By Journalist Leandra Lepp (OBU)
House delegate Walker presents SE 507, known as the “Cannabis Odor Protection” Act of 2023, to the house on Thursday, the 16th. Their bill riles up the caucus and creates lively debate, resulting in a 42-18 vote, passing the bill to the Senate. Though the author intends to “protect medical marijuana users,” other delegates have major concerns with the bill’s implications. In the midst of the caucus, the delegate Jasper Ryan believes the delegation to be in a great divide.
“I have talked to so many people both in support and opposition to this legislation,” Ryan said.
After much time caucusing, Tynes Tallie calls debate on SE 507 with hopes more people would stand with her in opposition to the bill, “I thought more people would vote against this bill, and I definitely did not expect it to pass,” Tallie said.
Tallie made the courageous step to call debate for the first time, “Once I called debate, I made the mistake of putting myself at the end of the list. When I got up to the podium, all I could do was reiterate what had already been said.
Both sides state their opinions during the debate, urging the delegation to agree with their arguments. A delegate who has experience with the marijuana industry supports SE 507 and explains though a person may have marijuana in their system, it does not mean they are intoxicated. Others in support state that the bill allows investigation based on behavior. Simply illuminating the smell does not harm the investigation. However, other delegates believe this step is too far of a reach. During the debate, Ryan argues that it is still illegal to carry a certain amount of marijuana no matter if the police find it or not; therefore, police should be able to search until proven guilty. Tallie supports Ryan’s claims in the final opposition speech, “Innocent people should not be worried about being searched,” Tallie said.
The bill’s author, Walker, concludes the time by emphasizing her final argument, “Removing one suggestion will not harm the investigation,” Walker said.
In a later interview, Tallie responds to the author’s defense of the bill, “I do not think the argument is valid. Eliminating officers from being able to use their discretion by smell gives too much range to people who violate the law,” Tallie said.
Ryan agrees with Tallie and defends police officers’ rights: “Police officers have a right to protect people that they are sworn to defend, and they should be able to do that to the best of their ability,” Ryan said.
Both Tallie and Ryan have major concerns regarding the trafficking of drugs, “If someone was trying to traffic drugs, they could simply put them in their trunk, and even if they could be smelled, they did not have to worry about it, and it can not be searched without probable cause,” Tallie said.
“As great as medical marijuana has been for people we must regulate to keep those around and non users out of harms way,” Ryan said.