 Good morning and welcome to the Vermont House Human Services Committee. Today is Wednesday, March 30. And the first part of this morning, we are going to be sort of discussing or get being educated on the rule three of the three and four whatever of the Medical Cannabis Board. And this is rulemaking. This is not joint rules. This is not House rules. This is not Senate rules. This is Elkar rules, legislative committee on administrative rules. And you know how we pass all these laws, and in the laws they go and the agency shall write rules. They go through a whole process where they write rules. And the end of that process is to present it to Elkar. Elkar and Elkar can approve or sort of not approve or object. And part of their process of the process is that they send before they meet. The proposed rules to the committee chair of the committee of jurisdiction. Well, after many, many years, I've learned that I don't have to do this alone. So this year I've started sending the rules to the various members of the committee who have that's been their area of jurisdiction and art and the legislative council person actually is the one who does that I agree. I'm supposed to, I get a little sheet of paper and check meets legislative intent, or doesn't I forget what the third question is. Do you want me to answer. Yes, please. So this is for the result child's office of legislative council and so there are very specific basis for Elkar to be able to object to the rule. And they are a statute and the ones that are your to focus on and then advise Elkar on our rule is beyond the authority of the agency that you've granted them and the legislation, whether the proposed rule is contrary to the intent of the legislature, whether the proposed rule is arbitrary or whether the proposed rule did not adhere to the strategy for maximizing public input prescribed by the administrative rules. So it's a very, very narrow kind of basis for an objection and there's a lot of discretion on behalf of the agency to be adopting the rules. Even if Elkar objects to it. The agency can still can still have the rule go into effect. I mean rules in a sense are similar to laws laws Trump rules so if we if we as a body. Don't like a rule, and it doesn't and we can't object because it our objection doesn't fit one of those criteria, or whatever it doesn't matter. The agency can and you know, implement the rule. So, but subsequent legislative sessions or in the legislature they could then pass a rule, pass a law to clarify or to change something. So that's I wanted I mean so it's not like if we like or don't like a rule. It's a more job. It is the, you know, it is only in those criteria. But I, this was, so that's sort of why you know that the context by which I wanted folks, I want us to hear this and this is at one point in time medical marijuana was the jurisdiction of this committee, and cannabis excuse me medical cannabis was the cannabis committee, and that predated legalization. And with legalization. There needed to be some changes and within the law that we passed the exit we I believe we transferred. We gave a lot of authority to the cannabis control board to buy rule. And that new things. So that's sort of where we are. And I thought we could spend about an hour max for being an introduction, what they are. And so that we can understand this. And I don't know, Michelle, whether you want to start or whether David, you want to start. We didn't chat. We had a little bit I thought it was good. I started kind of laid the foundation just to remind folks about what this body has done over the last several years with regard to it and then David can really get into the details. So good morning for the record Michelle child's office of legislative council and so the chair explained a little bit about the history of it. And we have some new members and folks who might not have worked on this issue just in on this committee. So Vermont enacted medical cannabis law in 2004 I think we were the ninth state to do it that had been percolating for a few years or study committee is recommending it and so we adopted that in 2004. And so we've had it for quite a while, it was housed in the Department of Public Safety. So Vermont was the only state that had a medical cannabis program that was run by the law by law enforcement. And it was in Department of Public Safety until this year when it transferred over to the cannabis control board. So we did legalize possession of smaller amounts of cannabis for everyone, and I believe 28 person was I think Decrim and 2013 2014 and then legalization in 2018, and then you passed a kind of like an omnibus cannabis bill, setting up the commercial market in 2020, I don't know everything with COVID is like blending together the timelines but so I think that was in 2020 and that was like the really big bill that kind of set everything up and the idea was to create the new entity the control board that was going to regulate everything with regard to sale and dispensing of cannabis in a legal manner and so setting up the commercial piece, but then also shifting over the medical program to the cannabis control board to the medical program you have a registry, and folks go through and they work with their health care provider the health care provider can fill out a medical verification form saying that the person has a qualified medical condition that's provided that condition, a medical condition is provided by statute and who qualifies. And so it's not a prescription for cannabis, it is simply the health care provider who you have a relationship is stating that you that you have one of the conditions as listed by statute and then that would qualify you for the registry. And then once you're on the registry you're allowed to have a little bit more cannabis on hand than someone who's not on the registry so you can have a couple more immature plants than if you weren't on the registry can also have up to two ounces in possession separate and apart from what you cultivate off of your plants that you keep with your plants. So there's some little advantages there in terms of amounts. But the big one is that you could go to a dispensary so Vermont I think adopted the dispensary law in 2011. And so we've had dispensaries there's five licenses their limit it's a limited number of licenses and they're allowed to have up to two locations where they serve patients. And so that was the way that if you weren't going to grow your own cannabis that you could go to a dispensary and obtain flower and cannabis products and do that legally and so there's the legislature decide to continue the medical program. And you have if you, and I essentially the links to the statute story so if you want to just take a look at those at some point. But I wanted to just kind of go through and just talk a little bit about what are the differences like what does being on the registry get you that you know just any one of us just not being a citizen wouldn't be able to do. So, and these are some of the differences between a dispensary and what will be a commercial retail store dispensary is allowed to be vertically integrated under one license so they do everything from cultivation to sale to patients. That is different from the commercial system and that you have to get an individual license for cultivation or for product manufacturing or for retail. So the distribution of the existing dispensaries are allowed to apply for for something called an integrated license under the commercial and it's just those existing five licensees under the dispensary law now that can get an integrated and that would allow them to be continue to be integrated under the commercial system. So they are a little bit different from everybody else but they can be, but dispensaries can continue to be vertically integrated. So the cannabis and cannabis products that they sell are not taxed. So different from the commercial, they can deliver to patients and caregivers that's not permitted under the commercial system. They can allow patients and caregivers to purchase cannabis and cannabis products, kind of like with a drive through or things like that because a lot of patients have mobility issues so they're allowed to kind of bring it up in addition to delivery they can deliver to patients once car or things like that. But they can produce and sell cannabis and cannabis products that have a higher THC content than what is allowed under the commercial program. And they can produce and sell certain products that might not otherwise be permitted under the under the commercial system and then they can sell larger amounts so they can do like per transaction up to two ounces which is in the regular domain. So those are just kind of some of the basic differences if you're going to be under the in the registry instead of just going and purchasing as any person. So when you passed the legislation in 2020, you directed the CCB to be doing a lot of rulemaking it's like pages and pages of the long list and it's and you have the link there if you want to take a look at it. But a couple things I wanted to note is that look at the language here is that is some of the lead in language. So if we're looking at and I'll just give you the citation in case somebody wants to take a look at it later at 7 vs a section 974 for rulemaking for dispensaries. So the board shall adopt rules to implement and administer the chapter and adoption of the rules the board shall strive for consistency with rules adopted for cannabis establishments, where appropriate so the goal is that you don't have completely to use the systems for regulating medical dispensary versus a licensee under the commercial system because a lot of the things are makes sense to be the same and that they are to be focused on where there's there needs to be a difference because of what is there and statute or because of policy of the CCB that there will be a distinction but for the most part they're going to be regulated very similarly. There's also something in the law that says that no rules shall be more restrictive than any rule adopted by the Department of Public Safety under the old system. So the idea being that so under the, the previous medical system there were, there were quite a few restrictions and then the rules reflected that, and then in light of there being an open mark commercial market then it, the legislature didn't really make sense to have a more restrictive medical market than you would have for a commercial market so because why would anybody go through and jump through the hoops to access this way if you could just walk into any store. So those are two things that you just want to keep in mind is that you directed the CCB to be having the same rules as much as possible between the medical and the commercial market, and also that they were not to have more restrictive rules than were under the Department of Public Safety. So what is the rationale for that conclusion or that situation that they will not that want the rules to be almost the same right. Right, so like something might be let's say you know I know that. One thing that has been I think everybody would universally agree that's been somewhat lacking in the medical program is that there wasn't really much around testing requirements in the in the previous statutes that regulated the medical market, or obviously in the other rules. But then the CCB is developing rules, extensive rules that you're directive through the last legislation about coming up with, you know, how often you have to test who has to test when you have to test what you have to test for all of those types of things and what you're talking about it from a consumer safety standpoint, is there any reason why you should have different testing standards, you know if you're taking a product to the public whether it's a medical patient or not. Is there any reason why you should have different testing standards for the different dispensary versus an integrated licensee, probably not. And so, I think that what they wanted to do is try to keep some some things consistent. I recall that was in the law that the body passed. Correct. So on some level. Also, if you have further questions about what was in the law we passed and what that was passed. And that is to ask a representative Gannon, who reported it on the floor. I did see a question from Jessica. Yeah, and I'm not sure so you can just tell me if this is more of the law, the new law, just worry about the testing only because some people who need medical marijuana need medical marijuana and a certain level of THC specific to that because that's what's going to help them deal with whatever disease they're dealing with. And so it would it would seem like in the medical side need more testing to be sure that they're actually delivering a product that actually helps the patient versus if it's just me, who wants to get Hi. I know what you're saying and I think David can probably address some of that but I would say, you know, some things that are very standard in here that will require under both systems are things around so if you're talking about potency potency is required and that was actually that was the one thing that was required under the previous statutes in the medical program was a clear labeling of of THC content. What was lacking was more kind of the, you know, more extensive testing around contaminants and you know things like that. And so, so I think, you know, David can probably go in with into a little more in depth about what's required with regard to the labeling and the testing that's with this air ball, and not the rule that they are not debating the law. Okay, right now. Yeah. Okay, sorry. I think that's, I mean, unless you have any other questions just about kind of the foundation of, you know, why we're doing this and David can probably talk a little bit about the timing of why they're coming in as emergency rules and there's just been a lot of, you know, trying to get this program off the ground and do it in a way that's kind of in keeping with the legislation but they've had a, they've had a heavy lift over the last year or so trying to get everything done and they have and David if you or whatever I mean, the rules for medical marijuana went away March 1. And we passed the law. And, well, and anyway, so that didn't anyway, it didn't happen so we needed they needed to pass emergency rules so that this wasn't going to be a program that was operating. The idea was it could be put in the budget adjustment but budget adjustment didn't quite move as quickly as possible as they, we thought, people thought. Is it David or is it you who will talk about what were the existing prior to legalization, what were the existing requirements related to medical marijuana and how those are the same or different. I'm thinking of you had to choose whether or not you grew or whether you first or whether you used a dispensary and there were points in terms of you could number of care whether or not you could have a care. I think that was at what was called a surrogate surrogate to pick it up and how many ounces you could have and so I think that is what is of interest to this committee is those differences. Sure, and, and I'll leave that to David but I will just note that those differences came about through the adopted legislation in 2020 not through what what they're doing through rulemaking so things that have changed like, in terms of the old statutes you required a person to select us one dispensary to obtain their product from that was eliminated in the 2020 legislation because you can go to any retail store then they thought well then then why should you have to pick one dispensary or things like that so there's a number of things like that but those were all that were done on this statute and and I think David has a list and he can talk to you about some of those. Are there any questions for Michelle to stay so if, if, if David doesn't do it answer all of our questions we can love got it to you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair thanks to the committee for having me this morning for the record. I'm David chair general counsel to the cannabis control board. A few of you may have seen me in my prior role as an assistant attorney general and the Attorney General's office but have moved to the board and as folks mentioned we've been working very fast. We should take off on the thing it says assistant attorney general. That is out of date. Okay, so you are general counsel general counsel cannabis control board. That's right. This is worse than keeping up our address books when you change. I thought I'd very quickly give a little background on the larger structure the board has built and how we regulatory structure the board is building and and a little bit on the process but I don't want to belabor any of that and then jive right into medical cannabis more specifically I think some of that background help will help all of this make more sense. So the board as a design this system under the statutes that enabled the board and the adult use system decided to enact five rules. The first rule is the licensing rule. The second rule is the general regulation of cannabis establishments that's sort of like the heart of it I'd say in terms of the regulatory environment. The fourth rule is the medical cannabis rule. The fourth rule is the compliance and enforcement rule. And the fifth rule is the board removal rule which is sort of a separate little thing that's required it doesn't have that much to do with regulation but the statute does require the board to set up some rules about board members removing each other in the event of a for cause issue that might arise. So in terms of the work to get these rules done as folks mentioned, it's very tight timelines but the board was very careful to get the maximum public input they could. Before we even filed the first rules, you know, we were the board in general was very solicitous of public input at 25 board meetings at which there's public comment sessions at each one. We have 100 comments into our through the public comment portal on the board's website. The board has a statutory advisory committee that met four times in fall and had more than 70 different subcommittee meetings last fall, worked with, worked with a number of other entities had a couple of social, sorry, yeah social equity town halls had worked on those issues very carefully as well work with across government with the tax department agriculture food and markets agency of natural resources health department quite significantly. So the process, even before we filed for rules was very much a collaborative process worked a lot with members of the public with people with lived experience people who are patients and caregivers had a lot of input on this. And of course the board couldn't accept every preferred outcome that it heard naturally. And to some degree some of the concerns that a regulatory body has to have were intention with some of the desires as commercial actors as you might expect. Generally the board was very careful to work with that input once the rules were filed. Rule one, rule one and two, in combination had 260 different substantively different comments submitted during the public notice and comment session, it took the board 16 hours of public meetings to work through all those comments and did they did accept say around 50% of them and said no to that 50% of them so they're very thoughtful in the process did accept input, but you know again as regulators had to say no to some of the suggestions. Diving now into rule three specifically so rule three and I'll get to the chair's question about some of the differences in a moment here. Rule three incorporates rules one and two, quite significantly, and that meets one of those statutorily required objectives which is to have the maximum consistency between the medical regulatory system and the regular adult use system. So other goals the board was trying to meet as a constructed rule three, one of them statutory one of them sort of supports own of the board's own volition. The other statutory issue was to make the car rule, not more restrictive than the Department of Public Safety rules. So technically sometimes ran intention with the requirement that the board be as consistent as possible the adult use rules so there had to be some carve outs there to accommodate that. And then the final goal that was really the board's own volition was to do the best they could to have the least change possible for patients and caregivers in order to make sure that patients and caregivers are able to access the cannabis medication, cannabis medication with with the least interaction possible. So those are the three areas where the board was really trying to or three goals I should say the board was really trying to meet. As I mentioned the rule three heavily incorporates rules one and two. There are carve outs in rule three, especially with respect to the dispensaries. So those carve outs are our accomplish one of two things either they are carve outs to accommodate statutory differences where Michelle went over the areas where dispensaries and patients and caregivers have access and can do certain things that adult use consumers cannot. There's another set of carve outs that had to do with the Department of Public Safety rules where a review of our rules rules one and two showed that they were in fact more restrictive than the rules that had been imposed on the are imposed by the Department of Public Safety rules so there's a few carve outs that have to do with that as well. With respect to patients and caregivers rule three really did try to have a simple clear system that is very similar to what patients and caregivers currently have to do. There are a few differences but those are driven by statutory changes. And so all run through some of those statutory changes now and then open it up for questions and happy to have a longer conversation about anything that folks are interested in. So one of the changes that again this is statutorily driven is caregiver fingerprinting background check requirements, it did not used to be the case that caregivers needed to have a fingerprint supported background check it used under the old statute they simply they didn't need a background check but it was a name and date of birth background check, which is quicker and has a little bit less bureaucracy around it the new statute does require the fingerprint supported background check so that is a difference that the rule obviously has to embody. So one of the other differences that there are no more designated dispensaries, as Michelle noted a minute ago, no more appointments are required for patients or caregivers to pick up product. The dispensary question. I understood a memory could be faulty that under the old old thing. I did patients, patients first had to decide whether they were going to grow their own or use a dispensary they couldn't do both. And then, if they decided that they wanted to access medical cannabis through a dispensary they had to choose one. I believe that was the rule for a while of course everything changed when a general, there was the general allowance for Vermonters to grow a certain amount themselves so there's Michelle jump in. So that you're correct and it was that way for a number of years at the beginning and then the legislature repealed that requirement, several years ago. Well, there's been a lot of changes over, you know, the last 1617 years with the program so that was that did change and then so that was not so. So you are permitted now to to grow or to use a dispensary. Don't remember that ever coming here but that's all right. Just in regard to the point that you were just making about caregivers and background checks. So, is that something that was in statute that caregivers required to have background checks in under both statutes caregivers are required to background checks the difference is whether it's a so called fingerprint supported background check is a little bit more in the guy get the FBI involved and have permissions to access some of these national databases right and so that that was required in the retail cannabis. If that is required for workers at cannabis establishments and owners and principals can establishments for adult use. So it is now required for caregivers as well. That was not previously the case caregivers used to have to have background checks but not the fingerprint supported background check right I guess maybe I need to be more specific in my question. It does the statute say that caregivers required to have fingerprints supported background. Yes it does. Okay, thank you. And so that was a statutorily driven change. And is that still the case. Okay, it's on March 1 when the new statutes came into play that had not previously been the case. Let me. Oh, sorry. So a caregiver, how many. So they're, they're growing for someone receiving medical marijuana. They're growing, they could also they are also permitted to get cannabis product from a dispensary on behalf of the patient. But if they're growing how many plants. I believe it's two and seven, two and seven so sorry two mature and seven immature. Many more medical cannabis. I believe that's the that's the limit for for caregivers for it's the same. So under the medical program that attitude so it's, it's too mature and so mature and under the adult use anyone is to mature and for immature. So you have an extra and mature plants. Thank you. No problem. Anything else, I will keep going down the list here. The old statute did require a three month relationship between a health care professional who submits the health care professional verification for her rotation to get on the registry that three months relationship is no longer in statute. The, there is there used to be an appeal board that was that had sort of two functions one was a general policy recommendation body and also it served as an appeal for a page for somebody who wanted to be qualified as a patient but who's medical health care professional would not dean them to have the symptoms that one would require in order to or the I should stop the symptoms the condition that one would require to get such a card and so then the board could step in the person could appeal to that board make it step in that board is not in the current statutes either that is no longer present. Just, but when you say things are no longer in statute that is because of the law we passed focusing. Is that correct. The law we passed around legalizing recreational cannabis specifically had all the laws related to medical cannabis disappearing. That's exactly right. And it replaced them with a new set of laws. And the changes that I'm listing are primarily are all statutorily driven changes there's one coming up that is not, which I'll get to in a moment. Another factory change this is more detail oriented is with respect to principles of dispensaries used to need to get their background checks renewed every three years. That's now going to be every year. And that is in a statutory change. The final change that is that is different, and is much more of which is really a board change is the criminal history records issue. So the board created a set of rules around what criminal history records might be disqualifying for individuals who are trying to get involved in the adult use market. But without getting too much into too great detail essentially what they did was say that for many offenses that would that will not be a disqualifying factor. There's a list of some offenses where it could be a presumptively disqualifying factor, but there is no offense that is absolutely disqualifying a person who has a presumptively disqualifying offense will have an opportunity to essentially make as to why they should still be allowed to get a license. That is different than the prior Department of Public Safety rules which did which in which the disqualifying offenses were absolutely disqualifying. And the board chose to simply adopt its adult use regulations with respect to criminal history and import them into rule three cannabis regulations as well so that's a little bit of a difference. But it is, but it is something that's consistent across the board with the regulatory scheme both for adult use and for medical. Those are the changes that I have. I also can address the question about the emergency adoption if you'd like now. So, sorry, let me just make sure. I was going to say something you had mentioned was that there are no longer any medical dispensaries or, you know, apart from retail establishments is that what you said or maybe misunderstood. I didn't, I didn't mean to, if I did, there are still separate medical dispensaries, they will have the opportunity if they would like to apply to get a certain type of license that could allow them to be both a dispensary and an adult use retail store. I have to have to. And copper copper go ahead then I have a question. Thanks madam chair. I'd like to talk about the ability to go from one dispensary to another. Could an individual in one day visit all five dispensaries. I mean, I guess it's theoretically possible that with a very fast car and good weather, you could make it. Well, let's just talk about the principle. Could an individual go to several of the dispensaries in one day and be served by each one of them. Could you go to different dispensaries each day and under the new statute, you could be served at multiple dispensaries the statute did change with respect to that. Well, I didn't realize that the stat that it changed that much I thought that you couldn't go you couldn't go and get served in several dispensaries in one day or in one week. Now it appears there are no limits in the medical end of this thing. Am I wrong on that now. So there is a there is a two ounce per transaction limit that is in statute. It is true that there's no longer designated dispensary so a person could choose which one they go to. But they could choose them. I'm trying to, they could choose to go to several in one day and get their two ounces. That's right. But that's not, that's not, I did not think that that was the intent of the legislature, but I could be wrong. I thought that. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. I'm sorry. This may be what you have been saying. I, my memory, which we all decided is not so good on this. I, I thought that there would need to be two separate entrances. Yes, sir. So if I am a dispensary, I'm a recreational dispensary and I want to be able to provide both products that there needs to be two entrances. So they need to be separate entrances is what I thought there's no, no such requirement in statute is true. However, that if somebody were to dispense and a product that's only permitted for a patient to an adult use consumer, they would be in violation of our rules and would be subject to sanction under our rules. So it is the obligation of those entities, which we call integrated licensees and the statute to be sure that they're not mixing those two tasks. They also are required to provide for patient privacy to whatever extent that is important to the people who are coming in. Michelle, so I just, if it's okay, I just want to follow up on copper is absolutely with regard to that. So, it used to be under the medical program that they were limited to purchasing two ounces per month. So that was the whole system, but with the new adult use it's an ounce per transaction and so the medical was true up with that same policy to be two ounces per transaction so you wouldn't have it be more restrictive for medical patients than if they were in the adult use program so if they could only get two ounces in a month from their dispensary, but they could do one ounce per transaction under the commercial, then again it kind of creates a disparity between the medical and the commercial and so there, the legislation kind of true them up so it was the same standard. So, thank you for that clarification, Michelle. And isn't it also true that a person can only legally have a certain limit, correct. So I mean, I suppose yes you could go from dispensary to dispensary to go from a dispensary to a retail outlet to another retail outlet or whatever and because it's by transaction and there's no like registry kind of thing, but you would still be breaking the law because at that point in time you would have more product than you are legally allowed to have. Correct, you would be in violation of the law and subject to the criminal penalties and penalty. Thank you. Dan, just, you may have touched on this before but our medical prices the same as retail. That's really going to be dictated by the market the board isn't going to have any pricing isn't taking to it onto itself any pricing authority to the only difference might be tax but that is true so that's a good point yes the medical is not subject to tax but but in terms of the prices, the board isn't exercising authority on that. It would be retail, if you were whether you're a commercial someone coming in just off the street buying versus someone who's paying who has a medical there. There's no. You have to just buy at whatever the cost is or whatever they're selling it. For the most part, yes, however, there is a current provision the DPS rules that requires the current dispensaries to provide for low cost, or potentially free cannabis medical products for folks who can demonstrate need. And the board has essentially imported that into its and it wasn't actually in rule three I believe we did that in rule one that integrated current dispensaries who want to become integrated licensees have to have a plan to retain that system under our licensing. Just to follow up. A caregiver, can they charge their medical patient for the cultivation on weight or volume or however, or is it just they are a caregiver so they're they're growing, and then they give it to their patient, but that's the charge. So the idea of the system is that that isn't really supposed to be a commercial relationship and of course if you're selling outside of, at least once we become fully operational once you're selling outside of the cannabis establishment system, then you would be in violation of the rules And there is, you know, it is lawful under title 18 I believe to transfer up to an ounce so that like individuals can do that without getting in trouble but again I think if you're actually starting to turn to commercial sales but we're not a licensed retailer. You would now be in violation of the rules so I don't think that caregivers could do that under our system. Thank you. The final piece I'll just mention is the emergency adoption issue. So, Michelle did allude to this but essentially, a lot of stuff has had to happen very quickly in order to get this up and running by the statutory deadlines. The plan had been to make sure the adult the general adult use market would to the best of our ability and it looks like we're going to make it would be up and running at the statutorily imposed deadlines which means applications are going to be starting to be accepted this Friday. So it is ready to do that the, and the plan had been in to use budget adjustment to push out the transition from the old rules and the old statutes for medical out to the summer probably July 1 and give us a little more time to get this piece in place. As the chair mentioned, that did not pass by March 1 and after further discussion with legislative council and others. The decision was made to, since we already had these rules that already been submitted to L car at that point, to simply adopt these on an emergency basis, it has been a more abrupt transition for them the dispensaries expected, but we try to maintain some continuity in terms of how things operate. We're working through the pieces of it that the dispensaries have to get used to. I don't think caregivers and patients have noticed any difference that I'm aware of that I've heard about in the office. Are there other questions for either legislative council, or, or David to our general council. Yeah, game and I don't say. Thank you madam chair. I just wanted to sort of take a big step back to what legislative council was mentioning the 2004 statute that determined what sorts of medical diagnoses apply for medical cannabis has that been updated at all. It's been updated through the years. The definition that is currently in statute that the legislature adopted in 2020 didn't change from the statutory definition of medical qualifying condition that existed prior to the commercial so it is that has not changed in this new system. But it has evolved over over the year so you know one of the more recent changes was you added PTSD as long as the patient is engaged with the psychotherapy or top therapy things like that so it has evolved. Thank you. My, my recollection is that broad brush, much of the medical establishment thinks it's too wide and deep patients thinks think it's way too narrow. So as the three bears. I mentioned that is one piece that did not change from the prior scheme is the same set of conditions. Carl. Again this may not be an appropriate forum for this but I'm just trying to get my head around what why are we trying to keep these separate but at the same time, especially now that you know they could be in the same establishment. I guess. I'm not saying I agree or disagree. I'm just saying I'm trying to get my head around why are we trying to. So it's a very fair question I think that the, I think the reason is that the medical medical patients do get to have certain types of access to both the products and the ways they can access the products that adult use patients are not currently permitted to do. So one example is delivery adult regular adult use recreational users are not permitted to and I should say retail establishments are not permitted to deliver, but dispensaries serving patients are permitted to deliver to patients and we allow. And that has not changed for medical. You don't have to be an adult. That's in fact the whole start of this was actually related to young children with very severe. I think it was epilepsy. So a good point and then products are another example where adult use is allowed to be more potent in terms of THC content so for all those reasons keeping some separation even though there's similarities and there's going to be some places where they're close to each other in terms of where sales are happening some separation is necessary to ensure that we have. We're able to regulate that adequately in accordance with the law. And so again, so a quick question you said adult use can have higher potency than medical. I meant to say that medical can have that too. Sorry about that. Okay. And the difference in between the two systems is one is tax free. And the other is, you know, is not talking to you have a question. I do have just a quick question. David you were you were alluding to a little bit a little bit more abrupt change than the dispensaries were anticipating and while, you know, I hope that folks on the consumer end of things haven't felt that I'm also interested to learn because we did hear the concerns, you know, two years ago from the medical dispensaries they had at that point in time been pretty satisfied with the Department of Public Safety is handling of, you know, oversight and technical assistance and things like that and I'm just wondering the, how, how are we handling the transition process between DPS and the cannabis control board. That's a very good question. I think one key piece for folks to know is that the, the entirety of the staff that was handling it under DPS has been moved to the cannabis control board, and it is the same three staff members who are there are now operating under the cannabis control board so that's good. Those, you know, relationships that understanding of who's doing what in the different dispensaries remains that, you know that sort of expertise is has been important to the board and so that is has already been very helpful and helping us manage the transition. And I'd say for the most part, again, the changes I did list out changes. There's been some sort of like quick alright no longer need to track the chosen dispensaries some like quick messages out to the dispensaries that have, frankly, mostly made their jobs easier, rather than harder. But I think for the most part, there's a fair amount of similarity in how the things are being conducted. The points where it's going to be harder, a little bit, a sort of new set of work for the dispensary management is that things like renewing their licenses there will be a different set of criteria than what they're used to doing. But again, we're planning to work very closely with them and be very clear, we're not looking to catch anybody out or make anybody's lives unnecessarily difficult so we'll be very clear and try to be as helpful as we can and making sure that they know exactly what they need to do for renewal processes and things like that. Thank you. It's been fascinating. It's, I have to say from my point of view it's much more helpful to actually my memory, clearly in some places was not what it should have been should have been in terms of what had been in the past and whatever but before we let you go I just want to make sure, go around and be able to make sure no one has any questions of curiosity or other kinds of questions for Michelle or, or David. If it's questions for curiosity. This is not something yet we're not passing a bill or anything like that. So, I just was curious one of the things that I heard a lot from constituents and I went and visited the medical plant in Milton and did a lot of work before we legalized for everyone. And one of the things that they said was that they couldn't remain in, they might not be able to remain in business, if we had legalized and didn't find a way to roll it in and I'm curious are you still hearing men and are you concerned that we may lose our medical side of business because I think the public needs to really be assured, especially for children that they're getting a certain amount of THC. That's right and the board has been very aware of the concern, which is essentially that there'd be a sort of commercial imperative that would overwhelm the medical dispensaries because they're not allowed to sell to anybody they're only allowed to sell a patient so how do you compete with to sell to anybody and so the legislature did one thing that was essential to that which was allowing the dispensaries to get adult use licenses what we're what's called integrated licenses in the in the legislation. And so that should help that should ameliorate some concerns. I think that other ways the board is dealing with that is is trying to be so one one other big thing that the board has done is to make it as they tried to make it as easy as possible for a new dispensary should one want to exist to come online which is not to say they get to skip all of the requirements that we need to make sure that people are being safe and operating within the rules but to really try to streamline that process if anybody would like to do that. And one could imagine in a environment where somebody could say you know I'm going to be a delivery specialist for medical patients. I'm going to purchase products from other people are making it and my specialty is just driving all over and delivering. So we do think there is some commercial opportunity there that could help patients and could help sustain the the supply of medical cannabis, and the board was aware of that and tried to design some of those regulations to encourage that. Carl. I could just let me finish this testimony. What are we being asked to do. We're not being asked to do anything. We are not. We're just getting information. We're getting information to know so that we know when the when the when Alcar makes a decision. Yes, Michelle. So I just wanted to add is they would like there's a form there's a form that I have to fill out. So I think they would like to do that the rules are before tomorrow morning. Right, but that that is it. I just want to know, right, do you have a concern based on one of those kind of four things that I mentioned is there's something there that you feel is it's not supporting. What I'm here. I set out in the beginning part of this was to share with the committee what oftentimes goes is one of the chair responsibilities and so that's I have to fill out that little form. And, you know, if people, if you, if it is not something that I normally do or that chairs normally do, which is to put it to a committee. Both, but we can certainly do that if that is something that you would like us to do car. The real question is the emergency ruling. Is that what you're asking for this. No, it's actually for the regular rulemaking. Yeah, the emergency rules, assuming we hope everything's okay and I'll try doesn't have any objections. These emergency rules are only really going to be emergency rules for 16 more days or so well a little longer than that but 20 more days or so. So part of this was I want to say our mutual education on what is the process of rulemaking and what's the role of the chair. And because this is something that we haven't this group hasn't talked about at all. I thought it was important that we all sort of hear about it. It was easier than me sitting down with Michelle and David going up because it's my memory on wasn't it this way before and like no and it wasn't. You know, because I wasn't involved in the legalization for adult cannabis use while I was here this was not did not come to this. We did it did come we did voted out. I wasn't. It was it did get out with a 65 vote I believe from. No, it certainly was not a unanimous on that. I appreciate it madam chair actually having counsel both counsel go through the differences that changes what's happening now. You know because we this committee has a long longer history than the rest of the body with this topic so which is sort of why I wanted us, you know to do that and the kinds of. Just one to follow up on, just one to follow up on Jessica's question sort of around how many there were there eight. How many dispensers. There are five, they're five okay of the five dispensers. How many of them are still. How many of them have have. No, I mean they're still in Vermont and I still have Vermont owners but perhaps they have other owners as well. So my understanding is that they are all owned by entities that are not based in Vermont. Okay, and so I guess and so I. I guess my unstated assumption is that the worry is, you know, it's maybe not there because they're bigger places, you know, that there's no dispensary. That is just a medical that has an interest solely in medical is that. Right. And also under even, you know, within Vermont, that dispensaries will all have the opportunity to also sell into the adult use market because the integrated licenses so they can sustain that way also. I see a question from topper and then the last question will be Dan. Yeah, thank you. I guess I'm, I'm still concerned. I've been sitting here thinking about this. An individual being able to go from one dispensary to another is the card that the individual used to have. Well, I, I don't know. Do they still have that card that they have to have one. Yes, patient and caregiver cards are still part of the rules. Right then, then how, how could an individual go from one dispensary to another and be served if they have to present that card. What's the check on it so that a person couldn't go from one place to another and get served get the higher THC. Well, the check is that if the person goes above the two ounce possession limit they will be in violation of criminal law and subject to criminal sanctions. So if an individual has gone off the, the, the truck so to speak, they've fallen off the truck. If they're using again, what do they care if they, if they're going to be criminally responsible. Topper. If I might add. Yeah, because you and I, if you remember we sat here, neither one of us were supporters of legalization that passed. And, you know, despite actually passed out of this committee under that law. I could go to, maybe I could go to five different dispensaries and get me not, you know, I could purchase. I'm not a medical I could purchase. I could go to any one of the five, and I would still write. I think what you're talking about is under the commercial adult adult. Right under the commercial under the commercial retail, I could go to as many stores as I wanted to. If I ended up purchasing more than two ounces, I'm holding more than two ounces or however many ounces it is. I would be, you know, at risk of, of breaking the law. And one of the credit what Michelle clarified for us was that the medical, the rules related to medical could not be any more restrictive than the rules that then the law or whatever the rules for recreational adult recreational. So, whether or not, I'm sorry, Topper, whether or not we like this. It is consistent with recreational adult use. Yes, Madam Chair. I just didn't know. I don't know how I missed that. But I just didn't know that that was the case. And I heard that this morning. Yeah. I didn't realize that was the legislative intent to allow that to happen. Oh, okay. Dan, actually, I don't have a question. So. Thank you. So it might not be worth asking. Well, I think I know the answer. So there's no regulation on who can own the integrated licenses. The only entities that are under the statute, the only entities that are allowed to get an integrated license are the current other people who have dispensaries on April 1 of this year. And as you said, they're, they're not Vermont, they're owned by their MSO, so they're multi-state operators that run these and other states. So that's my understanding. I haven't reviewed their paperwork, but that's my understanding. And there's no nothing in our laws or statutes that says couldn't have one entity by the month. Well, all of that. No, no, there are limits. If you'd like to be my friend, you want to tackle it. Yeah, you can't do that. So integrated is there only be a maximum of five licenses. There are only however many retail stores. So it's not like people who are purchasing only have the option in the adult use to go to an integrated licensee there will be retail licenses issued to other people in the fall. Under the law that you passed, folks are only allowed to have one of each type of license. And so for an integrated. Right. And so they couldn't have, you couldn't have an existing dispensary purchase all like have all the integrated licenses. Right. So each dispensary is entitled to one integrated license. Right. And then under the new system, if you are going to be a retailer coming into the market, you can have one retail license and one location. And so the legislation that you set up was intended to prevent kind of having, you know, men men, or, you know, someplace like this where you have basically one company that has multiple stores and kind of corners the market. Okay, so you can't, you have to only have one. Okay, thank you. So both for the dispensaries and for the regular adult use. So it's a one license per license type rule so so you can have multiple retail stores you could have, you could be somebody who's both a cultivator and a retailer. So you can integrate vertically, just like the integrated licensee can, but you can license because, yeah, I thought I read somewhere, go have to check but I thought that of the five integrated licenses they were owned by three MSOs. So I have, I have heard that same information but I'm not speaking from a place of expertise when I. Pardon me. What's an MSO multi seed operator. And just to clarify, and I don't know who owns what under the centuries but under the medical older medical system, there wasn't anything that said you can only have one type. And so I think, you know, what happened over the course of years was you have, you know, one opened up and then they apply later for another license had the same owners, but you wouldn't be able to do that under the new system. Okay, thank you. That's right. Thank you. Thank you very much, David. Thank you all appreciate this and don't hesitate to reach out to me or people on the board we're happy to answer any questions. Just Michelle, before you leave the, the, the L car points are legislative intent. I can't find my memo. I'm looking for my memo. Whether it's beyond authority of the agency, whether it's contrary to the intent of the legislature, whether it's arbitrary or whether or not the agency didn't adhere to a strategy for maximizing public input. And so if you have concerns that fall into one of those categories with regard to the basis for all parts legal objection. Well, legislative intent is clear on the, on the law in terms of the law that we passed, you talked about, you mentioned David the amount of public testimony that you took that doesn't mean everyone agrees with it but that you did that. Certainly not beyond your authority since we gave you the authority and told you to do it. And it does not seem to be arbitrary it seems to be based on, well, on what the criteria were in the past. So, I mean, I just, I, you know, we'll be checking off that it meets legislative intent. And I want to say that Tapper and for others who don't like what some of the rules say we're getting a awfully long agenda for next year. In terms of that. But thank you, thank you both very much. Thank you committee. And we are basically on time in terms of our agenda. We're going to take a 15 minute pause or 15 minute break. And when we come back, we're going to have a bill introduction on.