 committee and we are continuing our discussion on H 548 kind of this establishments. We just finished a walk-through with Attorney Michelle Childs and we are now joined by Executive Director of the Commencement Board, Bryn Hare. Welcome. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning, committee. For the record, Bryn Hare, Executive Director of the Cannabis Control Board. So nice to see you all again. Very happy to be here. Thank you for inviting me. So I am going to, before I dive into the bill, I thought I would give the committee a little bit more background about what the board has been up to and how it developed some of the recommendations that you kind of see in the bill before you this morning. So one of the kind of the key components of our enabling legislation was the development of an advisory committee and I am going to be referring to our advisory committee quite a bit this morning when I talk about some of the conclusions that the board reached. So I wanted to give you a little background on who they are. Our advisory committee has 14 members and as I mentioned, our enabling legislation created them and tasked them with assisting the board in implementing and administering the laws governing the adult use and medical cannabis market. So the 14 members, if you look at the makeup of these 14 members, you'll see that there's quite a breadth of expertise among them. And we, because of our sort of late start of the board, the full advisory committee didn't get officially seated until about the end of July. And in order to kind of meet our legislative timelines, we really had to get our proposed rules filed by November. So we had like a chunk of time here that wasn't very long to really leverage them in the most useful way, get decision points in front of them, get them up to speed. And really, really use them to help guide the board's work. So in between August and November, when we filed our first set of proposed rules, pre-filed them, we held about 75 meetings of our advisory committee and associated subcommittees. And the way we did it was to sort of split up the advisory committee members based on their area of expertise into subcommittees. And then we would put sort of the relevant decision points before these subcommittees. And we had a consultant working with us who developed some sort of comparison charts with respect to what other states were doing and some outcomes in other states to help guide their work. So we went through this process with our advisory committee. It was quite time intensive, but I do think it resulted in some good recommendations that the board relied on in developing our proposed administrative rules and some of the recommendations that are in this bill. So I hope that provides a little bit of context for where there are some of our thinking, how some of our thinking has been guided. So with that, I'll just jump into the bill, if that's what's most helpful, unless you want to start with specific questions. Any other questions? No, I'm not seeing any. After Michelle did the walk, I did to tell committee members that my understanding from the board standpoint is that this is really more of a technical bill. And so as you go through it, if you could help us understand why the changes are really more technical as opposed to substantive or policy change. Absolutely. Yep. Thank you. We'll do. So on the section one, the first section of the bill, this is the section that amends the prohibited products list to remove that prohibition on solid concentrate products with a 60 percent or greater than 60 percent concentration of THC and to remove that prohibition on oil cannabis products. So the board has put forward several reports to the legislature in response to some directives and our enabling legislation. So I'll make sure that the committee has them available. Two of them, the November 1st report and our January 15th report contain some of the recommendations that relate to this section of the bill. So to set the stage a little bit, concentrates are really extracts that contain high amounts of cannabinoids, terpenes and other compounds that are found in the cannabis plant. And due to the high amount of cannabinoids that are in these concentrates, when the THC is extracted from the plant, the resulting solid or liquid concentrate is by nature going to be above 60 percent THC generally. So one of the most common ways to formulate a cannabis product is by using some sort of concentrated distillate or an isolate that are some other kind of concentrate. So using a full concentration product to make another cannabis product allows a product manufacturer to really kind of precisely calibrate how much THC is going into a product. So if these extracts that are 60 percent or greater THC are prohibited at any point in the supply chain, then licensees are going to need to adulterate them with some kind of additive to dilute the quantity of THC that's contained in the concentration before the extract can be added to another cannabis product. So if you're thinking about a baked good, that's a good way to think about it. So cutting like a natural content, natural THC concentrate with another product with an adulterant could make the end product more dangerous or or harmful to the consumer at the end stage. So these are products that are currently widely available in Vermont and on the illicit market. They're also widely available and other out of state markets. And they also constitute a pretty high percentage of the market in other states. So, for example, in Massachusetts, the legal regulated adult use market high high concentrate THC products account for about 20 to 30 percent of the market share. So all that is to say that prohibiting them really will cause the unregulated illicit market for them to thrive and leaving the manufacturer and sale of those products outside of the cannabis control boards control could really wind up being harmful for consumers in the in the long run because consumers will be purchasing them on the illicit market. And those manufacturers won't be subject to the regulations that the cannabis control board has put forward. So they will be unregulated. They will the extraction of these products often uses solvents. And that's part of what the bill talks about. I think in section five with the butane and the hexane. So some solvents can pose health risks if they're used improperly or if they are not filtered properly out of the final product. So leaving it leaving these products sort of on the unregulated market could ultimately pose potential health risks for consumers. And also consumers may be unaware of these health risks that are involved in consuming products with that could have residual solvents in them and also they could be unaware of the potential health risks risks of consuming products with a high concentration of THC. So as the committee is aware, the Cannabis Control Board has a whole host of regulations that it's required to put forward that govern the packaging of products and the labeling of products and the required health warnings that will have to be distributed when consumers are purchasing a product at a retail establishment. In addition, unregulated facilities that aren't yet. You know, it's a couple of second delay so it can create some confusion sometimes. And around the packaging, I'm just wondering if the if that's done by by rule, as far as what's on the labels. Yeah, so there's our enabling legislation had some requirements for us about what we're what the board is directed to do and with respect to rulemaking around packaging. So the board has, as I mentioned at the outset, the board has pre-filed some proposed rules, including rules surrounding what the packaging has to look like, what is required to be included on the packaging. OK. Thank you. I'm happy to send the committee links to those proposed rules if you're interested in reading them. So just to carry on the another reason that these products shouldn't be prohibited is that allowing them to continue to thrive on the illicit market will mean that these unregulated facilities that are processing and manufacturing them aren't going to be inspected or permitted and therefore they're going to operate at an increased risk, including posing potential harm to first responders. Because as I mentioned, creating these distillates and concentrates one way of there's many ways of creating them, but one way of creating them is using a solvent based extraction and some solvents can be highly flammable. They are often under pressure. So part of the regulations that are going to apply to product manufacturers are regular inspections. There's fire safety will be involved in ensuring that people are operating their equipment safely and the board will be regularly conducting inspections of these facilities. So under the under the boards authority, the manufacture and sale of these types of products would be subject to all kinds of standards, including, as I mentioned, the facility inspection, fire and building safety code, what types of solvents would be allowed for use and extraction and then threshold like maximum amounts of residual solvents that would be allowed in products that ultimately go to consumers. There will also be consumer education requirements, as I mentioned, health and safety warnings that will be handed out to consumers when they purchase these products and ultimately it will just result in sort of a safer process for manufacturers and cleaner and safer products for people who use them. And another another rash, another one of the board's rationales for not prohibiting these products is one of our advisory committee had a one of the subcommittees of our advisory committee was looking at the social equity aspect of the cannabis market. And they came to the conclusion that the prohibiting these high THC products kind of further perpetuates the illicit market, as I've mentioned, and also the risk of increased arrests for cannabis offenses. And as this committee well knows, there are racial disparities for drug arrests and sentencing and those racial disparities persist even to this day and to continue to prohibit these high THC cannabis and cannabis products as communities of color to bear the burden of that by its enforcement. And I will send. I see a question. I'll hold there. Go ahead. I was going to. Oh, OK, OK, I was going to stop and I'll ask. OK, I was just going to say that I'll send the I'll make sure the amber has links to our our legislative reports so you can see the recommendations that we've put forward there. I was just wondering, as far as the, you know, things like butane and hexane, if there's any information on how much it's used in the elicit market now. So I don't know. I mean, I think that's a little bit hard. That's a little hard for the board to know how how how frequently it's being used in the elicit market. It is, as you know, prohibited in title 18. That doesn't really mean it's not being used. But I do understand that that that currently the medical dispensaries typically don't use these type of extraction methods. There are, as I mentioned, their solvents, there's ethanol and CO2 that are not prohibited and that I think are more frequently used by the dispensaries as well. Thank you. Sure. So if there, I'm happy to answer any other questions on that section or I can move on to section two. We need going. Thank you. That's a two, please. There. So the section two, this is the section that amends the directive to the board regarding its rule rulemaking requirements. So the first part was the provision that allows sort of explicitly allows products to contain both CBD and THC. And our advisory committee did work on this issue and give us a recommendation on this. So there is sort of an interactive effect of CBD and THC in the same product. And there have been some studies showing sort of a demonstrated positive impact of CBD in combination with THC. The Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission recently like completed sort of an extensive review of the existing data on potency limits and THC products and the combination of CBD with THC and cannabis products and concluded that there are some studies that show positive health benefit associated with combining the two. But the evidence they concluded that the evidence really isn't sufficient to require minimum levels or minimum ratios of CBD. So it wasn't the recommendation of our advisory committee that we require a minimum level of CBD to be included in cannabis products. But also they didn't want the board to they didn't want it to be prohibited either. So essentially there is very little comprehensive data about the effects of cannabis because of it's because it's a Schedule I substance at the federal level. But there are some studies out there that show that there is positive health benefits by including CBD with THC. So this is there's recommendations about this specific portion of the bill in our November 1st report. And I'll make sure the committee has a link to that. I do see a do see a hand. Yeah, I had a quick question if that's OK. It's this is like purely anecdotal. But it's my understanding that often in products that combine sort of THC and CBD, you'll you'll often see a lower THC level. So it it seems like some of those products are designed for folks who want overall benefits with maybe like less of the psychoactive experience. Do you think that's a fair characterization? It just it seems like that's what I see. Yeah, and I do think these kind of products are popular with consumers in other states and because they're you know, whenever you have a product that's that is that consumers are enjoying prohibiting it or limiting it without evidence that it's particularly harmful. We'll just keep more sales in the illicit market where products are are unregulated and untaxed and not subject to the regulations of the board that are going to include quality assurance. Thanks. OK. So is it so shall I move on to section three? This is the section that allows the employee ID cards to kind of run with the employee instead of the employer. Yes. OK. Oh, this one is pretty straightforward that I think that it was the underlying legislation was a little bit unclear about whether an employee ID, an employee would have to actually secure employment with an with a cannabis establishment prior to getting an ID card. And so this request is really kind of a technical one that ensures that employees are able to seek an employee ID card from the board prior to seeking their employment with an employer. So that way an employee with an ID card could really move about the industry and seek employment where they where they wish. And since this is kind of a whole new industry, there's there are going to be some types of employees where it might make sense for them to work for one employer and then go and work for another one without being restricted or tied to one specific cannabis establishment. OK. That's any questions. Thank you. OK. So section four, again, we the board sees this is really a technical amendment that underlying the enabling legislation that sort of set out the the licensing framework initially contemplated that there was kind of a one license rule, which meant that anybody who is seeking a license wouldn't be able to get multiple license types for any one type of cannabis business. So essentially, you couldn't have like a franchise of retail establishments or something like that. And it applies to every every different type of cannabis establishment, which also includes testing laboratories. So testing laboratories are going to be one of the first types of cannabis establishments that are eligible to receive a license. The board is scheduled to open up our first window to accept applications in April and that will be from integrated licenses, small cultivators and testing laboratories. And they're going to be one of the first licenses available because they're going to serve a really critical role in the functioning of the regulated market. Testing facilities are going to be testing cannabis and cannabis products for pesticides, mold, adulterants, residual solvents, THC levels, kind of a whole gamut of things. They're going to be essentially they are they're going to be providing information to ensure that the products that hit the shelves in the retail shops are safe for consumption and to make sure that people have really comprehensive knowledge about what is contained in that product. In other states that have that have stood up an adult use cannabis market, many of those states initially had insufficient lab facilities available, which resulted in bottlenecks and the supply chain that delayed the opening of the market and result and often also resulted in product shortages. So if testing facilities, the testing facilities that are here now and the testing facilities that open once the adult use market is available, if they're able to achieve some efficiencies by obtaining additional licenses and therefore having additional locations, that would really only serve to improve the functioning of the market, because it will mean that our the products will be able to move more quickly through the supply chain and get tested before they are allowed to be available for purchase. So we've been with testing facilities, so it's one license, one location. Correct. OK, so if somebody wanted to have multiple locations, would they be able to apply for another license if they wanted to have one in southern Vermont, one in northern Vermont? That's the idea, yes. And that was also the idea in the original legislation was to not allow that for cannabis establishments, but I think that the legislative intent there was to not allow that for the cannabis establishments that are creating products and putting them out on the market. The testing labs are really serving a different purpose of a critical purpose, but a little bit different than the other cannabis establishments. Yeah, I hate to go by, but I was trying to formulate my head and ask this question here in reference to the cards that are that are issued to get identification cards. Yeah, you have a mechanism in place when an employee chooses to leave voluntarily to go as far as tracking the reasons why, whether it's like a lack of a better term, an honorable discharge from one facility. They go to another facility. Is there a mechanism in place for that? So I don't I'm not sure there's a there's a mechanism for it, but the board does have to undergo a review process of every employee before they'll issue an employee ID card. And that is that ID card has to be renewed on an annual basis. So there are there there the board will be conducting a review of of individuals who are looking to to have an ID card and it includes a background check and it includes some other some other review by the board. And I can certainly share some of that information if you'd like. Maybe I wasn't clear in my question. Once they've obtained their ID card and they have left employment from one facility and moved to another facility, is there a following mechanism as to why they left that facility where they honorably discharged and just chose to go for various reasons? Yeah, I see what you mean. So no, I don't think that the board would necessarily be involved if there if an employee chose to move from one establishment to another. But as I mentioned, the board does have to have to renew an employee ID card every year. So they the board will be conducting some type of review on an annual basis. But I do think that kind of in between that year, that the I think Michelle mentioned that it would really be the same kind of principles that would apply in any other industry for employees. OK, thank you. Excuse me, I do see that the hand of one of our witnesses is is that perhaps if something to to add here. And then also Representative Christie has a question. So. Thank you for the record. And before we move on, I didn't know how you want to do this. And I apologize to Bryn for interrupting. But Kerry Jigari, you can see it. Did participate in the advisory committee over the summer about the lab piece. I just wanted to sort of lessons learned from the hemp program as we were certifying and licensing labs. Not all labs, if they have multiple locations, they might do one type of analysis at one facility and a different type of analysis at another facility. So, for instance, we have a lab registered that's endine labs and they do their cannabinoid testing here in Vermont. But the bacteriological testing takes place at another facility off site. So they wanted to be able to do that under one license. And we just let the board know lessons learned from licensing hemp hemp labs. So I just wanted to provide the background while it was pertinent. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Christie, go ahead, Coach. Thank you, Gary. That was very helpful. Hi, Bryn. Good to see you, even though it's in a different environment. This is a question. So these ID cards are similar in a sense to a like a teacher license. You know, in a way, there are reviews, there are processes that are in place. And it sounds like that's what's going to happen here in a way. Am I on the right path there? You are. Yes. Yes, you are. Sorry, I was trying to unmute myself there. I would say it may it may not be as stringent as as a teaching license. But there are requirements that the board is going to implement, including educational requirements, training requirements on a whole host of host of different things before an employee can receive one of these cards. So, yes, I think that is a fair a fair comparison. Great, because I did get some information from an organization in California cookies, I think it's called. And they they've become national and multi state and they've got some some professionals that work for them that are like headhunted in a way, you know, and I guess that's the the other part of the question. And that might be some of what. Representative Norris was talking about, you know, in reference to let's say I hear that a particular employee runs a particular sorting, you know, machine better than anybody else. And, you know, I want to try to attract that person, you know, to Vermont. He or she might be, you know, licensed, you know, in another environment. But I think that's what's going to start to happen, you know, over time. So it'll be good to know how that recertification process goes. So just comment question at the same time. Yeah, thank you for that. Yeah, there is there is a list of things that the application for one of these employee ID cards is going has to contain. And it includes a listing of of any other any other jurisdiction in which an individual worked to ensure that that information is being tracked by the board. Thank you. OK, so I'll carry on then. So I think we're at section five now that this is the independent testing requirement for the integrated licensees. And I think Michelle really did a great job explaining this one, and this is really a technical correction that that makes sure that those dispensaries have to comply with the independent testing requirement that applies to other cannabis establishments. And I can't remember if there was a question about this one. I apologize. I'm not remembering if if somebody raised an issue here. I don't know. Oh, I think I did have a question. About independent. Well, about this laboratory testing, but the answer right. Yes. OK, that's right. There yes, there is a I think right now dispensaries are doing their their potency testing in-house. And I think that there's actually an interpretation of the rule that governs the dispensaries that they're not able to conduct independent testing because they're not able to transfer any cannabis products off site. So that's really why we are requesting this sort of technical amendment so to make sure that that independent testing requirement applies to everybody. And so I'll move on to section six. So this is removing that exemption for dispensaries that are regulated by DPS to use butane and hexane and making extractions. So we really see this as a technical change. DPS will no longer be regulating these facilities because they'll be under the authority of the board. And as I mentioned before, butane and hexane are are really highly flammable hydrocarbons and they are solvents that can be used to isolate cannabinoids from the plant and residual amounts can remain. As I mentioned at the outset in these concentrated products and it's difficult to know how much of that residual solvent will remain in the product operating off the regulated market. So the idea here is really just to remove this language that provides the exemption for dispensaries because my understanding is that dispensaries aren't really using these solvents in creating their extractions anyway. And also the board is creating some regulations around product manufacturers and what types of solvents will be allowed. And also the threshold levels of residual solvents that will be allowed in the resulting products. OK. So the last section, the section seven, this is the provision that limits the amount of time that is that a dispensary can transfer cannabis and cannabis products to an integrated license. And I think Michelle gave some good explanation of the origin, the how this language originated I think the idea here was to provide provide that because the retail establishments are scheduled to be opened in October to kind of ensure that there would be sufficient product available at the retail level. I believe it was the legislative intent to provide that these existing integrated licenses that are have operations running could transfer cannabis and cannabis products that they had been cultivating and manufacturing to an integrated licensee for a period of time, while the rest of the market kind of got established. And so the recommendation here is to really just limit that amount of time. So the dispensary can can transfer to integrated license, but not forever. They can have this sort of initial phase where they can transfer to make sure that the that the market is has sufficient product tested and regulated product available when retail licenses are issued in October. But moving beyond that, it doesn't make sense for for dispensaries to have kind of an unlimited ability to transfer product to integrated licenses. So I think we're just trying to achieve the legislative intent there. Thank you. Questions. So I apologize for coming in here light. Was the was there talk about this 25 year and elder with a medical society concern? Was that talked about? Yeah. Can we go into that or are we going to wait on that till later or? I'm happy to comment on that if you'd like. Sure, quick comment, because I do want to stick to the technical field, but sure, go ahead. OK, so the this would really apply to section one and the board did hear the concern of the Vermont Medical Society regarding these high concentrate THC products and the impact on the developing minds of youth or developing brain. And the so the official recommendation of our advisory committee on this point was to limit the access of high THC products to individuals 25 years of age or older. So board did hear that concern and and that was the official recommendation of the advisory committee. That's not in here. Is that no person? That's right, that would require probably some some some some additional drafting language. So at this point, that hasn't been proposed anywhere else. Not in a piece of legislation, just in our recommendations to the that have been put forward in our reports to the legislature. OK, thank you. Thank you. I need a question. Yeah, Bernad, questions around establishments and I asked Michelle and I think this is one of the questions that she suggested I asked you. But just wondering if somebody had a warehouse and they divided it up into 10 different units, so to speak, and put a thousand foot growing facility in each one, would they be able to rent those out separately? Yes, I think I mean, I think Michelle did a good job of answering that as long as they are in compliance with with state and local law and also in compliance with the board's rules. And the board is has developed rules of regarding co-locating cannabis establishments. So I can send that to the committee. I can send our proposed rules and kind of highlight that portion. If you'd like, there are the board is sort of managing what a co-located business would look like, specifically with respect to security requirements and other requirements that apply to individual licensees. OK, thank you. And another question that came to mind was, say, if somebody had an indoor grow facility, would they would they be able to have an outdoor grow at the same property as long as they weren't growing inside and out and exceeding their license? Yeah, so the as as Michelle mentioned, and as I've said a couple of times, the enabling legislation only requires that or requires that everybody only be eligible for one type of each type of license, one license within each category. So the board was tasked with with developing cultivation tiers. So one of the tiers that the board developed is what's called a mixed cultivation tier, which allows for a cultivator to do cultivating indoors and also have a set number of plants that they can grow outside. So the board has proposed in its initial in its initial licensing framework recommendation that one of those that the mixed tiers be available. So there are currently the proposal in front of Ways and Means is three different mixed tiers with different sizes of indoor grow space and different numbers of outdoor plants. And I can give you more information about that, if you'd like. But yes, they're required to be at the same location. So I guess I'm still a little confused. So so if I had a thousand foot of license and it's wintertime and I I'm growing inside, obviously in the winter and I harvest that in spring comes what would I then just be able to move my thousand feet outside? Oh, I see what you're saying. So there is if if you if a cultivator gets an indoor gets a gets a license type, they can get either an indoor license type where they can grow inside, they can get an outdoor cultivation license type where they can grow outside or they can get a mixed tier where they can do some growing both in source and outdoors. If you're growing indoor, if you if you. It's separate licenses for indoor and outdoor separate licenses for cultivation and outdoor, except for that mixed tier or mixed cultivation tiers, which allows you to have grow space both indoors and outdoors. Great, thank you. Sure. Selena, and then we will move on. Our witness next witness. That's Lena. Thanks so much. I have a couple of issues that I've been hearing about again and again, that aren't reflected in this bill, but they might be reflected in others. So I was I was just going to ask you about them and to try to under in the context of the whole landscape of recommendations are moving forward, if that's OK. It's OK with me. Yeah, just what we have because well, I'm just also trying to understand, you know, if there's we need to think about anything else in the context of this vehicle. So one I think is probably much more of a medical issue, although I did introduce some draft language on it after talking with James Pepper and I know that it got referred to our committee. So I and the issue is that folks who are participating in the total abstinence program to get their license reinstated after after DUI's can be prescribed opioids, but they can't be medical marijuana users. And I think that's just come up a bunch of times. Is that something that's moving through on the medical bill? You know, so that is not included in the medical bill, that language is not there. It was I do think that's an appropriate place for it, although it's not for you guys can decide what's appropriate for what. Right. So but no, that is not current. That language is not currently in the medical bill, the Senate Health and Welfare. OK, and then the other issue is just I've heard from a lot of different sectors of folks who have are wondering the language around the actual, you know, revenue allocation for for substance use disorder. The language is pretty narrowly tailored around prevention. And I think there's some folks who have an interest in. I've heard a lot of people wanting to expand that to make sure that treatment and related harm reduction approaches are also encompassed. And I don't know that's something you all have heard about that's moving along elsewhere. I have heard about that, but I am not aware that that is moving in another bill. I know that, as you know, the ways and means is looking at our fee structure. So far, they have they have not included anything about where the tax revenue is going. And I'm not aware that that any any more specific language is moving in any bill right now. OK, I appreciate that. That's really so helpful. Thank you. And sorry that I know that was a little off topic, but I'm just really trying to understand the bigger puzzle of what fits together and what should be in this bill as opposed to somewhere else. Thank you. OK, so I'm not seeing anything else, but thank you so much, Bryn. So good to see you. Great to see you. Yeah, thank you. OK, so we'll welcome back. Very dear from. Agency of Ag. Well, hello and good morning. Thank you for having me, committee. It's been a few years and there are quite a few new faces. I. My background, when I started at the agency in. Ninety two, I believe it was as a canvas in our lab. So I've been asked to talk a little bit. And I also, my division has is the hemp program. And we're seeing a lot of these extracts and how they're how things are being extracted and what processes are being used. And more or less here to support what the advisory advisory committee and the board have put forward to you about concentrates and removing those limits. When some of these concentrates are made. And the solvents are purged, they will be above 60 percent, generally, whether that CO2 butane or ethanol extraction with ethanol sort of being the dirtiest of those and having the lowest THC. Concentration or CBD, whatever you're extracting into lower those concentrations. Various things could be used. And not all of them are necessarily. Beneficial or all that great. And I believe when that restriction was put in place, there were news articles about. Folks having an adverse impact or getting sick from illicit market vape cartridges. That was extracted THC diluted with something other than a cannabinoid. So what it was believed to be diluted with was a vitamin E lanolin product. And that was making folks sick. Those products to dilute the THC for those cartridges, they use deliowants from the tobacco vaping market. So it's vegetable glycerin. It's sort of different glycol solutions, whether it's propylene glycol or other solutions. And basically having that requirement that the THC be lower than 60%, depending on the product that's being made, you're almost encouraging these other compounds be in that product, which makes it a less, if you will, healthy product. And I don't mean to use healthy in a way that suggests that they're necessarily beneficial. That's each individual's concern. But we would be encouraging the use of other adulterants in a pure product. And don't believe that that's necessarily the way to go. And I'm here to support the board's decision to present that to you. Also available for any other questions, but largely, Brinn did a wonderful job of capturing what the board in the advisory panel would like to offer the legislature. Thank you. Thank you so much. Any questions? I'm not seeing any. Good to see you. Take care. Thank you. We have our final witness with the Vermont Medical Society. Welcome. Hi, everyone. Thank you, committee. And thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Jill Satov-Garren with the Vermont Medical Society. I'm also representing the pediatricians and the Psychiatric Association today. And we are actually here with a different opinion. As you may have heard, we have a different opinion as you may have read from my testimony. We have been working with the Cannabis Control Board throughout the summer and the fall to really make sure that evidence-based prevention strategies are included in the rollout of the retail market. But we are pretty concerned about removing potency limits and specifically around these concentrates. I just want to say that concentrates are really these very potent isolates and the isolating for the psychoactive component of cannabis. And what the average is for a lot of these concentrates that are used in the states that have legalized is around 54% to 69%. That's the average for a concentrated product that might be used in a vaping device. They can also be used in edibles as well. But with a solvent-based product, you can get up to 80% or 90% THC. And just to put that in perspective, the marijuana that was prevalent in the 80s and the 90s that I grew up with was around 1% to 2% THC potency. So you're really talking about a very large dose. And a lot of times if it's vaped, then it goes immediately into your body. And so that can have a lot of adverse effects. And what the evidence is showing from a lot of these legalized states and even states where it's not legalized is that the higher potency, anything over that 15%, and this isn't for concentrates, I understand we're talking about what's in the statute, but is associated with more emergency department visits. And those are for acute mental health issues. And so what we're seeing is psychosis. We're seeing suicide ideation and completion, unfortunately. We're seeing schizophrenia. And that's really more prevalent with consistent use of these higher potency products. And then you're also seeing some very acute respiratory illnesses. And then this new syndrome that's come out with people that are using more daily use of the high potency products is, it's called hypermesis syndrome. And what that is is an uncontrollable vomiting syndrome that stops when you stop using the cannabis. And so we're concerned particularly because there is a very low perception of harm with these products. And that, I think, stems back to our connotation of cannabis as being a natural product, as being a benign product. But when you isolate it and you make these concentrates, you really are making a high potent drug, we would argue, that has a lot of impact. And so in states where they have legalized, we've seen that these concentrates can be as high as 90% and that they just, in order to be competitive, they keep raising these potency levels. And so we would say, hmm, this is something that we understand that the board feels like by bringing it into the regulated market, then they're going to make it, bring it out of the illicit market. But we would say you're also indicating to youth that it's safe and you're indicated to consumers that this is benign. Currently, right now, we already have one of the highest young adult use rates of cannabis. So there's about a 38% of 18 to 25-year-olds use cannabis of some form. And then over COVID, this was exacerbated. And I did include a graph. This is a graph actually regarding tobacco, but it shows that over a quarter of Vermont's high school students vape. And out of those, 78% report that they vape cannabis. So, and then you also have the co-use that students who use cannabis are three times more likely to use other sorts of vaping products and then are likely to smoke cigarettes. So our concern is that by endorsing these high-potency products, you're giving the impression that these are healthy products to use. And we hadn't really gotten anything about this raising it to 25-years-old. I don't have an opinion on that today, but we'll bring one back to you. Just so I can follow in terms of section one in your testimony on this bill. Am I understanding that you oppose the striking of the language in two? We oppose and strengthen the language on the potency levels of over 60%. Okay, thank you. And part of that is that with all of the evidence coming out of the acute mental health issues related to high potency and other physical issues related to this, by removing any, having no potency limits, we don't really feel like you're regulating this product that is very potent. And then in terms of the section one regarding the prohibition of the oil-based THC products, we understand that the vaping with the THC oil has really driven a lot of adverse health impacts. And we know that in this statute, there was an exemption for prepackaged battery-powered devices because these were used by the users of the cannabis for symptom relief. And so we agree with what is in this statute and we really feel like there was these 2,800, it's called E-Valley lung issues that were related, as Kerry was saying, to this vitamin E acetate oil-based THC products being used. And so we are concerned and we would support the continued prohibition of the oil-based cannabis products and the other sections of the bill. I'm sorry, if I have a question before you move on to the other sections of the bill. How you doing, Joe? Hi, I'm Robert. I'm Bernadette. Just a question around the, say if we do end up limiting percentages as far as potency goes. I'm just wondering if any other states are doing that? As far as we know, and I would have to say it's anecdotal at this point for Mont is the only one that has limits. Colorado was looking at putting in limits just this past year because there's just so many mental health use that are happening among their youth and young adults population there. And I don't think it passed. I think the industry was very strong there. But there was, it was brought by a coalition of moms and prevention groups in Colorado. But other than that, that's the only thing I know. And I can get you more information about that. That'd be great. Thank you. Any other hands? So sometimes with the rest of 548. Yeah. So section two, I'm not sure, listening to the way that Bryn described it, I'm not sure if we interpreted that right. We had commented earlier this fall to the board on this idea of prohibition of Delta eight hemp products. And basically right now for a hemp product to be sold as hemp, it has to only contain 0.03% of THC. And so I thought what this, what 548 was trying to do was to bring in any of the hemp products that are isolated and have a higher THC profile, bring that into the regulated market under the cannabis THC. Program. And we would support that hemp products that have a higher THC profile that they're sold as THC cannabis. Just in September of 2021, there was, I think, around 700 cases of adverse events because consumers didn't realize that there was going to be higher THC. In these Delta eight is how they're labeled products. And they're, they're vapes, they're gummies, they're chocolates. And so that drove people to the hospital. There was a CDC advisory put out around that. And so we do think that they should be regulated as a THC product. And then we completely support the idea of the butane and hexane being used, I mean, being prohibited to be used to manufacture concentrated cannabis. Not only because it's highly flammable, but also we read a study that was looking at DAB samples and they found that 80% of them had considerable residual solvent and pesticide contamination. And then this, these butane, as Brynn was talking about, the butane extraction is really being used at home to form these very highly potent products that are being dabbed. And so we do support that. And that's my testimony. Thanks for listening. So we do have another question. Yeah, Jill, the 700 plus adverse situation, I guess, is that a nationwide number? Yes, sorry, that is a nationwide number. And I can get you the advisory on that. I think that there was 39% of those were actually under age youth. They were under the age of 18 with some of them being quite young because they didn't know that there was THC in these products because there was the assumption that it was just hemp. So yeah. Okay, great. Thank you. Anybody else? Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for having us. Yeah, thank you. So that concludes our witnesses on this bill. Folks, think about if there's any more information than the helpful to bring it up again. We still do have Michelle is here. Questions on the language? I'm good. Carrie. I just wanted to offer the agency through the hemp program did send a letter to our hemp registrants, letting them know that in Vermont we did not consider Delta 8 products or Delta 8 THC hemp. Some states have, because it is made from hemp, it's a synthetic cannabinoid that is processed from CBD isolate. And because of the THC concentration and the fact that it was psychoactive, we sent the letter to our hemp growers saying that producing Delta 8 THC did not fall under your hemp permit. And I can provide that letter to the committee if there's a desire to see it. That'd be helpful. Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you. Then why don't we adjourn for the morning and then