SB73 still has problems

SB73 still has problems

SB73 still not ready for prime-time

The State Senate debated SB73 “MEDICAL CANNABIS ACT” on Friday and it had 7 floor amendments.  Amendments were flying so fast the sponsor didn’t know which amendments he was speaking to and there were questions as to which amendments other Senators were questioning.

I am glad the Senate called a time-out to figure out what happened in the bill.

For the record, I am against SB73 for multiple reasons, but wanted to point out some questions in reading the bill.


line 307

My concern is with the line “prospective employee”. Does this facilitate ‘spoofing’ the applications, where an applicant submits the resume of the current Nobel Laureate in the Chemical Sciences (Paul L. Modrich, Thomas Lindahl, and Aziz Sancar, in case you were wondering…), but after the award, actually ends up hiring Cheech and Chong, or his cousin Ed? What about Doctor Feelgood?

Will anyone do a follow-up and see who is actually hired in the facility?  Prospective employees do not always work out – just ask the Cleveland Browns about their attempts at finding a quarterback.

line 370In line 370 we read about a felony – why are we ignoring a misdemeanor?  “In general, misdemeanor embezzlement will result in a small monetary fine and a maximum jail sentence of one year. In comparison, felony misdemeanor charges might result in higher fines and a prison sentence of more than one year.” So if you are in jail under a year you are fine? I’m not ok with someone with jail time running a cannabis facility.


line 567This section of code deals with the cannabis product.  Who will make this determination? What happens if the candy industry changes packaging?

line 577Once again – who determines “intent”? Did Phillip Morris intend to advertise cigarettes to children?

line 585Since the FDA doesn’t allow cannabis, what is a similarly applied or ingested product? Who defines that, the FDA which prohibits it?  And if we are going to use the FDA standards lets use them all:


Let me know when we reach this point.

line 634So line 636 defines an establishment as a person? I know there are some that say “corporations are people” – but this is interesting to see it written in code.
line 819 Why can only PTSD from military service get one a cannabis card?  PTSD is defined as “a condition of persistent mental and emotional stress occurring as a result of injury or severe psychological shock, typically involving disturbance of sleep and constant vivid recall of the experience, with dulled responses to others and to the outside world.” So this creates a new class of person?

line 903

Apparently, an arbitrary number is less of an interference with a Physician’s practice than an arbitrary percentage… Patients who need the treatment should be able to be treated!  So I can have 250 patients and prescribe cannabis to 100% of my patients? Now this sounds like Dr Feelgood.

line 915 part 2

So these doctors in this section 4 can give over 20%? Wait, earlier it limited some doctors to 250, but here it is a percentage.  And as I mentioned above, there is a way to still get 100% of patients and be outside this list.

line 1019

Is ‘warning signs’ a medical or legal term? Who determines a “warning sign”?


line 1342

Could someone please define what constitutes ‘glorification’ or ‘trivialization’? Doesn’t the ‘white coats’ language seem to get uncomfortably close to ‘impersonating a medical practitioner’?

line 1733

Now wait a minute.  I agreed with the Legislature in not making a sales tax exemption for tampons and other feminine hygiene products.  Now there is going to be a complete sales tax exemption for cannabis? Will the cities be given money to make up the sales taxes lost?  Many cities fund police and fire from sales tax so this industry (which you could strongly argue might use public safety more…..wait, you can prove it because they will be notified of unauthorized entrance) doesn’t have to pay their fair share?

SB73 is still not ready for prime time.  The Legislature would be wise in not passing a flawed bill.

About author

Richard Jaussi
Richard Jaussi 32 posts

Richard is a political junkie. He teaches Political Science and US Constitution courses at a University. Richard can be found reading books on American history and politics. He resides in Utah County with his wife, 4 kids, and Frodo (their dog). You can reach him at

You might also like

Utah Politics 0 Comments

45 Podcast ep. 6 – Jason Chaffetz online sales tax, guest Senator Margaret Dayton

In episode 6 of the FortyFive politics podcast we talked about Jason Chaffetz online sales tax proposal and we spoke with Senator Margaret Dayton about a federal takeover of Utah water.

Podcast 0 Comments

45 Podcast ep. 5 – Sean Reyes campaign donations, guest Billy Hesterman of Utah Taxpayers Association

In episode 5 of the FortyFive politics podcast we talked about Attorney General Sean Reyes’ connections to Etagz and we had special guest Billy Hesterman of the Utah Taxpayers Association on

Featured 0 Comments

Meet the candidates – Senate 14

Editor note: This is the second in a series of posts introducing the candidates. All candidates were offered to respond. I am only posting responses received by the deadline. Today’s