Marijuana; possession or distribution for medical purposes, affirmative defense for treatment. (SB1298)

Introduced By

Sen. Jill Holtzman Vogel (R-Winchester) with support from co-patron Sen. Barbara Favola (D-Arlington)

Progress

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

Description

Possession or distribution of marijuana for medical purposes; affirmative defense for treatment of certain conditions. Provides an affirmative defense to prosecution for possession of marijuana if a person has a valid written certification issued by a practitioner for cannabidiol oil or THC-A oil for treatment of, or to alleviate the symptoms of, cancer, glaucoma, human immunodeficiency virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, Alzheimer's disease, nail patella, cachexia or wasting syndrome, multiple sclerosis, or complex regional pain syndrome. Under current law, only the treatment of intractable epilepsy is covered by the affirmative defense. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

DateAction
01/10/2017Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/11/17 17103038D
01/10/2017Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/23/2017Reported from Courts of Justice (9-Y 5-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
01/24/2017Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
01/25/2017Read second time and engrossed
01/26/2017Read third time and passed Senate (29-Y 11-N) (see vote tally)
01/31/2017Placed on Calendar
01/31/2017Read first time
01/31/2017Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
02/08/2017Assigned Courts sub: Criminal Law
02/15/2017Subcommittee recommends laying on the table
02/21/2017Left in Courts of Justice

Video

This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 1 clip in all, totaling 22 minutes.

Transcript

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



Sen. Scott Surovell (D-Mount Vernon): EXCELLENT LEADERSHIP IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA. I WOULD HOPE THE SENATE COULD GIVE THEM A WARM WELCOME FROM THE SENATE.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. WOULD MEMBERS FROM LEADERSHIP THANK YOU ALL FOR MAKING THE FAIRFAX PLEASE RISE. TRIP DOWN 95 TO BE WITH US TODAY. THANKS FOR ALL THAT YOU DO FOR LEADERSHIP UP IN FAIRFAX, UP IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA. I'D ASK THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE TO PLEASE JOIN ME IN OFFERING MEMBERS FROM LEADERSHIP FAIRFAX THE WARM WELCOME OF THE SENATE. (APPLAUSE). IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS FOR THE MORNING HOUR? SEEING NONE, THE CLERK WILL PLEASE CALL THE CALENDAR. CLERK: SENATE CALENDAR FOR THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2017. UNCONTESTED CALENDAR SENATE BILLS ON THIRD READ. GUEST: THE SENATOR FROM JAMES CITY COUNTY, SENATOR NORMENT.

Sen. Tommy Norment (R-Williamsburg): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I'M IMPROVING. I GOT THE MICROPHONE OUT WITHOUT PUTTING THE SOUP ON THE BOARD. I RESPECTFULLY MOVE THAT ALL SENATE BILLS ON THIRD READING ON THE UNCONTESTED CALENDAR, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE BILLS ON PAGES 1 THROUGH 3, INCLUDING SENATE BILL 919 THROUGH 1465 BE PLACED ON THEIR FINAL PASSAGE IN THE BLOCK F ANY SENATOR DESIRES TO REMOVE A BILL FROM THE BLOCK, PLEASE DO SO AFTER THE CLERK HAS READ THE NUMBER OF THAT BILL.

[Unknown]: THE QUESTION IS SHOULD THE UNCONTESTED BILLS ON CALENDAR, SENATE BILL 919 THROUGH SENATE BILL 1465 BE PLACED UPON THEIR FINAL PASSAGE IN THE BLOCK WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ANY SENATOR DESIRING A BILL REMOVED WOULD DO SO AFTER THE READ NUMBER. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, NO. PLEASE READ THE BILLS.

Sen. Tommy Norment (R-Williamsburg): SENATOR BILL 919.

[Unknown]: MR. PRESIDENT. SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM. I'D ASK THAT TO COME OUT OF THE BLOCK AND BY FOR THE DAY. I'M HAVING A FLOOR AMENDMENT DRAWN FOR THAT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU, SENATOR. WITHOUT OBJECTION, SENATE BILL 919 WILL COME OWL OF THE BLOCK AND BY FOR THE DAY.

[Unknown]: SENATE BILL 1216, SENATE BILL 1006. SENATE BILL 1273. SENATE BILL 1377. SENATE BILL 1465.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK. THE QUESTION, IS SHALL THE BILLS IN THE BLOCK PASS? THAT IS ALL BILLS EXCEPT FOR SENATE BILL 919 ON PAGE ONE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE PASSAGE OF THE BILLS WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES AYES. 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.

[Unknown]: AYES 40, NOS 0. THE BILLS IN THE BLOCK PASS. REGULAR CALENDAR, SENATE BILLS ON THIRD READING. SENATE BILL 816, A BILL RELATING TO GRAND LARCENY AND CERTAIN PROPERTY CRIMES; THRESHOLD. THE NEAR FROM EASTERN FAIRFAX COUNTY, SENATOR SUROVELL. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, I MOVE THE BILL PASS, AND SPEAKING TO THAT MOTION. THE NEAR HAS THE FLOOR. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THIS BILL IS A BILL YOU'VE SEEN SEVERAL TIMES NOW. WE PASSED IT OUT OF HERE I THINK ABOUT THREE OR FOUR YEARS IN A ROW NOW. LAST YEAR IT CAME OUT 29 TO 11. IT'S BASICALLY A BILL THAT RAISES THE MISDEMEANOR FELONY THRESHOLD FROM $200, WHICH IS THE LOWEST IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UP TO $500. IT'S A WIDELY SUPPORTED BILL, AND NEEDED. THERE WAS A COUPLE OF AMENDMENTS MADE TO IT IN COMMITTEE TO NARROW IT DOWN TO ONLY LARCENY CRIMES, AND I WOULD HOPE THE BODY WOULD PASS THE BILL.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU, SENATOR: QUESTION IS, SHALL SENATE BILL 816 PASS. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES AY, 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.

[Unknown]: CLERK: AYES 32, NOS 8. THE BILL PASSES. SENATE BILL 825, A BILL RELATING TO NEW SENTENCING HEARING; ABOLITION OF PAROLE. THE JUNIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN, SENATOR WEXTON. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, I MOVE THE BILL PASS, AND SPEAKING TO THAT MOTION. THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. IN VIRGINIA, WE ARE ONE OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF STATES WHERE THE COMMON WELL CAN REQUEST A JURY, AS WELL AS THE DEFENDANT CAN, AND WHERE THE JURIES ACTUALLY RECOMMEND A SENTENCE FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF FELONY CRIMES. IN 1995, WE ABOLISHED PAROLE IN FAVOR OF TRUTH IN SENTENCING, AND THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT WE WEREN'T THEN TRUTHFUL WITH THE JURIES WHO WERE DOING THE SENTENCING. JUDGES ROUTINELY REFUSED INSTRUCTIONS THAT SAID THAT PAROLE HAD BEEN ABOLISHED, AND JURIES WERE LED TO SPECULATE ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN AFTER THEY PRONOUNCED THEIR SENTENCES. SO IT WASN'T UNTIL 2000 WHEN THE VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT SAID THAT IT DEFIED REASON THAT THIS INFORMATION WOULD BE WITHHELD FROM JURIES, JUST AS THEY WERE PERFORMING A SIGNIFICANT AND APPROPRIATE -- THIS IS SIGNIFICANT AND APPROPRIATE INFORMATION WHEN THEY WERE PERFORMING THIS VITAL FUNCTION. SO FROM THAT POINT FORWARD, JUDGES HAD TO INSTRUCT JURIES THAT PAROLE HAD BEEN ABOLISHED AND THAT OFFENDERS WOULD END UP SERVING A VAST MAJORITY OF THEIR TIME. BUT WE WERE LEFT FOR FIVE YEARS OF DEFENDANTS WHO HAD NOT BEEN INSTRUCTED. THE PROBLEM WAS THE COURT OF APPEALS MADE IT'S DECISION PROCEED SUSPECTIVE, -- PROSPECTIVE, NOT RETROSPECTIVE. SO THE VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE OFFENDERS WHO STILL REMAIN IN PRISON ARE IN THERE FOR VIOLENT OFFENSES. THIS BILL DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM. THIS BILL APPLIES TO THOSE WHO WERE CONVICTED OF NONVIOLENT FELONIES BETWEEN JANUARY 1st JANUARY 1st 1995 AND 2000, WHERE THE JURY WAS NOT INSTRUCTED ABOUT THE APP -- ABOLITION OF PAROLE AND WHO ARE PRESENTLY INCARCERATED FOR THEIR OFFENSE. THAT'S ABOUT 11 PEOPLE. AND WHAT THEY WOULD GET IS THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PETITION FOR A NEW SENTENCING HEARING IN THE ORIGINAL CIRCUIT COURT WHERE THE CASE HAD BEEN HELD. THE COURTS MESSED UP WHEN THEY APPLIED TRUTH IN SENTENCING. IT'S UP TO US IN THE LEGISLATURE TO FIX THAT, AND THIS BILL GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET THAT PROCESS STARTED. SO MR. PRESIDENT, I AGAIN RENEW MY MOTION THAT THE BILL PASS. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM, SENATOR OBENSHAIN.

Sen. Mark Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg): MR. PRESIDENT, SPEAKING TO THE BILL.

[Unknown]: NEAR HAS THE FLOOR.

Sen. Mark Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg): MR. PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, I JUST WANT TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO A COUPLE OF ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO THIS BILL. FIRST OF ALL, THE COURTS WERE TRUTHFUL WITH THE JURIES. THE COURTS TOLD THE JURIES WHAT THE SENTENCING RANGE WAS. WHEN WE WERE NOT BEING TRUTHFUL WAS WHEN WE HAD SENTENCING RANGES AND PEOPLE HAD NO IDEA HOW MUCH OF THE TIME WAS GOING TO BE SUSPENDED OR WAS GOING TO BE ACTUALLY SERVED AND SO, FIRST OF ALL, THE COURTS WERE TRUTHFUL WITH THE JURIES. THEY TOLD THEM WHAT THE SENTENCING RANGE WAS FOR THESE PEOPLE WHO WERE CONVICTED OF THESE CRIMES. SECOND THING THAT I WANT TO POINT OUT IS THAT WHILE THE COURT DID ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, IT DID NOT REQUIRE US TO DO WHAT THIS BILL IS DOING. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE AND DID NOT REQUIRE, AS SOME OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONS HAVE, US TO GO BACK AND REVISE THE SENTENCES FOR THESE PEOPLE, AND WE HAVE HAD CASES IN WHICH THE COURTS HAVE REQUIRED US TO GO BACK AND REVISIT PROSECUTIONS, AND THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS. THE THIRD THING I WANT TO POINT OUT IS THAT MANY OF THESE ARE CONVICTIONS THAT ARE 20 PLUS YEARS OLD, AND THE VICTIMS ARE NO LONGER EITHER AROUND OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE TRACKED DOWN, AND QUITE FRANKLY, THERE IS JUST NO WAY THAT THIS IS GOING TO PRACTICALLY WORK. THERE'S NO WAY THAT ANYBODY CAN ADEQUATELY STAND UP AND PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF VICTIMS WITH RESPECT TO GOING BACK AND REVISITING SENTENCES IN 20 PLUS-YEAR-OLD CASES. I APPRECIATE WHAT THE GENTLE LADY IS TRYING TO DO, BUT I JUST RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THIS IS NOT A PRUDENT WAY OF ADDRESSING THIS.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM WESTERN FAIRFAX, SENATOR MORRISON. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, SPEAK TO THE BILL. SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I RAN A DIFFERENT VERSION OF THIS BILL TRYING TO GET AT THE SAME SOLUTION THAT THE JUNIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN HAS HERE TODAY. I WAS PRESENTED WITH SOMEONE WHO PRESENTED A SITUATION THAT TOOK PLACE HERE IN THE COMMONWEALTH WHERE THE JURY WAS NOT GIVEN MUCH INFORMATION ABOUT SENTENCING AND SOMEONE ON THE JURY SAID, WELL, I KNOW HOW THIS WORKS. THEY ONLY HAVE TO DO 25% OF THEIR TIME WAS WHAT HE TOLD HIS OTHER JURORS, AND I THINK THEY ALL AGREED THAT THIS PERSON OUGHT TO GET ABOUT 10 YEARS. SO THEY SAID, WELL, LET'S GIVE HIM 40 YEARS, AND THAT WAY, HEEL ONLY HAVE TO DO 10. HE'LL BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE. AND IF HE DOES WELL, THAT WILL BE GREAT. WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, 40 MEANT 40, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS INDIVIDUAL GOT. IT WASN'T TRANSPARENT. IT ISN'T JUSTICE, AND I REALIZE AND I APPRECIATE THE GENTLEMAN FROM ROCKINGHAM BRINGING UP THE FACT THAT THERE ARE SOME TECHNICAL ISSUES HERE, BUT YOU KNOW, I ALWAYS GREW UP AND MY PARENTS ALWAYS TOLD ME, WHEN YOU MESS SOMETHING UP, YOU FIX IT. WE MESSED THIS UP BADLY, AND THIS IS A SMALL MEASURE TO PROVIDE JUSTICE TO THESE INDIVIDUALS, AND I'D URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THE BILL.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL SENATE BILL 825 PASS. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES AY, THOSE OPPOSED NO. ARE THE SENATORS READY TO VOTE? HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? THEIR VOTE? DO ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO CHANGE THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 22, NOS 18. AYES 22, NOS 18, THE BILL PASSES. MR. PRESIDENT. THE SENATOR FROM FAUQUIER, SENATOR VOGEL. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, HAVING VOTED ON THE PREVAILING SIDE BY WHICH WE PASSED SENATE BILL 816, I WOULD ASK THAT THAT BILL PLEASE BE RECONSIDERED.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS, SHALL THE VOTE BY WHICH SENATE BILL 816 WAS PASSED BE RECONSIDERED. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES AY, 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.

[Unknown]: AYES 40, NOS 0. AYES 40, NOS 0. THE MOTION IS AGREED TO. THE SENATOR FROM EASTERN FAIRFAX COUNTY, SENATOR SUROVELL.

Sen. Scott Surovell (D-Mount Vernon): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. HAVING PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED THE BILL, UNLESS THERE ARE SOME NEW QUESTIONS, I MOVE THE BILL PASS.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS, DOES SENATE BILL 816 PASS? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES AY, 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.

Sen. Scott Surovell (D-Mount Vernon): AYES 28, NOS 12.

[Unknown]: AYES 28, NOS 12. THE BILL PASSES. SENATE BILL 862, A BILL RELATING TO DRIVING AFTER FORFEITURE OF LICENSE. THE SENATOR FROM EASTERN FAIRFAX COUNTY, SENATOR THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. SUROVELL. I MOVE THE BILL PASS AND SPEAKING TO THAT BILL. THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS BILL, I THINK IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE AND I VIEWED IT AS KIND OF A CODE CLEANUP BILL. BASICALLY WHAT HAPPENS, RIGHT NOW IF YOU'RE CONVICTED OF DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, YOU FORFEIT YOUR LICENSE, AND USUALLY THE COURT GIVES YOU A RESTRICTED LICENSE, NOT ALWAYS, BUT USUALLY, AND IF YOU VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THAT RESTRICTED LICENSE OR YOU DRIVE WHEN YOU DON'T -- WHEN YOU HAD A DUI AND YOU DON'T HAVE A RESTRICTED LICENSE, THERE'S A STATUTE THEY CHARGE YOU UNDERREPRESENTATION 18.2272, AND RIGHT NOW THAT STATUTE MAKES IT ILLEGAL TO DRIVE EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT ON A HIGHWAY, AND THE PROBLEM THAT CREATES IS THERE'S LOTS OF MOTOR VEHICLES YOU CAN DRIVE THAT AREN'T ON A HIGHWAY, LIKE YOUR RIDING LAWNMOWER IN YOUR FRONT YARD, LIKE A GOLF CART ON A GOLF COURSE OR A FORKLIFT IN A FACTORY. ON OUR REGULAR DRIVING ON SUSPENDED STATUTE, YOU HAVE TO BE ON A HIGHWAY. AND SO ALL THIS DOES, IT ADDS THE ON A HIGHWAY REQUIREMENT TO THE DUI REVOCATION STATUTE TO MAKE THEM CONSISTENT. THAT'S THE BILL. I WOULD HOPE THE BODY PASS THE

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU, SENATOR. BILL. THE QUESTION IS, SHALL SENATE BILL 862 PASS? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES AY, 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.

[Unknown]: AYES 28, NOS 11. THE BILL PASSES. SENATE BILL 1047, A BILL RELATED TO DCJS TRAINING STANDARDS; COMMUNITY ENGAGED POLICING. THE SENATOR FROM SUPPORTS -- SUPPORTS -- PORTSMOUTH, SENATOR LUCAS. SENATE BILL 1047 IS DCJS TRAINING STANDARDS REGARDLESS COMMUNITY POLICING, REQUIRING THE COMPULSORY TRAINING STANDARDS FOR BASIC TRAINING AND RECERTIFICATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO INCLUDE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL POLICING. VERBAL DID HE ESCALATION AND NEEDS OF PEOPLE -- VERBAL DEESCALATION AND NEEDS OF PEOPLE -- AGAIN, I ARE HE NEW MY MOTION TO -- RENEW MY MOTION TO HAVE THE BILL PASS.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE QUESTION IS SHALL SENATE BILL 1074 PASS? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES AY, 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.

[Unknown]: AYES 22, NO, SIR 18. AYES 22, NOS 18. THE BILL PASSES. SENATE BILL 1091, A BILL RELATING TO MARIJUANA CENSUS, DRIVER'S LICENSE FORFEITURE. THE SENATOR FROM ALEXANDRIA, SENATOR EBBIN.

Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THIS IS A BILL THAT THE SENATOR FROM FRANKLIN AND I JOINTLY CHIEF CO-PATRONNED. IT MIRRORS A BILL WE PASSED LAST YEAR WITH ONE DISTINCTION. CURRENTLY UNDER EXISTING LAW A MARIJUANA DEFENDANT LOSES THEIR DRIVER'S LICENSE FOR SIX MONTHS AFTER THE OFFENSE. THIS WOULD PROVIDE FOR JUDICIAL DISCRETION ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY LOSE THE LICENSE. IT IS SUPPORTED BY THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEYS AND IT WILL LESSEN SOME OF THE 38,849 TIMES A YEAR VIRGINIANS LOSE THEIR LICENSE TO DRUG OFFENSES. ALL BOARDS DO NOT SUSPEND AS DO THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OFF OTHER STATES W THAT, I MOVE THE BILL PASS.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM FRANKLIN COUNTY, SENATOR STANLEY.

Sen. Bill Stanley (R-Moneta): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. SPEAK TO THE MEASURE.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR.

Sen. Bill Stanley (R-Moneta): S A THE CHIEF CO-PATRON, I WANT TO, OF COURSE, THANK MY OTHER CHIEF CO-PATRON FOR THIS. LOOK, AS AN ATTORNEY WHO PRACTICES ALL THE TIME, TOO OFTEN WHAT WE SEE IN THESE SITUATIONS, AND I'VE HAD JUDGES TELL ME THIS OVER AND OVER, IS THAT SOME YOUNG KID HAS GOT MARIJUANA ON HIM, NOT NEAR A CAR ANYWHERE, AND THEN AS PART OF THE 251 PUNISHMENT, THAT IS FIRST OFFENDER STATUS, WHERE WE TAKE THE CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT, THEY DO COMMUNITY SERVICE, PAY A LARGE FINE, AND IF THEY DO ALL OF THOSE AND ARE SUCCESSFUL AND COMPLETE THAT AND ARE DRUG FREE AND SCREEN CLEAN, AT THE END OF THAT PERIOD OF TIME, THEN THE CHARGE IS DISMISSED, BUT THE ONE THING THAT IS UNRELATED AND DOES NOT CORRECT BEHAVIOR IS THE SUSPENSION OF THEIR LICENSE FOR SIX MONTHS. AND THEN THEY CAN BE GRANTED A RESTRICTED LICENSE, AND THAT RESTRICTED LICENSE, AS YOU KNOW, AND THE SAME AS A DUI IS TO AND FROM WORK, TO AND FROM VSAP, TO AND FROM CHURCH. IT DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO GO TO THE GROCERY STORE. IT DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO GO SEE YOUR MOM. IT IS VERY RESTRICTIVE AND ON TOP OF THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, WHEN YOU GET YOUR LICENSE SUSPENDED, AS YOU WOULD KNOW, SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW, MOST OF YOU I HOPE DON'T KNOW, YOUR INSURANCE NOT ONLY SKYROCKETS, BUT YOU USUALLY HAVE TO HAVE WHAT'S CALLED AN SR 22, AND IF YOU GET REINSURED, THEN IT'S A HIGHER RATE, AND IT STAYS ON YOUR RECORD FOR NOTHING THAT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH DRIVING. NOW, THE ORIGINS OF ALL OF THIS WAS THAT WAY BACK IN THE '80s WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS GETTING TOUGH ON THE WAR ON DRUGS, THERE WAS, I THINK, A CONGRESSMAN OR SENATOR WHO PUT IN THE TRANSPORTATION ACT THAT SAID THAT FEDERAL DOLLARS WOULD ONLY BE RECEIVED BY STATES WHO THEN AGREED TO SUSPEND LICENSES UPON DRUG CONVICTIONS, DRUG CONVICTIONS. THE ART OF THE 18.2-251 DISPOSITION IS THAT THERE IS NO INITIAL CONVICTION. THERE IS A FINDING OF THE CASE IS TAKEN UNDER SUFFICIENCY OF GUILT. ADVISEMENT. SOMETIMES THE DEFENDANT PLEADS GUILTY. SOMETIMES THE DEFENDANT DOESN'T PLEAD GUILTY, BUT THEY STIPULATE TO FACTS THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO FIND THEM GUILTY. THE CASE IS CONTINUED. THERE IS NO CONVICTION, BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IN THIS VERY GOOD STATUTE IS GIVE SOMEBODY THE OPPORTUNITY OF A SECOND CHANCE FOR MAKING A DUMB MISTAKE, BECAUSE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO, AND ESPECIALLY MR. PRESIDENT, THAT THESE KIND OF CONVICTIONS CAN AFFECT THEIR VERY ABILITY TO GET A JOB.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): WOULD THE GENTLEMAN FROM FRANKLIN YIELD FOR A QUESTION.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR A QUESTION. HE'S THE MAJORITY LEADER. I HAVE NO CHOICE. YIELD, SENATOR. MR. PRESIDENT, KNOWING WHAT A STUDENT HE IS OF THE LAW AND HOW ASTUTE HE IS ON READING NOT JUST THE LAW BUT THE CALENDAR, CAN YOU TELL ME HOW MANY NEGATIVE VOTES THERE WERE AGAINST THIS IN COMMITTEE, SIR? THE SENATOR FROM FRANKLIN

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD ANSWER COUNTY. THE GENTLEMAN FROM JAMES CITY BY SAYING, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS ONLY ONE NEGATIVE VOTE IN COMMITTEE, I LIKE UNANIMITY HERE, AND FOR THAT, THAT IS WHY I STAND AND SPEAK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.

[Unknown]: DOES THAT COMPLETE YOUR DISCUSSION, SENATOR? I THINK IT DOES. I THINK I'VE SAID WHAT I WANT TO SAY. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE QUESTION IS, SHALL SENATE BILL 1091 PASS? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES AY, 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.

[Unknown]: CLERK: AYES 38, NOS 2. AYES 38, NOS 2. THE BILL PASSES. THE JUNIOR SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA BEACH. MR. PRESIDENT, HAVING VOTED ON THE PREVAILING SIDE OF SENATE BILL 862, I REQUEST WE RECONSIDER IT. THANK YOU, SENATOR, THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE VOTE BY WHICH SENATE BILL 872 PASSED BY RECONSIDERED? ALL IN FAVOR OF THEIR --. THAT WAS SENATE BILL 862.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): YES. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION RECORD THEIR VOTES AYE, THOSE OPPOSED NO. ARE THE SENATORS READY TO VOTE? DO ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO CHANGE HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? THEIR VOTE? THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 38, NOS 1. AYES 38, NOS 1. THE MOTION IS AGREED TO. THE SENATOR FROM EASTERN FAIRFAX COUNTY, SENATOR SUROVELL.

Sen. Scott Surovell (D-Mount Vernon): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, HAVING PREVIOUS WILL I EXPLAINED THE BILL, I WOULD MOVE THE BILL PASS.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL SENATE BILL 862 PASS. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES AY, 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.

Sen. Scott Surovell (D-Mount Vernon): AYES 29, NOS 11.

[Unknown]: AYES 29, NOS 11. THE BILL PASSES. SENATE BILL 1298, A BILL RELATING TO POSSESSION OR DISTRIBUTION OF MARIJUANA FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES; EXCEPTIONS. THE SENATOR FROM FAUQUIER COUNTY, SENATOR VOGEL. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, I MOVE PASSAGE OF THE BILL AND SPEAKING TO THAT MOTION. THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY WILL REMEMBER THAT IN 2015 WE PASSED A BILL THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED ALLOWED -- THAT DOES ALLOW FOR CBD OIL TO BE PRESCRIBED FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE A VERY, VERY NARROW NEED FOR CBD OIL FOR EPILEPSY THAT AT THE TIME MANY OF YOU HAD HEARD FROM CONSTITUENTS AROUND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA WHO HAD A VERY RARE SEIZURE DISORDER FOR WHICH CBD OIL SEEMED TO BE THE ONLY TREATMENT. AND THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY AND THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE WERE PERSUADED ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY. I THINK THIS BODY VOTED 37 TO 2 AND THE HOUSE VOTED 96 TO 0 TO ALLOW CBD OIL TO BE USED FOR THOSE PATIENTS, AND IT HAS PROVED TO BE REMARKABLE AND TRANSFORMATIVE. FOR YOUNG PEOPLE WHO WERE BORN ENTIRELY HEALTHY WHO SUFFERED THIS SEIZURE DISORDER AND THEN WERE RENDERED ALMOST INCAPABLE OF FUNCTION, AND THAT CBD OIL PROVED TO BE LIFESAVING FOR THEM. WHAT MY BILL SEEKS TO DO IS EXPAND THE USE OF CBD OIL FOR OTHER VERY, VERY SEVERE DISORDERS THAT ARE ON PARITY WITH THAT KIND OF A SEIZURE DISORDER. I WANT TO BE CLEAR. THIS IS NOT A MEDICAL MARIJUANA BILL. THIS IS A CBD OIL BILL. CBD OIL DOES NOT HAVE ANY PSYCHOTROPIC EFFECTS. IT CANNOT MAKE YOU HIGH. IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS DEALT ON THE ILLICIT MARKET. YOU CANNOT SMOKE IT. IT IS A COMPOUND, THOUGH, THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO HAVE MANY, MANY MEDICAL BENEFITS, AND SO IF YOU ARE SOMEONE WHO SUFFERS FROM LOU GEHRIG'S DISEASE, ALS, OR MS, OR YOU HAVE CANCER AND YOU