ALC-Medical Marijuana Oversight Subcommittee
Video
Transcript
1 document
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
0:00
I call this Medical Marijuana Subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative Council to order. Chair sees a quorum. Today we will be discussing the implementation of the two remaining medical marijuana licenses that are still on the docket.
And before we do that, any comments from my co-chair? No, sir. Seeing none, let's go ahead and bring to the table the director of ABC as well as the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, Jim Hudson. If you would, when you come
to the table, just please state your name and your
Speaker 6
0:55
role with the agency. Good morning, Chairman. And members, Jim Hudson, Secretary DFA.
Speaker 7
1:00
Good morning. I'm Christy Bjornsson. I'm the regulatory administrator under DFA.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:04
Good to have you both. Okay, so this was brought to my attention, I guess, a couple weeks ago. Well, it's actually been since I got in the legislature of the two remaining licenses that are out there. They've been there for about seven years. Correct me if I'm wrong. If you guys will just talk about the history of those two licenses and kind of why they have not, you know, made their way into implementation yet. Sure. I'll let
Speaker 11
1:27
director Bjornsson get in specifics on it. She's got much better handle on it than I do, but just kind of just to make sure members understand as well
under the medical marijuana amendment, uh, the medical marijuana commission is required to issue a minimum, the shall shall issue at least 20 licenses and not more than 40. So there really is no legal mandate to issue anything in excess of 20 licenses and we're well in excess I think it's 37 38 at
Speaker 12
1:56
this point so there is there is a plenty of licenses out there my own view is that there is a lot of marijuana that is being medical marijuana that is being sold I think the market
is fairly well saturated if you talk to some of the operators and we have 110,000 Arkansans who have medical marijuana cards and they're able to obtain the product that they desire so I do think the market is is getting served but we still have those two licenses that are available that can be issued in a couple of different of the of the counties where the you know dispensaries still need to have some facilities but you know overall I do think the market's getting well served I'll let Christy talk more about the particulars and the history of the licenses. Thank you so as you
Speaker 7
2:43
guys are mostly aware amendment 98 legalized medical marijuana here in arkansas in 2016 in 2017 abc started accepting applications for the first round of issuing of the licenses that was july 1st 2017 the rules stated that 24 months after the issuance of the first license the remaining applicants could remain in a reserve pool for 24 months from that date. So the first dispensary licenses were actually issued in January of 2019.
So that 24-month reserve period would be expired in January of 21. In January of 21, ABC, along with the Medical Marijuana Commission and DFA, started looking at what rules needed to be made in order to get these last two licenses out. There was a public comment period in January of 2022, and ABC, DFA, MMC were immediately sued. There was a restraining order that then paused pretty much any discussion on the licensing rules
for two years. That litigation ultimately ended in a non-suit on October 31st of 2024, so coming up on about a year to today so in that time we had between essentially november 1st and december 2024 to get a new draft together the commission had asked to look at the rules that were originally changed and amended in 2022 and moving forward with those sometime in 2024 or 2025
then we ran into session so we didn't have ALC so those rules kind of sat from January until May and then after May started looking back at what methods were appropriate to move forward and they have been put on the agenda and back off a couple times since then in front of MMC any questions members.
Speaker 17
4:45
I guess I'll lead off. Oh, Ricky, Senator Hill, excuse me. You're recognized. Mr. Hudson, would
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
4:55
you tell us a number of medical marijuana cards? It was again, I heard you say
Speaker 11
5:01
it all ago, but I can't remember what you said. It'd be 110,000, which is about 5% of the adult population in arkansas thank you sir representative rye
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
5:13
yes sir thank you mr chairman for letting me in here can you tell us now it's gradually going up each year what is the actual profit for this year for the marijuana once all the costs and things are taken out when you say you know for
Speaker 27
5:31
the state yes there's clear representative rye i'd i'd
Speaker 28
5:35
have to probably get somebody to calculate that number for me I don't have that off the top of my head you
Speaker 11
5:41
know we would need to look at the actual collections for the excise tax for medical marijuana and then back out of that the amount that we have to actually pay staff to administer the program but we'll run that down I'll get that data to you yes sir Mr.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
5:59
Chairman thank you sir Representative Tosh thank you Mr. Chair Director And you may have stated this, and I missed it, but did you say the law said there had to be at least 20 licenses issued and no more than 40?
Did I understand that correctly?
Speaker 11
6:14
That's the constitutional amendment. That's written into the constitutional amendment. So it is a minimum, no less than. So we shall issue licenses for 20, and we can issue additional ones
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
6:26
up to a total of 40. Okay. So, follow-up, how many licenses have been issued
Speaker 40
6:32
at this point? Issued and outstanding at this point, 37? 37. 37.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
6:37
So you're almost to the 40 max, according to the language in the Constitutional Amendment.
Is that correct? That's correct, sir. Okay. And one last question, and somebody asked a question, made me think of this. The meals that, you know, we're providing free lunches or breakfast across the state, and we're paying for that with a medical marijuana tax. Is that tax enough to sustain that program? I mean, the current projections are that it
Speaker 28
7:04
is sufficient. I mean, a lot of that would depend upon what the future collections are, obviously, for medical marijuana excise tax
Speaker 11
7:11
and future protections in the program.
But currently, we think it is
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
7:15
sufficient, yes, sir. Currently, right now, we're in good shape.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
7:21
I think so, sir, yes. Okay, thank you. Director, I'll ask you. So going off of what Representative Tosh said, So you've issued your 20, right? You don't have to release these next two licenses. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. So why has there been, I know a lot of members and myself have gotten emails and phone calls saying that this was a mandatory thing that these had to be released.
What is the disconnect, I guess, from people that are wanting the license? Is it just people are wanting to, they want the thing, and so they're kind of putting pressure on all of us?
Speaker 28
7:57
Yeah, if I could take that one. You know, obviously it's a tremendous business opportunity, and I think people see the opportunity there, and they like to take advantage of it. And so they'd love to have the opportunity probably to get those licenses. And I think to the extent that we issue them,
Speaker 11
8:12
then the process ought to be fair and ought to be open, and people ought to be able to know what the rules are for obtaining it.
But, again, I think in terms of looking at the overall market, um there's not a shortage of the ability to go procure medical marijuana it's i think the state is currently getting
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
8:32
well served by that senator caldwell thank you mr chair you just touched on what i was talking about jim uh do you have you received any complaints uh anywhere in the marketplace about uh lack
Speaker 12
8:45
of service or lack of availability i personally have not i'll
Speaker 7
8:49
defer I have not received many.
We do randomly get calls from people who are in rural areas of the state, and they say that it is sometimes difficult for them and they have to travel, but they also have to travel to get
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
9:02
to the grocery store sometimes. But on these two licenses, for clarification, if you issue those, those are only located in certain zones. They can't put them anywhere they want to. Could you tell us where these licenses would
be given and whether or not you could relate to any complaints coming from these districts where these licenses
Speaker 7
9:19
would be issued. I cannot say any specific complaints from those areas.
The two zones that would be affected that still have room for another dispensary are Zone
Speaker 57
9:27
6 and Zone 8. That is in and around Hot Springs and in and around Texarkana. Okay, thank
Speaker 17
9:34
you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Dalby. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
9:38
Thank you for allowing me to ask a question. I was on this subcommittee last term, so I've always tried to keep up with it. The question that I have for the witnesses today, can you tell us what the plan is moving forward? What do you want to do?
What do you want to do about the next three since we have
37 out there? What's the plan for
Speaker 28
10:01
the next three? So let's differentiate between the three that are available. Two of those are
Speaker 12
10:07
for licenses that have not been issued. There's one license that has been revoked. for failure to comply with the ABC rules, that is still in litigation,
Speaker 11
10:16
so we're going to hold that one in abeyance until we get to the conclusion of that litigation. But we do need to have a process going forward so that when there are future revocations as well,
we know exactly what we're going to do. Current rules are not very clear about that. So what I've asked the team to do, to work in conjunction with the AG's office, to make sure that we have a good set of rules that will have a shelf life on them, rules that are fair, transparent, that protect the taxpayers, protect the consumers, and that can be issued with the minimum threat of unsuccessful litigation. I think there's a good chance we'll face litigation regardless, but I want to make sure that we have good defensible rules
and we don't end up back in court and we don't have a leg
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
11:05
to stand on, so to speak. Follow-up, Mr. Chair, and what would be the timeline for
Speaker 28
11:10
getting those rules out? I'd be hesitant to commit to a specific timeline at this point. I've asked them to work on that now. I think over the ensuing months we should
Speaker 11
11:18
be getting some good language, and then we begin the process of promulgating the rule for that. It will require rule promulgation. I look
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
11:26
forward to that because I think we talked about rules last term, so I appreciate the fact that you're moving forward.
Anything else you can add as to what the plan is for the remaining two? I understand there's one in litigation. Litigation is not a bad thing in
my profession, so, you know, I'm okay with that. But that being said, what are the plans? You're just going
Speaker 11
11:54
clear, you know, we can't do anything presently without rules being promulgated. So rules have to be promulgated first, and then
Speaker 66
12:00
whatever process the rules establish will follow that process to issue the remaining licenses.
Speaker 1
12:07
Okay, thank you. And to be clear, just on what you just said, it's going to be a new set of rules compared to
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
12:14
what it was the first go-around, right? That's your plan is to have a whole new set of rules that's going to be
Speaker 28
12:20
fair to the public. It's not going to be like what we saw before? Yeah. We will be amending the current rules that were in place. You know, it won't be a
Speaker 12
12:29
wholesale restatement of the rule, but we will be addressing the process for issuing licenses. Yes, that will be new language. Representative Cozart.
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
12:39
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the one that you've got a litigation is from Hot Springs. Yes, sir. What's the chances that that could go in his favor, just if you have an idea or not? I don't think I want to, you know. You don't want to speculate on that, and that's fine.
Speaker 39
12:57
Well, but I mean, I'll give you a bit better answer than that. You know, we don't seek to revoke, you know, just, you know, at
Speaker 12
13:04
the drop of a hat. I mean, we look at the evidence, we look at the degree, the severity, the behavior for that
Speaker 11
13:11
sort of a sanction that is kind of a death penalty sort of sanction.
So the facts, I think, were sufficiently severe that it
Speaker 12
13:17
warranted us moving the way that we did, and we feel very confident in the quality of our case that we brought there. Well, I
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
13:25
believe you're probably correct. I can't make a statement on that myself either, but I believe you're correct in what you're saying there. It would be hopeful for as long as we could get, you know, if it doesn't come back to High Springs, I'm not going to be heartbroken, but I think we need that revenue coming in somewhere. If we're going to have those, let's get them out and get them going.
But I think we do need the new rules. I think we need to be able to stop this a little quicker than what we've had before. there's a problem and and that one was a problem from the beginning so
Speaker 39
13:58
i believe that we've seen a lot of the revenue that was at that particular dispensary shift over to the other one you
Speaker 5
14:04
know in hot springs so i think the the business is still there it's just concentrated with one versus two at this point yeah sometimes i mean if it's
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
14:11
profitable people are going to sell them and and try to keep them going as long as the people can do what they need to do so anyway thank you
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
14:19
Secretary Harris, I want to follow up on what he just asked about to get the revenue going. If we issue these new licenses, we're not going to issue new cars. 110 people are buying it somewhere, is that correct? That's right. So, I mean, the revenue is
just not going to that specific location. The revenue is still coming into the state. Correct. Yep. That's correct. Representative Springer. Good
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
14:44
morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to ask this question. Good morning. This has to do with the application process.
I had a constituent contact me just last week. Are you able to speak to that, applicants who apply for the card? Is that something you can speak to? Applying for a medical marijuana card? Yes. Is that something you can use? The issuance of
Speaker 28
15:06
medical marijuana cards actually belongs at the Department of Health. So we regulate the dispensaries and the cultivators. The Department of Health issues the medical marijuana cards to the individual patients. Okay, so you can't answer
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
15:17
a question then about that? No, ma'am. Okay, thank you. That's fine.
Speaker 19
15:24
Senator Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, over here. Okay,
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
15:31
we mentioned just a while ago that you're working with the Attorney General's Office and the Director of Staff as far as getting everything together as far as the new rules to promulgate. So where does the Medical Marijuana Commission fall in on this? Are they being involved in this and didn't they pass some rules recently, I say within the last year that they were looking at? How do
Speaker 28
15:52
they fall into all this? No, they've not passed any rules on this.
Speaker 11
15:56
They've considered proposed rules that the staff drafted and they gave comment, I think, on that. They may have been discussed at one of the meetings. But it is the staff's responsibility to do the legal work to understand what's required, present options to the Medical Marijuana Commission. and they ultimately approve whatever the rule is going to
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
16:22
be. Okay, thank you. Representative Tosh. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know we gave the ABC the task of overseeing these medical marijuana facilities,
and we did that legislatively, and I understand that. As far as manpower goes and this additional responsibility that you have now in ABC, Did we give any additional manpower, a lot of any additional slots to ABC to be able to oversee and maintain the oversight of these medical marijuana facilities? So I think we're fine on medical marijuana
Speaker 11
16:55
facilities. We've been doing that for several years now. I think we understand how to do that and how to do that economically for the taxpayers.
The area where there is an emerging demand is in an adjacent space, and that's in the Delta 8, Delta 9 enforcement, the hemp laws that were just passed, enforcing on that. With the case being dismissed at the 8th Circuit, us having our opportunity to be able to enforce the laws that you passed, there's a little bit more workload. And we are looking at coming in with a supplemental probably closer to session to ask for some additional spots over there that
Speaker 12
17:35
can help on the enforcement end with them.
Because they're doing a lot of interdiction work in that space, and I want to make
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
17:44
sure they've got the help they
need. And my point being, and I think you alluded to it, my point being we did not eliminate any tasks that was already assigned to the ABC agents. So I guess my question was, and my concern was, if we didn't eliminate any tasks and we just added additional tasks to the ABC agents, are they able to fulfill those without any additional manpower?
So has there been a problem with that? Are they still able to take care of the tasks that they were already assigned to do as far as alcohol permits, checking places that are licensed to sell alcohol? All that falls under their purview. So I guess my concern is, with that now up to 37 medical marijuana facilities, according to the testimony I just heard, my question was, do we have additional manpower to make sure that the responsibilities that's been delegated to ABC by this General Assembly,
are they still able to fulfill those in addition to taking care of this additional 37? So is it a yes or no? It's
Speaker 12
18:51
a yes, and again, they have been doing the work of the medical marijuana compliance for several years now. That's not a new responsibility, and they have the staff they need to be able to do that. What I was speaking to was yet even newer responsibilities on the hemp enforcement. That's creating additional workload, and we are going to get them additional resources for that. And
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
19:12
I'll end with this, and I know it's not a new responsibility, but the fact that you've got 37 facilities now, that's a new responsibility.
Because at one time, seven years ago, there was no way you would have had that many facilities for the ABC to oversee the regulations and rules and make sure they were in compliance. Is that not true? It is
Speaker 11
19:31
a newer set compared to alcohol, certainly. Yes. But I think they're handling the workload quite well for that. Okay, well, I
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
19:37
was trying to lead you in to see if you need some additional vampire, and you didn't go there. So I'm trying to make sure y'all had it covered and that we didn't leave you shorthanded to take care of the responsibilities that we've given you. I appreciate the
Speaker 6
19:50
kindness, Representative Tosh, but Secretary of Finance and Administration, we ought to be able to try and find ways to do things as efficiently as we can.
Speaker 12
19:59
So making the ask for additional money, additional personnel ought to be the last thing that we do. I think the team is doing an exceptional job, an exceptional job with the resources they have.
Speaker 77
20:14
we've got some needs there. We're going to
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
20:19
make sure we meet those needs. Okay. Thank you. Representative Ferguson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, a
quick question. I think I know the answer to this. I might have slept some since several years ago. So, in the rules, or maybe it was in the amendment, is there
something that defines how many dispensaries should be per either county or per sections of the state, certain parts of the state?
Speaker 11
20:45
yeah i'll let the director speak to my recollection is no that that's that was a function that was
Speaker 12
20:51
delegated to the medical marijuana commission to determine how many licenses would go in different parts of the state we
Speaker 7
20:59
do operate in a zone system earlier when i mentioned there are holes in zone six and zone eight those are where new dispensary licenses could move to um so we have i think it's eight zones across the state and i believe there's five in each zone someone will correct me if i'm
Speaker 57
21:16
wrong on that i think that's correct and that's by rule
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
21:25
eight zones by rule yes and five dispensaries in each zone not by the amendment
but by rule by rule uh one follow-up mr jerry so by rule the last three dispensaries by rule where would they go particularly when we talk about the zones two well
Speaker 7
21:46
so two that were never issued one would be in zone six and one would be in zone
Speaker 57
21:51
eight that's in and around hot springs or in and around texarcana the one additional license that was revoked was in that same zone that's around garland county so two out of the three remaining could go in and around garland
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
22:08
county and one in texacana one last follow-up so would you what you're telling me is that as you guys deal with this lawsuit the one in texacana now the one in around hot springs in garland county must go back into
Speaker 7
22:25
that zone correct there it is done by rule
though so the rules could always be changed if the commission wanted to look at different zones different opportunities that hasn't been discussed at commission meetings up till now right now we've still been operating in patients it's a medical market and patients need access across the
Speaker 97
22:43
state So the zones are to ensure that patients
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
22:46
have access all across the state. One more, Mr. Chair. So what you're telling me is that the commission could change the rules. Therefore, the dispensary that's now in Hot Springs that they're losing could go to another zone.
And they would do that
Speaker 91
23:05
when? We're not proposing any changes to the zones, Representative. All right. Okay. All right. All right.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
23:12
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Dalby. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Something that Representative Cozart said sparked a question in your rulemaking and ownership of these. As I recall from the last time I was on this committee, there is a problem with out-of-state ownership but straw men, basically, on the application or on the license.
Are we going to do anything to try to address that? Because it was a concern of the committee last term. I would think it would still be a concern now, and I
would hope that you're looking at, one, how to draw a rule up so that Arkansans are actually owning this and not some foreign corporation, by foreign I mean outside of the state, obviously. But are you looking to address that issue?
Because I think it's still an issue, and wouldn't you agree we need to look at that? So there's my question.
Speaker 12
24:12
Yes, ma'am. I'll let Director Bjornsson speak to the specifics. It is a concern that I share as well. And I think maybe defend the work of the team a little bit here. It's not as if they weren't doing anything in the past 12 months. And this is one of the things that they've been spending most of their time looking at from a rulemaking perspective. Frankly, it was a much higher priority to me than these last two licenses getting issued
to make sure that indeed we don't have straw men you know who are purporting to be owners they're very well along in that drafting process and the review process and i'd hope to be able to start the promulgation process relatively soon but i'll defer to her on
Speaker 7
24:53
that we like to refer to that set of rules as the management rules so we've kind of been juggling the licensing rules and the management rules over the last couple months together but because the licensing rules are not directly related to management we're going to go ahead and keep rolling on management
the management rules have already been out for public comment period once last year that public comment period was before session started obviously with session priorities kind of shifted since session actually at our last medical marijuana commission meeting last week the commission voted to approve a second draft of those rules public comment will actually open this friday on the second draft of the management rules and again the purpose of that was to make sure that the management company wasn't exerting control over the ownership group we wanted to make sure that
the owners who are here from arkansas are benefiting and have control over these licenses great i really appreciate
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
25:47
that thanks for the update because that is
a huge concern and very important so thank you for your work on that absolutely i think now would be representative
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
25:56
steel i'll get you here in just a second i think now would be a good time to bring up Justin Brasher and Sarah Griffith from the Attorney General's Office. You guys can stay here as well. You said earlier that you guys were going to work in conjunction with the Attorney General's Office on the implementation of these rules. So go ahead and get up here and state your name and who you're with.
Speaker 106
26:15
I appreciate it, guys. Thank you. Good morning, Representative and Senators. Justin Brasher, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Speaker 107
26:28
with the AG's Office. Good morning. Sarah DeBetz-Griffith, Assistant Attorney General with the AG's
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
26:32
office. Well, since we've got you guys here, we've heard testimony this morning about how you guys are going to work together on these rules. What are you, you know, we've heard that we should go back to the last rules that were done. In your eyes, what do you see the rules looking like as we move forward for these two additional licenses?
Speaker 110
26:50
Thank you, Representative. so this is important we have clients the and they we have been working with them on to develop what we think can be the best set of rules going forward there's almost certain to be some sort of legal action on these rules once they're implemented and so we want the best set of rules that's going to stand up the best in court so we've had that those conversations with them there's attorney client privilege in play so you know if they we have had those conversations and when we think we have the best set of rules we've worked together to do it as timely and quickly as
possible when we have the best set of rules dfa and and abc will put them forward and then they'll be voted on senator
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
27:33
caldwell thank you mr chair you really confused me when you said the ag office has clients could you explain that sure uh i mean it seems odd to me that the state would be your client and and you and are there are these private organizations i mean why are we using state tax dollars to have ag office to have clients i don't understand that by clients i'm referring to the
Speaker 110
27:56
department of finance administration i'm referring to uh abc poor clients but go ahead well we don't necessarily get to choose our clients senator um the uh the constitution and law tells us who our
Speaker 112
28:09
clients are. If I may, Senator, we're a paying client. That's the best client to have. Absolutely. Thank you. Yes.
Speaker 110
28:19
So that our clients that our clients are all of y'all. When you have questions for us, they're DFNA.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
28:24
You see how that statement would be confusing when you come
up and say we have clients and, and I could understand the state agencies, but you don't have any private outside of state government clients am i correct on that that's correct i use thank you yeah you just asked a question thank you representative steel
Speaker 114
28:44
thank you very much mr chairman um well
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
28:47
thank you for allowing me to ask the question now i want to ask if you would permit me to ask one question on cultivation since i think it's close again to what we're
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
28:58
talking about i think that since we're talking just about the licensing um if you can keep it Brief, yes. I'll be
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
29:06
very brief. So we started out with five cultivation facilities, and I think that was expanded to eight. Am I correct? Do we have eight cultivators currently? We do. Okay. There was one, I understand, that was in litigation, not this part of the state, but another part of the state. Is that litigation over? And finally, do any of these rules that we're talking about today affect cultivation in any way?
Speaker 7
29:34
That litigation is not yet over, and none of the rules we're discussing today will affect cultivation. Thank you.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
29:42
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay, so between the two of you at the table, ballpark me an estimate of when we could possibly see if you guys are going to release these two licenses. Are we talking six months? Are we talking a year, year and a half? What do we – ballpark?
Speaker 28
30:00
Well, it depends on how big the ballpark we're playing in. You know, I always hate to, you know, give a specific timeline.
Speaker 11
30:06
I'm not looking to sandbag on these. You know, I think we want to make sure, just as the AG's, you know, folks said, we'll make sure they're right more than anything else. And I'd rather have right favored over speed. We're not going to ignore it. We're going to work on it. I'd like to see us kind of get something in place over the course of the next 12 months or so. The thing I would say, too, for anybody
Speaker 12
30:28
who is frustrated, and I'm sure phone calls are being made expressing frustration, don't be mad at the AG's office. You want to be mad at somebody, be mad at me. You know, they give us the advice.
It's up to us whether or not we take the advice. But when my lawyer is telling me that, you know, there's a concern or they'd like for us to look at something, I'm paying attention to that. And so ultimately, as Secretary of DFA, which, you know, the regulatory division is a part of medical marijuana is part of that as well you know buck stops with me i felt like we're the road we were currently on was not the right road to be on and so i just said we're gonna stop we're gonna take a step back we're gonna get legal counsel make sure that we have the right rules in place so that when we bring this in the promulgation process and we appear before you and you ask us questions about is it a fair process is a
transparent process is a safe process do we have the best people selling medical marijuana to the citizens of Arkansas, I want to be able to answer all those questions, yes. Any more questions from members?
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
31:26
Seeing no other business, thank you guys so much. Thank you, committee. Appreciate you. We stand adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Comments by Co-Chairs
C. Discussion on the Implementation of the Two Remaining Medical Marijuana Licenses
D. Other Business
E. Adjournment
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — ALC-MEDICAL MARIJUANA OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE, Oct 13, 2025 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Speaker 6
Speaker 7
Speaker 11
Speaker 12
Speaker 17
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
Speaker 27
Speaker 28
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
Speaker 40
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
Speaker 57
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Speaker 65
Speaker 66
Speaker 1
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
Speaker 39
Speaker 5
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
Speaker 19
Speaker 77
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
Speaker 97
Speaker 91
Speaker 106
Speaker 107
Speaker 110
Speaker 112
Speaker 114
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified