 We've got the Public Health Subcommittee meeting here September 23rd, 2021. Let's take a quick run around the area. I'm going to work on Dr. Levine. Here. Hey. Yeah. Russell. Here. Ingrid. Here. Here. Okay. Thank you. You're the committee members, right? Julie Hilbert. I'm here. Remotely. In the board room, the In trouble blocking in a Microsoftistine. Okay. The decision. Are not sure what the issue is for some reason. I didn't personally didn't have any trouble getting in on teams. I'm still trying to team. I think you're in now, Gina. Yeah, I said you were in the waiting room and it's like that met. There you are. Okay. Yeah, excellent. Megan, is that you or is that Gina on your line? It's I can take no. Okay. CCB office, right? Correct. Yes. Yeah. Do you have any other? Control board staff or members? Nope. It's just me present for the cannabis control board. In the office. Thanks. You're there. Here is here. Mark Dorman is here. Well, let's let's move forward. We have as we discussed on Monday, we have set this up so that we can reach some decisions on warning signs, warning labels, pertaining to advertising. And some of the other issues that that pertain to advertising. I think I'm referring to Danica for the moment to get this rolling since she prepared the slide deck. Thank you, Mark. Also, just to remind members of the public, if you'd like to submit comments, you can do that off of the control board's website. And we do have three members of the public with us today. Welcome. And we look forward to any of your comments at the end of today's meeting. So this week. And for the last couple of weeks for the committee members, we've looked at a lot of different elements, warning language, warning symbols. And what I wanted to do, I kind of flipped it today because the warning symbols is something that I know everyone is incredibly passionate about. So what I'd like to do is share what I sent, what we sent to you. And can everybody see this? Okay. Okay, fantastic. Okay, so this is the warning symbol that Massachusetts and Maine are using and they both, they both use it. They actually kind of had a little collaboration or partnership on it, which I thought was very interesting. So if you saw in the other document that contains THC is mandatory, the not safer kids is optional. But what I wanted to do was just give you an idea of what something might look like in here for this particular one. And I want to also tell you that the package that you're seeing that says fruit goodies is an Illinois package. That was purchased yesterday. Here was the interesting thing about it. They had no warning labels on it anywhere. And that's 100 milligrams of THC. So I wanted you to see what it could look like and what the kids would then make in a package with the symbols. And again, none of this is to scale, but it gives you the general idea. So I'm going to flip to the next one, which was the yellow symbol and the same thing. So my question and Mark's question would be for the board of these two symbols presented, are you ready to make a final rendering of what you would like to do on your packages and your warnings? This is Ingrid. I will just say it's totally subjective, but I prefer the campaigns THC with the red. Okay. And I like them not safe for kids as a separate stop sign warning. Again, totally subjective, but it feels clear. Okay. Tim. Yeah, I also prefer the red outline. I think there was some discussion last time of combining the yellow with the red. Yeah. The red. No, go right ahead. I have not finished that. I'm waiting on getting it back from the designer, but the initial it kind of has this ketchup and mustard look about it. It's a little odd. So we're trying to figure out the right way to make it not look like a condiment. If that makes sense. Sure. Sure. Yeah, that's the value of actually seeing an example. I'd love to hear Dr. Levine's thoughts as well. Okay. It looks like he may be on a call so we can, you know, give him just a moment on that. But again, back while we wait on him, I will say, and we'll talk more about this on Monday. This package was incredibly child-proof and but there were many things that I think were missing on here to make it a situation where I had confidence in what I was looking at. If that makes sense and what I was getting. Sorry, I, sorry, I missed what Tim said. Go right ahead. Oh, should I? I was just saying that it would be great to be able to see the combination of the red outline with the yellow background. But, you know, in less, in less, you're looking to move forward in a quicker way. And then I would, I would lean towards the, including the red myself. And Dr. Levine, this is the main in Massachusetts red and white that they, that you requested to see again. And what I shared with the team is this is an actual package of edibles from Illinois. Yeah, I saw that. Okay. Without any warnings. Yeah. Without any warnings. So, so I wanted you to get an idea of what this would look like. And then this is the same thing in the yellow. So, Tim, we can certainly add that, but I would say that if you truly wanted to have a New England, um, almost collaboration across state lines, um, you would get it with a main in Massachusetts, like we had originally talked about here. So what can I just add? Go ahead. I wasn't looking at the screen. I'm just wondering what Tim thinks about that leaf compared to like, I feel like the leaf in the previous example that you just gave us with the yellow is a little more. Not that, not to be too detail oriented, but I know Tim had mentioned leaf, um, Yeah. Accuracy. I thought we had kind of reached consensus that the leaf was better. Um, in those several examples, that one. Um, it's a much more true to life. Leaf that separates itself from, for instance, Okay. So here is a question then that I have, um, because this will have to be changed by a graphic designer, which is fine. I don't have a problem with that. Would the subcommittee be ready to say that this is really the final style design, but you would like to see it with the leaf or realistic leaf of this one for a final approval. Not to complicate life too much, but. One thing I've lost track of the pace of meetings we're having is what the timeline is. Um, because I feel like we're, we're moving along in a good pace, but maybe too good. And I don't want to over commit and appointed time, especially because I do want to, as, as you mentioned, I do want to bring back to some segments of my health department. With their expertise. It doesn't mean. So I don't want to final decision. I can pull that around pretty quickly. I just want to, you know, you know, uh, you should take the time to do that. Uh, these are decisions that can be sewn up. Uh, uh, uh, really very, very quickly and. You know, we can adjust our final report to the, uh, the control board. Could you just review that timeline we are on? Sure. So by October 20th, which means we'll need the reports, um, probably in draft form, you know, at least a week or two prior to that, which is coming up on it. October 20th is our date regulations regarding advertising and marketing that limit youth exposure, packaging and labeling and the consideration of a dispensary as a food manufacturing establishment. So that's a three week period. Yes, sir. So, um, what we can do here is. So this, this will have to be recreated, which is fine. I have a team that can do that. Um, so there's the edit. That will be done and we'll send it, um, back in. So I guess my question would be for the, for the group. Um, if there is a desire to wait until Dr. Levine's team, um, is able to weigh in on this as well. And also we get the graphic designer to do the yellow leaf. My question is, would you want to continue and go through all of the warning statements and check those off as well? Or would you like for me to open up the packaging that has been shared with us and we could at least look at packaging today. Cause otherwise we're going to be looking at the same thing. So what I mean by that is with the warning language, this was what we sent. Um, so if we'd like to move forward with this. We can, um, but I just want to be realistic here with everyone on this call so that we're not doing the same thing. Cause we could look at packaging too. I would suggest that we just pause for a moment and make sure we're all on the same page with the, with the warning label. Sure. Um, because I saw you write change leaf. Um, and I think your reference to the yellow is the, the leaf from the symbols with the yellow background. Correct. Yes. The leaf itself is most likely more effective as black. Right. Yes. Okay. So what we're going to try to do is to, um, go with contains THC without mentioning Vermont. The last time we had a meeting, there was some consideration of putting VT there as well. It's not something that I brought into the conversation, but I think somebody must have. This was by the team that's doing universal warning symbols for cannabis. They just again presented options. Yeah. Um, okay. So I guess I just want to make sure we're on the same page for the, um, for the current status is that we'd like to see the, the more realistic maple leaf, uh, with the red order. And we're also going to try the yellow background. You got it. No, if you would like to see it, if we're making the modifications, let's make the modifications. Cause we can do it all in one fell swoop. And hopefully that will give, um, Dr. Levine some time to, uh, check in with his team and bounce it off his people. Okay. Great. Thank you. All right. This team will probably, Dr. Levine's team will probably want to know what the. Recommendation is of the, uh, control board advisory committee. So it is a good idea. Just. Wow. As much as you can. That sounds good. The benefit of your expertise and your, your instincts on this anyway. Does that make sense to me? Absolutely. Absolutely does. Thank you. Mark. Are we weighing in about. The narrative stuff versus bullet points right now or just keeping it to the symbol. Um, right. We could do either, but, um, you know, again, let me flip here. This is, as you all probably saw, and this is what it would look like if we did bullet points. If you, if you recommended, um, paragraph and, um, so I wanted to, to put that out there. This is definitely for your recommendation. I would say that this one is, is, um, while a better list, it just takes up more room. And, uh, this, these in essence for everyone that right over on this side where you see contains THC, that's the warning in Illinois. Um, it's very, very small. And it's been paragraph. I think most, what I'm seeing is most are using paragraph formats because it's, it does take up less room, but that doesn't make it right. If that makes sense. Mm hmm. Less rule just means they can do their product naming and pictures with more. Yeah. That's not art. Well, that's there. Right. So I will say in speaking with another person in California, they said one of the reasons they don't see as many advertisements is because there is more disclaimers required. So it's, it becomes a good, a good portion of disclaimer. And I've been in those in that world where, you know, a third of my ad was a disclaimer sometimes. And that's how it is with auto and other places. Um, so I did want to put that out there. Does it, so does anybody want to come to a consensus on the bullet list versus paragraphs, or are we ready to, to even go down that path yet? Like you mentioned. I'm happy to discuss it more. I, um, but I defer the rest of the group in terms of what makes the most sense timing wise. The differentiating appearance. It's readability from content. Correct. So this is of course your language. This is the adaptation of Massachusetts. So this is bullet and this is not what I will say is one package. Um, if you want the font to be a certain point size, how big the packages is also going to matter. Um, because that can definitely make a difference. There was a, another package, which I will also share with you, which was in a round container. Again, no warning symbol. Um, and I could not even read the legal language at all because it was a little blurry and it's so small. So if there are any thoughts on this, um, my recommendation for some of this would be a case by case basis, possibly depending upon the dimensions, but at the same time it, you know, if it's on an edible container, then you have to think about how you wanted that to be displayed or you may say on the edibles that it would be important to, um, you know, make it a certain size, no matter what the packaging. Yeah, I feel, if you're starting to, uh, saying case by case, I do think there's different concerns regarding edibles as compared to other great products. Um, and accidental and just meant, I'm sorry, accidental, um, ingestion is important to me to point out for edibles, but not so much for the other products. I mean, I guess I don't know what all the different products would be, but certainly anything that's edible is different than something that requires heat to smoke it, right? Like that's different. Um, is that what you guys, by case by case or? Well, what about the case of the person who takes the plan if they're using a mix that's built as an element, but they're actually just making brownies and putting what they want? Good point. That seems to happen a lot. Is that something that we could really, um, address in labeling? That's what I'm curious about. Maybe not in labeling, but maybe in the safety aspect. As we mentioned, maybe there is a, in the safety, um, flyer. That also can be available online with a QR code. And I'll talk more about QR codes on Monday because I did have one for a product that I could see, which was great. Um, there's opportunity really to say so much more when you say it online. It doesn't mean you don't have to give it to them in print. Um, but there could also be a recommendation that every first time customer has to take, you know, we need you to take this safety flyer that could be front and back, can include some of this stuff. It's going to come down to, um, the most important things to tell people and then how to get it in their hands because I will, I will also share, and I'll share a word with this on Monday. I would, I did not feel like an educated consumer, which is an interesting thing. Great. Would you like to, Dr. Levine, go ahead. Looks like you're going to say something. No, I'm okay. Are you sure? I'm just, I'm just trying to imagine the person who's purchasing the product. They're probably not going into the establishment and thinking about what we're concerned about because they've already entered the establishment with the purpose of buying something, I think. Whether it's the leaf product, whether it's an edible product or what have, um, how much education are they looking for versus how much we want to provide because they've already reached that decision point to buy it as opposed to the consumer who goes into a place and is really like, hey, I've never been to one of these places. I want to learn something. Maybe I'll buy something because my friends have done this. I just don't know. We have to think about who the end user is of what we're plastering on these products. I would just add, I seem to be thinking oftentimes about the unsuspecting person who is in the house where this stuff is or doesn't, um, who's experimenting or doesn't, you know, isn't the ideal person who went in, the person who went in to purchase it themselves, but is, lives in that same home or that kind of a thing. Yeah, no, I believe me from a public health standpoint. I'm really concerned about those people. That's why we have the, uh, drug disposal campaigns. Get rid of everything in your medicine cabinet all the time. Um, cause that's where adolescent use of opioids and other drugs occurs because they're at a party at their friend's house and they go to the bathroom and by the way in the medicine cabinet they found some purchasing. Um, so here in the house, they're in the kitchen getting a glass of water and by the way, there's the marijuana product that's going into the brownies. Um, so, you're right. It's the same kind of thing. Can I ask a rookie question? Have there been any cases in these other states where, um, there's been any claim of liability? Like if somebody purchases something, a child takes a, you know, a gummy edible and overdoses, so to speak, or becomes really impaired or hurts themselves. And the, the warnings or the symbols weren't clear enough. Has there ever been that type of case? I do not know the answer to that off the top of my head, but we can certainly ask the question. Um, no, we can. And, um, I, part of the research that, um, came out of yesterday for me as well, goes back to something that this committee has said time and time again, and that is serving sizes. I will tell you that, um, I did not get any serving sizes on any of the packages at all. So I was very confused. And this is when, when I say educated consumer from being an NACB, but not from a purchasing perspective, maybe the way to say this. So a lot of questions were asked. Um, I think that's a hundred milligram packet of THC. Um, and when I was able to finally get in the packet, there were four sticks in there, but I didn't on the back. It doesn't say for servings 25 milligrams of THC each. So I was confused. Um, and again, I don't want to make this, this is not, this is subjective research as well. So I'd like to say that. And this is for discussion purposes as someone who went in to say, I want to buy this, but what does that mean? Um, and then with the pack of gummies, it also did not have serving sizes on it. And it was 10 gummies in one container, another hundred milligrams of THC, um, 10 per, but that's not noted either. So my first recommendation to say to the subcommittee, just as someone there is that I think that is an integral part of what goes on the packaging, which we'll get to of course on Monday to say, what a serving size is and the estimated in each. I totally agree. Tim, so your note was very timely. I guess that's what I would say yesterday. Really timely. I did notice that the, um, I was surprised that so many came in package because if you're thinking of overdosing or even innocent accidental overdosing, uh, that's a lot of THC in one package. Um, well, you know, I kind of, I'm kind of stuck to see, I'm not quite sure if you're looking for comments on that Massachusetts list because you had that up before. Um, so we definitely come to some sort of, like we need a next steps on the, on the labels, but did you want us to comment on the Massachusetts list in regards to what we want in Vermont? We absolutely can. We also can go back here to the Word document. Again, this has all been dropped in there. These are the statements that we put forth. Um, and so if you'd like to make some comments on these now, we would certainly welcome that so that we can, you know, keep moving unless you would like Dr. Levine's team to see it first. I mean, we could go either way. I'd like, I would like your feedback. I had some thoughts. It was mainly based on the other part. I have it on my desktop. I can call it, but the, but the menu, the Massachusetts, um, adaptation of this one. Yes. Okay. Um, I'd like, maybe, um, Dr. Levine can comment on this. The, the reference to pregnancy and breastfeeding. Um, marijuana use during pregnancy and breastfeeding may pose potential harms. There was a different warning that basically said, do not use this product. If you're pregnant or breastfeeding, um, I'd love to hear if there's definite science, then why is this so milk toast in Massachusetts? Um, or should we just be going with just don't use it. If you're pregnant or breastfeeding, uh, any, is there any insight on that that anyone has? Or possibly Dr. Levine. I'm with you. Um, I think we have enough evidence that should not be used during pregnancy. And the problem is still being recommended to an audience of women who are in their first trimester and want to treat morning sickness and things of that sort. Um, and that's probably the worst time to be recommending it. So I think there's probably science enough behind. Okay. Just a technical note. I think it might be to me because I've run a lot of these zoom calls. Um, it might be to me because I'm not sure, but if anybody is in a very loud situation, I'm so sorry. I thought I had muted myself. My apologies. It's okay. It's okay when it's hard to interact without being, but if, uh, if we get a loud bang, then the words get cut out. Um, but I got the most of what Dr. Levine said. And I think that it also speaks a little bit to the ordering. If whether we're going with, um, bullet points or with a paragraph or allowing it to be decided at the point of, you know, proper packaging appropriateness or whatever. Um, it speaks a little bit to the order. Um, you know, um, because if we're, if we're talking about adapting this Massachusetts warning language that I'm looking at now. Um, that one doesn't, hey, it doesn't say this is a marijuana product, for instance, first and foremost. Um, yeah, you're, you're highlighting the, the alternate language that at least Mark and I prefer, right? Um, so anyway, just a quick discussion at some point about, um, how they should be prioritized and. Right. Cause the children really is in bold print there or capital letters. Um, that's a big one. Yeah. And I actually think if it's bullet points that it's actually handed a hat of a couple that pop like that. So maybe the, maybe the capital letters makes it, it doesn't have to be the first one. If it's in caps, it does draw the eye, you know, so depending on how someone reads something, it helps to change between capitals and no capitals. Um, but just a couple of things to just throw out there that, that occurred to me, you know, as well, you know, yeah, I agree with those comments. I'm also wondering just, I know that cannabis is used as sort of the overarching term and then marijuana. Didn't we seem to want to get away from the term marijuana and move toward cannabis? Or maybe that's just me. I can't remember, um, what the best practice is for, I think there was some discussion about this, maybe in the larger group or the first meeting. You know, a lot of the, more recent state laws have basically said, you know, remove from the statutes and the use of the word marijuana and replace it with cannabis. I can't remember whether the Vermont, you know, Act 62 or 164 goes in that direction, but we can check it. I can't remember either. Well, this committee is part of the cannabis control board. Yeah. The trend is to use cannabis. I'm not sure if you guys discussed that or not in, in your call, but cannabis is the common term used now. That's what I thought. So what we can do with this, Dr. Levine, before you hand it back as I can go back through and change every instance of marijuana to cannabis before handing it over. And then we can put that in there. I'm glad you brought that up, Ingrid, because that was actually one of the considerations that I wanted to talk about today as well, just to determine which word you would prefer to use as a subcommittee so that there's consistency. Because even within these bullets, we have interchanged the terms. We have to stick to one or the other. Yeah. And I would also just, I think that the more dire warnings should be at the top, such as, you know, impairment effects can be delayed by two or more hours, impairment, you know, ones about driving and immediate health and keeping away from children, I think are important. Whereas this product may be illegal outside of Vermont, definitely lower. So that's just my, again, sort of stating the obvious, maybe, but. And are some of these acquired in some way, like the product may be illegal outside of Vermont. It's illegal to transport it. Is there a requirement that that happened for the legislator legislation? That is. Because obviously of a federal standpoint, it's illegal. So you can't rely on that. This comes from, and Mark, I don't know if you remember exactly where it is, but it is referenced by, let's see. It's referenced in one of the statutes. Because I think what we're driving at is there's things we really want people to notice and see right up front and focus on. And then there are other things that it's like, really, does that matter? Who cares? It'll only be distracting and won't allow the major messages to really penetrate you. But if we're required to have them, you know, we need to adhere to them. Yeah. I want to go back and double check where it is, but it was, it was one of the, one of the, it's in one of the languages that I saw. So if it's not, then we check it out. Okay. I just want everybody to know that wasn't me with the truck. Okay. So then back to, we've touched on pregnancy and breastfeeding. And if we jump back to children, if there, this came up on our last call about, about children in marijuana and don't know if this is, this is why this, you're seeing this here. I mean, well, physician wouldn't recommend an over the counter cannabis product. Wouldn't they? In medicinal. Yeah. There's like little, little kids that I think get. This is what I've heard. It seems odd that this is, we're also trying to, that would be a special group. Yeah. I mean, if we're discussing, we're not trying to decide for over the counter addables as well as prescribed. Sorry. At the same time. This was brought up on the meeting last week, which is the only reason we put it here is just to see if it was worth the consideration in any of it. So we have to keep this product away. And then in case of accidental ingestion, which we can completely strike. And I guess does everyone agree then that these are the two primary child piece? I'm not saying we have to approve it, but is there something else we're missing right here? Can I just interject quickly on that third bullet? Yes. It's entirely possible though, Tim, that the same product that a parent's picking up for a young child and dispensary, the medical dispensary is also sold potentially or similarly packaged or packaged by the same company. So I'm just thinking in terms of that third bullet in terms of ease of use and labeling and just throwing that out there for the committee to concern to consider as it relates to that third bullet about prescriptions. So the same product might be available both in a medical dispensary and an adult use retail space. I don't know if that will be true or not, but it's possible. I'm just not aware of physicians prescribing pediatric marijuana use other than the pharmacologically available, pharmaceutical available drug to treat rare forms of epilepsy. So it would have to be a very, very unique subset of kids before I give them an adequately brain altering substance in their formative years. Boy, it might be happening up near behind. I hope not. I'm not either. I mean, the epilepsy is what I'm aware of too, Dr. Levine. I just know that that same tincture product is available in some states in other venues. Anything additional for kids or want to take this away as, go ahead. I think you can't have, I mean, if you want to try to address that in a different way, but you can't keep the top bold, keep this product away from children. And then on the third bullet say, unless somebody said it was okay. So you either have to figure this out first and adapt and change from there or get rid of it entirely in my opinion. Because if we want to keep this product away from children, that's a bold, clear statement. I agree with that. There may be somebody who prescribes in quotes possibly, but I doubt it's a certified physician at this point. I mean, think of the liability. Well, and Dr. Levine is saying it's so rare that it doesn't seem prudent to keep it in. I will check with the American Academy of Pediatrics to be sure that is none of this happening. There's also that there's a legality of this is for 21 and older, correct? It is. The second piece of that is, okay, thinking sir, it wasn't me. It is, however, if medicinally they're able to receive this, but also just it's a second morning. Don't give it to your kids, especially if you have your, your own prescription at home or medicinal marijuana. So again, we put it out there and didn't want to go down a rabbit hole. But if it's, if you just want to, Julie, we do have some considerations for medicinal as well. I believe in some of this too. Okay. Okay. But the key take home point that Tim is trying to hammer home is we can't continue to have bullets that contradict each other. Whether it's kids, whether it's the age, say 21, that's very straightforward. And that is why we are looking for you. Great. Thank you. Thank you. I want to point out that act 164 section 32. Statutory revision says changes the word marijuana to the word cannabis throughout Vermont law. We're applicable. Thank you so much. We will get, we will move everything. So you're going to get another copy of this shortly. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I'm losing your audio. I'm muting myself. I think there's, there's some weird background thing coming in my apologies. But what I wanted to add here is I'm going to update this entire thing in the next 30 minutes with marijuana to cannabis. And as a quick reminder, everything we were pulling was from other states, including Maine and Massachusetts, which is why you're seeing those words, which is why we're going to make it what the word requires in your area. And then we'll get that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Julie, do we have any comments from the public? Or Nellie. I'm sorry. Yes, we do. We have a couple. Are we ready to move into public comment? Yes. Hi, this is Evo singleton. I'm with Gaston planning on opening a dispensary manufacturer here in Burlington. I just want to talk about the warning symbol a little bit. And as someone who plans on having beautifully packaged product here in Vermont, I don't know in California where I did some business. I know at first you had to have a two color warning label, but then they just switched it. So it could be any color as long as it was a specific size and represented well in the packaging. The other thing I wanted to say maybe to make it unique to Vermont, which would be really cool would be to do an outline of the state of Vermont with the symbol inside. I know you talked about putting BT on there and that could be a cool like stylized piece. And then the other thing on the on the warning language. Again, wanting to have like beautifully packaged product like we really have to think about the size of this on our packaging, especially like on pre-rolls and concentrates, things like that. You know, it's tough to, you know, showcase a product with like too many warnings on it. And then the last thing, the poison control thing, like, is that necessary? Is it a child and just cannabis? I don't think it's going to, you know, it's not a poisoning. Now, maybe take it to the hospital. Call nine on one. But the poison control seems a bit like a bit much. That would be it. Thank you. Any other comments? Sure. Would you like me to come in at the center? Yep. Come on to one of these chairs here. Hi, everyone. My name is Ben Mervis. I am working with Craig Mitchell, who submitted a public statement on August 23, I believe, announcing that we will also be going for licenses in the social equity category. I actually began my career with the Department of Health here in Vermont. So I take it very seriously and came into cannabis about five years ago. I second the opinion about poison control, but I do think it's a great thing. Obviously, the subcommittee sees it as necessary to be there. I would just emphasize or encourage you to really think ahead about how to prepare poison control and the police for how to handle those calls, what the intake would look like, what types of things you would address. I believe that the previous public comment is getting towards, you know, you don't want to scare people. The current language does kind of play into the scare tactics around cannabis as opposed to the guidance that could be provided by those resources when called. I also want to emphasize the focus on sizes, so sizes of fonts and symbols. I too worked in California and Massachusetts and saw how without those very strict guidelines on the sizes of the font and the symbol, you can see a lot of distortion. So just keep that in mind that the actual, I'm blanking on the word, the size of the symbol. Also, something that you could consider, because I did hear, you know, obviously the subcommittee is more focused on the information being present than the design of the package. You could, in the field of sizes, you could also consider saying that the warnings need to take up either, you know, up to a quarter of the visible space on the product or limit it to, you know, no more than a quarter. So those are other ways that I've seen that done very effectively. And thank you for the change from marijuana and cannabis, if that's it for my public, for my comment. Thank you. Thanks. All right, that's it for public comments in the room. Okay, thank you. So the next steps on this, everything's been changed from marijuana to cannabis to follow the statute, but also a couple of additional items will come in. I'll send this back out Nellie to you so you can upload it into the team so that they can take it back. We'll be talking packaging on Monday. And so packaging will be shared later today, a pre-look for Monday's calls. Tim, you're on mute. Sorry, I have a secondary mute button here because I'm on a busy truck road. I mentioned that I can't make Monday in a previous email, a few emails ago, but it might have been missed. I'm just wondering if you can just get me some materials Sunday or whatever, and I can just make some notes or whatever and just chime in that way. Absolutely. The examples are almost ready to go. There's one more thing that is going to be added so they should be out later today or first thing in the morning. So no problem. So this is definitely something to keep track on dates for putting forth recommendations or at least recommendations that may need additional considerations. But Monday we'll be looking at packaging and taking a deeper dive on that and getting this over to Dr. Levine and Ingrid and Tim if you could go through and I'll put this back in the Word document if easier for you than all you have to do is write on it or over it. I do agree in the prioritization, Mark and I do, we'll get all those out there and hopefully we can get this to a point of comfort for everyone. Thank you. I think as well, Danika, not to plow over the whole ground today, but since there's an expectation that the Department of Health will have a chance to take a look that I don't think we need to struggle and lose time over a lot of details if we just are going to send them our best recommendations here and have a bit of a dialogue and have enough time to have a bit of a dialogue. Hopefully we can sew some of this up on Monday. So if there is consideration, Tim and Ingrid, especially since Dr. Levine will be taking it through his channels if you could give feedback, even by tomorrow would be fantastic on and again I'll get you the Word documents backwards, all these changes we talked about we'll get the other symbol but if you could at least give a first good feedback if there's something you don't like or want to change or whatever then we can at least put that into consideration. I'll do my best. Thanks. Thank you. Just from my standpoint just keep in mind we are in the midst of a pandemic so our department's response may not be as timely as you would think it could be. Understood. Understood. Is there any other questions or anything else that anyone would like to bring up? No. Did we have to approve minutes from last meeting or was there no quorum to approve it? There was no quorum for the 16th. We can approve meeting minutes for the 13th or if folks would like to do so. You could also do that next time Danika you could start the meeting next time with that. That sounds great. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay so we are at the hour thank you everyone Mark if you want to wrap us up. With a prayer. Please move this process along Lord. Motion to adjourn. Sure. We have a second. Thank you everyone. Thank you.