[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6575024,"mediaKeyId","3150495-2de72b8071bebabff874421ee4016c21","parentId",3150495,"title","Debate over raising cannabis lab lot size pits industry and labs before Assembly committee","audioSeconds",3486,"startMs",3684000,"endMs",7170000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3150495-2de72b8071bebabff874421ee4016c21&start=3684&end=7170","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3150495-2de72b8071bebabff874421ee4016c21/thumbnail_3684000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6575024/Nevada/Debate-over-raising-cannabis-lab-lot-size-pits-industry-and-labs-before-Assembly-committee","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6575024-82272296c176c1492c6afc5fa9fc6e18/orig.mp4?Expires=1770887412&Signature=FuQZpyWJNMUqfCNbCnUAnjCXUmJnbsA8vqYXYB8yaVJDDdmPZZ9dpQJtCpKJKy4V4ac~1leB0TgCt0HMpj7dIqrUb0LkgKg7OS-m5d~ZQsjpiYWMA0YA~dpIQLCwz5XL1bKR3koMs~6CNlRd5Y13rRMLXjBT~Qj59y9mxLQZwtX54qKQldkHZwvvoUlBGawLCPOB3i4o4VZygtsQnHmPYFbutntAvRomhF6ArjdKMBXy0YesQ0ol5RpLQBmGW~iBaaLWGV~FhnDWNfItg97eEDR54C3LKNh0JXaazSb3QRyVcCTbH24r79JFSC~JFn91-DksusnejEOSOHP1Q6lbug__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Nevada Legislature","date","2025-04-29T18:58:47.117Z","article","Senate Bill 157, which would revise Nevada's cannabis testing rules by raising lot size limits and adopting a sliding scale of representative sampling, drew a lengthy and contested hearing before the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Sponsor Senator Edgar Flores opened the presentation saying he was \"here to urge you to puff puff pass Senate Bill 157\" and described the bill as an attempt to modernize testing rules that date back to early implementation of Nevada's market. Proponents including Green Thumb Industries representatives, cultivators and the Nevada Cannabis Association told the committee SB 157 would move Nevada toward nationally accepted sampling standards, reduce testing costs for licensed operators and discourage consumers from buying untested products from the illicit market.

Proponents' arguments and technical support
- Science and standards: David Valencourt, vice‑chair of ASTM International's cannabis committee and a testing consultant, urged regulators to \"test smarter, not harder,\" advocating adoption of ASTM consensus sampling methods rather than a strict 5‑pound cap. He said other jurisdictions have raised lot sizes without safety issues.
- Cost and market effects: University chemist Glenn Miller and industry witnesses said testing every 5‑pound lot drives up costs and can encourage diversion to unregulated sellers; Miller argued that subsampling techniques used in food safety can be applied to cannabis and that Washington state safely moved from a 5‑pound standard to a larger lot size.

Opposition from laboratories and public‑health concerns
Testing laboratories and several independent lab owners testified in opposition, warning that contaminant distribution within flower is heterogeneous and that detection rates decline as the percentage of product sampled shrinks. Alec Garcia of 374 Labs said, \"This bill ultimately comes down to 1 thing and that's patient and public safety.\" Opponents cited recall data and enforcement activity in other states and pointed to existing ASTM guidance that, they said, contains lower lot maxima for certain matrices (the testimony referenced ASTM D8334 and related guidance that defines a 15‑pound maximum for inflorescence in some provisions).

Technical specifics in the bill
- Lot size: SB 157 would change the statutory lot size approach, with proponents proposing a sliding scale up to 50 pounds for certain cannabis flower lots (current Nevada rule cited in testimony is 5 pounds for flower). Proponents said representative sample counts would rise with lot size (examples given in testimony: 8 samples for lots under 10 pounds up to 19 samples for 40–50 pound lots) and that the bill incorporates ASTM sampling standards (witnesses cited ASTM D8334/D84236 practices).
- Distinctions among product types: Cannabis Compliance Board staff explained Nevada already uses different lot sizes for different matrices (flower, trim, wet whole plant) and that the board has considered lot‑size changes in regulatory workshops through 2024 but did not adopt revisions.

Committee reaction and next steps: Members pressed proponents on differences between Nevada's cultivation (much indoor) and states with larger outdoor harvests and asked whether the Cannabis Compliance Board had been consulted; proponents said they had sought regulatory engagement and that the board declined to move the item into regulation. Several committee members asked for more data; the sponsor said he was open to negotiating on the numeric limit if stakeholders could provide research‑backed alternatives.

Ending: The hearing produced extensive oral testimony on both sides but no committee vote. Proponents argued larger lot sizes paired with rigorous sampling would lower costs and keep consumers in the regulated market; laboratory witnesses warned larger lots could permit contaminated product to reach consumers and cited recalls in other states.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","4/29/2025 - Assembly Committee on Judiciary","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 157 would increase Nevada's cannabis testing lot limits (currently 5 pounds for flower) and adopt a sliding‑scale sampling regime up to 50 pounds; proponents say the change reduces costs and discourages illicit market activity, while testing laboratories warn larger lots risk undetected contamination and more recalls.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature NV, Nevada","taxId",78440,"location","Nevada","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6575029,"Gaming Control Board seeks administrative changes, raises maximum fines in SB 46",2255,1206000,3461000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3150495-2de72b8071bebabff874421ee4016c21&start=1206&end=3461","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3150495-2de72b8071bebabff874421ee4016c21/thumbnail_1206000.jpg","/articles/6575029/Nevada/Gaming-Control-Board-seeks-administrative-changes-raises-maximum-fines-in-SB-46","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6575029-c2ea91efc85eaab72d88a56e0628d4a8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770887412&Signature=VDOpmNwuF4VzCSQCu8~4xtXsK~Obn78h1FhROERX~XWUsZdOO9rWAESim~lmoRepMTAQ~gO9gVrsaBbZK-PsOg26NFcPVASg7l584Kau-Skjw4FrhZfAFpRtFXtcXzCuqdW1WTxpqMW71OSOEYc1WRLMhMmw-n5Z4S9izQs1Ph0j4ia5sXvETVodHcZLbFE6I1ZZd1rkT-c4~hIQlCTVa9KKfl6Vt2Wesgwy7yTmZQcm4ZtvmFliNPuNNyeb0jpFHqwFzmrbFOGd0BVFW525xO0qyUYSo8rY00N-k8vyTFMkohwYIytXBsU7Sua3pcRsUzbBJksm3xp8dAHwZFHWrg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Nevada Gaming Control Board presented Senate Bill 46 to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, describing a package of non‑technology changes to NRS chapter 463 intended to clarify longstanding administrative practices and modernize penalty thresholds.

Kirk Hendrick, chairman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board, said the bill \"seeks to make minor changes to chapter 463 of the Nevada Revised Statutes in order to streamline and clarify processes essential for the continued success of Nevada's gaming industry.\" He and Sebastian Ross, the board's senior policy counsel, walked members through provisions on voluntary surrender of approvals, investigative hearings, registration of tournament organizers and adjustments to record transmission and patron dispute thresholds.

Major provisions and discussion
- Voluntary surrender and jurisdiction: SB 46 would expressly allow the board and the Nevada Gaming Commission to maintain disciplinary and tax jurisdiction even if a person attempts to voluntarily surrender an approval or registration; the commission would adopt rules describing how to surrender and a reasonable time period before the board divests jurisdiction.
- Investigative hearings: The bill would clarify that an investigative hearing may be conducted by one or more board members or by a hearing examiner \"authorized by the chair,\" and would allow a single board member or an authorized hearing examiner to conduct investigative hearings without requiring the concurrence of a majority of the board. Hendrick said the change is intended to \"streamline the administrative function.\" The committee asked whether members would still be notified; Hendrick said the chair would be informed and the other members would receive reports when appropriate.
- Fine threshold increases: SB 46 proposes raising statutory maximums for fines tied to initial complaints to an amount not to exceed $500,000 and for subsequent complaints to an amount not to exceed $1,000,000. Hendrick emphasized these are maximum thresholds, not mandatory amounts, and the commission retains discretion to set penalties within the range.
- Records for judicial review and patron disputes: The bill would clarify obligations for transmitting records on review and would raise the monetary threshold for patron dispute claims adjudicated by hearing examiners (proposed increase from $500 to $1,000), with proponents saying the change would streamline adjudication of small claims.

Support and testimony: The Nevada Resort Association told the committee it worked closely with the board and supports the bill. Committee members asked about the delegation of authority to the chair and whether that change would reduce board oversight; Hendrick said the practice reflects longstanding procedure and the bill merely codifies it.

Ending: Committee members did not take a vote during the hearing. Hendrick thanked members for their time and said the board is available to answer follow‑up questions.","The Nevada Gaming Control Board told the Assembly Judiciary Committee SB 46 would clarify surrender of approvals, allow single‑member investigative hearings and raise statutory fine thresholds that have not changed since 1977.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6575032,"Nevada bill would cap juvenile probation, require hearing before detention",1014,151000,1165000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3150495-2de72b8071bebabff874421ee4016c21&start=151&end=1165","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3150495-2de72b8071bebabff874421ee4016c21/thumbnail_151000.jpg","/articles/6575032/Nevada/Nevada-bill-would-cap-juvenile-probation-require-hearing-before-detention","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6575032-e12f70fcee4e305b6577c66071080b9b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770887412&Signature=iqGJJe45I2quqFfBIfz8oSuYyA3JjViU8fTNI-eO8vTnyOWVfXTBWvt6Ru98~3l6CjktOOjUfQPRHKyVQqogbPl4t68DZW~EwQDuwKxjaGD5ymMskISjN28ZmAdUYfd5B0U~WoHHIr2q~H0LhtX3JPDpMd-2QSHPAmj17Z86orsdgqdH7u0b80JHolTxm7bJC~S97FskPK5zTucHD2zog3K3jrLrHxK4FsllMvbzWb0EV9SqnaNhTKbUuhHy8queGGsrWGNWl0tprVTdjwRNVea2ao2IDn4l5eoBYwkRRn4PhTaCECMHQk3I19-ulFfVmdTWVoB0Pjpmemn8rjS3gA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 241, introduced to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, would change Nevada law on juvenile probation by limiting terms, preventing multiple consecutive probation periods and ensuring a hearing before a youth can be placed in a detention facility for an alleged violation.

The bill was presented to the committee by State Senator James Orangehall, who said the measure \"makes a few changes to the statutes regarding juvenile probation\" and was recommended by the Joint Interim Standing Committee on the Judiciary. The bill was co‑presented by Jennifer Fraser, chief deputy public defender of the juvenile division of the Clark County Public Defender's Office.

Supporters told the committee the changes are intended to align juvenile probation procedures with existing youth parole protections and reduce burdens on probation caseloads. \"It's our goal to always try to get consistency, between the statute,\" said Jennifer Fraser. Fraser and other proponents said the bill would let a juvenile who has completed court‑ordered nonfinancial requirements terminate probation even if restitution remains unpaid; the restitution obligation would remain a civil debt.

Why it matters: proponents said shorter, predictable probation periods and clearer procedures for alleged violations would improve youth outcomes and free probation resources to focus on higher‑risk youth. James Orangehall told the committee the bill removes language that had been interpreted to permit \"stacking\" of consecutive 18‑month probation periods and would instead limit probation to 18 months with extensions up to a total of 36 months regardless of the number of adjudicated delinquent acts.

Key details discussed
- Limiting time: SB 241 deletes statutory language that had been read to allow courts to stack multiple 18‑month probation periods; the revised language would clarify a single 18‑month probation term with a possible extension up to 36 months.
- Restitution and termination: the bill would allow courts to terminate probation for a youth who otherwise has completed court‑ordered conditions even if restitution remains unpaid; restitution could still be pursued as a civil judgment when the juvenile reaches adulthood. Proponents said that approach preserves the victim's ability to seek payment while removing the inability to pay as a reason for prolonged supervision.
- Due process for alleged violations: SB 241 would require a juvenile court hearing before ordering placement in a juvenile detention facility (or county jail for adults) for an alleged probation violation, mirroring protections in youth parole statutes.

Who testified: Support came from juvenile defenders and advocates, including the Clark County Public Defender's juvenile division, the Fines & Fees Justice Center, the Washoe County Public Defender's Office and the Children's Advocacy Alliance. Clark County Assistant District Attorney Brigid Duffy testified that stakeholders had worked together on term‑limit language and reached support before the Senate hearing.

No votes were taken during the hearing. Presenters and supporters urged the committee to move the bill forward.

Ending: Proponents asked the committee to consider the bill as a way to reduce probation caseloads and give juveniles achievable goals for successful termination from supervision while preserving victims' civil remedies for restitution.","A bill heard by the Assembly Judiciary Committee would limit juvenile probation terms, bar \"stacking\" of multiple probation periods, allow earlier termination when youth complete non‑financial obligations and require a hearing before detention for alleged probation violations.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Debate over raising cannabis lab lot size pits industry and labs before Assembly committee

Gaming Control Board seeks administrative changes, raises maximum fines in SB 46

Nevada bill would cap juvenile probation, require hearing before detention