House Rules
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (9)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB533
Act 934
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…orum members without objection we're going to begin with uh senate bill 533 representative gasway if you'll identify yourself for the r…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF CONSUMABLE HEMP PRODUCTS BY THE ARKANSAS TOBACCO CONTROL BOARD; … | Dees | Notification that SB533 is now Act 934 |
|
HB1143
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AGES INTO THE STATE. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1143 Wooten TO AMEND THE CHARITABLE BINGO AND RAFFLES ENABLING A…”
|
TO AMEND THE CHARITABLE BINGO AND RAFFLES ENABLING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT RAFFLES TO PROVIDE … | Wooten | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1192
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…y Rep. Brit McKenzie REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1192 Pilkington TO PROHIBIT THE POSSESSION OF TOBACCO, TOBACCO P…”
|
TO PROHIBIT THE POSSESSION OF TOBACCO, TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AND E-CIGARETTES BY STUDENTS; AND TO REQUIRE … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1578
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OF DISPOSAL VAPOR PRODUCTS FROM A PROHIBITED FOREIGN PARTY. HB1578 Pilkington TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS HEMP BEVERAGE ACT. SB5…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS HEMP BEVERAGE ACT. | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1626
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1626 Duffield TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF DISPOSAL VAPOR PRODUCTS FR…”
|
TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF DISPOSAL VAPOR PRODUCTS FROM A PROHIBITED FOREIGN PARTY. | Duffield | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1722
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE ARKANSAS SPORTS RAFFLE ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1722 J. Moore TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF HEMP-DERIVED PROD…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF HEMP-DERIVED PRODUCTS BY THE ARKANSAS TOBACCO CONTROL BOARD; TO … | J. Moore | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1860
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1860 Duffield TO MODIFY THE PERIOD THAT A VISITING QUALIFYING PA…”
|
TO MODIFY THE PERIOD THAT A VISITING QUALIFYING PATIENT REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD IS VALID; AND … | Duffield | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
SB447
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NEWAL OF A QUALIFYING PATIENT REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD. SB447 J. Petty TO REQUIRE PERMITTED COMMON CARRIERS TO SUBMIT REP…”
|
TO REQUIRE PERMITTED COMMON CARRIERS TO SUBMIT REPORTS DETAILING SHIPMENTS OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES INTO THE … | J. Petty | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1044
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1044 Hawk TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS SPORTS RAFFLE ACT; AND TO DE…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS SPORTS RAFFLE ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | Hawk | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
call house rules to order chair sees a quorum members without objection we're going to begin with uh senate bill 533 representative gasway if you'll identify yourself for the record you're identified to uh present your bill thank you mr chairman state representative
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
0:22
jimmy gas away district 31 members today we have Senate bill 533 and with the chair's permission I would ask that Alex Benton from the attorney general's office
join me at the table for the presentation please identify
Speaker 5
0:47
yourself for the record Thank You mr. chair members Alex Benton attorney
general's office. You recognize? Thank you, Mr.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
0:59
Chairman. Members, the bill that we have before you today regulates consumable hemp products in the state of Arkansas. The bill has really a couple of aims
which are to protect public health and safety primarily and to provide a mechanism by which these products can be regulated. There are three different types of consumable hemp or hemp products I should say. The first being industrial hemp. Industrial hemp under this bill remain completely legal. This including the cultivation and industrial use which includes uses such as home building and construction. This will remain lawful as long as it's compliant with the Arkansas
industrial hemp production act second type of hemp is consumable hemp products this bill would legalize these products which are derived from hemp and are intended for human consumption but to be clear consumable hemp products under this bill are defined as products that are not capable of producing an intoxicating effect so if the hemp is capable of producing a an intoxicating effect that is not considered consumable hemp products for purposes of this bill to be a consumable hemp product the
product must be a finished product be intended for human consumption not be marketed for intoxicating effect be either a cosmetic or generally recognized as safe by the fda have no more than one milligram of total thc per container and a minimum ratio of cbd to thc of greater than 15 to 1 and have a certain natural based and cbd dominant chemical makeup so to be clear if it's capable of producing an
intoxicating effect it will not be legal under this bill to make and sell the consumable hemp products legally in arkansas the manufacturers wholesalers and retailers must obtain permits from the arkansas tobacco control board must pass rigorous testing by an independent testing laboratory and must take steps to register their products with the arkansas tobacco control board there are permit fees and fines generated under the bill that will be deposited in the state treasury
and special revenues if there are violations is my understanding there are some carve outs and i want to be clear about this there are carve outs in the bill related to non-intoxicating hemp derived products which is in line with the farm bill and the arkansas industrial hemp production act so while also stopping the continued sale of unregulated products that in some instances contain harmful byproducts and produce psychoactive effects greater than those produced
by legal medical marijuana in arkansas so we're uh staying in line with the farm bill which is important related to the preemption issue and the arkansas industrial hemp production act then i just i want to move on to the last type intoxicating hemp products so under this bill manufacturing producing marketing or selling products derived from hemp that are intended for human consumption and it contain a total thc concentrating concentration exceeding 0.0 percent so if it has any total thc concentration at all that is
unlawful under this bill there are two exceptions which are the consumable hemp products as we talked about earlier as it's defined under this bill cannabis and cannabis products which are authorized and regulated by the arkansas constitution we're all familiar with that met the medical marijuana existing law this bill not only prohibits the manufacturing and sale of intoxicating hemp products but also marketing of those products we believe the marketing ban will withstand a commercial speech challenge the attorney general can go into more in depth about
that if there are questions and then with respect to enforcement the bill delineates what actions are unlawful penalties for violations and authorizes the attorney general and local prosecuting attorneys to enforce its provisions the language authorizing the ag to enforce the bill pursuant to the arkansas deceptive trade practices act follows language contained in other provisions of the arkansas code and then very importantly lastly there this is trigger language so this bill only becomes effective should say hang on give me one second that's
right this bill only becomes effective uh upon one of four conditions and so one is because we many of you are likely aware of the pending lawsuit that's pending before the eighth circuit court of appeals and so to clarify any questions on this issue this bill only becomes effective in one of four instances one a final judgment in the case of biogen versus sanders and any subsequent appeals dockets and actions concerning act 629 of 2023 upholds the legality of act 629
of 2023 to the united states congress explicitly delegates the authority to the states to more stringently regulate or ban hemp derived products this has been this is why the talk about the farm bill because there has been discussion in congress at the federal level about allowing the states to more regulate this with regard to the preemption issue and so if that happens this bill would become effective. Three, the United States Congress amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to exclude from the definition of hemp any intoxicating cannabinoids
or otherwise disallows intoxicating hemp derived products which is what this bill will do and four Or the United States Congress amends the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 or passes a new Agriculture Improvement Act that excludes from the definition of hemp any intoxicating cannabinoids or otherwise disallows intoxicating hemp-derived substances, which is what this bill would do. so it is triggered if any of those events happen otherwise it is it will it will be pending and
will only spring into action upon any of those events if one of those events happens then as we've seen in other contexts the abortion laws that we've passed which had trigger provisions in them the attorney general shall notify the director of the bureau of legislative research and code revision commission if he or she makes certification under subsection a of this section which would be required in any four of these triggering events. And so that's what the bill does. Happy to answer any questions. And if Ms. Benton has any remarks and would like to add anything,
I'm sure there's some clarifying points that could be made, then Mr. Chair, I'd ask that
she be allowed to do so. Actually, I have a question. So in a previous meeting when we took up a different bill, It was stated that if we passed a bill and it was signed by the governor that it could potentially nullify the existing lawsuit that is pending before the 8th Circuit.
And I've had several members ask about with regard to that situation. Now, I think you've addressed it, but Ms. Benton, if you could, could you go into a little bit more detail on why you think this bill doesn't interfere with the
Speaker 5
8:47
existing lawsuit? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your question. I was actually the
Speaker 17
8:52
one thing I was going to address affirmatively is previous bills filed in either chamber have either originally not had this trigger language.
So any regulatory scheme that has been proffered as an alternative, those versions or the one that this committee specifically heard would have mooted out the lawsuit by operation of law because it did not contain the trigger language that this bill contains. This trigger language was modeled off of something that we've seen work before. It was the 2019 abortion law, where the abortion law that was passed in 2019 on the state level said that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, then the AG certifies and this springs into effect.
So that's kind of the same framework. I use that as an example of something that you can look at and say, okay, this is why it worked. You know, that bill didn't ban abortions in 2019. It had to wait until another lawsuit decided the issue about what the states could do and the lane in which they could operate. So this trigger language that was added in, we took out the emergency clause, added in trigger language, and there must be conditions that must be met before this law can become effective and can be applicable.
the other thing I would say is there are there are contingencies within contingencies in this bill and it's it's been very confusing to look at it but this bill is taking what the body passed in 2023 giving it a facelift if you will amending the 2023 law both with the ban and the subsequent backup regulatory scheme that existed in 2023.
It's not replacing that. This bill is amending what you did in 2023, and it's saying that if we win the lawsuit or if any of these other myriad of other facts or other situations may occur, that then the AG can certify and this would go into law. um so there is nothing that could it would not legally move out the suit and as if you were to pass this today and it were to be signed into law it would not become effective and then there would
be nothing actually to sue on uh until we get one of the four enumerated situations in the trigger language one of those not only does it occur but the ag also certifies that it has occurred So this is a preemptive attempt to update the 2023 ban, to improve upon it, and then to wait and ensure that we are going to receive a ruling that won't start this process all over again and hold it up for another two years.
and will allow at the proper time, once we have confirmed with a ruling in the Eighth Circuit that we can do this, to then update it.
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
12:22
Does that answer your question, Mr. Chair? Yes. Representative McKenzie, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. So you said something that initially triggers me. We have a lot here. obviously the latter three reasons how this bill could be enacted are dependent
on Congress doing their job I've said this before but I'm not in the weather business and I'm not in the predicting Congress business so that could be forever you have one scenario in which this would would take effect in that's final judgment which upholds the legality that I hear that correct and And this is a clarifying question for a larger question, Chair. That's correct. Okay. And this is we have now entered into the world of what if because very directly we had another
bill that was about this subject matter that came through today and you yourself and your office represented that us touching this subject matter whatsoever could potentially jeopardize the decision that the Eighth Circuit is pending, and or the other argument that was made was we're about to have that result back anyway. Therefore, once we hear what the Eighth Circuit infinite wisdom is, we can then advise if the legality is upheld or not upheld. One scenario that is not enumerated here is we pass this law, the plaintiff withdraws
their suit, and then refiles their suit. obviously when that happens that enjoined verdict or the TRO or whatever goes away our law becomes the law of the land then we go right back into this four year wait game of trying to get some specificity some direction from the federal government if our laws are in fact legal and we can't enforce them so can you help me understand why and I've got more questions after this Mr. Chair but this first enacting trigger, I think only covers one of the five or six scenarios that the Eighth Circuit could give us
and the variable of plaintiffs who we can't control their actions. So can you help me understand why we landed here and how if we pass this bill, we're not signing ourselves up for another costly
Speaker 24
14:35
lawsuit? Sure. And thank you for your question. It's valid. I
Speaker 17
14:40
think the first thing that I would I would disclaim is agree we can't we cannot predict what third parties what plaintiffs what trial lawyers will do on this however under the scenario that that you asked
about if the current plaintiffs were to voluntarily non-suit their case and if the eighth circuit would allow them to do so since the record has been lodged and oral arguments have been made and if they were allowed to drop their lawsuit now and try to file against this 2025 lawsuit it would not be ripe and they would not be able to sue under this 2025 law because if they drop their lawsuit we just go back to the 2023 ban
and if they drop the lawsuit we go back to the ban then their only option legally would be to refile the same lawsuit against the 2023 ban, but then they can't prove that they've been irreparably harmed because they've affirmatively dropped their own lawsuit and undercut their own arguments that an emergency exists by which a court should enjoin the ban and subsequent regulation. So when I heard that, I kind of, it would actually be more beneficial to our position
if they attempted to do that because they would then be admitting that there is no irreparable harm that exists, dismissing the suit with no ability to file against a 2025 law where the contingencies have not been met, the law at the 2025 bill is not effective, we go back to the 2023 ban and they've already dismissed their suit and have to try to come and make the same arguments again to prove that they've been irreparably harmed and that an emergency exists that they must stop it now.
So it's been telling to hear that plan floated because I've also heard from the same opponents that they need regulation now to protect children, but then they talk about gamesmanship in lawsuits and clogging our dockets in an attempt to stop a bill that also has a backup regulation in it from 2023, which this would update.
So I'm not concerned about that scenario, and in fact it would undercut their legal arguments that they're making in the court now. Follow-up,
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
17:22
Mr. Chair. You're recognized for a follow-up. Thank you. So back to my original primer, which is the double-sidedness of the advisement that your office gave to us when we were taking up these matters, when we had plenty of time to debate whether a regulatory scheme or framework was better than, you know, touching the existing 2023 law that has been enjoined.
So I think I can probably predict the answer, which will be it's a belt and suspenders approach, or we're just trying to see where the tea leaves fall. But I would love to get some clarity as to why less than six weeks ago it was not advisable for this body to take up any form of a regulatory scheme and to let the Eighth Circuit make their decision. But today, we really want to enact something that is new. This is new law. I mean, again, it's replicating what we've already passed in 2023, and it's only enacted by a trigger.
But I'd love to understand how we got to this place where the conventional wisdom has
changed. And there was a lot of confidence from your office that you would be successful in your endeavors
Speaker 17
18:24
in the Eighth Circuit. So has that changed as well? Nothing has changed. Our position is consistent. My comments a few weeks ago on another bill had to do with the bills were twofold. It was, as that bill was currently written, it did not have the trigger language and would immediately moot out the suit. That is separate and apart from what we are offering to this committee today.
But additionally, the other bills that were proffered were a lower, had a lower stringency in a, the regulatory scheme that was included in the 2023 bill that would be updated in this bill are stronger and more stringent than the other alternatives. So our opposition was twofold previously, but consistent with what I'm saying today, which is this bill will not moot out the suit.
We will still be able to seek a favorable judgment in the Eighth Circuit. And additionally, the regulations that we were opposed to previously would have mooted out the suit and would have been less stringent and afford citizens less protections than the regulations that are included in the 2023 ban with the backup regulation. So I think that our positions have been consistent, and our confidence remains the same.
Thank you. Mr. Chair, and I may— Representative—oh, go ahead. Thank you. If you'll identify
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
19:58
yourself for the record. Yes, sir. State Senator Tyler Dees, District 35. I apologize for running another bill coming in. And if I can add a little bit of commentary to that exchange, there's going to be continual lawsuits, I have no doubt. In fact, the lawsuits that even came against us in our history on this have continued to come from the ones that are profiting off these products
and who have looked for legal loopholes. And so I think the efforts today, I don't think anything has changed from the mission from six weeks ago to six months ago to years ago. I think the mission is the same, to protect our children and to align with what the voters have said they want, which is we don't want to be a state of recreational marijuana. I mean, that's very clear. It's been on the ballots very clear. We don't want to be like Colorado and some of these other states. And so the efforts have not changed whatsoever. In fact, the way I view this is that this is an additional tool in the tool belt to align with those missions.
And so I hope that adds clarity. I don't think we will ever say we're not going to continue to be sued against or for. I think we need to make sure we look at this direction because we can put our head down on the pillow at night knowing that we've done
exactly what we should do. Representative Eves, yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay. You're recognized.
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
21:20
Thank you. I've got a couple of questions. Does the farm bill allow the sale of hemp that has any level of THC? And anybody can answer that.
Speaker 5
21:31
Yes, sir. I'll take that question. That is the legal question that we have been
Speaker 17
21:36
fighting. Our position is that what is currently being sold in these Delta products has always been illegal, which was evidenced by some prosecutions down in Wachita County, down in Camden. But it was so unclear, and there were so many people exploiting what we say is a perceived loophole in the Farm Bill. Not a legal loophole, a perceived loophole.
But we just haven't had a ruling in the Eighth Circuit that agrees with us. And so that's what we're seeking to
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
22:10
maintain and to get clarity on moving forward. So the Farm Bill is unclear
Speaker 17
22:16
whether you're allowed to sell hemp-based products that have any amount of THC. It's our position that it is unclear to law enforcement that have sought previously to try to enforce the Controlled Substances Act in Arkansas, and that the confusion has led to an inconsistent application of laws.
So I don't believe that the farm bill allows specifically some THC Delta products. I think it is a loophole that has been exploited because of confusion on the law. And so we're seeking to get a court order in the Eighth Circuit that
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
22:56
agrees with us. I appreciate that. And I'm finding it sort of ironic that we sell medical marijuana in this state that is federally illegal, but we're trying to prevent the sale of hemp that is federally legal.
i don't disagree i don't disagree i'm not a fan of either one to be clear but if you're gonna let me back up there's a couple of places in this bill that talk about a percentage of 0.3 there's another place that talks about one milligram i have no idea what that means in terms of thc in hemp but what i'm afraid is i i would i would want to be very cautious that we are
preventing hemp-based products that people are using for cbd purposes for pain relief and and legitimate purposes that are legal and i'm fine with having zero thc i would prefer that But is this bill going to restrict the sale of hemp-based products that only have CBD in it? And I don't even know what I'm talking about with these products, but I do know of people that are using CBD for various reasons.
So are we preventing the sale of hemp-based products that have only CBD? No,
Speaker 17
24:22
if they have thc in them they could be prohibited and and we think should be prohibited that
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
24:28
amount is zero because there's and i heard representative gasway speaking about it had to have zero percent thc but there's places in the bill that talk about point three percent and talk about one milligram i don't
Speaker 17
24:42
so it would have to be a ratio have no more than one milligram of total thc per container
and a minimum ratio of CBD to THC no greater than 15 to 1. So there is a negligible amount of THC that would be non-intoxicating that would not be caught up in this bill. But anything that is intoxicating and what some call full spectrum, which is intoxicating, would be illegal. What about
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
25:09
the comment that it had to be no more than 0.0%? I believe what Representative
Speaker 17
25:18
Gasway said at the very beginning. that is under the third tranche of intoxicating hemp products and that would be for human
consumption that contains thc exceeding 0.0 percent the difference is in consumable hemp products that are finished products intended for human consumption they have to be labeled that they're not marketed for an intoxicating purpose they must be cosmetic and then no more than that ratio so you have your three kind of ratio is zero 15 to one on your consumables that are non-intoxicating but a zero percent on intoxicating substances which is separate
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
26:01
under this how can they be intoxicating
Speaker 17
26:07
if it's zero that that's that's the point which is why we don't want any any concentration of thc for in for products that are also marketed as intoxicating hemp products so if it's if
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
26:23
it's marketed as intoxicating it has to be zero percent thc yeah it can't
Speaker 17
26:30
can't be marketed i'm sorry um let me let me back up okay
So there are three buckets under this bill. Industrial hemp, not affected. Consumable hemp products, and that's, it's a defined term that must be finished. Product must be intended for human consumption. Can't be marketed for an intoxicating effect. Has to be cosmetic. And then you have your 15 to 1 ratio there. And that is, those are your CBD creams, topicals, things that you would think of as CBD products. Okay. Then you have a third bucket, which are intoxicating hemp products, which would be illegal under this bill in all circumstances.
And that's where you get your total THC concentration cannot exceed 0%, so that it's never intoxicating and they would always be
Speaker 57
27:24
illegal. Thanks. are there any other questions from the committee all right members we have
quite a few people signed up to speak for and against this bill as a matter of housekeeping we're going to go till 1 15 so without objection
I would I would like to limit debate to three minutes per individual yes members we also have another bill that we're going to be taking up so that that is another reason
why I believe it's necessary that we limit the debate okay without objection we're going to limit public
comment to three minutes each and we're going to begin now we have Kimberly Pitts to come to the table and identify yourself
If you could address your remarks to the, if you'll turn on your microphone and
identify yourself, you have three minutes. And you're
Kimberly Pitts
Unverified
29:02
speaking against the bill. I am against. My name is Kimberly Pitts and I manage two SunMed modern wellness shops in Hot Springs. We witness the positive impact of natural hemp products daily with our customers, including veterans and individuals managing physical ailments. sun med is the leading company with 400 stores nationwide and has received multiple awards for
our diverse product lines our goal aligns with the aim of this bill to remove synthetic products from the market and ensure hemp is sold only to adults the proposed three-tier system would negatively impact all businesses like sun med as exclusive retailer of sun med products the system offers no protection for our exclusivity nor product availability the one milligram thc cap per container is impractical impractical regarding the language on page 10 line 16 we question why
hemp is being held to a stricter standard than pharmaceuticals medical marijuana alcohol or tobacco especially when clear labeling for serving sizes and dosage is feasible the prohibition of ethanol in consumable hemp products is also concerning as it is a safe and FDA-allowed solvent for THC extraction, verifiable through COA testing. Bottom line, only two ways to safely remove THC from hemp. One is CO2, which leaves trace amounts of THC, and this bill eliminates
ethanol, which safely removes all THC. That alone makes this a ban bill in disguise. The $5,000 retail permit fee is excessive, totaling $10,000 annually for our two stores. This is significantly higher than fees in other states. While we agree on the need to identify hemp-derived products, the bill lacks mechanism to prove a product's hemp origin. Currently, only hemp from government registered farms is legal, and this verification process needs to be addressed. The proposed
restrictions on sampling and coupons are also more stringent than those applied to alcohol and tobacco. The frequent use of the term intoxicating and the felony implications for selling potentially abusable products are also problematic and biased. Most common over-the-counter items can be misused yet their sale doesn't carry such severe penalties. While I support the goal of removing dangerous synthetic products which are already federally illegal and force those laws and you don't need this bill, this bill is written as misguided approach that would close small businesses like
sun med and drive consumers to unregulated online markets for questionable products one day a mosquito will land on your balls and you will understand not every problem needs to be solved with force more effective approach requires if you could stop right there what's your point of order. We don't need this. We don't need this language in testimony. I mean, we understand you're passionate, but we don't need it. May I continue? Thank you. More effective approach
requires input from hemp advocates and scientists to help create regulations that work for Arkansas. It is time to come together with true regulation that gives Arkansas safe options and eliminates It's the harmful and dangerous. Ma'am, your time is up. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Do
I sit for questions? Seeing no questions,
Speaker 69
32:23
you're excused. Thank you. Next on the list
is Brian Nickel. If you'll come to the table and identify yourself, you're recognized and you'll have three minutes.
Brian Nickel
Unverified
32:47
Good afternoon. My name is Brian Nickel. I'm a physician. I've been practicing chronic pain management in the state of Arkansas for the last 30 years. I am a board-certified anesthesiologist. A big turning point in my practice was the passage of the Farm Bill in 2018, where all of a sudden I had access to hemp-derived cannabinoids, CBD products. All of a sudden, I had a new medication that was much, much safer than anything I've been writing prescriptions for
and effective in these patients. One of the, with limited time available, I noticed there were some questions as far as percentage of things in these packages. One thing I want to really point out that is not necessarily known to the general public, there are two types of CBD. One of them is the single molecule CBD without anything else in it. That is not equivalent to the whole plant extract that has other cannabinoids as well as a little bit of THC in there. The single molecule stuff requires a relatively high dose
to achieve a symptom improvement. It has what we refer to as a narrow therapeutic window. There is a narrow dose range where it is effective. Above that, side effects or decrease in effectiveness do occur. With the whole plant extracts that have a small amount of THC in there as well as other cannabinoids and terpenes, through a mechanism of phytochemical synergy, These substances potentiate each other's effects. We're able to achieve much better symptom control at a lower dose with fewer side effects. The whole thing comes into, I've heard three different things.
0.3% is what the Farm Bill states. To give you guys an idea of what that is, 0.3% is 3 milligrams per milliliter of CBD. A typical bottle is a 30-milliliter bottle. that contains 90 milligrams of THC. It is not intoxicating at all to people. That small amount of THC in there helps the other chemicals to work better. This would be a banned product. The only thing that would be available to people are the pure isolated CBD products that, again, are not
as effective. They carry a higher risk of side effects, and CBD in the higher dose ranges can cause hepatic damage. I can use 16 to 32 milligrams of a whole plant extract such as this on a patient and get a good response. If I have to use single molecule CBD, I'm looking at 500, 600 milligrams several times a day to even get close to the response that we get with a whole plant product. So I do believe the way this law is written, we will cause damage to the patients of Arkansas. I will not be able to take care of them in the method
I have been and quite frankly I'm going to have to revert back to some of the pharmaceutical drugs that have significant side effects and toxicity to it so my position is to and I urge all of you to really look carefully at this and think a little bit more than we keep coming back to the whole idea of intoxicating cannabinoids it all is a matter of dose zero percent THC in a package thank you sir your time's up thank you appreciate the opportunity Seeing no questions, thank you for your testimony.
Next on the list is Andrea Harris. If
you'll identify yourself for the record, you have
Speaker 78
36:21
three minutes. Thank you. My name is Andrea Harris, and I own Hippie Hounds. We manufacture full-spectrum hemp products for pets. I went to college at ASU BB. I'm an Arkansan. I work in manufacturing, and I put every bit of my love, my heart, and my soul into the quality of my products.
Just like Dr. Nickel was speaking about, I have a full-spectrum product. That's why it is as effective as it is for the dogs that utilize it. This bill says that all of my retailers would have to pay a $5,000 fee, and a lot of my retailers are veterinarians, they're small mom-and-pop shops, they're groomers, and they're making the decision to reach for a full-spectrum hemp product instead of Xanax or Gabapentin for their dog. I understand the need for us to get some regulation, and I'm happy to fork over my COAs.
What's going to be difficult for my retailers and for the other businesses that I work with is going to be forking over that $10,000 or $15,000 just to be able to have their patients have access to it. There are bad actors, there are imposters in this space, but there's also people like me and Dr. Nickel and Healing Hemp of Arkansas and Heights Apothecary and Buffalo Co. and Hogs Hemp Refinery that actually give a care to this product type.
Please do not let us backslide, and please honor that federal bill that if our products contain less than 0.3% THC, we should legally be allowed to manufacture. Thank you. Thank you.
Seeing no questions, you're excused. Next up on
the list is Roger Crawford. if you'll come to the table and identify yourself you have three minutes
Roger Crawford
Unverified
38:17
good afternoon committee my name is roger crawford and i'm a christian republican small business owner from garland county arkansas i proudly sit here today representing the largest brick and mortar hemp retailer in the united states along with the two million customers we serve worldwide sun med your cbd store i'm here today to advocate for our farmers small business owners
and consumers by opposing sb 533 let's focus on zero zero deaths from cannabis zero rehab stints related to hemp derived products and zero reasons to support sb 533 now let's contrast that with other legal substances in our state since 2023 tobacco has claimed over 11 000 lives in arkansas alcohol has resulted in more than 2 000 deaths an opioid crisis continues to wreak havoc daily youth statistics in arkansas since the last legislative session homicides 66 non-transport
accidents 56 transport accidents 52 suicides 24 birth defects 16 cancers 14 heart disease 13 Despite these alarming statistics we have witnessed, no declared emergencies or significant crackdown on this heartbreaking data, yet cannabis is under attack again. Zero deaths, none ever. What we are witnessing is a coordinated effort by Big Alcohol and Big Marijuana to eliminate competition through fear-based lobbying disguised as public safety. We've seen this playbook before with SB 358, and we cannot let it play out again.
533 threatens small businesses like mine and puts all the risk on the farmers who have invested in this safe natural crop it will destroy jobs reduce tax revenue and push people back into pain management through pharmaceuticals instead of natural alternatives the real issue lies not with hemp but the synthetic products labeled as hemp which are already illegal under federal law what we need is smarter enforcement of existing laws not backdoor bans that unfairly penalize responsible businesses i propose that we take a proactive approach let's fund mobile testing
units to assist law enforcement ensuring product safety we should create clear regulation that protect consumers without targeting our farmers and small businesses i even support a six percent tax on the hemp industry as long as those funds go directly towards oversight and safety enforcement but sb 533 it is not protection is a political theater that comes at the expense of arkansas livelihoods. Therefore, I urge you to stand firm and vote no on SB 533. Let's strive for zero tolerance for bad policy, zero compromise on small business freedom, and a commitment to make Arkansas
healthy again through facts, fairness, and freedom. Genesis 129, God told us to use the seed-bearing plants as food, not pharmaceutical synthetics. Thank you for your time, and I welcome any questions
you may have. Thank you, sir. Seeing no questions,
your excuse. Next up is Scout. Stubbs
Speaker 61
41:39
If you'll identify yourself for the record you'll
Scout Stubbs
Unverified
41:47
have three minutes Thank you committee, my name is Scout Stubbs and I
appreciate being heard here today. I urge you to vote no on on SB 533. While I understand the intent to regulate the hemp-derived THC industry, this bill, as it stands, obliterates the entire CBD industry instead of regulate out products it deems intoxicating. The one milligram of THC per package limit is such a low threshold that
all full-spectrum CBD products will be banned. For example, a full-spectrum CBD gummy that I sell is 25 milligrams, or that's 0.04% THC, amounting to one milligram of THC per gummy. So a 30-count bottle of gummies would contain 30 milligrams. They're not psychoactive. They are advertised as CBD gummies. They are made from natural hemp plant material without the extra steps of taking the THC out. My 68-year-old mom takes them when her hands hurt, and they will
be illegal. Our full-spectrum salve made from raw pressed hemp flour contains 800 milligrams of CBD and 8 milligrams of THC. My great-uncle uses it on his knees where he's had multiple surgeries. Again, illegal. For context, many states allow 5 milligrams or even 10 milligrams per serving, recognizing that such limits balance safety with market viability. Then there's the $5,000 permit fee, unaffordable for most CBD small businesses. For a large company, $5,000 might
be a rounding error, but for a family-run shop, it's a mountain of debt before they even open their doors. For my four locations plus a manufacturing permit, the total annual fee would be $25,000. This fee isn't regulation. It's a barrier to entry designed to keep the little guy out while the big players thrive. This bill will close small businesses that sell CBD. I would like to point out that last week there was a bill that passed through the Senate and is headed to public health that legalizes kratom, a medicinal plant. I have no opinion one way or another in regards to
kratom. I just can't wrap my head around how in the same two weeks of session we are unbanning one plant that some deem intoxicating and calling it harm reduction while banning another plant for the exact same reason the hemp industry has been begging for sensible regulation rules crafted with their input and expertise instead we're getting a top-down edict that ignores their voices and punishes their efforts we can regulate responsibly without destroying an industry reject this bill or at least amend it to reflect reality a higher thc limit affordable fees and a seat at the table
for those it affects most thank you for allowing me to speak
today thank you ma'am for your testimony. Seeing no questions, you're excused.
Next up is Audrey White. I have a, I have a question. It's, uh, I see Courtney is also with the same, uh, I'm okay.
Speaker 90
44:55
She doesn't need to speak. Okay. She signed
up on accident. All right. If you'll identify yourself for the record, you're
Audrey White
Unverified
45:04
recognized to have three minutes. Yes, sir. Thank you. Hi, my name is Audrey White. I was here two years ago with my little boy. His name was Colton. In June, he passed from cancer. I am a cancer mom, an advocate for all things that will help these children. and I just want to offer my support for companies like SunMed who were there for my son a lot of
people I believe some of the people in the room they actually wrote an article about me after I spoke last time telling me that I was basically a terrible mother for giving my kids psychoactives and I pray that none of you ever have to endure watching your child or someone that you love suffer from these harsh chemicals and narcotics that they are pumping down these children's throats. My son, I elected to try alternative treatments with him, and I was able to get very good products from SunMed. These are regulated. These are the best of the products. These are not your corner
store products that they had said I was giving my child. These helped my son. When I would give my son a half of a gummy, he didn't have to take the harsh narcotics that made him very ill. Since my son's passing in June, I have started a 501c3 for my son called Colton's Crusaders and we want to help children get access to products like this. Your medical marijuana cards are very costly for families and companies like SunMed they offer discounts to families and we want to help pay for that and if
you guys pass this it would make it illegal for me to help children that need this it would also help it would also um you know take these medicine um away from veterans veterans that you know they will their pensions if they don't if they wanted to get a cannabis card or something like that so i just um i'm really here to encourage you to really think about this and to um regulate this so that it does not put these people who care so much about our communities and about their products out of business. Um, um, so that's it. Thank you.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
47:14
Representative Hawke, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ma'am, you said, and I don't know this world, like
Speaker 95
47:22
what you're talking about. You said the medical cards are expensive. I thought they were, I thought people were getting them off the internet.
Audrey White
Unverified
47:28
Like what is the price for a medical card? I mean, you can, they, it's like over $500 to get a card. And I'm just saying cancer families, that's very expensive. Some, I mean, as a cancer parent um i can tell you all funds are you know i mean you spend every cent on your child um so i mean no matter what you come up with that money but there are families that don't have
the money like i mean i like i said i've been very fortunate um for my job and for you know our community support that i didn't have those problems but i know there are families out there that 500 can make or break them they have several children they have to leave their children at the hospital alone. So they can go to work. So it is very costly where you could just go to a reputable company and get those and not have to pay those fees in the licensing. Thank you.
Seeing no other questions. Thank you for your testimony.
So Courtney, did I understand you correctly that you're not going to testify? All right, next on the
list is Caleb Smith. Yes, sir. If
you'll identify yourself, you have three minutes.
Caleb Smith
Unverified
48:48
Thank you. My name is Caleb Smith. I represent over 50 small businesses as the founder of the Arkansas Hemp Trade Association. Today, I want to put a few numbers
Speaker 101
49:01
into perspective for you. 22 that's the number of veterans that commit suicide every day whether it be pain mental illness or the likes thereof if we could save at least one of those with CBD that's a win 487 that's how many people die each day on average to
alcohol related illnesses if we could save at least one of those with CBD that's a win in my book. Excuse me. 1,315. That is an average of how many people die each day from tobacco-related illness. If we could save at least one of those with CBD, that is a win. Under this bill, it will ban all CBD except for CBD isolate. Even then, the extraction process that is banned in this bill will eliminate that. Look around this room and take a good long look.
Because one in five people in this room will be affected directly or indirectly by these three statistics that I have listed today. Some of you say that drugs kill. But do you know how many have died in the past decade from marijuana or hemp or CBD? Zero. All I say is take a good look in your heart, make sure you're doing the right thing, and vote no against Senate Bill 533. Thank you. does anyone have any questions seeing
no questions you're excused thank you sir
thank you next up is breck speed
if you'll identify yourself for the record you'll
Speaker 104
50:47
have three minutes thank you mr. chairman uh i'm breck speed i'm uh the former ceo of mountain valley water but now I'm the CEO of Emergent Beverages. We operate in 15 states, including Arkansas.
We're based in Arkansas. We represent 10 hemp beverage brands in those states. The states we're working are Tennessee, legalized by law and regulation July 1st of last year, hemp beverages. Georgia, October 1st. Florida has an extensive regulatory scheme. The state of Louisiana has legalized hemp beverages for over three years now in their last legislative session. They fine-tuned that to include a 5-milligram cap. Missouri has pending litigation.
So all around us, these products are legal. So I believe we ought to slow down a bit on legislating the hemp market completely out of business here in Arkansas, where there's many participants in that, and think about carving out from a total ban an exception for beverages. And in doing so, I think we can provide wins for lots of folks. There's a lot of concern around what's called synthetic cannabinoids.
We agree they should not be on the table. That would be a big win for the attorney general and his supporters. We would require testing for contaminants, potency, establish proper label warnings like these other states, another win for the AG and its supporters. We could restrict sales of other products like hemp flowers and gummies and vapes to the medical marijuana system where they properly belong and where they're sold today. We could require beverages to be low dose, kind of like drinking a beer.
and that would allow all our consumers which enjoys these products very much to to have a win in their column as well and then we could restrict sales of these low-dose beverages to the three-tier system which helps many stakeholders in the state of Arkansas the wholesalers the retailers all these folks that sell beer and wine and brand owners like Matt Foster will speak next, some Flavery Brewing who's here. That's a win for the Arkansas
economy. And then we could tax these beverage sales like beer. That's a big win for Arkansas writ large. So I urge the committee to slow down here. We'd love to work with the Attorney General to work for a carve-out for beverages that would create all these wins and come up with a nice, sane system that fits in with what all our neighbors are doing currently. And I'm glad to answer any questions.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
53:36
Representative Hawk, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, sir, for your time. I'm just trying to be clear on this. Okay, so if this bill doesn't pass, right, there is still a lawsuit in place that is going through the courts. And that would ban this stuff.
If the courts deem that is a legal law, if this doesn't
Speaker 104
53:57
pass, and that does, we're back to where we are, correct? There would be a ban if the law currently being litigated is upheld instead of being enjoined as it currently is.
Okay. I just wanted to make sure that. And, of course, we would ask the same thing. Let's get engaged. Let's work on that. Let's work for a carve-out for low-dose beverages that creates all these other potential wins for all the interest holders. Thank you. Thank you, Terry. Thank you,
sir. Next up is Matt Foster. Sir, if
you'll identify yourself for the record, you'll be recognized and have three minutes.
Speaker 112
54:42
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Matt Foster, and I'm the founder and owner of both Flyway Brewing Company and Ave LLC, a non-alcoholic beverage company. Both are based here in Arkansas. For the last three years, our Kansans have asked for new and innovative, healthy, and safe non-alcoholic beverage options. In our taproom restaurants, our non-alcoholic infused beverage sales have become a substantial portion of our revenue, rivaling our most popular beer brands like Blue Wing Blueberry Wheat Ale.
For two years, Aave LLC has been distributing our infused sparkling water into Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida, and this spring and summer we will migrate into Georgia, the Carolinas, and up the East Coast into New England. Companies like Ave are creating thousands of new jobs and billions in revenue, and I'd like to ask you to help me keep those jobs and that money in Arkansas.
In Tennessee, I was able to apply for permits for manufacturing, wholesale distribution, and retail sales, just like with my Flyway craft beer. The permits and regulations require thorough testing and ensure safe, reliable, consistent procedures and reporting, and they provide reasonable oversight. These permits and regulations weed out bad actors in the new beverage category. Now is a good time to pause this legislation and carve out an exception for low-dose infused beverages.
Let's pause and find a way to give Arkansas consumers what they're wanting and also continue to encourage innovation, job creation, the entrepreneurial spirit, and economic growth in the Arkansas beverage industry. Many small breweries like Flyway are feeling the effects of a struggling economy, high costs of ingredients, and shifting consumer behaviors. And we need this to continue to grow and to give back to our communities.
Thank you, sir. Seeing no questions, you're excused. That is everyone that's on the
list that signed up to speak on this bill. If there's no one else, then Representative
Gassaway, you recognize the close for your bill. Thank you,
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
57:17
Mr. Chairman. Members, I think I want to bring everyone back to what the real purpose of this is,
which is to protect our children and arkansans from these dangerous products you've heard people talk about there's been no deaths in arkansas there have been deaths and injuries that have occurred children have been able to access these products and have had really negative side effects one of whom contacted the arkansas attorney general's office i want to remind everyone of this i'm contacting you regarding delta eight my 14 year old son almost lost his life saturday
april april 1st 2023 after taking one hit off a vape pen that had delta eight in it my son had a seizure for 15 hours later after being peer pressured into hitting a vape that contained delta eight what can i do as a concerned parent to help protect our children if you think it's not happening in Arkansas if you think it's not affecting our children it is and that's why we passed the 2023 bill that bill has already passed that bill is law except that it's currently
pending on a legal challenge before the eighth circuit this bill doesn't take effect even if we pass it this bill does not take effect except and unless one of the four triggering conditions occurs. And so I think many of the concerns that have been expressed here today, as if this is going to outlaw these products, we have already outlawed these products with the 2023 bill that we passed. This is a trigger bill that will only take effect if one of four conditions occur. But
I want to just bring us back to the point. The purpose of this bill is to protect our Kansans, is to protect our children from these products which are dangerous which have hurt Arkansas children many of you I have a 16 year old daughter I've heard the stories about children who have accessed these products they're smoking them in vapes in the bathrooms and having seizures and really negative effects and they've had to put delta 8 type sensors in the bathrooms of our public schools because this has become such a prevalent and prominent issue and so this is an
important issue. This is one that we should take action on. And again, this is designed to protect our children in the event that we win the lawsuit. And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I'm closed and would
appreciate a good vote. What's the will of the committee? Have a motion do pass. Any discussion on
the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. No. Congratulations. You've passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. All right, members. We have SB-447. Is there anyone here to run that bill?
Representative Falk? You're recognized. Go to the table
and identify yourself and you'll be recognized to present SB-447.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:00:40
State Representative R.J. Hawk District 81 colleagues I will be as quick as I can with this and and this is going to be we've heard a lot of alcohol bills and and delivery bills
what this is this is a tracking bill Senate Bill 447 is a simple bill with no known opposition the language language was developed in collaboration with both FedEx and the Arkansas Trucking Association, and all parties in the agreement are outlined in the bill. 18 states so far have shipping reporting laws, including our neighbors in Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Louisiana. At its core, Senate Bill 447 is about capturing data to help inform future policy decisions on alcohol shipment into our state. Currently in Arkansas, it's illegal to ship alcohol beverages
unless it's wine that Representative McKenzie got passed earlier in this session. But here are the problems. Right now, there are people shipping into Arkansas illegally. We can't track that at all. With the help of FedEx and the Arkansas Trucking Association, we feel like we can fix this. DF&A has looked at this bill, and they say that for future legislation, we'll be able to look at this and also see how much taxes we're losing on alcohol that's being shipped into our state.
And so all this is doing is tracking that, and I'm open to any
questions. Seeing no questions, we have two individuals signed up to speak for the bill. Stan Hastings. If
you come to the table, identify yourself.
You're recognized. Speak for the bill. My name is Stan Hastings.
Stan Hastings
Unverified
1:02:24
I'm president and CEO of Moon Distributors here in Little Rock. We're the largest Arkansas-owned wine and spirits and malt beverage wholesaler in the state. I'm speaking for this bill today because for many years we've had alcohol being shipped into the state illegally. It's just important to have out-of-state people held to the same standards that we are. It's very simple. This isn't a big brother bill to go after consumers here. This is to make out-of-state people do what's right and abide by our laws.
So I want to thank you for hearing us today. It's a good bill. It's no opposition to it. The freight companies are doing this in many states already. Thank you. Will you take questions?
Chair
Unverified
1:03:07
Sure. Representative Eves, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:03:09
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This might be more directed to Representative Hawk. Have we talked to DFNA what it's going to cost to be able to perform this tracking? I
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:03:18
know I've talked to DFNA about this, and they said that this is going to be on the shippers to do a quarterly report.
um if there's somebody from dfna here i would be glad to have them at the table but as far as cost on what that would be they have not told me that they just said that it would be on the the
Speaker 118
1:03:36
shippers to file that quarterly report mr chairman can we get dfna uh sure
Speaker 120
1:03:43
i believe i believe there was a fiscal impact done that
you may have i would uh representative ease i was told in in committee that
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:03:52
there that there wasn't any yeah okay mr. chairman i i see that now that's my i didn't see that
so that's answered my question all right thank you paul if dfna can handle this
Speaker 122
1:04:06
thank you mr chair paul gering with dfa we did issue a fiscal impact statement for this bill we anticipate if this bill were to be enacted we would establish an online portal we did provide a programming estimate of about twenty
two thousand dollars to establish that portal. Thanks Paul. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you sir. You're excused. Also signed up is John Crow. If you'll identify
yourself for the record you'll be recognized speak for the
Speaker 125
1:04:36
bill hello I'll be brief my name is John Crow I own 107 liquor and I'm the president of
John Crow
Unverified
1:04:49
the United beverage retailers of Arkansas echoing everything that's been said here we're fully supportive as an industry of this bill we believe that there's this is taking place but we don't have no data to back it up so if nothing else we'll have a good idea at the end of the the collection of if this is a problem or if it's not.
So I'm fully supportive and would love to see you guys pass this out. All right.
Thank you, sir. Seeing no questions, you're excused. Seeing no one else signed up to speak for or against this bill, Representative Hawk, you've recognized the close for you, Bill. One last
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:05:23
thing I didn't say earlier, no consumer names or addresses is going to be in the reporting. This is just saying where the shipments are coming from. And so with that, I make a motion. Do pass. all right members we
have a motion do pass is there any discussion on the
motion seeing none all in favor say aye aye opposed an a congratulations you passed your bill thank you committee seeing no other business this committee is adjourned
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1192 Pilkington TO PROHIBIT THE POSSESSION OF TOBACCO, TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AND E- CIGARETTES BY STUDENTS; AND TO REQUIRE THE PARENT OF A STUDENT WHO USES, POSSESSES, OR SMOKES TOBACCO, TOBACCO PRODUCTS, OR E-CIGARETTES TO PAY A FINE.
HB1626 Duffield TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF DISPOSAL VAPOR PRODUCTS FROM A PROHIBITED FOREIGN PARTY.
HB1578 Pilkington TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS HEMP BEVERAGE ACT.
SB533 Dees TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF CONSUMABLE HEMP PRODUCTS BY THE ARKANSAS TOBACCO CONTROL BOARD; AND TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW TO ALLOW REGULATION AND PURCHASE OF CONSUMABLE HEMP PRODUCTS.
HB1860 Duffield TO MODIFY THE PERIOD THAT A VISITING QUALIFYING PATIENT REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD IS VALID; AND TO ESTABLISH A PROCESS FOR RENEWAL OF A QUALIFYING PATIENT REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD.
SB447 J. Petty TO REQUIRE PERMITTED COMMON CARRIERS TO SUBMIT REPORTS DETAILING SHIPMENTS OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES INTO THE STATE.
DEFERRED BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1143 Wooten TO AMEND THE CHARITABLE BINGO AND RAFFLES ENABLING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT RAFFLES TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR A STUDENT-ATHLETE UNDER THE ARKANSAS STUDENT-ATHLETE PUBLICITY RIGHTS ACT.
HB1044 Hawk TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS SPORTS RAFFLE ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1722 J. Moore TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF HEMP-DERIVED PRODUCTS BY THE ARKANSAS TOBACCO CONTROL BOARD; TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW TO ALLOW THE REGULATION AND PURCHASE OF HEMP-DERIVED PRODUCTS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — HOUSE RULES, Apr 9, 2025 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Jon S. Eubanks Chair
Unverified
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
Speaker 5
Speaker 17
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
Speaker 24
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
Speaker 41
Speaker 57
Kimberly Pitts
Unverified
Speaker 69
Brian Nickel
Unverified
Speaker 78
Roger Crawford
Unverified
Speaker 61
Scout Stubbs
Unverified
Speaker 90
Audrey White
Unverified
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Speaker 95
Caleb Smith
Unverified
Speaker 101
Speaker 104
Speaker 112
Stan Hastings
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 118
Speaker 120
Speaker 122
Speaker 125
John Crow
Unverified