WELCOME TO "KENTUCKY TONIGHT."

I'M RENEE SHAW.

HURRY H. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

TONIGHT WE'RE DISCUSSING MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

IS THIS THE YEAR THE KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY LEGALIZES MEDICAL MARIJUANA?

THE KENTUCKY HOUSE HAS PASSED BILLS TO DO THAT IN THE PAST, ONLY TO HAVE THEM FAIL IN THE KENTUCKY SENAT.

A 2019 KENTUCKY HEALTH ISSUES POLL SHOWED 90% SUPPORT FOR LEGALIZATION AS A WAY TO HELP PEOPLE SUFFERING FROM MANY DEBILITATING ILLNESSES, BUT IS MEDICAL MARIJUANA THE MIRACLE DRUG AM CLAIM?

DOES YOU THE REALLY work?

TO DISCUSS ALL THIS WE ARE JOINED IN OUR LEXINGTON STUDIO BY: DR. DANESH MAZLOOMDOOST, A PAIN AND REGENERATIVE ORTHOPEDIC SPECIAL STATE SENATOR PHILLIP WHEELER, REPUBLICAN FROM PIKEVILLE.

ED SHEMELYA, NATIONAL COORDINATOR OF THE NATIONAL MARIJUANA INITI AND JAIME MONTALVO, FOUNDER OF KENTUCKIANS FOR MEDICAL MARIJUA SUPPORTERS SAY MEDICAL MARIJUAN CAN EASE SUFFERING FROM DEBILITATING DISEASES LIKE PTSD CANCER, EPILEPSY, AND MORE.

SO TO BEGIN TONIGHT WE HAVE AIR LAURA ROGERS WHO INTRODUCES TO US THREE KENTUCKIANS SHARING THEIR EXPERIENCES OF USING MEDICAL MARIJUANA TO TREAT THEIR CHRONIC AND SERIOUS CONDITIONS.

I FIND THAT FUNNY.

>> PRESTON CANTWELL WAS FOUR YEARS OLD WHEN HE WAS DIAGNOSED WITH EPILEPSY.

>> HE'S A GOOD BOY.

>> HE WE HAVE UPWARDS ABOUT 200 SEIZURES A DAY.

>> I'VE BEEN ON SO MANY DIFFERENT MEDICATIONS MY ENTIRE LIFE.

>> WE'VE BEEN TO THE MAYO CLINIC, WE'VE BEEN ALL OVER AND NOTHING WOULD STOP THE SEIZURES.

>> IN 2015 THE CANTWELLS TURN TO CBD.

THE THEY SAY WITHIN SIX WICKES PRESTON'S SEIZURES HAD STOPPED.

>> CBD WORK REALLY GOOD FOR HIM FOR A COUPLE YEARS AND THEN THE SEIZURES KIND OF STARTED COMING BACK, PASSING OUT, LOSING CONSCIOUSNESS, SHAKING 1 CONVULSING, BITING HIS TONGUE, REALLY, REALLY BAD SEIZURES.

>> IT WAS THEN THAT PRESTON CHILD WHOLE PLANT CANNABIS.

THEY SAY HE HASN'T HAD A SEIZURE SINCE OCTOBER 2019.

>> ALMOST IMMEDIATELY THOSE STOPPED AND HE HASN'T HAD ANOTHER ONE IN THREE YEARS AND TWO MONTHS NOW.

>> IT HAS BASICALLY JUST ENTIRELY CURED IT.

>> EVERY FEW MONTHS THE CANTWELLS MAKE A TEN 34 DRIVE ROUND TRIP TO MICHIGAN.

>> EVERY TIME WE GO WE SPEND THOUSANDS DOLLARS IN ANOTHER STATE.

I MEAN, WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SPEND THAT HERE.

>> JEWEL CITI IS A CO-FOUNDER KENTUCKY MOMS FOR MEDICAL CANNABIS ADVOCATING FOR LEGALIZATION.

THE.

CANTWELLS HAVE ANOTHER FAMILY MEMBER NOW USING MEDICAL MARIJUANA, JEWEL'S MOTHER LEARNED LAST YEAR SHE HAS A BRAIN TUMOR.

>> GLIOGLASS BLASTOMA IS WHAT IT IS CALLED.

WHEN I FOUND OUT I HAD THIS, SHE SAID, MOM, YOU'VE GOT TO LET ME TALK TO MY CANNABIS FRIENDS AND SEE WHAT THEY RECOMMEND FOR YOU.

>> LISA TROMDON USES FULL EXTRACT.

CANNABIS OIL EVERY EVENING BEFORE BED.

>> I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO BUY IT IN KENTUCKY.

I'D LIKE TO KNOW THAT IT WAS I DON'T KNOW HERE BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD HELP OUR STATE.

IF IT WORKS, I WANT EVERYONE TO BE ABLE TO USE IT.

>> SHE'S IN A GREAT MOOD.

HE SLEEPS WONDERFUL.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE SEIZURES ARE GONE.

SO WHAT MORE COULD I ASK FOR?

>> Renee: SO A LOT OF DISCUSSION OF AN THIS TOPIC, OF COURSE, AND WE DO WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU so SEND US YOUR QUESTIONS BY TWITTER @KYTONIGHT SEND AN EMAIL TO KYTONIGHT@KET.

OR USE THE WEB FORM AT KET.ORG/ OR YOU CAN JUST GIVE US A CALL AT 1-800-494-7605.

WELCOME TO ALL OF OUR GUESTS.

WE APPRECIATE YOU ALL BEING HERE THIS EVENING.

I WANT TO START WITH YOU, MR. MONTALVO, AND TALK TO YOU ABOUT YOU HAVE HEARD THIS STORY, AND A GOOD FRIEND OF YOURS ERIC CRAWFORD WHO HAS BEEN AROUND THE HALLS OF THE STATE CAPITAL FOR A LONG TIME PUSHING FOR LEGALIZATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

WHEN YOU HEAR STORIES LIKE YOU JUST HEARD AND, OF COURSE, GIVEN THAT EXPERIENCE OF YOUR GOOD FRIEND, WHY IS MEDICAL MARIJUANA NEEDED RIGHT NOW IN KENTUCKY TO BE LEGALIZED BY THE KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY?

>> WELL, PEOPLE NEED -- PATIENTS NEED SAFE ACCESS TO CANNABIS.

THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO FEEL COMFORTABLE SPEAKING TO THEIR PHYSICIANS ABOUT CANNABIS IN THE SENSE THAT THERE MIGHT BE POSSIBLY SIDE EFFECTS TO MEDICATIONS WITH CANNABIS, AND AT THIS TIME BECAUSE OF ITS ILLEGALALITY PATIENTS DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE SPEAKING TO THEIR DOCTORS OR ANYONE.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S VERY RESERVED AT HOME.

>> SO I DO HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION, I THINK I'VE ASKED THIS BEFORE, DR. MAZLOOMDOOST WHEN YOU'VE BEEN ON.

IS MEDICAL MARIJUANA OR IS MARIJUANA MEDICINE?

AND YOU'RE RESPONSE IS?

>> IT HAS MEDICINAL PROPERTIES, BUT TO CALL IT MEDICINE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A MISNOMERRER BECAUSE MEDICINE IS A PRODUCT OR A COMPOUND THAT WE KNOW THE PHARMACOLOGY, THE PHARMACODYNAMICS, IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT IMPACT IT HAS ON THE BODY, WHAT CONDITIONS ARE -- IT'S APPLICABLE TO, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE CONTRAINDICATIONS, WHAT ARE THE RISKS.

WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY OF THAT INFORMATION.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT DOSAGES ARE IMPORTANT.

WE CON KNOW WHAT OVERDOSE OR EXCESSIVE DOSAGES ARE.

SO TO CALL IT MEDICINE CON DESCRIBES A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY THAT JUST DOESN'T -- WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH RESEARCH BEHIND IT.

>> SO DO YOU FAVOR FDA APPROVAL OF IT OR WHAT DO YOU THINK THE NEXT STEP SHOULD BE TO GET THE RESEARCH THAT IS NEEDED?

>> IT'S CURRENTLY SCHEDULED, THE DEA SCHEDULING OF IT PROHIBITS WIDESPREAD RESEARCH ON THE COMPOUND, OR THE COMPOUNDS WITHIN, WITHIN MARIJUANA OR THE CANNABINOIDS SO THAT'S REALLY FIRST STEP, IS TO EASE THE ACCESS TOWARDS RESEARCH SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY START STUDYING THE COMPOUNDS IN MUCH GREATER GRANULARITY THAN WE HAVE ACCESS TO RIGHT NOW.

RIGHT NOW THERE'S RESEARCH OUT THERE AND RESEARCH TAKING PLACE, BUT THE RIGORS AROUND GETTING THAT RESEARCH APPROVED IS FAIRLY CHALLENGING JUST GIVEN THE SCHEDULING OF MARIJUANA.

>> SO WHEN YOU HEAR ANECDOTAL ACCOUNTS FROM THE FOLKS WE JUST HEARD AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROGRAM AND OTHERS THAT YOU'VE ENCOUNTERED, IS THAT NOT CONVINCING ENOUGH FOR YOU?

>> THAT'S A DIFFICULT STATEMENT BECAUSE IF WE GO BACK 40 YEARS AGO, PURDUE PHARMACEUTICALS MANUFACTURED VERY SIMILAR MARKETING AROUND OPIOID BEING LIFE CHANGING AND EFFECTIVE FOR THESE INDIVIDUALS, AND FAST FORWARD TEN YEARS FROM THAT POINT AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS HAD EITHER PASSED AWAY OR WERE ADMITTING TO DRUG ADDICTION.

NOW, I RECOGNIZE OPIOIDS AND MARIJUANA OR CANNABINOIDS ARE NOT THE SAME, BUT THE POINT OF IT IS THAT THERE ARE LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF EVERY CHEMICAL COMPOUND IN THE BODY.

THERE'S ADAPTATION.

THERE'S HOMEOSTASIS.

AND CRIMINALS WE HAVE THE LONG-TERM DATA TO TRACK THROUGH WHO ARE THE INDIVIDUALS WHO REALLY DO DERIVE BENEFIT FROM IT, WHO ARE THE ONES THAT ARE ACTUALLY HARMED BY IT, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR A PHYSICIAN TO OBJECTIVELY SAY, THIS IS HELPFUL OR HARMFUL TO YOU.

IT'S VERY EASY TO GET BASED BY THE EMOTIONAL -- SUEDE BY SWAYED BY THE EMOTIONAL COMPOEFFIN NENT STORIES LIKE THAT.

>> SENATOR WHEELER, THIS IS YOUR FIRST TIME ON KWE TONIGHT.

WELCOME.

THE OTHERS ARE PRETTY OFFENDERS WITH I GUESS WE COULD SAY USING YOUR LEGAL VERNACULAR.

SO TELL US WHY YOU WANTED TO COSPONSOR AS YOU ARE, SENATE BILL 47 IN THE SENATE AND DO YOU THINK -- I'LL ASK IT RIGHT OFF THE BAT -- DO YOU THINK THAT YOUR CAULK IS GOING TO THE FOR THIS?

BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT'S WHERE THE STALL HAS BEEN IN THE PAST.

>> YOU KNOW, RENEE, I HESITATE TO SPEAK FOR ANYBODY BUT MYSELF AND THE VARIOUS COSPONSORS OF THE BILL, BUT I AM OPTIMISTIC THAT THIS MAY BE THE YEAR THAT YOU SEE SOME ACTION ON IT IN THE SENATE.

WE HAVE SEVERAL NEW MEMBERS, SOME OF WHOM SEEM TO BE MORE OPEN TO THE IDEA OF MEDICAL CANNABIS.

YOU KNOW, I COME AT IT FROM A STANDPOINT OF COMPASSION, AND I DO RECOGNIZE WHAT DR. MAZLOOMDOOST SAID, THAT SOMETIMES THAT CAN BE A SLIPPERY SLOPE, BUT COMPARING KANAB BODIES TO OPIOIDS I THINK IS DEFINITELY A STRETCH.

YES, THERE'S MAYBE NOT THE PHASE 3 CLINICAL OR TRIALS THAT FOR VARIOUS REASONS THAT I THINK THE DOCTOR YOU ENUNCIATED RATHER SUCCESSFULLY, BUT WE HAVE SEEN COUNTLESS EXAMPLES OF FOLKS JUST LIKE THE ONES IN VIDEO, AND I'VE TALKED TO THEM THROUGHOUT MY DISTRICT THAT SAY THAT MEDICAL CANNABIS HAS BEEN A LIFESAVER FOR THEM, PROBABLY ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD HAVE NEVER THOUGHT WHEN I FIRST GOT ELECTED TO THIS POSITION IN 2019 WAS A VERY CONSERVATIVE MEMBER OF THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH IN TOWN THAT I'VE KNOWN FOR YEARS, TOTALLY AGAINST ANY TYPE OF DRUGS, AND HE ASKED ME, HE SAID, WELL, SENATOR, ONE OF THE THING I WOULD ASK OF YOU, ONE OF FIRST THINGS IF YOU COULD DO THIS FOR ME, SUPPORT MEDICAL CANNABIS, WHICH I NEVER EXPECTED TO HEAR THOSE WORDS OUT OF HIS MOUTH.

THEN HE WENT ON TO EXPLAIN TO ME HOW HE HAD A GRANDCHILD THAT HAD A SIGNIFICANT SEIZURE DISORDER AND IT APPEARED THAT THE CANNABIS OIL WAS THE ONLY -- THEY HAD TRIED EVERYTHING, BUT IT WAS THE ONLY SUBSTANCE THAT SEEMED TO GIVE ANY TYPE OF RELIEF.

SO AS I WENT THROUGHOUT MY DESTRUCT I WOULD TALK TO VETERANS THAT TALKED ABOUT PTSD AND SEVERAL OTHER FOLKS WHO SAW REAL RELIEF.

AND SO OVER TIME AND MEETING WITH PEOPLE LIKE JAIME AND THE CRAWFORDS, I BECAME CONVINCED THAT THIS IS SOMETHING, WHEN ADMINISTERED IN THE PROPER WAY, CAN PROVIDE COMPASSIONATE RELIEF TO MANY KENTUCKIANS IN PAIN OR WITH THEY ARE ILLNESSES.

>> I DO WANT TO GET DOWN TO THE SPECIFICS WHY BILL, SENATE BILL 47 IN JUST A LITTLE BIT, BUT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE GOV'S EXECUTIVE ORDER.

FIRST -- MR. SHEMELYA, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AGAIN.

YOU WHETHER ON PART OF OUR CLIP AT AIR 6:30 PROGRAM "KENTUCKY EDITION" SO THANK YOU FORE THE DOUBLE DOSE THERE.

SO TALK TO US ABOUT YOUR OPPOSITION BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN ON THIS PROGRAM A FEW TIMES BEFORE EXPRESSING YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT LEGALIZATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

>> FIRST I SIT HERE REPRESENTING THE KENTUCKY NARCOTICS OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, AND OUR 400 MEMBERS THAT ARE ON THE STREETS EVERY DAY FIGHTING KENTUCKY'S SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER PROBLEM, AND LORD KNOWS THAT WE HAVE A PROBLEM IN THIS COMMONWEALTH.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS, I THINK THE PEOPLE THAT REALLY NEED TO BE HAVING THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE NOT A SENATOR, NOT A.

THERE SHOULD BE -- PATIENT.

THERE SHOULD BE A ROW OF PHYSICIANS BECAUSE THAT'S THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM RIGHT HERE.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS SUBSTANCE, ANECDOTAL STORIES AREN'T SCIENCE, AND SYMPATHY PUSS DOES PULL AT THE HEARTSTRINGS AND YOU CAN'T DISCOUNT THAT, BUT WHAT WE ARE LACKING HERE WITH THIS SUBSTANCE IS SCIENCE.

AND YOU MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT THE BARRIERS.

WELL, THAT'S ONE OF THE PROPONENTS OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA 6 ALWAYS SAID.

THE BARRIERS TO DOING LEGITIMATE RESEARCH IS WHY WE NEED TO LEGALIZE THIS MEDICALLY AND PROVIDE IT TO THE PATIENTS.

WELL, THE PRESIDENT IN THE 117th CONGRESS SIGNED A MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND CANNABIDIOL LAW INTO ACT AND WHAT THAT LAW DID IS DO EXACTLY WHAT THE DOC SAID.

WE ARE REMOVING MOST OF THOSE BARRIERS SO WE CAN CONDUCT LEGITIMATE RESEARCH INTO NOT ONLY THE BENEFICIAL COMPONENTS OF THIS PLANT BUT ALSO THE HARM OBVIOUSLY CONSEQUENCES OF THIS.

ABSENT THAT, WE ARE MAKING A LEGISLATIVE DECISION TO DETERMINE THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF A SUBSTANCE THAT ISN'T GROUNDED IN SCIENCE, THAT ISN'T GROUNDED IN RESEARCH.

IT'S GROUNDED IN ANECDOTAL STORIES THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE CORRECT.

IN THE LONG TERM.

>> SOME BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD HELP KIND OF SOLVE OR EASE THE OPIOID ADDICTION EPIDEMIC THAT WE HAVE IN KENTUCKY, THAT PERHAPS -- >> THAT'S BEEN PROVEN FALSE, AND WHEN YOU LOOK IN 2014 ALL WE HEARD BUCK-HOUR, THEY HAVE PRODUCED RESEARCH, AND THEY LOOKED AT AND BASICALLY THE PREMISE WAS THAT IF YOU HIGHLY REGULATE A MEDICAL MODEL, YOU'LL SEE A REDUCTION BY 24%, IS ON THEY LOOKED A STATES FROM 1996 TO 2010, AND FROM THAT THEY DEDUDES THAT THERE WOULD BE A 24% REDUCTION IN OPIOID USE DISORDER AND OPIOID OVERDOSE DEATHS.

WELL, THE RAND CORPORATION AND SCOTT IN 2018 TOOK THAT RESEARCH FROM 1996 TO 2017.

AND IT WASN'T A 24-1/2% REDUCTION.

IT WAS ACTUALLY A 21% INCREASE IN OPIOID USE DISORDER AND OPIOID OVERDOSE DEATHS.

A 45 POINT SWING IN THE OTHER DIRECTION.

THAT MYTH HAS BEEN DISPELLED.

THERE ARE SO MANY MYTHS ABOUT THIS DRUG THAT NEED TO BE PUT TO SCRUTINY WITH SCIENCE.

AND THE ONES THAT PLAY OUT OF THE 114 PLUS CANNABINOIDS, LOOK WE DO WITH EPI DIALECTS.

WE PUT THEM THROUGH THE CLINICAL TRIALS.

WE MAKE THEM AVAILABLE SO THAT A PHYSICIAN CAN PRESCRIBE IT, THAT A PHARMACY CAN DISPENSE IT, AND A PATIENT CAN KNOW WITH THE GREATEST DEGREE OF CERTAINTY THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF THE PRODUCTS THEY'RE ABOUT TO PUT INTO THEIR BODY.

THAT'S NOT OCCURRING WITH THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION.

>> THERE ARE OTHER STUDIES OUT THERE, MORE MR. MONTALVO, THAT MAY SUGGEST ANOTHER LEVEL OF EFFICACY AND SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS.

ARE THOSE STUDIES YOU CAN CITE?

>> THERE ARE THOUSANDS STUDIES THAT BE CITED.

IF YOU LOOK AT PUBMED.GOV YOU'LL COME UP WITH OVER 20,000 HITS ON STUDIES ON MEDICAL CANNABIS.

EVERY RESEARCHER STUDSYING CANNABIS WANTS TO BE THE ONE THAT HAS THAT PINNACLE STUDY THAT FINALLY LEADS TO LEUKEMIAIZATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

TO GO BACK TO WHAT MR. SMELLIA WAS TALKING ABOUT, WHEN IT COMES TO PATIENTS, THEY CAN BE PRESCRIBED FENTANYL, THEY CAN BE PRESCRIBED AMPHETAMINES.

THOSE ARE SCHEDULE 2 DRUGS.

BUT FOR SOME REASON CANNABIS IS STILL A SCHEDULE 1 DRUG.

IT HAS NO MEDICAL VALUE AND IT'S OPEN FOR ABUSE.

HOW CAN A PATIENT BE PRESCRIBED FENTANYL OR AMPHETAMINES, WHICH ARE OBVIOUSLY CAUSING DEATHS IN OUR COMMUNITY, BUT NOT GET CANNABIS LEGALLY?

PASSAGE OF THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAW ISN'T GOING TO JUST MAGICALLY BRING MARIJUANA TO KENTUCKY.

IT'S ALREADY HERE.

WHAT WE AS PATIENTS ARE ASKING IS THE REGULATION OF CANNABIS SO THAT WE CAN GO TO A SAFE ENVIRONMENT AND PURCHASE A PRODUCT THAT IS CLEAN FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE REGULATED BY THE STATE, YOU KNOW, AND ARE NOT THERE TO SELL US OTHER POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS CHEMICALS.

>> SO I WANT TO GO TO YOU, DOCTOR, ABOUT WHAT JAIME JUST SAID ABOUT FENTANYL BEING A SCHEDULE 2 BUT YET WE DO HEAR THAT I A LOT OF THE OPIOID OVERDOSE DEATHS IN THIS STATE ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO FENTANYL USE, BUT YET PERHAPS MEDICAL MARIJUANA -- OR MARIJUANA COULD HAVE SOME MEDICINAL VALUE.

>> THERE'S A LOT OF LAYERS TO THAT QUESTION.

THE FIRST DISTINCTION IS THAT ADDICTION IS A BIAS LIKE A SOCIAL DISEASE.

IT IMPACTS THE WAY THE BRAIN WORKS.

AND EXPOSURE TO A CHEMICAL LIKE FENTANYL DOESN'T NECESSITATE SUBSEQUENT ADDICTION.

NOW,ING CHRONIC EXPOSURE TO CHEMICALS IN THE OPIOID CATEGORY ARE -- INFLUENCE THE BRAIN AND LEAD TO AN ADDICTION, CAN LEAD TO AN ADDICTION.

BUT IT'S THE LAYERING OF MULTIPLE OTHER PROPERTIES, OF MULTIPLE OTHER ASPECTS OF THAT INDIVIDUAL'S LIFE, AND JUST INTRODUCING A SECOND PSYCHOACTIVE COMPONENT CHEMICAL LIKE MARIJUANA DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEIR ADDICTION TO OPIOIDS IS GOING TO GO AWAY.

THE ADDICTION IS THERE WHETHER OR NOT THE MARIJUANA IS THERE.

IF THERE WAS A WAY THAT YOU COULD ONE-TO-ONE SWAP THEM, THAT WOULD BE FANTASTIC, BUT THERE'S NO -- FANTASTIC, BUT THERE'S NO STUDY THAT SUGGESTS MARIJUANA ACTUALLY INFLUENCES THE PHARMACO-- THE PHYSIOLOGIC ISSUE THAT LEADS PEOPLE TO ADDICTION, WHICH IS CHANGES IN HOW THE BRAIN PROCESSES CERTAIN SIGNALS, CHANGES IN THE NEUROTRANSMITTERS OF THE BRAIN, AND ENDOINCANNABINOIDS DON'T HAVE A 1-TO-ONE EFFECT ON THE OPIOID RECEP ODORS IN THE BRAIN.

>> IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOW IT IS INGESTED, WHETHER IT'S SMOKE OR IT'S IN ANEDDIBLE FORM?

DOES THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN.

>> IT DOESN'T.

IT'S KIND OF LIKE YOU'VE NOT A SQUARE PEG IN A SQUARE HOLE FOR OPIOIDS, MARIJUANA WOULD BE LIKE A TRIANGULAR PEG IN A TRIANGULAR HOLE.

AND THEY'RE NOT -- IT'S NOT A ONE-TO-ONE COMPATIBILITY SO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE INFLUENCES ON EACH OTHER.

WHEN OPIOID DEPEND DEANS OR ADDICTION FORMS -- DEPENDENCY, ENDOCANNABINOIDS DOESN'T REVERSE THAT PROCESS.

THAT PROCESS IS A LOT MORE COMPLEX THAN JUST A CHEMICAL FIX.

THE SAME GOES WITH PAIN, IS THAT YOU CAN'T INDEFINITELY HIDE PAIN AWAY WITH ANY MEDICATION, WITH ANY CHEMICAL SUBSTANCE.

IT GOES TO FIGURING OUT WHAT IS THE LOOT -- ROOT COUGHS THAT PAIN ISSUE AND UNDERSTANDING HOW YOU CAN UNDO SOME OF THE DAMAGE THAT LED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSING PAIN RATHER THAN FOCUSING JUST ON THE PAIN.

PAIN IS A SYMPTOM.

IT'S NOT A DISEASE.

>> WE DID HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE HARMS THAT COULD COME FROM MARIJUANA THAT'S USED IN A MEDICINAL FASHION.

IT'S SMOKED CANIT LEAD TO THE SAME TYPECH CANCER THAT LEASED TO TOBACCO USE IN.

>> ANY KIND OF INHALATION PRODUCT HAS THAT RISK.

IT'S AN IRRITANT TO THE LINING OF THE LUNGS AND THE BODY IS GOING TO REACT TO THAT AND OVER TIME WITH CHRONIC EXPOSURE IT COULD LEAD TO A POINT WHERE THE BODY CAN'T KEEP P WITH THE DAMAGE THAT'S OCCURRING.

SO INHALATIONAL IS NOT THE BEST ROUTE OF ADMINISTRATION, AND THAT COMES TO ANOTHER POINT, IS WHAT IS THE BEST ROUTE OF ADMINISTRATION?

IS ORAL INGESTION THE BEST ROUTE?

IS IT INHALATIONAL FORMS THAT ARE NOT AS CAUSTIC TO THE RESPIRATORY SYSTEM?

WHAT IS THE DURATION OF EFFECT?

BECAUSE INHALATION IS A WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT THAN DIGESTION.

THESE ARE THE KINDS OF QUESTIONS THAT IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO A DOCTOR TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER, WE JUST DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION, AND SO TO HAVE THIS FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY THAT JUST BECAUSE A DOCTOR IS GIVING THE RECOMMENDATION, YOU HAVE ALL OF THAT EVIDENCE AND ALL OF THAT SCIENCE BEHIND THE, THAT'S THE REASON THAT I SAY THIS ISN'T -- IT'S A MISNOMER TO LABEL IT AS MEDICINE BECAUSE WE JUST DON'T HAVE THAT LAYER OF SECURITY.

>> SO I WANT TO SHIFT, SENATOR WHEELER, AND TALK ABOUT THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER OF, AND HE STARTED THE FACT THAT THERE'S A TOTAL OF 37 OTHER STATES AND WE EVEN HAVE SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORING STATES, HO, ILLINOIS, MISSOURI, WEST VIRGINIA HAVE LEGALIZED MEDICAL CANNABIS s, AND SO HIS EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT HE SIGNED BACK IN THE FALL WENT INTO EFFECT JANUARY 1st.

AND HERE IS THE SECRETARY OF THE KENTUCKY JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY CABINET WHO SPOKE TO US EARLIER TODAY ABOUT WHY AND IF THAT MOVE WAS CONSTITUTIONAL.

>> THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IS IN PLACE BECAUSE WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF KENTUCKIANS WHO ARE SUFFERING EVERY DAY THAT CAN BENEFIT FROM MEDICAL CANNABIS.

WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE'VE HEARD FROM THEM, AND THE LEGISLATURE THUS FAR HAS FAILED TO ACT TO LEGALIZE MEDICAL CANNABIS IN KENTUCKY, SO IN THE ABSENCE OF ECLECTIC ACTION WHICH WOULD -- LEGISLATIVE ACTION WHICH WOULD MAKE THIS RELIEF AVAILABLE TO SO MANY KENTUCKIANS, THE GOVERNOR HAS ACTED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF HIS EXECUTIVE POWER TO TRY TO ASSIST THESE KENTUCKIANS WHO HAVE ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED RELIEF FROM THE USE OF MEDICAL CANNABIS.

THOUSANDS OF KENTUCKIANS HAVE TOLD US THAT THEY CAN BENEFIT FROM MEDICAL CANNABIS, THAT THEY CAN RELIEVE GREAT SUFFERING, THAT THEY CAN DISCARD THE USE OF ADDICTIVE OPIOID DRUGS IF THIS IS AVAILABLE, SO I WOULD THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE THE MOTIVATION TO ACT.

IF THAT DOESN'T DO IT, WE KNOW FROM POLLING THAT THAT'S SOMETHING ON THE ORDER OF 90% OF KENTUCKIANS SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATIVE EFFORT.

>> SO SOME OF THE PROVISIONS OF OF THAT EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT WENT INTO EFFECT, AS YOU VERY WELL KNOW, SENATOR WHEELER, ALLOWS THOSE WITH ONE OF 21 CLASSIFIED AILMENTS TO LEGALLY POSSESS 8 OUNCES OR LESS OF MARIJUANA.

LIKE I SAID, THERE'S 21 ELIGIBLE CONDITIONS.

IT DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY PERSON 40 GROWS, PRODUCES CAN BE SELLS OR DISTRIBUTES MEDICAL CANNABIS, MUST HAVE A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION FROM A DOCTOR.

AND I WANTED TO GET TO THIS AND OBTAIN IT LEGALLY IN ANOTHER STATE SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT THIS IS HAPPENING HERE, RIGHT?

WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THE EXECUTIVE ORDER?

AND DO YOU BELIEVE IT DID MORE HARM THAN GOOD FOR YOUR EFFORT TO GET A BILL ACTUALLY THROUGH THE KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY?

>> YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IT AFFECTED THE BILL PROCESS, BUT I GUESS WHILE I SHARE THE GOVERNOR'S COMPASSION FOR THESE PEOPLE, I GUESS I'M DISAPPOINTED IN THE PROCESS THAT HE WENT ABOUT TO BRING MEDICAL CANNABIS TO KENTUCKY.

I MEAN, I WOULD ACTUALLY THINK AS A FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT, YOU KNOW, HE WOULD HAVE A LITTLE BIT BETTER KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE THREE SEPARATE BUT EQUAL BRANCHES GOVERNMENT AND IT'S IN FACT THE LEGISLATURE'S JOB TO SET POLICY AND HIS JOB TO EXECUTE UPON THAT POLICY.

>> BUT THE CURRENT ATTORNEY GENERAL ISN'T CHALLENGING IT ARE REPUBLICANS CALLING FOR THE IN THE THE STATE LEGISLATURE.

>> I'M NOT CALLING FOR IT.

I'M HAPPY THAT MAYBE IT GIVES COMFORT TO SOME PEOPLE, BUT I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A FALSE COMFORT.

BUT I ALSO THINK THAT IT CREATES SOME CONFUSION IN THE ENFORCEMENT REGIMEN FOR OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT.

AND AS AN ATTORNEY, I HAVE REALLY A CONCERN ABOUT THE SKETCH A PROSPECTIVE PARDON.

IS THAT REALLY -- >> SO EXPLAIN THAT PART BECAUSE I DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THAT PROVISION.

>> YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK THAT IN THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER, IF YOU READ IT, HE BASICALLY SAYS THAT HE IS PROSPECTIVELY PARKING ANYBODY THAT MAY HAVE VIOLATED KENTUCKY LAW BY POSSESSING MEDICAL CANNABIS IF THEY MEET THE CRITERIA SET OUT IN HIS EXECUTIVE ORDER.

THAT'S A PRETTY SLIPPERY SLOPE, GIVING A PROSPECTIVE PARDON TO BEHAVIOR THAT YOU I THINK MAY THINK IS OKAY BUT IS TECHNICALLY AGAINST THE LAW IN KENTUCKY.

WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATIVE PROCESS FOR A REASON, AND I THINK PART OF THAT IS SO THAT APPROPRIATE DELIBERATION CAN BE GIVEN TO MAJOR CHALLENGES IN PUBLIC POLICY, AND BELIEVE ME, I HAVE A LOT OF IDEAS THAT I THINK ARE GREAT TOYE THAT I WOULD LOVE TO GET OUT THERE ON THE STREET BECAUSE I KNOW THEY WOULD MAKE KENTUCKY BETTER, BUT, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES IT FAKES A COUPLE OF SESSIONS -- TAKES A COUPLE OF SESSIONS AND SOMETIMES IT TAKES MANY SESSIONS TO GET THAT THROUGH, AND THAT'S PART OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THIS GOVERNOR OR ANY GOVERNOR TO CIRCUMVENT THAT BY THINGS SUCH AS THE EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT HE SIGNED.

>> SO, MR. MONTALVO, I WANT TO COME TO YOU BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THIS IN THAT MANY COMPANIES ACTUALLY MAY CASH IN BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF ADVERTISING FOR IF YOU WANT TO GET A CERTIFICATION, WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS A PRESCRIPTION, SO WE HAVE TO DELINEATE THAT, YOU CAN GO TO THIS WEBSITE AND FOR $250 WE CAN GIVE THAT TO YOU.

I MEAN, TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE CONFUSION THAT MAYBE THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF HAS CAUSED.

>> T. THERE'S A LOT OF BLOOD IN THE WATER, THE SHARKS ARE CIRCLING.

MANY COMPANIES ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PEOPLE THAT JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND.

AS A PATIENT, I JUST GOT MY DOCTOR'S NOT RECOMMENDATION BUT JUST COVERAGES THAT I HAVE MULTIPLE CLEROSIS TODAY.

SO THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE CONFUSED ACROSS THE COMMONWEALTH.

IT DOESN'T ALLOW SAFE ACCESS.

IT DOESN'T ALLOW TO YOU PURCHASE IT ANYWHERE HERE IN KENTUCKY.

WHAT THE EXECUTIVE ORDER DOES, AS SENATOR WHEELER STATED, IT'S PREEMPTIVE ACTION WHICH GIVES YOU CRIMINAL DEFENSE IN COURT, BUT WHAT I FEAR IS A LOT OF PATIENTS ARE GOING TO TAKE THIS AS A WEEKS,, IT'S LEGAL, I CAN POSSESS IT 1 I CAN GO AND PURCHASE IT.

TAKE, FOR INSTANCE, IF I WAS TO GO AND PURCHASE CANNABIS IN ILLINOIS WHERE IT'S TOTALLY LEGAL.

I CAN MAKE A CERTAIN AMOUNT PURCHASES PER DAY.

IT ALLOWS TO YOU PURCHASE.

I'M NOT SURE OF THE SPECIFICS, MAYBE AN OUNCE AT A TIME IT.

ALLOWS TO YOU PURCHASE ANY TYPE OF CANNABIS PRODUCT.

BUT IF I WAS TO PURCHASE IT THERE LEGALLY AND CROSS THE BORDER INTO KENTUCKY AND I HAVE, SAY, FIVE DIFFERENT PACKAGES, THAT'S NO LONGER SIMPLE POSSESSION.

IN THE EYES OF A POLICE OFFICER THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE A FELONY ACT.

SO THEN IS A POLICE OFFICER ABLE TO LOOK IN MY DOCUMENTERTATION, YOU KNOW, AND SAY, OH, THAT GUY'S A PATIENT, HE'S LEGAL, HE'S ALLOWED TO HAVE THIS?

THEY'RE MORE THAN LIKELY GOING TO LEAVE THIS UP TO THE COURTS, AND THE COURTS GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER THIS ACT WAS LEGAL OR NOT.

THAT'S -- I FEAR THAT THE EXECUTIVE ORDER WAS WELL ININTENTIONED BUT HAS LED OR WILL LEAD TO MANY MORE PROBLEMS.

>> MR. SEM ELIA I WANT COME TO YOU BECAUSE YOU DEAL WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT.

MANY QUESTIONS IS WILL THIS CERTIFICATION HOLD.

YOU WITH POLICE AND JUST YOUR OVERALL THOUGHTS ABOUT THIS APPROACH.

>> WITH RESPECT TO THE GOVERNOR'S ORDER, GOING BACK 40 YEARS TO HIGH SCHOOL CIVICS COLLISION, I THINK THE SENATOR TOUCHED ON IT, THE THREE DISTINCT BRANCHES, I THINK IT'S ILLEGAL WHOLLY WHAT HE TRIED TO DO, AND THE STATEMENTS THAT THE CABINET SECRETARY SAID THAT, AGAIN, ANECDOTAL STATEMENTS ABOUT THE EFFICACY, NO SCIENCE.

AND I THINK IT'S INTERESTING THAT ALL THROUGH COVID ALL WE HEARD FROM THIS GOVERNOR WAS IN ALL THE RESTRICTIONS THAT WE WERE PLACED UNDER WAS HE WAS FOLLOWING THE SCIENCE.

HE WAS FOLLOWING THE SCIENCE.

AND ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW HE WANTS TO IGNORE THE SCIENCE AND LISTEN TO THE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.

WELL, YOU CAN'T CHER-PICK WHEN YOU WANT TO FOLLOW SCIENCE AND WHEN YOU WANT TO IGNORE SCIENCE.

JUST AS YOU ALLUDE TODAY THIS 90% POLLING, IT'S PUSH POLLING.

IF I ASKED THE QUESTION, ARE THERE NOT A KENTUCKIAN, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO LEGALIZE MARIJUANA TO HELP SOMEBODY THAT'S TERMINALLY ILL?

YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE A COLD-HEARTED INDIVIDUAL TO SAY NO.

OF COURSE YOU WOULD.

MY DAD DIED OF LIVER AND PANCREATIC CANCER, AND IN HIS LAST DAYS IF HE HAD ASKED ME TO GO GET MARIJUANA, I WOULD HAVE HOPPED IN THE CAR AND GONE AND BATE FOR HIM.

LAW ENFORCEMENT IS NOT UNCOMPASSIONATE TO INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE SUFFERING FROM THIS.

BUT WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS ESSENTIALLY THE RULE OF LAW, AND IN THIS RESPECT THE PROCESS WE HAVE WITH THE FDA FOR DETERMINING THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY PRODUCTS BE FOLLOWED, AND THE GOVERNOR CAN'T DO THAT THROUGH AN EXECUTIVE ORDER.

THAT ACTUALLY, WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT LEGISLATIVE PREROGATIVE, I QUESTION WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE REALLY UNDERSTANDS WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO ENACT WITH RESPECT TO THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION, AND THEY'RE PLACING THEMSELVES ABOVE SCIENTISTS THAT ARE DOING RESEARCH.

LET THE RESEARCH THAT'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAPPEN UNDER THE ACT THAT PRESIDENT BIDEN JUST SIGNED IN NOVEMBER, LET IT PLAY OUT, AND LET'S SEE WHAT OF THESE CANNABINOIDS ACTUALLY HAVE MEDICAL VOLUME.

THEN LET'S PUT THEM OUT THERE IN THE PROPER MANNER.

>> SENATOR WHEELER, WHAT ABOUT THAT?

>> I UNDERSTAND WHERE HE'S COMING FROM BUT I THINK JAIME MAKES AN IMPORTANT POINT P THE PURPOSE OF SENATE BILL 47 AND SOME OF THE LEGISLATION COMING OUTS OF THE HOUSE IS TO IN FACT GIVE PEOPLE A SAFE MARKETPLACE IN WHICH TO OBTAIN THESE PRODUCTS.

ONE THAT NECESSITY KNOW WHERE IT'S COMING FROM, THAT IT'S NOTE CONTAMINATED BY SOME OTHER POTENTIAL SUBSTANCE THAT COULD BE DEADLY IN THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCE -- OR WRONG CIRCUMSTANCE, LET ME SAY.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I GUESS, TO THE DETECTIVE'S POINT, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND WHERE HE'S COMING FROM, AND IF WE WERE TO GO THE FULL-BLOWN LEGALIZATION ROUTE, I WOULD TELL YOU I'M OPPOSED TO THAT.

I COME FROM A REGION IN EASTERN KENTUCKY THAT HAS BEEN DESTINATED BY THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC.

I'M VERY FAMILIAR ABOUT IT.

BUT YOU TALK ABOUT SCIENCE AND DOCTORS, I CAN TELL YOU SCIENCE AND DOCTORS ARE REALLY TO BLAME FOR A VERY LARGE PART OF IT.

I MEAN, DOCTORS DUMPED THESE DRUGS ON THE STREETS OF THE AREA FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS, AND WE'RE NOW LIVING WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT, AND I GUARANTEE THAT A LOT OF THESE DRUGS AT THE TIME WERE APPROVED BY THE FDA FOR THESE TYPES OF USES.

SO TO SAY THAT THE SCIENCE ALWAYS GETS IT RIGHT, I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT THAT'S JUST NOT THE CASE.

I'M ALSO A WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAWYER.

I REPRESENT A LOT OF FOLKS WHO ARE INJURED ON THE JOB.

A LOT OF THESE FOLKS HAVE SIGNIFICANT PAIN.

A LOT OF THESE FOLKS GO TO PAIN MANAGEMENT.

SOME OF THESE -- SOMETIMES I REALLY QUESTION THE LARGE AMOUNT OF NARCOTICS AND COCKTAILS THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE ON THAT ARE COSTING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS A MONTH TO DEAL WITH PAIN.

WE'VE SEEN TESTIMONY FROM OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE SAID THAT YOU KNOW CANNABIS OIL, SOME OF THEDDIBLES THAT THESE THINGS IN FACT BRING SIMILAR RELIEF AND I THINK HAVE MUCH LESS ADDICTIVE PROPERTIES.

NOW, DO WE AS A LEGISLATURE PROVIDE THEM WITH A SAFE AVENUE TO GET THESE PRODUCTS?

AND I THINK THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF SENATE BILL 47, SO THAT THEY CAN CONSULT WITH A PHYSICIAN, GET A SAFE PRODUCT THAT THEY KNOW WHAT'S IN IT, AND, YOU KNOW, THE FOLKS THAT ARE DOING THIS, THEY WANT TO STAY WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE LAW.

THESE ARE NOT LAWBREAKERS.

THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO ABIDE BY THE LAW.

IN FACT, THEY'RE CHOOSING A MORE EXPENSIVE PATHWAY TO DO SO.

SO I THINK SENATE BILL 47 SETS UP A FRAMEWORK THAT THESE PEOPLE CAN ACCESS SAFE, LEGAL CANNABIS TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT I THINK MEDICINE HAS HAD ITS OWN CHALLENGES IN DEALING WITH.

>> SO THE VERSIONS THAT HAVE -- I'M SORRY.

GO AHEAD, DR. MAZLOOMDOOST.

>> I JUST HAVE TO CLARIFY SOMETHING.

IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE EVOLUTION 69 OPIOID EPIDEMIC, IT WAS NOT, IT WAS NOT DERIVED FROM DOCTORS FLOODING THE MARKET WITH BAD SCIENCE.

THE SCIENCE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE.

THE SCIENCE HAS BEEN SOLID THAT OPIOIDS FOR CHRONIC PAIN ARE INEFFECTIVE AND ARE ACTUALLY HARMFUL.

SCIENCE GOES BACK TO THE EARLY 1920S.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT SITUATION IS THAT PHARMACEUTICALS CAPITALIZED ON THE VULNERABILITY OF PATIENTS AND CREATED A MULTI-LAYERED MARKETING CAMPAIGN TO REALLY INFLUENCE HOW PAIN AND OPIOIDS ARE THOUGHT OF IN THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY.

AND BECAUSE OF THE ZEALOUSNESS OF THIS MARKETING CAMPAIGN AND THE COMPASSION THAT LIES IN HEALTH CARE THAT WE DON'T WANT TO SEE PEOPLE SUFFERING, WE WANT TO HELP THEM, THERE WAS A MISREPRESENTATION OF THE SCIENCE, AND I CAN'T STRESS THAT ENOUGH.

IT WAS A MISREPRESENTATION OF THE SCIENCE THAT LED TO THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC.

NOW WE'RE TRYING TO HELP THE INSTITUTION OF MEDICINE UNLEARN SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE JUST BECOME SOUNDBITES OF KNOWLEDGE THAT PERM NIT YATE THROUGHOUT THE FABRIC OF MEDICINE.

WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT WE'RE PLAYING APPLES AND ORANGES FOR THE SAME ISSUE.

WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PAIN, IT'S NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO INDEFINITELY PHARMACEUTICALLY NUMB PAIN AWAY.

IT EXISTS IN THE BODY FOR A REASON.

AND THE THOUGHT THAT YOU CAN REPLACE MARIJUANA IN THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE CONSEQUENCES, ADVERSE AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES FROM THAT IS MISGUIDED BECAUSE WE'RE SEEING THE SAME THING PLAY OUT.

ARE OPIOIDS MORE RISKY THAN MARIJUANA OR CANNABINOIDS?

UNDOUBTEDLY.

UNDOUBTEDLY.

BUT ARE ENDO-- OR CANNABINOIDS EFFECT OF FOR SUSTAINING PAIN CONTROL?

THAT'S -- THOSE STUDIES DON'T EXIST, AND SO FOR US TO CONVEY TO THE PUBLIC THAT THEY'RE COMPLETELY SAFE AND THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE THE RISK OF OPIOIDS AWAY BUT STILL HAVE SOME KIND OF AN EFFICACIOUS VALUE IS -- IT HASN'T BEEN PROVEN IN SCIENCE, AND I THINK THAT SETS PEOPLE UP FOR FALSE EXPECTATIONS AND ANOTHER ROUND OF MAYBE NOT AS LETHAL AS OPIOIDS ABOUT THE CERTAINLY AS TOXIC IN ITS PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF IF THIS DOESN'T WORK, THEN NOTHING ELSE WILL.

>> SO SENATE BILL 47, I DO WANT YOU TO EXPLAIN THAT BECAUSE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HOUSE BILL 136 AND WE'VE -- REPRESENTATIVE JASON NEMES IS ON THE RECORD OF SAYING HE'S NOT GOING TO FILE LEGISLATION THIS TIME.

IT'S UP TO THE SENATE THIS TIME BASS THEY'VE TWICE PASSED IT AND IT'S TIME FOOTER SENATE TO PUT SKIN IN THE GAME.

IS IT SIMILAR TO 136?

DOES IT LAY OUT THE TYPES OF AILMENTS IT WOULD APPLY TO?

WHAT DOES IT WILL DO?

>> IT DOESN'T LIST VERY SPECIFIC AILMENTS LIKE SENATE BILL 136.

I WOULD SAY THAT THE CONCEPTS ARE A LIT LITTLE MORE BROAD-BASED IN SENATE BILL 47 THAN IN SENATE BILL 136.

>> OR HOUSE BILL 136.

>> HOUSE BILL 136.

I APOLOGIZE, RENAE.

I THINK HOUSE BILL 136 WAS ACTUALLY A TIGHTENED UP VERSION OF PRIOR LEGISLATION FILED BY REPRESENTATIVE NEMES AND I THINK FAR IS WEST HAD FILED SIMILAR LEGISLATION IN THE SENATE IN THE HOPES THE SENATE WOULD TAKE IT UP.

I THINK THERE WAS A LOT OF CONVERSATION THAT HOUSE BILL 136 MAY HAVE ALMOST BEEN A LITTLE BIT UNWIELDED AND DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT HAD IT ACTUALLY BEEN PASSED, AND SO -- >> TOO NARROW?

>> TOO NARROW, YES.

AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK I HAD -- I HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS I BELIEVE PRIOR TO THE SESSION.

THE CRAWFORDS AND I'MY AND SOME OTHER FOLKS HAD APPROACHED ME ABOUT CARRYING THE LEGISLATION.

SENATOR WEST HAS OBVIOUSLY BEEN AT THE LEAD ON THIS FOR MANY YEARS, IS ON HE RE-FILED HIS BILL.

I SIGNED ON AS THE PRIMARY COSPONSOR.

I BELIEVE SENATE BILL 47 IS ACTUALLY NARROW ENOUGH AND TIGHT ENOUGH TO REGULATE THE MARKET TO MISTAKE SURE FOLKS GET A SAFE -- TO MAKE SURE FOLKS GET A SAFE PRODUCT FOR THE CONDITIONS THEY NEED THE RELIEF FOR, YET AT THE SAME TIME IT'S FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO WHERE PHARMACISTS AND DOCTORS CAN ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED REGIMEN.

>> SO AS I READ THE BILL, I DIDN'T SEE ANY QUALIFYING CONDITIONS.

>> THERE'S NOT.

>> IT DOES NOT.

SO IT'S WIDE OPEN.

DOESN'T MATTER HOW CHRONIC OR SEVERE THE DISEASE MAY BE?

>> WELL, I THINK THAT THERE AGAIN IT GOES BACK TO SOMETHING DR. MAZLOOMDOOST TALKED ABOUT.

THESE ARE CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE WITH THE PHYSICIAN AND WITH THE PHARMACIST AND, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A MEDICAL DECISION TO BE MADE HERE BY THESE PROFESSIONALS AS TO WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE TREATMENT, AND THAT MAY NOT BE MEDICAL CANNABIS IN A LOT OF CIRCUMSTANCES.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I CAN TELL YOU IN MY MIND WITH THIS LEGISLATION, YOU KNOW, I WOULD HOPE A DOCTOR, IF SOMEBODY COMES IN WITH A STUBBED TOE DOESN'T SAY I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A PRESCRIPTION FOR SOME MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

CLEARLY THAT'S NOT -- I HAVE NO DESIRE TO BECOME CALIFORNIA OR COLORADO OR SOME OF THESE STATES WHERE IT'S FREE REIN.

BUT I HAVE A LOT OF TRUST IN DOCTORS.

MY DAD'S A DOCTOR.

HE'S GETTING READY TO RETIRE THIS COMING JUNE BUT HE'S BEEN PRACTICING MEDICINE IN KENTUCKY SINCE 1985.

I CAN TELL YOU HE'S A MEDICAL CANNABIS SUPPORTIVE.

AND I'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS.

WE'VE ACTUALLY THE OPIOIDS AFFECT MY FAMILY.

MY BROTHER AND SISTER HAVE BOTH HAD OPIOID ABUSE DISORDER, AND SO WE'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE TYPES OF HARMS THAT THESE TYPES OF DRUGS CAN CAUSE.

>> ONE QUESTION I WANT TO ASK BECAUSE YOU JUST MENTIONED ABOUT THE MEDICINAL VALUE OF MARIJUANA AND IF IT'S CONSIDERED MEDICINE IN YOUR VIEW.

AS I READ THE BILL, THE STATE HEALTH CABINET NOT BE CHARGED WITH IMPLEMENTATION OFIT OR OVERSIGHT OF IT OR REGULATION OF IT AS HAD BEEN PROPOSED PREVIOUSLY IN THE HOUSE VERSION.

THIS, IN YOUR BILL, THE DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOL, BEVERAGE AND IT WOULD ADD THE WORD AND CANNABIS WOULD BE THE REARING OVERSIGHT OF IT.

I JUST WONDER IF IT'S A MEDICINAL DRUG, WHY NOT IS THE STATE HEALTH CABINET IN CHARGE OF OVERSEEING IT?

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

YOU KNOW, I JUST THINK THAT GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE PRODUCT, THAT THERE IS A FINE LINE AS TO WHETHER IT'S CONSIDERED A FINISHED, PROCESSED PRODUCT, AND I GUESS JAIME DID YOU WANT TO CHIME IN HERE?

>> I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT.

YES WEEK I CAN ADD A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION.

FIRST, LET THE DOCTOR DECIDE.

THE DOCTOR DECIDES WHETHER THE PATIENT CAN BENEFIT FROM CANNABIS OR NOT AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE PATIENT.

THAT IS NOT THE FINAL DECISION-MAKER FOR THE PATIENT.

THE PATIENT STILL HAS TO APPLY THROUGH THE STATE.

THE STATE HAS TO APPROVE ALL THE DOCUMENTATION, HAS TO APPROVE THAT THAT PATIENT IS SUFFERING FROM AN AILMENT THAT THE DOCTOR WAS QUALIFIED TO DO THIS -- QUALIFIED TO DO THIS, SO THERE ARE STIPULATIONS TO THAT.

>> WHICH DEPARTMENT WITHIN THE STATE WOULD DO THAT.

>> >> IT WOULD BE THE ABC, AND THE REASON THIS BILL HAS THE ABC IS BECAUSE THE ABC IS MORE SET UP TO ENFORCE THE LEGISLATION.

IN THE EYES OF THE SENATE THE ABC HAS MORE ENFORCEMENT AGENTS ACROSS THE STATE WHICH CAN THEN GO TO THE LICENSE HOLDERS, SAY THE DISPENSARY OR THE CULTIVATION FACILITY, TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE ABIDING BY THE RULES AND THE REGULATIONS.

IT'S ALL ABOUT ENFORCEMENT AND MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE ABIDING BY THE RULES AND REGULATIONS SO THAT THERE IS LESS DIVERSION, WHICH IS WHAT LAW ENFORCEMENT IS AFRAID OF.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> WHY EVEN HAVE PHYSICIANS IN THAT MIX?

BECAUSE IF PHYSICIANS AND PHARMACISTS ACROSS THE STATE ARE SAYING, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST YOU SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT DO IT OR THIS CONDITION SHOULD AND THAT CONDITION SHOULDN'T, YOU'RE JUST CREATING THIS FALSE ILLUSION OF SECURITY BY INVOLVING THE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT WHEN WE'RE SAYING WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH TO SAY IF THIS IS GOOD OR NOT.

IF IT'S SO SAFE AND IT'S SO EFFECTIVE, THEN TAKE PHYSICIANS OUT OF IT AND LABEL IT JUST AS YOU WOULD NICOTINE OR ALCOHOL AND LET PEOPLE MAKE THE DECISION FOR THEMSELVES.

AT THE VERY LEAST PHYSICIANS COULD THEN SAY, LOOK, THIS IS A PRODUCT THAT YOU'VE BEEN TRYING AND IT'S HARMING YOU, OR THIS IS A PRODUCT THAT YOU HAVE BEEN TRYING AND IT'S HELPING YOU.

WE DON'T HAVE THE SCIENCE TO COME WITH THE MEDICAL SCRUTINY AND SAY THIS IS INDEED EFFECTIVE FOR THIS KIND OF A CONDITION OR IT'S NOT, AND THAT'S -- THAT'S -- IT CREATES AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF HARM IN THAT PEOPLE HAVE A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY.

I MEAN, I TALK TO TEENS.

>> THEY THINK THIS IS A VITAMIN THAT I SHOULD JUST TAKE IT, AND THAT'S INACCURATE.

THAT'S A BAD REPRESENTATION WHEN YOU LABEL SOMETHING LIKE THAT MEDICINE, JUST AS IF WE WERE TO LABEL ALCOHOL OR NICOTINE MEDICINE.

IT CONVEYS A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY THAT DOESN'T EXIST FOR THOSE PRODUCTS.

>> MR. SHEMELYA.

>> WE LOOK AT THE 37 STATES THAT HAVE MEDICALIZED THIS AND IN EVERY INSTANCE THERE IS SOME FORM OF PUBLIC HEALTH ENTITY THAT'S OVERSIGHT ON THIS.

TO HAVE A BILL THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, WHEN YOU'RE ASKING PHYSICIANS AND PHARMACISTS TO MAKE A QUALIFIED DECISION ON THE EFFICACY OF THIS WHEN THERE ISN'T THE SCIENCE TO SUPPORT THAT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.

TO THAT POINT ALSO WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, DIVERSION IS OCCURRING IN EVERY ONE OF THESE STATES.

I DON'T CARE HOW WELL INTENDED A LEGISLATIVE BODY IS, TO CRAFT A PIECE OF LEGISLATION, TO TRY TO PREVENT THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, THEY'RE HAPPENING.

YOUTH ACCESS INCREASES.

IMPAIRED DRIVING, MARIJUANA IS INVOLVED ON OUR HIGHWAYS IS GOING TO INCREASE.

WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT THESE STATES AND YOU LOOK AT THC INDUCED PSYCHOSIS BECAUSE OF HIGH POE TENANTS PRODUCT YET THE BILL LIMITS THE FLOWER AT 35, ASTRONOMICAL.

SHOW ME THE SCIENCE THAT SUPPORTS FLOWER AND ANYTHING ABOVE 10 BECAUSE ALL THE RESEARCH ON ANALGESIC ARE AT 7% OR LESS.

THE CONCENTRATES AT 70%, SHOW ME THE SCIENCE THAT EVEN SUPPORTS THAT EFFICACY THERE.

ON IT DOESN'T EXIST.

WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, I DON'T CARE HOW WELL INTENDED THE SENATOR IS, HE'S NOT GOING TO BE PREVENT IT.

HE'S NOT GOING TO PREVENT DIVERSION AND YOUTH, AND HE'S RIGHT.

MARIJUANA SEVERWHERE IN KENTUCKY YOU.

LOOK AT THE PRIMARY DELIVER DEVICE IN KIDS VAPING.

I'VE GOT ONE GRANDDAUGHTER DOG TO SOUTH HIGH SCHOOL, THE OTHER GRANDSON GOING TO NORTH HIGH SCHOOL, VAPING ALL OVER THE PLACE.

WE HAVE SO MARGINALIZED THIS DRUG BY THE MYTHS AND MISSION NOEMERS ABOUT ITS -- IT'S NOT MEDICINE.

MISNOMERS.

IT'S NOT MEDICINE IN THE FORM THAT IT IS.

AND WE HAVE GOT THIS TO THE POINT WHERE OUR YOUNG PEOPLE DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THIS.

MATTER OF FACT, THEY ACTUALLY THINK IT'S SAFER THAN ALCOHOL.

>> CAN I ADD TO WHAT YOU WERE JUST STATING.

I AGREE WITH YOU.

OUR CHILDREN, OUR TEENS BELIEVE THAT MARIJUANA IS EASIER TO GET THAN ALCOHOL OR CIGARETTES, AND IT IS ALL OVER OUR COMMUNITIES.

WE'VE BEEN FROM EASTERN KENTUCKY TO WESTERN KENTUCKY AND WE'VE HAD BOOTHS AT MANY DIFFERENT EVENTS.

TEENS COME UP TO OUR TABLE TO TALK TO US ABOUT THEIR PARENTS CONSUMING IT OR THAT THEY CAN FIND IT SO EASILY.

IT IS HERE, SO WE AS PATIENTS ARE ASKING FOR IT TO BE REGULATED SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A SAFE PRODUCT TO CONSUME OR TO TEST ON OURSELVES.

WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A PHYSICIAN TO GIVE US THE ACTUAL PRODUCT OR THE ACTUAL CANNABIS.

IT IS A CHOICE BY A PATIENT TO CONSUME CANNABIS, AND TO WHAT YOU WERE STATING, DR. MAZLOOMDOOST, I AGREE WITH YOU.

A LOT OF PHYSICIANS DO WANT TO STAY OUT OF IT BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION TO MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE.

BUT IF WE GO -- >> BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST.

>> IF WE GO DOWN THAT ROUTE, THOUGH, THE DECISION IS DO WE LEGALIZE IT AND ALLOW PEOPLE TO MAKE THAT CHOICE, TO GO INTO THAT STORE AND PURCHASE IT OR NOT, JUST LIKE ALCOHOL.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO DRINK ALCOHOL, BUT I DON'T DRINK ALCOHOL, BUT I DON'T PROSECUTE -- OR, YOU KNOW, I DON'T TAKE IT AGAINST SOMEBODY WHO DOES.

AND THE SAME GOES WITH CANNABIS.

JUST BECAUSE IT WEEKS BECOME LEGAL DOESN'T MEAN THAT EVERYBODY HAS TO CONSUME IT.

BUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE WITH SENATE BILL 47 OR HOUSE BILL 136 WITH MEDICAL CANNABIS IS ABOUT SHOULD KENTUCKY CONTINUE PROSECUTING PATIENTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF A PLANT OR NOT.

>> SO THERE ARE SEVERAL QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME IN AS YOU CAN IMAGINE SO LET'S RUN THROUGH THESE IN RAPID FASHION IF WE CAN.

I'LL START WITH YOU, SENATOR WHEELER BECAUSE THIS COMES FROM ROBERT COUPLING IN RUSSELL COUNTY.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO ALLOW KENTUCKIANS TO VOTE ON MEDICAL CANNABIS POSSIBLY THROUGH A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON THE BALLOT?

>> WELL, I GUESS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE, BUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.

OBVIOUSLY THAT'S RATHER CUMBERSOME.

I THINK THAT IT'S WITHIN THE LEGISLATURE'S AUTHORITY TO ACT WAS AS THEY HAVE, AS HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY SAID TONIGHT, IN 37 OTHER STATES, AND I THINK THAT SENATE BILL 37 IS 47 IS AN APPROPRIATE MEASURE TO DO THAT WITH.

>> SO PATRICIA DAUGHERTY SAYS HOW DOES THE KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY PLAN TO BYPASS OR CIRCUMVENT THE FDA?

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE DOING WITH THAT THE BILL 47?

>> I GUESS THERE'S AN ARGUMENT THERE, BUT AS THE DETECTIVE MENTIONED, THERE HAS BEEN A RELAXATION OF MEDICAL -- OR OF CANNABISSEN ENFORCEMENT ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

THERE IS GOING ON IN 37 OTHER STATES IN A MEDICAL FORM, AND MANY OF THOSE STATES IT'S EVEN BEEN LEGALIZED FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES, WHICH I'M ADAMANTLY AGAINST AND I WON'T BE A PART OF LEGALIZING -- >> MANY LAWMAKERS SAY THAT THAT'S THE GATEWAY, THOUGH YOU.

START HERE AND YOU MAY END UP THERE.

>> YOU WILL END UP THERE.

YOU CAN'T STOP IT.

YOU CANNOT STOP IT.

AND JUST GO TO OUR BORDER.

YOU LOOK AT MISSOURI.

FOUR YEARS AGGIE THEY MEDICALIZED IT.

THIS NOVEMBER THE COMMERCIAL ADULT USE.

LOOK AT ILLINOIS.

THAT'S THE PROCESS.

NORMAL SETBACK IN 1978 THAT MEDICAL MARIJUANA WOULD BE A RED HERRING FOR THE LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA.

AND I'LL BE DAD GUMMED IF HE HASN'T APPROVED HIMSELF TRUE.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED.

WHEN YOU PASS IT, I GUARANTEE YOU, RENEE, THAT IN TWO TO FOUR YEARS WE'LL BE BACK HERE HAVING A DISCUSSION ON LEGISLATION OR COMMERCIAL ADULT USE.

I DON'T REFER TO IT AS RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA.

TO ME RECREATION IN KENTUCKY IS HIKING, BIKING, BOATING, NOT GETTING HIGH AS A GEORGIA PINE.

IT'S THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF THC IN THIS COUNTRY AND IT'S NOT ABOUT SICK PATIENTS.

IT'S ABOUT ONE THING.

IT'S NOT ABOUT ANY COLOR.

IT'S NOT A BLACK ISSUE.

ITES NOT A WHITE ISSUE.

IT'S NOT A BROWNISH.

IT'S A GREEN ISSUE.

IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY.

AND THAT'S WHOO THIS IS ABOUT.

YOU'LL FIND OUT WHAT WE'RE FINDING OUT IN ALL THESE STATES.

THERE'S NOT AS ENOUGH PATIENTS TO SUPPORT THIS PROGRAM.

THE NEXT LOGICAL SEQUEL IS GOING TO BE ADULT USE BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY IS.

>> YOU COULD SAY THAT ABOUT ALCOHOL.

YOU COULD SAY THAT ABOUT A VARIETY OF OTHER SUBSTANCES THAT PEOPLE USE TO DEAL WITH PAIN.

>> BUT THIS ISN'T BETWEEN ALCOHOL AND THAT IS YOU CAN DRINKER, 80% OF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY THAT CONSUME ALCOHOL CONSUME IT RESPONSIBLY.

YOU CANNOT CONSUME CANNABIS WITHOUT BEING IMPAIRED.

IT'S NOT COMPARING A DRINK TO THE JOINT.

IT'S COMPARING THE JOINT TO THE BOTTLE.

THAT'S THE ANALOGY, PARTICULARLY WITH TODAY'S HIGH POTENCE MARIJUANA AND WHAT'S ALLOWED IN THE BILL.

>> AND ALL THE REASON TO ESTABLISH A KNOWN PRODUCT OUT THERE THAT PEOPLE CAN CONSUME SAFELY, WHICH IS THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL SO THAT WE DON'T GET PEOPLE CONSUMING THINGS THAT THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN IT THAT MAY BE, YOU KNOW, SPIKED WITH SOME OTHER SUBSTANCE THAT MAY CAUSE ADDITIONAL HARM.

>> SO THIS QUESTION FROM LINDA AGONER OF ADAIR COUNTY.

WHEN CANADA MADE MARIJUANA LEGAL DO WE KNOW THE OUTCOME?

IS THIS WHEEL ALREADY INVENTED?

>> AS FAR AS WHAT?

ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES, THE HEALTH CONSEQUENCES?

>> JUST READING WHAT WAS THERE, DOCTOR.

>> I MEAN, I THINK THAT THERE ARE COUNTRIES ACROSS THE WORLD, LIKE PORTUGAL WHO HAVE LEGALIZED SUBSTANCES OF ALL NATURE, AND THEY ACTUALLY SEE A BETTER REGULATION OF THOSE SUBSTANCES.

THE ONE-TO-ONE COMPARISON OF ADDICTION TO PAIN TO SUBSTANCES OF DIFFERENT PSYCHOACTIVE PROPERTIES IS A VERY DIFFICULT, THE IT'S VERY DIFFICULT THING TO DRAW THOSE ANALOGIES OR THOSE LINES, AND SO IT'S -- IT COMES DOWN TO THE GRANULARITY OF THE DATA AND LOOKING AT WHAT ARE THE APPROPRIATE USES AND WHAT ARE OUTSIDE THOSE BOUNDS OF APPROPRIATE USES.

AND WHERE DOES THE MEDICAL INSTITUTION NEED TO BE INVOLVED.

>> MARSHALL COUNTY.

NAME UNKNOWN.

THANK YOU FOR MAKING MORE FOLKS AWARE OF THE HERB THAT THE 1937 FEDERAL CONGRESS DECIDED WAS A, QUOTE/UNQUOTE, DRUG THAT CAN AND DOES HELP SO MANY PEOPLE, AND AS IT IS AN HERB, WHY SHOULD THERE BE A BARRIER FOR PATIENTS TO GROW THEIR OWN WITH FREE SUNSHINE, WATER AND SOIL?

DOES SENATE BILL 47 GO THAT FAR?

>> NO, IT DOES NOT.

CLEARLY, THE SENATE BILL 47 IS 100 AND I THINK 52 PAGES AS I RECALL.

THAT SETS UP A VERY REGIMENTED, REGULATED GROWING AND DISTRIBUTION NETWORK.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PRODUCT THAT GETS INTO THE HANDS OF A PATIENT IS SAFE TO BE CONSUMED.

>> DOES IT ALLOW THOSE UNDER 18 TO USE?

>> WITH PARENTAL CONSENT.

>> WITH PARENTAL CONSENT, YES.

THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSULTATION.

CLEARLY I'VE GOT AB 11-YEAR-OLD SON.

I DON'T WANT HIM UTILIZING MARIJUANA.

BUT IF HE HAD A SEIZURE DISORDER LIKE THE CONSTITUENT'S GRANDSON THAT I TOLD YOU ABOUT IS IF THE CANNABINOID OIL THEY'LL ACTUALLY PROVIDED THE RELIEF, YOU BET YOUR BOTTOM DOLLAR I WOULD PROBABLY BE GOING OUT OF STATE TO OBTAIN THAT.

YOU KNOW.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, NO, WE DON'T WANT CHILDREN SMOKING MARIJUANA OR-- AND WE DON'T WANT THEM GROWING IT AT HOME.

WE WANT THIS TO BE DISTRIBUTED ANY REGULATED FASHION TO FOLKS THAT NEED.

>> IT SO ONE OF THE PARTS OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IS THAT BONA FIDE DOCTOR/PATIENT RELATIONSHIP.

SENATE BILL 47, IS IT NOT JUST FOR A DOCTOR?

ARE THERE OTHER PROVIDERS THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO PRESCRIBE MEDICAL MARIJUANA?

>> SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS MEDICAL DOCTORS AND OSTEOPATHS, WHICH ARE KIND OF ANOTHER FORM OF MEDICAL -- >> NOT NURSE, ADVANCED NURSE PRACTITIONERS?

>> NO.

THAT'S A BILL TO EXPAND THEIR SCOPE OF AUTHORITY THAT HAS COME UP A COUPLE TIMES AND I'VE BEEN AGAINST IT, AND ONE OF THE REASONS I HAVE IS I'VE SEEN FAR TOO MANY, YOU KNOW, PHYSICIANS WHO I CONSIDER REPUTABLE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, THEY TALK ABOUT THE GREEN, I'VE SEEN A LOT OF DOCTORS HEAR THE SIREN SOFTENING EASY MONEY TO START SUBOXONE CLINICS OR OPIOID PAIN MANAGEMENT CLINICS WHERE THEY'RE PRESCRIBING OPIOIDS AND OTHER TYPES OF DRUGS OUT THERE THAT ARE REALLY CONTINUING TO WREAK HAVOC IN A LOT OF RURAL AMERICA.

AND SO, NO, I WANT TO KEEP THE PRESCRIPTION PRACTICE AS NARROW AS POSSIBLE FOR THESE TYPES OF SUBSTANCES.

>> SO DOES IT TALK ABOUT THE WAY THAT THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA COULD BE USED?

IS IT SMOKE?

SIT INHALED?

IS IT INGESTED?

DOES THE BILL GET THAT SPECIFIC.

>> >> IT DOES GET INTO SOME SPECIFICS.

I KNOW SPECIFICALLY IT DOES SAY THAT IT'S NOT TO BE SMOKED.

ALTHOUGH I THINK IT DOES SAY IF IT CAN'T BE DONE IN AN OIL FORM OR A VAPOR FORM, YOU KNOW, THAT THE PATIENT CAN LOOK AT OTHER WAYS TO CONSUME A PRODUCT THAT'S DELIVERED TO THEM IN A CONTAINER.

WHETHER THAT BE THROUGH AN EDIBLE, GUM IS, THERE'S A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT WAYS.

I THINK SMOKING ANYTHING IS NOT REALLY THAT HEALTHY.

I'VE NEVER BEEN A SMOKER.

I WOULD NOT ENCOURAGE TOBACCO OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF SMOKING.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT VAPING IS REALLY THAT GREAT OF A THING EVEN THOUGH THAT SEEMS TO HAVE CAUGHT ON QUITE A BIT AMONGST OUR YOUTH.

>> SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT DOCTORS LIKE DR. MAZLOOMDOOST QUESTION ABOUT THE DOW JONES, AND SO -- DOSAGE, SO THE BILL AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND I'M TRYING TO UNDER IT, ESTABLISHES BORDERS PHYSICIANS AND VIRUSES AND YOU EVER PATIENT ADVOCATES AND OTHERS WHO ARE A PART OF THAT.

DO THEY MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION ON DOSAGE OR IS THAT STILL LEFT UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL PROVIDERS?

>> WELL, I THINK THAT THAT, THE IDEA WOULD BE THAT THAT COMMITTEE WOULD PROBABLY COME UP WITH SOME GUIDELINES TO GIVE OUT TO THE VARIOUS PROVIDERS SO THAT THEY COULD MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.

CLEARLY, I THINK THAT ULTIMATE DECISION, THOUGH, IS GOING TO BE GOING TO COME DOWN TO THE DOCTOR AND HIS PATIENT.

>> OR A TIME-LIMITED SUPPLY.

>> CORRECT.

>> NO MORE THAN A 30-DAY SUPPLY AT A TIME, EVERY 25 DAYS OR SOMETHING.

>> CORRECT.

>> RIGHT.

SO IF THERE'S NO WAY TO GET MORE THAN THAT SO ARE THERE PENALTIES FOR DOCTORS WHO MIGHT BE ENTICED TO BE UNSCRUPULOUS?

>> WELL, I MEAN, I THINK THAT THE PENALTY WOULD BE THAT THEY WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW, WHICH COULD SUBJECT THEIR LICENSE TO ACTION BY THE MEDICAL LICENSURE BOARD.

I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE WHEN FOLKS OVERPRESCRIBE NARCOTICS.

AND I THINK THE BOARD ALSO ISSUES GUIDELINES ON IT.

I THINK AT ONE POINT IN TIME WHEN THE LAW WAS PASSED TO REQUIRE THE CASPER AND SOME GREATER MONITORING, SOME PEOPLE SAID, WELL, GOING ONCE A MONTH TO THE DOCTOR IS TOO MUCH, AND THEN THE MEDICAL BOARD I THINK ISSUED SOME GUIDELINES TO SAY IF YOU HAVE A COMPLIANT PATIENT, YOU CAN MAYBE STRETCH THAT OUT TO QUARTERLY VISITS.

SO I THINK TO SOME DEGREE YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY STEP UP TO COME UP WITH SOME GUIDELINES FOR THIS TYPE OF -- >> YOU KNOW, OVERPRESCRIBING IS ONE THING BECAUSE WHEN HE'S TALKING ABOUT PRESCRIBING ANY MEDICATION, WHEN YOU KNOW WHAT THE COMPOUND IS, THE COMPOSITION IS, AND THE PROPOSED DOSAGE, OVERPRESCRIBING IS DIFFERENT.

YOU CAN'T EVEN TALK ABOUT THAT.

WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT THIS, WHO IS GOING TO DETERMINE WHAT A 30-DAY SUPPLY IS?

WHO IS GOING TO DETERMINE WHAT A TEN-DAY POSSESSION IS?

I CAN'T DO IT -- THIS BOARD IS?

SHOW ME THE CRITERIA FOR THAT -- MAKING THAT DECISION.

IT DOESN'T EXIST.

ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO END UP IS THE PATIENT DETERMINING THE FREQUENCY OF DOSAGE, HOW MUCH THEY WANT TO DOSE AT, AND THE TYPE OF ADMINISTRATION ROUTE THEY CHOOSE.

IT PROHIBITS SMOKING, BUT WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?

BUT A CAMERA IN EVERYBODY'S HOUSE THIS THEY'RE GLOWING TO SMOKE IN THEIR HOUSE.

THE THAT'S THE PRINCIPLE DELIVERY DEVICE, SMOKING AND VAPING.

SO THAT'S GOING TO OCCUR.

SHOW ME HOW YOU'RE GOING DETERMINE WHEN A 10-DAY A 30-DAY SUPPLY IS.

YOU CAN'T DO IT.

>> A QUESTION ABOUT IT BEING TAXED, MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

WOULD IT BE TAXED IN SOME WAY, SOME LICENSING FEES?

>> YOU KNOW, THERE WILL BE SOME DISPENSARY FEES TO SET IT UP AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.

I THINK AS FAR AS TAXING IT, TRADITIONALLY WE HAVE NOT TAXED -- >> IT'S MEDICINE.

>> IT'S MEDICINE.

>> THAT'S YOUR VIEW.

>> THAT'S ONE OF THE IDEAS.

YEAH, I THINK GENERALLY IF IT IS A -- FOR MEDICINAL PURPOSES TO DEAL WITH PAIN, I THINK WE HAVE GENERALLY NOT TAXED THAT IN KENTUCKY.

I KNOW OTHER PEOPLE HAVE ARGUED IN THE PAST THAT MEDICINAL MARIJUANA IS THE CURE FOR THE STATE'S BUDGET.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT, AND I THINK THAT ANYBODY THAT HAS LOOKED AT WHAT TYPE OF INCOME THAT WOULD COME OFF OF THIS, THAT'S A FOOLISH ASKED.

AND ALSO I THINK IT BELIES THE COMPASSIONATE NATURE OF WHAT THIS BILL IS ABOUT.

I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT PROVIDING A PATHWAY FOR THESE PEOPLE TO DEAL WITH CERTAIN AILMENTS JUST SO THE STATE CAN MAKE MONEY.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO GO ABOUT POLICY AT ALL.

>> WELL, WE SCRATCHED THE SURFACE.

I DIDN'T GET TO THE QUESTION ABOUT TAKING MEDICAL MARIJUANA AT SCHOOL WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF OF THE BILL DO LAY THAT OUT, RIGHT?

AND WOULD HOLD EMPLOYERS HARMLESS WEBSTER, ET CETERA.

SO THERE'S A LOT TO KEEP OUR EYE ON AND WE WILL BE THERE IN FRANKFORT EVERY DAY AND WE'LL HAVE A RUNDOWN ON "KENTUCKY EDITION" WHICH AIRS AT 6:30 EVEN, 5:30 CENTRAL.

THE SESSION STARTS FEBRUARY 7th WHICH IS MUCH, MOUCH CLOSER THAN IT WAS WHEN WE JUST ENDED PART 1 AND WE WILL BE THERE TO GIVE YOU THE BREAKDOWN OF THIS BILL AND SO MANY OTHERS THAT LAWMAKERS WILL CONSIDER.

JOIN BILL BRYANT AND TEAM OF WORKING JOURNALISTS TO DISCUSS THE NEWS OF THE WEEK ON "COMMENT ON KENTUCKY" THIS FRIDAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR WATCHING.

I WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW NIGHT FOR "KENTUCKY EDITION" AND THEN NEXT MONDAY WE WILL TALK ABOUT CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT IN KENTUCKY.

DON'T MISS THAT DISCUSSION ON "KENTUCKY TONIGHT."