Kathleen Parker Discusses Cannabis Legislation in South Carolina with Experts

This episode of Speaking Of...College of Charleston is a special edition about cannabis legislation in South Carolina. The program is hosted by Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker. Guest panelists include South Carolina State Senator Tom Davis, Gary Hess, the founder and executive director of the veterans alliance for holistic alternatives and Pawleys Island attorney Margaret Ann “Muffy” Kneece.

Featured on this Episode:

Kathleen Parker writes a weekly column on politics and culture. In 2010, she received the Pulitzer Prize for Distinguished Commentary "for her perceptive, often witty columns on an array of political and moral issues. gracefully sharing the experiences and values that lead her to unpredictable conclusions.” A Florida native, Parker started her column in 1987 when she was a staff writer for the Orlando Sentinel. She joined the Washington Post Writers Group in 2006. She is the author of Save the Males: Why Men Matter, Why Women Should Care (2008).

“Parker writes with grace, wit and style and is always prescient, prophetic, ahead of the curve.” Doug Marlette, Political cartoonist & author (1949-2007)

HONORS & AWARDS

Ernie Pyle Lifetime Achievement Award

South Carolina Academy of Authors

2010 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary

1993 H.L. Mencken Writing Award

Parker divides her time between Washington, DC, and South Carolina —and points beyond. When she isn‘t immersed in writing, she enjoys interior design, an array of fur and winged friends, and long pauses with nature.

Senator Tom Davis has lived in Beaufort, South Carolina, since 1985, practicing law at the firm of Harvey & Battey, P.A. He is the managing partner in the firm’s real estate department. Sen. Davis obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree from Furman University in 1982, obtained a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Maryland School of Law in 1985. He served in Gov. Mark Sanford’s administration as senior policy advisor, co-chief of staff, deputy chief of staff and chief of staff from 2003 to 2007. In November 2008, he was elected State Senator for South Carolina Senate District 46 and was re-elected to second and third four-year terms in 2012 and 2016. 

Gary Hess is the founder and Executive Director of the Veterans Alliance for Holistic Alternatives (VAHA), CEO of Teleleaf, and Partner of Dynamic Growth Solutions – organizations he founded to help destigmatize and provide access to medical cannabis.

Gary served in the Marine Corps for 11 years, both enlisted and as an Infantry Officer. After serving during the heaviest levels of fighting in Irag, Gary experienced the challenges of living with PTSD, traumatic brain injury, chronic pain, and pharmaceutical dependency first-hand. He used cannabis not only to manage his conditions safely on his path to recovery, but also to catalyze and expedite Post-Traumatic Growth. He is now an advocate and activist for the use of medical cannabis in post-traumatic recovery – both for veterans and trauma survivors.

Margaret Ann “Muffy” Kneece

In 1992 Muffy received a Bachelor of Arts Degree from the University of South Carolina, with a major in History. She received her Juris Doctor from The University of South Carolina School of Law in 1995. After law school Muffy was employed with the Fifth Circuit Solicitor’s Office.

Muffy initially worked in the Family Court Division and was the Chief Prosecuting Attorney for the Fifteenth Circuit Family Court when she returned to her true passion as a General Sessions Assistant Solicitor for Georgetown County.  It wa

Transcript

Unknown: 0:04

Hello and Welcome to Speaking of College of Charleston. Today's episode is a special edition about cannabis legislation in South Carolina. The program is hosted by Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker. guest panelists include South Carolina State Senator Tom Davis, Gary Hess, the founder and executive director of the veterans alliance for holistic alternatives and Pawleys Island attorney Muffy Nice. Now, here's the host of the program, Kathleen Parker. So I'm Kathleen Parker. I'm a syndicated columnist with The Washington Post. And we're joined by three guests. Today we're going to talk about cannabis. Why we can't get it passed in the state of South Carolina, why other people are passing medical marijuana laws in other states are also passing recreational uses. So we're a big smorgasbord of various policies across the land. But we're going to we're going to talk primarily today about where we are in South Carolina and what some of the obstacles to just a very simple bill dealing with medical marijuana, where we stand with that. So my guests are, we have Senator Tom Davis, who's been working to get this bill passed through the South Carolina legislature for how many years? We got a bill passed in 2014, authorizing cannabis with CBD, and trace amounts of THC to be used 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 to that. I want to hear what the status is and kind of what you think is going to happen next. We also have Gary Hess, who is a veteran, he served in Iraq. And when he came back from Iraq, he had a number of challenges from PTSD and pain. And I think it's serious, you know, brain injury, etc. And he found that cannabis was the only thing that worked for him, he could try the pharmaceutical route first. And that created another set of issues. And so he works with veterans trying to help them get access to marijuana, but also is or has an organization that is an 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 alliance for holistic alternatives is the veterans nonprofit about awareness, empowerment and reform, bringing better health care, holistic health care options to those in need, not only the veterans who are struggling with trauma, but also the seven out of 10 Americans who are struggling with trauma. We've have a telemedicine access platform where we've we've brought access or provided access for over 30,000 veterans, I mean, 30,000 Americans, and we have the analytics that support you know, the medical efficacy, everything that Senator Tom Davis has been saying, and it has been trying to pass in his own state. And then we also have the warrior tribe medicinal assembly, which is psychedelic assisted therapies that have been have the research behind them that have just incredible and proven efficacy in the mental health arena. So we're very involved in the suicide and an opioid epidemic that is plaguing not only the veteran community, but the entire country, and we provide real solutions to those in need. And how long have you been doing all this? How long have you been an activist? Activist probably since since 2016, when I started my own personal journey, and the Veterans alliance for illicit alternatives was created during the COVID area during the COVID era, and we've been serving patients for the last three years. Okay, great. That'll get us started. Now, my third guest here is MFI niece, she's not only a friend of mine, but she comes with loaded with information about law enforcement issues, the things that the law enforcement folks are concerned about with any sort of legalization of marijuana, whether it's for medical purposes or any other. As my interest as I understand it, even if we did pass a bill, as you've already proposed, Senator, we would be dealing with the most conservative Bill anywhere in the country. So it's hardly a revolutionary act if we do move forward with this. But just one last comment. I need to give Murphy's full bio she's she's been a prosecutor. She's also been a contract public defender. She's currently a contract public defender in Pawleys Island. But more important to some of our listeners, I'm sure she is a champion angler. So Don't say no don't don't anybody say the word flounder, please, she may fly out of here. And she also recently competed in the world's largest pickleball. Championship. The US Open in Naples, Florida. So she's she's a fanatic, no matter what the topic. So I'm sure she'll bring us a lot of good information about, I tried to get some law enforcement individuals to join us, but none of them were willing. I'm not sure why I asked the head of sled to come state law enforcement, a state law enforcement division. Thank you. Mark keel, and they didn't get back to me. We had one Sheriff lined up to come, but he decided he didn't want to be a part of it either. So I have some comments to make about that later on. But let's just go ahead and get started with back to the Senator to find out kind of where we are right now in South Carolina. And what are the primary reasons that this bill keeps getting hung up? Sure. Well, last year, I got the bill passed out of the Senate 28 to 15. So we had about half of the Republican caucus was in favor of it, and about 75 to 80% of the Democratic caucus was in favor of it. So a super majority of SAT kind of Senators believe it's time to empower doctors and give doctors this tool to help patients if in that doctor's opinion, it can be therapeutic to the patient. So I've been making the case to my colleagues in the Senate for the past eight years, and have persuaded them and brought many people who were opposed to it on board. The house hasn't had the benefit of that debate. They've taken the position that they're not going to take the bill up until the Senate passes something. And it wasn't until last year that I got the Senate to pass something. Unfortunately, once it got over to the house and made its way to the House floor. With three days to go. One of the opponents of medical cannabis had put 1000 amendments on the desk to run the clock out. And there was also an argument made that the bill was procedurally out of order because the bill said that sales of cannabis would be subject to a state sales tax to help pay for the program. And there was a point of order raised saying this is a revenue raising bill and the state constitution says a revenue raising Bill has to originate in the House. And so it got ruled out of order on procedural grounds. So, but I do think that the bill is poised now to get out of the Senate and over to the house and enough time for it to take up next year. The reason that didn't get taken up this year, it's quite frankly, we got stuck behind the abortion debate. And that really sucked all the oxygen out of the room. Several weeks of floor debate, so didn't have the opportunity to move it out of the Senate this year. But I do think it'd be one of the first bills up in the Senate in January when reconvene. I do think it'd be passed out of the Senate relatively quickly assigned to the house 3am. Committee and I look forward to getting across the finish line next year. Well, let me ask you something when what is the justification for states passing laws when the federal government still classifies cannabis as a as a schedule one drug along with heroin and LSD? Yeah, cannabis is, if you know your history, I'm sure you do. The Controlled Substances Act was passed back in 1971, when President Nixon was waging war on the hippies that were out there in the National Mall, and it was determined this is one way to get out them, which was to make marijuana a schedule one drug, as you say, up there with heroin and other drugs. And the very definition of a schedule one drug is that it doesn't have 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 is therapeutic medicinally. We have peer reviewed studies, not anecdotal. We have the National Academy of Sciences, the preeminent scientific journal, and in America saying there's conclusive proof that cannabis can be therapeutic in areas where conventional pharmaceuticals cannot particularly in regard to neurological disorders or pain management, things of that nature. But the reason that that states have been able to operate in this space, is that the Controlled Substances that typically speaks to federal action and federal laws and what can be done on a federal basis, and there has been case law throughout the country that states that prerogatives in regard to public health remain with the state that that under our Federalist system of government, things that touch upon the health and safety and welfare of individuals are still things reserved under the state's primarily through the 10th amendment. And so that's why so many federal courts have held that the Controlled Substances Act while it does schedule marijuana as a schedule one drug at a federal level, did not preempt the field did not supply at the state's ability to pass laws it believed were in the best interest of its citizens. So that's why you haven't had any of these medical cannabis laws struck down as being violative of the law. Federal law because there is space for states to act. When I'm told that, that President Biden is going to reissue the Cole Memo, is that correct? the Cole Memo basically says the federal government won't mess with you if you're doing legal things in your own state, more or less, as Eric said, Yeah, I mean, that was back when President Obama Attorney General issued the so called coal memorandum which was a directive by the Attorney General, to all the US attorneys throughout the country, saying You shall not enforce the Controlled Substances Act or this federal law against any state that has legalized cannabis for medical purposes. But as a practical matter, the Congress does that every year anyway, in the budget every year on the budget, Congress adopts a proviso that says none of the money that's appropriated to the Department of Justice can be used by the Department of Justice, to challenge states that have legalized cannabis for medical purposes. So you've already got a federal law because the proviso in the budget has the force of law, you've got a federal law that essentially supplants the Controlled Substances Act even and to the extent that it had some restrictions on state action. And so, you know, it's across the board, you have the federal government, greenlighting this. You've got the Department of Treasury issuing guidance to banks, you have the Internal Revenue Service giving guidance to medical cannabis establishments on how to follow their federal taxes. You've got the proviso and the congressional budget every year saying no money appropriated, the DOJ can be used to challenge state law. So you've got green lights coming from the federal government. So that really, that whole concern about the Supremacy Clause and federal law supplanting the state's right to act, you know, doesn't hold water? Well, in that same vein, I had a little information from someone I can't say who that President Biden was also planning to move forward declassifying marijuana as a class one, two, possibly a class three. Does anyone here know anything about that? Gary, I see you nodding a lot. No. Have you heard anything along those lines? You know, there's a lot of activity up at the federal level and a consensus among both Republicans and Democrats in DC that the federal government ought to act in this space. I mean, it's cognitive dissonance here, where you've got a Controlled Substances Act that says one thing about cannabis, and you've got 39 states that have legalized it for medical purposes, I mean, Congress ought to go ahead and rectify that problem. The thing of it is, although a majority of legislators on both sides of the aisle up there want to do that, it runs into a problem, because whenever a bill like that comes up talking about the Banking Act, or talking about states right to act, you have Democrats that want to go further, they see this as an opportunity to really do something in this space. And so they end up asking for more things than their Republican colleagues will allow. And so that ends up you know, the bill crashes on the rocks because of that. So, but I understand, you know, if I'm a Democrat, and there's a bill coming along, and it's germane to offer these things, recreational use and things that they want to champion, I can see the temptation to go ahead and try to use that vehicle to push the envelope. I wish, what they would do is simply set up for what there's a consensus on now, I think that would rectify a lot of problems, it would it would record to rectify that cognitive dissonance that I've talked about, and it would lay the foundation for helping out millions of patients. And so I remain hopeful, Kathleen, but also understand the politics up there. And every time a bill comes to the floor with Republican support, you've got those like Cory Booker, and those on the other side that see that as a vehicle to take things further, and it ends up going nowhere. Well, Gary, seems to me one of the best arguments for the federal government. Getting out of the declassifying marijuana is that it would then open up all kinds of research that hasn't been able to go forward. You can't go to the NIH and get funding for your research. If the federal government says no, that's, that's a, you know, an illegal drug in the highest sense of the word. So what how have you managed to I mean, you you've referred to some studies that that, that you also Senator, studies that have shown the efficacy of these various treatments using medical marijuana, but what what research, what would, how do you see research going forward if the Fed step out? I mean, what is missing? In other words, that would be most helpful to your, your cause? I think and, you know, research is not my wheelhouse, but when you look at the anecdotal evidence, and I speak from personal experience in a number of veterans who continue to use this to not only benefit themselves, but their families and then also the seven out of 10 Americans, you know, who experienced trauma. The medical efficacy of this plant just said it absolutely cannot be denied. Right, bringing balance. You know, for someone like myself who dealt with traumatic brain injury, post traumatic stress, it brought balance homeostatic balance to my primal functions, the eating, sleeping digestion, memory, emotional arousal, you know, I was addicted to pharmaceuticals for almost a decade, just a plethora of pharmaceuticals that were trying to mitigate the symptoms or chronically suppress the symptoms, to no avail. And, and the truth is, is that I smoked the joint and did everything that the medicines were supposed to do, right I, I was forced to become a criminal to, to access to holistic alternatives that brought balance to my system that increased the parasympathetic activity reduced the sympathetic activity of my nervous system, and actually allowed my body to start resting and digesting. So, you know, when we talk about research, and I hear research and, and research bills that are brought in the FDA clinical trials, right, that that's a, that's a very difficult and flawed process. I think go online, and I did you know, my, my son works, is a lobbyist for cannabis out in California. And I was I interviewed him yesterday while he was sitting in a hot tub, and I thought there's something wrong with this picture. But he said that, you know, that the, if you look up, for example, does cannabis legalization lead to greater youth usage? You can find whatever you want in the terms of research and results. You know, one story says yes, it does lead to more teen use. No, it doesn't. Yes, it does. No, it all right, straight down the line, pages and pages and pages. So it's very hard for people to know exactly what is true and what isn't, you know, what, how to how to voters, for example, make a decision? How do they find the right kind of information, there was an op ed in The Washington Post a week or so ago? By this? Dr. Leanna when she's somebody I respect she was on TV a lot talking about COVID. You recognize her if you saw her face, but she said, you know, cannabis legalization is not something we should be celebrating and went through a number of reasons why it can be dangerous for certain people, and obviously, it's a drug. And you know, the comparison to alcohol and cigarette smoking, etc, is kind of apples and oranges. I would say alcohol has obviously killed a lot of people. I don't know. They don't have fingers on marijuana, because one of the issues with law enforcement MFI is that you can't really how do you test for intoxication, for lack of a better word, when someone just driving has a wreck or whatever? How do you find out if they've got marijuana in their blood? Well, and it's also what's considered an intrusive test at this time, because it would be a blood sample or a urine sample. And that requires going to a hospital facility and that is one of the push backs from law enforcement. A normal DUI would maybe take an hour and a half, two hours. And when you start getting into drug recognition, experts that would need to be called to the scene if they didn't smell alcohol, but the a person to appear to be impaired, then they may call another law enforcement agent and expert to do their tasks, which then they're already stressed law enforcement is already stressed under staff, and they don't have the resources they need. And to be able to take someone to the hospital sit with them get these tests. There are some companies who've developed breath test that will determine someone's consumption within two to three hours of the test. But otherwise, the test can show someone they aren't accurate for the person's level of impairment at the time they were driving, because a chronic user could test higher than an occasional user. So the high level of THC in a person's blood is not necessarily indicative that they were impaired at the time they were dropped. So it's still in their bloodstream for a good while. And it can be 90 days in your hair. It can be 90 days in your blood or urine it can be 30 days. Yeah. Well in regulations concerning you know, marijuana use and how you do it like some in California, it's a big hodgepodge right you can they don't have legalization across the state. He says you could opt in or out and 60% I think of the counties in California, chose not to have legal cannabis in their jurisdictions. So what happens then, when you don't have across the board legal as, for example, New Mexico does is that you and you empower the black market. So the black market and California is is I think, two to one 4 billion 8 billion black market to 4 billion legal across across the country. You have cannabis as $100 billion industry and only 25 billion of that is regulated Right 75 billion is the black market. Well, we just had conversations with the Republican caucus about that a few weeks ago in DC, and it's, it's creating a lot of security issues for this country, China's getting involved in the black market, they are very, they're very deep in the black market. And so the best thing this country can do is to open access to the patient community can can allow access to safe banking, just like every other business and then regulate an industry that is just an incredible demand because of patient community that is screaming for other options outside of the western model. Right, this these are facts this is true, this is this is an issue that is that is going to affect our country is affecting our country a lot deeper than people realize, especially from a national security standpoint. So what is going on in South Carolina, for example, if people can't go and get medical marijuana, so what are they doing? They're shopping the black market? Absolutely, absolutely. And the problem with that is just like your delta eight and and your, your your other hemp derived and you know, and toxic kids that are now being sold at a at a cheaper rate. But there's, there's zero regulation, there's zero chain of custody, right with a medical cannabis program, you have a chain of custody and accountability from seed to sale from the time it is planted in the soil to the time that the consumer consumes pulls it from the shelf there's there's there's a legitimate chain of custody and in a scan or a barcode UPC symbol that that that can tell you exactly what it is in it, and especially what is not in it, right testing for the pesticides and the other harmful chemicals that, you know, we noticed in a vape crisis. Yes, is well, the taxes are so high, for example, in cattle, I just happen to know a little bit about California because of my my conversations with with John, excuse me, but you know, the taxes out there are so high that there's still motivation to go to the black market. You know, you can spend $70 On the same amount of marijuana and a dispensary for the same amount you can get it for 40 bucks on the street. Yes, one of the one of the frustrating things for me, is that those who oppose the legalization of medical cannabis to the regulated program that Gary's talking about, do not consider what the consequences of failing to do that are in and one of the consequences is, physicians will continue to prescribe opioids for something that cannabis can be efficacious, which is much less intrusive, much more efficacious, much less damaging to a person much less addictive, much less addictive. And we have an opioid crisis, right. And so we're always sort of wringing our hands up in Colombia, wondering what can we do about this, this opioid crisis? And well, one of the things that we can do is empower physicians to provide a less intrusive, more efficacious alternative than opioids, which is what cannabis would be. So I want to make that one point. The second thing is because cannabis is the only thing that can provide relief, in certain circumstances, whether it's PTSD, neurological disorders, people are gonna get it any way that they can. And if they can't get it in a regulated safe way, they're gonna get it in an unregulated, unsafe way. Right. And that's why you find instances where people are dying because what they buy on the street is laced with fentanyl are laced with something else. I mean, so you know, for those reasons alone, and the frustrating thing that that, to me, Kathleen is those who oppose the legalization of medical cannabis under a very regulated program, don't have an answer on how to address those other societal ills that I've just identified. And so aside from the fact that this bill, empowers doctors, doctors, is the gatekeeper on whether or not somebody has a qualifying condition. pharmacists have to dispense it right. So we have professionals at the front end with authorization, and on the back 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 on board and work with me on this socially conservative bill, that will help patients in a way that's driven by doctors and pharmacists, demographics are going to take control at some point. And we're gonna end up with something in South Carolina that is much more permissive and something that quite frankly, I don't support. And so I mean, demographics every year is changing on this issue in terms of people's views of marijuana. And so the window of opportunity to come up with something very conservative, very regulated, very controlled. That's closing rapidly. And so there is a consequence to doing nothing, I guess, will be my overall point. Yeah, that's a very good point. And it seems to me and I, I remember when President Nixon made You know, started his little campaign against the pot smokers which really was about 100% of the students where I attended college in 1971. That was Florida State University, the Berkeley of the South. Any impose that ban against the advice of the American Medical Association against the advice of medical professionals back in 1971 said don't do this. This is something that has been used historically, in a way that helps patients and nonetheless he did it not for medical reasons, but for political and societal reasons. He wanted to stick it to the people that were picketing outside of the mall. But I want to get to the pot that we that some people smoked back then where was pretty simple by comparison to what's available today. So when you're talking about regulating merit medical cannabis, I know we're supposed to use the word cannabis and not pot not marijuana. But is there also an advantage? Yeah. But as you know, it's not I don't think we're you know, getting Acapulco gold and putting it in a shoebox lids anymore. To get the sun seeds out. We're smoking or consuming. I should say there's historically a degree of familiarity you have with the terminal. Like I said, it was everywhere. It was everywhere. It was everywhere. I mean, you couldn't you know, people were complaining. Now you walk down the street in New York City, you could smell marijuana smoke, I thought, really? I mean, when you walk anywhere on my campus, it was it was crazy. Well, that's crazy times 1971. Come on. So where was I? You say the memory is? I think it has to do with age, though not my former exposures. But what about the types of cannabis that we're talking about? And is it it? Is it regulation the answer to making sure we don't give people you don't know always what you're getting? Right. And that's one of the aspects of this bill that I would also point to Kathleen, I mean, it requires that cannabis not only be tested for safety and the absence of adulterants, like Gary says, but also requires it to be labeled in terms of the ratio of CBD to THC. So that when you're at the pharmaceutical level, and you're being dispensed the product by a pharmacist, you can custom fit it to what your particular needs are. And I think it'd be helpful for people to understand why is cannabis efficacious for some of these medical conditions and it's because your entire body is made up of an endocannabinoid system, there are cannabinoids throughout your body. I have a PhD in pi, right? Well after eight years, but what I'm saying is a lot of these these these things that pharmaceuticals are used to address symptoms, cannabis gets to the underlying imbalance in the body after the endocannabinoid system that is messed up. So it gets to the root cause, which is why it's efficacious. And so I think people need to understand that that your body is has got an endocannabinoid system. And then if it's out of balance, it manifests it with Parkinson's or cerebral palsy, or any number of conditions, chronic pain. And the way the reason cannabis works with PTSD, like Gary can talk about is that it addresses that underlying disconnect in your 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 since you've had 39 states that have legalized medical cannabis, we have decades of experience with this. Now we have peer reviewed studies, we have medical scientists, you know, it's not anecdotal or narrative anymore. It's fact it's medical fact, which is why it's not fought any longer by law enforcement or anybody else on the grounds that it's not medically efficacious. They've conceded that point that ship has sailed. Well, I know you're not really in favor of recreational use, but a lot of people are and even if they, you know, I think the next step would be that people will 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. And that's typically where I come from, to Kathleen and Amanda, when I was at Furman. You know, one of the most influential things ever read with John Stuart Mill's book on liberty and the premise there was, mill said, I'll paraphrase my freedom to swing my arm ends where your nose begins, so that if I do something that affects only myself, government doesn't have any legitimate reason to regulate me. But if I impact and harm somebody else, okay, that's a legitimate pretext for government action. And so that's where I am philosophically The reason I'm not for recreational use, is because when I began this journey, eight years ago, I made a commitment to my colleagues and I said, I am going to come up with a bill. That is reflective of what I think most South Carolinians will want. And what most South Carolinians want. And what poll after poll shows is that they want to empower doctors, they want to help patients that can benefit but they don't want recreational use. That's just where South Carolinians are right now. So I feel an obligation to my colleagues to deliver some legislative work product that's consistent with what I told them I was doing eight years ago. I'm not against recreational use because As of the safety and the efficacy of the plant but the the recreational trends that this nation is chasing right now with a high THC counts and a lack of diversity and the minor cannabinoids in the other phytochemicals that really make the medical benefit of this plant that is being overshadowed by the recreational push and so we're chasing these high THC vape products, which lead to anxiety and depression when we should have access to full plant products with diverse phytochemicals, diversity and the minor cannabinoids, not just the THC and the CBD. So I'm not against the recreational use, right? I would much rather use a medical cannabis product or a cannabis product because of the health benefits rather than drink alcohol, right? The second nature to go grab a glass of wine or a beer and have 356 Every evening, this is accepted within our culture, but sit down and take a few polls from, you know, a a pre roll or a correct term. Now I understand. I stayed at a bed and breakfast in California and they offered pre rolls to the table. You know, we had this big farm table. And I was quickly instructed that pre roll is now what we used to call a joint. And I heard this fella down at the other end of the table go say this is the best practice I've ever been to. And that was under the program that California allows you can have six female plants or 12 in the case of a couple, and you can share but you can't sell. So he was sharing his pre roll. Yeah, take a do still take toks How does that work? I'm so old now. I don't even know what the vocabulary is. But I am why No, I'll admit it. And when you say pre roll right when the stigmas are just there so institutional, they're so ingrained THC smoke is bad oil. CBD is good. Right. So that is the general consensus when you talk about cannabis, unless you're talking to a community that has experienced with it. And so the simple and very interesting fact with for someone like myself, who does have asthma from the chronic stress from the combat stress, yeah, so cannabis, cannabis smoke will actually end an asthma attack and under two minutes, smoke it absolutely. Will. And right. So that's where the education the empowerment and then is for those who are against it, let's sit in a room for a good 30 minutes to an hour and, and address the facts that are associated with the use of this this plant, right. It's it's not a gateway drug. childhood sexual trauma is a gateway drug. Domestic abuse is a gateway drug, pharmaceutical dependency is a gateway drug, those form of pharmaceuticals that are pushed on us by the medical providers, because that is the only answer they have right now. Just like Senator Davis was saying, we need the medical community to step in, right and start providing access. When we look at how much opposition is there coming from the pharmaceutical companies? Because I was thinking, you know, the obvious research prior to survey or the research study would be to put people who've been on opioids on on cannabis instead and see, you know, when that's been done, I mean, that's been done in double blind peer reviewed tests. And we can see, you know, multiple states, there is a direct correlation between the availability of cannabis to address some of these conditions, and the number of opioid prescriptions and the number of opioid deaths and the number of people who take opioids a direct one to one comparison. So we know we're not speculating here. We know as a matter of fact that if you want to decrease the number of opioids being used, or you want to eliminate or reduce opioid deaths, medical cannabis, that's a way to do that, because it gives physicians another tool in their toolbox to address a problem that opioids aren't necessary. Right? Well, as someone in the trenches with clients who've suffered opioid addiction, a lot of them veterans, some of them, you know, high ranking careers, and they had some injury and got hooked on the opioids. Well, they can't enter our traditional drug court programs, because they're using cannabis so that they aren't on the opioids. So they gotta be tested. So that eliminates I see. Exactly and it's it's they're not committing the crimes they were when they were addicted to the opioids they feel better. They're not in the emergency room all the time, zapping those resources trying to get more opioids. They're in chronic pain and the only thing that can alleviate that is cannabis. And yet they can't do that legally. They can't be on probation and even not in one of these drug court programs where they can't be on probation and test positive for cannabis, which, again, keeps them working, keeps them from committing other crimes. And a physician. I mean, a lot of their physicians have said, Just do it is worth the risk. But it's really not. I mean, you know, from my perspective, no, it's not, but from the physician's perspective of look, you know, your liver was failing, this was happening as a result of your opioid addiction. And now look where you are. Let me say this one thing about that what my peaches said, I mean, we went through COVID. And and a lot of the upstate senators that are in opposition to medical cannabis, they were the first ones saying that, what is the CDC doing, telling physicians, they can't prescribe ivermectin to individuals if that physician believes ivermectin is something that's going to help them? I mean, so they were all for that they were all for empowering doctors are all for medical freedom. They were all for getting government out of the way at the physician patient relationship. But why don't you flip it around? And you say, Well, what if a physician believes that somebody with Parkinson's can benefit from cannabis and can address that neurological disorder? Don't you agree that 170 politicians and Columbia ought not stand in the way of what a doctor thinks of the best interest of that patient just in the same way as you make the argument that the CDC ought not stand in the way of what a physician believes is in the best interest of somebody with COVID? And they really have no response to that. And because there isn't one, but these are the same people who want to decide when conception occurs. See, now I knew we were gonna have abortion before. We weren't gonna talk about zygotes. Right, that stuff. Inherent cost? Well, it's just a certain mindset, isn't it? It is, well, law enforcement is still whether it's medical or recreational, obviously recreational will create a heightened issue with this, but law enforcement, a lot of their arguments, as I talked to them about this issue is we're sitting around waiting for the next case. Everything from Kate, the canines, how I mean, what a vital tool for law enforcement, whether it's the border, the airports, court security, and whatnot, to know, be able to detect drugs. And now what's going to happen to that that will absolutely tarnish the credibility of these animals who are alerting on cannabis, when it's a passenger who can smoke legally if it were legal in the car and the drivers not smoking? That is also a loss of a search tool. Well, another wrinkle is a lot of searches are or can if you pull somebody over, and you smell marijuana in the car, they can use that as an excuse to search the car. Right? Correct. So if marijuana is legal, no more searching that tool. But the point of that Kathleen is this bill specifically says you can't burn flower. Okay, you can't smoke flower, you can't. Okay, so that's the thing that typically gives gives the aroma. Okay, you can't do that under this bill, because law enforcement when I went to them and said, What's the one thing you hate most about this bill? And they said, Well, if the fact that you allow some form of consumption, burning a flower, we don't like that. So I took that out. I mean, oils, you have to vape it through oils, or even topically or as a tincture. Flour. What are we saying here? It's the it's, well, it's the it's the not the leaf, but it's the it's the thing that's in the joint that you fire up, you can't you can't combust it, you can't you can't burn it. And under this bill, because they didn't want smoking, law enforcement didn't want smoking. And also you can't smoke it or vape it or do anything in a car either. So if you come up on a car and you smell marijuana, that is still a legitimate reason for them to go in. Under this particular bill, ya know, and again, because this bill, rightly or wrongly, I tried to get consensus over seven, eight years by getting everybody at the table, law enforcement, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, you know, moms for action, what I tried to everybody and get all those Venn diagram circles lined up and figure out where the overlap was. And so that's why it became a very conservative bill that quite frankly, a lot of the grassroots activists don't support this bill anymore, because it is so tightly regulated, it is such a medical only kind of a bill. And my point, again, is if they don't come to the table now and set these parameters, they're going to end up with a bill that has none of these safeguards in it and a lot of the things that they worry about are going to come to pass because they didn't go ahead and work with me on coming up with something that empowered doctors, but drew a bright line against recreational scuze me but so if someone's on a car trip, and they need to vape every two hours and it's a five hour car trip, they they are not going to be able to meet their medical needs. You cannot vape in a car. And that was because because I was trying to be sympathetic to what law enforcement challenges where can you pull off to a rest stop and venga pull off to a rest stop, but you cannot be in the vehicle itself. And again, I was sympathetic to the point that you made earlier, quite rightly mafia is that unlike with alcohol, there aren't tests right now on the market that are as reliable to measuring, you know, the blood alcohol content you do with that. But you don't have the same thing with cannabis, because cannabis stays in your system, the fatty tissue in your body for a longer time. And so what you're essentially reduced to, and trying to make sure somebody isn't driving under the influence of cannabis, or these field sobriety tests and making them come out there and test their motor movements and things of that nature. But I'm willing to sit down, and I've offered with law enforcement saying, Look, I recognize this enforcement problem that you're having. Let's figure out how to get you to a point where you feel like you can empower your your officers out there to keep the roads safe. And we've come up with a lot of things that I think get them there. And I'm willing to do more, because technology is developing all the time. To your point. There is a test now where you can test. But but I'm sympathetic to their argument and want to solve that problem for them. MFI, and there's a nother argument for legalization, which is has to do with social justice, that it's statistically true that people of color are more often arrested and incarcerated for marijuana use. And a lot of the people that I've talked to out in California, for example, are highly motivated by that idea. In Charleston, as you're six times more likely to get arrested for cannabis if you're a person of color right now. So how much of a factor is that idea here? Or in your experience? Gary, anything there to add? I agree we see the same thing down here in southern Louisiana. It's, you know, it's obviously a much higher rate. Yeah, well, it goes to sorry, the I obviously see that in my practice. And it goes back to again, some of these folks are meeting their medical needs. And I discuss with Senator Davis that, um, for the recreational use, I mean, that we're just kicking that can down the road for a while when an adult should be able to make a decision as they can with alcohol or something like that, as well. And we have to figure out how to have the safety measures, just like we did with alcohol and driving and how what we could do to keep the road safe. But one thing I think people who smoke pot are not highly motivated to get in the car and go do something else. But the collateral effects of a drug conviction or a schedule one are significant. It if it can affect it's a schedule one, and it can have significant ramifications from loan applications depend on, you know, if they did the Walmart theory and bought in bulk and had over an ounce, and they end up with felonies as a result of trying to meet their needs medically or psychologically, like the person who comes home and has a cocktail, but this person doesn't want to drink they would rather smoke cannabis. And so the collateral effects of this are crippling our prison systems, our local jail systems for someone getting, you know, busted with a marijuana joint, even if they're not in a car. If they're out at some concert, and they've got it on them, they miss work or they get fired from their job, then they aren't taking care of their children. And the collateral ripple effects have got to be addressed. All of these are elephants in the room. Gary, you were looking like he wanted to say something. I can't remember where we were, but I saw you lean forward. Talking about people who smoke pot don't or aren't really motivated to know that. That's right. And I just want to I want to chime in because that's that's a misconception, right? Because, well, things have changed I'm sure. The stigmas, right the Stoner. The truth is is is when I ran out of options, I use cannabis as a performance enhancer cannabis was the only thing that got me out of my house and into a vehicle and allowed me to integrate myself back into a functional society. So I was I was making jokes I know, but you never know who's listening. So I just I'm glad you clarified this point that it may be a bit counterintuitive, Kathleen, but but in states that have legalized cannabis for medical purposes, you've actually seen the number of driver impaired accidents go down, driver impaired deaths go down. And that's primarily because alcohol and marijuana are substitute good words. And if somebody is taking marijuana, they are statistically less likely to be consuming alcohol. And it's just empirically true. And and the the department transportation has done studies on this, that somebody's behind the wheel and I'm not advocating somebody getting behind the wheel high on marijuana, but they are not as reckless as somebody who is behind the wheel drinking alcohol. It just has a different effect on your body, which is why there is this this synthetically significant difference why you see traffic deaths and traffic accidents go down in states where cannabis is legalized, because they are substitute goods. And it is a bit counterintuitive, because you kind of think, well, if we make marijuana legal, that's going to increase the number of impaired driving incidents. It's not the true it's not true. It's the absolute opposite. I think that's a that's an interesting point. If you look at a very simple metric called the heart rate variability, look at the HRV level when you consume alcohol versus cannabis. Right. Cannabis, I mean, when you when you consume alcohol, your heart rate variability variability, which is the measure of your autonomic nervous system, it goes down significantly, right? The brain and body continue to disconnect. Well, when you consume cannabis, your HRV actually increases because it it reduces the chronic stress, it promotes homeostatic balance within our bodies, and it increases your your heart rate variability levels, and that is a significant measure of health and well being. And so A plus B equals C, just like Senator Davis was saying, right? It's reduction of alcohol reduction of track traffic incidents is very it's similar to the reduction in the opioid prescriptions. Right? If you look at the indirect implications of legalization of medical cannabis, or recreational cannabis, the answers don't I mean, the answers are just they're hard to deny we're having to come up with ways to prevent this from being legalized in the States, similar to what what happened last year, Senator Davis with a procedural, you know, at the end that pulled it off the table. And so that's where we are. Yes. 76% of South Carolinians support medical cannabis. That's a That's a big number. And that's that number, I think is even higher than that across the united the United States, right, it's just time to start having real conversations and get rid of and get out of these outdated institutional policies that are driving our health care, and the world we live in today? Well, I don't think anyone would want to deny a veteran, whatever help cannabis would provide and healing from what they've already been through. And you'd be wrong about that. There are lots of legislators who would like to deny it? Well, I don't understand. I can't even conceive of that. One, I wonder how many of them served an active duty, I have a significant number of clients on Suboxone or methadone, which is basically synthetic heroin. And I say that because there's not anything on their bottles that say Use caution when operating machinery. But they're given that to keep them off the streets and off the heroin. It's not illegal to drink and drive in South Carolina, is illegal to drink to the point where you're impaired and cannot operate a dangerous piece of machinery responsibly and with the same care as as someone who hasn't partaking. And at some point, they determined it was oh, eight, I think that was under Mark Sanford. There has to be a way that even people who are meeting their needs with medical marijuana, that they can meet their needs and operate a motor vehicle, people are operating it with Suboxone, they're meeting those needs. And we need to figure out, we're sending stuff to Mars, we can do this but everybody continuing to put their efforts to but something that benefits Americans is preventing us from trying to explore how we can know what an appropriate level is for someone who is under medical supervision for something they need but yet they want to go see their mom five hours away or whatever. What is the safe level as you just said that statistically, the accidents have actually declined. If we talk about safe levels that's that's just as it's gonna be. It's a difficult situation. The truth is, is that the numbers have not been they don't go up when it's legalized the numbers in regards to traffic incidents go down. And when you're talking about someone like myself for a long period of time use cannabis on a on a daily basis, right the density of my receptors changed therefore, my point oh eight is going to be very different than somebody else's point away, right because of the density and those receptors change and so I am not intoxicated, but yes, it will take me More of the cannabis to to produce the the desired effect. So right now we're testing for metabolites in the system. And in there they're trying to come to market with, with devices that test for impairment but there's just there's a lot of headway that really needs to be made and understanding how that fat soluble plant or medicine interacts the the pharmacokinetics within within our own bodies before we can start implementing these policies. So what about this? What's the likelihood of Governor McMaster creating a commission on cannabis to decide kind of create a policy going forward to anticipate the demographic future you've described? But also put those people back down at the table? And let's solve this issue once and for all? Well, I think I know that he is a famous drug buster. He cut his teeth on Operation loss trust a jackpot back in the day right gentlemen smugglers Yeah, that's right. I remember that. Back. When I was at Furman, I had a roommate that his father was a part of that whole thing. But it's the largest pot bust in US history at that point. Yeah. But Governor McMaster I think pretty much showed his hand during the gubernatorial debates with Joe Cunningham, when Joe was arguing in favor of recreational and medical legalization. And when you know, the time came for governor, McMaster to respond, he talked about how he was against recreational. But he conceded that the case had been made in regard to the medical efficacy and that he could see the argument behind empowering doctors prescribing or authorizing use of cannabis for conditions for which there's empirical proof that can be efficacious. So I think Governor McMaster has already signaled he will sign this bill. And and I think that's a complete evolution 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 that Chief Kiel, you know, came up of age during that time as a narcotics agent, and he's got these experiences that have informed how he views this issue. But But Governor McMaster I think has shown a remarkable ability to listen to facts and to challenge and change long held convictions. And I think he's be commended for that. So the consensus that this right now is that you think this bill will go through in January and pass the Senate to pass the House or? Well, you know, that I would like to think so Kathleen, we had the votes. And I think Gary was following the vote count and the house a lot more closer than I was because I was over there working in the Senate. But there were the votes to pass this bill in the House last year. And the only way they could derail it was a by putting 1000 amendments on the desk and running the clock out or be challenging it by saying this is a revenue raising bill, which it clearly wasn't a revenue raising bill for the general fund. But they went ahead and hung their hat on that procedural ruling. But if it gets to a vote a mouse, there are the votes to pass this. I think some people listening might say that this has been to pro cannabis, then you've obviously got the you know, the legal the legislation on the table. Murphy has seen the way marijuana gets abused and used in the in the penal system. And in social justice issues, and Gary has seen wants to see veterans of course, get the help they need. So what is my feet? Maybe you could play devil's advocate, what what is your best argument against legalization? If you were say, a sled agent? Well, my conversations with law enforcement is how the biggest number one issue that continues to come up is how are they going to effectively enforce driving while impaired? That's the number one issue that they keep repeatedly saying, How are we going to live measure someone's level of impairment when they're behind the wheel of what the law considers a dangerous instrument a vehicle. And I get that we don't have that in place nationwide. We don't have it. There is a company that out of California that has a device, but it's not nationwide, it's still under testing. There's a another company in a study out of UCLA trying to work on this same issue. But we need to push forward and law enforcement 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 going to move forward with it. I get that, that that is an issue, but it it sounds like it can be resolved somehow. Exactly. And can I push back on that a little bit? I mean, right now, you can't drive in a vehicle if you're impaired by pills. You can't drive a vehicle. I mean, those things they had the same challenges and rig Are to measurement and truth of this and blood samples just that they were with cannabis. So I quite frankly think that's a disingenuous argument. I want to help them I want to be sympathetic. But but right now it's it's already against the law to drive impaired under pills. And so is that a reason for banning pills, somebody's waving around the road, then you pull them over you take them to jail. And you you can say you can decline a blood alcohol test. The one argument that I want argument that I hear that that has the most salience up there is Well, this was a federal law. And you know, under the Supremacy Clause, federal laws take precedent over state laws. And I don't want to be passing a state law that's in contravention of what Congress has spoke to. But the response to that I think, is fairly simple, in that the Controlled Substances Act itself specifically says this is not meant to supplant the state's right to go ahead and pass laws they think are in the best interest of their citizens. And second to that you've got Congress every year in the budget proviso saying, you can enforce CSA against states that have legalized medical cannabis. So so this whole Federalist argument about the Supremacy Clause doesn't hold water either. And, and, you know, I think there's a reason and it's telling that you don't have law enforcement here to answer questions, because quite frankly, Kathleen, every time they prop something up, and you knock it down, they scramble around to try to find something else. And they flat run out of arguments. I mean, they used to walk around the Statehouse with buttons that said, marijuana is not medicine, until the National Academy of Sciences said we have so many peer reviewed studies that show that it is medicine, they stop wearing those buttons, they just don't have the arguments anymore, which is telling that's why they're not here. Right? I agree. Generally, when people don't show up and don't want to talk about an issue, it's because they don't really have anything to say that's going to serve their purpose. So anyway, I want to thank you all. Anything else? Gary, you started to say I'm sorry? Yeah, I think right? Because that's an argument that comes up in every state, every status is how do we control impaired driving? I'd say the first place to start let's start in South Carolina. Can you prove that it is a problem? Right? Because this is the argument that just creates the what if and creates the fear? But can we prove that driving under the influence of cannabis is a significant problem in South Carolina, right, start right there. And then if we identify it, they you know, supported by credible facts, then let's start having a conversation but to prevent access, from a healthcare standpoint, for those who are in dire need, especially children with epilepsy, because we can't control someone driving under the influence of cannabis. Prove that as a problem first, and then let's sit at the table don't hold up access to those in need, right? Well, there is this one study out of Denmark, and I don't know if you're familiar with it, but that shows that like a third of these young males, primarily, with schizophrenia, also have serious what they call marijuana use disorder. So what do we say to things like that? I mean, that's a study? Well, it's because in South Carolina in this bill, I'll speak to that Kathleen, that a doctor has to authorize it. And a doctor can authorize it unless there is a thorough due diligence to see whether or not somebody has a disposition towards schizophrenia or disposition toward toward negative mental health consequences. And if that's the case, they can't authorize it to use. 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 say that it can ever be abused, I can't, I'm not going to say that it can enhance and make it somebody who's schizophrenic, even more dangerous to themselves. But that's why in this bill, and I bring it back to this bill, we have a very thorough due diligence process on the front end, where a doctor has to go through a patient's medical history, including, you know, disposition toward mental illness, before there can be an authorization. So I can only speak to what this bill tries to address. I've listened for eight years to every argument that they put up and that I've sat down in good faith and drafted language to address it. There is nothing in this bill that they can put forward as an objection, or I can't point to it and say, I heard you, we addressed it. Next. Gary, what's the best bill out there for cannabis? Use for medical purposes? The one that gets passed? All right. Yeah, you have to start somewhere, right? And then gain the trust and improve that as a credible program and, and allow the patient's voice move that to the forefront of the conversation, you're gonna see you're gonna see that program expand in the ways that they need to, but Senator Davis just capitalizes on a key point. If you don't do something now, if you don't act now, you're gonna lose control of it. And we're starting to see that across the country with the illicit market. Well, thank you, thank you all of you forgive offered so much good information. I hope people listen to this and learn what they need to know, to feel more comfortable, you know, going forward about what, what this really means when we talk about legalization for medical purposes and also for recreational should that come up. Thank you both here in the studio. And thank you, Gary, for joining us from wherever you are. And congratulations to your son on his kindergarten graduation. Thank you. Thank you, Carrie. Thank you for listening to this special edition of speaking of College of Charleston, with host Kathleen Parker. The guest today, Tom Davis theory Hus and Muffy nice. You can find episodes of speaking of College of Charleston on all major podcast platforms. If you like what you hear, please subscribe and leave a review. This episode was produced by Amy Stockwell from the Office of marketing and communications with recording and sound engineering from Jessi Combs with the Division of Information Technology. Thanks again for listening to speaking of College of Charleston.