 Good morning and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee and we are continuing our consideration of age 317 and act relating to establishing the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics and the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics advisory panel. And we are continuing with our testimony. And I'd like to welcome Rebecca Turner. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you Madam Chair. So for the record Rebecca Turner from the Office of the Defender Generals Appellate Division. And I understand you do have a number of witnesses still to go. And you heard from our chair already. I wanted to share five points on this bill and as the members on the committee may know I'm also not just a public attorney at the defender general's office but I am the defender general's designee on the racial disparities advisory panel, and I've served on that panel since the inception. And as, as have a number of panel members who I think will be speaking today. And in fact, but it's very exciting that this bill is before this committee. It's, it really does reflect overall. Most of the recommendations, I think, possibly just not the comprehensiveness that the data right now but that was just because it was a very enormous report of decision making points. So thank you for for getting that drafted and giving it such high priority because it is welcome to see that that that recognition of the importance of this data collection effort is being made now. I think that one of the most important things and I'm going to start sequentially with H317 but it's one of the most important points and it's already been brought up. And I think that the question as to where to put the bureau. And I think that this is one of the most critically important decisions that this body will make. It is fundamentally a structural question. And as others have already represented a ton included. I join in the group that believes that this body should be independent. And it should be independent, not just because of what we're asking it to do a massive data collection undertaking and analysis and whether that's done to separate pieces or not. The independence from politics the independence from the different stakeholders involved in the criminal and juvenile court systems is really important, as well as the fact that we need for monitors to be able to trust the data that goes in and the analysis that comes out and given the enormous amount of equity that is going to be invested in this endeavor, it would be disappointing to say the least to build this and then have it be placed in an entity that's not independent. So then the question becomes, what is an independent body. You site on share the list of eight recommendations that are that threw around and, as he said we didn't come to a consensus on it. The consensus was, as reflected in the report that it be independent. I wanted to just clarify some of a tons representations of my position on the details, starting with the suggestion of placing the bureau within the executive director of racial equities. The position that Susanna Davis currently holds. And again, I do not support that, although I say that not because I haven't been personally impressed with the work that she's been doing. It's an absolutely incredible job she's been doing. And again, I've communicated with this with her to this isn't a personal issue. It's a structural issue for me. And so I look at the placement of her position within the administration's agency of administration and having it being very closely linked with the governor. And I think that again, the question fundamentally for this body is whether or not that is independent enough. And I think that when we look at the other options available, what, whether it's the creation of a brand new independent body, which is possible but recognizing that that's a tall order to be made. And speaking with the defender general and and leaning into his experience as extensive experience in state government. The recommendation that he made and I shared with with the panel was three actually three bodies within the executive first being on top of the list was the secretary of state. And given that that is again, independently structured from being elected directly by the by the public, and then just structurally set up to be independent. The infrastructure is such as well that we thought that entity could be best suited to sort of absorb and build this additional mandate into its its current system. The second very close second on the list of recommendations was actually I'm sorry I'm going to interrupt you but I see that Martin has his hand up. Yeah, thank you Rebecca. So I've definitely been parts of the discussions that are deaf as well but I guess I want to understand a little bit more about the concept of independence independent of what because none of these entities that are laid out here are necessarily independent they they have different constituencies that they might be beholden to me the secretary of state is elected. Definitely the auditor. You know, he's elected and so I mean if you could define what are we trying to be independent of that would be a little that would be helpful thanks. I think that that that's fair that that any given collection politics will play a role right in them. And I think that then when you look at the mission and mandate and the structure of the auditor, auditors office and the secretary of state in terms of being charged with voting and, and all of that but that is where it's built in and has a reputation of being an independent assessor of sorts, right and turning right to the state auditor's office for instance. I mean their their central mission, and then is independent and to hold state government accountable. Right so that is a natural that that is a natural fit, but for the fact that it doesn't have the support to take on something like that but then I see the language and at the end of the bill about supplementing with with staff positions. So, I think the final the final one that I think this committee should take a serious look at is the recommendation of the Center for restorative justice. And, and again that I understand that I think Bobby sand is up for testimony later on so I'll leave it to him to describe that organization in more detail, but fundamentally, that's the one organization on this list that's separate from state government, but worthy of this committee's consideration because it has both the capacity expertise on both the informational computer data analytics and substantive analytics side. Not to not consider that I don't want to miss the ADS suggestion agency of digital services of course that was an obvious seemingly on its surface and obvious fit, given their expertise in computers and data collection. But I think and as as representative Rachel sin knowledge and a different part of this bill. It's not just that we need data analysts and experts in it right we need those who also understand the structures and the organizations, the people who are involved in the criminal and criminal justice systems. And so that's why I have moved away from recommending ADS. Certainly they should be part of, you know, considering the wide, the wide resources available but not the main primary place to hold this bureau. So that's first that's the first point again stressing the independence of wherever we put the body of this. There are no other questions I'll move on to point to actually I do see Selena. I'm really sorry if I am, if you if you did comment on this and I missed it but did you comment on the Human Rights Commission as I'm sorry, yes, I curious about that because that one seems particularly promising to me so I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. No it was absolutely one of. It was within the top three that the defender general recommended and and like you indicated there it's to us the obvious place to put this as well again reputation for independence although not directly elected. Right, there are those of course, a board of commissioners, and the subject matter is course close to their central mandate so they would be ideal as well so I think of the list of eight you saw. Four of those would be great three within state government but certainly all four already identified and exist. I'll move on. Go ahead. Thank you. Good morning, Rebecca. Good morning. I heard a representative the law will launch question and I'm still I don't have a good answer from that as of yet I guess from what you were telling us the importance of the independence versus word is now as to why it would not work and the stressing of the independence. So, if the, if the data is collected and analyzed by agencies that are too closely affiliated with law enforcement. Then, no matter how accurate or, or, or, however way you could claim that it was accurate, there will always be a shroud of that it was biased that it was independent the irony is is that the data collection is trying to unpack it whether there was biases. And that's where I'm getting out in terms of the independence in the nature. The concern is of an executive director like Susanna Davis who serves at the pleasure of the governor. And that's where it opens up the door to allowing perhaps politics and are in the fold again I'm not saying this governor again structurally speaking, any governor come come in if they are not happy with how the data is is showing and reflecting on one particular entity or another that there can be questions as to what is going on in terms of how this is affecting the analysis. The majority of our data presently coming from law enforcement. Yes. Yes, it is. As I understand traffic stop data. So we're using that data, but yeah we're concerned about a bias from law enforcement. We're concerned about how that data is being collected. Who is who is who is providing that who is analyzing the data how it's being analyzed, you know, there were issues raised in the earlier discussion about concerns of identification and uniformity best practices. Again, it is critically important, whoever is charged with doing all of these things that we trust that they are using the best practices in the field. Again, that's where we're the identification of who is going to do this, who's going to identify those experts becomes critical in terms of again and showing that it's, it's independent. Okay, thank you. Martin. I try to speak a little bit more to the independence just, you know, given some more thought is. So, if it isn't the executive branch. I mean, again, where the data is going to be collected from its law enforcement. It's the attorneys, it's the courts, it's presumably also defender general's office as well. You know the executive branch is from what I understand largely independent of of most of those entities except for the state police. Right, am I am I am I correct about that first of all before I go on, Rebecca is that it's, you know, the the executive branch or the governor I should say doesn't really, I mean there's 14 separate states attorneys who really run their own offices. And, and defenders are obviously independent of that courts are separate branch so so a lot of this data, whether if it's in the executive branch, that's not a concern. I think that it is a concern with respect to the state police which comes under the, the agency, I mean the Department of Public Safety so. But that would also suggest if that's what we're talking about that, as far as independence that we don't want the entity to be analyzing itself, because maybe it's going to be less willing to look at the bad parts and you know make things look better than it is. You know then somebody certainly like the Secretary of State, you know they don't really have. It's the deal they'll be analyzing somebody else, along with these others as well the National Center for restorative justice etc so I don't know if that helps Bob but you know that's kind of how I'm kind of looking at this. And I don't know if Rebecca if you wanted to comment on that but I'm just trying to figure this out a little bit better but yeah thanks. I mean your your I think the independence is not going speaking to the individual agencies and departments that are providing the data courses because each of those are operating within and doing their own individual missions and mandates, and I would add it would include also DCF and Department of Corrections. And AGOs and diversion programs all these things where we're trying to collect the Department of Ed potentially some collections agents there. But this this is a huge topic and I think it warrants the closer look and follow up to your questions to make sure you have a good understanding of what it means and I throw that out there. Hopefully, and perhaps, and I'm happy to come back at another date to dive deeper in to do that and also particularly to pull in other states, and how they've done it how they have an insured that independent aspect. Any questions point to I wanted to highlight again point to is getting to this specific data that this bill seeks to capture and for almost the most part that's that's a great and accurate reflection from the report. There is a piece on there that is a little bit different and I wanted to just sit on that for a little bit it's on page seven. I'm going to get to my notes here. Page three lines 15 and 17. And again on page five set line seven and nine and that's repeated because it's the division between data collection related to the delinquency courts and then page five line seven related to the adult criminal side. And this is relating to capturing data on defense attorneys specifically and that's what's different about this piece of data collection point. This was a request that was made at the late stage of our, our DAP panel, a request, I think, came from the state's attorney's office. Now, my comment here is that the focus on the data collection point is to include targeting and collecting data of defense counsel, based on their legal experience and access to counsel assignment of counsel as well. As I pointed out at the panel and during our discussions on this and hear that is not something that's collected in Connecticut. It's, it's not collecting Connecticut and I suspect and as I pointed out, legal experience of defense counsel isn't a measurement or a standard used in our rules of professional conduct, or other standards of measuring the level of defense counsel. It's a bit arbitrary and so I don't understand why that is in there to the extent that there are concerns about capturing data that can assess and capture discretionary decision points and efforts by defense counsel absolutely that captured and included. I'm not suggesting that defense counsel should be outside of the groups are critical part of the system as you know. But in terms of singling out defense counsel in that way. It doesn't make sense either from how we currently measure competency and ethical standards. And that the other data collection points already being captured, please related to please and trials and sentencing, objectively capture those discretionary decision making points where those come into play. So that's that's sort of point to my, my, ejecting to collecting that to the extent that that there is an interest in diving deeper into the types of decision making points of defense counsel, I would urge this committee to also include prosecutors and judges in the mix, because to only capture the counsel on whatever point you decide to pick is an incomplete picture inherently, unless you get the prosecutor is equivalent information and the judges as well. So I just wanted to highlight that. Could you point out I didn't catch where that was that you were. And I don't page three lines 1517 and page five lines seven and nine. Thank you. And, and then point three. I wanted to talk about, it's the bottom of page six top page seven. And this is where the bill discusses the Bureau's rule critical section of the bill as well. And for the most part what language is there on in that section is great. My points here are critical information lacking right now. And this was touched upon earlier. There is a lack of an enforcement mechanism built into this bill. So what happens when the individual entities don't provide the data. They're either in a timely fashion or at all, or an incomplete amount. What happens how much is this a recommendation versus a requirement that has to be done and given to the Bureau. And what happens if it doesn't doesn't happen. And then the other part of that is there's lack of language as to the regularity and frequency that the data sharing occur. What we have is how much, how often the Bureau is to report to the panel. And then, and then the Bureau will report annually to the bodies in the legislature, but not to as to again the critical part which is the frequency and regularity as to when the individual agencies, courts have to provide the data to the Bureau for analysis. So that's point three to critical pieces that I just want to make sure you're aware because without enforcement without knowing how often this happens. Again, there's a there's a place where things can fall through terms of effectiveness of this bill point for is the I'm sorry to keep interrupting you, but I do two hands. I see Selena and coach, and I'm sorry if I'm getting you out of order. Yeah, coach could go first. Thank you. Sorry about that. Thanks Selena. Thank you for the question and it's in reference to your accountability aspect. And we have given authority through independent entities for subpoena power. So it would seem to me, that would be the ultimate tool. There was a question as to let's say the Bureau is assigned the task of gathering the data. The advisory panel could be offered the authority to grant subpoena. In order to ensure. If the body came back to them and said, Hey, we can't get the information we've been asking and asking. And you see what I'm getting at. You know, I know it's kind of deep in the weeds at this point but at the same time. And that type of thinking could resolve the, the situation. And then sometimes just having those things in place is enough to say, we're not even going to go there because I don't want to get called out. But anyways, food for thought. Thank you. Thank you coach and Selena. Yes, what was my question. Oh, I know it was about the enforcement piece. So, I'm just wondering if you have any specific recommendations about that as we move forward and I know that you know in some of the use of force reform that we did. You know, one of the underlying bills last year actually tied the data collection, the traffic stop data collection to state funding in some ways and I'm wondering. So that comes to mind to me as one mechanism but I'm wondering if you have others in mind just before we move on from this. And, and, and, and in addition to represent Christie's suggestions to Pina. You're, you're pointing and that was where I was trying to remember the exact bill and the legislation but it is exactly that for it made me think, tie it to funding right and and and make it be those two consequences or or you know, that those are real those are tangible, that's enforcement. So yes, I don't have any other ideas at this time but these two are great suggestions. Yeah, and thanks, thanks coach for your idea to see the fourth point, almost to my fifth fourth point is going to the composition of the panel. Now, I appreciate the language in the current bill making sure that there's representation from BIPOC communities. I didn't see was assurance that there would be any experts in the criminal and juvenile court systems that there would be any expertise in those areas that they that they would be included or required to be captured in the panel so I just wanted to point that out that is that the way it's currently written we could have a panel entirely made up of people who aren't who are not familiar with the criminal juvenile justice systems. So, I think I don't think that that was the intent, but certainly want to highlight that that omission and it and it should be there should be experts who have experienced direct experience. in both of those court systems. The other part of that panel so that goes to pages seven and eight. The other part of that panel that concern in terms of the composition of the panel is not just that there be experts but that there be fair and balanced representation on that panel of the children and adults who are in this criminal justice system critically we need their voices to be heard and represented and not just one voice on the panel but again there and balance representation on that panel. So, just in consideration in terms of what would be ideal composition of that panel. And finally, going to the details on the bureau's positions, it was described as a position titled information technology data analysts. And again this this was a concern raised earlier by representative Rachel center and I joined in that concern that the title that appears both too narrow and perhaps too broad. The point being that we need to make sure that it's not just an informational data analyst, generally speaking but someone who also has an understanding of the structures and people involved specifically in the criminal juvenile justice system. And that is that those that's the end of my, my list. Thank you. Thank you so much. I was very helpful and as as you can see definitely had a good, good response and engagement from the committee so so thank you. Else for Rebecca. Okay, thank you. Yeah, thank you and this really is the, the beginning of the conversation so certainly we'll have you back and so looking at our time and our need for hard stuff. I am going to go to Bobby sand. I'm sorry, the other witnesses if we don't get to you. But again, we, we certainly will have more time and so with the with that is, let's see if Professor sand is. There you are. And this here is morning. Having weird earbud situation so I hope you can hear me. For the record, Robert sand. I am the former Windsor County State's attorney. Professor Vermont law school now founding director of the Center for Justice reform which has blossomed really nicely to now be a new institute as part of the National Center on restorative justice, a partnership between VLS, the University of Vermont and the University of San Diego, more about that in just a few moments. I'm also the high daily for Windsor County Vermont. I'm expressing our, our mind in mind alone. I want to just start and I'm going to kind of motor through because I know time is short to echo Senator Sears is opening remarks when you were in joint session, which is without accurate data. We rely excessively on stories and anecdotes, and stories are important, but stories alone shouldn't drive policy stories are important, particularly from the people adversely impacted by the justice system. But those stories become even stronger when they are supported by data. So this is an incredible opportunity to drill down to really look at what is driving the racial disparities within our system. And without in any way diminishing the importance of understanding the causes of our racial disparities, we also know in this country and in this state that we have economic injustice and geographic injustice. Stevenson says, we treat rich people who are guilty more favorably than we treat poor people who are innocent. This bill creates a vehicle to look at bias across the board and I know it's huge already. And perhaps I'm suggesting it become even bigger. But it does provide that vehicle to look not just at racial injustice, but economic injustice and we also know when you cross a county line in Vermont, you get a different outcome. So it provides the opportunity to look at geographic justice. One of the things that happens in Vermont because our numbers are small is that disparities can individual disparities or a small collection of disparities can drive the whole numbers. And what becomes important here to be able to really drill down to figure out is what we're looking at a systemic problem, or is it geographical, is it regional, is it departmental, is it individual. And we ought not to devise and I think I'm echoing Senator Sears here a little bit, a systemic response, if in fact the issue is really regional or local or perhaps individual folks are not going to be ecstatic about having a microscope or a magnifying glass held up to their work. And the reality is, everyone who we're talking about here I believe are public actors, and that is just a byproduct of public service. We need to be able to look with precision at individual actors, cognizant of some of the privacy concerns that were raised earlier. Some people are going to embrace sharing data. Others maybe not so much the language in this initial amazing draft talks about collaboration, that may not be strong enough to get the information that you are seeking you may in fact need a mandate. But for discussion of the later date, it's not entirely clear to me that all the entities from whom you're seeking to acquire data have the ability to collect that and transmit it. And so that's a logistical concern. Let me try to stay kind of high level, want to raise a point that is in this bill and there's something more broadly I hope we'll all think about and that is language. This bill and I don't mean this in any way the criticism of the drafter, but this bill refers to offenders, and these happen to be juveniles who have just been brought into the system and haven't been adjudicated. We need to really be careful about language when we talk about offenders or inmates or prisoners, we dehumanize the people we are talking about, and we can talk about prisoners and inmates, and not have to think so much about that what we're really talking about human beings who we are locking in boxes. And so just language becomes really, really important. The advisory board, I think it's excellent that there is language to talk about diversity, but there isn't someone who's ensuring that each of the appointed entities collectively represents a diverse body so as you work through those details, making sure that there is someone who's saying oh person a got appointed by this entity. I'm sure that when entity BC and D make appointments, we achieve the kind of diversity that we are hoping for. I promise not to get down too much into the weeds but I also want to flag one other issue, not entirely clear to me who hires the this new executive director and I sent Eric an email about that I think that's not clear. The government of the Bureau is critically important and independence is critically important. And because the issue isn't complicated enough, let me throw out yet another proposal which is some sort of hybrid model. The idea is that it would be potentially housed within the executive branch, but an independent entity, like the National Center on restorative justice has some role to help ensure that there is complete independence of voice. So let me just say a word about the National Center. It is a partnership funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance between VLS UVM and the University of San Diego UVM coordinates the research and data components of the National Center. And I am authorized to say that they certainly have an interest in some involvement. I'm not convinced placing this entire new entity under the auspices of a federally funded organization makes the most sense, but having an independent voice, I think, certainly would that would make some sense. Final comment. This is a bill about justice. Two final comments. I share Rebecca Turner's concern, I guess, about only looking at public defenders. I do think because individual actors can influence our overall numbers in a small state that understanding if there are patterns that emanate from individual actors, be they public defenders, prosecutors, judges, police officers, DCS DCF offices, that's valuable to know, but singling out public defenders as compared to prosecutors does not, to me, make sense and honestly, if either entity were to be singled out, it probably would make more sense to do that for prosecutors who could drive outcomes, arguably more than any other actor within the justice system. So my final comment in a bill about justice and perhaps trying to echo back to Brian Stevenson's paraphrase, we still deny people charged with crimes in Vermont access to public defenders. And I know this committee passed a bill during the last biennium. I know there's a bill pending each 238 that would say every person charged with the crime is in type who is indigent is entitled the services of a public defender poverty punishes and there is no such thing as a non serious crime. I sent the two chairs this morning and Evan O'Connor a Washington Post commentary from yesterday about how misdemeanor charges charging people with low end defenses is making us less safe. And so a bill that looks at diversion and alternatives should also look at making sure that every person who comes into court. When they are indigent is entitled to an attorney, regardless of the outcome, because misdemeanor convictions change people's lives forever, and it shouldn't happen casually. Thank you so much. Happy to answer questions if I can. Thank you so much Bobby and again I'm sorry that I am rushing you but as I said this is the beginning of a of a conversation so Selena do you have your hand up or nobody I'm not seeing hands. I also invite any of our witnesses and panel. Martin has a stand up. Okay, I'm sorry I didn't see that. Okay, Martin, and then if there's time after Martin if any of our other witnesses wanted to ask a question. Please go ahead. Martin. Yeah, I just really want to explore and I don't know if you have additional thoughts on this right now, Bobby but the hybrid model and how that would really look I mean I know that was high level that you gave that to us that that seems to be figuring out where this should be seems to be the biggest obstacle to trying to get this thing done this session as Senator Sears suggests that we should do. So if you have more you can say on that now or or if you can think about that more and actually look at language and see who else we can talk to and how that works. I think that's really important and, and maybe you know in fact, in just the three minutes or so that we have maybe now is not the time but I really would like to explore that or have us explore that with you further to really understand how that would work. I'm happy to ponder that, send you an email and suggest some other names as well. Thanks. Selena. Yeah. And it relates to Martin's question so maybe it is so maybe if we do get to have a deeper further conversation with you it could the exploration maybe belongs there but I'm just wondering you had talked about the hybrid model. The hybrid model being located in the executive branch and I wonder if you wanted to comment on, you know, with could that work equally well and some of the other places that have been named such as the human rights commission and or Rebecca Turner had some excellent suggestions for possible other locations. I think in a perfect world, it would be a standalone entity, but we don't live in a perfect world, and we should not underestimate the challenges of acquiring the data. That's going to involve new systems for new organizations. That's going to involve potentially different data collection mechanisms, maybe even programs in certain different departments, even though we're beginning to move toward more standardization. But even if law enforcement were to standardize prosecutors use one system the judiciary uses another system, the defenders use another system DCF uses another system. It is daunting to figure out how to amalgamate data collected in different ways from different organizations into information that is usable and reportable. My worry is this Bureau is wholly independent of the executive branch is or at least I should say of state government is it will bump up against resistance potentially even in transigence. I said that word properly in providing the data. And so it really does need teeth of some sort to be able to collect the data and yes, coaches represent Christie's suggestion of sub subpoenaing may work. I just have this sense that for it to really function and have the the leverage and authority it needs finding location within state government, whether that is the Secretary of State's Office Human Rights Commission, the auditor. I guess I'd like to think about that further. I should just put in one other little plug and I apologize if this sounds a bit self serving the high bailiff right now essentially does nothing. The bailiff is a position that was designed to be an independent actor within the criminal justice system. There may well be a role here as a conduit between county actors and the entity that's trying to acquire the data. I don't know what that is exactly but since we're still at a high level. I throw that out now. But they're definitely it's really important that you talk to some people and you may have and I apologize for coming in late to this, who understand data collection, because that is largely going to inform I believe some of the language of this bill. It's complicated. And I am by no means an expert, but there are folks out there who know the best way to routinize the collection of data so that it is usable in a reportable form and I'll pass on to Evan and your chair perhaps some names. Thank you, Bobby thank you as always we're helpful interesting testimony and, and my apologies to David chair and judge Greerson for not getting to you but we will we will return to this soon. So, thank you and with that we're going to turn to H 225. This is a bill that has human services passed out I believe on a 11 zero vote but we will, we'll hear from chair pew. But we also have Michelle trials here to do. Walk through of the bill. And Michelle, perhaps you could share with with us because of our new members and those watching on YouTube the, the, the history of this bill and specifically this committee's history of the bill and I also welcome Selena to to jump in as as well. So, good morning, thank you. Good morning, everyone. So this bill started in 2019. And it was originally in house judiciary. So what it does is there's, as you know, about the, the way that I think you guys have worked with the drug statutes recently but maybe not this year for new folks but the way that the drug statutes are organized is that in 2018 and chapter 84 what you have is the little have each type of drugs or whether it's cannabis cocaine. heroin and it'll be divided up into the different statutes and it'll penalties for possession dispensing and sale, and those penalties increase depending on the amount that is involved. There's a general catch all statute that pertains to depressants stimulants and narcotics. And so that is, it's like this. So unlike where you have like cocaine where there's a specifically identifiable drug. This one's like a catch all so this is where things that would fall in like if you have oxy pills that are not yours they wouldn't prescribe to you and you've got a lot of those or, you know, different substances that fall into those categories that are fall outside those other statutes. And so, and what they use for determining that because it's not straight across the board and we're talking about dozens if not I don't know hundreds of things is they use a benchmark standard. And, and so what they say is the way that the amounts increased through this particular statute is they say, a person in possession of any stimulants narcotic or depressant, you know, an unlawful possession of those so meaning without a prescription misdemeanor because our lowest level possession for any amount of a regulated drug is for is for one year misdemeanor and then if it starts to increase depending on how much you possess and so the next level is 100 times a benchmark. And a benchmark is determined by rule through the Department of Health. And so if you go on and you look at the Department of Health rules they have this long list of all kinds of different drugs and chemical compounds and things like that and they will establish the amount for each particular drug that is a benchmark. And then that's how they determine the amount to the statute. So House Judiciary passed the predecessor for age 225 in 2019. And, and for and what they did is they made a carve out to the one year misdemeanor penalty for unlawful possession of a depressant stimulant or narcotic they made a carve out for possession unlawful possession of buprenorphine. I don't go a lot into that because I'm sure that Representative Colburn and Representative Pugh can talk to you more about about why they're doing this and the reasons behind but essentially buprenorphine is a drug that is used for people who have opiate addiction. Opiates can help people calm the side the side effects of withdrawal from from an opiate and, and it is often something that is traded and used illegally by people who suffer from opiates misuse disorder. So it is, people can get a prescription for it. But, you know, this committee I think is dealt enough with over the issues around substance misuse where, you know, people are ready for treatment when they're ready for treatment and sometime and so. This was done the decriminalization of these small amounts of buprenorphine was done as a harm reduction measure so saying if someone is caught with a with a with a smaller amount than it wouldn't there would not be a criminal penalty. So when judiciary first passed in 2019, you just left the existing structure for for it and you did the carve out for the, for the one year misdemeanor, and then it would just if the next level was what you have in statute now where it increases if you have 100 times the benchmark. When the judiciary passed it out of committee, it then went to house human services and house human services started working on it and so they had some concerns about that the 100 times a benchmark was too much and they wanted to narrow it down for the exception and so they worked on that issue. And they also looked at the would you treat under 21s who who are in possession of that smaller amount. And so. And so those are the issues that they've been grappling with for the last two years and so the bill did not move out of human services in 2019, but they did hold a number of hearings in 2020. They passed it out of human services, I believe the day before we shut down last year. And so it did not move forward on that and then this year representative Pew introduced the bill, and then they've been working on it and then they voted it out and so now that representative, who is here I don't know if you want to know that kind of giving you the history of it and do you want to talk to them before I do a walkthrough or do you want me to do the walkthrough now or I am at the chair's pleasure I don't know if you did let folks know that not only did it pass unanimously out of our committee last year as amended representative Bromstead making the motion and representative Rosenquist seconding the motion, the bill passed unanimously with support from our committee. Thank you. Thank you so much and welcome good to good to see you. And yes it was actually on March 13. I remember representative Haas was going to come down with scheduled to come down to our committee to report the report the bill and then we're told to wrap up and we left it. Yeah, so, so I, yeah, I really, really appreciate your committee taking it up and passing it and that Madam chair, your, your, your committee started this work. And so we have your committees. Thanks for starting the work. And if there's a way that I can mention the former representative from Rochester on the House floor, I will try to do it because she made me promise that I would introduce it this year. Great. Sounds great. Well, well, thank you so much. Okay, well, why don't we have Michelle do the walkthrough and the bill should be posted or you can find it again it's as a 2.1 is that the correct draft Michelle. Evan, can you let me share my screen. And committee members and representative Pugh I'm considering you a committee member for this when we share screens as I often don't see folks hands so just jump in if I haven't, if I haven't recognized you if you, if you have questions for Michelle. Thank you. Great. Thank you Evan. Okay, so everybody can see the the amendment. Great. Okay, so um, so because of the structure of the drug laws. Sometimes when something is not is not criminalized but doing it through an omission. Sometimes it's a little hard for people to kind of read through but I, you want to work with the existing structure of what we have for the criminal statutes for drugs and so I added an intense section, just so we could have upfront a plain language explanation of what this bill does because I think sometimes if you just look at the technical language it's a little harder for especially folks who don't work with the criminal statutes very often. So you just see the intense section just saying that the General Assembly intends to decriminalize possession of 224 milligrams or less of buprenorphine. And that is the amount that the Human Services Committee determined that they were comfortable with from a policy perspective in terms of a person possessing that person it should be okay for a person to possess for their personal amount without being guilty of a crime. Starting on line nine persons under 21 years of age who are in possession of that smaller amount would be referred to the court diversion program for purpose of enrollment in the youth substance awareness safety program. That is how you currently treat the 16 to 20 year olds who are in possession of an ounce or less of cannabis or who are in possession of alcohol and so both of those being legal substances but not legal for under 21s to possess. So this is just mirroring the existing process for cannabis and alcohol. And then similarly on starting on line 12 and persons under 16 years of age and possession of that smaller amount would be subject to delinquency proceedings in the family division. Again, that is that mirrors what you have for cannabis and alcohol. For those of you on the committee who have been there for a while, you might recall that when the legislature decriminalized cannabis in 2013. I think that's when you took away. It used to be a delinquency. Now you didn't do the delinquency for the under 16s because I think the testimony at the time from the Defender General's office was that that wasn't the best way to go and so you were having the under 16s get referred to diversion as well. But the AG's office came to the legislature last year and asked for a change to go back to the to what they have for alcohol for the under 16s and do that for cannabis because they wanted to make sure that the under 15s who are in had access to DCF services and so you passed that last year so right now you have the under 16s going through family division and you have the 16 to 20 year olds are being referred to diversion program. And, and so this is just modeling existing law. If you possess more than that 224 milligrams fall under the existing penalty structure. So there's no change to that. So moving on to the language you see section two at the bottom of page one and then you see the language at the top of page two. So just creating an exception and subdivision one a for what the language that you have starting online five is that a person knowingly and unlawfully possessing 224 milligrams or less shall not be punished in accordance with the with the above provision. So that's just the carve out so if you have more, let's say you have 400 milligrams. That's going to go under, and you're going to be punished under one a, but if you're within that limb that other limit, then there is no penalty. And if you have 100 times the benchmark then you're going under the next provision that's in existing law and as well. So subsection C is dealing with the possession by youth under 21. And it's just what I said before. So just as a little refresher for folks who've been on the committee for a while and something new for new folks is that the way that the referral works for the under 21s is so let's say, we have like an 18 year old that is caught with a joint now is they would receive a civil ticket from a law enforcement officer. And that it would be a referral to the court diversion program and the county in which the person is cited. And it would be their responsibility to contact the diversion board within two weeks. And then the diversion board would work with them and come up with a contract with them to, and they would go through the, the youth substance awareness safety program, and any other conditions that they that are part of their diversion contract with the board. And if they successfully complete the terms of their diversion contract, then there's no penalty. If they fail to come if they fail to contact the diversion board, or they don't complete the terms of their contract and they essentially flunk out of the diversion program, then there would be the imposition of a $300 civil penalty, plus a 30 day license suspension. If they fail to come in or a subsequent offense, and they, they failed that as well, then it would be a $600 civil penalty and a 90 day suspension. And those and again that's that's under current law for cannabis and alcohol and this is just mirroring that through incorporation by reference. And so and then the under 16 is going through family division, and then the law takes effect this July. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you, Michelle. Not again I'm not seeing any hands but I don't want to miss anybody. And especially for new members to the committee, if you are returning members, please, please raise your hand if you need Michelle to clarify anything or review anything. Because we really haven't done that. We haven't really done much drug policy this this year. So, but, okay. Well, that's the anybody so representative Pugh I'll turn to you now to give us an idea of testimony that you that you took and and your committee's thinking in coming to to this unanimous vote. Thank you. Thank you. When the bill first came to our committee last year it was because of the health issues. Because of its that we in this state, and best practice considers substance use disorder and and an opiate. Disorder a public health issue, and the way to address it is through public health. And this bill is part of the continuum of strategies that fall under what I would call it what we call harm reduction, save lives, and to move those for monitors who are struggling with opiate addiction to move them into treatment and into productive lives. This is just one tool. And for addressing the opiate epidemic, which during the time of COVID we have seen a 38% increase in opiate deaths and so anything we can do now, I think is important. But over the years, we've Vermont has adapted many tools such as the syringe exchange or hub and spokes widespread distribution of Narcan or naloxone, which is the overdose prevention, an increase in the number of physicians willing to be providers in the hub and spoke. And our emergency runs are have their rapid rapid induction of MAT if someone presents themselves to the emergency room. In the past two years, we heard from doctors, we heard from people who are recovering from substance use and from opiate disorder, we heard from family members, we heard from law enforcement and we heard from a wide range of practice or a wide range of practitioners in the field. And we this year made a point of again hearing from to medical providers and from the attorney general that what he is the attorney general and from I'm going to forget her name I apologize. The person who did we hear from Michelle will a will a farewell farewell program at the AG's office and the diversion program I apologize, but I mean anyway all of these fall under harm reduction and that's what we focused on. We focused on that aspect and we didn't want to. It's not. We respected the work that and thought that the work that you all have done as it relates to alcohol and as it relates to youth was that we were going to follow in your footsteps in terms of that that that made sense in the sense of the added risk and the added importance it is to provide a path towards treatment, because not only do we want to save lives but we want. This is a path towards treatment. There's, this is more your belly with than ours. But sale is still a crime and the, the amount that we chose 224 milligrams is what we heard in terms of testimony from from doctors and from prescribers prescribers is that's a one to two week supply. So it is. But so sale is still a crime and you know, and you know the stuff about if it's more than 224 it's going to still be a misdemeanor, and if it's greater than 3600 it's a felony. So this doesn't, you know, change anything except people who have on their person, a small amount of buprenorphine. So buprenorphine is a medicine, if you want that is used in the treatment of opiate substance use disorder, because it reduces the relapse of people in recovery by blocking cravings, and it reduces the likelihood of a fatal overdose. And we heard that repeated testimony last year that those individuals who are using non prescribed buprenorphine, actually they later seek treatment. But right now, they're either hesitant to go to formal treatment, or they going to formal treatment is incompatible with their job. I mean, the people who we heard testimony from were Vermonters who are working, who are, who are supporting their families supporting themselves and the cost of the, and they didn't want to have on their health insurance if they had health insurance that they were getting this drug. So, what I said yesterday in committee is I was thinking of children. This is like Goldilocks and the three bears. Some of you may think that the bowl is too big and some may think that it doesn't go far enough. The committee thought this path strikes a good middle ground, and it's just right. Thank you. Thank you very much and, and again this amount is dramatically less than what we had last year when it, when it came to you and I think that's an important, important point. Thank you members any, any questions or Selena do you want to add anything. I do see on your vice chair has his hand up. Okay, thank you. Thank you, thank you madam chair, how are you doing madam chair. I'm good I haven't forgiven you from leaving yet. Those of you who don't know who used to be on human services before he became vice chair. My first, my first four years, I was lucky enough to be on human services with with chair pew and and learned it off a lot from her, but and chair grad just answered one of my questions because I was going to ask what's the difference between this bill. And what we looked at before, I wasn't here for the walkthrough so some of this may have been said, I came in right right at the end of the walkthrough, but so, so it's 224 milligrams or less do you remember what the amount was in the bill before. No, because we didn't like it but I think it was too much. Yeah, not that it matters more curiosity thing. Actually hold on Michelle to you remember. Yes, the so the way that it worked is so Tom that, as you know because you worked on this committee for a while on the drug laws is that you have the lowest level possession limit for all the different crimes it'll just say a person who possesses, whatever unlawfully, and then it'll be a one year misdemeanor, and then the next subdivision will create a threshold for going up in penalties. So the way that it's done for this particular stand, as it's a catch all covering all otherwise unnamed like stimulants depressants and narcotics, it uses benchmarks. And also the next level up is 100 times the benchmark. And so that's where the penalty distinction between the lowest level and then the family level. And the benchmarks are something that's by the Department of Health by rule. And the judiciary had done it is real rather than carve out an amount between the lowest level which is anything and next level which is 100 times the benchmark. You guys just carved it out of that level and said anything that is a misdemeanor one year misdemeanor level. Instead it's like anything that's 100 times the benchmark. So human services when they started taking testimony from practitioners how much is prescribed things like that felt as though that much too big of an amount to be to get to decreed. And so you just use the existing structure and create a new amount level and as they said we're going to exempt it from the misdemeanor, but we're not going to, but there's still going to be some possession of view that will continue to be a misdemeanor and that's when it's, when it's above 224 milligrams up to 100 times the benchmark. And what's what's the benchmark. I think I haven't looked at the Department of Health rules lately but my recollection was it was 36 milligrams was a was the benchmark for the Department of Health and so you would do 100 times that and so you'd, you'd be at 3600. Yep, yep. So right now, say one milligram up to the 3600 or whatever is a misdemeanor. Correct. Okay, okay, I see, I see where we're going with this now and then. Right, so what human services they figured out what would be essentially I think you know you divide 224 by 36 you come up with six or six something and so just going to do that. So rather so it would be like rather than 100 times the benchmark it's like six or seven times the benchmark. Okay. So, chair Pew. When, when we were, when I was on on your committee, we, we did something around. I don't remember if it was Decrim but I do remember with something around a medication for opiate addiction. And the issue back then was people, I think we decided to individually wrap the medication and some of it had a coding on it so it made it harder to break it down. And to be able to inject it or smoke it I don't remember which, but, and I know I'm, I don't remember and I know it's getting to be a few years ago now. But do you remember what that medication was because that, that medication was an addictive medication. And where I'm going with that is I don't know a lot about a buprenorphine. And is buprenorphine potentially addictive or no. Um, buprenorphine if you have an opioid use disorder, buprenorphine will not get you high. Okay, that is why. So if you have, if you have a substance use disorder, it will not get you high. If you've never tried it, it might. Okay, you know. So it's what I'm going to assume that it's not a blocker like the Narcan is. Cravings and I mean Narcan Narcan is, you know, when you have overdosed. Right. This is you haven't overdosed on this this is this this will block or curb your cravings. Okay. I apologize because. This may have been said earlier. No, that's okay. I mean so without being doing doing a broad brush, it is more similar to an abuse. Okay, or alcohol I mean it's going to curb your, your cravings. Sure. And I guess from there I would ask, if, if you'd never done it before, and you can get high on it does, does it work like an opiate I guess or no I again this is, I'm getting education here so. Well that's, that's it. There is some risk, if you are a minute you know and that is that's why this is a harm reduction there is you know if you are opioid naive, which means you have never, ever used it but you're not going to you're not going to you're not going to be looking for that won't get you high the way. The way you know heroin or any other opioid is going to get you high. Okay, so yeah okay so you're not going to have the the mental or physical cravings for it. If you do happen to use it to get high. I'm assuming that's, that's what it is yeah. Okay, great. Thank you. I may have some more questions later but absolutely. Yeah, good to see you. Well good to see you and I you know I do I do want to. I do want to be honest. This is not a panacea. This is a step. This is a harm reduction. Right. This is getting people to this is saving lives and taking a path towards treatment. Yeah, I'm sorry go ahead. I was going to say I mean, the argument against this would be everyone has access to treatment. We know that they don't. Right. And we know that some people are treatment hesitant. And we know that some people can't access. And so it is. It is the it is a public health response to treat this as a public health issue, and to ensure that people move towards treatment. There's some similarities with with this in Narcan in that Narcan not a panacea it's not a cure all, but it is a step toward, you know, public safety health, you know, life saving. So I can see some similarities there and and we actually did all the Narcan work or most of it back when I was on the committee. And the testimony that we heard in particular last year from from from law enforcement from people who are from from from social workers practitioners and doctors who are working in the field. People are not. People are not using buprenorphine to get high. I guess in that kind of reminds me in another question, maybe is. So what, how often does this occur now I guess is and you may not know is as far as people being arrested for having the buprenorphine without a prescription and that type of thing I mean is it is it real common because I got to believe if you just got it that they probably aren't going to want to give it up in most instant instances. The testimony that we heard and the testimony that we heard this this year confirmed it as well while while prosecution of buprenorphine, but what well possession of buprenorphine is rarely, rarely prosecuted, for instance, at the Attorney General in Addison County and in Chittenden County and I think somewhere else have actually sort of publicly said they're not going to do that. This legend this legislation will support equity across the state so that people are not treated differently. I don't encourage for monitors to seek alternative alternatives to manage their substance use disorders, and it will ensure that no matter where you live. You'll be equitably treated the same. Is this. I mean a lot of things that we've done, you know, as far as changing, you know, penalties and that type of thing is this is this going to lean more toward what's happening in real life in court court rooms. If people if they're if the convictions aren't coming. I'm not sure I understand your question. I don't know where I'm going with that. I can't think of another way to word it. On the ground, I guess. Michelle, I think that I think I can answer that one which is is that has been the testimony but it's in the sense that you have some states attorneys who have been very open about that they are not going to be charging for these things, but it's as you know that you deal with this all the time in this committee is you can at times have 14 different kinds of justice and somebody, you know, with the same offense could be treated very differently depending on where they live in the state and so I think what's represented a few was talking about is it creates more uniformity so you may don't wind up with well if you're caught with it in Addison or chitin then you're referred to services, but if you're caught with it in you're going to be charged with a crime and so it's it's taking it and you making the policy decision at the state level and saying this is how we want as a state to treat people who have smaller amounts of this. So it should create more consistency and reflect what's being done in the in the counties now that have chosen not to prosecute. And then still I mean 100 times the benchmark is still only a civil penalty right now. No it's a crime. Oh it is okay. Yeah there's no civil penalties in this at all so if you have over this kind of therapeutic dosage if you have over that amount it would still be a crime but then the state's attorney would have the option to use all the off ramps that you've created over the last several years as well. So they could they could refer the person to diversion they could do a deferred sentence they could there's a lot of options they could do and it's just various counting by county and how they and how the state's attorney treats these types of cases. Okay, great. Thank you. That's it for now I promise. Okay now thank you for your questions. Okay I see Ken and then Barbara and it's 10 of 12 and we have been asked to do a strong pull on this so that's where we're where we're headed. Ken. If this good morning if this drug was was an addictive to other people. We wouldn't even be dealing with this as a bill right now would we. I mean what I remember when I first came on this committee that's the problem is that it can be addictive to people that are not an addict already. This is not anything at all like now can now can save lives. Representative you I wasn't sure that if that I apologize I wasn't sure if that was a question and representative Gosling this, this saves lives, and this provides a path towards treatment. And it is not you've been working is not something that on the street, people are using for recreation. There may be one or two people. I mean I'm not saying that no one ever does but this is this is not the drug of choice on the street. It may not be the drug of choice on the street but if you're not already addictive it is a drug to get you in addiction. Representative Gosling we heard some we heard testimony that for some individuals, but not not all. I guess just in clarification. If this drug was used properly for for what for what the doctors prescribe, then it's, it's, it's an excellent avenue for the addicts to get off to get off their addiction and I can appreciate that. What I worry about is the people that aren't already addicted that become addicts, and then we have more of a problem and I've had a problem with that since day one. So, that's, that's, that's all I have for right now thank you. Thank you. Well I'm Selena Barbara your hand has been been up but Selena might have some something to add to these recent questions and concerns. Thank you. Thank you so much. I am happy to share I did some pretty extensive research. And then when we were working on this that really just looked at the peer reviewed research on buprenorphine use and especially non prescribed buprenorphine use and I can put the link to that in the chat but I think in addition to all the excellent excellent points that share pure raised I just wanted to add a few others to the discussion. And then I think to both Ken and Tom's point. Yes, there is potential for abuse of any substance right from Nyquil to Tylenol to all kinds of things. One of the important things to remember here is to really consider the alternative to buprenorphine which is heroin and really by extension fentanyl because so so much heroin. These days has fentanyl in it, which is just can be quite fatal. I mean it's why we have seen such a dramatic increase in Vermont and nationwide and fatal overdoses. So many forms of buprenorphine are delivered in ways that, and certainly the most commonly used non prescribed forms are include additional substances that prevent help to prevent overdose. And again to when when chair Pew says this is a harm reduction bill. I think that's, I don't want to put words in her mouth but I think that's part of what she means. I also want to note that there is actually a lot of research out there about or fair amount of research growing body of research about folks who are using non prescribed buprenorphine in these ways and all the testimony that it sounds like they heard in the House Human Services Committee, and that we heard some in our committee last biennium, which is that for the vast majority of folks they're using this to manage symptoms of opioid use dependence they're using it to avoid overdose they're using it to prevent withdrawal they're using it to be able to work and be engaged in their family, and that in fact the research shows that for many, many people, this is actually one of the most effective pathways to supervised treatment. Because people, and we, we had very powerful testimony about that. Last year that people start to really stabilize and get to the point where they are able to work with a doctor for ongoing management. And with pieces of evidence that I found really most compelling. As I was really digging into this is that in fact, folks, there are some studies that show that people who use non prescribed buprenorphine and then go into medically supervised treatment actually do better. So if you have non prescribed buprenorphine treatment, then folks who are coming to it just totally fresh in a medically supervised environment, and I won't speculate about why that is but the findings really show that there's more longevity than people who have first used this kind of on their own and essentially tried it out and started to stabilize and then such sought formal treatment. And we know that longevity and medication assisted treatment is associated with better outcomes in terms of employment in terms of all kinds of health factors in terms of life and a number of other factors that measure success. And so I just wanted to I just wanted to add some of those points to the discussion because I think it's as representative Pew or chair Pew said it's it's not a panacea but we are really talking about life saving measures here and the potential for abuse with the substance certainly it's there but it's it's the it's just not the way it's being used in in all of the evidence and research that we've heard on this topic. Thank you Selena. I see we have two more questions. And it seems like folks need to discuss this more so in terms of our star poll vote will wait. We get off the floor today or this is on notice today correct. Okay. You know if we have to fit into our morning we can but so quickly Barbara and then Bob and then and then we'll adjourn for for lunch. I too was going to just share having worked in the field of addiction until very recently that I've seen it make a big difference, especially when it is paired with counseling but that doesn't always happen right away. And for every person we can get off of heroin or fentanyl the odds of them recovering is so great. But chair pew I'm wondering I know what you were talking about people and the cost or insurance being a factor. A few years ago a factor was the weightless and the priority population so pregnant women could get it, but their boyfriends couldn't so they were wanting to figure out how to share it with their boyfriends so that they in order to also help their own recovery because it was not going to be helpful if one person in the family was getting treated and not another. And I think I've shared this before but there was one father who said, I'm going to have to, in order to get access to this I'm going to have to use intravenous drugs to get up on the waiting list. I'm just wondering if waiting list is still an issue and if we get the more we chip away at that obviously the fewer people will need this law which I will strongly support in our poll and on the floor. It depends who you ask. I will, we oftentimes say that people, everyone, everyone has access if they wanted the, the reality is when you hear testimony is that sometimes people can't get it. And during the pandemic, people could not get it. So the first step we take the, all but one hospital their emergency room, you can present and get three days worth of supply in Burlington you can walk, walk into safe recovery. But in order for a doctor to be able to prescribe this, there is a, you need to go through a federal procedure, and that has not changed yet. Vermont is doing better than other states, in terms of this one we have from the beginning called this a, and identified this as a public health issue and between the health department, the hospital and providers. People are moving are moving in the direction of making it available. It's not necessarily at the right time and the right place for everyone. And as representative Colburn said in terms of the research that she read that was the testimony that we actually have gotten over the past year from from prescribers from doctors who are engaged in medically supervised treatment with individuals that the ones who oftentimes are more ready and are more successful. Are are are people who initial who's initial entry into treatment was unprescribed buprenorphine. Thank you Bob last you have the last question. Yes, I'll make this quick because I want to eat to. I believe buprenorphine is still considered to schedule to drug slash narcotic. I didn't realize until I was hearing from Selena that we're talking about unprescribed medications which I found kind of astounding I thought we're talking about prescribed medications. I don't know the need for benefit versus prescription for Suboxone we have clinics throughout the state of Vermont obviously and I'm all for saving lives don't get me wrong. And I guess, whether Michelle or chair Pew is of the 14 counties. Can you tell me how many states have chosen not to prosecute. I will turn to Michelle I believe we heard testimony yesterday three. But I can't tell you whether that is all they were those were given as examples, and I will check that would I will find I can find that answer for you. It would just be nice if we had consensus from our 14 states attorneys, I guess. Well, it's ever have consensus on, regardless of what the topic is. As we've heard James Pepper come to our committee and say it's, it's very difficult to have one voice. Michelle, did you want to add I think what I've heard over the last few years that you know there's certainly are certain counties like Chinden County have the state's attorney who has been outspoken in this particular area around doing it that necessarily that it's always getting charged in the places where states attorney come out publicly as and stated it as policy. My recollection was hearing that in general it is not used much statewide. And that the general practice is is is to not bring people in for when there's all amounts people who are who have since use disorder who have a smaller amount on them, even though it's not prescribed and technically a violation but that they are not charged there, but that the other counties have a kind of a rule the way that like Chinden County has come out and said we law enforcement know that they're not doing that I can check with James to see whether or not as a sense of that. Yeah, that'd be very helpful and Selena hopefully you have a. Yeah, I do. I don't know if, if the House Human Services Committee heard similar testimony but I know that when the earlier proposal was in our committee last bit by any of we heard from some states attorneys like states attorney, George who had made a very clear not to to prosecute and then we heard from others who said, I, like, I don't have the I don't feel like I have the option not to prosecute it because it's actually on the books as a crime. So, different states attorneys have different, I think, relationships to prosecutorial discretion and my sense at least from the testimony we had heard a couple years ago is that, you know, there were folks who were actively choosing to prosecute it and then there were folks who were potentially supportive of the policy but wanted the law to be changed to be able to make that choice so this is also partly to answer that need I think. Thank you. Anything else. I have a quick question if we have time. Okay, I just stand through the bill real quick and I didn't see it but I didn't know if say if somebody was arrested or picked up on a civil charge 2345 times whatever for for possession of the 224 or less does is there criminal penalty. If you've got too many civil penalties stacked on top of each other. Um, so the civil penalty is only for the 16 to 20 year olds. And, and it does not after many turn into a crime. It's modeled after what we do with underage possession of alcohol and cannabis. Yep. So it's following that exactly because it's doing it through incorporation by reference and so it's a system of how we deal with treating under in possession of something that is otherwise not penalized. Right, right. Yeah, I'm going to have to go back and listen to your walk through anyway, Michelle, so. Feel free also you can shoot me an email if you've got questions or set up a time with me and we can chat on the phone. Thank you. Okay, great. Well, thank you. Thank you, Chair Pugh. Thank you. Oh, thank you committee. Originally, Tom and I had a training at 330 today, which is why we were going to if we do get off the floor we were going to end earlier but that has been rescheduled so if we can touch if we do get off the floor at a reasonable hour let's come back we have plenty to do, including to discuss this so thank you.