New York State SmartTranscripts:

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Assembly Majority Leader]: Madam speaker, would you please call the house to order?

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: The house will come to order. Good morning, colleagues. In the absence of clergy, let us pause for a moment of silence. Visitors are invited to join members in the pledge of allegiance. A quorum being present, the clerk will read the journal of Tuesday, February 10. Miss Peoples Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Assembly Majority Leader]: Madam speaker, I move to dispense with the further reading of the journal of Tuesday, February 10, and that the same stand approved.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Without objection, so ordered.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Assembly Majority Leader]: Thank you so much. Good morning, colleagues and to guests that are in the chambers. I'd like to share a quote with you today. This one is from Claudette Colvin. Claudette Colvin is an American. She's a pioneer of the nineteen fifty civil rights movement and a nurse's aid. In March 1955, she was arrested at the age of 15 years old in Montgomery, Alabama for refusing to give up her seat on a crowded segregated bus. Her words for us today, I know then and I know now, when it comes to justice, there is no easy way to get it. Again, these words from Claudette Colvin. Madam speaker, colleagues have on their desk a main calendar after you have done any housekeeping and or introductions. We're gonna begin our floor work by taking up resolutions on calendar resolutions on page three. Then we're going to consent rules report 78 on page five, and then we're gonna take up the following bills on debate. Rules report 18 by miss Glick and rules report 72 by mister Laster. I will announce if there's additional floor activity needed. However, that's the general outline of where we're going today, ma'am. If you have housekeeping and or introductions, now would be a great time.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Thank you. We have no housekeeping and a few introductions this morning. Ms. Walsh for the purpose of an introduction.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Member (112th AD)]: Thank you very much Madam Speaker for allowing me to interrupt these proceedings to introduce two fantastic teams from the one hundred and twelfth Assembly District and my home school, the Bern Hills Ballston Lake Central School District. I want to congratulate both the girls field hockey team on their New York State Public High School Athletics Association on their class B championship win. It was a thrilling one-zero victory in the final. The Spartans secured their second consecutive state title and completed an outstanding season. Under the leadership of head coach Kelly Vroman, who unfortunately couldn't be with us today, and assistant coaches Jen Lauria, Kate Mastrella, Isabelle Adams and Anna Watkins, the program continues a tradition of excellence including 12 sectional titles, five straight suburban council championships, seven final four appearances, and now three state championships. And today we have not one but two great teams. As I said, it's double the fun. We're also joined today by the Burnt Hills Boston Lake boys cross country team on their New York State Class B championship win under the leadership of my good friend, head coach Chip Button. This Spartan team has now won eight out of

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: the last nine New York State Class B Cross Country Championships. This season the boys also secured their program's twenty fifth Section Two Championship along with their thirteenth New York State Championship. And speaking with Coach Button before coming to

[Mary Beth Walsh — Member (112th AD)]: the chamber today, he told me that this year it was a tight, it was tight. It difficult. I think they won by like five points and they had to really dig deep and it was really their training and I believe their sense of teamwork and cooperation that really got them to their next, to this state title. And I also don't want to be remiss, I want to mention that both of these teams have been recognized for their scholar athlete status as well with the field hockey team achieving a collective 95.2 GPA and the cross country team achieving a collective 95.6 GPA. So Madam Speaker, I'm so proud of these two teams. I'm glad that they've joined us today and I hope that you will also welcome them to the People's House. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Thank you. On behalf of Ms. Walsh, the speaker and all members, we welcome the New York State Class B Field Hockey Champions as well as the New York State class b cross country champions. To our assembly chamber, we extend to you the privileges of the floor. A big congratulations and kudos to you for your continued success with your athletics and academics. We hope you enjoy our proceedings today. Thank you so very much for for joining us, and congratulations again. Miss People Stokes, for the purpose of an introduction.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Assembly Majority Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker, for

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: the

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Assembly Majority Leader]: opportunity to do an introduction and actually ask, do you would afford him the cordialities of our house? We have in our presence the mayor of the great city of Buffalo, Sean Ryan. He's not only a former assembly member, but he's a former senator, and he now heads up the great city of Buffalo. Would you please welcome him to our chambers and give him the cordialities of the floor?

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: On behalf of miss Peoples Stokes, the speaker, and all members, we welcome back our former colleague, assembly member, former senator, and current mayor of the city of Buffalo, Sean Ryan. It's always wonderful to see you here today. I hope you enjoy the proceedings here today, and I'm sure you're gonna have a lot of fun over there at the hearing later today. But thank you so very much for joining us. Always great to see you Sean. Thank you. Mr. Benedetto, for the purpose of an introduction.

[Michael R. Benedetto — Member]: Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm very proud to stand here today to welcome a group from my home borough of The Bronx. Okay. Actually, they're not in my district. They are actually in the Speakers District. A fine bunch of scholars who are from intermediate school three seventy who have come up here with the Center of Educational Excellence, a fine institution that runs some of the schools down in The Bronx. And they are very proud to send this contingent to orbiting to understand a little bit and see in person how, government actually works. So madam speaker, I would please ask you to recognize these these fine scholars that that are joined here today. Some of them are very shy, and they don't wanna speak up. But in in total, they are very good people, very intelligent people. I was asking them about the forms of government we have in our country, and they gave me right on answers. This is our future. Please welcome them.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Stumpulinski')]: One more, ladies

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: and gentlemen. On behalf of mister Benedetto, the speaker, and all members, welcome young people from the Intermediate School three seventy in The Bronx. We are happy that you are in our assembly chamber today. We hope you enjoy our proceedings, but more importantly, good luck to you on your continued academic success. He is correct, you are the future. Our future leaders amplify and use your voices always. We're gonna be looking to you in the future. So thank you so very much for joining us today. Resolutions. Page three. Clerk will read.

[Reading Clerk]: Assembly number nine fifty two, mister Ra, legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 02/14/2026 as a day for hearts, congenital heart defect awareness day in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Mr. Ra, on the resolution.

[Edward P. Ra — Assembly Minority Leader]: Thank you Madam Speaker. It's my pleasure and my honor to bring forth this resolution today proclaiming February 14 as Congenital Heart Defect Awareness Day in the state of New York. The reason I'm bringing this forward, a constituent of mine reached out about this and this resolution had been brought forward in the past by our former colleague Aileen Gunther. And the constituent who I've I've grown to know over the years is the mother of a young young man who's now now in high school named named Jack Foley. Jack was when he was five months, well when his mother was five months pregnant, they found out that he had a serious congenital heart defect. They told him at the time he was going to struggle to hit his developmental milestones and possibly even not survive. I got to know him as a as a young man. He he underwent heart surgery as an infant, which is something I think many of us can't even imagine dealing with as as a parent. And now he is thriving. When I say thriving, he is a hockey player and he's doing things nobody thought he was ever able to do. He's in high school now. He's a huge fan of the Islanders, as am I. And he is just a really, really bright phenomenal young man who has defied all the odds despite having a congenital heart defect. So I'm very proud to bring forth this resolution on behalf of his mother Lauren, on behalf of Jack, and to spread awareness of people like Jack and their stories and their ability to overcome congenital heart defects. So, thank all my colleagues for their support. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Thank you. Ms. Griffin on the resolution.

[Judy Griffin — Member]: Thank you for allowing me to speak on the congenital heart defect awareness day. I thank Assembly Member Ra for bringing this forward and I co sponsored it because I was asked by a constituent named Jordan Pecora who is dedicated to increasing awareness for congenital heart disease and also wants people to know it's the most common birth defect. Jordan was born with this defect. He had life saving procedures at birth, followed by corrective surgery as an infant, went on to have a normal childhood with minimal medical intervention. Later in his adolescence, he experienced a series of complications that led to him getting one pacemaker, years later another pacemaker. And Jordan, his condition persisted, but with the great successful team of healthcare professionals, he's been able to live a full and meaningful life. He has a career. He's happily married to his lovely wife, Christine. They have a dog. And he's an advocate for Adult Congenital Heart Association since 2022. And he was selected to become a peer mentor in 2025. He is also on the Patient and Family Advisory Board and participates in their annual fundraiser called Walk One in one hundred. As a peer mentor, Jordan focuses on showing people that they aren't alone and that they can enjoy a healthy and fulfilling life. Thank you for allowing me to speak on this bill.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Thank you. Mister Durso, on the resolution.

[Michael Durso — Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. I wanna thank my colleague, assemblywoman Ra, for continuing this resolution and bringing it forward. Again, as it also hits him personally and the constituent in his neighborhood along with assemblywoman Griffin. This also is is has has great meaning to me and a family that I'm here to speak for, the Conor Cason family. In my district, a little over a year ago now, a 17 year old hockey player named Connor Kaysen in the Massapequa School District passed away during a charity hockey event. Turns out Connor had a congenital heart defect that he was not aware of and neither was his family. So a resolution like this will not only help bring awareness to heart health for teens, and not only for the ones that discover that they have a heart condition at a young age, but really to bring awareness to it for those to get checked. Connor was a young, vibrant 17 year old athlete, great kid, great family, amazing people. But Connor lost his life and it's something that could have been prevented with a simple test and that's why I created Connor's law, Assembly Bill twenty six ninety seven, which require all student athletes to get have a heart check as part of the sports physical. Because, if we could just save one life, one child's life, it's well worth it. So again, I wanna thank my colleague and all my colleagues for supporting this resolution. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Thank you. Mister Stumpulinski, on the resolution.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Stumpulinski')]: Thank you, madam speaker. I wanna echo the comments my colleagues and especially thank my new leader, mister Ra for reviving this resolution. The constituent I talk about the most on the floor is my daughter Jojo and she has multiple congenital heart defects. She had open heart surgery when she was eight days old and she was in the hospital for thirty nine days after her birth and she had a second heart surgery when she was six years old about a year and a half ago. So, I greatly appreciate and I know every person with congenital heart defect and every family member of someone with congenital heart defect appreciates a resolution like this. I agree with my colleague, mister Durso that it saves lives as far as people becoming aware. But also, the technological developments that we have had over the last several decades and how we treat especially neonatal congenital heart defects are amazing. If Jojo had been born several decades earlier, she probably would have lived you know a couple days. So, the more we can bring attention to congenital heart defects and make sure the people that have them are treated and that we have the research that we need to continue to treat more and more complicated versions of them is important. So, I proudly support the resolution.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Reading Clerk]: Assembly number nine fifty three, Mr. Ecas. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 02/15/2026 as School Resource Officer Appreciation Day in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: Aye.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Mister Ikis, on the resolution.

[Michael R. Benedetto — Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. I will be very brief. Each and every day, this honorable body passes laws and bills and even resolutions for the health and welfare of all of our constituents. And this resolution, as you can see, actually memorializes that our school resource officers are of a valuable and essential part of our education community. And they certainly deserve our unwavering respect and support, and that from the public also. And we really want to thank them for what they do each and every day. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Miss Walsh, show the resolution.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Member (112th AD)]: Thank you, madam speaker. So I would just like to add my voice briefly to, this resolution as well. Memorializing Kathy Hochul to proclaim February 15 as School Resource Officer Appreciation Day in the state of New York. So important, having talked to a number of school resource officers throughout my district and the schools that I represent as I'm sure you have too. It I think that at times there has been a voiced concern about having someone in uniform in our school that it might not be perceived properly or it might not be welcomed or it might not be a productive thing. And I think, at least in the schools that I represent, school resource officers are hugely helpful to the students and in fact have created really great relationships with kids and have I think put a very good face on law enforcement to a lot of our youth. So I think that this is a very worthy thing to recognize the great work that our school resource officers do each and every day. Not only to keep our kids safe and to keep the school environment safe, but also to help build those really important bridges with our youth. So thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to speak. Thank you to the sponsor of the resolution.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Reading Clerk]: Assembly number nine fifty four, mister Kay Brown. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 02/17/2026 as Random Acts of Kindness Day in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Page five on consent, rules report 78. Clerk will read.

[Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 9,498, rules report 78, miss Pollan, an act to amend the public health law.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: On a motion by miss Pollan, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Reading Clerk]: This action will take effect on the thirtieth day.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one thirty. Noes, zero.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 9,500, rules report 79, missus People Stokes. An act to amend the Indian law.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: On a motion by miss People Stokes, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Reading Clerk]: This action will take effect immediately.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one thirty two. Nose, zero.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: The bill is passed. Missed people's jokes?

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Assembly Majority Leader]: Madam speaker, if you could please call the rules committee to the Speaker's Conference Room.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Rules committee to the Speaker's Conference Room. Rules committee members, please make your way to the Speaker's Conference Room on page five, Rules Report 80. Clerk will read.

[Reading Clerk (alternate)]: Assembly number 9502, Rules Report number 80, Ms. Lunsford, an act to amend the civil practice law and rules.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: On a motion by Ms. Lunsford, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Reading Clerk (alternate)]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Clerk will record the vote.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: Yes. Crystal.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Reading Clerk (alternate)]: Ayes, one thirty seven. Nay, zero.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: The bill is passed. Miss Walsh, for the purpose of an introduction.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Member (112th AD)]: Thank you Madam Speaker for allowing me to interrupt the proceedings for a brief introduction on behalf of Assembly members Pierrizolo, Tnusis, Riley and Fall. We're joined today in the chamber by New York City Council Minority Leader David Carr who is here to visit us today. And on behalf of those members and all of us, would you please accord to Mr. Carr the cordialities of the House, please.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: On behalf of miss Walsh, mister Pierazolo, members of Tnussis, I can't read my handwriting. I apologize for that. The speaker and all members, the folks from the Staten Island Delegation, we extend to you the privileges of the floor and welcome you to our assembly chamber. We hope you enjoy our proceedings today. Thank you so very much for joining us. On consent, page five. Rules report 81. Clerk will read.

[Reading Clerk (alternate)]: Assembly number 9505. Rules report number 81, mister Eichenstein. An act to amend the administrative code of the city Of New York.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Read the last section.

[Reading Clerk (alternate)]: This act shall take effect immediate.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: On a motion by mister Eichenstein, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Reading Clerk (alternate)]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one thirty eight. Nose, zero. The bill is passed. Assembly number 9572, rules report 82, mister Santa Barbara, an act to amend the mental hygiene law.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: On a motion by mister Santa Barbara. The senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one thirty nine. Nose, zero. The bill is passed.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Miss Peoples Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Assembly Majority Leader]: Madam speaker, colleagues have on their desk an a calendar. I'd like to move to advance that a calendar.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: On a motion by miss Peoples Stokes, the a calendar is advanced. Second.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Assembly Majority Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker. If we could take that up immediately.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Page three, rules report 83. Clerk will read.

[Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 10,140, Rules Report 83. Ms. Zinnerman, enact to amend the cannabis law.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: An explanation has been requested. Ms. Zinnerman.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: This bill simply clarifies how the cannabis proximity is being Those rules that are in place are being measured while making sure that for existing spaces specifically our schools and our houses of worship are the protections for them will be and remain intact.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Mister Tanussis.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: Thank you so much, madam speaker. Thank you so much for your explanation.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Are you asking a question of the Yes. Will the sponsor yield?

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: Sponsor yield some questions.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: I will yield for a question.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Sponsor yields.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: Thank you so much. Miss Zimmerman, we were when did this law pass? The original law?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: The original MRTA?

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: The original cannabis law that passed in through the assembly.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: When were both elected. Correct. I believe it was in our first term. In and, yes, it was one of the first big bills that we voted yes on.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: Well, that you voted yes on it. Just wanna be clear. I did not vote yes on it. Just wanna be clear for the record.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Assembly Majority Leader]: I think

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: But I

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: know that you did. And pursuant to that law, how many feet away from a school did these shops have to be?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: The existing rules are 500 feet from a school, 200 from a house of worship. Okay.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: So that was the law as passed, correct?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: That is the law.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: Now what reason came about to put this law forth? Is there an issue that came about?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Well, as it has been reported, there was a miscommunication from the Office of Cannabis Management and this bill is simply clarifying that so that everybody is clear where we are measuring from so that it meets the five hundred and two hundred foot rule.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: So the confusion was basically where those measurements are taking from? Is that the confusion that they had?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: That was what the cannabis OCM reported, yes.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: So do you know where exactly they were measuring from previously that necessitated this bill?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: What I'm what this bill does is clarify for everyone what the current rules are. I think it's probably going to be problematic if we go back to what people thought it was What we're really trying to be right now is very consistent and clear about what the rules are so that those that were harmed in the miscommunication can now open up their businesses and without fear of having to find another location. So that's what we're trying to achieve here.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: Do you happen to know by any chance where those measurements happen to take previously? Obviously, bill that you have forth talks about the center of the of those entrances, correct? Of those nearest entrances.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: How about From the doors.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: Yes. Do you know where, what part of the entrances they were measuring previously by any chance?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: I do but I'll repeat that we don't really wanna have that information again on the record so that people are clear and not confused by what happened before. We're trying to clear that up now.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: Understood. And who contacted you or the assembly in regards to this issue?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Well, in my district a bunch of people. A lot of our social equity folks absolutely contacted me about it and really pushed for how we could fix it. They contacted OCM, Legislators in this chambers were very upset because they had the same issue in their districts and you know, a lot of conversation has happened so that we can get to this point and make sure that this is clear.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: So is it fair to say that I apologize. Is it fair to say that it was the shop potential shop owners themselves that contacted you or the governor's office?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: No. I haven't spoken to anybody in the governor's office. I had a conversation with the shop owners.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: Okay. So the shop owners themselves

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: And the folks here.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: The shop owners and those stakeholders themselves contacted you and your

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: not just me. Again, people who have many social equity licensees in their district who were just distraught about what had happened.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: Now are these licensees that are in existence now even though this rule wasn't clarified?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: The ones that this bill has to that are going to cover are people who had a location established and we're trying to clarify for them that they will be able to operate in their current locations. But anybody who had applied or did not have a location identified, those individuals will have to abide by the current rules as they stand.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: Okay, so just to clarify, this law is to go forward on any potential new contracts that occur.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Correct? Or anyone's that were in application but did not have a location.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: Understood. And anything else that was approved previously is basically as they say grandfathered in.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Correct? Yes.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: Okay. Understood. Does this bill do anything to clarify what a school is or educational institution under the cannabis law?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: This bill doesn't need to do that because we already have that definition under law.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: Okay. The reason why I ask you, miss Zimmerman, is because there was a cannabis shop that opened in my district Mhmm. A few months ago. Yeah. And it it opened within 500 feet of a nursery school. So, I had reached out to the office of cannabis management stating my concerns about this cannabis shop opening within 500 feet of a nursery school, which clearly would be against the intent of the legislature. They then sent me a letter back which I have here, which says, while we did find the steps to success is accredited with the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the Office of Children and Family Services to provide child care services, these accreditations do not fall within the requirements of a school in the cannabis law. So the Office of Cannabis Management basically through this letter is basically saying that while it is an accredited nursery school within the definition prescribed under New York City that under their cannabis law, under the law that we have passed, they do not recognize it as a school and thus does not have to be more than 500 feet away from the cannabis shop.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: But what the answer probably said is that it's recognized as a preschool. They care as a preschool and preschools fall under as you well know the office of children and families. If you are pre k through 12 then you are considered a school and you would fall under SELA rules which OCM's rules are set.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: So, I I appreciate that explanation. Unfortunately, that's not what the letter says. Have it here if you'd like to see it. So, they really weren't interested What explaining to

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: do I say to you Mr. Snusis because you are a lawyer and you can read legal AEs, you know quite well that day care centers fall under OFC, the Office of Children and Families.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: Well, yes. So you didn't

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: need the letter, Detective.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: Yes, they do, they do. However, this is accredited school under the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene as well. So, my understanding of our religious intent was not to have any type of school within those 500 feet. So either way, miss Zimmerman, I appreciate your explanation. I don't I don't find the office of campus management to be that cooperative. They weren't certainly weren't cooperative with me.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Gotta take that up with the governor.

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: Alright. Oh, don't worry.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: I'm only representative of the 56.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: Yeah. But just to clarify, your bill does not do anything in regards to definitions of institutions. Correct?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Does not.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: Okay. Thank you so much for your time.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: You are so welcome.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: Madam speaker, on the bill.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: On the bill.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: Madam speaker, we passed this bill two years ago. Myself, my Republican colleagues were opposed to this piece of legislation for a variety of reasons. Number one of which is quality of life. Number two of which was that we do not have the proper protocols in place to be able to actually combat people driving under the influence of marijuana. Like we do for example when somebody is intoxicated under the influence of alcohol. We do not have a portable breath test. We do not have an intoxilizer. We do not have those things available. And we pushed forth this fact when we pushed against this piece of legislation, and we said that New York State is not ready. We were told at the time that this piece of legislation would create a windfall for the people of New York State and to fight as far as tax revenue. Where is it? Where's the tax revenue? The only thing we have seen is that the office of cannabis management has been nothing but a disaster from its creation. You cannot get anyone on the phone. You cannot get anyone to explain what is happening. They are a complete disaster. A few months ago, in my district, an application came through the community board. That community board was asked to approve a cannabis shop that was clearly within 500 feet of a nursery school. Myself, senator Scarcella Spanton in the in the senate reached out to the office of cannabis management. We said this cannot be approved. This is against the intent of the legislature. This is within 500 feet. What did they do? They sent us this letter. This letter clearly states that although it is considered an educational institution under New York City law, it is not recognized as one under New York state law. Then when I asked for an explanation or to get somebody on the phone, I got nothing. Absolutely nothing. As we said from the beginning, as me and my colleagues had fought from the beginning, this bill is a problem. We cannot just be the first to pass legislation without thinking things through and making sure we don't have such these these types of problems. This is the problem we have. We rush to be the first to pass legislation even though we're not ready, and then we spend more time fixing it than actually getting a better quality of life for our constituents. I vote no on this, and I encourage all my college colleagues to do so as well. Thank you so much.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Thank you. Mister Pierzzolo.

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: Thank you madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Will the sponsor yield? The sponsor yields.

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: I do. Thank you very much. I'd just like to know why are we even establishing any distance between a marijuana shop and any other sort of establishment? What's the purpose of that?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: It's a rule that has existed under the rules of the state liquor authority.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: But why?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: I was not alive when it was established.

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: I can't hear you.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Assembly Majority Leader]: I don't know

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: the answer

[Michael Reilly — Member]: to that.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: I was not alive when it was established but it was there because I would say having not been in this body at the time to protect institutions and especially during the time where we had you know.

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: I really can't hear.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: You cannot hear me.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: Yes.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Yes.

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: So what I you said is you're not really aware of the reasons of why but I'm going to ask since you are the sponsor of this bill which is specifically for measurements that we need to determine why we're doing this

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: because you don't know why we're

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Assembly Majority Leader]: doing this

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: then we don't need to do it.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: The bill is to clarify measurements that exist for the purposes of cannabis stores not to litigate why they were established under SLA in the past.

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: Well, I disagree with that and I'm gonna tell you why in my opinion.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Okay.

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: Okay? It was to protect

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: As long as it's on the bill.

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: It's a 100%. Not going anywhere off the bill.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Alright. Very good.

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: It is to protect the distance between a marijuana shop and a house of worship. It is to protect the distance between a marina a marijuana shop and our youth, our most vulnerable in society. Now looking at the bill, I wanna talk about the definition of a house of worship because that language was certainly included in all the briefing papers that I got. Mhmm. Let's see. Where are we? House of worship includes people who worship. Common sense. But house of worship also includes people who play bingo. Also includes people who are grieving, funerals, things like that. It includes a couple of other different things. If you need a minute to clarify it, I have no problem with that.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: If

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: we go to the legal definition according to education law, any building structure surrounding outdoor grounds, locations within a legally defined property boundaries public or private, preschool, children, nursery school, children, elementary school, children, secondary school, children, charter schools, children. What I'm asking for you is to hear you say that you know what, mister Pirizolo, maybe we can go back to committee with this and include the school that's in mister Tanusis' district, but not only on Staten Island, everywhere through New York state. If the goal of this bill is to protect children, schools, to protect worshippers, then how can we specifically exclude someone because it's not recognized by OCM?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Mr. Pisole, you know that the MRTA law is very clear about cannabis use. 21 years of age and above. Every licensee knows it, they had to swear to it before they could actually get a location and no one under the age of 21 is allowed in their store. And so that's the law of the land. Same way you can only vote when you are 18 years old. We put the protections in the law. And so right now, the only thing that we are doing is defining where we are measuring that 200 feet and where that 500 feet is being measured. And we are in making that very clear in this amendment that this is how we operate in the state of New York to as you say protect our children and protect our houses of worship which have to be established, right? Okay. By the attorney general's office, you just can't say you're a house of worship, you have to actually apply to be and recognize that.

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: So, can any student of a preschool, elementary school, charter school, middle school, can they go play dingo

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: So, or dingo we've already established that we're talking about two different groups. If you are very young children who don't roam the streets and into marijuana shops by themselves. Right. Right? They fall under the office of children and families. If you are pre k and above, then you are New York State Education Department which then falls under SLA.

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: But I'm saying your argument is false because your well, me

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: finish please. It's not an argument, it's the law.

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: Well, so the way you're bringing it up with this, I don't believe because what you're saying is that a child can't walk into a cannabis shop but a child also can't walk into a bingo hall. Alright? So I think we need to protect our youth.

[Reading Clerk]: Mhmm.

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: And I don't know. It's not like every store in the state is going to fall into this situation. Parents are concerned. And now when you go and exclude certain youth against other youth, against people who play bingo, people who grieve for whatever reason they're holding this this meeting in a church and you're just saying that those people are more protected than the people we know we have to protect as our youth. Okay? I just think it's really not a good thing. And I again, I stress that I would certainly like to hear that this will be worked upon because state law is the number one law and I'm gonna give you another another example. So local laws. Is this law superseding local laws where local laws, a town, if they opted in to, let's say, a town, village, city, whatever it is, they opted in to have a marijuana shop. Okay? If they created their own law of measuring this, are we now telling them what you did is wrong? Wouldn't that require a home rule message?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: No. The answer to your question is no.

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: And why?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: What do you mean why?

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: Well, can the answer be no without an explanation? I I I'm not familiar with the law so as if I were a nursery school student extra marijuana shop,

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: know please you just stated that you knew enough about the law to state that some counties were able to opt in and some counties were able to opt out.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Ms. Walsh, why do you rise?

[Mary Beth Walsh — Member (112th AD)]: Madam speaker, with great love for the stenographer who was trying to take down this excellent debate between our colleagues. It would be so helpful if you could advise people to please have a question and an answer and a question and answer. For you, I just said that.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Absolutely. If we could keep to we actually do have stenographers down there writing exactly what you're saying. If you speak over each other, they cannot do their job. So ask, wait, answer. Thank you.

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: So I'll ask again if that's okay with you?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: And I'll answer again. Yes.

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: That's fine.

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: So so the question is I would like an explanation of that because state law is the superseding law, right? And we created that law which these townships and municipalities then created their laws, right? And now we're changing our law and we're not giving any deference to them.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: What are we changing?

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: You're changing the way you the way you measure a shop. That's what this whole bill is about without recognizing

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: It is the proper just a clarification. We started out.

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: I can't

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: We started out in the debate with mister Taneusis saying that this was a clarification of how we measure. It's just it's clear. It's not changing the law. We are just making the language clear so that people aren't confused. And what we don't want to do today is ask questions that are going to further confuse people. People spend a lot of money, time and effort. People who were harmed in a system for over thirty years in this country that we are trying to repair. And so we don't want to make this something other than it is. We are just trying to clarify the language of how we are counting 200 feet and 500 feet. That is it. I understand that people have feelings about the law. I understand that people have feelings about shops, but the fact of the matter is we are only here to do one thing and that is to clarify the measurements.

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: Can I speak on the bill please, madam speaker?

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: On the bill.

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: So listening to assembly member Zinterman, there's a lot we could possibly agree on. I don't mind changing this. But we still have unintended consequences. And if there's anything this chamber is really, really good at doing, it's passing bills with tremendous unintended consequences. All we're asking for is a very simple modification to include young children who are already protected and recognize them as the same class of citizen of young children that's described by New York State education law. It's already recognized by the state. We are carving these kids out simply so we can put one marijuana shop that I'm aware of on Staten Island and I don't know how many throughout the state. Simply because we don't wanna say no to someone who is selling marijuana. We are putting that over what we consider to be the safety of our children because that's the reason we have this law and rule in the first place. So I do ask all my colleagues to vote no against this bill. I think it is shameful. And the one simple question I asked was please say to me, you know what? We're gonna make that consideration so at least going forward, we will protect all of our youth and not just some of our youth because we do protect adults in a house of worship even though they're not worshiping. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Thank you. Mister Riley?

[Michael Reilly — Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: I will yield, mister Riley.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Sponsor yield. Thank you.

[Michael Reilly — Member]: So in regards to the current law as is since this hasn't passed yet, so we're gonna just that this is changing that law. So what is the current measure of distance and how is it measured as per the law today?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: That question was asked and answered.

[Michael Reilly — Member]: I know. And I believe the the answer was we don't want to muddy the waters basically about what this law is gonna change it to. So I think in the in the spirit of open debate for our public to know exactly what we're doing to the current law, I think that requires an answer, and I think that's something that we should be delivering to the public.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Mr. Riley?

[Michael Reilly — Member]: Yes.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: I am going to answer your question because you asked again, but I do hope this is the last time we are going to ask this question today. 500

[Mary Beth Walsh — Member (112th AD)]: Madam Speaker, during debate, members have an ability to ask questions and get answers. Asked and answered is not an appropriate response and I think that whether Mr. Riley may not have been in the room at the time that the question was answered the first time, I really, I just think that

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: a second Are you raising a point of order, Ms.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Member (112th AD)]: Am raising a point of order, yes I am ma'am.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: I'm answering the question, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Thank you Ms. Walsh. Your point was not well taken. Member can ask any question that they like. We can't force someone to answer a question how we want to receive them. We hope that the conversation remains respectful. This dialogue continues to be comprehensive but I can't make a member answer a question. So thank you. Miss Riley.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Member (112th AD)]: Madam speaker, one more point. Saw that as you were weighing the merits of the point of order that I raised that the clock has been going down. I'd like to have any time restored to the clock for the debate so that Mr. Riley is not penalized by the fact that I raised a point of order. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Thank you. The practice of the house has not been to ever stop the clock during point of order. Thank you. Mr. Riley.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Mister Reilly. I yield it to your first request and I'm now gonna answer your question. Is that okay?

[Michael Reilly — Member]: Yes. Thank

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: you. Okay. So, 500 feet from the center door to the center door. From that official cannabis location to the school. 200 center door to center door for houses of worship.

[Michael Reilly — Member]: So that definition is what's currently in law or is that what we're talking about today in this amendment?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: That is how o OCM is measuring.

[Michael Reilly — Member]: So currently, they're they're measuring door to door?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Yes.

[Michael Reilly — Member]: Okay. So does this amendment today, does it align with how they are currently currently measuring?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: OCM is measuring door to door. We're bringing this door to door, 200 feet for our houses of worship, 500 feet for our schools.

[Michael Reilly — Member]: Okay. So for clarification, this bill is just aligning to the policy that they're following, That they're they're implementing now currently? And

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: moving forward. Yes. To make sure that that is clear.

[Michael Reilly — Member]: Okay. So I know there was some discussion about what brought it about. Do we know how many actual licensees that were already granted? How many are specifically impacted?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: A 100 108. 108. Okay. And eight. 89 of them are in New in New York City and 19 are outside of the city.

[Michael Reilly — Member]: Okay. So were any of the properties that were owned by the license licensees, were they vacant lots? So in other words, no building on the premise at the time that they were approved. I don't I don't So maybe the the licensee had a property and they will they got approved and now they're building the actual premise. Right? Is there any is that a scenario?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Mhmm. These are all operating businesses. So no, they weren't

[Michael Reilly — Member]: Oh, so so every have

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: a shop out in like under a tent. It had to be a location.

[Michael Reilly — Member]: Okay. So they're all so all a 108 are actively working. They're they're in in business. Yes. Okay. Alright. So in the current law, was it supposed to be building line to building line? Was the measurement?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: I think we keep going over this. OCM has said that they've made a mistake. We are seeking to clarify that now. Again, I don't want to continue to go back and forth because it's not gonna be clear what we're doing going forward if we keep talking about what happened previously.

[Michael Reilly — Member]: Alright. Thank you. On the bill, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: On the bill.

[Michael Reilly — Member]: So the issue that I'm raising is even though we are consistently hearing that we don't want to give any confusion to the public that we're changing the law now. We obviously realized that there was confusion before we're actually entering this debate. And the only way to get clarity for the public is to actually have open debate on it and explain exactly why a change is needed. This is not necessarily happening. All of a sudden, it's rushing through. It's going through. We're putting it we're putting a bill to the floor to vote on it to change how we are going to impact individual communities. It is our job to be transparent with the community we represent. So why is asking questions about why maybe OCME may have maybe officer management actually interpreted the law that they advocated for to pass, right, that they were created under that law, and now they're not interpreting it the way they thought they should, and now we're changing it. To me, I think we owe it to the public to actually say why we are changing it. Because when it comes to a community board meeting, whether you have a dispensary that's asking for a license and they're looking to go to the New York City community board, there's still gonna be confusion. It's our job to make sure that we pass the laws and they are carried out the way they're intended. And, yes, we do sometimes have to change things often. Right? But we're usually open about it. We're usually making sure that we say exactly why it's being changed. Because there's a difference between when something's measured from the building line to the building line and then to the door to the door. And if we pass laws, we don't generally just automatically allow organizations or departments to interpret it the way they want. We're pretty clear about it. And I think by having that open dialogue, we can actually give clarity to everyone. But if we keep running around in circles saying we don't want to muddy the waters, we don't wanna actually have that clear and open debate, then we're gonna be back here again because there's gonna be another issue. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Thank you. Mister D'Orso.

[Michael Durso — Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Would the sponsor yield for, hopefully, just two quick questions?

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: I will yield, mister

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Sponsor yields.

[Michael Durso — Member]: Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate it. So as you said, we're we're clarifying the part of the law where you just said, obviously, the OCM made a mistake in the way that the distances were measured. We're now clarifying, but we are changing the law. Correct?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: The bet the measurements have not changed.

[Michael Durso — Member]: Why are we Where

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: they were measuring is what we're clarifying.

[Michael Durso — Member]: I'm sorry. Say that again. I apologize.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: How they were measuring is what we're clarifying. We are not changing the laws that stands in terms of the 500 foot and the 200 foot.

[Michael Durso — Member]: But where they're measuring from, so center door or end of door is changing. Correct?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: That's what we're clarifying.

[Michael Durso — Member]: We're clarifying. But prior, when their law was originally put into place, it was

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Still $502,100.

[Michael Durso — Member]: Correct. But the positioning on the door is different now.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: I know I know that this is the fourth time I'm being asked this question,

[Michael Durso — Member]: but No. I don't I

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: don't I don't work for OCM. I don't know what happened there. What I can say is we received telephone once that missive went out and people thought these 100 plus businesses were told that they didn't meet the 500 or the 200 foot rule and that they would have close their shop, people of New York state do what people of New York state do. They call the elected officials and they advocate for themselves and we heard them and so now we are making the change. We're not doing this arbitrarily. We're not doing this because we were confused about what five hundred and two hundred is. We did it to make those people hold and that's all we're trying to do today and clarify for everybody in this body and everybody who is listening and the cannabis operators present and future so that they can be very clear about what five hundred means in New York state and what two hundred means in New York state.

[Michael Durso — Member]: And I agree and I and I appreciate the explanation again. Welcome. But that means prior to us passing this today, it it wasn't there was no clarity. Correct? Is that what you're saying? You're clarifying it for those business owners and the communities. Prior, they may have thought something different because there wasn't clarified. Correct?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Though they were given they were given the numbers, but again, it was the way OCM was measuring.

[Michael Durso — Member]: Right. So now we're They changing

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: understood their error and now we're seeking to fix it.

[Michael Durso — Member]: Right. So we're we're doing it legislatively?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Only way we can.

[Michael Durso — Member]: Well, that's not true either. I mean, SLA, they just issue new guidance. We don't come in here and every time and change a law when SLA wants to do it. They just issue guidance.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: When it's had this kind of impact on community Right. We do make changes.

[Michael Durso — Member]: Sure. But we have to change the law that's why we're doing it legislatively. So then my question would be this, Under the original law, towns, municipalities, villages, right, had an opt in, opt out provision. Once you opt in, you cannot opt out. Since we're changing the law, that's what we're doing legislatively. It's changing a law or else we wouldn't be here. Can those towns and villages that opted in now opt out since we're changing the law on them from what it originally was?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Mister Durso, does your question have anything to do with the with the

[Michael Tannousis — Member]: Yes.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: The the 500 and the 200?

[Michael Durso — Member]: Absolutely, man. Because we're what we're doing is we're No.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: You're asking me you're you're asking me about opt in and opt out. And the only thing that this bill does is clarify where we're measuring 200 feet and where we're measuring 500 feet.

[Michael Durso — Member]: Agreed.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: We don't need a law book for this, we just need a measuring tape and directions.

[Michael Durso — Member]: Correct. But how did they do it prior then?

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna/Bolonia')]: We don't know.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Doesn't matter how they did it prior even though you know that because it was reported all over the and we received a letter here well. Right now we are seeking to just clarify where we are measuring from so anyone else in the future who opens up a cannabis store knows exactly where that location must be in proximity to a school or a house of worship.

[Michael Durso — Member]: Thank you, miss Simmons. I appreciate the answers. On this on the bill, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: On the bill.

[Michael Durso — Member]: So again, I I appreciate the sponsor answering some of my questions, and I know we're trying to not talk about certain portions of this bill, but that's why we're here. That's why we're here legislating it. And if we weren't legislating it, we wouldn't be changing the law. If we're changing the law and everybody opted in or opted out under a different law, this bill should allow towns and municipalities to opt back out. Basically, was a bait and switch. We tricked them, not saying purposely, but OCM didn't have their stuff together. As we said, OCM made a mistake in issuing guidance. So if they made a mistake, maybe some in the towns and the villages and cities did also by opting in. I'm not saying whether you opted in, opted out, whether you want cannabis shops or not, I'm fine with that. That is every town and municipality's right. Whether you use them or not is your right. That's that's fine. However you feel about the original bill is your right, and that's a 100% correct. But I just wanna make it a point that if we're sitting here changing a law to what it was supposed to originally be and towns and villages opted in at a time when they thought the law was different, they should be allowed to opt back out for a certain period of time because the law is now changing. It is not what they originally intended. Obviously, it has been said in this chamber that OCM made a mistake and obviously they make a lot of them. But again, if these towns and villages are allowed to opt out, I think that would only be fair since we are changing the law and they opted into a different law. Thank you madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Thank you. Mister Bologna.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna/Bolonia')]: Thank you madam speaker. Would the sponsor yield for a few

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Norber')]: more Hold

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: the sponsor yield.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: I will yield.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: The sponsor yields.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna/Bolonia')]: Thank you very much. So I I have a technical question about the and if you already answered this, I do apologize for being redundant. But as far as the the application process is concerned, if someone is in the middle of a process of of an application, where does that grandfathering start? Where do they have to be in the process of applying for a license in order to be considered grandfathered? They already have to purchase the building? Where do they have to be in the process?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: They had to have received a letter from OCM saying that their property, their selected location was approved by OCM.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna/Bolonia')]: Do we know offhand how many not current structures or operating businesses? Do we know how many applicants? And is there in addition to the one zero eight that there are?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: We don't have the information about the total number which is your question but we do know that there's 44 additional applicants that have been impacted.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna/Bolonia')]: Okay. That's fair enough. So reading through the text of the legislation, I also noticed that was now that we have an opportunity, and I think that you would agree that this is an opportunity that we're taking to amend a flaw or a defect or a mistake, you know, it might be an opportunity to look at other things. Were parks ever considered to be included in terms of a distance restriction?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Did you say did you say parks?

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna/Bolonia')]: Yeah. Parks. Or or like public gathering places or anything like

[Michael Reilly — Member]: that. Mhmm.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: We mentioned this before, but let's be clear. What's in ABC law under SLA is our houses of worship Mhmm. And schools that are prepaid and above. So parks were not are not included in current law. Correct. We didn't pick it up for MRTA.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna/Bolonia')]: And I understand and I'm assuming that this that the 200 and the 500 was to align with the SLA requirements of of liquor stores.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: One of the things that we try to do here is if we have something that works for us, not to create a whole another set of laws. If something works then we tend to just operate under those and adapt them for the new realities.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna/Bolonia')]: And I I can absolutely appreciate that. Earlier in the debate you said that though '21 is the is the cutoff age, that is the law of the land. But would you agree that children under the age of 21 are able to, despite it being illegal, are able to somehow get into liquor stores and walk out with liquor?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Not in in liquor store, are you talking about OCM? Are you talking about cannabis stores?

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna/Bolonia')]: I'm talking about just liquor stores. I mean, we're using the same guidance. So I guess what I'm saying is that it is not inconceivable for people underage to walk into a liquor store and walk out with, for them, an illegal substance.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Well, for the purpose of this conversation, what I can tell you absolutely is that they cannot walk into an OCM cannabis store and do so.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna/Bolonia')]: Would you mind explaining to me how that how?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: So I don't know if you've ever seen an official store, but it gives you all the guidance of the law on, the outside of the store. Okay. Right? Most of the stores are locked and have to be buzzed in. There's also a QR code that you must scan to determine that this store is actually one that's listed in as an approved cannabis store in the state of New York. And so that's where everybody's protection. So you have to produce identification and they have ways of checking that. Most people have security at the door, some people have them once you get inside. And so it is not a place that those who are under 21 years of age can just wander into and look at products and then decide they're gonna pick them up and buy them. There's a whole protocol to let you into the space and even with somebody with a fake ID wouldn't be able to get through the the detections that they have because people are clear about wanting to stay in business in the state of New York.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna/Bolonia')]: I understand that. I again, I appreciate that, and that's how it should work. So if a liquor store were to sell alcohol to a minor, they would lose their liquor license. Correct?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: The same here.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna/Bolonia')]: That's my point. But that's what I'm saying is liquor stores sometimes are cavalier.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Are you suggesting that we should ask liquor stores to follow the same cannabis rules? As a parent, I certainly would go for that as well, but we're not debating that today. Today we're just trying to clarify what 500 feet means and 200 feet means.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna/Bolonia')]: Totally appreciate that. I am just what I am implying and what I'm saying is that businesses are not perfect even even though we'd love to legislate them into a perfect world. So what what I am saying is that moving forward, we should just have caution in terms of citing these types of facilities express that caution in public areas. That's all I'm trying to get at.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: It's a part of the law and we have cited them in the proper distance from where they should be and that's why we're seeking to clarify it for anybody again who's listening today and we'll do it in statute as well.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna/Bolonia')]: Alright, I think that is all my questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Zenerinkum.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Thank you. Mister Norber?

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Norber')]: Thank you, madam speaker. Would the sponsor yield, please?

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Will the

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: sponsor yield? The sponsor will yield.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Sponsor yields.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Norber')]: Yeah. I wasn't here when this bill passed, but I just had a quick question. What is the of even having a distance between a cannabis shop and a house of worship or a school? What's the purpose?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: It's a part of SLA law Can you we adopted for OCM.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Norber')]: For what? I couldn't hear you.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Which we this which we adopted for OCM.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Norber')]: But what's the purpose? I mean, are we are we trying to is there something dangerous about having children around a cannabis shop?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: The law states that if you are 21 years of age, I mean if you are under 21 years of age, you cannot it is illegal for you to be around cannabis, to use cannabis in the state of New York.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Norber')]: To be around.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: And we have created, nope, because we can't control what happens in the people's houses, we can only control what happens on our commercial strips and near our houses of worships and near our schools.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Norber')]: So it's not about being around the shop, it's about being around the cannabis itself and the environment

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: of a chemist? Around the shop because that's the only thing that we control.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Norber')]: We can control other things because there's the smoke free air act in which we don't even allow anybody to smoke freely in this in parks, boardwalks, beaches in New York City. So we do have that type of control. So my question is and my colleague asked about that. So why not have public parks, New York City parks also on this bill? Because right now, if we're talking about protecting children and we wanna protect them from secondhand smoking cigarettes, why not have the same type of

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Again, as a

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Norber')]: parent concept for cannabis.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: As again, as a parent, you know, I understand the concern.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Norber')]: Are you a parent?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: But today I absolutely am a parent. Hoping to be a grandparent one day too.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Norber')]: Congratulations.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: My daughter just got married. Just a little plug if she's listening. It's wonderful. So my point is today, you aren't here. I don't know if you support it or if you don't support it. I think I know how you feel about it. What I'm saying to you is that we put in protections in the law to protect children. But for the purposes of today, the only thing that we are doing is trying to clarify two hundred and five hundred feet. You are a lawmaker just like I am. If there are other parts of the MRTA that you would like to amend or adapt, we are all free to do so. But today, the only thing that we're talking about is measurements, two hundred and five hundred.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Norber')]: Okay. So as a legislator, you're a legislator. And as a grandmother, do you feel that there is some type of need to even improve this bill further in which we add in just add in exactly the way it says right now, 200 feet or 500 feet or whatnot, parks. Because I understand that we of years ago, 2,022, we passed a law about cigarettes and how dangerous this is to have children secondhand smoking that. But I if I walk right now the streets of New York City, I cannot avoid a big cloud of smoke in my children's face. I can't avoid it. It's everywhere. So and I'm not sure that many people on both sides of the aisle feel that way or if I've experienced that one way or another. So I'm just asking if there's any chance you think that we might be improving in the future further.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: What I'll say to that is that I think one of the reasons why this bill passed successfully is because municipalities had the ability to opt out and to choose how their county, how their community would handle this. And so some chose to opt out, some chose to opt in. And right now, today, for those who have opted in, we're just trying to clarify the measurements.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Norber')]: Thank you, sponsor. Just on the bill real quick.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: On the bill.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Norber')]: It's I understand the need that we have to allow people, individuals to choose for themselves if they wanna smoke cannabis. It's really fine. It's really okay. They could do so from what I understand under the smoke free air act, to do so in their homes, privately, anywhere they want. But right now, if you go to other places around the country, around the world, and they somebody smells all of a sudden cannabis, they'll say, oh, it smells like New York City. So I'm sure so I'm talking here about the quality of life and the quality of life for our children. And so I think that we should do more if we're already on the subject of distances between public spaces. We should do a little bit more and see if we could add in parks in the future. Thank you so much.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Thank you. Mister Zuccaro.

[John Zaccaro Jr. — Member]: Madam speaker, will the sponsor and my seatmate please yield for two quick questions?

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: I will.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Michael Reilly — Member]: Need mic.

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: This is

[John Zaccaro Jr. — Member]: great. Don't you think?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: It is. The two z's.

[John Zaccaro Jr. — Member]: Miss Zenterman, could you tell us today why this bill is needed?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: This bill is simply needed to clarify the proximity laws between a house of worship or a school and a licensed cannabis establishment.

[John Zaccaro Jr. — Member]: Would it be fair to say that this bill today will allow dozens of adult use licensees who played by the rules to continue to stay in business?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Absolutely.

[John Zaccaro Jr. — Member]: Would you agree that by not passing this bill, we would be harming businesses who opened up and played by the rules and that that would set a bad precedent?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Absolutely. For the 89 in New York City and the 19 across the state.

[John Zaccaro Jr. — Member]: My last question is how would this benefit our schools and houses of worship?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: The protection still remain there. I mean it's one of the things that I've tried to to underscore today that the existing law that you must be 21 and above to use cannabis in this law, the proximity that is in place, the laws that actually govern any adult person trying to engage a young person in the use of cannabis. All of those things exist. The protections that we had during the passing of MRTA exist today. And I think this clarification is just going to help that along.

[John Zaccaro Jr. — Member]: Thank you Ms. Zimmerman. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: On the bill.

[John Zaccaro Jr. — Member]: Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong and unequivocal support for this piece of legislation. For me, is not a theoretical debate. It is something that is personally felt in my district. There's a licensed cannabis cannabis dispensary directly impacted by this inaccurate measurement. I know this business. I've seen firsthand how they operate. I've watched them follow the law. I've watched them comply with every single regulation. I've watched them complete every single form, meet every demand, and I've watched them invest in our community in good faith. They've done everything right. They relied on the guidance provided by the state. They secured a location based on the measurements that were approved. They signed the lease. They hired employees from our community. They opened their doors only after being told that they were fully compliant. They have worked hard to build a responsible regulated business that reflects exactly what this legislature envisioned when we created this exact framework. And now, through no fault of their own, they face uncertainty because of an inaccurate measurement tied to a policy imp a policy implementation error. This is not just a bureaucratic misstep. It is a failure that threatens real livelihoods. Leadership requires us to confront problems directly and to correct them. And we cannot tell law abiding business owners, people who trusted this state, who followed every rule we set that they must pay the price for a mistake they did not make. That that exact thing would undermine trust not only in this program, but in government itself. This bill is necessary because it restores fairness and stability. It makes clear when a business acts in good faith, reliance on relying on state approval, the state will stand by its word. This bill today protects jobs. It protects small business investment. And it reinforces the principle that compliance must mean something. And so today, for those who oppose this measure, I would say this, allowing this era to stand does not strengthen the law. It weakens the confidence in it. If we want a regulated marketplace that operates with integrity, then we must ensure that those who follow the law are not punished for doing so. I represent a business that has done everything we've asked of them. They're responsible operators. They're community partners, and they deserve certainty. They deserve fairness, and they deserve to remain in business. And today, we have an opportunity with this bill to fix this law. To show that this body values accountability, and that it demonstrates that we stand with those who act in good faith. And so, madam speaker, today this is about fairness. It is about responsibility. It is about leadership. And I wanna thank my colleague for her leadership on this issue and her boldness to confront when we've when there's a mistake that has been made, we will do everything we can to make sure we are protecting New Yorkers. And so, madam speaker with that, I proudly vote and cast my vote in the affirmative. And I want to thank you all for this time and again thank my colleague for her leadership on this issue. Thank you so much, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Thank you. Mister Slater.

[Matt Slater — Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield please?

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Will the sponsor yield? Sponsor yields.

[Matt Slater — Member]: Thank you very much and let me apologize in advance. I was in and out of the chamber. I just have two simple questions.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Yes.

[Matt Slater — Member]: And I'm not sure if you've already answered them. So I just want make sure I understand. Was this bill brought forward by or at the request of OCM?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: The bill was Well, I'm going to give you two. I'm going to give you the answers that have been stated before. It's a departmental bill, but the impetus for this was the people who all of us have heard from when this mistake was discovered.

[Matt Slater — Member]: Understood. But as a departmental bill, OCM supports the bill, number one, and it's safe to assume in a sense that they are the ones who are asking for us to fix or remedy the situation.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: OCM was asked by all of us to fix this situation.

[Matt Slater — Member]: Right. And they couldn't do it themselves. They needed us as a legislature to pass the needed legislation in order to do that.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Absolutely.

[Matt Slater — Member]: Okay. Thank you very much. And just to refresh my memory, I wasn't here when the when the bill in chief was passed. Was OCM in existence when the first iteration of this bill that beat the bill in chief, was OCM in existence at that point in time? No. No. Is that I'm hearing you correctly? No?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Your m MRTA established the office of cannabis management.

[Matt Slater — Member]: Understood. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you so much for answering my questions. Madam speaker, on the bill if I may.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: On the bill. You

[Matt Slater — Member]: know, I I just think that there is an expectation from our constituents, from New Yorkers that legislation we pass is thought through, thoroughly examined, fully vetted. Clearly, this problem, I think, highlights some of the flaws in our legislative process. Really, what has happened here is we, as

[Sam Pirozzolo — Member]: a

[Matt Slater — Member]: legislature, had businesses jump and then look. And the problem with that, as we've heard from some of our colleagues, is that there are businesses now under threat because of the lack of clarity or the lack of direction that the original bill had put into place. And my colleagues here today, they've offered common sense enhancements to this law. But the chance for collaboration really, I don't think has been offered. This bill was introduced on Sunday, and here we are on Wednesday voting on it. I think it's a missed opportunity in many aspects, and I would hope that moving forward we can ensure, and as we just heard, we were passing legislation and giving direction to an agency that didn't even exist at that point. So, how do we know that the actual direction that was being given in practicality made sense. And clearly it just in this case unfortunately did not. And so I would hope moving forward that we can refocus our efforts into collaboration, that we can make sure that we are hearing from the experts, but also those on a practical level to make sure that the legislation that we are passing, whether it's related to this issue or others, is is done in a way that makes sense and that helps New Yorkers in multiple levels. Thank you very much, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Thank you. Mister Days?

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Days')]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: I will yield. Sponsor yields.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Days')]: Clarification on the MRTA and on your bill. For quick clarity, when it comes to cannabis, it comes to the same, rules as cigarette smoke where you're not allowed to smoke within New York City or city parks. Correct?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Absolutely.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Days')]: So we do recognize that when the first iteration of MRTA, we do respect quality of life air issues when it comes to public spaces where kids can will often utilize in playtime.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: We embedded it on in the law for that purpose. Yes.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Days')]: Correct. Now going more to the germane parts of this bill, utilizing this room as an example prior to this, if you use the walls as the barriers of a building Mhmm. Prior, the OCM could say as long as it was 50 feet from the center door by fire 500 feet from the center door, that was considered within the regulations in the proper regulations. Correct?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: 500 has been the standard. Yes. From the beginning.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Days')]: With this law, it is moving it from the center point of the main door Mhmm. To the exterior wall as the beginning of the measurement of where a registered OCM dispensary can now exist. Correct?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: It's still center door. Center to center. It was before. This is why we didn't wanna go through this because, you know, people were at your property and this, that, and the other. For the purposes of what we're doing going forward, is center door to center door, 500 feet schools, 200 for our houses of worship.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Days')]: Okay. And in reference to OCM and going to a registered dispensary

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Mhmm.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Days')]: Again, unlike a liquor store or a bodega where they sell beer or other products, a child cannot go with an adult within to those into into an OCM facility. Correct?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Absolutely.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Days')]: If you go into an OCM dispensary, you have a ID that has to be scanned by the security, then you are then inputted into the database to make sure that you that your ID is valid as a valid New York state ID. Correct? That is correct. So we have multiple verification points of ID that we don't necessarily have as mandated in liquor stores in bodegas, but OCM facilities do.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Yes.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Days')]: So you would say that that we go above and beyond to ensure that families and children are not are not would go into these facilities and we've taken an extra step unlike the SLA to protect young people in our state.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Two extra steps. Yes.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Days')]: In addition to that, retail stores also do not display paraphernalia, anything in the front, often they have frosted glass. They so if you look at height, children cannot look within those stores. That's not the same to say for liquor stores or bodegas that can have liquor advertisements or liquor bottles in the in the front of their stores, correct?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: You are correct.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Days')]: So again, the OCM has taken the necessary steps to ensure that we can have a well regulated business within the regulation of the OCM and laws to protect our community while also allowing businesses who are following the rules, who did everything right, spend millions and hundreds of thousands of dollars in construction and hiring local New Yorkers to allow a business to thrive while also being respectful to the community. Yes. Thank you, madam sponsor. On the bill.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Member (112th AD)]: Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: On the bill.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Days')]: I will be brief. I have worked in the cannabis industry since 2018. As somebody who was assaulted at when I was the age of 14 for being accused of using marijuana, another time being pulled out my car when I was a senior in college on a Florida interstate because they accused me of having marijuana in my car. I could tell you firsthand my experience on the criminalization of cannabis. I am proud to be part of a body that have made it legal and stop the decriminalization because it targeted certain communities. Now as my colleague also said, we cannot stop regulated businesses who are doing their job, who are community partners, who are following the rules and did everything that they asked in the original MRTA. No legislation that we ever pass will ever be perfect. And the one thing about our constitution and our ability to do bills, we can fix and change the law so that it can be more transparent, it can meet the needs of the community, and we can do our jobs. We are simply standing up to fix a mistake and we are clarifying. As he said, if a company has been doing its job, if they've been following the rules, if they've done everything we ask, we should not penalize them. We want more businesses to do the same thing. And we need to have the clarity and provide them the opportunity to be thriving businesses. This is an industry that can do well and hire a lot of people. We have the most diverse cannabis industry in the entire country. We have more justice involved members working in the industry than any other state. We also need to make sure that the revenue from the taxes are going to the communities that need and we need to be supportive of the industry because we know it's going to come into our state no matter what. We got to make sure that the supply chain is clean. We have to make sure that product coming from other states that failed testing does not come into New York State. We need to support the industry because it is hiring New Yorkers, creating millions of dollars in tax revenue and money is going back into the communities that were negatively impacted by the war on drugs. And on that note, I'll be voting yes and in affirmative. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Thank you, Ms. Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Member (112th AD)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the bill.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: On the bill.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Member (112th AD)]: So when I first heard that we would be taking up a cannabis bill today, or just a couple days ago I guess we heard about it, I think it was just introduced a little while ago, and I didn't know what it was about yet. I got kind of excited because I thought great, you know, we've raised so many problems with the rollout of this, the cannabis industry in New York and the legalization of marijuana. I'm like great, maybe we're going to take up a bill that will address all of the concerns that we raised on our side of the aisle about the inability to really measure impairment roadside, which was a major concern when we first took up this legislation. You know, maybe it's going to address one of the many other concerns that we raised about the legalization of marijuana. But unfortunately, much to my dismay, that's not what this bill is about today. This bill, prior speaker talked about this bill as correcting an unfairness towards businesses acting in good faith. And I thought that that was really interesting because you know our state is consistently ranked dead last in business friendliness in the country. We are rated as having the highest tax rates, the worst regulation, over regulation, being tremendously not business friendly. So the idea that we're trying to correct that wrong is, you know, intriguing. And I was really interested to see in our memo that NFIB, which really rarely takes any kind of a stand when it has to do with cannabis, said that they did hear from a lot of these small businesses that this was really a problem. So I really thought about it. But I think that, you know, think about the average wine and liquor store establishment that's got to deal with the state liquor authority. Do we think that that's easy? Do we think that they're not sometimes given bad information? That they're not led in the wrong direction as far as where they can site or what they can do? We know that that happens because we get those calls too. We know that that's a problem. But this legislation is once again, in my opinion, really bending over backwards to help this industry, to help this kind of business. You know, I've I've tried to bring forward bills to help the whole MWBE program, which is I think in a shambles in many respects. And but you know, we when we created this whole program, we we specifically developed it so that we were going to especially benefit and advantage the justice involved community in this program. And I would just have to share this one quick story since I've got a little bit of time here. I was shortly after, it was funny because it was on April 20 and for those of you who know, you know. I was on a train going down to New York City, going to something else. I was sitting next to a woman, fascinating lady. I just struck up a conversation because that's what I do. And she had arrived from Colorado to New York and what she was going to do, she had been very involved in the cannabis industry in Colorado where it had been earlier, you know, legalized. And I said, hey, I've got to ask you. She was going down to the city to help businesses that wanted to get established in this industry since it was new now in New York. And I said, hey, I've just got to ask you, when in Colorado, do you give any particular advantage or leg up to individuals who have been involved in the criminal justice world who have prior convictions to be able to get, you know, get certified and able to get licensed to open up a shop. And she looked at me like I had three heads and she's like, no, we don't do that. That's not what we do. We try to pick businesses that are the best situated and most solid to be able to start a business and be successful. That's, those are our criteria when we're picking the winners here. So, but that's all well and good. I mean, here's the thing, business involves risk, right? To those who take risk, there are gains. But one of the problems that has gone on with the cannabis industry here in New York is that businesses, entrepreneurs who want to make some money and God bless them if they do, but they're taking a risk. They're taking a special risk getting involved in this industry because we know and we've spoken to the chamber before about what a ridiculously horrific rollout this cannabis legislation has been and this program has been here in New York. Well that's an additional risk, isn't it? You're not just a business owner who wants to open up a shop on Main Street, but you're, you know, you're hitching your wagon to OCM which sounds like has been giving out really bad advice, wrong advice, leading people the wrong way, leading people who in good faith wanted to get involved with this. That's a risk. And that is a risk. So the question that we have to face here today is do we want to, as the Office of Cannabis Management is asking us to do in this bill, do we want to save those 150 or so businesses that were given bad information, were told that they were measuring it wrong. We were told that they couldn't locate there even after they had entered into a long lease. We were being asked to step in and help this particular class of small business, this particular type of small business, which you know, I like small business. I believe in small business. I believe in NFIB and the work that they do to help small business. We know that there are plenty of small businesses in New York that are hurting. There are a lot of things that are coming out of Albany that are coming out of state government that only seek to continue to hurt small business in our state. The last thing I'll just say is this. Some of us will vote no on this chapter not because we want to hurt small business but because there's really a taint that's been cast upon this entire program, this entire industry. And I guess the last thing I would just say is you know even in the Upstate area that I represent, I'm shocked to see how many licenses have been granted and how many of these shops are around. And that's just the legal ones. That's just the ones that are being approved by OCM. We know that there are plenty in the city and elsewhere that need to be cracked down that aren't even, you know, licensed to do this. But I would just say, you know, how many of these do we need? How many do we really need? I travel rarely to the city, but when I do go I am, as a previous speaker said, really my nostrils are assaulted with the smell of cannabis. God bless, if you want to do it in your home and it's legal and you're of age and you bought it in the right place and you're doing it the right way, I've got nothing to say to you. But except maybe you might be hurting your lungs or your body. But that's your business if you're an adult you figure that out. But I would just say how many of these do we really need? I feel like 150 extra shops you know is a lot. It's a lot. I don't think that there's any sort of a place to go get it if you want to get it. So I'm going to vote no on this bill probably unsurprisingly because I just think the whole program is an absolute flop. And I think that this is a patch this is a patch on really a bad program. So I'm gonna vote no and I would encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you very much, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Thank you. Miss Zenterman?

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: Madam speaker, on the bill.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: On the bill.

[Stefani L. Zinerman — Member]: I rise today to move legislation that corrects a regulatory failure that has caused real harm particularly to social equity cannabis operators who did exactly what the state of New York asked them to do. Before I go on with my remarks, I want to just talk a little bit about my district and those people who called me when this era was announced. At some point, the five zip codes from the 5 And 56 as we like to call ourselves, 11216, 11213, 11221, 33 sent more people to prison for cannabis use. And so most people know my predecessor and they know that that was one of the things that she was labor focused on and worked very hard to ensure that this bill this the bill MRTA was brought to bear. I believe in repair. I believe when you do something wrong, was the case of the prohibition, you have to repair it. Our majority leader and other people in this body agreed with that and we passed the law. Our laws are meant to help not harm. And we stay vigilant on times and circumstances to ensure that those bills, the legislation that we pass, continue to help people. And if we are a smart government, which I think we are, you repair the things that have harmed people. And I think that's what we are doing today. So this bill does not expand cannabis access. It does not weaken protections for schools or undermine the protections for houses of worship. Those protections fully remain intact, 500 feet from schools, 200 feet from houses of worship on the same street. What this bill does is restore clarity, consistency, and fairness to how those distances are measured and enforced. Over the summer and we've talked about this, OCM acknowledged that the proximity guidance, guidance that many people relied on was inconsistent with the statute. As a result, over 100 licensed dispensaries and dozens of pending applicants were suddenly deemed non compliant. Many after signing leases, investing capital and receiving written confirmation from the state. You heard from my colleagues and I want to say that this was not something that was thought about overnight. The gentleman to my left has been working to ensure that this bill and the people that it was meant to help had the best chance at that. So we have been talking about the legislation, how to do away with illegal cannabis shops. We have legislation based on this. And a lot of what we talked about today is something that his community and my community heard and we stand here today to urging you to sign this bill because we are only trying to make sure that people leave this chamber today understanding what it is in terms of the measurement. And so our social equity operators will know that this bill establishes again clear and objective measurement standards, preserves community buffers, honors reliance on prior agency determinations, prevents retroactive punishment for good faith compliance. That's what we want them to know. To the colleagues who feel that this bill does not go far enough, we are all legislators and you have the option of moving forward with any sort of other amendments that you would want. But today, we do not wanna stop. We we do not stop. We do not want to stop with good compliance. What we wanna do is make sure that we get rid of the harm. And so if you concerned about the community impact, let me just say that ambiguity is the enemy of enforcement. We want to be clear. We want everybody to leave here reciting what 500 feet does and 200 feet does. And to know that this chamber is aligned with what an OCM is aligned with what we have set forth today. This legislation protects schools, respects houses of workshops and restores trust in government which is what we need to establish. So I urge all to vote in the affirmative and I cast my vote for yes as well. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Thank you. Miss Peoples Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Assembly Majority Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker. I have listened quite intently to the

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: entire ma'am.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Assembly Majority Leader]: On the bill

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: On the bill.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Assembly Majority Leader]: To the entire debate. By the way, good job. And what it made me think about was the eight hours that it took to debate the original legislation. This only took an hour and a half, but we're doing pretty good. That's the other thing that it makes me think about is that through my research, I determined that it literally took ten years for the state liquor authority to streamline its regulate regulate regulatory process and get everything in place. Ten years. We're five years in. Actually, we're not even five yet because it didn't happen till 03/21/2021. We're almost five years in. And so, yes, there are some things that need to be straightened out when you're setting up a brand new agency for a state the size of the Empire State that deals with the number of people in the size of the Empire State. And so, yes, there are going to be some wrinkles here and there. Honestly, though, in all fairness, those letters that those business owners received over the summer were devastating. They should have never gotten them. This actually could have been just a streamlined regulatory process, Except when they got those letters, they hired lawyers. They went to court. And the judge said, you gotta fix this. So the judge said, you gotta go pass a regulatory process and create a law that says it's gonna go much like it does with the SLA. And that's what we're doing here. And honestly, I I believe that when we wrote the original legislation, we debated the original legislation, we said that we will allow the state of New York under the leadership of the governor, whomever that might be, at the time it was a different governor, to create an agency called OCM that would then embrace the Department of Health's medical marijuana and the agriculture department, hemp department, all together into one agency. And I I know there's some really smart people here, and I think we have all the answers. But I know there's not enough people in here to come up with how to put an agency together in five years without any glitches. And by the way, if you hire that person, they still have openings. There's jobs that are still available in this agency, and they need good lawyers. So if there's some people who wanna go and try to help out, do that. But realize that we're not even five years in and we're expecting everything to be perfect. It's not perfect yet, but it will be. And as it re as it relates to the revenue that's being raised, revenue is being raised. And and communities are being reinvested in because of it. We're making a difference in people's lives that we don't even know. I I know I don't know them all, but we're making a difference in people's lives. We say we want people to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, but sometimes you gotta give them some straps on the boots. This gives people a strap on a boot. It gives people an opportunity they never had. I had the pleasure to go and visit a, I wanna say, five decade long farm. Five generations rather. Five generations of people who have been in the orchard apple orchard business. It's a really great business. But what they have done with our legalization of cannabis is what they said to me is, you've allowed us to have another two to three generations more of people in business in on this land in the state of New York. This is why we did all of this. And so for us to be at a place where we need to correct some things, then let's correct them. And it's okay if people still have doubts about whether or not people should be using cannabis at all. It's okay that you still have that. There's still people who doubt whether you should drink alcohol. As a matter of fact, a lot people are not even drinking as much alcohol anymore. There's only a couple times in the original legislation where there was a felony created. One of them is selling to people 21. So to I mean, I'd get you wanna be concerned about a nursery school, but I really doubt a toddler is gonna walk into a place and buy something. They won't even be able to buy it from a legal illegal store. And there's still a ton of them left that we need to fix that too. So at this point in life, we should be grateful that not just OCM, but the governor and the courts have said, okay, let's just put these lines the same way they are for us LA. Instead of from property line to property line, put it to door to door. And the distance is the same as she has so articulately argued. Not a lot of change here, folks. Not a lot of controversy to be looking for here. But there are still some opportunities for our state to grow based on the fact that we have legalized a product that 24 other states have also legalized by the way. We are not the first ones nowhere near. But I do think we are the best ones. And I think we should stay the course. I would encourage people to vote in favor of this piece of legislation.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Thank you. On a motion by miss Zimmerman, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Member (112th AD)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The minority conference will be in the negative on this piece of legislation. But if there are members who wish to support it, now would be the ideal time to do so at their seats. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Thank you. Ms. People Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Assembly Majority Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker. I would encourage the majority conference to do much like we did when the legislature was originally passed and vote in favor of this piece of legislation. However, if there's some folks who wanna be an exception, feel free to do so at your seat.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Thank you. Clerk will record the vote. Mr. Bologna to explain his vote.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna/Bolonia')]: Thank you madam speaker. As we discussed the purpose of this bill is to ultimately fix the screw up by the office of cannabis management. And what we're showing is that when this body has a priority and wants to push something through quickly and rapidly, we do it. There are still drugged driving bills that are waiting around in committee that we have an opportunity to address those as well. I also do not think that this bill does any anything about the surging use of marijuana in this state. It doesn't touch on anything of the mental health of smoking, potential addiction, or any of the negative impacts that can be derived from excess use of cannabis. With that I will be in the negative. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Mr. Bolonia in the negative. Mister Levine to explain his vote.

[Michael Reilly — Member]: We've had some great presidents, and Jack Kennedy was, was one of them. And Jack Kennedy used to like to say, an error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it. We are correcting an error, and I'm very pleased to vote in the affirmative.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: Mister Levine in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Reading Clerk]: Ayes, 93. Noes, 48.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: The bill is passed. Miss Peoples' jokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Assembly Majority Leader]: Madam speaker, do you have any further housekeeping or resolutions?

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: We do have a piece of housekeeping on a motion by mister Boris, page 29, calendar number one forty eight. Bill number a five nine zero six b, the amendments are received and adopted. We have a number of resolutions before the house. Without objection, these resolutions will be taken up together. On the resolutions, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolutions are adopted. Miss People Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Assembly Majority Leader]: I now move that the assembly stand adjourned until Thursday, February 12, tomorrow being a legislative day, and that we reconvene at 2PM on February 23, Monday being a session day.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer)]: On miss Pupil Stokes' motion, the house stands adjourned.