Cannabidiol oil and THC-A oil; permitting of pharmaceutical processors to manufacture and provide. (SB701)

Introduced By

Sen. Dave Marsden (D-Burke) with support from co-patron Del. Eileen Filler-Corn (D-Fairfax Station)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Cannabidiol oil and THC-A oil; permitting of pharmaceutical processors to manufacture and provide. Authorizes a pharmaceutical processor, after obtaining a permit from the Board of Pharmacy and under the supervision of a licensed pharmacist, to manufacture and provide cannabidiol oil and THC-A oil. The bill requires the Board of Pharmacy to adopt regulations establishing health, safety, and security requirements for permitted processors. The bill also requires (i) that the manufacture of cannabidiol oil and THC-A oil is done in accordance with requirements for compounding drug products; (ii) a practitioner who issues a written certification for cannabidiol and THC-A oil and the patient or his primary caregiver to register with the Board; and (iii) a permitted pharmaceutical processor, prior to providing cannabidiol oil or THC-A oil, to verify that both the patient or the primary caregiver and the practitioner who issues a written certification have registered with the Board. Finally, the bill provides criminal liability protection for pharmaceutical processors. Read the Bill »

Status

03/10/2016: Passed the General Assembly

History

DateAction
01/21/2016Presented and ordered printed 16103609D
01/21/2016Referred to Committee on Education and Health
02/01/2016Assigned Education sub: Health Professions
02/03/2016Impact statement from VDH (SB701)
02/04/2016Reported from Education and Health with substitute (15-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/04/2016Committee substitute printed 16105173D-S1
02/04/2016Rereferred to Courts of Justice
02/05/2016Impact statement from VDH (SB701S1)
02/15/2016Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (12-Y 2-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
02/15/2016Committee substitute printed 16105542D-S2
02/16/2016Read second time
02/16/2016Reading of substitute waived
02/16/2016Committee substitute rejected 16105173D-S1
02/16/2016Committee substitute agreed to 16105542D-S2
02/16/2016Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute SB701S2
02/16/2016Passed Senate (35-Y 3-N) (see vote tally)
02/16/2016Reconsideration of passage agreed to by Senate (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/16/2016Passed Senate (37-Y 2-N) (see vote tally)
02/16/2016Constitutional reading dispensed (38-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/17/2016Impact statement from VDH (SB701S2)
02/18/2016Assigned App. sub: Criminal Law
02/18/2016Placed on Calendar
02/18/2016Read first time
02/18/2016Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
02/18/2016Assigned Courts sub: Criminal Law
02/29/2016Subcommittee recommends reporting with amendment(s) (11-Y 0-N)
03/02/2016Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (22-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/02/2016Committee substitute printed 16105960D-H1
03/04/2016Impact statement from VDH (SB701H1)
03/04/2016Read second time
03/07/2016Read third time
03/07/2016Committee substitute agreed to 16105960D-H1
03/07/2016Engrossed by House - committee substitute SB701H1
03/07/2016Passed House with substitute BLOCK VOTES (96-Y 0-N)
03/07/2016VOTE: BLOCK VOTE PASSAGE (96-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/08/2016Passed by temporarily
03/08/2016House substitute agreed to by Senate (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/08/2016Title replaced 16105960D-H1
03/10/2016Enrolled
03/10/2016Bill text as passed Senate and House (SB701ER)
03/10/2016Impact statement from VDH (SB701ER)
03/10/2016Signed by Speaker
03/10/2016Signed by President
03/11/2016G Governor's Action Deadline Midnight, Monday, April 11, 2016
03/11/2016Enrolled Bill Communicated to Governor on 3/11/16
03/11/2016G Governor's Action Deadline Midnight, Sunday, April 10, 2016

Video

This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 5 clips in all, totaling 9 minutes.

Transcript

This is a transcript of the video clips in which this bill is discussed.

ASK THAT WE RECONSIDER THAT VOTE. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE VOTE BY COME SENATE BILL 701 WAS PASSED BE ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES AYE, THOSE OPPOSED NO. ARE THE SENATORS READY TO VOTE? HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? DO ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE? THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL. AYES 39, KNOWS ZERO. AYES 39, NOS 0. THE MOTION IS AGREED TO. THE SENATOR FROM WESTERN FAIRFAX COUNTY. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. HAVING PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED THE BILL, I MOVE THAT THE BILL PASS.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL SENATE BILL 701


Del. Rob Bell (R-Charlottesville): THE OIL THOUGH IT'S AVAILABLE FROM OTHER STATES. THAT IS ALSO ILLEGAL. THAT WOULD SET UP A SYSTEM TO COME UP WITH A SERIES OF REGULATIONS AND COME BACK TO US FOR FIVE FACILITIES TO PRODUCE THE OIL. THERE ARE CRIMINAL EXCEPTIONS, THEREFORE, BECAUSE YOU'RE WORKING WITH A SUBSTANCE THAT ONLY STATES STATE LAW, DOESN'T AFFECT FEDERAL LAW. THERE ARE STILL FEDERAL LAWS BEING VIOLATED BUT THIS IS AS MUCH AS WE CAN DO GIVEN THE CURRENT STRUCTURE FROM WASHINGTON.

[Unknown]: TURNING TO PAGE 8, CONTINUING WITH THE BLOCK, SENATE BILL 728 TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA RELATING TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES, INJURY BY INTOXICATED DRIVERS ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM SALEM, MR. HABEEB.

Del. Greg Habeeb (R-Salem): MR. SPEAKER, MEMBERS OF THE BODY, SENATE BILL 728 ALLOWS SUBSEQUENT SIMILAR CONDUCT TO BE


Sen. Steve Newman (R-Forest): McDOUGLE, AND LUCAS.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK. SENATORS, ARE WE READY TO RETURN TO PAGE 19? THE SENATOR FROM WESTERN FAIRFAX COUNTY ON SENATE BILL 701. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. SENATE BILL 701, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE CONCUR WITH THE HOUSE AMENDMENTS. THIS BILL DEALS WITH THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE PROCESSING OF CBD AND THCA OTHERWISE FOR THE TREATMENT OF INTRACTABLE EPILEPSY. I'D LIKE TO REITERATE THRAI THANK VERY MUCH THE BOARD OF STARM NASA AND DELEGATE KLEIN WHO WORKED VERY, VERY HARD ON THESE AMENDMENTS WHICH ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS ARE IN THE SUBSTITUTE NARROW AND TIGHTENING THE MEASURE. I THINK THE BODY WITHDRAW COMFORT FROM THAT. IT REMOVES THE TERM CAREGIVER AND REPLACES IT WITH PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN OF A MINOR OR INCAPACITATED ADULT AS DEFINED IN 18.12-369. IT CHANGES WHO CAN WRITE THE CERTIFICATION FROM A PRACTITIONER OF MEDICINE TO A NEWER ROLL GIST OR SOMEONE WHO SPECIALIZING IN THE TREATMENT OF EPILEPSY AND THE BOARD OF PHARMACY WILL CREATE A PROCESS FOR REPORTING. IT REDUCES THE NUMBER OF PERMITS FROM 12 TO FIVE AND REQUIRES THAT EACH OF THOSE FACILITIES ARE LOCATED IN ONE OF THE HEALTH SERVICE AREAS AS ESTABLISHED BY THE BOARD OF HEALTH. IT ADDS A REQUIREMENT THAT THE MEDICATION BE PICKED UP IN PERSON BY THE PATIENT OR PATIENT'S LEGAL GUARDIAN OF A MINOR OR INCAPACITATED ADULT. IT STRENGTHENS THE LANGUAGE THAT THE ENTIRE PROCESS HAS TO BE DONE ON THE PREMISES OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL PROCESSOR. THIS INCLUDES THE CULTIVATION, PRODUCTION, AND PROVISION OF THE MEDICATION. IT KEPT IN THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE PROCESS BE OVERSEEN BY A PHARMACIST TO ENSURE QUALITY. THE SUBSTITUTE ALSO KEEPS THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE BOARD OF PHARMACY CREATE MANY STANDARDS WITH WHICH A PROCESSOR WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY, INCLUDING CREATING THE APPLICATION PROCESS, SAFETY STANDARDS AND SECURITY STANDARDS AND IT KEPT IN THE REENACTMENT CLAUSE THAT WILL ALLOW STOUS REVIEW THE REGULATIONS THAT THE BOARD OF PHARMACY COMES UP WITH. THE LAST FEW THINGS INVOLVE -- THAT THE CHAIRS OF COURTS COMMITTEE IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE WILL GET THE CONFIDENTIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION. THE REPORTING REQUIREMENT CHANGES FROM ANNUALLY TO QUARTZLY. NO PERSON CAN BE AN EMPLOYEE OR AGENT OF A PHARMACEUTICAL PROCESSOR IF HE OR SHE AS FELON OR HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF A DRUG CRIME AND LASTLY, THERE IS ANNUAL REPORTING BY THE BOARD OF PHARMACY TO THE COURTS COMMITTEE AND IT CLARIFIES THE DEFENSE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FOR SOMEONE WHO IS INVOLVED IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL PROCESSING BUSINESS AND ANYONE QUESTIONS THE LEGALITY OF IT. I WOULD RENEW MY MOTION TO CONCUR WITH THE HOUSE AMENDMENTS.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE SENATE CONCUR WITH THE ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES AYE, THOSE OPPOSED NO.