But I think you've made a new point it's really kind of embedded in our federal government, you know, that alcohol, tobacco and firearms to be regulated by the Treasury Department, not by the FDA and they're seen as revenue.

And I remember maybe 20 years ago I did a Bill to regulate nicotine, it's a drug and it blew up the building. I mean, people were looking all over in there for amendments to see if I had hidden it somewhere. So, that our attitudes have changed.

But I really do, I want to look at the data and myself and I think the way that the problem that’s embedded in some of this for me as a DESPP decision, and I will not dwell on that and that's because of where I live, which is where Mr Doyle is the prosecutor. And because I think the disparate effects, because I represent two different zip codes

But I think you've raised really something that’s really helpful and I really want to thank you for being here today.

WILLIAM HUHN: Well, thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Dillon. I do not see any other hands. Mr. Huhn, again, thank you for joining us offering your perspective.

WILLIAM HUHN: You got it.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I have Rudy Marconi, Emily Sabo and DeVaughn Ward. Is Emily Sabo here? I don't see Marconi. Ms. Attorney Ward. Oh, wait, nope there's Emily Sabo.

156 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

EMILY SABO: Hello.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Yes, Hello.

EMILY SABO: Good afternoon, Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom and Members of the Judiciary Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on SB 888, AN ACT RESPONSIBLY AND EQUITABLY REGULATING ADULT-USE CANNABIS.

My name is Emily Sabo and I’m a business agent, organizer with the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 191, representing about 7,000 workers here in Connecticut.

UFCW has been at the forefront in creating and shaping a new cannabis industry across the country. Currently, UFCW International Union represents over 10,000 cannabis workers nationwide from seed to sale, including growers and manufacturers, cultivators processors and dispensary technicians. On average Unionized UFCW cannabis workers earn 13% more than non-Union cannabis workers. We are focused on growing the industry in a fair and equitable way.

The UFCW supports the equitable legalization of adult-use cannabis in Connecticut only with the addition of labor peace agreements as a condition of obtaining a license and a requirement by construction or renovation of cultivation and retail facilities include prevailing wage standards and project labor agreements.

A labor peace agreement ensures that workers have the choice to form a Union in a neutral environment and ensures that the very communities impacted by cannabis prohibition have access to good paying jobs with affordable health care and secure retirement.

Additionally, Union contracts provide equal opportunities to everyone. Without a labor peace agreement, there is no guarantee that these jobs will be well paid, safe, family sustaining jobs. 157 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Additionally, project labor agreements establish the basic terms and conditions of employment for all employees engaged in a building or renovation projects.

They also commonly include provisions to recruit and train workers by requiring contractors to participate in apprenticeship and training programs, as well as establish commitments to hire women and people of color.

I’ve attached examples of this language and my written testimony. Both labor peace agreements and Union contracts help address the existing any qualities that cannabis prohibition has cost. Labor peace agreements give workers a chance at having a Union and, more importantly, a voice in the workplace.

We need a Bill that will build the framework that Connecticut needs to create family sustaining jobs with good wages and benefits in a growing industry. And with the addition of both LPAs and PLAs, we will be certainly headed in the right direction.

Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much Ms. Sabo. I see Representative Porter.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just really quick and Emily, can you speak to the indicators, when we do have labor peace agreement create spaces where they feel safe. What is the end result?

EMILY SABO: Sure, so when it's proven that when workers have the opportunity to join a Union in a neutral environment, they choose to join a union at much higher rates. Thank you.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you, Emily. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 158 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): That you, Representative Porter. I do not see any other hands up. Oh, I do, Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Hi Emily. Hi, how you doing? I just wanted to the labor peace agreement, can you just -- how does that work?

EMILY SABO: Like what is a Labor peace agreement?

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Sure, and it's very fundamental.

EMILY SABO: Basically, it's an agreement between a Union and an employer, that the employer agrees that they'll allow their workers to join a Union and they will not interfere with the process and in turn, the Union agrees that there won't be any work stoppages strikes actions during the process.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, and why is that necessary given that we have federal laws that prevent that sort of activity.

EMILY SABO: Because unfortunately employers find a way around those laws and for the past few years I’ve been an organizer with local 919 and these issues that cannabis workers have aren't unique to the other issues that workers have. So, when we have the opportunity to build a new industry in a growing industry, we want to do it the right way and give workers, a level playing field, give them the chance for Connecticut workers to have more opportunities and better opportunities.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I was trying to link up the two. So, employees can gather amongst themselves and decide to be governed by a collective bargaining contract that's free right of association. How does this different under this concept? I recognize that it is not part of this Bill, but somehow we got here. 159 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

EMILY SABO: So, this means that employer would agree to stay neutral in this environment and they wouldn't hold captive audience meetings, for example, or encourage or discourage the workers, one way or the other.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, so they wouldn't hold captive audience meetings.

EMILY SABO: That's just an example, but they just they wouldn't interfere with the process, they would let the workers, this is about empowering workers to make the choice yeah.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Sure, and workers are empowered to make the choice whether or not to associate under collective bargaining agreement. I you know I’m just trying to so you would have it that one could not engage in this industry, unless they agree to these labor peace agreements. Is that what I’m hearing?

EMILY SABO: Well, labor peace agreements as a condition of a cannabis operating license, yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So you don't trust individuals to be able to make those choices to associate on their own.

EMILY SABO: I don't think I understood your question.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay well you're saying that you would have it, that one cannot engage in this industry, unless they enter into this agreement, this labor peace agreement. And I’m just trying to figure out if the workers, I mean maybe the workers don't want to do that. That's their choice, right.

EMILY SABO: Oh, right, we're not forcing workers to have a Union. We’re giving the workers a neutral environment that if they choose to join a Union they 160 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

have an opportunity to do so.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So that's I guess we're assuming that all entrepreneurs and risk takers that would engage in this new industry would do these bad things absent, the agreement. Is that the presumption?

EMILY SABO: Well, if they weren't planning on doing it, then, why would they not be willing to sign in the labor peace agreement in the first place, if that was never the intention?

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Or maybe because they don't want to be overly constrained by the government.

EMILY SABO: A Union isn't a government, it's an agreement that --.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): You're talking about the employer.

EMILY SABO: A Union and an employer comes to a labor peace agreement isn't -- the Union and the employer negotiate the conditions of the labor peace agreement.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, but I don't know how the state can control them getting into it if then the employer is determining what is in the Union peace agreement, the labor peace agreement. So, I guess you answer my questions. But thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Fishbein. Are there other questions or comments from Members of the Committee. I do not see any therefore thank you, Ms. Sabo for joining us this afternoon.

Next, we will hear from DeVaughn Ward followed by Ilisa Ring and Zachary Mistry. Mr. Ward, Attorney Ward.

161 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

DEVAUGHN WARD: Thank you so much, Chairman Winfield. Thank you, Members of the Committee for allowing me to testify today on SB 888.

I did submit written testimony so I’m going to really direct my comments in the interest of time. I wanted to address some of the comments I’ve heard about adolescents and teen use. There is a phenomenal study that was produced in November of 2020 by the USCDC that shows in legalized states teen adolescent admission rates have dramatically decreased, teen usage in legalized states has dramatically decreased. And so you know for folks saying that teen usage in states like Colorado and Washington have increased, it's inaccurate.

And also signed up is one of my colleagues, Barbara Brohl, who is a former regulator in Colorado, so folks who have specific questions about what happened in Colorado, she will be up shortly, and you guys can ask her specifically about what's happening, what is happening in Colorado.

I'd like to direct the rest of my comments to specifically the Bill that's in front of the Committee. I’m urging the Committee to strengthen 888 and then pass it out of Committee.

And the things that things I would like amended in the Bill are as follows. Section 98 directs cannabis revenue allocation with 50% going to the general fund and pilot. It doesn't specify that any percentage be directed to communities hardest hit by prohibition. It's imperative that SB 888 direct the bulk of the revenue to an equity and community reinvestment.

Section 26 allows the department to begin accepting lottery applications for adult-use cannabis businesses immediately on July 1st, 2021. It does not require any slots to be reserved for equity applicants. It's essential that a significant portion of the lottery slots be reserved for equity 162 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

applicants, which should be defined, based on the Equity Commission's input.

We'd like to Bill to also expand expungements. Section 4 provides for automatic expungements and erasure for cannabis possession. We urge it to be revised to allow no cost expungements for all cannabis related offenses.

We encourage the Bill to direct early start-up fees to equity. Section 19 allows existing medical producers to sell to adult-use cannabis establishments except delivery licensees after paying hefty fines and getting BCP approval for medical supply. However, it doesn't specify what those fees will be used for. It's imperative that the early start-up these be directed towards equity in the industry we'd like to increase equity and early start-up businesses we'd like in a requirement added to Section 19 that medical producers converting to adult-use submit a plan approved by the Equity Commission or success or entity to reinvest or provide employment and training opportunities to disproportionately impacted census strike areas or communities impacted with high rates of drug arrest.

We'd like the CAP removed for micro license cultivators. We appreciate Section 1’s inclusion of a micro cultivator license we recommend adding language that the micro cultivator license be not capped subject to lottery.

We'd like to see no jail for home cultivation and to allow the Bill to allow discreet, secure home cultivation. If the Committee doesn't decide to go with that change at least like the first offense to be a civil penalty is that of a criminal penalty --.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Attorney Ward, your three minutes are up. If you could summarize.

DEVAUGHN WARD: In short, Senator, you know, I think 163 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

that SB 888 it's a solid start to begin the conversation on how we legalize here in Connecticut, but it certainly can be amended and strengthened. And I urge the Committee to review my written testimony to look at other ways to strengthen the Bill.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you for your testimony Attorney Ward. And thank you for spending a lot of time talking to us about this. Representative O’Dea.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman and Mr. Ward, thank you so much for your testimony. I’m just I’m looking at a report from the Connecticut, Colorado Department of Health, it was released October, it was done October 3rd, 2020. It was cited in an article Friday February 26th today, where it says that there was a 69% increase in students vaping marijuana over the last two years and a shocking 80% increase in twice the national average over the last two years, three years. It is three years. Are you aware or is that the study -- what study you referring to those decrease?

DEVAUGHN WARD: I’m referring to a United States Center for Disease Control study that was released in November 2020.

I will say you know I haven't seen this study that that you're raising. I'd be happy to take a look at it, but, and I will certainly send over the study that I’m referencing to the Committee.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Ward I greatly appreciate it. Again, my biggest concern is teen use and abuse and that's my focus, you know adults is somewhat of a libertarian when it comes to those over 25. I’m most concerned about the effects on teens.

So, please, Mr. Ward if you could send that to the Committee Chair, I greatly appreciate it and I’ll 164 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

take a look at it. And thank you, Mr. Chairman for your time.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative O’Dea. And Attorney Ward, I would ask you if it wasn't attached to a testimony to please follow it to the study to the Committee. Representative Doucette.

REP. DOUCETTE (13TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you DeVaughn, good to see you today. Thank you for, thanks for coming out. My question is, and I know this is a multi-faceted issue and you didn't touch on it, but I know you're basically one of our resident expert on this issue so hopefully it's something sort of within your purview and research. And if not, you could get back to me.

My question is about how this the framework under this Bill compares to other states with respect to the question of driving under the influence, both in terms of the field test framework and in terms of the criminal penalties. How do we compare and do you have any thoughts on how we could improve that's those sections of the Bill?

DEVAUGHN WARD: Sure and thank you for the question Representative Doucette. With respect to the driving while impaired, those provisions are pretty much on par with other states, you know. Here, the reality is, the unfortunate reality is people are already driving impaired in the state of Connecticut while using marijuana and this Bill wouldn't change how officers are able to effectuate, you know those folks that are suspected of driving under the influence and it wouldn't change anything with respect to that. It does provide for extra training, so officers are able to recognize when someone is driving under the influence of cannabis.

And so, in terms of what other states are doing it's on par with what other states are doing in terms of being allowed to, or the offices being allowed to 165 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

make that determination when someone's been driving while impaired through the use of a drug recognition expert. And so that's pretty on par.

In terms of the penalties, the personal liberty penalties, they are rather small. You know, New Jersey, which just finalized their legalization on Monday, they have personal possession limits up to six ounces, you know. New Jersey, which is a pretty high amount, but you know, just so you can get a comparison of what other states on the East Coast are doing, you know. New York's looking at two ounces, Maryland's considering up to four. And so you know the personal possession limits are relatively low.

In terms of the fees and fines, they're about on par. There are some fines in the Bill related to home grow that at are particularly high, and then the fines for youth under the age of 21, usage are a little on the high side at 250 and 500. And so we're really you know, been part of my comments on the Bill we're urging an amendment to allow for at least a community service equivalent for those fees.

But you know, they're not so far out, you know high where they're so far higher than other states, but they're about in the same region. I would say that New Jersey like I said, which is the most recent state to legalize their fee for underage uses $25. So, just to give you a kind of comparison.

REP. DOUCETTE (13TH): Thank you and what's been the experience in other states with DREs, you know. I think we've heard some testimony that you know there there's some obvious cost some time to onboard you know officers as DREs. What's that experience been like in other states, states like Colorado that have had, it legalized and regulated for a period of time. Do they have a good sort of saturation of DREs within their police forces?

DEVAUGHN WARD: I’m not exactly sure. And like I 166 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

said, my colleague Barbara Brohl who's a regulator in California, oh, excuse me, Colorado is coming up shortly, she'll be able to answer that. But I can get you some more information. I don't know if the top of my head what the saturation rate of BREs in Colorado is currently. I apologize.

REP. DOUCETTE (13TH): Okay. And how about data on arrest and convictions for driving under the influence in the other states. What's the experience with that been? [crosstalk] Has it increased or what they would normally see per alcohol or is it sort of comparable and was it, you know, expected based on what like you said sort of the anticipated use and the fact that it was already happening in those states?

DEVAUGHN WARD: Right, I think someone from the Governor's office [Inaudible], some of the data, it's tough to really pass out the data, because if you look at the data, it seems like there is a increase, but they just started testing for it. They weren't testing for trace of marijuana in DUI arrest before. And so, it may appear that it's a little bit of a spike even though you know the usage is the same because they just started testing for it. So, it's hard to really look at the data.

But you know I don't think there's been a significant increase in instances of impaired driving in states that have legalized, you know, Massachusetts is a good example of that they are our neighbor state. You know, there hasn't been a huge uptake of impaired driving in Massachusetts, you know, since they started doing adult-use sales in 2018.

REP. DOUCETTE (13TH): Yeah, that's -- it seems to be my impression too. And this is an area of concern I know for a lot of people and it's a area of interest for me, but we, you know, have a lot of data out there, and a lot of experience from other states like you said Massachusetts right, our 167 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

neighbor. So, I think it bears looking at and could help, I think, with our experience as we, as we roll this out. So, that's all. Thank you.

DEVAUGHN WARD: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. I do not see any other hands. Is there? I see none. Thank you then Attorney Ward for joining us this afternoon. I’m sure we will speak to you again soon.

DEVAUGHN WARD: Yes.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I am told that the next person we have is Sarah Kate Venison. Is Sarah K here? There you are. You have three minutes. You may begin. You're on mute, unmute.

SARAHKATE VENISON: You’d think I would know how to do that with how many times a day --.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): We all do it. It’s fine.

SARAH KATE VENISON: So, both Chairperson and Representatives of the Committee and the Representatives at large. I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Sarah Kate Venison. I’m here today in two capacities, one as a parent and another as a mental health provider. And from the testimony I’ve seen so far, today, I think I’m the only mental health provider who has -- is speaking up.

So, there's a lot of talk about statistics I'd like to open my comments with an intersection of my parent role and my mental health provider role. In the last week, our own department of the DPH released the following statistics. In 2016 to 2019 for 18-years-old and younger, the hospitalization, the hospital admission rate from marijuana intoxication increased by 491%. Likewise for 19 years and older, we saw an increase of 391% in that same period. The number of hospital admissions for marijuana intoxication do not approach zero until 50 168 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

to 55 years old. In analyzing hospital admissions for mental illness with marijuana use only, we saw increases in psychosis including schizophrenia up to 300% from 2016 to 2019.

So, you may be able to see over my shoulder is a picture of my son. My son is one of those statistics, he is also deceased. My son had a five- year battle with mental illness and cannabis dependence and, ultimately, a hell of a battle in the last year of his life with high potency THC, some of those products have been talked about before.

Make no mistake, there are people, for which this drug kills. That's all I’m going to say about my parent experience.

As a mental health provider, I worked in the child guidance system and the community health system for many years. And for all of those years I oversaw juvenile justice programs, early intervention programs. I’m incredibly aware of how we need to address the criminal convictions, the enforcement issues, the social injustice issues, and economic and equities, I do not think this is the way to do it.

I’m going to echo some of the other people saying that we have not had any chance any representative this morning from public health or mental health. I really urge the Committee to take some time, look at all the data, look at all the stats coming out of all the other states and really, really understand that from my point of view, this Bill is policy before science and data, and it is money before people.

Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Ms. Venison. Are their comments or questions from Members of the Committee? Representative O’Dea. 169 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Thank you very much. I’m sorry, is it Dr Venison?

SARAH VENISON: No, I’m a Master's level mental health provider.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): And first of all I’m so sorry for your loss.

SARAH VENISON: Thank you.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): I’m so appreciative of your testimony. I know how -- I can only imagine how difficult it was or is for you. when was it that your son passed away, how long ago?

SARAH VENISON: March of 2018.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): I’m sorry, are you -- where are you? What town do you live in?

SARAH VENISON: I live in Redding, my son passed away in Fairfield, he committed suicide.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): I’m so sorry. The statistics that you are giving us, were those Connecticut statistics?

SARAH VENISON: Yes.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): And are you, my understanding is Colorado saw the same statistics at even a more dramatic rate when they legalized. Are you familiar with any of Colorado statistics?

SARAH VENISON: I am somewhat familiar, I’m also familiar with some of the data that has been spoken of so far today. I think that there are organizations out there that do a great job of collating all of this. Smart approaches to marijuana is one of them. I would defer to people who do that for a living. 170 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I can say in my own private practice, I also supervise people across the state and different agencies. I hear, time and time again, concern for this artificial divide between adult-use and young adolescent use. And I thank you representative for using the age of 25 as when you really get your adult brain. After that I think we can think about other things. I think we have to be very, very vigilant around the mental health of you know, young adults starting all the way from middle school, all the way to full brain development.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Well, thank you very much, Mr Venison for your very effective testimony and I very much appreciate it, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative O’Dea. Are there comments or questions from other Members. Senator Champagne.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Thank you, ma'am. I’m sorry, I’m so sorry about your loss of your son, but I think you said something that was very important, and that is that public health was not on this call today. And no matter what they delivered; they should have been on this call. And I believe that. You know, without that force and without them coming forward with a comprehensive study on what happened in other states and what's currently happening, I think it's a disservice, and I want to thank you for coming in today and testifying. And again, I’m sorry for your loss.

SARAH VENISON: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Senator Champagne are there comments or questions from other Members? I do not see any. Ms. Venison, I just want to thank you as well, and express my sympathies for your loss. Thank you for coming out and joining us, I know this wasn't easy for you. 171 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SARAH VENISON: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I am told that next we have Jason Ortiz. Is Jason on?

JASON ORTIZ: I believe so, can you hear me.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): All right, I do. Jason you have your three minutes.

JASON ORTIZ: Fantastic. Thank you so much Senators Winfield, all the Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Jason Ortiz, I’m the President of the Minority Cannabis Business Association, which is a trade association of people of color that seeks to get our community to access the benefits of legal cannabis as owners, employees and as consumers.

I’m also a resident of Hartford, Connecticut and I was arrested at age 16 for simple possession and charged with both simple possession and intent to sell to a minor because my 15-year-old friend was with us and had to be expelled from school and put through the criminal justice system that lasted years and cost me thousands and thousands of dollars in legal fees.

So, when I come to this conversation, I’m actually inspired by a lot of the consensus I’m hearing on some things like home grow and the fact that we do want to address the mental health consequences of the war on drugs on our communities and I just want to focus specifically on the judicial situation and SB 888 and the consequences of arrest.

And so, as somebody that had to actually have chains put on me for simple possession, I want to make it very clear that the mental health impacts of pulling somebody out of their environment and putting them into the criminal justice system creates the foundation for folks that really have mental health issues, because you're going to end up being 172 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

isolated and alone. And as we have seen with many studies that feelings of isolation do lead to feelings of addiction in order to address those issues.

So, the number one thing we can do for equity is to lower the amount of ways that folks can be put into the criminal justice system based on cannabis laws.

SB 888 addresses one of them, but there are many different ones I’m going to say a few of the pieces that are lacking in SB 888.

SB 888 does not decriminalize home grow, it does not decriminalize sales, it does not decriminalize over 2.5 ounces. It does not expunge cultivation records, it does not expunge sales records, it does not expunge over four ounces.

And if we're going to talk about addressing folks that are re-entering society, SB 888 does not let anyone out of prison, it does not provide any pathway to prosperity and it does not protect young people from the school to prison pipeline.

So, at the core of equity is, decarceration, getting folks out of prison. Decriminalization, making sure we're not putting more people in prison. And expungement, making sure the records of whatever intention you have, don't follow them. And so, SB 888 acknowledges the need for all of those but then doesn't actually do it in policy.

And so to address finally, one last piece when it came to home grow is home grow equity. Home grow at its foundation is, are we going to put people in prison over interacting with this plan. Interacting with this plan is a form of education, of learning what you can grow and how to grow a plant, what kind of medicines and substances affect you different ways.

And to say that we're going to deny people, the 173 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

ability to even participate in interacting with this plant, that is not legalization and it is definitely not equity. So, home grow is without a doubt a foundation of equity because it simply says that folks in my community can interact in the same way that other communities can. And so, by including home grow, you do advance the cause of equity.

But I want to make it very clear, the core of legalization of cannabis should be about criminal justice reform and to me equity means making sure that the benefits of the legal cannabis market go to the communities that were over policed.

And so we have given these definitions to other elected officials, we've presented countless reports on why this is necessary. And so I want to make it very clear that all the folks interacting in this political process have access to this information.

I’ll wrap up quickly here.

And so, I was also one of the folks that did serve in the Governor's working group and happy to answer any questions about that. But again, thank you all so much for taking the time. We want legalization to happen, but we want it better than SB 888 is currently proposing.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much. Representative O’Dea.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ortiz, thank you so much for your testimony. You know I would be more of a fan of home grow and try and figure out ways to prevent 25 and under to use marijuana. But if you had to go back in time and talk to your younger self, how would you educate -- How would you have us educate the youth to stay away from marijuana? How should we have done it to help you better when you were a teenager.

JASON ORTIZ: Well, I think, where we could have 174 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

done is more fully explain the laws that exist and let us know that some of those laws are disproportionately impacted on my community. So, when I was in high school, I guess, I was naïve to think that all the laws are applied equally, and so I got a rude awakening when I found out that was not true.

The negative consequences of that interaction didn't come from the plant they came from my interaction with the criminal justice system. If I would have been told, more what exactly the plant is, have a stronger respect for it as medicine, I would have had a different interaction with it.

But to be quite honest, the negative consequences there were from the criminal justice system.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): You don't believe there's any adverse medical effects to utilizing or using marijuana with high THC content for teenagers?

JASON ORTIZ: I think there are qualified ways that we can make sure those that don't need certain substances can't get them, just like we have restrictions on over-the-counter medicine. And so, there are ways to do it, I just don't think criminalization or incarcerating them or giving them a criminal record or any of the current approaches to the school to prison pipeline are the most effective way to do that.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): I guess, my question is, do you think your utilization of marijuana as a teen was harmful to you, not with respect to --.

JASON ORTIZ: Oh, not at all, no. I was not, and I continue to use cannabis, to this day, and actually it's one of the best things that has happened to me over my life was finding a medicine that helped me deal with all the various problems, I was dealing with.

175 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

And today I’m a very functioning member of society, I graduated from the University of Connecticut. I’ve led campaigns I’ve started businesses. I lead a business association now. So, no, I don't think that there was really negative interactions and certainly less so than the alcohol I consumed over the course of that same time frame as a college student.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Thank you very much, Mr Ortiz for your testimony and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative O’Dea. Representative Porter.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for your testimony. Can you speak to what’s going on at UConn?

JASON ORTIZ: I think I didn't hear the question clearly. I think the question was what was going on at UConn. So, folks can check out Cure CT that I mentioned we actually put out a video on this, but the University of Connecticut has a cultivation department and they're growing lots of plants of cannabis and training students, how to grow plants of cannabis. And if you're lucky enough to be a college student, you can apply for this course, however it's the most popular course every single semester, and so only a handful you know handful being 400, but only you know, a quarter or a fraction of the amount of you that want to go to have that class actually get in because it's so popular.

And so, if we were to move forward with an equitable legalization of cannabis, the University of Connecticut could use that research, could use their business department, could use all their various academic services to support an equity movement in Connecticut. An equity structure, a craft cannabis market in the state of Connecticut.

So, the partnerships that are possible with UConn 176 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

are tremendous and they are very clear, they would like to expand their operation if it wasn't for a lack of legalization at the state and federal level. And so we do have the opportunity to sort of unleash the academic potential of cannabis research, if we so choose. So, SB 888 doesn't really do that.

There are other Bills, that we could bring together to make improvements to this Bill in order to accomplish that, but the opportunity is certainly there, and the cannabis department is definitely interested in growing.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you for that comment, Mr. Ortiz. Was there anything else that you wanted to add?

JASON ORTIZ: Yeah, I think there's a situation where folks are trying to understand why some people are able to grow and some aren't, right. And I think at the core, this is a misunderstanding of why we're legalizing cannabis and what actual equity actually means. And so again, it means reinvesting the resources of the legal cannabis industry to the folks that are most impacted.

Now, in the rest of the country, they have concrete equity programs, legal structures that provide resources that are either licensing side of it or technical assistance. And in those programs, so people are able to access them, based on their interaction with the criminal justice system as it's related to cannabis. So, for example, someone that was arrested, or they had a family member arrested or incarcerated could qualify to access these programs. Those programs are funded either at the state and municipal level, and that is how they're able to make sure that the funding is targeted.

And SB 888, the community investment piece is not targeted, it goes to pilot. The criminal justice piece is not targeted, they're not actually making sure folks are getting out of prison on this and 177 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

have the reentry support that they want to have.

And lastly, just not decriminalizing the plant significantly enough to really change the legal landscape that we're doing here. And so by half measuring it we're going to get none of the benefits and I think we have to really look to these other states that are doing it like Massachusetts. Massachusetts has six plants to 12 plants of home grow, right. Like they're right across the border is going to be the case. And New Jersey, they decriminalized six ounces. I think that is something that is just clearly not happened in this Bill. I really like taking the best of all the other states and putting it together. And that's unfortunate.

And so, lastly, we're not talking about the economic side of sales. So, when we're talking about decarceration we've heard a lot about simple possession, that if we were to expunge stop simple possession, you know there's not that many people in prison, but everyone says, but if there's an escalating charge that's different.

Well, sales is an escalating charge, and if there are more than one person involved, more than one container involved; I at 16 was charged with intent to sell to a minor because my friend was 15. And I was lucky enough to be able to get that off my record already, but because they paid thousands and thousands of dollars to lawyers, and so this Bill just simply strays away from the whole point in my opinion

And an unfortunate way because there's so much information available to us right now, like there's really no excuse for myself or anyone in this conversation to not have the information that they need. There is copious studies, there's other states to pull from, there's advocates in this state and yet somehow we're still dealing with basic definition question. And I think you know, there is one thing to be ignorant a very complicated process 178 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

and then there's willful ignorance, because you know that the solution to this problem may jeopardize your particular political leanings.

And so I would just implore the members of this Committee, we are in a situation where the State of Connecticut could very much benefit from legalizing cannabis, the right way. Massive members of the population want us to legalize cannabis. There are lots of ways we can do it, and we can get it done this year if they just put the right policy in front of us.

And so, I just really important the judiciary, specifically because you now have in your power, the ability to save the day on this Bill by amending the criminal justice provisions, making them stronger and giving us a Bill that we can support.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you, Mr. Ortiz and thank you, MR. Chair.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Porter. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. Ortiz. I can assure you that my positions are not based upon ignorance, no matter how you characterize such. But moving forward from there, you've made certain representations as to UConn where UConn’s position in regard to this in what capacity, do you make the representations.

JASON ORTIZ: I interviewed the cultivation department myself and met with him for an afternoon tour of their facility.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): But it's you're not affiliate?

JASON ORTIZ: I’m an alumni.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay And they authorize you 179 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

to come here to speak on their behalf.

JASON ORTIZ: I earned my degree, and so I authorized myself to represent as alumni.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And then you mentioned your situation with the criminal justice system when did that occur.

JASON ORTIZ: In the year 2000, in Norwich Connecticut I was 16. I was a sophomore in college, I mean sorry in high school.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And you said you went to Danbury Court?

JASON ORTIZ: No, Norwich Free Academy and then Norwich Superior Court.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And you were a youth at that time?

JASON ORTIZ: I was 16, so I was treated as an adult.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): You were treated as an adult or you were [inaudible]

JASON ORTIZ: Well, I was charged as an adult but ended up using my accelerated rehabilitation to get the charge lessened.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Lessened or if you did your AR appropriately, it would go away.

JASON ORTIZ: Sure. Yes, I mean.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I’m still trying to figure out were representations -- I’m trying to get through the ignorance aspect of this, but --.

JASON ORTIZ: Let me clarify.

180 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Wait, wait, wait. Let the question be asked and answer the question both ways.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Sure, so if you wanted to clarify your understanding as to you're involved with the criminal justice system, please.

JASON ORTIZ: I was arrested at age 16 in high school. They then brought me to the police department filled out the forms they need to do to be quite honest, at the time I didn't understand when any of it was happening. I didn't have a legal degree at that time, and they told me that I had to go to court on a particular day. When I went to court on that day, I had a lawyer, representing me. And I was still 16 at that time, and so I listened to the lawyer and did what he told me to do. Eventually, that charge is no longer on my record because I continue with the process. But that doesn't change that I had to go to court and interact with the criminal justice system repeatedly until that happened.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, so the result of your accelerated rehabilitation application was the charges against you were dismissed, right.

JASON ORTIZ: Yes. 120 hours community service.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, but then you said something about a conviction early on in your testimony.

JASON ORTIZ: I said I was arrested; I was never convicted.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Oh, okay.

JASON ORTIZ: I was incarcerated. Yeah.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, you were really convicted. Certainly, people are convicted without being incarcerated. 181 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Representative Fishbein, I’m going to ask you if you could get more directly to the point given what you're talking about.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Understood. No, I was just trying to unravel that. So, that's all I had. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Fishbein. Representative Palm.

REP. PALM (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hello Mr. Ortiz. Thank you for your testimony I have a question about the minority business association, and this is really just for my own edification. Often when we talk about minority business enterprises, we're talking about those owned by people of color and by women, who often are left scrambling over the -- whatever it doesn't go to the majority of the business owners.

There's no question that the war on drugs disproportionately affected people of color and I’m not in any way suggesting that white women suffered, I will be very clear about that. I’m just curious about whether or not you have an opinion about whether women of color entrepreneurs will stand to benefit? Well, do they benefit from your efforts, like how does that figure into the work that your grouped as? What is the definition in your case of minority as regards to the equity piece of helping business owners get launched? I hope I am -- I hope I asked that clearly, not sure.

JASON ORTIZ: I think so. I’ll do my best to answer it. So, you know MCA is comprised and serves minority operators, but we do have members that come from all walks of life to support the work that we do, but if you were to go to minority cannabis.org you'll actually see the board that we represent lots of different types of folks that are on our board, we have both direct cannabis plant touching 182 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

businesses that are owned by women of color. We also have PhDs doctors of color that survey cannabis regulatory fashions and other types of that things of that nature in the legal profession, we have a number of women our executive director Amber Little John who actually spoke at our press conference earlier she is a lawyer.

Jessica Velasquez is a CPA and she works on one of the largest tax accounting firms in the country regarding IRS tax filings, but she also served, specifically the tax industry in cannabis and the list goes on, right. Because the cannabis industry is not just about plant touching right. There's lots of different ways that folks get involved as chemists, as CFOs, as hemp farmers, right, every piece of that needs financing, web design, conservation equipment. All these different things bring in all the different types of trades that can grow from this.

Women of color I would guess, and I cannot speak for women of color, but I can see what happens when I go to communities of color, specifically when it comes to cannabis and they're to me seemed like a lot more women in the equity movement than it would be international corporate America.

And cannabis specifically does have a higher percentage of women in C level positions than any other industry. It's, unfortunately, because the other industries, the bar’s pretty low. I would like to see more women in cannabis positions, of course, but it is better than most. And so, specifically women of color are definitely a huge part of our organization.

But also, generally speaking, when I make sure we remind folks that when we talk about equity programs, as far as like support services; it's really about interaction with the criminal justice system generally. So, women who had a negative interaction with the criminal justice system would 183 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

be able to qualify for these programs, but on the bigger side of things, oh yeah there are plenty of women in C level positions that I’m very proud to know many of them. And we recruit them as possible in our most recent President before myself, was an African American.

REP. PALM (36TH): Great Thank you very much for that, it does answer my question and I appreciate your thoughts on this very important issue of that that piece of the equity component. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Absolutely, thank you, Representative Palm. Are there questions or comments from others? I do not see any. Jason, thank you again every year for showing up and intensifying and helping us to think a little bit on this. Appreciate it.

JASON ORTIZ: Absolutely.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Is a Mary Jane Oatman in?

MARY JANE OATMAN: Yes, I am.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Alright, you have three minutes.

MARY OATMAN: [Inaudible foreign language] In the name of the [Nez Perce] people of the traditional homelands that I’m calling in from, thank you to the Committee for hearing from myself, on behalf of the Indigenous Cannabis Coalition and the nation's first print publication dedicated to the storytelling and data collection within our tribal communities of THC magazine.

The Indigenous Cannabis Coalition is a not-for- profit national coalition that was created to address the needs of indigenous cannabis tribes communities and support families working towards the implementation of tribal sovereignty in cannabis legalization. I am an enrolled member of the Nez 184 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Perce tribe in Idaho and also descend from the Delaware nation.

And I appreciate the Committee moving forward with the conversation about legalization However, I would really like for the Committee to consider the integration of a section like in House Bill 6376 Section 32 which provided deference to tribal sovereignty.

It is critical for tribes, to be able to safely and compliantly enter into the cannabis economies, without fear of these constant battles with local and state officials. When a state fails to acknowledge the protection of tribal sovereignty, it tends to fraction other areas of effective government to government relationships.

An example of that was in California when they legalized under proposition 64, which the voters approved in 2016. The legislation, there was silent on how California would interact with tribes in the legal marketplace; leaving the tribes on the sidelines during this multimillion-dollar cannabis build out and markets, growing rapidly, without them. And some tribes that did step forward in this space for cultivation, production and processing the face to illegal raids from county law enforcement.

Washington, Oregon and Nevada all passed legislation that empowers them to sign compacts or negotiate other areas of agreement for shared regulatory responsibility with tribes that are looking for an implementing their tribal sovereignty in what we know is a economy that aren't many of our tribes have been pursuing long before any European contact on our homelands, with our sacred relationship with all plant medicines.

So, it's really important also because, under the Clean Water Act, tribes or states or testers have an extra duty to protect their watersheds and their homelands and have the authority to prosecute 185 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

violations under these applicable federal laws.

So, as we move towards equitable federal legislation, it is imperative that tribal sovereignty is afforded in the legislation. There's a unique relationship that states have with tribes. Tribes are not just a traditional stakeholder; they are indigenous homelands with governments. And you know, many states just happen to have their boundaries within these traditional homelands.

So, I applaud the efforts of the Committee and moving forward with proactive cannabis legalization.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Ms. Oatman. That’s three minutes. There is a question for you, so I want to get to that. Representative Palm. Representative Palm, to your question.

REP. PALM (36TH): No I’m sorry I don't believe my hand is up.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative Porter.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you, M. Chair. I would like to get on [inaudible] testimony.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I’m sorry, Representative Porter, I didn't hear you.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Can you hear me now, Mr. Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yes, ma'am.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you. I would say that I wanted to ask Ms. Oatman what else, what does she wanted to say for the record. I’m actually glad to see that she’s here today, testifying and I think that it's going to be important to give her an opportunity to finish up. Through you, Mr. Chair.

MARY OATMAN: So I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to close that you know, in summary, you 186 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

know, applying provisions within a legalized structure that gives deference to tribal sovereignty or recognized recognition of tribal sovereignty is you know those efforts to repair communities and our families that have been negatively impacted with the war on drugs.

And in many of our Community, it is a plant and it's definitely a, excuse me, did I get cut off there? My apologies, but it's still hard for us, you know in 2021 to see how legislative processes are making a criminal out of Mother Earth, who was the original cultivator of this sacred plant. So, I appreciate you allowing me to finish that.

REP. PORTER (94TH): You're very welcome, and again I thank you for taking the time to testify on this important issue today. And I thank you, Mr. Chair for the indulgence.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Further questions from the Committee. Seeing none. I appreciate you being with us.

MARY OATMAN: Thank you for your time.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I believe next up is Ellis Grant.

GRANT ELLIS: Yes, hello, Mr. Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): We can hear you go ahead and have three minutes. Thanks.

GRANT ELLIS: Thank you so much. To the Chairs, Ranking Members and the Members of the Committee. My name is Grant Ellis, and I am the President of the Massachusetts cannabis Reform Coalition. I believe I may be the first speaker here from Massachusetts today and I appreciate your indulgence, allowing me to come down from across the border and weigh in a little bit on SB 888.

187 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I myself am a disabled medical cannabis patient. I was a graduate student at Boston College in 2014, working on a quantitative methodology to examine the cogency of public discourse as an indicator of political legitimacy within liberal Republics, when I fell seriously disabled overnight following complications from a surgery. I was in and out of the hospital for 18 months before I was able to get out of the hospital. When I left the hospital is on a serious amount of narcotics.

After 12 months on medical cannabis, I was off all of those narcotics, able to return to, although impeded a somewhat functional life.

In the context of SB 888, I first wanted to say that Section 98 as Attorney Ward mentioned earlier is problematic for a number of reasons because of the way the tax revenue is dedicated to the general fund.

As an example, from Massachusetts, last year we had $70.6 million in cannabis excise tax revenue. Of that revenue exactly zero dollars went to communities disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs, even though that spending in on those communities was mandated by the law that legalized adult-use cannabis. The reason why that spending didn't happen is that the law left or to the Governor's discretion in the budget as to which one of the five categories, the spending would take place in.

Now, I do not oppose cannabis excise tax going to public health, it should go to fund public health. But last year all $70.6 million of that excise tax revenue went to fund public health in Massachusetts and none went to the communities who were most disproportionately harmed. I think that's an issue, and I think updating Section 98 of the Bill could remedy that.

Furthermore, Section 30 of the Bill, it's a huge 188 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

issue because of what Attorney Ward was also to his credit, talking about earlier as to Section 26. Section 26 creates a lottery which doesn't even have an equity component. And then Section 30 makes it so the existing medical companies in the state of Connecticut don't have to take part in the lottery, they can just become a hybrid adult-use retailer. That is regulatory capture in action. And I have to call it out for what it is.

It looks like a deal designed to get those medical companies to the head of the line at the expense of equity and, at the expense of a fair application process and I just don't see how it can move forward in that state.

I very much support what this Bill intends to do, but there are simply too many functional irregularities within the framework of how it is proposed for it to function as its intended. And I implore the Committee to listen to the wise words of Jason Ortiz, Attorney Ward and so many others who have suggested the necessary updates to this Bill to make it functional in light of the lessons learned from other states.

And I will just say I have data that shows that teen use goes down in states where they expanded adult- use. It does not go up. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you and I’m sure the Committee would love to see those statistics and studies. So, if you have not submitted written testimony feel free to do so or email to the Committee. Questions? Seeing none I appreciate you Zooming in from across the border for us.

GRANT ELLIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Cyril D'Souza.

CYRIL D’SOUZA: Yeah hi, this is Cyril D'Souza. I’m 189 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

here, testifying as someone who has conducted research on cannabis, for the last 25 years. I’m psychiatrist spending my time mainly at the VA hospital and at the Connecticut Mental Health Center though I am not representing either of those. I’m also a father of a young adult and I’m someone who drives on 95 every morning. So, I speak with these four hats on, and while I have a number of concerns about this legislation, I have four main concerns.

The first concern is the impact of cannabis exposure on children and that starts with the increasing trend of pregnant women using marijuana and the effect on the on the children they bear. On adolescents and young adults, I want to make the point that brain development is only completed around the age of 25 and 26. We know that the brain has an endocannabinoid system which when put to by exposure to cannabis, can lead to long lasting changes in brain development.

So, first issue is children. I also think that as we've seen with alcohol and tobacco, there's no way for us to convincingly prevent drugs like this getting in the hands of children. I know that firsthand as I see this happening in my community.

The second issue that is just as important than -- that we haven't heard much about is the impact on serious mental illness. There is fairly compelling evidence data from my lab and data from a number of other investigators around the world, suggesting a very strong relationship between the rates of cannabis use and serious psychiatric disorders like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder.

You may have heard very recently in testimony provided maybe a half an hour ago that, in the state of Connecticut, we are seeing increased rates of hospitalization for psychosis, and this parallels, what we have seen in Colorado.

190 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

In my own lab, we find that people who use cannabis show a reduction in synaptic density in the hippocampus, an important part of the brain that's responsible for memory and other critical cognitive functions.

We know that people with serious mental illness, once they have mental illness, are much more vulnerable to the harmful effects of cannabis. They tend to end up being hospitalized more often. They go to the emergency room. They're often non- adherent with their medications. They get into legal and other troubles, and they often end up homeless.

So we need to think about who's going to pay for the increased rates of hospitalization of people who already have serious mental illness. And who's going to pay for the cost of managing people with new mental illness that may be related to cannabis. Just --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Dr. D'Souza, I need you to just summarize for me, please.

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: Okay. And lastly, the issue of the effects of cannabis on driving. We know that cannabis impairs driving. There's data from my own lab, that low doses of alcohol and low doses of cannabis are known to disrupt driving. So, I --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): All right. Thank you. I know we have a couple of questions for us, so I'm gonna jump into those. Representative O'Dea looks ready to go. So let's start with him.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Is it Dr. D'Souza?

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: Yes.

191 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And what type of doctor are you? I'm sorry.

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: I'm a psychiatrist.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And doctor, you said there were -- did you say there were four main concerns, or three?

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: Four main concerns.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And I saw the, impact on children, and I got number four, driving. What were the other two?

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: Addiction, and serious mental illness.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And the three serious -- the addiction -- do you have, in your testimony -- I'm sorry, I didn't get a chance to read through all the testimony, there's a lot of it. In your testimony, do you have some documentation statistics supporting any of this, like for the impact on children, the addiction, and serious mental illness, and driving?

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: Sure. I have submitted written testimony if that, and if you'd like me to summarize that. I'd be happy to do so.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Please.

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: So, we know that, for example, it's becoming increasingly popular for women to use cannabis during pregnancy. There's a paper that was published within the last year in the prestigious journal of American JAMA Psychiatry, which is one of the highest impact journals in psychiatry showing that women who use cannabis, or children born to women who use cannabis, showed an increased rate of serious mental illness in adolescence and cognitive difficulties too. I have the citation in my written testimony. 192 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

We also know that from data from my own lab, and I would have about 25 papers in -- that I can submit to you that, under the influence of cannabis acutely, that impairs many of the cognitive processes that are critical for scholastic activities. Meaning to say, if young people were under the influence of cannabis, they will not be able to engage in a meaningful way in scholarly activities. That's second.

There is some data suggesting that exposure to cannabis in adolescence is associated with long-term outcomes, including cognitive difficulties. That data is hard to actually -- one would argue that some of those data are observational because as you know, it's impossible to do an experimental study in humans. It would be unethical to give one group of young people cannabis or not.

But to support these observations, there are animal studies where you can give animals at different stages of adolescence cannabinoids, and cannabis, and look at their long-term outcome. And these animal studies suggest that there are changes in the brain that are manifest in behaviors that persist into adulthood. So that's the effect on in adolescence.

There are brain imaging studies, which I've submitted in my testimony, published in peer review journals, showing that exposure to cannabis, just one or two times, in adolescence is associated with changes in the hippocampal -- in hippocampal volume. The hippocampus --

REP. O'DEA (125TH): What is that?

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: The hippocampus is the part of the brain that is critical for memory and learning. So it's an -- it's the most important part of the brain for learning and memory. So, that's to summarize the data on adolescence. 193 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Related to that, addiction is another issue that we need to consider. So previous studies that were done in the 1970s and '80s suggested that only one out of ten people would get addicted to cannabis. And it's important to put these studies in perspective because the kind of cannabis that was available in the '60s, '70s, and '80s is very different from the cannabis sets available today. We all recognize that it is the THC content of cannabis that drives many of these effects.

And so, in more recent studies using much larger data sets like the [NESA] study, it's a large epidemiological study that is not specific to cannabis, but it gives researchers the opportunity to examine the rates of cannabis use disorder pre- legalization and post-legalization.

And they find that the rates of cannabis use disorder are now actually more like one in three, so about 33%, as opposed to the one in ten or 10% that was from studies done in the past. So -- and we would expect because the potency of cannabis is going up that the rates of cannabis use disorder would increase.

Many people don't agree -- don't believe that cannabis is addictive, but using all the existing definitions of abuse or use-dependence, I think we can say with certainty, and you'll hear from my colleague, Kevin Sevarino, who is the head of the addiction society, that cannabis is addictive in whatever model you look at it. That is, people will spend a lot of time, money and effort acquiring the drug, getting high on the drug, recovering from the drug, trying to quit using the drug, and using the drug in situations that could be dangerous, such as driving a motor vehicle or operating a heavy machinery. So addiction is another issue.

The important thing for you all to remember is that, we do not have any treatments for cannabis use 194 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

disorder. We have treatments for opioid use disorder. We have treatments for alcohol use disorder. We do not have treatments for cannabis use disorder. We don't have treatment programs within Connecticut that is specific for cannabis use disorder. And we need to think of that. We need to have this discussion as this Bill is being considered.

Who will pay for people who are seeking out treatment? We need to set up a surveillance program of the demand for cannabis use disorder if cannabis is legalized in the state. And we do know that some people are much more vulnerable to developing cannabis use disorder than others.

There's good genetic data that's coming out that was published just last month in Lancet Psychiatry, showing that we may be beginning to understand who may be vulnerable. But that's not yet ready for prime time.

The issue of serious mental illness There is fairly convincing evidence from many parts of the world that exposure to cannabis in some individuals can lead to schizophrenia. For those of you who know about mental illness, schizophrenia is arguably the worst possible mental illness to have. The reason being, that it strikes between the age of 15 and 25. That means, it strikes before a person can reach that potential.

Often, people with schizophrenia are unable to work for the rest of their lives. So, in addition to the costs of hospitalizing them and providing them treatment, we also have to support them financially. They are mostly on disability. We need to consider who's going to pay for that.

There's evidence supporting the link between cannabis and bipolar disorder, in addition. And so the issue of serious mental illness is an important one. And I'm somewhat surprised that DMHAS hasn't 195 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

been considered -- the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services has not been consulted at the public health committee, has not been involved in crafting this legislation.

And then the issue of driving. We know a lot about the effects of alcohol on driving. We know a little about the effects of cannabis and driving. But let me tell you very clearly, people do not drive better on cannabis. So, if there are arguments being made about, we don't see increased motor vehicle accidents in Massachusetts. It's just a question of time. Because people don't drive better on cannabis, so it's derivatives. That's been shown now in many studies from all over the world.

Further, another consideration that we haven't really taken into account is that it's conceivable that someone could have one drink of alcohol that's below the legal limit and have just half a joint of cannabis that -- independently, these two may not have any significant effect on driving, but collectively together, they may have additive or synergistic effects. And it will be impossible for our colleagues in law enforcement to be able to tease that out or detect it effectively.

So I've cited in my written testimony that there have been studies done in Canada trying to estimate the cost of motor vehicle accidents in Canada. Canada has a population of 35 million. It's a much bigger country with a lot of rural areas. The cost was estimated to be several hundred million dollars. That includes the effects on what -- the property damage, the costs of rehabilitating people, and of course, debt. And we need to take into account, who's going to pay for that.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Is that -- doctor, is that several hundred million per year you're talking about?

196 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: It was between the period of 2012, I think. I can tell you in a second, as I pull up the testimony that I shared with --

REP. O'DEA (125TH): If it's in your testimony, don't worry about it. I wanna -- in my last -- my last question doctor is, are you aware of [inaudible]?

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: Can I just correct myself?

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Yeah.

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: The estimated cannabis- related collision costs were estimated to range from $1.9 to $1.28 billion Canadian dollars in 2012. So not a hundred million, but $1.09 to $1.28 billion dollars.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): In 2012?

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: Correct.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): In that one year. Okay. And doctor, the last question. And I thank you to the Chair and my Committee Members. I promise to be here till the very end. Doctor, are you aware of any studies about the increase in schizophrenia due to chronic cannabis use anywhere?

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: Yeah. Yes. There are many studies, and this is a specific area that I have researched for the last 25 years. I point the most recent study was that was published in March of last year in the journal Lancet Psychiatry, one of the highest impact journals, showing that a clear relationship between the potency of THC and the frequency of use and the relationship to new-onset psychosis. Psychosis is another word for schizophrenia. This was a multinational study involving several European countries in Brazil. And it showed a very clear relationship between the dose 197 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

of exposure, as in how potent and how frequently someone was using cannabis, and the risk of schizophrenia.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): The reference to that Lancet study, is that in your testimony?

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: It may be, but I can give you the last author, it's Dr. Diforti, D-I-F-O-R-T- I.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): D-I -- Diforti?

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: Yes.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Okay.

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: D-I-F-O-R-T-I. The first name is Marta, M-A-R-T-A.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Okay. All right. Thank you very much, doctor, for your testimony and your time. And thank you to the Chair. I'm sorry. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just quickly, Dr. D'Souza; as a researcher, father, and somebody who's been involved in this, what is your reaction to the fact that the part of Public Health and DMHAS haven't submitted any testimony and have not appeared before us here today on this?

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: Frankly, I'm quite shocked that there isn't a representation or testimony. I'm curious why that didn't happen. But I would have definitely wanted to see my colleagues from DMHAS, and the Department of Public Health to weigh in here, because one would imagine that they are the experts. They are the ones who can synthesize the information, digest it, and present 198 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

it in a way that would be easily understood to by everyone.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, I thank you, sir, as an expert, having the ability to come before us here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative Callahan.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Doctor, thank you for being here. And I'll be brief. My interest especially is in the driving aspect of this. Whereas, would you say a heavy cannabis user can be impaired for perhaps several hours, and even days, after use?

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: I guess it depends on what your measure of impairment is. So, clearly, there are residual effects of cannabis in someone who's using cannabis regularly, and we have -- and one can detect some of those effects on tests of cognition, so tests on memory, tests of attention, so on, so forth.

I am not familiar of whether someone has actually tested that effect on driving per se. I think it's clear that acutely, maybe one hour or one and a half hours after someone is consumed, their driving will be impaired. But I'm unaware of studies that have looked beyond that.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): Thank you, sir.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Senator Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Dr. D'Souza, it's good to see you again. And - I'll start off with -- we're not gonna do what we've done in the past. Not gonna be that long. But I do have a couple of questions for you. You know, the things you talked about happening here in Connecticut have happened under a system of prohibition. And I wonder why you think it would be good to leave the 199 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

system of prohibition in place as opposed to creating a more regulated system?

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: So you know, thank you, Senator Winfield. I'm not an expert on matters of prohibition. I'm really here to testify as a physician, as a scientist, and as a dad. I think there are some obvious advantages to regulating it. That is, if you can make sure that the product that's available to the citizens is being carefully, you know, vetted and tested and so on and so forth.

That said, my sense is that, in Colorado, and even in California, the black market actually thriving, and the dent that was supposed to happen to the black market, hasn't actually happened to the same extent. And so, I remain concerned about those kinds of issues.

I should share with you, Senator Winfield, that we - - you know, I serve on the Physicians Advisory Board for the Medical Marijuana Program for the State of Connecticut. And I've served on that since its inception.

And there are kids in my town who are able to successfully get marijuana from the Medical Marijuana Program because of diversion. That is to say, people who have been certified to get medical marijuana are keeping some for themselves and selling some of it to young people. And that's happened even before this Bill that we are considering right now.

So I remain concerned that it's going to be very hard for us to prevent this from happening. Something else related to that is that the perception of young people of cannabis has changed in the monitoring for the future survey, a survey that's done every year, amongst 10,000 high school kids across the country, including state -- including Connecticut.

200 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

For the last four consecutive years, kids believe that tobacco is much more harmful than cannabis. And it's in part -- I'm speculating here. It's part -- in fact, because of the mixed message that they're getting. They're getting the message that marijuana is a medically approved treatment. They're getting a message that it's okay. And so I remain concerned about the message that young people are getting.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And thank you for that. Are you suggesting that because marijuana is a medically approved treatment, right?

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: No, it's not.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And so --

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: It's not. What we have is a palliative care program. I serve on this Committee. I've researched this area and studied it quite carefully. There is not that much of evidence to support the use of marijuana to treat medical conditions.

There is what we -- what's really happening is that people are using it for palliative use. That is, for the 26 conditions or so for which marijuana is approved in the State of Connecticut, there is no medical evidence, no scientific evidence, that medical -- that marijuana actually improves the pathophysiology of those conditions.

Let me tell you for existence -- instance, the first condition for which medical marijuana is approved is PTSD, right?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Mm-hmm.

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: There is no evidence. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary that medical marijuana worsens PTSD. So, what we are talking about here is a palliative program. 201 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Yeah. Can we pause there for a second? Cause I --

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: Sure.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): -- wanna understand what you're saying. So, you serve on the board of -- of what -- what now?

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: The Physicians Advisory Board for the State of Connecticut's Medical Marijuana Program.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Why are you serving on that board if it's not a medical issue?

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: I'm serving on the board because the Department of Consumer Protection assembled a group of physicians to advise them on new indications --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I guess -- Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. Go ahead.

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: No, that's it.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And if there's no medical aspect to this, what are you advising them on?

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: That's a good question.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And I'm not -- I'm not being facetious [crosstalk].

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: No, no. And neither am I being facetious. I think that there's been a long tradition in this country where the first foray towards legalizing cannabis is to establish its use in for medical conditions. That happened in California. And that has been the tradition across states. They first legalized cannabis for medical conditions. 202 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

But again, I want to emphasize the fact that there is really no compelling evidence that marijuana --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay, can I --

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: Yes.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): All right. Go ahead.

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: -- that marijuana treats or addresses the pathophysiology of medical conditions for which it's been approved. It is, therefore, palliative care. Meaning to say, it's there to make people feel better.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay. And I'm just gonna ask you one more question on this, cause I don't wanna push too deep into it. And I don't want it --

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: Okay.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): -- to seem like I'm just being combative. I know we've done that in the past.

I'm gonna reframe that question. If there is no medical aspect to this, why did you choose to accept appointment to the board? I'm trying to figure out, if there's no medical aspect to this, why are you engaged in it as a medical professional?

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: I'm engaged in it for the same reason I'm engaged in this discussion, that I have serious concerns. And I think that I can bring to the table knowledge based on my research with cannabis and cannabinoids and help the Committee, as it makes decisions about the value of any new intervention, in this case, it happens to be cannabis, in the treatment of medical conditions.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay. I'm gonna move on from that. I just wanna ask you another question 203 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

about the [inaudible] and Tucker study that you were referring to earlier in the JAMA journal. Do you think it's important that study was qualitative and not epidemiological?

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: I'm sorry, which study are you referring to, Senator Winfield?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): The study you referred to earlier talking about the pregnancy and the increased use?

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: I don't understand what you mean by qualitative.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): It was not an epidemiological study. And then also, I guess I'll just ask the questions and have you respond however you choose to. The studies that are embedded in it, the references in the study, go back to 2002, well before we had legalized cannabis. So this was something that was already happening, and I didn't - - not that you were hiding anything, but I didn't get that impression from the information you shared with the Committee.

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: Oh, I wanna be clear that I did not -- I am sorry if I suggested that that study had anything to do with pre- and post- legalization. All I was stating as a matter of fact, is that women who use cannabis during pregnancy, their children have a higher rate of serious mental illnesses. That's all. I wasn't making the point that this is pre- or post- legalization.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I'm not suggesting that you were making any point. I'm suggesting that sometimes when people testify in a context, of some -- if it's not made clear, we build that with information that's not necessarily there.

204 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

The other thing I wanted to say about that study was that, one of the references embedded and it suggested that one of the sub-studies looked at alcohol, cigarettes, and cannabis, and the usage increased in those two. So, there's something going on, and it's not necessarily directly related to cannabis itself. And that's about depression and issues of pregnancy itself.

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: I think that's a fair point. I think one of the challenges of studying the effects of any drug on pregnancy is that it is typical for women who use one drug during pregnancy to also be using other drugs. So, to tease out the effect of tobacco, to tease out the effect of alcohol from cannabis may be challenging. I agree with you. But there are a number of studies that have suggested that, use of cannabis, amongst other things, during pregnancy is associated with higher rates.

But the reason I think it's important for us to consider this is that, unlike other drugs, pregnant women are using cannabis because they think it treats morning sickness. Cannabis is known as to be effective in the treatment of vomiting, right? And emesis and morning sickness, one of the problematic symptoms is vomiting. And so, women are specifically choosing to use cannabis during pregnancy, not alcohol, not nicotine, to treat morning sickness. And that's the reason I mentioned it.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Dr. D'Souza, for joining us again. And I would just say that, my only point is to make sure that we're all clear on the information that's presented to us. And even on that last point about morning sickness, while that's a part of it, I think there's also a suggestion that, like, alcohol and cigarettes, cannabis is being used for multiple reasons, some of which are the same reasons alcohol and cigarettes are being 205 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

used. But again, I thank you for joining us and sharing your information with us.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I've been pretty quiet all day trying to like move this along. I'm not saying I'm in favor of the Bill, but I take umbrage that, when you say the medical marijuana and situation in Connecticut has no positive impact as one of the founding creators of that program, and I take great pride in it, and it's highly touted. I've been on general law. I've been on judiciary. It's just really well-regarded nationally. I think it has a tremendous impact.

And in particular -- and people had this misguided notion that like, infants were gonna be, like, doing joints, not the case, but drops of THC -- moms came to testify, and I sat through hours of it, that they had children suffering from multiple epileptic seizures, and the cannabinol helped stop that. And so, how can you say that this program doesn't have a beneficial impact?

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: I'm sorry, Senator Kissel. I didn't ever say that this program doesn't have a beneficial impact. That is not what I said. And I'm sorry you heard it that way. What I said is that there is no medical evidence, as in published medical evidence, to show that cannabis has an effect on the pathophysiology of the conditions that are on the list. So that's another way of saying that --

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): No, no, no. I'm sorry for being abrupt. But, if these little kids, these infants, are not going through multiple epileptic seizures, because they're getting little drops of THC, how can you not say that there's -- I mean, it may not be published, but I mean, I sat through hours of testimony of moms. They were coming down 206 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

from Maine, other parts of new England because they were testifying to this.

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: So, Senator Kissel, there's no doubt that cannabidiol, which is a very specific constituent of cannabis, is now approved by the FDA for the treatment of seizures. But cannabidiol is not cannabis. No one is going to use cannabis if it just has cannabidiol. People use cannabis for the THC in cannabis. And what I'm saying is, the THC is not what's reducing the seizures, it's a cannabidiol, which is a very different constituent.

Anyway, I'm sorry that I gave the impression that the program doesn't have a positive impact. I'm sure it does. All I was seeing is that, the scientific evidence is somewhat lacking. And that's just not my opinion. I think if you look at reviews of the literature published in scientific journals, that's what you'll see.

I also wanna make the distinction between anecdotal evidence and the kind of evidence that's used that we as physicians are used to -- in looking at. We look at group data. We look at double-blind, randomized controlled studies. And, to that extent, there is a lack of evidence. That's my point.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): Well, you know, I just think it's important to clarify that point.

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: Okay.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): As someone who formed the program, who I think it's been very positive in so many ways. And by the way, I mean, I don't want people going to opioids, if they can go to something else. I've had constituents come up to me and say, "Hey, I'd rather have marijuana than an opioid because I've got back pain," or something like that.

207 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Doesn't mean I support this Bill, the way it's written, and I think there's some issues here. But cannabinol versus, you know, full out marijuana, I think that's a fine point. And I wanted to underline the fact that I think that our Medical Marijuana Program with the doctors on the panel has been very positive, and it's been received really well, nationally. And I've bent over backward working on that, Bill. I mean, I think we really made it the best Bill in the country, and I think it's got a lot of positives. And I just -- I felt like you were just disparaging it out of hand and you know, maybe I misunderstood what you were saying.

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: I'm really sorry if that's the impression I gave. I served on that board since its inception. And if I didn't think it was a good Committee to be on. I wouldn't be on it. So yes, it's doing a lot of -- I was just making the point about medical evidence. So, sorry.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): Okay. Because all those moms with those kids, with those epileptic seizures and all those other neurological problems, that in and of itself would prove the whole system to me. And there's a lot of other good things going on there too. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): No, thank you, Senator Kissel. Appreciate you chiming in on that.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Are there further questions from the Committee? Seeing none. Thank you for being with us, doctor.

DR. DEEPAK CYRIL D’SOUZA: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Andrew Wilcox.

ANDREW WILCOX: Hello. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, of the Committee. Thank you for giving 208 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

me this opportunity to speak. If we are finally bringing marijuana laws in line with that of alcohol. We should, at bare minimum, bring them in line with alcohol's other regulations, namely home production.

In all 50 states in this country, microbrewery is a legal activity for any adult over the age of 21. And 12 other states in one district have brought that mentality in line with recreational marijuana home growing.

Home growing as a personal hobby, just as much as homebrewing is. And keeping it criminalized is at best a misguided attempt to protect the tax receipts from regulated marijuana and, at worst, a backdoor continuation of the drug war that has devastated our communities for decades. But just as garage brewery setups have not diminished tax receipts from bars and liquor stores, nor has it led to a moonshine anarchy in our streets.

Home grow in other states has not led to a significant hit to dispensaries in their sales, nor has it led to an increase of erratic driving violence or other antisocial behaviors. In those 12 other states, home grow has been an exercise of individual freedom of maintaining a ready supply for medical patients, and also 'yes,' for the nascent beginnings of legitimate business enterprise.

This Bill talks about bringing equity into the discussion to repair the damage done to our communities by prohibition. But it still caps the numbers of, and provides no consideration for equity-based licensure for micro growers or delivery operations, both ground floors for new small business ownership for those with low starting cap.

These are the jobs, jobs for Connecticut residents trained in Connecticut Universities, to serve Connecticut residents that we should nurture and protect. Or else, we open the door for established 209 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

out-of-state corporate cannabis giants to come and capture our burgeoning new market, and render our state mere subject consumers.

We also leave the door open for the continuation of the injustice of prohibition by levying criminal penalties for a decriminalized substance. A decriminalized substance we are not automatically expunging the criminal records of, by the way, instead, forcing those convicted sooner than 2015 to be subject to unnecessary red tape and court fees. A hindrance only for poor and working people.

So we cannot speak of equity while we establish the gentrification of cannabis in our state. We cannot speak of justice while we levy undue penalties on the poor and vulnerable. We cannot pass a legislative -- legalization bill that maintains marijuana incarceration for discreet personal home growing, and also hampers Connecticut's small business owners' chances against these new Philip Morris's of cannabis. We cannot pass Senate Bill 888 as it currently stands. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Questions from the Committee? Seeing none. I appreciate you being with us, Mr. Wilcox.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Michael Carius.

MICHAEL CARIUS: Hello? Can you hear me?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): We can.

MICHAEL CARIUS: hello?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): We can hear you, sir. Go ahead. You have three minutes.

MICHAEL CARIUS: Okay. I don't know if you can see me or not. Can you see me?

210 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): We cannot.

MICHAEL CARIUS: Okay. Sorry about that. So, Senators, Winfield and Kissel, and Representatives, Stafstrom and Fishbein, and Members of the Judiciary Committee. I've been an emergency physician practicing in Connecticut for the past 38 years.

I'm a past chair of the emergency departments at both St. Vincent's Medical Center and at Norwalk Hospital.

I'm a current board member and past President of the Connecticut College of Emergency Physicians. I'm also a past President of the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Board of Emergency Medicine.

Today, I represent nearly 500 members of the Connecticut College of Emergency Physicians in opposing this Bill.

As a prophecy in emergency physician, I'm also familiar with some of the unintended consequences of the use of recreational cannabis. I'm also aware of the experiences of my emergency physician colleagues in states where recreational marijuana has been legalized, such as Colorado, California, and Oregon. I'd like to point out some of those consequences to you.

First, smoking marijuana carries the same risks as smoking tobacco with regard to pulmonary consequences, such as asthma and COPD. Connecticut has made significant efforts to reduce or eliminate smoking as a public health issue. Legalization would be contradictory, but those efforts then represent us a backward.

Secondly, marijuana is known as a gateway drug, and that it not infrequently leads to the user then try other potentially more dangerous drugs, such as stimulants like ecstasy and cocaine, euphorics like 211 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

narcotics and sedatives. This is especially true of adolescence in young adults whose young developing brains are more susceptible to addiction.

Thirdly, inadvertent overdoses, especially in young children and adolescence who consume edible cannabis with consequential altered mental status and vomiting, and they end up in emergency departments for prolonged evaluation and treatment.

Fourthly, cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, which consists of intractable nausea and vomiting caused by cannabis treatment, both poking and ingestion. When these patients inevitably present to the emergency departments for treatment, they require intravenous fluids and multiple medications to control their symptoms over several hours at considerable cost.

This lead, driving under the influence of cannabis causes, altered mental status, poor decision making, loss of coordination, and decreased attention span. This results in motor vehicle accidents with injuries and sometimes deaths. Since there is no reliable way to ascertain an accurate blood level of cannabis, there is no easy way to prosecute these drivers.

And lastly, there is also a parallel to the current opioid epidemic crisis. With which I'm sure you are all too familiar; we emergency physicians certainly are. Several years ago, we treated a whole generation of -- created a whole generation of narcotic-dependent citizens through the very well- intentioned overzealous treatment of pain. We, as a society, are still paying the price for that well- intended effort --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, sir. [crosstalk]

MICHAEL CARIUS: -- we can learn from our mistakes.

212 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, sir.

MICHAEL CARIUS: In closing -- in closing, passing this Bill will predictably increase the consumption and use of marijuana. But increase the misuse of marijuana will result in more car accidents, [inaudible] will cause many children inadvertently overdose, increase the number of users presenting to emergency departments with Intractable vomiting syndrome. Thank you very much for your --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, doctor, for your testimony. Did you submit some written testimony, sir?

MICHAEL CARIUS: I did.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And is it -- do you have any studies or articles that you've cited in -- in your testimony?

MICHAEL CARIUS: I did not cite the articles, but I can produce those units.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Yes, doctor, if you could please produce those. I believe the five or six areas you said you were concerned about was, similar risk of tobacco with asthma and COPD, gateway drug, unintended overdoses with the edibles, particularly in kids in the ER that you've seen personally. What was the fourth one? Cannaboid hyper -- what was that?

MICHAEL CARIUS: It's called cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome. It's very similar to vomiting in pregnancy. Except that these people are not pregnant [inaudible] vomiting as a result of the exposure to a cannabinoid.

213 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And is it -- are you seeing that as part of the increase in the THC content?

MICHAEL CARIUS: Yes, very definitely so.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And the fifth was, you said, you know, the altered mental status, decrease in attention, increase in motor vehicle accidents, and the fact that there's no reliable BAC test for cannaboid -- type of test?

MICHAEL CARIUS: That's correct.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Okay. And then six --

MICHAEL CARIUS: That's correct.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): -- was the parallel with the opioid crisis that you're seeing in the ERs now?

MICHAEL CARIUS: Yes. We've been seeing that for the last several years. And that's a direct result of trying to treat pain overzealously, which was something that was mandated.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): I'm sorry, could you say that again? Privately paid?

MICHAEL CARIUS: It was the overzealous treatment of pain, which was a mandate from the federal government and the state government, and that's how we created this narcotic opioid crisis.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. I'm very familiar with that. You know, the hospitals were ranked on how little pain you had, so they doped you up. Yup.

All right, doctor, thank you very much. Is there any other part of your testimony that you haven't had a chance to tell us about, that's not containing your written testimony you were -- that you'd like to give us? 214 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

MICHAEL CARIUS: No, no. I've just summarized what my written testimony is. So thank you very much for your attention.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you very much, doctor. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Further questions. Seeing none. Thanks, doctor, for being with us.

Next up will be the House Minority Leader, Representative Candelora.

REP. CANDELORA (86TH): Thank you, and good evening, Chairman Stafstrom, Chairman Winfield, and Ranking Members, Kissel and Fishbein and all the Members of the Judiciary Committee. I'm Vincent Candelora, State Representative, House Republican Leader. And I'm testifying sort of in my personal opinion on this Bill as opposed to a caucus position.

One of my concerns generally with the Bill, we've heard from a lot of experts today, I've listened in, and in my opinion, this Bill has morphed into more of a commercialization Bill versus a legalization Bill. And with that, it just underscores the general concerns I have in all the testimony and all the conversations we've had over the years.

Just specifically a couple of areas that I think we failed to address, and I just wanna call the Committee's attention that the state of Vermont is looking at a retail model, which was passed in January of this year. They're addressing issues, you know, what age is appropriate? You know, I think this Bill should be looking at the age of 25, if it's gonna be done. I think we should have a conversation about setting the THC levels to something lower to prevent all the societal ills that we've heard about being testified. I think 215 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

that we should be limiting the products that are gonna be offered.

Having teenage children, I can tell you all that, over the last few years, the number of products that -- that my kids have already seen and been introduced to is only rapidly growing. And I don't subscribe to the notion that we should jump off the cliff with Massachusetts, California, and Colorado, but rather we should lead in a different direction because I think some of these states are gonna find that they need to put the genie back into bottle.

I'm generally obviously opposed to the commercialization efforts. I do think that the homegrown model that Vermont had started with is much safer. I know that the Governor's Office testified that they're concerned that we will start seeing self-medication, but that's what this Bill actually does. It's going to eliminate our medical market, and we will just see self-medication because no one is gonna go through the process that they need to go through with DCP to get the medical cards, to go through that expense, and work with the caretakers.

So I'm concerned that we will just see this model cloak over what we've already established and very carefully put into place. And so, I just asked for those considerations to be taken as it's being moved forward. And certainly, we do need more conversation with Department of Public Health and DMHAS to really understand what those other impacts are.

And then just lastly the taxes, obviously, if we set these -- the tax structure too high, it is only gonna invite the black market into Connecticut even more, because people aren't gonna pay an added roughly 20% cost onto a product if they could purchase it cheaper on the street or on the internet, through other states that are selling it 216 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

more cheaply, which is already happening. And, thank you for your time.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Representative Candelora, for coming in. I think you attack this from a perspective that I have kind of long been thinking about, the legalization versus commercialization. And I've always wondered why Connecticut is preventing people from growing some plants in their backyard when they can go out and buy it on the street, or at a store. And can you tell us a little more about the Vermont model and how that might be a better direction for Connecticut to adopt?

REP. CANDELORA (86TH): So, you know, I'm not an expert on this by any means, and I would sort of defer to other people. But in my conversations with individuals that are concerned about the impacts -- the homegrown model naturally produces a lower level of THC. So if we're bringing this plant into a recreational market, which we're effectively doing, or a legalized market where people would just partake cause they feel like it's safer to have [inaudible] commercialized. As opposed to putting this onto steroids where we're seeing different products being marketed for different people, whether it be gummy bears, sodas, or higher levels of THC. By allowing the plant model, it's just a little bit safer.

And I know, on the one hand, the Governor's Office did not include it in the Bill, their concern, that homegrown could lead to people using chemicals in the product, and it would be less safe. We need to put that same scrutiny on this commercialized market. Cause to suggest that there might be problems with fertilizing a plant in somebody's house, and there could be health effects to that. We really need to look at the health effects of 90% 217 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

THC, which I think Dr. D'Souza had referenced. And so, that's where I think it's -- you know, I don't like us treading down this path, but if it's gonna be done, we should be looking at the way Vermont has done this.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Well, thank you for that. You also make an interesting point that I had always thought about as well. During prohibition period of alcohol, there were a number of companies that were legally manufacturing alcohol for medicinal purposes. And while it was completely illegal for recreational purposes, it was legal to some extent and manufactured and distributed, and used for medicinal purposes.

And once prohibition went away, you know, you certainly you didn't see a lot of manufacturers manufacturing for medicinal purposes. And I can -- you know, I can envision that when you can buy very high level -- high THC level marijuana at your local store, what would be the purpose of going to get, you know, a -- a medical marijuana card and -- and presumably spending more money and more time and more inconvenience? It would seem that the -- that the medical model would kind of fade away.

And it was interesting that you brought that up as well. You know, frankly, I do think the model is working in Connecticut. At least I've heard stories that it is. Especially among those that are particularly ill, and the substance actually helps. But I can't imagine that that market would continue if you can just go to your convenience store and buy it. Do you have any comments on that?

REP. CANDELORA (86TH): I just think we need to recognize the fact, absolutely, that -- that this could be eliminating our medical market or reducing those that will be using the medical market.

And, I know there are Bills and other Committees that are trying to address those issues of barriers 218 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

to entry for patients to get into that market. But I do think it's an important conversation to be having in the context of this Bill, because if only this Bill moves forward without any fixes to the medical program, I'm concerned that this will be the new policy in the State of Connecticut at the expense of that program.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Well, thank you. Thank you for your answers. And thank you for coming in. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Representative Candelora, can I ask just a quick question? Maybe -- maybe this isn't quite the right form. But you've highlighted a number of, kind of, issues or concerns with language or sections or, you know, tax policy limits, age, like, is there a version of a cannabis legalization Bill that if we sat down, we negotiate this, we worked through language that -- I'm not asking you to speak for your caucus, but --

REP. CANDELORA (86TH): Yeah.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): -- you would support. It just seems to me that we -- we kind of go round and round on this and it's -- you know, our folks bring in votes to the table or not, cause if they are, I think we can get a room and hammer the details out.

REP. CANDELORA (86TH): Yeah. I mean, I think, generally speaking, this -- we have never gotten close to that place. The way this -- this Bill has always been presented; it has alluded us because it does -- it tries to do too much.

I think there are areas of this Bill that common ground would -- would be easier to find, in particular, dealing with the criminal aspect versus the public health aspect. But I think, you know, we still have to tackle the driving under the influence and how those impacts would be.

219 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

But you know, I think if the Bill's gonna move forward, we need better conversation on this language because I think the language leaves a lot of gaps. And I wouldn't wanna model anything after other states, per se. I think there's opportunities to make things better.

Would I vote for this Bill? Probably not. But could we make a bad Bill better? Maybe.

REP. CANDELORA (86TH): But generally speaking, I think we better answer a lot of questions first.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yeah, I guess -- and that's -- that's fair. You know, I'm not asking you personally, too. But I guess maybe I would just say for the record, as I've said many times, this should not be a partisan issue. There are, you know, statistic after statistic that shows the State of Connecticut, the polling, the general public is generally in favor of us figuring out a framework to legalize recreational cannabis in the State of Connecticut. It seems to me that if we got in a room, we could figure this out.

So I guess I'll leave that invitation out there to you, or to members of your caucus. As always, I am more than happy to sit and work through language that will hopefully satisfy folks, particularly if folks would bring votes to the table.

REP. CANDELORA (86TH): And I appreciate that. Obviously, this is the start of the process.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Good. All right. Further questions or comments for -- if not, thank you, Representative, for being with us. Tune -- maybe you'll tune back in around 11:00 and watch, you know, if you're trying to fall asleep tonight -- we'll be on CTN.

REP. CANDELORA (86TH): I miss this Committee. I'll keep watching. 220 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): We miss having you on it. All right. I'm gonna turn this -- next up is gonna be Olivia Rinkes, followed by Norman Plude. Olivia? Is Olivia Rinkes with us?

All right. While we work on that, let's go to Norman Plude, please. Norman, are you there?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Okay. Felicia Jordan?

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Mr. Chairman, if I may, it does look like some of them are trying to connect right now. Maybe they're being transferred over to the panelists.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yeah. Is Olivia Rinkes available?

NORMAN PLUDE: Hello. Norman Plude.

OLIVIA RINKES: Hello.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Hello. Okay. Let's start with Olivia. Olivia, you're up. And then Norman, you'll be after Olivia. Olivia, go ahead. You have three minutes.

OLIVIA RINKES: Thank you. Thank you for that. Okay. I am calling today because I oppose SB 88. And I have a couple of reasons for that. Number one is just that it doesn't automatically clear the records of people with marijuana convictions. Just there's like -- there just doesn't seem to be any reason, in my opinion, why people should still have a criminal record for marijuana possession if the marijuana is legal and taxable. So I feel like that should be automatic, instead of something that is -- has to go through the courts or something that needs to be paid for.

221 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Also, home cultivation being illegal, like, if it's legal, there's no reason that you shouldn't be able to grow it at home.

And also, there's really no -- the tax plan for SB 888 does not make a lot of sense. There's no direction for it. It needs a more clearly defined base, in my opinion. Thank you for your time.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Olivia. Are there questions or comments from Members of the Committee? I do not see any. So, I wanna thank you for joining us this evening.

Norman Plude, you have your three minutes. Norman, you need to unmute.

NORMAN PLUDE: Okay. Can you hear me?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): We do hear you. We don't see you anymore, but we do hear you.

NORMAN PLUDE: Okay. How about now?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): There you go.

NORMAN PLUDE: Okay.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Yup.

NORMAN PLUDE: Good afternoon, Judiciary Committee Chairman, Gary Winfield, Co-Chair Steven Stafstrom, Vice Chairs, Alex Kasser, and Matt Blumenthal, and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Norman Plude, and I reside in Seymour, Connecticut. I'm here today to oppose to Senate Bill 888.

I have a number of concerns on the Governor's Bill. My first concern is that we already have an established Medical Cannabis Program, and they have producers in the [inaudible]. And it appears the way the Bill is written that they'll have a leg up 222 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

on anyone wishing to acquire a license in cannabis industry in Connecticut.

As a hemp farmer in Connecticut, I not only cultivate hemp, I also have an extraction license and manufacturing.

There are a number of hemp cultivators in the state that I know that are eager to get into this business. But from what I'm reading through the Governor's Bill, it's close to $1 million dollars for licensing fee. And not only does that keep residents, but most small businesses, even hemp farmers in the state here, out of the industry.

I have a second point, and it kind of goes along with the criminal justice reform. I don't believe that the Governor's Plan goes far enough, and I believe that there are many cannabis convictions in the State of Connecticut that were non-violent. I think those cannabis convictions, along with legalization, to be expunged they're done away with, dismissed.

I have a third point, and again, this goes along with home cultivation for recreational cannabis and the Governor's Bill is, you know, it's not allowed. I believe home cultivation [inaudible] home grown in State of Connecticut. Dispensaries who would be supplying clones and seeds for the home cultivators, be generating revenue, not only for the dispensary or the cultivator, but for the State of Connecticut with sales tax on those.

Home growers would also be buying equipment like I have here for cultivating hemp at Home Depot or local places, supporting local businesses in their community to home grow.

Over the last few years, people have become more accustomed to seeing hemp grown in the State of Connecticut. And I think over time, a lot of 223 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

residents in this state will come across to it in the same way.

Just as home brewing is legal in the state, I think that cultivation of cannabis should be also. If these three main issues aren't enough, I just can't support the Governor's Bill 888. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Plude. Are there comments or questions from Members of the Committee? I do not see any. So I wanna thank you for joining us this evening.

NORMAN PLUDE: You're welcome.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Next is Felicia Jordan, followed by Hector Gerardo. Either Felicia Jordan or Hector Gerardo here?

FELICIA JORDAN: I'm here.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Ms. Jordan, you have --

HECTOR GERARDO: I'm here too.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay. Ms. Jordan, you're up first. You have three minutes.

FELICIA JORDAN: Yes. I just wanted to speak on this Bill and the legalization. The way that it's written now, I do not agree with, because I feel like it supports the big cannabis companies that are in place right now, and not the micro cultivation companies that wanna come into the space as well as providing equity for our community, as well as the decriminalization of people that are still being held accountable for carrying marijuana.

We have a medical market here that is legal. I'm [Inaudible] cannabis program that's here. I've been a patient for the past five years, and know the benefits of it. Well, I do support the legalization 224 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

for adult use. The way that the Bill is written right now, I do not support.

So, I did hear DeVaughn Ward speak earlier, and a lot of the suggestions he had mentioned, I am in full agreement with, and feel like it needs to be looked at from that perspective to adjust accordingly. Thank you for your time.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much. Are there comments or questions from Members of the committee? I do not see any. So, thank you very much for joining us this evening. Next will be Hector Gerardo.

HECTOR GERARDO: Yes. Thank you for having me in this amazing panel. And I'm gonna be quick. A lot of the advocates already spoken about some of the things that are lacking on the Bill. But one of the things that I wanna address that has been back and forth, is the use of minors and their concern about minors using cannabis.

Most of us have open bottle liquors in our houses, right now, with kids and everything. Right now, most of us have opioids in our medical cabinets right now. And nobody talking about our young people then.

Young people who are 18, can go to war and experience death. That's worse than sparking up a little junk.

There's young people right now, that's been years in solitary confinement. Nobody's caring about young people right now.

We talk about -- a lot of people here also talked about how -- I'm sorry, I'm a little nervous. How the police there hasn't been arrest over cannabis. That conversation is not about how many arrests has been happened in the conversation.

225 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I don't know if you guys read the ACLU 2020, A Tale of Two Countries, the racially targeted arrests in the area of marijuana reform. I suggest that you read the ACLU report. And you can see that Connecticut’ans -- black [Connecticut’ans], black and brown people that live in Connecticut are four times more likely to be arrested for cannabis than any other -- in the same racial line, than any other race in Connecticut. Four times more likely to be arrested.

So that's the conversation is how police go into our neighborhoods and break heads for people smoking cannabis, that a bunch of white people are making millions of dollars right now for the sell of cannabis. So that's the conversation that we should be having. How are we gonna reinvest in our community? How the non-refundable monies that's gonna go into applications is gonna be reinvested into the communities, now into the pockets of politicians? And that's what this Bill -- not politicians. Rich white men in the business. Not politicians. I apologize. But in the pockets of rich white men, that's in the business, like the Russian millionaire that owns Curaleaf. I won't have a chance to have my own dispensary. You know what I'm saying? Because of people like him.

So we, as a state, we need to start thinking about how are we gonna reinvest in the communities that's been harmed by the war on drugs, and not about if young people are going to use cannabis. There's a lot of studies out there that show that cannabis use among youth in the states that have legalized have gone down. Like other research has shown that it's gone up. So, at the end of the day, we need to worry about the communities that's been impacted by the war on drugs.

And then my last point is about homegrown. We're talking about that you don't wanna do homegrown because it's gonna bring the black market -- keep the black market going. The black market is not 226 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

going anywhere. I'm sorry to tell you. It's not going anywhere. The black market is gonna stay there until we figure it out a way so that we can incorporate the black market into the legal market, and give them opportunities to get out of the black market so they can become legal entities. Now putting more police. Now putting more --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Mr. Gerardo?

HECTOR GERARDO: -- more sentencing and more criminalization of our people. So, that's all I wanted to say. Thank you for your time.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much. Are there comments or questions from Members of the Committee? I do not see any. So, I will thank you for joining us this afternoon into the evening. Thank you very much for joining us. Next, I think, is Mitch Schwartz. Did I get that right, or? Yeah, Mitch Schwartz.

MITCH SCHWARTZ: Hi there. My name is Mitch Schwartz with Outfront Media. I'm here with a panel of John Barrett and Matt Duddy, who are sequentially right after me. John Barrett is the president of the Outdoor Advertising Association of Connecticut. And I'm gonna turn it over to him for comments.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Are you here? I know I saw Mr. Duddy, I think.

MITCH SCHWARTZ: Yeah. I see Mr. Daddy. I'm looking for --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I don't see Mr. Barrett. Mr. Duddy is with you, though, correct?

MITCH SCHWARTZ: Yes.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Do you wanna just have him?

227 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

MITCH SCHWARTZ: Sure.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay.

MATTHEW DUDDY: Good afternoon everybody.

MITCH SCHWARTZ: Oh, go ahead.

MATTHEW DUDDY: John -- I guess, John is, maybe, having some difficulties. So greeting to the Members of the Committee, Co-Chairs, Winfield and Stafstrom, Ranking Members, Kissel and Fishbein, and Vice-Chairs, Kasser, and Blumenthal and the distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. I am Matt Duddy, vice president, and territory manager for Lamar Advertising. I'm joined with by John Barrett, president of the Outdoor Advertising in Connecticut, and also Mitch Schwartz.

Our membership consists of Barrett Outdoor Communications, Clear Channel Outdoor, and Lamar Advertising Company, Outfront Media, and Standish Johnson Advertising. In all, we control 88% of the billboards in the State of Connecticut.

The OAAC neither supports nor opposes this Bill. My testimony strictly pertains to how the Bill treats the issue of advertising.

Our only real concern is subsection A6 of section 25, that specifically prohibits the use of billboards. Billboards are the only medium of communication, specifically prohibited in the Bill. Equity and law suggest that the best course that the State of Connecticut is to treat all media the same in connection with proposed legislation. We therefore respectfully ask you to treat billboards the same as all of the media, and strike the words [or] any billboard in this state from line 827 and 828 in subsection A6.

The Bill sets a very aggressive 10% limit on the opportunity for the under 21 population to see 228 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

cannabis advertising. There is an effective alternative to codifying the opportunity for minors to see appropriate messages that is already in effect in Connecticut and the rest of the country.

I challenge you to look at other schools, playgrounds, recreation centers, public parks, and places of worship, and find billboards advertising alcohol, or other products that are illegal to sell to minors within 500 feet. You should not find any, even though there is no law against that. That is because, on a voluntary basis, the billboard industry and many of the manufacturers and distributors of these products do not allow it.

Regardless of whether this body codifies any restrictions or advertising recreational cannabis, the billboard industry will impose its own as it has done in each jurisdiction where cannabis has already been legalized. If you would be interested in working with us to modify our codes in some way to address any concerns. We will be there in a heartbeat.

I thank you for your time and this opportunity to speak. And we're happy to entertain any questions you may have.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. And I see that Mr. Barrett's in, and I just put the information of the Committee, all of the Members have signed up, so they're not actually getting extra time at all. It would probably work out to be less time. Mr. Barrett, you may proceed.

JOHN BARRETT: Well, actually, Mr. Duddy just read my testimony. [Laughter]

MITCH SCHWARTZ: If I may, you know, I just wanna reiterate that our central purpose for testifying today is based on equity and law and that it points to keeping all advertising mediums on an equal 229 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

playing field. That's essentially what we're asking for here today.

And I also just wanna reiterate that we share the General Assembly and the Governor's intention here, which is to be in sync, as a general matter in a reasonable way, with the states around you, as far as cannabis is concerned.

And moreover, we are extremely sensitive to safeguarding the youth of Connecticut by imposing protective yet permissive advertising standards. And we're willing, as Matt said, to sit down with anybody and work through those standards to the point where everybody is comfortable with them.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Are there questions, comments from the Members of the Committee? Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Speaker -- Mr. Chairman. Sorry. Different medium. Anyway, thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. You know, I don't know if you were here at the beginning when we started this morning, but I did ask about that particular provision of this Bill. And we were told that the reason why you were singled out was because your industry has indicated that it could not comply with the criteria set forth in lines 800 through 802, which states that, "Not less than 90% of the audience for the advertisement is reasonably expected to be 21 years of age or older." Can you fill me in? Is that the position of your age of your industry? What's going on here?

JOHN BARRETT: Let me take that. I believe there was some misunderstanding. I did mention in that meeting that when I checked the demographics of my plant, which is strictly on I-95 in new Haven area, that traffic, when we try to run the figures, came out above 10%. But that does not reflect the entire state. That's just one small sample.

230 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So, am I to understand then their representation is based upon, not the industry, but a questionnaire that you in particular filled out with regard to your potential, with specific location?

JOHN BARRETT: I answered the question and used that on my plant alone, which gave him the wrong idea. The Outdoor Advertising Association does not believe that it's all impossible to do. You know, it's a science to come up with a reach and frequency numbers on ratings, and it has to be done throughout the plant, and it can't be something we can just do very quickly.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, thank you. And you indicated that, as an industry, you've already imposed some similar criteria along these lines. What is that criteria?

JOHN BARRETT: It's a code of ethics, that's adopted by the entire outdoor advertising industry, and then some of the companies have put their own version of it together. But, in short, we prohibit advertising any products that are illegal or inappropriate for minors to be displayed within 500 feet of any school, playground, church, or area where youths meet. So, if you were to go out today, and go out and look around all these places, you will not see any billboards advertising inappropriate or illegal material.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And that code of conduct would be directly in line with the rest of what is required of others in lines 825 through 827, correct?

JOHN BARRETT: I think it probably goes beyond that.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Interesting [crosstalk].

231 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

MATTHEW DUDDY: Representative, I like to add that with regards to the original question with the 10%, we were never consulted by the state. We were frankly surprised when we saw that when the Bill was published.

So, the illusion of the industry to keep that standard, we were never consulted with that figure. I think there was an assumption and in fact [inaudible] on -- solely on our industry.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah, I -- I did bring up this -- well, I don't need to belabor the point. But certainly, you know, picking on your one industry when, you know, a child can turn on the television or the radio just as easily, and it's not controlled here is baffling to the foot.

You know, I thank you that, you know, private industry was able to do something without the heavy hand of government. So, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the ability to ask the question.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Fishbein. I do not see anyone else. Are there others who would like to ask a question or make a comment? Seeing none. I wanna thank you all for engaging us this evening. And, have a great day.

MITCH SCHWARTZ: Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Is Daniel Freess in?

DR. DANIEL FREESS: I am.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You get your three minutes.

DR. DANIEL FREESS: Thank you. Thank you, Staff Committee Members and Chairs, for allowing me to testify today. I apologize for my background and 232 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

dress, as I'm actually at work right now in the emergency department. I am an emergency physician here in Hartford. I live in West Hartford. I'm the former president and current legislative chair of the Connecticut College of Emergency Physicians.

I'm not speaking on behalf of [CCEF] at the moment as Michael Carius spoke, I think about ten speakers ago, on our behalf. But also, testifying as an individual with similar sentiment. I will try not to repeat much of his testimony. But wanted to talk about some of the health consequences of marijuana use.

I first wanted to say that I am fully cognizant of and feel equity issues, decriminalization, judicial reform are all absolutely necessary issues, and things that need to be addressed regarding marijuana use, and laws in our state. I think there's significant detrimental certain communities spiritually of color, different genders as well. Those things need to be addressed.

With that said, as Dr. Carius have alluded to, and some others have alluded to, simply allowing -- having the answer be full open-use is problematic because marijuana, as much as it's used frequently, is not a benign drug. It has significant health consequences, as we see in the emergency department on a near-daily basis. As Dr. Carius alluded to, cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, it seemed more and more.

Not bringing studies with me necessarily. I could probably find them. But speaking to my colleagues in Colorado and California, they are seeing a four- fold increase in cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome presentations after the legalization in their states. There's significant increases in pediatric accidental and intentional overdose in the case of teens. And this has been mentioned by others. There's significant cognitive effects, particularly 233 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

on teenagers, through regular and even infrequent use of marijuana.

I listened -- listening in earlier. I know there's been a lot of studies back and forth whether legalization increases or decreases use in teenagers. I don't speak to, or read every study, nor can I speak to the certain studies that were cited earlier. But in speaking to some people -- but in reading some studies on the issue, a way this frequently gets rectified is, in fact when legalization occurs, the amount of marijuana smoking among teenagers goes down. But overall, cannabinoid use goes up because there's some deferral of youth users to edibles, vaping, and other means that are more accessible once legalization occurs.

So what I have found in my reading of studies is that cannabinoid use increases among teenagers, so there may be a decrease in actual marijuana smoking. I would finish my comments there. I'm happy to answer any questions, as Michael Carius and others have previously explained, many of the issues that I wanted to bring up.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there comments or questions from Members of the Committee? Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Dr. Freess for your testimony. Where do you practice?

DR. DANIEL FREESS: I practice at Hartford Hospital. Though, I would clarify, I'm not speaking on their behalf at this time.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Understood. I'm sorry. I'm just curious. So you've had personal experience treating some of these excess exposure or problems that you're talking about, correct?

DR. DANIEL FREESS: Yeah, we do go with, frequently. 234 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And you would testify -- or you told us that you talked to colleagues in other parts of the country where it's legalized, and there's a four times increase in the amount of smoking or use, even though smoking may go down with the overall use increases?

DR. DANIEL FREESS: Not a four-fold increase in use. Four-fold increase in presentations to the emergency department for cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, and similar. But I can't speak to four-fold increases in things such as pediatric accidental overdose, side effects of marijuana use in teenagers. And I'm hesitant to throw out any numbers. But colloquially, I've heard an increase in traffic- related accidents where modern -- marijuana was involved. Though I certainly can't speak to numbers on that.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): All right, doctor, thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

DR. DANIEL FREESS: No problem.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Representative Dillon.

REP. DILLON (92ND): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for coming to speak before us today, doctor. You cited that Colorado and the number of admissions [inaudible]. I don't remember the particular issue. What was it?

DR. DANIEL FREESS: My colleagues have seen a significant increase in the amount of accidental pediatric overdose, which is where kids get ahold of typically gummies that look good to kids. An increase in teenagers come -- I hate to say coming in high, but having side effects of marijuana use. As well as what's called cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, which I think was explained earlier. It's severe nausea -- intractable, severe nausea and 235 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

vomiting, which we're seeing a lot more, both locally and exponentially more in states where legalization has occurred.

REP. DILLON (92ND): Now, Colorado uses the E- coding, right? That is, they don't have a state mandate like we do, but they registered the [inaudible] in the emergency room. Is that true?

DR. DANIEL FREESS: I couldn't speak to Colorado, the way it's [crosstalk]

REP. DILLON (92ND): I just wondered -- well, ordinarily you would say, "Poisoning by X." You know, that might be a particular code that you can complete.

DR. DANIEL FREESS: Yeah.

REP. DILLON (92ND): We have that data in our hospital system, as you probably know. So, I just wondered what was that an anecdotal term, that you were getting from Colorado, or is there actually a database where it's reflected?

DR. DANIEL FREESS: I think there is both. I don't have the numbers from that database. I know the people I know, that have worked on, so creating databases and looking at them have shown an increase. I won't speak to those numbers cause I don't have them. But anecdotally, as to what I was speaking to, there's a significant increase in those things.

REP. DILLON (92ND): Thank you, [inaudible].

DR. DANIEL FREESS: And in terms of coding you certainly can code cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome. Typically it would get coded as severe nausea and vomiting as opposed to true cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, cause it's not something you can necessarily prove with a lab test. But just to answer that aspect of it. 236 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. DILLON (92ND): Okay. Thank you.

DR. DANIEL FREESS: No problem.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Dillon. Can I ask you a question, doctor, about --

DR. DANIEL FREESS: Sure.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): -- cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome? I'm just gonna say CHS from now on.

DR. DANIEL FREESS: Yup.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): When we say there's a whatever number increase, or a factor, from what point are we referencing, I guess, for my information? Because it is my understanding, we haven't even been really diagnosed stage as far -- for that long in terms of the history of marijuana use.

DR. DANIEL FREESS: You're saying, how would you diagnose it?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): No, no, no.

DR. DANIEL FREESS: It's a clinical --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): No, no, no. What I'm asking is, we say -- well, we see a X number of time in creating a CHS, right?

DR. DANIEL FREESS: Yeah.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And what is - what is the reference? X number from when? How will we determine that there is that number of increase?

DR. DANIEL FREESS: Over the experience of my colleagues over the couple of years before legalization versus, say, the year or two, or 237 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

probably two years after legalization in the case of -- I don't remember the exact dates when -- when those things were passed in California and Colorado, specifically. [crosstalk] Washington, I believe.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. Go ahead.

DR. DANIEL FREESS: Yeah. In terms of the amount of people they are seeing, where there's a suspicion of, which is typically is cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome. Many of my colleagues had said that they would typically see it anywhere from about once or twice a week. And now, in some cases, they are [inaudible] by their self-report, seeing as many as three or four times a day.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And so, can I just [crosstalk].

DR. DANIEL FREESS: Again, that's not published data, so I can't speak to that.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Sure. Sure.

DR. DANIEL FREESS: So that is the colloquial impression that I've gotten from some places.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I guess the reason for my question, and I may be wrong, but I thought we weren't really diagnosing cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome until around 2004, 2005. And legalization didn't happen that long after that in some of these states, so could it -- I don't -- I'm not trying to refute your data. I'm just saying. It seems to me that it's possible that part of this could alter the fact that at least as we currently talk about CHF, we weren't talking about it all that long before the legalization.

DR. DANIEL FREESS: I think there is a thought that CHS has been underdiagnosed over the last 10 or 15 years. And as we've come to understand it better, 238 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

and it's been more publicized, that maybe we are diagnosing more people with it. But in terms of the symptomatology that people present with, I guess maybe I shouldn't have thrown out fourfold, cause there's a specific number. That's what it was told to me verbally. But I think regardless. People are seeing an increase in that symptomatology in those that chronically and frequently use marijuana.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Thank you, Doctor. And I appreciate it. I'm not trying to argue.

DR. DANIEL FREESS: No, it's fine.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I'm just trying to make sure that it seems to me it's possible that part of this is what we track as CHS versus what we might attract is just the [subdomains]. And I really wanna understand what the landscape is. So thank you for helping us --

DR. DANIEL FREESS: No problem.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): -- to think about that a little bit. If there are no other questions or comments, I wanna thank you very much --

DR. DANIEL FREESS: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): -- for sharing part of your day with us.

DR. DANIEL FREESS: Thank you for letting me testify.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Have a great evening.

Erin Melocowsky, Dr. Gregory Shangold, and then Michael Askew. Is Erin on?

ERIN MELOCOWSKY: Yes.

239 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You may testify.

ERIN MELOCOWSKY: The creators of this cannabis legalization Bill started in equity commission of black and brown activists, so they could use the word equitable, then excluded them in their request for equity from the entire reading of the Bill. They didn't include any specific legislation to repair the damages of the war on black people. The excuses are that they have the framework to add more equity throughout future sessions, and that their focus is getting legalization out first, yet they keep claiming that equity is their main focus.

This excuse, on-again, invalidates all the hard work and expertise of our -- of the equity commission that this Bill used for political sway, because the equity commission has already laid out the entire legislative framework for equitable legalization. Legalization cannot be equitable unless it starts off equitable. The whole point is to give the communities most impacted by prohibition, a headstart in industry that will take off.

Lamont's Bill uses a bunch of broad new poll language so that the lottery of licenses immediately go towards out of state corporations and Russian billionaires, so the small oligarchy who wrote this Bill can hoard all of the revenue from communities of color who need it most, then use that revenue to continue criminalizing them.

Lamont's Bill states, the majority of cannabis tax revenues will go towards state municipalities, which will be used to punch black people who are four times more likely than their white counterparts, to be arrested for cannabis in Connecticut, despite equal consumption.

This Bill allows law enforcement to arrest and jail minors, sellers, and growers, which we all know is disproportionately enforcing black and brown communities. 240 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Ned Lamont has admitted that the black youth is more likely to get arrested. However, his policies will perpetuate that and their script school-to-prison pipeline.

The other excuses for home growers, micro cultivators, and equity applicants being less qualified than big cannabis corporations are also inadequate because the equity commission established a clear partnership with Yukon that provides job training and expertise. This partnership also provides necessary research that proves the medicinal benefits of cannabis.

This isn't a matter of whether or not communities of color have the ability to make legalization work. This is also not a matter of -- matter of wanting to keep communities safe from drugs, because if it was, you wouldn't have liquor pharmacies on every street corner. This is about profit. This is a matter of whether or not you can share a part of the cannabis legalization profit with communities who are directly punished for it due to countless racist, systemic policies.

Communities of color that come from red line concentrated poverty will continue to run underground cannabis businesses for survival, because this system has given them no other option.

Instead of reserving and sharing a portion of legal licenses for those who have been criminalized and neglected, this Bill chooses to withhold their economic opportunities in favor of a cannabis market, only legal for rich white men.

Connecticut, not only has the chance to be an elite, being example for equitable cannabis legalization in the country, but a chance to start fixing our reputation for the most segregated state.

241 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Ned Lamont, your Bill for cannabis legalization is a slap in the face to communities who have suffered centuries of abuse from a racially violent system, and will continue the destruction of these families. And then you have the nerve to call equitable, when you rob the equity commission of all their time and energy spent towards [crosstalk].

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Melocowsky? Melocowsky? I will --

ERIN MELOCOWSKY: -- people, so you can co-op the word.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Ms. Melocowsky?

ERIN MELOCOWSKY: Yes.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I would ask you to wrap up. You have passed your time.

ERIN MELOCOWSKY: This Bill -- this Bill -- you're saying all the wrong things to the media, but doing the opposite behind closed doors, so you can scam the people into supporting your rich whites-only market. The black community deserves more than [crosstalk].

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Ms. Melocowsky?

ERIN MELOCOWSKY: -- symbolic gestures.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Ms. Melocowsky?

ERIN MELOCOWSKY: They need accurate support from a system you're responsible for. You wealthy people don't know what it takes to hold a public --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Ms. Melocowsky, I'm gonna ask you to wrap up, please. Ms. Melocowsky? Ms. Melocowsky, I'm sending you a signal about unmuting.

242 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Okay. Ms. Melocowsky, we'll give you one more second to unmute.

Okay. Dr. Shangold.

DR. GREGORY SHANGOLD: Hi. Good evening, Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, and distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. On behalf of the physicians and the physicians in training of the Connecticut State Medical Society, thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony in strong opposition to Senate Bill 888. My name is Greg Shangold. I'm an emergency physician and the current president of the Connecticut State Medical Society.

One of our primary objectives is to advocate for the best public health policy and environment for Connecticut citizens. Legalizing recreational marijuana will absolutely harm the public health of Connecticut. We fiercely oppose this Bill.

Based on analyzing those states that have already legalized recreational marijuana proceeding down this path will lead to significant harms. The rush towards legalization of recreational marijuana ignores how profit-driven corporations took generations of Americans on cigarettes and opiates, killing millions, and strain public resources.

We need to learn the lessons from history to ensure that any legalized marijuana product does not become the big tobacco of the 21st century.

At its 2017 national meeting, the American Medical Association approved a policy position based upon recommendations from its council on science and public health. They concluded that cannabis is a dangerous drug and a serious public health concern. And that the sale of cannabis for recreational use should not be legalized.

243 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Our written testimony provides evidence for our public health concerns. These focus on the impact on the developing youth brain and the long-term health consequences. The clear evidence of increased episodes of impaired driving and motor vehicle fatalities. The adverse effects associated with pregnancy and other significant healthcare- related issues. For example, before COVID-19, we were discussing the amount of young people dying and being permanently injured from vaping marijuana.

Many people talk about the additional revenue that is projected by legalizing recreational marijuana. However, not enough attention has been given to all of the increased costs. Most people acknowledge it is vital to prevent youth from accessing marijuana.

Science clearly shows the human brain develops until the age of 25. Assumingly, Connecticut would create an analogous bureaucracy similar to the Tobacco Prevention and Enforcement Program within DMHAS.

Despite the money and the effort invested into this agency, in 2018 there were 225 establishments that was cited for selling tobacco products to children.

The current mental health infrastructure is incapable of treating today's prevalence of mental health illness in Connecticut. The COVID pandemic is already stressing the system.

A recent article in the New York times underscores the increased use of marijuana in adolescents and teens as a coping mechanism to deal with the isolation brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.

How much money is needed to create a mental health network, adequate to handle the influx of additional patients caused by the legalization of recreational marijuana?

Those patients with Medicaid, they already have trouble accessing medical and mental health care 244 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

because of an inadequate network. How much money will be needed to create an adequate network, so the healthcare system can care for the additional healthcare needs?

Colorado witnessed an increase in motor vehicle fatalities and suicides with the legalization of recreational marijuana.

The December, 2020 journal of the American medical association published an article showing individuals driving impairment from marijuana, similar to alcohol. What is the cost of more deaths?

There are many indications that the public health impacts of legal recreational marijuana --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Dr. Shangold? Your three minutes have elapsed. If you could summarize.

DR. GREGORY SHANGOLD: Sure. The -- the impacts far offset any immediate or long-term fiscal benefits to Connecticut. Connecticut has an obligation to protect the health and welfare of the citizens. We strongly oppose Senate Bill 888, and we urge your rejection of this dangerous legislation.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Dr. Shangold. I believe you have a question from Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, doctor, for your testimony. I'm sorry, I haven't had a chance to read it. I will. Could you tell me -- is the -- the 20 -- the 12, 2020 journal -- article that you referenced here in your testimony, is that in your written testimony as well, referenced?

DR. GREGORY SHANGOLD: I believe it is. If not, I'll send you the article myself. I have it.

245 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you. And, did the Connecticut State Medical Society provide a policy position regarding the use of marijuana?

DR. GREGORY SHANGOLD: The -- I believe it's in our testimony. I -- would you -- just clarification, what do you mean by policy position?

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Sorry, yeah. In your -- does your policy position have a statement that -- that's updated annually? In other words, do you have -- in your written statement, does it have a -- I believe there's a -- the Connecticut State Medical Society's policy regarding the use of marijuana. And it looks like it's about seven pages. Is that part of your written testimony, or is that? --

DR. GREGORY SHANGOLD: I believe, we -- we coalesce that into our testimony about our facts that -- that we've gathered. Because more and more evidence is coming out, and we wanna be updated. We certainly support more research into marijuana. And we think that should be allowable, you know, to be able to do this research, and to have this based on science and not based on public opinion, or other objectives, like revenue. But the science isn't there yet. And what we've seen, is that this can be harmful. And what we're just saying is, we should have this caution at this time.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): So, my understanding the marijuana of the '80 and '90s, even 2010, is not similar to the marijuana of today. Is that an accurate comment?

DR. GREGORY SHANGOLD: That's absolutely true. The -- the THC comment -- content has been increasing over -- much over the past years. And when you get into these higher THC concentrations, that's where we're seeing a lot of these problems.

So the -- the discussion with Dr. Freess and Senator Winfield, was talking about hyperemesis -- 246 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

cannabinoid hyperemesis, and that's -- we're seeing more and more of it because of the higher THC contents.

Also, you start to see addiction when you get into these higher ones. There's always that connotation that marijuana is not an addictive drug. But at these higher THC concentration, it is becoming an addictive drug.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): My biggest concern, obviously as a parent, is the impact on the youth brain development. Can you tell us what studies have shown about the impact of marijuana, particularly with the higher THC contents, has on youth brain development?

DR. GREGORY SHANGOLD: There is a -- an ability for this being exposed to it, and of bringing out actual schizophrenia. So, there is depression.

And again, going back to Colorado, there was -- in 2013 there was a 14% suicide rate, you know, and it went up to 23% suicides that toxicology showed positive marijuana. So more and more of the suicides had marijuana in it. Now, obviously, this isn't causation, but it's certainly a pause for concern.

And the -- the youth brain, once it gets exposed to this marijuana, there can be permanent damages. And they've seen it even in some of these pet scans that are done, where you look at these different areas of the brain. So that's our big concern.

And certainly, as I mentioned, we are already inadequate with our mental health. There's children that spend days in the emergency departments before they can find a bed. And we're gonna add another stressor into our mental health system within Connecticut just seems to be harmful.

247 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you, doctor. You're an ER doctor, so you've seen all this, firsthand, is that -- is that fair to say?

DR. GREGORY SHANGOLD: I've been practicing emergency medicine in Connecticut for 18 years, and I've practiced and seen the opiate epidemics, and now we see more and more medical issues with marijuana that are presenting to the emergency department.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you, doctor, very much for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. I see Representative Fiorello.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dr. Shangold, is your main concern with the mass commercialization of marijuana? Are you okay with homegrown marijuana, sort of more grassroots use of it?

DR. GREGORY SHANGOLD: Our -- the Connecticut State Medical Society's possession is more marijuana, or legalizing the recreational however we get to that point, increases the access specifically to the use. And we will see the public harm, and the public health harm from that increased access. When you legitimize it, then kids feel that they can use it. And when kids have access to it, we're gonna see those harms, especially in the mental health realm.

And this -- and I believe some of the previous testimony talked about the traffic fatality. So, in the first year, where Colorado legalized recreational marijuana, there was a doubling of fatal car accidents. So, you can decide for yourself if there're a causation. They -- they did have testing for marijuana in their system. But that's gonna be an inevitable consequence of doing this.

248 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

So, we are concerned about the public health. And if that means people are getting it from their homes versus the commercialization. I don't wanna get into the decriminalization and the commercialization. I'm concerned about the public having access and the consequences on our public health.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): And, I often hear that marijuana is not as addictive as alcohol. And what do you say to that? Is -- is of -- of all the sort of vices out there of things we use, you know, we have some vices, how do you medically compare the vice of alcohol versus smoking some marijuana?

DR. GREGORY SHANGOLD: I think it becomes very variable to that THC content. So as we're seeing more products with higher THC content, there's more evidence of addiction.

Certainly, addiction is -- in the clinical term, there's three terms to be aware of; there's dependence, there's tolerance, and there's addiction. And so, those are all means different things. Addiction is really when you change your -- your -- your ability to function in society because of your dependence on a substance. So your body can become dependent, it can become tolerant, and then it becomes addicted.

And so, we are seeing more -- I don't know if there's a -- a linear comparison to alcohol of which is more addictive. Both will start to have withdrawal symptoms. And again, when it was a small THC concentration of 3 to 5 percent in the '70s, you did not see that as much. As when now, some of the products, even some of the edibles, are up in the 30 and 40 percent THC concentrations.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

249 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Rep. Fiorello. Are there comments or questions from others? Rep. O'Dea, your hand's still up, or you wanna ask a second --?

Okay. Okay. Thank you for joining us this evening, Doctor.

DR. GREGORY SHANGOLD: Thank you very much.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): We will hear next from Representative Cheeseman, if she's with us.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): She is indeed. Thank you, Senator, for indulging -- yes, I had to take my 94- year-old -- 94-year-old father for his second vaccination today. So, I -- I hope you approve of my absence from your meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Senator Kissel, and Representative Fishbein. You have my written testimony, so I'm not gonna bother to go through that.

And as far as I'm looking at this, there are two issues here. One is the issue of restorative justice. As the mother of five, and grandmother of four, I know how deeply I feel when my children, my two sons, and two of my grand -- all -- any of my children and grandchildren have been treated unfairly.

And if that has been the case, when justice has been dispensed unfairly, then let's remedy that. Let's provide expungement of criminal records. Let's decriminalize possession of small amounts. Let's work -- I believe I heard someone from the Governor's Group who came talking about people who had been put in prison because of marijuana convictions when then -- they'd been on parole. We can fix that.

On my role as Ranking Member of Finance, Revenue, and Bonding, when we were looking at that Senate 250 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Bill 873, I heard a great deal about the dismay from New Haven residents about what Yale contributed to the city. Yale has a great law school. Why not task the professors and the students with helping people who have been unfairly treated by the criminal justice system with expunging those records, and let's move forward with that.

But having established that, let's look at the separate issue of the commercialization, the legalization of a substance, what you have heard all afternoon, is dangerous, is harmful, and will destroy lives. Surely, we can do better than this.

If the goal is increased revenue, there are ways to find it. If the goal is increasing opportunities for people communities that have been disproportionately affected by the war on drugs, again, can't we do better?

We hear the Governor list his four, five, six, seven, eight areas where he wants to see growth in Connecticut; healthcare, biotechnology, advanced manufacturing, cybersecurity. Surely, that should be the goal, the aim for all our children.

Let's ask more of the corporations who want this skilled workforce. Let's tell them, "Look, you're talking to us about tax credits, we want your people in our elementary schools, mentoring our children. We had testimony from the unions today. There's a box where you pay your political fund. Why isn't there a box that says, 'This is the workforce investment fund.' We wanna build union membership among minority communities."

On my other Committee, we were looking at, the Governor has a Bill to --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Representative?

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): Am I -- you want me to wrap up? 251 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Yes.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): Okay, guys, I'm on board with helping expunging records. I'm on board with helping people, who've been treated unfairly by the criminal justice system. I'm on board with building opportunities for every child in this state to have a career, to have a way to make a living, to be proud and strong. I am not on board with legalizing a substance that will destroy lives in the way that lives have been destroyed through unfair treatment.

And, you can guess I feel strongly about this. So thank you for listening to me, and I will be with you to get justice. I will not be with you to destroy life.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, or -- well, I guess, it's good evening [crosstalk].

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): The sun is set here.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): [laughs] Here as well. Was there anything else that you wanted to mention to us in opposition to this Bill?

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): I -- you mentioned before, how disappointed you were that the Representatives from the Department of Public Health were not at this meeting. And, I think you've heard all afternoon that there are significant, dangerous and deleterious health effects that will come from this.

I -- this is my second testimony today. I was equally passionate this morning. It was the assisted suicide Bill. And we heard a very moving testimony. In fact, the woman who testified before me, her husband, had terminal prostate cancer. He 252 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

was in hospice. The last 12 hours of his life were horrible and painful. And if she'd only had a way so he could take his life, then it would be fine. And you listen to that testimony and it is taken as fact. And that is why we should allow assisted suicide.

You have heard testimony, as I heard in 2019 on all three Committees that heard testimony on the Bills, of families who had seen addiction, who had lost a loved one from drug driving, and yet that's to be overlooked because we're looking for revenue or job opportunities? As I stated before, there are better ways to produce revenue. There are better ways to create those job opportunities. That we would deliberately and knowingly legalize a substance that's increasingly strong, increasingly harmful, knowing people will die, I think, is shameful.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And you mentioned, you were shocked that there was nobody from the Department of Public Health. I would expect that you're equally as shocked. There's nobody here from DHMAS as well.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): Yes. When I look at the Governor's Bill, the amount that's put into the sort of education prevention, you know, if we're going forward this -- with this, I would like to see far more money devoted to that, knowing what the cost it's going to be. Far more money, put aside to deal with the social services consequences. And indeed, I would propose, we create a victim's fund, the way we have a victim's fund for someone who's a victim of a violent crime, because people will die, their families will be left bereft. And we've done this deliberately, so why shouldn't we find a way to make them whole?

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah, that's a good point. That's something that hasn't come up before. Cause, you know, we've done that with gambling. We -- we legalized gambling, and then we had to create a victim's fund. There -- the whole group having to 253 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

do with that. And, you know, I thank you for bringing that to us, and for your testimony here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And thank you, Representative Fishbein. I am gonna caution us a little bit. And I'll let us just go with this. But I would ask that we ask questions related to the Bill, and not opinions about whether or not the Governor should've had someone testifying or not testifying of the people who are testifying today. They're here to talk about their perspective on a Bill.

But, Representative O'Dea, I saw your hand at one point, do you still wanna -- you're good to go? Are there questions or comments from other Members? Seeing none. Thank you for joining us this evening, Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): Thank you. Thank you so much for listening to me. And thank you for allowing me to take my dad to get his vaccine.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Absolutely. Enjoy the rest of your evening.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): Thank you. You as well.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): We'll hear next from Michael Askew, followed by Taylor Nicholas, and then Carlos Moreno, if they're here. I see Michael Askew with us.

Mr. Askew, you're on mute.

MICHAEL ASKEW: Good afternoon, Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, my hometown hero, certainly to the distinguished Members of this Committee. I had the privilege of sitting on this Bill and listening last year before COVID struck. But I've been at this computer all day, listen to a great wealth of knowledge and information. I wanna 254 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

thank all the people that shared. A lot of it's already been shared on what I had to talk about.

But I just wanna pick up on a couple pieces that one -- Cyril D'Souza, shared about the four elements. One was addiction. And we've heard some issues about the increase THC content that will probably bring some medical issues to the forefront, especially with those under 25 and those under 21 years old.

I'm a person in long-term Recovery, and we represent the Connecticut Community for Addiction Recovery, a non-profit organization that promotes recovery from alcohol and other addictions. And I've been in Recovery since May 28th, 1989.

And I share that, because, in high school, I really had ambitious to be an architectural draftsman. And because back then, in the '60s and early '70s, you had electorial classes that you could choose. I choose four years of architectural drafting and -- and I got really, really good at it, really good at it. But by the 11th, I started smoking marijuana. By the 12th grade, I flunked out of school. Now, I can attribute it to the fact that I smoke marijuana, but I wanna assure you that I made some real irrational, no decisions because I was smoking marijuana.

So I just wanna list a couple of things about the addiction piece that I don't see in the Bill with regards to prevention, treatment, and of course recovery, as we move forward. And I'm not sure of this Bill -- I don't have a stance to the Bill, whether it's, I oppose or -- whether I oppose the Bill or I support the Bill.

But I do wanna because I've heard a lot of testimony leave you with a couple of thoughts about, what it will look like once this -- if this Bill passes? And how do we measure the data that we need to collect? 255 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

And how do we support the many lives that will probably be affected because of the use?

And I heard and I looked at the Colorado report with high-end utilizing and certainly, right now, we talked about dependence and addiction. And I know that there's a -- through [inaudible] the National Institute of Drug Abuse. They have already looked at the increase from dependence to addiction by 10% of those that use marijuana and have a marijuana use disorder. And if they use by before the age of 18, those rates increased by, one to six individuals will be addicted to marijuana.

I don't know what kind of therapies we're gonna have, and all those other issues that we're gonna have to address. But I do know that the budget that provides DMHAS with $1 billion dollars would probably need to be increased, but there's a lot of equity that we need to talk about in this Bill. Because I do see it as a harmful product that will certainly, you know, raise a lot of rampant issues in the urban communities --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Mr. Askew, I would ask if you could --

MICHAEL ASKEW: With that, I'm --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay.

MICHAEL ASKEW: With that, I'm done, Senator Winfield. Thank you very much for allowing me to come and participate in this [inaudible] during conversation.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. And there's a question from Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Askew, thank you so much for your testimony. If you have -- so looking at this, and my concern is focused on the use of teens and those under 25, 256 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

frankly, getting addicted. What would you say to your younger self? How would you help us prevent youth from using marijuana?

MICHAEL ASKEW: I think it would have to be more education and more prevention. You know, I certainly wasn't introduced to marijuana only because of my peers. I was introduced to it because people was talking about it. I was inquisitive to find out what it was about. But if I had gotten more education and more prevention from, you know, people that could help me understand why I should not smoke marijuana. I may have been able to overcome that.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Well, thank you very much, sir, for your testimony this evening. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Are there comments or questions from other Members of the Committee? I do not see any. I wanna thank you, Mr. Askew for spending part of your evening with us, and for the work that I do -- that you do. Thank you very much.

Next, we will hear from Taylor Nicholas. Is Taylor here? Okay.

TAYLOR NICHOLAS: Yup. Yup. Here we are.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay.

TAYLOR NICHOLAS: Can you hear me?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Yeah. I hear you.

TAYLOR NICHOLAS: Okay. Good evening, everyone, Members of the Chair and Committee, Senators and Representatives. I'm going to try and be quick because I would -- actually, I'd first like to thank speakers from both sides of the topic to come out 257 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

and just get their points out there. This is a very important topic that we should be discussing.

I would also like to thank Ms. Melocowsky, Mr. Ward, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Ellis, and Mr. Wilcox. They had already spoken before me, and they actually covered quite a few topics, that I myself and fall similar in lines with.

I am not in -- or I do not support SB 888 as it currently stands. There are many issues, and again, which have been discussed by other people with their testimonies.

A little background on myself. I am a Connecticut resident; I have been my entire life. The only time I was outside of Connecticut was when I was enlisted in the United States Marine Corps. One year of which was served overseas in Afghanistan.

Afterwards, I came back home, and I was offered a job opportunity in Washington State in the cannabis industry. It was on the security and regulation side. It was going to be a third-party aspect. And so, I pretty much picked up my entire life and moved out there.

Unfortunately, that fell through. And in that timeframe, I found a job working at the largest farm at the time in Washington State is, Grow Op Farms LLC, Phat Panda cannabis. And needless to say, in that time period, I've found my true passion and calling to -- as what I wanted to do for the rest of my life.

When I was in the Marine Corps, I worked on radios. I repaired satellite systems as well as the precursor to satellite communication systems. So, it was a little bit of a jump, but to say the least, I actually felt some form of peace and clarity while working with the plant.

258 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

And even though that did mean physical manual labor, like heavy physical manual labor at times, 12 hours -- 10 to 12 plus hours a day, every day for five, sometimes seven days a week because it is an agricultural industry. And unfortunately, that really isn't discussed. I really don't feel like that has been touched on a lot. It is still an agricultural industry.

Yes, in regards to the Department of Public Health, I would like to be speaking with them as well. I would have liked to see them just because they need to be able to hear both sides of the topic, both pro, and con, and having an absence within there, I feel as though it is a disservice.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Mr. Nicholas, could --

TAYLOR NICHOLAS: To wrap up, so as a grower, I feel as though this Bill is very -- it does not allow the local Connecticut person to be a grower. It does not. I do not feel that this Bill currently, in its aspect, supports a Connecticut-based community to grow and thrive.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Mr. Nicholas.

TAYLOR NICHOLAS: Thanks.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Comments, questions from Members of the Committee? I do not see any. Mr. Nicholas, thank you for joining us this evening, and for offering your perspective on the Bill. Have a great evening.

TAYLOR NICHOLAS: Thank you very much, Senator. And thank you very much for allowing me to speak this evening.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Absolutely. We'll next hear from Benjamin Zachs. Is Benjamin in?

BENJAMIN ZACHS: Yup. Hi. 259 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): All right. You may begin.

BENJAMIN ZACHS: Yeah. Senator Winfield, I can empathize with you. I have an 18-month-old screaming in the background, so I apologize for that, everyone. If you hear Louis. But, now I'll begin. Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Senator Kissel, and Representative Fishbein, and the Members of the Judiciary Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding Senate Bill 888.

I am Ben Zacks. I'm the chief operating officer of Fine Fettle. We are a Connecticut locally owned and operated medical marijuana company. We operate three of our 18 dispensaries in the state, one in Willimantic, one in Newington, and now one in Mansfield. And we've grown through winning a license during our competitive application in 2018, through a part -- entering into a partnership and an acquisition that was completed at the beginning of this month.

Our team is Connecticut based, are Connecticut educated, and we have 40 some odd employees in the state who all are receiving paid time off, company holidays, healthcare, vision, dental, a 401k plus match, and in addition, each one of our managers is a minority in our three locations.

We support the concept of this Bill and the legalization of marijuana safely and equitably. But we believe there are a few elements that are not done to the fullest extent, focusing on four key areas. One, social equity; two, the taxes; three, the lottery system; and four, the ownership and licensure.

In terms of social equity, we don't think this Bill does enough specifically regarding the folks and the communities that have been most affected by the field war on drugs. We absolutely agree that there 260 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

should be an equity commission, but we think it needs to do a little more at three levels. And I write about this deeper in my written testimony. But, community aid, and sharing exactly where those dollars are going, and communities most affected. Diverse hiring initiatives from the operating businesses within the community, as well as creating opportunities for diverse ownership.

And what we've described as our 18-18-18 rule, which would be 18 medical dispensaries, first operating safely and efficiently and effectively under the pharmacists going adult use, taking on social equity applicant mentees. The next 18 dispensaries being solely awarded to social equity applicants. And then having 18 dispensaries who ultimately are open and available for the general public, large, small, local, not local, but in a competitive process. And we also believe that this should be the case around cultivation and processing.

The other piece of that is, with the dollars that are made from our business going to, from medical to hybrid, we believe that that money should be earmarked as grants. Non-Interest bearing, not loans, grants directly to the social equity applicants to get their businesses going.

On the taxes side, by taxing through weight and milligram, we believe that the taxes will become exorbitantly high over time, making our program non- competitive with our neighbors.

Sorry, the baby just popped in the room. [laughs].

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Mr. Zachs, if you could summarize. Your --

BENJAMIN ZACHS: Yeah, sure. So -- so the taxes we think are incredibly high, and we think that an excise tax is an operational nightmare.

261 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

The next piece is that quickly on the lottery, which we think brings not the best operators through a competitive process, but just through luck.

And then in ownership and licensure, we think that we need to ensure that licenses can all be tracked, safe, seed-to-sale tracking throughout the supply chain.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you.

BENJAMIN ZACHS: And so, yeah.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Yeah.

BENJAMIN ZACHS: Sure.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I see Representative Rebimbas has questions for you.

BENJAMIN ZACHS: Sure.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony. Just a quick question. I real -- I listened to your testimony, and you had indicated that the managers were minorities.

BENJAMIN ZACHS: Yup.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): How many of all of your facilities is the percentage of the workforce minorities?

BENJAMIN ZACHS: Sure. We're at about 35% in our three facilities.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): And is there a reason why it's not higher?

BENJAMIN ZACHS: Is there a reason why it's not higher? I don't know; specifically, I don't hire this specific folks. I think it's based on who we 262 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

get in, and who's the right employee for us. We try and ensure a diverse group of thought as well as a diverse group of being local in our group, and ensuring that we have the best safest employees.

In Connecticut, dispensary technicians is sort of the middle rung under the pharmacists in our facility. And there is not an enormous number of dispensary technicians who are minorities. And I think that that helps limit numbers. But that's a number that -- as a business, we believe in thinking hope would be high because we think that that should be the case across industry and across job employment in general.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): So in your business, what type of recruitment and training are you doing of minorities specifically in order to put them in those positions?

BENJAMIN ZACHS: Sure. So our recruiting is done, honestly, mainly through Indeed. We have done staff trainings around having diverse workforce, diverse hiring. We have a director of HR who trains our management teams around those pieces. And, you know, that's really the areas that we've done it.

We've posted previously at community colleges as well as programs that are doing the dispensary technician licensing. Even though you have to have worked at a CVS or a Walgreens or something like that. So those are some of the things that we've been doing for our businesses, and we need to have our states, yep. Minority and in the LGBT community, LGBT community as well.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): And has your business provided any type of scholarships, or specific training to individuals in order to be placed in those higher positions?

BENJAMIN ZACHS: So we have not done scholarships for getting folks to go through pharmacy school. We 263 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

have trained and brought employees to go from front desk staff to dispensary technicians. Actually, every one of our initial front desk staff, from when we opened a year and a half ago, has trained to become a dispensary technician and getting that licensure. So, we've absolutely done that. Yes.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Okay. And the only reason I'm inquiring is because I couldn't help that a lot of your testimony had to do with these new dispensaries, and how much we can do for the minority community. And I thought it was important to know what you're doing currently right now with the abilities that you have with the medical dispensaries that we have in the State of Connecticut. So I appreciate your honest responses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

BENJAMIN ZACHS: No, I think that that's a great point, and in our, sort of, levels in our -- and it's more written out, we talk about community- specific having hiring goals. I know there's constitutionality, but we think it's important, as well as the ownership. So we wanna hit that from all three levels, hopefully, within the Bill.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): And how long have you had your businesses in Connecticut?

BENJAMIN ZACHS: We opened our -- we won the license in December of 2018. We opened in Willimantic in June of 2019. We opened in Newington in September, I believe, of 2019. And then we just acquired the one in Mansfield on February 2nd. So that one's pretty darn new.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Okay. So it's been a few years. And certainly as you indicated, those goals are laudable, but unless they're reached, they're just goals. So, thank you for your testimony.

BENJAMIN ZACHS: Thank you.

264 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Mr. [Zachs]. You just mentioned, you won the license. Just generally, what was that process like in comparison to what's before us?

BENJAMIN ZACHS: Sure. So, in April of -- I think, in April of 2018, the state Department of Consumer Protection put out a competitive RFP process, request for proposal. I believe there were 73 applicants for those dispensary licenses. At the time, they didn't know how many there would be.

And then in December of 2019 -- in 2018, nine licenses across the state were awarded to go from 9 to 18 dispensaries in the state. Within that RFP process, it was -- you know, our license applications were -- we actually put in four, were 700 pages long security plan, security diagrams, local zoning, operational plans, how would we would track the product within the store, how we would partner with the local community. You know, a ton of elements about how we would run our business, as well as the background of our teams to represent that we were capable of doing so.

In this Bill, they discuss not so much the specifics of how it would run, but ultimately a lottery system, which there would be applications getting, how I believe, to a third -- a certain threshold, and then, the lottery would sort of be done based on those who hit the threshold. You know, versus, what I think is right as a scoring system that rewards the best applicants based on a criteria, hopefully, run by a group or a scoring system that was non- biased, is how we would generally hope that it would be seen and done.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So you're here advocating for the process that's in this Bill, or the process that you had to follow? 265 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

BENJAMIN ZACHS: I think it was more similar to the process that we had to follow, but we think with a initial focus on the next set of licenses being for what the commission defines a social equity applicants, I think the term equity is said a lot, but I'm still not a hundred percent sure how that is defined. And I would believe that that commission would create really strong definitions around that. But I do think that those who are defined as those applicants should be the next group licensed to -- to have an opportunity and a leg up to be in this industry with capital towards them. And then a similar situation for an open capitalism application for anyone who applies.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah. I'm just trying to figure out. So, your process that you had to follow everybody was equal.

BENJAMIN ZACHS: Correct.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): But the process under this Bill, people, are inequal?

BENJAMIN ZACHS: I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, I'm -- in -- have you read the Bill?

BENJAMIN ZACHS: Yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So, in line 560 --

BENJAMIN ZACHS: Okay.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): -- it says that there's gonna be the providing for an expedited or priority license processing for each class of license established pursuant to this act for equity applicants. So that means non-equity applicants, whatever that is. 266 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

BENJAMIN ZACHS: Yep, sure. Non-equity applicants would be after. We agree with that. We think that it should be specific on it within the type of licenses, how many licenses, and what the timelines around those are.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, so --

BENJAMIN ZACHS: And then it shouldn't go -- and then within each sort of grouping, we think it should be ranked and scored within the specific groupings, versus, a lottery within the groupings.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. But before we get to the lottery, we have expedited in priority licensing.

BENJAMIN ZACHS: Yup.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): We have two classes, the way I read this. We have equity applicants and non- equity applicants, I guess. Right?

BENJAMIN ZACHS: Yup.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Equity applicants are not at the same level as non-equity applicants, under this language.

BENJAMIN ZACHS: Yup. Yes. [crosstalk]

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. And that would be a -- that would be a different process than what you went through because, based upon your testimony, all of the applicants were at the same -- they were all equal. They were merited based upon their application, not some other factor, correct?

BENJAMIN ZACHS: Correct.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So why it seems like, you know, equity for the, but not for me? Why is it 267 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

appropriate? Why do you think that this process is better than the processes that you went through?

BENJAMIN ZACHS: Sure. Because I think that there has been a lot of history around -- around drugs and the harm done on communities and the harm done on specifically minorities in this country. And that this is an industry that I am not blind to understand that I'm a white guy who was in it. And that my community, where I grew up, is not been hurt as much as others.

And so, to give an opportunity -- this is my view and our view as a company. To give that opportunity to a group of folks who have been knocked down to then create a playing field that allows them to have a better opportunity is the right thing to do, as we look at legalization. We believe that.

And I was not a process of how the last applications were scored and done. Maybe this would have hurt us as a business at that time. However, we think this is the right way to move towards legalization. Yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Within your industry - - I don't see it within the Bill. So I don't know, maybe you saw it. You know, with a bar when alcohol is consumed, and somebody leaves the establishment and gets into a car accident, there's a Dram Shop, the bar can be sued. Is there something similar here in this Bill or under the medical marijuana provisions? I mean, can you be sued if somebody consumes your product after they leave your establishment and they get into a motor vehicle accident?

BENJAMIN ZACHS: Well, so I think there are pieces in this Bill around driving. They're also, not social consumption lounges allowed in this Bill, so there wouldn't be a place where folks can consume.

I don't know the specifics of what would be in the Bill of where liability would lie, if something 268 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

happened to someone who had partaken in a product that we sold. We also don't produce our own products, so I don't know where the specifics of the legality would be. We're not vertically integrated; a number are in this state. So I'm not exactly sure how that would work. And we do not allow any consumption on site. We don't allow consumption in the parking lot, anything of that nature.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So you're not aware if somebody, you know, smokes on their way home but there's liability for you as the deliverer of that product?

BENJAMIN ZACHS: I'm not exactly sure now.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. All right. That's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Fishbein. Is there question or comment from other Members of the Committee? Seeing none. Thank you very much for joining us.

BENJAMIN ZACHS: Representative --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Enjoy the rest of the evening and your little kid. All right.

BENJAMIN ZACHS: All right. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): We will now hear from Hugh Blumenfeld. Are you there?

HUGH BLUMENFELD: Hi. Can you hear me?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I do hear you. And we see you. Good evening. You have three minutes.

HUGH BLUMENFELD: Good evening to the Committee. It's been a very long day for you all. Yeah, my name is Hugh Blumenfeld. I'm a family physician, and I've practiced in Hartford for the past ten 269 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

years. I'm also a member of the group that's called Doctors for Cannabis Regulation. It's a national group of physicians, and other healthcare providers. But it includes among its leadership Dr. Westley Clark, former director of the center for substance abuse treatment at the Department of Health and Human Services, and Dr. Joycelyn Elders, who is a former US surgeon general.

You've heard a lot of testimony this evening about the legal and commercial aspects of the legislation. I figured I should speak more about the medical aspects and the impact of marijuana legislation on the lives of my patients.

And as a family physician, I'm charged with guarding the health and well-being of individual patients, but also the community at large. I not only prescribed medications, but I provide vaccinations and screenings that promote public health, and participate in programs that promote literacy, improve the availability of healthy foods and reduce gun violence. So why would I wanna legalize what is widely perceived as a dangerous drug?

Well, I don't presume to speak for any doctors other than myself, but I would like to explain some reasons why supporting the legalization of cannabis makes sense to so many of us. First of all -- and again, you've heard so much testimony today, I don't wanna repeat too much. But from my perspective, cannabis is far less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, both of which are legal. Together, those two drugs kill over half a million Americans a year.

As far as we know, the numbers of people that are killed by cannabis, depending on how you count, runs in the triple digits at most. And it's virtually impossible to overdose on cannabis. You know, again, we're talking about use of these drugs among adults.

270 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I personally don't use cannabis, and I never advise anybody use any drugs recreationally. I think drugs and medications are a gift from nature and from technology and really to be respected. But there's a lot of legitimate reasons for adults to use marijuana. And if these other drugs are legal and certainly cannabis should have at least the same status.

Cannabis, unlike alcohol and tobacco, actually has a long history of used medicinally. The use of cannabis initially it goes back over 4,000 years. And as recently as 1942, it was listed in the US Pharmacopia that doctors used as a list of medications that were valuable for them to use.

And if anything, the evidence for therapeutic uses has only increased since then, as we understand more and more about the endocannabinoid system in humans.

The second thing is that, prohibition of cannabis has just simply not worked. It's -- the legislation to limit cannabis use legally started in the early part of this century. There was the marijuana tax acts of 1937, which taxed doctors who actually prescribed it for their patients. And then, in 1970, it was scheduled as a schedule 1 drug. Again, schedule1 is supposed to be for drugs that have no medicinal value, and yet there's copious evidence of the fact that that's not true.

So I know that a number of legislators earlier expressed concerns that they're gonna go against federal legislation by endorsing this kind of legislation, but really the federal legislation that classifies it the way it is, I don't think really stands up.

And finally, the use of the -- making cannabis illegal really affects people trying to use it medically.

271 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I would just alert you. Your three minutes are up. So, if could summarize.

HUGH BLUMENFELD: Right. So for many -- and especially for patients who need to use it medically, the fact that it's illegal for the rest of the population, puts a stigma on it, makes it much harder to get. And the illegal supply of marijuana is so dangerous that a lot of patients who would benefit from this more casual use -- it's too dangerous for them to use.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very -- very much for joining us. Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And doctor, thank you very much for your testimony. I do greatly appreciate it. And giving me another perspective from a physician on the benefits of it. I apologize. I'm driving. But I'm careful. My eyes are on the road. I'm using hands- free. So doctor, what type of doctor are you? And where do you work?

HUGH BLUMENFELD: I'm a family physician. And I work in Hartford -- in downtown Hartford as part of a larger practice. A family physician [crosstalk] By the way, as a family physician, I see patients inpatient at the hospital. I'm a hospitalist. I have my own passion -- panel of patients outpatient. I do deliveries. I do obstetrics. I'm a medical director of a hospice program locally. And I also - - part of my work is in pain management and aftercare. So, my practice spans the gamut.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you, Doctor. I'm the son of a surgeon, and so you have my utmost respect and appreciation for your service. When -- when you say that the marijuana has been used medically for thousands of years, would you agree with the other doctors that have testified that -- that -- the marijuana today is not our -- our grandmother's 272 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

grandfather's or the native American's marijuana? Is that fair to say?

HUGH BLUMENFELD: That's very fair to say. And, to my mind, it's one of the reasons why it would be much safer for people if it was regulated.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And then, have you [inaudible] in Colorado with regard to the THC and the issues with the high concentration rates, cause they're unregulated with regard to THC rates?

HUGH BLUMENFELD: The actual rate maybe unregulated in terms, there may not be limits on it. But what's in any given cannabis product is highly regulated in terms of the content has to be testified on the package. So you know exactly what you're getting. The THC and CBD - CBD ratios are given on the labels. The product has no pesticides, herbicides, or toxins in it that could be damaging to people's health. And they have no -- they're not adulterated with cocaine and PCP and fentanyl, like many of the samples of marijuana around here are.

So, I understand your concern that, you know, this stuff around is very potent. But again, it's not stopping people from using it. It's not stopping kids from having availability of it. And I think that the most -- the best way of protecting everybody is to make sure that whatever's in it is well known, so it can be used with education.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Fair enough. And look, my concern is teen use increasing with legalization. I really don't have much of a concern, frankly, as somewhat of a Republican/Libertarian when it comes to -- certainly when it comes to this subject. My concern is teeny. So would you disagree with my understanding, and I know there's some disagreement, but do you believe that legalization leads to increased teen use if not properly educated or prevented like, kind of, tobacco?

273 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

HUGH BLUMENFELD: Well, I think the second half of what you said is exactly the point. You know, without properly -- without rolling this out in a proper way, there could be some adverse effects. But I think if you look at the idea of rolling out regulation and legalization in the matter of cannabis products that are only for adults that only be gotten through registered dispensaries and stores, you find that teen use actually -- again, the evidence is -- I've seen evidence of both sides, and that fact makes me think that it's probably somewhere in the middle. But, you know, with the right rollout, you can actually decrease the use among teens. We've seen that with alcohol. We've seen that with cigarettes. You know, we make it much more difficult for people to get these products.

And also, we stop teens from getting it from drug dealers. And if a teen -- if a teen's gonna get it, they're gonna figure out a way to get it. We're gonna make it as highly regulated and difficult as possible. But right now, people are going to illegal venues to get it, and the same people that are selling marijuana are selling PCP, and they're selling fentanyl, and they're selling things that are released with these things.

I think generally -- I myself have teens as well, and I'm very, very concerned about, you know, the quality of whatever's out there that they might get their hands on.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): So, doctor is -- would you be surprised, and I know there's arguments on both sides. Would you be surprised that it actually, the black market -- studies that show that the black market has actually increased in Colorado upon legalization, not decreased because teens obviously can't buy it at the state stores or store where they're licensed. They have to go to the black market to buy it. And there's actually been an 274 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

increase in the black market. Have you heard any of that? Or you -- does that concern you at all?

HUGH BLUMENFELD: I don't have any information about that. I'm concerned about the safety of the people who -- I'm concerned with education. And again, my one issue with the Bill as it stands now is, I would like for there to be a stipulation that a certain amount of the tax revenue from the cannabis products goes to education, goes to rehabilitation services, and goes to support behavioral health, generally.

I think with a proper education, again, you can reduce teenage use. Obviously, we're all worried about what teens would be able to get their hands on. And I don't know that the legalization of cannabis products in those states directly is leading to an increase in the black market. Certainly, the black market is going to exist for them. But the idea that they could get their hands on stuff that, you know, more easily on -- on products as regulated, just makes more sense to me.

Look, you know, 80, 90 percent of teens at this point say that you have easy access to marijuana if they want it. And nothing has changed for the last 50 years since the 1970, when it was scheduled like, so.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Well, doctor, look, I appreciate very much your testimony, and it does give me some comfort that a doctor at least has some -- is pro-legalization, and maybe I'm -- hopefully, I'm wrong. And my belief that if we legalize it and kids see their parents smoking and using marijuana, they're gonna think it's okay. And that's how I foresee teen use increasing.

But, hopefully, if this Bill does go forward, and they listened to you and more money is spent on education and prevention for youth use, I'll be proven wrong if this Bill passes. And doctor, I do 275 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

truly, truly appreciate your testimony here tonight. And thank you very much.

And Mr. Chairman, I did pull over for the record. My blinkers on. And I'm gonna go get back home, but I'm gonna continue listening for the rest of the night. Thank you, doctor, very much.

HUGH BLUMENFELD: Thank you. I just wanna say --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you [crosstalk]

HUGH BLUMENFELD: I just wanna say, my kids be drinking wine and some alcohol products, you know, occasionally all the time, and what it shows them that is, it's okay, but it's also, you know, done in a responsible manner. You know, alcohol -- in my experience as a doctor, there's nothing worse than end-stage liver disease from alcohol poisoning. And there's nothing more scary in alcohol withdrawal syndrome and trying to treat that in patients. It's -- these are two of the most deadly things that I've seen.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you, doctor.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative O'Dea, and we heard your statement so, we know what you say is [inaudible]. Representative Palm.

HUGH BLUMENFELD: You're on mute.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Representative, you're on mute.

REP. PALM (36TH): Hi, I'm sorry. Doctor, good evening. Your testimony is fascinating to me, and I think you're probably an outlier in some ways among your profession. Would you say that you consider this substance to have the sort of mix of salubrious effects and deleterious that so many pharmaceuticals -- you know, like antibiotics, which if they're given indiscriminately can, you know, cause gut 276 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

flora to get out of whack and whatnot. Do you see legalization of this substance as in that same realm where there are benefits to it, but if in the wrong hands or in the wrong doses can lead to harm?

HUGH BLUMENFELD: Well, first of all, I don't think I'm an outlier in my profession. I was saying that the organization I'm part of, it includes some pretty high-powered people. And recent surveys show that a third of doctors believe it should be totally legal. And another third of doctors say, should at least be legal for medicinal purposes.

But yeah, marijuana is a powerful drug. What's interesting about it therapeutically, is that there's receptors for marijuana in the central nervous system, and there's a bunch of receptors for marijuana in the immune system. And these account for the fact that medicinally marijuana is very useful for a lot of neurological conditions, like the ones that are legal under Connecticut law, things like Parkinson's disease or ALS or lupus -- I'm sorry. And then, inflammatory diseases like lupus and Parkinson's disease.

I have seen the benefits of marijuana in my practice. The Connecticut law is written so that whoever certifies a patient is supposed to have a bonafide relationship with them. And that was meant so that doctors who take care of patients, and who know them should be the ones to certify them and say, if it's appropriate. And that's -- and so I took it upon myself that this means that I should -- you know, it's kind of my responsibility to do it if it's legal, because I don't want, my patients have to go spend $300 for marijuana doc, and then another $150 for their follow-up appointment, just to follow the letter of the law, not the spirit.

The fact that it's so powerful is I think one of the reasons why I'm called on to -- to try to help people use it responsibly. Right now, people are using it, you know, hodgepodge -- the patients that 277 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

wanna use it medically, you know, I can help them use it. But if there's a whole slew of people that use it, I would say medicinally. They use it for relaxation. They use it for sleep. They use it for chronic pains. And they're the ones that have no access to safe marijuana.

And marijuana, when used responsibly, I think is much safer than opiates. It's much safer than NSAIDs like ibuprofen. Some -- a number of other people have mentioned how ibuprofen causes a lot of kidney disease. And I've seen it here -- I've seen it in the hospital care. People come in with renal failure all the time. And it's because of these NSAIDs.

And then Tylenol, you know, one of the most commonly overdose drugs is Tylenol, and it leads to liver failure. Again, all these drugs, I think, needs to be respected. But the more --

REP. PALM (36TH): Well, thank you. Thank you. And -- and by the way, I wasn't in saying an outlier, I wasn't -- that wasn't a trick question. I was just trying to say that, you know, we -- we've heard from some medical folks who have been opposed, and it's just -- it's refreshing to hear of -- to me from a doctor who has the full -- the understanding of the panoply of -- of substances.

And -- and I also appreciated what you said about alcohol disease. I -- I have a lot of alcoholism in my family, and I've seen the devastation, and I appreciate your bringing that up because I do think there is a certain level of denial about this other substance that we accept so readily and regulate. And, in which, many of us imbibe, but we don't really wanna talk about drunk driving or liver disease or the -- or the devastation that that can bring, including mental disorders.

278 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

So thank you for bringing that up. And that was really all I wanted to say. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening sir. You were just talking about other individuals that are not eligible for medical marijuana, that you would see having a benefit medically from this product. Is that fair to say? You gave the example of going to sleep.

HUGH BLUMENFELD: I just have to be careful because there's some things that, there's medical evidence, that marijuana is very good for. But there's a broad number of people who, whether there's evidence or not, they use it, and they -- they say that they have benefit. Now, there may be medications that would, you know, do things just as well and possibly safer.

But -- and I often will counsel people. And even in the cases where I do certify people for medical marijuana for, you know, totally legitimate and medically proven cases, I try to make it -- I make a point of making it part of a larger medical management of their condition, and not just -- you know, you can depend on marijuana for -- you know, during this condition. But whether we like it or not, people are using it that way. And I just think it's -- anecdotally, they say they get a lot of relief.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah, no, understood. You know, I get frustrated with, "People are doing it anyway, so we're just gonna legalize it." Because, you know, people are doing cocaine too. I mean, I - - I haven't heard anybody advocating for legalization of that.

279 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

HUGH BLUMENFELD: I think they just had it in Washington State, or Oregon.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, we're here in Connecticut. So, different issue and perhaps for a different day. But, if that's what you see as a benefit, then I'm just -- why not just advocate for an expansion of the Medical Marijuana Program to those individuals? Why as a professional, do you see going to the [EMF] here?

HUGH BLUMENFELD: Well, for two reasons. Like I said, one reason is that people use marijuana for all kinds of reasons; for relaxation, for socialization. For the same reasons, they use alcohol. And, you know, it's not necessarily medicinal, but it's in some ways therapeutic.

And, you know, whether we keep it illegal or not, people are gonna continue to do that. And it's -- part of its cultural and part of it's just societal. It's where we are. But the fact that people can relax with alcohol, which is so deadly, but can't relax with marijuana. It just doesn't make sense to me as a -- as a -- as a physician.

Again, I take care of the -- I take care of the effects of people smoking all the time. I take care of the effects of people doing alcohol at the time.

Marijuana if used, not -- if it's used in -- in ways that don't make sense, it can cause serious side effects. But it doesn't kill people the way these other drugs do. And it doesn't cause social violence, and it doesn't cause car accidents at the same levels that these other drugs do.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): When you cared to characterize social violence, certainly I'm aware of, you know, marijuana transactions that have gone bad, that have ended up in people dying.

HUGH BLUMENFELD: Yeah. 280 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So what social violence do you claim that marijuana is not part of?

HUGH BLUMENFELD: So, you know, people who smoke don't generally get into fights, you know, bar fights, that kind of thing. People who smoke marijuana generally don't -- it doesn't lead to domestic abuse, in the ways that alcohol does. You know, people who smoke marijuana generally don't have those behaviors.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And the last thing was, are you able to prescribe marijuana?

HUGH BLUMENFELD: No, I -- I'm not. The way Connecticut law is set up for doctors is, there's about -- at this point there's 30 conditions that are recognized as, either proven or likely proven to be beneficial -- to be benefited by the use of marijuana by the products -- cannabis products, I should say.

And I -- all I have to do as a physician is to certify that they have one of those conditions, and therefore qualified to use cannabis products under the law.

So, in my practice -- and almost all those conditions, at least until 2020, there was actual physical evidence for those conditions; things like Parkinson's disease, things like ALS, things like lupus, things that you could document. PTSD was one -- for a while, it was the one condition that, you know, you don't really have objective proof for, but it was advocated because I think a lot of veterans were advocating for the -- the ability to use cannabis products with PTSD.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): [crosstalk] I'm sorry, I didn't want to interrupt.

281 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

HUGH BLUMENFELD: Just -- just to sum up, I -- I generally don't diagnose the patients and then certify them. I count on a professional field to give them a diagnosis. And then, if they have the diagnosis, I certify them so that they can get a card from the Department of Consumer Protection.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So somebody else -- some other doctor makes the determination that the individual would benefit from that product, and then they send them to you?

HUGH BLUMENFELD: No. They make the determination that the patient has the condition that Connecticut law says you can -- your ability to do it -- the ability to use it. I -- I, kind of -- with the -- with the patient, I try to make sure that marijuana would be appropriate for them.

I've had some patients that I didn't think marijuana is appropriate for. And for instance, if I have a patient that's being seen by a psychiatrist or neurologist, I always consult with that specialist before I certify them for the marijuana. My job is to -- to see that they have the certifying condition, and also make sure it's appropriate for them specifically. In my --

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): In your practice, someone else makes that determination whether or not they have the certifying condition?

HUGH BLUMENFELD: Well, like I say, usually I recommend -- almost all the conditions have objective evidence that go along with them.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Sure.

HUGH BLUMENFELD: And for the -- and for the couple that don't, I do rely on somebody else to make the diagnosis, so that I'm not in the position of saying, "Oh, yes, you have this disease." And, "Oh, yes. You can have a card." 282 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. And then, isn't it true that you can't issue a prescription for marijuana because it's illegal under federal law?

HUGH BLUMENFELD: Correct. Correct.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Well, I just -- because at the beginning of your presentation, you had said something that you didn't agree with the federal law or something like that. I didn't --

HUGH BLUMENFELD: Oh, well, the federal law is really interesting because, you know, it started out as a tax on doctors who prescribe marijuana kind of as products.

And, as I said, up until 1942 cannabis products were on the US Pharmacopia for things that doctors could legitimately use with their patients. You know, it's not like, cannabis has always been considered an illegal, very dangerous drug. You know, the -- the dangers of its use -- it's interesting that -- that all this happened after -- so after we had this whole debacle with prohibition of alcohol, it looks like the government may have just, you know, switched its attention to something else, a lot more marijuana. And maybe in response prohibition of alcohol, more marijuana was coming up from the south of the border. That's when it started being called marijuana, was in the 1930s. It was part of the campaign to make it illegal. Before that everybody knew it as cannabis.

Calling it marijuana, and one of the reasons I don't use that term is because it's -- it stigmatizes it, and gives it -- you know, associates -- associates frankly with, you know, people migrating from Mexico and from other parts of Latin America.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I'm just trying to link up what you said at the beginning with the -- that you didn't understand that it was illegal under federal 283 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

law, or? You referenced in the discussion earlier [crosstalk]

HUGH BLUMENFELD: It seems like a lot of the Representatives were nervous or concerned that, by making marijuana -- cannabis products legal, that they would be going against federal law. And the federal law from 1970 scheduled marijuana -- marijuana cannabis as Schedule 1 substances, when in fact they're really not because it's always been acknowledged that they have medicinal use. So that's -- that's a part of the federal law that I think --

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Under -- under what? Because I checked, as of last night, marijuana is on schedule 1 of the controlled substance schedule. So, you're saying that it's not?

HUGH BLUMENFELD: No, I'm saying that I don't -- I'm not sure that it should be.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, that's a different issue.

HUGH BLUMENFELD: That's what I was trying to say. My --

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): That's not an issue.

HUGH BLUMENFELD: The definition of schedule 1 is supposed to be, you know, drugs that have no accepted medicinal use. And that's never really been true about marijuana.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, evidently the federal - - our legislators in Congress, I guess, think so, because -- I mean, we've got Representatives in Connecticut, we've got two Senators, we've got five Congresspeople, I don't think any of them will put in a Bill to make this legal under federal law. So -- or to take it off of schedule 1. And while I may 284 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

agree with you, it's still illegal under federal law. So, anyway, okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, representative. Are there comments or questions from other Members of the Committee? Seeing none. Thank you very much for spending a portion of your evening with us. Hope you have a great rest of your evening. I'm sorry? Thank you.

We will next hear from Duncan Markovich. Duncan are you here?

DUNCAN MARKOVICH: Yes, I'm here.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): All right. You have three minutes.

DUNCAN MARKOVICH: All right. Good evening. And I would like to deeply thank everyone for the opportunity to speak on this topic. My name is Duncan Markovich, a Branford native and current resident. And I'm -- and I'm representing myself and my local cannabis therapeutics company, Better Ways LLC, with these following statements in reference to not supporting SB 888 in any capacity whatsoever, as it currently stands.

I feel that this Bill significantly falls short of what is necessary in order to implement a successful legalization plan. I feel the essential [fokai] of any State Bill regarding adult-use marijuana consumption must at the very least include a regulatory framework around granting all related licenses equitably, to proactively prevent any kind of early monopolization, the creation of a sustainable and forward-thinking environment for industry growth, space to allow for state-backed university research and industry collaboration.

But most importantly, the empowerment of all people from all walks of life, regardless of color creator background, to have the same equal and equitable 285 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

representation, and opportunities within this emerging industry.

The state's fiduciary responsibility and public transparency of all tax monies collected from cannabis sales, and how they're used ideally towards community reinvestment such as safe cannabis use education, and law enforcement re-education, and ancillary public safety training. The long-overdue examination and steadfast rectification of the damages done to our communities, and specifically communities of color by the wars on -- by the war on drugs.

And lastly, and probably most importantly, the paramount rights for all adults over the age of 21 to grow their own plant-based medicines, just as anyone over the age of 21 is allowed to brew their own beer.

I wholeheartedly feel to my core that this emerging industry and the cannabis plant itself has the innate ability to unify communities through education and much-needed healing.

After having survived my fourth open-heart surgery in 2010, and subsequently having endured an unnecessary exposure to opiates, to the degree which I was overdosed twice in the hospital, I found that the use of cannabis was fundamentally superior therapeutically than any prescription pharmaceuticals that were recommended by doctors.

Having sound information and access to safe and effective cannabis alternatives is why I founded my company Better Ways in January, 2019 after the Farm Bill Act was amended in 2018. Since then, I have helped many people in my community, near and far, through education and advocacy of daily use of cannabis, but I continue to undercover problems.

The two major issues I've found in the retail sector is the fear of cannabis-related drug testing by 286 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

employers, and the need for health insurance companies to be able to be Billed for these products as with any other medication for those on fixed incomes. No one --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Mr. Markovich?

DUNCAN MARKOVICH: Yes.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): If you could summarize?

DUNCAN MARKOVICH: We almost have a place at the table for respectful dialogue and collaborative integration, if we are going to successfully move forward with the -- with this amazing new industry. This is our watershed, and we must act now.

I am committed to doing my part in this narrative to help all of those in our community, and those with decision-making powers become as educated and acclimated in this field in order to ensure that, informed and fact-based decisions are being made, not ones based in fear, greed, ignorance, or apathy. Thank you for your time.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Mr. Markovich. Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for coming in to -- to testify today. I - - I -- as we have been here during the day, we've had a number of people from the existing cannabis community come in and testify. I'm thinking the overwhelming majority, if not all, have not liked this Bill for one reason or another. As -- as -- just like you. And I -- I'd asked you -- obviously you're in favor of some type of legalization, but not this Bill. So, my question to you is, would you rather see nothing pass, as opposed to having this - - this Bill pass?

DUNCAN MARKOVICH: I think that creates a perspective of disparity. I think that this Bill 287 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

has the opportunity to be amended, and include the many things that still need to be a part of it. But I think we are all equally as frustrated with this process, that this has just gone on too long.

And I'm -- I don't feel comfortable saying, I'd rather kill this Bill and not have anything happen. But we just -- we can do better. We absolutely can do better. Other states are doing better. They have implementation in place. They're leading by example. And it just -- for those of us in the community that are not comfortable with SB 888, I think we all just need to get back to a -- a more open level of discussion and transparency on all -- on all capacities, and those involved drafting this.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Well, with regards to your frustration, all I can say is, welcome to the legislature. But, with regard to -- so, you know, without -- without trying to impose the position of spokesperson for all the cannabis community, I -- I guess my -- my -- my interpretation of what you just said is that you'd rather see this pass and try to fix it later, than to see nothing pass. Is that right?

DUNCAN MARKOVICH: No. What I'm saying is, I would rather see it fixed first, and then -- and then pass.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): I understand that. But assuming it's not gonna get fixed.

DUNCAN MARKOVICH: Well, if then given the ultimatum, then, no, I don't want this passed at all.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. So you'd rather if -- if this is the Bill without the things that you just mentioned, you'd rather wait till next year and try to get something else through. Tell -- tell me why you would rather wait to get a good Bill than to have this Bill pass now? 288 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

DUNCAN MARKOVICH: Because I'd rather lead by example in this industry, than fake it.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Do you have any fears that if this Bill pass as it is, that the larger companies and out-of-state companies would essentially corner the market early on?

DUNCAN MARKOVICH: I don't have that fear. That's a -- that's an observation of what's occurring. And - - and it's -- I think it would be reckless to assume that wouldn't happen with the language of this Bill.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Cause we've heard other testimony from people who were concerned that that was gonna be the case. So, I was just, you know, wondering if that was one of your fears because certainly it's -- it's the fear of other people in the -- in the community?

DUNCAN MARKOVICH: I think most, if not all, of us that are opposed to this Bill are still waiting to have a much more diverse and dynamic conversation about what defines equity. And how everybody that is currently involved in this industry, or interested in entering this industry should have an equal place at the table in conversation. And it shouldn't be based on the fact that I have access to more -- more capital resources than somebody else.

You know, why should somebody who ran a dispensary out-of-state, who's now a Connecticut resident, and knows how to give quality products and quality education to the community, why should they not be allowed an equal place as somebody who's, you know, a corporate investor, who knows very little about this industry?

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Right. Now, have you reviewed the fee structure with regard to licensing in this Bill?

289 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

DUNCAN MARKOVICH: I have.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. What - what's your feeling about it?

DUNCAN MARKOVICH: I've -- I think you're simply costing out individuals who could do just as good a job, if not better, just because they don't have access to certain thresholds of capital. It's -- as -- I think the term earlier said today was a pay to play.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Now, we were told by the Governor's Representatives that there -- that the -- the structure of this Bill is not designed as an income generator. Is that your feeling about the Bill?

DUNCAN MARKOVICH: That -- my -- my feeling that the Bill is set up as an income generator, is that what you're telling?

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): No, they -- they said that it was not.

DUNCAN MARKOVICH: It -- it seems to be geared towards that. And again, as esoteric as this might sound, and -- but this has been a [inaudible] of my life, and has been documented well throughout many - - many books of literature. If you focus on making money, you'll never make enough. If you focus on making meaning, the laws of the universe will tend to take care of itself.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Well, I -- I guess I will -- I will leave you at that answer. And thank you for your time. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Dubitsky. Are there other comments or question? I do not see any. So, thank you, Mr. Markovich, for joining us this evening. I hope you have a great evening. 290 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

DUNCAN MARKOVICH: You -- you as well. Thank you very much for your time and opportunity.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Next, we'll hear from Maria Cahill. Is Maria on? I see you. You have three minutes.

MARIA CAHILL: Hi, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for taking our testimony today. I am here with two of my colleagues from Abbott, Erin Holmes and Fred Delfino. If they could also be activated into the meeting, that would be great.

My name is Maria Cahill. I work in government affairs for Abbott Laboratories. Again, thank you for allowing us to testify before you today. As the state embarks on their pathway to legalization of recreational use of cannabis, we understand that one of the priorities of the Governor's Bill is to protect public safety.

So, today or this evening, we're here to speak to public safety on the roadways and the issue of impaired driving. One of the things that Connecticut may learn from other states have already gone through the legalization process is to increase access to public safety tools that are utilized by law enforcement. This includes officer training in the form of DRE training and ARIDE. But should also include the allowance of testing for the presence of THC and five other commonly used drugs, via oral fluid testing at the roadside.

As I mentioned, I had colleagues today with me from Abbott. Erin Holmes is our director of Global Road Safety, and Fred Delfino is the North American product manager for SoToxa, which is our oral fluid testing device. Erin will speak to the underlying data, which shows the prevalence of drug driving in states which have passed legislation to legalize recreational use. And then, Fred can answer any 291 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

questions the Committee may have about the technology. Erin?

ERIN HOLMES: Hello. Can everybody hear me?

MARIA CAHILL: Yes.

ERIN HOLMES: Wonderful. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. As Connecticut considers the legalization of cannabis, the legislature has an opportunity to consider the potential impaired driving implications of this policy, as well as how to adequately prepare. To save lives, we encourage you to authorize the use of oral fluids screening, which is reliable and accurate technology that can aid law enforcement officers in impaired driving investigations.

Drug-impaired driving poses, a critical threat on our roadways. Numerous studies paint an alarming picture of a growing problem. In 2013, 2014, NHTSA administered the national roadside survey, which found that roughly 22% of drivers tested positive for impairing drug. Cannabis being the most commonly depicted substance.

CDC data from 2018 found that 12 million people reported driving under the influence of cannabis in the past year. And analysis of data from Washington state, which of course is one of the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, show that the percentage of drivers involved in fatal crashes who tested positive for cannabis doubled as the legalization was enacted. One in five drivers involved in fatal crashes in that state in 2017, tested positive for THC.

And even during the pandemic, the prevalence of drugs detected in seriously and fatally injured drivers has increased significantly with 65% of those drivers testing positive for drugs, according to a new NHTSA study. It's obviously a serious 292 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

problem, and we need solutions. Testing is one of those solutions.

As Maria mentioned initially, oral fluid screening devices such as SoToxa offer many advantages. These devices are quick, easy to use, minimally invasive. They capture recent versus historical drug use. They can be collected proximate to the time of driving, and they also have the ability to create general occurrence amongst the public.

Those results are not admitted as evidence in court. A secondary confirmation sample, which is typically blood is collected, and that's what is submitted to a laboratory for confirmation testing.

The screening results, however, provide officers with information in real-time to support their observations of impairment in the field. It is that combination of the officer's observations of signs and symptoms of impairment along with a positive oral fluid test result that can help establish probable cause for a DUI arrest.

It also signals to that officer to call in a drug recognition expert to do a drug evaluation, and also to get a warrant, to get a blood draw as quickly as possible.

The deployment of oral fluid screening devices can assist law enforcement in identifying a larger number of drug-impaired drivers on the roadways.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Ms. Holmes, you've --

ERIN HOLMES: Yes.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): -- reached the three-minute mark.

ERIN HOLMES: Sure.

293 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): So, I need you to summarize your testimony.

ERIN HOLMES: Great. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): All right.

ERIN HOLMES: We welcome any questions that you may have with respect to programs that are already in place. There are a number of examples here in the United States; Michigan, and Indiana being some of them. And Fred can certainly answer more questions with respect to the technology, and how this can be utilized to save lives in Connecticut and elsewhere.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Great. We're gonna -- yeah, we're gonna jump into the questions here for the Abbott team. I think Senator Champagne has some questions for you.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Thank you. I had some questions about your oral fluid test. The test, does it give you a level of THC?

FRED DELFINO: So this is Fred Delfino, the product manager for North America for the device. The testing does not report out a negative it's a luminary screen to give a qualitative versus a semi- quantitative result. A positive or negative is displayed for each one of the drug classes that the instrument will test for, which there's six of those. And it's based on the cutoff value that is set for that specific drug.

More specifically, the concern here is marijuana, it's set at 25 nanograms of oral fluid. It's not a one-to-one correlation to blood.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Hey -- you said six. What are all six? Yeah, marijuana.

FRED DELFINO: Amphetamines, methamphetamines, THC, benzodiazepines, opiates, and cocaine. 294 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay. And obviously, this is just for probable cause?

FRED DELFINO: Correct.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): So they can't be used. And what the cost of like per unit?

FRED DELFINO: It's really dependent --

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): And is it reusable?

FRED DELFINO: Yeah. So it really depends on volumes and purchases, list pricing is in the $4500 dollar range for the instrument. And then the testing price range, around $25 is the list price. The real advantage allowing oral fluid is, you're giving your law enforcement the opportunity to get that data. As - as Erin said, [closer proximity is to stop] that blood is -- is still a gold standard, right? We're not saying it replaces the blood. What's happening is the delays in blood -- collecting the blood, the THC is dissipating within 90 minutes after use. Now, when we pull them over, obviously we can use prior to that. So, it's more supportive in a case to be able to get the oral fluid sample reflecting the most recent drug use.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay. And obviously, it's just probable cause. But the DRE, if -- if done correctly is basically gonna be the conviction tool.

FRED DELFINO: Yeah.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): All right. That's the only question.

FRED DELFINO: Thank you. We call it a tandem process. You have the DRE's evaluation, which is a 11 step, the 12th being a toxicology drug test. So this really is that toxicology screen that supports 295 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

this binding. So now we move forward with the impairment based on what the DRE sees.

The instrument does not say "you're imperative," it says, "this drug is [inaudible], which in THC case, reflects most recent use.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay. Thank you.

FRED DELFINO: You're welcome.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative Fiorello.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm looking for your testimony in our system, and I don't see it, Mr. Delfino. Can you guys make sure that you send in your testimony with the statistics on drug driving that you have in the states that have this, and also information about your device?

FRED DELFINO: Certainly.

MARIA CAHILL: Yes, we will include that, Representative. I'm sorry, we didn't have a chance to get it out to everybody, prior to the hearing.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): Super. Thank you.

MARIA CAHILL: Sure.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Further questions from the Committee? Seeing none. I'd like to thank you all for being with us tonight.

MARIA CAHILL: Thank you.

ERIN HOLMES: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up, I believe, we have Amy Parmenter. Ma'am, you're muted.

AMY PARMENTER: Thank you. Can you hear me now?

296 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Can now.

AMY PARMENTER: Okay, great. Thank you. Good evening, Co-Chairs, Vice Chairs, Ranking Members, and Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Amy Parmenter as manager of public and government affairs for the AAA Allied Group. I offer this testimony on behalf of both AAA clubs in Connecticut, the AAA Allied Group, and AAA Northeast. Together, both clubs represent more than a million members across Connecticut, and both are also longstanding members of Connecticut's Statewide Impaired Driving Task Force.

As a matter of national policy, AAA opposes the legalization of recreational cannabis strictly as it relates to drug-impaired driving, which, as you just heard, is already a major traffic safety issue in Connecticut and nationwide.

Sorry. That said, we acknowledge and appreciate the efforts of our lawmakers to address traffic safety concerns in this legislation. And, in fact, there's much about this Bill that aligns with AAA policy relevant to drug-impaired driving, which we detailed in our written testimony. We've also provided additional recommendations, such as the training of all -- all officers in ARIDE that AAA believes would go a long way to addressing the drug-impaired driving issues that already exist on Connecticut roadways.

Still, there are significant traffic safety concerns that cannot be remedied through legislation, despite the best of intentions, dedicated dollars. I'll name, just two. First, the unique enforcement challenges in terms of marijuana and driving. You've heard a lot today about the vital need for DRE officers. Connecticut has only 64 DREs at this time. That number is expected to diminish in the coming months. That's compared to more than 500 DREs in New Jersey, where marijuana has just been legalized. 297 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Despite the best efforts of our DOT, the agency has been increasingly challenged to grow the numbers of trained DRES. Not just because there's not enough money for training, but because there are not enough officers who are willing qualified applicants.

And the second challenge is lack of public education around the dangers of marijuana and driving. As a result, many people think it's safe to drive after using cannabis. A recent study indicates that almost half of all cannabis users think it's okay to drive under the influence of marijuana, and AAA research found that more than 70% of Americans don't think a driver would be caught by police for driving under the influence of marijuana.

I think it's important to note that these two issues do not exist for alcohol. Police can determine roadside with a simple BAC test. There have been decades of public education. We all know friends don't let friends drive drunk. And yet, year after year, Connecticut is one of the top states for fatal crashes involving a drunk driver. We were even number one, in 2017. So I offer this as a backdrop for you, as you consider the legalization of recreational marijuana, which is, as you've heard today, much more challenging from a traffic safety perspective.

In closing, AAA recognizes that the legalization of recreational cannabis is a complex issue. Our opposition is specifically rated -- related to the unique challenges associated with combating drug- impaired driving and the increased risk that legalization of marijuana would pose to all road users. Especially, given that at this time, fatal crashes are up, and the use of cannabis by drivers involved in fatal crashes is out.

So I underscore that AAA stands ready to work with our legislators to improve Connecticut's drug- impaired driving policies. We'd be happy to answer 298 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

questions or provide any additional resources that would be helpful in your deliberations. Thanks so much for your time.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Ms. Parmenter, what is -- what's the basis for your statement that there's not enough officers who are willing, or qualified to be trained as DREs in the state of Connecticut?

AMY PARMENTER: Okay. So, in order to be trained as a DRE, you would have to first be trained as an ARIDE officer. So, that's one of the limiting factors. And then, apparently, there are other limiting factors that I don't necessarily -- that for whatever reason law enforcement officers have decided not to apply for the program. And that's been a growing challenge for our DOT, that they can't fill the seats in the classrooms.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): So, the testimony from DOT this morning, I believe, was there something like 950 to 1,000 ARIDE trained officers, and there's only 16 who are trained as DREs. And -- and I thought the testimony this morning, or at least the questioning this morning was that, part of the reason for the gap is the additional cost and drabbles associated with becoming a DRE. But you're -- you're saying there's something beyond just cost. And so I --

AMY PARMENTER: Exactly. Exactly. So just to clarify there, the testimony this morning, that 13 or 16 number that referred to the number of state police who are trained as DREs. But actually, overall the number of police trained as DREs, there are 64 right now.

And the 950 number of ARIDE, that's about 10% of all of our officers. That's one of the lowest number of trained ARIDE officers compared to other states across the country.

299 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

But yes, I am suggesting that there is another factor that, just providing more money for the training will not -- will not resolve.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): So I'm asking, what is that factor?

AMY PARMENTER: That police are not interested in signing up, unwilling at this time to, you know, sign up for this particular training.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): And what are you base -- what are you basing that off of?

AMY PARMENTER: I -- I wouldn't begin to speculate as to what the thinking is behind why at -- for a time it was a popular program and now it's not.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): So are you speculating there's not enough officers who are willingly qualified?

AMY PARMENTER: No. No. That's a fact that they have -- the DOT has been trying to increase the number of drug recognition experts for several years now, pretty much as long as I've been kind of engaged with them. And it's been a challenge. We've had -- I think a couple of years ago we had around 50, now that number is up to 64. I think it's expected to diminish in the coming months because of reassignments and retirements. So it's - - it continues to be a challenge.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Senator Haskell.

SENATOR HASKELL (26TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And thank you, ma'am, for your testimony tonight. I -- I really appreciate some of the suggestions that AAA puts forward. I feel like in this building, they might be referred to as -- as friendly amendments right there. They certainly don't undermine, I think, the spirit of the Bill, but instead, strengthen it. 300 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I'm particularly interested in the public education campaigns about the risk of cannabis and impaired driving. So I have two questions for you this evening. One is, have you seen this done successfully in other states that have legalized cannabis? You mentioned that in at least one state there were 33% of teens who thought that driving under the influence of cannabis was legally permissible. We certainly don't want that to be the case in Connecticut. What examples can we follow, or avoid in terms of other states in this regard?

AMY PARMENTER: No, I'm not familiar with all of the public education campaigns that have been rolled out in other states, or if there have been public education campaigns rolled out in other states. Certainly, AAA would be happy to contribute -- do research and contribute to what public education campaigns could be most effective. I know we actually have research about what -- how to affect behavioral change. Which is very, very difficult. You know, whether it's PSAs or whatever. But we do know -- and -- and alcohol would be a perfect example of that. I mean, we've had several decades of friends don't let friends drive drunk, and yet it's still a significant problem across the country, and specifically here in Connecticut.

SENATOR HASKELL (26TH): Yeah. I would argue though, that those public education campaigns have been -- you know, they certainly haven't eradicated drunk driving, but there's -- they've been wildly successful among my generation, I think, which is less likely to drive under the influence of alcohol than -- than my parent's or grandparent's generation. I wanna --

AMY PARMENTER: Yes, we -- we agree with that. And that's -- part of it is that, we need to catch up in terms of the marijuana-impaired driving, because we know that many more people think that it's okay to 301 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

get behind the wheel high than those who think it's okay to drive drunk.

SENATOR HASKELL (26TH): Understood. I wanna -- I - - I know that we have a lot of other people signed up to testify, so I'll move on to my second question which is, I appreciate the fact that one element that AAA has cited as being a positive aspect of this Bill is that the Drug Recognition Expert testimony is admissible as evidence. I'm not sure if you've been listening all day and it's admittedly been a long hearing, but the public defenders have requested what I find to be a reasonable amendment to the Bill, which would just make sure that that Drug Recognition Expert testimony is not automatically admissible that there's still that sort of judicial gatekeeping that goes along with every other sort of expert testimony. I assume that isn't something to which AAA would object.

AMY PARMENTER: Yeah, that's actually, I was listening to that as well and I was not -- I was not -- I reached out to our DMV right away to say, "Wait a minute, you know, I'm hearing that there can't be any cross-examination or some is that actually true?" And I was told that that was not accurate, so.

SENATOR HASKELL (26TH): So you wouldn't -- although it is important to make sure that that DRA testimony is admissible, it isn't mission critical and in the perspective of AAA they make sure that it's automatically admissible, but it would still be subject to proper judicial questioning and gatekeeping.

AMY PARMENTER: Yeah. I think that what is wanted is that -- and I don't know all the legal intricacies, but the way it was explained to me is that it would not have to go through a [Porter Albert] hearing in order to be admissible.

302 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR HASKELL (26TH): Understood. Understood. Well, thank you for your testimony. I could dig in more, but we've got other folks who probably want to ask questions, so thank you very much ma'am and thank you, Mr. Chair.

AMY PARMENTER: Okay. And if I can provide additional information offline or in some way, I'm happy to do so.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Further questions from the Committee. Seeing none. Thank you for being with us.

AMY PARMENTER: Great. Thanks so much. Appreciate it.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up, we'll hear from Mark Spellmann.

MARK SPELLMANN: Good evening, Members of the Judiciary Committee. I commend you on your stamina. I've been hanging in with you all afternoon. You're sharp as a tack still. I'm a psychologist. I represent the Connecticut Psychological Association. I'm also in private practice in New Fairfield. If Connecticut passes SB 888, we would advocate that it included a spirit of science-based harm reduction. Harm reduction is an approach to care that recognizes that we humans have a pension for intoxicants and euphorics. And the goal is to reduce as much as possible that the harm that they're used causes.

I will give you four examples. There would be many, this isn't comprehensive. The first would be schizophrenia. If you have a family history of schizophrenia, if you're at risk for schizophrenia and you're a heavy marijuana user, your risk of a first break is six times greater, 600%. And future psychotic episodes are equally likely to be much more severe for having marijuana users. We need public health messaging. We need counseling at 303 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

dispensaries. Legalization would provide an avenue to provide those public health messages and counseling.

Secondly, we're concerned about heavy use. Unquestionably, there are risk factors involved in marijuana use and they fall disproportionately in that heavy use group. The psychological risks, the physiological risks are disproportionately found in that heavy use group. We can counsel people about that. We can warn people about that. And yes, there's addiction, maybe not physical addiction for tolerance and withdrawal, but certainly many users find they can't stop when they want to. We need a hotline for, "If you can't stop when you want to call us."

Of course, we're concerned with how much more potent marijuana has become. And it seems from the research we see, seminars I've attended at APA that as we've read up THC, we inadvertently breed down CBD and it would seem that CBD buffers, brain damage risks that THC poses, but we've not only made marijuana more potent, we've also taken out some of the buffering safety factors, natural marijuana once had. I believe pharmacists at dispensary's could counsel on this. Public health information could counsel on this. And we urge that a harm reduction science- based policy be wrapped into implementation of this Bill. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. And well done on timing the three minutes. Questions from the Committee. If not, appreciate your succinct testimony to the point.

MARK SPELLMANN: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Carl Tirella.

CARL TIRELLA: Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on Senate Bill 888. My name 304 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

is Carl Tirella and I'm the General Manager of Acreage Holdings, which operates three medical marijuana dispensaries in Connecticut; Prime Wellness in South Windsor, Thames Valley Relief in Uncasville and Compassionate Care Center in Bethel.

And my chief pharmacist is available in queue to answer any pharmacy questions you may have. In the interest of time, I won't read my entire testimony and we'll focus on medical market. We will make ourselves available today or in the future to discuss all aspects of SB 888. We ask you to consider the following items that in our opinion, improve the Bill before you.

Patient fees, currently patients pay hundreds of dollars annually in expenses and fees. This may not seem like a lot of money, but when monthly out of pocket prescription costs are factored and annual fees can be a costly impediment to patients seeking care. Unlike proposals in recent years, SBA 888 does not eliminate the annual fees for patients and caregivers. We ask that the legislature amend the Bill to eliminate all patient fees.

Taxes, sticking with affordability, the Bill as written has an excise tax that doesn't differentiate between cannabis grown for medical use or adult use, therefore significantly raising costs of prescriptions for patients. We recommend a simplified point of sale tax structure that not only keeps Connecticut competitive with states in the region and discourages purchases on the illicit market, but doesn't increase the cost of the medical marijuana prescriptions.

Medication limits, under this proposal, patients are allowed to purchase up to five ounces of medical cannabis for a one month prescription. However, on the retail side, customers may purchase up to one ounce of cannabis per day, everyday. We request that you allow the prescribing physician to have the discretion as to what the appropriate prescription 305 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

limits should be for their patients, instead of an arbitrary limit.

Qualifying conditions, currently the Board of Physicians created by the DCP meets at least twice per year to consider adding qualifying conditions to be treated with medical cannabis. Under this Bill, the language has changed to have the board meet, "As Necessary." We appreciate the time and the energy the Board of Physicians has been dedicating to Connecticut patients. However, similar to the medication limits above, we think it would be better to allow treating physicians to determine whether medical cannabis is best for their patients. They more than anyone else know their patients and can make decisions in a timely fashion rather than patients having to wait months or even years for the board to make its decision on qualifying conditions.

Thank you again for allowing me and my chief pharmacist to testify before you. We are happy to answer any questions you may have regarding these or other issues addressed in Senate Bill 888.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Questions from the Committee. Seeing none. I appreciate you being with us.

CARL TIRELLA: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Thomas Burr.

THOMAS BURR: Yes, good evening, Representative REP. Stafstrom, Senator Winfield and Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Thomas Burr. I'm the Community and Affiliate Relations Manager of the Connecticut State Office of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. Otherwise known as NAMI, Connecticut. And I am testifying today regarding SB 888.

306 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

NAMI is dedicated to building better lives for those with lived experience with mental illness and their families. NAMI Connecticut and its nine local affiliates provide support groups and education programs for people with mental health conditions and their loved ones and advocates for policies to improve the lives of people affected by mental health conditions.

You have my written testimony and I want to echo the testimonies of doctors D'Souza and [Shangold]. We know that legalization will increase consumption of marijuana here in Connecticut. Marijuana addiction rates among teens in states that have legalized marijuana are 25% higher. We also know that approximately 5% of the population will have a very negative reaction to ingesting THC and those with underlying psychosis related conditions, such as schizophrenia, and sometimes the bipolar and depressive disorders, marijuana may trigger a further episode of psychosis.

This may land them in the ER and possibly inpatient psychiatric hospitalization. It may also trigger first episode psychosis. I have experienced this exact scenario with my son whenever he smoked marijuana. If you have never witnessed a loved one in psychosis, be thankful for it. It's truly frightening for millions of individuals with these and other psychiatric problems.

Research has now shown that marijuana will exacerbate symptoms and render their illnesses much harder to treat. Not surprisingly, there is a 2015 study that found overall evidence from epidemiological studies provide strong enough evidence to warrant a public health message that cannabis use can increase the risk of psychiatric disorders. Connecticut should have no illusions that the legalization of marijuana will have any fiscal upside. It will absolutely have a negative societal cost. In fact, for every dollar gained in tax 307 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

revenue, Coloradans spend approximately $4.50 to mitigate the effects of legalization.

Therefore, we would expect that a significant portion of the revenue realized with the State of Connecticut from the sale of marijuana should be applied to prevention education targeted towards middle and high school students, treatment for mental health and addiction concerns, and research into the effects of cannabis on the developing brain and society as a whole.

You should also know that Illinois and Oregon have both allocated 20% of their marijuana tax revenue be set aside for mental health and substance use services. In summary, NAMI Connecticut and our members are opposed to the legalization of cannabis, unless, and until a significant share of any realized revenues are directed towards the appropriate budget line items for the inevitable uptick in people needing their services. Thank you for your time and attention. I will now gladly answer any questions you may have.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Questions from the Committee. Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Sir, I just want to thank you for your testimony. I don't know if -- can you hear me?

THOMAS BURR: Yes, I can.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Okay. I just want to thank you for your testimony. Where did you get the $1 to $4.50?

THOMAS BURR: It's in my testimony that reference/ If I'll bring it back up here, I can tell you specifically, but it was definitely footnoted in my testimony. I see that was number four. That was. Oh for crying out loud, my computer is giving me fits. 308 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

That was from a biologicalCalpsychiatryjournal.com. It was an article in that --

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Okay.

THOMAS BURR: Publication, but it's in my testimony. So you can see the link for that.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): All right. Great. Thanks. As long as that's your testimony, that's the main thing I wanted to hear. Thank you very much, sir, for your testimony and your time today, and thank you Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative Fiorello.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Burr, if there is, you know, money allocated 20% or the example set by Illinois and Oregon, as long as there's money allocated toward the services that would be needed by mental illness patients, are you okay with the passage of this Bill? The commercialization and record of recreational marijuana?

THOMAS BURR: Well, that's a great question. Honestly, I'd like to see that number a lot bigger because as some of the other people have testified today, Connecticut is in a mental health tsunami right now. We were not in a good place pre-COVID and what with COVID in all its fallout, all its trauma, we are in a really bad place now.

And I hate to draw the parallels between what we're seeing in general in the mental health world versus revenues from just this Bill. But certainly, when we testify in front of the Appropriations Committee next week, we are gonna be asking for a huge increase in money because you know, it may have been raining before, but it's a month soon now in the mental health world, we're just drowning.

309 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

You know, the people that reach out to us now, it's unprecedented. You know, we're running support groups online constantly, ever since March. And I personally, you know, do a support group for family Members who have loved ones that are dealing with mental health concerns. And it's very common that I hear that, you know, their son or daughter is abusing drugs and alcohol, and they're just a mess and they need help and they don't know where to go. And there's, you know, waiting, you know, long periods of wait times in ERs. I've heard, some kids are sometimes in the ER for literally days because there just aren't enough places for them to go for treatment.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): So, your organization is a national organization. Are you saying that Connecticut is particular, is unique in having this mental illness tsunami? And if yes, why is that? And is this COVID related only? Or is it even before COVID?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative, I don't mean to cut you off, but we're getting in a late hour and there is a number of folks to testify. If you can tie this back to the Bill for us, that's fine. But I just don't want to get us off on a tangent if we can avoid it.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): No, I understand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is -- actually, I was thinking of Dr. Spellmann who testified and now Mr. Burr, if there's a particular harm to those citizens who have mental illness, I just want to understand, do we have a lot of mental illness citizens to consider?

THOMAS BURR: Yeah, Connecticut, you know, like all the states is, you know, facing issues with not only COVID, but this, you know, wave of legalization that's happening across the country. And it's a problem. I mean, I'm speaking strictly for the Connecticut chapter, but as a national organization, yeah, we hear it from some of the other states. 310 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

They're also struggling with a huge uptick due to the legalization of cannabis in their states.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): Okay. Thank you. There's one more statement then. Is it fair to say for those of you who are really aware of mental illness and all of its implications, that there is a wish among you activists to see this way you sweeping across the country be stopped in Connecticut? That we'd be the first state that really says no.

THOMAS BURR: And again, another good question. See the devil's always in the details. We all know that marijuana exists in a black market situation and it's a big problem already. Legalizing it, I don't think solves that. What we're concerned about is it's certainly has the unintended consequence of making it seem like it's okay.

And we certainly don't want people going to jail for possession. You know, we were very happy when it was decriminalized because people with mental health conditions and substance abuse problems, they need help, not handcuffs. No one gets better in jail. It's not a therapeutic environment and it shouldn't be a crime to have an illness that somehow gets you tied up in the criminal justice system and adds just another big hill to climb. The mental health and substance abuse issues are hard enough to deal with on their own without throwing a criminal record on top of it.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): Thank you.

THOMAS BURR: So I think there's a better way to just approach all of this. And I hope that answers your question. You know, it's not really a black and white, yes or no, as far as we're concerned really. It's a lot more complicated than that.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

311 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Further questions from Committee. Seeing none. Mr. Burr, thank you for being with us.

THOMAS BURR: My pleasure.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Tamika McPhail.

TAMIKA MCPHAIL: Hi.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Hey, ma'am, go ahead. You have three minutes.

TAMIKA MCPHAIL: Hi, my name is Tamika McPhail. I am here -- I'm a mother of six, a lifelong Bridgeport resident. I'm the State Director for Minorities for Medical Marijuana, and I'm also the State Director for National Expungement Week. Minorities for Medical Marijuana serves as a leader and resource within the cannabis industry, providing advocacy, education and cannabis legislation, research, training, outreach, health, and wellness within the cannabis community.

National Expungement Week, we provide free access to expungements and pardon services. And I want to say, I applaud the Governor's office for putting forward SBA 888. And I also applaud the Governor's office for being open to collaborating with people and hearing more about social equity and social justice. But I cannot support the Bill as it stands because there's still too much criminalization for possession and grow.

There's been a lot of testimony of cannabis being harmful and all these studies. And there's one study that refutes another study. The truth of the matter is, is we don't have enough studies to give us concrete answers. And so, one thing that we would like to see is, a social equity business model be added to this Bill. And that will include policy that supports providing technical assistance, 312 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

business formation, licensing and funding for minority and women owned businesses, low-income business owners and business owners who have come from communities most impacted by the war on drugs.

Another aspect we would like to see as a social equity criminal justice business model, and that is policy that's we're in that restores and repairs communities. We would like to see automatic expungement and people not have to go through a lengthy process. We like to see a social equity community reinvestment model and that's policy that is written that ensures that a portion of the tax revenue collected is reinvested in community programs, cannabis education, consumer protection, job creation, and social service programs for communities. Again, that were most impacted by the war on drugs.

We would like to see a social equity youth prevention model. And that will provide funds for all of these, I think everybody on here that's a parent or a human being, we don't want to see misuse of cannabis by the youth. And so, we would like to see a model that adds youth cannabis education and prevention programs.

We would also like to see a social equity, public health and safety model and that's policy and funding for community cannabis education and for maybe consumption lounges. So, people have a safe place to consume cannabis. We would like to see a social equity workforce development model. And that is where a portion of the tax revenue is going to be allocated for workforce development opportunities, education and training, and even career exploration within the cannabis industry --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Ma'am, you're at the three. You're a little over the three minute mark.

TAMIKA MCPHAIL: I have one more thing. The last thing we would like to see as a social equity 313 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

supplier diversity economic development model, and that's a policy that promotes and measures diversity among all of the licensing applicants. I just want to say really quick that we in Connecticut are in a beautifully unique place. We don't have to -- we can look at where other states got things wrong and we can do it right. We have the biggest wealth and education gap in this country in Connecticut here in Fairfield County and we can write that. We can fix that.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Great. Well, thanks. Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate it. Are there questions from the Committee? Seeing none. Appreciate you being with us and thanks for zooming in from the great City of Bridgeport here. Next up we'll be Al Domeika.

AL DOMEIKA: Yes, we were linked with Carl Tirella, so I'm all set.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Okay, great.

AL DOMEIKA: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Then after that I have Ulrik Boesen.

ULRIK BOESEN: Good evening.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Good evening.

ULRIK BOESEN: Thank you, Representative Stafstrom and Members of the Committee. My name is Ulrik Boesen and I'm a senior analyst at the Tax Foundation. So we don't take a position on the Bill, but I wanted to share some research on cannabis excise tax design, which is a subject that I've studied extensively.

It's a crucial element of legalizing recreational cannabis, the excise tax design. And most states have done this by opting for price-based ad valorem 314 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

excise tax. This may seem like a simple way to go, but it doesn't necessarily offer an equitable old long-term solution.

Well, ad valorem taxes may look like general sales taxes. There're important differences. The reason we levy an excise tax is to target specific unique characteristics of a product. It's often negative externalities. You can think of it like the harm that cigarette consumption does to the consumer or to anyone around them. Or the fact that we tax motor fuel to pay for the roads.

General sales taxes, they normally fall on most consumer transactions. So, it's important to have a distinction there. Because this is why we live in excise tax, it should also correspond to the harm that it's addressing. And in fact, in effect internalize the cost. Neither of these things have anything to do with the price.

So in SB 888, the tax would be $1.25 per dry weight gram, 50 cents per dry weight gram of trim and 20 cents per gram of wet plant. There would also be a 3% tax at retail and the general sales tax. And what this tax design does succeed in, it does succeed in targeting the negative externality. Weight is a good proxy. As I said before, price would be a bad proxy. But SB 888 targets the weight, which is very positive.

I did a calculation, I thought you might find it interesting to look at the effective tax rate that this Bill would result in. So if we take all the taxes in the Bill and add the general sales tax, the effective tax rate would be something around 24% when the market's matured. In the early years it's likely to be around 20%, which is pretty competitive with neighboring states and certainly across the other states that have legalized.

Furthermore, in the first year or so of legalization, taxes won't be that determining in 315 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

terms of price. Low supply is likely to have a much bigger impact on prices than tax as well. Another positive outcome of taxing by quantity is revenue stability. We've seen prices go up and down in states that have legalized. For instance, in Colorado from 2014 to 2019, the price of a gram of cannabis flower declined from almost $11 to $4.50. It was an average decline of 16% year on year. When you tax the quantity, you're going to see a stable revenue collection, regardless of these price discrepancies

The last thing I wanted to comment on the longevity of the tax. There is a risk, the federal risk or opportunity or chance that the federal government may make some moves on a federal legalization. Now, if you have a price-based tax in retail --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): You're at -- you're a little over the three minute mark. So I just need you to wrap up.

ULRIK BOESEN: I'll round up. I just wanted to say that going with a quantity-based tax protects the longevity of the tax system, whereas a price-based tax, which some are advocating for would create problems in the event of a federal legalization. I appreciate your consideration.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Are there questions from Committee? Seeing none. I appreciate you sticking out with us here.

ULRIK BOESEN: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): All right. Next up, we have Anderson Curtis.

ANDERSON CURTIS: Good evening, Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Anderson Curtis and I am the senior organizer and policy advocate for the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut. The ASLU of CT supports this Bill only if it's 316 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

admitted to fix the concerns, I'm about to raise that I described in detail in the written testimony of my colleague, Kelly Moore.

We believe in complete decriminalization of cannabis. We also believe that legalization must pose for equity for individuals and communities harmed by the racist history of enforcement of cannabis offenses in Connecticut. Therefore, some of the equity provisions in House Bill 6377, AN ACT CONCERNING LABOR PEACE AGREEMENTS AND A MODERN AND EQUITABLE CANNABIS WORKFORCE are essential additions to this Bill.

This Bill continues to criminalize simple possession of cannabis, and that needs to be changed. In the proposed Bill, possession of just 2.5 ounces creates criminal liability on a second offense. [Use of criminalize] the second time they attempt to buy cannabis under age. Growing your own cannabis plants is criminalized at all levels. And SB 888 creates the potential that an adult can be incarcerated for up to a year for negligee, allowing a minor to possess cannabis.

Connecticut does not want to repeat the mistakes of its past. It should not apply criminal penalties to simple possession of any type of cannabis in any amount by any person. First, while the Bill does provide for some automatic aeration mechanisms, which we support. It doesn't for nearly enough. It doesn't do nearly enough. It caps ratio to possession of under four ounces and doesn't include any offenses other than simple possession.

This Bill also retrenches collateral consequences by implicitly allowing landlords to deny housing to people with convictions for possession of greater than four ounces of cannabis. The Bill would allow for people to be sent back to prison for technical parole violations based on legal possession of cannabis. This Bill would do nothing to help people 317 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

currently incarcerated for those kinds of violations.

This Bill allows employers to fire employees for off-week off-work legal use of cannabis. It also allows for DCS to determine that a child is at risk of harm based on a positive drug test of their parents for illegal substance. In short, this Bill makes minor efforts to limit the impact of past cannabis-related convictions, but it fails to include enough offenses to take steps to reduce most harms.

There are numerous due process concerns with the conduct of DUI stops and the supposed Drug Recognition Drug Experts. Our written testimony details those problems. Connecticut can make significant strides toward equity and liberty with a strong and equitable cannabis legalization Bill. To make this Bill as strong as possible, we encourage this Committee to amend the Bill ways I've described with other amendments in our written testimony.

The war on cannabis, like the war on drugs overall has been a failure. That's ruined millions of lives, torn families apart and decimated communities all while perpetuating racial injustice. Connecticut cannot repeat these mistakes by passing a recreational cannabis Bill that creates new and different opportunities for desperate harm to people of color. Yet, without the amendment parts of Senate Bill 888 would do just that. If, and only if those amendments are made, the ACLU of Connecticut will support Senate Bill 888. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Mr. Curtis Questions from the Committee. Seeing none. Oh, Representative Blumenthal.

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): Sorry, just a quick line, Mr. Chair. Mr. Curtis, thank you for your testimony. I appreciate hearing your perspective. My understanding of the new criminal penalties purpose 318 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

is that if we're going to create a legal regulated market, then we need to keep people from going to the black market and to keep them in the legal market. And is it your position and the ACLU's position that there should be no consequences for going outside the legal market? Or is it the position that the consequences should just not be criminal ones?

ANDERSON CURTIS: Consequences should not be criminal. And that is for people who have legal means to obtain the marijuana and to use it legally. I'm not talking about illegal things.

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chris. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Curtis, for being with us.

ANDERSON CURTIS: All right. Everyone, have a good evening. Thank you for your time.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Kevin Sevarino.

KEVIN SEVARINO: Yes, I hope you can hear me.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Okay.

KEVIN SEVARINO: Thank you, Chairs and Members of the Committee for sticking with this for so long. My name is Kevin Sevarino. I've been treating persons with addiction since 1991. I'm currently President of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry. I'm an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at Yale and am consulting psychiatrists to Gaylord Hospital in Wallingford.

Today I speak as Chair of a Sub-Committee we formed on cannabis legalization of the State Advisory Board to DMHAS. So, this is the first [inaudible] here from a Member of DMHAS. We've voiced opposition to - 319 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

- I'm not a Member of DMHAS. I'm on the advisory board. But our Sub-Committee and now the State Advisory Board voices opposition to passage of SB 888 at this time for several key reasons. And you've heard many of these, so I'll go through them quickly. First, today's high potency marijuana is more addictive and more likely to induce psychosis than that's studied in the past. You've heard that the THC potency of smoke cannabis is now about 20% and Dab and waxes can be over 90% THC content. Hence, while it used to be estimated that about 9% of those who used cannabis would become addicted, today that number is 30%. And somebody had asked before, what is it for alcohol? That number is about 9% for alcohol.

The current Bill allows for full commercialization of all cannabis products, including shatter, wax and vape liquids. It doesn't limit potency and taxes on the basis of weight. So, it encourages sales of higher potency products. Only on Page 25 of the Bill -- I apologize I don't have the line number. Is there mention a future possible limit through a DPC, which feels after the fact.

It's not an easy thing to determine and regulate potency. Second, commercialization of cannabis and normalization of use in the eyes of youth will lead to increase use by youth. It's hard to understand how this could not occur. California saw a 23% increase in the past 30 day use among school aged children after legalization, despite sales to such individuals being illegal.

And in my submitted testimony, I reference Dr. Pascal's article on that. The frontal lobe of the human brain critical to decision-making continues to develop up through the mid-20s consistent with earlier use resulting in greater addiction. We ask that legalization be restricted to those 25 and older and more research be conducted to reduce youth exposure. Third, in Connecticut cannabis legalization will result in about 16 extra MVA 320 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

deaths per year. And I extrapolated that from Colorado data.

For those that don't die last year, I alone treated three patients in their twenties who suffered cannabis related motor vehicle accidents. One with severe brain injury, who could no longer talk to me. One with quadriplegia and one with paraplegia. Their lives were forever changed for them and their families. How many more will there be when this use goes up? And finally, as it's been argued before the public health and administrative costs to Connecticut will far exceed the tax revenues from cannabis legalization.

I note Senator Champagne was already surprised. DPH has been so little involved. The current Bill describes adding 64 positions to DCP, large increases in officer training, public education, additions to the staff to DMV. And add to this, the cost of the increased MVA --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Sorry, you're at your -- I gave you a little leeway over your three minutes here.

KEVIN SEVARINO: Okay.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): So please wrap up.

KEVIN SEVARINO: And I feel -- now I feel when you calculate these costs in the proposed Bill will far outweigh what we will gain from tax revenues. Our Sub-Committee submitted to the Judiciary Committee, a letter providing more detailed explanation of our concerns.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yeah, I'm gonna -- I'm gonna ask you about this.

KEVIN SEVARINO: Thank you.

321 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I got to ask and I got to clear this up for the record. So are you -- you started by saying you were testifying on behalf of DMHAS.

KEVIN SEVARINO: On behalf of the State Advisory Board to DMHAS.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): So, what is the State Advisory Board to DMHAS?

KEVIN SEVARINO: The Governor -- not only do the regional advisory councils have representatives on that, but as well, the Governor has appointees that serve to advise the Commissioner of DMHAS --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): And the Advisory Board, did the Advisory Board meet and authorize you to testify on their behalf here today?

KEVIN SEVARINO: Yes. And my letter is signed by the Head of the Advisory Board as well as myself.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Okay. And did you get clearance from DMHAS to testify on behalf of that agency?

KEVIN SEVARINO: I'm not testifying on behalf of DMHAS. I'm testifying on behalf of the Advisory Board.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Okay.

KEVIN SEVARINO: So they were in -- they were present when the Head of the Advisory Board signed off on my testifying.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Okay. No, I just -- I just have to clarify for the record, because your testimony is contrary to the testimony that's been submitted by DMHAS itself. DMHAS has submitted testimony in support of this legislation. Are you aware of that? 322 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

KEVIN SEVARINO: I'm aware of that and I cannot speak on behalf of the actual Commissioner and other Members of DMHAS as they are appointed and employees of the Governor.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): You are aware that DMHAS itself has testified in support of this, has submitted testimony in support of this legislation.

KEVIN SEVARINO: They have -- I have not read their testimony. They have told me they did that.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Okay. All right. I just have to be clear for the record that you're not testifying on behalf of the agency that the agency has submitted its own testimony in this matter.

KEVIN SEVARINO: That's correct.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Okay. All right. Representative Blumenthal, did you still have your hand up from the last one or did you have something on this? Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Doctor, thank you for your testimony. I'm sorry if I missed the beginning when you said your specialty and years of practice.

KEVIN SEVARINO: I've been practicing since 1991. I'm specialized in both addiction medicine and consult liaison psychiatry. That means I worked inside a hospital.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And is it okay, can you mention which hospital you work at?

KEVIN SEVARINO: At Gaylord Hospital in Wallingford, Connecticut. So, we see a lot of spinal cord injuries and brain injuries.

323 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): So you've had extensive experience treating a number of people with extensive marijuana use abuse.

KEVIN SEVARINO: Yes.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Were you -- have you heard the testimony today from a number of different doctors on pro and con?

KEVIN SEVARINO: All day. Yes.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): So you may have heard, my number one concern is -- so when you mentioned that you want the age limit to be 25, as Chairman Stafstrom can testify, I've never claimed to be a doctor, the smartest person in the room, but it sounds like, you and I are in agreement that 25 is an age in which the brain develops and that we want to make sure that people don't use and abuse marijuana. Is that fair to say?

KEVIN SEVARINO: Yes. There are two reasons. A, the brain seems to do a lot less development after 25, and in some of our cases actually begins to regress. But then the other thing is that earlier use of cannabis leads to higher rates of addiction. And so, if you start later, it's safer.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And, you know, the THC content was also something that's been mentioned. You know, it's increased dramatically over the last even just five years. And so, what have you found in the difference between the THC content and the impact on particularly the teen and youth?

KEVIN SEVARINO: Well, remember I don't really treat children and adolescents. I treat young adults, but I can't say I have enough experience over the last five years to say I'm seeing a huge difference other than parents complaining about vaping.

324 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Fair enough. Fair enough. And is your written testimony, does it have references to the statistics you referenced?

KEVIN SEVARINO: Yes, it does.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Okay. All right. Doctor, is there anything, I know you ran out of your three minutes there. Is there anything that's not in your testimony that you wanted to relay to us this evening?

KEVIN SEVARINO: No, I think it's been covered before and--

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Okay. All right. Thank you very much, doctor. And Mr. Chairman, Thank you very much for your indulgence.

KEVIN SEVARINO: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. And despite the bate, Representative O'Dea will not take you up on and offer to comment on your experience as a doctor or lack thereof. But you certainly left a softball there for me. All right. Next up will be Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Mr. Sevarino. I would be remiss if I didn't indicate to you that I'm very familiar with Gaylord Hospital being here in Wallingford, and I think one of the greatest victims of COVID is the Gaylord Gauntlet, which I have for many years participated in, on the grounds there.

But that being said, sir, I did pull up the one page of testimony from the Commissioner of DMHAS, and little troubling I see in there that they referenced the -- well, $283,000 expenditure in fiscal year '22 and $1 million in expenditure in '23 to assess and manage public health impacts related to the implementation of this Bill. So, based upon that, I 325 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

believe that there's going to be public health impacts. So, are those impacts that you've already addressed or, 'cause I can't tell from this document and I know you're on this Sub-Committee, what those impacts are?

KEVIN SEVARINO: I think what they're trying to do is establish more of a surveillance system to understand what the impacts will be. Because as you've heard today, there's controversy about, will motor vehicle accidents go up, will there be increased use by youth? And so, that's only surveillance. It doesn't provide any funds for increased treatment, but that's what that surveillance is meant to do. So, I'm anticipating what they think is once there is more data down the road, there may be amendments to the Bill.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah, it does say that this funding will support secret shopper and minor decoy programs in awareness campaign and prevention and education activities. So, I would have liked to have been able to ask them, but okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Senator Haskell.

SENATOR HASKELL (26TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, sir, for your testimony tonight and for your patience. I know it's been a long hearing. You mentioned that you deal extensively with medical issues pertaining to young adults and I just wanted to follow up on that. I certainly do not have the medical training to doubt your assertion, that the brain isn't fully developed until the age of 25, but I just wanted to sort of -- if that's true and I don't have any reason to doubt that it is, would you recommend that we then raise the drinking age, for example, from 21 to 25?

KEVIN SEVARINO: I would.

326 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR HASKELL (26TH): And how about the age to drive a vehicle, a motor vehicle?

KEVIN SEVARINO: Well, that's interesting is, you know, whether our -- we do know that the young, especially when they first start driving can be more impulsive, but then there isn't any counter data that driving is damaging to the developing brain unless of course they have an accident. So, I think that's a little more complicated and outside my area of expertise.

SENATOR HASKELL (26TH): Fair enough. Fair enough. I'll just ask one more question for the sake of brevity, if the Chair will allow. When you say that youth addiction rates, well forget rates, but when you say that you witnessed youth addiction related to cannabis, you're not referring to the sort of chemical addiction that one might find in young people who smoke cigarettes, so you consume nicotine, right? It's your -- or is it your medical opinion that that same addictive quality of nicotine is presence in cannabis -- present in cannabis?

KEVIN SEVARINO: I am referring to the same thing. In fact, just in the latest, what we call DSM Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Illnesses, DSM, cannabis withdrawal is now a recognized entity. So, the key hallmarks of addiction are loss of control of use and adverse consequences. And those happen with nicotine. They happen with alcohol and they happen with cannabis.

SENATOR HASKELL (26TH): But surely -- Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, one brief follow-up. Surely, there's a difference in the sense that nicotine triggers a chemical reaction in the brain whereas it sounds as though, shoplifting is an addiction for an example, that would satisfy those two criteria that you mentioned something that certainly has negative consequences for an individual who engages in it. And something that becomes a behavioral need for an individual. But isn't that different from the sort 327 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

of chemical addiction that one's body actually begins to crave nicotine. Isn't there a distinction to be drawn between things that are behaviorally addictive and those which are chemically addictive?

KEVIN SEVARINO: Well, some would argue that there isn't. So, there's a big argument about whether gambling, internet addiction, shoplifting, sex addiction should be listed under "addictions," because they all result in elevated levels of dopamine and something called the nucleus accumbens, which is kind of a final reward pathway. But you're right, those aren't chemicals, but cannabis is, nicotine is, alcohol is, so they are substances that induce, that increase in dopamine and the nucleus accumbens.

SENATOR HASKELL (26TH): So aside from perhaps negative mental health consequences, are there physical withdrawal symptoms from an individual who stopped using cannabis in the same way that there would be physical withdrawal symptoms, chemically triggered in the brain resulting from an interruption of the regular use of smoking a cigarette, for example?

KEVIN SEVARINO: Well, it is recognized now that there is. There's a lethargy and amotivation, decreased appetite, sort of the counter to the munchies. But it is not as, doesn't tend to drive use as much as recurrent nicotine addiction. And it's nowhere near as physically challenging to the body as alcohol withdrawal or opiate withdrawal.

SENATOR HASKELL (26TH): Understood. Thank you doctor for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Representative Dillon.

REP. DILLON (92ND): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you doctor for joining us.

328 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

KEVIN SEVARINO: Thank you.

REP. DILLON (92ND): Just a question based on your statement and some of the testimony today, is the degree of addiction and the those, I don't know what you would call it to quell and whatever, is that dose sensitive?

KEVIN SEVARINO: The development of the addiction, the rate of development of addiction is dose sensitive. So in other words, not only the potency of THC, but how frequently, you smoke the THC. After that, it's probably more a matter of variation between an individual than it is the potency of the cannabis. The immediate intoxicating effects in other words, the effect on impairment of driving is sensitive to the THC content.

REP. DILLON (92ND): Well, one of the questions that would be prompted would be in the regulatory scheme, whether there should be a look at the THC content and whether that regulating the THC content would remedy or not remedy, but maybe mitigate some of the concerns.

KEVIN SEVARINO: Well, I would agree with that. And I believe now, I may be wrong and there are others that know more than I, I believe Vermont has some regulation as far as potency. And my understanding is that the plan in the Bill is to have DPC begin to monitor with the potency and possibly set limits in the future on that. That's the idea of saying we label it as saying it's 10% THC or 50% THC. I really don't think that protects consumers that well, because a hallmark of addiction is loss of control. So, the people that get addicted will not be able to heed the warnings that are on the package.

REP. DILLON (92ND): No, I understood. It's being sold now illegally and we don't know what's in it. Right. And people are being picked up or stopped in their cars very often, they'd come what they look like. So that many of us are very aware of what's 329 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

happening now. So, if there were going to be a regulatory scheme, I really was just interested in your testimony and curious about whether you would think about the THC level as being an opportunity to mitigate the bad effects.

KEVIN SEVARINO: Right, right. I think it is for that, that is outside of, that is within the legitimate market. But I also think that in terms of, as you said, the kind of the racial disparities and enforcement, until we have something like a better ability to measure levels in the field of the -- unfortunately, disparities and racial enforcement will probably continue to occur.

REP. DILLON (92ND): Okay. Thank you very much.

KEVIN SEVARINO: You're welcome.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Chairman, Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good evening, Mr. Sevarino. I have a question about some of the studies that we're talking about. Do you think that -- Well, let me ask you this question. If the study looked at a period of a year, do you think it would be correct of us to draw a conclusion from that study necessarily.

KEVIN SEVARINO: I'm sorry.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): If the period -- if the period observed in one of the studies, we talked about a lot of studies of what has happened with teenagers. If the study looked at the period of a single year, that would it be a study who would probably reference, I would assume.

KEVIN SEVARINO: I'm not aware of studies that just look at a year now.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Two years --

330 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

KEVIN SEVARINO: But definitely one year --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And how many -- I'm sorry.

KEVIN SEVARINO: They'll compare one year to another.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): What about a period of two years?

KEVIN SEVARINO: You mean from the beginning of the two years to the end of the two years, or just what happened within the two years?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): What happened within the two years?

KEVIN SEVARINO: The National Survey of Drug Use and Health, which is one of our biggest epidemiological studies looks at every year.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): But, my question is -- my question is what we draw, at what point are we feeling like -- You're an expert, so I'm asking you. At what point, in terms of the length of the study, can we draw the types of conclusions we're talking about today about whether or not teenagers will do something or not do something? In this case being use marijuana, cannabis, because of the use, the legalization because adults will use or whatever the case may be.

KEVIN SEVARINO: Right. There, it really depends on statistics. So, if I look at the country, I might be able to in six months have enough numbers to say, I can reasonably calculate to a P of less than, in other words, a probability of less than 0.001, that there's a statistical difference between the two. But if I'm just looking within Connecticut, I guess as we'd need a couple of years at a pop.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay. And the [inaudible] Pascal looked at the years 2017, 2018, in terms of a 331 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

school year 2018, 2019. And so that's two school years. And do you feel that that is enough time to draw a conclusion that is concrete?

KEVIN SEVARINO: There's one other California Study that's similar to it, but I would agree that we've also -- you're also -- today, we've heard from people who are saying, they've seen studies where it goes the opposite. What I'm saying --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I recognize. I recognize. I'm trying to keep us to the study that you brought up.

KEVIN SEVARINO: Right.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): As an expert, you brought information in front of us. So, I want to -- I want to focus. I don't want to focus on everybody. I just want to focus on what you've said.

KEVIN SEVARINO: Yeah, so I think the Pascal Study is valuable in that, California is a very regulated state and they worked very hard to try to prevent youth from using and even there, according to that study, which is an observational study, in that particular study they failed.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And that's interesting because I'm not going to make an assumption. So, I'm going to ask you the question. I'm not trying to be -- but I just want to make sure you've read the study?

KEVIN SEVARINO: Yes.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Excellent.

KEVIN SEVARINO: I've got it right in front.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay, good. I just don't want to make any assumptions because I'm aware that in talking about what the study means, it is 332 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

suggested that part, when they're talking about the part where they're not sure, it's not as conclusive as some people think it is, 'cause that's in there too. Right. When they're talking about that they're talking about the variability of policy in Connecticut. And yet you're just suggesting to us that connect Connecticut to California, you're suggesting to us that California has more, which sounds stricter than what the study suggests in terms of policy. So, can you clean that up for me?

KEVIN SEVARINO: I think what they were saying is one of the limitations was the study is they were looking statewide and that County by County there's variability. And so, when -- in any study, it's always good at the very end, there's a whole section on limitations and one of their limitations is California's a big state. So, they don't have an explanation as to causality about why youth use may have gone up or down.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Right. And I believe they even suggested that for the, at least the 2018, 2019 year, the prevalence of vaping may have something to do with this. That's not completely dependent upon the legalization of cannabis as well. Is that correct?

KEVIN SEVARINO: Right. Because vaping has been skyrocketing everywhere.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And I just want to make sure that we're clear for the record and I've done this earlier if you've been watching it and I'm not trying to like [inaudible] you. But I just want to make sure we understand what these studies say. And it was also suggested kind of to what we were just saying that states that are looking into legalized cannabis, and this is coming out of the study, you referenced, would benefit from stricter controls where there's not as much variability as California would have, and evidence-based prevention programs. And is that part of your testimony as 333 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

well? That's what we should be doing if we choose to legalize, is that in your testimony?

KEVIN SEVARINO: If we do -- it's not in the testimony, it's actually in a letter I sent to the Judiciary Committee. A number of harm reduction approaches. But one of is if we want to take the time to maximize our ability to reduce penetration to youth, and I think so there is variability between states and the States that are more successful in that, we should try to pattern after that, because there's not --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You can continue. I'm not trying to cut you off.

KEVIN SEVARINO: No, no, no, that's okay. It's late. My brain doesn't work well.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I understand that really well, probably more than I want to. And just finally, I would just suggest this and I don't think you meant to come here and suggest that the study is any different than it actually is. I would just put forward for the record that even [inaudible] Pascal would suggest that they actually need more research before making a conclusion because that's what they say in a study. So thank you for bringing it before us. I just want to make sure that we're all operating off the same information.

KEVIN SEVARINO: I definitely support more research and I do support the rescheduling of cannabis. So, we can do more research in this country.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And you know what, thank you for that, because it's been suggested as that, but we don't know this or that about cannabis and we don't have research. Part of it is because of the way it's scheduled, which is kind of a chicken or egg problem that we have. So thank you for pointing that out as well. Have a great evening.

334 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

KEVIN SEVARINO: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yeah, but thank you Senator Winfield, and thank you Mr. Sevarino. I think that's a point we can all agree on that this should not be a schedule. I hope we can all agree on this should not be a schedule one drug so that we can do more of that research. Representative Fiorello.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Sevarino, I just have one quick question. In your testimony, you list disproportionate harms and in Section B, it says people of color. And there's a sentence in here that I don't quite fully understand. And while I have you here, while we have you here, I wanted to give you a chance to explain it better. It says the banning of cannabis dispensaries in many predominantly white areas of states where dispensaries are legal would raise dispensary density in the poorest areas, exposing the most underserved to higher cannabis availability, and increased use in harms. Can you just explain that a bit more?

KEVIN SEVARINO: That was in the testimony or in the letter?

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): Does February 22nd, 2021, Joint Committee on judiciary --

KEVIN SEVARINO: Oh, yes.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): It looks like a letter.

KEVIN SEVARINO: 2021, yes. Yeah.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): So what do you mean by that?

KEVIN SEVARINO: Let me pull that up again.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): It's on the page with the images of the brain scans.

335 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

KEVIN SEVARINO: Yep. I'm getting there. So read me the line again, since my computer is acting funny.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): Sure. It says Section 4, disproportionate harms to, and then A is meant to own this, B as people of color.

KEVIN SEVARINO: Oh, yes.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): And is that enough or do you want me to read it again?

KEVIN SEVARINO: No, I've got it, B as people of color.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): Okay.

KEVIN SEVARINO: And I bring up the Washington Study where in fact, we're still having more people of color arrest on cannabis charges than whites. The current -- Let's see. Okay. The banning of cannabis dispensaries in many predominantly white areas of states where dispensaries are illegal would ra -- Yes. I probably as I shortened this, didn't make that very clear. The Bill allows municipalities to basically as long as this is a purely retail operation, as opposed to a hybrid or a medical can actually have zoning laws that would prevent cannabis sales in that zone.

And so as -- now I don't have papers on this, but as others have told me in their states, such as Colorado and California, then retail dispensaries end up in mainly underserved areas in inner cities. And I feel that that would raise a dispensary density in those areas. And just like we know with alcohol where there's a greater retail density, there tends to be greater use. And so, I think there would be greater harm there.

So, the way you could -- I'm not sure how you would modify SB 888 to avoid that possibility because 336 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

fairly wealthy areas tend not to approve retail cannabis outlets in their areas.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): Okay. Thank you. That explains it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Representative. Seeing no further questions. We appreciate you being with us doctor.

KEVIN SEVARINO: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Jonathan Johnson.

JONATHAN JOHNSON: Thank you, Chairs and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for your time and attention. My name is Jonathan Johnson. I'm a Connecticut resident from New Britain. I'm not speaking directly as Vice Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Connecticut today. I'd like to speak as a concerned citizen and a parent of two children in this state, a six-year-old and a three-year-old.

Let's be clear about what the Senate Bill is truly proposing today. This legislation is primarily focused on creating corporate pot shops. No matter how you phrase this Bill, or how many times the word racial equity has been added to the narrative surrounding legalized pot shops in Connecticut, where we end up with this legislation is only legal, taxable corporate pot shops.

Personally, I prefer not to have my children living in a state where there will now be a corporate pot shop in every town and every city. "Mommy, what's that store. Daddy, what's that store." For all the talk about racial equity and how much any Bill proposed [inaudible] to provide financial buy-in to communities that have been discriminated against regarding cannabis laws. The main beneficiaries will 337 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

be, A, corporate cannabis entities and, B, the state's tax coffers.

We have numerous citizens in our state who are selling cannabis illegally for decades. These people have been risking and actually getting arrested and distributing cannabis to people who want to consume this plant. Their historic risks are why we were having this conversation today. If we truly care about equity in the cannabis industry, particularly for those most adversely affected, here's a simple legislation, you should make law. One, expungement of all cannabis arrests and prosecutions. Two, home grows, allow citizens the right to grow cannabis on their own personal property, similar to Homebrew Laws. And three, micro-business.

The most direct way to give equity to those most effected and to give opportunity for legal profits to the same people is to simply legalized selling of cannabis on private property. Basically, legalize the local cannabis entrepreneurs. It's been proven in California and Massachusetts and Colorado and Canada, that legalizing cannabis is not going to eliminate black markets. It's just not. In fact, you're going to increase demand overall and black markets will continue on.

Taxes and tax revenue are the only drivers for legalizing cannabis in Connecticut. Not fairness, not equity, not supporting communities unfairly discriminated against regarding cannabis laws. If legalized cannabis is such a great thing, why is the only discussion and Bill is so highly focused on cannabis, corporate cannabis shops? Why is this legislation not providing our citizens more freedom and allowing people to grow their own cannabis for their own consumption and allowing the entrepreneurship and micro transactions that are already happening in the black market to simply continue on a legal basis.

338 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

It's not about equity. It's not about legalizing human activity regarding cannabis. This is all about taxes. Please pass a Bill that legalizes these activities that adversely affect cannabis consumers and micro-entrepreneurs. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for coming in and I'm going to ask you the same question I asked another person who came and testified. If this were the Bill 888 were the Bill and there weren't changes to include the home grown and all the things that you just mentioned, would you rather see this Bill pass or nothing passed?

JONATHAN JOHNSON: At this point, my personal opinion is I'd rather see nothing pass if this Bill is passed.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Well, thank you very much.

JONATHAN JOHNSON: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Further questions. Seeing none. We will move on to Nathan Tinker.

NATHAN TINKER: Good evening, Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Senator Kasser, Representative Blumenthal, Senator Kissel, Representative Fishbein and other fatigued Members of the Judiciary Committee.

My name is Nathan Tinker. I'm the Secretary of the Academy of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, and also CEO of the Connecticut Pharmacist Association. The Academy of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries is an 339 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

affiliated entity within the association and with licensed pharmacists at the core of the program success, Connecticut Dispensary serve the health and wellness over 50,000 patients.

You already have my written testimony, which goes into greater detail. So I will just touch upon the top line things that are in there. And also, you've also heard from a couple of our AMMD members earlier, that have also touched upon those issues. In short, my message is this. Making sure any adult use program does no harm to the medical marijuana program. And that touches upon several issues.

One, you've already heard about, taxes and fees. It imposes an excise tax on medical marijuana, and it does not do away with the current fees and that are imposed upon medical marijuana patients. And although technically medical marijuana is tax-free. Annual patient fees effectively and unfairly tax medical marijuana patients for their medication. So please do the right thing for patients and eliminate those taxes and fees.

On the issues of pot supply and potency, in any parallel market environment, medical marijuana patients should be guaranteed primary access to product. There must be enough producers to fully supply both the medical and adult use markets. Current state regulation allows up to ten producers, ten producer licenses of which only four have actually been put out.

Medical marijuana patients should not be restricted to product allotments that are smaller than those of adult use consumers. The adult use market should be able to offer -- the adult use market should not be able to offer any product that is prohibited in the medical market. And in a similar way, the available potency of medical marijuana products should be substantially higher than that of the product in the adult use market. Those should be limited and those limits could be set low in order to be able to as 340 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the pharmacy titrate up, if necessary, but that's sort of thing we believe should start.

There are some specific technology issues in order for medical marijuana's dispensary should take part in the hybrid program. SB 888 requires dispensaries to have real time reporting capabilities to the state's prescription monitoring and reporting system, the technology to do this is available, and indeed some of the AMD dispensaries already can do this. However, the PMP itself would need to be upgraded in order to accommodate equivalency measurement and perhaps more importantly, to actively return a locknut information to the dispensaries. This capability will not only assure that dispensaries remain compliant, but that patients themselves are protected as well.

We would be pleased, of course, to work with DCP, to assure the system works for all and that dispensaries are able to fully comply with that regulatory framework. Finally just in regard to micro cultivators, we are concerned about the idea of micro cultivators largely because to allow them unfettered access and delivery of services would mean that medical marijuana pharmacists who consult actively and closely with patients to enable the best treatment options for them would no longer be able to assess whether patients are self-medicating or otherwise stepping outside of their treatment regimens and thus endanger patients by increasing the opportunity for abuse.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thanks. Thank you, sir. I just need you to wrap up. We're at a three minute mark here.

NATHAN TINKER: That was literally my last line.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Good time -- good timing. Representative Fishbein.

341 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sir, it appears to me that you would have different criteria for the recreational marijuana industry, as opposed to the medical marijuana industry. Is that fair to say?

NATHAN TINKER: Well, I'd say that there are two different markets with two different consumer cohorts. As an Academy, our interest is in protecting the medical marijuana program and medical marijuana patients. So, you know, we appreciate the fact that SB 888 offers the opportunity for dispensaries to take part in the hybrid program. But there are, you know, essentially two different regimens in many, many ways.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Would you agree with me that if marijuana is legalized in Connecticut, it would basically dry up the medical marijuana market such as. I think that happened with alcohol.

NATHAN TINKER: I don't, and I think there is evidence in other States that the medical marijuana program has actually, increased because of the focus of it and the access it gives to patients who actually have medical conditions that require or not require, but are open to the medical marijuana space.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So you're saying that the legalization of recreational marijuana makes more people acceptable of medical marijuana?

NATHAN TINKER: No, I think that there are two different ways in which those market affect consumers. One is that there is a taxed regimen around medical and a taxed adult use regimen, medical marijuana is untaxed. And there is a very specific set of disease states that are allowed into the medical marijuana program that would not be available to the consumer or the adult use market.

342 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): All right. Well, thank you for that. I just -- I don't know, have you been here all day with us?

NATHAN TINKER: Oh, yeah.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So you might know that one of my biggest impediments to my being in support of this is the fact that it's illegal under federal law, and you're here on behalf of the Connecticut Pharmacists Association, have you asked our federal delegation to change that, to, you know, get rid of my impediment?

NATHAN TINKER: No, we have not talked to the federal delegation about this, but I would point out that in December, the House of Representatives actually passed a Bill that decriminalized marijuana across the board and had substantial civic and criminal penalties withdrawn as well. So there, you know, it's a topic that is certainly being reviewed and considered at the federal level. But you know, we work within the strictures of the State of Connecticut law, and you're closer to that.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, I would say the State of Connecticut law says that we must be abided by the constitution, but we don't need to go there at this point. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Next up, we will hear from Nicholas Stein.

NICHOLAS STEIN: All right. Good evening, Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Nicholas Bard Stein, and I'm for you tonight to give some testimony in opposition to SB 888 as it's currently written. My written testimony goes into five main improvements that could be made to SBA 888. But I really want to tell my story and focus on one really important improvement that could be made to this Bill.

343 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

So, yeah, my story. So, I have been arrested for marijuana possession and intent to distribute. I was convicted of both those crimes, separate crimes. One of them occurred at UConn and for that crime, I served 20 days in jail. I also served between two crimes over five years of probation. And in general, have experienced a lot of the negative effects of having a felony on your record. So, with that perspective, Oh, also last year, I actually achieved my pardon for that felony. So, I went through the Connecticut's Pardon Program. And from that perspective, I just want to offer testimony that this Bill does not do enough for equity and specifically it doesn't do enough for equity because it does not extend the automatic expungement of criminal records to marijuana crimes that include felony cultivation, felony possession of more than four ounces and felony distribution, which was the one that I, or intent to distribute, which is the, the crime that I had.

So some ways that this felony negatively impacted my life, where it did impact my ability to get a job, it would have impacted my earnings except for I had a series of understanding employers once I did find someone to get me into my career, which was a good aerospace career. Now I know that there are so many people in Connecticut who have felonies on their record for marijuana crimes that do not have the support network that I have.

So while I was able to get through the criminal justice system and then, you know, achieve employment, I actually got my -- I also ended up finishing my college education at Eastern, got good employment in a prominent Connecticut aerospace company, and then develop a career. There were so many people who were not able to do that. And the reason is because they couldn't afford the lawyer that I had. They couldn't -- they didn't have the just general base of education that I had, and they didn't have the support network that I had.

344 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

So I just want to share a couple of things about the pardon process, and the reason why I think that it should apply or be extended. The automatic fear ratio should be extended to the people with felonies, because of the pardon process is so difficult and not everybody has equal access to it. So I was able to pay $3,000 for a lawyer to do my pardon, which was a big help. I also had to put about 80 hours of my own time in which I'm not going to lie I did a lot on my work time, so, right. So I had a pretty flexible sales work schedule, and I was able to use some of my time to do that, not everybody has to do that. That also means I was able to use my best hours of my day to put into my pardon.

And then finally, I had a support network of people in the community who were upstanding individuals who are able to write me letters of support. Those are all minimum, not necessarily minimum requirements, but they're all very, very necessary for me to have achieved my pardon and nobody has access to those who has a felony on their record. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Appreciate it. We're at the three minute mark. I would also encourage you that I think later in our hearing process, not today, we have another Bill on a clean slate eraser that would cover your circumstance. And I know the Committee would appreciate hearing your expertise on the pardon process during that Bill. So, maybe you can come back and sit with us for another full day. In the meantime, Representative Fishbein as to the Bill before us.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah, I just wanted about the party and I know I don't want to go down that rabbit hole. I'm just trying to figure out about the eraser in this gentleman's particular situation. Sir, aren't you, I think I remember two years ago, you testified before -- Oh, sorry, my video's not on. Sorry. There you go. You testified before us, you 345 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

were the gentlemen who would be shipping the marijuana to the college? Is that the situation?

NICHOLAS STEIN: Yeah, I testified last year. I may have given you some details and that was, I received a package of marijuana from Colorado. Yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah. On a couple of occasions, I think it was. Yes. And you were convicted of a felony a few years ago. And now it's been erased off your record utilizing the pardon process?

NICHOLAS STEIN: Yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. And you said that the pardon processes isn't available to everyone.

NICHOLAS STEIN: The pardon process is available to everyone. Everyone can apply for it. Just not everybody who -- and not everyone has equal access to the advantages that I had that were able to get me that pardon within eight years of having the felony. Right. So, eight years of being convicted of that felony. So those advantages, like I said, we're a support network of people in the community who are willing to write these letters of support for me. Then the ability to hire a lawyer, which costs me about $3,000 and they were the people, or, and it was my time and my education that I was able to apply -- Really, a lot of work into putting together an 87 page pardon application packet with 87 pages of backup information about why I was a good candidate for that.

There are thousands of other marijuana felons out there that have just as good opportunity of giving back to the community and just, and I've done the things that I've done, but they haven't been able to demonstrate that to the board of pardons because of the onerous process. So, I just feel really, really strongly that, if you're erasing, if you're erasing misdemeanors, then it's really important that you 346 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

extend that to the felonies that I mentioned earlier.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So you would -- it's your position that this eraser in this Bill doesn't go far enough, that those that are charged and convicted with possession, with intent to sell possession within a school zone, all of that, that should go, just go away automatically without having going to the pardon process.

NICHOLAS STEIN: Well, it's not going to go away because these people have already, you know, presumably served their time. This is something that this is a plant that's becoming, you know, generally legalize, though regulated extensively. These people have done the same thing that corporations are about to make millions of dollars. You know, I get it, they broke the rule of law. One of my biggest problems was that I broke the rule of law. And, you know, that's a challenge. That's something that I have to improve in myself. That was a failure of my ego. Right. So that's something that I have had to deal with. And by doing that, I've been able to get to a point where I deserve that pardon. So other people have done that and they've addressed the problems that have led to their issues. They just haven't been able to demonstrate that they deserve a pardon because it's an onerous process. So if this Bill has the opportunity -- Yeah.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I'm just trying to establish, you know, where does it end, but I understand your answer. So thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you Representative Fiorello.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Stein, you are representative of a industry, a cannabis industry entrepreneur, you yourself, or you represent an organization of entrepreneurs.

347 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

NICHOLAS STEIN: I don't represent it. So, I am just a brand new, recent entrepreneur. I left the aerospace industry about a year and a half ago to pursue this advocacy. And I'm opening up a CBD and medical cannabis accessory shop in Colchester, Connecticut next month. And it's an already existing store that I'm buying into and we're expanding to Colchester. So this is my first foray into entrepreneurship, but I'm very, very interested in entrepreneurship in the cannabis space.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): Right. You had two suggestions to improve this Bill. One of them was related to the licensing structure. You said that it should be a one-to-one licensing ratio. What do you mean by that? And how does that improve the Bill as it's written?

NICHOLAS STEIN: Yeah, so that goes to another point of equity that could -- that would really be improved in this Bill and that there's no direct ownership by both people, by equity applicants, however that's defined. But for me, it's people who have been disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs, both as individuals and individuals from certain communities that have been disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs. So what I'm suggesting there is that for every one license that goes to a person that's not an equity applicant, another license goes to an equity applicant. And then in this process, you flip flop back and forth.

Now I heard earlier, Ben Zachs from Fine Fettle actually said the first 18 dispensary licenses he's in favor of going to equity applicants. I'd rather see that, [inaudible] Fine Fettle. By the way, that was a great idea, but you know, some sort of insurance that a certain portion of this industry is going into direct ownership by equity applicants and repairing the harm that the war on drugs and the war on marijuana has had against those communities and those individuals. 348 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): Okay. And then just lastly and quickly, you also said that you think that the legislation should include a certificate program to make sure that those who sell this are educated and, know how to make sure that consumers are educated. Am I right to think that you want that because you acknowledged that it's dangerous to be sold to younger people or that it's dangerous to be sold to people with potential mental illness issues? You're trying to mitigate some of the dangers of it. Why you want --

NICHOLAS STEIN: So the specific danger that I'm, that I -- one of the credible dangers of this, of legalizing recreational marijuana is that there's going to be an influx of new customers who have absolutely no experience using this product or very, very little. Either, it's been a very long time, or they've never used it before.

Now, if one of those people that goes to a recreational marijuana dispensary where an unscrupulous sales agent, or to let's say sell them, I'm just going to use an example of a five pack of pre-rolled cig -- pre-rolled joints. Right? And this person has never used marijuana before. And they consume the whole joint in their very first time. They're not going to have a very good time.

So, what I'm proposing is that some sort of -- First off through our community college system, the Quinebaug Valley Community College already has a one-year certificate program. That's doing great. It fills up every year and it's a cannabis studies program. And it just gives like the basic knowledge of how -- of cannabis and how it affects your system.

So I think something like that, but maybe tailored a little bit more towards product safety. I'm not going to get into specifics, but some sort of program like that, that would allow the sales and 349 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

marketing representatives to have knowledge of the - - basic level of knowledge before they're out there as the frontline of sales recreationally to put these things in the hands, put these products in the hands of people who may have never used them before.

And really from my sales experience, I've been in sales for the last, you know, six years, the most important thing about sales is education with anything. You really want to educate your customer. You want to get to know where your customer's at with their challenge and then provide a solution. Right? So, in doing that, the first step is having a base level of knowledge of your product.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Seeing no further questions. Appreciate it being here--

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. I've changed computers, I can't figure out how to raise my hand if I may.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yep. Go ahead. Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you. Mr. Stein, thank you very much. Just one, just quick question, if you could go back in time, how would you recommend that we help Nicholas Stein as a teenager to stop from using marijuana.

NICHOLAS STEIN: Looking back there's nothing you would have done to have stopped me. So we have, what's my family called the -- Well, never mind, there's nothing you would have done to have stopped me given my past and the group of people that I chose to be friends with and just generally being independent soul. What -- the only thing that you could have changed is the impact of the law enforcement system on the decisions that I made. 350 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I don't see that my crime was ever anything having to do with the plant itself. My crime was breaking the rule of law, and that had a lot of really negative impacts that delayed my career. And it really could have -- if I didn't -- if I wasn't born into the life that I was born into, I would have had just so many worse things happen to me. So there's nothing you could've done to have stopped me from using marijuana when I was 16, 17 when I started, but there are certainly some changes that hopefully this law will make so that no one ever goes through what I went through and other people don't have to go through even worse than what I went through.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Did I understand that your testimony you were, were you dealing at 16, 17?

NICHOLAS STEIN: No. I started dealing like 19, 20 when I was in college. I started using it 16, 17.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): All right. Okay. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your testimony, Mr. Stein. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. All right. Next, we will hear from Sean Perez.

SEAN PEREZ: Well, how are you doing?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Good. How are you, sir?

SEAN PEREZ: I'm good. Distinguished Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of legalizing and regulating marijuana. Having spent my career as a police officer, I'm now representative of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, a nonprofit group of active, retired, and former police, prosecutors, judges, and other criminal justice professionals working to fix the criminal justice system.

351 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Our mission is to make communities safer by focusing law enforcement resources on the root causes of crime, building strong relationships with the communities we serve and exploring evidence-based alternatives to incarceration.

At a time when trust in police is at 27 year low, we need to seize every opportunity to build bridges between public safety officers and the people they serve. Decriminalizing marijuana was a smart move. It allowed officers to focus on what really matters -- crimes against people and property. But it’s not enough. The criminal market still controls marijuana in our state. Young people still have easy access to marijuana.

As more states legalize, illegal sales and trafficking decline. Moving marijuana into a legal marketplace reduces crime, defunds potentially dangerous criminal enterprises that sell marijuana, and places a barrier between young people and marijuana.

Legal marijuana businesses undergo a rigorous licensing process, which limits criminal organizations from entering the market, and are subject to taxes, safety inspections, and strict regulations. If they make a mistake, we know who to talk to.

While regulating marijuana for adults is smart policy, the Law Enforcement Action Partnership have some concerns about the lack of equity provisions in this Bill. We don’t want to further disempower those who have had their lives destabilized by marijuana prohibition. SB 888 does not specify how much revenue will be allocated to equity and reinvestment in the communities hit hardest by prohibition, namely low-income people and people of color. This legislation should specify exactly how much revenue will be used and in what ways, which can be determined by the Equity Commission’s recommendations. 352 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

The Law Enforcement Action Partnership believes SB 888 should also allow for no-cost expungement of all marijuana-specific offenses, not just possession cases. Those convicted of selling marijuana should not have those convictions remain on their records, creating barriers to success for the rest of their lives, while the legal industry accumulates millions in profits.

There should also be revisions to this Bill that ensure equitable access to business licenses. The license lottery should not proceed until the Equity Commission has released its full recommendations on licensing and a substantial portion of licenses should be allocated to qualifying equity applicants.

Without amendments for equity provisions, SB 888 will fail to address the scope damage caused by decades of marijuana prohibition, which means that communities most impacted by our current system, the same communities that do not trust police, will have little incentive to trust that our justice system or state government are looking out for them.

The smartest public safety strategy is to legalize marijuana in a responsible, equitable way. The Law Enforcement Action Partnership believes that SB 888 needs to be amended before that will be possible. Thank you for your time.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, sir. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, sir. You -- are you here on behalf of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership?

SEAN PEREZ: Yes, sir.

353 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And you mentioned that it's comprised of police officers and judges, and I think there was another group that you indicated --

SEAN PEREZ: Law enforcement professionals like anybody in law enforcement that's basically.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So, do you have any current law enforcement involved with your group?

SEAN PEREZ: There are numerous individuals involved. You can go to the website. There's the whole list of --

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I'm on the -- Sorry. I'm on the website. Do you have any current law enforcement that's -- There's nobody on your board. There's nobody on the staff of trying to figure out and before we get to -- Well, do you have any current law enforcement?

SEAN PEREZ: I wouldn't know any names off the top of my head. I'm sorry.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Do you have any former law enforcement other than yourself from Connecticut on this?

SEAN PEREZ: There was one other person, but it's just me right now.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): All right. So you're the only former law enforcement individual from Connecticut affiliated with this group?

SEAN PEREZ: Correct.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And what about judges? Do you have any current judges that are affiliated with this group?

SEAN PEREZ: I don't know about in Connecticut or any local area have any current judges. 354 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): All right. Do you have any current judges anywhere in the country and affiliated with this group?

SEAN PEREZ: Not that I'm aware of.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. And do you have any former judges from Connecticut affiliated with this group?

SEAN PEREZ: No names that I know, sir.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. That's all I had. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for coming in to testify. I've asked this question to a number of proponents of legalization that all asked that amendments be made to this Bill, including equity and homegrown. So let me ask you if this Bill were to be put up for a vote without the amendment, would you rather see this Bill go through or nothing?

SEAN PEREZ: Probably nothing.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman very much. Just briefly thank you officer Perez, just curious as to whether or not you have any problems with Section 13, the probable cause section. If you pull somebody over, you can't utilize no --

SEAN PEREZ: Plain smell.

355 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): I'm sorry.

SEAN PEREZ: You're talking about the plain smell part of it.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Yes.

SEAN PEREZ: Other states, they got rid of a while ago to the whole plain smell idea. I guess, I guess my problem with it would be, what was mentioned earlier, if you have somebody else who smells like it and you know, there's no issue with associated with somebody who smokes, you know, it doesn't mean you're a smoker, you know. And if they smell like they smell like it, you know, I'm not going to down somebody for doing something in their own private life. You know what I mean? I shouldn't also think the consequence for them being around me.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Fair enough. Fair enough. But, for example, if I'm pulled over because of the tail light and they smell alcohol on my breath and let's suppose I just had one or two drinks, they pulled me out of the car for the smell of alcohol. And I passed the --

SEAN PEREZ: The specific verbiage that I've written, I've personally written on DUI reports as alcohol emanating from a person like, you know, like from their breath or from, you know, their facial area. So that's specific as to, you know, tying it to consumption, whereas smelling marijuana in the vicinity of somebody is completely different.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): What if you smell it directly from them when they're talking?

SEAN PEREZ: Smelling It coming out of the breath, they smell like they just burned something or it smells like smoke. That's a different situation. I can, you know, I can write that down. I can explain that.

356 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): But I think under this law we've been told that that's not enough for probable cause to ask them to step out of the car. Do you believe that if you smell it on their breath, it's emanating that you should be allowed to pull them out of the car?

SEAN PEREZ: I think it can be articulated. I think you articulate it differently when you're saying, if you're smelling from a car and then smelling it from the person, it's two different things. Now you're tying it to them specifically using it as opposed to just smelling it in the vicinity. And I think that could be argued.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Well, I'm just saying that the Statute or the proposed Bill doesn't allow you --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative, I think he's answered to the best visibility at this point. I think there's also been conflicting testimony on this today. I would draw your attention to lines 475 to 495, or 475 to 4 -- 475 to 479. I think we can debate this and work on this language to move forward. But I think the witness's answered the question to the best visibility.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Fair enough. Fair enough, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. Mr. Perez, thank you very much for your service, sir. And I appreciate your testimony.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Further questions for this witness. Seeing none. We'll move on. Thank you for being with us, sir.

SEAN PEREZ: Thank you. Next up will be Barbara Brohl.

BARBARA BROHL: Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Barbara Brohl and I was Colorado's Chief Cannabis Regulator from 2011 to 2017. During that time, one of my primary 357 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

responsibilities was the successful implementation of Amendment 64, which was the legalization of adult use cannabis in Colorado.

As Colorado embarked as the first state in the country and frankly, in the world to legalize recreational marijuana, we developed three overarching objectives to guide us in everything that we did wanting to keep marijuana out of the hands of kids to, two, keep the criminal elements out of the regulated industry and, three, to minimize diversion to other states.

We developed a robust regulatory framework that served as a model for many other states as they embarked on their marijuana legalization efforts. Colorado's system includes strict licensing and stringent public health and public safety regulations balanced with burden on the industry. These include fingerprint-based FBI criminal background checks, extensive financial background checks and disclosure of all persons with the financial interest.

Additionally, Colorado requires video surveillance, alarm systems see to sale track and trace systems, restrictions on edible marijuana-infused products and mandatory testing for potency, homogeneity, residual solvents, and contaminants. There are also requirements for child-resistant packaging, extensive labeling requirements, underage compliance checks and advertising restrictions.

A key component of our regulatory framework was a focus on youth prevention. And very early into our implementation, we launched a campaign on youth prevention. Colorado is not experiencing an increase in youth usage of cannabis. Reports from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health NSDUH and the Department of Public Health, the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey confirmed that.

358 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Additionally, Colorado is not seeing an impact of cannabis use on high school graduation and dropout rates. In fact, graduation rates are not only up. they are the highest graduation rates that Colorado has seen in a decade, rising from a low point of 72% in the 2009-10 school year to 81.9% in the 2019-20 school year.

Colorado's Department of Public Safety has also reported that generally crime has not increased. An area of major focus, however, is that law enforcement and prosecutors are actively and aggressively pursuing cases against illicit market activity.

All of these programs are paid for by cannabis tax revenues. Overall, to date, Colorado has collected $1.6 Billion in tax revenues since 2014. Excise taxes support school construction and sales taxes are used to pay for the marijuana enforcement division and other regulatory oversight, youth prevention, substance abuse prevention and treatment, public education campaigns, and homeless initiatives, in addition to grants to local law enforcement. Local jurisdictions use their taxes to pay for local initiatives, such as public works projects and college scholarships, or they put it in their general fund.

I strongly believe that the thoughtful regulation of cannabis is a far better approach than prohibition. And I'm gonna leave you with just one last thought, and that is harm reduction constitutes more than decriminalization to truly address and reduce harm cannabis should be tested, traced, tagged and taxed. Testing for potency, mold, microbial, residual, solvents, pesticides, and other contaminants, so that cannabis consumption is safe. Trace so that if cannabis is contaminated, it can be easily identified and recall. Tag to inform consumers and regulators appropriate information about the product, test results, product sourcing info, THC content, serving sizes and tax to raise the money 359 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

needed to address the social class related to cannabis as I have mentioned them.

Thank you for allowing me to appear and testify before you, and please let me know if you have any questions.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Questions or comments from Members of the Committee. Representative Blumenthal.

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks for being with us, Ms. Brohl. Really appreciate you joining us. I was just wondering, is there anything you think we've been missing in this discussion, and/or, are there any lessons that you learned in Colorado from which we should learn, mistakes you made that you wish you had known when you started out?

BARBARA BROHL: Yes. Thank you. One of the things that was really important to us was gathering data and because if you don't gather data until you legalize, you can't tell what the differences of pre and post in particular, because pre legalization, you don't generally stratify data by marijuana usage and other drug usage, it's all just drug usage or non-drug usage. So that was one of the things that I've always thought was that would be a really much better way to start.

The other thing is to really address your edible products. As one of the other witnesses said earlier, when people begin to use it that are not sophisticated users. And I use that term with a kind of -- it's an interesting concept. As medical patients are very sophisticated, they understand dosing. Individuals who are going to just start for the first time and there aren't that many, but there will be a few that, you know, it could be a [inaudible] interest, they're not understanding how edibles work.

360 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

And so we had to put out a public education campaign that basically said, start low, go slow. And the reason was because when you have smokable marijuana or smokable cannabis, the effects are felt pretty quickly. However, edibles can sometimes take two to four hours before the effects are felt. And so, they take more and then they take some more and then they take some more. And before you know, they do have a very bad experience.

So those are the kinds of things that I would definitely recommend. The other thing that I would recommend is one that we did do, and that is making sure that you have kind of a continuous improvement process throughout this, because there is no way to get this completely a 100% correct the first time. You know, a prohibition on alcohol, 'cause I regulated alcohol as well was, you know, ended 80 some years ago and we still have every year liquor Bills. So, I'm going to tell you, they're going to be tweaks that you're going to continuously have and that's okay. But bring in a group of stakeholders, make sure that the industry is there, your regulators are there, law enforcement is there, parents groups are there, physicians are there, so that you can just hash it all out and you will always come out with a better solution than if you don't use that stakeholder process.

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): Thank you. That's very helpful. And through you, Mr. Chair, one more question. Did you find that the kind of continuous improvement process? Well, first of all, which continued -- during the continuous improvement process, did you do that through regulatory changes primarily or through a statutory changes? And would you recommend going through repeated statutory process or passing some sort of enabling legislation that would allow the regulatory process to do some of those continuous improvements?

BARBARA BROHL: The Amendment 64 gave the state licensing authority, which is what role I played 361 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

great authority to implement these requirements. The enabling statutes also gave the Department of Revenue's Marijuana Enforcement Division, ME, a great deal of authority to do that as well. So within the construct of what was already statutorily and constitutionally allowed, I was able to bring in that group and we could take a look at it.

For example, when we found out that people were not understanding how to consume edibles, in other words, what was the serving size? How long do you wait? We brought the team back together and we were able to identify standard serving sizes, ensure that they were demarked, so they could be easily broken. And that the tags, the labels were very clearly identified. And that we were able to do outside of a statutory process, outside of your legislative process, because I was given that authority.

So I think that if you want it to work faster, you'll have -- it might be better to go through the regulatory process, but if you want to have -- make sure that you're pretty strictly addressing things, you might want to put parameters around that in your legislative process, so that the regulator knows what to do.

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Representative Blumenthal. Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And Ms. Brohl, thank you very much for your testimony. Are you in Colorado now?

BARBARA BROHL: I do live in Colorado now.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And you do not regulate THC content, is that correct?

362 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

BARBARA BROHL: No, we do not have a cap on THC content at this point. However, we do have a requirement that it be tested for potency and that that potency be identified on the label.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And have you read the July 31 Department of Public Health Environment report on THC concentration in Colorado? Have you read that?

BARBARA BROHL: I believe I've had -- I've looked at it.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): There, they're talking about the dramatic increase in the amount of THC. If you had to do over again, I know you were asked this question, a similar question. Do you think the legislation should have had a cap at least in some form or no?

BARBARA BROHL: What I will say is if you'll give me just a minute to kind of explain why I'm saying what I'm saying. Actually, no and let me tell you why. And the reason is because you want, when you're regulating this, I wanted to make sure that we brought everybody who was using and consuming into the regulated market, because I could control those businesses. I could control a lot of things. I could control, making sure that underage usage was minimized as much as possible. A number of those things that it was as safe as possible.

If there is a demand and that demand is not being satisfied by the regulated market, it will be satisfied by the illicit market. The illicit market doesn't check for IDs. The illicit market has extraction equipment that is not safe. And we had to -- we had to actually make it illegal for individuals to extract because there were actually homes being blown up.

So what I'm saying is if you want to really regulate this well, you've got to allow for everything that's going to be in demand in the process. And the only 363 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

reason I say that is because what doesn't get -- if they aren't able to obtain what they're used to getting, they will try to get it on their own.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Now there've been some conflicting reports cited about increase in teen use. Initially apparently there was some articles written and in 2016, 2017, there was some decrease in teen use. And then there was seen as an increase over the last couple of years. Do you -- can you tell us what your understanding is and the amount of teen use upon legalization and as of late?

BARBARA BROHL: From the people that study this from a statistical perspective, and I've talked with them, they tell me that it is not statistically significant, so you'll always see a little bit of changes. What we have seen is the migration from smokable marijuana in teen use. So about the same amount of teen use. Okay. It's pretty much stayed the same or started to go down. But what they're doing is they're changing from the smuggle marijuana into concentrates and other things like that.

Now I think it's because parents are becoming a little more in tune. They're watching, they're doing the smell tests. They're doing things like that. But even so that is what came out of the last survey that occurred and the last report that occurred in the last year, the Department of Public Health did not feel that it was necessary to do any changes immediately, except for continuing to educate parents, continuing to educate the youth and continuing to educate and provide tools for educators as well.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): So I don't know if you've been listening to the testimony all day. My big thing is trying to prevent the teen use. I'm very concerned about it and I don't think this legislation goes far enough to educate and help prevent it. What is the best thing that Colorado did to help reduce or limit 364 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

teen use? And what if you could do over again, would you implement to prevent or help reduce teen use?

BARBARA BROHL: So education, public education I think is really important. And I think it is absolutely critical because parents don't always have the ability to really understand what kids are putting in their mouth necessarily when they're teens, they're not always with them. So, one of the things that we did and I would have liked to have done it at the very beginning if, you know, hindsight's always 2020, and that is, we put a lot of restrictions around edibles.

So every -- and we developed a universal symbol. And every edible had to have that universal symbol imprinted upon it, either stamped in it, you know, branded in it, if it was a muffin or whatever it was, but it had to be there and it had to be on every single serving. So if you had a candy bar that say had, you know, six little squares in it, and they were each, you know, one serving, every single one of them had to have that universal symbol on it in order to make sure that if it was left out and someone else thought that they would be able to identify that it had THC in it.

I heard from parents, I heard from educators, I heard from school resource officers that this is what they needed. They needed to have everything identified. Not only on the label, not only on the wrapping, but on the product itself. In addition, for those things that you can't imprint the universal symbol on, such as liquids or like granola, we required that those only be in single servings. And that was so that you wouldn't really be able to take the liquid out of the bottle necessarily. It wouldn't make sense or, if it was only a single serving or the same thing with both products.

And in addition, what we did is we said that they could not be in, you know, in shapes of animals or 365 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

people or anything like that, that could also, you know, maybe, you know, cause a smaller child to inadvertently consume. So those -- you and I are on the same page. I did not -- I really tried hard to make sure that we limited under age use, all the way from very small children all the way up until, you know, teens.

So those are the kinds of things that we always were looking at. And frankly, having those stakeholder work groups and having physicians, having parents groups, having the industry itself come in and talk really helped because what we found is the industry also wants to be compliant. They put a ton of money into this and they don't want their licenses revoked. So, they were willing to do whatever was necessary to help us put together a good system.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): So, do you have a medical background in any way?

BARBARA BROHL: No. I have a legal background and a regulatory background, but we worked very hard with public health. We worked with a lot of the physicians out of Children's Hospital.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And I certainly wish we could have had public health here today. And I know that the Governor's office has committed to providing their testimony. My question to you would be on Page 32 of that July 31, 2020 report, it says at the very bottom evidence statement we found substantial and the word substantial is in all caps evidence that THC intoxication can cause acute psychotic symptoms, which are worse with higher doses. Have you -- in Colorado, was there a finding of particular medical problems associated with chronic or a high THC content use on a regular basis?

BARBARA BROHL: You know, I don't know if there was. What I will tell you is that we are trying very hard to make sure that, that's where those public education campings come in, and the fact that, you 366 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

know, it's, you know, if someone is having a negative experience, bring them into the hospital, take care of them, don't leave them at home, those kinds of things.

But I think, what I will say is this, what we found when we were doing our demand studies and we were doing a lot of the studies as to who was consuming, for the most part, the people that were already consuming continue to consume. For the most part, people who are not consuming, continued not to consume. Then you have a little bit of a bump in the middle. You have those that are adults that had two things going for them. One was either they had a novelty bump, kind of a thing that seemed like it was very cool now and it's legal, so let me try it and never did before. Or what we started to find was the over 60 crowd started to increase their usage as well.

And we think there was a wellness type of thing, but obviously you're going to have teens that are gonna try alcohol that are gonna try marijuana and other things that they shouldn't be trying. And so that's where we have the Colorado Kids Healthy Survey, the Colorado Survey Healthy Kids Program and that's where we try very hard to educate them on a number of issues that are harmful to them, including the usage of cannabis.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): All right. [I'm not gonna believe her.] I very much appreciate your testimony. Have you been in contact with anyone in the Governor's office as they were developing this legislation to help? Or is this --

BARBARA BROHL: No, I have not. I have taken a look at it a little bit, but I've not been in contact with Governor's office.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Were you asked to testify here today by anybody?

367 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

BARBARA BROHL: Yes, I was asked by the Marijuana Policy Project. And the reason for that was because of the fact that I have testified in front of other state legislatures and I have testified in front of other countries legislative processes. And for me, it's -- I'm very independent because I have a regulatory background, but I want -- I have a very - - my position is harm reduction. And that's why I gave you that last little spiel. And so, I want to reduce the harm of anybody who is consuming and I want to reduce the consumption of teens.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): That's my number one goal. If somehow we could figure out a way to let people over 25 decide what they want to do. But my concern is that they see their parents smoking or doing edibles and just inevitably you have more higher teaming use than if you legalize and when you don't. But I appreciate your testimony, Ms. Brohl, very much. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you Representative Palm.

REP. PALM (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have three questions, ma'am. One is, in 2016, The Denver Post said that they did a survey or the state did a survey about whether or not voters regretted the decision. Do you have periodically, do you review as a state what the public thinks of over time about that decision to be the first in the country? And do you know how the satisfaction rate generally polls?

BARBARA BROHL: Yes. Generally, it polls well, you know, and because people are believed the same way that I do for the most part. And there is enough freedom around it. And let me tell you what I mean by freedom. Local jurisdictions are not mandated to allow for the cultivation, the product manufacturing or the sale of cannabis in their jurisdictions if they don't want to. They can ban it outright and many have, and many have not. 368 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

So local jurisdictions can actually decide on their own and within that so can the people within there, because of their constituency within that local jurisdiction, you know, it's a representative government, they will, they understand that. But for the most part, people are not, when you take a statewide survey, I would say that you're still going to have the majority more than 50% that will say this is they want to continue with this process. Are there problems? Sure, as we've discussed and, but what we want to do is just continue to make it better.

REP. PALM (36TH): Thank you. My second question is about the amount of income. I keep seeing different figures, but two billion or so, how much of that goes into the general fund for the state?

BARBARA BROHL: Well, to date, there's been 1.6 billion state tax that has been collected since 2014. So it's all kind of lumped together. Excuse me. It doesn't go into the general fund initially. It goes into the marijuana tax fund. And from that, because in Colorado we have something called the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. And when you impose a new tax here, you have to go to a vote of the people and you have to tell the people what you're going to use it for. So this was to be used for marijuana purposes. And so it was to be used for regulation and, you know, youth prevention processes and a number of things like that, as I mentioned before, and that's what it's used for as well as some school construction.

There is the ability though, however, to at different points move some of that into the general fund, but not very much of it goes in there. The majority of it gets directly appropriated to different things. For example, a couple of years ago, about four years ago, we started appropriating directly to local law enforcement, so that they could go and do their work much better than they 369 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

were able to with the appropriations that they were getting.

And so those are the kinds of things that it does. And so -- and the reason -- so let me just give you one thought too, and that is, I think it's a good thing that it doesn't go directly to the general fund. And the reason is because when you begin to depend on money for everything from roads to, you know, whatever, you might not make the best policy decisions going forward as a result of that. What this does is because we're not dependent on that for road construction or anything else, we can make really good policy decisions, our legislature can and know that they're not then defunding something else. But as I said, it does take care of all of its regulatory requirements.

REP. PALM (36TH): Thank you. And the part that gets diverted for the local police, and you said, so they can carry out their work. That includes work that is not specifically cannabis related.

BARBARA BROHL: No, it's cannabis related. It's generally cannabis related.

REP. PALM (36TH): It's generally --

BARBARA BROHL: There's two things. That's two tax dollars that go to the local jurisdictions. One is from the marijuana tax fund that gets appropriated for their cannabis to work in, you know, illicit grows, those kinds of things, but they also, each local jurisdiction that has a store within its jurisdiction will get a certain amount of sales tax revenue that goes back to them and they can use it for whatever they want. They some have, you know, pave their roads completely. They have no potholes. Others have done other public works. They built new buildings. Others have used it to provide scholarships for college students, so. And then they can use it for, you know, additional police officers that they use, choose to use as well. 370 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. PALM (36TH): Okay. Thank you. And then my last question is, concerns, one of the sticking points that we've been grappling with, all day has to do with equity. And obviously I think it's a pretty well-known fact that Connecticut has among the worst disparities of poverty in the nation probably far worse than yours. So, my question is, is this the thing that you had to grapple with in forming this Bill? Was there an equity piece having to do with expungement of records and incentives for minority businesses and the kinds of things that we're grappling with?

BARBARA BROHL: No, we didn't do that at the outset. And, because remember this was a constitutional amendment. So it's a ballot initiative. People were voting for it. We were the first that had ever voted it in. So, it was written pretty narrowly. And I think had there been items in there, like, criminal expungements and things like that, it may not have passed. And so, I think the drafters were very careful.

Now I will tell you that what will happen with, or what may happen if you don't have some sort of social equity piece in it from the beginning is that you will deliver all -- you will, you know, assign all of the licenses to the potential licensees. And then what will happen is that they will become kind of a, you know, a sufficient number of businesses already there. And so, when you do try to retrofit social equity policies, they may not fit really well.

And so it's best to do it from the beginning because it's really hard to retrofit it. However, having said that, you also want to make sure that perfect isn't the enemy of good and so. you may have to figure out a way. My recommendation would be to figure out a way that you allow for say a certain amount of social equity, but provide maybe some guidance to a regulatory body or to another 371 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

committee that will then flush it out and with the requirement of what needs to be done. so that you can get this through and then you can continue on because it's going to take some money to do all of that.

And so that money will probably come from your tax revenues and being able to either educate disproportionated, you know, just disadvantaged communities or disadvantaged businesses, those kinds of things, or to allow for loans, things like that, that have to happen. And so that's, it's an interesting thing. And if you look to see what Illinois has done, they actually tried for probably three years to legalize, but couldn't get enough of their social equity components in it and finally, they were able to get that in. And so, since Colorado did not do it from the beginning, I think you'd be better informed by looking to see what Illinois has done.

REP. PALM (36TH): Right. Thank you very much for that insight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. that's it for me.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, ma'am.

BARBARA BROHL: Thank you.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I see on the list that you're signed up under BJ Brohl Strategies. Is that who you work for?

BARBARA BROHL: Yes. That's a -- I have a small consulting company. I consult in regulatory affairs and government work.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, so you're being paid to be here today? 372 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

BARBARA BROHL: No, I'm not.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. I just -- I'm a little puzzled because on the CT-N feed, it doesn't mention BJ Brohl Strategies. It says former Executive Director and Chief Cannabis Regulator, the Colorado Department of Revenue. So, I don't know where that came from.

BARBARA BROHL: I am the former Executive Director of the Department of Revenue in Colorado and the former State Licensing Authority. I was on Governor Hickenlooper's cabinet until the end of 2017 when I left. And then I started a small consulting firm to do government consulting, government affairs. And because of the six years that I spent regulating cannabis, this is a major part of what I do.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): No, I understand. I'm just trying to figure out where they got that from, because the list is different. But you left Colorado regulation, Department of Revenue in 2017. Right?

BARBARA BROHL: Right, in 2017.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And in your role there, you didn't work with the Department of Public Health. You were a tax attorney, correct?

BARBARA BROHL: So, the Department of Revenue had responsibility for taxation as well as for the Marijuana Enforcement Division. So, the Marijuana Enforcement Division, all of the individuals who did all of the licensing work, all of the compliance work, all of the auditing work came from my department.

We worked very closely with the Department of Public Health and Environment on issues that were closely related as well as the Department of Agriculture. And then ultimately, we brought in the Department of 373 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Regulatory Agencies for banking purposes and other things like that.

So, one of the things is that what we did is we had what was called the marijuana working group at the cabinet level. And we would get together the department heads of all of the agencies that had some impact in this legalization effort and afterwards to address issues that were common. For example, let me give you an example, pesticide use, that really required a very close coordination between the Department of Agriculture, Department of Public Health and the Department of Revenue's Marijuana Enforcement Division, in order to make sure that we identified, prohibited pesticides that we considered a public health issue if they were used and my department then would go in and make sure they were not used.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate your coming in to testify today. You've given us a lot of information about what goes on in Colorado. Have you read the Bill that's up for debate today?

BARBARA BROHL: I have read the summary, but I haven't, you know, committed it to memory.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. So, you haven't read the actual Bill.

BARBARA BROHL: No. Are there things in the Bill that you would like to discuss?

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Well, I was going to ask you about -- well, I was going to ask you what you thought about the Bill, but if you haven't read it, 374 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I'm not sure we would be getting an accurate representation of what you think about it. Why don't you tell us what you think about what you've read in the summary?

BARBARA BROHL: Well, I think that it's very similar to the one that Colorado has as well. I mean, there's a portion of being able to have on your person, so to have in your possession, a certain amount of cannabis, and that is what we do as well. There are some requirements around business licensing, and those are the kinds of things that I think are really going to be important. Doing the background checks is important. We did really extensive criminal background checks. I think that's really important if you're wanting to keep the criminal element out. Also having extensive financial checks. We kind of used the model of gaming and gaming licensing because I also regulated that.

And so those are good things that I've kind of started to see how you're doing that. Taxation is going to pay for all of the things that you want to do. The thing that was really of interest to me, frankly, was your social equity commission and the things that you were going to do from a social equity perspective.

I really liked the fact that you're going to be using portions of tax dollars to support these communities that were disproportionately impacted, setting up some real specific qualifications. The one thing that's really going to be important is that, and I think that's where you get into ownership and financial interests because what we've seen across the country is there's a tendency at times to have the minority business owner be basically a figurehead and others are actually running it. And if you really want to make this a social equity piece, you want to make sure that you're doing it in that way.

375 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I like the lower fee structure I really liked, especially was the the part where you would have businesses assist, businesses that were already established, assisting those that need to become established, because I think that's kind of the concept that you have when you have a prime contractor and then you have some of the sub-primes that go in. They work together and they get to learn from each other.

So, those are the things I think that were, that were really of interest to me because like I said, Colorado we're retrofitting it as we speak.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Is it your feeling that in Connecticut, we would have pretty much the same results as you had in Colorado?

BARBARA BROHL: I don't know. I think you can put in place the regulatory process that you can get some of the same results. Let me just tell you the Marijuana Enforcement Division has probably about 120 people that work there. The majority of them are investigators and licensed specialists. And so, there was a lot that there was a great deal of emphasis on doing that. I don't really know whether you're going to have a separate marijuana enforcement division type of agency, or if it's going to be -- Some other states have just added it to their liquor control boards and they are two very different animals to regulate, especially because one is not legal at the federal level and one is.

One when you can transport across state lines and when you can't. So, there may be some things around that. So, I can't really say what your results would be without knowing how you plan to staff your agencies and what their requirements would be.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): And then reading the Bill, of course.

BARBARA BROHL: Yes. 376 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Well thank you for your time. I appreciate your coming. Oh, one more thing. You had said that there was some entity that had asked you to come in and testify today. Who is that?

BARBARA BROHL: That entity was the Marijuana Policy Project, and I'm not -- I don't work for them. I'm not consulting with them. It's just that they understand the kinds of testimony that I have done in other states. And so, they asked if I would be willing to come in and testify here, and I said, yes.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you Representative. I do not see anyone else. Are there any others who would like to ask a question or make a comment? Seeing none, thank you very much for joining us this evening. Enjoy the rest of the evening.

BARBARA BROHL: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I really appreciate you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you Representative. Mayor Justin Elicker. You have three minutes.

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: Thanks Senator Winfield. I just want to start by saying it's a long night for me, so thank you all for all that you're doing. This is going to be a very long night for you. Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Ranking Members Kissel and Fishbein and Members of the Committee. I'm here to speak in support of cannabis legislation.

Despite decriminalization, Connecticut does not currently have a system to regulate or tax and industry that already exists within our state. Hence, consumption of cannabis remains without oversight and does not utilize revenue from its sale 377 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

to address the long-standing inequities caused by its prohibition.

The Governor, including this proposal, as one of his priorities is a major step forward from years past. And as you know, advocates have been fighting an uphill battle to put a serious proposal for the legislation of cannabis on the table for years. And I want to acknowledge the Governor for putting this Bill on front and center and hopefully will lead to a long way to passage in this session.

I also recognize that those same advocates, many of them that have spoken today and within the legislature do not believe the Bill is currently written, does enough to ensure that the legalization of recreational cannabis benefits to communities most harmed by its status as an illegal substance for the past several decades. Black and Brown communities have disproportionately been impacted by the war on drugs, systemic racism and inequity, and a criminal justice system stacked against them.

And the legalization of cannabis comes an opportunity for both entrepreneurship and for additional revenue from taxation. These opportunities and the investment of tax revenue must be to the benefit of those communities. And legalization should only take place if that's its principal impact. Members of the New Haven delegation have been advocates for years regarding the ways legalized cannabis can be done thoughtfully and equitably.

House Bill 6377 includes a range of proposals that would make the legalization of recreational cannabis more equitable. And I firmly stand behind the efforts of Representatives [inaudible 2:16:07] Candelaria and Senator Winfield, and many others who have done this work for many years. I do not however believe that this must be a question of either or. The Governor's Bill can be the vehicle by which we achieve legalization so long -- 378 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Mayor Elicker, just so you know, we're not directly mentioning other Bills.

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: Okay.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): We're just talking about 888.

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: Fair enough. Thank you. Thank you. There's an urgent need for investment in our communities, support and access to capital for minority business owners, opportunities for our reentry population and more. I'm confident that everyone is willing to work on behalf of Connecticut residents to get this right. Let's work together to ensure that in this legislative session, recreational cannabis is legalized and that it is done in a fair, equitable, and thoughtful manner. Thank you again all.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Representative DUBITSKY.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for coming in to testify as with a lot of the people who came to testify about who from the cannabis community, you seem to think that this Bill is fatally flawed. So I'll ask you the same question. If it were a choice between this Bill unamended and nothing, which would you rather see pass, this or nothing?

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: Thanks for the question, Representative Dubitsky. I don't think the Bill is fatally flawed at all. And I think as all of you know best, this process is one where the language of the Bill will likely change over the coming weeks. And I think there's a huge potential here to hone and craft the Bill to make sure that it's right for passage. I think that --

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): That was not my question. 379 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: Yeah. I'm working on answering your question, Representative Dubitsky. I think that we have a lot of potential, not just in this session, but should this pass even in its current form in future sessions as the previous person testified to make sure that it is right as many things as this will be a living document that over the years will change.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. So, you'd rather see it passing its current form than nothing at all.

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: I think that's fair to say.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: Senator Winfield, you're on mute.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I hit the button twice. Thank you Representative Dubitsky. Representative Porter.

REP. PORTER (94TH): It's getting late, Senator Winfield. No questions for the good mayor of the City of New Haven. I just wanted to thank you for coming out tonight, hanging in there with us and for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: Thanks Representative.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you and I hit it only once this time. Senator Haskell.

SENATOR HASKELL (26TH): Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Mayor Elicker. It's great to see you. Just one very brief question. In media reports covering [inaudible] 33 million in the first year of sales rising up to 95 million --

380 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: It's a little bit hard to hear you Senator Haskell. I'm not sure if it's me or--

SENATOR HASKELL (26TH): Oh, it could be me.

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: It's way better now. It's way better now.

SENATOR HASKELL (26TH): Way better. Okay, great. I was just saying the revenue projections have been referred too in the media is very modest related to cannabis legalization rising from $33 million in the first year of sales to eventually 95 million. And of course, some of it will eventually go to reimbursing distressed municipalities. Some of it's going into pilot. I think that New Haven is a prime example for why it's so critical that we fund pilots. So, I just wanted to give you an opportunity if you'd like to talk about why it's critical that even if this funding might be thought of by some as conservative estimates or perhaps modest, why every dollar into pilot would be helpful for your city.

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: Yeah. I mean, I think that the revenue question is important here. The use already exists. It's important that we take the opportunity, especially when there's other states doing it to tax that use. And every dollar can certainly help New Haven as many of us that are living in New Haven know right know and certainly as we try to close this deficit that we're seeing in this coming year. but I think that the bigger picture is about the inequities that have been created over many, many years, particularly in communities of color. And we're seeing the negative impacts, not just on the revenue side, but on the fact that we have 900 people returning to New Haven, who have a criminal record every year. And some of that history is related to criminalization due to drug use and drug sale.

381 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

And that imposes an incredible cost on our city, not to mention the ethical issues around not giving people an opportunity to reenter our society and take the next step. So, I think that the components of expunging records and making sure that we're giving people that have historically been negatively impacted by this an opportunity to potentially benefit economically can help us much more than even the revenue component of this Bill, which certainly will help as well.

SENATOR HASKELL (26TH): That's really helpful to know. Thanks for sticking with us in this long hearing, Mayor Elicker. Thank you, Mr. Chair for the time.

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: Thanks, Senator Haskell.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Good evening, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mayor, I don't know if you had an opportunity to hear some of the testimony earlier regarding the allocation of the tax revenue in Colorado, a significant portion being allocated to future education as well as current education to not only parents, but our youth regarding the risks of marijuana use, et cetera.

And earlier we also had representatives from the communities that have challenges and mental disabilities, et cetera, that this would have also a very strong negative impact in that regard. I thought I'd pick your brain a little bit, especially in light of the fact that certainly, you know, you're passing local budgets and things of that nature. Looking at the scheme of the potential revenue that's being represented, would you agree with the estimates that are being made regarding the tax revenue that would be received from the taxation of this in the State of Connecticut?

382 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: I wish I could answer your question Representative Rebimbas, but I do not know the details of how the revenue will be distributed. I can talk to you about New Haven revenues and expenses till the cows come home, but I can't give you any answers on the details there.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Okay. And I can certainly appreciate that. And Mayor, would you have an idea as to what percentage would be adequate in order to provide for either, let's say rehabilitation facilities, as you know, we have a huge shortage in that regard and beds for people who need to go into rehab, things of that nature. And it's been a pretty, you know, testify to this evening that there potentially could be a lot more impact on people with mental disabilities on needing assistance. Do you have any thought as to the breakdown of percentages of what the tax revenue would bring in? what should be allocated to education? What should be allocated to addiction? What may be allocated to law enforcement?

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: Yeah, I can't give you an answer on that. What I can say is that when you compare the City of New Haven to a lot of our suburban communities and our ability to fund many of the resources, it is already overwhelmingly inadequate compared to other suburban communities. So, the state's ability, you know, we've talked about pilot, but in this Bill and many other Bills to help, try to support communities that are really struggling right now is vital.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): And I would absolutely a hundred percent agree with that in that regard. Which is one of my other concerns as the testimony earlier was regarding the locations of some of these facilities tend to be in the cities and dense areas, especially if we're talking about trying to really identify those communities that have been disproportionately potentially hurt as a result of the war on drugs in that regard. So potentially 383 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

there could be a stronger strain. And also, I think, you know, the cities for many different reasons, transportation resources and the like certainly are hard hit when it comes to individuals with challenges. So that's a strong concern of mine as well.

So I just, you know, again, thank you so much for taking the time to testify before us, especially at this late hour. But certainly, your perspective and the experiences that cities are currently experiencing, I think is something that we need to seriously consider as we move forward in this regard. Because unfortunately, I think the focus has been a lot on, you know, what could we do for the State of Connecticut, whether if it's road repairs and other types of filling a budget deffence -- deficiencies, it's late, deficiencies that we may have. But I think we really need to focus on what we need to do moving forward. If this were to pass, education, additional beds for addiction, rehabilitation, things of that nature and additional services. So once again, thank you very much for taking the time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: Thank you Representative Rebimbas And, if I may just respond to that, I think there's a temptation to specify where exactly a lot of the funds will go for many of these types of Bills. And while I appreciate the spirit of that as the Chief Executive in New Haven, it makes it increasingly difficult when there is a lot of restrictions on every piece of revenue that we have. And so I do encourage you all to invest in the things that you think are important, but at the same time, consider the bigger picture and the flexibility of the executive to make sure that they spend funding on the vital sources that the state needs in general.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): And I'd certainly agree with that and hope that moving forward, these are discussions that we'll have to be realistic as to 384 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

where this funding has to go. Thank you again. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Rebimbas. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, sir. How are you this late hour?

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: I'm good. Thank you.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Being a former resident of your city, I just, I was -- my ears peaked when you were mentioning 900 people per year returned to your seat, can you just repeat or just tell me what was going on there?

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: There's 900 people coming out of prison each year that returned to New Haven.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So, and I think --

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: Approximately, obviously.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So that's prison from marijuana or from just anything?

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: It's from everything from a variety of different things.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): 'Cause I don't know if you were here earlier today, you know, there was pretty -- there was a lot of testimony to the effect that nobody's in prison in Connecticut for marijuana. It might be a VOP violation of probation, so I didn't know the relevance of that to what we're doing here tonight. Was there a reason why you wanted to -- I didn't understand the connection.

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: Sure. I think there's a strong relevance. Well, we have decriminalized marijuana in Connecticut historically. Marijuana has been associated with criminal activity and was a 385 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

crime in the past. And any time someone has gone to prison and comes out, there are incredible barriers to them, reentering society. There's barriers to them getting a job because people look at a criminal record and make it difficult for them to get a job and make it difficult to get housing. It's very, very difficult to get housing.

And therefore, you create a cycle where people continue to go back to prison. When they come out. Recidivism rate is very, very high, over 50% of the people that go to prison, go back to -- or come out of prison, go back to prison in the next three years. And so, this is a cycle that we have to break, and marijuana is a significant contributor to that historically, even though today it's decriminalized.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): To the crime aspect or, you know, I understand the check-in second chance society aspect. And I understand the implication in all of that stuff of somebody getting out of prison. And, you know, we're working on that too through other vehicles, but I was trying to draw the connection here, but I'll continue to think about your statements. Thanks.

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: I appreciate.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Are there other questions from Members of the Committee. Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Mayor, good to see you. And I certainly want to thank you for, I think your tone is a correct one in my mind at least that while not -- while, this may not be a perfect Bill, it is a start of a framework, as I think you said to Representative Fishbein. But what I wanted to hone in on, and I think you're one of the only people we've had some 12 hours into this 386 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

to actually talk about, the Governor's proposal to send half the funding back into the pilot program, as a result of this. Do you believe that's where the funding should go? That half of the funding from the sale of recreational cannabis should go into the pilot pool?

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: I mean, I'll be direct that our cities desperately need funding and are struggling -- There's many struggling towns that are facing serious economic challenges as well. They desperately need funding. And whether it's through MRSA, whether it's through pilot, whether it's through some other avenue, we need funding. And, you know, as Mayor, it is unbelievably important that, particularly municipalities that are struggling right now because of historical structural problems in the State of Connecticut, where we don't have counties, where we don't share our resources, where cities have, you know, New Haven has 60% non-taxable property, and we're heavily relying on real estate taxes in the state, because of all those structures, we need that support.

I feel quite strongly that pilot is a good avenue to ensure that that funding comes back to cities like New Haven that have a history, that has been significantly negatively impacted by the state policies around cannabis. That's not the only avenue whereas a state could do that, but I think pilot is quite a good avenue that the state has already created a significant structure around.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Okay. But will you agree with me that the pilot, the current pilot formulas we have, predominantly the vast, vast majority of that pilot funding in the foremost we currently have support two municipalities in the state. It predominantly -- the vast majority of the funding goes back to Hartford and to New Haven. And not nearly the same percentage goes to the other distressed municipalities in the state. Correct?

387 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: You know, I think that, for example, this new tiered pilot formula, and I want to be careful just to focus on the marijuana Bill at hand, but the tiered pilot formula benefits many, many municipalities around the state and those municipalities that because we're heavily reliant on real estate taxes have a very large percentage of non-taxable property. It makes it very difficult for them to raise revenue. And New Haven and Hartford are two examples of those. Of those many others around the state that have a large percentage of nontaxable property. New Hampton is another one and makes it -- because of the state's -- heavily relying on real estate, or causing municipalities to be heavily relying on real estate taxes, it makes it very difficult for municipalities to raise that revenue and pilot is a way to balance out that inequity.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Understood. I guess I understand that. I guess what I'm saying is if we're trying to say significant portion of the funding should go back to either distressed municipalities generally or to the communities most impacted by the war on drugs, that there should be some recognition that should be based on some either population formula or some other socioeconomic formula other than just those two communities that seem to have a much higher percentage of at least under the current pilot formula, partially because they have wealthier non-profits than others. So I guess my question is, are you -- I would say quasi support of this Bill. Is it tied to the fact that the funding is currently going to pilot or are you open to an appreciative of some other formula to get money back into those distressed municipalities or those communities who are most impacted by the war on drugs?

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: Representative Stafstrom, let's be real. Bridgeport has been impacted very significantly by this as well. And municipalities like Bridgeport and New Haven shouldn't be fighting for funds. We should be working together to ensure 388 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

we both uplift each other and make sure that we get the resources that we need.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Stafstrom. I don't see any other questions, so thank you for joining us here tonight, Mayor Elicker. Hope you have a great night.

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: I'm going to go to bed. Thank you all. God bless you for it and keep it up right.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): All right. We have Brian Reignier. Is Brian here? Brian, I see in the list. Are you here? Is John Blair here?

JOHN BLAIR: I'm here. How are you, Senator Winfield?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I'm well. You have three minutes.

JOHN BLAIR: All right. I'll be quick. I'll be under the three minutes. Good evening. Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Senator Kissel, Representative Fishbein, Members of the Judiciary Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today. My name is John Blair, Associate Counsel at the Connecticut Business & Industry Association. CBIA is Connecticut’s largest business organization, with thousands of member companies, small and large, representing a diverse range of industries from across the state. Ninety-five percent of our member companies are small businesses, with less than 100 employees.

Today, we're focused on the employer protections sections 84, 85 and 87 of Senate Bill 888. CBIA is encouraged to see that these sections, within the Governor’s proposal, already include some employer protection language. CBIA would like to keep open dialogue with the Governor's to ensure reasonable 389 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

employer protection language is part of the final drafting of this legislation. The legalization of cannabis for recreational use is a serious matter that will impact every element of our state including businesses. Employers of all sizes across all industries are validly concerned about how the legalization of recreational cannabis will affect the safety of their workplaces, the health of their employees, exposure to liabilities and contractual relationships with vendors and customers.

It's important to recognize that nine other states have passed recreational cannabis laws and employer protections that retain the right to conduct a pre and post employment screening test and the rights to refuse to hire based on positive test results. Affording employers reasonable protections to protect their rights to ensure a cannabis-free workplace is commonplace and in the best interests of all employees. We look forward to continuing to work with the Governor’s office on sections 84, 85 and 87. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Mr. Blair. Are there any questions. Representative Stafstrom, I missed your hand up the last time.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): No, Mr. Chair, just super briefly if I could.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Sure. Yeah.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Mr. Blair, I recognize that you're new in your role, but this Bill or iterations of it have been before us for several years in a row. I'm wondering if CBIA has presented either in your testimony or elsewhere language that it would find palatable on workplace protections.

JOHN BLAIR: We are working -- We talk to the Governor's office this week. Representative Stafstrom, so we're alerted to the fact that we could work with them to produce some language. So, I 390 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

am working with some of our member companies just this week to begin to draft up some language. So, we don't have it readily available, but we were assured by the Governor's office, we could continue to work with them to come up with something that works for everybody.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Frankly, sir, I've been asking for that language from CBIA for the better part of four years. So, if you could hurry up and get us the language that's acceptable to your organization, I'm certainly happy to work with you to try to incorporate it into the next version of draft of this Bill.

JOHN BLAIR: Sure, Representative Stafstrom. And I'm sorry, there was language that we did submit last year. I didn't submit it today with this testimony 'cause we were asked to respond to the language and red line language within the Governor proposal exactly. So that's why we didn't supply as part of my language today.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I'll look forward to seeing your draft language.

JOHN BLAIR: No problem.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Stafstrom. Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Representative Stafstrom kind of stole my thunder. Mr. Blair, thank you very much. The only way we get out of the fiscal hole we're in is if we grow small business. So, I look forward to seeing the language that you would prefer. If the Bill goes forward -- I'm hoping that if the Bill goes forward, there's something in there about 25 and over only, and a homegrown version. But we'll get into that with as things go forward. But I do look forward to seeing that language, Mr. Blair and I appreciate your testimony. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 391 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative O'Dea. Representative Dillon.

REP. DILLON (92ND): Good evening. Hi John. It's good to see you.

JOHN BLAIR: Good to see you too.

REP. DILLON (92ND): I have not engaged in the conversation about the right to terminate and I don't -- I've been here as long as everyone else, so I wouldn't want to engage in debate right now, but I would be curious to know going forward before we take action, what the justification would be, because obviously it's sort of like talking about selective prosecution. You know, you want to make sure that people are being treated fairly and I haven’t always seen that with this issue in my own district, much less in my own town or in my own state. So, I look forward to the language too, because obviously, you know, we carry a lot of weight and we wanna make sure we get this right. And we don't hurt people. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Dillon. I don't see any other questions. Rep. O'Dea, did you raise your hand again? No, I don't see any other hands raised. Thank you for joining us. Is Zachary Green-- I saw that hand go up and I know he was 114. Zachary Green in?

ZACHARY GREEN: Yes, I'm here. Thank you very much.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You have three minutes. You may proceed.

ZACHARY GREEN: All right. Thank you very much. Hello to Co-Chair Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom as well of all the distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Zachary Green and I am a resident of Bloomfield, Connecticut. I am 392 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

also a graduate student at UConn’s School of Social Work, a recovery coach to adolescents struggling with substance use disorder, a former cannabis industry employee, an advocate for cannabis legalization, UConn Hartford’s Students for Sensible Drug Policies Vice President, and, most important to me, I am a proud person in recovery from substance use disorder.

I have valuable lived experience, professional experience in the cannabis industry, and also, I can provide a social work perspective that aims to help all people in need. I am here to testify against Senate Bill 888. In fact, there is a much better framework for equity in Connecticut Cannabis in a different Bill. But Senate Bill 888 would be terrible to implement in this state for many reasons:

As a recovery coach at UConn and a private practice in West Hartford, I work directly with students and adolescents seeking recovery, primarily from cannabis use disorder. There are a number of studies. Please refer to the references list on my written testimony out of UConn, Harvard, Yale, and other reputable institutions that have linked regular use of today’s highly potent cannabis with psychotic symptoms and issues with brain development, particularly on people up to age 25. Research also shows that delayed use, or starting after age 25, is linked to a decrease in the likelihood of developing a substance use disorder. Senate bill 888 does not provide adequate protection for the youth.

SB 888 offers no priority licensing for equity applicants, which begs the question why equity is included in the Bill’s title. We prioritizes licensing for equity applicants, while SB 888 does not. SB 888 also does not designate a specific amount of tax revenue to fund equity initiatives for the communities that were most affected by cannabis prohibition. SB 888 does not provide a jobs program 393 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

for those with adverse criminal histories resulting from cannabis prohibition. A jobs program could lift many in Connecticut out of poverty and thus furthering the betterment of this state. SB 888 does not provide any labor peace agreements. And finally, SB 888 provides no support for our native tribes. It is so important that we no longer marginalize native tribes but instead make them an equitable partner in this legislation.

My town of Bloomfield, Connecticut recently passed a resolution that provided an equitable solution for cannabis legalization, as well as protections for our youth. SB 888 does not provide any support of equity or protections for young, developing brains. Please, don’t go forward with this Bill. I urge you to vote against this Bill as we need a truly equitable Bill that adequately addresses issues of historical injustices and safety for cannabis legalization in Connecticut. Thank you for your time.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Mr. Green. Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Green, very much for your testimony. If you could talk to your younger self and educate us on what we should do to help prevent teen use, what would you tell us, what would you tell yourself?

ZACHARY GREEN: There needs to be a proper, like education messaging to go out there about what today's cannabis actually is. You know, it's no longer the cannabis that, you know, like my parents and you know, what that was used in the seventies, this stuff that's being used today is so extremely potent. So, for the kids to understand what they're consuming, you know, this isn't just a natural plant. The natural plant is a 1% THC. Today, you know, with man and woman and all genders manipulating this plant, it's getting up to 99% THC. 394 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

That's not natural anymore. But I do think it does need to be legalized, but we do need to do it in the proper way. I think it just shouldn't -- I think the legal age should be 25 and above.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you very much for your testimony. Have you looked at the Vermont model where homegrown is, how they started?

ZACHARY GREEN: I have looked at Vermont's homegrown model. I didn't speak to home grow in my testimony because I don't know enough to speak to it. I would say I'm personally for it, but I wouldn't have enough information to back that statement up.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Well, Mr. Green, I thank you so much for your testimony here 12 hours after this started. It's greatly appreciated and, you know, it's very moving to hear from somebody who's been through what you've been through and we all greatly appreciate it. Thank you, sir.

ZACHARY GREEN: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, sir. You mentioned equity for native Americans. What specifically do you believe needs to be balanced with regard to that situation?

ZACHARY GREEN: I don't think I can adequately answer your question right now, except to say that SB 888 does not adequately support our native tribes while House Bill 6377 does.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Mr. Green, I would just remind you the way that we haven't been talking about specific Bills.

ZACHARY GREEN: Oh, I'm sorry.

395 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): That's fine. I just want to remind you of that to keep it in mind as we proceed.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah. I'm just a little puzzle because like our native American tribes in the state can open casinos, but I can't. So I'm just trying to figure out what you believe needs to be balanced because --

ZACHARY GREEN: Well, I would directly bring up the fact that --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Wait, wait. One person asked the question and answer the question in both ways.

ZACHARY GREEN: I apologize.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): It's all yours, sir.

ZACHARY GREEN: I mean, I would just directly say that I believe that we'd stolen land from these native tribes, so there's a lot that needs to be done to get back to balancing that out. But for me to directly answer what needs to be done, I don't think that's up to me. I think that's up to the native tribes to answer.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you Representative Fishbein. Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for coming in. It seems like you have experienced a lot of different from a lot of different perspectives with regard to this issue. I'm gonna kind of throw out a broad question to you and see where you go with it. If you were writing a Bill to legalize marijuana in this state, what would it look like? 396 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

ZACHARY GREEN: I would say that I would want to bring up a whole team of professionals to build that out, but from my experience, I would say that I would want to make sure that the legal age of consumption is no lower than the age of 25 as I'm a person who experienced psychotic symptoms from use of cannabis when I was younger. Because I know it negatively impacts brain development as I'm one who's experienced that. But I also know that I'm a been a person who's been arrested for cannabis possession and it impacted me even getting into UConn School, Social Work the first time that I applied around. So, you know, in legalizing it, I'd want to also expunge the record of people who've been affected by, you know, the prohibition on cannabis. As far as the rest of the Bills, you know, I do believe y'all are the professionals, so I really hope you all make the right decision.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. But as it stands, the Bill before us 888, you would vote against it.

ZACHARY GREEN: I'm going to pass on answering that question, Representative.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Well, if the choice is 888 or nothing, which would you rather, I vote for?

ZACHARY GREEN: I feel like I've given my testimony and I would trust that you make the right decision with what I said.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Kind of weaseled out of that one. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Are there any other comments or questions? Seeing none. Thank you very much for joining us, Mr. Green.

ZACHARY GREEN: Thank you.

397 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Enjoy the rest of the evening. Is Paul -- I do see Paul Reinhardt. Mr. Reinhardt, you have three minutes for your testimony.

PAUL REINHARDT: Well, Senator Winfield and Representative Stafstrom and Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Paul Reinhardt and I'm a resident of New Canaan and I am here because I'm a dad and the founder of a Parent Support Group started in 2016 for parents who have loved ones who struggle or are in recovery from addiction. This addiction often combined with co-occurring mental health disorders, is a silent disease where both the loved one and many family Members suffer alone. This is because addiction comes with shame, guilt, and isolation.

While I personally am willing here to tell my story publicly, please note that there are many family members suffering who can't testify publicly and I ask you to consider. Allowing me, I would be happy to schedule a private Zoom with you with parents and others like Zach, who can share their stories of addiction specifically to cannabis. I am here in my son's memory because of cannabis use disorder. CUD is now the dominant addiction talked about in our support meetings over alcohol and opioids. Also discussed in these meetings are the loved one's struggles with cannabis induced psychosis, which again, Zach mentioned.

From my standpoint, what I see is failure to launch. What is failure to launch? It's the fact that many young adults age 18, all the way to 25 are failing to lead independent lives. They are stuck. With the parents attending our meetings, I see grief as they describe how cannabis misuse and mental illness have caused a downward spiral in their young adults. For myself, I experienced that failure to grief, failure to launch grief, and that was followed by an even more profound grief caused when my beloved son, Evan died of a drug overdose at 24. And I ask you as 398 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Committee Members to consider what the experts and many people here today have said that the brain is not fully developed until 25.

For Evan who progressed from a cannabis addiction to opioids, the medical professionals kept telling me, "Paul, keep them alive until 25." Well, that didn't happen. With the developing brain, more vulnerable to addiction and mental illness, please consider that today's high potency marijuana will increase that vulnerability even more than the past.

The US Government's annual Survey of Drug Use and Health, which was mentioned earlier as it's a disheartening trend that it shows in its slides. The 18 to 25 cohort struggles the most with mental health, including depression, suicidality and other mental health disorders. And the trend has been worsening in recent years. In SB 888 the definition of an adult is 21, but from my life experience, 21 is too young. So, I say to you keep them alive until 25. So I'm opposed. And thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Mr. Reinhardt. Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And Paul, thank you for your testimony. You know, you were able to come up in person to the Capitol and visit with Lucy Dathan and I in last time this Bill came up. And I want to thank you for sharing your public story. And Members of this Committee and anybody watching should know, Paul has started his New Canaan parent support group has saved lives. It's an amazing organization, very moving, you know, they have an annual event in downtown New Canaan, that is just amazing. And it's amazing support groups. So Paul, maybe you could just educate the people here, what you do and the group does for the teens and the youth that have made the mistake of getting, you know, utilizing drugs for whatever reason.

399 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

PAUL REINHARDT: Right. Well, and I specifically emphasized 18 to 25 because more -- because the parents are coming in and they are talking about that failure to launch. So, you know, a lot of discussion today on the 12 to 17, but I don't care what state you're talking about that 18 to 25 year old group, they're using a lot more of cannabis in those states. But they're still -- They're the ones that have the mental health issues. You know, again from that survey, whether it's depression, anxiety, bipolar, you name it and why is that happening? You know, I don't know, but that's why I specifically mentioned that. But you know, you certainly could broaden it to the teens all the way up to 25.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Well, thank you, Paul, for your testimony and all you're doing for not only New Canaan, but throughout the state and, we greatly appreciate it and God bless you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

PAUL REINHARDT: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative O'Dea. Representative Fiorello.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Reinhardt, we had a younger person on earlier this evening who did start using marijuana in his teens. He survived it, although he did end up having a felony record and now, he wants to go into the business, but we asked him if there was anything that could have been done to not have him use, to stop him from using it in his earlier years. And he seemed to say, no, there's nothing that can be stopped. How do you feel about that? What can we do, I mean, to not have our young men and women use marijuana until they're 25?

PAUL REINHARDT: Well, first is just to recognize that everyone's different, but a lot of people have mental health issues that they're dealing with. And I think of my own son in his middle school years, 400 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

there was a little bullying going on and there was an underlying anxiety that he had. So, when he was exposed to substances at early age for alcohol, but cannabis became his go-to that it felt good, you know, on a short-term basis. It was him self- medicating. But on a longer-term basis, it wasn't working out well. So just reminding people that you know, of ways to cope with issues that come up in those early teen years. And then, just also reminding the youth that, you know, every year that you delay in using substances, if you can wait to age 18, the percent likelihood of you becoming addicted later in your life just goes down and, you know, for that each year after that. So that's important to be part of the education.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): And if it is legalized in Connecticut, I guess that just means that, you know, we parents who don't want our children to try it and get hooked onto it or go to the local store to buy it, even though it's legal, we're just gonna have to talk about it more, get more informed about it and start making the case more in our own families for our children not to use it. Right. I mean, what else can we do?

PAUL REINHARDT: Parental modeling is so important and it's important for the ones that do end up getting addicted, because what I see with the families where they do have an addicted loved one is that everyone in the family is, you know, going through grief and anger and frustration. But what we tell the parents to do is take care of yourself first. Model the behavior, you know, using mindfulness and exercise and walks in the woods to get you through the tough times, not using substances. But the parents that are modeling using substances as the way to cope they're the ones that you know likely, you know, are going to you know, bring really use an addiction potentially to their children.

401 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): Well, thank you so much, Mr. Reinhardt. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Are there comments or questions from other Members of the Committee. I don't see any. So, Mr. Reinhardt, thank you for joining us this evening. Is Stanley Garnett here. I see in the queue Stanley Garnett. All right, well, there we go. You may begin.

STANLEY GARNETT: Thank you very much. My name is Stan Garnett. Thank you very much Chairman and all the Members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify this evening. I should mention that I really admire the time and effort that all of you put into your service and thank you for that. Let me talk very briefly about my background and then I'll state why I'm in support of the Governor's proposed Bill.

I live in Boulder, Colorado. I was on the Boulder School Board for eight years, and then I was the elected district attorney in Boulder, Colorado from 2008 until 2018. I've been a lawyer in practice in Colorado for almost 40 years and I've handled all kinds of cases.

When I was elected district attorney in 2008, I was somewhat blindsided in January of 2009 by the almost instantaneous commercialization of the medical marijuana business that had existed in Colorado since 1999. And let me mention that I had not been supportive of medical marijuana in 1999 and I was not supportive of recreational marijuana when it was on the ballot in 2012.

However, in my 10 years as district attorney, during which time I served as the president of the Colorado District Attorneys Council and was also on the Board of Directors of the National District Attorneys Association, I gradually became very supportive of 402 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Colorado's effort to legalize and regulate marijuana.

There's been a lot of discussion about all the issues that matter; I've heard as much a bit today as I was been able to listen into. And those issues that matter are public safety. How do we protect children? How do we deal with impaired driving? And how do we approach the issues that we need to all approach to keep our communities safe?

Let me mention that in Colorado, the district attorney is the highest and most important law enforcement official in the jurisdiction, and so I had to wrestle with these issues almost immediately upon taking office.

We have submitted a slide deck a couple of hours, several hours ago, which I have sent to you and I would encourage you to take a look at it beginning with page 36, which has extensive data from the Colorado Department of Health about all the issues that the folks are appropriately concerned about: crime rates, marijuana and driving, and particularly youth use.

Barbara Brohl, whom I've known for many years is correct, that the system in Colorado has not had significant impacts on any of those areas. And in fact, we appear to see a reduction in youth use since legalization.

Finally, let me say that I have reviewed and read both the proposed legislation from Governor Lamont's office as well as a summary. I think this legislation, though not perfect, is a good start. And it's much better, frankly, than the approach to Colorado took, which as many have pointed out to you we did not have a legislative approach. The Legislature didn't want to touch this. So we -- instead the people pass two constitutional amendments, which all law enforcement opposed, 403 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

including myself. But since they passed, we then had to figure out what to do with them.

This is the way to do it, pass a Bill that's reasonable, that approaches the issues that are in front of you, and then have it in a manner that can be amended as you go forward to make it fit your communities.

Finally, let me say this. It is not an issue between being pro-addiction or pro-children use or anti-addiction and anti-use by children. Of course, none of us want children using marijuana. None of us want to see addiction develop. But the reality is, legalization and regulation works much better than criminalization in almost every respect.

And one of the most important areas and I found this particularly in the interaction with my service on the school board, is that with a legalization and regulation system, law enforcement is able to know who is selling marijuana in the community. And with the previous complete criminalization or even the decriminalization issue that you have now in Connecticut, there is a thriving illegal market which is very, very difficult to regulate. So I support the Governor's Bill, and I'm happy to take any questions.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Representative O'Dea, did you have your hand up or was that from before?

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Yeah, no thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Garnett, thank you very much for your testimony. We're fellow trial lawyers. Both the Chairman Stafstrom, myself and you appear to be fairly familiar and comfortable with the courtroom so I appreciate your testimony, sir. Have you been asked to testify here today by anybody in particular.

404 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

STANLEY GARNETT: I was asked by Mohit Agrawal of the Governor's office. And my law firm, which I'm a shareholder at, has done a fair amount of -- I've done testimony along with one of my partners, for Scotts TruGro and Hawthorne Gardening. Not today, I wasn't asked by them to testify, but I have done it in the past.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): So is this a pro bono project or a consultant project?

STANLEY GARNETT: I'm a consultant although to be honest, I'm not actually sure that I'm getting paid for today. People more important than me will figure that out but I want to make sure you guys know, I do care about the issue and I want to see good policy adopted, but I was asked by the Governor's office to speak.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): No problem whatsoever, sir and I didn't mean to imply anything.

STANLEY GARNETT: No, of course.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And, you know, I think you and I are on the same page. If you could wave a magic wand and just prevent anybody under 25 from using marijuana in any way but then let anybody else do what they want to do, I probably would be okay with, it with the home grown idea, but we're not in that position.

So, you know, your experience in Colorado, your being opposed to it at first and now it seems to be you're in favor of it if you do it right, what lessons did you learn, or would you say that you learned and would advise us, based on your experiences beyond what you've already testified to?

STANLEY GARNETT: Thank you for that question. It's a key question. First of all, don't do it by constitutional amendment. It's incredibly difficult to change and modify what gets passed in a 405 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

constitutional amendment. Do it as you're doing it, through Legislative Committee, so that you can consider all the issues and strike an appropriate balance.

Number two, with regard to edibles and Barbara Brohl, I think, did a nice job of talking about this. Make sure that you're aware of the risks of the high THC levels in many of those and that you are finding a way to implement controls of labeling and THC content as well as packaging, so that they're not being marketed to children.

Next thing I would do is get way ahead of the issue around impaired driving. Impaired driving is an issue, although the statistics will show, as you can tell from my charts, which are incredibly interesting and even colorful, the impaired driving statistics are actually about the same as they were prior to legalization and regulation.

One of the things that of course you've got to deal with, the reality is that marijuana is in your communities everywhere, no matter what you guys do with this. And when I was on the school board elected in 1997, one of the realities we had, and marijuana was completely illegal in those days, we had marijuana everywhere in the school. So the question is, how do you regulate it? How do you deal with it?

One of the things that we've done in Colorado that has worked, and it's kind of been ad hoc as we figured it out, we've raised tax revenue on several different levels. We raised it on the state level, what we have and Barbara Brohl talked well about that. But each municipality has the authority to tax marijuana as well, under sales tax measures.

And so for example, in the City of Boulder, the revenue that's been raised has been used to fund drug recognition expert officers in our police department, also in the county sheriff's office, so 406 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

that we can get ahead of the issues around impaired driving.

And then finally, educate. And one of the things that took us a while to do but I frankly led the charge on this, enlist the industry in helping you with the education so that people understand the dangers of impaired driving, understand what to watch for, and understand the issues around intoxication.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And how is Colorado handling the driving impairment measuring based on the lack of technology to do it?

STANLEY GARNETT: Yeah, it's a tricky thing. We've got a page on this in my slide deck, though not as colorful as the others. Page 37, which talks about this, Colorado adopted -- as we all know, and I started prosecuting in 1982. And in those days, driving under impairment of alcohol was a 1.0 DUI level in Colorado, and has since gone down to 0.08 and now 0.05 is impaired. That's a result of increased science, et cetera. We don't have the science yet for marijuana to figure out the connection between THC level and actual impairment but we did pass a five nanogram active THC -- it's not a presumption because that's unconstitutional. It's a permissible inference that a jury is permitted to take from a certain level of THC in the bloodstream.

That was lower than I wanted. I was president of CDAC at the time when I was arguing for a three nanogram level, which is what many European countries have, but we couldn't get that through the Legislature. That has helped.

The combination -- and I'm sorry, I'll try not to be long-winded, but I am a trial lawyer -- the combination of a THC level with drug recognition officers and training your prosecutors and judges on 407 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

these issues has made it a manageable issue, but we have a ways to go.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Well as my fellow Committee Members, as a lawyer, Legislator, I'm even worse. So, but in any event, I did want to ask you, so you're -- I presume you're a -- I shouldn't say presume. In looking at your bio, are you also a father, being on the board of ed?

STANLEY GARNETT: Yes, I am.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Okay, so I've read mixed articles on the increase of teen use in Colorado. At one point, there were some articles that say it went down, and then lately it seems to have gone up, at least according to some articles I've read. I don't have -- do you have any knowledge that you can impart on us on that?

STANLEY GARNETT: I do and I think first of all, Barbara Brohl said, I think stated accurately that there are some statistical variations from year to year. I don't think they're significant. But let me point out on Slide 45, we have a good statistical graph about high school student use of marijuana, which basically shows it staying about the same or, in fact, perhaps going down.

And let me mention something that's unique about Colorado and I would suggest this to Connecticut. We had the Columbine shooting in 1999. I was on the school board at the time. One of the first things that happened was we lobbied the Legislature to put in place a center for school safety to study issues around danger, particularly mass shootings, but other things as well.

One of the things that they were funded to do, beginning in 2002, was comprehensive surveys on dangerous activities by high school students, from sexual behavior to violence to various substance use, marijuana being one of them. So we have a 408 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

track record we've been able to follow and I would encourage Connecticut, I don't know what the timeline is for this being legalized. But if you can have an opportunity of beginning to develop baseline data so that you can see what your impact is, that would be helpful. It's been helpful to us.

And the reality, I think, and this is some somewhat anecdotal but I think it's true. The police officers in my drug task force, who are a very skilled and aggressive group, began to feel that they would much rather have it in the community that they knew where the marijuana stores were, they know who were selling it, they knew that they had security. And they knew that they were not sneaking around behind the trees by the creek at the high school, like the illegal market tends to do, trying to sell to students. So those are all things that are important.

I also think one of the things that has been very interesting, we're trying to analyze in Colorado where some of the -- whether some of the social excitement that high schoolers might feel about using marijuana has decreased since it's become legalized. That may be a factor with the reduction of use.

But I will say one last thing that's not insignificant. We do worry about the increased THC level in the new products we're seeing. And finally, for the students who do use marijuana, the high school youth who do, rather than getting it from the illegal market, from the guy in the parking lot hiding behind the school bus, they now tend to get it from their parents, just like they did for years. That's how they've been getting their alcohol is stealing it from their parents liquor cabinets.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): So which kind of leads into my last question, I promise, Mr. Chair and I apologize. 409 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Mr. Garnett, as the district attorney, you were the district attorney for what, ten years?

STANLEY GARNETT: Yes, three terms.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): From what year to what year?

STANLEY GARNETT: 2008 until 2018.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): So you were right in the midst of the going from, it was medical and then recreational. All the articles I read, the Wall Street Journal seemed to indicate that the black market actually increased when it was legalized. Do you believe that is inaccurate? What did you find as the district attorney?

STANLEY GARNETT: No, that's a great question. There's different types of illegal markets. There's the local illegal market and there's the out-of- state illegal market. The local illegal markets in most of the jurisdictions in Colorado began to shrink with the legalization.

With one exception, which was -- and what we did find, Colorado has 22 judicial districts. I was a district attorney in Boulder, which is one of the most wealthy demographics. People in Boulder who want to use marijuana can afford to pay the tax of legalized marijuana. People in some of our poorer districts who could not, who wanted to use marijuana, chose to buy it from the illegal market initially, not from the legalized system because we were taxing it too heavily.

We had to modify that. That addressed then the local illegal market and I think most law enforcement people would now tell you there's occasional issues, but it's largely under control.

What we did have trouble with initially, Representative, was the export of marijuana to other states, where it was still illegal. I in fact 410 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

prosecuted a homicide, a double homicide five years ago involving the export of marijuana to North Dakota, to the oil fields in North Dakota, from Boulder County and two young men involved in that got connected up with a drug cartel and were murdered in Boulder County. So that was a real issue.

As more states have legalized and as we become better at regulation, and one of the things I focused on as DA was to partner with the federal authorities to get the out-of-state export market under control. Those issues have reduced, but those are issues that need to be looked at.

I'm sure that one of the things that you're looking at in Connecticut, I think it's referenced in the summary from Governor Lamont, is you're trying to figure out, we're now surrounded by many states that have legalized recreationally or medically, how does it impact our community? Those are things you've got to look at.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Well, thank you very much, Mr. Garnett, for your testimony and your service to your state of Colorado and best of luck to you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STANLEY GARNETT: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, counselors. Representative O'Dea, if I didn't know any better I would think you were still on the clock here, billing by the hour. But next up will be Representative Rebimbas, former Ranking Member. Representative.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for your testimony. Actually, Representative O'Dea hit on the black market because I was quite interested that you highlighted the black market in Connecticut, because I'm well aware that the black market has not, of course, been 411 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

eliminated in Colorado, nor do I think that that will ever be a possibility so long as we've got such high taxes and expectation of taxes on the sale of marijuana.

My question to you is what are your thoughts regarding home grown?

STANLEY GARNETT: I think home grown is a reasonable approach. We had a problem initially, and I think it's worked in most states. And again, as I indicated, I've traveled to a number of states and talked to legislators in different jurisdictions. Home grown works well unless, initially, we had a problem in Colorado that our home grown limits were very, very high, 100 plants. And that permitted people to then use homes as ways to facilitate the growth of a lot of marijuana and exporting it to the illegal market.

The trick has to be, you have to be able to regulate home grown, you need to have your limits be reasonable, and you can manage the illegal market in connection with it.

Let me mention one thing that somewhat implicit in your question, Representative, which is, I am not a fan of what's referred to as decriminalization in which people -- I mean, I don't like the idea of locking up people for marijuana. Law enforcement has a whole lot of other stuff to work on to keep the community safe. But the problem with only decriminalizing and not legalizing and regulating is you are creating a wonderful opportunity for the people in the illegal market who want to supply the marijuana and now have no disincentive in their customer base to not do that.

So I do think that criminalization without legalization can actually make your illegal market situation worse.

412 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): And do you believe that your regulation of home grown in Colorado has worked?

STANLEY GARNETT: It has. It didn't initially. It was one of the many things we didn't get right initially, but I think it's better now, yes. As we've reduced the permiss -- I'm sorry, as we've reduced the permissible plant levels.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): And is that something that you'd recommended to the Governor's office?

STANLEY GARNETT: They haven't asked me about that but I would if they asked, yeah.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): You would recommend that we consider home grown under regulation?

STANLEY GARNETT: Yeah, a certain amount of home grown is, I think, appropriate, yes.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Do you have an idea of how much Colorado has brought in in tax revenue? And certainly I'll let you pick the year. I would imagine that this pandemic probably has been a spike in that regard, and I don't know if you would have those figures. So certainly, whatever you may or may -- and you may not know, but what are your ideas and/or actual knowledge. Actually I shouldn't say ideas, but your actual knowledge of the tax revenue that has been brought in?

STANLEY GARNETT: I don't have that actual number right now at the top of my head on Friday night, but it is in the slide deck that I sent you and it's extraordinarily high. It's been shocking, actually. And Colorado is a state that has an enormous amount of restrictions on taxes in our Constitution due to an amendment that's called the TABOR Amendment. So the ability to generate tax revenue through marijuana sales has been very beneficial for the permitted uses and is something that has been good.

413 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

And again, it's the difference between legalization and regulation and decriminalization. If people are going to be using marijuana, this is where I came out as district attorney, they're going to be using it. Let's regulate it, let's regulate where they get it from, let's know as much as we can about the market and let's tax it so we can generate revenue.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): And I'll certainly look forward to looking at those slides. Do you have a breakdown? You personally, or anybody else, regarding the purchase from residents in state versus residents who come into state, whether for, specifically for the purchase and/or just for tourism?

STANLEY GARNETT: Yeah, the marijuana tourism question, which is a fair question. I think initially, it was a fairly significant part of the market. As the novelty has worn off and as other states have legalized, it has reduced, but I don't have those figures in front of me.

Let me just mention, we do have the Marijuana Enforcement Division in Colorado, which is headed by a friend of mine, a former police chief, Jim Burack, who's a terrific guy. They have tons of information and data. It's on their website, but I'm more than happy, somewhere in my email it must be around, if a Member of the Committee wanted to email me afterwards, I can track down probably almost any information.

I do know the general revenue numbers, Representative, are in the early slides in the slide deck, I don't want to take your time to watch me flip through them and try to figure out which page it is.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Not a problem. I certainly do appreciate your testimony and look forward to following up then with those questions. Because one of the other things I'd be very much interested in 414 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

knowing is the breakdown or percentages of not only the revenue, but then where it's being spent. Again, education versus rehabilitation, things of that -- law enforcement, things of that nature. So again, I appreciate your testimony here this evening.

STANLEY GARNETT: Thank you.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Representative Quinn.

REP. QUINN (82ND): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Attorney Garnett for your appearance here tonight. I want to get back to the operating under the influence for a second. What penalties does Colorado have for this? And have they drawn any distinction between alcohol and marijuana for purposes of those penalties?

STANLEY GARNETT: No, that's a very good question, Representative. The penalties are identical. They're severe. But if one is convicted of driving under the influence of marijuana, that's 12 points on your license, you lose your license. It's up to a year in jail, mandatory treatment et cetera. But they are identical to DUI.

Now, let me mention one thing that's not insignificant. My jurisdiction has University of Colorado, which for many years was very proud of being listed in Playboy magazine, which I'm not sure if Playboy magazine still exists anymore, but it used to occasionally list, not that I ever read it, it used to list the top 10 party schools in the United States and University of Colorado was always one of the top party schools. So it's a school that has a tradition of marijuana use.

One of the realities that we dealt with in law enforcement was a problem of mixed impairment, 415 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Representative, where someone would have three beers and then they would also smoke some marijuana and then they'd get in the car. And then an officer would stop them, they'd know they were impaired but it was very difficult to figure out what to do because they weren't over the legal limit of either one, and it was a challenge. Those are things that need more study, DRE needs to develop it.

But overall, and again, the statistics show we've been able to manage it, but it's an issue. I think if marijuana is eventually delisted as a Schedule 1 drug so that there can be more research of impairment, we will eventually be able to develop the kind of precise levels of THC impairment that we have for alcohol, but we don't have that yet and it's an issue we've got to focus on.

REP. QUINN (82ND): Okay. Does Colorado offer any sort of diversionary program for first-time offenders? In Connecticut, you're pulled over and it's determined that you're under the influence of alcohol. We have an alcohol education program series of classes. Once you complete them successfully, after a year, the case against you is dismissed. They do keep a record of it so if you're pulled over again and try to use it again, and not enough time has gone by, you get flagged and you're now on the conviction track. But does Colorado offer any sort of diversionary program like that?

STANLEY GARNETT: No, we don't, Representative. When I was district attorney we had a number of diversion programs for juveniles, particularly for young adults. I was interested to hear the other comments. I strongly believe it's true that the basic age of adulthood, particularly for young men, should be 25. That's when development ends, although I think it's hard to do it for marijuana and everything else. But we did a lot of diversion programs. However, we were prohibited by the Legislature from doing anything for it on a DUI of any sort other than prosecuting it and seeking a 416 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

resolution within that framework. Which frankly, given the danger of DUI. I was reasonably comfortable with, but we did not have diversion.

REP. QUINN (82ND): Okay. And finally, does Colorado impose an ignition interlock device on anyone convicted of DUI, regardless of alcohol or drugs?

STANLEY GARNETT: We do it on alcohol and it's tied to a Breathalyzer that is part of the interlock. We do not do it on marijuana mainly because of the difficulty of measuring impairment. But again, with further research and science, I think that's a possibility.

REP. QUINN (82ND): Was that a conscious decision on the part of Colorado? In Connecticut, you get stopped for a DUI and we've got two tracks that you find yourself on. One is the court track, which deals with whatever the charge is going to be out of it. But also it automatically triggers an administrative suspension from DMV by the fact of the arrest.

And one of the penalties that we've imposed is, in exchange for having shortened the suspension periods that we were putting on people, we now require them to have the ignition interlock device. And at least as I read this Bill and how DMV testified earlier is they plan to continue to use that track, whether it's marijuana or alcohol or something else.

You know, and to me, it makes no sense if it's marijuana-based operating under the influence to put an ignition interlock device, because you're absolutely right. I mean, there's no way that it's going to be testing for what you actually got yourself in trouble for.

You know, I think I would agree with the Colorado approach that we not go down that track. But any other comments that you have on operating under the 417 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

influence in general and what you've seen as a prosecutor?

STANLEY GARNETT: Yeah, let me finally say, education and training is key for your police officers. Build a battalion of DRE officers in every jurisdiction. Use the money you get to train officers to do that. Make it -- and I spoke in great lengths to the New York State Police Union last year about this issue. Make it a prestigious position to be a DRE so that it's something people want to do.

Train your non-DRE certified officers in the basics of it, train your prosecutors in how to handle those cases and how to present them to juries, and I think it's manageable.

REP. QUINN (82ND): Okay, all right. Thank you very much for your time and your testimony, Attorney Garnett. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative Howard.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Good evening, Mr. Chairman, how are you?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I'm good, good to see you.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Very well. Very nice to see you as well.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): You've been quiet today, something piqued your interest?

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Well, it did. And Mr. Garnett, I just -- it's late for my colleagues and I appreciate you giving us the time. But you touched on a few things I wanted to just ask you about because you are experienced in the field and we have a difficult decision to make here.

418 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

One of my concerns, you touched on drug cartels. Are we in basic agreement that drug cartels outside of this country are not under control?

STANLEY GARNETT: Yeah, I think that's fair.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): A fair understatement. And are we in agreement, basically, that illicit as they may be, that they're a business nonetheless that operate in the same supply and demand as most businesses? Is that a fair statement? We agree on that?

STANLEY GARNETT: I agree on that.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): So my concern, Mr. Garnett, is this. If those cartels are, illicit as they may be, businesses that rely on supply and demand, and we legalize marijuana in this country, those cartels may shift to a different product to continue to keep their business going. And that product may very well be heroin, and I don't think we need any more heroin on our streets.

You know, we're working very hard as a Legislature continuously to combat that. And I'm curious to know if, in Colorado, if you saw that sort of shift where -- and I'm not necessarily going down the road here of -- that marijuana is a gateway drug. That's a discussion for a different person on a different day. But just from availability on your streets, given what I just outlined, did you see that or is that a concern?

STANLEY GARNETT: That's a terrific question and frankly, having talked about this for several years, I don't know that I've ever gotten that question, but it's something that I've studied a fair amount.

And let me mention, first of all, El Chapo's wife has been in the news and I, for what it's worth, I'm functionally fluent in Spanish and I travel to Latin America a lot and I meet with judges and prosecutors and lawyers there. So I follow the drug issues and 419 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the challenges those countries have. One of the interesting realities is many of the people that have studied this situation believe that El Chapo 's collapse and eventual arrest was due to -- was influenced by the legalization of marijuana.

That he was so, his cartel was so dependent on selling marijuana, that when that market went away with legalization in the western states, that he didn't adapt to maintain the power there.

Now the issue is, what are they selling if they're not selling marijuana? And that's an interesting question. Methamphetamine, certainly. Heroin is an issue, of course, cocaine, other more dangerous drugs, although I don't know that it's an appropriate public policy to try to figure out how to control the market of the cartels.

I think we have to figure out a way to get the cartels, help get the cartels under control. But it's hard to track exactly, other than as I indicated, many thoughtful people in Latin America believe that the legalization of marijuana has put a lot of financial pressure on the cartels. Frankly, resulted in a lot of the battles between cartels you see in northern Mexico and it's because that market, which many parts of northern Mexico are very conducive to growing huge amounts of marijuana. And if you have any doubt watch, Season One of Narcos, Mexico, which does a great job of describing what happened there in the 1980s.

But the question on what the cartels are going to do if they can sell marijuana is one I'm not really an expert on but I think you're onto something, that there is an issue there.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Well, before you give me too much credit, Mr. Garnett, I've worked in -- I'm a detective. I've worked in narcotics for some time. So I'm a little familiar with how it works. And that's where that question comes from. And 420 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

basically, I'm glad that you answered that. Thank you so much.

Because I do think that it's, while it may not be public policy to control what the cartels are doing, especially outside this country and the state, I think it's important for us to consider that that's a real possibility that we may see an uptick in some of these other narcotics on our streets that are causing, you know, a significant loss of life, among other problems.

And I think that when we talk about the revenue that we generate if we were to legalize marijuana, that we should have a focus into our interdiction to try to mitigate that unintended consequence as much as possible. So I thank you for your time. I thank you for staying on with us. And Mr. Chairman, always a pleasure to see you and thank you, sir.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Further questions? Seeing none, Attorney Garnett, thank you for being with us today.

STANLEY GARNETT: Thank you for your time.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Gauge McCabe.

GAUGE McCABE: Hi, can you hear me?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yes, go ahead.

GAUGE McCABE: Hi, my name is Gauge McCabe. I'm with Black Lives Matter 860. So I'm an electrical engineer and a constituent of Manchester. I just wanted to say that you are completely missing it with SB 888. You're missing a huge opportunity and missing the point of everything being fought for, for racial justice. This Bill continues our state's deep-rooted cycle in leaving behind communities of color.

421 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

We have this one chance to do it right. Everyone says that once you do it, it's so hard to undo things. The point isn't just to legalize it, it's to legalize it with equity, to give reparations to communities who are criminalized and harmed most by its prohibition, not just to make profit off of it as soon as possible.

We can't afford to just rush into this because a budget had to close or because it's something we need to get in front of. SB 888 does not address the harm or seek to repair the extensive damages caused by redlining and the war on drugs in terms of the economic and social inequities we still see today.

How about the mental health problems that come with not having your basic needs met? It does not lay out an explicit plan for giving these communities their rightful opportunities in cannabis. Here's about to be a billion-dollar industry and you want to hand it over to rich, White corporations, some who don't even live in the state of Connecticut, giving them the opportunity to monopolize the market long before licenses are given out to everybody else in a loosely defined, future date lottery.

We need to bring lifesaving, sustainable UFCW jobs and benefits which include college education, to those who are actually living in our state that really need this.

With the work being done to depopulate our prisons, cannabis can provide sustainable job opportunities. We have been imprisoning entrepreneurs and they're going to be the best ones to run these things. Not to mention, SB 888 doesn't fully legalize cannabis. It bans home grow and includes jail-time penalties, making access to cannabis not only cost prohibitive, but it's so backwards and counterproductive to legalization because it perpetuates disproportionate incarceration.

422 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Sitting here thinking that you don't trust the existing network of Connecticut residents, your constituents who are eager to start business and to step up and do adult use cannabis right in our state, over a wealthy medical system, just because they don't have a lot of money or big corporations backing them, is classist and racist and shows that you're not educated on other Bills, which integrate all of the support systems and connections necessary for equity applicants to do this right.

Stop co-opting the word equity for SB 888. It is not equitable. It literally gentrifies weed. Saying that you have the framework for equity versus actually having it are two different things. I will not support dispensaries created by SB 888. I yield my time.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you. Mr. McCabe, did I understand your testimony, that you just called all the people on this panel racist.

GAUGE McCABE: I'll be happy to read that part again for you. I said that, " if you sit here and think that your existing network of Connecticut residents who want to start businesses can't handle it because they aren't backed by big money or big corporations, that that itself is a classist and racist opinion."

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you very much you're your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. We will move on. Sarah Diamond is next to testify. Ms. Diamond, you're muted.

SARAH DIAMOND: Sorry, my unmute didn't unmute. Good evening, Representative Stafstrom and distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. I'm an applied anthropologist who has conducted federally funded research on youth substance use and 423 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

public health in Connecticut over the past 20 years. I'm in support of legalization of cannabis for adult use, but not as proposed in SB 888.

Equity provisions need to be strengthened within this Bill. We know from public health research that marijuana is not a gateway to using other drugs. However, it has been used by law enforcement as a gateway to criminalize Black and Brown people in our country. The current unregulated marijuana market presents a greater risk to public health and to our youth than a regulated market.

In an unregulated market, people have no way of knowing what they're consuming. If we are concerned about addiction, we have to ask, what are the root causes of problems substance use? The criminalization of marijuana has not been effective in preventing marijuana use among youth, but it was effective in pushing some youth into the criminal justice system.

What is equity in cannabis legalization? Equity is a fair opportunity for adults to use marijuana recreationally without being criminalized, and for entrepreneurs and people seeking employment to be able to participate in the legal cannabis market. Equity is also reparations by directing the tax revenues from the legalized industry, to the individuals in communities that experienced the greatest harms from criminalization.

I support the plan to conduct an equity study. I recommend that this study assess the economic impact of marijuana arrests on specific communities in Connecticut by zip code, and by race ethnicity, as a result of the differential enforcement of marijuana policies in the past 10 to 20 years, prior to decriminalization and also since decriminalization.

So also, expungements should include people who are convicted for intent to sell, and for over four ounces of marijuana. Because of the selective 424 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

enforcement in urban areas, and I actually did many, many interviews with young people from Greater Hartford during some of the studies and research that I did. And I saw directly the impact that the drug-free zone laws had, racial bias limitations in their legal representation, and all the, you know, factors that people have discussed here that led to disproportionate arrests, and also the likelihood that they would accept a plea bargain instead of going to court.

So they would be charged with the drug-free zone law, threatened with two years' incarceration mandatory, and so they would plea bargain out, even if they weren't, you know, really dealing drugs. They never went to court.

So an ACLU study that many people quote is the four- time arrest rate for Black people compared to White people in Connecticut. It should be made clear to everyone that this is based off of FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Arrest Data, which actually doesn't separate out Latinx individuals from the category of White. So really, the disparity rates are more like seven times. Yep?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): You're at the three-minute mark, I need you to just wrap up for us.

SARAH DIAMOND: Yep. So I just want to say that, you know, that disparity rate is much higher and that should be studied and the economic impact should be studied and should be redressed through utilization of the tax dollars into those communities.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Ms. Diamond.

SARAH DIAMOND: Good evening. 425 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Looking at the list, you're here on behalf of the Diamond Research Consulting Group.

SARAH DIAMOND: Yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, so who is your client?

SARAH DIAMOND: I work for many different nonprofit agencies. I'm an independent consultant and I'm speaking purely as myself and as an advocate on these issues from having done this work over the years. I've worked with many, many nonprofits in the urban areas in Connecticut around youth violence prevention, public health, HIV, reentry, other related topics, and always had a chance to interview the people who we're talking about, who've been criminalized as a result of these policies, and had very little opportunity to succeed in life as a result.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So just to get back to the question, you're here as an individual, or as a representative of the Diamond Research Consulting Group.

SARAH DIAMOND: That's me. It's a one-person, sole proprietor organization, I'm going to have a few part-time staff on occasion, but.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So you're here on behalf of yourself or a client?

SARAH DIAMOND: Myself as I -- yeah, I mean, I represent -- the consulting work that I do represents my expertise, I suppose in this area is why --

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I'm looking at your website, one of your clients is the City of Hartford?

426 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SARAH DIAMOND: Yes, I did. I worked with the City of Hartford and Community Partners in Action.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Let me interject. You've said you're here on -- you're here on your own accord.

SARAH DIAMOND: Yes. I'm here representing my own views as a researcher, as an advocate, but not on behalf of any organization that is my client, currently or previously.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): So whoever you consult for is not relevant to the Bill before us.

SARAH DIAMOND: No.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I understand, Mr. Chairman. You know, if she had signed up as self, that would be one thing.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): But you know what? Some of that is an internal process. We can talk about that offline. I don't think folks quite understand that when they sign up on the online system, the way that it's set up.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I'm just trying to clarify why, who and all of that stuff because I think it's important to know. But moving forward, ma'am, you mentioned that marijuana is not a gateway drug. What is your definition of gateway?

SARAH DIAMOND: Well, there have been studies, meta analyses studies over the years that I've -- that I could dig up if you wanted that have looked at whether or not there's a statistically, you know, statistic evidence for the fact that marijuana use leads to the use of other harder drugs. And that's been disproven.

I mean, over 85% of youth have tried marijuana, but a small fraction of them go on to use harder drugs. 427 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

So there is no way to say that just because you use marijuana, you're going to go on to using harder drugs.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So the question was, what is your definition of a gateway drug? And I take it from that, that you're saying that utilization of marijuana leads to harder drugs?

SARAH DIAMOND: Right, that's the way I would define the way people, when they say that it's a gateway drug, that's what they're proposing.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So in its present form, the fact that individuals have to break the law to acquire the product, doesn't it expose to them to individuals that would be wanting to sell them harder drugs?

SARAH DIAMOND: Well, that's a different question. The gateway drug is the drug itself. You're talking about the mechanism by which they acquired the drug, so that's a different question.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Because I look at both, the utilization of marijuana purchase is a gateway to harder drugs. I mean, that's -- so, I just --

SARAH DIAMOND: But it's not due to the drug itself. It's due to the fact that the drug has been, you know, the use of it is considered a crime. So I would agree that it's -- you're putting youth at greater risk by criminalizing this substance then you would if you treated it truly as a public health issue.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): You're putting youth at greater risk. It's going to be illegal for youths anyway, so.

SARAH DIAMOND: Yes, but the response, if you respond to youth who use these drugs with a criminal 428 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

response, you treat them as criminals, you're going to harm them. You're going to do greater harm to their future wellbeing than if you treat it as a public health issue. If you give them treatment, if you identify the root causes of why they're using, if you, you know, identify whether the use is causing problems in their life, versus criminalizing it and sending them to court and, you know, imposing fines and other penalties that have been associated with criminalizing it.

So, yeah, I think a public health approach to these issues is much more effective in the long run to preventing youth use and to preventing, specifically problem use.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Have you read the Bill that's before us?

SARAH DIAMOND: I've read the summary of it. I read parts of it, yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Are you aware that under this language, that an 18-year-old can possess a license to grow, manufacture, retail marijuana? Are you aware of that?

SARAH DIAMOND: I listened to all the testimonies. So from that, I gather that there's some question about the interpretation and the language around that, but they can be employed within the industry. You know, whether they would have the social capital or the ability to get a license with all the other requirements, you know, that's up to the -- that will be up to the Commissioners when they, you know, the regulators, I assume, would make that determination.

But, yeah, I mean if it's, as far as licensing goes, and who should get a license and the economics of it, I'm concerned about the equity piece. You know, the age piece, I agree that putting some restrictions on the age in terms of access to this 429 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

drug through the legal market, there should be restrictions.

But I also don't think that the response should be, for underage use, should be a criminal response. I think we should find a way to, you know, to mitigate any sort of criminal repercussions, or the label of criminalizing young people for using this drug.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So you're comfortable with the fact that an 18-year-old can hold any cannabis establishment license under this law?

SARAH DIAMOND: I think someone who holds a license has to demonstrate that they're capable of being compliant with all of the regulations. So, you know, I assume that, based on what I've heard about the licensing process, it's a rigorous process. It's not like just someone who's 18 years old who walks in the door is going to get a license. You know, there's so many other requirements to be able to operate in this business.

But I do think that there should be provision so that an 18-year-old who wants to enter the business can get training and can get the skill set and get access to capital and get the things that they need. I don't think, you know, maybe, you know, there are people who are 14 years old who go to college and get college degrees. I mean, there are people -- it's not about age, it's about demonstrating that you have the capacity, the skill set, the maturity, the ability to run a business, you know, like any other business.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, once again. You haven't read the Bill, so you don't know how much it costs to get these licenses.

SUSAN DIAMOND: I understood that it would --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Okay, Representative, Ms. Diamond, we're getting a little argumentative and 430 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

it's -- we're now 13 hours into this. We have a few folks who are left to testify. We'd like to get to them before it gets too, too late.

SARAH DIAMOND: I am trying to answer his question.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Hey, ma'am -- ma'am, I'm speaking. Representative if you have questions on territory that we've not covered, that's not repetitive, please feel free to ask it. But I think she has answered the question that you asked to her and I believe we're getting into argument rather than substantive questions.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yes, I'm aware of the level of acumen, so thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll try and be brief. Ms. Diamond, what is your educational background? Are you a doctor, social worker? What is your specialty?

SARAH DIAMOND: I have a PhD in anthropology.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Okay, so you heard some doctors testify about, you said that there's no evidence that marijuana is a gateway drug. Is that what your testimony was?

SARAH DIAMOND: That the use of marijuana leads necessarily to problem drug use, yeah, that it's a gateway drug in that sense.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Well, are you aware of a study in 2015 called the Probability and Predictors of Cannabis Gateway Effect, the national study, report by Garcia and Rodriguez that found that 50% of marijuana, habitual marijuana users went on to use other illicit drugs?

431 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SARAH DIAMOND: I think you could find the same is true of alcohol or any other drug. That doesn't mean that the use of marijuana leads to the use of these other drugs. I can dig up the research that I read, it may be dated, we can look and compare because research is constantly evolving and I haven't updated, you know, and done a search on this.

But when I was researching it 5, 10 years ago, I mean, I was I've been interested in these issues for a long time. So, you know, I'm not here to testify on the public health dimension of it. But I could give, you know, find the research that I was citing for you.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): From 5 to 10 years ago?

SARAH DIAMOND: No, I'm not sure of the date. Like, I'm saying it could -- you know, we'd have to look at the date, we'd have to look at the methodology and we'd have to compare --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Ma'am, here's what I'm going to suggest. The studies you have, why don't you email to the Committee Administrator and we can get those to Representative O'Dea and you guys can follow up once those have been provided, all right? Thank you, Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you. Just, Ms. Diamond, you're not testifying as an expert in contrary to any of the medical doctors that testified here today, are you?

SARAH DIAMOND: I don't recall hearing the specific argument about gateway drug being fleshed out in the discussions. The idea that some people may have psychiatric responses to the use of the drug, I did hear that discussed, and I wouldn't refute any of the medical, you know, research behind that. So I don't think -- I think those are, you know, they're valid concerns. I'm not saying that it's an 432 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

entirely safe drug. I believe in prevention as a way of responding to the very legitimate concerns about youth use.

I'm not advocating for youths to use marijuana. And I don't think that was at all the intent of anything that I've stated here. But I'm happy to share the research that I was familiar with on the question of the gateway drug, because I know that's been an issue in other debates around this. You know, I thought we had moved past that, honestly.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you, ma'am. Thank you so much. It's 11:11 and I am so appreciate your testimony being here at this late hour. And thank you very much. You should be very proud of sticking it through and we didn't mean to intimidate or harass in any way, shape or form. So thank you.

SARAH DIAMOND: No, no, no. It's just I'm also tired and I'm a little nervous. So that's --

REP. O'DEA (125TH): You did great. Thank you.

SARAH DIAMOND: I'm not taking it personally in the least.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): All right, thank you both. Next up, we will hear from Joseph Accettullo.

JOSEPH RAYMOND ACCETTULLO: Accettullo.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Go ahead, sir.

JOSEPH RAYMOND ACCETTULLO: Esteemed Judiciary Committee Members. Before we go any further in this discussion, I urge you to first expunge all marijuana-related possession, cultivation distribution charges and release all prisoners being held on those charges. Take the advice of Jason Ortiz, Kebra Smith and CURE Connecticut. I've advocated with them here in Connecticut, and on a federal level in DC. They are two of the most 433 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

informed, respected and coveted voices of equity in the country. Let's take our time, make sure we make right with the communities and people that we have destroyed through bad policy and the war on drugs. Day one equity, or no equity at all.

That being said, my name is Joseph Raymond Accettullo. I'm the founder/director of the New England Craft Cannabis Alliance. I'm a Hamden-based grassroots organizer and cannabis advocate. I want to share with you some of the shortcomings of Senate Bill 888 and describe the ways in which it will effectively undermine the overall quality of cultivated cannabis in the state of Connecticut.

It is estimated that at this very moment, there are 10,000-plus or more home growers and cannabis hobbyists in our small state of Connecticut. These taxpayers grow at their own peril because our archaic legal structure has forbidden them, these plant enthusiasts, from pursuing their passions legally. These growers bring years and even generations of cultivation experience to our great home state.

Cultivation of a naturally occurring, non-toxic plant which has been relegated to the unsavory status of Schedule 1 classification for far too long. Allowing home grow to peacefully coexist along large scale cannabis cultivators will not deter individuals from buying cannabis legally from large growth facilities. In fact, the evidence in other states is to the contrary. Allowing hobbyists to practice working with this plant in a safe home environment ultimately creates a more able workforce in the industry, and has promoted job growth, increased production and given the experience and efficiency of the workforce and ultimately increased revenue for the state.

Similar to craft beer enthusiasts who were crafting illegal home brew long before the federal government sanction the act, the home grower will continue to 434 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

practice their craft whether this Bill is passed or not. Much like craft brewing, small home grow operations are incubators for ingenuity of small businesses and entrepreneurs. The continued prohibition of home grow operations will only serve to deepen the gap between the rich corporations and the regular law-abiding, taxpaying citizens which directly undermines any and all equity initiatives proposed by SB 888.

This kind of indifference towards home grow will criminalize taxpayers and force municipalities to circumvent state level laws -- oh, I lost my place there -- and turn a blind eye to semi-legal grows, so that they may shift their regulatory focus to other more pressing issues than a handful of plants in a resident's garden.

It would be a disservice to society to cut the craft enthusiasts and hobbyists out of the picture and prosecute them in the name of corporate greed. We are asking for a more measured approach. Sorry -- I have two phones in my hand. We are asking for a more measured approach to your observations and seat at any table where cannabis policy is being discussed in Connecticut.

Connecticut Cannabis Advocates are a strong group from all walks of life, since my cannabis arrest --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): If you could summarize.

JOSEPH RAYMOND ACCETTULLO: Home growers are the pioneers of progress in the state of Connecticut. We provided ourselves while the state squabbled and gave no access or legal means to cannabis, so you must now give us a plant count and make provisions for home cultivation in new legislation as recommended in House Bill 6377. Let us promote prosperity and equity. Thank you very much.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you very much. Representative Fishbein. 435 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, sir. You are apparently advocate of home grow, just a basic question. There's various schemes as to, you know, what, how many plants various states allow people to have. What would be your recommendation should we --

JOSEPH RAYMOND ACCETTULLO: In my expert opinion, I would say 12 plants. It gives the home grower the ability to have six in flowering and six in a vegging state and provide enough medicine for themselves for the entire year. This is another basic form of equity, the very important one and one that the Governor, his oversight of it is -- I mean, it could really ruin the industry because you're going to criminalize a group of people that already exist in the state.

I mean, go to any grow shop and ask them how their business is doing. I can't find Co2 anywhere in the state for my own, you know, personal. So there's definitely, you know, there has to be provisions included or, in my opinion, the policy is a failure and people are just going to break the law anyways.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I thank you for your answer and your reasoning behind your answer. That's all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

JOSEPH RAYMOND ACCETTULLO: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Fishbein. Are there comments or questions from others? I don't see any but I want to thank you. Mr. Accettullo, I know you had issues getting in and you stuck with us throughout the day, so I appreciate your perseverance.

JOSEPH RAYMOND ACCETTULLO: And I appreciate you, Gary. Thank you very much for everything you do.

436 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Have a great evening. Next we will hear from Frank Maletz, and I think I saw Frank. You have three minutes.

FRANK MALETZ: Thank you, Senator Winfield. It's a pleasure to finally meet you. I want to thank everybody that's stuck on the call since ten o'clock this morning with me. I feel like I'm doing spine surgery again and I'm just revving up for my second case after ten hours at the table.

So first, I want to say that as a practicing orthopedic and trauma surgeon for nearly 37 years here in Connecticut, it was a pleasure to practice in this state and the rollout of the medical marijuana program, especially as it allowed me to get a lot of my patients off of opioids was tremendous help, especially with neuropathies.

So I think that the work that has been done in the state of Connecticut, both an honor and a pleasure to have worked here. Since I left practice, however, I've brought a friend and I just wanted to touch base with my new passion, this little three- pound structure, which I brought along because it is getting late and I need a brain, is one of the most amazing developmental structures on the planet.

It gives a little conversation to equity and inclusion. Because as I look at the 7.8 billion of us on the planet, every one of us has one of these, so it's incumbent upon us to take really, really good care of it.

My family foundation, of which I am the spokesperson who's done some neuroscience research over the last couple of years, is completely opposed to Bill 888 for the reason that you it recreationalizes a psychoactive drug that affects the 86.1 billion nerve cells and goes directly to the brain, especially when it's smoked. And this represents 100 trillion potential synaptic connections.

437 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

We are allowing people without a PhD to practice medicine when they use psychoactive medications without proper regulation, without proper dosing, without proper knowledge. And as I said earlier, I think the state has done a beautiful job to date with their medical marijuana program. I think it should be expanded. We should expand research and we should learn everything we can learn about the cannabis sativa plant, which actually has a lot of good things going for it, including its seeds with nutrition, some of the stems which allow significant hemp production. We can farm it, we can use it appropriately --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I would just advise you that your time is expired so if you could wrap up, that would be great.

FRANK MALETZ: Yes, sir. This is the center point of all we should do to protect every human brain on the planet, but we can start in the state of Connecticut. Thank you very much.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much. I see Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I again, apologize to the Committee for all my questions. But Dr. Maletz, I greatly appreciate you sticking around until almost 11:30 here to testify and for your years of service.

As I understand your testimony, you're very much in favor of medical marijuana, which I am, the medical marijuana program in Connecticut as I am, but you have grave concerns about the recreational. Is that fair? Is that fair to say?

FRANK MALETZ: I must have said what I came to say well. Recreationalization (sic) and just letting it out there is where I draw the line.

438 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And did you submit written testimony? I'm sorry, I've not been able to read all the written testimony.

FRANK MALETZ: I totally apologize. I just found out about this meeting at nine o'clock this morning so I signed up. That's why I'm number 127.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): No problem, Doctor, at all. We greatly appreciate your time and we're glad you're not billing by the hour. If you could please submit written testimony, we'd greatly appreciate it, Doctor, because it does matter and we do read it. Particularly Senator Winfield, he reads everything so we greatly appreciate it.

And he's got little ones running around, so he needs a little sleep aid at times. But in all honestly, I'm not making light of your testimony, sir. I greatly appreciate it. And this is a very difficult topic for many of us and so thank you for sticking around and giving us your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative O'Dea. I don't see any other hands so I want to thank you, Dr. Muletz, for joining us and for bringing your newfound friend along with us. And I hope you get some sleep before we do. Have a great evening.

Next, we will hear from Peter Cyr. And I just want to say that there may be the case that there's somebody who we called and we missed. I will check before we close this out since we're at that, close to the end, I don't want people to feel like we're just going to close them down. Peter Cyr, you have your three minutes.

PETER CYR: Thank you, Chairman Winfield and Members of the Committee. I'm going to try to keep this short because we've had a lot of redundant arguments 439 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

today. I'm writing this in support of SB 888 but only if amended to include certain provisions.

I support the Bill because the war on drugs is a civil rights travesty and weed could be one of the most important harm reduction tools in fighting the opioid crisis. As currently written, this Bill does legalize weed and allocates revenue to the PILOT program, which is amazing. But aspects of the Bill reiterate an all too common Puritan approach that will undermine the implementation and prevent us from bringing full restorative justice to the war on drugs.

I don't think I need to reiterate the equity arguments. I think they were made very greatly by Jason Ortiz and Attorney Ward, so I'll let -- I'll refer to -- they said it better than me so I don't want to be redundant there.

I do want to talk about home grow, though. I think home grow is the only way that we chip at the black market while we wait for implementation. In Massachusetts, it took two years between legalization and the first legal sale but the caveat was that you could grow it at home. I think it's going to leave a weird regulatory question mark and space that like we're not going to be able to fill very well. And it's also just inconsistent with the law that we're currently passing, banning home grow while legalizing weed, it's going to lead to vague and subjective enforcement and we know what happens with subjective enforcement.

I also just think there's a communal aspect to growing and that is underrated and we're sort of being overly punitive. It seems like a fake homage to a political compromise that doesn't really do a lot. So I urge us to include home grow in this legislation.

I also think it's on the onus of the Legislature to fix the language that the Governor has put before 440 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

us. Obviously, this is what the Governor thinks, but you guys have the opportunity to make this Bill better. And one of those language is just the name, I think, is a little condescending, AN ACT TO RESPONSIBLY AND EQUITABLY REGULATE CANNABIS USE. This is perpetuating old Puritan stigmas that people who use marijuana are not responsible, which I think is wrong. So thank you for the time and I'll take any questions.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Mr. Cyr, and I don't see any but I want to thank you. You spent a lot of time waiting to testify, so thank you for your -- well, Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Sorry, Mr. Chairman, Senator. Mr. Cyr, my only question is really, as you may have realized through the last 13, 14 hours, my number one concern is trying to prevent kids from using marijuana. I'm not sure and I don't want you to answer this question when you first tried it, if you ever did. But if you were to advise us how to prevent kids from trying it, what would you tell us to do? How would you do it?

PETER CYR: Yeah, I think being overly punitive is the wrong approach. I think to take away the stigma would be a good way to sort of approach kids with it. Because I think anything you say, like "Don't do that, that's wrong." Any kid is going to go and do that.

So I think if we take this as a legal approach, and we sort of are more accepting to it, I think you're going to see usage go down between teens.

But I do share, and I think that's something I've gotten from this testimony. I think teenage use is a problem and I think we could write things in this Bill, such as a public health campaign that sort of addresses those things. But again, this is a framework that the Governor has given us and I think it's the Legislature's job to fix it, right? 441 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Because if this comes out of the Legislature, it's on you guys, too. And if the Governor signs it, right? So you we can complain about the process, but this is a good vessel, and we can make the changes we need to it.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you very much, sir, for your testimony and waiting till 11:37 p.m. I really do appreciate it. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative O'Dea and have a great evening, Mr. Cyr. Okay, next we will hear from Randy Querry.

RANDY QUERRY: Hello, can you hear me?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I do hear you. You have three minutes.

RANDY QUERRY: Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to provide -- for me to provide this comment. I'm Randy Querry, Director of Government Relations for the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation, AALA. I've been involved with laboratory accreditation for well over two decades. On behalf of the AALA, I am commenting specifically to Senate Bill 888 in support of laboratory testing and accreditation.

By way of background, AALA is a nonprofit accreditation body with over 3,800 actively accredited certificates representing all 50 states, including 80 organizations accredited for cannabis testing. We've been granting accreditation to testing laboratories in various industries since 1979. Criteria forming the basis for our laboratory accreditation program is ISO/IEC 17025, General Requirements For the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories.

We ourselves are, as an accreditation body, have been evaluated against rigorous standards in 442 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

providing this accreditation service and recognized globally as an International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation, or ILAC, recognized accreditation body.

In establishing an adult-use cannabis program, laboratory testing and the ensuing test results are critical to the program. Regular laboratory assessments leading to accreditation will provide the users of the test reports with confidence that the data is backed by a quality management system, technically competent testing, qualified personnel and the use of the appropriate facilities and testing equipment.

So we strongly support your legislation, specifically Lines 119 and 120 in referencing Title 21a of the General Statutes that requires ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation through an ILAC signatory, as required in Section 408.

We also strongly support the requirement that the laboratory employee is responsible for selecting a random sample from the production facility. This will help ensure correct sample collection and impartiality.

These accredited testing laboratories can be used for the quantity -- or testing the quantity of THC and CBD and will be analyzing the cannabis for contaminants such as heavy metals, microbiological and mycotoxin and pesticide chemical residues. The accredited testing will help assure that the data is supported by technically competent staff using validated methods and calibrated instruments. This is all good for the consumers of Connecticut. Thank you for your time.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Querry. Are there questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Representative O'Dea.

443 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Querry, thank you for your testimony. What states do you work with?

RANDY QUERRY: Several of them. California, Colorado, Maryland, Florida, a few others.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And have you seen any court challenges to anything that guys, you've done?

RANDY QUERRY: Court challenges, no, not that I can recollect. But our process is, you know, we have an appeals process or we can, you know, when there are issues we can have, you know, suspend the laboratories, that type of thing, and do complaint investigations. So it's not just a, you know, rubber stamp.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Okay, thank you very much, sir, for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Are there comments or questions from other Members of the Committee? I do not see any. I want to thank you, Mr. Querry, for spending your time with us and staying here late into the evening to testify. Thank you very much.

RANDY QUERRY: Sure, and almost good morning.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Hopefully not. Kelly Juleson-Scopino, you have your three minutes.

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: Thank you very much, Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom and Representative Fishbein and other Members of the Judiciary Committee. I am Kelly Juleson-Scopino. I'm the co-president of the Governor's Prevention Partnership and for the past three decades, our mission has included keeping young people safe from the dangers of illegal drugs and alcohol. And our focus tonight is making sure that any legislation that is passed has a keen focus on keeping non- 444 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

medical cannabis out of vulnerable hands and efforts are focused on harm reduction.

Additionally, we want to ensure that if a young person possesses non-medical cannabis that any real consequences are focused through the lens of equity.

So there is some good safeguarding in the Governor's Bill for young people in ultimately reducing the risk of substance use disorder, including not allowing for home growing, which would present increased access to our young people. It's very difficult to regulate the amount of THC or the amount of plants that are being grown within the home.

Another piece that we applaud is the expansion of the 2012 social host law to hold those of age responsible for providing cannabis to minors.

Some additional things that we would really like to see in this legislation as it's worked through the process as additional dollars be earmarked for public awareness campaigns, similar to the successful Lock Your Meds, or DMIS Change The Script campaign. This type of public awareness is the first step in universal prevention and is critical to making sure that adults are securing their product and keeping it out of innocent hands.

And we heard from Mr. Garnett earlier that young people have been getting their alcohol from their parents, and now they've been getting their cannabis from them, too. So it's very important if this legislation goes forward that there is additional investments in raising awareness and prevention campaigns.

The other piece we just wanted to quickly focus on this evening is that we don't think that young people should be facing punitive criminal consequences and fines, which is disproportionately going to affect Black and Brown children and 445 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

families. In fact, research from the Juvenile Law Center shows that financial penalties actually increase recidivism. We'd encourage you to look at the language that New Jersey just adopted, where they pivoted away from fines and toward an approach that focuses on public health education strategies and connections to community-based services, including mentoring, wraparound services and mental health intervention, among others.

We're here to be a part of this conversation and thank you so much for your time this evening.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much. I see Representative Dubitsky has his hand raised.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for coming in. So am I correct to interpret it that you were involved in putting this Bill together?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: No, we were not.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, but you do support it as written?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: We have a position at our organization that we are going to focus on safeguards for our young people, recognizing the inevitability that legalization of marijuana is going to happen at some point here in our state, as it has in other states. So we want to make sure that we are protecting our young people as best we can.

And that was the recommendation that we got from our peers in other states where legalization has already happened. Make sure to have a seat at that table and advocate for those safeguards.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, and do you believe that this Bill has those safeguards in it?

446 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: I think it has a strong start to those safeguards for our young people. And I think there's some more that can be done, which I'm sure the Legislature will take on through this process.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, I know that you hesitated when I asked if you actually support the Bill. So is it my -- do I interpret that to mean your organization would rather not see any Bill go through?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: No, our organization is focused on safeguarding marijuana use, non- recreational marijuana use. So any, as a prevention organization, we would never come out in favor of any Bill that was going to legalize without those safeguards. So we are focused solely on the safeguards.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. So you do want to see a Bill go through as long as it's got safeguards?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: We want to make sure that if a Bill goes through that there are safeguards in place for our young people.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, but you don't take a position one way or the other?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Representative, I'm going to suggest that that question that you're trying to get at has been answered to the best of her ability.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, I'll move on to another question then, Mr. Chairman. You mentioned that you were happy that there was no home grow provision in this Bill. And could you explain why that is?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: Sure. As I pointed out in the testimony, the piece that we are concerned about is access and compliance. So in terms of home growing, it would allow for more access within the 447 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

home and I've heard Representative O'Dea ask many people over the course of the day and articulate his concerns for young people. So that is something that we have concerns about in terms of the compliance and enforcement of the number of plants, the amount of THC and also just the access within the home and being able to make sure that again, young people are protected.

And that's where the access for these illicit substances, whether it's alcohol, prescribed pills for someone else, that's where youth are getting them first, it's within the home and so that's where we are taking a stand against the home growing.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, have you -- other states that have passed bills legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes, a number of them have home grow provisions in them. Have you done any research as to the consequences of those?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: We have, and I'm not unfortunately able to share anything conclusive. But in the prevention fields, the belief is, you know, increased access like this would then provide additional access to young people.

So we've gone with our prevention colleagues, and as soon as I can find you something concrete Representative Dubitsky, I'll be happy to share it with the Committee, but don't want to misspeak.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. So, for example, in Vermont, which is essentially their whole model is based on a home grow provision, are you aware of any additional access from -- by minors on a systematic basis?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: I'm not intimately familiar with the Vermont legislation, so I can't speak to that.

448 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Which states are you familiar with? I

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: I mean, we've done a review of the states that have legalized marijuana to this point. And like I said, I can't point to anything specific where there's been any study in terms of states that have legalized home growing versus states that have not in terms of the access to youth.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. But if you have some data on that, you'll provide it to us?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: Yes, absolutely. Be happy to share what we do have.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Do you have any idea if that's in any of your -- have you submitted written testimony?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: Yes, we did. It's on the website.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Is any of that data included in there?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: That was not one of the data pieces that we cited, no.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. What other portions of this Bill do you believe prevents access by children to non-medical marijuana?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: There's the social host aspect of the Bill, expanding that 2012 law that went into effect for alcohol. And so putting the responsibility back on adults who would provide marijuana, thinking that it was not, there was not a risk in doing so. So that was a strong piece of legislation. I know that there's also pieces that have been considered in terms of the marketing and limitations there. But we've we chose to focus on 449 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

those three to begin the conversation. And again, knowing that this is the beginning of a longer process, we can weigh in on those as it moves further along.

But certainly want to make sure that any edibles are clearly marked and are not marketed directly to children.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Now as -- if this Bill progresses and goes into a change phase, what changes would you be suggesting?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: We would be suggesting tweaks, as I mentioned in my testimony, in terms of looking for additional funding for prevention and education to prevent -- to reduce harm risks, that would be one piece.

And then the other piece would also be in terms of the fines that are currently outlined for underage offenders and those that would have possession of marijuana, that it would be done more through a social equity lens. And that rather than imparting those fines on a tiered basis, that again, it goes back to a public health and community-based approach where young people could be receiving services rather than punitive fines that, for some families, may seriously affect them from a financial perspective. But then also, we haven't even begun to talk about the trauma perspective for the young people involved.

So both of both of those things. And again, I think what New Jersey passed may be something for this Committee to look at moving forward at that tiered level approach.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Does your organization take any position one way or another on erasure of criminal records?

450 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: Sorry, I muted myself. No, that is not something that our organization has discussed.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. All right. Could you just tell -- give me the name of your organization again? I apologize, I've forgotten.

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: Sure. We're the Governor's Prevention Partnership, and we're a 30-plus year old statewide nonprofit that's located in Wethersfield. And we're focused on -- we have been focused on under-age prevention of illegal substances, and then we also have a mentoring component as well.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. To what extent are you associated or affiliated with the state government?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: We are a 501c3, we do receive state funding, we also receive private funding.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. But the fact that your organization starts -- the name starts with the word Governor's does not mean you have any connection with the Governor?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: The Governor is our co-chair and every Governor since Governor O'Neill of every political party, independent, Republican and Democrat has been co-chair of our organization.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Got it, okay. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Juleson-Scopino, thank you so much for sticking 451 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

around. I, from the bottom of my heart, you are one of the most important people today that we're going to hear from. Because, in my humble opinion, keeping these drugs out of the hands of our youth is the most, the biggest concern I have. And so thank you for sticking around until 11:44.

And my goal is going to be to get you a seat at the table to make sure that your voice is heard on the educational component, and the public health educational strategies because that's imperative to me. And I will be direct. I hope, my youngest son is 16. I hope I can forestall this for another nine years until he's 25. But that's a rhetorical statement and it's late, and I apologize.

But my question to you is, do you know an Ingrid Gillespie or John Hamilton of the Liberation Program?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: John Hamilton doesn't ring a bell but Ingrid Gillespie does and I know that we've worked with her for many years. And I'm dying for you to ask me the question that you've asked of everyone else too, in terms of like, what can we do?

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Yes. What can you do to prevent teens from getting more access?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: So I think the first step, Representative O'Dea, is to have those conversations with your children. 74% of teens say their parents are the biggest influence on their decision to drink or use drugs. And so I know that sometimes parents shy away from having those conversations, thinking that they'll put the seeds in their young person's mind that, "Oh, if I talk to them about this, maybe they'll try it." It's absolutely the opposite.

So having those conversations, those real conversations, we can help you through some of those, we have tools to have age-appropriate conversations, depending on the young person in your 452 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

life. And I have young children. My oldest is almost seven and I will tell you this story very quickly, and I know it's late. She said to me one day last year, she was going to take gummies. And she said to me, "I have to take my pills." And I said, "What are you talking about?" So I was, you know, "You don't have to take your pills." She was like, "But Mimi takes her pills."

My mom takes prescribed medication, and so it allowed for us to have a conversation, even at this point when she was five, about, you know, when a doctor prescribed something to go into your body and that it's very specific, and that you don't just put things into your body. And so I use that a lot as an example that even at a very young age, you can have those conversations.

And, you know, talking about the threats, and that it's not the marijuana of the '80s, or the '70s and the implications that can happen to a young developing person, it's important to be honest, the young people. So I'm happy to talk to you about that offline when it's not almost midnight, but anything we can do to help, we're there.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you. And please, please reach out to Ingrid Gillespie. She's phenomenal and one of the best in the business. So thank you very much. And take video of your kids. They grow fast.

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: Thank you. Will do.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize again for the long-winded questions.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Representative Palm.

REP. PALM (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kelly, it's wonderful to see you. I'm just, I'm not sure if this is the purview of your partnership or not, but do you do you have an official position on 453 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

whether this Bill should kick in at age 25? I understand that you're about preventing access. But do you have an official stance on that?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: No, no, we do not. I mean, certainly we understand the testimony that came before us in terms of the 25 and over, recognizing also the challenges that may come with having two different variations between alcohol and cannabis. So our goal, at the end of the day, is making sure that whatever legislation comes out is the safest for our young people.

REP. PALM (36TH): Okay, great. Thank you very much.

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Representative Miller.

REP. MILLER (145TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hi Kelly. How are you?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: Hi, it's so good to see you.

REP. MILLER (145TH): It's good seeing you as well. And I just wanted to say hello and to also thank you for your testimony, as well as staying up this late at night. And I agree with Representative O'Dea, that I think that it is important that you be, your organization be a part of the conversation. It goes back to what Ms. Ross said about having stakeholders at the table, and we have to look at teen use.

And I agree with you, the train is going to leave the station. Do you want to be on it? And so you know that it is going to happen, so you might as well, you know, make sure that you put the initiatives in there or the pieces in there that are very important. And I think that your looking at prevention is very, very important. So it helps us, we should look at prevention, I should say. So 454 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Kelly, thank you so much. And it's so good to see you. I can't believe Zoe's seven already.

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: I know. Thank you so much. Representative. Appreciate it. We'll see you upstairs, right?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Miller. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hi, Kelly. You look like -- were you a state Representative before?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: I was, yeah.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, I thought so, I thought so. I thought so. Understanding, you know, your group is very important. Do you have any concern at all with the fact that an 18-year-old can hold a cannabis establishment license?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: You know, that's a really great question, Representative Fishbein, and one that I've been thinking about through the day. And honestly, I don't feel because it was not something that organizationally, and we have a board of directors where we've gone through a process, and we haven't discussed that specific provision. So I don't feel comfortable speaking about it at this time, on behalf of the organization.

So I just would want to make sure that we have that conversation before I say anything further, but I would be happy to get back to you about that, or the Committee as a whole.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): What about as an individual? I mean, because understanding that the license fee for a backer is $100. So, I mean, 18-year-olds, some of them are still in high school. I mean, do you think that's appropriate?

455 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: I think that in terms of, I would go back to what Ms. Diamond said previously. I would -- and I don't know a lot about the licensing process itself, admittedly. But just in thinking about the regulations and the hoops that one would have to go through, I believe, to get a license that those regulations would have to be stringent.

You know, it's a hard, I don't -- honestly, Representative, I'm not entirely sure where I am, and that gives me some pause to think about. But I also think of, we have 18-year-old servers, who, you know, are working at our local restaurants who are providing alcohol. And I know that that's a direct to consumer piece in an employment capacity. But I do wonder about that, too. So I don't have an opinion one way or another. It's something that I've thought about throughout the day, though.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And I appreciate that analogy, but I guess the difference is that the 18- year-old can't be on the liquor license. You know, you have to be 21 or older to get a liquor license.

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: So then, oh, I'm sorry, Representative. I didn't mean to cut you off.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): No, I was basically done with that statement. So I know you wanted to comment on that.

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: You know, I think as we've looked at this legislation today, so much of it does mirror the alcohol legislation that it may make sense to mirror that similarly to how liquor establishments are also licensed. So that might be another piece for the Committee to consider.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And I know that your prevention group is focused on -- well, let me ask you. What age group are you focused on?

456 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: Our main focus area is ages 5 to 19, but then certainly, we do extend ourselves a little bit further into that young adult category. So probably reaching up to those who are about 24, but less so.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And there's been talk today about why 21 and not 25? Because I'm sure you're aware of the developmental brain, and that kind of - - has your group taken any position with regard to the 21 versus 25 issue?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: Again, you know, organizationally, we are committed to making sure that whatever legislation comes out has the safeguards in it for our young people, whether it's 21 or 25. And I know that there's -- I'm not a brain development expert so I wouldn't dare try and get into that conversation. But I know there's a lot of strong backing that says the young brain isn't developed until later in the 20s.

So organizationally, our position is we're going to do whatever we can to make sure that what comes out has these safeguards in place.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I thought it was a little interesting in your testimony, given your mission is prevention. You know, I know we have a prevention group here in my town and they're opposed. So it seems like your group is resigned to the fact that this is going to happen and is not interested in just fighting the legalization of marijuana. Is that -- I don't want to mischaracterize, but that's --

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: I don't want to use the word resigned. I think that, you know, we've seen other states as recently as this week, with legalization going into effect in New Jersey, that this is coming, whether it comes in 2021, whether it comes in 2024. And that in other states, like I said, where especially, you know, this really came to us 457 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

originally, excuse me for stumbling over my words, it is a little late. That in Colorado, that our prevention peers were not a part of those discussions. And so then there were pieces that weren't considered when that legislation, when that law was put into place.

And so making sure we had that seat at the table, to make sure it was ultimately, like that's not a political issue. It's keeping our kids safe. And I think that we can all get behind that and making sure that we're doing it consistently throughout.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And perhaps I missed it. Your group, their position on home grow is what?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: Yep, we did applaud the Governor for putting in the prohibition of home growing from a prevention perspective. The belief is, and Representative Dubitsky asked me for studies that showed this and unfortunately, I haven't been able to find anything, but once I do we will be able to share it with you. Is that that level of access, increased access with little enforcement, would mean greater access for our young people.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, and then I just -- not -- have you read the Bill?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: I have.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and good evening. Just a quick question. I'm just trying to get my mind wrapped around it. So you're in favor of the proposal before us so you can have a seat at the table and be part of the discussion. Did I hear that correctly? 458 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: We're not here today in favor of the Bill. We would not come out in favor of any legalization Bill. We are here about safeguarding our young people and so the pieces in this specific legislation, the Governor's legislation does put safeguards in place for our young people. It's a really strong start. There's a few more that we'd like to see considered.

And we do, we'd like to be a part of these conversations moving forward so it's made sure that young people are at the central focus and keeping them safe if this legislation is going to become law.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Okay, so I appreciate that clarity that you just made it clear that you are not in any way supportive of this proposal, is that correct?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: We are -- we do not have a position on -- we're neutral in terms of marijuana legalization. Our position as an organization is that we have -- and I don't want to use the word resigned, because that's what Representative Fishbein said. That's not the case.

We've evolved over time, and that we recognize that this is going to come and we want to make sure that our young people are kept as safe as possible.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Now, I'm very confused. Because first I thought you had indicated that you are not in favor of it, now you're saying you're neutral. Neutral would say that you're not in favor or against it. So I am just going to give you an opportunity. Exactly what stance are you taking on the proposal before us?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: We are here to promote the safeguards for young people in any legislation. 459 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

We're not for the Bill. We're not against the Bill. We're for safeguards.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Okay, and I can appreciate the safeguards. And I guess, you know, going back to the brain development, we hear that all the time, especially when it comes to juvenile justice. And you had indicated that predominantly you guys go up to the age of 19 but sometimes it goes beyond that. And this proposal right now is up to the age of 21.

I would imagine that, of course then even between 21 and 25, that would not be a safeguard for the youth, correct?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: Yes, that could be correct, but recognizing there's challenges if there's a difference between alcohol and marijuana between 21 and 25.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Okay, and I'm sorry, the organization that you said you were part of? You said that the Governor and every Governor before is the chairman of that organization. Is that correct?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: It's the co-chair. So it's, there's a business co-chair as well of the organization.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): And how much of the funding of your organization is state funds?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: About $700,000.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): And what conversations have you guys had in your organization directly with the Governor regarding this topic?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: We've had no conversations directly with the Governor regarding this topic.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): So the Governor is the chairman of your organization, funded by the State 460 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

of Connecticut, and this is an issue that you're testifying before the Committee that has to do with the youth and prevention of safeguarding the safety of youth, and you've never once brought this up with the Governor?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: We have sent an email, we've shared some emails with his office, but never had a conversation with Governor Lamont, no.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Okay, that's unfortunate. Thank you for taking the time to testify.

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: Oh, actually, I'm sorry, Representative Rebimbas, can I just clarify? So when Governor Lamont came into office two years ago, we did have a direct conversation about this, but about this specific legislation, we have not had a direct conversation.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): And what was the conversation at that time?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: It was at the beginning of his term and it was just sharing where we were organizationally with marijuana. And at that point, it was still premature. He had not put legislation forward at that point when we met with him at the beginning of 2019.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): And what was your organization's position at that time?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: It was, again, it was a similar position to the one that we have currently, that was promoting safeguards for young people in terms of home growing, social host law. I can't remember the other two points off the top of my head, but I will -- I can share them with you if you'd like.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): No, I'd be more interested in having you guys then reach out to the Governor and 461 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

have those conversations now and not waiting until maybe it's too late.

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: Yes, absolutely. And having those conversations with his staff, 100%.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Thank you. Have a great evening. Thanks again for testifying. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Representative O'Dea, are you --

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Just for the second time, if nobody else has a question. Just briefly, if I may, Mr. Chairman? I know it's midnight.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Sure.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): I'm sorry. But Ms. Juleson- Scopino, just so I'm clear. I mean, I think, as I understand looking at the website and doing a little bit of research, the Governor's Prevention Partnership is all about decreasing access and use of minors of alcohol or drugs, correct?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: Mm-hmm. And we have a very large mentoring component as well.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And I applaud -- and I think we need to get you more money, frankly. But I just wanted to clarify. I think it's your group's position that legalizing recreational marijuana is not -- will increase access for youth. Is that correct?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: We believe that there is the chance that access will be increased to young people, which is why, again, we want to make sure those safeguards are in place.

462 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Exactly. So if your group had its choice, this legislation, in other words, legalizing recreational use of marijuana would be --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Representative -- Representative. I believe that question was actually asked already. And I'm not trying to cut you off, because certainly I want us to get out everything. But we are retreading ground at this point and given the hour, I would hope that's not what we were doing.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Okay I certainly -- I was trying to phrase it a little differently but I'll move on. I think we're both in agreement -- and this is a yes or no -- both your group Governor's Prevention Partnership and myself, want to do everything we can to prevent youth from having access to marijuana or any illicit drugs or alcohol, correct?

KELLY JULESON-SCOPINO: Yes.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you very much for sticking around. It's now Saturday morning and I'm very appreciative for all your work. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you Representative. And I don't see any other hand so I'm going to thank you for joining us and sticking with us into the new day. So up next, we will hear from Christina Capitan who we skipped over and then Reverend Dr. Boise Kimber. And then I will check the list to make sure that any name that we called who might actually be here has their opportunity. Christina Capitan.

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: Thank you, Senator Winfield. Good very late evening to all the Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Christina Capitan. I am a lifelong Connecticut resident and I currently reside in East Windsor. I appreciate the 463 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

opportunity to provide my testimony tonight in opposition of Senate Bill 888.

I am in strong opposition of this Bill. I however, do support the legalization of cannabis in a fair and equitable manner. There are four main reasons why I cannot support this Bill.

Essentially, it criminalizes cannabis even further for those left outside of a costly and confusing regulatory structure. It also immediately hands over the adult use market to the current medical cannabis infrastructure in Connecticut and I believe that this will hurt patients that I care about.

There's also no equity licensing mentioned in this Bill. While poor people and communities of color have suffered the most from prohibition of cannabis, under this Bill, there is no thought put into providing restitution or fair advantage to those individuals.

Last but not least, it does not include any home grow provisions. If adults can legally brew craft beer in their home, adults should also be allowed to grow a number of craft cannabis plants on his or her property for personal use.

I have now worked within the Connecticut medical marijuana program closely with patients for over six years and I've been a patient myself for over seven. I want to say that before becoming a patient, I was considered a criminal. I was diagnosed with cannabis use disorder for many years throughout my life. But upon becoming a patient, I was able to be employed within that program and it was really helpful for me to move forward. So I just wanted to point that out. I would not be here today if it wasn't for cannabis.

Also, I'd like to respectfully respond to the concerns mentioned about the potential for increased teen use of cannabis if we should pass a 464 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

legalization Bill. Cannabis is illegal now and our young people are able to easily access unregulated and potentially harmful products from an underground market. Education, not criminalization, is the key to deterring use for that demographic and that will be much easier and more commonplace within a legal market than it is now.

In closing, the prohibition of cannabis has damaged our society irreparably. It has torn apart families and it still does, despite decriminalization in our state. Senate Bill 888 does not do anything that I can identify to try and even rectify that damage, nor does it address the true impact that prohibition of cannabis has had on our communities.

Please consider introducing, sponsoring or cosponsoring a more compassionate, more equitable, and more sensible Bill concerning cannabis during this Legislative Session. Thank you for your time and stay well.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Ms. Capitan. Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the risk of alienating my entire Committee, I apologize again. Ms. Capitan, thank you so much for your testimony, now on Saturday morning. Just a couple questions. You said that you were diagnosed with cannabis use disorder?

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: Many years throughout my life, sir.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): So, you know, I'm sorry you had to go through that. What year was that, that you were first diagnosed?

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: Um, probably about the age of 22, when I was originally court ordered to go to a mental health program or a drug addiction program because of being caught using cannabis. 465 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And my mother always told me never to ask a woman's age, so I don't want to ask that question. But how long ago was that, that you were first diagnosed? What year?

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: I'd say between 15 and 17 years ago.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): So roughly around 2005-ish?

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: Yeah, five, six.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And were you a teen at the time?

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: No, no, I was an adult.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Okay. And if you were to advise us on how to prevent others from being diagnosed with cannabis use disorder, what would you tell us to do?

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: I believe we've taken a huge step by getting the medical marijuana program passed and allowing people to access that. I don't believe that there is truly enough access. I don't believe there's truly enough education.

I think education is the key for mental health providers, for social service agencies, for government agencies like the police, DCF, things like that. I think that's really, really important to avoid a misdiagnosis, potentially, like I had, which left my other conditions untreated or untreatable.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): So as I understand at this point, you were misdiagnosed with cannabis use disorder initially?

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: Absolutely.

466 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And so -- I'm just trying to figure out. So is it your opinion that cannabis does not cause medical problems for youth?

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: That's not at all what I'm saying. It could potentially cause problems. I think the lack of education, the lack of ability to provide the outreach and education is really where we're going wrong.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Representative O'Dea, I would ask you to try to stay on the Bill. We're getting a little off. Thank you.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Fair enough. No, fair enough. I'm sorry. So ma'am, would you would you agree that we should try and limit use to 25 and older or are you okay with 21 and over?

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: Honestly, I would agree with 18 and over. I believe that there are a lot of things that people are considered adult at 18. I think that as long as people are educated and we continue to do our part to do that, that people will make the right choice at any age.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Fair enough. Thank you so much for sticking around until Saturday morning. We very much truly appreciate it. And thank you, Mr. Chair, for the indulgence. And again, I apologize for being a little too personal if I did. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative O'Dea. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ma'am, you mentioned that you were a proponent of home grow. That was one of the negative aspects of this Bill. And how many plants would you recommend and why

467 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: I would really like to see the ability for people to have, you know, in their own, on their personal property, you know, where regulation does allow and it's safe, for people to have at least 6 to 12 immature or small clone plants, and then also six plants in a vegetative state and six plants in a full flowering state, especially if we're talking about patients or people who need therapeutic access.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): You mentioned a term that I hadn't heard before, I've seen it in the language. But since you mentioned it, I'm going to ask you, what's a clone plant?

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: So a clone plant, although I am not a horticulturist by any sense of the word, a clone plant would be a clipping that is taken from a larger mother plant or a plant in vegetative healthy state, that can then be replicated to a pretty close degree to what, you know, the mother plant was producing to provide consistent medicine for people. They know what to expect from that bloodline or that that DNA, per se, from the plant.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And in your experience, how is that different from a plant from a seed? Is there a reason why you wouldn't want to have a clone plant over a seed plant?

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: I think it's a matter of personal preference. I think there's cost differences. I think there's availability differences. When you are getting a seed, you look at a seed, it looks pretty similar to any other seed that you might get. So you don't necessarily know the stream, the potency, or the, you know, the components that are going to be within that plant as it grows, its health, its background.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I thank you for that education this late in --

468 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: Again, not a horticulturist, sir.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): It's cool. I just, I just had seen it and you obviously have some experience and I think it's valuable. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Fishbein. Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for coming in to testify. Appreciate it. Are you familiar with the Vermont model where home grown is essentially the basis of the policy?

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: I would have to say while I am aware of their outline, I have no in depth knowledge of anything in Vermont currently.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. The woman who testified prior to you represented an organization who -- that is trying to keep safeguards in the Bill to prevent children's access. And one of those things that they are advocating is to avoid any home grow provisions, because it is their belief that that would give children greater access to marijuana. In your experience, would that be the case?

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: I don't believe that would be the case. There are locks on doors for reasons. Also, you know, my gas stove is potentially dangerous to my son, but yet I don't remove it from my home. I'm still able to cook food on my own. I don't let him necessarily use it on his own. But, you know, kind of just responsible parenting and responsible adulting. And again, that education piece, and just being open and honest with your children is very important.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, and if there were a home grow provision in this Bill, how would that -- 469 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

how would that better the Bill, in your opinion? I know you mentioned that you thought there should be one. But how, why would that be an important aspect from your perspective?

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: So as someone who has worked within the medical cannabis program, pretty much from the beginning, I've been a patient since almost the first month it started before there was actually medicine, and working closely with patients and just individuals within -- outside the patient community, I should say, you know, having access outside of a four system structure. We're completely reliant upon, you know, the hours of the dispensary, the availability of the product, the consistency of the product, on being able to have cash flow at any given time to be able to afford that product when you, you know, are potentially not well off. I think that would be a huge benefit to having it there.

Also, it would provide a lot of compassion in the community. I've seen other communities, you know, prospectively Rhode Island that had a nice caregiver program there, and they were able to help so many people, so many sick people, so many people who needed it therapeutically, pediatric patients, and it was just very, you know, it kind of encompassed everything that cannabis kind of stands for, and why I think it's so therapeutic.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): And you mentioned Rhode Island. I apologize. I'm not familiar with the law in Rhode Island. Did they pass something similar?

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: Rhode Island has had a differently structured medical cannabis program for a long period of time, which is where I was first introduced to the production of cannabis for compassionate or therapeutic use for patients. And that's really what kind of sparked my interest in a more medical sense, to see the miracles that were 470 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

happening before my eyes when people were granted access at an affordable cost, compassionately.

So, you know, I'm not aware of their laws currently. I'm sure they've changed a little bit in that time. It's been about eight, ten years or so, maybe by a year. But I do know that, you know, that aspect of compassion, the aspect of having choices for people and access consistently is important.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): So Rhode Island's had a medical marijuana program for eight to ten years?

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: Just about eight years, I think about seven, maybe seven, eight years? It's about that same time.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, and is home grow part of their program?

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: I don't know about now. I know, they have, you know, a compassionate program where they do allow caregivers to grow. I would imagine they would allow patients, but I do not know that for a fact. But I do know for a fact that they do have a caregiver program. Caregivers are allowed to grow a number of plants for a number of patients and they're also allowed to give that extra or additional medicine to the dispensaries in that area, at least from what I'm familiar with.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Is there any, in your experience in Rhode Island, is there any restriction on the type of plants they could have or the level of THC or anything like that?

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: Not that I'm aware of, but I am not super privy to that information at this point in time.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, now, if we were to have a -- to insert a home grow provision into this Bill or into a Bill that was passed in Connecticut, would 471 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

you suggest that it include any type of restrictions like that?

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: What type of restrictions? I apologize. Like count or things?

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Not necessarily count. You know, I imagine they'll there'll be some limitation on count but something like variety or THC level or, you know, testing requirement or something like that? So, essentially, there would be some control or some limitation on what is being grown around the state. Do you think that would be a good thing to have or do you think that the state should stay out of it and let people grow whatever they want?

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: So honestly, I believe that regulation is a healthy thing but overregulation can be potentially, you know, damage things even further. I do, I would like to see testing facilities that are open to the public available to not only people that are recreational market, but also people who are within the medical market. It just provides those checks and balances, a sense of personal responsibility.

I would, I would like to see, you know, if a consumer is purchasing cannabis or growing cannabis in their own home and they feel that they need to test that cannabis, that they have the ability to do so. In the medical market, or as a medical caregiver that has provisions to grow, absolutely it needs to be tested. And I think that, you know, that's a very important point. Thank you for asking.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, but from a home grow standpoint, you think that the testing and the variety, I think it's called variety, isn't it?

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: The strain?

472 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): I'm sorry, the strain. Okay, sorry.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Representative, I was trying to let you go but I think we've kind of gone back. You've already asked her about the strains and she's answered the question. So I would hope that if you have other questions, you ask those questions.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Well, I think I reached the end of my questions with this witness, so I appreciate it. Thank you for your answers. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. I don't see any other hands, so I'm going to thank you for joining us and staying with us early into the morning. I hope you have a wonderful day.

CHRISTINA CAPITAN: You too. I appreciate you. Thank you so much.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Reverend Dr. Boise Kimber, you have your three minutes. You may begin. You're still muted. You have to unmute yourself.

REV. DR. BOISE KIMBER: Thank you very much. I have shared 13 hours with all of you today, so thank you all for staying awake and being a part. The tide may be turning towards legalization of marijuana here in Connecticut. And so we know that our neighboring states, New Jersey, New York soon we'll be offering adult licenses for marijuana sales.

The Governor has put the tax revenue in the budget. And as a clergy and long-time opponent on legalization, I ask myself and Legislators, who must make this decision? Is legalizing the moral, right thing to do?

473 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Morality has many sides. And I know we cherish our sacred sense of right and wrong. But like in the past, I believe that the Governor's Bill has offered us an opportunity to see another side of morality.

The social equity component of this proposed Bill offers Connecticut a chance to be the first state to do the right thing by Black and Brown communities. To do the right thing by those who have been unfairly impacted by the criminal justice system's war on drugs.

Historically, the war on drugs has disproportionately affected our communities. The social equity component of expunging people's records, creating lower license fees, and creating an equity commission is a nice framework and is in the Bill as written. But it is wholly lacking any real substance our real commitment towards true social equity.

It would be incumbent upon Legislators to put a social equity provision into this Bill to ensure that the Bill is not just a revenue raiser, but addressing the morality question of doing what is right by Black and Brown and others with criminal records resulting from existing statues.

It is my strong suggestion that this Bill include an institution to train Black and Brown impacted citizens to be educated to work in a new industry. That there'll be licenses set aside for those communities and that they have the capital to see Black and Brown impacted citizens to own businesses and licenses if we are to expand to adult recreation use.

None of these concepts should be taking place years after the state of Connecticut allows others to come in and profit off of our communities.

474 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Reverend Kimber, I would say to you that your three minutes have lapsed, if you could summarize and then be ready for questions.

REV. DR. BOISE KIMBER: Yes, sir. The equity protocols and processes is an insult to me and the community and should be to Legislators. On day one, meaningful social equity must be a part of the Bill in Connecticut. This is a requirement to get my support, and should be a requirement to get your support. And we must ensure expungement equity in terms of financing education for our entrepreneurs and workers so that they can be part of Connecticut's next industry.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Reverend Kimber. I see the first question comes from Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Reverend. It's nice to see you again. During your presentation, you indicated that you've been oppose recreational marijuana for some time. Is that fair?

REV. DR. BOISE KIMBER: That's fair.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And now you're changing your opinion on that, it appears, based upon the financial aspects, or? I'm just trying to figure out why your opposition appears to have changed?

REV. DR. BOISE KIMBER: It appears that the Legislators have seriously taken up, taken this Bill up, having a serious discussion about the Bill and I certainly do not want the community in which I serve to be left out of this Bill while you are seriously taking up the issue, whether or not you're going to legalize cannabis in the state of Connecticut.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So if, let's say the state of Connecticut just said it's legal. Recreational marijuana is just legal, no taxes. None of that. 475 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

No, you know, payment to the town. Would you still be in favor of?

REV. DR. BOISE KIMBER: I don't think you, Representative, would even vote for it to be in that kind of position and I don't think anybody who had been on this Zoom for the last 13 hours, would just sit and say, okay, I've spent my 13 hours on here so let's move to the next thing and we're not going to deal with the real issue of equity with this Bill.

And so there is some assurance, some idea about us taking it up, by you all taking it up, that you're really serious about moving this Bill. And so from my standpoint, and from a community standpoint, and from people whom I serve, we will not be left out of the discussion.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Understood, but I just don't want to belabor the situation. But if the two aspects of this Bill are the legalization of recreational marijuana and the social justice aspect, they could be dealt with separately. So what was your opposition to the legalization of recreational marijuana?

REV. DR. BOISE KIMBER: Well, I am not for it being dealt with separately. I am not for it being dealt with down the road. I'm for it being dealt with at this present time as the Bill is being written, as we are adding stuff to the Bill on a daily basis once this Bill moves from your Committee.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I'm just trying to figure out prior to the social justice aspect --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Representative, I hate to jump in but I think you know where - what I'm what I'm going to suggest to you. That you've attempted that question multiple times and I don't think we've made progress on the answer.

476 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. I'm discouraged, but I understand that I may never have an answer. But I think that's all that I had. Because if I can't get an answer to that, my other questions would go astray. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Fishbein. Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for coming in. I appreciate it. Following up on the questions from Representative Fishbein, you seem to indicate that you want -- while you stated that you want to be part of the discussion.

What if there is no longer a discussion? Right now we have a Bill in front of us, Bill 888, which is what this hearing is about. If this Bill were to come up for a vote as is with no amendments whatsoever, would you want it to pass or not?

REV. DR. BOISE KIMBER: No, I would not want it to pass.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And that was my only question.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Dubitsky. Representative Miller.

REP. MILLER (145TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Pastor. How are you?

REV. DR. BOISE KIMBER: I'm doing great. What about yourself?

REP. MILLER (145TH): I'm doing well, thank you. Good seeing you again. Pastor, you touched on it in your testimony. What does equity look like to you?

477 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REV. DR. BOISE KIMBER: Equity looks like Black and Brown are at the table, making sure that we are a part of what is happening with this Bill. For instance, I've been sitting here watching all day. And the Black and Brown community, certainly we are concerned about education. Certainly we are concerned about health care. We are concerned about housing. We are concerned about health care. We are concerned about jobs.

And I was listening not long ago when Mayor Elicker was here, I would hope that we would not just give money to cities in reference to their operation budget and it never gets down to the community where it is supposed to be. In some areas in the Black community across this state, there is no wifi. We are having remote now, and virtual now, but there are kids who cannot even get online because of wifi.

And so I would hope that when we talk about equity, that we would talk about where the war on drugs started, still is and that we would hope that it will not end in our community, as it is now.

REP. MILLER (145TH): Thank you for that. That was the only question that I had. And I agree with you, Pastor, that that is something we have to do. We talk about stakeholders, a seat at the table. And so because of the war that was on drugs that took place in our community, so I agree with you wholeheartedly that there has to be some equity and those Black and Brown communities have to be considered first.

This framework that we have and this is council, the Social Council, that's not enough, from my perspective. So thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REV. DR. BOISE KIMBER: Let me say this. This Bill is not going to pass unless Black and Brown are in this Bill, and that we are at the table, and that we see what is coming to our community. It ain't going 478 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

to pass unless we're at the table. And I hope that the administration understands that we will be at the table and a part of the Equity Committee to make the decision about how we move forward and about the finances, the tax revenues.

REP. MILLER (145TH): Thank you very much for those comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Miller. Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Reverend Kimber, thank you so much. It's 12:33 in the morning on a Saturday, and you're here testifying with great passion and we greatly appreciate it, sir.

If you've been listening, you understand my concern is about our youth and the exposure of our youth to the horrible menace of illicit drugs. And so I guess I'm hoping, well, one part of me is hoping you don't get a seat at the table and this Bill doesn't pass and we get some more time to talk about it. But if you do have a seat at a table, how would you help us prevent the youth? What would be your suggestions to us in preventing the youth from getting access and the education they need to prevent the problems that are associated with teen drug use?

REV. DR. BOISE KIMBER: Well, I think that it is incumbent upon us at this present time, and we've been fighting this stuff in our community for years with young kids, and now we're at a point now where everybody wants to say, "Um, we want, you know, we don't want our kids to be stuck on drugs or get to be a part of this." Representative, we've been fighting it and still fighting it, we've lost lives, people have been put in jail. And so when we talk about the age 18, we want to change it now, I mean, we should have thought about 25 years ago or 30 479 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

years ago when the war on drugs was in our community.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Fair enough, fair enough. Look, I appreciate it. My true belief is we need we need more faith. We need more choice for our urban children to get into a better education system. And so, but I can't thank you enough for all you've done. I've read on your background. I know you've testified. So thank you very much for sticking it through and I hope when you get a seat at the table, you get what you want and you help protect our youth. So thank you very much, sir, for your time and your testimony.

REV. DR. BOISE KIMBER: It's just not what I want, it is the people that I serve in this state, the Greater New Haven Clergy Association, which I'm president, the Connecticut State Missionary Baptist Convention, which I'm president, and so it is not about me. It is about my leadership and it is about the people whom I serve.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And that's what I meant. That was my intent in there, because you serve, we serve, and you have a higher calling and as a daily communicant, I understand that and I appreciate it. Thank you very much, sir.

REV. DR. BOISE KIMBER: Thank you, sir.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative O'Dea. Representative Miller.

REP. MILLER (145TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Reverend Kimber.

REV. DR. BOISE KIMBER: Good morning, Pat.

REP. MILLER (145TH): I'm glad that you're here. And I don't have your written testimony but some of us have been having a back and forth about equity. You know, some of it is going forward, who's going 480 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

to be involved in production. But when it comes to homes, there are individuals who were harmed and there are communities that were harmed.

I can remember back actually ringing doorbells on Day Street and there was a guy that used to pull in off of Route 34, pop open the trunk, it was full of drugs, everybody knew. He had come in from the suburbs, actually. And people would go to that spot. And that's what those kids saw, and it affected the whole area. I'm not saying that was the only thing, and people are doing great. You know, they're doing much better now. But there was a rough 10 or 20 years there.

So I don't -- I would really look forward to any concrete proposals that you have, Reverend. And as I said, I don't have your written testimony so I look forward to it. But I want to thank you for being here.

REV. DR. BOISE KIMBER: I certainly, Patty is my Representative in my district here and I certainly will get you the information in which we are proposing and I will get that to you. I want to say to my Senator, Senator Winfield, who is Senator in my district where my church is located, along with Robin Porter and Pat Billie Miller, we are praying for you and we appreciate you.

And so, Senator, since I've been up all day, dealing with you and the other Co-Chair, I want to say good morning to all of you. This is not the end. We will continue to move forward and continue to have a seat at the table. Representative Fishbein, maybe you and I can talk off record in referencing some of your questions, and we can do that.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Dr. Kimber, and we appreciate you staying so long and good morning to you.

481 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REV. DR. BOISE KIMBER: Thank you so much. Are your kids in bed, Gary?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): They went not too long ago, but they stayed up later than they should have, byproduct of doing this. Have a good morning.

So I'm going to ask the Administrator to just make sure that if there's anybody that we skipped over who's still in there, that we get to them before we close out.

DEB BLANCHARD: Mr. Reignier has been there all evening. We've asked him to unmute multiple times, but I don't know.

BRIAN REIGNIER: I am here now.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Oh, Okay. Yes, we can hear you now. You can have your three minutes.

BRIAN REIGNIER: Thank you, sir. I'm a slow talker. I'll pick it up a little bit. Thank you distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee for your dedication tonight, your long suffering and forbearance and passion for what you've done. And I say the same for all those who've been on the call since this morning.

I think social justice is overdue, but it doesn't need to be linked with legalizing marijuana. I think, as the Pastor pointed out, it should have been done long, long, long, long ago. And I wonder what how many jobs actually will come forward in the community color, Black communities. If you if we're talking about having stores to sell marijuana, there may be ancillary parts to that that I don't appreciate right now.

My position is my position only. And I think Connecticut should be unique. The land of steady habits, the land of steady thought, also the land of great deliberation. And we can be an example to the 482 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

rest of the country as taking our time, slowing it down. There's so much so much information out tonight. It's so hard to weigh it all in the balance. And I would hope that science would drive this to a large degree. We put emotion aside and we put access to growing aside. And there's many details to be worked out as I see it, should it become established as law. I'm not in favor of this point.

And I would just stop at that point, I guess. The majority of the country is not committed to this stance. It's against the law federally. We have a laxity of purpose in this country when it comes to law and the application of it and being committed to the purpose and the meaning of it.

There just seems to be so much that's loose, so much that really needs to be carefully resolved. And I think we just need to slow it down this year. Just slow it down and let the science drive it. Look at the competing evidence that science manifests. Most of the science seems to be weighted in one direction. A little bit tonight showed some contrary opinion. So that's what I would stop at this point. Thank you. And I'll be happy to try to answer any questions that I'm able to do.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Mr. Reignier. Are there comments or questions for Mr. Reignier? I do not see any but I really want to thank you. We had hoped to get you earlier when I called you but I want to thank you for sticking in there and taking your time to take advantage of your three minutes. Good morning, and I hope you have a wonderful day.

BRIAN REIGNIER: Thank you, sir. Thank you for running a great show tonight.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Madam Administrator, is that it or do we have anyone else? Sorry, go ahead. I didn't hear you, Madam Administrator. 483 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

DEB BLANCHARD: No, there's no one else.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay, Representative O'Dea, I saw your hand up again? Oh, no.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): I'm going to apologize to everybody and I want to -- I'm going on the record of buying dinner from the cheapest pizza place I know for the next time we're all together. And I just want to thank all of you, and particularly the Chairs and Ranking Members. This was a tough, tough night. I talked too much. I really appreciate the sincerity and the way you ran this meeting. So thank you very much. And to everybody, I apologize and I'm buying.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative, I'll move that to the Consent Calendar, fine pizza and talking too much.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much, Representative. And I want to I want to say to you Representative, there's never too much talking if we're actually trying to get real answers. So I appreciate you. You always stick in there with us as long as we go, so I really appreciate that. And with that, I believe we are at an end, and so everybody go get some sleep. Good morning. That will be the conclusion of this public hearing for the Judiciary Committee unless Representative Stafstrom has something else the he would like to say.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Mr. Chair, just super quick, folks. We got an email but we are planning on a Committee meeting Monday morning so it will be a short turnaround for the Judiciary Committee.