1
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2026 11:05 A.M.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The House will
come to order.
Good morning, colleagues.
In the absence of clergy, let us pause for a moment of
silence.
(Whereupon, a moment of silence was observed.)
Visitors are invited to join the members in the Pledge
of Allegiance.
(Whereupon, Acting Speaker Hunter led visitors and
members in the Pledge of Allegiance.)
A quorum being present, the Clerk will read the
Journal of Tuesday, February 10th.
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.
2
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Madam Speaker, I move
to dispense with the further reading of the Journal of Tuesday,
February the 10th and that the same stand approved.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Without objection,
so ordered.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Thank you so much.
Good morning, colleagues and to guests that are in the Chambers, I'd
like to share a quote with you today. This one is from Claudette
Colvin. Claudette Colvin is an American. She's a pioneer of the 1950
Civil Rights Movement and a nurse's aide. In March the 2nd, 1955,
she was arrested at the age of 15 years old in Montgomery, Alabama,
for refusing to give up her seat on a crowded segregated bus. Her
words for us today: "I know then and I know now, when it comes to
justice, there is no easy way to get it." Again, these words from
Claudette Colvin.
Madam Speaker, colleagues have on their desk a
main Calendar. After you have done any housekeeping and/or
introductions, we're going to begin our floor work by taking up
resolutions on -- Calendar Resolutions on page 3. Then we're going to
consent Rules Report No. 78 on page 5, and then we'll take up the
following bills on debate: Rules Report No. 18 by Ms. Glick and
Rules Report No. 72 by Mr. Laster [sic]. I will announce if there's
additional floor activity needed. However, that's the general outline of
where we're going today, ma'am. If you have housekeeping and/or
introductions, now would be a great time.
3
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
We have no housekeeping and a few introductions
this morning.
Ms. Walsh for the purpose of an introduction.
MS. WALSH: Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker, for allowing me to interrupt these proceedings to introduce
two fantastic teams from the 112th Assembly District in my home
school, the Burnt Hills-Ballston Lake Central School District. I want
to congratulate both the girl's field hockey team on their New York
State Public High School Athletics [sic] Association on their Class B
Championship win. It was a thrilling 1-0 victory in the final, the
Spartans secured their second consecutive State title and completed an
outstanding season.
Under the leadership of head coach, Kelly Vrooman
who unfortunately couldn't be with us today and assistant coaches, Jen
Loria, Kate Mastrella, Isabel Adams and Anna Watkins, the program
continues a tradition of excellence including 12 Sectional Titles, five
straight Suburban Council Championships, seven Final Four
appearances and now three State Championships.
And today we have not one, but two great teams as I
said, it's double the fun. We're also joined today by the Burnt
Hills-Ballston Lake Boy's Cross Country team on their New York
State Class B Championship win under the leadership of my good
friend Head Coach Chip Button. This Spartan team has now won
eight out of the last nine New York State Class B Cross Country
4
Championships. The season the boys also secured their programs
25th Section 2 Championship along with their 13th New York State
Championship. And speaking with Coach Button before coming to
the Chamber today, he told me that this year it was -- it was a tight --
it was tight. It was -- it was difficult. They -- it -- I think they won by
like five points. And they had to really dig deep and it was really their
training and I believe their sense of teamwork and cooperation that
really got them to their next -- to the State title.
And I also don't want to be remiss. I want to mention
that both of these teams have been recognized for their scholar athlete
status as well with the field hockey team achieving a collective 95.2
GPA and the cross country team achieving a collective 95.6 GPA.
So, Madam Speaker, I'm so proud of these two teams.
I'm -- I'm glad that they have joined us today and I hope that you will
also welcome them to the People's House.
Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
(Applause)
On behalf of Ms. Walsh, the Speaker and all
members, we welcome the New Yorke State Class B Field Hockey
champions, as well the New York State Class B Cross County
champions to our Assembly Chamber. We extend to you the
privileges of the floor. A big congratulations and kudos to you for you
continued success with your athletics and academics. We hope you
enjoy our proceedings today. Thank you so very much for -- for
5
joining us and congratulations again.
(Applause)
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes for the purpose of an
introduction.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Thank you, Madam
Speaker, for the opportunity to do an introduction and actually ask if
you would afford him the cordialities of our House.
We have in our presence the Mayor of the great City
of Buffalo, Sean Ryan. He's not only a former Assemblymember, but
he's a former Senator and he now heads-up the great City of Buffalo.
Would you please welcome him to our Chambers and
give him the cordialities of the floor?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On behalf of Mrs.
Peoples-Stokes, the Speaker and all members, we welcome back our
former colleague, Assemblymember, former Senator and current
Mayor of the City of Buffalo, Sean Ryan. It's always wonderful to see
you here today. I hope you enjoy the proceedings here today and I'm
sure you're going to have a lot of fun over there at the hearing later
today, but thank you so very much for joining us. Always great to see
you, Sean. Thank you.
(Applause)
Mr. Benedetto for the purpose of an introduction.
MR. BENEDETTO: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I'm very proud to stand here today to welcome a group from my home
borough, the Bronx. Okay. They -- actually, they're not in my
6
district, they are actually in the Speaker's district. A fine bunch of
scholars who are from Intermediate School 370 who have come up
here with the Center of Educational Excellence [sic], a fine institution
that runs some of the schools down in the Bronx. And they are very
proud to send this contingent to Albany to understand a little bit and
see in person how government actually works.
So, Madam Speaker, I would please ask you to
recognize these -- these fine scholars that -- that -- that are joined here
today. Some of them are very shy. They don't want to speak up, but
in -- in total, they are very good people, very intelligent people. I was
asking them about the forms of government we have in our country
and they gave me right-on answers. This is our future. Please
welcome them.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On behalf of Mr.
Benedetto, the Speaker and all members, welcome young people from
the Intermediate School 370 in the Bronx. We are happy that you are
in our Assembly Chamber today. We hope you enjoy our
proceedings, but more importantly, good luck to you on your
continued academic success. He is correct, you are the future, our
future leaders. Amplify and use your voices always. We're going to
be looking to you in the future. So thank you so very much for joining
us today.
(Applause)
Resolutions, page 3, the Clerk will read.
THE CLERK: Assembly Resolution No. 952, Mr.
7
Ra.
Legislative Resolution memorializing Governor
Kathy Hochul to proclaim February 14, 2026, as A Day for Hearts:
Congenital Heart Defect Awareness Day in the State of New York.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Mr. Ra on the
resolution.
MR. RA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's -- it's my
pleasure and my honor to bring forth this resolution today proclaiming
February 14th as Congenital Heart Defect Awareness Day in the State
of New York.
The reason I'm bringing this forward, a -- a
constituent of mine reached out about this and this resolution had been
brought forward in the past by our former colleague, Aileen Gunther.
And the constituent who I've -- I've grown to know over the years, is
the mother of a young -- young man whose now -- now in high school
named -- named Jack Foley. Jack was -- when he was five months --
well, when his mother was five months pregnant, they found out that
he had a serious congenital heart defect. They told them at the time
he was going to struggle to hit his developmental milestones and
possibly even not survive. I got to know him as a -- as a young man.
He -- he underwent heart surgery as an infant, which is something I
think many of us can't even imagine dealing with as -- as a parent and
now he is thriving. When I say thriving, he is a hockey player and he's
doing things nobody thought he was ever able to do. He's in high
school now. He's a huge fan of the Islanders, as am I and he -- he is
8
just a -- a -- a really, really bright, phenomenal young man who has
defied all the odds despite having a congenital heart defect.
So I'm very proud to bring forth this resolution on
behalf of his mother Lauren, on behalf of Jack and to spread
awareness of people like Jack and their stories and -- and their ability
to overcome congenital heart defects.
So I thank all my colleagues for their support. Thank
you.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Ms. Griffin on the resolution.
MS. GRIFFIN: Thank you for allowing me to speak
on the Congenital Heart Defect Awareness Day. I thank
Assemblymember Ra for bringing this forward and I cosponsored it
because I was asked by a constituent named Jordan Pecora who is
dedicated to increasing awareness for Congenital Heart Disease and
also wants people to know it's the most common birth defect.
Jordan was born with this -- with this defect. He had
lifesaving procedures at birth, followed by corrective surgery as an
infant, went on to have a normal childhood with minimal medical
invent -- intervention. Later in his adolescence, he experienced a
series of complications that lead to him getting one pacemaker, years
later another pacemaker. And Jordan, his -- his condition persisted,
but with the great, successful team of healthcare professionals, he's
been able to live a full and meaningful life, has a career, is happily
married to his lovely wife Christine, they have a dog and he's an
9
advocate for Adult Congenital Heart Association since 2022. And he
selected to become -- he was selected to become a peer mentor in
2025. He is also on the Patient and Family Advisory Board [sic] and
participates in their fundraiser -- their annual fundraiser called Walk 1
[sic] in 100. As a peer mentor, Jordan focuses on showing people that
they aren't alone and that they can enjoy a healthy and fulfilling life.
Thank you for allowing me to speak on this bill [sic].
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Mr. Durso on the resolution.
MR. DURSO: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want
to thank my colleague Assemblyman Ra for continuing this resolution
and bringing it forward. Again, as it also hits him personally and the
constituent in his neighborhood, along with Assemblywoman Griffin,
this also is -- is -- has -- has great meaning to me and a family that I'm
here to speak for, the Connor Kasin family.
In my district, a little over a year ago now, a
17-year-old hockey player named Connor Kasin in the Massapequa
School District passed away during a charity hockey event. It turns
out Connor had a congenital heart defect that he was not aware of and
neither was his family. So a resolution like this will not only help
bring awareness to heart health for teens and not only for the ones that
discover that they have a heart condition at a young age, but really to
bring awareness to it for those to get checked.
Connor was a young, vibrant 17-year-old athlete,
great kid, great family, amazing people, but Connor lost his life and
10
it's something that could have been prevented with a simple test and
that's why I created Connor's Law, Assembly Bill No. A02697, which
will require all student athletes to get -- have a heart check as part of
the sports physical because again, if we could just save one life, one
child's life, it's well worth it.
So again, I want to thank my colleague and all my
colleagues for supporting this resolution.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Mr. Sempolinski on the resolution.
MR. SEMPOLINSKI: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I want to echo the comments my colleagues and especially thank my
new leader, Mr. Ra, for reviving this resolution.
The constituent I talk about the most on the floor is
my daughter JoJo and she has multiple congenital heart defects. She
had open heart surgery when she was eight days old. She was in the
hospital for 39 days after her birth and she had a second heart surgery
when she was six years old, about a year-and-a-half ago. So I greatly
appreciate and I know every person with a congenital heart defect and
every family member of someone with a congenital heart defect
appreciates a resolution like this. I agree with my colleague,
Mr. Durso, that it saves lives as far as people becoming aware, but
also the technological developments that we have had over the -- the
last several decades and how we treat especially neonatal congenital
heart defects are amazing. If JoJo would have been born several
11
decades earlier, she probably would have lived, you know, a couple
days. So the more we can bring attention to congenital heart defects
and make sure the people that have them are treated and that we have
the research that we need to continue to treat more and more
complicated versions of them is important. So I proudly support the
resolution.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying
aye; opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.
THE CLERK: Assembly Resolution No. 953, Mr.
Eachus.
Legislative Resolution memorializing Governor
Kathy Hochul to proclaim February 15, 2026, as School Resource
Officer Appreciation Day in the State of New York.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the resolution,
all those in favor signify by saying aye --
(Pause)
Mr. Eachus on the resolution.
MR. EACHUS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will
be very brief. Each and every day this honorable Body passes laws
and bills and even resolutions for the health and welfare of all of our
constituents and this resolution, as you can see, actually memorializes
that our school resource officers are a valuable and essential part of
our education community. And they certainly deserve our unwavering
respect and support and that from the public, also and we really want
12
to thank them for what they do each and every day.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Ms. Walsh on the
resolution.
MS. WALSH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I
would just like to add my voice briefly to this resolution as well
memorializing Kathy Hochul to proclaim February 15th as School
Resource Officer Appreciation Day in the State of New York.
So important, having talked to a number of school
resource officers throughout my district and the schools that I
represent as I'm sure you have, too. It -- I think that at times there has
been voiced concern about having someone in uniform in our school
that it might not be perceived properly or it might not be welcomed or
it might not be a productive thing. And I think, at least in the schools
that I represent, school resource officers are hugely helpful to the
students, and in fact have created really great relationships with kids
and have, I think, put a very good face on law enforcement to a lot of
our youth. So I think that this is a very worthy thing to recognize the
great work that our school resource officers do each and every day,
not only to keep our kids safe and to keep the school environment
safe, but also to help build those really important bridges with our
youth.
So thank you very much for giving me the
opportunity to speak. Thank you to the sponsor of the resolution.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
13
On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying
aye; opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.
THE CLERK: Assembly Resolution No. 954, Mr. K.
Brown.
Legislative Resolution memorializing Governor
Kathy Hochul to proclaim February 17, 2026, as Random Acts of
Kindness Day in the State of New York.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the resolution,
all those in favor signify by saying aye; opposed, no. The resolution is
adopted.
Page 5, on consent, Rules Report No. 78, the Clerk
will read.
THE CLERK: Assembly No. A09498, Rules Report
No. 78, Paulin. An act to amend the Public Health Law, in relation to
foreign adoptions.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On a motion by
Ms. Paulin, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is
advanced.
Read the last section.
THE CLERK: This act shall take effect on the 30th
day.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The Clerk will
record the vote.
(The Clerk recorded the vote.)
Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
14
(The Clerk announced the results.)
The bill is passed.
THE CLERK: Assembly No. A09500, Rules Report
No. 79, Peoples-Stokes. An act to amend the Indian Law, in relation
to the entering of lands owned or occupied by any nation, tribe, or
band of Indians by a person and law enforcement agreements with the
Seneca Nation.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On a motion by
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate
bill is advanced.
Read the last section.
THE CLERK: This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The Clerk will
record the vote.
(The Clerk recorded the vote.)
Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
(The Clerk announced the results.)
The bill is passed.
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Madam Speaker, if you
could please call the Rules Committee to the Speaker's Conference
Room.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Rules Committee to
the Speaker's Conference Room. Rules Committee members, please
make your way to the Speaker's Conference Room.
15
On page 5, Rules Report No. 80, the Clerk will read.
THE CLERK: Assembly No. A09502, Rules Report
No. 80, Lunsford. An act to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules,
in relation to time frames for certain court filings; and to amend a
chapter of the Laws of 2025 amending the Civil Practice Law and
Rules relating to enacting the "Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of
Impleading to Delay (AVOID) Act", as proposed in Legislative Bills
numbers S08071-A and A08728, in relation to the effectiveness
thereof.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On a motion by
Ms. Lunsford, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is
advanced.
Read the last section.
THE CLERK: This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The Clerk will
record the vote.
(The Clerk recorded the vote.)
Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
(The Clerk announced the results.)
The bill is passed.
Ms. Walsh for the purpose of an introduction.
MS. WALSH: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for
allowing me to interrupt the proceedings for a brief introduction on
behalf of Assemblymembers Pirozzolo, Tannousis, Reilly and Fall.
We're joined today in the Chamber by New York City Council
16
Minority Leader David Carr, who is here to visit us today. And on
behalf of those members and -- and all of us, would you please accord
to Mr. Carr the cordialities of the House, please?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On behalf of
Ms. Walsh, Mr. Pirozzolo, Members Tannousis, Fall -- I can't read my
handwriting. I apologize for that -- the Speaker and all the members,
the folks from the Staten Island Delegation, we extend to you the
privileges of the floor and welcome you to our Assembly Chamber.
We hope you enjoy our proceedings today. Thank you so very much
for joining us.
(Applause)
On consent, page 5, Rules Report No. 81, the Clerk
will read.
THE CLERK: Assembly No. A09505, Rules Report
No. 81, Eichenstein. An act to amend the Administrative Code of the
City of New York, in relation to prohibiting the issuance of tickets to
residential occupants for certain violations of the sanitation code.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Read the last
section.
THE CLERK: This act shall take effect immediate --
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On a motion by
Mr. Eichenstein, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill
is advanced.
Read the last section.
THE CLERK: This act shall take effect immediately.
17
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The Clerk will
record the vote.
(The Clerk recorded the vote.)
Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
(The Clerk announced the results.)
The bill is passed.
THE CLERK: Assembly No. A09572, Rules Report
No. 82, Santabarbara. An act to amend the Mental Hygiene Law, in
relation to requiring the Developmental Disabilities Advisory Council
to submit an annual comprehensive summary of information about its
activities to the Office for People With Developmental Disabilities'
website.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On a motion by
Mr. Santabarbara, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill
is advanced.
Read the last section.
THE CLERK: This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The Clerk will
record the vote.
(The Clerk recorded the vote.)
Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
(The Clerk announced the results.)
The bill is passed.
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Madam Speaker,
18
colleagues have on their desk an A-Calendar. I'd like to move to
advance that A-Calendar.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On a motion by
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes, the A-Calendar is advanced.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Thank you, Madam
Speaker. If we would take that up immediately.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Page 3, Rules
Report No. 83, the Clerk will read.
THE CLERK: Assembly No. A10140, Rules Report
No. 83, Zinerman, Peoples-Stokes, Stirpe, Alvarez. An act to amend
the Cannabis Law, in relation to the location of adult-use retail
dispensaries near schools and houses of worship; and to repeal certain
provisions of such law relating thereto.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: An explanation has
been requested.
Ms. Zinerman.
MS. ZINERMAN: This bill simply clarifies how --
how the cannabis proximity is being -- the -- those rules that are in
place are being measured, while making sure that for existing spaces,
specifically our schools and our houses of worship, are -- will -- the
protections for them will be and remain intact.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Mr. Tannousis.
MR. TANNOUSIS: Thank you so much, Madam
Speaker.
Thank you so much for your explanation --
19
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Are you asking a
question of the sponsor?
MR. TANNOUSIS: Yes. Yes, of course.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Will the sponsor
yield?
MR. TANNOUSIS: Will the sponsor yield for some
questions?
MS. ZINERMAN: I will yield for a question.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The sponsor yields.
MR. TANNOUSIS: Thank you so much. Ms.
Zinerman, we were -- when did this law pass, the original law?
MS. ZINERMAN: The original MRTA?
MR. TANNOUSIS: The original cannabis law that
passed in the -- through the Assembly.
MS. ZINERMAN: When we -- when we were both
elected. We --
MR. TANNOUSIS: Correct. I believe it was in our
first term, correct?
MS. ZINERMAN: We -- we were both in the -- we
both came in and -- yes, it was one of the first big bills that we voted
yes on.
MR. TANNOUSIS: Well, that you voted yes on. I
just want to be clear, I did not vote yes on it. I just want to be clear
for the record. But I know that you did. And pursuant to that law,
how many feet away from a school did these shops have to be?
20
MS. ZINERMAN: The existing rules are 500 feet
from a school, 200 from a house of worship.
MR. TANNOUSIS: Okay. So that was the law as
passed, correct?
MS. ZINERMAN: That is the law.
MR. TANNOUSIS: What -- now what -- what
reason came about to put this law forth? Is there an issue that came
about?
MS. ZINERMAN: Well, as it has been reported,
there was a miscommunication from the Office of Cannabis
Management and this bill is simply clarifying that so that everybody is
clear where we are measuring from so that it meets the 500 and 200
foot rule.
MR. TANNOUSIS: So the confusion was basically
where those measurements are taken from? Is that the confusion that
they had?
MS. ZINERMAN: That was what the cannabis --
OCM reported, yes.
MR. TANNOUSIS: So do you know where exactly
they were measuring from previously that necessitated this bill?
MS. ZINERMAN: What I'm -- what this bill does is
clarify for everyone what the current rules are. I think it's probably
going to be problematic if we go back to what people thought it was.
What we're really trying it -- to be right now is very consistent and
clear about what the rules are so that those that were harmed in the
21
miscommunication can now open up their businesses and without fear
of having to find another location.
MR. TANNOUSIS: Okay.
MS. ZINERMAN: So that's what we're trying to
achieve here.
MR. TANNOUSIS: Do you happen to know by any
chance where those measurements happened to take previously?
Obviously -- obviously the bill that you have forth talks about the
center of the -- of those entrances, correct? Of those (indiscernible)
entrances.
MS. ZINERMAN: Yes.
MR. TANNOUSIS: How about --
MS. ZINERMAN: From the doors.
MR. TANNOUSIS: Yes. Do you know where --
what part of the entrances they were measuring previously, by any
chance?
MS. ZINERMAN: I do, but I'll repeat that we don't
really want to have that information again on the record so that people
are clear and not confused by what happened before. We're trying to
clear that up now.
MR. TANNOUSIS: Understood. And who
contacted you or the Assembly in regards to this issue?
MS. ZINERMAN: Well, in my district a bunch of
people. A lot of our social equity folks absolutely contacted me about
it and -- and really pushed for how we could fix it. They contacted
22
OCM, legislators in this Chamber were very upset because they had
the same issue in their districts. And, you know, a lot of conversation
has happened so that we could get to this point and make sure that this
is clear.
MR. TANNOUSIS: So is it fair to say that -- I
apologize. Is it fair to say that it was the shop -- potential shop owners
themselves that contacted you or the Governor's office?
MS. ZINERMAN: No. I haven't spoken to anybody
in the Governor's office. I had a conversation with the shop owners.
MR. TANNOUSIS: Okay. So the --
MS. ZINERMAN: And the folks --
MR. TANNOUSIS: -- so the shop owners
themselves.
MS. ZINERMAN: -- and the folks here.
MR. TANNOUSIS: The shop owners and those
stakeholders themselves contacted you and your -- and our -- and our
colleagues.
MS. ZINERMAN: But not just me. Again, people
who have many social equity licensees in their district who were just
distraught about what had happened.
MR. TANNOUSIS: Now are these licensees that are
in existence now even though this rule wasn't clarified?
MS. ZINERMAN: The ones that this bill has to --
that are going to cover, are people who had a location --
MR. TANNOUSIS: Mm-hmm.
23
MS. ZINERMAN: -- established and we're trying to
clarify for them that they will be able to operate in their current
locations. But anybody who had applied or did not have a location
identified, those individuals will have to abide by the current rules as
they stand.
MR. TANNOUSIS: Okay. So just to clarify, this law
is to go forward on any potential new contracts that occur, correct?
MS. ZINERMAN: Or any ones that were in
application but did not have a location.
MR. TANNOUSIS: Understood. And anything else
that was approved previously is basically, as they say, grandfathered
in, correct?
MS. ZINERMAN: Yes.
MR. TANNOUSIS: Okay. Understood. Does this
bill do anything to clarify what a school is or educational institution
under the cannabis law?
MS. ZINERMAN: This bill doesn't need to do that
because we already have that definition under law.
MR. TANNOUSIS: Okay. The reason why I ask
you, Ms. Zinerman, is because there was a cannabis shop that opened
in my district --
MS. ZINERMAN: Mm-hmm.
MR. TANNOUSIS: -- a few months ago.
MS. ZINERMAN: Yes.
MR. TANNOUSIS: And it -- it opened within 500
24
feet of a nursery school.
MS. ZINERMAN: Mm-hmm.
MR. TANNOUSIS: So I had reached out to the
Office of Cannabis Management stating my concerns about this
cannabis shop opening within 500 feet of a nursery school --
MS. ZINERMAN: Right.
MR. TANNOUSIS: -- which clearly would be
against the intent of the Legislature. They then sent me a letter back,
which I have here, which says, while we did find the steps to success
as accredited with the New York City Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene and the Office of Children and Family Services to
provide childcare services, these accreditations do not fall within the
requirements of a school in the Cannabis Law.
So the Office of Cannabis Management basically,
through this letter, is basically saying that while it is an accredited
nursery school within the definition prescribed under New York City,
that under their Cannabis Law, under the law that we have passed,
they do not recognize it as a school and, thus, does not have to be
more than 500 feet away from the cannabis shop.
MS. ZINERMAN: Well, what you're -- what the
answer probably said is that it's recognized as a preschool. Daycare is
a preschool and preschools fall under, as you well know, the Office of
Children and Families. If you are pre-K and through 12, then you are
considered a school and you would fall under SCLA rules, which
OCM' s rules are set --
25
MR. TANNOUSIS: So --
MS. ZINERMAN: -- by.
MR. TANNOUSIS: I -- I appreciate that explanation.
Unfortunately, that's not what the letter says. I have it here if you'd
like to see it (indicating). So -- and they really weren't interested in
explaining more to me --
MS. ZINERMAN: But what I'll -- what I'll say to
you -- what I'll say to you, Mr. Tannousis, 'cause you are a lawyer and
you can read legalese, you know quite well that daycare centers fall
under OFC -- the Office of Children and Families.
MR. TANNOUSIS: Could -- well, yes. They --
MS. ZINERMAN: So you didn't need the letter to
tell you that, is what I'm saying.
MR. TANNOUSIS: Yes. No, they -- they do. They
do. However, this is an accredited school under the New York State
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene as well.
So I -- you know, my understanding of our religious
intent was not to have any type of school within those 500 feet. So
either way, Ms. Zinerman, I appreciate your explanation. I don't -- I
don't find the Office of Cannabis Management to be that cooperative.
They weren't -- certainly weren't cooperative with me.
MS. ZINERMAN: Got to take that up the Governor.
MR. TANNOUSIS: Oh, don't worry. We will, we
will.
MS. ZINERMAN: I'm only a representative for the
26
56th, yes.
MR. TANNOUSIS: But just to clarity, your bill does
not do anything in regards to definitions of institutions, correct?
MS. ZINERMAN: It does not.
MR. TANNOUSIS: Okay. Thank you so much for
your time.
MS. ZINERMAN: You are so welcome.
MR. TANNOUSIS: Madam Speaker, on the bill
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
MR. TANNOUSIS: Madam Speaker, we passed this
bill two years ago. Myself, my Republican colleagues were opposed
to this piece of legislation for a variety of reasons; number one of
which is quality of life. Number two of which was that we do not
have the proper protocols in place to be able to actually combat people
driving under the influence of marijuana like we do, for example,
when somebody is intoxicated under the influence of alcohol. We do
not have a portable breath test. We do not have an intoxilyzer. We do
not have those things available. And we pushed forth this fact when
we pushed against this piece of legislation and we said that New York
State is not ready. We were told at the time that this piece of
legislation would create a windfall for the people of New York State
as far as -- as far tax revenue. Where is it? Where's the tax revenue?
The only thing we have seen is that the Office of Cannabis
Management has been nothing but a disaster from its creation. You
cannot get anyone on the phone, you cannot get anyone to explain
27
what is happening. They are a complete disaster.
A few months ago in my district an application came
through the community board. That community board was asked to
approve a cannabis shop that was clearly within 500 feet of a nursery
school. Myself, Senator Scarcella-Spanton in the -- in the Senate
reached out to the Office of Cannabis Management. We said this
cannot be approved. This is against the intent of the Legislature. This
is within 500 feet. What did they do? They sent us this letter
(indicating). This letter clearly states that although it is considered an
educational institution under New York City law, it is not recognized
as one under New York State law. Then when I asked for an
explanation or to get somebody on the phone, I got nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
As we said from the beginning, as me and my
colleagues had fought from the beginning, this bill is a problem. We
cannot just be the first to pass legislation without thinking things
through and making sure we don't have such -- these -- these types of
problems. This is the problem we have. We rush to be the first to
pass legislation, even though we're not ready and then we spend more
time fixing it than actually getting a better quality of life for our
constituents.
I vote no on this and I encourage all my colleagues --
colleagues to do so as well.
Thank you so much.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
28
Mr. Pirozzolo.
MR. PIROZZOLO: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Will the sponsor yield?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Will the sponsor
yield?
MS. ZINERMAN: (Nodding head.)
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The sponsor yields.
MS. ZINERMAN: I -- I will.
MR. PIROZZOLO: Thank you very much.
MS. ZINERMAN: Mm-hmm.
MR. PIROZZOLO: I'd just like to know why are we
even establishing any distance between a marijuana shop and any
other sort of establishment? What's the purpose of that?
MS. ZINERMAN: It's a rule that has existed under
the rules of the State Liquor Authority.
MR. PIROZZOLO: But why?
MS. ZINERMAN: I was not alive when it was
established.
MR. PIROZZOLO: I can't hear you, I'm sorry.
MS. ZINERMAN: I don't know the answer to that. I
was not alive when it was established. But it was there because, I
would say, having not been in this Body at the time, to protect
institutions. And especially during the time when we had, you
know --
MR. PIROZZOLO: I really can't hear.
29
MS. ZINERMAN: You cannot hear me.
MR. PIROZZOLO: You. Yes.
MS. ZINERMAN: Yes. So we -- what didn't you
hear?
MR. PIROZZOLO: What I believe -- what I believe
you said is you're not really aware of -- of the reasons of why. But I'm
going to ask, since you are the sponsor of this bill, which is
specifically for measurements, that we need to determine why we're
doing this --
(Cross-talk)
MS. ZINERMAN: It's to clarify the measurements --
MR. PIROZZOLO: -- if you as the sponsor don't
know why we're doing it --
MS. ZINERMAN: No, no, no --
MR. PIROZZOLO: -- then we don't need to do it.
MS. ZINERMAN: The bill is to clarify
measurements that exist for the purposes of cannabis stores, not to
litigate what -- why they were established under SLA in the past.
MR. PIROZZOLO: Well, I disagree with that and
I'm going to tell you why in my opinion.
MS. ZINERMAN: Okay.
MR. PIROZZOLO: Okay? It was to protect --
MS. ZINERMAN: As long as it's on the bill.
MR. PIROZZOLO: It's a hundred percent. I'm not
going anywhere --
30
MS. ZINERMAN: Okay.
MR. PIROZZOLO: -- off the bill.
MS. ZINERMAN: All right. Very good.
MR. PIROZZOLO: It is to protect the distance
between a marijuana shop and a house of worship. It is to protect --
MS. ZINERMAN: Two hundred feet.
MR. PIROZZOLO: -- the distance between a
marijuana shop and our youth, our most vulnerable in society.
Now looking at the bill, I want to talk about the
definition of a "house of worship," because that language was
certainly included in all the briefing papers that I got.
MS. ZINERMAN: Mm-hmm.
MR. PIROZZOLO: Let's see. Where are we? House
of worship includes people who worship. Common sense. But house
of worship also includes people who play bingo, also includes people
who are grieving, funerals, things like that. It includes a couple of
other different things.
If you need a minute to clarify, I have no problem
with that.
(Conferencing)
If we go to the legal definition according to
Education Law, any building, structure, surrounding outdoor grounds,
locations within a legally defined property boundaries, public or
private, preschool children, nursery school children, elementary
school children, secondary school children, charter schools children.
31
What I'm asking for you is to hear --
MS. ZINERMAN: Yes.
MR. PIROZZOLO: -- you say that, you know what,
Mr. Pirozzolo, maybe we can go back to committee with this and
include the school that it's in Mr. Tannousis' district. But not only on
Staten Island, everywhere through New York State. If the goal of this
bill is to protect children, schools, to protect worshipers, then how can
we specifically exclude someone because it's not recognized by
OCM?
MS. ZINERMAN: Mr. Pirozzolo, you know that the
MRTA law is very clear about cannabis use. Twenty-one years of age
and above. Every licensee knows it. They have to swear to it before
they could actually get a location. And no one under the age of 21 is
allowed in their store. And so, that's the law of the land. Same way
you can only vote when you're 18 years old. We put the protections in
the law. And so right now, the only thing that we're doing is the
defining where we are measuring that 200 feet and where that 500 feet
is being measured. And we are in -- making that very clear in this
amendment that this is how we operate in the State of New York to, as
you say, protect our children and protect our houses of worship, which
have to be established, right --
MR. PIROZZOLO: Okay.
MS. ZINERMAN: -- by the Attorney General's
Office. You just can't say you're a house of worship. You have to
actually apply to be and recognized as -- as one.
32
MR. PIROZZOLO: So can any student of a
preschool, an elementary school, charter school, middle school, can
they go play bingo in the bingo hall?
MS. ZINERMAN: You can't -- so we've already
established that we're talking about two different groups. If you are --
if you are very young children who don't roam the streets and into
marijuana shops by themselves --
MR. PIROZZOLO: Right.
MS. ZINERMAN: -- right, they fall under the Office
of Children and Families. If you are pre-K and above, then you are
New York State Education Department, which then falls under SLA.
MR. PIROZZOLO: But I was saying the argument is
false because you're -- you're --
MS. ZINERMAN: It's -- it's --
MR. PIROZZOLO: Well, let me finish, please.
MS. ZINERMAN: -- it's not an argument, it's the
law.
MR. PIROZZOLO: Well, so the way you're bringing
it up with this, I don't believe. Because what you're saying is that a
child can't walk into a cannabis shop, but a child also can't walk into a
bingo hall. All right? So I think we need to protect our youth and I
don't know -- it's not like every store in the State is going to fall into
this situation. Parents are concerned, and now when you go and
exclude certain youth against other youth, against people who play
bingo, people who grieve or whatever reason they're holding this --
33
this meeting in a church and you're just saying that those people are
more protected than the people we know we have to protect as our
youth, okay, I just think it's really not a good thing.
And I again, I stress that I would certainly like to hear
that this will be worked upon, because State law is the number one
law and I'm gonna give you another -- another example. So local
laws, is this law superseding local laws, where local laws, a town, if
they opted in to let's say a town, village, city, whatever it is they opted
in, to have a marijuana shop, okay. If they created their own law of
measuring this, are we now telling them what you did is wrong?
Wouldn't that require a Home Rule Message?
MS. ZINERMAN: No. The answer to your question
is no.
MR. PIROZZOLO: And why?
MS. ZINERMAN: What do you mean why?
MR. PIROZZOLO: Well, how can the answer be no
without an explanation? I -- I'm -- I'm not familiar with the law, so, as
if I we're a nursery school student next to a marijuana shop, please
explain it.
MS. ZINERMAN: You -- just -- you know -- you --
you just stated that you knew enough about the law to state that some
counties were able to opt in and some counties were able to opt out.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Ms. Walsh, why do
you rise?
MS. WALSH: Madam Speaker, with great love for
34
the stenographer who is trying to take down this excellent debate
between our colleagues, it would be so helpful if you could advise
people to please have a question and an answer and a question and an
answer. For you I just said that.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Absolutely. If we
could keep to -- we actually do have stenographers down there writing
exactly what you're saying. If you speak over each other, they cannot
do their jobs. So ask, wait, answer. Thank you.
MR. PIROZZOLO: So I'll ask again if that's okay
with you?
MS. ZINERMAN: And I'll answer again, yes. No,
the --
MR. PIROZZOLO: Yeah, yeah. That's fine. So -- so
the question is, I would like an explanation of that because State law
is the superseding law, right, and we created that law which these
townships and municipalities then created their laws, right, and now
we're changing our law and we're not giving any deference to them.
MS. ZINERMAN: What are we changing? Because
I don't --
MR. PIROZZOLO: You're changing the way you --
the way you measure a shop. That's what this whole bill is about,
without recognizing the proper definition of a school.
MS. ZINERMAN: It is just a clarification. We
started out --
MR. PIROZZOLO: I can't -- I didn't hear --
35
MS. ZINERMAN: -- we started out in the debate
with Mr. Tannousis saying that this was a clarification of how we
measure. It's just -- it's clear. It's not changing the law. We're just
making the language clear so that people aren't confused. And what
we don't want to do today is ask questions that are going to further
confuse people. People spent a lot of money, time and effort. People
who were harmed in a system for over 30 years in this country that
we're trying to repair. And so we don't want to make this something
other than it is. We are just trying to clarify the language of how we
can -- how we are counting 200 feet and 500 feet. That is it.
I understand that people have feelings about the law.
I understand that people have feelings about shops, but the fact of the
matter is, we are only here to do one thing, and that is to clarify the
measurements.
MR. PIROZZOLO: All right.
Can I speak on the bill, please, Madam Speaker?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
MR. PIROZZOLO: So listening to Assemblymember
Zinerman, there's a lot we could possibly agree on. I don't mind
changing this, but we still have unintended consequences. And if
there's anything this Chamber is really, really good at doing, it's
passing bills with tremendous unintended consequences. All we're
asking for is a very simple modification to include young children
who are already protected and recognize them as the same class of
citizen of young children that's described by New York State
36
Education Law. It's already recognized by the State. We are carving
these kids out simply so we can put one marijuana shop that I'm aware
of on Staten Island , and I don't know how many throughout the State,
simply because we don't want to say no to someone who is selling
marijuana. We are putting that over what we consider to be the safety
of our children, because that's the reason we have this law and rule in
the first place.
So I do ask all my colleagues to vote no against this
bill. I think it is shameful and the one simple question I asked was,
please say to me, you know what, we're going to make that
consideration. So at least going forward, we will protect all of our
youth and not just some of our youth, because we do protect adults in
a house of worship, even though they're not worshiping.
Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Mr. Reilly.
MR. REILLY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will
the sponsor yield?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Will the sponsor
yield?
MS. ZINERMAN: I will yield, Mr. Reilly.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The sponsor yields.
MR. REILLY: Thank you. So in regards to the
current law as is, since this hasn't passed yet, so we're gonna -- just a
-- that this is changing that law. So what is the current measure of
37
distance and how is it measured as per the law today?
MS. ZINERMAN: That question was asked and
answered.
MR. REILLY: I know and I believe the -- the answer
was we don't want to muddy the waters basically about what this law
is going to change it to. So I think in the -- in the spirit of open debate
for our public to know exactly what we're doing to the current law, I
think that requires an answer and I think that's something that we
should be delivering to the public.
(Conferencing)
MS. ZINERMAN: Mr. Reilly?
MR. REILLY: Yes.
MS. ZINERMAN: I am going to answer your
question because you asked again, but I do hope this is the last time
we're going to ask this question today. So, 500 --
MS. WALSH: Madam Speaker, during a debate,
members have an ability to ask questions and get answers. Asked and
answered is not an appropriate response and I think that whether Mr.
--
MS. ZINERMAN: I'm answering the question.
MS. WALSH: -- Reilly may not have been in the
room at the time that the question was answered the first time, I really
-- I just think that for a respectable debate --
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Are you raising a
point of order, Ms. Walsh?
38
MS. WALSH: I am raising a point of order, yes I am,
ma'am.
MS. ZINERMAN: I'm answering the question,
Madam Speaker.
(Pause)
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you, Ms.
Walsh. Your point was not well taken. A member can ask any
question that they like. We can't force someone to answer a question
how we want to receive them. We hope that the conversation remains
respectful. This dialogue continues to be comprehensive, but I can't
make a member answer a question. So thank you.
Mr. Reilly.
MS. WALSH: Madam Speaker, one more point --
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Yes, ma'am.
MS. WALSH: I saw that as you were weighing the
merits of the point of order that I raised that the clock has been going
down. I'd like to have any time restored to the clock for the debate so
that Mr. Reilly is not penalized by the fact that I raised a point of
order.
Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you. The --
the practice of the House has not been to ever stop the clock during
point of order.
Thank you.
Mr. Reilly.
39
MS. ZINERMAN: Mr. Reilly --
MR. REILLY: I defer to your answer.
MS. ZINERMAN: -- I yielded to your first request
and I'm now going to answer your question. Is that okay?
MR. REILLY: Yes. Thank you.
MS. ZINERMAN: Okay. So 500 feet from the
center door to the center door from that cannabis -- official cannabis
location to the school. Two hundred center door to center door for
houses of worship.
MR. REILLY: So that definition is what's currently
in law or is that what we're talking about today in this amendment?
MS. ZINERMAN: That's how OCM is measuring.
MR. REILLY: So currently they -- they're measuring
door-to-door?
MS. ZINERMAN: Yes.
MR. REILLY: Okay. So does this amendment
today, does it align with how they are currently -- currently
measuring?
MS. ZINERMAN: OCM is measuring door-to-door.
MR. REILLY: So we're bringing this --
MS. ZINERMAN: Center door-to-door, 200 feet for
houses of worship, 500 feet for our schools.
MR. REILLY: Okay. So for clarification, this bill is
just aligning to the policy that they're following. That they're -- they're
implementing now, currently.
40
MS. ZINERMAN: And moving forward, yes. To
make sure that that is clear.
MR. REILLY: Okay. So I know there was some
discussion about what brought it about. Do we know how many
actual licensees that were already granted, how many are specifically
impacted?
MS. ZINERMAN: A hundred -- 108.
MR. REILLY: One hundred and eight. Okay.
MS. ZINERMAN: One hundred and eight.
Eighty-nine of them are in New -- New York City and 19 are outside
of the City.
MR. REILLY: Okay. So were any of the properties
that were owned by the license -- licensees, were they vacant lots? So
in other words, no building on the premise at the time that they were
approved.
MS. ZINERMAN: I don't -- I don't know --
(Cross-talk)
MR. REILLY: So the -- maybe the licensee had a
property and they will -- they got approved and now they're building
the actually premise, right. Is there any -- is -- is that a scenario?
MS. ZINERMAN: These are all operating
businesses, so no. They weren't -- they -- they couldn't --
MR. REILLY: Oh. So -- so every --
MS. ZINERMAN: -- they couldn't have a shop out in
like under a tent. It had to be a location.
41
MR. REILLY: Okay. So they're all -- so all 108 are
actively working. They're -- they're in -- in business.
MS. ZINERMAN: Yes.
MR. REILLY: Okay. All right. So in the current
law, was it supposed to be building line to building line, was the
measurement?
MS. ZINERMAN: I think we keep going over this.
OCM has said that they've made a mistake. We're seeking to clarify
that now. Again, I don't want to continue to go back and forth
because it's not going to be clear what we're doing going forward if we
keep talking about what happened previously.
MR. REILLY: All right. Thank you.
On the bill, Madam Speaker.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
MR. REILLY: So the issue that I'm raising is, even
though we are consistently hearing that we don't want to give any
confusion to the public that we're changing the law now. We
obviously realized that there was confusion before we're actually
entering this debate. And the only way to get clarity for the public is
to actually have open debate on it and explain exactly why a change is
needed. This is not necessarily happening. All of a sudden it's
rushing through, it's going through, we're putting it -- we're putting a
bill to the floor to vote on it to change how we are going to impact
individual communities. It is our job to be transparent with the
community we represent. So why is asking questions about why
42
maybe OCME [sic] may have -- maybe Office of Cannabis
Management actually interpreted the law that they advocated for to
pass, right, that they were created under that law and now they're not
interpreting it the way they thought they should and now we're
changing it.
To me, I think we owe it to the public to actually say
why we are changing it, because when it comes to a Community
Board meeting, whether you have a dispensary that's asking for a
license and they're looking to go to the New York City Community
Board, there's still going to be confusion. It's our job to make sure
that we pass the laws and they are carried out the way they're
intended. And yes, we do sometimes have to change things, often,
right? But we're usually open about it. We're usually making sure
that we say exactly why it's being changed, because there's a
difference between when something's measured from the building line
to the building line and then to the door to the door. And if we pass
laws we don't generally just automatically allow organizations or
departments to interpret it the way they want. We're pretty clear about
it. And I think by having that open dialogue, we can actually give
clarity to everyone. But if we keep running around in circles saying,
we don't want to muddy the waters. We don't want to actually have
that clear and open debate, then we're going to be back here again,
because there's going to be another issue.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
43
Mr. Durso.
MR. DURSO: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would
the sponsor yield for hopefully just two quick questions?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Will the sponsor
yield?
MS. ZINERMAN: I will yield, Mr. Durso.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The sponsor yields.
MR. DURSO: Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate it.
So as you said, we're -- we're clarifying the part of the law where you
just said obviously the OCM made a mistake in the way that the
distances were measured. We're now clarifying, but we are changing
the law, correct?
MS. ZINERMAN: The met -- the measurements
have not changed.
MR. DURSO: So why are we --
MS. ZINERMAN: Where they were measuring is --
is what we're clarifying.
MR. DURSO: I'm sorry, say that again. I apologize.
MS. ZINERMAN: How they were measuring is what
we're clarifying. We are not changing the law as it stands in terms of
the 500 foot and the 200 foot.
MR. DURSO: But where they're measuring from, so
center door or end of door is changing, correct?
MS. ZINERMAN: That's what we're clarifying, yes.
MR. DURSO: We're clarifying, but prior, when the
44
law was originally put into place, it was --
MS. ZINERMAN: Still 500 and 200.
MR. DURSO: Correct, but the positioning on the
door is different now.
MS. ZINERMAN: I know you -- I know that this is
the fourth time I'm being asked this question, but --
MR. DURSO: No. I know, but --
MS. ZINERMAN: -- I don't -- I don't work for OCM.
I don't know happened there. What I can say is, we received
telephone -- once that missive went out and people thought these 100
plus organ -- businesses were told that they didn't meet the 500 or the
200 foot rule and that they would have to close their shop, people of
New York State do what people of New York State do. They call
their elected officials and they advocate for themselves. And we
heard them and so now we are making the change. We are not doing
this arbitrarily. We're not doing this because we were confused about
what 500 and 200 is. We did it to make those people whole, and that's
all we're trying to do today and clarify for everybody in this Body and
everybody who is listening and the cannabis operators, present and
future, so that they can be very clear about what 500 means in New
York State and what 200 means in New York State.
MR. DURSO: And I agree and I appreciate the
explanation again --
MS. ZINERMAN: You're welcome.
MR. DURSO: -- but that means prior to us passing
45
this today, it -- there -- it wasn't -- there was no clarity, correct? Is
that what you're saying? You're clarifying it for those businessowners
and the communities. Prior they may have thought something
different because there wasn't clarified [sic], correct?
MS. ZINERMAN: No. They were given -- they
were given the numbers, but again, it was the way OCM was
measuring.
MR. DURSO: Right. So now we're changing that.
MS. ZINERMAN: And so they -- they understood
their error and now we're seeking to fix it.
MR. DURSO: Right. So we're doing -- we're doing
it, legislatively, right?
MS. ZINERMAN: Only way we can.
MR. DURSO: Well, that's not true either. I mean,
SLA, they just issue new guidance. We don't come in here and every
time and change a law when SLA wants to do it. They just issue
guidance.
MS. ZINERMAN: When it's had this kind of impact
on community, we do make changes.
MR. DURSO: Right. Sure, but we have to change
the law. That's why we're doing it legislatively.
MS. ZINERMAN: Yes.
MR. DURSO: So then my question would be this:
Under the original law, towns, municipalities, villages, right, had an
opt-in, opt-out provision. Once you opt in, you cannot opt out. Since
46
we're changing the law; that's what we're doing legislatively, it's
changing a law or else we wouldn't be here, can those towns and
villages that opted in, now opt out since we're changing the law on
them from what it originally was?
MS. ZINERMAN: Mr. Durso, does your question
have anything to do with the 5 -- with the --
MR. DURSO: Yes.
MS. ZINERMAN: -- the -- the 500 and the 200?
MR. DURSO: Absolutely, ma'am, because we're --
what we're doing is we're clarify --
MS. ZINERMAN: No. You're asking -- you're --
you're asking me about opt in and opt out and the only thing that this
bill does is clarify where we're measuring 200 feet and where we're
measuring 500 feet.
MR. DURSO: Agreed. But -- but --
MS. ZINERMAN: We don't need a lawbook for this,
we just need a measuring tape and directions.
MR. DURSO: Correct. But how'd they do it prior
then? We don't know?
MS. ZINERMAN: It doesn't matter how they did it
prior even though you know that because it was reported all over the
news --
MR. DURSO: Sure.
MS. ZINERMAN: -- and we received a letter here as
well. Right now, we are seeking to just clarify where we're measuring
47
from so anyone else in the future who opens up a cannabis store
knows exactly where that location must be in proximity to a school or
a house of worship.
MR. DURSO: Thank you, Ms. Zinerman. I
appreciate the answers.
MS. ZINERMAN: You're welcome.
MR. DURSO: On -- on the -- on the bill,
Madam Speaker.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
MR. DURSO: So again, I appreciate the sponsor
answering some of my questions and I know we're trying to not talk
about certain portions of this bill, but that's why we're here. That's
why we're here legislating it, and if we weren't legislating it, we
wouldn't be changing the law. If we're changing the law and
everybody opted in or opted out under a different law, this bill should
allow towns and municipalities to opt back out. Basically it was a bait
and switch. We tricked them, not saying purposely, but OCM didn't
have their stuff together. As we said, OCM made a mistake in issuing
guidance. So if they made a mistake, maybe some in the towns and
the villages and cities did also by opting in.
I'm not saying whether you opted in or opted out,
whether you want cannabis shops or not, I'm fine with that. That is
every town and municipalities right. Whether you use them or not is
your right. That's -- that's fine. However you feel about it, the
original bill, is your right and that's 100% correct. But I just want to
48
make it a point that if we're sitting here changing a law to what it was
supposed to originally be and towns and villages opted in at a time
when they thought the law was different, they should be allowed to
opt back out for a certain period of time because the law is now
changing. It is not what they originally intended. Obviously, it has
been said in this Chamber that OCM made a mistake and obviously
they make a lot of them. But again, if these towns and villages are
allowed to opt out, I think that would only be fair since we are
changing the law and they opted into a different law.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Mr. Bologna.
MR. BOLOGNA: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Would the sponsor yield for a few questions?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Will the sponsor
yield?
MS. ZINERMAN: I will yield.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The sponsor yields.
MR. BOLOGNA: Thank you very much. So I --I
have a technical question about the -- and if you already answered
this, I do apologize for being redundant. But as far as the -- the
application process is concerned, if someone is in the middle of a
process of -- of an application, where does that grandfathering start?
Where -- where do they have to be in -- in the process of applying for
a license in order to be considered grandfathered? They already had
49
to purchase the -- the building? Like where -- where do they have to
be in the process?
MS. ZINERMAN: They had to have received a letter
from OCM saying that their property -- their selected location was
approved by OCM.
MR. BOLOGNA: Do we know off hand how many
not current structures or operating businesses, do we know how many
applicants, and is there an addition to the 108 that there are?
(Conferencing)
MS. ZINERMAN: We don't have the information
about the total number which is your question, but we do know that
there's 44 additional applicants that have been impacted.
MR. BOLOGNA: Okay. That's fair enough.
So reading through the text of the legislation, I also
noticed that was -- now that we have an opportunity and I think that
you would agree that this is an opportunity that we're taking to amend
a -- a flaw or a defect or a mistake, you know, it might be an
opportunity to look at other things. Were parks ever considered to be
included in terms of a distance restriction?
MS. ZINERMAN: Did you say -- did you say parks?
MR. BOLOGNA: Yeah. Parks. Or like public
gathering places or anything like that?
MS. ZINERMAN: We mentioned this before, but
let's be clear. What's in ABC Law under SLA is our houses of
worship and schools that are pre-K and above. So parks were not --
50
are not included in current law.
MR. BOLOGNA: Correct.
MS. ZINERMAN: So we didn't pick it up for
MRTA.
MR. BOLOGNA: And I understand and I'm
assuming that this -- that the 200 and the 500 was to align with the
SLA requirements of -- of liquor stores.
MS. ZINERMAN: One of the things that we try to
do so here is if we have something that works for us, not to create a
whole nother set of laws. If something works, then we tend to just
operate under those and adapt them for the new realities.
MR. BOLOGNA: And I can absolutely appreciate
that.
Earlier in the debate, you said that though 21 is the --
is the cut-off age, that is the law of the land. But would you agree that
children under the age of 21 are able to, despite it being illegal, are
able to somehow get into liquor stores and walk out with liquor?
MS. ZINERMAN: Not -- not -- in a liquor store, or
are you talking about OCM? Or are you talking about cannabis
stores?
MR. BOLOGNA: I'm talking about liquor stores. I
mean, we're using the same guidance. So I guess what I'm saying is
that it is not inconceivable for people under age to walk into a liquor
store and walk out with, for them, an illegal substance.
MS. ZINERMAN: Well, for the purpose of this
51
conversation what I can tell you absolutely is that they cannot walk
into an OCM cannabis store and do so.
MR. BOLOGNA: Would you mind explaining to me
how that -- how?
MS. ZINERMAN: So I don't know if you've ever
seen an official store, but it gives you all the guidance of the law on
the outside of the store --
MR. BOLOGNA: Okay.
MS. ZINERMAN: -- right. Most of the stores are
locked and have to be buzzed in. There's also a QR code that you
must scan to determine that this store is actually one that's listed in as
an approved cannabis store in the State of New York. And so that's
for everybody's protection.
So you have to produce identification and they have
ways of checking that. Most people have security at the door, some
people have them once you get inside. And so it is not a place that
those who are under 21 years of age can just wander into and look at
products and then decide they're going to pick them up and buy them.
There's a whole protocol to let you into the space, and even with
somebody with a fake ID wouldn't be able to get through the -- the
detections that they have. People are clear about wanting to stay in
business in the State of New York.
MR. BOLOGNA: I understand that. Again, I
appreciate that and that's how it should work.
So if a liquor store were to sell alcohol to a minor,
52
they would lose their liquor license, correct?
MS. ZINERMAN: The same here.
MR. BOLOGNA: That's my point. But that's what
I'm saying is, liquor stores sometimes are cavalier --
MS. ZINERMAN: Are you suggesting that we
should ask liquor stores to follow the same cannabis rules? As a
parent, I certainly would go for that as well. But we're not debating
that today. Today we're just trying to clarify what 500 feet means and
200 feet means.
MR. BOLOGNA: Totally appreciate that. I'm just --
what I am implying and what I'm saying is that businesses are not
perfect even -- even though we'd love to legislate them into a perfect
world. So what -- what I am saying is that moving forward, we should
just have caution in terms of siting these types of facilities and express
that caution in public areas. So that --
MS. ZINERMAN: Well, that's the point --
MR. BOLOGNA: -- that's all I'm trying to get at. So
--
MS. ZINERMAN: It's -- it's a part of the law and we
have sited them in the proper distance from where they should be and
that's why we're seeking to clarify it for anybody again who's listening
today and we'll do it in statute as well.
MR. BOLOGNA: All right. I think --
MS. ZINERMAN: You're welcome.
MR. BOLOGNA: -- that is all my questions. Thank
53
you very much, Ms. Zinerman.
MS. ZINERMAN: You're welcome.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Mr. Norber.
MR. NORBER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Would the sponsor yield, please?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Will the sponsor
yield?
MS. ZINERMAN: The sponsor will yield.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The sponsor yields.
MR. NORBER: Yeah. I wasn't here when this bill
passed but I just had a quick question. What is the purpose of even
having a distance between a cannabis shop and a house of worship or
a school? What's the purpose?
MS. ZINERMAN: It's a part of SLA law which we
adopted for OCM.
MR. NORBER: For what? I couldn't hear you.
MS. ZINERMAN: Which we -- the -- which we
adopted for OCM
MR. NORBER: But what's the purpose? I mean,
we're already trying to -- is there something dangerous about having
children around a cannabis shop?
MS. ZINERMAN: The law states that if you are 21
years of age -- I mean, if you're under 21 years of age, you cannot -- it
is illegal for you to be around cannabis -- to use cannabis in the State
54
of New York.
MR. NORBER: To be around --
MS. ZINERMAN: And we have -- and we've created
-- nope.
MR. NORBER: Okay.
MS. ZINERMAN: Because we can't control what
would happens [sic] in peoples' houses. We can only can -- control
what happens on our commercial strips and near houses of worships
and near our schools.
MR. NORBER: So it's not about being around the
shop, it's about being around the cannabis itself and the environment
of a --
MS. ZINERMAN: It's around -- being around the
shop because that's the only thing that we control.
MR. NORBER: We can control other things because
there's the Smoke-Free Air Act in which we don't even allow anybody
to smoke freely in the -- in parks, boardwalks, beaches in New York
City. So we do have that type of control.
So my question is and my colleague asked about that,
so why not have public parks, New York City parks, also on this bill?
Because right now, if we're talking about protecting children and we
want to protect them from secondhand smoking cigarettes, why not
have the same type of --
MS. ZINERMAN: Again, as a parent --
MR. NORBER: -- concept for cannabis?
55
MS. ZINERMAN: As -- again, as a parent, you
know, I understand the concern.
MR. NORBER: Are you a parent?
MS. ZINERMAN: But today -- I absolutely am a
parent, hoping to be a grandparent one day, too.
MR. NORBER: Congratulations.
MS. ZINERMAN: My daughter just got married.
Just a little plug if she's listening.
MR. NORBER: It's wonderful.
MS. ZINERMAN: So my point is that today, you
weren't here. I don't know if you support it, if you don't support it. I
think I know how you feel about it. What I'm saying to you is that we
put in protections in the law to protect children. But for the purposes
of today, the only thing that we're doing is trying to clarify 200 and
500 feet.
You're a lawmaker just like I am. If there are other
parts of the MRTA that you would like to amend or adapt, we are all
free to do so. But today the only thing that we're talking about is the
measurements, 200 and 500.
MR. NORBER: Okay. So as a legislator, you're a
legislator and as a grandmother, do you feel that there is some type of
need to even improve this bill further in which we add in, just add in
exactly the way it says right now, 200 feet or 500 feet or whatnot,
parks? Because I understand that, we, a year ago [sic] 2022, we
passed a law about cigarettes and how dangerous it is to have children
56
secondhand smoking that. But if I walk right down the streets of New
York City, I cannot avoid a big cloud of smoke in my children's face.
I can't avoid it, it's everywhere. So -- and I'm sure that many people
on both sides of the aisle feel that way or have experienced that one
way or another. So I'm just asking if there's any chance you think that
we might improve it in the future further.
MS. ZINERMAN: What I'll say to that is that I think
one of the reasons why this bill passed successfully is because
municipalities have the ability to opt out and to choose how their
county, how their -- their community would -- would handle this. And
so some chose to opt out, some chose to -- to opt in, and right now,
today, for those who have opted in, we're just trying to clarify the
measurements.
MR. NORBER: Okay. Thank you, sponsor.
Just on the bill, real quick.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
MR. NORBER: It's -- I understand the need that we
have to allow people, individuals to chose for themselves that they
want to smoke cannabis, that's really fine. It's really okay. They can
do so, from what I understand under the Smoke-Free Air Act, to do so
in their homes, privately, anywhere they want. But right now, if you
go to other places around the country or around the world and they --
somebody smells all of a sudden cannabis, they'll say, oh, it smells like
New York City. So I'm sure -- so I'm talking here about the quality of
life and the quality of life for our children.
57
And so I think that we should do more if we're
already on the subject of distances between public spaces, we should
do a little bit more and see if we could add in parks in the future.
Thank you so much.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Mr. Zaccaro.
MR. ZACCARO: Madam Speaker, will the sponsor
and my seat mate please yield for two quick questions?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Will the sponsor
yield?
MS. ZINERMAN: I will.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The sponsor yields.
MR. ZACCARO: This is great, don't you think?
MS. ZINERMAN: It is, the two Zs.
MR. ZACCARO: Ms. Zinerman?
MS. ZINERMAN: Yes.
MR. ZACCARO: Could tell us today why this bill is
needed?
MS. ZINERMAN: This bill is simply needed to
clarify the proximity laws between a house of worship or a school and
a licensed cannabis establishment.
MR. ZACCARO: Would it be fair to say that this bill
today will allow dozens of adults-use licensees who played by the
rules to continue to stay in business?
MS. ZINERMAN: Absolutely.
58
MR. ZACCARO: Would you agree that by not
passing this bill, we would be harming businesses who opened up and
played by the rules and that that would set a bad precedent?
MS. ZINERMAN: Absolutely, for the 89 in New
York City and the 19 across the State.
MR. ZACCARO: My last question is how would this
benefit our schools and houses of worship?
MS. ZINERMAN: The protections still remain there.
I mean, it's one of the things that I've tried to -- to underscore today,
that the existing law that you must be 21 and above to use cannabis in
this law, the proximity that is in place, the laws that actually govern
any adult person trying to engage a young person in the use of
cannabis, all of those things exist. The protection that we had during
the passing of MRTA, exists today. And I think this clarification is
just going to help that along.
MR. ZACCARO: Thank you, Ms. Zinerman.
Madam Speaker, on the bill.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
MR. ZACCARO: Madam Speaker, today I rise in
strong and unequivocal support for this piece of legislation. For me,
this is not a theoretical debate. It is something that is personally felt in
my district. There's a licensed cannabee -- cannabis dispensary
directly impacted by this inaccurate measurement. I know this
business. I've seen firsthand how they operate, I've watched them
follow the law, I've watched them comply with every single
59
regulation, I've watched them complete every single form, meet every
devand -- demand and I've watched them invest in our community in
good faith. They've done everything right. They've relied on the
guidance provided by the State. They secured a location based on the
measurements that were approved. They signed a lease. They hired
employees from our community, they opened their doors only after
being told that they were fully compliant. They have worked hard to
build a responsible, regulated business that reflects exactly what this
Legislature envision -- envisioned when we created this exact
framework. And now, through no fault of their own, they face
uncertainty because of an inaccurate measurement tied to a policyly --
policy implementation error. This is not just a bureaucratic misstep, it
is a failure that threatens real livelihoods.
Leadership requires us to confront problems directly
and to correct them. And we cannot tell law-abiding businessowners,
people who trusted this State, who followed every rule we set, that
they must pay the price for a mistake they did not make. They -- that
exact thing would undermine trust, not only in this program, but in
government itself. This bill is necessary because it restores fairness
and stability. It makes clear when a business acts in good faith,
reliance on -- relying on State approval, the State will stand by its
word. This bill today protects jobs, it protects small business
investment and it reinforces the principle that compliance must mean
something.
And so today, for those who oppose this measure, I
60
would say this: Allowing this error to stand does not strengthen the
law, it weakens the confidence in it. If we want a regulated
marketplace that operates with integrity, then we must ensure that
those who follow the law are not punished for doing so. I represent a
business that has done everything we've asked of them. They're
responsible operators, they're community partners and they deserve
certainty. They deserve fairness and they deserve to remain in
business. And today we have an opportunity with this bill to fix this
law. To show that this Body values accountability and that it
demonstrates that we stand with those who act in good faith.
And so, Madam Speaker, today this is about fairness.
It is about responsibility. It is about leadership. And I want to thank
my colleague for her leadership on this issue and her boldness to
confront when we've -- when there's a mistake that has been made, we
will do everything we can to make sure we are protecting New
Yorkers.
And so, Madam Speaker, with that I proudly vote and
cast my vote in the affirmative and I want to thank you all for this time
and again, thank my colleague for her leadership on this issue.
Thank you so much, Madam Speaker.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Mr. Slater.
MR. SLATER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will
the sponsor yield, please?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Will the sponsor
61
yield?
MS. ZINERMAN: Yes.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The sponsor yields.
MR. SLATER: Thank you very much. And let me
apologize in advance, I was in and out of the Chamber. I just have
two simple questions.
MS. ZINERMAN: Yes.
MR. SLATER: And I'm not sure if you've already
answered them.
So I just want to make sure I understand. Was this
bill brought forward by or at the request of OCM?
MS. ZINERMAN: The bill was -- well, I'm going to
give you two -- I'm going to give you the answers that have been
stated before. It's a departmental bill, but the impetus for this was the
people, who all of us have heard from, when this mistake was
discovered.
MR. SLATER: Understood. But as a departmental
bill, OCM supports the bill, number one. And it's safe to assume in a
sense, that they are the ones who are asking for us to fix or remedy
this situation.
MS. ZINERMAN: OCM was asked by all of us to fix
this situation.
MR. SLATER: Right. And they couldn't do it
themselves. They needed us, as a Legislature, to pass the needed
legislation in order to do that.
62
MS. ZINERMAN: Absolutely.
MR. SLATER: Okay. Thank you very much.
And just to refresh my memory, I wasn't here when
the -- when the bill-in-chief was passed. Was OCM in existence when
the first iteration of this bill, the bill-in-chief, was OCM in existence
at that point in time?
MS. ZINERMAN: No.
MR. SLATER: No? Is that -- I'm hearing you
correctly, no?
MS. ZINERMAN: You're ask -- MRTA established
the Office of Cannabis Management.
MR. SLATER: Understood. Thank you, I appreciate
it. Thank you so much for answering my questions.
Madam Speaker, on the bill if I may.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
MR. SLATER: You know, I -- I just think that there
is an expectation from our constituents, from New Yorkers, that
legislation we pass is thought through, thoroughly examined, fully
vetted. Clearly, this problem I think highlights some of the flaws in
our legislative process. Really what has happened here is we, as a
Legislature, had businesses jump and then look. And the problem
with that, as we've heard from some of our colleagues, is that there are
businesses now under threat because of the lack of clarity or the lack
of direction that the original bill had put into place. And my
colleagues here today, they've offered common sense enhancements to
63
this law, but the chance for collaboration, really, I don't think has been
offered. This bill was introduced on Sunday and here we are on
Wednesday voting on it. I think it's a -- a missed opportunity in many
aspects and I would hope that moving forward, we can ensure and as
we just heard, we were passing legislation and giving direction to an
agency that didn't even exist at that point. So how do we know that
the actual direction that was being given, in practicality, made sense?
And clearly, it just -- in this case, unfortunately, did not.
And so, I would hope moving forward that we can
refocus our efforts into collaboration, that we can make sure that we
are hearing from the experts, but also those on a practical level, to
make sure that the legislation that we are passing, whether it's related
to this issue or others, is -- is done in a way that makes sense and that
helps New Yorkers in -- on multiple levels.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Mr. Dais.
MR. DAIS: Will the sponsor yield?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Will the sponsor
yield?
MS. ZINERMAN: I will yield, Mr. Dais.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The sponsor yields.
MR. DAIS: Clarification on the MRTA and on your
bill. For quick clarity, when it comes to cannabis, it comes to the
same rules as cigarette smoke where you're not allowed to smoke
64
within New York City or City parks, correct?
MS. ZINERMAN: Absolutely.
MR. DAIS: So we do recognize that when the first
iteration of MRTA, we do respect quality of life air issues when it
comes to public spaces where kids can -- will often utilize in playtime.
MS. ZINERMAN: We embedded it in the law for
that purpose, yes.
MR. DAIS: Correct. Now going more to the
germane parts of this bill. Utilizing this room as an example, prior to
this, we used the walls as the barriers of our building. Prior, the OCM
could say as long as it was 50 feet from the center door -- or 500 feet
from the center door, that was considered within the regulations -- in
-- in the proper regulations, correct?
MS. ZINERMAN: Five hundred has been the
standard, yes, from the beginning.
MR. DAIS: Now, with this law, it is moving it from
the center point of the main door to the exterior wall as the beginning
of the measurement of where a -- a registered OCM dispensary can
now exist, correct?
MS. ZINERMAN: It's still center door. Center to
center. It was before -- this is why we didn't want to go through this
because, you know, people were edge of property and this, that and
the other. For the purposes of what we're doing going forward, it is
center door to center door, five hundred feet, schools. Two hundred
for our houses of worship.
65
MR. DAIS: Okay. And in reference to OCM and
and going to a registered dispensary, again, unlike a liquor store or a
bodega where they sell beer or other products, a child --
MS. ZINERMAN: And cigarettes.
MR. DAIS: -- cannot go with an adult into those --
into -- into an OCM facility, correct?
MS. ZINERMAN: Absolutely.
MR. DAIS: If you go into an OCM dispensary, you
have an ID that has to be scanned by the security, then -- you are then
inputted into the database to make sure that you -- that your ID is valid
as a valid New York State ID, correct?
MS. ZINERMAN: That is correct.
MR. DAIS: So we have multiple verification points
of ID that we don't necessarily have as mandated in liquor stores and
bodegas but OCM facilities do?
MS. ZINERMAN: Yes.
MR. DAIS: So you would say that -- that we go
above and beyond to ensure that families and children are not -- are
not -- would go into these facilities and we're taking an extra step,
unlike the SLA, to protect young people in our State?
MS. ZINERMAN: Two extra steps, yes.
MR. DAIS: In addition to that, retail stores also do
not display paraphernalia, anything in the front, often they have
frosted glass. So if you look at height, children cannot look within
those stores. That's not the same to say for liquor stores or bodegas
66
that can have liquor advertisements or liquor bottles in the -- in the
front of their stores, correct?
MS. ZINERMAN: You are correct.
MR. DAIS: So again, the OCM has taken the
necessary steps to ensure that we have a well-regulated business
within the regulations of the OCM and laws to protect our community,
while also allowing businesses who are following the rules, who did
everything right, spent millions, if not, hundreds of thousands of
dollars in construction and hiring local New Yorkers to allow a
business to thrive, while also being respectful to their community.
MS. ZINERMAN: Yes.
MR. DAIS: Thank you, Madam sponsor.
On the bill.
MS. ZINERMAN: Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
MR. DAIS: I'll be brief. I have worked in the
cannabis industry since 2018. As somebody who was assaulted at --
when I was the age of 14 for being accused of using the marijuana,
another time being pulled out my car when I was a senior in college
on a Florida interstate because they accused me of having marijuana
in my car, I can tell you firsthand my experience on the
criminalization of cannabis. I am proud to be part of a Body that had
made it legal and stopped the decriminalization because it targeted
certain communities.
Now, as my colleague also said, we cannot stop
67
regulated businesses who are doing their job, who are community
partners who are following the rules and did everything they asked in
the original MRTA. No legislation that we ever passed will ever be
perfect. And the one thing about our constitution and our ability to do
bills, we can fix and change the law so that it can be more transparent,
it can meet the needs of the community and we can do our jobs. We
are simply standing up to fix a mistake and we are clarifying. As I
said, if a company has been doing its job, if they've been following the
rules, if they've done everything we've asked, we should not penalize
them. We want more businesses to do the same thing and we need to
have the clarity and provide them the opportunity to be thriving
businesses. This is an industry that can do well and hire a lot of
people. We have the most diverse cannabis industry in the entire
country. We have more justice-involved members working in the
industry than any other state.
We also need to make sure that the revenue from the
taxes are going to the communities that need it and we need to be
supportive of the industry because we know it's going to come into our
State no matter what. We gotta make sure that the supply chain is
clean. We have to make sure that products coming from other states
that failed testing does not come into New York State. We need to
support the industry because it is hiring New Yorkers, creating
millions of dollars in tax revenue and moneys going back into the
communities that were negatively impacted by the war on drugs.
And on that note, I will be voting yes and in the
68
affirmative. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Ms. Walsh.
MS. WALSH: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
On the bill.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
MS. WALSH: So when I first heard that we would
be taking up a -- a cannabis bill today, or it was just a couple of days
ago, I guess, we heard about it. I think it was just introduced a little
while ago. And I didn't know what it was about yet, I got kind of
excited because I thought, great. You know, we've raised so many
problems with the roll out of this -- the cannabis industry in New
York, the legalization of marijuana. I'm like, great. Maybe we're
going to take up a bill that will address all of the concerns that we've
raised on our side of the aisle about the inability to really measure
impairment roadside, which was a major concern when we first took
up this legislation. You know, maybe it's going to address one of the
many other concerns that -- that we've raised about the legalization of
marijuana. But unfortunately, much to my dismay, that's -- that's not
what this bill is about today. This bill prior speaker talked about this
bill as correcting an unfairness towards businesses acting in good faith
and I thought that that was really interesting because, you know, our
State is consistently ranked dead last in businesses-friendliness in -- in
the country. We -- are rate -- we are rated as having the highest tax
rates, the worst regulation, the -- the, you know, overregulation, the --
69
it -- it being tremendously not business-friendly. So the idea that
we're trying to correct that wrong is -- is, you know, intriguing. And I
-- I was really interested to see in our memo that NFIB, which really
rarely takes any kind of a stand when it has to do with cannabis said
that they did hear from a -- from a lot of these small businesses that
this was really a problem. So I really thought about it, but I think that,
you know, think about the average wine and liquor store establishment
that's got to deal with the State Liquor Authority. Do we think that
that's easy? Do we think that they're not sometimes given bad
information? That they're not led in the wrong direction as far as
where they can site or what they can do? We know that that happens
because we get those calls, too. We know that that's a problem, but
this legislation is, once again, in my opinion, really bending over
backwards to help this industry, to help this kind of business. You
know, I've -- I've tried to bring forward bills to help the whole MWBE
program which I think is in shambles in many respects. And -- but,
you know, we -- when we created this whole program, we -- we
specifically developed it so that we were going to especially benefit
and advantage the justice-involved community in this program.
And I would just like to share this one quick story
since I've got a little bit of time here. I was -- shortly after -- it was
funny because it was on April 20th and for those of you who know,
you know, I was on a train going down to New York City, going to
something else and I was sitting next to a woman. Fascinating lady. I
just struck up a conversation because that's what I do and she had
70
arrived from Colorado to New York and what she was going to do,
she had been very involved in the cannabis industry in Colorado
where it had been earlier, you know, legalized. And I said, hey, I got
to ask you -- she was going down to the City to help businesses that
wanted to get established in this -- in this industry since it was new
now in New York. And I said, hey, I just got to ask you, when -- in
Colorado, do you give any particular advantage or leg up to
individuals who have been involved in the criminal justice world who
have prior convictions to be able to get, you know, get certified and
able to get licensed to open up a shop? And she looked at me like I
had three heads and she's like, no. We don't do that. That's not what
we do. We try to pick -- pick businesses that are the best situated and
most solid to be able to start a business and be successful. That's --
those are our criteria when we're picking -- picking the -- the winners
here. So -- but that's all well and good.
I mean, here's the thing. Business involves risk,
right? To those who take risk, there are gains. But one of the
problems that has gone on with the cannabis industry here in New
York is that businesses, entrepreneurs who want to make some money
and God bless them if they do, but they're taking a risk. They're
taking a special risk getting involved in this industry because we know
and we've spoken in the Chamber before about what a ridiculously
horrific rollout this cannabis legislation has been and this program has
been here in New York. Well, that's an additional risk, isn't it?
You're not just a businessowner who wants to open up a shop on Main
71
Street, but you're -- you're, you know, you're tying -- you're hitching
your wagon to OCM, which sounds like has been giving out really bad
advice, wrong advice, leading people the wrong way, leading people
who, in good faith, wanted to get involved with this. That's -- that's a
risk and -- and -- and that is a risk.
So the question that we have to face here today is:
Do we want to, as the Office of Cannabis Management is asking us to
do in this bill, do we want to save those 150 or so businesses that were
given bad information? Were told that they were measuring it wrong,
were told that they couldn't locate there even after they had entered
into a long lease. We're being asked to step in and help this particular
class of small business, this particular type of small business, which
you know, I -- I like small business. I believe in small business. I
believe in NFIB and the work that they do to help small business. We
know that there are plenty of small businesses in New York that are
hurting. There are a lot of things that are coming out of Albany, that
are coming out of State Government that only seek to continue to hurt
small business in our State.
The last thing I'll just say is this: Some of us will
vote no on this chapter, not because we want to hurt small business,
but because there's a -- there's really a taint that's been cast upon this
entire program, this entire -- this -- this entire industry. And I -- I
guess the last thing I would just say is, you know, even in the Upstate
area that I represent, I -- I am shocked to see how many licenses have
been granted and how many of these shops are around. And that's just
72
the legal ones. That's just the ones that are being approved by OCM.
We know that there are plenty in the City and elsewhere that need to
be cracked down that aren't even, you know, licensed to do -- to do
this. But I would just say, you know, how many of these do we need?
How many do we really need? I -- I travel rarely to the City, but when
I do go, I am, as a previous speaker said, really my nostrils are
assaulted with the smell of cannabis. God bless, if you want to do it in
your home and it's legal and you're of age and you bought it in the
right place and you're doing it the right way, I got -- I've got nothing to
say to you, but except maybe you might be hurting your lungs or your
body, but that's -- that's your business. If you're an adult, you figure
that out. But I would just say, how many of these do we really need?
I -- I feel like 150 extra shops, you know, is -- is a lot, is a lot. I don't
think that there's any short of places to -- to go get it if you want to get
it.
So I'm -- I'm going to vote no on this bill, probably
unsurprisingly because I just think the whole program is an absolute
flop. And I think that this is a patch -- this a patch on really a bad
program. So I'm gonna vote no and I would encourage my colleagues
to do the same.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Ms. Zinerman.
MS. ZINERMAN: Madam Speaker, on the bill.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
73
MS. ZINERMAN: I rise today to move legislation
that corrects a regulatory failure that has caused real harm, particularly
to social equity cannabis operators who did exactly what the State of
New York asked them to do. Before I go on with my remarks, I want
to just talk a little bit about my district and those people who called
me when this error was announced.
At some point, the five zip codes from the
"Vibrant 56", as we like to call ourselves, 11216, 11213, 11221, -33
sent more people to prison for cannabis use. And so, most people
know my predecessor and they know that that was one of the things
that she was labor-focused on and worked very hard to ensure that this
bill -- that this -- the bill, MRTA, was brought to bear.
I believe in repair. I believe when you do something
wrong, which was the case of the prohibition, you have to repair it.
And our Majority Leader and other people in this -- in this Body
agreed with that and we passed the law. Our laws have been to help,
not harm. And we stay vigilant on the changing times and changing
circumstances to ensure that those bills, the legislation that we pass
continue to help people. And if we're a smart government, which I
think we are, you repair the things that have harmed people, and I
think that's what we're doing today.
So this bill does not expand cannabis access. It does
not weaken protections for schools or undermine the protections for
houses of worships [sic]. Those protections fully remain intact; 500
feet from schools, 200 feet from houses of worship on the same street.
74
What this bill does is restore clarity, consistency and fairness to how
those distances are measured and enforced.
Over the summer -- and we've talked about this --
OCM acknowledged that the proximity guidance, guidance that many
people relied on was inconsistent with the statute. As a result, over
100 licensed dispensaries and dozens of pending applicants were
suddenly deemed non-compliant, many after signing leases and
investing capital and receiving written confirmation from the State.
You heard from my colleagues, and I want to say that
this was not something that was thought about overnight. The
gentleman to my left has been working to ensure that this bill and the
people that it was meant to help have the best chance at that. So
we've been talking about the legislation; how to do away with illegal
cannabis shops, we have legislation for it based on this. And a lot of
what we talked about a today is something that his community and my
community heard, and we stand here today to you urging you to sign
this bill because we are only trying to make sure that people leave this
Chamber today understanding what it is in terms of the measurement.
And so our social equity operators will know that this bill establishes
again clear and objective measurement standards, preserves
community buffers, honors reliance on prior agency determinations,
prevents retroactive punishment for good faith compliance. That's
want we want them to know.
To the colleagues who feel that this bill does not go
far enough, we all are legislators and you have the option of moving
75
forward with any sort of other amendments that you would want. But
today, we do not want to stop -- we -- we do not stop -- we do not
want to stop with good compliance. What we want to do is make sure
that we get rid of the harm. And so if you're concerned about the
community impact, let me just say that ambiguity is the enemy of
enforcement. We want to be clear. We want everybody to leave here
reciting what 500 feet does and 200 feet does, and that know -- and to
know that this Chamber is aligned with what -- and OCM is aligned
with what we have set forth today.
This leg -- this legislation protects schools, respects
houses of worships [sic], and restores trust in government, which is
what we need to establish. So I urge all to vote in the affirmative and
I cast my vote for yes as well. Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Thank you, Madam
Speaker. I have listened quite intently to the entire --
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill, ma'am?
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: On the bill.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: -- to the entire debate --
by the way, good job -- and what it made me think about was the eight
hours that it took to debate the original legislation. This only took an
hour-and-a-half. We're doing pretty good. That's the other thing that
it makes me think about, is that through my research, I determined
76
that it literally took ten years for the State Liquor Authority to
streamline its regulat -- regulate -- regulatory process and get
everything in place. Ten years. We're five years in. Actually, we're
not even five yet because it didn't happen 'til March 21st of 2021.
We're almost five years in. And so yes, there are some things that
need to be straightened out when you're setting up a brand-new
agency for a state the size of the Empire State that deals with the
number of people in the size of the Empire State. And so yes, there
are going to be some wrinkles here and there. Honestly, though, in all
fairness, those letters that those businessowners received over the
summer were devastating. They should have never gotten them. This
actually could have been just a streamlined regulatory process.
Except when they got those letters they hired lawyers. They went to
court and the judge said, You've got to fix this. So the judge said, You
gotta to go pass a regulatory process and create a law that says it's
gonna go much like it does with SLA. And that's what we're doing
here. And honestly, I believe that when we wrote the original
legislation, we debated the original legislation, we said that we would
allow the State of New York -- under the leadership of the Governor,
whomever that might be at the time, it was a different Governor -- to
create an agency called OCM that would then embrace the
Department of Health's Medical Marijuana and the Agriculture
Department Hemp Department all together into one agency. And I -- I
know there's some really smart people here and I think we have all the
answers. But I know there's not enough people in here to come up
77
with how to put an agency together in five years without any glitches.
And by the way, if you are that person, they still have openings.
There's jobs that are still available in this agency. And they need good
lawyers. So if there's some people who want to go and try to help out,
do that. But realize that we're not even five years in and we're
expecting everything to be perfect. It's not perfect yet, but it will be.
And as it re -- as it relates to the revenue that's being
raised, revenue is being raised. And -- and communities are being
reinvested in because of it. We're making a difference in people's
lives that we don't even know. I -- I know I don't know 'em all, but
we're making a difference in people's lives. We say we want people to
pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, but sometimes you've
gotta give them some straps on the boots. This gives people a strap on
a boot. It gives people an opportunity they never had.
I had the pleasure to go and visit a, I want to say, a
five-decade-long farm -- five generations, rather. Five generations of
people who have been in the orchard -- apple orchard business. It's a
really great business. But what they have done with our legalization
of cannabis is, what they said to me is, You've allowed us to have
another two to three generations more of people in business on this
land in the State of New York. This is why we did all of this. And so
for us to be in a place where we need to correct some things, then let's
correct them. And it's okay if people still have doubts about whether
or not people should be using cannabis at all. It's okay that you still at
have that. There's still people who doubt whether you should drink
78
alcohol. As a matter of fact, a lot -- people are not even drinking as
much alcohol anymore.
There's only a couple of times in the original
legislation where there was a felony created. One of them is selling to
people under 21. So, I mean, I get you want to be concerned about a
nursery school, but I really doubt a toddler is gonna walk in to a place
and buy something. They won't even be able to buy it from an illegal
store, and there's still a ton of them left that we need to fix that, too.
So at this point in life we should be grateful that not
just OCM, but the Governor and the courts have said, Okay, let's just
put these lines the same where they are for SLA. Instead of from
property line to property line, put it to door-to-door, and the distance
is the same as she has so articulately argued.
Not a lot of change here, folks. Not a lot of
controversy to be looking for here. But there are still some
opportunities for our State to grow based on the fact that we have
legalized the product that 24 other states have also legalized, by the
way. We're not the first ones -- nowhere near -- but I do think we're
the best ones, and I think we should stay the course.
I would encourage people to vote in favor of this
piece of legislation.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
On a motion by Ms. Zinerman, the Senate bill is
before the House. The Senate bill is advanced.
Read the last section.
79
THE CLERK: This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: A Party vote has
been requested.
Ms. Walsh.
MS. WALSH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The
Minority Conference will be in the negative on this piece of
legislation, but if there are members who wish to support it, now
would be the ideal time to do so at their seats.
Thank you.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Thank you.
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Thank you, Madam
Speaker. I would encourage the Majority Conference to do much like
we did when this legislation was originally passed and vote in favor of
this piece of legislation; however, if there's some folks who want to be
an exception, feel free to do so at your seat.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
The Clerk will record the vote.
(The Clerk recorded the vote.)
Mr. Bologna to explain his vote.
MR. BOLOGNA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As
we discussed, the purpose of this bill is to ultimately fix a screw-up by
the Office of Cannabis Management. And what we're showing is that
when this Body has a priority and wants to push something through
quickly and rapidly, we do it. There are still drugged driving bills that
80
are waiting around in committee that we have an opportunity to
address those as well. I also do not think that this bill does any --
anything about the surging use of marijuana in this State. It doesn't
touch on anything on the mental health of smoking, potential
addiction or any of the negative impacts that can be derived from
excess use of cannabis.
So with that, I will be in the negative. Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Mr. Bologna in the
in the negative.
Mr. Lavine to explain his vote.
MR. LAVINE: We've had some great presidents, and
Jack Kennedy was -- was one of them. And Jack Kennedy used to
like to say, An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to
correct it. We are correcting an error, and I'm very pleased to vote in
the affirmative.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Mr. Lavine in the
affirmative.
Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
(The Clerk announced the results.)
The bill is passed.
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Madam Speaker, do you
have any further housekeeping or resolutions?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: We do have a piece
of housekeeping.
81
On a motion by Mr. Bores, page 29, Calendar No.
148, Bill No. A05906-B, the amendments are received and adopted.
We have a number of resolutions before the House.
Without objection, these resolutions will be taken up together.
On the resolutions, all those in favor signify by saying
aye; opposed, no. The resolutions are adopted.
(Whereupon, Assembly Resolution Nos. 955-958
were unanimously adopted.)
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: I now move that the
Assembly stand adjourned until Thursday, February the 12th,
tomorrow being a legislative day, and that we reconvene at 2:00 p.m.
on February the 23rd, Monday being a Session day.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On Mrs. Peoples-
Stokes' motion, the House stand adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 1:32 p.m., the House stood adjourned
until Thursday, February 12th, that being a legislative day, and to
reconvene on Monday, February 23rd at 2:00 p.m., that being a
Session day.)