 Mark you want me to take it away? I mean, and we can both jump in on this. That sounds good to you. Yeah. Yeah, why don't you do stirred up? You you have this. You did the slides and you got the train. You got it. All right. Fantastic. For everyone on the call today. Thank you so much for being here. We appreciate your time. I will tell you that this is going to become a running document things that I have done that Mark and I have done. We put the act in the back of the document so that if we do need to refer to them, we can at all time. So we'll continue to add to this document and possibly take away from this document each week. But I'll start by just a quick reminder of who is on each on the committee from the advisory. I mean, sorry. Who is on the committee from the Vermont side? Tim Wessel, Dr. Mark Levine and of course, Ingrid Jonas who's with us today and then Mark Gorman, myself and Gina Cranwinkle are here. And also, I believe we have Megan. How who is assisting in taking notes? A quick reminder to everyone our milestone is October 20th and that is when we will have to put forth our recommendations solidly packaged up. No plan intended for the board for their use. And so that is one of our initiatives because this is being recorded and also as a reminder to the general public if you would like to make public comments. Thank you so by visiting ccv.vermont.gov and there is a place for you to input public comments. There were no written comments been in this week so I will move on from there. As another reminder of what we discussed last week is that we would be looking at this in phases with rules and guidelines and packaging and labeling and then also with Edible and Department of Health oversight. I will say as Mark and I continue to work through all of the information it's really looking more like phase one and phase two are melding into phase one because there's so much overlap in there and that'll become more clear as we talk about some additional initiatives here. So for you Ingrid, yesterday we shared some information from different states on what they're doing in terms of warnings and guidelines and how they have enacted their own initiative. So one of the things that Mark and I have seen consistently is commonalities in the warnings that are put forth by anyone's cannabis control board commission however they choose to name it is we're seeing consistency in impairments where they're asking you not to operate machinery or drive that cannabis may be habit forming that it's not safe for kids were used by adults 21 and over and also should not be used by pregnant or breastfeeding women. We also noted different states were using different verbiage but we continuously saw things like delayed impairment, especially when it comes to edibles that it could be your it could be delayed by two hours or more. We are consistently actually not as consistently seeing accidental ingestion and the poison control number out not safe for pets that there is limited information on health risk. We've seen that edibles can't be associated with cartoons toys designs colors or shapes that appeal to children. One thing I will share and while this is Canadian one of the items that I saw this week was a retailer who had used in Canada a strawberry as part of his logo and it was nice and bright looking and so there are a lot of parent complaints because it was inside of a hockey rink. So I would say that something will address in further detail soon on the CCB requirements for the design of your logo and ensuring that it isn't a child friendly product. And of course I just covered logo brands not associated with cartoons toys designs colors or shapes that appeal to children and then also we're starting to see more on psychoactive and synthetic, Delta H, Delta 9 and then of course Dr. Levine provided some information from the CDC which I'm starting to see some pickups in the trade press. Any questions about those right now? Just the commonalities and other things we've seen or anything you think we might have missed? Okay, fantastic. Thank you. And then because Massachusetts is still so new and this is an ever-evolving industry I will say that they have one of the most comprehensive sets of guidelines out there for their own licensees to follow and it's very clear and very concise. So I did put Massachusetts in this particular slide deck because it is so easy to understand and very direct in what they want. They use the statement please consume responsibly. They require that but then they also have five additional statements of which if someone is advertising their product you have to use two additional of these. It's just an interesting phenomenon. They do talk about impairment and habit forming. They talk about concentration coordination judgment and of course don't operate machinery under the influence. Health risk could be associated 21 and older and of course not to be used by women who are pregnant are a breastfeeding. Beyond that one of the things that they do have is a standard warning that talks about some things that have been noted by the subcommittee in previous meetings. It's not been analyzed by the FDA limited information on side effects again pregnancy breastfeeding against the law to driver operate keep away from children very bold again health risk in para concentration coordinated in judgment and the impairment of edibles may be delayed by two hours or more than they include the poison control hotline or call 911. And I think that they have a nice subtlety with something that was brought up on a previous meeting as well that this may be illegal outside of the state of Massachusetts. Mark you want to our ingrid anybody want to add anything on this or thought or comments. I just to make I was going to raise a question about whether anybody has a coral with any of these. Yeah I think that's a fan made on the last two slides because you know in in dealing with people who I thought should have been knowledgeable about cannabis over the past two or three years before my time at NACB. You could get and you still can get big pushback when you mentioned intoxication when you mentioned impaired driving. I mean there are just people who refuse to believe it and I but I haven't heard anything from from any of our subcommittee members or even any of the others that we've we've talked to in the Vermont during the Vermont project. Yeah Ingrid do you have any thoughts on that. Well you know I tend to air on the side of giving people as many facts as possible so they can make educated choices. So I feel very concerned about you know things like impairment and people being made aware of the habit forming. I'm sure that's probably debatable. I don't you know I'm sure there are people that would debate that I certainly don't haven't studied research on that but also the delayed onset so to speak of edible cannabis. I think it's really you know those kinds of things are I think important. I thought it was interesting that Massachusetts had the requirements that they need to have two of those different warnings at least not more. Like how do you pick between warnings about you know pregnant people and children and impairment and agree with it. I'm not an advertising. I don't have the foggiest idea about advertising and I'm not looking to shut progress down but I do think that as much information as possible for people going into this is very important. Agreed. And I one of the things I see between these two slides that the police consume responsibly and then the other slide is that the and I can't 100% say this but it seems to follow also along with what would be required of the safety flyer that we referenced that would be need to be done for point of sale. So it's very similar to that. And matter of fact I'm going to flip straight to that so we can take a look at it and then we'll talk a little bit more about that. So a retailer shall display safety information a safety information flyer at point of purchase and offer a customer a copy of the flyer with each person in it. In it it talks about and I've got I'm looking a little bit closer flyers developed by the board but I think there's just and then people can take that and download it free of charge contain information concerning the methods of administering cannabis amount of time. It may take for cannabis products to take effect the risks of driving under the influence potential health risk symptoms of problematic usage how to receive health and a warning that cannabis is illegal under federal law. So going back to Massachusetts in here. Many of those are right here contained in these statements and then also in this area and I think that in keeping in the spirit of what Tim Westwell said on one of our meetings that it was very it was jarring to see that this is federally illegal. I do believe that Massachusetts has done a nice job from a communications perspective of saying it may be illegal outside of Massachusetts. It's a nice twist turn on federally illegal that that does you know share that initiative. So I think that's important to know and anything else Ingrid you want to add. I guess one of my questions I would have for you as well is this the information that we're presenting now and putting forth is this giving you more of what you need when we do come back for a forum to start making you know more informed decisions. Excellent yeah that's what I think yeah that comprehensive flyer that was a reminder that that's part of what is required and I think that's important. Excellent so the last thing on Massachusetts that I think as an advertiser marketer someone that's done this for so long that I really appreciate is that they even come in and say what font size you need to use which is. I think incredibly important they don't want it's got to be at least 10 point and then they they clearly state the font they want you to use Times New Roman Helvetica or aerial to put this in perspective. This entire deck is done in aerial so this is so that it's easier to read and it's clear I use aerial a lot. In most of my stuff because it's a very easy font on the eyes and so they make you stay in 10 points at a minimum of 10 point keep out of reach of children and then if a product contains multiple serving which is where things like the edibles may come into play here. They also require that you put in 10 point font same same font times Helvetica or aerial includes multiple serving. So I do believe that there is a very comprehensive and well thought out guideline that may offer some adaptation and adoption to what Vermont would like to do to educate their public. Any questions before I move on. I have a little bit of a question but just in terms of serving but I think that keeps coming up for me like helping guide people around like what is a responsible. Right serving and when can we talk a little bit more about that like. In terms of that warning label example that you gave. Last week that was for something that's edible correct or like that like I don't know how do we talk about serving or dose when it comes to the different like edible versus smokeable versus that sort of thing. You know I think that is an excellent discussion and one that I would certainly welcome Gina or someone else's comment on because I would like to be prepared for that discussion. If that's OK that we do that possibly as a takeaway for our next meeting to talk about serving. Yeah I just want to put that out. I think that's fantastic. Thank you. Yeah I think unfortunately we're finding is that still there is no general consensus on what the serving is or what impairment is or how many servings you know you would want to sell at one time. And so I think that is something I'll certainly let Gina chime in but what I'd like for Mark and I to be able to do for the subcommittee and everyone here is to go back and get that information. And we can have a more informed discussion. But Gina would you like to chime in. Yeah Ingrid last week we did show you a label for an edible and obviously that will different and change if someone is you know taking it as a concentrate or I'm smoking the flower. But once again as people said you know a dose for one a serving size for one person will vary from each person and how they process it. And even the same person depending on the food that they had that day will also impact how they respond to even one serving size and provide some more information for the subcommittee next week about this. Yeah I think the best we're going to find it correct me if you think I'm wrong Gina is a consensus among the states who have who have regulated already. And they're not all the same but you know there's there is some consensus anyway there's maybe there's safety and numbers. Yeah there's a lot of more consensus around them what they would want in a serving size so the max serving size that a product can have in it. Or how much a container can have overall so but we can provide more information I think next week just to really get more understanding of what average serving sizes are in some different states especially on the East Coast. And or what they would write as Max. Moving for care for that. Is there any other information that you would like around that specific topic so we can bring it to the subcommittee next week. For me I think I just I think it's just a big question in my mind like how are people that's informed around. You know are responsible like what guidance do they have around. Responsible servings or dosing so to speak. I that there have been talks maybe in medicinal cannabis of creating educational brochures or short educational video. For people at a dispensary so that might be something that they look at to give them some information. Thank you so much. I appreciate you stepping in. So I'm angered we have those as takeaways will note them and we'll get some discussions on the table with that but I as I move on to the next piece. One of the things we talked about on our last meeting was giving giving you something to react to in terms of what a warning might look like or a universal type of warning. And so Mark and I had the opportunity to correspond with a gentleman by the name of Dr. David Nathan who wrote an article on packaging and labeling for cannabis science and technology in the July August of 2020 edition. So we reached out to him and asked him some information about that. And the interesting thing he had a conversation with us about the evolution of what is going on with international packaging labeling standards. And so I was shocked and thankful that he and his his son Eli who is also a graphic designer they've developed these together put together some symbols for us to see. And so we've brought those up here he they designed them for Vermont to take a look at. And so one of the things that I think is incredibly important about what they're doing in their standard work is the symbol development that they're doing. They follow ISO 3864 which is the international standards organization. They actually have standards for safety signs. And so what is so great about it when I read up a little more on ISO 3864 is it's truly about safety. And so there's some interesting critiques which we can share with you later on other states and how the use of color the use of some of their items are more of a stop versus a warning. And so we wanted to share these with you today. This is what a potential could look like for Vermont that would follow some already well documented international international and American standards because it's not just ISO there's ANSI which is the American National Standards Institute which is part of ISO. So he put this forth and so again, you know, love your thoughts on it. I know no decisions can be made but to see what you think but for our next meeting. My hope is that we can compare this to other states in one slide. Excellent. Mark, are you going to add anything on this? No, I was just going to ask. Don't mean to put you on the spot. You're probably the first time you've seen some of these things. But does any of these stand out to you as most appropriate for the warning signs for cannabis packages and advertisements? I might be missing. So I can only see the Massachusetts guidelines. Oh, we are talking about the font size and style. So I thought for a second earlier, I don't know. I'm just on my phone. Oh, okay. I came off it and went back to it, but I can also share this with you share the depth with you. Do you see it now by chance? There may be a slight delay on your phone with the video. Oh, there it is. Got it. Okay. Great. So you're asking me my sort of initial thought from you. You know, it may also ingrid not to put you on the spot. It may help if we could drop this on a fake package for next week so that you could see what it looks like in that context as well. Great. And we'd like to compare them with other state symbols in our Monday meeting. Since the Vermont either spelled out or the abbreviation indicates what does that indicate that it's being sold in Vermont or grown in Vermont? Yes, basically sold in Vermont and it would be something that could be used on all of your packaging, your advertising. It would be Vermont symbol, warning symbol for cannabis. And again, we can provide some additional rationale and a comparison on Monday. Yeah. I mean, I feel like the use of the word THC and the belief is important. So, you know, if it has to have a Vermont thing and I feel like number four is a little bit like glorifying the sort of, I don't know, it's sort of like an element to my initial eyes is like, aren't we great? We have this, I don't know, I feel so I feel like a more neutral kind of informative as it looks like. But that fits me. Well, your, your perspective is incredibly valued and valid, especially with, you know, your service and law enforcement to give some of that perspective. So I always love gut reactions because it definitely does help to put things there. So what I'd like to do for our next meeting is compare these to some other states and see if we could drop something like I said on a full package that you could at least take a look at. I was very pleased that the team was so willing to very quickly put something together for us that is in line with those standards and that article that I referenced again. You know, cannabis science and technology while there's a lot of stuff in the article. And it is kind of long the David Nathan did tell Mark and I yesterday that there have been a lot of refinements and updates made, which is something that happens often in any standard. You know, there's always changes and feedback. And so it was, it was a very good conversation. We are definitely looking forward to speaking with him more. So that really and truly that was a good chunk of the meat for today. I'd like to remind everyone on the call. I did keep the advertising guidelines and examples in there that's not if your screen is behind it. You've seen this already. It's just the California notice, which would be something that could be developed very easily for Vermont. And using, you know, Massachusetts as a guideline and that is one way for us to to consider that and then also the NACB advertise advertising checklist. So that is someone is developing, you know, advertising logos or anything else of that fashion that it is. They have something to go by to say, did I do this? Did I do that? I find checklist are helpful all the way around in especially in highly regulated markets. There'll be something very similar, of course, for the packaging CCB regulators. I mean, the staff who were evaluating correctness of advertising and packaging, something similar that they can use to check their, you know, what they're seeing. And but I think we're going to try to make this one pager, not by not by shrinking it down, but just making a little bit simple. Yeah, agreed. It will also depend on the required information, but definitely simplicity is always good. But it also needs to follow what the requirements are. I, again, I always like to go by if I know the rules, I can follow the rules. So from there, you know, I had just kept in the enacted language for the safety warning flyer that would be available safety information flyer at point of sale. And then next steps will actually will curtail that but what I will say is Mark and I can put together some draft language based on what we've discussed today that we can represent to the team. On Monday and just draft a few different things and see what you and the other subcommittee members think. So we give you something to react to you're going to hear me say that a lot. I think that's just so helpful. And so I'm not going to go through everything on here because these next step tasks will be stuff that Mark and I will take away and bring back to you as well. So, Ingrid, before I move to public comments, is there anything else you'd like to add today to our discussion? I think I'm good for now. Thank you. Thank you. So from there, Mark, if there's nothing else you want to add, we can move to if there are any comments from members of the public. I think you and I have some homework. Yep. Excellent. All right. So, now, Ingrid, do we have public comments? We do. If you want to come right up here, you can. Hi, Danika. Hi, Gina. It's Bernie from Vermont Board Association. I got the mask on. Did you say it? Oh, Bernie? Yep. Gotcha. Thank you so much. I just wanted to ask, I wasn't here for the meeting last week, but has this subcommittee discussed dispensing of oil concentrates in vapor cartridges as it pertains to Act 164? Yes. Yes. Yes. And Bill S54 passed. Basically, solid oil concentrates can only be sold to the public in vapor cartridges as both a consumer and formerly a producer. This is very, like, worrisome to me. There's no real help. The FDA is against the use of THC in vapor cartridges, especially as it pertains to safety and access to youths. You're basically making cannabis concentrates the most accessible to youths by only doing that. As an aside from the fact that that compounded with a 60% THC cap on concentrates sort of removes a lot of processing capabilities for smaller businesses who want to enter from the ground up. I just think that it's, you know, the THC cartridge issue kind of overlaps with a lot of topics. The one here is public health and access to illicit items by those who were not targeting to sell these two. Number two would be the environmental concerns of the only way of Ramon can purchase us through that cartridge, which is disposable. So you're talking about throwing out heavy metals and plastics every time someone wants to consume it. And thirdly, going back to the public health aspect. Most distillate cartridges in the United States, whether white market or black market, are done through a process of short path or long path distillation. That's a compound distillation of either CBD compounds or THC compounds, which are then mixed with flavor for vaporizing. The process is deemed successful when you reach the highest levels of concentration of that product because you've eliminated all other additives or all other undesirables, whether those are terpenes, other compounds, plant matter, pesticides, etc. So currently, with the 60% law, a producer, as it's written, the producer wouldn't even be able to make the 90% plus THC product to then dilute for public consumption. Currently, solveness processing doesn't come in above 60% THC, like a more artisan process, which someone can build a lab for $10,000 to $20,000 to move from the ground upwards. That's basically banned. Hydrocarbon extraction is currently banned, which is another form of artisan extracting. Right now, basically the entire industry is being geared toward using vape cartridges and CO2 extraction, which is extremely expensive and basically locks everyone out of the industry except for the existing dispensaries that already have that equipment. As far as the THC caps and the vapor cartridges go, I think it's irresponsible to only have vapor cartridges as the method of dispensing oils. And simultaneously, I think that the public consumers and producers would be better served with a list of products that Candace producers cannot use as dilutants or as additives to their products rather than a THC cap. So yeah, in terms of Vermont itself, our community, you know, businesses in Vermont, Vermont has a burgeoning glass blowing community, whether non functional or functional, a lot of artists both work in both industries. And by forcing the use of cartridges only, you're basically rendering the products of these local artists useless and these products can range from $50 for a pipe to, you know, in recent years $50,000 for a functional hash rig, right, which is what they call basically a bong for concentrates. You know, I just hope that you guys take this information in and as you continue this discussion since nothing is going to be decided on today that you consider THC cartridges as packaging and, you know, hopefully remove them or, you know, not ban them but not make them the only method of providing oil to the public because that's wholly responsible. The CDC, like if you go to the CDC website, there are all these statistics about, you know, illicit vapes and whatnot but the reality is people were dilute the vapor cartridges themselves contain heavy metals, so they shouldn't be vaped. They're an environmental hazard. And when you cap THC at 60%, you're basically either not allowing producers to put more product on the market, which all other states have no other state has this THC cap by the way. And you're basically removing a ton of different varieties of products that would attract out-of-state staters to Vermont, you know. Maine doesn't have this ruling, Massachusetts doesn't have this ruling, New York doesn't have this ruling in their bill that they just passed even though that's a subject to change. No other state has this kind of ruling, so if we're going to go with what works across the board, I just hope we don't go with this. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Hey, Bernie, if I could just ask, maybe I'm the only one who didn't hear it, but I couldn't get your last name. Oh, it's Silva, SILVA. I'm with, I'm a Policy Director of Vermont Growers Association. And I have previous experience working in Maine and Colorado, both, you know, in processing, cultivation, under companies and I own my own company in Maine before I moved back when the Senate passed that bill. And it scared me. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much, Bernie. Other public comments? There's no other public comment today. Well, thank you, everyone. We do have a little bit of homework to do between now and Monday. Ingrid, thank you so much for joining us today and thank you, Bernie, for your comments. With that being said, if there's no additional information, we can close out this meeting. Very good. Thank you. Thank you so much. Have a great day, everybody. Bye-bye. Thanks, everybody. Gina. This meeting is no longer being.