sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 1 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, June 16, 2021
(The House of Representatives was called to order at 10:00 a.m., Speaker Matthew Ritter of the 1st District in the Chair.)
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
(Gavel) The Chamber come to order. Will the Members and staff, guests please rise and direct your attention to the dais where Representative Carpino will lead us in prayer today.
Representative, welcome.
GUEST CHAPLAIN, REPRESENTATIVE CARPINO:
Let us pray. Lord, we ask Your blessing on the legislators who serve in this Chamber as well as their families. Guide us in our deliberations during this Special Session so that we may meet the needs of all our citizens. God bless. Amen. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 2 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Thank you, Representative. Representative Chafee will join us in the Pledge of Allegiance, the new father, congratulations.
Come on up.
REP. CHAFEE (33RD):
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Any announcements or introductions? Don’t see any, so we will call on Representative O’Dea.
REP. O'DEA (125TH):
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Republicans will be caucusing in room 110 downstairs. Thank you very much. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 3 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Thank you, sir. I think Representative Stafstrom just leaned over by accident. I don’t see Representative Genga in the
Chamber, Oh, he is there. Representative Genga, did you hit your button buddy? No. Okay. Representative Rojas.
REP. ROJAS (9TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. House Democrats will be caucusing in the old Appropriations Room, room 310.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Okay, Chamber will stand-at-ease. (Gavel)
(Gavel) Chamber will come back to order. I hope everybody had a nice lunch and nice caucus and sorry for the delay. Let’s get back to work. I believe there is one announcement.
Representative Dathan you have the floor, madam. Just hit your button please, madam. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 4 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. DATHAN (142ND):
Mr. Speaker, a Point of Personal Privilege.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
You may proceed, madam.
REP. DATHAN (142ND):
Fire Chief Mike Grant worked for the City of New Haven for
42 years. He started out as an instructor at the State Fire
Training School in Derby, in the Valley and then came to New
Haven where he also was an instructor. He was key to operations in the fire department and rose to be the chief.
Over his years as Firs Chief he received many citations including the Medal of Valor because he put his own life at risk to save someone who was in danger. He cared passionately about the personnel in the department and about the safety of the city. I would - he passed the other day and we are, and he will be waked Thursday in New Haven. He is widely respected throughout the state and country not just in New Haven but he was a constituent and dear friend. And I would like to ask the sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 5 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Members if they would join me in a moment of silence to honor his memory.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Thank you, Representative Dathan. Will the Chamber please rise for a moment of silence for Chief Grant and thanking him for his service to the New Haven Fire Department. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family.
Thank you, Representative Dathan. Any more announcements or introductions. Representative Buckbee you have the floor, sir.
REP. BUCKBEE (67TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker I rise for a Point of Personal
Privilege.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Please proceed, sir. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 6 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. BUCKBEE (67TH):
After sad news, I’d like to offer some good news. It’s sad that I can’t be there today as we are here, but today’s is my parent’s 59th wedding anniversary and on the same day my nephew is getting his Eagle Scout award so it’s a pretty big day in the best town in the U.S.A. but I thought I’d bring some good news up and say congratulations to them and hopefully they are having a great day. (Applause)
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Representative Callahan. Good afternoon, sir.
REP. CALLAHAN(108TH):
A moment of Point of Personal Privilege, please.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
You may proceed, sir. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 7 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. CALLAHAN(108TH):
On Saturday some light news, the New Fairfield girls
Lacrosse team one a fourth consecutive State Championship in
Class S defeating Weston, so I wanted to offer them congratulations. Nice job girls. (Applause)
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
And I will also take a moment to congratulate my daughter,
Emma Ritter who graduated from kindergarten today. Daddy could not be there but grandma was there. We are very proud of you and love you. Congratulations, Sweetie. (Applause).
Okay, let’s get down to business. Will the Clerk please call Senate Bill 1021.
CLERK:
Emergency Certification Senate Bill 1201, AN ACT CONCERNING
RESPONSIBLE AND EQUITABLE REGULATIONS OF ADULT-USE CANNABIS.
Introduced by Senator Looney and Representative Ritter. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 8 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Representative Stafstrom, you have the floor sir.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move passage of the
Emergency Certified Bill.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Question is passage of the Bill. Representative Stafstrom you may proceed.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker Connecticut’s time has finally come. Today we take the next step as this Chamber in recognizing that the war on drugs has failed us and the criminalization of cannabis was the wrong course of action for our state and for our nation. Mr. Speaker, we as a state legalized drugs that are less addictive and less harmful to the body than cannabis is. After years or working through
Legislation the Bill we have before us is the product, the sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 9 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
culmination of those efforts and of the study that this Chamber has taken in this effort.
The legalization of recreational cannabis, Mr. Speaker will be heavily regulated. In this Bill we limit the amount someone can possess and the amount they can purchase. We limit dosage and give discretion of the Department of Consumer Protection to further regulate. We restrict packaging and advertising. We ban smoking and vaping in most locations, public locations. We allow local towns to set appropriate zoning, we increase the enforcement and intervention of driving under the influence of drugs. We provide protection to our employers and we increased the amount of funding going to prevention of drug and cannabis use.
But Mr. Speaker at the same time this Bill also addresses of equity. Certainly, this Bill is a start. There is further work to be done by the Social Equity Council that is set up in this Bill and by various state agencies to effectuate the policy laid out at the 30,000 foot level in this Bill. And Mr. Speaker, we invest much of the proceeds from the tax revenue of legalization back into those communities that were most impacted by this war on drugs. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 10 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of Senate Amendment
“A”, LCO No. 10906, I ask the Clerk please call the Amendment and I be granted leave of the Chamber to summarize.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Will the Clerk please call LCO 10906, we will mark it
Senate “A”
CLERK:
Senate Amendment Schedule “A” LCO No. 10906 offered by
Senator Winfield.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
The Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the Amendment. Is there objection? Seeing none, you may proceed with summarization, sir.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker as I said, the underlying Bill is the product of intense negotiations and sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 11 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
deliberations over a number of years by various Committees and leaders in this Chamber and certainly with the governor’s office as well. The Amendment we have before us essentially changed the underlying Bill by doing two things. First it increased the prohibition on legislators getting involved in the cannabis industry. I think something we all can recognize is good public policy and create transparency to the public that legislators are not going to immediately jump into this industry. Something we all support and later on today I will be offering an
Amendment to put that into the underlying Bill.
But Mr. Speaker this Amendment also will change the definition of social equity applicants. I think it has been well understood by Members of this Chamber and others that provision given it’s late entrance into this discussion became controversial. I would ask us to reject this Amendment today to send this Bill back up to the Senate with a non-concurring action to allow the original definition of social equity applicant to stand and certainly to allow as I indicated the
Social Equity Council to continue to do its work and flush out what is social equity under this Bill as we move forward as was sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 12 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
intended by the original Bill. Mr. Speaker, as indicated I urge rejection of this Amendment.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Would you care to remark further on Senate “A”.
Representative Fishbein, the Ranking Member, you have the floor, sir.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker I am a bit confused because although the Committee Hearings, the discussions about this, we’ve heard from individuals that had been previously convicted of drug crimes looking for their chance to engage in this market and they were given assurances that they would be part of that.
What happened in the Senate was overwhelmingly approving of the Amendment that is before us, so, you know, I’ve just been part of the discussions over the last four days. I continue to be befuddled and bemused by which something that is 300 pages long that fundamentally transforms our state from where we are sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 13 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
presently. I am against the Amendment, I’ve always been against certain individuals who have been convicted of drug crimes being given a leg-up but I certainly know that the proponent of this
Legislation, as you will hear from various points today, it is really not about marijuana here today but befuddled and bemused and I do support for the rejection of the Amendment and look forward to the additional talk today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Thank you, sir. If you care to remark on Senate “A” please waive your hand otherwise I am not going to call on you. So would you care to remark on Senate “A”. Seeing none, we have a
Motion before us to reject it, so is there objection to a voice vote on this Amendment. Is there an objection? Seeing none, I will try your minds. All those in favor please signify by saying aye.
(MEMBERS):
Aye. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 14 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Let me back up, here. Let me start over again. So we are voting, the motion was to reject. Chamber will stand at ease for a second.
Chamber will come back to order. So a yes vote is in favor of Senate Amendment “A”. Okay, lets clarify that. Representative
Fishbein give me one second and I’ll call on you. A no vote is to reject Senate “A”. That is how I should have done it, and that is how Representative Stafstrom laid it out. Hang on one second. Chamber will stand at ease.
Okay the Chamber will come back to order. (Gavel)
Representative Fishbein, did you want to say something, sir?
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was going to object to the voice vote and I do. Thank you.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
You would like it taken by roll? sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 15 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Okay. Would you care to remark further on Senate Amendment
“A? Would you care to remark further on Senate “A”? If not will staff and guests come to the Well of the House. Members take your seats, the machine will be open.
CLERK:
The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber or to your portals. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber or to your portals.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Have all of the Members voted? (Gavel). All right, listen up, we’re going to clear the board and I am going to explain why. So I’d ask the Clerk to clear the board of all the votes before the machine is locked. The Motion from Representative
Stafstrom on the floor was to reject Senate Amendment “A”. So in order to reject it you need to vote yes. So it is possible all those red votes meant to be red or potentially if possible they were meant to be green. So let’s start over and reexplain the rejection process. Okay? sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 16 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
So, if you want to reject Senate “A” which was the motion that Representative Stafstrom made, the Clerk’s Office is telling us that you should vote, yes to reject Senate “A”. A green vote will reject. If you would like accept Senate
Amendment “A” you will vote no. I know it’s a little confusing but that’s where we are. So, are there any questions? The board has been cleared. I’m looking at leadership. Everybody kind of understand where we are? Seeing no more debate, the machine is already open. All right so we will reopen the machine. Would you care to remark further? If not Staff and guests please come to the Well of the House. Members take their seats. The machine will be open.
CLERK:
(Ringing) The House of Representatives is voting by role,
Members to the Chamber or your portals. The House of
Representatives is voting by role, Members to the Chamber or your portal. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 17 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Have all the Members voted? Have all the Members voted?
Please check the board to make sure your vote is properly cast.
If all Members have voted, the machine will be locked. Looking for Representative Tercyak. Will the Clerk please take a tally.
Will the Clerk, please announce the tally.
CLERK:
On the Motion to Reject Senate “A”:
Total Number Voting 125 Necessary for Rejection 63 Those voting Yea 125 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 26
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
The Amendment is rejected (Gavel). Will the Clerk please call. Sorry. Representative Stafstrom, you have the floor, sir. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 18 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker I would ask the Clerk to please call LCO No. 10928 and I be granted leave of the
Chamber to summarize.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Will the Clerk please call LCO 10928, we will mark it
Senate “B”.
CLERK:
Senate Amendment “B” LCO No. 10928 offered by Senator
Winfield.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the
Amendment. Is there objection? Seeing none, Representative
Stafstrom you may proceed with summarization. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 19 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker Senate Amendment “B” which is before us Amended Senate Amendment “A”. Now that Senate
Amendment “A” has been rejected, I would also move that we reject Senate Amendment “B” as it doesn’t fit now with the underlying Bill, so I urge rejection and move rejection of this
Amendment as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Duly noted. The Speaker will try not to make the same mistake twice. Representative Fishbein would you care to remark on the Amendment?
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do concur with the legal analysis of the Chairman of the Committee, two cannot work without each other and do support the rejection. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 20 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Would you care to remark further on Senate “B”. If so, please wave your hand, on Senate “B”. If not, is there objection to a voice vote on Senate “B”? Is there objection to a voice vote on Senate “B”? Okay. So, if we’re going to do a voice vote on Senate Amendment “B” a yes vote is to reject Senate Amendment
“B”, just like the green in Senate Amendment “A”. Yes vote rejects. A no vote is to accept Senate “B”. All right? Yes vote is rejection. A no vote is to accept or not to reject. So if no more comments, let me try your mind. All those in favor of rejection Senate “B” please signify by saying aye.
(MEMBERS):
Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The Amendment is rejected (Gavel). Representative Stafstrom, you have the floor, sir. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 21 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker the Clerk is in possession of another Amendment, LCO No. 10984. I ask the Clerk to please call this Amendment and I be granted leave to summarize.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Will the Clerk please call LCO 10984, mark it House “A”.
CLERK:
House Amendment Schedule “A” LCO No. 10984 offered by
Representative Stafstrom. The Representative seeks leave of the
Chamber to summarize the Amendment. Is there objection? Seeing none, you may procced with summarization, sir.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker as I indicated in
Senate Amendment “A” which this Chamber previously rejected there was language with respect to an anti-revolving door prohibition that would have prohibited Members of the General sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 22 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Assembly or state-wide elected officials from being eligible to either individually or with a group of individuals uphold a cannabis established license for two years after leaving state service. This Amendment puts that language back in to the underlying Bill. I move adoption of this Amendment.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
The question before the Chamber is adoption of the
Amendment. Would you care to remark further on House “A”?
Representative Fishbein you have the floor, sir.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I do credit the
Chairman on this Amendment. We had some discussions recently about the Bill that we had during Session and how we get here today. This is one of the suggestions that I did make and I do appreciate it being listened to and accepted. I do have a question though if I may about the Amendment. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 23 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
You may proceed, sir.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Why the two years? I know I had proposed five and I’m just trying to figure out how we got to two.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Two years is basically the equivalent of one legislative term so it would a Member leaves legislative service, they sit out for what would be the equivalent of one term and then at that point would be eligible to apply for a license.
Through you. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 24 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And am I to understand the
Amendment as it presently exists only deals with those particular individuals that serve in the capacity not their spouses, children, all of that stuff. They are excluded and would be able to assume these roles.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Mr. Speaker. This Amendment just speaks to the elected officials themselves. Through you. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 25 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you that is the answer I thought I would get and thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Would you care to remark further on House “A”? I’d ask that you wave your hand if you want to remark on House “A”. If not, is there objection. This one should probably be my roll call. So we will do a roll call vote on this one. Okay? So staff and guests come to the Well of the House. Members please take your seats, the machine will be open.
CLERK:
(Ringing) The House of Representatives is voting by roll,
Members to the Chamber or to your portals. The House of
Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber or to your portals. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 26 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Have all Members voted? Have all Members voted? If all
Members have voted, the machine will be locked. Will the Clerk please take a tally?
CLERK:
House Amendment Schedule “A”:
Total Number Voting 128 Necessary for Adoption 65 Those voting Yea 128 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 23
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
The Amendment is passed (Gavel). Representative Stafstrom you have the floor, sir.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as indicated we are now on the Bill. I think we are through the procedural motions that I needed to make. Mr. Speaker as indicated I think the Bill before us is, or I should say, Madam Speaker, good to see you.
The Bill before us is the culmination of years of efforts to sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 27 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
figure out a way to responsibly and equitably legalize this drug
I look forward to questions and the debate on it. Thank you,
Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the
Bill on the Bill in front of us? Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Good afternoon, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Good afternoon, sir.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Madam Speaker, I have to start preliminary with when we start our sessions the first thing we do before we act, we meet in Committee, we vote on any Bill, we take an oath. We take an oath to our State Constitution and our Federal Constitution. We say that we will abide by those very important documents when we sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 28 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
come into this room, when we enter a Committee room, and our
U.S. Constitution has the Supremacy Clause.
The Supremacy Clause says that if the Federal Government steps into a state, passes a law, that a state cannot thereafter invalidate that law, cannot be in conflict. It appears to me that the 1800's we fought a Civil War over a similar concept.
Some states felt some way on slavery and other states felt otherwise. Some states said we are not going to be part of that anymore we are just going to do our own thing. That in effect is what we are doing here today. We are saying to the Federal
Government we don’t care that you passed a law, your
Representatives I guess are insufficient, inadequate because they can’t get the Federal Law changed the way we would have it in this state. And that is troublesome position to be in. I am in that position because I’m forced to vote on something ultimately today that would violate my oath of office. And some would say that well other states have done it, you know,
Colorado, Washington, Massachusetts, Rhode Island is thinking of doing it but the fact of the matter is that no court in the land, across our land has said that those actions are legal and that’s troublesome. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 29 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
We are the Constitution State. But it appears that some feel that the Constitution is an inconvenient truth. We only abide by it when we feel it to be appropriate. So I must make those statements as we begin this debate here today because I am a liberty and freedom person but I do uphold or attempt to uphold my oath of office. With that, Madam Speaker I do have quite a few questions for the proponent of the Bill, if I may?
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
You may proceed, sir.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
And before I delve into that, I must apologize because unfortunately between the Public Policy Dictates of the Senate,
Public Policy Dictates of the House based upon our Amendments, the version that I have here is the version that was passed upstairs. So I will try to, I guess I can’t use line numbers,
I’ll try to come through with sections but I do apologize in advance there may be some disjointedness so I’m sure we can work through that. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 30 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom are you okay with that, sir?
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Yes, Madam Speaker I have both Amendments in front of me and I’ll do my best to match them up as best I that I can.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Thank you, Representative. Representative Fishbein you may procced, sir.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Looking at the definition of consumer, which is Section 1 paragraph 11. It defines that as an individual who is 21 years of age or older, and we hear that the science says that the adolescent brain is not fully developed until approximately 25, so why does this Bill permit sale of this product to a 21-year-old and not at the 25 as the sciences dictate? sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 31 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
Because as I indicate at the outset what we are seeking to do here is regulate this drug of cannabis much in the same way we regulate the drugs of alcohol and tobacco both of which we allow individuals to purchase at the age of 21 or younger and so we are matching up with the prohibition on the sales of alcohol and tobacco and the age restrictions thereabout.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 32 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And with that, may I ask when the
Committee, our Committee convened its Public Hearing on the overview of legalizing “marijuana in Connecticut” what was the position of the Department of Public Health with regard to permitting 21, 22, 23, 24 year old’s to ingest this substance?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
I don’t know that the Department of Public Health themselves directly weighed in but I know certainly we had many other agencies before and certainly the Bill, as I recall, has had 21 as the age through each step of the legislative process.
Through you. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 33 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. That is very troubling. You know, if the public only knew that the Department of Public Health never came to the Committee Meetings, never submitted written testimony as to whether or not it, in their job of protecting public health felt it appropriate for individuals up to the age of 25 to ingest this substance that is illegal under Federal
Law. It’s troubling.
Madam Speaker, moving on to paragraph 27, of Section 1, if
I may ask and this could be a difference in the two, I’m looking at the definition of historical conviction for drug related offenses, does that comport to what the Chairman is looking at?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 34 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
It does, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And am I to understand that that definition not only includes those who were convicted but also arrested of certain crimes?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker. For the date indicated not for every date. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 35 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just to be clear, paragraph 27(B) indicates “those who were arrested for such violations between
January 1, 1982, and September 31, 2020, what records does whomever in the State of Connecticut maintain of those arrested during those dates however not convicted?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 36 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
I believe those records are, you know, these are whatever records that are still held by DES either through their database or records.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So am I to understand that DEC has any record during 1982 through 2020 of individuals, well let’s just take 1982 through 1992, that ten year period of any individuals who were arrested but not convicted as contemplated by this language.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 37 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
Now that I drilled down on this, I see an “and” not an “or” in I believe Line 157 of the version that the good Ranking
Member is looking at.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So am I to understand that it does not include those who were just arrested but not convicted that it is joined together?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 38 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
That’s how I read this.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
I’ll go on, Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, moving on to Section 1(48) which deals with social equity applicant, if
I could just know that we are on the same page.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 39 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
We are although on this I would prefer since this Section has changed I would prefer the Ranking Member refer to the underlying Bill which we are discussing if he is able.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think the area that I intend to deal with are in both versions, so I’ll ask the question. If it is inaccurate then I can certainly be corrected.
My first question, the social equity applicant is required to have an average household income of less than 300 percent over the last three tax years. Is that - am I reading that correctly?
Through you, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 40 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
He is, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
And the state medium household income over the last three years was approximately what?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 41 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
I believe it was between $75 and $80,000 dollars.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So am I to understand that a social equity applicant can make up to $240,000 dollars the last three years. Is that a fair interpretation.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Roughly speaking, yes, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 42 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I must ask how is, I mean my though of social equity would be someone who based upon where they live, those kinds of things that, you know, perhaps other characteristics they can’t control, that they are not so much gainfully employed that we’re trying to give a leg-up. So how does making up to $240,000 dollars a year qualify an individual to be a social equity applicant under this Bill?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 43 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
That is just one factor, it is up to as the Ranking Member eluded to. There are, there is an additional requirement that in addition to the income cap you also have to be from a particular geographic area.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I just, you know,
I hadn’t seen this Bill until the end of last week and my concept of a social equity applicant would be somebody given the other components, you know, an arrest, for having to live in that particular area, that they have been unable to achieve so, you know, I don’t know if the general public knows what something, some people need equity but I just don’t see how that delves into the underlying intent of this.
Moving on to Section 3, I believe it is (a) of that
Section, yes. We start to talk about possession and at the end sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 44 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
of that particular Section it says, “on or after July 1, 2023, a person’s personal possession limit does not include any live plants or cannabis plant material derived from any live plant cultivated by such person.” What guidance - how is one to ascertain whether or not that particular marijuana is cultivated by that person?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
Again, and I don’t know if, I do have the Senate Amendment in front of me, I know a little disjointed, we’re not talking about the Bill before us, but if you could just point me to that line number that would be helpful.
Through you. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 45 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein do you have a line so that we could direct?
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
I have the line in the prior, it’s Section 3 and it would be at the end of that (a) of that Section.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom is that helpful?
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
I believe he is around line 303 of the Senate Amendment,
Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein can you? Representative Stafstrom. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 46 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. This obviously refers to the home grown portion and the allowance for someone to grow cannabis in their own home presumably if there is a live plant in their basement then it would be, it could be fairly easily deducted that they grew that plant in their basement.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Understanding that is a portion of that clause but also it says, “cannabis plant material” and I believe cannabis plant material is, can be under this Bill defined as leaves that have been dried and in a baggie somewhere. Is that true?
Through you, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 47 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
It could so I guess to the underlying question, again what we’re talking about here is criminal culpability. So certainly the state has the burden of proof, proving all the potential elements. If the state could prove someone was in possession of more than an ounce-and-a-half on their person or more than five ounces in their home and some an individual were to raise as a defense that they, some of that overage was derived from cannabis plant material that individual grew then that would be an issue for the finder of fact. Ultimately a jury in a criminal trial on what is a criminal penalty under this Bill.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 48 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker. And that is what I am trying to figure out, ss it a defense or is it a requirement. So the clause once again says that this amount does not include live plant of cannabis plant material, which I think we established, we will stay away from the plant, we will stay with the material which I think could be dried leaves in a baggie. How does one who is asserting it as a defense prove that or if the duty is on the officer, the law enforcement, or the prosecutor, to disprove that, by what process is that contemplated?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
I think it is a very fact intensive inquiry. Certainly if, you know, the bag that someone was claiming was cannabis plant sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 49 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
material they grew but it had, you know, a label on it for the cannabis establishment down the street and it was in that bag, it might be hard to prove that that was plant material that you derived from growing it in your basement. If on the other hand it was found in the basement next to a live plant then it may be relatively easy to prove. That’s why I said I think it is ultimately a question for a finder of facts, ultimately a jury in a potential criminal prosecution.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Now, Madam Speaker two Sections, not two Sections but two subsections (3) of that Section says,
“no person may be arrested for violation of this subsection” and my question is what is that dealing with? Is it dealing with the prior or is it dealing with what follows thereafter?
Through you, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 50 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
It deals with that subsection which as I understand it is, if we go back we look, we have subsection A, which is on line
289 of the gentleman’s copy I believe. We have subsection B, which is 306 and this is subparagraph 3 of that, so this prohibition on an arrest would refer to subsection B of Section
3 and what this says is that an individual could not be arrested, in other words handcuffed, taken to jail. They could still be issued a criminal complaint, a Summons to Appear, or an infraction as the case might be.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 51 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And now that I look at that in more breadth I do see that interpretation. I thank the Chairman for that answer. Moving on to the, I believe it is H of that same Section, no question just a comment. You know, I do, another area I had addressed that I brought up when we started talking about this Bill was the fact that individuals could have their fines waived if they are convicted or they are found to be in violation of this but this provision does permit community service hours in lieu of that waiver and I do thank the Chairman once again for seeing fit to have that be made part of this
Bill.
Moving on to Section 8 line 752.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom are you prepared, sir? Okay,
Representative Fishbein, you may proceed, sir. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 52 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. This Section has to do with individuals that have been previously convicted of marijuana offenses and just to be clear in line 756 has to do with the individual having less than or equal to four ounces of cannabis at that time, how is one to tell whether or not and the punchline is these crimes would be erased if they follow this procedure. How is law enforcement and actually it would be the courts that are reviewing this to tell whether or not the individual actually had four ounces of equal to that led to their conviction?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 53 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
It is my understanding that for much of our state’s, at least recent history, with respect to prosecution of cannabis type crimes, that we drew sort of this arbitrary line at four ounces that said if you were below that line it would deem and you were charged with possession of that substance. If you had over four ounces it was a de facto charge of intent to sell based on the amount you had in your possession and that’s where we derived the four ounce number.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the answer but I don’t think that got to answer the question. You know, certainly individuals that are arrested for let’s say, 10 ounces, will plea bargain down to something that would equate to the four ounces or less but it appears that we are giving this opportunity to certain individuals to have their convictions sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 54 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
erased if they attest to certain things. And I am trying to get to the veracity of that representation, how does the one who is reviewing these records ascertain whether or not the arrest was for four ounces of less?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
Through either the affidavit that is submitted, the
Petition form or through the submission of the arrest report which presumably which would show the amount of cannabis substance seized.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 55 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I do appreciate that answer and the question is so one can submit an affidavit saying that I was arrested, I had less than four ounces therefore erase my record. What if they lie? Somebody has had their record erased, ascertained 10 years later that they lied on their affidavit, what remedy does government have to restore that conviction or perhaps vacate whatever benefit that individual had in the meantime or lying on their affidavit, what remedy does government have?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
If you lie on an affidavit you can be charged, punishable as a Class D felony in our state. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 56 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Troubling in that we are erasing somebody’s criminal record and the only thing we can replace it with is another crime. Moving on to the end of that Section understanding that the conviction is erased, when convictions are erased records are, well I’ll ask the question. Upon erasure under or vacating on this portion of the Bill, what happens with the record?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 57 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
Those records are erased from the electronic data base and
I believe under this provision, this erasure provision certain hard copy records are also destroyed.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And the individual who had their record erased if they are then after asked by anyone if they had ever been convicted of a marijuana crime how would they answer that question?
Through you, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 58 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
They could testify that they were never arrested per our state Statues and Operational Law.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Now at the end of Section 8 is says that certain records are not erased, transcripts for instance of a trial of this individual who has had their record erased would not be destroyed, why is that? sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 59 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
Because those are Official Court Records, I don’t believe generally speaking a transcript could have other information in there that would not be subject to erasure. Those records are often times hard to, someone to get their hands on quickly so it was deemed that it was better to preserve those records in some form than to erase them. I believe this matches up very similarly with the Nally provisions that we currently have under several other statures.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 60 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So if a police department who had investigated one who is trafficking in marijuana up to four ounces, been convicted, they had a copy of the transcript in their file in the police department they would be able to maintain that file under this Legislation, is that correct?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
Yes, if the police department had a transcript they would not, in my experience the police department generally does not have a transcript, a transcript generally is expensive to obtain. One has to generally pay the court monitor to obtain those. The court may have an official records, perhaps the
State’s Attorney does, but generally speaking local police sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 61 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
departments would not have a transcript of a court proceeding particularly one that is for less than four ounces of cannabis.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And this particular Section, this preclusion of erasure also deals with other records. It deals with a “record prepared by any entity designated by the Chief
Court Administrator”, that wouldn’t be the court reporters office, it wouldn’t be the police department. What are those other entities designated by the Chief Court Administrator?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 62 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
I believe this is catch-all relating to the records from the court reporter or the court reporting monitor. I suppose, you know, back when we had country courthouses they may have been called something differently but the “or” refers back to first part of that sentences which is the transcripts.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So am I to understand, and I’m not being condescending that the Chairman knows of no other entity?
Through you, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 63 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
As I sit here right now I do not.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would think that would be of concern to those that think that their records of these convictions are actually going to be erased but we go on. Now in
Section 9 (h) which is around line 847, I did ask a question before about that question, one who had been arrested and erased and I believe we were told that the individual could say that they had never been arrested. But this provision says that “a person whose records have been erased pursuant to this section sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 64 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
may represent to any entity other than a criminal justice agency that they have not been arrested.” So how is one to rely upon that language in believing that these convictions are erased if we have this carveout?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
I believe this matches with existing laws with respect to as I said Nally’s and other type of erasures.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 65 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So DCF shows up at someone’s home and does an intake for the purposes of a service plan, wants to know the family history, asks the mother have you ever been, the
DCF employee is accompanied by a police office, this is a domestic. The question is asked have you ever been convicted of a marijuana crime. How does that mother answer that question give this language.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
They do not need to tell DCF they have been previously convicted.
Through you. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 66 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
But if the police officer shows up without DCF worker asks the same question how is the mother being directed to answer the question?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker. I think they could say in that instance that yes, they had been but that conviction has been erased by operation of law.
Through you. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 67 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. But if they rely upon the guidance of those outside of this building who claim that records are being erased and they say to the officer, no I have never been arrested for a marijuana crime, isn’t that a crime in and of itself?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
No, Madam Speaker I don’t believe so. Actually this happens all the time in a court, the Ranking Member knows we have a lot of pretrial diversionary programs in the state, accelerated rehabilitation and others. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 68 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
When one successfully completes those programs they are entitled to erasure of those cases. There is a statutory provision that looks much like the language we are debating right now already in law that allows someone to testify under oath that their convictions have - has been erased and, you know, but I will admit that I have represented clients in this area, I have had clients deal with this where they’ve said, you know, hey I’m going to apply for a job at, you know, the
Connecticut Bar Association or I’m going to apply for to be in the military, what should I say. In those instance I generally tell people go ahead and disclose it in those sensitive situations but clarify and say, but per and I’m blanking on this statutory reference per Connecticut General Statute whatever it is, those records have been erased by operation of law.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 69 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know, I happen to represent quite a few people who don’t have anywhere near the legal training that we have in this room and the regular blue-collar person has no idea about that distinction, so but I understand the trap it has created. We go on. Madam Speaker in Section 11 is precludes a group from bringing disciplinary action or denying any right of privilege to an individual who has been or is involved in the cannabis marketing procedure if we want to call it that, authorized under this Legislation. And my question is does this bind only groups in Connecticut or are we saying to the ABA, national group that they cannot penalize a lawyer who gets involved in this activity that is illegal under Federal
Law?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 70 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
I don’t believe we have the ability to so bind those outside entities.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I didn’t see the clarification in the paragraph as written it does not restrict it only state groups so I do appreciate that answer. Similarly with Section 12
I do see that carveout “no state entity shall deny” so am I to understand that a - some national entity could deny a professional license to an individual who engages in this activity?
Through you, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 71 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
That is not addressed here in this Bill as I indicated, I don’t know that this legislature would have the ability to do so. This is limited to state actors.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Moving on to the following section, what is the Section 13, what is the penalty for a child under the age of 18 being in possession of let’s say an ounce of marijuana under this Bill? sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 72 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Madam Speaker, possession, or sale? The Representative references Section 13 which only applies to sale not to mere possession so if he could clarify that.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do see in (c), it says,
“transporting with intent to sell or dispense, possessing with intent to sell”, so possession is an element of possession with intent to sell. So intent to sell is a higher qualification but sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 73 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
mere possession is a subset of what is addressed in here, so I do, I’m merely asking about possession of an ounce of marijuana by someone under the age of 18.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
The penalty for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana by someone under the age of 18 is a written warning and a possible referral the Youth Services Bureau.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 74 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And when that youth is found six months later with an ounce and I know the good Chairman was addressing less than an ounce but I won’t play that game, we are staying with an ounce, that youth is found a year later with an ounce of marijuana once again. What is the penalty under this
Bill?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Madam Speaker a second offense is a referral, a mandatory referral to the Youth Service Bureau and a third offense if the
Representative is going there is to be adjudicated delinquent under our Delinquency Statute.
Through you. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 75 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
And the procedure for being an adjudicated delinquent happens in Juvenile Court?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
That is correct, Madam Speaker.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 76 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
And what is the penalty for being adjudicated delinquent after being found that third time of possession of an ounce of marijuana by the, let’s say 16-year-old?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
I think it depends entirely on the facts and circumstances and what other criminal charges that individual may have incurred.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 77 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Moving on to Section (d) looking at the first line am I to understand that under this Bill that an 18-year-old can grow up to three mature cannabis plants and three immature plants?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
No that is not correct.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 78 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, moving on to
Section 14 has to do with one consumer giving cannabis to another consumer and what it says is that I can give cannabis to someone else if I reasonably believe that they are not going to over posses their limit. So my question is why is the onus on the giver and not the receiver who has the actual knowledge of limit?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
I would submit the onus is still on the receiver. This provision merely says you shouldn’t give unless you have reason to believe they won’t be over the limit but there is not a penalty prescribed for doing so. The penalty would be on the sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 79 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
receiver who is then over their possession limit and as indicated before those penalties are spelled out in Section 3 of the Bill.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So am I to understand that the giver is not potentially subject to any criminal penalty if they give marijuana to someone else and puts them over their possession limit?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 80 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
There is not a penalty prescribed for that here in this
Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, then I must ask why the qualifying language then? If the intent is merely “any consumer may give cannabis to another consumer” why not just a period there? Why have the following language the additional three and a half lines that follow that qualifying that gift in this particular situation?
Through you, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 81 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein, you asking opinion or just for drafting purposes?
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Just drafting purposes.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
We like to use more ink. No, I think the reason is as indicated we hope that someone before giving cannabis to someone else will make some sort of inquiry as to how much they currently possess and at least have a reasonable belief that they don’t have, they are not over the limit. But as the Ranking
Member eluded to the ultimate onus should be on the person receiving and that is how this statutory scheme is setup. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 82 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, moving on to
Section 18 certain situations by which a police officer can find probable cause to stop and search a motor vehicle, and particularly in lines 1,006 through 1,007 it requires as one of those situations the “presence of cash in proximity to cannabis without evidence that such cash or currency exceeds $500.00 dollars. How is the office to ascertain without doing a search whether or not it is below or above $500.00 dollars.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 83 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
Obviously what this is getting at is just saying there’s a few dollars laying around or, you know, a stack of 20’s laying around that in and of itself is not enough to raise probably cause or reasonable suspicion. I think the idea here is certainly if there are, is a large stack of 100 dollar bills it is plainly obvious that may be a different story.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just, find it extremely difficult to figure out, but moving on to Section 22. We get to the Social Equity Council and a question, Madam Speaker how many? Well I see the answer here, 15 members and of the 15 members how many are appointed by Republicans under this Bill? sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 84 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
With your indulgence and the Ranking Member’s indulgence and the Chamber’s indulgence I am actually going to pass questions on this Section off to the Chair of General Law
Committee.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
No opposition. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 85 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
I can answer Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom he said, “No opposition.”
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
I just wanted to see what would happen if I opposed
[Laughter].
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom I believe Representative O’Dea said you just tapped out. Representative D’Agostino you have the floor, sir.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
I am sure there will be another opportunity. I believe the answer to the gentleman’s question is two. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 86 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So of the 15 individuals that are going to make a lot of determinations with millions of dollars, two are appointed by Republicans.
I need not say anything more about that particular portion of this. Not yet, we’ll come back you. Moving on to (g) of that particular portion which I think Representative D’Agostino maybe back on tap, but one of the things that the Social Equity Group is supposed to look at it’ g(4) is “the existing patterns of racial discrimination, racial disparities and access to entrepreneurship, employment and other economic benefits arising in the lawful palliative use cannabis sector.” What am I to understand the palliative use cannabis sector is that the entirety of this Bill or is that a particular portion of this
Bill?
Through you, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 87 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
That is a term of ours that typical refers to the medical cannabis industry both in this state and in other states.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
So am I to understand that there is a claim, I just haven’t heard it. I haven’t heard that there is racial discrimination, racial disparities in the medical marijuana field. So question, what are those claims and where do they come from with regard to the medical marijuana field? sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 88 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
That is one of the reasons why we are studying it, to understand what may be present. Certainly if you look at our own medical cannabis industry here in Connecticut the owners of those businesses by-in-large would not meet for example the definition of social equity applicants that we currently have in this Bill. So I think we can look to our own example to see that there perhaps has not been the range of opportunities we’d like to offer to everyone but certainly to those most impacted by the war on drugs both in the commercial/recreational market and the medical market.
Through you. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 89 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do appreciate the answer I’m just trying to get an answer. Am I to understand that there are existing patterns of racial discrimination and racial disparities in the medical marijuana area presently?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
Again I can only speak, I think most people can only speak anecdotally just by literally eyeballing the current structure of the medical cannabis marketplace both here and in other states and of course this is why we want the study to look at sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 90 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
that, to give us feedback and if there are additional barriers that exist in that field, particularly that field we will be informed and can remediate that.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do appreciate that answer as well but as drafted it doesn’t say whether or not racial disparity, discrimination exists in the medical field it is a statement of fact, it says they are going to look at existing pattern, that assumes there are patterns that exist, that is how we draft language.
So I know during the Committee Hearing we did hear from people who are in this space. I don’t recall anybody saying that the present medical marijuana program that we have is impacted by racial discrimination or racial disparities. We’ve heard a lot about crime, the war on drugs those kinds of things, so I sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 91 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
don’t know where this statement of fact comes from and certainly the good Representative did not concur, the Representative is going to be a study. We are saying to this group that only as two out of 15 Republican appointees that there are existing patterns without identifying particular cases or anything like that I find it to be troubling.
Now in line 1155, we give this social equity group
“unfettered power to look into any other matters that the
Council deems relevant and feasible for study for the purposes of equity and lawful cannabis use.” Are there other matters that the good Representative knows about that are not addressed in this list that should be addressed by this group?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 92 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
There is a number of topics listed, we want to be as direct as possible with issues that we thought needed to be investigated but the whole point of the commission structure here is to have an expert body explore these issues and in asking questions and gathering information they may need to investigate something else tangentially related to some of the items we listed here. So it is beyond by capacity to predict what those maybe and I’m not aware of any additional ones to answer the Representative’s question directly but I certainly can envision different related areas that they may go down and hence the authority in that section.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would hope that one is not just going to throw up their hands at this issue. I would have it that perhaps the Council comes to the legislature and says this sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 93 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
is an issue, we want to look at this and to get our guidance instead of unfettered guidance. And the commission or the
Council is a member of Department of Public Health made a member of the Council?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
I believe DPH is not on the, is not one of the automatic members.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 94 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Is there a reason why. We know that they didn’t testify at the Committee, they didn’t submit any testimony. Is there a reason why they are not included in this very important Council?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
The Social Equity Council’s focus is as you can see from this Section, is really on that disparate historical and ameliorating that historical impact and how to address it going forward. So you have representatives for example from DCP which is the regulatory body, Economic and Community Development, the treasurer’s office, experts in those particular fields. The SEC to use the shorthand isn’t really focused on the health aspects sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 95 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
of cannabis. I will note that there are other Sections later on in the Bill that specifically target and are focused on input from DPH but their role here really would not be necessary given the focus of the Social Equity Council.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. But the way I read this, isn’t the Council charged with having a hand in determining where some of these entities are going to operate?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 96 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you.
Precisely, I think that furthers the point I was trying to make. The Social Equity Council is an important cog in the overall regulatory environment and in terms of where things go, who is going to have licenses, how we are going to approve those licenses. When it comes to whatever the claimed or actual health impacts are of cannabis, we’ve got separate mechanisms for DPH to weigh in and of course DPH’s own separate authority we don’t want to dilute whatever their input may be through this body which is again focused on an entirely different, has entirely different charge.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 97 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. My concept of the role of the
Department of Public Health I guess is different. But similarly what about someone from the Department of Mental Health and
Addiction, are they part of the Council that we’re talking about that is going to make these very important determinations.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you.
They are not and I think I would, the very same principles we’ve been discussing with DPH would apply to Mental Health and
Addiction Services.
Through you. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 98 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I find that troubling as well but, once again I guess my opinion of their role here is not relevant. Moving on to Section 25 what is the purpose of Section
25?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
It’s to signify that just because cannabis is still unfortunately illegal under Federal Law that our agencies and towns cannot rely on that as the sole basis for taking adverse sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 99 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
employment action against someone involved in the cannabis industry unless there is a specific reason for doing so.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I particularly note in (d) of
Section 25 that it has to do with law enforcement and I know the good Chairman didn’t address that potion but am I to understand that we are precluding local law enforcement from let’s say cooperating with Federal Law enforcement if they are looking to arrest someone for violating the Federal ban on possession of marijuana?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 100 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
Certainly I think any cannabis establishment or existing medical program for example, right, we know that there are four existing medical growers in the State of Connecticut. That is still technically illegal to do so under Federal Law. If the
Federal Government wanted to come in and wanted to shut down those facilities and arrest the folks who operate those facilities this provision says local and state law enforcement cannot help them in doing so. If the Fed’s want to do that, that is their prerogative but local and state law enforcement will not support them in that effort.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 101 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So just to be clear, the FBI calls the chief of police in Wallingford says we’ve got somebody in your town who’s selling marijuana, we are going to be raiding that place at three o’clock tomorrow morning. We would like you to assist, send some officers that this law would preclude that cooperation by local law enforcement?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
That depends. When he says there is someone in Wallingford selling are they selling through one of the authorized cannabis distribution facilities that is contemplated under this Bill or are they illegally selling in contradiction of the policies and procedures laid out in this Bill. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 102 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Well okay, we will give a scenario. The individual is in possession of four ounces of marijuana. They are gifting it to
20 year old’s. The Feds find that to be an offensive activity and want to raid that individual’s home, that is the scenario.
Is local law enforcement barred under this law from cooperating with that action by Federal Law Enforcement?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
No, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 103 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
So what portion of this Bill and I think we’re just centered on (d) would permit that cooperation?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you.
Under the version that the good Ranking Member is looking at, I would direct him to lines 1285 and 1292.
Through you. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 104 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Am I to understand that in that particular scenario there is compliance? Is that the representation, well no, there is noncompliance. Is that the representation of the Chairman?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
That is correct, Madam Speaker.
Through you. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 105 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Am I to understand that the noncompliance would be the possession of the four ounces?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
If, again, yes if that four ounces was on someone’s person and was over the prescribed possession limits in the Bill. Again what this provision is getting at, what Section (d) and (e) are getting at is once an establishment is licensed by the state, is setup to grown cannabis, recreational cannabis or to sell recreational cannabis or to deliver recreational cannabis. If sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 106 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
the Federal Government that came in and said that okay, you know, it doesn’t matter that however in the other states in the country authorized this, it is legal under Connecticut law, we’re still coming in and we’re going to raid and we are going to shut down every cannabis establishment in the State of
Connecticut because we, the Federal Government, still for whatever reason deems this to be a Schedule I drug. Local and state law enforcement could not assist in that raid of the licensed established business. That is what this provision gets at, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too am puzzled but the Schedule
I, I must admit but once again we fall upon the Constitution that has been the determination. But changing the scenario then to one under this Bill can purchase, they are over the age of
21, an ounce a day. Is that true? sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 107 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
Yes.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And if that individual was purchasing one ounce a day and they were gifting the marijuana to their neighbors in whatever increments and the Feds wanted to arrest based upon that activity does this portion of the Bill preclude law enforcement from assisting in that investigation and arrest? sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 108 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
I certainly hope the Federal Government has better things to do that go around chasing folks for the possession of an ounce of cannabis. However, as I indicated before technically no. This provision would not prevent local law enforcement from assisting federal law enforcement in that instance even though it would not be a violation of Connecticut law.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 109 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. But that portion of this scenario
I believe would not fall under this exception. So if I may know what portion of the exception the good Chairman is relying upon, to say that they would not be precluded from cooperating?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
I direct him back to the same line, Madam Speaker.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 110 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Madam Speaker, we have a different interpretation of that but we will go on. The conversion fee that is dealt with within
Section 26, I believe is an entity that is in the medical marijuana space that wants to convert to the recreational state.
Is that accurate.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
That is my understanding, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 111 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And the conversion fee of $3 million dollars where does that amount come from?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker, I am going to defer to the
Chairman of the General Law Committee.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino. You need the question repeated, sir?
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
No, I think I have it, Madam Speaker. Thank you. That fee is paid by the current producer? sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 112 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I didn’t hear the answer. The fee is paid by the current, what?
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Producer, existing cultivator.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a conversion fee, so one who is already in the state, is converting to their selling medical marijuana, they are converting to recreational sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 113 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
marijuana. The fee is being charged of $3 million dollars. Is that wrong?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
That is generally right and I quibble with the language a little bit. These are existing producers who grown. They do not sell directly to consumers. They produce the cannabis for our medical field because obviously you can’t import into the State of Connecticut. They will then be allowed with the conversion assuming they not only pay the fee but go through various other steps which are listed here and we can talk about, they have to go through various other steps and approvals and they pay the fee and go through those steps and are approved by the Social
Equity Council and DCP. Then they can expand their current sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 114 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
growing facility to produce cannabis for use in the recreational market place.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I am new to this area but I’m still trying to ascertain where does the $3 million dollars come from? Is that a fee that is currently charged against those that are growers in the medical marijuana field or does it come from somewhere else?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 115 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
I think the Representative has stated it correctly. The producers will pay this fee. It is a new fee, it is not part of the existing fee structure they have to participate in the medical field. If they don’t want to expand they don’t have to and therefor would not be charged the fee. They would have to go through the other steps to convert into this hybrid if you will where they can produce for both the medical field and also for the recreational field. But the producer would pay this fee, this new fee of $3 million dollars to convert in additional to going through the other steps.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 116 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So let me get back to where I started with this. Is where does $3 million dollars come from?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
Is the question just sort of the esoteric why did we decide on $3 million?
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 117 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
That’s fair.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Thank you, I was losing us on come from. Look again this is
I think as the good Chairman of the Judiciary has mentioned several times, this was a negotiated Bill that took a long time to arrive at. We could have charged one dollar. We could have charged $!0 million dollars.
This is a fee that the various folks had input on this Bill felt could be paid reasonably by the existing producers if they have a sense of their economic structure and frankly we wanted,
I think, to charge an amount significant enough because it is entry into a significant new economic field that the state is sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 118 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
creating and in fact participating in in some respects and that is the fee for the existing producers that we arrived at.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. We hear a lot of comparison to the alcohol industry here. You heard that with the 21-year-old early on today. Do we charge those little mom and pop package stores $3 million dollars to get a license to purvey alcohol?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 119 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Probably asking the wrong guy that question in terms of the fees I think should be charged.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
We certainly do not charge mom and pop package stores $3 million dollars. There are of course other entrants, other participants in the field, you know, the more appropriate analogy would probably be the very large distillers, the
Diageo’s of the world, you know. Maybe if we were creating a new alcohol marketplace and it was immediately after prohibition we might have some thoughts about what we might be charging them.
But the current fee structure for the liquor industry is not that high certainly for the package stores.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 120 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Chair, Madam Speaker. And does the good
Chair for the General Labor Committee, or the General Law
Committee know what we charge distillers who want to enter into that space in the State of Connecticut?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
It depends on the manufacturer we’re talking about but we have different fee structures for the different types of business that the various manufactures get into but we are talking about a fraction of $3 billion dollars. Some of fees, excuse me, permits are about $15,000 dollar a year. Now they add up with other permits that they get but we’re talking in a range sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 121 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
of percentages, single percentages, differences less than certainly $3 million dollars.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So comparing the two fields we have a distiller and we have a producer. They are similar. The producer is charged $3 million dollars, the distiller $15 to
$20,000 dollars. Still trying to figure out why. But what about the seller. We use the, we try to make a comparison, one who is in this field who is going to be selling in the recreational market. How much are we charging them to get a license.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 122 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
So we do have to be specific about what we’re talking about here. There are different fee structures laid out in the Bill throughout. We’re talking about currently it is allowing the existing medical producers and if I understand the
Representative’s question, the existing medical dispensaries to enter into this market and we’ve made a policy decision that allowing their relatively immediate entry into the market place, it’s going to take some time but allowing them to enter into the marketplace lets us get this marketplace going rather than building it up from scratch.
But that is a real privilege giving them that ability, right. They are not by any definition social equity applicants.
We are allowing them to start because we want to get his marketplace up and running. So for that privilege there is a significant entry fee that we think they should pay, that they benefited from the medical industry, frankly, having near monopoly control if you will in a heavily regulated environment of the last ten years as the only producers and only sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 123 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
dispensaries in the State of Connecticut with obviously a customer base. So we are charging them a fairly significant fee.
The dispensaries I believe is $1.5 million dollars, you can reduce that if you partner with a social equity partner or social equity JV both for the producer and the dispensers. But there is a high entry fee with good reason. Separate from that entry there are much reduced fee structures for new entrants into the marketplace both retailers, micro-cultivators, delivery, and I can go down the list of those fees but they are orders of magnitude less and frankly very comparable to, I’ll thank the Representative for raising it, comparable to the liquor industry. And then we shave off of that by 50 percent for our social equity applicants that fee structure even more.
But yes, with respect to the existing producers and dispensaries for that privilege they are paying a high entry fee and we think that is good policy.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 124 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mr. Speaker, moving on to Section
33. While we are allowing individuals 21 and over to purchase, consumer home grow, we are precluding advertising to anybody under the age of 25 years. Why?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Let me check to see which Representative is taking that question. Representative D’Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
The Representative is referring to a fairly extensive section that relates to the advertising of cannabis and this is obviously something that was important to a lot of Members of this Chamber and the entire legislature how this marketplace is going to look and the types of advertising we are going to allow. And I think what he is referring to is a Section that sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 125 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
says that the advertising, “limited to spokespersons or celebrities who appeal to individual under the legal age to purchase cannabis or cannabis products depictions of persons under 25 years of age consuming cannabis or the inclusion of objects such as toys, characters”, etc., etc. “suggesting the presence of person under 21 years of age or other depictions designed in any manner to be appealing to a person under 21 years of age.” So there is cross reference there for 25 years of age. You know, in fairness you could have made that consistent with 21 or 25 throughout but the point is in that Section and throughout Section 33 we have an entire advertising structure designed to limit who this appeals to.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do credit the Chairman of the
General Law Committee because my question was wrong and I sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 126 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
appreciate that he didn’t point that out. Actually it allows advertising to 21 year old’s but the part I was and I am harping on is you can’t have depictions of a person under 25 years and I don’t how somebody can do that carveout. I really don’t. I don’t know how it is ever going to be enforceable but I leave it to those who actually drafted this.
But moving on, it appears that in (2) you can’t engage in any advertising if it is “reasonably expected to be viewed by somebody 21 years of age or older”. So one of these entities open, Hamden Huffer’s, let’s say, opens. They want employees.
How do they advertise for, can they put an ad in the newspaper, can they run an ad on the radio, how do they do that under this language.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 127 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
So in this Section and elsewhere what you see is a tie-in to this, the proposed advertisement as to, the person proposing has to have a reliable evidence that at least 90 percent of the audience for the advertisement is reasonably expected to be 21 years of age or older. And in fairness to the Representative, I had the same question, boy how do you do that.
Believe it or not, I guess it shouldn’t be surprising to us, this is an entirely data driven field these days and advertisers whether it is digital or billboard or print they actually have this data and they will be required of course to submit that to DCP, the regulatory body and show that is indeed what is happening that they have reliable evidence and of course if they can’t produce that then they can’t advertise and I should just note as well that again the overall structure here really does cabin the type of advertising.
You answer the Representatives question. You can’t just throw an ad in the newspaper, you can’t throw up a billboard, you can’t even have signage in front of your store that indicates that it is cannabis or you can see the product. These are very, if you, if anyone has experience with our current medical marketplace, these are very discrete locations, they are sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 128 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
almost very antiseptic looking and the expectation is why we did this this way is to carry forward that existing experience which frankly we have been very happy with and I think that towns that have those dispensaries have been very happy with in the same structure.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. and looking at the beginning of that Section, am I to understand that cannabis establishments we’re talking about, entities that are authorized under this
Bill in this State?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 129 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you.
That’s correct.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
So taking that a step further then, if it is a cannabis establishment in another state they could do all of this. Is that fair to say?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 130 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
This is advertising for any cannabis in this state.
Obviously, the only marketplace is here but, no, a Massachusetts cannabis establishment now cannot throw up a billboard at the border saying come across the border unless it meets our requirements. We are controlling cannabis advertising within the four corners of the state regardless of who is doing it.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. But if that was the case and I represented a cannabis establishment in Massachusetts the preclusion, it doesn’t say well, maybe you could get there. Am I to understand that the clause and any person advertising any cannabis services related to cannabis that is what the
Representative is relying upon to say that it would extend to out-of-state entities as well?
Through you, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 131 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam.
I believe it is there and in a few other places where we were careful to make sure that the advertising restrictions allowed us to do just that, control the entire advertising universe regardless who is doing it.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Moving on to the geographic lotteries which is quite a few pages after that. Section 35, I’m looking at line 1828. Okay. How are the geographic lotteries setup? sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 132 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
If I can clarify.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. When I mean setup I mean it’s not the procedure you are doing for the lottery, it is what geography are we talking about?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 133 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
If I could ask the Representative to just clarify. When I think of the lottery system, it is not set up so that there is a lottery for this area or a lottery for that area. It is divided into the two classes if you will, the social equity applicants and then everybody else. There is a number of steps before we get to the lottery system which influences how that takes place and who is in it and who goes to the next lottery.
And then there are geographic restrictions if you will in terms of where dispensaries or other producers or other licensees can be, but it is not in the traditional sense of Oh, there is going to be some in this part of the state or that part of the state. What we’ve done here in an overall structure is to say, there is going to be a determination of how many licenses in each category we are going to have. Towns of course when it comes to geography, towns can say yes or no and the there is also some limits initially on how many within a certain area one for every 25,000 residents. But that is really part of the license structure and how the licenses after somebody gets a license where they go. The lottery does not determine geography. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 134 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Yes, Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was just, I understand the lottery doesn’t determine geography. I’m just trying to figure out how does the geography, cause it’s not a demographic lottery, it is a geographic lottery. So if I could just know a little bit more about how that geography is determined.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 135 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
It really isn’t geography. In the first instance the lottery is divided into the two classes if you will or subsets.
The social equity applicants and then the nonsocial equity applicants, we are assuming we are going to have a significant number of both that will exceed the number of licenses to be issued and we are going into this lottery system, again once other checkpoints are made which we haven’t discussed but we can get to those. But the point is in the first instance once we’re ready, once the applications are in and people have gone through the initial approval process, they will go into that lottery system.
First it will be the social equity applicants, complete random issuance of licenses. Somebody wants to be a social equity licensee for a micro-cannabis cultivator, a micro- dispensary, or excuse me, retailer, or delivery service those will be issued. People who don’t meet the social equity application status through that process will get kicked to the secondary lottery which is everyone else who is not a social equity applicant and those licenses will be issued. But again that process is not by geography and does not determine where the particular establishment or business will go. That is going sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 136 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
to be up to, in the first instance or localities or municipalities and then with some other requirements that we’ve got in this Bill in terms of limiting sort of per capita one for every 25,000.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. My takeaway is perhaps a different word could have been used instead of geography and I agree and that was the root of my question cause is did review the procedure, I just didn’t see how it was geographic. But moving on to Section 40 which I believe is on line 2135. Is it required that an establishment under this scheme, cannabis establishment, be headquartered in this state?
Through you, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 137 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
If I understand the Representative’s question the answer to that is yes. Everything with respect to the cannabis industry in
Connecticut has to take place within the four corners of this state.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the answer to that.
That wasn’t the question. Do they have to be headquartered in this state? So, you know, headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts but they apply for a license here in Connecticut, I didn’t see sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 138 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
any requirement that they be headquartered in Connecticut but I could be corrected.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
I am forced to agree that I don’t believe the Bill sets forth a specific requirement of a headquarters or a state of incorporation for where it, where the particular entity is incorporated or actually headquartered, depending on the sort of legal term we’re using for headquartered but certainly the operations need to be here.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 139 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And is the Social Equity Council constrained from only determining that towns and cities of our state are included in their determination?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
If the question is. Well let me ask to make sure I understand the question correctly. Is the question can applicants only come from towns and cities in Connecticut? The answer to that question is yes if that is the question.
Through you. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 140 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thought a portion of this allowed a social equity applicant to have resided in a town that has been determined to be one of the targeted towns and I don’t mean that in the pejorative at all, up to the age of 18. Is that fair?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
With some tweaks it’s a general description of one of the qualifications for a social equity applicant. There are others but one of them is that you lived in this what we’re calling, sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 141 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
it’s a defined term, it’s a disproportionately impacted community which must be in Connecticut through census tract data and that you live there through at least nine of the first 18 years of your life. But that is a Connecticut requirement.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. But that social equity applicant that has met that criteria could be 70 years old, living in I don’t know Wichita, Kansas. Correct?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 142 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
I’m not sure that’s correct in order for them to be, to meet the other requirements of being a market participant. But yes, with respect to the specific question and that criteria the requirement of the at least nine years of the first 18 years of your live in a disproportionately impacted community, that strand is Connecticut limited and then, you know, where they live now, I still think the other parts of the Bill would preclude that person from being an applicant, for example the
Connecticut median household impact limits, other limits on obviously the operations and where this is going to take place but with respect to that specific criteria, that’s right its cabined in time if you will, the first nine, at least first nine years of 18 of your life.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 143 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And that individual who lives in
Wichita, Kansas who is 70 years old lived in let’s say in portions of New Haven up until the age of 18, they could partner with Michael Bloomberg, get their $1.5 million dollars, and enter into this space. Is that fair to say because these social equity aspect would bring that licensing fee down?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
Let’s just reverse the process there a little bit. So for example with respect to our producers if one of the existing medical cannabis producers in Connecticut want’s to convert they can pay the $3 million dollars that we discussed and again there’s other requirements they have to meet. Or yes, they can sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 144 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
enter into an agreement, with a social equity partner, and that will reduce their fee, again if they meet various other requirements with respect to both how their operations are conducted and meeting the Social Equity Council’s requirement there and the social equity partner also meets various requirements including the one we just discussed which is one criteria that Connecticut median household is another criteria, workforce development plans are another criteria, what you’re going to operate, how you’re going to operate, those are other criteria as well, provided both sides meet all the requirements for that partnership, yes the producer will pay the lower fee, the equity applicant will not.
The overall, stepping back for a second, the overall purpose of that part of the Bill is a recognition that capital is required to get into this industry and it is very difficult to get capital. You can’t go to federally chartered bank and get a loan. So how are we going to, what avenues are we going to put in place for social equity applicants, people who probably do not have significant access to capital, what mechanisms will we put in place to help them get into this marketplace? There are several. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 145 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
One of them is this partnership of opportunity with an existing producer. There is also another one with existing dispensaries who want to convert, we’ve incentivized those existing producers or dispensers who have the capital, who have the means, who have the operations to partner with someone who meets these various social equity definitions and criteria to give them a hand and get it into the marketplace. So that’s the context for the answer to this question. And again there are different criteria for social equity applicants and then to be a
JV partner that is just one of several that we’ve been discussion.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, moving on I went to college, you know, I’ve heard of marijuana called many things what is defective cannabis? Does that mean that I didn’t get sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 146 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
high? How and specifically Section 54, line 2578 deals with the problem of potentially defective cannabis. How do we ascertain that, who ascertains that?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
And what is that?
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Which one of you want’s this one?
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Madam Speaker I’m more than happy to let the General Law
Chairman give it a shot.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
All right, Representative D’Agostino. You’re up, sir.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 147 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
So again, I think it is important to take, you know, with respect to the Representative’s question in context and so
Section 54 deals with, you know, how we’re going to regulate these businesses and we have a number of requirements here in terms of how it’s stored, how it’s handled, how you take care of old stock, you make sure you’re not selling old stock, the seed to sale processes, steps for diversion and loss and things like that. This section is actually really interesting.
It is based on, and I have here, this is a separate
Statutory Regulatory Section that we have for our medical field, it’s based on ten years’ worth of experience where we’ve gone through with a fine tooth comb in that existing medical marketplace, we regulate, we oversee how these businesses operate and Section 54 is designed to implement many of those same policies, from an overarching level and then what the
Representative will see obviously is you have separately, I think it is Section 52 or 56, regs that will be implemented and the expectation is that the regs will mirror the medical regulatory field because again we have this terrific experience of more than a decade in doing so. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 148 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
So that is what Section 54 does. As to the, you know, effect of cannabis, I think we could probably wax poetic about that for a while here but the idea in this Section is that we want to make sure that there is no product in the marketplace that is old, that is defective, that doesn’t meet the requirements that we’ve set forth, strict requirements that we’ve set forth because of the experience we’ve had in the medical community and based on other states to be able to say this is the product that should be offered and here is how we are going to make sure that is the product.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Am I to understand the answer to
I don’t know because the question was what is defective cannabis. So certainly this product has various levels of THC, right. We know that a couple of paragraphs down from there, it sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 149 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
deals with outdated marijuana, separate, it doesn’t call outdated defective. So I have to assume based upon statutory construction that defective is something other than outdated. So how is the purveyor who steps into this space, to know what defective cannabis is? I’ll ask the question again.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Again, through you.
I don’t know if those are mutually exclusive actually, outdated, or defective. I appreciate the different language is used but we’ve not defined it here. I will again only note that the experience we have in our medical economy, in our regulatory scheme, you know, the drug control decision is very experienced over the course of more than 10 years, working with producers, sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 150 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
working with the dispensaries to make sure that the product that is offered is safe, meets the limits that we’ve established currently in existence in the medical field and that the product, you know, in terms of defective, you know, isn’t too low, too high in terms of its effect, isn’t, you know, laced with something like you see on the black market, I mean defective can mean any number of things and I think the point here is that we’re imposing a very strict regulatory scheme in terms of storage, growth, tracking, disposal to make sure that the end product is what the user expects and what we expect as a legislative body. So, I can’t tell you here exactly what the different, how the different ways a particular product can be defective. I mean if it’s a Vape pen it just maybe that the vape doesn’t work.
If it’s flour it may be that it’s too old to have any effect anymore or that when it was grown it didn’t have any effect anymore. If it is inedible it maybe that the THC did not get in to that product or too much got in. Defective could be any number of things and I think the point here is that the regulatory scheme we are imposing, based on literally more than sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 151 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
a decade of experience is designed to avoid those various results.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am not going to belabor the point but it appears that the language puts the onus on the store owner to make that determination and to act accordingly isn’t in a provision like the Department of Consumer Protection determines that certain strain of marijuana is therefore potentially defective, issues a notice, you shall comply with the notice. This is not what this says at all. So I do question that.
Moving on, Madam Speaker in Section 56(c)which is around line 2634 we are mandating that the purveyor or one engaging in this activity tracks each cannabis seed and Madam Speaker, I don’t know if you know, as I said before, I went to college, and sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 152 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
I did exhale. Those seeds are very small and I have to ask,
Madam Speaker what is the procedure by which these industry businesses are supposed to track each individual tiny seed?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein that might be TMI in this Chamber.
Representative D’Agostino. Representative, which one? All right,
Representative D’Agostino you are still up there.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Thank you, Madam Speaker for a number of reasons. This is the so called seed to sale tracking system and yeah, I agree, you hear that and you go, “My God how can they do that?” Believe it or not they do. It’s remarkable. This is in existence now.
So this is not something new for our, certainly for our current producers and dispensaries. If you’ve ever visited one of these facilities it is amazing, it is airtight security and so they literally will have the seed, and the seed gets planted obviously, right. There are an individual sort of growth pocket sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 153 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
if you will. So they have each one of those labeled, all the way across the wall and they are tracking all those types of seed, the date, the type that plant is grow, it is moved into a separate facility, when it is harvested.
All of that information is tracked then electronically entered into, tracked to the dispensary that it goes to and then out the door. This seed to sale tracking system, you know, it’s really quite remarkable and again this is borne of more than ten years of experience that we’ve got in our medical industry and so we are just drafting that now onto our recreational industry that we are putting into effect. It is nothing new. If you haven’t seen it, folks in this Chamber, I would encourage you to go to one of these, start with the grow facilities and then dispensaries and actually look at it. I agree, when you hear about it on paper, it’s hard to believe but when you see it, it is a remarkable process, incredibly secure and ultimately incredibly safe for the consumers.
Through you. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 154 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Bringing us back to an area that
I think the good Representative is, well I know I’m more comfortable with, is the law and procedure. Looking that Section
58, sub 17, sub c. That deals with refusal to issue or renew a license or registration. And I don’t know who I’m dealing with here so I’ll wait whoever. Okay, specifically that deals with procedure and request of a hearing by an applicant.
Understanding that there has been a refusal to issue a renewal license, the holder of the license asks for due process, they want a hearing. Under this language when is the hearing supposed to occur?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 155 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
It’s not in here specifically although the intent is for I believe this whole Section to follow the Administrative
Procedure Act and so that separate statutory Section, I think it is Chapter 54 is noted here and then you would go through the
UAPA both in terms of, you know, notice for the hearing, holding the hearing, appeal from the hearing, etc., etc.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want that to be clear because that was not included in the language if that is the intent. So be it because I was going to get to S-183 next but we will go on. In (h) just want to make sure I’m in the same
Section, no, it’s Section 61, it says that anyone, it says, “any sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 156 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
person, officer, director or partner” of one of these establishments that doesn’t comply with Section, this Section
“will be liable for a civil penalty of up to $25,000 dollars each day.” And what does this Section have to do with that would jeopardize someone at that rate?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
There are a number of fines and enforcement mechanisms throughout the Bill. Some even frankly more powerful than that, but this particular Section has to with essentially changes in control.
You know, again we’re trying to create a system that’s open, that we’ve got other participants and the last thing we want to see is one or two market participants dominate the sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 157 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
entire marketplace. That has apparently happened in other states through mergers and consolidations, etc. And so we want to make sure and we’ve set forth requirements here that if you’re, for example the backer of a cultivator you can’t be a backer of any number of more how many dispensaries.
We don’t want that kind of what is called vertical integration or horizontal integration to use antitrust parlance.
And so you’ve got to inform the regulatory body if there is ever a change in control of the business itself, or the backers the financial folks backing the establishment have changed. And in this industry that is actually happening quite a bit, quite frequently. And so we want to make sure that we are given real time information and notified of that. We passed a law earlier this year, and I think it is embedded in here as well, and if you note here this is enforced by the Attorney General.
We will want him as our arm enforcing the antitrust laws of this state to be aware of those changes in control. He can investigate. But in the first instance we have to know. So if you are hiding that information from us, you are going to get fined. And so this incentives to let us know when there is that change in control as soon as it happens and then we can decide sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 158 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
through the offices of the AG whether to weigh in or not from an antitrust perspective.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And the Attorney General’s involvement in these investigations of transfer and all of that, in (g) it appears that all of those investigatory documents even if the case is resolved are sealed. They are not disclosable under FOI. Is that a correct interpretation?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 159 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you.
Yes, that is consistent with current FOIA exemptions frankly when you’ve got confidential business information because again what we’re going to be investigating is potential mergers and acquisitions that maybe happening in the business or that are happening and the AG is going to have access to some pretty sensitive business information and we recognize that exemption in FOIA now and this just carries forward that same concept here.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ve done many FOI requests and I know with state agencies they are usually very protective of certain information that, you know, trade secrets and those sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 160 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
kinds of things and regularly redact documents but I do think the public should be available or this information should be available as to what its government is doing in investigating private entity especially if the case is closed.
Certainly if we are giving this discretion, you know, we are saying to the Attorney General we are going to empower you to investigate this. If you make a finding you are empowered to fine an entity, not fine them at all quite frankly or up to
$25,000 a day. It’s a lot of power. It’s a lot of power that is unchecked when bright light can’t be shined upon it. So certainly, you know, we talk a lot, a lot of proponents of this
Bill talk a lot about disparity and enforcement but provisions like this just ask for disparity and enforcement. Just another reason why I just can’t support what is before us today.
Madam Speaker, moving on to Section 62, we are mandating that each cannabis establishment annually report the usage of electricity and their utilization of renewables and those kinds of things. Why are we doing that?
Through you, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 161 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Madam Speaker, we want this green industry to be as green as possible.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I note that it isn’t that they are making a report to Energy and Technology it is just going to be in the public space. So sometimes I tremble at the actions the government will take requiring a private entity to publicly disclose their utilization of energy. But some people want to get involved. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 162 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
It appears in Sections 63 and 64 allow for our banking industry and our insurance industry to examine how they could expand into this space. I hope that would have been done before the Bill that we have before us here today was put together. But another question in moving on to Section 76. There is currently a, this is the doctor group, the Board of Physicians, I think it is called. Yes, the Board of Physicians and through this Bill extensively for the legalization of marijuana we are presently requires them to meet at least twice a year but we are taking that away. Why are we doing that in the context of this Bill?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Thank you. So this Bill actually is not just about the new marketplace we are creating, right. We want to make sure that when we create this new commercial marketplace for cannabis that we are preserving the medical cannabis industries. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 163 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
So there is a number of changes in this Bill that related to the existing medical cannabis industry and those statutes.
This is one of them. And this is something that the General Law
Committee actually has looked at for a while now. And that particular change and the other changes in this Section and what they are designed to do is actually make it easier for there to be new ailments designated through DCP with recommendations from the board to go on up and be new ailments that you can get a prescription for and again to note, the other changes in this
Bill, you know, you can get a much higher dosage, you can buy more, you can possess more, you can have immediate grow rights if you are a medical patient and so this Section and there is various changes in this Section in addition to the one the
Representative mentioned, what those are designed to do is to actually make it less burdensome for particular diagnoses or ailments to be part of the medical field. Previously you had a very cumbersome process with the Physicians Review Board, regs reviewed, the Committee process and we found that frankly given the expertise we’ve developed in the last ten years we can work well with the board without them forcing them to meet twice a year and DCP and get these ailments up more quickly. So, again trusting the judgement of our medical professionals but without sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 164 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
overburdening that process. And that is what this is designed to do along with other Sections that go along with it hand in glove.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I don’t know if anybody is here from the Public Health Committee but I am a little concerned that this group right now is supposed to meet at least twice a year. We are saying to them it is unnecessary unless they determine. So I don’t know if that is a provision that went through a Committee Hearing, if there was public testimony. I don’t know. I see no comment about that particular Section so I didn’t know if anybody that the acumen to answer with regard to that particular portion. I’m concerned. You know, this is, I think going to have some sort of negative public health consequences, DPH silent and/or muted and we have the Board of sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 165 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Physicians not having to meet which I would think that if this is going to become a problem and DPH is not going to talk about it that this is something that the Board of Physicians may take up at a meeting if they are mandated to meet. So my question is has there been any input as to this particular provision of the
Bill?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, this is about the third occasion I’ve heard the Ranking Member allude the DPH has not weighed in on this Bill and I have to correct the record on that Madam Speaker. DPH has in fact submitted written testimony on this Bill which is part of Judiciary Committee’s record.
I have testimony dated February 26, 2021, in front of me from Acting Commissioner Gifford on SB 888. So she did not raise objection to this particular provision and I should also note sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 166 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
just for the record that she did weigh in in that written testimony in support of the use of the age 21 as the age cutoff and also specifically noted in support of her testimony the strict THC content and labeling requirements in this Bill along with the upgrades to the Clean Air Act which I am guessing we will get to. But I did think it was important to reference the fact that DPH has in fact weighed in before the Committee process on this Bill and to my knowledge unless the General Law
Chairman corrects me, they have not certainly raised any objection to the changes to the medical cannabis program which is outlined in this Bill.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. With that may I ask, did that testimony, well it isn’t even testimony did that document come in before or after the Committee had their hearing? sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 167 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
I would submit that it is testimony. It was submitted to the Committee through our normal Public Hearing process testimony where written testimony is submitted. I will agree that no one from DPH physically testified before the Committee but we do have three pages of written testimony which was submitted through the usual channels.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 168 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Am I to understand that this preclusion almost prohibition on the body having to meet annually was in SB 888?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
I would have to go back and check. We could certainly do that and get back to the Ranking Member at some point unless the
Chairman of the General Law Committee knows off the top of his head.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative D’Agostino. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 169 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
There might just be some confusion here. This Board, this is not related to DPH. This Board has a very specific charge. It is composed of a number of medical professionals, doctors, and they review and determine whether or not specific diseases, ailments, etc. qualify you to be a medical mar - medical cannabis patient in Connecticut.
And the Section that the Representative is referring to just says, you don’t have to meet twice a year, you can meet as necessary, as necessary, not don’t meet at all but meet, as necessary. These folks have been doing this for more than years.
They’ve done a great job of sort of slowly but steadily expanding what qualifies you to be a medical cannabis patient and we established it because we trust their judgement. So we are continuing to trust their judgement to meet, they stay very much abreast of the different ailments that are treatable by cannabis and make recommendations for us.
So now, their recommendations, we’ve got a more streamline process for them to become the force of law. We just did this sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 170 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
for example with pain. Certain treatment for pain and so I don’t know of anybody, certainly the General Law Committee which has cognizance over this particular group and the recommendations that they made, do we have any issue with them meeting as necessary rather than forcing them to meet twice a year.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Thank you, Representative. Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
I was able to get a direct answer to the Ranking Member’s question. If fact the original Governor’s Bill which was submitted to us back in early February contained this language at lines 2397 of the original Bill. It was also contained in the language that came out of Committee. It was in the Bill that passed through the Appropriations Committee, on and on, and on.
Through you, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 171 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And the representation was that the DPH Commissioner through her testimony was not opposed to that particular provision. Am I to understand from that, that the document and I still stand it is not testimony in the legal sense, that it actually references that position and says that they are neutral or in favor?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
The testimony begins, “The Department of Public Health is testifying in support of the public health provisions of SB sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 172 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
888.” So I would submit to you that they testified in support of the original Governor’s Bill which the Committee heard and this language which was contained in. I can only deduce from that they are in support of this provision.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And that is the problem with a
Commissioner Department not coming before the Committee. I believe the document was submitted after the Committee Hearing but certainly there has been times when myself and the Chairman have differed with the document that has been submitted into the system and the person comes to the publicly noticed hearing with regard to that particular issue, you bring those things to the attention of the individual who submitted the document, you have that exchange. That is the Public Hearing process. Merely to submit a document and not to appear before the Committee to be sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 173 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
questioned about this very important Legislation before us, I still have a lot of problems with that. But.
Moving on to Section 83 having to do with the referendum.
It appears that this referendum process is mandatory and I have to ask, I mean I have familiarity with my Charter in
Wallingford, I had a lot to do with that. I know that we have provisions that are different than this. Does this supersede whatever is in the Charter?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
I believe it does.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 174 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Now staying with local control for a moment, and it is line 3881, 3882 in the version that I am looking at. It has to do deal with and I am just trying to see if I am reading this correctly. “All municipalities that have a population greater than 50,000 shall adopt a regulation that designates a portion of their town for public consumption of cannabis.” Am I reading that correctly?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
That is read correctly.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 175 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
And how, if a town, let’s say the referendum doesn’t have anything to do with that. Is that fair to say, the referendum that is mandated in the Bill has to do with, I think, sale. Is that fair to say?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
The referendum relates to grow and sale. This relates to public consumption.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 176 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Yes, thank you. So understanding the grow and sale a municipality can referendum themselves out of that. But how does a municipality get out of this mandate that their regulations state "an area for public consumption of cannabis?"
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
I think this Section needs to be read in its entirety. What the major import of this Section is, is it allows a town to prohibit the smoking of vaping of cannabis in public locations.
The provision the Ranking Member is focusing on does not relate to smoking or vaping, it merely relates to consumption of cannabis.
Through you. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 177 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Perhaps I am reding it incorrectly but I am seeing right after that provision it says,
“such regulations may prohibit the smoking of cannabis and the use of electronic,” in outdoor sections of a restaurant but I didn’t see where it says they can preclude it in public spaces as represented. So if I could just be pointed to that particular portion of the Bill.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 178 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
I think if you look, if he looks back up about to the portions about, I’m in line 3877 through 3880 that talks about smoking or vaping of cannabis.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
I am just reviewing that language. Well no, after that
Section, I believe a fair reading of that is that “if the municipality’s population is greater than 50,000” they cannot do that. They cannot preclude. So what portion because in the beginning part it says, they can regulate but then it goes on and says, “if the municipality’s population is greater than
50,000” so that is an exclusion to the ability to regulate above. I didn’t know if the good Chairman upon further review agrees with that or are we just going to continue to disagree?
Through you, Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 179 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
I disagree, Madam Speaker. I think if the Section is read in its entirely beginning where the Ranking Member begins and it is read through, there are three types of ways in which someone could use cannabis really articulated, not just in this Section but throughout the Bill. Someone can generally smoker cannabis, they can vape cannabis or they can consume it in some sort of edible format. As I read this provision it speaks to the consumption piece not to the smoking or vaping manner of consumption.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 180 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So am I to understand that the mandate then that it appears that a municipality cannot get out is constrained to consumption of edibles let’s say, although that doesn’t appear there. It says public consumption of cannabis. So ingesting I think is defined under this is consumption. So I am trying to figure out how, is it being represented that public consumption is only consumption of edibles?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
That is my read of the Bill, Madam Speaker.
Through you. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 181 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I won’t belabor it but I do point out that although we talked the ability to, the word “may” does not appear in that clause. It says, “such regulations shall designate a place.” But we go on.
Section 102, Madam Speaker has to do with peace labor agreements and, you know, I’ve been a member of a union. I worked in retail for many, many years. And I was rank and file,
I was a manger, I was a member of a union and one of the powers that the unions had or the union members had was to be able to strike, walk off the job. And I find it interesting that in this industry these peace labor agreements are being, or labor peace agreement are being mandated but those agreements prohibit workers from engaging in picketing, work stoppages or boycott against the cannabis establishment. That is what some people want. I support the ability to associate to join a labor union.
I don’t know why anybody would insert in here the preclusion on sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 182 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
those, ultimately on those rights and also the requirement for binding arbitration.
You know, if a business, the workers at a business chose to unionize that is their choice. The right of association. But forced unionization is contrary to every fundamental credo that comes from the Constitution. And maybe it’s because of the failure of unions over the last few years to actually represent a lot of union leadership, I think just last week somebody went to jail in Chicago but I would hope individuals that would want to get involved in these things do so by their own choice, collectively bargain for their collective benefit cause certainly it doesn’t help that perception when it is forced upon individuals.
Madam Speaker in Section 106 we have, we are permitting the utilization of drivers’ licenses and identity cards for proof of age. And I find that to be ironic where Members of my side of the aisle, myself included have asked for IDs to vote but individuals on the other side of the aisle believe that is a bad thing. That certain individuals can’t get those IDs for whatever reason and want to exercise whatever rights they have to vote without having to show an ID. Madam Speaker in lines 4803 sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 183 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
through 4809 it says that “No person shall be convicted of smoking or otherwise inhaling or ingesting cannabis while operating a motor vehicle and possessing under such person’s control a controlled substance upon the same transaction.” So that means that if someone is smoking or ingesting while operating a motor vehicle but they are also in possession of a small amount of heroine that cannot be convicted of both.
The public policy that underlies that I must question.
Madam Speaker in lines 5016 through 5025, it says that “in any prosecution for a violation of” basically utilization of marijuana while operating a motor vehicle that “the court may take judicial notice that ingesting of cannabis can impair a person’s ability to operate a motor vehicle.” Can cause impairment of motor function so on and so forth and “does not enhance a person’s ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.”
But the problem there, Madam Speaker is the utilization of “may” and not “shall.” We talk about once again this disparate treatment. I addressed it before when we were talking about the
$25,000 dollars a day fine the Attorney General can employ under the dark of night. Here we hear that, you know, sometimes judges are unfair against certain people in the community. Whether true sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 184 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
or not, this provision opens up the door to those kinds of things because then you get the story, well the judge used that in my case but they didn’t use it in some other case. Well why did they do that? Well because I have these characteristics. I don’t know why anybody, the language should be in there or not in there. But having “may” is discretionary. It is totally discretionary. You are talking about a crime.
Madam Speaker I point out in Section 133, you know, I spent a lot of time fortunately or unfortunately reading statues, looking through the books and I’ve never seen a definition section that was not alphabetized and I don’t know if whoever drafted this had already started utilizing the product that we’re talking about, but we go from “A” to “C” to “B” back to
“A” to “P” to “I” to “C” to “Q” and then “E”. I’ve never seen anything like that.
Madam Speaker in Section 144, the Social Equity Council is required to report on whether or not these establishments are predominately located in communities of color. It doesn’t say why. Is it the intent of the drafters, the passers to have these establishments mostly located in communities of color? We can’t tell from this language. Usually legislature says something like sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 185 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
it shall be a proper purpose of this Legislation that these establishments be located in communities of color and therefore we are going to have this. Not what we’re doing here. Instead we just have a report, a report that just hangs out there. We know not why.
Madam Speaker in Section, on page 247 - Section 166, it deals with these pretrial programs and in Sub E it says that “in order to get into this program you have to pay to the court a nonrefundable program fee of $400 dollars.” That is how you get into the program. But then when we go on, a couple of pages later, it says it talks about what you have to do to say in the program. Then it says, “If the court revokes any person’s placement in the program, such person shall not be required to pay any program fee or participation costs specified is
Subsection E which I dealt with before, the $400 dollars. But then the very next Section says, “If the court terminates any person’s participation in the program no program fees or substance abuse treatment costs imposed pursuant to the subsection shall be refunded.” They are in conflict. So you paid the fee to get in, if you are kicked out of the program, you are sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 186 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
not required to pay the fee but you can’t get a refund. Doesn’t make any sense at all.
And Madam Speaker, you know, I have some familiarity with these kinds of diversionary programs, you complete - case is dismissed. That is what I anticipated when I was reading through this language the procedure is already established. We can take this program over and over again but it isn’t an automatic dismissal which I don’t know whether I am in favor of or not.
But the normal process is case is dismissed you completed. But under this language looking specifically at 7959 even though you’ve completed you have to apply for dismissal and the court is going to review. Once again I don’t know if I am in favor or against that provision because another hurdle to go through perhaps make somebody not do this again. But it doesn’t work like the regular.
Madam Speaker, I believe that is sum and substance of my comments on the Bill here today. I know that some of my colleagues are going to bring up portions that they’re against.
You know, I come back to the Constitution. I wish I could vote for something like this. However it is illegal under Federal
Law. I’m saddened that this more than likely will pass. I have sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 187 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
to question the Oath that those individuals took without casting aspersions but if we’re going to act in that manner just take it out of the Oath. I will be voting against. I look forward to hearing what everybody else has to say. So, thank you, Madam
Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the Bill as Amended? Representative O’Dea of the 125th, you have the floor, sir.
REP. O'DEA (125TH):
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. And I still owe the
Judiciary Committee some pizza because I kept the Committee past midnight discussing an early iteration of this Bill. I can’t afford to buy this whole Chamber pizza so I am not going to go until midnight. But this is potentially, let me say it. This is the most important vote that I will take in my nine years here and I don’t say that lightly. And I know, I think it was the last time we were here, I may have changed a couple of votes on the police qualified immunity fix on an Amendment. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 188 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
I doubt I'm going to make any -- change any minds with this but look with my arguments today or statements today. But I want to mention a couple of facts.
Science. In this Chamber, I hope people are listening that aren't here in the Chamber. But I need to review facts and science because that is what we should be following when it comes to the recreational marijuana.
And according to a national survey done by Drug Use and
Health and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration within the US Department of Health.
Pot use among youth from 12 to 17 continues to rise in states that have legalized pot. That's not me saying it. That's the National Institute of Health -- I'm sorry, the US Department of Health and Human Services. Youth use will increase. Let me say that again. Youth use will increase.
During the debate I asked every single doctor – I’m sorry, during the hearing I asked every single doctor whether or not they agree that marijuana use was detrimental to those under 25.
Every single one of them admitted it was except for one general attorney internist, who frankly, had no idea what he was sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 189 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
talking about. Every other doctor admitted this is -- Pot is bad for those over 20 -- under 25, and certainly some qualified it to 21.
Another fact, and by the way, that that study of increased
Pot use among 12 to 17 year olds for those legalized, that was
12/28/20. That's just this past December.
Another stat addiction rates have more than doubled. From
2001 and 2002, year to 2012 2013 year, addiction rates have more than doubled.
One in three pot users, one in three, meet the criteria for marijuana use disorder. Now, some people try to dispute that that exists. But that is a disorder that the physicians are now unanimous, as I understand it, in diagnosing under the DSM manual, marijuana use disorder, one in three pot users you meet that criteria.
That's out of the December 2015 Journal of Medicine and psychiatry. I'm sorry -- Journal of American Medical Association for psychiatry. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 190 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
That's one in three pot users. The Emergency Poison Control calls for children, from newborn to eight, more than tripled in
Colorado after legalization.
Okay, again, Emergency Poison Control calls for children newborn to eight, more than tripled in Colorado after legalization. That's according to the Colorado Department of
Public Health.
The number of car crashes in which pot is involved in legal states has more than doubled in Washington states. I'm sorry, in
Washington State is more than doubled. Okay, that's according to a study from January 30, 2020, from the AAA.
According to the Journal of American Medical Association,
Internist, the opiate crisis is actually increasing. That's not me saying this, it’s the Journal of American Medical -- The
Journal of American Medical Association.
The opioid crisis, where Pot is legalized, is getting worse, not better. That's not me saying it. It's the Journal of
American medicine. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 191 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
I'm almost done with my facts. I'm going to rely on the
Ranking Member of Public Health to go through this in more detail.
According to the National Academy of Sciences, okay, they're independent. They're leading researchers, the more you use pot, the higher likelihood that it will create other non- medical or non- marijuana substance abuse dependency as of 2017.
That's the National Academy of Sciences.
People in states where it's legalized are testing positive for Pot much higher rates. 25% of Americans living in Pot legal states admit to going to work stoned.
25% in states where it's legal, or reporting going to work stoned. That's according to the Seattle Times and studies by
CEC.
Mark my words, people will died when we pass this Bill -- because of this Bill. Because of recreational marijuana being sold in Connecticut, more people will die.
The argument in Colorado, and I asked my good colleagues in the Senate, a number of Republican Senators quoted an article by
Robert Corry, who was one of the authors of the Colorado Bill. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 192 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
I beg everyone can read the Connecticut Mirror article dated June 9, 2021. I'm begging you before you vote on this
Bill, read that article, please.
This Legislation will make rich white men richer. And it'll adversely impact our black and brown communities. Mark my words.
How many of us standing here today think we need to have our kids have more access to liquor and alcohol it’s illegal. So why should we do it for pot?
I don't want my kids having more access to liquor and alcohol, I'm doing my best, but the commercialization of liquor and alcohol is hurting our youth. There's no dispute. Anybody disputes that please raise your hand.
Does anybody think that if we pass this Bill, the commercialization of Pot that it's not going to harm our youth?
Anybody? Anybody? I'm telling you, this will hurt our youth.
And it will hurt our youth in our black and brown communities more. Because that's where a lot of these stores are going to show up. New Canaan has already by regulations, local regulations. They've said that we can't have medical marijuana and in New Canaan. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 193 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
And we're going to follow, we're going to do that this Bill
-- good question to the good Proponent, this Bill will allow me to opt out of the recreational marijuana. Is that correct?
Through you, Madam Speaker?
I'm sure you answered this, I apologize. But just for clarification purposes.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you Madam Speaker, municipalities can opt out of hosting a -- either grow facility or a distribution facility, they cannot prevent delivery or they cannot prevent residents from consuming.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative O’Dea. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 194 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. O’DEA (125TH):
Thank you. That was my understanding of the Bill. And to the good Proponent, look, as the good Proponent knows, I am a person who likes to collaborate, likes to try, and reach compromise. I'm sorry, on this Bill. I don't think I can.
I know this Bill I can't vote for. And so there is going to be an Amendment later on to follow the Vermont model which I'll consider voting for – and I’ll listen to the discussion but the
Chair of the New Jersey Senate, Black Caucus, Senator Ron Reiss of Newark, State, and I'm quoting him, “If you pass this Bill,
White men will get rich and poor Black and Brown neighborhoods will suffer.”
As I said before, that was from the news journal back in
December. The Daily News. I pray I'm wrong. I went to church this morning and I prayed. Lord, give me the words to convince my friends to not vote for this Legislation.
This is not about Republican and Democrat. This is about increasing the disparity between the wealthy and the poor. We're turning marijuana into big tobacco. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 195 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Watch, mark my words. Lord, I pray I'm wrong. According to research in 2015, in Washington, DC, there are 10 times the number of tobacco ads in black neighborhoods in Washington DC than in white neighborhoods. Why is that?
The addiction for profit industries attack those most vulnerable. That's why that's according to the CDC. On March on
March 2, 2020, a CDC article. Addiction for profit industries target vulnerable underserved communities because they are not -
- they don't have enough resources to help the consumers deal with the consequences of addiction.
Tobacco targeted the poor and the needy. And they still do it. And if you think marijuana is not going to do it, you're smoking a little early before it's legal.
According to Big Tobacco addiction equals revenue equals profit. And if anyone thinks the marijuana industry is going to be different than big tobacco, I'd love to hear your answer.
This Bill does not address Big Tobacco problem that we have.
I do appreciate it that the good Proponent can point me to the line there's going to be a study of the number of storefronts opened up in poor communities. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 196 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
The good Proponent knows where that is. I apologize. I had notes on it. My desk is full and I don't have a big enough a desk.
If the good opponent knows where that is in the Bill.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Madam Speaker.
We’re looking for it, I know the Ranking Member had asked some questions about it, but I don't have in front of me.
Line 6930, I’m being told, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative O’Dea sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 197 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. O’DEA (125TH):
Sorry, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
That’s okay, sir.
REP. O’DEA (125TH):
I'm an excitable boy, as they say, I had in the five hour energy right before I started asking questions.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative O’Dea those should be illegal as well as you’re saying.
REP. O’DEA (125TH):
I'll tell you what, I'll stop drinking them if we drop this
Bill – we PT Bill.
So, and to the good -- through the good Speaker. What's the reason for that study? sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 198 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Through you, Mr. Speaker, -- Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through Madam Speaker, I think like the number of studies and request to gather information in this Bill, it's that -- you know, I think we understand. And let me -- let me step back for just a second because certainly, I have the utmost respect and admiration for my colleague from New Canaan.
And I know he has a long held position and stance and belief on this Bill. I think we see it very differently. I think, where I come from, you know, having two young children myself, I agree, I do not want cannabis in their hands at a young age.
But I think actually, what we are doing in this Bill is putting in place, a regulated marketplace. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 199 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
We're putting in place protections, as I said in my opening, with respect to container sizes, and dosage limits, and additional dollars for prevention and the like, all of which are necessary in many respects, because cannabis is legal on our borders, whether we like it or not, and that 16 year old can very easily drive from a place -- will very soon be able to drive from a place like a New Canaan or Bridgeport, or get on the Metro North and go to New Rochelle, and purchase there and bring it back into Connecticut.
We have seen that the war on drugs has failed our youth, has failed our cities, and has led to disparate impacts.
And so the point of the provision that the Representative is alluding to Section 144, I believe is a very small part of this very comprehensive regulatory scheme and structure which we're setting up here in order to, as the Bill says,
“Responsibly legalize and regulate a drug.”
Are we going to be back next year making changes to this
Bill? Undoubtedly. Are we going to be back the year after making further changes? Undoubtedly. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 200 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
That's why there's as much study and attention that goes into this Bill that as this market begins to develop. And as we see the effects this legalization and this development of this market is having in Connecticut, we can make adjustments to them.
And one of those is to track exactly where these cannabis establishments are popping up. And how many of them are popping up in communities of color?
You know, I think it's unfortunate Madam Speaker that a town like a New Canaan is already before this has even become law saying, “Oh no, not for us not for us. We're not, no, not
New Canaan.”
That's exactly the point of this, is let's track and figure out how this market develops. So that we make sure it is equally distributed throughout the state of Connecticut.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative O’Dea sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 201 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. O’DEA (125TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I appreciate the good
Proponents response.
But we already have a test market. Colorado again, begging you, please read the Connecticut Mirror article.
Colorado has commercialized elitist, polluting, government- protected drug dealing industry that perpetuates itself to the detriment of public and the planet.
Colorado is having a pollution problem. Colorado is having a -- the black market marijuana -- black market sales have skyrocketed.
The black market marijuana is cleaner, cheaper than the regulated marijuana, which is filled with mold, black mold, and pollutants. So I'm begging you, please, people read that article.
Now, I'll conclude right before I call my unbelievably excellent Amendment, that I'm going to ask if it's going to be friendly after I explain it, but I doubt it will be. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 202 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
My last kind of statement on marijuana is in the 70's Hugh
Hefner gave $100,000 a year to NORML. It's the National
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
It was basically trying to normalize the use of marijuana.
And the founder of that organization, was quoted as saying that we're going to get into the medical area first. And it's a red herring. We just want to desensitize people to the use of marijuana, because we're going to legalize it recreationally.
And so those predictions have come to fruition. The vast, I concede to the good Proponent, the majority of people in
Connecticut are in favor of recreational marijuana. But they don't understand the details of this Bill.
Our friends in Colorado, have THC contents, up closer to
100%. With the genetically engineered marijuana that everybody in this room admits is horrible.
Colorado tried to lower it. And they got stopped by the big marijuana commercialization. And so at the very least, we need to lower the THC content. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 203 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
In the 70's and 80's. I'm told from my good Ranking Member, he probably knows better than I that the THC content was 2 to
4%, not the 30,40,50, 60, 80%.
And so before I call my moment, my last comments are going to be Alaska.
The Proponents were projecting 550 $5 million in revenue for the state in 2015 and 106 million by 2020.
Guess what Alaska actually realized? As of December 2020 analysis of their records, they were getting a million dollars a month, not 106 million, but rather 12 million. The revenue projections were way off.
Washington State, they estimated 1.9 to almost $2 Billion in revenue, they get about half of that. Over the course of five years.
The revenue projections are going to be wrong. Black Market will increase the THC contents too high.
So I doubt I'm going to change it, and I usually say this to my good colleagues on this side of the aisle, in my closing statements. I usually say a wise preacher once said, it's been sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 204 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
about 35 minutes. I doubt I'm going to save any more souls with my preaching. So I'm just going to call my Amendment.
And so Madam Speaker, the Clerk has an Amendment it is LCO
10981. I would ask that you have the Clerk call it and I be allowed to summarize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Will the Clerk please call LCO 10981 which will be designated House Amendment Schedule "B".
CLERK:
House Amendment Schedule "B" LCO No. 10981 offered by a
Representative Candelora, Representative Devlin, et al.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
The Representative seeks of the Chamber to summarize the
Amendment. Is there objection? Is there objection?
Hearing none. Representative O’Dea, you may proceed with summarization. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 205 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. O’DEA (125TH):
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Essentially, it's those seven things.
First, it extends the two year ban to not only state employees, legislators but also state employees, contractors, lobbyist, and spouses.
It strikes the labor provisions, which, as the good Chair knows, we believe is unconstitutional.
It adds Public Health and substance abuse professionals to the social equity Council.
It increases the legal age from 21 to 25, as those who may recall from the judiciary meeting, I know Mr. -- My good friend from the Environment Committee, the Chair knows that I kept asking a lot of questions on the bottom Bill -- on the bottle
Bill.
And then marijuana discussion, I kept asking questions about the age of 21 to 25. So this increases the legal age from
21 to 25. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 206 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
It reduces a civil penalty that the AG can give from
$25,000 a day to 500 a day.
And strikes the Judicial District of Hartford as an area that can be the jurisdiction if state agencies involved.
And the concentration -- THC cap goes from 60% to 30%; and finally, it redirects the excise tax revenue. From 50 to -- sorry, from 50% for Social Justice Equity 25% for -- 25% for -- it adds to victims’ fund. So 25% of the revenues go to the victims’ fund.
So that is essentially the summary of the Amendment. Happy to answer any questions on it.
And when the vote is taken, I ask it be taken by roll. And
I move adoption and I would ask the good Chair of Judiciary consider it as a friendly, although I think I know the answer.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Thank you, Representative. And yes, the vote will be taken by roll. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 207 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Representative Stafstrom, before I start with you, sir. The board is full. So if you could all just show me a show of hands who would like to speak on the Amendment before us? I will obviously go to the chair first. And then I will move through the list.
So you all can just raise your hand for one minute, I'm going to run a list on the Amendment only.
Okay, Representative Stafstrom, you may proceed, sir.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I do rise in opposition to this Amendment, as has been stated a couple times before.
You know, certainly this is a -- this is a Bill that has been many years in the making, and a lot of changes, modifications have gone on. And I do appreciate the dialogue with certainly with the Ranking Member of the Judiciary
Committee on this over the last couple days.
And some of the concerns raised by the minority caucus were incorporated in but I think in many respects, this goes too far sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 208 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
we've talked about the 21 to 25 age, if you know if the good
Representative from New Canaan wants to have a discussion in the
Judiciary Committee next year about age limits and what is the age of by which someone has competency, then I think we could certainly have a broader discussion of that with respect to cannabis, with respect to alcohol with respect to tobacco, perhaps he would support raising all those age limits.
But certainly I think that's a broader discussion that would need to be had. And certainly, as part of that discussion,
I would certainly submit that we should talk about the age of criminal culpability as part of that discussion as well if that's where we're going to go.
But we can we can. I think that discussion is better left for another day. Madam Speaker, Madam Speaker also with respect to the THC limits, the Bill before us already gives quite a bit of discretion to the Commissioner to set lower dosage limits.
Certainly, if the Representative looks at the underlying
Bill at lines 1517 to 1532.
In there is the ability for the commissioner to set regulations with respect to appropriate dosage potency sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 209 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
concentration, serving size limits and actually sets a cap of five milligrams of THC.
It also requires that cannabis be broken out into single serve dosages that there's child-resistant packaging and label labeling requirements for with respect to cannabis concentration.
There's also the already in the Bill the prohibition against someone buying more than one ounce of cannabis a day. So
I think those concerns are already addressed in the underlying
Bill sufficiently.
Also, Madam Speaker, I do have reservations certainly about the revenue split that is contemplated in this Amendment.
You know, I understand the good Representative’s perspective with respect to Colorado and other states, both with respect to revenue and other pieces of their Legislation.
The benefit we have in Connecticut is we've actually been able to learn from those mistakes, we've been able to learn from some of the mistakes that some of those other states have made an attempt to, to incorporate that into the underlying Bill before us. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 210 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
So I don't think we're going to have nearly the same issues the Colorado has, with respect to dosage limits, nor Washington with respect to revenue, particularly because we are not budgeting much of the revenue from this Bill into the general fund.
That's sort of intentional, we are not balancing our budget on the backs of cannabis legalization, which I think is a mistake that other states made that we are avoiding.
So I don't think that providing as much money into the general fund as is outlined in this Amendment is necessary, or even prudent given where we are budgetarily.
So, for those reasons, and likely others, Madam Speaker, I do urge rejection of this Amendment. Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Thank you. Representative. I see Representative Cheeseman, was the only individual that had raised their hand.
Representative Cheeseman, you have the floor madam. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 211 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
And I am going to do my best not to get too emotional. But
I share the good Representative from New Canaan's concerns about this Bill.
I want to thank my leadership, for incorporating my suggestion for the victim restoration fund as part of this process.
Because, as the good Representative from New Canaan said, if we follow the example of other states, we will also follow their fate in seeing an increased number of people die.
The Journal of the American Medical Association found that
Colorado saw an extra 75 deaths per year. Now one may say 75 deaths out of a population of 5.8 million, that’s not really that many.
And surely for the other goods that can be accomplished with the revenue with all the other things that will be a result of this. It's worth it. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 212 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
So let's extrapolate that to Connecticut, which has a population of about 65% of Colorado.
That would equate to an additional 48 deaths per year.
Again, 48, not too many, over three years, that's 144. After three years, 144 of the 151 people sitting in this Chamber would be dead.
There would be seven of us left, there would be 144 families over three years, who had to go make -- do the status trip ever have to go into a morgue have to go into a coroner's office and make an identification. There would be 144 families whose futures would be altered inexorably.
When we were debating the clean slate Bill, the good Chair of Labor recounted the day in September, when she received word that her son had been arrested. And she could remember to the day and the hour.
There will be families who will remember to the day to the hour to the virtual second, when their lives changed forever.
And the future they had imagined for their son, their daughter, their husband, their wife, their mother, their father was obliterated. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 213 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
And I get emotional because I have that time. November 30,
2012, 4:30 pm when I received the phone call that my husband had died in an accident in a foreign country.
I had to make that trip, I had to look at that body. I stroked his hair for what seemed like hours, because it was the only thing that was not cold.
I know there are good people in this Chamber. I know this is motivated by wanting to right wrongs of the past. To create opportunities for everyone in our state, to give them a pathway to a new life to erase past wrongs.
I'm with you on that. If we feel that opportunities are needed in our cities, let's work on that. But please, this is not the way. This is not the way when we know what the result is going to be.
Maybe for not too many people. But surely, we do so many
Bills, and we say if it saves one life, it's worth it. Isn't it worth it to preserve one and look at different avenues that are not going to result in heartbreak and destroyed futures? sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 214 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
If we took all the revenue that was going to come over the next three years, and gave it to those hypothetical 144 families, we'd be writing them out a check for $520,833.
Who in this Chamber would accept that as the price for their loved one?
So I implore you, if you're not going to accept this
Amendment, let's hit the pause button. As my newspaper The Day say in their editorial.
Let's look at the example of Colorado. Let's look at the example of other states. I don't know where we'll end up on this. But I know where I want to be. And I don't want to have to look in the face of a family and know that I took a vote that may have created heartache and pain and took away a future.
So I thank you very much. I implore you, please, let's do this right if we're going to do it, but let's not do it in a way that's going to create pain.
Thank you very much Madam Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 215 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Thank you Representative. Will you remark further on the
Amendment before us?
Will you remark further on the Amendment before us?
If not will staff and guests please come to the wall of the
House. Members take your seats. The machine will be open.
CLERK:
The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber or to your portals.
The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members of the Chamber through your portals.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Have all the Members voted? Have all the Members voted?
Will the Members please check the board to determine if your vote has been properly cast?
If all the Members have voted the machine will be locked. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 216 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Representative Parker?
REP. PARKER (101ST):
Representative Parker votes no.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Parker in the negative, sir.
Will the Clerk please take the tally?
Will the Clerk please announce the tally?
CLERK:
House Amendment Schedule “B”
Total Number Voting 135 Necessary for adoption 68 Those voting Yea 52 Those voting Nay 83 Absent not voting 16
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
The Amendment fails. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 217 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
(Gavel)
Would you remark further on the Bill as Amendment?
Representative Howard, you have the floor, sir.
REP. HOWARD (43RD):
Thank you, Madam Speaker, and good evening. A few questions for the Proponent.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COOK (65TH):
Representative Stafstrom, are you prepared, sir? Please proceed, Representative Howard.
REP. HOWARD (43RD):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So looking at Section 2 of the
Bill, it appears that for folks who are in possession of cannabis under the age of 21. And I've heard the debate, I understand how we arrived at 21. I think we're in agreement all of us generally that should be at least 21. I haven't heard any, any Proponents to lower that age. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 218 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
And as I read Section 2, it appears what we've really done here is put an emphasis on prevention and deterrent, and not an emphasis on criminal arrest or criminalizing substance abuse with our young people.
So for example, as I read it, for folks under 18, for a first offense is a written warning and goes up from there with referrals to Youth Services Bureau and the Juvenile Court.
So folks who are over 18 but under 21 for a first offense, it's a $50 fine. Subsequent offense is six hours cleaning service or $150 fine, and there's a delivery of the statement of the public -- I'm sorry, the health risks, et cetera.
And then for more than five ounces its first offense $500.
Subsequent offense finally becomes a Class D misdemeanor.
So am I correct, through you, Mr. Speaker to the good
Chairman that the only way for a person under 21, if Bill were to pass to be criminalized, arrested for possession of -- simple possession, not intent to deliver a simple possession of cannabis is if it's a second offense of five ounces or more. Is that a correct interpretation?
Through you, Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 219 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Stafstrom
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
For mere possession. That's correct, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Howard.
REP. HOWARD (43RD):
Certainly, a portion of the Bill, again that I will say that I support.
I agree that the emphasis here in Section 2 on prevention and deterrence for young people is admirable, it's well crafted.
And I'm glad that it's the way that it is.
Turning the good Proponent’s attention to Section 18 of the
Bill. And to the good Proponent, I have been on the new Bill.
It's line 980. So as I read that, am I to understand that if a vehicle is stopped, with two 19-year-old, young people in it, and an officer detects the odor of raw marijuana, which certainly we can all smell, that officer is prohibited based sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 220 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
solely upon the presence of the odor of marijuana from searching that vehicle and taking that cannabis from those young people so they can consume it. Is that correct?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Mr. Speaker I him to slow down and rephrase. -
- repeat that a little bit because it does depend in large part on the reason for the stop.
So through you, if you could re-give his hypothetical, I'd appreciate it.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Howard. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 221 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. HOWARD (43RD):
Sure. So imagine for the moment that we have to 19-year-old young people, they're driving down a road. I don't know
Constitution Boulevard and Shelton for example.
They run a red light. They get pulled over by a police officer. The officer walks up to the car he then smells what he knows with his training experience to be the odor of marijuana or cannabis.
Can he on that probable cause search that vehicle to take that cannabis from them?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Stafstrom
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through Madam Speaker -- through Mr. Speaker, not based on the odor alone.
Through you. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 222 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Howard.
REP. HOWARD (43RD):
Thank you and certainly we know that he can't ask for consent. The officer can't ask for consent. So that is making it very difficult.
So we create we've crafted Legislation carefully to make sure that we are doing The best that we can to take this -- what will be now legal cannabis and keep it from the hands of our young people.
I think the good Chairman himself said that he as a father doesn't want in the hands of his young children, I share that same concern for my young children. As a father, I'm sure most of my colleagues feel the same way, if not all.
So we've recognized that we've taken the necessary steps to make sure they're not going to be criminalized. And yet, we're still putting a prohibition into stop our law enforcement officers from seizing that cannabis so that those young people cannot further destroy their minds with it. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 223 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
I don't understand why we would do that. I guess I'll propose that to the chairman. Why would we prohibit our officers from doing that if we've already set up the safeguards to make sure we're not criminalizing it?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Stafstrom
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Mr. Speaker, obviously, particularly with respect to a youth in a car, the biggest concern is whether that youth is operating the car under the influence.
And we haven't gotten to this yet. But clearly, one of the differences between alcohol and cannabis, the way we structured in this Bill is with alcohol, someone who's over 21, we allow them a certain thresholds right point away.
It's not a zero tolerance policy, you're allowed to have a couple beers and drive a car in the state of Connecticut. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 224 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
For cannabis, it's zero tolerance, right? If you're driving under the influence of cannabis, that's illegal. If that car is pulled over for running a red light, the officer walks up to the car and says, I smell the odor of cannabis.
This Bill, specifically in lines 1005 to 1009 allows the officer to test the driver for whether they're operating under the influence of cannabis.
All it does not do is allow the officer to kind of search around in the car for what could potentially turn out to be secondary violations.
The idea here is again, to get those who are operating under the influence of cannabis off our roads. And that is specifically allowed in this Bill and in this Section.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Howard. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 225 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. HOWARD (43RD):
I am very grateful that the good Chairman represented driving under the influence I'm going to get to that in a moment, but it won't.
So as I understand it went there. But if two 19-year-olds, or three or four or one or anybody in a car, none of whom are 21 years old, have raw marijuana in their center console that they are intending on smoking and damaging they're still developing brain as we've understand it because we want them to be 21.
The officer stops him for a legitimate motor vehicle violation smells wrong marijuana in the car, perhaps he tests a driver, perhaps he doesn't and the driver passes the test. These
19 year olds are free to go where their cannabis smoke at a later date. And there's nothing a police officer can do to stop it.
So I'm glad that the good Proponent pointed out DWI and a zero tolerance policy for cannabis when it comes to driving on our roads which we all drive on. My children ride their school bus on my wife, my family members going to work et cetera, drive on these roads. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 226 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
I don't think I need to remind my colleagues that in conjunction with distracted driving and speeding, driving influence is a major fatal concern on our highways.
So I was glad to see in Section 112 that the consumption of cannabis while driving is expressly prohibited.
I was also glad to see in Section 113, that smoking cannabis in a vehicle while someone else is driving is expressly prohibited.
However, both section 112 and section 113 specifically say explicitly, that a police officer who observes that activity cannot stop that vehicle. Why is that?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Stafstrom
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through Mr. Speaker again, it does not say they cannot stop the vehicle. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 227 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Again, if there's reasonable suspicion that the individual is driving under the influence or if they've committed some other traffic violation. Certainly, the vehicle can be pulled over and a roadside test can be administered at that time.
What we don't want to do is we don't want to create an opportunity for police officers to engage in racial profiling to say oh gee, I thought I saw him smoking my bad I pulled them over as a result of it.
Or, you know, it's quite difficult to tell the difference, particularly from a car's length away or, or you know, maybe if the officers is set up a speed trap of whether someone is smoking a cigarette or a joint, we certainly don't want officers pulling someone over for smoking a cigarette.
So we have drawn what I believe is an appropriate and careful balance in this Bill of saying yes, of course someone can be pulled over for a zero tolerance suspicion of driving under the influence or for other traffic violations.
If as part of that stop, the individual was observed smoking, inhaling or ingesting cannabis while driving or his a sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 228 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
passenger, It's an additional violation over and above the other violations that the individual may have committed.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Howard.
REP. HOWARD (43RD):
I thank the good Chairman for his response, but I would submit that today in the state of Connecticut, it is illegal to smoke marijuana.
Infraction whatever, driving down the road, walking down the street, cannot do.
As Chairman knows, I spent the last 12 plus months working diligently with members of a whole bunch of different groups to try to work through miscommunications, misconceptions, in many cases, disparities between certain communities and the police.
I've heard an awful lot. I've been told a lot of things.
I've never, not one time in 12 months, had a person tell me that sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 229 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
people of color, Brown and Black people are being stopped by police because they're smoking a cigarette. And the officer said it was a marijuana cigarette.
And he thought it was and that's why he stopped and having heard one single person say that.
The good Chairman knows that it's illegal to drink while driving in the state of Connecticut. I have not heard of a whole bunch of folks being pulled over, because they're drinking an
Arnold Palmer, or perhaps a Red Bull. And the officer mistook it for a beer or a Coors Light or a Root Beer mistook for a Bud
Light. I have not heard that.
I've not heard in all these conversations. And many, many I had, in large numbers, officers stopping people saying, well, he's holding his wallet and I thought it was a cell phone.
We're singling this one thing out. And we're telling the people of Connecticut that the people that we pay to go out on the road, and make sure that you can drive without someone coming across your line hitting you head on are going to have to wave as somebody goes by putting an inhalant into their body sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 230 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
that is impairing their ability to operate that 3000 pound ballistic missile that we call a motor vehicle.
A law, whether it's under age possession, whether it's DWI, smoking while driving with that's unenforceable isn't a law.
It's a suggestion. This is not a partisan issue. This is a public safety matter. And it seems extremely irresponsible.
We talk about responsible and equitable regulation. There's nothing responsible about that. It's irresponsible to tell folks that they can drive down the street and if all they're doing is impairing their ability while they're driving, and manage to stay in the lane for that time that the officer observes them, free to go. Not going to be pulled over.
Why put it in here? Section 163 of the Bill. And I did hear the good Proponent earlier in the dialogue say that, you know, there's running parallels here to marijuana and alcohol, and I agree seems reasonable to do that they are very comparable.
And section 163 makes it a class A misdemeanor, which is believe a $1,000 fine, I think now 364 days in jail to deliver cannabis to a person under 21. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 231 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Yet 30- 86 of our general statutes make makes it unclassified felony to deliver alcohol to somebody under 21.
It’s 18 months $3500 fine.
So why is it that we are -- I don't want to say incentivizing because they're not incentivizing? But why are we making it a less of a crime for an adult? A person -- I believe it says over 23 in the Bill.
Why are we making it less of a crime to deliver cannabis than alcohol? Is it substantively less dangerous? Is there some reason why we're making it less of a crime?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Stafstrom
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I know the good Representative, the Ranking Member of the Public Safety and I've had occasion to discuss this over the last couple days. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 232 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
He's absolutely right. There is a disparity in the way our current alcohol statute is written versus how this proposed cannabis Bill is with respect to this particular crime.
It's my belief that the current alcohol crime, which is a felony, so to say that a 24-year-old who gives their younger brother a beer at the age of 20, or 20, and a half shy of their
21st birthday is a felon, to me is way, way too strict a penalty that we currently have on our books. And, frankly, I’m planning to introduce a Bill to rectify that next legislative session and bring it back in line, bring it down to the class a misdemeanor offense.
You know, that I think is the proper way to address this discrepancy. And, you know, the good Representative has my word as Chair of the Judiciary Committee that we can work on that
Bill together next session.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Howard. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 233 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. HOWARD (43RD):
Thank you, Speaker, as always, I welcome that. And I'm happy to work in collaboration with the good Chairman, as we often do. And I and I also take him at his word that he's mentioned several times that we will work on this Bill as it goes forward and continue to make Amendments.
I would submit perhaps that bringing the two of them into line for the short term until we can go back and perhaps amend them both may be the best way to do it. So we don't inadvertently have people choose who want to help say their younger brother choose cannabis over alcohol.
You know, Mr. Speaker I'm a little frustrated today because truth be told, I don't substantively fundamentally disagree with legalizing cannabis in the state of Connecticut.
I'm been very clear about that. I think that the impact that cannabis has on society, for those who aren't using it is limited in comparison to alcohol and certainly significantly limited in comparison to other harder drugs.
But I've said and I'll say it again, there are two things that are extremely important when we consider this. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 234 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
One is keeping out of the hands of young people to the best that we can make that a priority. And two, limit the impact that has on society as a matter of public safety, specific to drive while impaired.
And on those two things in the sections that I outlined here. We have failed. I like to correct that right now.
Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of an Amendment LCO
10936. I'll ask the Clerk call the Amendment and I be allowed leave of the Chamber to summarize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Will the Clerk please call LCO 10936? House Amendment "C".
CLERK:
House Amendment Schedule "C" LCO No. 10936 offered by
Representative Howard. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 235 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
The Representative seeks leave of the Chambers to summarize the Amendment is their objections to the summarization. Is there objection?
Hearing none, Representative Howard, you may proceed with summarization.
REP. HOWARD (43RD):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So if this Bill makes an Amendment to Section 18, that makes it so that upon a stop by a police officer where there exists the odor of marijuana and there's people in the vehicle, nobody in the vehicle is over 21 that the officer can then search the vehicle to seize that, that cannabis to stop the ingestion of these young people and get them referred to everything that's outlined in Section 2.
Again, I'll stress that this is that possession, outside of a second offense for five ounces or more does not criminalize these young people. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 236 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
It takes the cannabis from them, so they can't smoke it or ingest it. And it gets them referred to a place where they can perhaps get some help.
It also makes an Amendment Mr. Speaker, to Section 112, where it strikes subsection C, which is the prohibition -- in the interest of time, it does the same thing for Section 113, subsection C.
Those are the two prohibitions against the police stopping somebody who they see driving down the road, impairing their ability by using cannabis.
They can stop them and take action on that immediately without necessitating a whole bunch of other things before we have a bad, fatal incident perhaps.
And the last thing it does is it brings in just under
Section 163. For the time being, it makes the penalty for delivery of alcohol to minors and delivery of cannabis brings them into line for the time being until the good chairman and I have an opportunity next year to work together to perhaps amend both of those things into something that is a bit more reasonable. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 237 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
But I think in the interim, it would -- does not incentivize those who would give any sort of drug or alcohol to our young people. The incentive to choose one over the other.
I think we can do this. I think Connecticut can do it correctly. And I intentionally Mr. Speaker, did not put anything in here that has anything to do with partisanship. That has anything to do that's unrealistic or illogical.
These are reasonable changes that address the two major concerns that those in opposition of cannabis legalization have public safety in the hands of our young people.
I urge Members to adopt this Amendment. And Mr. Speaker, I would ask if the vote is taken, it be taken and be taken by roll.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
The vote will be taken by roll. Representative Stafstrom sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 238 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in opposition to the Amendment for the reasons indicated.
I think the statutory scheme in the underlying Bill is appropriate and certainly is a major, major enhancement, over existing law with respect to the issues of driving under the influence of cannabis in our state.
As we train officers, as air ride officers, we increase the number of DREs, et cetera.
I think there is -- we're certainly not in any way prohibiting police officers from stopping someone on the suspicion of driving under the influence, which of course, is our first and foremost concern.
I do believe there is certainly a fear and a risk of increased profiling by adopting this language.
And, as indicated, I do have very serious reservations about creating a new felony offense for someone who is 24 years old, giving cannabis to their 20-year-old younger sibling. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 239 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
I think the issue with alcohol as I indicator we can address next year, my proposal is to go low or not to go higher.
And so for those reasons, I asked my colleagues to reject this
Amendment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Will remark further on the Bill as Amended? If you want to remark on the Amendment, please raise your hand and I'll call on each one of you.
Representative Betts.
REP. BETTS (78TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to not only support this
Amendment, but in listening to the debate. We've talked about protecting the youth, which you clearly want to do, we talk about public safety, which is obviously the number one priority of everybody.
The one thing I don't hear is how clear this is going to be in terms of enforcement. I sit there and think to myself, turn off the phone. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 240 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
I sit here and ask myself if I'm a policeman. And I want to try and do what's best in the interest of everybody, I get the feeling and listening to the debate here, I'm going to be very hesitant, I'm going to be very reluctant to take any action because I don't have any confidence that what I'm trying to do in keeping everybody safe is going to be viewed that way.
And if we're not clear here, and we have a lot of misunderstandings about what the intent is or what the words say, I'm further convinced that if I were a policeman, better safe than sorry, I'm not going to take the chance because I will become the victim and all I'm trying to do is keep everybody safe, or to prevent somebody from doing some harm to themselves.
I really sit here conflicted as to why we can't do something like this, which is really common sense. Ass the good
Proponent said, it has nothing to do with partisanship. It's just common sense.
We're either going to work together to make this a success.
Or we're not. And failing to adapt this, shows no flexibility or willingness to try and clarify what are some very confusing points and issues. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 241 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
I'm having an overall problem just on the idea that you know, on the one hand, we're going to ban vaping and smoking.
And yet we're going to allow this.
Maybe someday somebody can show or explain to me the difference. But I don't see it and I don't understand it.
What I do know is we want our police -- enforcement officers to be able to act with confidence and to be able to act consistently.
No profiling, just very objective consistency. And I don't think that's asking too much. And I think we put them in a very, very difficult position to do their job, as well as to try and be able, at the same time prevent bad things from happening.
Again, the good Proponent of this Amendment, was speaking from his heart. He knows what he's talking about because he's a policeman.
My question is, are we listening? Are we listening? Or have we already made up our minds, and we're just going to go forward with this. No other change, no other explanation, we'll put it off to later. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 242 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
To have somebody be able to articulate the position of what it's like, is a policeman, as we just heard, it’s something I hear. And we're supposed to be supporters of people who enforce laws.
If we do not adopt this, and vote for it, I respectfully submit you've just made their jobs extremely difficult, and really have hindered the goal of what this Legislation is designed to do.
So I ask people, put yourself as a parent, as somebody who might, unfortunately have to deal with a situation where somebody was hurt in a car accident, because somebody, and I don't know how you're going to be able to tell if they're impaired, but we do know somebody was smoking Pot is that the message we want to leave people? It’s certainly not one I can do.
And that's why I strongly urge people to please listen to what's been said and support this Amendment. Thank you very much. Me Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 243 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Thank you Representative Betts. Will you remark further on the Bill as Amended?
Representative Rutigliano.
REP. RUTIGLIANO (123RD):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. I wasn't going to talk on the Amendment. But I was sitting here listening to the debate about the Amendment. And I just wanted to be clear about a couple of things, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the proponent of the Amendment.
A police officer pulls over a car full of children, minors under 21. Sees marijuana and through your Amendment, they don't get arrested. Is that true?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Howard. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 244 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. HOWARD (43RD):
So the underlying Bill prevents -- if the officer were to smell marijuana, the odor of it could not search the car to take it.
What the Amendment seeks to do is allow the officer to search the car so he can take it.
The underlying Bill doesn't allow for an arrest in that situation. It would be an infraction.
I hope I answered the gentleman's question.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Rutigliano. Representative Howard.
REP. RUTIGLIANO (123RD):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, is an infraction, basically a ticket? sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 245 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
So you're saying that somebody who clearly -- they smell marijuana in the car, possibly just smoked it, there is no test to see if he's impaired. He or she is impaired like alcohol, we have a breathalyzer we just hand a ticket and this person is allowed to drive away?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Howard.
REP. HOWARD (43RD):
Well, he wouldn't even hand him a ticket, because the officer can’t search to find it and take it from him -- take it from the young person and issue them a ticket.
So if you were to pull over a car with a 19-year-old driver in it, and you smell marijuana. Maybe you test the driver, maybe you don't he passes the test, whatever that test may be for marijuana, and he’s not impaired at the moment. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 246 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
You have to let him go. You can't even give them a ticket because you can't search the car to find it.
So we're, we're prohibiting 19-year-olds from having it.
But when they have it, we're just telling them to have a good day.
That's the -- Amendment seeks to change that and allows the officer to take it. Perhaps you're seeing infraction, maybe use some discretion, depending on the person's age. But that's what the Amendment seeks to do.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Rutigliano.
REP. RUTIGLIANO (123RD):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know the question seemed a little rhetorical. But I honestly was sitting here and I couldn't believe my own ears that we would allow. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 247 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
We just spent basically the better part of 30 years trying to get people to not drink and drive. Right?
I mean, we all agree with it. There's designated drivers everywhere. There's education campaigns all over the place. And we've done a fairly decent job of reducing the incidence of drunk driving on the highways.
The fact that we would pass a Bill and not allow – listen, we -- okay, we all agree you can't arrest them. But my God, take the Pot and don't let him drive.
I mean, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. And I felt I needed to ask that question.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the
Bill as Amended? Representative Callahan. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 248 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. CALLAHAN (108TH):
Thanks, thank you, Mr. Speaker, I was going to speak on the underlying Bill.
But in in the interest of time, I would rather support my good colleague’s Amendment. I thank the Representative from the
43rd for his expertise in standing up and speaking on this and proposing this Amendment.
When such a huge Bill is proposed, obviously there in the drafting, there was some things overlooked in there could have been some problems. I thank God that we have the good
Representative here to point out the obvious problems.
Sending someone on the road with an impairment that would endanger other drivers is a disaster for the state of
Connecticut. And I believe in the research that I've done, someone can be impaired for three to 10 hours when they're under the influence of cannabis.
And I think that it this is a commonsense fix, has nothing to do with race or racial profiling. This is just a commonsense fix to keep the people of Connecticut safe. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 249 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
And I've watched and learned this whole session. And anytime we propose an Amendment, their side lights have red our side lights have green.
That certainly seems like a time where we could like light the board up green together instead of -- instead of being partisan. Let's come together for the safety of the people of
Connecticut in this commonsense Amendment. And I thank the good
Representative very much for proposing it.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Thank you, Representative Callahan. Will you remark further on the Amendment before us? Representative Fiorello, please.
REP. FIORELLO (149TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make a very brief comment for all of us who are listening, that Colorado made -- you know, colloquially known recreational marijuana widely available in their state starting in 2012.
And Mothers Against Driving, adopted drugged driving officially as part of their fight in 2015. In 2018, we might sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 250 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
have all grown up with that sort of hilarious ad. “This is your brain on drugs.” We all remember the egg on the hot pan.
In 2018, they re-released that public service announcement, as in this is your brain on cannabis. What we are introducing is serious. This Amendment, I am so grateful to my peer for introducing this Amendment. These are measures, as we introduce this into our society in Connecticut, that we must address these tweaks on the margin.
This is just a tweak on the margins of a huge social change that we are bringing to our state. I strongly urge that everyone vote for this Amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the
Amendment? Will you remark further on the Amendment?
Representative Candelaria, sir, you the floor. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 251 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of this Amendment.
You know, where I come from, and I understand the reason why this this Amendment is being proposed, and I acknowledge the
Representative-- good Representative for his intentions.
But where I come from, you know, we have fought very hard to address the issue of racial profiling that exists where I come from, and it happens consistently.
I'll tell you a little story. I visited a -- I took time from work and I visited one of our cultivators and I went in for a tour. They put me in a gown, all dressed in white.
I did the whole tour. I left the building, drove in my vehicle to my employer, thinking nothing of it, right, I smelled the smell of cannabis on me. But after a while it just disappeared, maybe I got used to it. So in that particular instance, I would have gotten stopped by a police officer. I wasn't smoking, but I wreaked heavily with the smell of cannabis. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 252 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
I would have been stopped searched. I would have gone through all of that. And why? Maybe because the smell of it or maybe because I look the way I look, Latino, Puerto Rica
That's my only concern. And that's why this provision was written the way it was. It is to protect those individuals. The language in here does not preclude an officer from stopping, if that person is driving erratically, but because we see smoke coming out of the vehicle. That's not an excuse to stop the vehicle.
And that's my concern because I've lived racial profiling in many other instances, which I'm not going to have the time here to talk about.
So I thank the gentleman, but unfortunately, I encourage my colleagues not support this Amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the
Amendment? Representative Veach, you have the floor, madam. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 253 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. VEACH (30TH):
Thank you. I just like to mention that I'm rising in support of this Amendment, I think it's very important that we really need to consider what the good Representative has said.
Clearly, smoking marijuana puts you in an altered state, a state that you should not be driving a motor vehicle, let alone working some sort of machinery with, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this Amendment. Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Thank you, Representative. Representative Yaccarino, sir, you have the floor.
REP. YACCARINO (87TH):
[Mic off] but listening to the debate back and forth, I think it is very important. If you're 18, 19, 17. You could even drive at 16 and a half.
If you're seen by a police officer smoking or pulled over for doing something illicit, for the betterment of the child for sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 254 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
the kid, you're not arresting the kid. You're taking the marijuana away, they're not getting arrested. Am I correct?
They’re not getting arrested, you're giving -- you're trying to give them -- teach them a lesson.
And I think that's what we want to listen here. You're not
– and I’m telling you now for a fact, because I was 18 at one time too.
If you’re smoking weed, you're going to drink beer too. So it's a bad combination. So you're not getting arrested. You're just giving them a warning if I'm not mistaken. Could I ask, through you, Mr. Speaker?
So if I'm smoking weed around, you pulled me over. You're not just pulling me over for the smoke you're pulling me over for an infraction is that right?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Howard. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 255 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. HOWARD (43RD):
I thank, the good Representative for the question.
So the underlying Bill speaks to the penalties. And he is correct that for a first offense, nobody's going to get arrested, they're going to get some sort of administrative sanction, depending on their age, et cetera.
But I would submit to him that what this Bill -- what the
Amendment seeks to do, is if a police officer is parked on the side of the road, and sees somebody going by smoking a marijuana cigarette, the officer can then stop them before they commit motor vehicle violations, just like they can if the person drives by drinking a beer.
Certainly just smoke coming out of a vehicle would not be reasonable suspicion to pull a car over, because it could very easily be a cigarette or something else. But something that looks to be a marijuana cigarette.
And indeed, you don't know for sure any more that you know for sure, when you pull somebody over for drinking a can whether or not it's a beer, or any more that you know for sure, when a vehicle leaves behind a closed building at 3:30 in the morning, sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 256 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
and you stop them under suspicion of a burglary and find out they just went back there to whatever -- relieve themselves or check out noise in the car or whatever.
You don't know for sure. But it's a reasonable suspicion based on your observations. I'll remind my colleague that in short order in this state, all that's going to be on camera as well.
So through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Yaccarino.
REP. YACCARINO (87TH):
I appreciate that answer.
I guess my point is, you're really not -- the person's not going to get a -- they're not going to have a felony against them. They're going to get, most likely a warning and it's in the long run. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 257 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
In the moral run, I know from experience in the long run, it's for their betterment. So I would urge support of this
Amendment. I think it makes commonsense.
And it's really a public safety more than anything else.
Keeping somebody off the road, that’s stoned or drinking at the same time.
Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Thank you Representative. Will you remark further on the
Amendment?
Please raise your hand. Will you remark further?
If not, will guests -- staff and guests please come to the wall of the House?
Members take their seats or their portals. The machine will be open. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 258 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
CLERK:
The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber or to your portals.
The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber or to your portals.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Have all the Members voted? Have all Members voted? Have all Members voted?
Will the Members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast?
If all Members have voted the machine will be locked.
And the Clerk will take a tally. The Clerk will announce the tally.
CLERK:
House Amendment Schedule "C":
Total Number Voting 134 Necessary for Adoption 68 Those voting Yea 53 sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 259 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Those voting Nay 81 Absent, not voting 17
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Amendment fails. (Gavel)
Representative Howard.
REP. HOWARD (43RD):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am disappointed that the
Amendment failed in large part because no is Bill is perfect.
Everybody in this room knows that.
There are other parts of this Bill that I don't particularly like but having put so much of my life into public safety and so much of my life into bettering the lives of young people. I simply cannot get past the prohibitions here that are barriers to ensuring public safety, and ensuring that our young people don't have access to cannabis.
So while I would have to fundamentally support the legalization of cannabis in the state of Connecticut, with this sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 260 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Legislation the way that it is and those sections staying the way they are, I simply just cannot do it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Thank you, Representative Howard. Representative Dubitsky of the 47th you have the floor, sir.
REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we've been debating this Bill for quite a number of hours.
And one of the reasons is, it's enormous. That thing is a
Leviathan. It's got almost 300 pages.
I went and looked at the -- at the summary, the OLR Bill analysis, which is supposed to be a summary of the Bill. The summary of the Bill is 187 pages long. The thing is enormous.
It creates all these new entities. There's money flying all over the place. I was listening to my colleague from
Wallingford, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, go sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 261 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
through the Bill. And I was aghast at all of the things that I had missed when I went through the 300-page Bill.
To me, it seems like legalized corruption. It seems like a like a racketeering scheme that uses drugs as the basis for the scheme. It tries to identify specific groups and almost individuals who are going to profit handily from this and excludes others.
It doesn't make sense to me that how we -- you know, this is not legalizing recreational marijuana. This is creating an enormous state bureaucracy that is going to operate a drug scheme, in my view. So, you know, if we're going to legalize marijuana, well, let's legalize marijuana.
Let's not create this massive bureaucracy where the state itself is going to be a drug dealer.
So, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of an Amendment
LCO 10935. I ask that it be called and I be able to summarize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Will the Clerk please call LCO 10935? House Amendment D. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 262 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
CLERK:
House Amendment Schedule "D", LCO No. 10935 offered by
Representative Dubitsky, Representative Fishbein et al.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
The Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the Amendment.
Is there objection to summarization? Is there objection?
Hearing none, Representative Dubitsky, you may proceed with summarization, sir.
REP. DUBITSKY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The goal here is to legalize recreational marijuana. This is your vehicle to do so.
That's all it does. It says we will no longer have laws against the sale, possession growing of marijuana by anybody over 21. If you're over 21, knock yourself out. It's now a legal substance. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 263 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
It doesn't change a lot of other laws. What it does do is it also expunges can all the convictions for the previous convictions for use possession et cetera. As the underlying Bill does. And it continues to make it illegal for anybody under 21 to possess or use marijuana.
But it essentially if we're going to legalize it, let's legalize it. Let's let people grow it in their own homes, let's let people buy it, sell it, smoke it, carry it.
To the concerns we've heard before about police officers being prohibited from searching a vehicle if they encounter a minor that they believe has marijuana, this does not change existing law.
So it's actually very simple. I understand that it does grow to be 38 pages long. But most of that is all definitions.
It changes very little in our statutes except says, it's no longer a crime in Connecticut, under Connecticut law.
Now, the underlying Bill has some major constitutional issues, because as we know, marijuana is a Schedule I drug under federal law. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 264 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Well, nothing that the underlying Bill or this Amendment does, can change that. It will still be a federal crime. And we can't do anything about that in this Legislature.
So what we're saying is, it's now no longer a state crime, it's still a federal crime. If you get busted by the feds, you're on your own. That would be the case under this Amendment, or under the underlying Bill. That's not going to change.
But what does change from the underlying Bill, is that there isn't this massive bureaucracy. There isn't all this money being funneled in certain directions. There isn't, as I said, in my opinion, organized corruption, legalized, organized corruption.
Now, I looked at the fiscal notes on the underlying Bill, and on my Amendment -- I was actually pretty amused, the fiscal note on the underlying Bill says that ultimately, after about four or five years, the state will bring in about $75 million from this -- from this massive bureaucracy.
Under my Bill, the state will bring in $40 million. So yeah, it's a little less, but it doesn't have the state operating as, in my opinion, a corrupt drug dealer. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 265 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
It just says the state is no longer involved. People can do what they want with this weed, which it is, the damn thing is a weed. Grows in places where you wouldn't think it is. So Mr.
Speaker, I offer this Amendment. I urge adoption and I ask that when the vote is taken, it be taken by roll.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
The vote will be taken by roll. Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, just a couple of questions to the Proponent of the Bill, as I was just handed this 38-page Amendment.
First, Mr. Speaker, as I understand, this is a strike all
Amendment, so it would take what is in the underlying Bill which is 288 pages, would eliminate all but 30 pages of that.
So it would cut the Bill -- would cut 250 pages out of the
Bill. Through you, Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 266 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Dubitsky.
REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):
Mr. Speaker, this would replace the underlying Bill. It wouldn't cut it down, it would eliminate the 300 pages of the underlying Bill and replace it with this.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Right, thank you Mr. Speaker. So for example, in the underlying Bill where we prescribe very specific requirements in terms of how potent cannabis could be, how it has to be packaged, and how it has to be prohibited against being advertised to minors, all of those prohibitions all of that language that restricts and really regulates cannabis, in those sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 267 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
instances, those would be pulled out of the Bill, if this
Amendment were to be adopted, is that the case Mr. Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative the Dubitsky.
REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):
Mr. Speaker, yes.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Right. Okay. And Mr. Speaker in the underlying Bill, we change the clean, the indoor Clean Air Act and increase the number of places where cannabis and tobacco quite frankly can't be smoked, or vaped. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 268 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
We allow employers to prohibit someone from coming to work high, and put in place more stringent drug free workplace protections in the underlying Bill.
Those provisions would be stripped out if this Amendment were adopted. Is that correct?
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Dubitsky.
REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):
Mr. Speaker? Yes. For any provision that is currently in the existing law that would remain, but any of those provisions that are in the underlying Bill would be removed.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Stafstrom. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 269 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Right. So Mr. Speaker, the underlying Bill allows towns greater flexibility to determine zoning in their own communities, to determine whether they want to allow sale and the establishment of these, grow facilities in their towns.
Under this Bill, as I understand it, anyone would be allowed to sell wherever they want. So a town wouldn't have that ability to restrict sale?
Back to the conversation I had with the Representative from
New Canaan, for example, the town of New Canaan would not be allowed to pass a restriction zoning restriction that says wait a second, we're not going to allow a sale or grow in our town if this Amendment were adopted, is that correct, Mr. Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Dubitsky.
REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, that's not correct. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 270 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Mr. Speaker, how is that not correct?
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Dubitsky.
REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):
Mr. Speaker, this does not affect current zoning law.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Right, Mr. Speaker, the provision whereby the municipality,
10% of the town of New Canaan, for example, could petition for a sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 271 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
referendum to say we want an outright prohibition which is specifically contemplated and allowed in this Bill, but not by existing law.
That ability would be taken away if this Amendment were adopted. Is that correct?
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Dubitsky.
REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No, that's not correct.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Stafstrom. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 272 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Mr. Speaker, could the Proponent show me where that language exists either in the Bill or under -- or existing Law?
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Dubitsky.
REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Under existing law, towns have the ability to zone with regard to certain uses, and prohibiting certain uses in the town is part of a town's zoning power.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Stafstrom. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 273 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Mr. Speaker, in the underlying Bill, we create the amount of funding going -- we increase the amount of funding going to prevention to inform folks that, you know, the cannabis, while legal is still a drug.
Does the Amendment propose to do that?
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Dubitsky.
REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Amendment does not designate where certain funding goes.
The Legislature is certainly free to take the $40 million that would be generated under this Amendment and spend it on anything it likes, including drug cessation programs, et cetera. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 274 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'll leave it there.
But I think I've highlighted a couple of my major concerns with this, which is, there is no guarantee there'd be more money for prevention.
There is no guarantee that an employer could designate a drug free workplace.
There is no guarantee that the state would provide funding for training of air ride officers or for more drug recognition officers.
There is no guarantee that potency would be limited under this Amendment or that packaging would be such that it would not appeal to minors. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 275 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Mr. Speaker, the legalization of drug is a complicated and involved undertaking.
It's why it's taken this legislature the better part of nine years to get to where we are today to get to the various versions of the Bill we've seen, not just the session, but even over the last week -- week and a half in this Bill.
I, Mr. Speaker, frankly, I think it's irresponsible for us to try to legalize the drug with 38 pages of text and statute. I think this is -- needs to be done carefully, delicately.
The framework has to be put in place, the underlying Bill does that.
The underlying Bill addresses many of the ancillary societal causes that I've heard expressed here today.
And for those reasons, I submit that if folks want to responsibly legalize this drug, the proper way to do it is the underlying Bill, not this Amendment. Therefore, I'll be voting against it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 276 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the
Amendment? Representative Rutigliano. Sir you have the floor.
REP. RUTIGLIANO (123RD):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, you know, we've been talking about the legalization of marijuana for quite some time, not only today, but through the years. And honestly, my position has evolved over time.
I used to be a hard no, really against it, thought it was bad public policy.
Because Mr. Speaker, for the better part of my adult life,
I have employed young people. And through all those years, I've seen the effects on marijuana use on these kids that worked for me for all this time, and its -- many of them would come later and say, Oh, Mr. R, I was sort of in a daze the entire time I worked for you. I don't remember a lot.
I used to smoke a lot of marijuana, I used to use a lot of illegal drugs and, and everything like that. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 277 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
And I thought to myself, well, you know what, marijuana is bad, and I should be against it. Right? But then, you know, you start thinking about things, and you sort of evolve over time.
And over time, I say to myself, well, who am I to tell you what to do in the privacy of your own home.
So really, where I've ended up is, is that I don't favor the commercialization of marijuana. I think, turning marijuana over to people not unlike me, people who make money, capitalists. My entire job is to make more money, and increase my market share.
I listened to two ads on Sirius radio for legal Pot on my way to the Capitol today. I drove by two Billboards this week, advertising legal marijuana. This is what people do, they increase their market share and their profits.
So I believe, and I'll ask the Proponent of the Amendment to clarify that this Amendment allows people to grow their own, smoke their own, have a party, trade it with their friends, but it doesn't allow for the sale of marijuana. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 278 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
And that I would support, quite frankly, what people do in the privacy of their own home, as long as you're not driving or hurting anybody is really, quite frankly, none of my business.
And this is the position where I stand now. Mr. Speaker, it's evolved over time from a hard no, to sort of live and let live.
But for the sake of our kids, and our highways and all the other problems associated with the commercialization of marijuana is what I'm trying to avoid.
So Through you, Mr. Speaker, because it was a little complicated when the good Chairman was asking the good
Representative, does this Amendment allow for the sale of marijuana? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Dubitsky. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 279 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What this does, is it removes all state prohibitions against the growing, possession, smoking and sale. So it essentially opens up everything under state law.
However, it is still a federal crime to sell marijuana. So we are not legalizing anything. We can't legalize anything. We have no power to legalize anything. All we're doing is we're saying it's no longer a state crime. Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Rutigliano.
REP. RUTIGLIANO (123RD):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, it's unfortunate, Mr.
Speaker, because quite frankly, I think the state has the right and the ability to regulate commerce and the sale of goods and services.
So although I may be in favor of what we call the Vermont model, or the main model where people can grow their own and do sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 280 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
what they like in the privacy of their own home, I cannot support anything that promotes the sale or the commercialization of marijuana.
So if this Amendment, does it, just allow people to live their life the way they want, and not turn it over too large what will end up invariably being large corporations, big marijuana, corporate special interests.
And quite frankly, if you read this gigantic Bill before
It's Mr. Speaker, it is inviting problems. I mean, the amount of hands in the pot and the amount of -- I meant that figuratively, but the amount of people who are participating in the profits in the proceeds of marijuana is just going to lead to more corruption and really a lot of insider deal and what I thought the other side didn't like, Mr. Speaker, a lot of crony capitalism, which I am not for. So I think marijuana, if you want to do it, fine. Just don't sell it. Don't advertise it.
Because invariably, we'll try to increase our market share, which means the kids will get turned on to it. And all the crazy gummy bear stuff and the Billboards and the radio ads. I just don't think it's good. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 281 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
So Mr. Speaker I rose in support of the Amendment, but I'm going to sit opposing the Amendment and that is because it allows for the sale of marijuana. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Thank you, Representative. Representative Dauphinais, you have the floor, Madam.
REP. DAUPHINAIS (44TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few comments regarding the
Amendment.
And I just wanted to make mention that we've heard of several concerns about the underlying Bill. We've listened to this for several hours, since some, I think right after lunch.
And I think what this Bill does is what most of the people in
Connecticut really want.
And I think as my good colleague mentioned, it simply removes the state prohibition on cannabis. It's really that simple, and that's what they're asking for. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 282 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
I think it takes the complications away. I stand in strong support of this Amendment. And I asked my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the
Amendment? Representative Cheeseman, you have the floor Madam.
REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I will share the sentiments of my good colleague, the Ranking Member of General Law, I had initially wanted to support this Amendment because I believe one, the cannabis plans that one would grow at home have a THC content of about 5%. The Franken plants that are grown now, the
THC content is upwards of 40 to 60%.
I don't want our young people to do this. I don't want people to get on the road to do this. But at these lower concentrations, I believe this is a safer drug. So I would have been supportive that. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 283 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
And I just want to address the argument that you know, we allow alcohol and tobacco and this is just the same.
Our brewers and distillers have not gone out of their way to take beer and spirits and increase the alcohol content by
5,10,100 times. That's exactly what has happened with marijuana.
There was huge pushback when cigarette manufacturers increased the nicotine content to make it more addictive. I equate the new, stronger marijuana to let's say 40 years ago, you were used to going into your local bar and having a couple of beers.
Now, fast forward 40 years and you go in and the alcohol content has gone from 7,8,10 percent to 70 or 80%.
And after two beers, you're functionally incoherent. That is the strength of today's marijuana. That's the increase in the psychoactive element.
So if you're going to grow your own at 5%, I could support that. But commercialization, sale, turning this into big alcohol and big tobacco is not something I could support. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 284 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
So it's with regret that I can't support this Amendment because I do share my good colleague from General Laws, somewhat libertarian streak.
And I think that's what the people of Connecticut want.
What they don't want is unfettered commercialization, danger to our youth, and a neglect of public safety. So thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Thank you Representative. Will you remark further on the
Amendment? Please raise your hand. Representative Fishbein, Sir you have the floor.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Amendment. You know, as I've said to a lot of people, this
Bill, the underlying Bill is not so much about marijuana, as it is just smoke and mirrors.
And we've clouded the whole argument by other issues. I do agree with the fundamental underpinnings of the Proponent of the sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 285 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Amendment because we come back to the constitution and if one actually did a good Google search, you will see that way back in
2017, I actually wrote an op-ed.
Actually 2016, it was before I got elected the first time to come up here. And in that op-ed, I stated that the war against cannabis sativa is one of unnecessary economic futility, and like prohibition of failure. And I was taking a task over that. I stand by that.
But the problem is that we come back to the fact that the
Fed, our Federal Government has been inefficient and irresponsible with addressing where this is, and the effect of the Amendment says that we fall upon federal law, at least with regard to 21 and over.
That we say that we're going to release those shackles, against those individuals who are caught in the smoke and mirrors of this Bill. And if the feds determined that it's appropriate to take this product off of Schedule-I, then we cross that bridge, perhaps. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 286 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
But until then, it's still illegal under federal law. Let's make this debate about marijuana. Let's not make it about everything else.
Things that have clouded this Bill, I assert merely for the purposes of getting marijuana over the finish line. There was a representation by the opponent to the Amendment, that the underlying Bill prohibits advertising to minors, it doesn't.
It makes reasonable efforts to have that not happen. In fact, reasonable, I think is right in the language. But there is no prohibition on advertising to minors.
So bringing up that this doesn't deal with that, at that same level, is once again, a smokescreen, the workplace issues is absent in the Bill, should this Amendment pass.
The workplace is free through collective bargaining or rules of the workplace to create their own rules. All too often individuals think the government has to step into every aspect of the economy, every aspect of private business, I have a level of faith. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 287 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
So should this Amendment pass, it doesn't impair all those individuals. It allows the free marketplace to take over when we talk about the increased amount of funding for prevention.
I mean, the funding for prevention under the underlying
Bill is a minority. That certainly isn't what comes to the forefront.
So I do rise in support of the Amendment. If the Amendment passes, and it's necessary we can make fixes in the next session. As we heard with the underlying Bill, there's going to be fixes. We all know that. So we'll come back next session.
We'll fix those concerns. But in the meantime, let's make this about marijuana and not something else. So thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Thank you Representative. Will you remark further on the
Amendment?
If not, will staff and guests please come to the wall the
House? Members please take your seat or your portals. The machine will be open. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 288 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
CLERK:
The House of Representative is VOTING by roll. Members to the Chamber or to your portals.
The House of Representative is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber or to your portals.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Have all the Members voted? Have all the Members voted?
Will the Members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all Members have voted the machine will be locked.
Representative Berger-Girvalo, you have the floor Madam.
REP. BERGER-GIRVALO (111TH):
Please cast my vote in the negative.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
In the negative. Thank you Representative. Will the Clerk please take the tally? Will the Clerk please announce the tally? sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 289 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
CLERK:
LC0 10935 designated House "A":
Total Number Voting 135 Necessary for Adoption 68 Those voting Yea 21 Those voting Nay 114 Absent, not voting 16
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
The Amendment fails. (Gavel)
Will you remark further on the Bill as Amended?
Representative Petit of the 22nd. Sir, you have the floor.
REP. PETIT (22ND):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A few comments. The proponent of the Bill can sit down, grab dinner.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Proceed, sir. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 290 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. PETIT (22ND):
Thank you. I guess we are into hour six here of the debate.
I just wanted to make a few comments from the Public Health point of view. Number one, noting that this Bill did not come through and though it has a major impact on Public Health, did not come through the Public Health Committee, interestingly. And
I don’t think marijuana per se really should be regulated like a standard commodity because it is not. And I think everybody in the room has been doing anything about this at least over the past three, four, five years and realizes that's really due to
THC, tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. And we also know about CBD, cannabidiol, which has many of the positive effects, especially on the neurologic and neurologically-related disorders. So we need to distinguish between different CBD-type effects and THC-type effects.
To get to the THC -- The THC issue is very active in the brain and what's different is -- and a number of speakers heretofore have alluded to it. The marijuana of the 60's, 70's and perhaps into the 80's, ran THC levels typically of two, four or five percent and now its genetically-modified marijuana plants, that percentage can go ever higher and the negative sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 291 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
effects of marijuana per se mediated through THC really are related often to that percentage of THC that's available.
So I think many people in the public don’t understand that and as a number of people I've spoken to here, that what people do in their own homes is fine and if they're smoking or consuming edibles and they're low-level THC, they may have minimal to no side effects or adverse events. However, if you have a genetic predisposition to a psychotic kind of disorder or psychosis or hallucinations or delusions, it can be precipitated by the use of high-potency THC.
A recently published medical article from Europe, from the
Netherlands specifically, showed that 50% of the first episodes of psychosis where half of those people that had those psychotic episodes for the first time are precipitated by ingestion of
THC-containing products that were greater than 10%. And this leads to major costs, in terms of human suffering, in terms of people's ability to function, their need for ongoing care. There is clearly a relationship in the literature now between people who heavily use higher-dose THC in the development of schizophrenia and other disorders with psychosis and delusions.
It's not common. It's not frequent. But for people who use sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 292 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
heavily, it can be an issue. And it's a societal issue that impacts us in terms of people's behaviors, emergency room visits, doctors' evaluations, ongoing therapy, ongoing psychotherapy, ongoing pharmacologic therapy for their disorder.
In addition, backtracking further, the CBD, cannabidiols, endocannabinoid system in the brain really plays an integral role in terms of nerve signaling and interrupting this, especially in people that are growing, as many people have alluded to the brain not fully becoming until 25, disruption in the signaling patterns in the developing brain can lead to significant disorders. There is pretty good data from the
Southern Hemisphere, New Zealand -- It's observational, it's not straightforward but people who had significant exposure under the age of 25 were much more likely to have slightly lower IQs, slightly worse memories, slightly worse executive function, et cetera. That impact is hard to measure but clearly, it’s out there. A number of other studies have looked at this.
In addition, people have measured things like focus, initiative and [inaudible]. When it's ingested during pregnancy, there is subtle neurological changes when the kids are evaluated later on, with a control group. With moms who have not had any sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 293 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
marijuana or THC exposure to those who had. There is an increase in incidents of problem-solving issues, memory issues, and attention issues in the children born to mothers who have had ingested marijuana or THC-containing compounds.
Interestingly, the issue of -- if you're talking smoking is less clear. Clearly, if you're using a combustible product, you probably have increased risk of pulmonary and cardiac issues mostly if you smoke. But when you look at the medical literature, that literature, that information is really hard to tease out. But for people who use it on a regular basis in that form, they're likely putting themselves at increased risk of pulmonary issues, probably cancer and cardiac disease. But again, that data is soft and has not been looked at well in the literature, even though marijuana has obviously been around for quite a while.
One of my previous colleagues here mentioned the 2017
National Academy of Science study that looked at the health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids, et cetera. And they mention some of it but clearly that study from 2017 shows respiratory problems, mental health problems, issues with automobile accidents, people have problems with progressing to sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 294 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
dependency and again, going back several times we've had one of the leading experts in the country who does research at Yale,
Dr. DeSouza up here testifying before several Committees, and he has been doing it for more than a quarter-century, looking at the effects of cannabis in addition to alcohol in terms of its affects. It clearly impairs people's ability to drive, and he notes that of the people that -- many of these studies show that many of the people that they interview don’t use cannabis alone, it's often combined with a glass of wine or a drink. So you have two compounds that can impair your fine motor skills and your decision-making capabilities, which obviously becomes an issue when you're in a two or three or five thousand pound vehicle going down the road or the highway.
My concern is that a lot of what we've heard about relates to income, and relates to societal equity kind of issues and I think it really needs to be looked at from a Public Health point of view. Because I think people's eyes lit up when they saw the
UConn data estimating income and perhaps the costs directly to the State would be 30%. But the indirect costs -- other states have seen a significant increase in emergency room visits for edibles of high-potency THC products. As I've noted, people with sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 295 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
a genetic predisposition to psychosis or delusional disorders can be precipitated. Again, a small percentage of people, but it occurs and that is a cost to Medicaid, private insurances, to the system as a whole of people who are uninsured per se.
Some of the states that have legalized it have seen increases in automobile insurance because they have an increase in minor accidents. When you look at the fatality data, it is admittedly quite mixed. And once you can see data that suggests a slight increase in fatalities and other states that show no change in fatalities. So clearly, that data is a bit murky. I wouldn’t rest my entire argument on highway fatalities. But there is the additional cost that I think we're not forgetting about. So I think to do this from a money point of view is not helpful.
You've heard comments from a couple of other speakers about the issues in terms of Social Equity and a lot of times, in places where this has been legalized, the people who have paid the biggest price have been minorities so I'm not sure it's the best decision based on the data that I've read. I've not seen a lot of data showing how that it's helpful to people. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 296 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
There's the small issue of addiction. And again, people thinking about 60-70-80's lower-potency THC, there was not much written about it in terms of addiction. But clearly, addiction to marijuana/THC exists and probably precipitated by the higher- potency THC that is available. And there's no clear-cut therapy.
It's probably less than 10% and it's probably in heavy users who are daily users. But it creates many, many ongoing issues because they have issues with their substance use disorder, they have issues with attention, focus, being able to continue to work at the level that they were working at previously before they began using the substance. And again, that’s another personal, familial, and societal cost to all of us. Especially, to that family.
So I think overall we need to be careful what we're hoping for because I think -- And I understand per the proponent, that there is a number of safeguards in here in terms of controls on
THC potency, in terms of groups to look at the impacts but I'm not sure we're quite there. Someone referenced the attorney from
Colorado who helped write the Legislation in 2012, who also said
"Beware what you're asking for. This may really have created sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 297 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
more negative issues than positive issues for us." So I'm not sure we're there yet.
Everybody is worried about border states doing it and I'm not sure that's a good reason to go into it. I don't want to use the word 'rush' because obviously, this has been around -- I'm only in my fifth year here, and it's been around every year since I've been here and probably long before I got here. But
I'm not sure this is the best mechanism. It's a reasonable attempt but I think it's still needs more work. I would say that in general, all the medical societies have reached out to me.
Connecticut State Medical Society in Hartford County, Fairfield
County, representing a great number of physicians that I'm sure are not completely 100% on-board but as societies, they have opposed strenuously the legalization for many of the reasons that I've mentioned. We could spend a long time going over many, many trials and much more data but it's been -- we're five and a half hours into it and many people likely have their minds made up. But I think if you haven't thought of the effects of THC on the developing brain, the impact to the youth, I think that's a very important and real consideration. Somewhat like one of my previous colleagues, I would like to also take -- let you do sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 298 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
what want to do behind closed doors approach -- so I think, in the perfect world, if we could have this available at a say, 10% or lower to people over 25, it might not be unreasonable but to
-- I realize that's not going to happen.
Once it's out, it's out. And I realize it's out there on the Black Market, as we call it, and I think that's another misconception. Many people feel that this undercuts the Black
Market, but typically with the costs that are involved with taxation, et cetera, the costs are higher than what's out on the open-market and the Black Market has thrived in most places. And
I think most people here would understand that the people who are selling it now, who see a multi-million or billion-dollar market, aren't going to say, "Oh boy, Connecticut legalized.
We're going to walk away from this market. We're not going to sell there anymore." That just doesn’t happen. So they undercut the market. Agreed, it's not controlled and I'm not saying that's where people should be, because that's where we see the issues with Fentanyl, Carfentanil, marijuana that's laced with other products that cause overdoses and many other issues but to use the argument that we're doing something to impact the Black
Market, I don't think there's much data to support that notion. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 299 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
So I'd urge my colleagues to think long and hard about this. I don’t, from a public policy point of view, I'm not sure that this is the best way for us to go in terms of -- I know it's not the best way for us to go from a public health point of view, from a libertarian point of view, and live-and-let-live.
There may be other options. The previous Amendment was one possibility. But I urge you to consider this very carefully. And again, in terms of the Social Equity -- If things get better,
I'll be happy to say, "Well, you guys are way smarter than me.
Thank God it worked out." But I am just not convinced that this is going to help in terms of Social Equity so I must stand from a personal point of view. Even if many of my constituents favor legalization. I don't think they understand many of these ramifications. I think I must stand opposed to this Bill and I urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. And I thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the
Bill as Amended? Representative Steinberg of the 136th. Sir, you have the floor. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 300 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. STEINBERG (136TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, you know I've been sitting on the fence so long on this Bill, I've got splinters.
This is a tough vote. Frankly, no state has done well in their pass in introducing marijuana.
A few years ago, I was leaning pretty hard No, extremely wary of introducing a new more potent marijuana strain to
Connecticut. As Chair of the Public Health Committee, I didn’t want to contribute to negative public impacts associated with legalization. And I associate my remarks with those of my friend, the good Ranking Member of the Public Health Committee, all the concerns he brought up are ones I share.
I'm still very concerned and I totally agree with the
Ranking Member that this Bill should have come before the Public
Health Committee. Because of its clear and significant potential health impacts. But I've come a long ways thanks to the efforts of many people, such as Chair D'Agostino. They heard me on my concerns about edibles and potency. Although these new revised potency limits frankly are ridiculously too high. And send the wrong message to people. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 301 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
I can only hope that with a good regulatory framework that
Chair D'Agostino and other created, the Department of Consumer
Protection will take those ridiculously high limits and come up with a much more reasonable standard for potency going forward.
I think the most important part about this is that we are creating a regulatory environment, not a free market, not a Wild
West, but a regulatory which seeks to assure product consistency and truth in packaging and advertising, I now believe that there is a chance that we might be able to get done fairly well out of the gate.
I will also add that the Administration and others have bargained in good faith, assuring a dedicated tax revenue stream in support of mental health and addiction services. We have seriously underfunded these services over the years and even more important, when cannabis is legalized, we expect there to be bad outcomes, let's just put it that way.
But we have now, in the out years, dedicated 25% of sales tax revenues to these programs and an educational media campaign. It still may fall short of what's really needed but it's a strong commitment to taking care of those affected by our decision. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 302 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
I admit I'm still uncomfortable. I fully expect we will be back next year and the year after that, making needed changes to assure safety and reliability and equity. But there is still one issue that's a problem for me. Homegrown. To me, a truly successful cannabis program would assure virtually everything consumed in Connecticut would be Connecticut-grown and regulated. The Connecticut brand would stand for product consistency, safety, transparency, and integrity. People would be able to trust what they buy because the State of Connecticut stands behind it. I would never trust it to the industry to behave well without regulation. Homegrown undercuts all of that.
We're introducing the Wild West of unregulated weed when an already genetically-modified product with a hugely enhanced potency, is a threat in and of itself. Why would we encourage people to experiment on their own when we can offer them a reliable, safer product?
And it makes even less sense for those with medical permits, which is what we're doing here, they're the ones who require a consistent product to help them manage their conditions, not an uncontrolled product with inherent variability. To state it plainly, we can't assure their safety sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 303 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
with homegrown out there. Why would we ever consider putting them at greater risk? This is not like making your own beer or wine at home. I've heard that argument way too often. Last I checked, no one has been prescribed beer or wine for their health. Though perhaps some people do that anyway.
I can't believe some of the things I've heard tonight. This is a dangerous Schedule I drug. But we should make it available, totally unregulated. Which is it?
Big business is corrupt, but we should leave it to business to regulate itself. Which is it? It can't be both.
So I can't stand by while we're making this bad move, Mr.
Speaker. The Clerk is in possession of an Amendment, LCO 10988.
I ask the Clerk to call the Amendment and that I be granted leave of the Chamber to summarize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Will the Clerk please call LCO 10988, House Amendment "E". sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 304 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
CLERK:
House Amendment Schedule "E", LCO No. 10988, offered by
Representative Steinberg.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
The Representative seeks to leave the Chamber to summarize the Amendment. Is there objection to the summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative Steinberg, you may proceed with summarization.
REP. STEINBERG (136TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Amendment is very simple.
Nobody needs to bother to read it. It just removes all references to homegrown in the Bill. And what is left is a totally regulated market where we know what's in the product and people can count on what they get in the product. We can't wipe out the black market but we can do everything we can to create a marketplace where there's integrity. We do not need homegrown in
Connecticut. We don’t want to be responsible for people growing it on their own and making decisions that can put their health sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 305 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
at risk. Certainly not people with medical permits. That is exactly backwards from good thinking.
Mr. Speaker, I move approval.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the
Amendment? Representative Stafstrom, you have the floor, sir.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of the Amendment. I think that the way we have this structured where homegrown, certainly on the individualized market, will not start for a few years and allow the marketplace for setting up to develop I think the vast, vast, vast majority of consumers will decide that going into the regulated stores and purchasing cannabis is the preferred option and the one folks will choose. But I do believe folks should have the choice and the ability to grow this product, which we are saying legal in the State of Connecticut.
So for those reasons, I urge rejection of the Amendment. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 306 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Will you remark further on the Amendment? If so, please raise your hand. Representative D'Agostino, sir, you have the floor.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I want to acknowledge the work of the good Chair of the Public Health Committee. He has been focused on this issue. Particularly, in the medical community for a number of years now. And we always run through his
Committee as well, the ailments that are added for the medical program. And I want to try to address some of his concerns. I do rise in opposition to the Amendment for the reasons that the
Chair of Judiciary mentioned, but a few other reasons.
With respect to the medical community, and I get it --
There's the tension here between regulated and unregulated. We knew this was kind of a fault line issue. For the medical community, there is some interesting nuances to this point, which is that several patients have told us several times in general law, that they actually depend on specific strains of sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 307 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
the product. And unfortunately, the way the market forces work and the way the producers work sometimes a strain is made but then it's no longer produced. Either forever or for months, even years at a time.
But for particular patients, they, for whatever, reason, depend on a particular type of flower or a type of strain. And so they've said to us, "Look, we want the opportunity to grow that strain so we have a supply of exactly what we need. What we depend upon." And my understanding is the way that it's grown or the way the flowers grow, there is very little risk of sort of increased potency or contamination with how these medical patients -- let's be honest -- some of them are currently doing this at home because of this dependency -- and I use the word not in the diction sense but in the treatment sense, of these particular strains.
And I know the Chair of the Public Health Committee appreciates these concerns because again, he's been invested for years, with respect to expanding the ailments and making sure our medical community has received precisely what it's needed.
But I appreciate his concern on the tension here. And the Chair of Judiciary mentioned, while we are all allowing the medical sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 308 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
patients to do homegrown almost immediately. It's limited, those three plants, mature and immature. It will be a couple of years before we expand that to the entire commercial marketplace. And he's got my commitment that the General Law Committee is going to continue to look at this, in conjunction with Public Health.
This is a continual process. We're always getting data from other states as well. Other states that maybe have taken a different approach and have allowed more homegrown. And I think we'll have the benefit of that and can re-visit that, both for the medical and the commercial marketplace. I think we will continue with homegrown but there's going to be restrictions around it. The Bill does include the opportunity for DCP to continue to look at that. There are numerous protections, I think, that they are going to put in place via a regulatory structure. So that you're not just growing this in your backyard. It has to be secured, you know. We don't want somebody just walking through someone's backyard and picking the plant.
So there's going to be a process here as well by the time we get to the commercial marketplace.
So I ask the Public Health Chair to please reconsider his
Amendment because of the need of the medical community, which I sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 309 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
know he appreciates greatly. And it could have been he got from us on General Law the key to work with his Committee going forward on this issue. Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the
Amendment? Representative Perillo, sir, you have the floor.
REP. PERILLO (113TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And very briefly, the good Chair of the General Law Committee mentioned the word 'process' and that's something I'd like to discuss very briefly.
We have before us, Mr. Speaker, a Bill of great significance. It's almost 300 pages long. We heard commentary and suggestions from the Ranking Member of the Public Safety
Committee. We heard commentary and suggestions from the Chair and Ranking Member of the Public Health Committee. And why are hearing those at seven o'clock at night the night we're voting on this Bill. Because their Committees weren't consulted. That's why. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 310 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
And the fact that we would enter this discussion being asked to vote without those Committees, which are greatly impacted by the Legislation before us, why would we be asked to do that not having consulted those Committees? And I think, again, to the gentleman's point of process -- and I've been here long enough to recognize this is how we pass bad Legislation. Or
Not only slightly imperfect Legislation. Just plain bad
Legislation. Because we rush it through. And we're going to be here trying to fix these problems. And look, we know there are problems in every Bill.
Nothing is ever perfect and that's been said tonight and I agree. But to just push this thing through for the sake of getting it done and we'll fix it later, this isn't some moderate
Bill about what's on your driver's license and we'll fix it later. This has tremendous public health and public safety impacts. If we fix it later, people might die in the interim. So to go cavalierly into this and say, "We'll fix it later, no big deal." I think does a grave disservice to the residents of the
State of Connecticut.
Now regardless of how you feel about the Bill, regardless of how you feel about the legalization of recreational sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 311 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
marijuana, we have to, as a body, take note of that. This isn’t a little thing. This isn't a minor thing. This isn’t something that can be discussed without the presence of the Chairs and
Ranking Members of the Public Safety Committee. This isn’t a little thing. It can't be done like that and it's shame that we're here being asked to vote on this major piece of
Legislation without the benefit of their wisdom and knowledge and input.
Mr. Speaker, it's just very unfortunate. This isn’t how we should do business. This isn’t how we should properly serve the residents of the State of Connecticut. Thank you for your time,
Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the
Bill as Amended? Representative Rebimbas of the great town of
Naugatuck. You have the floor, madam. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 312 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I certainly concur with all of the comments made by the good Representative to my left. But I was hard-pressed to not stand and just highlight again the significance of hearing from the Chairman and the
Ranking Member of the Public Health Committee.
This proposal before us is all about Public Health. This
State, this body, took it upon itself to pass the legalization of medical marijuana. A very important piece of Legislation and at that time, as Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, and my heart went out to the families who came before us and literally cried at the need for the medical purposes of marijuana for their children, for a variety of different reasons. And that they had to seek it outside of the State of
Connecticut, now they have an opportunity. That was just recently done. We still have not made a major impact in the medical field. We have not made it affordable for those individuals who, as one Representative said, is dependent on it.
I concur. They are very much dependent on it for a variety of different reasons. But in most cases, literally, for the health of themselves or their family members. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 313 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
So now, we're turning away, a blind eye, to the very
Committee that has the expertise, the resources, the information that's absolutely necessary for us to make important, reasonable, one would hope safe, decisions. This is not a partisan issue. It's certainly a bipartisan one. We've heard from a variety of different individuals, groups, and organizations, from clergy all the way down to Mom and Dad. And essentially, what we are doing here is rushing through bad, irresponsibly thought-out, Legislation.
If the Public Health Committee wasn’t so important, why do we have it? Why do we have it? We should be improving the system that we currently have. We should be learning from that. And even there, there's problems and issues. To know now, selectively, we're going to pick the science that suits us. So we'll choose 21 because it matches the alcohol but yet we're not going to do the penalties to match the alcohol. We'll just pick and choose here and there as we believe it's going to serve our purposes.
If we're going to talk about science and the development of a child's mind, let's do it. I think everyone would agree there.
We've had experts come before us and discuss those. We have the sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 314 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
facts. But no, now we're pushing this onto society saying to our youth that it's okay. You can -- what do you want it?
Recreational, legalization -- You can coin it anything you want.
But "It's okay for you to access this even at the age of 21, don't worry about the medical professionals that say it may actually have mind-altering situations for these young children." "Well, the State of Connecticut says it's okay. The federal government doesn't, but if the State of Connecticut says, okay. Mom and Dad does it. The neighbor does it. Why not?
Why shouldn't I try it?"
We've seen the data in the other states. We know that they will access it at an earlier age. It becomes socially acceptable. We don’t have the education to go behind the saying that it's not. It's highly irresponsible that we think that somehow this is going to help and address those cities and families that have been negatively affected by what? Pushing onto them another drug? Opening these facilities in cities? We have the data from the other states, what happens to the neighborhoods in those cities. We have the data on the negative impact. We have the data of what this is going to do. How do you think a child will function in school? How do you think a child sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 315 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
is going to find a job? How do you think a child is going to get to and from a job? None of this is properly analyzed. And to say that we're going to tax this and have revenue to address these situations when the problems will already be caused.
To say that we will pass this now and address the problems later, is so highly irresponsible. What are we doing here, if not doing the best we possibly can? So now we have a rough draft close to 300 pages. Let's discuss it reasonably, responsibly, with the Committee of Cognizance. For God's sakes, the Senate was in the other day, came in, made changes, now we're going to be making changes, now they're going to be coming again. We can't even have a discussion between Chambers as to what we all want to get out as a responsible product. But yet we're going to push this into the public and say, "Listen, we bless this. But we haven't done our jobs." It's highly irresponsible.
If we want to move in this direction, we should move in the direction together responsibly, do what we need to do. The rushing this through and, you know, there is going to be collateral consequences, well, let's not worry until the next time we come into session, that's irresponsible. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 316 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the
Amendment? Representative Steinberg.
REP. STEINBERG (136TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the comments that have been expressed here with reference to the Amendment. I'm not really sure I can buy the argument that we should do homegrown for those with medical because they can't get the strain that they need from the sellers. You know, we don't say if somebody can't get the drug that's been prescribed that they should go buy the chemicals and mix them up themselves, and do the best they can to come up with something that meets their needs. I have to believe there are other solutions to addressing that other than a homegrown product which they would be left to their own devices.
And I also understand that yes, the medical product can be very expensive for some, but again, there've got to be other solutions other than the homegrown. Maybe some of the revenues should go to subsidizing the medical program so they have a more sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 317 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
affordable ability to buy what they need. But again, it doesn't justify homegrown.
I also want to correct a couple of things. It's not really fair to say that the Chair of the Public Health Committee wasn’t consulted. I've been talking to Representative D'Agostino about this for years. I'd like to think that some of the things that we talked about that ended up in the Legislation we have before us today, is partially because I contributed to that.
So I have been involved. I think I made an effort. I would have preferred the Committee to see that. But we can't say that it didn’t come -- that the Chairs of the Committees of
Cognizance did not reach out and try to make this Bill as good as it can be.
And lastly, to say that this thing has been rushed is just the opposite. We've been talking about this year after year after year. It may never be fully baked. We may never get it perfect. In fact, I had said that we can't. And that's why we'll be probably back talking about it again. But it's come a long way. To the point where I've gone from leaning No to be able to support this Legislation. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 318 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
In the spirit of that, given my great respect and confidence in Chair D'Agostino and to the Department of Consumer
Protection, I am willing to withdraw my Amendment, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
If there is no objection, so ordered. (Gavel)
Will you remark further on the Bill as Amended?
Representative Arora of the 151st District, you have the floor.
REP. ARORA (151ST):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, when I started thinking through this Bill, I was not opposed to the idea of regulating and legalizing marijuana and cannabis. Because all I read and I all I heard was that done properly, it would protect our kids.
Done properly, it would safeguard our communities. Done properly, it might bring in some revenues. You know how we were
-- as I went through this nearly 300-page Bill and Regulation, proposed Regulation, you know, I'm very disappointed. I'm very disappointed that this Bill doesn’t achieve what we need to do to properly regulate this dangerous, or this addictive product. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 319 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
This Regulation, as my colleague from New Canaan pointed out, will hurt our kids the way it has been written. It could lead to brain damage, psychosis, and a lot of suffering. Mr.
Speaker, in my opinion, we are making a big gamble. We are playing a big gamble here. There are not enough protections to protect our kids.
This Bill will not sit well with our communities. You know, the good Representative from Stonington and North Stonington pointed this out very well. Especially when it comes to Public
Safety. I don’t think in good faith, after going through this
Bill, one can say we are doing enough to make sure that increased use will not lead to more road accidents, more DUIs, and possibly even more casualties.
This Bill could bring in revenues. Much needed revenues.
But the way this is being done, I think, we are leaving most of the revenues on the table. It's going to create lucrative businesses out there and it's very clear in the discussions which we are overhearing or under-hearing or in the backrooms here, or through the grapevine here, that we are not doing this the right way. There is going to be a scramble for licenses, there is going to be a scramble to be able to get a piece of the sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 320 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
business, these roads will invite corruption, they will lead to substantive loss of revenues to the State and this is the wrong way to do it.
The Labor aspect of the business, as the good
Representative earlier pointed out, is unconstitutional and will lead to a larger Black Market. I wanted to see a good way to regulate this so that we could protect, so that we could safeguard our communities. But however, I am disappointed that this Bill will do none of that. And will actually harm our communities and put our kids in harm's way. Hence, I intend to vote against this Bill.
Now, I have a few questions I would like to ask, especially on the Labor component on the Bill. Because Section 102 and imposes a mandatory Labor Peace Agreement on all participants in the industry. Now, being the Ranking Member of the Labor
Committee, we did hear a similar Bill in the Labor Committee and also, we had a Public Hearing for it. Many of these establishments which are being -- going to be subjected to this
Labor Peace Agreement, are going to be small, employing 10 or 15 employees. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 321 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Now what is a Labor Peace Agreement? I asked some experts and they said, "Harry, candidly, it's a mini-collective bargaining agreement." Now what really it appears is this is, in addition to a legalization of pot Bill, also union Bill, which is trying to unionize this business in a very indirect way.
Now my question to the proponent of the Bill, if I may ask for you is, are other competing businesses like beer or wine stores, also subject to such Labor Peace Agreements? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative D'Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Mr. Speaker, they are not.
REP. ARORA (151ST):
Cigarette stores? Are they subjected to such Labor
Agreements? Through you, Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 322 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative D'Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, they are not.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Arora.
REP. ARORA (151ST):
Are pharmacies and medical dispensaries -- Or just pharmacies, subject to such Labor Peace Agreements? Through you,
Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative D'Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, no. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 323 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Arora.
REP. ARORA (151ST):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So this is sending a chill down businesses. Because this business is being singled out and who is going to be next? This legislative body has shown that it is going to pick certain ideas and I think in this session it's very clear to me, it's the idea of taking down businesses and imposing such unreasonable agreements or provisions in them. And many businesses are asking, are we going to be next on the list?
Are we going to be targeted next? And I'm glad to hear by many experts, that this is not going to be constitutional. But I think the spirit of the body and the credibility of the body is damaged as a result.
Now, is there any precedence of such collective bargaining being imposed on small business as small as five or ten employees? Through you, Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 324 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative D'Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes. Labor Peace Agreements are not per se unconstitutional. They are commonplace in a number of industries. It is new to cannabis, which is a relatively new industry. And we should step back and just make sure we're talking about the same thing here. Just so everybody is on the same page. This Bill does not impose collective bargaining on anyone. It does not require unionization at all. There are different ways to do a Labor Peace Agreement. And you see many examples across the country.
This is very limited. All this says in very simple terms is
"No walkout, no lockout." If employees of a cannabis establishment established pursuant to this Bill want to unionize, want to go about the process of engaging with a labor organization having a vote pursuant to the National Labor
Relations Act and those standards, they can do so. And if they do so, all this Bill says is two things: While they are going sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 325 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
through that process, they cannot strike, they cannot walkout, to pressure the employer to grant them status. And conversely, the employer cannot lock them out to try to convince them not to unionize. But the question of unionization is left to those employees, is left to the process of the National Labor
Relations Act and that's what a Labor Peace Agreement means in this context.
And yes, we are requiring it for every establishment, whether it's a delivery service of five or ten employees, or a producer of 300 employees. And the reason for that is very simple. Unlike cigarettes, unlike pharmacies, this is a new industry, an incredibly regulated industry that heretofore was illegal. And we as a State, have a significant interest. Not just a regulatory interest. We have actually got our hands in this on multiple pieces because we want to see this industry survive. We've got bonding. We've got social equity applicants.
We've got public health studies. We are taking a great interest in getting this industry off the ground, as the State of
Connecticut, through this Bill, through the myriad pieces of this Bill that we've heard about. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 326 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
So a Labor Peace Agreement from the State's perspective, from our interests, is to ensure that it functions. That as establishments go through, if few employees choose to go through it, the unionization process, there's no disruption. Because as we've heard today, if there's any disruption along that chain, producer, retailer, packager, dispensary, micro-grow facility, delivery service, people won't get the product. Including the medical patients.
So that's why we, as a State, are saying from a policy perspective, we are requiring this because of our myriad of interests, and that I would submit -- I heard the argument that this is unconstitutional. Actually, there is a line of cases, starting with the Sage Hospitality case, all the way through, that actually do uphold these types of agreements in different circumstances. So I apologize, that's a longer answer to the
Representative's question but, yes, Labor Peace Agreements exist. Yes, they have been upheld. Yes, I'm confident this one will be upheld for all the reasons I just articulated. Through you, Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 327 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Arora.
REP. ARORA (151ST):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And thank you to the good Chair for that detailed answer. You know, I definitely heard the State's perspective. But you know what? Practically speaking, from a business perspective, all I heard was, "We're going to get you.
And we're going to get you good." And not only that, what I heard was a veiled threat to other businesses. "You better behave. You better behave, little boys and girls." Because I know, Mr. Speaker, that we are sitting here in a Chamber with very, very talented people. Very talented people on the other side here. On this side and the other side. And I can tell you, that this is what we are all fearful of. This is what businesses send chills down businesses. This failed idea that this is a
Labor Peace Agreement. No, this is basically a mini-collective bargaining agreement, in business terms. Because they have to live it. They don’t just pass it and say, "Oh well, when is this debate going to end. Let me just go home." They've got to live sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 328 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
it day in and day out. I'm extremely upset that some people think that this is nothing.
Let me tell you why this Labor Peace Agreement, so-called
Labor Peace Agreement which I call a collective bargaining push on mandate. And tilting the bargaining table on one side is bad.
It's bad not just for the businesses; it's bad not just for the industry; and it is bad for everyone, the consumers in the community. This is going to raise prices. This is going to raise prices of the product anywhere between 15 and 20%, if not more.
And by the way, a simple understanding of law of economics would tell us that those prices are going to be passed on.
Everybody knows that. They're not going to be eaten by those businesses. And what's going to happen? Between the taxes, as well as these additional costs, the price of legalized marijuana, which you can buy from these legal dispensaries, will be 40 to 50% higher than the one which you can buy Black Market or underground. Fifty percent higher. So to give you an idea, $8 a gram in the other market, $14 a gram in this market because $2 to $2.50 goes to this additional cost, a couple of dollars I would say to taxes and then what's going to happen? We're going to have a very significant Black Market. What happens with the sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 329 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Black Market? It's called money laundering. It's called crime.
And where are these things going to be? In our cities. What does crime lead to? People getting shot.
So instead of creating a law which basically ends up increasing public safety, making sure that this business allows good quality product to be provided to those who want it, we're basically creating something which is going to be a disaster.
What I am really upset about is that the narrative here is just not genuine. We were told that there is some connection between this and the War on Drugs. This is ingenuous because we recognized that connection about nine or ten years ago, when we did de-criminalize marijuana. And if I understand correctly, since 2011 or 2012, possession of marijuana up to half an ounce is no longer a criminal offense.
Thereafter, we also allowed it for medical purposes, medicinal purposes. So that idea that this is something we are doing because we want to -- the War on Drugs has really given a bad situation. That we addressed. This is a new chapter. This is a new chapter. And let's just discuss it without really running this narrative that we are basically doing it for that reason. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 330 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Now the bothersome thing about this Bill, as the good
Representative from Plainville and New Britain pointed out earlier, is that this allows 60% THC. Sixty percent. I don’t know. I have never used marijuana ever, but I can tell you one thing. I'm told anything over 35, will make you vomit. Anything over 40, will send you to the ER. And I'm told anything above 30 for anybody young, will damage their brain. It'll create psychosis. One study, as we heard, will drop their IQ by ten points and an IQ perhaps -- I don't know how good that study was, but it does impact your brain.
Mr. Speaker, the idea that -- if we want to regulate it, we cannot regulate it to be -- make it safe. And say 10% THC is good. Twenty percent is the limit. I would support that Bill.
Ten percent THC. The natural plant, I'm told, is three percent.
It is by genetic -- Or maybe four percent. It is by the GMO modification, we have come a long way to 30%. And this body wants to basically keep the upper limit at 60%. Why even bother?
If we're going to send something like a killer drug out there?
Sixty percent! It doesn’t make any sense. If we're going to regulate this drug, regulate it at safe levels. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 331 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
The proliferation of such establishments run by people -- run by folks who are being decided by a lottery, on other criteria other than the ability to run a good business, a safe business. I don’t understand that. The basic qualification is,
I'm told, that you need to know the right people. That's what
I'm told. I hope that it's not.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that one for every 25,000 people we will give out a license. I think that's in the Bill. That implies we will have around 150 licenses. As a matter of fact, I would like to ask if a town has less than 25,000 people, does it get rounded up? Or does it get rounded down? Through you, Mr.
Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative D'Agostino.
REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST):
Through you, Mr. Speaker. In the first instance, as we've heard today, it's up to every town to decide what they want to do or not. The one for every 25,000 requirement -- So just sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 332 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
stepping back. What DCP will do here once we've gone through some initial stages with the Social Equity Council, is they will determine the number of licenses. It will not be a number of licenses based on that formula of one for every 25,000 residents of Connecticut.
Instead, what they're going to look at is the entire marketplace. How many producers do we have producing an estimated amount of product? How many dispensaries can that support? And then, who else is applying for the licenses related to that? Packagers. Essentially, product manufacturers. Let's say somebody wants to make a particular type of product. And then delivery services. They're looking at that entire range of market participants. Starting again with the supply. DCP will set a number of licenses based on assuring in the first instance, the continued viability of the medical marketplace.
Because we don’t want to jeopardize that. Then how much? How many licenses can be supported down the line? So it's an overall look, not a one-for-every-25,000 residents.
If a town of less than 25,000 wants to allow a dispensary and an applicant is awarded a dispensary and goes through the entire process and through that and is able to get one, then, sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 333 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
yes. That bar is not going to preclude the dispensary from being there. It may preclude -- And the numbers may preclude another one within the same area. But given the limits on the licenses, it's not going to be that many. Again, this is all sort of a supply issue in the first instance, and then preserving the existing marketplace. But we’re going to use that -- that ratio is not there to limit if a town wants one and an applicant exists for that particular town and we can make it work within the existing license structure, it'll be allowed.
You know, if by some miracle -- And I just don't think it's going to be the case based on supply in the first few years, you've got that overwhelming number, then yes. DCP is going to have to figure out where those dispensaries, where those additional licenses are going to go, based on that ratio. But I think in the first instance, what we're talking about is just a market limit based on supply. And again, as I mentioned, preserving the medical marketplace. Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER REYES (75TH):
Representative Arora. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 334 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. ARORA (151ST):
Yeah, I hear the answer. The answer was simple. It is -- I hear it. It's going to be rounded up. I understand that. So I understand this is the maximum. I understand that there are other constraints as vital as the good Chair said in terms of the DCP deciding or the council, sorry, deciding the overall number. But a town could have a maximum, a small town would be rounded up and could have a dispensary. A town of 150,000 could have six dispensaries. Now some may say, oh that's the maximum.
But let me tell you, that'll be the minimum.
Because if we look at the demand which we are talking about, and we look at other states, we will have a billion- dollar demand for marijuana within a few years. And that's what the numbers say from all around the country. A billion dollars.
And I wish we could say a billion dollars of five percent THC.
We are talking a billion dollars of 60% THC. Up to 60% THC.
Mr. Speaker, a billion dollars of demand, even if you say,
150 licenses. I'm going just to take averages here, some are going to do better, some are going to do worse. Each license is going to make six million in revenue. Six million in revenue. I just think these businesses have very high margins. They do. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 335 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Because demand is an elastic. It doesn't matter what you charge.
People do buy it. Twenty percent is a good revenue profit margin. These businesses will have -- These licenses will have a million dollars a year of profits. A million dollars a year, these 150 licenses will have. And that's why we hear all of these things going on. That’s why we know why there is going to be corruption. That's why we know there's a lot of hush-hush, you know, nine versions of every Bill. That's why you get a Bill of 300 pages my colleague said could be written in 20 pages. The money is big, Mr. Speaker. A hundred and fifty people will be anointed to get a million dollars a year. Now, I don't think you need to be a very expert to say, a million-dollar revenue --
There's a lot of strong finance people in this room. How much would you pay for a business that pays a million dollars a year
-- makes a million dollars a year? Interest rates now are four percent on the long run. As a matter of fact, they are zero on the short run. I would say easily $10 to $20 million.
We know why there's a huge discussion somewhere going on around here on who's going to get it. Because these are handouts of $10 million apiece. You get this license and then in a year or two or three or four, you will sell this for $10 million. Ten sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 336 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
million dollars. Well, why can't the State auction them? And take that $10 million and put it towards Education. Ten million times 150, I last saw, added up to $1.5 billion.
So are we going to give $1.5 billion dollars to these 150 people and not auction them because there is some social justice argument? No, there is none. There is no argument there. These need to be auctioned, Mr. Speaker, that is the only way it should be done. And that money should be used for education, for any good cause we can point out. Including addressing the legacy issues which we have in terms of damage done. But giving out this one and a half billion dollars is nothing but corruption.
That's my opinion. We are going to -- We have seen this movie.
This is not the first time this movie has played out. We've seen this movie many, many times. I thought we had learnt. I'll point out telecom licensing around the world. This happened.
Basically, spectrums were given out. This happened.
We know that these businesses are basically licensed to print money. Why are we going to give them away? Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable. We are going to choose 100 people or 150 people, and then we are told it's going to be by a lottery. I strongly believe -- I ask all the powers that be that this money sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 337 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
is rightfully the people's money. We don't have a right to give to 150 people.
And if, by the way, this is a billion-dollar giveaway, what about the cultivators? I'm not even going to the cultivators.
The cultivators and the mini-cultivators. And I don't know what kind of an argument or counter-argument somebody's going to have, but I am assuming if the establishment is going to -- selling it makes 20&, I am telling you, growing it is going to make a lot more. A lot more.
Because we heard that from start to end, this is going to be Connecticut business. And if I'm right in saying that a billion dollars' worth of business is what's it's going to be, a billion dollars of profit is what it's going to be. Of profits or employment.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is not the right way. This is not the right Bill. This is a Bill that is going to appropriate what is rightly our people's money. For some people, this is from the many to the few. This is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, this is bad regulation. It is bad for our children. My good colleague pointed out, how this will lead to sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 338 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
more deaths. More people dying. It does not have protections which can be put in a good regulation. By constraining them out of THC. It is going to lead to more casualties on the road because it does not have the protections that you need to ensure that we don’t have more DUIs.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a good Bill because it does not have safeguards for our community. It does not. And it's not a good Bill because it does not ensure that the money which is due to our people stays with the people. It is going to take people's money and give it away to a few people, 150 people who will sell it and perhaps 10 people who will grow it. I wish I could stand here and say that we are going to have a cannabis
Bill which is going to regulate this industry, which is going to protect our kids, which is going to safeguard our communities and which is going to ensure that our State gets the right revenues which it deserves. None of this is happening. Hence, I am going to oppose this Bill. I am going to ward against Bill with every single cell in my body. And I ask everybody to do the same. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 339 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Thank you, Representative. Representative Carpino of the
32nd. Madam, you have the floor.
REP. CARPINO (32ND):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A few comments if I may.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Please proceed.
REP. CARPINO (32ND):
We started session here on January 6th. That cold day, we all took our oath of office. And we finished on June 9th. Yet here we are, in Special Session because this is suddenly an emergency. For no other reason than the mismanagement by the powers that be in this building. I see no reason for a concept that has bounced around this building, bounced around different
Committees, to be here before us. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 340 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Like others in this Chamber, I made a difficult decision to fly home because this Bill was too important to miss. But I had to tell my two kids why I was leaving them. I told them, because
I couldn't lie to them, that some folks wanted to make it okay to take drugs and to sell drugs. My daughter rolled her eyes in disgust. My little guy still hasn't quite learned the art of sometimes it's better to say nothing. He looked at me and said,
"What the heck. Why would somebody vote for that?" and I didn’t know what to tell him.
Because I couldn’t tell him that this was a Bill that was negotiated in bits and pieces in a building that was closed to the public. I couldn’t tell him that it violates federal law. Or that it would make the roads dangerous on the way to camp, school, the park, or work. And after a year of preaching Public
Health and believing in the science that we were discussing a
Bill that would make it harmful for him and his friends, regardless of where they lived or what they looked like. I couldn’t tell them that we were affirmatively going to repeat the mistakes of other states and that just a few people were going to make an awful of money in a very questionable process. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 341 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
So Mr. Speaker, I'm going to vote very loudly here on behalf of the kids I know in Cromwell and Portland and the kids across the State, this is the wrong message. This is the wrong vehicle. This is the wrong time. This vote is too important to take lightly in a building that is closed and where the sun doesn’t shine.
Sir, I'm going to vote No, because this is the wrong message for every resident of Connecticut.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Thank you, Representative. Representative Wilson of the
66th. Sir, you have the floor.
REP. WILSON (66TH):
Well, I got the microphone right away. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker. I guess when we all sit here listening, there's all kinds of parts in this Bill. I'm just going to make a few comments. I don't have any questions for the proponent.
But I will tell you that I've heard from constituents and
I'd like to bring out in Section 103, under Project Labor sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 342 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Agreements. I'm hearing from businessowner constituents who are really concerned about this. There is a number of businesses out there that probably hire in the neighborhood of 50 employees and they are open-contract companies. And they are really upset about the restrictions that are in this Bill. So I want my voice to be heard on their behalf.
I've also heard from one of the schools in my District, who are very concerned about in Section 63, I believe, I'm not sure which version I'm looking at here, but around Line 23-40 regarding the penalties for a school using a mascot. And the particular school I'm thinking about has already gone through many efforts to move away from that issue, but they do have one historic piece -- I'm on the wrong Bill. Okay. Sorry about that.
Alright, let me just skip over because I think that there is a couple of points about the use of marijuana that some of my colleagues haven’t made or haven’t made in the same words. So I thought I'd like to just mention that about nine percent of marijuana users become dependent. And as a matter of fact, for adolescents, it's as high as 17%. That's one out of six that may become addicted. And we've heard from our good colleague from the Public Health Committee who talked about psychosis. The term sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 343 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
I believe is CIP, mentioned that it effects IQ but I thought it might be important to also say that it's likely to cause schizophrenia. So the more you dig into this, and the more you look at it, the effect that it has is pretty monumental. When we talk about affecting IQ, it can be as much as a six to eight IQ point reduction to adolescents before the age of 25.
I just think that we've gone way too far here. I can't say that I was ever a proponent of supporting marijuana. A couple of years ago when I was in District, we did some forums and we listened to our constituency and so many people came that were opposed to this, that I have not changed my position. And I will not be supporting this Bill here this evening. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Thank you, Representative. Representative McCarty, of the
38th. Madam, you have the floor. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 344 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. MCCARTY (38TH):
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a few comments and then perhaps a question to the proponent.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Representative, please proceed.
REP. MCCARTY (38TH):
Thank you. I rise too with a grave concern. Particularly, in the area that affects Education. We are just coming through a pandemic and we have seen a great deal of learning loss in our schools and throughout our school districts. Our students are still suffering from anxiety and depression. I believe that this piece of Legislation at this time, is sending the absolute wrong message.
If we look at the American Academy of Pediatrics, who have looked at what the use of cannabis and the impact it can have on our youth and teenagers, it shows that there is definitely an adverse impact on learning. It shows damage to short-term memory, to attention span, to problem-solving. These are all sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 345 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
areas that we are trying to improve. We know in our state that we have the largest achievement gap. This is something that we've been focusing on. I don’t think legalizing cannabis at this time is going to help us improve our students' academic performance. It's for this major grave concern on learning.
Also, we've heard today about the brain development. That the brain is not developed until the age of 25. If we don’t listen to our national organizations on Health, we could look closer to home here at Yale. Yale, the doctors in the research department have done 20 years of studies on brain development in our youth. And have pointed out that there are many long-term adverse impacts.
I know this Legislation has tried to look at protection and to keep our youth well-educated and protected about cannabis use. But I do not believe that the measures are strong enough.
The good Ranking Member on Judiciary spent some time looking at
Section 33 that talks about marketing. But I cannot, for the life of me, when I read it over and over again, see how you could really actually monitor that. And I do have one question that I would like to propose and then continue for a moment. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 346 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Please proceed, madam.
REP. MCCARTY (38TH):
Thank you. Could you please tell me how I -- and I just made my comment about the marketing piece, but where did you come up with the 500-feet from a school? Or from any schools, for the marketing purposes? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, many of these marketing provisions are about trying to make sure that marketing is not directed towards children. Certainly, in the
Bill as was just alluded to, any marketing where the audience would be 90% or more -- Sorry, ten percent or more, potentially directed towards children. And there is an industry standard and to measure that would be prohibited. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 347 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
So here, the 500-foot limit is a minimum amount. But certainly, that could still be much larger if there was a major corridor where kids walk to school frequently. And that was 700 or 800 feet away from the school. The 90-10 rule would still apply. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Representative McCarty.
REP. MCCARTY (38TH):
Yes. And I do appreciate that, but I still say that this is almost impossible to monitor. Several aspects that are mentioned in the marketing piece. I can say like in signage how, in different aspects, how you could actually -- I believe it was the Department of Consumer Protection that would be doing the monitoring? Is that true? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Representative Stafstrom. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 348 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Yes, through you, Mr. Speaker. It could be that. I think certainly there also is a private cause of action that one would have. I would direct the Representative's attention to Lines
1693 through 1695, which would make advertising to minors an unfair trade practice under our Law. Also, later in the Bill, there is a provision for fines of upwards of $25,000 against establishments that advertise towards minors.
And of course, there also is the provision where an establishment that advertises towards minors could lose their license altogether.
Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the penalties for violating these are Draconian. And certainly, a deterrent to any business who would run afoul. I believe that any cannabis establishment that is engaged in advertising would have to be very, very, very careful not to run afoul of the provisions of this Bill, or they would face exceptionally severe consequences.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 349 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Representative McCarty.
REP. MCCARTY (38TH):
Yes, thank you. And I don't mean to debate this but I just still really am having difficulty seeing how it could possibly be monitored. It runs counter to all that we've been trying to do on Boards of Education over a 20-year period. And with our regional behavioral health organizations trying to educate our students and to really educate them about the harmful impacts of drug use. And if we look at Colorado currently, and just in the last few months, there was an increase in teenage use of 20%.
Which I think if we have marketing on top of that, that's not able to be controlled properly to avoid targeting those youth under 21, it's going to even increase more.
So for those reasons, I'm having a lot of difficulty with this piece of Legislation.
The other, if I may just very quickly, I'm also concerned about what the National Institute on Drug Abuse has pointed out on safety concerns in workforce development and workforce sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 350 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
safety. Particularly, in those companies that are under federal contracts. So I just have one very quick question. Through you,
Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
You may proceed, madam.
REP. MCCARTY (38TH):
Thank you. I'm curious. Are there any threshold limits to determine impairment for employers in this piece of Legislation?
And how would the employer be able to determine that impairment?
And I'm particularly interested in those companies that are doing business like Electric Boat with their 36,000 employees or so. How will this Legislation impact them? Through you, Mr.
Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Representative Stafstrom. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 351 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Mr. Speaker. I would submit that this Bill contains the most restrictive and protective provisions for employers of any Bill I've certainly seen that's been passed anywhere in the country. This Bill actually increases the ability for an employer, any employer in the State, be it
Electric Boat or anyone else, to maintain a drug-free workplace.
A vote in favor of this Legislation, Mr. Speaker, is a vote to strengthen the ability of employers to discipline employees who do show up to work under the influence of cannabis. Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Thank you, sir. Representative McCarty.
REP. MCCARTY (38TH):
I appreciate those answers but I believe that it will still be very difficult to determine any type of impairment, particularly, with what I understand that the testing, urine testing, is difficult to determine the timeframe with that piece sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 352 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
of testing. So I do see many areas where this could also present issues going forward.
So basically, my major concerns have to do, as I repeat, with education and for this particular area for workforce development. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Thank you, Representative McCarty. Representative Hughes, you have the floor, madam.
REP. HUGHES (135TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of ending the prohibition of the plant of cannabis. And more so, I rise in support of a ceasefire on the War on Drugs, which has ended up being a war on black and brown and poor communities. Especially in our State.
And I rise in support of strengthening the equity policy that those with the lived experience, those harmed by this war on black and brown people and the War on Drugs, that they have a voice at the table. That they not only have a voice at the table sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 353 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
of crafting this policy, but a voice of economic access. Because equity requires economic access. And this Bill is building on the clean slate Bill that we just passed. And now, we're looking at a piece of the economic pie.
I agree with my colleague fear of corporate monopolies. And profit over people. That's why the work of the Social Equity
Council is so important to oversight.
We have seen selective enforcement and over-policing and that is why some of these protections and guardrails, that there would not be selective enforcement and more targeting of people who might be suspected of using this cannabis.
We need policy justice for the people targeted. Especially those incarcerated. And I do take issue with the Governor's assessment that it’s a bridge too far to give those formally incarcerated by the war on cannabis access to the lottery. But I accept that we need to address with this framework, which I believe has many, many good provisions in it.
Those closest to the solution, we are here to reckon with those deliberate policies targeting those people. And we are here for the reckoning in this policy. Whether we created the sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 354 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
policies that harmed people. We are now here for the policy solutions. And as policymakers, I want to reckon with this reconstruction for real economic access, real economic justice.
And that's what the Labor Peace Agreements are about. We don’t another low-paying retail industry. We need an industry that has the opportunity to have good paying jobs with benefits, with retirement, with worker protections, green packaging, clean energy -- We have the possibility of building this new industry from the worker, literally a grass-roots economy from the ground up.
So, I'm here for this messy reckoning for the economic access, to keep amplifying the voices of those most targeted by this War on Drugs. And I think there are protections for public safety, for public education, for concerns about corruption. And
I think we have the opportunity to work together to strengthen those protections and to keep improving the solution to policies that have harmed so many.
So, I want to invest in people. I want to invest in communities. I think this is a brilliant start. I would have liked to see more equity in the mix of who gets first access to this economic piece of the pie. But I'm willing to work with the sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 355 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
entire framework because we have come this far because of the incredible devotion of so many people determined to try to get this right. Let's get it over the finish line and let's get it right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Thank you, madam. Representative Zupkus, you have the floor.
REP. ZUPKUS (89TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have one question and then a couple of comments. So through you, Mr. Speaker, to the proponent of the Bill.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Yes, you may proceed. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 356 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. ZUPKUS (89TH):
If this question has been asked, I apologize but I did not hear it. With this Legislation, what agencies will be overseeing the legalization of marijuana? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Chairman Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that depends on which part.
Obviously, the Department of Consumer Protection will take the lead. Certainly, there is a role for the Judicial Branch, for the Public Health Committee, for the Social Equity Council, for
DMHAS, for the Department of Public Safety, the list goes on,
Mr. Speaker. It depends on which provision, through you.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Thank you, sir. Representative Zupkus. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 357 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. ZUPKUS (89TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I didn’t see those others in the
Bill. I know on that Equity Council and our Amendment failed and we asked to put the people on. I do know the Consumer Department
-- the Department of Consumer Protection and DECD have a big role in it, but I am hopeful that these other agencies will.
You know, I travel to Utah quite often and I go through
Colorado. Every time I'm on the flight, if somebody is sitting next to me and they're from Colorado -- And I've been doing this for years, since this Bill has been talked about. I say, "I've got to talk pot with you. I need to know what you think."
And so one time, I was flying out and there was a man against the window. There was a woman sleeping in between us. I was on an aisle. And I said, "I'm not crazy. Connecticut is trying to pass pot. I want to talk to you." Long story short, this gentleman actually knew the lobbyist that got this passed in Colorado. So I showed him my card that I'm not a crazy woman.
That I was a legislator. And I actually talked to her and she was definitely excited that the pot passed Colorado because she was the lead lobbyist. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 358 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
However, she says, "We have concerns. We went way too big too fast." She said, "Accidents are up. Kids are -- Pot smoking is up." All the things that we've heard today. And it really concerns me that we even go further than Colorado. She was even concerned. One of her things was, and why I ask the question is, she said they had put it under one agency and it should be under
-- regulated under quite a few agencies.
And the children's part of this Bill also concerns me. We actually have a friend of our family. They have a son, he is 19, he is a freshman in college and smart kid, got scholarships to go to college. Almost a straight-A student quite honestly. Gets to college, gets in with some friends and they start smoking pot. By the end of his freshman year, he is so unmotivated, almost failing school And his parents talk to him and he says,
"Life is good. I like it." That concerns me. Especially because it's illegal in our state and kids are getting it. So what's going to happen when it's legal? That is a huge problem.
It also gives parents another something to worry about.
Something that we have to be on our kids constantly about. I have a 12-year-old. And she has that personality. Thank God my oldest is going to be in the military and they do drug testing. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 359 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
But my younger one, she has a personality. And I am deathly afraid that she's going to try it and might like it. And I will have a very big problem on my hands with her. So I believe this, again, just gives parents something else that we have to worry about.
You know, whatever I say here is definitely not going to change anyone's mind. But I am -- I'm going to pray for your kids and for mine. For when they're out on the roads, that they're safe, that we're safe. How many times do we drive down the road and you can smell pot from the car in front of you, or as it passes you, it's truly amazing to me. I'm like, Holy Cow, it is so potent. I don't even know how you're in the car with it. But it won't matter with this piece of Legislation, you could be driving and smoking it. You could have it in your car.
And especially, the kids. I mean what we talked about earlier and not taking it away. I actually agree with the whole de- criminalization of pot and all of those things. But this just goes way too far.
I actually have some constituents that for it. And when
I've talked to them and I tell them the details about this Bill, they say, "Are you out of your mind? You all go so far all the sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 360 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
time." It's not just about legalizing pot and some regulations.
It's always going too far. And as I go -- I go to the YMCA, we're big YMCA of Waterbury fans, and I talk to the preacher, who preaches in the inner-city of Waterbury. There's another minister that runs the largest soup kitchen in the city. There is people that run the homeless shelters. I talk to them all the time and say, "What do you think about this Legislation?" Every one of them say, "Absolutely not. Do not do it."
These are people that are in the cities advocating for people in the inner-cities. Advocating for the youth. And not one has said, "Do it."
And as I sat on Public Health through the years, these agencies, commissioners, they would all come before us. Whether it's DCF when I was on kids -- Children's Committee or Public
Health Committee, all these agencies, and I always say, "What do you think?" Well, they'll never answer on the record. And I question them again and no one will ever give an answer over the years. Then afterwards, I go and talk to people in these agencies and I say, "Tell me what you think." I talked to someone the other day, we were talking about this Legislation. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 361 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
And one of the agencies, they said "Absolutely not. Do not do it."
So with that being said, I will not support this. I won't support it for our kids. I won't -- mainly, our kids. If you're an adult, you can do what you want. But I hope that everybody does stay safe. And I will be saying prayers for all of us.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Thank you, Representative. Representative Mushinsky.
REP. MUSHINSKY (85TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This has been a hard Bill to digest and decide what to do with. Like Representative Steinberg, I've gone back and forth on this. The parts to commend in the Bill are the equal justice. Whether a Connecticut resident is a suburban person or an urban person, they will now be treated the same. And the Bill erases certain marijuana convictions in a clean-slate manner. And that brings us all to a more fair and equitable state. That part I strongly support. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 362 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Some of my constituents are medical marijuana users. They like the parts of the Bill that they believe will give them relief at a more affordable price. And they are in favor of the
Bill and would like me to support it.
We've had, in my District, a recent shift in public opinion. I've been surveying the District on this question, among others for four years. And my own District went from exactly 50/50 for three years in a row, to 55/45 this year. This is a big shift for my District. And I think they are recognizing that they are surrounded by neighbor states which are moving ahead to legalize and they are acquiescing to that. And realizing that it's happening whether they want it or not. And they have definitely, noticeably shifted in the survey.
Still there are part of this Bill that are troublesome and that I worry about. It is still a public health problem if we go ahead and encourage additional drug use. And Dr. Petit covered this very well in his remarks. The brain is still developing till 25 and if I had my wish and could get you all to vote for it, I would make the age of alcohol consumption and marijuana at over 25. I could probably never pass the alcohol version but I would love to do it because science tells us that the brain, sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 363 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
until 25, is affected and its workings are affected by alcohol and drug use before it's fully developed.
We also know and I have some constituents in this situation, and we also know that high-dose, high-potency THC can worsen the course of schizophrenia in a young person. And has also killed some vape users who have vaped marijuana at high concentrations. The Bill says -- It's a long Bill but you can find in there sections that say you can't feed marijuana -- cannabis to domestic animals so we're saying that it's too potent to give to domestic animals but on the other hand, we're legalizing it for our young adults.
The wild plant -- In the wild before it was developed, has only five percent THC. That's not what we're looking for on the market. We're now looking at greatly enhanced potency. You can get a 15% THC, a 30% THC, a 60%, 80% or even higher. And produce a product that is much more effective at impairing the brain.
We also are aware that this will be in conflict with federal law, which may be addressed in the future. That may disappear. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 364 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
But finally, to determine what to do with this, I've spent the last 10 years working with the Coalition for a Better
Wallingford. And that's a group in my town that promotes alternatives to drug and alcohol use. Especially, among young people. We use outdoor exercise, we use art and music and we get the kids to write, we bring in counselors if they are having family problems. Because sometimes the drug and alcohol use are precipitated by stress in the family. We try to work directly on the stress in the family.
This Bill basically conflicts with the Coalition's efforts to make the kids healthy and safe. And bring them to adulthood successfully without using drugs and alcohol. It's really a different way to go. And on balance, I have to agree with the
Coalition that I would prefer to keep the kids drug-free and alcohol-free and work on strengthening their self-esteem so they get to adulthood and can be productive citizens in Connecticut.
So on balance, I think it's a No for me. Although I will complement the folks on the Judiciary Committee and General Law for making the Bill better than it was in previous years. They have really tried. But I'm not there. And I will be voting No.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 365 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Thank you, Representative. Representative Cheeseman of the
37th. Madam, you have the floor.
REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have no questions for the proponent. And you've probably heard far too much from me this afternoon. But I want to address something that I think is a worthy goal of this Bill and that is creating economic opportunity for everyone in this State. But as I look at Section
133, which details tax credits for Angel Investors. And I look at the companies and businesses that were previously listed.
These are the good-paying careers. Those with benefits, those with good retirement, that we are promoting in this State. Bio-
Science. Advanced Materials. Photonics. Information Technology.
Clean Technology. Emerging Technology Business. And then we get to running pot shops and growing weed. Surely, we have higher aspirations and greater hopes and goals for every resident in this State. I have the list of tax credits available from DECD. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 366 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
If we're serious about improving conditions, let's think outside the box. Let's develop a system for giving tax credits to those businesses that adopt elementary schools. And commit to doing thousands of hours of mentoring. Because let's face it, it's those children whom we must target to reach them to make them productive individuals. I've cited before in this Chamber the saddest statistic I ever heard, was that third-grade reading levels are used to predict future prison populations. And it's the young boys, the black and brown boys, and even white boys, who are increasingly left behind.
I object to conflating the ending of the War on Drugs with the legalization of marijuana. By all means, let's undo the wrongs of the past. Let's erase records. Let's expunge things that prevent people from having those productive lives of those who will result of the drug laws being desperately applied. But let's not do it by saying, "Your pathway to the future is through selling a destructive substance."
The Governor issued a press release today on Tunxis
Community College, home to the nation's only National Science
Foundation, Next Generation Manufacturing Technology Center.
Surely, that's what we should be hoping for. For our children sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 367 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
everywhere, whether they are in Hartford or Harwinton or
Bridgeport or -- I'll think of a 'B'. But this is what we need.
This Bill, with its worthy goal of economic opportunity, is a false premise. Because true economic opportunity comes with that good education and these good careers that do not rely on promoting a destructive substance. And I'll wrap up here. We're constantly told we need to be guided by the science, by the experts. And yet, when we look at the testimony, body after body after body, be it the Connecticut Medical Society, the Society of Pediatricians, the Chiefs of Police tell us not to do this.
We were told we had to be guided by the science when we voted on ending the religious exemption for vaccines. We were told we had to be guided when I sat in Finance as Ranking Member and heard the argument banning flavored vapes. Because this was a danger to our children.
Let's be guided by the science now and I ask my colleagues in this Chamber, take the courageous vote. Do what is best for the people, the children in Connecticut. I have the pleasure of serving with people on this side and I know there are those on the other side who take the courageous vote. Who go against the sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 368 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
caucus position. Who go against what people on your side say because you know it is the right thing to do.
I want to do the right thing for the people of Connecticut.
I want to do the right thing for every child, every man, and every woman in Connecticut and in my heart, I can't believe this is the right thing. So thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Thank you, Representative. Representative Nolan of the
39th. Sir, you have the floor.
REP. NOLAN (39TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I have one question and then a comment. Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Please proceed, sir. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 369 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. NOLAN (39TH):
Could the proponent please explain if there has been a task force to determine the correct ways that we should have gone in regards to coming up with what we have at this time for our
Bill?
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Representative Stafstrom.
REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):
Through you, Mr. Speaker, there was not a formal legislative task force, although certainly, this Bill has for years gone through a variety of iterations, a variety of
Committees in the building, and certain there are many hands -- many, many hands that have been put into this product. Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Representative Nolan. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 370 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. NOLAN (39TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm standing today because I heard a lot of chatter throughout the afternoon in regards to people of color. And black and brown people needing to have this. And black and brown people deserving this. And black and brown people needing to stop being treated in ways that they have been treated for so long. And I do agree with that. But I also have to speak for the black and brown people that don’t want to see legalization of marijuana. There are many out there. Especially in my community that do not want to see marijuana be so easily obtainable and that are worried about their children.
I know that I have experienced times where I've had grandmothers call me to come and sit with them while their children have been high on marijuana and acting out at home. Or going to hospitals late at night in regards to children being affected by marijuana. And I worry that will increase. And I worry that public safety will struggle. I worry that our communities will start to obtain new nuisances that have to be dealt with. So I am a big worrier of legalization at this time, without some form of task force to come up with whether or not we should legalize it or how to legalize it, if we are going to. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 371 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
I think that would make many other community members more comfortable in regards to legalization.
I do stand to say that I will not be supporting this at this time, knowing that I have community members that want it supported and community members that do not want it supported.
But I fear that there is going to be some things that we're not going to be able to fix. And some things that are going to be hard to handle in our communities that are just going to increase issues.
One of my colleagues earlier said that she will pray for us. And I think that we are going to need prayer. One thing I do want to make note is that many of us have talked to colleagues in other areas where this has been legalized. And we got information that they were worried about when they passed it.
And we got great information that they were worried to see passed. But it seemed like their worries outweighed the good.
And that remains a problem for me.
I hope that my colleagues are just ready for the changes that this is going to bring. Because I believe it's going to pass. And as I said when I first got here, I will fight to help everything in that Bill be strong when it comes to equity and sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 372 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
when it comes to economic opportunity and workforce. I told everybody that I would support it all the way up and to the point where it has to be voted on. Because I was not in favor of that. And I said this prior to being elected and I said this after being elected. So I will stand here in support of the way that this Bill was put together but I would not be one to support the actual Bill.
But I do congratulate my colleagues in what they've done to put it together because even the other states say that this Bill is one of the strongest Bills that they've seen. Thank you and that's all.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Thank you, Representative. Representative Delnicki of the
14th, sir, you have the floor.
REP. DELNICKI (14TH):
Good evening, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to make a couple of comments. I really hadn't planned on talking on this issue today. But in hearing all the discussion, it brought some sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 373 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
memories back to me of some of my experiences where I worked and in life. And no one's really talked about the commercial driver's license and the mandatory testing that someone who has a commercial driver's license. And when I say that, that can be a school bus driver, that could be an 18-wheeler driver, that can be a large dump truck driver. But they are in a mandatory drug-testing program. Drug and alcohol. And there's a good figure when it comes to alcohol, I believe it's .04. But when it comes to pot, marijuana, it's almost like a go, no-go.
I relay a situation that I ran into a number of years ago with a gentleman who had gone on vacation. He's on vacation for two weeks, he comes back on a Monday and wouldn't you know, he'd get called for a drug and alcohol test. And I told him to jump in the car, I'm going to take him over to Concentra in East
Hartford. And it should be no big deal. You're going to have a test. He said to me, "Tom, I'm going to fail." And I said, "How in the world are you going to fail? I've seen you all morning.
You're stone cold sober. You're not going to fail." He said to me, "Where was I last week?" And I said, "Don't tell me. You were on vacation and you smoked pot." He goes, Yup." sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 374 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Now bear in mind, I'm at that time, 58 years old and he's
64. And he's telling me this. And I said, "Well, let me make a couple of phone calls." Luckily, I called the HR Director, I called my boss, and they both said get a statement from him and we'll put him in a program. Took him over and of course, he tested positive. And through luck and the fact that the
Metropolitan District where I worked at the time, was a good employer and they put him in a program. He had a caveat once he got out of the program. "If you test positive again, that's it.
You lose your CDL and you're going to lose your job." Because that was hard and fast. If you needed a CDL for your job, you could not fail.
So he did the rest of his -- a little less than a year. And retired at 65. But the point being, had he not taken opportunity to tell me that he had been on vacation and that he had smoked pot, he would’ve tested positive and he would have lost his job.
And I don't see that addressed anywhere here in that Bill.
Because I hate to see a situation like that occur.
Now to the best of my knowledge, the only field sobriety testing we have is subjective. And we have an officer in the
South Windsor Department who is actually trained in that. I sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 375 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
believe it's about 25 minutes, a half an hour for the test, to make the determination. But there is no objective test, to the best of my knowledge, that is accurate like the field sobriety testing that they have for alcohol.
Now I go back to 2017 when I first came up here. We had a meeting in South Windsor with a number of folks that provide services to families in crisis. And I asked a very simple question. What do you think about legalizing marijuana? And each one of them, without hesitating, said that they thought that was one of the worse things we could do. And I said, "Why?" Because the kids now will say, "Well, Mom, Dad, you can do it. You can smoke pot so why can't we?" And they used the same words, I hate to repeat it, when I was a kid "Gee, you guys drink alcohol. Why can't I have a beer?" Luckily, the statute of limitations is gone on that one.
But the point being, they didn't hesitate to express that concern about what that would mean to families and how that could cause a situation where a young man or a young woman could start smoking pot and then have the issues we heard about when it came to developmental issues. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 376 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
That leads me to a class reunion I went to. Back I think it was my 10th or 15th year reunion from South Windsor High. And somebody I knew that smoked quite a bit of pot in school, talking to him, you could tell something wasn't right. That he had lost something there compared to his contemporaries. And I asked him, I said, "Are you still smoking pot?" He says, "Yeah."
And albeit this is anecdotal but nonetheless, it brings light to that issue. Because I've seen that.
I doubt very much the underground market will go away. I have a feeling that folks that want the high-potency pot are going to seek it out, regardless.
And I know that there is, I believe, 25% of the tax revenue is going to go to helping families and the situations pertaining to kids. But when we had that meeting in South Windsor, with the folks that provided services, they were saying 50%. And in the next breath, they said, "But can we count on it being there?
Count on it never going away? And count on always having the funding we will need to help these families and help these kids?" Think about that. How many times have we seen funding go away? sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 377 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
You know, it's, this story is a little tougher to, to relay, and it was a family that I know that had a young fellow who was coming back from a party with his, with his girlfriend, and he didn't smoke that night at the party but a couple days prior he had. He lost control of the vehicle, not because of being under the influence and not because of smoking a couple days prior, and quite honestly, he had no reason to lie to me.
And his girlfriend gets thrown out of the car, she wasn't wearing her seatbelt. They end up going to the hospital, she perished in the initial accident. He was tested and he came up positive and the rest is history, he did a significant amount of time in one of our penal institutions.
If we're doing this because of revenue, because of tax money, because other states are doing it; then in my mind, that's all the wrong reason. If we're going to do it, we had best do it right. And we've heard numerous Amendments here that would make the Bill better, yet none of them were adopted. I cannot support this Bill that we have before us tonight. And I would hope that we all take a step back and say, is this the right piece of Legislation? Because if we do this, we need to get it right. We did make, we need to make sure it's right. And sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 378 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
if we get it wrong, we're talking about people's lives and how they can be impacted. Thank you Mr. Speaker for the opportunity to say a few words about this. And I will not be supporting this
Bill tonight. Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Thank you Representative. Representative Dathan of the
142nd. Ma'am, you have the floor.
REP. DATHAN (142ND):
Thank you very much Mr. Speaker, and I just have a, a few comments. I just wanted to take a chance to thank the good supporter of this Bill, and all of the supporters of this Bill in this building, who have worked tirelessly, not just this legislative session, but for many legislative sessions. Looking at other models that we have going on in our country when it comes to this, picking out the things that are important to and reflect the values of our state.
I was very pleased to see that there has been a strong equity lens looking at this initiative, and that was important sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 379 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
to me. I also was very pleased to see that there was a criminal ratio for records for people who have been convicted earlier.
And I heard from a lot of my constituents who are in the medical marijuana recipient card, how this Bill was very important to them because it'll help them be able to get their necessary medication through marijuana easily and more affordably.
I listened to a lot of stories tonight from different folks who came and talked about how they have loved ones who, who regularly smoke or they know people that do or they've smelt it or seen it with their children. And I think the one thing that we have here is we have the reality, that marijuana is in our state already. We, tonight we're, we're debating whether we are going to legalize it or not, but the facts are it's already here. And the reality is you can either be a few minutes' drive to get it legally or you can be less than an hour. Anywhere in our state, this is the reality.
And if we choose this evening not to legalize, we are potentially cutting off a funding source to help the people that are already dealing with, with marijuana addiction, but also a funding source that is going to help prevent and be able to educate children. We are also giving an opportunity to ensure sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 380 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
that we have better advertising practices in our state, so we don't subject children. So those two pieces are very important.
This Mental Health and Prevention Fund of 25% is something that's so, so, so important to me. I have talked to so many people and yes, I would love to see it be 50%. But I am so happy that we have chosen to allocate a fund to do that. And I'm going to use my power as a legislator to ensure that we continue to use that in the future because it is that important.
If we're going to do this, we need to do this correctly.
And I am supportive of the fact that we are doing this in a responsible way. So thank you to everyone who has worked on this
Bill. And thank you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Thank you Representative. Representative Kennedy, ma'am, you have the floor.
REP. KENNEDY (119TH):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know it's been just about seven hours now. I have no question for the proponent, just a quick sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 381 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
comment. I rise as a founding member of the Milford Prevention
Council which advocates very much for prevention of substance abuse. But more importantly, I rise as a mom, a mom of a 25- year-old and a 22-year-old. And before you push your buttons tonight, I know some of you have made up your mind, but I just want to challenge my colleagues in this Chamber to read a book called Sunny's Story. The author is the CEO and founder of the
Courage to Speak Foundation. It's a nonprofit, founded after her son died of a drug overdose.
The Courage to Speak Foundation provides insight for young person's journey into addiction, but most importantly empowering children and our youth to be drug free and encouraging parents to be more communicative with their children. Sunny’s Story is a book written for children of all ages, for parents, educators, and tells of her son's addiction from the perspective of Sunny, the family's Beagle, our furry little friend was very close to this young man.
This young man was just 20 years old when he passed away.
Sorry. It started for him with a cigarette, a sip of beer and marijuana to his death, from an overdose of heroin, a mixture of heroin and Valium. As I said, he was just 20 years old. The sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 382 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
night before he died, he said to his mom, mom, I want to see a doctor, I can't do this anymore. He said I need to take care of the problem. So they made an appointment to see the doctor the next day. Sadly, when his mom checked him in the morning, he was dead.
I just tell the story, and I just asked my colleagues to just think about it before we push this button. Think about it as a parent. I know, before I make my decision, I certainly will be thinking about this as a parent. Thank you Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Thank you ma'am. I do apologize that on both sides when you're speaking, I'm sitting, I am battling bit of a shoulder injury right now, so please don't take it personally when it hurts, it's easier to sit down. Representative France, you’ve the floor sir.
REP. FRANCE (42ND):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. And it's been a robust debate, interesting debate on both sides on this issue. So there are sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 383 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
supporters and detractors of this issue and they've told personal stories. And the challenge that we have here is why this policy and why now? I'll relay a story, probably three years ago, maybe four, good friend of mine who happens to be a partner in one of the medical marijuana dispensaries, and she was an advocate for legalization of marijuana. And my response to her and the conversation went like this. So you would like 14 year olds to smoke marijuana? Immediately, she says no, it wouldn't be legal for them, it'd be 21 or 25, some other age. So
I said to her do 14 year olds drink alcohol, do 14 year olds smoke cigarettes? Unfortunately, the answer to both those questions is yes, even though it is illegal for them to purchase that product and consume that product.
But that's the reality that we have in our society. And some have alluded to why that is, because when something is legal, therefore inherently to a young mind, it must be safe.
Otherwise, why would it be legal? It must be safe. Some will say, okay if I'm 18, it's legal. But I'm more mature, I'm 16 or
I'm 14, I'm more mature than most of my friends, therefore I can handle it. And so when I brought that up to her, her response sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 384 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
was, but we need the money. And I would argue that's exactly why we're here. We've been sold on the money.
Unfortunately, we haven't learned the lessons of states like Colorado and California where I grew up. They have a very different story to tell, about their experience legalizing marijuana in their states. It is disappointing because we should not be making policy based on the money that will come in, and unfortunately in this case, that money will only be good for a year or two at most before the cost of social service programs will far outweigh the revenue that comes in. And that is exactly what the State of Colorado found out.
In fact, the Governor of Colorado several years after he approved that Bill said if you'd had the do over again, he would not sign it because of the impact to his state. And the US
Attorney for the District of Colorado wrote an Op-Ed in the
Denver Post several years ago outlining all of the issues that had been risen because of the legalization. All the things that they predicted, lower arrest records for minorities, which did not turn out to be true. In California, they actually sold it as a way to get rid of the black market. The reality is the black market is just as strong as it has ever was and it grew in sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 385 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
California after they legalized marijuana. Now why would that be?
For the legal sale of marijuana, you have overhead, you have advertising, you have taxes. If you look at the black market, none of that exists. Their costs are significantly lower so they can undersell the legal market.
Interestingly enough, when you look at this issue in the intersection with a multibillion dollar industry in our state that many of the other states that have legalized it don't have it and that's the defense industry. When you look at the consequences, I know that the governor and the senior leadership of each of our defensive companies in our state have had conversations and there are protections within the Bill for them or processes that they can take a veil of. But there's a cost, a direct cost to each one of them.
If we look at Electric Boat, which has about 12,000 employees in the State of Connecticut, they will almost certainly be forced to do random drug testing. And what does that mean? Well, if it's modeled on the military program, it is
10% of the workforce on a random basis every month. The cost of that test is anywhere from $30 to $60 per test. So you do the sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 386 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
math; well take some easy numbers about $50 per test, 1200 employees per month, $60,000 per month just for the cost of the test, $720,000 a year.
Now, you might say for multibillion dollar business, that's an insignificant number. But it's a cost they wouldn't have absent this legislature passing this Bill. But that doesn't take into account the last time. What is that last time, that is the time that that employee is not producing on the waterfront for the company, not generating work, that generates revenue for the company? Let's just say it's an hour, it's probably more, but let's just say it's an hour that they have to be paid to go take this urinalysis and this drug test; 1200 man hours, 150 man days of work. Now when I was stationed at Porsche Naval Shipyard about 20 years ago, the cost of a man day was $700 a man day, it's probably closer to $1,000 a man day today; 1200 employees,
$1,000 a man day, $1.2 million.
This is the cost that we are going to inflict on defense industry. We have four major contractors in our state. Besides
Electric Boat, we also have United Technologies, Pratt &
Whitney, and Sikorsky. Only one of those four businesses is anchored here. Electric Boat because of the shipyard. The other sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 387 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
four various times in recent, recent history, we've had to pay them to stay. We need to consider that as well. Because it's also not those, just those four industries, it's also the hundreds of defense subcontractors that support that industry.
They will also be impacted.
And I remember after the 2018 election, wondering if
Electric Boat, the CEO would take a position. It's interesting in January, the Providence Journal asked Jeffrey Geiger who was the CEO at the time, what would be the impact if Rhode Island legalized marijuana. He said it would make it very complicated because marijuana and security clearances don't match well. And my good friend here sitting next to me asked this question of the current CEO during the annual presentation by Electric Boat and he reiterated a similar objection to this legalization, because it had a dramatic impact on their ability to perform.
We've heard stories today about the significant consequence, the lives that will be damaged, lives will be lost because of this policy. And the argument that many in this
Chamber make that if we can save one life, then we should pass the Bill. And here we are, we know that there are going to be negative consequences to those lives. When we talk about the sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 388 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
defense industry, we're not talking about lives, which are the most critical impact of this Legislation. In this case, we're talking about national security and the impact of the submarine industry on that and the ability of Electric Boat and other defense contractors to maintain a workforce in this state.
Because truly, marijuana and security clearances do not match.
That is what we ought to be thinking about. Not the short term money that we'll see that as I said is good for a year or two just like Colorado figured out. But I will tell you Mr. Speaker, the reason we are here is 30 pieces of silver, 30 pieces of silver is why we're here, it's the money. And that is no way that we should be making good policy for the people of the State of Connecticut. Thank you Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Thank you sir. Representative Candelaria followed by the
Minority Representative Candelora. You've the floor sir.
REP. CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Bill that's Amended. It'll surprise to many of sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 389 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
you that initially I wasn't in support of this Bill many, many years ago. But I'll take you all a quick story. I had a niece that passed away because she was smoking marijuana and it was laced with another chemical if I recall correctly was PCP. She is not here today, single mother, left the child that was raised by the father, thank God for that.
The reason that I came around in support of adult use cannabis is for that same reason, to protect the children. I am a father, I do have children, and I don't want to see my children go through this path. But in order to do that, we need to change, we need to adopt this Bill. And why do we need to do that, to ensure that the measures and the provisions in this
Bill addressed that same aspect. Without this Bill Mr. Speaker, we have an unregulated black market that's thriving, that's not a secret. We're talking over $300 million. Our kids are smoking, they're smoking a substance that's been laced that we don't know what's in it. And what we are trying to attempt with this Bill is to ensure that these kids do not have access. Is this the perfect Bill, no, it's not? Well, we probably have to come back and fix it, yes, we will. But I think this is the best Bill in the nation right now when it comes to equity. There is many sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 390 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
provisions in this Bill that addresses equity. We're able to repair the wrongs of the past and ensure that these communities that have been disproportionately impacted are made whole. We are able with this Bill to allocate dollars, not only for these people that want to invest in cannabis establishments, but to utilize these equity dollars to invest in other businesses, maybe a neighbor that wants to open a nail salon. Right now they don't have that opportunity. With this Bill, they will have that opportunity.
We create a fund, a prevention of recovery fund under this
Bill to address public health issues, because there is a concern and we need to look at that, we need to study it. We need to have the dollars to invest not only in prevention, but recovery services. There is not enough dollars to do that, and this Bill take us where we want to go. I have so much to say, but I want to thank a lot of people because there is a lot of people that make this possible, throughout the years fighting for it. I remember when I didn't have a Public Hearing on this Bill, to see it today on the board. And if it goes up or down, at least
I'll cast my vote, but it will be a vote in the affirmative, sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 391 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
because I know it will address a lot of wrongs in our community.
I'll leave it at that Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Thank you Deputy Speaker Candelaria, and the Minority
Leader, Representative Candelora, you've the floor sir.
REP. CANDELORA (86TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise as no surprise in opposition to this Legislation. Unfortunately, I think that this Bill is a bad idea whose time has come. And what I hear today, I think we all talk about, you know, regulating marijuana and trying to help with prevention, and does the four corners of this Bill address everything. But, you know, you really have to do a gut check when you look at this Legislation, and it just doesn't seem right.
First off, we are trampling on the medical industry that we so hard 10 years ago put together, passed into Legislation. And
I think what's happened among all of our states is medical use of marijuana is certainly used for certain patients, cancer sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 392 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
patients who may be at end of life treatment. And so maybe taking an edible or getting a delivery model that has THC through vaping, those delivery systems could be very appropriate for them. And somehow that medical industry has morphed over into commercialization. And so we've seen California and
Colorado and Massachusetts are all falling by the same way side of conflating medical now with, with the commercialization.
And I think that it's a big mistake for our state to be going this route. It's not to say that I'm opposed to the people's ability to go smoke a joint if they want to. Certainly growing up through, through my teenage years and into college, there were people that enjoyed partaking in that kind of activity. But what we're doing here today in the State of
Connecticut is very different. We are taking a drug and commercializing it and giving free access albeit or attempting for 21 years and older, but free access to every kind of delivery model of this drug that you can think of. And what is naturally going to happen, which always happens, I mean, our children are like curious cats, it trickles down to those ages.
And so I think this Bill really fails to address that issue. You know, I become more of an expert on marijuana not through sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 393 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
reading and listening to these public hearings, but I have teenage children. And I have to say that when you drop your kids off at school, you think it's the safest place to put them. And
I have snatched my children out of the jaws of drug addiction that they have discovered from being in schools. And I don't mean to even disparage them, but it's there. Children are using the THC products, you know, 90% vaping it because it's odorless and it can be done right in the classroom under a teacher's nose.
This Bill really does nothing to protect against that, it proliferates it. And I would suggest that all of those products should remain in our medical program, where people are actually going through the process of getting a card and leave commercial in another arena. You know, we hear about, you know, reparations and trying to use this money to repair the sins of the past. But nothing in this Bill is going to address the heartbreaks of the future.
I have no question in my mind that this is a mistake for the State of Connecticut. In my other life, I operate a sports facility. It's healthy activity, people are going there to recreate. I already can't tell you the amount of outdoor smoking sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 394 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
that occurs at our facility, and there is a mixing of adults and children. And people may [inaudible] throughout Connecticut think they want to legalize it. But nobody wants to smell it when they're going out to dinner, when they're going out to play softball or baseball. But this Legislation doesn't protect against that. Because if they're allowed to smoke a cigarette outside, they're going to be allowed to smoke a joint outside.
And it shouldn't be lost on any of us that the State of
Connecticut banned drinking in six of our parks, because it's getting out of control. And we are passing a Bill right now, that is going to allow for another substance to be introduced in our public parks that we already don't have the manpower to address.
So I think many of my colleagues here today have gone through and spoke about their concerns about this Bill. And I have no question, we're going to be revisiting these provisions.
I do think that we have got to address the ability to pull people over who might be drug driving. And so I'm not going to repeat those things, but I just want to, I guess end by saying as we move forward, I hope we keep having this conversation and keep an eye on Colorado, because I think as that Governor said a sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 395 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
long time ago, let us be the guinea pig. And Colorado is already trying to retreat from Legislation that they have done. And so I thank you Mr. Speaker, and I hope that we don't regret this decision, but unfortunately I think we will. Thank you.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Thank you to the Minority Leader and to the Majority
Leader, you have the floor sir. Representative Rojas.
REP. ROJAS (9TH):
Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. I want to begin obviously by thanking all the Chairs of the respective Committees who answered questions today. I want to thank their Senate counterparts for doing the same. I certainly want to thank staff from Governor Lamont's Office for the incredible expertise and knowledge that they brought to the negotiations in developing this Bill. I want to thank my colleagues from the Black and
Puerto Rican caucus, many of whom are advocating for this
Legislation. Years before, I was an active proponent, years before residents of Connecticut overwhelmingly support legalization. They've been doing this for a long time and I'm sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 396 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
grateful for their work and support over the years in getting us to where we are today.
I want to acknowledge how difficult it's been for many of my colleagues on this issue. I know this has been an evolution for many of you, and I respect all of you regardless of how you vote today. But now is the time to move in a different direction. The road to this moment has been long and complicated. It began with a federal prohibition on marijuana in
1937. It was complicated by a war on drugs launched in 1971, that took a tough on crime approach, an approach that has impacted the lives of millions of Americans whose involvement with the use of a substance should have been treated as a public health matter rather than a criminal justice manner. And that impact on people has been disproportionately borne by low income people, by people of color, by those who live in urban areas, and by those who simply could not afford legal counsel.
Again, I will acknowledge that there are those who willingly engage in activities that were illegal, they broke the law, but even in those situations, there was injustice to how those crimes were adjudicated. It is clear that depending on where you lived, where you consume cannabis, your income, the sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 397 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
impact of your involvement with cannabis resulted in a disparate treatment resulting in negative consequences for not only the individual, but their families and entire communities. And that is why we've been so focused on this question of equity, equity and access to a new marketplace, equity and how revenue is invested, equity and how criminal records are handled. The public wants to see that change.
Popular sentiments towards legalization have changed dramatically over the past 10 years. 18 states have now legalized regulated in tax cannabis for adults 21 and older, 13 states have removed the possibility of jail time for possession of modest amounts of cannabis for personal use. And now in the land of study habits were posed to be the next state. And we are doing so in a way that ensures we do all we can to mitigate exposure to children. No use of toys or cartoons, no advertising in a medium timer place in which more than 10% of the audience is reasonably expected to be a minor, not within 500 feet of a school. It addresses the injustices of policies that historically have been applied inequitably. We provide adults, adults with a legal and safe way to consume cannabis if that is their preference. We create the infrastructure that will result sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 398 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
in the creation of small businesses, the creation of jobs, the creation of wealth. We empower the Department of Consumer
Protection to ensure product safety and general public health to establish comprehensive set of regulations on dosage, on potency, on serving size limits, on consumer health materials; all of those things are in this Bill. We are moving forward with legalizing adult use cannabis. We're doing so in a responsible way, in an equitable way, and I urge passage.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Will staff and guests, please come to the wall the House.
Will Members please take your seats? The machine will be open.
CLERK:
The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber or to your portals. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber or to your portals. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 399 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Have all the Members voted? Have all the Members voted? If all the Members have voted, the machine will be locked. Will the
Clerk please take a tally? Will the Clerk please announce the tally?
CLERK:
Senate Bill 1201 as Amended by House "A":
Total Number Voting 138 Necessary for Passage 70 Those voting Yea 76 Those voting Nay 62 Those absent and not voting 13
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
The Bill as Amended is passed (gavel). Chamber will stand at ease for a moment. Chamber will come back to order. We have a couple of announcements, points of personal privilege.
Representative Dathan, you have the floor madam. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 400 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. DATHAN (142ND):
Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. I rise in great joy this evening. New Canaan High School, class of 2020-2021 had their graduation today, and I'm so proud that my firstborn child Will, his name is actually James Hartley William Dathan, a big mouthful, but he graduated today and I'm just so delighted and over the moon and he is probably delighted that I'm up here and out of his way this evening so he can go on and go out with his friends. But I would love if everybody could please give a round of applause for all the Rams 2021. Thank you.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Congratulations. Yes, he is going to Northeastern next year, correct?
REP. DATHAN (142ND):
Yeah. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 401 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Congratulations and best wishes to him at Northeastern.
Representatives Ziogas. That might've been an accident.
Representative Garibay, you have the floor madam.
REP. GARIBAY (60TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. I stand for a point of personal privilege.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
You may proceed madam.
REP. GARIBAY (60TH):
Thank you. I want to announce that we had five Eagle Scouts on Sunday that got their Eagle Scouts award. Noah Keany,
[inaudible] his father used to be a State Representative here years ago with your father Mr. Speaker, Bowden Gabko, Samuel L.
Meyer, and Harrison [inaudible] and this troop yearly is having three to four or more Eagle Scouts. The parents are dedicated and they do an incredible job. And I have one more comment, my sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 402 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
grandson is at the beach waiting for me, and he saw me. My sister texted me, she said wave and he has been watching. So
Falen, here's grandma saying hello. Thank you.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Well, hello to him and we'll try to get you back to the beach at a decent hour tonight madam. You know, it may come as a shock to you Representative Garibay, but I was never an Eagle
Scout. Not sure if that surprises you or not, but I did not make at the cut. Representative Klarides-Ditria, you have the floor madam.
REP. KLARIDES-DITRIA (105TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise for a point of personal privilege.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
You may proceed madam. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 403 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. KLARIDES-DITRIA (105TH):
I'd like to congratulate the Seymour High School girl softball team, the Lady Wildcats for winning the 2021 State
Championship this past Saturday. It's their 12th championship in the history of Seymour softball and it's the 20th state final appearance for Seymour softball. So congratulations to the girls, the coaches. The town is very proud of you.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Truly a dominant softball program down there, always in the championship game, always winning [inaudible] game or two. All right. No more announcements or introductions. Let's see if we're ready for, not yet. We'll stand at ease for a second. Will the Clerk please call Senate Joint Resolution 75?
CLERK:
Senate Joint Resolution 75, REVOLUTION CONVENING THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN SPECIAL SESSION, introduced by Senator
Looney, Senator Duff, Representative Ritter, Representative
Rojas. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 404 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Representative Rojas, the Majority Leader, and the
Connecticut House Representative, you have the floor sir.
REP. ROJAS (9TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move for adoption of Emergency
Certified Senate Joint Resolution 75.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Question is adoption. Will you remark further sir?
REP. ROJAS (9TH):
This is a call for our next special session to deal with our federal funding issues.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Thank you. Would you care to remark further on the
Resolution? Would you care to remark further on the Resolution? sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 405 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House,
Members please take your seats. The machine will be open.
CLERK:
The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber or to your portals. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber or to your portals.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Alright, have all the Members voted? If all the Members have voted, the machine; if all Members have voted, the machine will be locked. Will the Clerk please take a tally? Will the
Clerk please announce the tally?
CLERK:
SJ 75:
Total Number Voting 139 Necessary for Adoption 76 Those voting Yea 137 Those voting Nay 2 Those absent and not voting 12 sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 406 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
The Resolution is passed (gavel). Chamber will stand at ease for a moment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Will the Chamber come back to order? Will the Clerk please call Emergency Certified Senate Bill No. 1202.
CLERK:
Emergency Certification Senate Bill 1202, AN ACT CONCERNING
PROVISIONS RELATED TO REVENUE AND OTHER ITEMS TO IMPLEMENT THE
STATE BUDGET FOR THE BIENNIUM ENDING JUNE 30, 2023, introduced by Senator Looney, Representative Ritter.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Representative Walker, Chairman of the Appropriations
Committee. Ma'am, you have the floor. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 407 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Thank you sir, and good evening. Mr. Speaker, the I move for acceptance of Emergency Certified Bill 1202 and I ask for passage in concurrence with the Senate.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Question is passage of the Bill in concurrence with the
Senate of Senate Bill 1202. Will you remark? Will you remark?
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Yes. Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an Amendment LCO 10933. I would ask that the Clerk please call the Amendment and that I be granted leave to summarize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Will the Clerk please call LCO 10933, which has been designated Senate Amendment "A". sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 408 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
CLERK:
Senate Amendment "A" LCO No. 10933, offered by Senator
Looney, Senator Duff.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
The Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the Amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative Walker, you may proceed with summarization.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Mr. Speaker, I move adoption and I would like a voice vote.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
The question before the Chamber is adoption of Senate
Amendment Schedule "A". Will you remark on the Amendment? Is there an objection to a voice vote? Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 409 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
(MEMBERS):
Aye.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Opposed nay? The ayes have it. The Amendment is adopted
(Gavel). Will you remark further on the Bill as Amended?
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an Amendment LCO 11000, I'll say that one more time, 11000 LCO. I would ask the Clerk to please call the Amendment and I be granted leaving the Chamber to summarize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Will the Clerk please call LCO 11000, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule "A". sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 410 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
CLERK:
House Amendment Schedule "A" LCO No. 11000, offered by
Representative Ritter, Representative Rojas.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
The Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the Amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none, madam you may proceed.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as you know, this is the, the underlying Bill as the Amendment is, is the implementer that we have been working on ever since we passed the budget.
The implementer is something that many people have worked on and
I hope that it will be reflected as we go through the, the
Amendment. I move adoption.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Question before the Chamber is adoption of House Amendment
Schedule "A". Is there any objection to a voice vote on this sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 411 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Amendment? Is there objection? Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
(MEMBERS):
Aye.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Opposed nay? The ayes have it. The Amendment is adopted.
Will you remark further on the Bill as Amended? Senate,
Representative Walker, I guess not. Will you remark further on the Bill as Amended? Representative France of the 42nd. Sir?
REP. FRANCE (42ND):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Few questions through you to the proponent.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Please proceed sir. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 412 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FRANCE (42ND):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. And the first question I have relates to Section 10. And the new language at Section 10, lines
294 through 300 relating to the Retirement Commission and
[inaudible]. Through you Mr. Speaker, what is the impact of that language on the actuarial assessment? Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. And I thank the good gentlemen for the question. Section 10 requires deposits of the [inaudible] from the volatility cap to be reflected in the system valuation.
Effectively, it's going to lower how we, how much we pay out of the general fund in this item. Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Representative France. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 413 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FRANCE (42ND):
Thank you for the answer, and I, and I think it's a positive thing we've seen routinely year over year since the volatility cap has been enacted excess funds above the 15% of the budget in the budget reserve fund which has allowed them, so it's good prudent fiscal sense to actually deposit that money before we do the actuarial assessment which would reduce the payment to that fund.
Next section I have a question is in Section 100, specifically lines 4109 through 4117. In there, deals with restrictions on the American Rescue Plan should be a violation of federal law. And through you Mr. Speaker, it is unclear what happens to the funds should there be a violation of federal law and, and what the process would be to assess that. So through you Mr. Speaker, how is the funds that are being, that are being expended by the executive branch as authorized by the legislature going to be tracked and overseen, and then what if they are in violation of federal law, what is the recourse?
Through you Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 414 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. And I thank the good gentlemen for. for that question because this is very important. And as he knows, we worked on this collaboratively because we had a question about whether or not if LAP things relapsed or not paid out through the because of the federal restrictions, we want to make sure that those issues would then come back to the
Appropriations and we would work on how we reallocate that.
Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):
Representative France.
REP. FRANCE (42ND):
Thank you for that answer. And I think it's important to ensure that the money that we've obligated and shared in the
American Rescue Plan that is used in accordance with the federal sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 415 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
guidelines and that there is appropriate oversight, and, and I'm glad that we have that language in there to ensure that that's exactly what happens.
Next question I have is Section 235, it's dealing with the
Contracting Standards Board. And I guess I'm a little confused as I sit here and see we just passed the budget with funding in there, but this, this section, it appears to lapse the money before we even start the fiscal year. So through you Mr.
Speaker, what is the impact of Section 235 on the operation of the Contracting Standards Board?
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Through you, through you Mr. Speaker, good to see you Mr.
Speaker. Through you Mr. Speaker, that is correct. What we've done is we have left the money and we needed to remove it, but it's now going to lapse, it's 400,000. But we hope to again sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 416 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
reallocate that in our next special session so that we do not allow those funds to stay through that. Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative France.
REP. FRANCE (42ND):
Thank you for that clarification. And I guess my concern is, you know, eight days ago, we established a policy to put that money in the budget and here we are eight days later taking it away through an intentional lapse on the first day of each fiscal year. It seems kind of odd that we would be doing that as a legislature. So I look forward to the continued discussion and looking for funds to replenish that so the Contracting Standards
Board can take the actions that we had for them budgeted for in the budget.
Finally, final section is Section 340, which deals with the additional money from the American Rescue Plan funds being allocated. And one question related to, let me pull up real quick, line 535. Is additional $15 million added in there for sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 417 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
something termed "unemployment support" and through you Mr.
Speaker, could the good proponent explain what is unemployment support, and what is the $15 million is going to be used for?
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Yes, and I thank the gentleman for that. Through you Mr.
Speaker, the Governor's Office felt that they needed additional dollars to help support the work in the office of the
Unemployment Office and they needed additional staffing. I think they're adding 50 temporary employees to work to handle the unemployment activities. And this was a request to the
Governor's Office. That's what the $15 million is for. Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative France. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 418 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FRANCE (42ND):
Thank you for that, and certainly we've all seen the challenges that our residents have faced with Department of
Labor and deal with unemployment insurance. So I hope the $15 million will be invested appropriately so that our residents who are taking advantage of unemployment are forced into that situation will not deal with what we've experienced over the last year.
And that finishes the question. I just have one, I guess disappointment. We had talked during the budget debate related to Unemployment Trust Fund and I see that the number is still at
$155 million. I know that we are still going to come back and debate the American Rescue Plan. But I talked about this in the debate on the budget of the small, medium sized businesses and the impact that we saw from the last recession in 2008. And I guess I want to just make sure we characterize this appropriately.
In 2008, we had an economic downturn, and certainly that would impact on the businesses that we had in our state and there was a consequence to that for unemployment insurance. So the difference in this action and where I would say that we sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 419 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
should have reimbursed the entire amount that we took out is because this was not due to an economic downturn, it was due to the actions of government. Government decided which businesses were essential and which businesses were not. And in that, had the impact of forcing some businesses because they were deemed non-essential to be laying off employees. So through a term that
I don't like to use a lot, but through no fault of their own, they had to lay off their employees because there was no business coming in, because the government decided they were not essential as they've incurred this costs. And now because we have not reimbursed that fund, they're going to pay a double penalty. Not only did they struggle for the last year not being able to do any business, and many of these small business owners that is the money that pays for their families. But now they're going to be charged a surcharge.
And if we look at the experience of the 2008 recession, it was almost seven years where these small businesses were forced with surcharge for each employee. Many of them did not lay anybody off, but they had the fee anyway because that's how the process works. So I would reiterate my call that I think we need to substantially increase the amount of money we put in the sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 420 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Unemployment Insurance Fund because our small medium sized businesses that are the big growth factors that are stated will lead the recovery of our economy, need to have that support, need to have that money invested so they aren't paying a double penalty and they're, the cost to them for the last year of the pandemic related to actions of the government, not because of the economy or not a further penalty on them. Thank you Mr.
Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you sir. Do you care to remark further?
Representative Cheeseman? You have the floor madam.
REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):
What, what a fine way to cap off a wonderful day, and I'm going to have to remember my questions. Thank you very much Mr.
Speaker. I do have a few questions and I'm not quite sure to whom I should address them. But first is with regard to the repayment of the bonds for the paid family and medical leave program. I believe they are required to repay these bonds under an OPM schedule. And I was just wondering where that $12.2 sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 421 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
million in repayment money comes from, because obviously the purpose of the fund is to allow people to take paid family and medical leave and it concerns me that monies that might be needed to pay for that leave are being used to cover the debt.
So through you Mr. Speaker, if we could get an explanation of how that's going to play out?
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Scanlon, you have the floor sir.
REP. SCANLON (98TH):
Through you Mr. Speaker, good evening. It's existing policy, and what this does is just repay the bonds. Through you
Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Cheeseman. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 422 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):
So thank you. Through you Mr. Speaker, so this, this will not affect the ability of the authority to allocate those funds for the paid family medical leave, because I understand people are going to be applying as of January 1, 2022. Through you Mr.
Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Scanlon.
REP. SCANLON (98TH):
Through you Mr. Speaker, if the, my good friend can repeat the question?
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Cheeseman if you don't mind repeating the question please. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 423 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):
I would be happy to. So through you Mr. Speaker, so this repayment of $12.2 million will not affect the ability of the authority to pay out the leave for which people would be applying as of January 1, 2022. Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Scanlon.
REP. SCANLON (98TH):
Through you Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Cheeseman.
REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):
Okay. And again, it's my good colleague who was attempting to fix my microphone sort of distracted me. So this is Sections
22 to 27, which transfers the Institute for Municipal and sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 424 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Regional Policy from CCSU to the University of Connecticut. I was wondering at the reason that this transfer was taking place.
Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Thank you Mr. Speaker, and I thank the gentlelady for the question. Yes, the, the, I'm sorry, the IMR, okay. The, the
Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy is a program that was, that had done research from the, from Central Connecticut
State University, and now they have transferred many of their programs over to UConn to make conforming changes, but continue with the same interests that they've been using in the things that they did with Connecticut, with Central Connecticut State
University. Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Cheeseman. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 425 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):
Thank you. Through you Mr. Speaker, so is it the understanding of belief that UConn will be better placed to carry out their research and the reason I am questioning this, I know they were the entity tasked with implementing the Results
First program, and I was appointed to that panel I think two years ago, and I've never been asked to attend a meeting. So I would love to see a more effective use of this, because I do believe the program is an excellent one, particularly when it comes to assessing our departmental programs for their efficacy.
So that's a long winded way of saying, is this going to make it work better? Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
It is my hope and desire because I also am very strongly support Results First, something that we started quite some time ago and hope to really get it into the process of how we sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 426 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
evaluate our programs to see if we're really in the right direction. Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Cheeseman.
REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):
Thank you. And through you Mr. Speaker, I'm looking at
Sections 81 through 86, which is transferring lottery revenue to the Debt Free Community College account, and I believe this is simply carrying out the statutory promise we made when we instituted the Debt Free Community College program; is that correct? Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Through you Mr. Speaker, the, the gentlelady is correct. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 427 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Cheeseman.
REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):
Alright, and again, Section 464 raises the aggregate cap on the Insurance Reinvestment Fund. And this is to increase the allocation for the Invest CT fund; is that correct? Through you
Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Scanlon.
REP. SCANLON (98TH):
Through you Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Cheeseman. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 428 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):
Thank you. And Section 468, through you Mr. Speaker, this keeps our current limits on property income tax credits does not increase them. Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Scanlon.
REP. SCANLON (98TH):
It keeps them at current eligibility levels, through you
Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Cheeseman.
REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):
And where was this one? So section 473, reducing the alcohol excise tax on beer. This was a new one to me. I don't know if this came, fine, I don't recall seeing this in finance. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 429 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
If we could just get some explanation behind that? Through you
Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Scanlon.
REP. SCANLON (98TH):
Through you Mr. Speaker, no, it did not come through
Finance. But it is my understanding that it was part of the conversation surrounding the bottle Bill and it's a decrease on the tax on the distributors. Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Cheeseman.
REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):
Thank you. And through you Mr. Speaker, and I can't recall the question, but perhaps the good Chair of Finance will help me. I believe there is a provision that explains that the sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 430 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
manufacturing tax credit is, now should be deemed available to breweries; is, is that correct? Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Scanlon.
REP. SCANLON (98TH):
Through you Mr. Speaker, yes, that is my understanding that is still in this Bill. Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Cheeseman.
REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):
Thank you. Through you Mr. Speaker, and I believe if I'm not mistaken, this is to, this is to address an issue whereas the breweries felt they were already always deemed eligible for this. There was some dispute with DRS and this is simply fixing that misunderstanding? Through you Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 431 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Scanlon.
REP. SCANLON (98TH):
Through you Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the brewers that technically manufacture a product were not able to claim the credit that every other manufacturer was for doing such manufacturing. And given that this is a growing and burgeoning industry here in Connecticut that is manufacturing quite a bit of stuff, we thought that it was prudent for us to extend the same kind of benefit to them in order to, to reward them for the manufacturing equipment that they are purchasing and using in the state. Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Cheeseman.
REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):
Thank you. And through you Mr. Speaker, I believe that
Sections 496 through 502 limit public assistance recoveries. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 432 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
This is links back to that first Bill that the Tripartite Bill is I'd used to describe it, that looked at pilot funding and removed the liens on property of the claiming reclaiming assistance payment. Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Scanlon.
REP. SCANLON (98TH):
Through you Mr. Speaker, yes, the original Bill that we did back early in the session was only to deal with lottery winnings and homes. This applies to all property. Through you Mr.
Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Cheeseman.
REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):
So this is a new departure that was not in the original
Bill that we passed; is that correct? Through you Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 433 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Scanlon.
REP. SCANLON (98TH):
Through you Mr. Speaker, it's an expansion of the original intent of that policy. Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Cheeseman.
REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):
Thank you and through Mr. Speaker, I'm looking again at the delayed gap accounting principles. This is something, again, I know within the Finance budget. I presume we don't know the long term cost of this? Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Scanlon. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 434 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. SCANLON (98TH):
Through you Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of the long term costs off the top my head. Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Cheeseman.
REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):
Alright. I, I must admit, as I voice this sentiment before it does concern me that we're kicking the can down the road and we're going to have to pay a lot later. But, and I believe that wraps up my questions. Thank you very much Mr. Speaker.
REP. SCANLON (98TH):
Thank you madam.
REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):
And I thank the good Chairs for their answers. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 435 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you. Will you care to remark further? Representative
Winkler, you have the floor sir.
REP. WINKLER (56TH):
Thank you. I thank you Mr. Speaker. I actually touched the button accidentally with my computer, but I always have something to ask. If I could, through you to the Chair of the
Appropriations Committee please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Please proceed sir.
REP. WINKLER (56TH):
So about the Contracting Standards Board. Section 343, lines 15194 through 15198. Are they still in the implemented
Bill? I think it's the Port Authority coming under the
Contracting Standards Board? sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 436 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Through you Mr. Speaker, that is correct, sir.
REP. WINKLER (56TH):
Thank you. So we've actually expanded the work of the
Contracting Standards Board?
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Through the Speaker please?
REP. WINKLER (56TH):
I apologize. Through the Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you. Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Through you Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 437 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Winkler.
REP. WINKLER (56TH):
Through you Mr. Speaker, so basically this lapsing the day after the, the first lapse in the money on the first day of the fiscal year cuts two-thirds of the money that we appropriated them in each year of the budget; is that an accurate statement
Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Through you Mr. Speaker, that is correct. I believe the scope of the Contracting Standards Board was narrowed down and that's why they did not need the staffing. Through you Mr.
Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 438 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Winkler.
REP. WINKLER (56TH):
Through you Mr. Speaker, I just talked about how their scope was expanded. Could you point out to me where it was narrowed down? Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Through you Mr. Speaker, I thank the good gentlemen for that, because it's, it is, it is hard to understand. But what has happened is we were expanding their, their review in a, a variety of different areas and it was narrowed down to this one entity. So it's not to the broad scope that originally we had started to, to do with them. Through you Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 439 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Winkler.
REP. WINKLER (56TH):
Through you Mr. Speaker, are you saying that the
Contracting Standards Board is only overseeing one agency?
Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Through you Mr. Speaker, no, I'm saying that originally, the scope was going to be looking at a variety of different agencies, and it was decided to just do one entity, which is the
Port Authority. Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Winkler. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 440 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. WINKLER (56TH):
Through you Mr. Speaker, is it accurate that except for the executive director, the Contracting Standards Board has no staff? Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Through you Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Winkler.
REP. WINKLER (56TH):
So the Contracting Standards Board operates because a, a board, their board does volunteer work for the State of
Connecticut? Through you Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 441 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Through you Mr. Speaker, unfortunately that is correct.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Winkler.
REP. WINKLER (56TH):
And they have no support staff whatsoever? Through you Mr.
Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Walker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 442 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Through you Mr. Speaker, I believe that they have a part time staff person that does most of their bookkeeping things.
Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Winkler.
REP. WINKLER (56TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker, no further questions.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you sir. Do you care to remark further?
Representative Fishbein, you have the floor sir.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker, and good evening. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 443 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Good evening sir.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
You know Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the discussion, the exchange on this 837 some page document. And a portion of this that brings me to, to rise and speak tonight has to do with the implementation of work zone speed control systems, that I know is an element that we've talked about in the past in this
Chamber. I think we had a Bill that came out of transportation this, this session that ended up with the Judiciary Committee.
And I believe that that provision was removed from that Bill, and yet we end up here with the implementer. And Sections 330 through 339 implement that program, a program to monitor electronically, the doings-goings of free people on our highway system. And essentially those, that activity is undertaken currently by our state police force. And I know there has been a lot of talk over the last couple of sessions about police chance defunding the police. This is a way at least I see it that our state police force would be displaced, negatively impacted here.
And certainly the Committee process hasn't supported this. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 444 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
And therefore Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of an
Amendment, that Amendment being LCO 10996. I ask that the Clerk call the Amendment, I'd be given leave to summarize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Will the Clerk please call LCO No. 10996 which will be designated House Amendment "B"?
CLERK:
LCO No. 10996 designated as House Amendment Schedule "B" and offered by Representative Fishbein.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
The Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the Amendment. Is there any objection? Hearing none,
Representative Fishbein, you have the floor sir.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Amendment very simply strikes Sections 330 through 339 in their entirety. This sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 445 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
pilot program if it was to happen would never go away. Our state police officers will be negatively impacted.
I think the Committee process is the appropriate place for this to be addressed. It's improper for it to be part of the implementer, and I do know that the fiscal note that's tied to this does indicate that there would be a potential cost savings from not installing and operating the camera systems, a potential cost savings and the state police not having to review the violations resulting for the program, and potentially a revenue loss from fines not being levied pursuant to the program. So we don't know ultimately, positive, or negative financially, but certainly if we're not going to expend the money for the cameras, we're not going to have to do all of that, our state police officers their jobs would be secure. And
I do support those state police officers and I urge my colleagues to support the Amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Question before this Chamber is on adoption on House
Amendment Schedule "B". Will you remark further? Representative
Scanlon, you have the floor sir. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 446 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. SCANLON (98TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker, and, and as the Chair of the Finance
Committee, we did have a discussion about this in our Committee.
The Bill came to us from Transportation, there was a conversation in Finance about this and what is before us in this
Bill is significantly more limited in scope than what we passed and or debated and passed in the Finance Committee. My understanding from my recollection that I have in my notes in front of me was that the Finance Committee authorized ten different pilot programs that were in hospital and school zones, whereas this is three simply in work zones. Obviously, I think each of us recognize the fact that traffic safety is an imperative function of government, and certainly we don't want to minimize what the police do.
I am a Member of a Law Enforcement family, certainly understand and appreciate the role that the police officers play in this. But I do think because this is something we did here in
Committee, passed in Committee and has now been limited in scope, I would urge our Members to keep this in the Bill, see if it works, come back if we want to expand it. We certainly would have to do that here in this body, and we would have that sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 447 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
debate. But this is simply just a pilot program and I would urge our Members to oppose this Amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you sir. Will you care to remark further? Will you care to remark further? Representative Fishbein for the second time.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker, just briefly to respond. The role of the Finance Committee is not public safety, it's not transportation. Those are the Committees that should be making this determination and then the financial impact would get referred to Finance for their determination. But the ultimate gatekeeper to this proposition should be those Committees of cognizance in my opinion. So thank you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you sir. Do you care to remark further? Do you care to remark further? If not staff and guests please come to the sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 448 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
well of the House, Members please take their seats or attend to your portals. The machine will be open.
CLERK:
The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber or to your portals. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber or to your portals.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Have all Members voted? Have all Members voted? Please check the board to ensure that your vote has been properly cast.
If all Members have voted, the machine will be locked and the
Clerk will take a tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally?
CLERK:
LCO 10996 designated House "B":
Total Number Voting 136 Necessary for Adoption 69 Those voting Yea 53 Those voting Nay 83 Those absent and not voting 15 sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 449 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
The Amendment fails (Gavel). Will you remark further on the
Bill as Amended by Senate "A" and House "A"? Representative
France, you have the floor for the second time.
REP. FRANCE (42ND):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. And I've reviewed the implementer and the languages in here and some of the policy that has been enacted, one section is, is troubling to me, not so much for the policy, but the timing of it and how it will be implemented, and it deals with Sections 430 through 443, which is dealing with, you know, staffing of the Center for Literacy Research and looking at our literacy program. And while I listen to the good
Ranking Member and the Chair of Education and, and the policy I agree with them that we need to deal with this issue of our children in education, learning to read by the third grade. My concern is we don't know why the current program isn't working.
It works in some schools, doesn't work in others. As an engineer and looking at problem solving, we always want to understand why the current process isn't working before we move on. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 450 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
And I'm informed by growing up in California and being there as a young adult and watching the State of California, about every two years change their curriculum, not understanding whether the previous curriculum worked or didn't. And I see an unfortunate step here that we have a similar thing here. We have a reading curriculum program that was created by the University of Connecticut and it works in some places, it doesn't work in others, and instead of figuring out why it doesn't work in a place that doesn't work, we're effectively changing horses in midstream, choosing another program and starting effectively over again.
And so because of that concern, Mr. Speaker, the, the Clerk is in possession of Amendment LCO No. 10921. I ask the Clerk to call that Amendment, I'd be leaving the Chamber to summarize.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Would the Clerk please call LCO No. 10921, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule "C"? sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 451 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
CLERK:
LCO 10921, designated as House Amendment Schedule "C" and offered by Representatives Dubitsky, France, Fiorello,
Dauphinais et al.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
The Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the Amendment. Is there any objection? Seeing none,
Representative France, you have the floor.
REP. FRANCE (42ND):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. And, as I describe, it, it simply strikes Sections 430 to 443. And as I stated in my opening remarks, I do believe this is an issue that does need to be addressed. I just have, my concern is that we're changing a program going to another program, a certified program. But we don't know why the current one doesn't work, and so we don't know if this program will work either. And that's very concerning to me, as I see in my time in the legislature, we do this a lot. We, we see a program isn't working, we just change; sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 452 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
but we don't figure out why the last one wasn't working and what the corrective action might be.
Here's what we did the analysis of what we're doing currently, University of Connecticut, come back and find out this is why it's not working. It could be a very simple fix. I think we should be doing that first. I think that's a much better use of the taxpayers' money. It will serve the people of
Connecticut better than starting over again effectively with a new program, not knowing whether this will work or not. So through you Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the Amendment be, when this vote is taken, the vote be taken by roll.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
And you want to move adoption?
REP. FRANCE (42ND):
Move adoption, yes, thank you Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 453 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Question before the Chamber is adoption on House Amendment
Schedule "C". Will you remark? Representative Sanchez, you have the floor sir.
REP. SANCHEZ (25TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the current program is only available for, my, my understanding two to three school districts. And so this will just expand to the all the alliance districts and so I, although I know I understand where the gentleman is coming from, we're, we're trying to expand this reading program and it's only going to apply to alliance districts. And I think it's the, it's the right thing to do.
It's something that we've been striving to work towards and for many years now, and so I would ask my colleagues to reject this
Amendment. Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you sir. Do you care to remark further on the
Amendment? Representative McCarty, you have the floor madam. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 454 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. MCCARTY (38TH):
Yes, thank you very much Mr. Speaker. And while I really dislike counter my good colleague to my left here, I would just like to answer some of his question, if I may, and that this program, the Right to Read, that he is referring to and I'm very pleased to hear him say that it's a necessary program and good policy. I would like to say that this program is building on former programs, because we have found that there are so many students that are still not reading at third grade level proficiency.
So this particular program builds upon the, the former programs, it adds new pieces to literacy coaches and interventionists to be sure that no child is actually left behind, and it's a continuous assessment, something that we were not able to do in the past. So that was just for clarification.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you madam. Do you care to remark further on the
Amendment? Representative Dubitsky, you have the floor sir. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 455 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, what this Section does?
This is, the Section that the Amendment would have or the
Sections that the Amendment would read, move. First off, never were called on the floor. They, this is, this is a Bill that was thrown into the implementer, where frankly I don't think it belongs, I think it should have had its own separate hearing on the floor of the House and the Senate where it could be debated separately.
What it does is it essentially imposes a state curriculum, a state mandated curriculum on the schools and the districts of this state, and I think that's a dangerous precedent. When parents see what is going on in their schools, they want to be able to go to their local Board of Education, they want to be able to go talk to the teachers and the superintendents in their school and work with them to amend a curriculum or to develop a curriculum.
Having local control over the reading curriculum in this state is the way to make sure that parents are most engaged and that children have the best ability to learn how to read.
Imposing it from the top down, imposing it from the state and sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 456 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
making it so a superintendent can look at a parent in the eye and say, "sorry, not my doing, I have no say in it, go talk to the bureaucrats in Hartford." That's no way for children to learn, that's no way for parents to be engaged with their school districts and with their children's teachers and administrators.
If there is a problem learning, reading in any given district, that can be addressed on a local level. It doesn't need to be mandated by Hartford. We do this quite often. We use a sledgehammer to fix a problem that should be fixed with a scalpel and a needle and thread. Removing these Sections does just that, it allows the local schools to create their curriculum and to work with the parents to make sure that their children can learn how to read. So I support this Amendment. And
I thank you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you sir. Do you care to remark further?
Representative Walker, you have to floor madam. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 457 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Thank you. Thank you Mr. Speaker. And Mr. Speaker, I understand the importance of having change an opportunity in education. One thing that the State Department of Ed does is they provide guidance throughout many of the subject matters that our students study in our schools. What we need to do is figure out which ones work in what specific areas. You cannot address one type of reading program and expect all the schools to embrace it. You have to give variety and you have to address it in a way that allows the students from that district to have choices. And this is one of the ways that we have looked at for what reading is about. We all know the importance of reading. In my school, we have four different types of reading, depending on the skill levels, depending on the interests and the focus.
So Mr. Speaker, reading is the most important subject that we can do, and we need to continually make change and address it, because our children will never be successful if they do not embrace this. And I think it's important for us to understand that children like adults have multiple intelligences, so we have to have multiple ways of addressing this subject matter. So
Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately cannot support this, this sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 458 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Amendment. I think we need to understand that reading is going to come in many ways and this is just one of them. Through you
Mr. Speaker. Thank you sir.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you. Thank you madam. Do you care to remark further?
Do you care to remark further on the Amendment before us?
Representative Ackert, you have the floor sir. Representative
Ackert, if you want to press your, there we go.
REP. ACKERT (8TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. And first and foremost, I want to thank the, the good Chair of Education and the good Ranking
Member, always diligent in their work and their efforts. But my concern is we're trying something, again we're trying something.
We've a teacher reading for thousands of years, thousands of years, and we're going to try something new. When I was on the
Education Committee as Ranking Member under past State
Department of Education, Commissioner at the time, we were trying other things, we were experimenting with our children. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 459 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
And that concerned me, that this is what we were, we were trying a new way to do programs in teaching.
And I get concerned that we're doing that again. And, and I know there is an opt out provisions where I think there should be an opt in provision in this case. And maybe there is an intervention that needs to be had, but you know, sometimes you got to hold the districts accountable. And if you need to replace people in, in, in jobs that they're not doing their job, then maybe we look at doing that. Maybe it's not the curriculum, maybe it's the people implementing the curriculum. And so it concerns me as somebody that cares dearly about this subject, and, and teaching to our children. We can place curriculum and change curriculum, but if we can't implement it, we don't have the bodies and the individuals that are teachers that can implement it, then we're going to continue to have the problem.
So I'll continue to listen to the dialogue on this, but gosh sakes, let's stop experimenting and trying with our children and get people in positions to get it right. Thank you
Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 460 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you sir. Do you care to remark further? Do you care to remark further on the Amendment before us? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House, Members please take your seats or attend to your portals. The machine will be open.
CLERK:
The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber or to your portals. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber or to your portals.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Have all Members voted? Have all Members voted? Please check the board to ensure that your vote has been properly cast.
If all Members have voted, the machine will be locked and the
Clerk will take the tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally?
CLERK:
House Amendment Schedule "C": sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 461 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Total Number Voting 139 Necessary for Adoption 70 Those voting Yea 25 Those voting Nay 114 Those absent and not voting 12
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
The Amendment fails (gavel). Will you remark further on the
Bill as Amended? Representative Case, you have the floor sir.
REP. CASE (63RD):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Just a few questions, through you, to the, to the proponent of the Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Please proceed sir.
REP. CASE (63RD):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure if it's the proponent of the Bill or the, the good Chairwoman who has been helping out with Appropriations, whoever would like to answer it. Few questions; as far as money allocations for the Connecticut sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 462 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
homecare program for the elderly. We see a lot of increases on nursing homes on, on group homes. Where do we stand within this appropriation in the budget compared to the appropriations budget and the simple mentor as far as any increases for homecare? Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Abercrombie, you have the floor madam.
REP. ABERCROMBIE (83RD):
Through you Mr. Speaker, there is many items in here around home care, if the good Representative could tell me what
Section, that would be helpful?
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Case.
REP. CASE (63RD):
Thank you Mr. Speaker, I'm looking at Sections 374. It provides approximately $5 million for rate increases for certain sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 463 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
homecare health, for certain home health and homecare services under Connecticut Home Care Health Care program for the elderly.
Can you explain to me which ones and, and why not all? Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Abercrombie.
REP. ABERCROMBIE (83RD):
Through you Mr. Speaker, absolutely. So this line item here is for the home care program. It is earmarked mostly for pediatrics. We have a huge shortage in the state of pediatric nurses, which means that our babies are left in the hospital because they can't come home, they need 24-hour care. This was originally a $10 million line item, and through negotiations, it was windowed down to 5 million and that's why it was earmarked for the pediatric plus some waiver programs. Through you Mr.
Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 464 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Case.
REP. CASE (63RD):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. So in explaining that, I think the good Chairwoman for that. So basically, the line item for home health has been cut. It was $10 million in the Appropriations, and now we're down to $5, through you, and that's just spread out and that's where we see the difference in home care increases. Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Abercrombie.
REP. ABERCROMBIE (83RD):
Through you Mr. Speaker, just in the appropriations but there is also $250 million, which is part of the ARPA dollars, it's the FMAP, which is a 10% increase which will be going to all of the home and community based providers. Through you Mr.
Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 465 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Case.
REP. CASE (63RD):
So through you Mr. Speaker, just so I, I get this correct; that one, that's the upper dollars are not within this document.
The ARPA dollars will come out afterwards, and just trying to explain this to the homecare agencies that are obviously probably reaching out to me and reaching out to her as far as the dollars they possibly can be looking for. Through you Mr.
Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Abercrombie.
REP. ABERCROMBIE (83RD):
Through you Mr. Speaker, yes. The homecare providers have been working with DSS on how they're going to distribute those dollars. Through you Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 466 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Case.
REP. CASE (63RD):
And I thank the good Chairwoman and my next question is for the nonprofit. So it might be for the Ranking Member of
Appropriations or if the good Chairwoman can answer it. So we, we had talked about, we didn't talk about appropriations, but I heard it in Appropriations that we were going to be doing a dollar figure for our nonprofits. I do realize that a lot of that money was used up for other means. What do we have left for the nonprofit agencies in the State of Connecticut as we've always been looking to increase their dollar amount as standalone nonprofits? Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Abercrombie. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 467 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. ABERCROMBIE (83RD):
Through you Mr. Speaker, most of the human services are the nonprofit, so if the good Representative could tell me which section he is referencing, that would be helpful?
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Case.
REP. CASE (63RD):
So through you Mr. Speaker, if, I don't have an exact through the 100 and some odd page Bill, I, I was looking at certain sections of it. DEMAS, other nonprofits and, and that type of agency realm. I believe there was an ask of the
Connecticut nonprofit alliance of a certain dollar figure. But that dollar figure didn't come to fruition. Can the good woman,
Chairwoman explain the dollars that we do have available for those nonprofits? Through you Mr. Chairman, through you Mr.
Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 468 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Abercrombie.
REP. ABERCROMBIE (83RD):
Through you Mr. Speaker, if the good Representative could tell me section again, there is a lot of nonprofits that go from
Section 351 to 380? Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Case.
REP. CASE (63RD):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would need a few minutes to do that. I will move on with my questions. I'm just looking out as, as we all do in Human Services and Appropriations for the nonprofits, and I know we had a little bump in the road with dollars that were going to them, and we just want to make sure that that everyone gets a piece of the apple here. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 469 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
But I will wait with that, and I will move on to my next question. It doesn't have to do with human services, so through you Mr. Speaker, on lines 265 through I believe the 300 range.
It's a Bill that was in higher education for firefighters and volunteers in distress communities. Can somebody explain or through you Mr. Speaker, how many distressed municipalities have volunteer fire departments in the State of Connecticut? Through you?
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Through you Mr. Speaker, I do not know. I'll be honest, I do not know. Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Case. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 470 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. CASE (63RD):
So through you Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill that went through Higher Ed. Through you Mr. Speaker, does the good
Chairwoman know if this Bill went through Public Safety? Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Through you, through you Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, I do believe that there are 15 to be exact in volunteer firefighters.
Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Case. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 471 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. CASE (63RD):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. My addition here does 12, but through you, we can give here, take a few. But through you Mr.
Speaker, is the line item $70,000? Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Through you Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Case.
REP. CASE (63RD):
And through you Mr. Speaker, what is that the latest list that has come out as 2020 for distressed municipalities? The definite, does the good Chairwoman know the definition in what we consider to be a distressed municipality? Through you. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 472 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Through you Mr. Speaker, I believe distressed municipalities are municipalities that have high incidence of poverty, have low income and, and are utilizing many of the state services and funds in order for them to operate. Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Case.
REP. CASE (63RD):
And I thank the good Chairwoman for that, and it wasn't a trick question, wasn't there. It's just, our distressed municipalities doesn't really spell out the people that live in the municipalities. Two of those municipalities that are listed as distressed municipalities, I happen to represent. Two other sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 473 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
of those municipalities, I also represent but they're not distressed, but they're hurting for volunteer firefighters.
But this Bill only helps people in those 12 distressed municipalities. That $70,000 is our tax dollars, that $70,000 should be going to all municipalities who have volunteer fire departments, because if John wants to become a volunteer fire department in one of my towns, but it's not distressed, but he is distressed and doesn't have the money to pay for the course, he should be able to get a hold of this some of this money. Just because they're distressed municipality, doesn't mean that there is somebody that is not hurting within that municipality, but wants to service their community.
This Bill didn't go through the Fire and EMS caucus, this
Bill didn't go through Public Safety, this Bill went through
Higher Ed. I believe in all of our firefighters. One of my, my hometown, we're short 70 firefighters, it's good for them. The average cost of a class for firefighter I is $1100. But what do we do for those municipalities and all of us have them throughout this whole room that have volunteer departments that can't access these dollars, because their "town isn't distressed." But their pocketbook at home might be distressed, sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 474 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
and they want to help their town, but they can't apply for this dollars because their town doesn't fit within the realm of a distressed community.
I'm hoping and waiting out seeing if there is any other conversation that comes up and hopefully have an Amendment that will come out so that we can help all of our volunteer firefighters that want to join on to our services and help out.
These people do thankless jobs. And I'm not too sure when the next distress list comes out, the latest one is 2020 that I can find online. I do believe the good Chairwoman would want to work with us and try to help all municipalities. And I think the word
"distressed municipality" doesn't spell out what every citizen is that lives in a municipality that might not be labeled distressed. So I hope we can figure this out. I will wait for an
Amendment if there is other people that would like to speak on this Bill, we will call it then. Thank you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you sir. Do you care to remark further?
Representative Tercyak, you have the floor sir. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 475 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. TERCYAK (26TH):
Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. I rise just to say a couple of things basically that I feel bad we're not passing new language to fund the state Contracting Review Board adequately.
They've saved us millions already and with a decent amount of staff they could save millions more. We need them for fresh air for transparency and for cost effective contracting.
It's sad to lose them at the last minute as we did in this implementer and I certainly hope we can bring them back. They'd fit naturally under the legislative branch, maybe under the
Appropriations Legislative Management Subcommittee, along with the auditors in the Commissions. Thank you very much.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you sir. Do you care to remark further?
Representative Arora, you have the floor sir.
REP. ARORA (151ST):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. I stand here to voice my concern for this implementer Bill. This is the first implementer Bill I'm sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 476 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
voting for, and I'm very surprised and concerned that this is a catch up Bill for all sorts of Bills, Education Bills, GAE
Bills, Labor Bills, and, and these are Bills which have not have, we do not have the time, the right amount of time to really go through scrutinize and these are being just brought up, in some sense the right word would be snuck in or this is like sneaking some Bills in.
On behalf of my constituents, I would like to object to this practice. I know I'm told that this has been done for years and years and years and this is how business is done. But this is not how business should be done from a fresh pair of eyes. I,
I truly object to this.
From a Labor Committee standpoint, I also want to point out two Bills, which are in this large aircraft or whatever we want to call it, I guess Implementer Bill. Section 6, which really passed on party lines in the, in the Committee with regard to call centers, any call center which is to close has to give 100 days, no other business is required to give such similar exit cost or exit conditions. This business is singled out. I don't think it makes sense. But many, many of my or Members, most of all our Members didn't believe that this made any sense. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 477 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Similarly, Section 223 with changes are made to a "shall" once again never meant to any Committee. I don't even know how that, that shows up there. So I, I really strongly object to this practice and I hope so at some point we're just basically pass Bills on their merit one by one the way we're supposed to.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you sir. Do you care to remark further?
Representative Carney, you have the floor sir.
REP. CARNEY (23RD):
Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. I just rise for a comment and then I will be calling an Amendment after that. So it was good to hear my colleague from New Britain across the aisle, talking about how important the State Contracting Standards
Board is. I mean I agree with him and I actually, I supported the budget last week and I support the State Contracting
Standards Board. I know my side of the aisle had Legislation strengthening the State Contracting Standards Board, because we've seen some of the good work they have done, especially over sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 478 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
the last year or so. If people don't know, the State Contracting
Standards Board was actually created after the scandal that rocked the Governor's Office in 2004 that led to that Governor resigning and us creating as a legislative body, some new laws to strengthen ethics, to ensure that those types of issues don't occur again. It's, it's goal is to serve as a watchdog for improprieties in state contracts and bidding procedures. And its goal is to provide, really to provide transparency, ethics, and really as my good colleague across the aisle said to save taxpayers' dollars by preventing waste, by preventing fraud; things that many of us on both sides of the aisle talk about and hope to do this board is actually doing.
Currently though, there is only one paid person, that's the
Executive Director. There is an unpaid board, but they're a very good board, they're very vocal board. And last week, we approved funds for additional staff to, to help with these important functions that I've talked about. This would allow them to do more. This board was integral in exposing issues such as the contracting process for Dylan Stadium, then I know many folks in the Capitol region were very discouraged by. And of course, this
Board was essential in calling questions to the Connecticut Port sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 479 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Authority and certain contracting issues related to the state pier in New London, which I know many of the folks on both sides of the aisle down in Southeastern Connecticut are concerned about. I think it's very discouraging that this Section, the funding that we gave them last week, the additional funding is now being stripped away, hidden deep in this 837-page Amendment or 37-page Bill. You know, I could talk about a lot of things wrong with this Bill, with this Bill as a whole. But I am focusing on this Section, it's Section 235. Again, it's a very short Section, but it is a very important section.
You know, I think we should actually take the Contracting
Standards Board and make it a legislative agency like the auditors as opposed to being one of the executive branch, because as I would quote, The Good Senate Chair of
Appropriations, this came directly from the Governor's Office. I truly think that this is a mistake because the Board provides needed transparency and oversight. She said she thinks it wasn't a question of money for the governor, but of not wanting the oversight. And those are very discouraging words from a Member of the Governor's party who serves as the Senate Chair of
Appropriations. And I think we should all take pause with that. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 480 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
You know, it was the governor in my, on my side of the aisle, which is the reason this Board was approved in the first place.
So I think we should as a legislative body do really what we did last week by adding that, those additional funds instead of stripping them a week later. So with that, Mr. Speaker, the
Clerk has an Amendment, it is LCO 11006. And I would ask you to,
I would please ask the Clerk to call it and I be allowed to summarize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Will the Clerk please call LCO No. 11006, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule "D".
CLERK:
House Amendment Schedule "D" LCO No. 11006, offered by
Representative Carney, Representative Cheeseman et al. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 481 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
The Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the Amendment. Is there any objection? Hearing none,
Representative Carney, you have the floor sir.
REP. CARNEY (23RD):
Okay, thank you very much Mr. Speaker. So all this
Amendment does is, is it removes Section 235 from the underlying
Legislation, which will take the funding that we put in the budget last week and simply put it back. So we'll put 449,124 back for the next fiscal year, fiscal year 22, and then 454,355 back into fiscal year 23 so the Contracting Standards Board will be able to continue its good work, expand its good work and save taxpayers' dollars and expose fraud, expose waste, and make people more transparent. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I move adoption of the Amendment and I ask that when the vote is taken, it'd be taken by roll. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 482 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Question before this Chamber is on adoption on House
Amendment Schedule "D". Will you remark? Representative
Cheeseman, you have the floor madam.
REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):
Thank you very much Mr. Speaker, and I want to rise in support of the Amendment. I think it's important as we've heard from other Members of this Chamber tonight that there is widespread concern about the removal of these funds. I know that
Chairman Lawrence Fox indicated to dismay, and indeed he suggested and perhaps we as a legislature should take this up moving this Contracting Standards Board in under the auspices of the legislative branch, as is or the State Auditors. I think it's somewhat of a conflict of interest for an executive branch to remove funds from the body, that polices the executive branch and its contracting.
So I stand in strong support of the Amendment. I think it's important that we have these boards overseeing our state expenditures because after all we are stewards of the taxpayer sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 483 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
dollars, and we need everyone's BDI as we go out and ensure the wise expenditure of those funds. So I join, thank my good friend from Old Saybrook for thinking of this Amendment and I would urge everyone to support it, and I urge its adoption. Thank you
Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you madam. Do you care to remark further?
Representative Walker, you have the floor madam.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is a hard one for me. I think that, that, that the, the underlying Amendment, the
Amendment is very important because we do want to continue with the transparency, and we do want to continue with the, the work of the Contracting Standards Board because I do believe that they have identified things that we need to address.
Unfortunately right now because we are still trying to define and we are going to have to look at the staffing, I don't know if the funding was appropriately done. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 484 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Unfortunately, I cannot support it at this time, but I would love to do, have more conversation about this and maybe we are going to be back here again as you know, we did another special session, I'd be willing to try and entertain that in possibly in the next special session. So at this point unfortunately, I cannot support this. Thank you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you madam. Do you care to remark further? Do you care remark further? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House, Members please take your seats or attend to your portals. The machine will be opened.
CLERK:
The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber or to your portals. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber or to your portals. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 485 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Have all Members voted? If all Members voted, the machine will be locked, and the Clerk will take a tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally?
CLERK:
House Amendment Schedule "D":
Total Number Voting 140 Necessary for Adoption 71 Those voting Yea 69 Those voting Nay 71 Those absent and not voting 11
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
The Amendment fails (Gavel). Would you remark further on the Bill as Amended before us? Would you remark further? The
Chamber will stand at ease.
Care to remark further? Will you care to remark further on the Bill as Amended? Will you care to remark further on the Bill as Amended? Representative Zupkus, you have the floor madam. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 486 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. ZUPKUS (89TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. I just rise for a couple of comments if I may.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Please proceed madam.
REP. ZUPKUS (89TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. As I sit and listen to this Bill, and I've been through a few implementers since I've been here, I do have to agree with my colleague from the 151st District, who talked about this Bill being a catch all. And I agree with him that that is just not good policy, that things that didn't pass just got thrown into this.
And one of the things that I'm really concerned about in this piece of Legislation is the section on modular curriculum.
And this Section goes through and discusses things that are going to be taught to our kids from kindergarten through eighth grade. And as I looked at some of the things in here, well first of all, I don't understand how a kindergartener can really get sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 487 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
the concept of financial, personal finance, although I think that that's a great thing. But I think that reading and writing at that point is a little more important than personal finance.
Now, when they get into high school, possibly middle school, I think that that's really important that they understand personal finance and how to handle that.
But there is also things in here even climate change and we can debate if we think that it is climate change or not. But what is that going to be taught in the schools, who is coming up with these things on whether it is or is not man made? When I also, you know, I look at some of the other things in here that
I think kids organically will learn without the government enforcing it on them. So this, this really concerns me, and I will say that, you know, in this legislature, the only thing we have is our word. And actually, I was working with someone on this piece of Legislation and it was just not transparent, and I believe that as a legislature, we all have to work together. And
I hope in the future that when things like this happen, that we all are transparent with each other and honest with each other.
So this is one of the biggest concerns in this piece of
Legislation for me is this certain section, and honestly I think sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 488 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
parents have a right to know what's being taught and what the government is telling that should be taught. I also believe that it should be in high school, these things should not be taught in kindergarten or elementary school, they should be taught as kids get older. And as I had said before, things happen organically with our kids, it should not be people in this legislature forcing them. So that's really it. I just wanted to make those comments, but most importantly I hope people stick to their word and that they are transparent moving forward. Thank you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you madam. Do you care to remark further?
Representative Case for the second time.
REP. CASE (63RD):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of Amendment and I'd like to have it called please,
LCO No. 11011. Mr. Speaker, would you please have the Clerk call the Amendment and I'd be able to summarize. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 489 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Would the Clerk please call LCO No. 11011, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule "E"?
CLERK:
House Amendment Schedule "E" LCO No. 11011, offered by
Representative Case, Representatives Zupkus.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
The Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the Amendment. Is there any objection? Seeing none,
Representative Case.
REP. CASE (63RD):
Mr. Speaker, this is a very easy or short Amendment here.
It basically takes out the word distressed used municipality and allows all volunteer municipalities, the fire departments to be able to maintain or be able to apply for the dollars to be a part of the $70,000 allotment to take the firefighter I course.
I do believe it's very strong, it's very important that we get sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 490 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
as many people into the fire service, as many people as possible. And just because you're a distressed municipality doesn't mean that you have people that you can afford to take the class. So this opens it up to all volunteer fire departments, not just distressed municipalities. Thank you Mr.
Speaker, and I ask that when the Amendment be called, it'd be called on a roll call. Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
And you also move adoption, correct? You also move adoption of the?
REP. CASE (63RD):
I move adoption. Sorry, thank you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Question before the Chamber is on adoption of House
Amendment Schedule "E". Will you remark? Representative Cook, you have the floor madam. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 491 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. COOK (65TH):
Good evening Mr. Speaker, nice to see you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Good evening madam.
REP. COOK (65TH):
A few questions for the proponent of the Amendment, please?
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Please proceed.
REP. COOK (65TH):
To the proponent, through you Mr. Speaker, if you have a municipality that is a distressed municipality but has both career and volunteer, is the proponent of the Amendment saying that that municipality would qualify for this money? Through you. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 492 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Case.
REP. CASE (63RD):
Absolutely, any municipality that has a volunteer service.
So in the municipalities, one that I own, does have both paid and volunteers, those volunteer departments would be eligible for it. Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Cook.
REP. COOK (65TH):
And through you Mr. Speaker, the, the proponent of the
Amendment said to apply for the grant. Could the proponent please clarify how that process would, would take place? Through you. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 493 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Case.
REP. CASE (63RD):
Sure. So through you Mr. Speaker, the Amendment did not change any of the language in the existing Bill, and it requires that there be the, the chief of the volunteer fire department in any other municipality shall submit to the fire administrator a report on a yearly average of the number of volunteer firefighters. And that will set the status of how many each municipality will be able to, to get the $70,000 spread out throughout the volunteer service. Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Cook.
REP. COOK (65TH):
And through you Mr. Speaker, just two final questions. So if there is a CAP on that allotment of $70,000 and by expanding it to all municipalities minus the distressed municipalities, sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 494 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
does the proponent of the Amendment believe that that money would run out before we could serve all of the municipalities not just the distressed municipalities? Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Case.
REP. CASE (63RD):
I believe that this is a start, and the distressed municipalities turns out to be about 12, and $70,000 serves about 70 firefighters that want to join the service. At our own
Northwest fire school, we run about three firefighter I courses a year, at about 25 people in each course over the course of a year. So yes, it's 75 people that one fire school for the year.
But we will look to expand this. We have many fire companies that are, I'd like to say the word distress, but we're not using distress because not for distressed municipalities, but many fire companies that are herding for volunteers.
I know in this, within this Bill, the way it's really written to the towns I serve, but I also have two other towns sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 495 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
and those towns have people that want to join on, and it would benefit them also. But it would benefit everybody throughout the
State of Connecticut and not just those distressed communities.
Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Cook.
REP. COOK (65TH):
And through you Mr. Speaker, does the proponent of the
Legislation believe and, and so I am a Representative of a community that has both career and volunteer. And I would agree that we are at a shortage of volunteers to the point where our town has actually tried to figure out a way to navigate that and the career help the volunteers and so forth and so on. Does the proponent of the Legislation believe that if municipalities have both career and volunteer, that they should be that, that award offering should be different than other municipalities that are distressed with only the volunteers? Through you. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 496 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Case.
REP. CASE (63RD):
Through you Mr. Speaker, the, the Legislation, as like I said, it just took out one word, and that was the word
"distressed". So it allows for volunteer fire companies to apply for this, so yes, in the talented, I know the, the good
Representative is talking about we have the paid service and we have right now two, we do have three volunteer services. But those two, because, well as of now in the Bill they would be eligible under the distress to get this, but in the Amendment with getting the, word of the word distressed, would allow all volunteer fire companies to be able to apply. Through you Mr.
Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Cook. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 497 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. COOK (65TH):
Thank you to the proponent of the Amendment for the information. Mr. Speaker, I, I am a full and complete supporter of all of our volunteers', career volunteer and the like. I do struggle by opening up a Capped dollar amount with the understanding that we would not be able to serve all of the folks that the Amendment is actually trying to serve. So I believe that this Amendment is giving false hope to those folks.
So I would offer that we do not pass this Amendment not because we do not support our firefighters, but because at the end of the day, we're telling them that we, we're going to open it up to everybody, but we only have $70,000. Thank you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you madam. Do you care to remark further?
Representative DiMassa, you have the floor sir.
REP. DIMASSA (116TH):
Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. Just a few points of clarification if I can, sir? sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 498 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Please proceed sir.
REP. DIMASSA (116TH):
So this item actually came out of my Subcommittee on
Appropriations. It's actually one of probably the few things that actually stayed pretty much the same, coming out of
Appropriations as many budget items usually change over time.
However, I can tell you that this was bipartisanly supported, the language was supported. Of course, we would love to open it up to everybody.
There is no question these dollars actually were not added to the budget, we moved $70,000 over both years from other lines within the existing budget, as my good Chair of Appropriations loves to be fiscally prudent with the taxpayers' dollars. So we did not add to the budget to create this line. I would urge my colleagues to reject this Amendment while I know it is good intentioned, and I give my commitment to my good, honorable colleague on the other side of the aisle that certainly next year I would love to come back and look at this again. And sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 499 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
perhaps if we can find more dollars, we would love to open it up. Thank you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you sir. Do you care to remark further?
Representative Buckbee, you have the floor sir.
REP. BUCKBEE (67TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'll be brief and then we're running a little bit late here, and I don't want to tie. I wasn't planning and speaking on this at all, but I do feel like I need to say something as someone who has been through the Fire I program from a town that is straight volunteer and is not distressed. And I think it's very important that we recognize how difficult that is, for those who are fighting to get by. Our firehouse raises a lot of money with chicken barbecues and doing what we can to raise dollars to get these guys able to get through the guys and women who come through our department who are trained in Fire I, it's not easy. I don't care which township it is, I think we talk a lot in this room about sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 500 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
equality and we need to be equal to those people who are volunteering no matter what, what place it is.
I think as we heard earlier, the term false hope, I think it's just, just hope. If we can bring hope some of these departments that we support every one of these departments equally across the state, I think it's critical to, to replenish the fire service, which is so incredibly important to us. I'm not active on my department right now.
But I am going to, I tell you, when we came through, when I came through my Fire I course, it was raising a lot of money to get those of us in my class through this class. So it's important to share that amongst everyone, and while I understand the distressed municipalities, just understand that this really is everybody and everyone's still the same guys who were fighting every time they walk into that building. So keep that in mind, you're supporting your volunteers across the board. I think distressed is wonderful and maybe there is a priority, but
I think this is certainly the right step and recognize all of the departments with equality. Thank you so much Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 501 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you sir. Do you care to remark further? Do you care to remark further on the Amendment before us? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House, Members please take your seats or attend to your portals. The machine will be opened.
CLERK:
The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber or to your portals. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber or to your portals.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Have all Members voted? Please check the board to ensure that your vote has been properly cast. If all Members have voted, the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally?
CLERK:
House Amendment Schedule "E": sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 502 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Total Number Voting 139 Necessary for Adoption 70 Those voting Yea 55 Those voting Nay 84 Those absent and not voting 12
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
The Amendment fails (gavel). Will you care to remark further on the Bill before us? Representative Case, you have the floor.
REP. CASE (63RD):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to thank everybody for their time for the, for the Bill and I hope in the future we can look at this further, and further along to help all of our volunteers throughout the State of Connecticut. I know it's a start to work with the distressed municipalities. It does come down to just 12 towns throughout the State of Connecticut, and maybe even work with our fire schools so that we can increase their pay that they get so that we wouldn't have to charge the
$1100 to $1200 per course in order to get volunteers in our communities. But I want to thank everybody that, that voted for this Amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 503 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you sir. Do you care to remark further?
Representative Mushinsky, you have to floor madam.
REP. MUSHINSKY (85TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. In this implementer, was supposed to be some regulations for the data centers that are being proposed for our state. They do not have air pollution regulations, but because they use a backup, because they use a backup power source that is usually diesel and because they're sometimes located in residential neighborhoods or near residential neighborhoods, the Environment Committee had hoped that these air regulations would be part of the data center approval, and they were not in the implementer although they were supposed to have been included. So the Clerk has an Amendment, LCO 10974. If the Clerk could please call and I'd be allowed to summarize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Will the Clerk please call LCO No. 10974, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule "F"? sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 504 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
CLERK:
House Amendment Schedule "F" LCO 10974, offered by
Representative Mushinsky.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
The Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the Amendment. Is there any objections? Seeing none,
Representative Mushinsky, you have the floor madam.
REP. MUSHINSKY (85TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. So this Amendment simply allows the
Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to set standards for a stationary source similar to what we do for power plants for the backup generators on the data centers. And again, the reason is we'd like to protect neighborhoods. If a data center uses a diesel as a backup without regulations, they could run that plant as a power generator, and there would be no regulations to restrict their use in times of hot temperatures, and [inaudible]. I don't think it's wise that we, I don't think sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 505 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
it's wise that we build a power source without any regulations at all, and that is the reason for the Amendment.
And my town may get a data center, Town of Groton may get a data center and it would be good to protect our public from harmful effects of air pollution. So that's the reason to get a regulation comparable to stationary sources. And I ask for your support and the Amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Question before this Chamber is on adoption. Will you remark further on House Amendment Schedule "F"? Representative
Fishbein, you have the floor sir.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you Madam Speaker, Mr. Speaker, sorry. I was in a roll from before. Mr. Speaker, some questions for the proponent if I may?
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Please proceed sir. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 506 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
As the good Representative knows, we're immersed in
Wallingford right now and this controversy over whether or not to get involved with data centers, which recently we passed a
Bill a few months ago. And I know as part of that Bill, we deferred to DEEP to come up with some sort of confines, regulations. How does this Bill, this Amendment gel, conflict, work with or work against that authority under that Bill?
Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Mushinsky.
REP. MUSHINSKY (85TH):
There were two Bills on data centers. This was Section 4 of one of the Bills and the whole Bill disappeared. We were promised that this would be in the implementer to protect the populations and it never appeared in the implementer. I'm trying to add it back now. Through you Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 507 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker, and it's my understanding that it didn't appear in the implementer. I know the, the Bill that originally came to us on the data centers was driven by the
Governor's Office. Is it fair to say that the Governor's Office and their work on data centers did not feel it to be sufficient to be part of the implementer? Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Mushinsky.
REP. MUSHINSKY (85TH):
Through you Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure why it didn't appear in the implementer. Someone dropped the ball. But I am just saying to the Chamber that without Section 4, which is in this
Amendment, there will be no stationary source or air pollution regulations for data centers, their backup power system. And I sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 508 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
speaking as a Representative from Wallingford as are you
Representative Fishbein, I am uncomfortable with data centers building a stationary power source, fossil fuel fired that generates particulates and nitrogen oxide and other things that power plants make. I am uncomfortable having them not regulated at all for air pollution. That is the reason for this Amendment.
Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. And through you Mr. Speaker, I can represent that I've been actively negotiating even tonight, and
I know that under the, the Bill that we passed that allows the host town to have a host agreement with the data center operator. So is it possible that this language should not be adopted by the Amendment, could in turn be part of a host agreement instead? Through you Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 509 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Mushinsky.
REP. MUSHINSKY (85TH):
Through you Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure, the host agreement normally work, works with monetary compensation to the town, to the host town. I don't think it normally includes air pollution regulations; that's normally done by the State DEEP and they are normally consistent across sources. This is a power plant source that should fall under the stationary source requirements. But they are currently not in the law, so they're currently, the law was silent on these plants.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I, you know, I do appreciate the, the answer. I will represent because I am actively as a Member of my local Town Council, part of this sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 510 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
process, I know that, are the host agreement that we're contemplating is much more than that, it, it even deals with contractually noise parameters and those kinds of things. So I believe that these provisions if found to be necessary could be part of a host agreement. I'm just concerned that first of all the powers that we didn't deem it to be appropriate that was before us apparently didn't go through E&T, I did, at least I didn't hear that. I do look forward to the rest of the conversation with regard to this, but I, I am a little reticent to have what appear to be very stringent regulations on this new aspects of economic development that we've opened our arms to.
And I'd hate to see this negatively impact that industry. So I thank you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you sir. Do you care to remark further?
Representative Walker, you have the floor madam.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. And I, I want to thank the gentlelady for this, for this proposal that she has or Amendment sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 511 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
she has before us, but I have a few questions to ask. Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Please proceed madam.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Mr. Speaker, through you, may I ask a few questions?
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Please proceed madam.
REP. WALKER (93RD):
Thank you. Can I ask, has this been looked at, has it been studied, have, have you done a lot of research on the things that you were proposing here and this Amendment? Through you Mr.
Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 512 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Mushinsky.
REP. MUSHINSKY (85TH):
Through you Mr. Speaker, this wasn't a Bill, and it did have a hearing and it was voted. When the Bill left the
Committee, the regulatory part was struck. It was supposed to be added to the implementer. The Senate did not, although they promised, they did not add it to the implementer. And now without it, a data center could at peak times when we need extra power, they could turn on their diesel generator, generate power, make money off of it without air pollution controls. That is my concern. Right now, there is missing regulation for this type of generator. So that it is possible that a datacenter could decide to make extra money by selling during peak load times, selling power during peak load times, but it would have a negative effect on people that lived around the plant.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Walker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 513 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. WALKER (93RD):
I thank the lady for, for that answer. I, I think I understand the desire in this. I just am concerned about how well we have thought the changes and the regulations that we need, and, and I think we need to do a little bit more in that.
And I'm not opposed to the, the idea once we've gotten a little bit more detail and data on, on what the proposal is and, and looking at regulation. But I think at this time, I can't support this Amendment.
I would like to, I would like to talk about it and move forward in, in the next session and address these things. But I think we have to do it in, in a larger, larger scope and I hope that the gentlelady will bring this back if this does not pass.
So through you Mr. Speaker, I thank her for, for her focus; but
I think we need to have a little bit more conversation about.
Through you Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 514 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you madam. Will you care to remark further? Will you care to remark further? Representative Harding, you have the floor sir.
REP. HARDING (107TH):
Thank you Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Mr. Speaker.
REP. HARDING (107TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. I do apologize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Mr. Speaker. I'm taking this personally now, you know. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 515 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. HARDING (107TH):
It's been a long night Mr. Speaker. Thank you Mr. Speaker and, and I, I do want to thank the, the good Representative for her, her Amendment, and her advocacy on behalf of our environment. I know she has been a strong advocate for many years and want to thank her for her work. The one question I have is, is my understanding of the, the implementer is that the underlying Bill, particularly in Section 322 of this Bill seems to give the Commissioner of Department of Environmental
Protection great authority already. So does the good proponent of this Amendment believe that Section 322 could already encompass some of the issues that the, the good proponent is trying to address here? Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Mushinsky.
REP. MUSHINSKY (85TH):
Through you Mr. Speaker, DEEP did not think that it did have that power with that section. And I am trying to cover sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 516 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
bases here, make sure we do have the power to regulate the pollution sources from these data centers. So to answer your question, DEEP believes the, the Section you referred to is not sufficient to do this regulatory effort.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Through you Mr. Speaker?
REP. MUSHINSKY (85TH):
Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Harding.
REP. HARDING (107TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. And I, and I appreciate that answer.
I, I may read it a little bit differently in terms of, it seems like the authorities that are granted there are pretty broad.
Nevertheless, through you Mr. Speaker, the language that's proposed, you know, I, I understand that we did pass Data Center sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 517 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Bill out of this, this, this very body earlier in, in the legislative session. And I understand that the Department of
Economic Development worked very hard to create that Bill. Has this language that's been proposed by the good proponent been discussed with the Department of Economic Development? Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Mushinsky.
REP. MUSHINSKY (85TH):
Through you Mr. Speaker, I do not know except that the Bill was heard including Section 4, which this is, this is the former
Section 4 of the Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Harding. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 518 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. HARDING (107TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. And, and through you Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that this language is similar to the language in House Bill 6551, that was JFS, that of the Environment
Committee. Could the good proponent please tell me is this, does this language mirror exactly the language that was passed out of the Environment Committee? Through you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Mushinsky.
REP. MUSHINSKY (85TH):
Through you Mr. Speaker, this is the identical language that we passed out of Environment. It was Section 4 of that
Bill. It was later removed and some of us complained and it was going to be in the implementer. I know Senator Cohen attempted to put it in the implementer and did not succeed.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Representative Harding. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 519 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. HARDING (107TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. I, I do appreciate this Amendment and, and what the Amendment is looking to address. I, I'm a little concern now as to why it wouldn't have been put in the implementer, and I, I do have some concerns of whether or not that it relates to the original Datacenter Bill that was originally passed out of this Chamber earlier. So that is a concern of mine. But nevertheless, I, I do appreciate what the
Amendment is trying to address from the environmental perspective which is important to me. Thank you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you sir. Do you care to remark further? Do you care to remark further on the Bill before us, the Amendment before us? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the
House, Members please take your seats or attend to your portals.
The machine will be open. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 520 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
CLERK:
The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber or your portals. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber or to your portals.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Have all Members voted? Have all Members voted? Please check the board to ensure that your vote has been properly cast.
If all Members have voted, the machine will be locked and the
Clerk will take a tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally?
CLERK:
House Amendment Schedule "F":
Total Number Voting 140 Necessary for Adoption 71 Those voting Yea 52 Those voting Nay 88 Those absent and not voting 11 sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 521 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
The Amendment fails (gavel). Will you care to remark further on the Bill as Amended? Will you care to remark further on the Bill as Amended? Representative Fishbein for the second time.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'm not totally keeping score, but I think this is the first time speaking on the Bill, correct? So
Mr. Speaker, there is a portion of the Bill that, is that
Section 98, which significantly impacts attorneys in this state that practice real estate. And what that Section says at least in the beginning, is that presently, a closing requires an attorney in Connecticut, both residential and commercial.
Section 98 removes that requirement from a commercial transaction and that commercial transaction is described as having to do with a unit, residential unit that's of four or an excess of four units.
Mr. Speaker, this concept to my knowledge never went through a Committee. Nobody contacted, at least myself as sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 522 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Ranking on Judiciary asking for this. I know Mr. Speaker that the Clerk is in possession of an Amendment. I'm just looking to identify that Amendment at this point. I believe it's 11007. Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Clerk call the Amendment and that I'd be given leave to summarize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Will the Clerk please call LCO No. 11007, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule "G"?
CLERK:
House Amendment Schedule "G" LCO No. 11007, offered by
Representative Stafstrom, Representative Blumenthal,
Representative Fishbein, Representative Rebimbas, Representative
O'Dea.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
The Representative seek leave of the Chamber to summarize the Amendment. Is there any objection? Seeing none,
Representative Fishbein. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 523 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is a joint
Amendment submitted by both Republican and Democrat Leadership of the Judiciary Committee. And what this Amendment does is it strikes Section 98 in its entirety, gives us an opportunity to utilize the Committee process as it should be to perhaps address portions of this, but I move the Amendment and ask my colleagues to support. Thank you Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you. The question before the Chamber is on adoption on House Amendment Schedule "G". Will you remark? Will you remark? Seeing none. If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House, Members please take your seats. The machine will be open.
CLERK:
The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber or your portals. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber or your portals. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 524 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Have all Members voted? Please check the board to ensure that your vote has been properly cast. If all Members have voted, the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally?
CLERK:
House Amendment Schedule "G":
Total Number Voting 140 Necessary for Adoption 71 Those voting Yea 74 Those voting Nay 66 Absent and not voting 11
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
The Amendment passes (Gavel). Will you remark further on the Bill as Amended? Representative Rutigliano, you have the floor sir. No? Representative Fiorello, you have the floor madam. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 525 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FIORELLO (149TH):
Okay, thank you Mr. Speaker. I just have comments about this entire process, Mr. Speaker. I served dutifully on the
Education Committee, the Judiciary Committee, Planning and
Development. I tried to read every Bill that came across, participate in all the Public Hearings for all the long hours.
And I took very seriously the job of informing my constituents what we're doing up here on their behalf. And I ran for office because I believe so firmly that we need a government that stays within the bounds of the checks and balances that our country is founded on, that we promise to uphold the Constitution here.
And so I believe in individual rights, I believe in the proper role of government. There is a role, but it has to be properly within the bounds of protecting rights. And I believe in having assertive, informed, and involved and engaged citizens. But I really have to say that for me in this last week, like the wheels have come off. I, that we had the budget, which was 70 pages.
And it had, you know, 2.5% increase in spending in the first year, 4.5% increase spending in the second year, and yet we somehow said there were no taxes in it. We had to, past sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 526 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
midnight, we received the bonding Bill, and we were going to discuss it, but then we didn't and we voted. And now within 24 hours of receiving this implementer and I have tried to go through the OFA, which is 40 pages and I am just at a loss of how to explain what has happened here in the last, I don't know, several days. I don't know if this is the norm. But if this is the norm, this is inexplicable to the regular person out there.
I feel so strongly that the people of Connecticut need to hold us to account. I don't know what Section 32, new office of unemployed workers advocate is. I see section 52, the free phone calls that we voted on before is back here again. Section 160, college athletes making money, I thought we passed that, but it's here again. Section 293, Connecticut pass program for free transit rides, Section 11 to 14 salary increases for judges.
It's, you'd have to be a savant to understand all of this, and
I, I think this is very disappointing and it's impossible for us to uphold our duties to the citizens of Connecticut, to uphold the Constitution.
This is an, I'm sorry, this massive thing pushed my button.
I just think it's a real insult to the human intellect, and this is not how government should go. So I feel like I had an sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 527 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
incredible time here, participating in lawmaking until these last several days. And I don't know how to comprehend what it is that we all do here when this is something that we're trying to pass.
And I've listened to all the Amendments. The Amendments are valid, there is a lot in here that has to be tweaked, but it's more than tweaking. I just, people in Connecticut need to hold all of us to account. I don't know what this is. Thank you very much Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Thank you madam. Do you care to remark further?
Representative Scanlon, you have the floor sir.
REP. SCANLON (98TH):
Thank you. Good morning Madam Speaker, or Mr. Speaker,
Geez. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 528 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Come on, the third time in one night. Come on. What's going on here?
REP. SCANLON (98TH):
Long day.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
We'll tired, that's for sure.
REP. SCANLON (98TH):
Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of Amendment LCO
No. 11013. I asked I'd be granted leave of the Chamber to summarize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Will the Clerk please call LCO No. 11013, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule "H"? sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 529 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
CLERK:
House Amendment Schedule "H" LCO No. 11013, offered by
Representative Scanlon.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
The Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the Amendment. Is there any objection? Seeing none,
Representative Scanlon, you have the floor sir.
REP. SCANLON (98TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. This Amendment simply removes the total amount of bond authorizations for the University of
Connecticut Health Center and I move adoption.
DEPUTY SPEAKER CANDELARIA (95TH):
Question before the Chamber is on adoption of House
Amendment Schedule "H". Will you remark further on the
Amendment? Representative Betts? No. Would you remark further on the Amendment before us? Representative Cheeseman, you have the floor madam. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 530 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):
Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. And I would like to ask the good Chair, through you Mr. Speaker, of Finance, Revenue and
Bonding, what is the genesis of this particular Amendment?
Through you Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Representative Scanlon, what do you got?
REP. SCANLON (98TH):
Through you Mr. Speaker, it just reflects the need. Through you.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Representative Cheeseman.
REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):
Could, through you Mr. Speaker, could the good Chair be a bit more explanatory, reflects the need. Was this due to request sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 531 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
from the, the particular body; was this a request from someone else in this Chamber? I'm just curious as to the genesis of this
Amendment.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
He's not [inaudible] answer that. So it's up to him, but he doesn't have to tell you where it came from or applying where it came from. I'll defer it to himself
REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):
All right. Through you Mr. Speaker, would he care to share that information with the Chamber? Through you Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
No, he would not.
REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):
All right. I have no further questions. Thank you Mr.
Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 532 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Thank you madam. Representative McCarty. Will you care to remark further on, will you care to remark further on the
Amendment? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House, Members take you; Representative Fishbein, you have floor sir.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I just had some questions for the proponent of the Amendment.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Proceed.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. I, I did hear the introductory remarks. If I could just know what is the purpose of this
Amendment we're being asked to vote on? Through you Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 533 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Representative Scanlon.
REP. SCANLON (98TH):
Through you Mr. Speaker, the purpose is that in, we are making a change from what was in the Bond Bill to what is in this Bill, and it would reduce the annual bond authorization from $110 million to $86 million, and $106 million to $75 million. Through you Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'm just going that, I don't want to belabor the good Chairman. I'm trying to review this as he is giving his answer, because I didn't hear a lot about specific changes. It appears that the underlined portion, if we look at lines 21 and 22, is that the main change in this Amendment?
Through you Mr. Speaker. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 534 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Representative Scanlon.
REP. SCANLON (98TH):
Yes, through you Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Representative Fishbein.
REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):
Okay. Thank you Mr. Speaker, that combined with what we were told I do understand what's going on. So thank you Mr.
Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Thank you. Would you care to remark further? Would you care to remark further? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House, Members take your seats, the machine will be open. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 535 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
CLERK:
The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber or your portals. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber or your portals.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Have all the Members voted. If all the Members voted, the machine will be locked. Representative Mastrofrancesco, for what purpose do you rise madam?
REP. MASTROFRANCESCO (80TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'd like to cast my vote in the affirmative place.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
So noted in the affirmative. Will the Clerk please take a tally? Will the Clerk please announce the tally? sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 536 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
CLERK:
House Amendment Schedule "H":
Total Number Voting 138 Necessary for Adoption 70 Those voting Yea 135 Those voting Nay 3 Those absent and not voting 13
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
The Amendment passes (gavel). Would you care to remark further on the Bill as Amended? Would you care to remark further on the Bill as Amended? Representative Betts, you have the floor sir.
REP. BETTS (78TH):
Good morning Mr. Speaker, thank you. I wasn't playing and speaking, but I've heard from the, I was listening carefully to the comments from the good Representative from 149th District, and this is her first term being in the legislature. This is my
11th year being here, and I hope people heard what she was talking about because I feel exactly the same way. What's going on with this legislative process is very disturbing and frankly to me, we could do a whole lot better. It's unfortunate, the sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 537 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
people do not hold us accountable, but I want to know why we don't hold ourselves accountable. Be coming up with things at the last moment or to be able to have a document, 837 pages and then be expected to read through that, understand it, interface it with a budget. And by the way, many of the things in there were not even related to the budget. And then we get last minute
Amendments.
I made a mistake once and I'm not going to make it twice, that I had a chance to read through the entire budget but beware, we could very well vote for this and find out later that we supported something that we did not know about or which we would not support again. I will absolutely vote no for that reason. Thank you Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Thank you sir. Would you care to remark further on the Bill as Amended? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House, Members take your seats. The machine will be open. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 538 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
CLERK:
The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber or to your portals. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber or to your portals.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Have all the Members voted? If all the Members have voted, the machine will be locked. Will the Clerk please take a tally?
Will the Clerk please announce the tally?
CLERK:
Senate Bill 1202 as Amended by Senate "A" House "A" House
"G" and House "H":
Total Number Voting 139 Necessary for Passage 70 Those voting Yea 89 Those voting Nay 50 Those absent and not voting 12
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
The Bill as Amended multiple times is passed (Gavel).
Representative Rojas, you have the floor sir. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 539 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. ROJAS (9TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move immediately transmit all items requiring further action in the Senate.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Seeing no objection, so ordered (gavel). Representative
Betts, you have the floor.
REP. BETTS (78TH):
Good morning again. Thank you very much. I'll spare you the reading. I have turned over to the Clerk, the people who missed votes and the reasons for it. Thank you.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Thank you sir. Representative Felipe, you have the floor sir. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 540 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
REP. FELIPE (130TH):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. For purposes of Journal notation, the Clerk is in possession of a list of Members along with the corresponding reasoning for why they missed votes. We ask it be noted in the Journal.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
So noted. Would you care to remark further? Representative
Rojas, you have the floor sir.
REP. ROJAS (9TH):
Thank you again Mr. Speaker. That concludes our work for the day, and I think for the year. So with that, for the second time in a week, I move we adjourn sine die.
SPEAKER RITTER (1ST):
Questions to adjourn sine die. Is there objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Sine die. sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 541 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
(On motion of Representative Rojas of the 9th District, the
House adjourned at 12:35 o’clock a.m., sine die.)
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the preceding 527 pages is a complete and accurate transcription of a digital sound recording of the House Proceedings on Tuesday, June 16, 2021.
I further certify that this digital sound recording was transcribed by the word processing department employees of
Datagain, under my direction.
sp/lo/ta/jb//mi/km 542 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 16, 2021
Kanchan Mutreja Datagain 1 Creekside Court Secaucus, NJ 07094