Kathleen Parker Discusses Cannabis Legislation in South Carolina with Experts

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Unknown (00:04):
Hello and Welcome to Speaking of College of
Charleston. Today's episode is aspecial edition about cannabis
legislation in South Carolina.
The program is hosted byWashington Post columnist
Kathleen Parker. guest panelistsinclude South Carolina State
Senator Tom Davis, Gary Hess,the founder and executive

(00:24):
director of the veteransalliance for holistic
alternatives and Pawleys Islandattorney Muffy Nice. Now, here's
the host of the program,Kathleen Parker.
So I'm Kathleen Parker. I'm asyndicated columnist with The
Washington Post. And we'rejoined by three guests. Today

(00:45):
we're going to talk aboutcannabis. Why we can't get it
passed in the state of SouthCarolina, why other people are
passing medical marijuana lawsin other states are also passing
recreational uses. So we're abig smorgasbord of various
policies across the land. Butwe're going to we're going to
talk primarily today about wherewe are in South Carolina and

(01:09):
what some of the obstacles tojust a very simple bill dealing
with medical marijuana, where westand with that. So my guests
are, we have Senator Tom Davis,who's been working to get this
bill passed through the SouthCarolina legislature for how
many years?
We got a bill passed in 2014,authorizing cannabis with CBD,

(01:32):
and trace amounts of THC to beused by epilepsy patients. And
so ever since then 2015 forward.
So I guess that's eight years,I've been working on a full
medical bill.
Okay, well, we'll come back tothat. I want to hear what the
status is and kind of what youthink is going to happen next.
We also have Gary Hess, who is aveteran, he served in Iraq. And

(01:56):
when he came back from Iraq, hehad a number of challenges from
PTSD and pain. And I think it'sserious, you know, brain injury,
etc. And he found that cannabiswas the only thing that worked
for him, he could try thepharmaceutical route first. And
that created another set ofissues. And so he works with

(02:19):
veterans trying to help them getaccess to marijuana, but also is
or has an organization that isan n, where you have three
organizations, right, Gary,there were Yes, ma'am. Give us a
quick synopsis, if you would.
Yeah. So the veterans alliancefor holistic alternatives is the
veterans nonprofit aboutawareness, empowerment and

(02:39):
reform, bringing better healthcare, holistic health care
options to those in need, notonly the veterans who are
struggling with trauma, but alsothe seven out of 10 Americans
who are struggling with trauma.
We've have a telemedicine accessplatform where we've we've
brought access or providedaccess for over 30,000 veterans,
I mean, 30,000 Americans, and wehave the analytics that support

(03:03):
you know, the medical efficacy,everything that Senator Tom
Davis has been saying, and ithas been trying to pass in his
own state. And then we also havethe warrior tribe medicinal
assembly, which is psychedelicassisted therapies that have
been have the research behindthem that have just incredible
and proven efficacy in themental health arena. So we're

(03:26):
very involved in the suicide andan opioid epidemic that is
plaguing not only the veterancommunity, but the entire
country, and we provide realsolutions to those in need.
And how long have you been doingall this? How long have you been
an activist?
Activist probably since since2016, when I started my own

(03:49):
personal journey, and theVeterans alliance for illicit
alternatives was created duringthe COVID area during the COVID
era, and we've been servingpatients for the last three
years.
Okay, great. That'll get usstarted. Now, my third guest
here is MFI niece, she's notonly a friend of mine, but she

(04:10):
comes with loaded withinformation about law
enforcement issues, the thingsthat the law enforcement folks
are concerned about with anysort of legalization of
marijuana, whether it's formedical purposes or any other.
As my interest as I understandit, even if we did pass a bill,
as you've already proposed,Senator, we would be dealing

(04:34):
with the most conservative Billanywhere in the country. So it's
hardly a revolutionary act if wedo move forward with this. But
just one last comment. I need togive Murphy's full bio she's
she's been a prosecutor. She'salso been a contract public
defender. She's currently acontract public defender in
Pawleys Island. But moreimportant to some of our

(04:56):
listeners, I'm sure she is achampion angler. So Don't say no
don't don't anybody say the wordflounder, please, she may fly
out of here. And she alsorecently competed in the world's
largest pickleball.
Championship. The US Open inNaples, Florida. So she's she's
a fanatic, no matter what thetopic. So I'm sure she'll bring

(05:17):
us a lot of good informationabout, I tried to get some law
enforcement individuals to joinus, but none of them were
willing. I'm not sure why Iasked the head of sled to come
state law enforcement, a statelaw enforcement division. Thank
you. Mark keel, and they didn'tget back to me. We had one

(05:39):
Sheriff lined up to come, but hedecided he didn't want to be a
part of it either. So I havesome comments to make about that
later on. But let's just goahead and get started with back
to the Senator to find out kindof where we are right now in
South Carolina. And what are theprimary reasons that this bill
keeps getting hung up?
Sure. Well, last year, I got thebill passed out of the Senate 28

(06:03):
to 15. So we had about half ofthe Republican caucus was in
favor of it, and about 75 to 80%of the Democratic caucus was in
favor of it. So a super majorityof SAT kind of Senators believe
it's time to empower doctors andgive doctors this tool to help
patients if in that doctor'sopinion, it can be therapeutic

(06:24):
to the patient. So I've beenmaking the case to my colleagues
in the Senate for the past eightyears, and have persuaded them
and brought many people who wereopposed to it on board. The
house hasn't had the benefit ofthat debate. They've taken the
position that they're not goingto take the bill up until the
Senate passes something. And itwasn't until last year that I
got the Senate to passsomething. Unfortunately, once

(06:46):
it got over to the house andmade its way to the House floor.
With three days to go. One ofthe opponents of medical
cannabis had put 1000 amendmentson the desk to run the clock
out. And there was also anargument made that the bill was
procedurally out of orderbecause the bill said that sales
of cannabis would be subject toa state sales tax to help pay

(07:07):
for the program. And there was apoint of order raised saying
this is a revenue raising billand the state constitution says
a revenue raising Bill has tooriginate in the House. And so
it got ruled out of order onprocedural grounds. So, but I do
think that the bill is poisednow to get out of the Senate and
over to the house and enoughtime for it to take up next

(07:27):
year. The reason that didn't gettaken up this year, it's quite
frankly, we got stuck behind theabortion debate. And that really
sucked all the oxygen out of theroom. Several weeks of floor
debate, so didn't have theopportunity to move it out of
the Senate this year. But I dothink it'd be one of the first
bills up in the Senate inJanuary when reconvene. I do
think it'd be passed out of theSenate relatively quickly

(07:50):
assigned to the house 3am.
Committee and I look forward togetting across the finish line
next year.
Well, let me ask you somethingwhen what is the justification
for states passing laws when thefederal government still
classifies cannabis as a as aschedule one drug along with
heroin and LSD?
Yeah, cannabis is, if you knowyour history, I'm sure you do.

(08:13):
The Controlled Substances Actwas passed back in 1971, when
President Nixon was waging waron the hippies that were out
there in the National Mall, andit was determined this is one
way to get out them, which wasto make marijuana a schedule one
drug, as you say, up there withheroin and other drugs. And the
very definition of a scheduleone drug is that it doesn't have

(08:35):
any medical efficacy. I mean,that's a definitional phrase.
And we know conclusively now,because we've had 39 states that
have legalized medical cannabis.
We know conclusively that it istherapeutic medicinally. We have
peer reviewed studies, notanecdotal. We have the National
Academy of Sciences, thepreeminent scientific journal,
and in America saying there'sconclusive proof that cannabis

(08:56):
can be therapeutic in areaswhere conventional
pharmaceuticals cannotparticularly in regard to
neurological disorders or painmanagement, things of that
nature. But the reason that thatstates have been able to operate
in this space, is that theControlled Substances that
typically speaks to federalaction and federal laws and what
can be done on a federal basis,and there has been case law

(09:19):
throughout the country thatstates that prerogatives in
regard to public health remainwith the state that that under
our Federalist system ofgovernment, things that touch
upon the health and safety andwelfare of individuals are still
things reserved under thestate's primarily through the
10th amendment. And so that'swhy so many federal courts have

(09:39):
held that the ControlledSubstances Act while it does
schedule marijuana as a scheduleone drug at a federal level, did
not preempt the field did notsupply at the state's ability to
pass laws it believed were inthe best interest of its
citizens. So that's why youhaven't had any of these medical
cannabis laws struck down asbeing violative of the law.
Federal law because there isspace for states to act.

(10:02):
When I'm told that, thatPresident Biden is going to
reissue the Cole Memo, is thatcorrect? the Cole Memo basically
says the federal governmentwon't mess with you if you're
doing legal things in your ownstate, more or less, as Eric
said,Yeah, I mean, that was back when
President Obama Attorney Generalissued the so called coal
memorandum which was a directiveby the Attorney General, to all

(10:24):
the US attorneys throughout thecountry, saying You shall not
enforce the ControlledSubstances Act or this federal
law against any state that haslegalized cannabis for medical
purposes. But as a practicalmatter, the Congress does that
every year anyway, in the budgetevery year on the budget,

(10:44):
Congress adopts a proviso thatsays none of the money that's
appropriated to the Departmentof Justice can be used by the
Department of Justice, tochallenge states that have
legalized cannabis for medicalpurposes. So you've already got
a federal law because theproviso in the budget has the
force of law, you've got afederal law that essentially
supplants the ControlledSubstances Act even and to the

(11:05):
extent that it had somerestrictions on state action.
And so, you know, it's acrossthe board, you have the federal
government, greenlighting this.
You've got the Department ofTreasury issuing guidance to
banks, you have the InternalRevenue Service giving guidance
to medical cannabisestablishments on how to follow
their federal taxes. You've gotthe proviso and the

(11:26):
congressional budget every yearsaying no money appropriated,
the DOJ can be used to challengestate law. So you've got green
lights coming from the federalgovernment. So that really, that
whole concern about theSupremacy Clause and federal law
supplanting the state's right toact, you know, doesn't hold
water?
Well, in that same vein, I had alittle information from someone

(11:49):
I can't say who that PresidentBiden was also planning to move
forward declassifying marijuanaas a class one, two, possibly a
class three. Does anyone hereknow anything about that? Gary,
I see you nodding a lot. No.
Have you heard anything alongthose lines?
You know, there's a lot ofactivity up at the federal level

(12:10):
and a consensus among bothRepublicans and Democrats in DC
that the federal governmentought to act in this space. I
mean, it's cognitive dissonancehere, where you've got a
Controlled Substances Act thatsays one thing about cannabis,
and you've got 39 states thathave legalized it for medical
purposes, I mean, Congress oughtto go ahead and rectify that
problem. The thing of it is,although a majority of

(12:31):
legislators on both sides of theaisle up there want to do that,
it runs into a problem, becausewhenever a bill like that comes
up talking about the BankingAct, or talking about states
right to act, you have Democratsthat want to go further, they
see this as an opportunity toreally do something in this
space. And so they end up askingfor more things than their

(12:52):
Republican colleagues willallow. And so that ends up you
know, the bill crashes on therocks because of that. So, but I
understand, you know, if I'm aDemocrat, and there's a bill
coming along, and it's germaneto offer these things,
recreational use and things thatthey want to champion, I can see
the temptation to go ahead andtry to use that vehicle to push
the envelope. I wish, what theywould do is simply set up for

(13:15):
what there's a consensus on now,I think that would rectify a lot
of problems, it would it wouldrecord to rectify that cognitive
dissonance that I've talkedabout, and it would lay the
foundation for helping outmillions of patients. And so I
remain hopeful, Kathleen, butalso understand the politics up
there. And every time a billcomes to the floor with
Republican support, you've gotthose like Cory Booker, and

(13:37):
those on the other side that seethat as a vehicle to take things
further, and it ends up goingnowhere.
Well, Gary, seems to me one ofthe best arguments for the
federal government. Getting outof the declassifying marijuana
is that it would then open upall kinds of research that
hasn't been able to go forward.
You can't go to the NIH and getfunding for your research. If
the federal government says no,that's, that's a, you know, an

(13:59):
illegal drug in the highestsense of the word. So what how
have you managed to I mean, youyou've referred to some studies
that that, that you alsoSenator, studies that have shown
the efficacy of these varioustreatments using medical
marijuana, but what whatresearch, what would, how do you
see research going forward ifthe Fed step out? I mean, what

(14:21):
is missing? In other words, thatwould be most helpful to your,
your cause?
I think and, you know, researchis not my wheelhouse, but when
you look at the anecdotalevidence, and I speak from
personal experience in a numberof veterans who continue to use
this to not only benefitthemselves, but their families

(14:43):
and then also the seven out of10 Americans, you know, who
experienced trauma. The medicalefficacy of this plant just said
it absolutely cannot be denied.
Right, bringing balance. Youknow, for someone like myself
who dealt with traumatic braininjury, post traumatic stress,
it brought balance homeostaticbalance to my primal functions,
the eating, sleeping digestion,memory, emotional arousal, you

(15:04):
know, I was addicted topharmaceuticals for almost a
decade, just a plethora ofpharmaceuticals that were trying
to mitigate the symptoms orchronically suppress the
symptoms, to no avail. And, andthe truth is, is that I smoked
the joint and did everythingthat the medicines were supposed
to do, right I, I was forced tobecome a criminal to, to access

(15:27):
to holistic alternatives thatbrought balance to my system
that increased theparasympathetic activity reduced
the sympathetic activity of mynervous system, and actually
allowed my body to start restingand digesting. So, you know,
when we talk about research, andI hear research and, and
research bills that are broughtin the FDA clinical trials,
right, that that's a, that's avery difficult and flawed

(15:51):
process.
I think go online, and I did youknow, my, my son works, is a
lobbyist for cannabis out inCalifornia. And I was I
interviewed him yesterday whilehe was sitting in a hot tub, and
I thought there's somethingwrong with this picture. But he
said that, you know, that the,if you look up, for example,

(16:16):
does cannabis legalization leadto greater youth usage? You can
find whatever you want in theterms of research and results.
You know, one story says yes, itdoes lead to more teen use. No,
it doesn't. Yes, it does. No, itall right, straight down the
line, pages and pages and pages.
So it's very hard for people toknow exactly what is true and
what isn't, you know, what, howto how to voters, for example,

(16:39):
make a decision? How do theyfind the right kind of
information, there was an op edin The Washington Post a week or
so ago? By this? Dr. Leanna whenshe's somebody I respect she was
on TV a lot talking about COVID.
You recognize her if you saw herface, but she said, you know,
cannabis legalization is notsomething we should be

(17:00):
celebrating and went through anumber of reasons why it can be
dangerous for certain people,and obviously, it's a drug. And
you know, the comparison toalcohol and cigarette smoking,
etc, is kind of apples andoranges. I would say alcohol has

(17:21):
obviously killed a lot ofpeople. I don't know. They don't
have fingers on marijuana,because one of the issues with
law enforcement MFI is that youcan't really how do you test for
intoxication, for lack of abetter word, when someone just
driving has a wreck or whatever?
How do you find out if they'vegot marijuana in their blood?
Well, andit's also what's considered an

(17:41):
intrusive test at this time,because it would be a blood
sample or a urine sample. Andthat requires going to a
hospital facility and that isone of the push backs from law
enforcement. A normal DUI wouldmaybe take an hour and a half,
two hours. And when you startgetting into drug recognition,
experts that would need to becalled to the scene if they

(18:03):
didn't smell alcohol, but the aperson to appear to be impaired,
then they may call another lawenforcement agent and expert to
do their tasks, which thenthey're already stressed law
enforcement is already stressedunder staff, and they don't have
the resources they need. And tobe able to take someone to the

(18:24):
hospital sit with them get thesetests. There are some companies
who've developed breath testthat will determine someone's
consumption within two to threehours of the test. But
otherwise, the test can showsomeone they aren't accurate for
the person's level of impairmentat the time they were driving,

(18:45):
because a chronic user couldtest higher than an occasional
user. So the high level of THCin a person's blood is not
necessarily indicative that theywere impaired at the time they
were dropped. So it's still intheir bloodstream for a good
while. And it can be 90 days inyour hair. It can be 90 days in
your blood or urine it can be 30days.

(19:09):
Yeah. Well in regulationsconcerning you know, marijuana
use and how you do it like somein California, it's a big
hodgepodge right you can theydon't have legalization across
the state. He says you could optin or out and 60% I think of the
counties in California, chosenot to have legal cannabis in

(19:29):
their jurisdictions. So whathappens then, when you don't
have across the board legal as,for example, New Mexico does is
that you and you empower theblack market. So the black
market and California is is Ithink, two to one 4 billion 8
billion black market to 4billion legal

(19:53):
across across the country. Youhave cannabis as $100 billion
industry and only 25 billion ofthat is regulated Right 75
billion is the black market.
Well, we just had conversationswith the Republican caucus about
that a few weeks ago in DC, andit's, it's creating a lot of
security issues for thiscountry, China's getting
involved in the black market,they are very, they're very deep

(20:15):
in the black market. And so thebest thing this country can do
is to open access to the patientcommunity can can allow access
to safe banking, just like everyother business and then regulate
an industry that is just anincredible demand because of
patient community that isscreaming for other options
outside of the western model.

(20:38):
Right, this these are facts thisis true, this is this is an
issue that is that is going toaffect our country is affecting
our country a lot deeper thanpeople realize, especially from
a national security standpoint.
So what is going on in SouthCarolina, for example, if people
can't go and get medicalmarijuana, so what are they
doing? They're shopping theblack market?

(20:59):
Absolutely, absolutely. And theproblem with that is just like
your delta eight and and your,your your other hemp derived and
you know, and toxic kids thatare now being sold at a at a
cheaper rate. But there's,there's zero regulation, there's
zero chain of custody, rightwith a medical cannabis program,
you have a chain of custody andaccountability from seed to sale

(21:20):
from the time it is planted inthe soil to the time that the
consumer consumes pulls it fromthe shelf there's there's
there's a legitimate chain ofcustody and in a scan or a
barcode UPC symbol that thatthat can tell you exactly what
it is in it, and especially whatis not in it, right testing for
the pesticides and the otherharmful chemicals that, you

(21:42):
know, we noticed in a vapecrisis. Yes, is well,
the taxes are so high, forexample, in cattle, I just
happen to know a little bitabout California because of my
my conversations with with John,excuse me, but you know, the
taxes out there are so high thatthere's still motivation to go
to the black market. You know,you can spend $70 On the same

(22:04):
amount of marijuana and adispensary for the same amount
you can get it for 40 bucks onthe street. Yes,
one of the one of thefrustrating things for me, is
that those who oppose thelegalization of medical cannabis
to the regulated program thatGary's talking about, do not

(22:28):
consider what the consequencesof failing to do that are in and
one of the consequences is,physicians will continue to
prescribe opioids for somethingthat cannabis can be
efficacious, which is much lessintrusive, much more
efficacious, much less damagingto a person much less addictive,

(22:49):
much less addictive. And we havean opioid crisis, right. And so
we're always sort of wringingour hands up in Colombia,
wondering what can we do aboutthis, this opioid crisis? And
well, one of the things that wecan do is empower physicians to
provide a less intrusive, moreefficacious alternative than
opioids, which is what cannabiswould be. So I want to make that
one point. The second thing isbecause cannabis is the only

(23:15):
thing that can provide relief,in certain circumstances,
whether it's PTSD, neurologicaldisorders, people are gonna get
it any way that they can. And ifthey can't get it in a regulated
safe way, they're gonna get itin an unregulated, unsafe way.
Right. And that's why you findinstances where people are dying
because what they buy on thestreet is laced with fentanyl

(23:37):
are laced with something else. Imean, so you know, for those
reasons alone, and thefrustrating thing that that, to
me, Kathleen is those who opposethe legalization of medical
cannabis under a very regulatedprogram, don't have an answer on
how to address those othersocietal ills that I've just
identified. And so aside fromthe fact that this bill,

(23:58):
empowers doctors, doctors, isthe gatekeeper on whether or not
somebody has a qualifyingcondition. pharmacists have to
dispense it right. So we haveprofessionals at the front end
with authorization, and on theback end in terms of dispensing
an extremely conservative bill,and they still oppose it. And as
I was sharing with MFI earlier,if law enforcement doesn't get

(24:19):
on board and work with me onthis socially conservative bill,
that will help patients in a waythat's driven by doctors and
pharmacists, demographics aregoing to take control at some
point. And we're gonna end upwith something in South Carolina
that is much more permissive andsomething that quite frankly, I
don't support. And so I mean,demographics every year is
changing on this issue in termsof people's views of marijuana.

(24:42):
And so the window of opportunityto come up with something very
conservative, very regulated,very controlled. That's closing
rapidly. And so there is aconsequence to doing nothing, I
guess, will be my overall point.
Yeah, that'sa very good point. And it seems
to me and I, I remember whenPresident Nixon made You know,
started his little campaignagainst the pot smokers which
really was about 100% of thestudents where I attended

(25:05):
college in 1971. That wasFlorida State University, the
Berkeley of the South.
Any impose that ban against theadvice of the American Medical
Association against the adviceof medical professionals back in
1971 said don't do this. This issomething that has been used
historically, in a way thathelps patients and nonetheless
he did it not for medicalreasons, but for political and

(25:27):
societal reasons. He wanted tostick it to the people that were
picketing outside of the mall.
But I want to get to the potthat we that some people smoked
back then where was prettysimple by comparison to what's
available today. So when you'retalking about regulating merit
medical cannabis, I know we'resupposed to use the word
cannabis and not pot notmarijuana. But

(25:48):
is there also an advantage?
Yeah.
But as you know, it's not Idon't think we're you know,
getting Acapulco gold andputting it in a shoebox lids
anymore. To get the sun seedsout. We're smoking or consuming.
I should say there'shistorically a degree of
familiarity you have with theterminal.
Like I said, it was everywhere.
It was everywhere. It waseverywhere. I mean, you couldn't

(26:13):
you know, people werecomplaining. Now you walk down
the street in New York City, youcould smell marijuana smoke, I
thought, really? I mean, whenyou walk anywhere on my campus,
it was it was crazy. Well,that's crazy times 1971. Come
on. So where was I? You say thememory is? I think it has to do
with age, though not my formerexposures. But what about the

(26:34):
types of cannabis that we'retalking about? And is it it? Is
it regulation the answer tomaking sure we don't give people
you don't know always whatyou're getting? Right.
And that's one of the aspects ofthis bill that I would also
point to Kathleen, I mean, itrequires that cannabis not only
be tested for safety and theabsence of adulterants, like

(26:55):
Gary says, but also requires itto be labeled in terms of the
ratio of CBD to THC. So thatwhen you're at the
pharmaceutical level, and you'rebeing dispensed the product by a
pharmacist, you can custom fitit to what your particular needs
are. And I think it'd be helpfulfor people to understand why is
cannabis efficacious for some ofthese medical conditions and

(27:17):
it's because your entire body ismade up of an endocannabinoid
system, there are cannabinoidsthroughout your body. I
have a PhD in pi, right? Wellafter eight years,
but what I'm saying is a lot ofthese these these things that
pharmaceuticals are used toaddress symptoms, cannabis gets
to the underlying imbalance inthe body after the

(27:37):
endocannabinoid system that ismessed up. So it gets to the
root cause, which is why it'sefficacious. And so I think
people need to understand thatthat your body is has got an
endocannabinoid system. And thenif it's out of balance, it
manifests it with Parkinson's orcerebral palsy, or any number of
conditions, chronic pain. Andthe way the reason cannabis

(27:59):
works with PTSD, like Gary cantalk about is that it addresses
that underlying disconnect inyour endocannabinoid system and
gets to the root of the problem,whereas pharmaceuticals
typically treat symptoms. Okay,so and that's an essential
difference here. And since sinceyou've had 39 states that have
legalized medical cannabis, wehave decades of experience with

(28:20):
this. Now we have peer reviewedstudies, we have medical
scientists, you know, it's notanecdotal or narrative anymore.
It's fact it's medical fact,which is why it's not fought any
longer by law enforcement oranybody else on the grounds that
it's not medically efficacious.
They've conceded that point thatship has sailed.
Well, I know you're not reallyin favor of recreational use,

(28:41):
but a lot of people are and evenif they, you know, I think the
next step would be that peoplewill be allowed to use cannabis
or however they want to, I mean,we're adults, everybody needs to
be chilled. And leave us alone.
Yeah. Andthat's typically where I come
from, to Kathleen and Amanda,when I was at Furman. You know,
one of the most influentialthings ever read with John
Stuart Mill's book on libertyand the premise there was, mill

(29:04):
said, I'll paraphrase my freedomto swing my arm ends where your
nose begins, so that if I dosomething that affects only
myself, government doesn't haveany legitimate reason to
regulate me. But if I impact andharm somebody else, okay, that's
a legitimate pretext forgovernment action. And so that's
where I am philosophically Thereason I'm not for recreational

(29:25):
use, is because when I beganthis journey, eight years ago, I
made a commitment to mycolleagues and I said, I am
going to come up with a bill.
That is reflective of what Ithink most South Carolinians
will want. And what most SouthCarolinians want. And what poll
after poll shows is that theywant to empower doctors, they
want to help patients that canbenefit but they don't want

(29:47):
recreational use. That's justwhere South Carolinians are
right now. So I feel anobligation to my colleagues to
deliver some legislative workproduct that's consistent with
what I told them I was doingeight years ago.
I'm not against recreational usebecause As of the safety and the
efficacy of the plant but thethe recreational trends that

(30:14):
this nation is chasing right nowwith a high THC counts and a
lack of diversity and the minorcannabinoids in the other
phytochemicals that really makethe medical benefit of this
plant that is being overshadowedby the recreational push and so
we're chasing these high THCvape products, which lead to
anxiety and depression when weshould have access to full plant

(30:36):
products with diversephytochemicals, diversity and
the minor cannabinoids, not justthe THC and the CBD. So I'm not
against the recreational use,right? I would much rather use a
medical cannabis product or acannabis product because of the
health benefits rather thandrink alcohol, right? The second
nature to go grab a glass ofwine or a beer and have 356

(30:58):
Every evening, this is acceptedwithin our culture, but sit down
and take a few polls from, youknow, a a pre roll or
a correct term. Now Iunderstand. I stayed at a bed
and breakfast in California andthey offered pre rolls to the
table. You know, we had this bigfarm table. And I was quickly

(31:22):
instructed that pre roll is nowwhat we used to call a joint.
And I heard this fella down atthe other end of the table go
say this is the best practiceI've ever been to. And that was
under the program thatCalifornia allows you can have
six female plants or 12 in thecase of a couple, and you can

(31:43):
share but you can't sell. So hewas sharing his pre roll. Yeah,
take a do still take toks Howdoes that work? I'm so old now.
I don't even know what thevocabulary is. But I am why No,
I'll admit it.
And when you say pre roll rightwhen the stigmas are just there
so institutional, they're soingrained THC smoke is bad oil.

(32:07):
CBD is good. Right. So that isthe general consensus when you
talk about cannabis, unlessyou're talking to a community
that has experienced with it.
And so the simple and veryinteresting fact with for
someone like myself, who doeshave asthma from the chronic
stress from the combat stress,yeah, so cannabis, cannabis
smoke will actually end anasthma attack and under two
minutes, smoke it absolutely.

(32:32):
Will. And right. So that's wherethe education the empowerment
and then is for those who areagainst it, let's sit in a room
for a good 30 minutes to an hourand, and address the facts that
are associated with the use ofthis this plant, right. It's
it's not a gateway drug.
childhood sexual trauma is agateway drug. Domestic abuse is
a gateway drug, pharmaceuticaldependency is a gateway drug,

(32:54):
those form of pharmaceuticalsthat are pushed on us by the
medical providers, because thatis the only answer they have
right now. Just like SenatorDavis was saying, we need the
medical community to step in,right and start providing
access. When we look athow much opposition is there
coming from the pharmaceuticalcompanies? Because I was

(33:14):
thinking, you know, the obviousresearch prior to survey or the
research study would be to putpeople who've been on opioids on
on cannabis instead and see, youknow,
when that's been done, I mean,that's been done in double blind
peer reviewed tests. And we cansee, you know, multiple states,

(33:37):
there is a direct correlationbetween the availability of
cannabis to address some ofthese conditions, and the number
of opioid prescriptions and thenumber of opioid deaths and the
number of people who takeopioids a direct one to one
comparison. So we know we're notspeculating here. We know as a
matter of fact that if you wantto decrease the number of
opioids being used, or you wantto eliminate or reduce opioid

(33:59):
deaths, medical cannabis, that'sa way to do that, because it
gives physicians another tool intheir toolbox to address a
problem that opioids aren'tnecessary.
Right? Well, as someone in thetrenches with clients who've
suffered opioid addiction, a lotof them veterans, some of them,
you know, high ranking careers,and they had some injury and got

(34:22):
hooked on the opioids. Well,they can't enter our traditional
drug court programs, becausethey're using cannabis so that
they aren't on the opioids.
So they gotta be tested. So thateliminates I see.
Exactly and it's it's they'renot committing the crimes they
were when they were addicted tothe opioids they feel better.

(34:45):
They're not in the emergencyroom all the time, zapping those
resources trying to get moreopioids. They're in chronic pain
and the only thing that canalleviate that is cannabis. And
yet they can't do that legally.
They can't be on probation andeven not in one of these drug
court programs where they can'tbe on probation and test
positive for cannabis, which,again, keeps them working, keeps

(35:08):
them from committing othercrimes. And a physician. I mean,
a lot of their physicians havesaid, Just do it is worth the
risk. But it's really not. Imean, you know, from my
perspective, no, it's not, butfrom the physician's perspective
of look, you know, your liverwas failing, this was happening

(35:29):
as a result of your opioidaddiction. And now look where
you are.
Let me say this one thing aboutthat what my peaches said, I
mean, we went through COVID. Andand a lot of the upstate
senators that are in oppositionto medical cannabis, they were
the first ones saying that, whatis the CDC doing, telling

(35:51):
physicians, they can't prescribeivermectin to individuals if
that physician believesivermectin is something that's
going to help them? I mean, sothey were all for that they were
all for empowering doctors areall for medical freedom. They
were all for getting governmentout of the way at the physician
patient relationship. But whydon't you flip it around? And
you say, Well, what if aphysician believes that somebody
with Parkinson's can benefitfrom cannabis and can address

(36:15):
that neurological disorder?
Don't you agree that 170politicians and Columbia ought
not stand in the way of what adoctor thinks of the best
interest of that patient just inthe same way as you make the
argument that the CDC ought notstand in the way of what a
physician believes is in thebest interest of somebody with
COVID? And they really have noresponse to that. And because
there isn't one,but these are the same people

(36:36):
who want to decide whenconception occurs.
See, now I knew we were gonnahave abortion before. We weren't
gonna talk about zygotes. Right,that stuff. Inherent cost?
Well, it's just a certainmindset, isn't it? It is,
well, law enforcement is stillwhether it's medical or

(36:56):
recreational, obviouslyrecreational will create a
heightened issue with this, butlaw enforcement, a lot of their
arguments, as I talked to themabout this issue is we're
sitting around waiting for thenext case. Everything from Kate,
the canines, how I mean, what avital tool for law enforcement,
whether it's the border, theairports, court security, and

(37:19):
whatnot, to know, be able todetect drugs. And now what's
going to happen to that thatwill absolutely tarnish the
credibility of these animals whoare alerting on cannabis, when
it's a passenger who can smokelegally if it were legal in the
car and the drivers not smoking?
That is also a loss of a searchtool.

(37:43):
Well, another wrinkle is a lotof searches are or can if you
pull somebody over, and yousmell marijuana in the car, they
can use that as an excuse tosearch the car. Right? Correct.
So if marijuana is legal, nomore searching that tool.
But the point of that Kathleenis this bill specifically says

(38:04):
you can't burn flower. Okay, youcan't smoke flower, you can't.
Okay, so that's the thing thattypically gives gives the aroma.
Okay, you can't do that underthis bill, because law
enforcement when I went to themand said, What's the one thing
you hate most about this bill?
And they said, Well, if the factthat you allow some form of
consumption, burning a flower,we don't like that. So I took
that out. I mean, oils, you haveto vape it through oils, or even

(38:26):
topically or as a tincture.
Flour. What are we saying here?
It's the it's, well, it's theit's the not the leaf, but it's
the it's the thing that's in thejoint that you fire up, you
can't you can't combust it, youcan't you can't burn it. And
under this bill, because theydidn't want smoking, law
enforcement didn't want smoking.
And also you can't smoke it orvape it or do anything in a car

(38:49):
either. So if you come up on acar and you smell marijuana,
that is still a legitimatereason for them to go in. Under
this particular bill, ya know,and again, because this bill,
rightly or wrongly, I tried toget consensus over seven, eight
years by getting everybody atthe table, law enforcement,
doctors, pharmaceuticalcompanies, you know, moms for
action, what I tried toeverybody and get all those Venn

(39:11):
diagram circles lined up andfigure out where the overlap
was. And so that's why it becamea very conservative bill that
quite frankly, a lot of thegrassroots activists don't
support this bill anymore,because it is so tightly
regulated, it is such a medicalonly kind of a bill. And my
point, again, is if they don'tcome to the table now and set

(39:32):
these parameters, they're goingto end up with a bill that has
none of these safeguards in itand a lot of the things that
they worry about are going tocome to pass because they didn't
go ahead and work with me oncoming up with something that
empowered doctors, but drew abright line against recreational
scuze me but so if someone's ona car trip, and they need to

(39:52):
vape every two hours and it's afive hour car trip, they they
are not going to be able to meettheir medical needs.
You cannot vape in a car. Andthat was because because I was
trying to be sympathetic to whatlaw enforcement challenges where
can you pull off to a rest stopand venga pull off to a rest
stop, but you cannot be in thevehicle itself. And again, I was

(40:14):
sympathetic to the point thatyou made earlier, quite rightly
mafia is that unlike withalcohol, there aren't tests
right now on the market that areas reliable to measuring, you
know, the blood alcohol contentyou do with that. But you don't
have the same thing withcannabis, because cannabis stays
in your system, the fatty tissuein your body for a longer time.
And so what you're essentiallyreduced to, and trying to make

(40:37):
sure somebody isn't drivingunder the influence of cannabis,
or these field sobriety testsand making them come out there
and test their motor movementsand things of that nature. But
I'm willing to sit down, andI've offered with law
enforcement saying, Look, Irecognize this enforcement
problem that you're having.
Let's figure out how to get youto a point where you feel like
you can empower your yourofficers out there to keep the
roads safe. And we've come upwith a lot of things that I

(40:59):
think get them there. And I'mwilling to do more, because
technology is developing all thetime. To your point. There is a
test now where you can test. Butbut I'm sympathetic to their
argument and want to solve thatproblem for them.
MFI, and there's a notherargument for legalization, which

(41:19):
is has to do with socialjustice, that it's statistically
true that people of color aremore often arrested and
incarcerated for marijuana use.
And a lot of the people thatI've talked to out in
California, for example, arehighly motivated by that idea.
In Charleston, as you're sixtimes more likely to get

(41:43):
arrested for cannabis if you'rea person of color right now. So
how much of a factor is thatidea here? Or in your
experience? Gary, anything thereto add?
I agree we see the same thingdown here in southern Louisiana.

(42:04):
It's, you know, it's obviously amuch higher rate. Yeah,
well, it goes to sorry, the Iobviously see that in my
practice. And it goes back toagain, some of these folks are
meeting their medical needs. AndI discuss with Senator Davis

(42:27):
that, um, for the recreationaluse, I mean, that we're just
kicking that can down the roadfor a while when an adult should
be able to make a decision asthey can with alcohol or
something like that, as well.
And we have to figure out how tohave the safety measures, just
like we did with alcohol anddriving and how what we could do
to keep the road safe.

(42:48):
But one thing I think people whosmoke pot are not highly
motivated to get in the car andgo do something else.
But the collateral effects of adrug conviction or a schedule
one are significant. It if itcan affect it's a schedule one,
and it can have significantramifications from loan
applications depend on, youknow, if they did the Walmart

(43:12):
theory and bought in bulk andhad over an ounce, and they end
up with felonies as a result oftrying to meet their needs
medically or psychologically,like the person who comes home
and has a cocktail, but thisperson doesn't want to drink
they would rather smokecannabis. And so the collateral
effects of this are cripplingour prison systems, our local

(43:33):
jail systems for someonegetting, you know, busted with a
marijuana joint, even if they'renot in a car. If they're out at
some concert, and they've got iton them, they miss work or they
get fired from their job, thenthey aren't taking care of their
children. And the collateralripple effects have got to be
addressed. All of these areelephants in the room.

(43:56):
Gary, you were looking like hewanted to say something. I can't
remember where we were, but Isaw you lean forward. Talking
about people who smoke pot don'tor aren't really motivated to
know that. That's right. And Ijust want to I want to chime in
because that's that's amisconception, right? Because,
well, things have changed I'msure. The stigmas, right

(44:18):
the Stoner. The truth is is iswhen I ran out of options, I use
cannabis as a performanceenhancer cannabis was the only
thing that got me out of myhouse and into a vehicle and
allowed me to integrate myselfback into a functional society.
So I was I was making jokes Iknow, but you never know who's
listening. So I just I'm gladyou

(44:39):
clarified this point that it maybe a bit counterintuitive,
Kathleen, but but in states thathave legalized cannabis for
medical purposes, you'veactually seen the number of
driver impaired accidents godown, driver impaired deaths go
down. And that's primarilybecause alcohol and marijuana
are substitute good words. Andif somebody is taking marijuana,

(45:03):
they are statistically lesslikely to be consuming alcohol.
And it's just empirically true.
And and the the departmenttransportation has done studies
on this, that somebody's behindthe wheel and I'm not advocating
somebody getting behind thewheel high on marijuana, but
they are not as reckless assomebody who is behind the wheel
drinking alcohol. It just has adifferent effect on your body,

(45:23):
which is why there is this thissynthetically significant
difference why you see trafficdeaths and traffic accidents go
down in states where cannabis islegalized, because they are
substitute goods. And it is abit counterintuitive, because
you kind of think, well, if wemake marijuana legal, that's
going to increase the number ofimpaired driving incidents. It's
not the true it's not true. It'sthe absolute opposite.

(45:49):
I think that's a that's aninteresting point. If you look
at a very simple metric calledthe heart rate variability, look
at the HRV level when youconsume alcohol versus cannabis.
Right. Cannabis, I mean, whenyou when you consume alcohol,
your heart rate variabilityvariability, which is the
measure of your autonomicnervous system, it goes down
significantly, right? The brainand body continue to disconnect.

(46:12):
Well, when you consume cannabis,your HRV actually increases
because it it reduces thechronic stress, it promotes
homeostatic balance within ourbodies, and it increases your
your heart rate variabilitylevels, and that is a
significant measure of healthand well being. And so A plus B
equals C, just like SenatorDavis was saying, right? It's

(46:33):
reduction of alcohol reductionof track traffic incidents is
very it's similar to thereduction in the opioid
prescriptions. Right? If youlook at the indirect
implications of legalization ofmedical cannabis, or
recreational cannabis, theanswers don't I mean, the
answers are just they're hard todeny we're having to come up
with ways to prevent this frombeing legalized in the States,

(46:57):
similar to what what happenedlast year, Senator Davis with a
procedural, you know, at the endthat pulled it off the table.
And so that's where we are. Yes.
76% of South Carolinians supportmedical cannabis. That's a
That's a big number. And that'sthat number, I think is even
higher than that across theunited the United States, right,

(47:18):
it's just time to start havingreal conversations and get rid
of and get out of these outdatedinstitutional policies that are
driving our health care, and theworld we live in today?
Well, I don't think anyone wouldwant to deny a veteran, whatever
help cannabis would provide andhealing from what they've
already been through. And you'dbe

(47:38):
wrong about that. There are lotsof legislators who would like to
deny it? Well,I don't understand. I can't even
conceive of that. One, I wonderhow many of them served an
active duty,I have a significant number of
clients on Suboxone ormethadone, which is basically
synthetic heroin. And I say thatbecause there's not anything on

(48:00):
their bottles that say Usecaution when operating
machinery. But they're giventhat to keep them off the
streets and off the heroin. It'snot illegal to drink and drive
in South Carolina, is illegal todrink to the point where you're
impaired and cannot operate adangerous piece of machinery

(48:22):
responsibly and with the samecare as as someone who hasn't
partaking. And at some point,they determined it was oh,
eight, I think that was underMark Sanford. There has to be a
way that even people who aremeeting their needs with medical
marijuana, that they can meettheir needs and operate a motor

(48:43):
vehicle, people are operating itwith Suboxone, they're meeting
those needs. And we need tofigure out, we're sending stuff
to Mars, we can do this buteverybody continuing to put
their efforts to but somethingthat benefits Americans is
preventing us from trying toexplore how we can know what an

(49:05):
appropriate level is for someonewho is under medical supervision
for something they need but yetthey want to go see their mom
five hours away or whatever.
What is the safe level as youjust said that statistically,
the accidents have actuallydeclined.

(49:26):
If we talk about safe levelsthat's that's just as it's gonna
be. It's a difficult situation.
The truth is, is that thenumbers have not been they don't
go up when it's legalized thenumbers in regards to traffic
incidents go down. And whenyou're talking about someone
like myself for a long period oftime use cannabis on a on a
daily basis, right the densityof my receptors changed

(49:47):
therefore, my point oh eight isgoing to be very different than
somebody else's point away,right because of the density and
those receptors change and so Iam not intoxicated, but yes, it
will take me More of thecannabis to to produce the the
desired effect. So right nowwe're testing for metabolites in
the system. And in there they'retrying to come to market with,

(50:11):
with devices that test forimpairment but there's just
there's a lot of headway thatreally needs to be made and
understanding how that fatsoluble plant or medicine
interacts the thepharmacokinetics within within
our own bodies before we canstart implementing these
policies.

(50:34):
So what about this? What's thelikelihood of Governor McMaster
creating a commission oncannabis to decide kind of
create a policy going forward toanticipate the demographic
future you've described? Butalso put those people back down
at the table? And let's solvethis issue once and for all?
Well, I think I know that he isa famous drug buster.

(50:57):
He cut his teeth on Operationloss trust a jackpot back in the
day right gentlemen smugglersYeah, that's right. I remember
that. Back. When I was atFurman, I had a roommate that
his father was a part of thatwhole thing. But it's the
largest pot bust in US historyat that point. Yeah.
But Governor McMaster I thinkpretty much showed his hand
during the gubernatorial debateswith Joe Cunningham, when Joe

(51:20):
was arguing in favor ofrecreational and medical
legalization. And when you know,the time came for governor,
McMaster to respond, he talkedabout how he was against
recreational. But he concededthat the case had been made in
regard to the medical efficacyand that he could see the
argument behind empoweringdoctors prescribing or

(51:42):
authorizing use of cannabis forconditions for which there's
empirical proof that can beefficacious. So I think Governor
McMaster has already signaled hewill sign this bill. And and I
think that's a completeevolution for him over the
years, because as you said,Kathleen, he started out as a US
attorney, you know, prosecuting,you know, drug enforcement
cases, much in the same way thatChief Kiel, you know, came up of

(52:06):
age during that time as anarcotics agent, and he's got
these experiences that haveinformed how he views this
issue. But But Governor McMasterI think has shown a remarkable
ability to listen to facts andto challenge and change long
held convictions. And I thinkhe's be commended for that.
So the consensus that this rightnow is that you think this bill
will go through in January andpass the Senate to pass the

(52:30):
House or?
Well, you know, that I wouldlike to think so Kathleen, we
had the votes. And I think Garywas following the vote count and
the house a lot more closer thanI was because I was over there
working in the Senate. But therewere the votes to pass this bill
in the House last year. And theonly way they could derail it
was a by putting 1000 amendmentson the desk and running the
clock out or be challenging itby saying this is a revenue

(52:54):
raising bill, which it clearlywasn't a revenue raising bill
for the general fund. But theywent ahead and hung their hat on
that procedural ruling. But ifit gets to a vote a mouse, there
are the votes to pass this.
I think some people listeningmight say that this has been to
pro cannabis, then you'veobviously got the you know, the
legal the legislation on thetable. Murphy has seen the way

(53:17):
marijuana gets abused and usedin the in the penal system. And
in social justice issues, andGary has seen wants to see
veterans of course, get the helpthey need. So what is my feet?
Maybe you could play devil'sadvocate, what what is your best
argument against legalization?
If you were say, a sled agent?

(53:39):
Well, my conversations with lawenforcement is how the biggest
number one issue that continuesto come up is how are they going
to effectively enforce drivingwhile impaired? That's the
number one issue that they keeprepeatedly saying, How are we
going to live measure someone'slevel of impairment when they're

(54:03):
behind the wheel of what the lawconsiders a dangerous instrument
a vehicle. And I get that wedon't have that in place
nationwide. We don't have it.
There is a company that out ofCalifornia that has a device,
but it's not nationwide, it'sstill under testing. There's a
another company in a study outof UCLA trying to work on this
same issue. But we need to pushforward and law enforcement

(54:27):
should to me be saying, well,hey, why can't we develop this?
Why can't NASA scientists,instead of just saying up? Well,
because of that we aren't goingto move forward with it. I get
that, that that is an issue, butit it
sounds like it can be resolvedsomehow. Exactly.

(54:47):
And can I push back on that alittle bit? I mean, right now,
you can't drive in a vehicle ifyou're impaired by pills. You
can't drive a vehicle. I mean,those things they had the same
challenges and rig Are tomeasurement and truth of this
and blood samples just that theywere with cannabis. So I quite
frankly think that's adisingenuous argument. I want to

(55:09):
help them I want to besympathetic. But but right now
it's it's already against thelaw to drive impaired under
pills. And so is that a reasonfor banning pills,
somebody's waving around theroad, then you pull them over
you take them to jail. And youyou can say you can decline a
blood alcohol test.

(55:29):
The one argument that I wantargument that I hear that that
has the most salience up thereis Well, this was a federal law.
And you know, under theSupremacy Clause, federal laws
take precedent over state laws.
And I don't want to be passing astate law that's in
contravention of what Congresshas spoke to. But the response
to that I think, is fairlysimple, in that the Controlled

(55:51):
Substances Act itselfspecifically says this is not
meant to supplant the state'sright to go ahead and pass laws
they think are in the bestinterest of their citizens. And
second to that you've gotCongress every year in the
budget proviso saying, you canenforce CSA against states that
have legalized medical cannabis.

(56:12):
So so this whole Federalistargument about the Supremacy
Clause doesn't hold watereither. And, and, you know, I
think there's a reason and it'stelling that you don't have law
enforcement here to answerquestions, because quite
frankly, Kathleen, every timethey prop something up, and you
knock it down, they scramblearound to try to find something
else. And they flat run out ofarguments. I mean, they used to

(56:33):
walk around the Statehouse withbuttons that said, marijuana is
not medicine, until the NationalAcademy of Sciences said we have
so many peer reviewed studiesthat show that it is medicine,
they stop wearing those buttons,they just don't have the
arguments anymore, which istelling that's why they're not
here.
Right? I agree. Generally, whenpeople don't show up and don't
want to talk about an issue,it's because they don't really

(56:53):
have anything to say that'sgoing to serve their purpose. So
anyway, I want to thank you all.
Anything else? Gary, you startedto say I'm sorry? Yeah,
I think right? Because that's anargument that comes up in every
state, every status is how do wecontrol impaired driving? I'd
say the first place to startlet's start in South Carolina.
Can you prove that it is aproblem? Right? Because this is
the argument that just createsthe what if and creates the

(57:16):
fear? But can we prove thatdriving under the influence of
cannabis is a significantproblem in South Carolina,
right, start right there. Andthen if we identify it, they you
know, supported by crediblefacts, then let's start having a
conversation but to preventaccess, from a healthcare

(57:37):
standpoint, for those who are indire need, especially children
with epilepsy, because we can'tcontrol someone driving under
the influence of cannabis. Provethat as a problem first, and
then let's sit at the tabledon't hold up access to those in
need,right? Well, there is this one
study out of Denmark, and Idon't know if you're familiar
with it, but that shows thatlike a third of these young

(57:58):
males, primarily, withschizophrenia, also have serious
what they call marijuana usedisorder. So what do we say to
things like that? I mean, that'sa study?
Well, it's because in SouthCarolina in this bill, I'll
speak to that Kathleen, that adoctor has to authorize it. And

(58:20):
a doctor can authorize it unlessthere is a thorough due
diligence to see whether or notsomebody has a disposition
towards schizophrenia ordisposition toward toward
negative mental healthconsequences. And if that's the
case, they can't authorize it touse. Okay, so So it's true, I
mean, any drug can be abused.
And to your point earlier,marijuana is a drug, it can be
abused, I'm not going to saythat it can ever be abused, I

(58:41):
can't, I'm not going to say thatit can enhance and make it
somebody who's schizophrenic,even more dangerous to
themselves. But that's why inthis bill, and I bring it back
to this bill, we have a verythorough due diligence process
on the front end, where a doctorhas to go through a patient's
medical history, including, youknow, disposition toward mental
illness, before there can be anauthorization. So I can only

(59:01):
speak to what this bill tries toaddress. I've listened for eight
years to every argument thatthey put up and that I've sat
down in good faith and draftedlanguage to address it. There is
nothing in this bill that theycan put forward as an objection,
or I can't point to it and say,I heard you, we addressed it.
Next.

(59:23):
Gary, what's the best bill outthere for cannabis? Use for
medical purposes?
The one that gets passed? Allright. Yeah, you have to start
somewhere, right? And then gainthe trust and improve that as a
credible program and, and allowthe patient's voice move that to

(59:44):
the forefront of theconversation, you're gonna see
you're gonna see that programexpand in the ways that they
need to, but Senator Davis justcapitalizes on a key point. If
you don't do something now, ifyou don't act now, you're gonna
lose control of it. And we'restarting to see that across the
country with the illicit market.
Well, thank you, thank you allof you forgive offered so much
good information. I hope peoplelisten to this and learn what

(01:00:07):
they need to know, to feel morecomfortable, you know, going
forward about what, what thisreally means when we talk about
legalization for medicalpurposes and also for
recreational should that comeup. Thank you both here in the
studio. And thank you, Gary, forjoining us from wherever you
are. And congratulations to yourson on his kindergarten

(01:00:27):
graduation. Thank you. Thankyou, Carrie.
Thank you for listening to thisspecial edition of speaking of
College of Charleston, with hostKathleen Parker. The guest
today, Tom Davis theory Hus andMuffy nice. You can find

(01:00:52):
episodes of speaking of Collegeof Charleston on all major
podcast platforms. If you likewhat you hear, please subscribe
and leave a review. This episodewas produced by Amy Stockwell
from the Office of marketing andcommunications with recording
and sound engineering from JessiCombs with the Division of

(01:01:13):
Information Technology. Thanksagain for listening to speaking
of College of Charleston.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Kathleen Parker Discusses Cannabis Legislation in South Carolina with Experts

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

All Episodes

Kathleen Parker Discusses Cannabis Legislation in South Carolina with Experts

Dateline NBC