 Good morning. This is Senate Judiciary. This is Friday, April 30th, 2021. And I will announce publicly that this is the last formal meeting of the committee, although we may meet Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Fridays from 8.30 to 10, depending upon the workload. And I expect that we'll be meeting next Thursday and Friday to go over house changes to S3 and perhaps S7. And that S3 is the competency bill and S7 is the expungement. Those are rather extensive changes. And then I just heard yesterday that House voted on S99 the bill that would allow civil suits where there's been child physical abuse to eliminate the statute of limitations. And they voted it out without, or they voted, the House voted to support it without any amendments. That's good news, I think, for the victims, particularly at St. Joseph's or at school. That's my update. Is there a motion to report favorably on the nomination of Don Ellis as a member of the human rights. Senator Baruch has moved that we were favorably on Ellis. Is there any discussion? I think she would agree. Only to say, as a past member of the Human Rights Commission, I envy you because that was one of my favorite places to be where you could sit all your time outside the front door when you went in and engage in conversations that were incredibly deep and wonderful to be able to beat around the table without feeling like the press was looking down your neck at the same time. Have fun with it and my best and hope you keep the tradition going. Thank you. You're doing a nice job, Dawn. Thank you. We do have to formally vote, although three members of four members of our signal. I'm going to call my cards close to my desk. It's on mass for a vote. Peggy, could you please call? Do we need something or not? No. Senator Benning. Yes. Senator White. Yes. Senator Baruch. Yes. Senator Sears. Oh, yes. Thank you. Thank you, Don. I'm honored. Thank you. It's important time for the work that we all do. And it certainly is. I think it was just a settlement and the chai of war occasion and raised a lot of settlement came through the human rights. Yes, that's part of them. Spent some time with them a few years back, making sure that we understood the principles of restorative justice and looking at some of the world examples of that to see if there's things that we could bring into our work. One thing we brought in is really a tremendous push on the conciliation piece. Can we find a pathway forward that works for the various parties when there's harm or when harm hasn't been found? And so making sure that we have that in our toolkit and we use it and seriously think about how we can use that as well as the judiciary straight through the judiciary path. All right, we're going to shift years to H-225 and act relating to prosecution, a possession of therapeutic dosage of buprenorphine. I will leave you. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you, Don. Bye-bye. We all heard some interesting discussion in the joint hearing yesterday. Michelle isn't here yet, so we should be here in a minute. But I wanted to... Is Phillip here for Don? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm happy to report it. Is that good, since you know her? Yeah. Phillip, very good. So you'll let them know, Senator Baruth? I'll do that right now. Okay, I don't think I need to do anything. I think you just need to let them know in the vote. Oh, do we have to give them the nomination paper? I think so. I don't think so. Okay. I have it if you need it though. All right, I'll write the bloomer right now. Okay. I've been... I was actually surprised at some of the testimony. I was particularly struck by the testimony from the three state's attorneys. And I know they're not always on the same page. There's 14, you know, we've talked a lot about 14 different systems of justice, but all are fairly consistent that they're not prosecuting possession of small amounts. And unless there's a case where they're late, now there are a lot of other drugs around, that sort of thing. I was also... So in a sense, it's already been decriminalized just by having, I don't know that there's been any prosecution for small amounts. But I am kind of concerned that the word decriminalized in the intense section of the House Asheville seems to indicate that what they're doing is decriminalizing. But then if you read it, if you're over 21 years of age or over, it's actually legalized, the possession. So that bothers me a little bit. And... Can we change the intent? Oh, yeah, sure. We can rewrite the bill. We can do it anyway we want. Show me we get the bill and then rules can be still. That's right. So may I make a comment here? Sure. So I know that there is some concern about the way it's drafted and stuff, but and that they aren't really, that most of them aren't prosecuting, but I think that there was ample testimony about people's fear about having it because, I mean, not even going to hospitals or places because of fear of stigmatism, job loss, all kinds of things. And so if it continues to be illegal and just not prosecuted, that doesn't alleviate those fears. And the other thing I do have to say is I was stunned by Dr. Levine's testimony that if he were in any other state, he would support this bill, but that we don't need it in Vermont because we have no waiting lists and the capacity to treat all. And that simply is not true. I mean, we heard from the woman, I can't remember where she was from that works for the turning point and who said that she has people that are put on waiting lists. And we actually had a death here in Brattleboro. I think it was yesterday or the day before. And we do, we have waiting lists. And I just think she was from Bennington and she testified that between 4 p.m. on Friday and 8 or 9 a.m. on Monday, you can't even get here. Right. And I can tell you that when AHS closed down the units and the services at the retreat, and they've partially reopened them. And he said that they had other providers who were willing to step up and work with them. But I can tell you that something as simple as getting an appointment with a laydack was six weeks. So that, That's a laydack. I'm sorry. Licensed alcohol and drug counsel. Oh, thank you. Good morning, Michelle. Good morning. Senator Baruth. I just wanted to second what Senator White said. I found that, I thought at first maybe he had been misquoted, but then he repeated it with the explanation. And to say that any policy would be good public policy in 49 states, but bad in one, it just goes down this path to a certain kind of nonsense. And the explanation was that you had instant access here and no waiting. And, you know, no one has ever testified that there's zero wait times that I remember. So, you know, I also thought that the bulk of his argument against the bill or reasons to be cautious about the bill would apply in other states, you know, having to do with, you know, the fact that the drug is somewhat addictive, does produce some sort of high, those sorts of things wouldn't change regardless of state. So it just kept leading me back to the strange quality of that statement about any other state this would be good public policy. So I also think Dr. Levine has done Yeoman's work during the pandemic. I came in willing to give him all sorts of respect for his opinion, but I was very taken aback by that, I'd say. Well, would we be able to have a section with a report back on issues of treatment availability? And you may need help from Katie to draft this and go to the health and welfare community again, but I think it would help be helpful to have a section on the status of treatment and wait times to get treat, to get into treatment in Vermont and various geographical, specifically various geographical locations, the discussion yesterday about not having a methadone available in Bennington County discussion. I'm sure in the kingdom you have the mobile system still, I think, but the idea that there's treatment on demand and then you hear from the Turning Point Club in Bennington that somebody comes to them at five p.m. on Friday night, there's no way to get her in treatment. You didn't see any less than some murders, you know what I mean? I don't know if we could write something like that. Senator Nick. I have to admit when we hear from state's attorney and direct quote from the Addison County state's attorney that says, this drug saves lives. And there are so many people, and I mean, certainly I know several people who have died this year. And it's like, I mean, I don't know them well, but I know their parents. And if there's something that can be done to save lives this year, we should do this. And yes, it needs some fine tuning, but we should do it. May I ask how, what the book was in the house? 145, I don't know, I think it was a voice phone, wasn't it? I don't remember. I'll go and take a look. I think it was a roll call. I think there were like 17 no's or something like that. That's pretty overwhelmingly important. It was, I think you're right, it was like 17 or 19. It was all number of no's. I was pretty, it was interesting. So many people explained their votes and like people were breaking down, crying, talking about like Carolyn Partridge was like, this vote is for my niece. I guess she lost her niece died of an overdose last year. And it was clearly one of those things where it touched so many people in a personal way. So it was a big vote. But I don't, I'm going to say something that'll probably get me in trouble, but I don't think there are any easy answers to getting out of this problem. And I don't have a great deal of confidence. This is a huge difference. But Senator Nick had just said, if you want to save one or two lives, there's no word of it. But to try to believe that this is gonna change things dramatically. I just got a note that it was 126. There were 19 no's according to Peggy, just chat. 126. Senator Benning, yep, Senator Benning. Yeah, I would like to say a couple of things. First off, I have great faith in Dr. Levine and everything that he has done during this pandemic. I am also a criminal defense attorney, however, and I have been in many situations very recently where people have tried to get in for treatment and we've had a delayed wait to get in. And there are occasions when we have a bed available and the judicial ability to respond to getting, for instance, a change of plea scheduled has knocked that back because we couldn't coordinate the court's schedule with the bed space availability at a given locale. So it's a frustrating thing to see. I am curious though about the thought of a sunset provision on here that might allay a lot of fears, even if it was an extended one to give a time period for a track record of how this change works. And if it is successful, obviously we remove the sunset, but to those who are cautious, it would give them the sense that, okay, this is a test we're doing and perhaps bring more support for the change. No. Senator Thears. Nope. We're both have our hands up. Oh, I'm sorry, I was writing, I was redrafting the bill. I'm sorry. My preference at this late date is to just pass it the way it is. I think that there are studies out there already in the health department that look at beds available and waiting times and stuff. I don't think we need to add that. And I think that even if we need to allay fears, it seems to be there are few fears that need to be allayed because 130 people voted for this. So that means there were 19 people who had fears. And in this, I don't know what it would be in the Senate, but if the proportions are the same, that's, it seems to me that my preference is to pass it just as it is and to get it done and get it over with instead of sending it off to a conference committee and running the risk that it doesn't happen this year. Well, I wanna just dovetail off of you, Jeanette, and say there's only one vote with some fear attached to it that might be standing in the way. And in order to try to allay the fears that were presented from that one votes camp, it would be an idea that I think would smooth some ruffled feathers and take care of concerns to demonstrate that it's not gonna be the disaster that was predicted. Got it. I think a lot changed in two years. You don't feel there's need for work. In this bill, I'm fine with that, but I would like to suggest I think we should make changes to it and I do support a sunset of one or two years. And I also think that in line one in the intense section should read, we should cross out the word decriminalize. So it would read, remove criminal penalties for possession of two or four milligrams or less of you, just basically what it does. And then if you're over 20, if you're under 21, you would be a civil matter if I read this. And then, because when we decriminalize there, I'm troubled by the wording decriminalize because that's not what it does. Why don't we just leave out the intent and just pass the bill? Well. I think it's important to have that in there. I think it's helpful to explain it, Senator White, because of the way that the criminal law is just organized. I think you wanna make it clear to people that, so for the under the 100 times the benchmark right now is a misdemeanor. And this is just taking a fraction of that misdemeanor crime and removing the penalties. So there still is a pretty big range. So from like over 224 to 3,600 milligrams is still gonna be a misdemeanor. So I think it's helpful is like a reader assist. But Senator Sears, can I just ask you to say that I just popped up my. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You said to just say basically that. I don't have line numbers, but it is the intent of the General Assembly to remove criminal penalties for possession of 224 milligrams or less of youth. Simply striking out the word decriminalize. Sure. Senator Booth. I just wanted to go back to the sunset question. My preference, and I guess I'm picking up some of the urgency that I hear in Alice's voice. I think we should do this. And I would prefer to do it as it came out of the house. If that isn't possible, if we don't have the votes to get it out of committee that way, I would support a sunset, but I would prefer that a one year sunset just seems to me a sort of foregone conclusion. You won't have any real evidence after a year. So if there does have to be a sunset, I would hope that it would be more like two or three years because that would allow you to really see what the policy is doing. So that's that's that question. Mike Shirlings here. I, Mike, did you want to comment? Commissioner Shirling, did you want to comment underneath this discussion? No, Senator. I was, I appreciate being acknowledged. I was here at your request in the event. There were questions. I'm willing to go to two years, but I do think I need to, I do think we, I'm not afraid of changing language, but that's what we do. And I'm really troubled by, struck me when I first read the bill. That's my something we could do. We don't need to, you know, I think a two year sunset is fine. It gives the state time. I mean, I don't know how the, you know, let's, I believe that our Medicaid spends $14 million a year on this box, just as a point of interest. Did I just make a comment on that, that it is interesting and not Medicaid spending, but the way we use it in our prisons, and it was meant to treat people who were already being treated with the MAT program. And I have had anecdotal information that many of the people in prison just start getting the MAT treatment because it's there and because it's available and because they can have it. And so they come out addicted when they didn't, when they went in. And that was a concern expressed by Commissioner Levine that I think might end up with people who are, you can't remember the exact wording. But that's in our prison system. That's us. Yeah, but I think it, I'm trying to think back to Commissioner Levine's testimony about the unintended consequences. Senator Booth. I was just thinking back to our visit to the correctional facility. We did have that drug counselor who was also an inmate who said that he thought that sometimes people entered the MAT program because once they did, they couldn't be moved out of state. And that's stuck with me too. I mean, I just wanna, in the drug treatment world, there are a lot of disagreement about using medically-assisted treatment. It's becoming less and less now, but there are treatment programs that do not allow medically-assisted treatment. There is a legitimate argument that you're not trading one drug for another. I understand all of it. And I don't buy that, I've always believed, not always, back in some time. And when Howard Dean was governor, and there was a proposal in the Senate to allow methadone into Vermont, he strongly opposed it. Is that enough? And I got convinced by Jim Letty that it was probably a positive thing. He was chair of Alta Volcker. So, you know, but there is that disagreement in the medical community about that. He also had entire practice. Yeah, but he almost became president. Well, I don't know if I'd say that. Well, he almost got the nomination. Let's put it- He almost got the nomination. Thank you, Senator Beway. I think you should do a book on Howard. Actually, I covered that incident in my leaky book. That's true. Yes, you do. Any other discussion on the bill? Can I just get a clarification? Yeah. Or are we not doing markup right now? I guess I was just- We are doing markup, but we're not going to take a final vote. And the markup would be- I already got the change in the intent and then just do a two-year sunset. Sunset. July 1. When does it become effective as a passage? July 1. Well, then like it. I don't know why it wouldn't do it on passage. You can do it on passage. I think it's just a, you know, a default that we usually do. But yeah, there's no, because it's a benefit, you know, to people rather than it imposing, like oftentimes when you create new crimes, you want to give some notice. I think if you're taking this away, you can do it on passage. Well, given the testimony of the three states attorneys, it's unlikely somebody's going to get charged. I mean, now in July 1, but if somebody were charged. Flip side of that is to say that we are actually trying to save lives as quickly as possible. So there's no reason to have a date that's arbitrary to make it upon passage. Yep. And then then the sun sets July 1, 2020 through. And I've got to go get Marley. I'll be right back. Where is he outside? No, I am going absolutely crazy. I can't even, I don't know. This doing things this way is just, is making me. Crazy. It is making me crazy. And I can't, I can't find anything. I keep printing off the wrong things. I have to run downstairs. I'm just, and I. Yeah. Yeah. Hey, soft boiled eggs for breakfast. So it made me feel a little better. Hey, Peggy. What's that like? Hey, Siri. No. Yes. Peggy, you got your dog over your shoulder. I do. How cute. I know. She finally settled down. You guys saw the strings from the window sill were being batted back and forth, but. Well, and Michelle's cat was going wild there. Now, now it's sleeping, but. Nothing. Probably heard Marley thought Marley was after the cat. I finally caught the chipmunk after three weeks. Oh no. Two days ago. Or chipmunk. He was okay. No, no, no, I caught it. I live trapped him. And then I let him go. Marley's been chasing chipmunk for five years. And he hasn't caught one yet. Well, the cats, I don't know, you know, this, I was living with one because the cat brought it live to me and dropped it at my feet. James. So where are we? So I think you have, so you have three amendments. One is the replacement of de-creme with running around removal of penalties and a two-year sunset and effective on passage. And I can knock that out quickly this morning and send it through editing and get it to y'all and just so that you can vote whenever. Well, what I would like to do is get it to health and welfare and representative Valen and have representative brought him from Valen so that she's aware of it. And then we can get it out of rules really next week. And if health and welfare has any changes they want to make. I'll send it out to everybody today. Is everybody tentatively okay with this? We're not going to do a final vote because we don't have the bill. Yep. Yep. And hopefully the rules committee will be willing to deal with it. We were scheduled to start on H 183 at 1015. I don't know if we can get. Dick, remember we have appropriations. Yeah, I know. That's why I was hoping we could get started early on 183. Which has 183 again? That's the bill on consent. And Michelle is the drafts person, which is helpful to have you. But we could, we're not going to do S3. I wrote Eric because we have appropriation. If Peggy can email the folks who are going to come in on 183, if they could join us early, that would actually work better for me because H 18 is up on the house floor this morning a little later. And because it has S 103 on it and it would be good if I, so I could be in the Zoom room just in case there's questions. So if you want to do 183, I'm ready. And then we take a five minute break. Yep. And see if we can get others. And then we'll come back to the amendment anyway. And then people can comment on that when we're working on the amendment. So hopefully we can get back 10 to ask.