dr. spengser who speaks for the opposition. >> please welcome dr. spencer. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having us. >> the argument is the amendment would be susceptible or open to abuse, correct? >> absolutely. we're essentially looking at the same amendment in 2014. >> if there were only specific conditions listed say cancer, aid, glaucoma, period. at that point, would you be open to supporting this amendment? >> i think the problem >> it's not. >> it doesn't matter what would be or what could be. that's not what is. what is is what we're looking at and how they phrased it and putting forth as a constitutional amendment which would supersede all state and local. there's no local control over this. we're looking at the same thing we saw in 2014. >> i'm asking because i'm trying to get a sense of the objection you have only being it's on open e were they to have closed it >> my only objection. there are numerous problems. not only is it loopholed again. it does open it up for any condition, much like we see in california style amendment. what pe