Senate Standing Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection

Good morning and welcome to the Hawaii State Senate Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection. This is Tuesday, 02/17/2026. This is the 09:20am CPN hearing in Conference Room 229 at the Hawaii State Capitol.

This meeting is being streamed live on YouTube. And in the unlikely event that we experience technical difficulties and need to abruptly end this hearing, we will reconvene to address any outstanding business on Wednesday, 02/18/2026 at 09:30am in the same room, 229. First up well, first and only bill on this agenda is Senate bill 888, Senate draft 1 relating to consumer protection. This measure prohibits operators of smart household security devices from sharing user data with law enforcement agencies.

Unless the user consents or the law enforcement agency obtains a judicial warrant. First up, we have DCCA's office of consumer protection with comments. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Keohokalole, members of the committee. My name is Melissa Enright. I'm with the DCCA office of consumer protection. We stand on our written testimony with comments, and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Judiciary the Judiciary state of Hawaii with comments written comments. Jessica Redford in support. Do we have her online?

Not present on Zoom, chair.

Thank you. We also have written testimony, all in support from Lynn Marisol, Mamiko Carroll, Jennifer Lum, Noel Lindenman, and late testimony from Carol Gaylord and Michael Alder. Is there anyone else in the room or online who would like to testify on this measure? Okay. Members, questions?

Okay, If not then we'll proceed to decision making on this measure. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Clarifying that the office of consumer protection may bring an action to oh, wait. Oh, yeah. May bring an action to enforce a violation of this section and adopting recommended amendments from the judiciary.

We'll also defect the effective date of this measure to 07/01/2050. Keep it moving. Members, any discussion? Okay. Seeing none passing with amendments, Chair votes aye.

Thank you. Vice Chair also votes aye. [Roll Call]. Thank you. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. We're adjourned.

Good morning and welcome. This is our 9:30 AM decision making agenda for the Hawaii State Senate Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection. It's Tuesday, 02/17/2026 in Conference Room 229. This measure the measure we'll be voting on is Senate bill 2777 relating to insurance. It was previously heard in this committee last week.

And, the recommendation is to pass this measure with amendments, requiring amending the bill to require authorized insurers to disclose the data that was proposed in the bill.

The questions that we're requiring the insurers to provide to consumers are regarding the number of claims opening at the beginning of a insurance period, closed with payment during the period, closed without payment during the period, and open at the end of the period so that consumers have an idea of at what rate insurers are paying out claims. We'll make clarifying amendments, remove the requirements for the DCCA insurance division to do the publication, and defect the effective date of this measure to 07/01/2050.

Members, any discussion? K. Seeing none passing with amendments, chair votes aye.

Thank you. [Roll Call] Thank you. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. We're adjourned. Okay.

Good morning and welcome. This is our Tuesday, 02/17/2026 joint committee hearing agenda between the Hawaii State Senate Committees on Commerce and Consumer Protection and the Committee on Judiciary.

It's 09:30 am in Conference Room 229. We're hearing SB 2738 relating to tax haven abuse. And the first, testifier up is the Department of Taxation with comments.

Good morning, chairs. Vice chairs. Committees of the committee. I'm Robert Avila on behalf of DOTAX.

The department stands on its written testimony providing comments. I'm here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Tax Foundation with comments online. Good morning.

Good morning, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committees. Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We don't support tax haven abuse, but there are many practical problems with the bill presented to you this morning. For us in a relatively small state, we are better off, I think, piggybacking on IRS audits as opposed to trying to deal with multinational enterprises ourselves. That's why we have 235 38.5 HRS, which calls for mandatory water's edge reporting.

Presently, we can check and balance against the federal tax return filed by an enterprise because that return is on a water's edge basis, the the federal return. So if the legislature wants to go a different direction, it needs to amend or repeal 235, 38.5 at a minimum. I've submitted extensive testimony describing the different mechanisms involved. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you. We also have written testimony in opposition from the Council on State Taxation. Support from the Imua Alliance, Johnny May Perry, and Theodore Metros, and opposition late testimony from Jen. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure?

Did we lose someone on Zoom? If you wanted to testify, you can turn your video on so we know you're there.

Sorry, Chair. They were for a later agenda.

Oh, got it. Thank you. Anyone else in the room? Okay, members questions? Okay, seeing none, should we move into decision making?

Sure, I think so.

Okay, so the recommendation on this measure is to pass with amendments, adopting the recommended amendments from the Department of Taxation, making technical non substantive changes, and defecting the effective date of this measure to 07/01/2050 to keep this pretty complicated conversation about taxation and tax fairness in Hawaii going. Any discussion? K. Seeing none, passing with amendments, chair votes aye.

Thank you. [Roll Call] Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Same recommendation for JDC members. Any questions or concerns? If not, question.

[Roll Call] Measure is adopted.

Thank you very much. We're adjourned.

Good morning and welcome to this Tuesday, February 17th, 2026, 9:45 a.m. joint committee hearing agenda between the Hawaii State Senate committees on commerce and consumer protection and health and human services to hear a number of jointly referred bills. In deference to the health and human services committee, we will move the first three measures to the end of the calendar and allow HHS to take up their bills first. I'll yield to Senator San Buenaventura.

Okay. Thank you very much. For HHS, we have a one-minute time rule. We expect you to stand in your written testimony if you can, and just clarify if necessary. But otherwise, we request that, because we have a joint committee hearing with substantial testimony, that you stand on your written testimony.

So first up, SB 2690, relating to primary care. First up, we have Doctor Lewin in support. Next, we have insurance division providing comments. Next, we have AARP in support.

I see Adi Suganuma.

I have insurance division online.

Oh, excuse me. Insurance division, are you online? Okay. Please proceed.

Hi. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chairs, members of the committee. Insurance division stands on its written testimony providing comments. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next, we have Audrey Suga-Nakagawa with AARP in support. Next, we have Doctor Grosskreutz, Grosskreutz in support. Next, we have Capone Chong Hanson, MD, in support.

Michael Ching in support. Esther Smith in support. Alan Novak in support. Kelly Whitney in support.

Grosskreutz's online.

Grosskreutz, please proceed. You have one minute.

Dear senators, thank you very much for hearing this measure. The federal government designates all of our neighbor islanders and rural Oahu as health professional shortage areas. Our 43% shortage of doctors on the Big Island is likely to worsen as many of us over age 65 retire. A study in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that people living in health professional shortage areas, on average, died about a year earlier than MOSA had better access to care.

That means that our family and communities on the neighbor islands are dying prematurely because of a lack of primary care providers.

If we had had the opportunity to, like a number of other states, boost our, our targeted funding for primary care to twelve to fifteen percent, as many states have done, that would have actually lowered our global health care costs now and lowered the cost and made even our insurance companies more sustainable at this point.

Delaying access to primary care at this point for a couple more years is kind of like having a cancer patient that you're treating that's got a life expectancy of one year and then putting off chemotherapy for several years. We really need to increase primary care spending to at least 6% by January 2007.

Thank you very much, Dr. Grosskreutz. Thank you very much. Next, we have Eric Abe, Hawaii Primary Care Association, providing comments.

Dr. Ignacio, Hawaii Medical Association in support. Walden Au, HMSA, providing comments.

Good morning, Chair San Buenaventura, Chair Keohokalole, Vice Chair Fukunaga, members of the committees. Walden Au on behalf of HMSA. We appreciate the intent of the measure, but would just like to point out that appropriate medical spending must take several factors into account, including age, risk profile, other disease burdens, and local utilization patterns. We worry that setting a set percentage for medical spend could, in the long term, actually increase the cost.

And while there are no parameters for where the cost of them or she means the extra cost would come from, we would hope that the committee would consider bringing up a working group similar to what we did for prior authorization last year.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have Alan Novak in support. Kelly Whitley in support again, and Vince Yamashiroya doctor in support. I see doctor Jack Lewin here present.

Are you ready to.

Yes, ma'am.

In support.

May I comment?

Yeah. Come on up.

Chairs, Vice Chairs, members. Thank you. Originally, this bill had a lot of detail in it that we think is better removed, and just the focus stay with primary care that shipped in. This primary care issue is gonna there might be an increase in premium, a slight increase in premium for a short time as we ramp up to this. But this is an effort the state needs to take.

It's clearly a well-demonstrated effort. So we would we'd strongly support moving in this way. I don't think a work group is gonna come up with anything more dramatic than the recommendations already here. But I think that the original bill just had all the other a bunch of other provisions that were best removed just to focus on this. So thank you very much for that.

Thank you very much. Stephen Kimball in support. Sarah in support. Tyler McMurray in support, Colleen Inouye in support, Dr. Dan Ationa in support, Rachel Wilkins in Hawaii Association of Health Plans providing comments. Rachel, are you present?

Rania May, director of DHS, providing comments. DHS, are you present on Zoom?

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. Members, any questions for SB 2690? Okay, moving on. SB 3103 relating to.

Sorry to interrupt, Chair. We have someone from DHS that just joined the Zoom call.

Okay. Okay, DHS please proceed.

Hi. Good morning. Sorry. I'm having technical difficulties. DHS stands on its submitted testimony, and I'm available for comments or questions.

Okay. K. Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify on SB 2690? Okay. Members, any questions?

Okay. Moving on. SB 3,103, relating to Department of Health's authority to regulate food, drugs, and cosmetics. Thirty one zero three? Excuse me.

My thing is relating to energy assistance.

Is it? Yep.

Relating to energy assistance. First up, we have director Yamane in support. Are you present? DHS. K.

Next, we have, Michelangelo in support.

Jeremy can also put the vision to actuality. We'll stand on our testimony in strong support. Thank you.

K. Thank you very much. Next, we have John Itamura in support. Thank you. Shannon Alibato for Hawaiian Electric in support.

Betty Lou Larson, Catholic Charities in support. Scott Sato, Kauai Island Utility Cooperative in support. Chris Cofield, Imoa Alliance in support. Veronica Moore.

KIUC is Online.

Who's that online?

KIUC.

KIUC. Please proceed.

Sorry, Chair. This is Scott Sato from KIUC. We just stand on our written testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Veronica Moore, are you present in support? Anybody else wishing to testify on SB 3103 relating to energy assistance? Is this basically creating a Hawaii version of LIHEAP?

Chair, we have DHS on Zoom.

Okay. Please proceed.

Aloha and good morning. DHS stands on its written, submitted testimony, and I'm available for any questions. This is Elisa for Tala Fisher, Financial Assistance Programs Administrator.

Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify on SB 3103? Members, any questions?

Okay, moving on. SB 3137, relating to the Department of Health's authority to regulate food, drugs, and cosmetics. First up, we have the Department of Health, Environmental Health Administration in support.

Chairs, Vice Chairs, members of the committee, Matt Kurano, Department of Health Services Division, standing on our written testimony in support, and available for questions you may have.

Next, we have Brandon Kennard, Hawaii Food Plus Policy in support. Anybody else wishing to testify on SB 3137? Members, any questions? Moving on. SB 3164, relating to child welfare service organizations.

First up, insurance division providing comments.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chairs, members of the committee, Matt Tsujimura, on behalf of the insurance division. We'll stand on our written comments.

Okay, insurance division standing on comments. Next, we have Department of Attorney General in opposition. Please proceed.

Good morning, Chairs, Vice Chairs, and committee members. We really wanna express our appreciation for the intent of the bill, but we're opposing it for the reasons stated in the testimony. Wanted to just clarify that there are no statutory requirements to have the indemnification clauses in it, but we're merely suggesting that the existing procurement process could deal with adjusting and making sure contracts that are awarded from the department do adequately cover insurance costs as they rise. I'm thanks for the opportunity to testify, and I'm available for questions.

Can you state your name, please?

Oh, deputy attorney general Lila King.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Trisha Kajimura in support.

Thank you.

Aloha, Trisha Kajimura from Parents and Children Together. Just wanted to emphasize that in support of this bill, this is an urgent measure for PAC to continue operating as a child welfare services organization for the state. We ask you to please move the bill to continue discussion.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Catholic Charities Betty Lou Larson in support.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

They're not present on Zoom? Next, we have Lynn and Jeff Watanabe in support. Amanda Pump in support, Child and Family Services. Mihoko Ito in support, SanHi. Evan Oye.

She's right here.

Okay. Come on up. Mihoko.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Mihoko Ito, on behalf of Krantz and Children Together. We just wanna reiterate our support for this measure and note that with respect to the opposition of the attorney general, the indemnity provisions are really a cost-shifting mechanism. And what's happening right now is because these providers are stepping into the shoes of the state to provide these services, but yet forced to accept all of the liability and duty defense costs. That's really our concern.

And the, the impact of not doing anything will result in these cases being turned back to the state. So we just wanted to make that for the record. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have Hawaii Association of Justice, Evan Oue in opposition. Come on up.

Good morning, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee. Evan Oue on behalf of the Hawaii Association for Justice. You have a written testimony. We stand in strong opposition to this measure. I think our primary point of concern is that the, the measure as drafted right now might not accomplish the goals, which is to ensure, you know, lower insurance costs.

So then the only resulting effect or negative effect of the bill is that the removal of joint and several liability will ultimately disadvantage abuse victims at the end of the day, leaving them undercompensated for the injuries that are, are caused during this time. So, you know, we'll, we'll stand on that and, you know, are available for any questions. Thank you.

K. Thank you very much. Next is, we have Johnny May Perry in support, Linda Jenkins in support. Anybody else wishing to testify on SB 3164? Members, any questions?

Okay. Seeing none, moving on. SB 3206, relating to cannabinoids. First up, we have the department of attorney general providing comments, I believe.

Good morning. Alana Bryant, deputy attorney general. The department notes recent changes to the federal farm bill that take effect in November 2026. We recommend that this bill align to those changes as noted in our testimony. We also note that the Department of Health currently has the ability to change the allowable amount of cannabinoids in its administrative rules.

I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Okay. Next, we have, doctor Fink from Department of Health providing comments. K. Next. Right?

Andrew Goff.

Andrew Goff.

Morning, chair, vice chairs, members of the committee. Andrew Goff of the Office of Medical Cannabis. As the attorney general has noted, the federal law is in flux right now. It's scheduled to change in November 2026. This bill would allow for hemp derived products to be sold at a potency of five milligrams.

That would be in violation of that federal law change. The federal law could change again in that time or change again in the future. We do have in our regulations the authority to change the potency, so we would recommend keeping that flexibility and allowing us to move with the federal law. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next, we have Christine Dent, prosecuting attorney's office in opposition.

Good morning, chair, vice chairs, and members of the committee. I'm gonna jump in my testimony to the vagueness issue, the constitutional defect that we noted in our testimony. Senate bill 3206 does not allow hemp processors to sell tinctures and hemp flowers containing more than five milligrams of THC per serving. However, the bill never defines what constitutes a serving of either tinctures or flowers.

For tinctures, the bill states that it only must contain not more than one ounce per container and two, a maximum concentration of five milligrams of THC per serving.

And for hemp flowers, the bill states only that hemp flowers shall have a maximum concentration of five milligrams of THC per serving. The questions that this bill cannot answer for tinctures, is serving measured by volume? Is it measured by drops? If it is measured by drops, how many drops? Is it one dropper, full, or half a dropper full?

Does a manufacturer decide the serving size, or does a department set it by rule? For flowers, is servings measured by weight one gram or one eighth of an ounce? Is it measured by inhalation, one puff? Is it

Thank you very much. We do have your written testimony that all the product.

Okay, So I just wanted to emphasize that it's vague.

K. Next, we have, Marijuana policy project in support. Karen O'Keefe, are you present on Zoom?

I am. Aloha. I'm Karen O'Keefe with the Marijuana Policy Project. We support SB 3206 with amendments. Hawaii voters support legalizing cannabis, and adults should not be punished for using a substance that is safer than alcohol, and which for many is an over the counter medicine.

This bill is a step in the right direction by legalizing some THC products. However, it doesn't actually legalize the possession by adults of those cannabis or THC products, nor does it include nondiscrimination protections or home cultivation and other bills. In addition, the five milligram per serving limit on flower is far too low. Another possibility would just be to allow flower with up to, say, 30% THC like some other states do. We also urge you to allow THC products made from cannabis, not just hemp.

Cannabis and hemp are the same plant, but hemp has far less THC. Requiring the products to be dried from hemp creates a lot of waste in efficiency and chemical synthetization, that has some added risks. We have more suggestions in writing.

Thank you very much. Next, we have, Shelby Pikachu billionaire in support. Are you present, Shelby, on Zoom?

Not on Zoom, chair.

K. Next, we have Laverne Moore in opposition. Laverne, are you present on Zoom?

Yes I am.

Oh, not on Zoom. Okay, Laverne Moore. See.

I wanna correct the record on Senate B 3206. This bill talks about limits and regulation, but as a teacher, I see it differently. This bill is about commercializing hemp products in ways that make them nearly impossible to manage on a school campus. When you allow THC in forms like gummies and candies, you are making them accessible in forms that are easily hidden in a backpack or locker.

Five milligrams might sound like a small amount to a legislator, but to a student in the classroom, it's enough to disrupt their learning, their behavior, and safety of their peers.

We are already struggling to keep vapes out of our schools. Why would we pass a law that invites more alike products in our stores? This is a safety issue. Marketing these projects make it look like treats, not drugs. It's the students who are being targeted by this accessibility and teachers who will have to deal with the fallout of the classroom.

Please do not make our schools harder to protect.

Thank you, very much.

I speak against it.

Next, we have Marcus Oshiro, who I know is present here in opposition.

Thank you very much. I'll be brief, and I'll maintain the sixty minutes oh, sixty seconds. Sorry. It's been a while. But, anyway, good to see all you're here.

I'm just gonna add several things to my, well researched and written testimony. If you guys gonna move on this bill, I would really be careful because of the current occupant in Washington DC, our president Trump. He is part and parcel of what's going on the hemp industry right now, and be very, very careful with this bill. Consult with congressional delegations. Talk to Senator Hirono, Senator Schatz, congresswoman Tokuda, congressman Case, because these bills are being floated right now as we sit here.

I'm just making a friendly suggestion. And next time I come here, I hope to bring you guys some product, hemp products that I can purchase from a little shop in Wahiawa or in Waikiki. I don't need a 329 card. I can just go up there and pay them cash or credit. Thank you very much. It's good to see all you folks. Aloha.

Aloha, Marcus. Okay. Anybody else wishing to testify on SB 3206? Members, any questions?

Oh, come on up

Good Morning, My name is Rob Bramlett. I'm the director of education for Rare Cannabinoid Company. We're the number one exporter of Hawaiian hemp in the world as far as I know. One thing to understand, we stand to support this bill, with amendments. One thing to understand is there are several states that, have this policy of five milligrams, and it allows, Hawaii farmers that grow their hemp to not have to send it to the mainland to remediate it down.

And that's the equivalent. So the way to tell the difference between hemp and Marijuana is THC is the number one ingredient. That's when you want, if you're trying to buy THC. It's cheaper, all that. But THC does exist in hemp.

It's part of the synergistic process, the entourage effect. So this bill actually mimics several states. I have met with Senator Senator Schatz and Congressman Case in the last two weeks to support something similar like this, which was proposed from a Senator in Oregon.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. I'm here for questions.

And I see other people on Zoom. Please, Nikos Leverenz, please identify yourself and and what your position is.

Good morning, chairs, vice chairs, members. Nikos Leverens with the Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii in support of this bill. The reality is that manufactured hemp products are now available, widely here, and across the country. So this bill is important to allow those engaged in the cannabis and hemp sector to enter the marketplace. We understand that federal law may be in flux.

I think that, the law may be retracted at a later date given the the significance of the manufactured hemp cannabis, sector. So it's critically important for this legislature to give local businesses and local producers the opportunity to participate in that marketplace. Mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony. I have, other amendments in our bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And I see somebody else wishing to testify. Please identify yourself and your position.

Aloha, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committees. Robert Bence, long time generational farmer from Kula and member of the Hawaii State hemp task force. I'm sorry. There's so much bills, and we're so busy farming. We never saw this one.

But this is in line with the Hawaii State hemp task force recommendation. I agree that there's a lot of bad United States hemp operators that are selling completely illegal products. I think you guys have done bills that dealt with that. Hawaii only has a handful of hemp farmers. I grew certified organic CBG and CBDB.

When those are tested even at harvest, they never go hot. Five milligrams, I might not even sell them that high, but that is what the market is everywhere else. So I strongly support this bill model.

Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify in SB 3206? Members, any questions? Pin.

Yeah. I have a question for Department of Health.

Please proceed. Yeah.

Andrew, can you square what happened in the farm bill with what's going on regarding the descheduling of cannabis? Looks like they're lumping hemp in with cannabis but then descheduling it, but I'm not sure I know what I'm talking about.

Yeah. I don't know if that is able to be squared. I think that that does create some inherent confusion. I think ultimately there are three federal things at play.

One is they narrowed the federal farm bill to basically restrict THC products that are hemp derived. And then separately, president Trump issued an executive order that he wants to reschedule cannabis to Schedule three. So that would make medical cannabis, slightly more viable. Our program would still not be compliant with the Schedule three. But he also announced that CMS is going to cover, certain costs related to CBD, and they're issuing or they're currently drafting rules they might be ready to issue soon.

The problem with all this is we don't have federal guidance on what this means, and the FDA is supposed to be coming out with something. It was due two weeks ago. We expect at any moment. CMS is supposed to be issuing guidance, on the insurance, so we aren't really sure where any of this is going on the federal level. And that ultimately is why we should keep it flexible so that we can meet the federal, law and align the state law with it in rules.

What does okay. So I know that there is a rule making process that needs to be undertaken to these to reschedule cannabis from schedule one where it's at right now to schedule three. What's the normal timeline and what exactly does the executive order do to amend that process?

So the timeline is unclear. The method is even unclear because they could just issue a rule. I mean, with this federal administration, they

Tomorrow. Do that. Today. Right now.

Normally, it would go through a rulemaking process. There probably would be a hearing. I think the DEA would run it because the DEA, it's their rules. And then that could take a year, two years, but they could expedite it. Trump's executive order did ask for expedition.

And, you know, like I said, they could just issue an order without any rulemaking process whatsoever.

as expeditious as possible. Right.

What if Trump announced on x tomorrow morning that cannabis is now schedule three and we treat it like it's schedule three, how does that impact these hemp farmers and as it relates to this bill?

The hemp farmers, not so much. For the medical cannabis program, it would it our program would still be in violation of a Schedule three program. You would still need FDA approved drugs. There are no FDA approved cannabis drugs. There are Epidiolex in that that are from CBD.

Essentially, it would allow medical cannabis dispensary licensees to deduct their taxes. That's really the the ultimate thing, and it would ease up research. But for hemp, it wouldn't really have any implications. Now the CMS guidelines might. So CMS comes out and says that their insurance will cover a certain amount of CBD products.

We don't know what that means, CBD products. Right? Could it have a certain amount of THC in it? Is it limited to what the, federal law change in November is going to be, which is point four milligrams per package, which is very low. So we're still waiting to kind of figure out what that even means.

So, I stick around. So, you keep saying that hemp farmers not so much, but the reason I introduced this bill was to help out the hemp farmers because the last budget bill basically removed hemp. And as of November 26, as what the attorney general, deputy attorney general testified to, will then basically put our hemp farmers out of business as of November 26.

So, like what you were talking about, there's multiple balls moving in the Federal Government. Right?

There's the executive order that basically required the FDA or Department of Justice or whoever, DEA, per President Trump, to expeditiously, as expeditiously as possible create rules from Schedule I to Schedule III.

Yeah.

There is the budget bill which we passed, which they passed back in 2025 as part of the ending of the federal shutdown at that time that basically removed Hemp from the Department of Agriculture and relabeled it as cannabis with, I guess, a lower THC requirement that basically ends the current Hemp program as of November of this year. Right? That's the one that the Hemp farmers are are really concerned about. And there's and there's CMS where

We don't know where they're coming from. So what is this bill? Should we pass it? Well, I'm really looking at another bill. Help the hemp farmers to continue on under state law.

Yeah. Okay. So I see where you're going. I think, essentially, what you would be doing if so just to clarify, the budget bill doesn't eliminate hemp. It narrows the definition of hemp.

It separates out industrial hemp from Cannabinoid Hemp, and then it narrows the cannabinoid hems that are products that are allowed to be sold. So it still is considered hemp, but it's basically just CBD, right? CBD with extremely low trace amounts of THC. A lot of the hemp farmers would not be able to process it down to that level. Right.

Some might be able to. So it might eliminate the CBD market in Hawaii. Now, if we created our own hemp program

that allows for five milligrams or a higher level than what the federal allows, what we would essentially be doing is creating a program that violates federal law. And so we would have a medical cannabis program that violates federal law and a hemp program that violates federal law that might, in the borders of the state, allow farmers to sell hemp products. But we wouldn't be able to ship them out.

And it might limit anything that we can ship because people will be concerned anything coming out of Hawaii might be a violation of federal law. So it would allow probably more sales in the state.

Nationwide, you would not have a market. And then we would also have to contend with the Federal Government. We don't know what kind of enforcement efforts they're going to put towards this. So There's that.

But basically, within the confines of the state, we will protect the hemp farmers from to keep producing what they are producing now if we pass this bill or something similar.

You would, yeah, you would allow a certain amount of THC products. And now from a public health standpoint, I feel we should still stress there are public health, issues that come with even a lower potency THC product like this, especially for youth. And I think we heard some testimony from someone from the schools today on that. So that is a concern and a consideration we should take into account when you're doing this.

K. Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify on or any other questions regarding SB 3206? Okay. Okay.

Moving on. SB 2,933, relaying to healthcare costs. First up, we have Doctor Lewin in support.

Chair and members, we stand on our written testimony.

K. Thank you very much. Next, we have Insurance Division providing comments. Please proceed

Insurance Division. Oh, sorry. Justin Chu for the Insurance Division. We stand on our written testimony providing comments. Thank you.

K. Next, we have Carlota Armino, office of information practices providing comments. Okay. Next, we have William Gu in opposition.

Prescription drug affordability or to directly control drug pricing on drug manufacturers will lead to the lowering of prices for the patient of the care is unlikely to produce that intended result. It also adds another wrinkle into an already complicated system of discounts, rebates, and other cost saving measures involving PBMs and insurers, which have not been effectively used to control drug prices at the counter for patients.

Just like to conclude by saying that establishing a TDAP will likely be problematic, difficult to implement, and integrate with the current cost saving measures costly to the state and not an effective way to continue to address this issue. Thankfully, you have to be a testimony.

K. Thank you very much. Next, we have Department of Health in support, but not wanting it to be in Department of Health, wanting it to be with Chipka. Is that correct, Doctor Fink? You're signing your written testimony in support.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next, we have Veronica Moore in support. Anybody else wishing to testify on SB 2933? Okay.

Thank you very much. ARP in support. Members, any questions? K.

Mike Sorry to interrupt, sir. We have someone on Zoom wishing to testify.

Please proceed. Identify yourself.

Primo Castro with the Bio Biotechnology Innovation Organization. Prescription drug affordability boards or PDABS are an unproven experiment with zero record of success where states have collectively spent over 17,000,000 with zero documented patient savings to date. Importantly, PDAPs do not lower what patients actually pay. They focus on list prices even though patient costs are driven by insurance design and pharmacy benefit managers, not by the manufacturer. That's why three patients can walk into the same pharmacy and pay three different prices for the same medicine.

Finally, PDAS risk undermining the innovation ecosystem that patients depend on. Developing new therapy takes over a decade of billions of dollars. One price controls jeopardize that investment. If our goal is true affordability, we should focus on solutions that actually help patients, like capping out of pocket costs, reforming PBM practices, and ensuring rebates reach the patients. Thank you for your time.

K. Thank you very much. I see someone else wishing to testify on 2933. Please identify yourself and please proceed.

Yes. Aloha. My name is Courtney Whitlock, and I'm here today in support of the Senate bill in a personal capacity. Although I work directly in a prescription drug affordability policy and support the operation of Oregon's prescription drug affordability board. Establishing a PDAB is an important step towards addressing high prescription drug cost through a transparent, evident based review process.

My experience has shown that a successful board depends heavily on the implementation work that follows developing infrastructure, clear data methodology, and reviewing the rules. Across multiple states, upper payment limit authority has proven to be one of the most complex elements to operationalize, but practical in a sense where it helps frame the grounding, especially for Hawaii specific data needs. These sequencing strengthen the board's ability to produce durable evidence based solutions.

Opposition will argue that overall harms innovation and access, Yet I am here to share with you my personal experience. We are successful in identifying prescription drugs that can be unaffordable to the health care system and patient out of pocket costs.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify on SB 2933? Members, any questions? I have one. Doctor Lewin, come on up.

So you heard Department of Health's testimony. They don't want it in Department of Health, this authority, but they want it in your agency. What do you think? Can you folks handle it? How many people do you folks have already in your agency?

This would require some resources to implement effectively. I'd like to come back with some estimation of that at a later time. I haven't done that today, but, it would definitely, it's a worthy cause, but one that would require some staffing and some resources to accomplish effectively.

Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify or any other questions on SB 2933? Okay. Moving on. SB 3133, relaying to preventive medicine. First up, we have Dr. Lewin in support.

We'll stand on our written testimony in support. Thank you.

Next, we have the Department of Health in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this measure. We-

Need to identify yourself.

Sarah, excuse me. Sarah Kemble, State Epidemiologist and Disease Outbreak Control Division Chief. We are seeing changes right now at the federal level that are moving away from evidence based recommendations regarding healthcare and posing a threat to access to immunizations and other preventive services for people in our state.

This bill would accomplish ensuring that Hawaii residents continue to have coverage without cost sharing of evidence based immunizations and other certain preventive services, reduce confusion for patients and providers, expand access by allowing pharmacists to provide recommended immunizations, and protect healthcare providers who provide those evidence based clinical services. Thank you. And we'll, stand on our written testimony.

Thank you very much. Insurance Division providing comments. Please proceed.

Morning Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. Justin Chu for the Insurance Division. We stand on our written testimony providing comments. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Health Care Association of Hawaii. Paige Choi in support. Paige, are you present? Yep. Doctor Ignacio of Hawaii Medical Association in support. Mike Wen of Aloha Care in support. Renee Dieprenk in opposition. Cheryl Toyofuku in opposition. Anybody else wishing to testify on SB 3133? Members, any questions? Okay. Moving on. SB 3315 relating to cannabis. Okay.

Okay. First up, we have Deputy AG providing comments.

Good morning, chairs, members of the committee. Alana Bryant, Deputy Attorney General. The department notes its written comments on this bill regarding potential liability for applicants. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Department of Health providing comments.

Morning, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee. Andrew Goff, Office of Medical Cannabis Control and Regulation. This bill would essentially allow a one-time purchase of up to two ounces of cannabis prior to registration for a patient that fills out an application. For a caregiver, you can purchase for up to five patients. That means they can at one time purchase up to 10 ounces of cannabis from a store. Now, the system can't track purchases unless you are registered.

That's the point of the registration system. The entire medical cannabis program is based on tracking from seed to sale. We wouldn't be able to track when it gets sold unless it gets registered. Now, I know you'll hear testimony today that this is the only medicine that you can't go to a pharmacy and fill out the same day, and there's truth to that, but registration is the thing that makes-- that allows us to track.

For pharmacy, pharmacies have really complicated systems of tracking and may be able to verify compliance. Those are all important to make sure that the pharmaceutical sales are compliant and to verify that they're not being abused, and we saw that, like, with the opioid crisis. So for us, it's registration--

Thank you very much, Andrew.

Thank you.

Okay. Next, we have Karen O'Keefe--I see you present--in support for Marijuana Policy Project. Please proceed.

We strongly support SB 3315, which would allow qualifying patients or their caregivers to make a single purchase of medical cannabis while they wait for their cards to be issued. Other states, including California and Louisiana, allow patients to make immediate purchases with a written recommendation, and we know that the ID cards can take days in Hawaii. This would ensure that patients don't have to wait for relief.

We urge you to also add language to make it unequivocally clear that patients can have protections from-- for possessing that cannabis they purchase, and regarding the DOH comments, you know, this could be easily remedied. For example, a patient that submits their application could write down the one dispensary they would go to to make their one purchase from and then they couldn't go to multiple dispensaries and you would have tracking without a delay. Mahalo for introducing this bill and for your time.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Shelby Pikacho Billionaire in support. Shelby, are you present on Zoom?

Not on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. We have Clifton Otto, Akamai Cannabis Consulting, providing comments. Clifton, are you present on Zoom?

Also not on Zoom.

Okay. Courtney Kaiser in support. And Marcus Oshiro, I see you present.

Yes. Thank you very much, Chair. Just a couple of comments. I think California, Oregon, Colorado are not the states to follow with this kind of policy. I think that's the wrong states to follow. I hope people understand that two ounces is a lot of marijuana, especially the potency and the type and strain that we have today. It's not your mother's or your father's, even though I smoked in the 70s at Leilehua High School. In the bathroom.

So if you get five people at times, you know, two--oh, that's 10 ounces--that's a heck of a lot of marijuana. That's way more than half a pound of marijuana. And let's say that I'm denied the 329 card. I still got the stuff. What a great deal, right? And then, you know, not tracking, that's gonna be problematic for the marijuana guys here, medical marijuana guys, because that's part and parcel of the federal restraint on enforcement, robust, robust tracking of product. And it's not like a pharmacy because marijuana medical is not a pharmacy. It's not FDA approved. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Marcus. Okay. Anybody else wishing to testify on SB 3315?

Excuse me, Chair. We have Clifton Otto on Zoom, and we have another testifier, Nikos Leverenz.

Okay. Please proceed, Clifton, and then Nikos right after.

Oh, we lost him. Oh.

Okay. So maybe we have Nikos next and then-- oh, there you are.

Oh, there he is.

Please proceed. You need to unmute yourself, Clifton. Dr. Otto, unmute yourself. Please proceed. You have one minute.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

This is for SB 3315?

Yes.

Okay. I guess there was a change in the order then.

Yes.

Aloha, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committees. Dr. Clifton Otto, offering comments. You have my written testimony that I'd like to briefly summarize. The department is currently doing a great job of approving registration applications in about two days. However, even a day can make a big difference in the life of a patient, and even tiny errors like using an O instead of a zero on the ID number can make significant delays. Authorizing a one-time purchase is a possible solution, but one that will likely be problematic.

A better way to hasten access is to make registration approval occur the instant the certifying provider submits the online application. Reportedly, registry software can already allow certifying providers and registry staff to edit applications, which could be activated to reduce errors before applications are submitted and correct any minor errors afterwards without delaying approval. State law says that patients shall have uninterrupted access to medical cannabis, so let's figure out how to make this possible. Thank you for considering my testimony. I'll be available for any questions.

Nikos, you're next. You have one minute.

Aloha, Madam-- aloha, chairs, vice chairs, members. Nikos Leverenz with Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii. We strongly support this bill. We believe that people who get a medical recommendation should be able to access medications immediately, as was the case as I've told people in California well over a decade and a half ago.

It was instantaneous. The tracking can be done at the retail level by the merchant, by the dispensary. We also recommend an amendment to ensure that folks can possess and transport medical cannabis with a valid written recommendation. Mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify? Come on up. You have one minute. 3315.

Let's let her go first, please.

Okay.

No, you can just sit in the other chair. There's two chairs.

Aloha, Chair, vice chairs, and committee members. I'm Karlyn Laulusa, the CEO for Noa Botanicals. I would just like to highlight, we are trying to improve patient access and, you know, this ask comes up multiple times. It's come up about five times, I think, in the life of the dispensary program, and we need to acknowledge that this is a regulatory delay, right? Like, we have healthcare providers saying people need it.

We can upgrade the system to allow either the doctor or the dispensary to enter them into the system so that people can get their medicine on the day it's prescribed. I just highlight that because related to the earlier discussion about hemp-derived products, medical dispensaries carry the same potencies as the hemp-derived products brought up this morning and we refuse to give people access to that. It's the same product.

Cannabis and hemp, same plant. Hemp-derived, another way to say cannabis. We have those potencies in medicine today in the medical dispensaries and people are seeking it as an alternative to traditional medicine, so we should make it available. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. Come on up.

My name is Landis Lum. I'm an addiction medicine family doctor and director of the IHS Detox Facility. I used to write medical cannabis approvals for anyone who asked, as I used to smoke pot myself and felt it could help anxiety, pain, PTSD. But there are much better treatments for these conditions than weed, and doctors and nurses writing cannabis certifications don't see them back to monitor either effectiveness or side effects.

Cannabis edibles or flowers have never been FDA approved for any medical indication, guaranteed their potency or purity, nor found their benefits to exceed their risks based on sound to research randomized controlled studies. So saying medical cannabis gives it unwarranted stature--

So you're in opposition?

Correct. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. Anybody else? Come on up.

Good morning, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee. My name is Tai Cheng. I'm president of Aloha Green. I stand in support of SB 3315. This is a measure that has, as the previous testifier had noted, has been tried a few times. The DOH themselves admit that there is up to a two-day-- two business day delay for qualification of the patient or registration of the patient.

When this does happen on a weekend, the state's not open on the weekend, and when there is a bank holiday, the state's also not open. So conceivably, a patient could wait up to five days before they're able to collect their medication from one of the dispensaries. And in response to other testifiers, our products are tracked. We're audited independently and we have multiple systems in place that ensure the potency, quality, and the quantity of product that's provided to patients. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify on SB 3315? Members, any questions? I do. Andrew Goff, come on up. So you heard Clifton Otto. Can't you folks just automatically register people?

Our system does require approval before we register. You can edit it after approval, but right now we do require approval. And I should note, we are--

Who does the approval?

The-- well, the system has mechanisms and then we have to review and approve it.

Okay. So is that the two to five days that the prior testifiers say is what's happening between the time of application and the time of approval?

Yeah, that's right. And it is down to one to two business days and providers can request expedited and we can do same day. We're also updating our system, so our system will make it a little faster. That'll come online probably later this year.

Okay. And-- okay. So there's a potential for same day? So if they put-- if they apply online, you will have that ability to track, right, with the application is online? And talk back?

Not with the application. It's the registration number, and that's because the tracking system and the registration system are two different systems, so the registration system needs to approve the application, give you a registration number, give that to the tracking system, and then the tracking system uses that number to track the purchases.

Okay. But can't you, by administrative rules, relate back to a one-time purchase?

It would still be a mech-- like, we would still need the registration number to track the purchases. So it's not really a legal issue. It's more of a system issue.

Administrative. Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else testify? Oh, go ahead. Senator Fevella.

So we hear in the testimony a lot of the guys are supportive of this industry, but what I wanna know from you guys is, like, okay. When I go to the doctor and they prescribe something to me, before I could get this medicine, I gotta try other medicine. So these guys are going to the doctor and they're getting prescribed marijuana. Did they try any other drugs? Do you guys know?

Well, that's between--

Is that tracked?

Well, that's between them and the physician, and ultimately, that's why we do want them to go and interface with the physician to make sure that the drugs that they are taking don't interfere with cannabis, to make sure that they are right for cannabis, and, you know, they don't have any issues, predisposition to psychosis and--

So the doctors that prescribing this marijuana card for medicine, how much of that is being tracked or even watched without having abuse?

We don't track the doctor prescribing. I mean, you know, the doctor does have to register with us and they do have to keep medical records, and we can do investigations into those medical records to make sure they are adequately providing services to their patients, but we don't track the doctors per se. We do track the patients on the patient side and that's kind of how the prescriptions work, too, right?

The doctor writes the script, the pharmacy fills it, and then there's mechanisms for the pharmacy to confirm with the doctor. Did you mean this? The doctor says yes. You know, that kind of thing. But with medical cannabis, it's a little different.

So you don't think there is a chance of having abuse to that system if the doctor's prescription-- same thing with opioids, right? I write someone's prescriptions, I get flagged. How come we don't have that same thing for medical marijuana?

Yeah. I mean, we do have the ability to review physician records, and so that's the check on that. So if we do flag that a physician is registering a lot of patients or, you know, we think that they're not-- we've had reports of, like, fraud and physicians that are just taking money and not issuing cards or something like that, and so we are able to go to the physician, ask to see their records, make sure they are actually seeing the patient, actually giving them medical advice, and registering them. We don't really get involved in whether the, you know, medical decision to issue a card is correct but we do make sure that the physicians aren't abusing the system.

No, the only reason why I bring this up is because in my community, the doctor no longer do practice. Every Wednesdays, when he gave out the card, we had lines outside his door. And guess who was writing the prescription because it was precinct site? His registered nurse. The physician wasn't even on the island.

Right. So-- and that is why we need that authority to be able to inspect the physician records to make sure that that doesn't happen.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Anybody else wishing to testify on SB 3315? Okay. Members, any questions? Any other questions? Okay--

Sorry, Chair. We have Pikachu Billionaire on Zoom.

Okay. Please proceed whoever is on Zoom. Oh, Pikachu.

Hi, guys. It's Pikachu Shelby Billionaire. I oppose this bill, even though I'm a 420 advocate. We just filmed the convention, and it's totally government overreach. You read my testimony. I'm literally on the bus now, so I can't be too loud, but they don't have the rights for the cops or DOH to go ask for medical history, someone's diabetes, whether they're taking drugs or not. That's totally government overreach breaking HIPAA laws, but I do agree for regulation but not through this. So I oppose this bill. Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify on SB 3315? Okay. Moving on to the top of the calendar, we have our super co-chair.

We're moving on to the SB 2421, relating to cannabis.

With that said, we have 27 individuals who signed up to provide testimony on this measure. And this hearing space, must conclude at 11:15 in order for the senators to make their way down to the floor for their, daily floor session. So we have been provided your written testimony and reviewed it.

Again, we'd like to provide the opportunity for everyone who signed up to get a chance and not have to come back again tomorrow to testify. So, if you could stand on your testimony, that would be great. If you could, summarize, that would be even better. First up, we have the attorney general's office with comments.

Thank you. Good morning. Alana Bryant, deputy attorney general. I'd like to briefly note our comments on this bill. First, our department does not take issue with adult use legalization being conditioned on one of the three triggers in the bill.

We would recommend, however, that adult use legalization not take effect until 18 after the trigger occurs. This would give time for law enforcement to prepare and, for the for the public time to prepare, allow time for an education campaign prior to implementation. We also noted, an exemption from the definition of nuisance in HRS three twenty two dash one for cannabis and hemp products, including their odors. The department is concerned that it may limit a potential enforcement tool in regulating cannabis related nuisances.

We suggested several other technical amendments related to HRS section seven twelve dash twelve seventy.

Thank you.

Thank you. If you have any questions, I will be here. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. DCCA with comments.

Good morning, chair.

Good morning.

Chairs and members of the committees. Nadine Ando here, Director of DCCA, standing on our written comments with regard to this measure. And in particular, I guess, underscoring what we put was the significance in the bill, the establishment of a separate public body, Hawaii Cannabis and Hemp Office, and only to be administratively attached to the DCC.

Thank you.

I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Department of Health with comments.

Morning chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee.

Andrew Goff of the Office of Medical Cannabis Control and Regulation. Initially, I would like to note that the bill does include comprehensive public health safeguards. Regulated access is preferable to unregulated access and that decriminalizing cannabis possession, reduces incarceration, which is, in itself, a good thing. However, scientific evidence is pretty clear that increased access will lead to increased use and associated harms. This is going to create perpetual, health demands.

We see this with alcohol and tobacco. We suspend a considerable amount of resources in order to combat the harms and reduce them from those substances. And that's especially the case among vulnerable populations, especially the youth. And just some of the, studies that we've cited, increased cannabis use does increase the risk of psychosis and progression to schizophrenia. High potency THC exposure among youth is associated with depression and anxiety and hallucinations.

And prenatal exposure leads to preterm birth, low birth weight, and adverse effects on cognitive behavior and development. These are all things that we would have to address. Thank you very much.

Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity with comments. Department of Taxation with comments.

Yes.

Good morning, chair and vice chairs, committee committee members, Garrison Kurth, Department of Taxation. We'll stand on our testimony providing comments on your questions.

Thank you very much. Department of law enforcement with comments. Let me see. Prosecuting Attorney's Office. Honolulu. Good morning.

Good morning, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee. My name is Steve Alm, Honolulu Prosecutor. We stand in strong opposition to this bill. It would set up a framework for commercial legalization in Hawaii. And I think it's an even chance that commercial legalization will never happen in Hawaii.

The research keeps coming out every year that's negative about it. No states have legalized since 2023. A whole country, Thailand, has gone against it. And, and some adults may occasionally use marijuana without a bad result. Typically, middle class folks, professional folks, you know, like you guys, or lawyers.

But for many others, one out of three Marijuana users developed cannabis use disorder. And that's low gonna be lower income people. Daily users now outnumber daily drinkers. And it's the addicts who buy most of the Marijuana now. So, do we want to be in the addiction for profit business? I don't think so. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Hawaii Family Forum in opposition.

Aloha, chair, vice chairs, members of the committee. I'm Eva Andrade. I'm the president of Hawaii Family Forum, and we stand in opposition to Senate Bill 2421. We appreciate that the intent of the bill is to address the illegal cannabis activity that's already negatively affecting our states. But Senate Bill 2421, it establishes a permanent regulatory body taxation system and commercial licensing framework that's gonna embed the cannabis industry right into the very culture of Hawaii.

That is a significant policy commitment with generational implications. Even with the safeguards that are written in the bill, we're still learning from all the other states about the broader social and public health effects of large scale commercialization. Once this infrastructure is create is created, it's gonna become the very foundation of future expansion and industry growth. We're asking whether this level of structural commitment is right for Hawaii at this time, and we don't believe that it is. So we respectfully urge you to defer Senate bill 2421. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. American Cancer Society, Cancer Action Network in opposition.

Chairs, Vice chairs, committee members.

Good morning.

Good morning. Cynthia Au with American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. We respectfully oppose the measure and ask for additional clarity within the bill. We urge clear explicit language stating that smoking and cannabis and hemp are prohibited in all smoke free places, including those covered under Chapter 328. We recommend adopting comprehensive consistent definition to include all forms of smoking and to avoid regulatory gaps.

We're available to speak to any of the lawmakers on specific bill language that requires clarification. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Green Aloha Limited in support. The Hawaii Cannabis Industry Association in support. Good morning.

Good morning, Chairs, Vice Chairs, members of the committee. We find ourselves here again another year. Let's remind everyone in this room today that this bill does not legalize marijuana. It does not legalize cannabis. It requires three triggers, one of three triggers to occur.

Two of them being federal legalization of cannabis, which would mean that it would be allowed to be sold in any state in The United States, and Hawaii would therefore have a more restrictive program than the Federal Government if the Supreme Court allows for the sale of cannabis. And number two, if president Donald Trump deschedules cannabis to nothing on the schedule list. The third option, yes, the third trigger is a constitutional amendment in the state of Hawaii.

And if that were to occur, it would mean that it would be allowed in the state, but still it would be federal illegal. So just to remind everyone is to set the framework so that Hawaii is not left behind if the Federal Government allows for the sale of cannabis. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Big Island Grown Dispensaries in support. ACLU Hawaii in support. Institute for Human Services in opposition. Good morning.

Chairs, co chairs, members of the committee. I'm Connie Mitchell. I'm the executive director for IHS, Institute for Human Services. And I think I just wanna, stand on our testimony, but also to just add that our experience with homelessness, every day I'm dealing with substance use disorders, and I just fear that this is going to just make it worse. I think that, we already see, like, all around us the, the evidence of what Department of Health testified to. And I just fear that it'll just grow. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Amanoa Botanicals in support.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, and committee members. I stand on my written testimony and would just like to highlight. It's a framework bill not a legalization bill, but I think everyone can acknowledge that the lack of the current regulatory framework is demonstrated with the explosion of hemp derived products.

Right? We have no laws written to regulate the differences or similarities between cannabis and hemp. And this is what this does. We also need a single regulatory agency to take ownership of a very complex plant and we currently do not have that.

We have no agency willing to enforce HAR, Hawaii revised statutes, and the penal code. That is why we have an explosion of unregulated cannabis, cannabis sellers in the state. And all of that stuff is out of state. I hear all the local hemp farmers, we should support them. Status quo and a lack of regulatory framework does not do that for anyone, including the medical patients that still need access to medicine. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Tax Foundation with comments.

Not present on Zoom, chair.

Thank you. Hawaii Transportation Association in opposition.

Also not on Zoom.

Thank you. Marijuana Policy Project in support.

Aloha. I'll keep. Aloha. Keep it very short. Adults should not be punished for relaxing with cannabis, which is safer than alcohol and many medications. We support the bill's thoughtful regulatory framework, but urge you to remove the trigger and make it effective without delay.

Instead of derailing lives and driving sales underground, Hawaii should legalize and regulate cannabis now. Legalization will generate up to $151 million in annual tax revenue once it's been implemented, which would make a world of difference for your constituents at a time when the social safety net is facing devastating cuts. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Shelby, billionaire in support. Do we have you online?

Hello, guys. Thank you very much. Yes. I support this bill, you're doing an off time job. And just to repeat early for those comments, they should be focusing on more serious data drugs with, like, the norm, methamphetamine, and the human trafficking drugs like this.

Thank you. Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii in support online.

Aloha, chairs, vice chairs, members. Nikos Leverenz with Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii. We too recommend the dropping of the trigger. And we appreciate this bill's regulatory framework. It's especially important to facilitate smaller locally owned farms and businesses, including the craft cannabis sector.

A recent report commissioned by the Hawaii State Department of Health, authored by Cannabis Public Policy Consulting, indicates that by year five, grocery seats of cannabis sales will exceed $1 billion. With a 15% total tax rate, tax receipts will exceed 100 million each year. Given the recent experience of New Mexico, however, which has a similar population to Hawaii, but a tourism sector that's less important, the estimates of this report are likely conservative. In its first year of without use sales, New Mexico saw 300 million in gross sales. By 2024, it saw 76 million in state tax revenue.

Mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you very much. Laverne Moore in opposition. Good morning.

Aloha, Laverne Moore, former special ed teacher for fifty four years. I strongly oppose this bill. As a special ed teacher, I see my students struggle with this, with substance abuse. What it is, it's not just a phase. What happens to them when they're on substance abuse?

They have problems concentrating, emotional disturbance, they disturb the schools. It's not safe to be on campus when you have students acting this way. We cannot balance the state budget on the backs of our students' well-being. The long term struggles I have seen in my classroom for fifty four years outweighs any short term financial gains. I urge you to prioritize our children over revenue.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Gary Abuta in opposition. Good morning.

Morning. My name is Gary Yabuta. I'm the executive director for the Hawaii High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area out of the executive office of the president, office of national drug control policy. Recreational Marijuana should be legalized in Hawaii for two narratives. The first narrative is that Colorado, California, and Oklahoma grow the best illegal Marijuana on the planet.

They are using the freight system train system to transport Marijuana throughout the country, including the West Coast. These organizations are being run by Mexican cartels and Chinese national and the China Communist Party. That Marijuana will come to Hawaii just like methamphetamine and fentanyl does. The second narrative is that everybody's gonna buy Marijuana at legal dispensaries. That's a false narrative.

That's not gonna happen. Lastly, I wanna leave you with this article. It's a New York Times article. It's time for America to admit that it has a Marijuana problem. This came out last week, February 6th.

You're talking about the New York Times.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Marcus Oshiro in opposition. I'll note mister Yabuta, we we do have copies of the. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you very much. I'll stick to my sixty seconds here. I have a summary here.

For one, this bill creates a powerful centralized commercial cannabis bureaucracy for Carte Blanche Authority for rulemaking for several years. That's not transparency. That does not instill any confidence in your citizens. At the same time, the bill deems to legalize cannabis based on a future federal event or a con law amendment. It's speculation.

I think two of the advocates acknowledge that they want it today. Oh, you guys don't have enough facts. You guys don't have enough science. You guys have no data to make the decision. And the common law proposal is really terrible.

It takes away your responsibility as legislators, the deliberative body that you guys occupy today. Don't punt it to the voters. They are naive, and I speak honestly. This measure promises new taxes, new jobs, public public and consumer safety with no data, no details, and no backup plan. There is no free lunch.

You guys know that. We've been through the hardest time, roughest times with COVID, the great recession. So don't take a Mainland cookie cutter approach ill suited for us. This is not good for the people of Hawaii. Vote it down or defer.

Thank you.

Thank you. Marion Logan in opposition. Gerald Busch in opposition. Good morning.

Good morning. I'm Gerald Busch, chairs and vice chairs, in opposition. I'm a physician board certified in general child and adolescent addiction and forensic psychiatry. I'm on the APA Council on Addiction Psychiatry and past president of the Hawaii Psychiatric Medical Association. For five years, I directed the psychiatric emergency department at Queen's Medical Center.

In my final year, I saw increasing cases of teenagers presenting with cannabis induced psychotic disorder, first break psychosis triggered by cannabis. This is happening now before commercialization. This bill does not protect the communities that will bear bear the greatest burden. The legislature should not repeat a pattern that history has already judged. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Robert Bence online in opposition.

Aloha, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee, unfortunately, having to oppose this bill. I love cannabis. It saved my life. I'm only here to this day according to several doctors. I had a cough bottle size aneurysm, but it should be legal for everybody.

But the state has failed completely. It's a regulation of both hemp and cannabis. So to now add recreational is very bad. Also, this bill has things that would kill medical patients embedded in it. It's a problem when eight companies control everything in the state and Kenra.

They all have motivation to keep prices high. Nowhere else do people try to keep the price of a medication high. In Massachusetts, they are recently talking about putting a freeze on licenses to keep prices high. Everything should be regulated the same, and that way we will eliminate the black market model.

Thank you very much. Daniel Chinin in opposition online.

Not on Zoom, chair.

Thank you. That's all the testimony we have registered. Is there anyone else who would like to testify?

Oh, yeah. Chief.

Good morning. Aloha and good morning.

Chairs, vice chair, members of the committee, I'm interim chief Rade Vanic of the Honolulu Police Department testifying in opposition to state bill twenty four twenty one. We recognize that cannabis policy continues to evolve nationwide. This measure moves Hawaii towards commercialization of Marijuana before critically public safety issues have been fully addressed. Legislation would have significant impacts on enforcement practices, roadway safety, youth access, and overall community health. First of all, the bill establishes new offenses including consuming Marijuana while operating a vehicle.

Impaired driving is already a growing concern in our community. Expanding legal access will likely increase usage and in turn the risk of drug impaired driving. Second, the impact on youth cannot be overstated. Increasing availability and normalization of marijuana in states such as Colorado, California have raised concerns regarding accidental ingestion, high potency products, and marketing that may appeal to minors. Greater accessibility may further complicate prevention and enforcement efforts aimed at protecting our keiki.

For these reasons, we respectfully urge caution and opposition to this measure. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Yes. Good morning.

Good morning. Thank you for letting me add my two sense. My name is Carolyn Martinez Golojuch, and I'm from District 43. They keep changing the district size. Anyway, I'm here in complete support.

I'm an adult. I'm 79 years old. I have aches where I didn't know you could have aches. I would use Marijuana, pot, what we called it when I was growing up, but I never used it then, but I need it now. And I know I can go and get a license.

And guess what? That cost me over $100, plus a doctor's visit. I can go to all these other doctors. But the doctors until you make it anyway. What I'm saying is I'm an adult.

Let me decide for myself. We the people means everyone in my decision. And thank you very much. And I hope you pass this bill. It's overdue and doesn't make any sense not to.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Members, oh, please.

Committee members. I'm Landis Lum, addiction and family doctor and director of IHS Detox Facility. I oppose this bill. Driving stoned is as bad as driving drunk. Four years ago, my stoned patient crashed, sending a tourist to intensive care for weeks, killing her mother.

Legalization results in over a thousand additional traffic deaths annually. By age 45, weed users have MRI showing brain damage and lower IQ, wealth, and happiness. They have lower graduation rates from high school and college and increased tax revenues from legalization will therefore turn net negative due to lower income. We can cause incurable schizophrenia leading to homelessness. Cannabis harms are under appreciated.

Only ten percent use it for health. The most common reason cited for using THC for fun. Do we want to leave our keiki a legacy of worth health worse health, wealth, and happiness so adults can have fun. I'll stay for questions.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Seeing none, members questions? Okay. If not, in total there were 17 in support, 44 in opposition, and 10 offering comments.

Next measure is SB 3275, relating to cannabis. First up, attorney general's office in opposition.

Good morning. Alana Bryant, deputy attorney general. The department opposes this bill because it would legalize a certain amount of adult use cannabis, but doesn't contain the provisions that our department considers integral to any adult use cannabis bill, which we noted in our testimony. We're also concerned that in this bill, the program would be administered by the DCCA rather than DOH. DOH has expertise in this field.

And if this bill is to pass, we recommend the proposed program be administered by the Department of Health. Thank you. And I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Department of Health, comments?

Chairs, vice chairs, members, Andrew Goff, Office of Medical Cannabis Control and Regulation. We echo what the attorney general said. This bill would essentially allow anyone that is over 21 to grow, manufacture, and sell cannabis. There are no regulatory mechanisms in place, to be able to, review this or enforce this. And so we would recommend that we include, if this bill is going to move, some kind of licensing system, sections for testing, labeling, and packaging, age verification, and all the public health safeguards in the previous bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Department of Human Resources Development with comments. Thank you very much for standing on your testimony. Department of law enforcement with comments. Pulling the prosecutor in opposition.

Good morning. Steve Alm, chairs, vice chair, and member of the committee. We stand strong in opposition to it. Frankly, I think promoting weak or low Dose Marijuana doesn't make a lot of sense. People buy Marijuana to get stoned, and they're going to be buying it from the black market.

They're not going to go to a store that sells lower, amount. And that's why nationwide, the Marijuana industry is going for more potent and potent Marijuana. That's the goal, and it's the daily users want it as strong as possible. Again, those are the addicts. They're the ones who'd be buying it here. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition in opposition.

Good morning, senators. My name is Alan Johnson, Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition. Finally, we're getting valid clinical studies that the preliminary results have said that the legalization did increase youth use. It did so through a cultural shift where parents and children began to feel it is safe. And this happened to all states, including Hawaii.

So whether you legalize or not, this happened. The cultural shift brought increased the rates. Then a countercultural message began to say that it's not safe for the use. And so as those states who invested heavily in prevention were able to bring their their rates down. And so the preliminary result of the study is to say it's a call to action.

Those states like Hawaii, who have not invested in prevention to protect our kids should do so. Now we urge you to consider HB 814 and, SB 2287 to protect our kids.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Hawaii Family Forum in opposition.

Aloha. My name is Eva Andrade. I'm the president of Hawaii Family Forum, and we oppose Senate Bill 3275. The bill is described as a low dose, low potency bill, but lower potency doesn't mean low risk. Even small doses of THC can impair judgment, especially when it's consumed in edible form.

The bill permits the home cultivation, and that's where we get worried that it's going to end up in the hands of our keiki. Public policy carries cultural consequences, and when the state authorizes its broader use, then it does send the message to our keiki that it's safe. And safe means that they're going to have a lower perception of risk. And we appreciate that this legislature always prioritizes prevention, education, and treatment, and that's where we'd like to see you put your efforts. So please defer.

Okay. We're back for this 09:45 AM joint committee hearing between the HHS and CPN committees. We were taking testimony on Senate bill 3275.

Senate Bill 3275. Mahalo.

Thank you. We'll take a quick recess.

We do need to adjourn this agenda at 11:15. We also have Senate bill 3105 relating to physician assistant licensure compacts. So sorry to the PAs in the room. We cannot make decisions on measures in which we have not received and heard testimony. So we will take testimony for we'll take two more people, three more people, and then we will defer the rest of the registered testifiers on this bill and SB 3105 to Tomorrow, Wednesday, February 18 at 10:06 am in this Conference Room 229.

We'll defer action on the rest of the agenda until tomorrow so that we can vote everything out before the Thursday or make recommendations on all the measures before the Thursday lateral deadline. Next up we have the Coalition for Drug Free Hawaii in opposition. Good morning.

Chair and members. My name is Greg Tjapkes. I'm with the Coalition for Drug Free Hawaii. I'll be brief. My few brief points are, while it looks good, you know, reduced THC, lower potency does not eliminate public health risk.

I sorry. Expanding legal access and commercial availability even at reduced potency is likely to decrease perceived risk of harm. And when we're working with kids, it's all about, reducing risk factors, increasing protective factors. Prevention research consistently shows that when perceived risk declines, availability increases, youth use and experimentation rise. And we all know, or maybe you know, ninety percent of substance use disorders, begin in adolescence.

So I believe that, also you know that Marijuana is by far the primary substance of a mission for ADAD funded adolescent treatment services at 71% versus like, alcohol 11%, tobacco 18%. So, in summary, please defer this for reducing the risk factor and increasing protective factors. Thank you.

Thank you. Institute for Human Services in opposition.

Good morning, chairs, vice chairs, committee members. I'm Simon Eber from the Institute for Human Services, We stand on our written testimony, but I also wanna take this chance to add the most common form of substance abuse we see in our shelters is alcohol use, and that is a legal substance. Legalizing Marijuana, even in this low potency form, creates windows that it can be more abused than it already is by people that are gonna choose to take this form of, a drug.

But that's all I wanted to add. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you very much. ACLU of Hawaii in support. Okay. Gary Abuta in opposition.

Thank you. What is low potency? What is high potency? And how is law enforcement going to be able to distinguish low potency, high potency with whatever threshold? In Texas, law enforcement is staggered.

They have truckloads of Marijuana, cannabis or whatever you wanna call it, and they have to get testing from a certified FDA lab, which is highly costly. There's no mechanism for law enforcement that I see in Hawaii that can distinguish between low potency, high potency, illicit, and legal Marijuana. There's just no way. There's no scientific method. At this time, I strongly oppose this particular bill.

Thank you very much. And for the last testament testifier for today's hearing will be Karen O'Keefe from the Marijuana Policy Project online.

Thank you. We support legalizing cannabis and lower dose THC products. However, as was noted before, the bill needs amendments to responsibly regulate and license production sales. We have suggested amendments in our written testimony. I also wanted to say that I found the characterization of daily cannabis users as addicts offensive.

I live in a legal cannabis state. My husband is one of the many Americans who uses cannabis every day to manage pain in lieu of over the counter painkillers, which have far greater risks. Your constituents deserve the same freedom. Also, data has shown that teen cannabis use has decreased in the vast majority of legal cannabis states, and I would be happy to provide you with the data. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. We're gonna conclude the agenda for today. If you signed up but we didn't have time for you, we apologize. We will again, we'll take it up tomorrow in a joint agenda at 10:06am in this Conference Room 229. Before I adjourn, I'd just like to note there are a number of individuals who submitted testimony who did not register and provide written comments.

Please see my clerk Jamie, who's gonna raise her hand right there. We wanna make sure that we have you registered because you show up on the feed, and then if you're not

in the testimony file, it looks a little weird. So technology, right? Thank you very much. We are adjourned.