 We've condensed that down to the top 10 categories in terms of sold. No, I can send that back. And so, I mean, that's the question. Jim, is that what you want to use as the base market for product, necessarily, or not? You know, I think that it's, I think it's instructive to see what the products are and how many of them are products that are, you know, it gets into the leads of maintenance, but it's one thing to take an edible and add a disc with it to measure it out. And it's another thing to create a, you know, a concentrated base cartridge that is at a higher concentration or some of the other, you know, the concentrated base, you know, shatters and different kinds of dabs and stuff that are, I'm not an expert at it, but I do know that in the past few years bottlenecks have happened to you with manufacturing production. So, as we ramp up for an adult market, I would imagine if all of a sudden there's a run on manufacturing for one type of product that involves, you know, either a certain, you have the biomass and then you have to do the extraction and you have to do the processing, all that. When you have the word that the priority will be medical, but I'm just saying the biomass is there, I understand why they want it this that way, but it doesn't really address the specific good of the product. And if you're a medical patient or any kind of patient for cannabis or any product you know that when you need a product and somebody says we can do it next week for you and you're ill, then that means nothing. Yeah. So that, you know, again, I'm creating where the disclosures are at with, you know, all of it, but that's the reality of the commitment, you know, needs to have, we can get this product made if we're acting as a formulary pharmacy, you know, if I go to the formulary pharmacy, a member land, they can usually do something within 24 hours. But again, I'm saying I expect a commitment of 24 hours, but I think we have to be honest that that's where we're at. We have to commit that those products are going to be made, you know, at a maximum of time. Yeah. I do understand that point. The biomass from the dispensary perspective is so that they have a little bit of flexibility with what products, you know, they're making more of or less of that month depending on demand. But I do see where that concern would be for a medical patient to essentially not know when you go on a dispensary what is going to be available. So let me go back and speak with the dispensaries and see if there's some way that we can incorporate these categories into that biomass because I think, yeah, I think we have to find the balance there because you're right, we don't want patients being concerned that they're not going to have what they need. Yeah, that's one of the challenges is the final product and defund that baseline. The other one is, Jim, you probably mentioned one of our first themes, which is one of the goals is with the adult use market opening up is that you want to ensure that not only you have that baseline, but you have a variety, right? Variety is the big. And so that's the accountability force is how do we, because medical patients should have access to that as well. And for a moment I've got to let the plumber in if you'll excuse me. Just a second. If you want to take a look at that, at least that's what I wanted to do. I'll be right back. Okay. You know, I'm not worried about the variety I think it's going to follow. Yeah. I mean, that's more a function of the genetic lines that have been available. Yeah. You know, that's a whole good dream for everybody is having sort of a broad variety of strengths and whatnot. But it left. So I'm worried about that. And I really do want to understand the, you know, there's so many uncertainties and the variables, you know, that would prevent somebody from saying, oh, yeah, I'm just going to be able to, you know, make these 10 products, you know, consistently and put them on the shelf, including we have no idea that medical patients, you know, demand is just, I feel like some way we have to find to acknowledge the fact that when you operate in that position of a dispensary and it is like a formulary pharmacy, they're, you know, patients are going to expect some kind of quick response. And so whether the plan to be able to do that or even starting with the acknowledgement of that, you know, it's a different kind of customer. Yep. What is the shelf by most of these products? There's a pretty big variety. I mean, I would have to double check my understanding is that something like edibles are only about two weeks. And then, you know, flowers a little bit longer, but once again, you don't want it to sit in a package too long. And then something like a vape cartridge could be considerably longer. So, yeah, there's no real possibility of storage. It's pretty much on demand. I mean, limited to extortion or something like that. Currently, it's about a three month supply that the dispensary is aimed to have on hand just so that there is the flexibility if there's a, you know, demand for more, less, whatever it may be. But that's about as far out as they could plan for, is my understanding. And that's three months of the product or three months of the ingredients to make the product? I would have to go back and ask that. I'm not sure what the ratio of that is. I think the situation that, you know, we've seen in the past couple of years, and again, it's so hard to interpret because all the other variables that have changed with allowing home grow and things like that. But, you know, there's been a limitation in terms of flower sometimes that should be alleviated to some degree. Right now, there's a gap based on the number of patients. And just like all of the home growers dispensaries are growing a lot of product if you hope to have success with all of it, but the best growers get different yields and things like that. And then when you're working with a concentrate, you're yield if it's lower in THC, you just need more biomass to create that amount of THC. So what I've seen, and this is anecdotal from my watching myself, is that the products that are, you know, have value added manufacturing beyond baking, which I think is relatively low-tech and easier to do, and you're doing it with a very generalized discipline at the base of it. It's when you get into the concentrate, the kind of like hash and oils and whatnot that takes either CO2 or like extraction or, and then further processing and purification, and they're going through things that I don't even understand, you know, the basic cartridges, the very complex process that is really quite a great, you know, product at least that I get. So I know that those things aren't, you know, push a button and literally filling cartridges by hand, you know, at times, we're really used. I know the adult use market is going to add technology and, you know, give us throw money, some of those things. But the reality is that it's going to be a bumpy ride and we don't want somebody saying, you know, I was able to get rid of all my nerve problems with this combination of things and now that product, you know, isn't going to be made for two weeks not because the biomass isn't there, but, you know, maybe the capacity is there. I appreciate that. Thanks. Okay. We'll wait to hear from Nick on the feedback she gets for Monday. Okay. Did you both have a chance to look at the, I think it's the 14 points that we've come up with so far for draft recommendations. Yep. Any edits to the existing ones and then we'll see. Do you want me to pull them up on the screen? Sure. I did have a couple of questions if I may start. The point number five, the room of the requirement that limits dispensaries to serving three people at a time, I'm assuming that that implies the need, getting rid of the need for appointments. Right. I forgot to have this one. Thank you. Meg, are there privacy issues with that? I'm not opposed to that. I'm just curious. Like I thought the idea was patients might not want to know who other people, or have people know who they are. So you're limiting the amount of people in the dispensary and ideally limiting people running into one another? Yeah, I'm just curious about that. I mean, I know at a doctor's office, they don't necessarily do that. You're all in a waiting room together and you can see who's, you know, there, right? I thought that that's what that rule was intended to, kind of, address. Yeah. I would have to look at the rule specifically. Jim. I've never seen that way for all of the types of purposes and initially there was, you would wait out the hallway like in Burlington. So anybody in the steel building would see you sitting there and then in the, like in Green Street, you know, the appointments would regulate how many people would be there, but if they got behind, nobody would say you can't have five people in the waiting room. And I'll be honest, but I'm a little puzzled when we had a witness bring it up in the oversight committee a couple weeks ago about, you know, the relationship between a grower, a cultivator, and a patient allowing the kind of private meeting that you would need, but on the other hand, you know, I don't, I know there's a lot of questions about the stigma that unfairly goes with cannabis and I don't know that setting up a program to have, you know, further privacy requirements than HIPAA does since the message of these stigma expectations. I'm just puzzled by that. I'm not sure, but I thought we just needed a separate thing that the appointments was different myself. Yeah, I would agree. I think originally it was meant to increase privacy, but now as what Jim's saying is it does add to the stigma that I think, and I could be wrong, I can check with the dispensaries, but my understanding is that if you would like to speak privately with a sales associate that that is an option. And so for people who would prefer to walk in, I think that's increasing the access in a better way and then allowing people still to perhaps make an appointment if they wish or call ahead, I think is fine. Okay. Yeah, there isn't a, there isn't a, there wasn't a number requirement here in Arizona, but Jim is the registry private or is that public? That's a question that Jim Pepper might be able to answer. All of the, I would imagine it is. Yeah, all of the patient names and records are exempt from public records, so that no one in the public knows who is on the registry and who's not. But again, this isn't, if there is a path for someone who does not want to know or does not want to kind of be in the room with other people, that's all I care about. I don't have real concerns about getting rid of this. Go ahead, maybe some other? Just one more point of clarification. Point number eight, lift restriction on plant count. Is that for patients or is that for the dispensaries? I had that for, I thought it was for the patients when I was drafting it, but now that you mentioned it, I wasn't sure what I had in my notes for that. Okay. By statute, the plant counts go, the per patient plant counts or the dispensaries go away. So I think if this is a recommendation to me, the only way to make sense is this would be for the patients. Okay. That's great. But it's probably better to split it out. I mean, because what we had talked about, I believe was a number we had recommended, I thought six was 12. It's not main. We had talked about it at one point. I have a note, but I think recommending a number might be better than the restrictions. And then separating it, the three houses per month, you know, right now we're at a two-hour or 30-day period. And I think the main message coming from the group out of the discussion was to make sure that there was parity with the adult market so that, you know, that there wouldn't be a situation where a medical patient was certainly being, you know, subject to something more onerous than an adult use would be, or where a medical patient has an appropriate amount of product on them and it's how, you know, how does the legal daily adult use amount, that would need to be addressed. You know, if there's, you can get this amount per day on one visit and then a patient, you know, want to have to go back, you know, every five days or something, you know, I can see a situation where you might want a patient to be able to possess and carry more at one daily time. And I think that was what Dr. Blitzen has been trying to get at earlier on about 90 days of live, things like that. But it's really, I think, you know, we just want to create a situation. And I think Pepper brought this up as well where, you know, you're going to try to help the patient and keep them from visiting or having to visit more often but then get them in a compromised situation in terms of bringing that product home at that one time and carrying it. So parity was certainly the adult use market in terms of limitation. And we didn't, you know, we didn't fully answer the question of what happened. You know, somebody is saying, well, right now we can only have two hours and 30 days. So it's a good point. But, you know, somebody says, well, I'm going through two hours a week and I would like to, you know, not come back for 30 days. All of a sudden, how do we address that? It's just we have the top limit deal with adult use. We're going to have to see where that shakes out, whether it's above the amount that it is now. So I think the recommendation, until we know that adult use limit, it really just needs to be, you know, increase the home grow amount and then parity with the adult use might be. Okay. But that's something we have to watch because I think it does still beg to be addressed. And it's not something that we landed on letting a healthcare provider or I didn't say letting, asking a healthcare provider to weigh in on. They don't do that now. And I would agree with Jim that if we just lift, if we just recommend to list the restriction on plan count, I just, yeah, I think we had discussed 12 if I'm not mistaken. And I would be in support of identifying a number rather than just, yeah, on the restriction. I do remember 12 from our discussion. I can take a look at the minutes. But I mean, if you're comfortable that we can put increase the 12 on the line. I believe that's what, you know, when we've talked to various, you know, witnesses who are like just when an adult was talking about the appropriate amount for a patient or a caregiver to be able to grow and have a successful grow. And I think there was some agreement, even maybe it was Virginia who agreed on that. You know, protecting against a failure. And then the idea that somebody initially told the legislature you get a pound per plan when you grow it, which is not a real thing. You know, when it's dried out, maybe you get a couple of ounces or something. So. Okay. So I'll separate that out instead of. And then I think we should take 12. Yeah. Where medical patients that works. I think Massachusetts as well. I can't be sure of that. But it was. Yeah. I'll look at the minutes again. But okay, I'll put race. And then my last question was whether or not we wanted to include the separation or lack of separation of inventory in terms of medical and adult use until it reaches the consumer. Yeah. So I need to include that and then the issue. I mean, what we talked about last time as well was this subcommittee's comments and recommendations to the, the oversight committee draft as well. So those two need to be out to the list also. I will also. Okay. Any other additions that we need to make to the list besides those two? I wasn't sure last. Sorry, Jim. Go ahead. Last time we had spoken a little bit about lab testing and I'm not sure where in the position right now to add anything to this list, but I did speak with the dispensaries about lab testing and, you know, they completely understand just kind of the optics of why it wouldn't necessarily make sense for the dispensaries to do their own contaminant testing. The issue that they raised is of course the bottleneck with lab testing. I think they would be open to integrated licenses testing other integrated license products. But I'm not sure that anyone is necessarily willing to make that commitment financially. Right now, my understanding is at least one dispensary does their own potency testing and then they send out for contaminant testing to a third party, but not as, but I'm not sure the details of how frequently or what exactly even they're testing, but I do know they are doing their own cannabinoid profile testing. And so they would like to continue to be able to do that on their own. So I'm not sure what the recommendation would be, but that was their response. I think they would be open to like being tested by the state. They had a lab that was capable of doing that. But yeah, quite a commitment. Yeah, I mean, so there are two issues with lab testing that we discussed last time. One was what Jim raised, which was, is there a difference between testing between medical and adult use? And I did not reach out to the lab testing subcommittee members to find out if they were making that distinction. I'd be surprised if they were. But then the second one was I was making recommendations. I don't think the vertically integrated license should be doing their own testing. And I was going to think that suggested, they can test each other through that bottleneck. So that's helpful. But based on the response, I don't know that advances the ball. I might have to expect them to make the commitment to basically do that. But depending on what the lab testing subcommittee comes up with, I don't know what alternatives that they're going to be. Yeah, I'll do some digging and looking to Massachusetts. I believe they are facing somewhat of a similar issue with only a handful of labs. I'm not sure what their medical program testing requirements are or if those labs are responsible for the medical testing, but I can look into that. That'd be great. Can I raise a question or go ahead, Jim? I was going to say, I think the discussion of testing really was, part and parcel was part of that, a discussion of seeds to fail and whether there was going to be a different standard. And I do think that for people to understand, the contaminant testing versus the testing, the plant chemical profile of the campus plant are different things and certain purposes. And I think we've had a lot of discussion about it in medical oversight for testing. And again, this sort of puzzles me from the side of cultivators in a similar way where they, both sort of complain about the dispensaries not testing but then don't want to be forced to test on their own. I think adult use and medical are going to be, in this case, might need to be treated differently. I'm not sure they should be, but medical, it should be tested. It just needs to find where, what is the financial burden of it and I think that's going to be something that a future oversight group is going to need to get into and get witnesses and find out what is the problem, why, what is the cost, what would it have to do it. Because I've heard people say if it were a reasonable, right, there's nobody who wouldn't want to do it. And yet I hear nobody really wanting to do it and whether it's the time commitment or the cost of it. So I worry that tying the medical into the adult use testing, you know, if we just hear constantly that patients want the product, that seems reasonable and people on the oversight committee have, you know, made recommendations as much. So I feel like that's how we can proceed with medical people going, wow, you know, we're not going to change the group with that thing at all. Because I think that's perceived as one of the major issues, at least from the patient side. And that, I do want to also, I'm the number four on this that I'm concerned that, you know, we're talking about healthcare providers, disseminating information to increase awareness of medical programs and benefits, being very ill-defined in this. And the kind of thing that, and Matt, I think you would be able to speak to this, that I think people would concern open their eyes and go, well, what exactly are we going to say about what that is that we're talking about? And so I feel like it's useful, it's been a problem of centuries, even the registry itself, you know, isn't able to give lots of information from people coming and looking for it and improving visibility to the medical program. I think it's important, worded more like that. You know, we want to increase awareness of the medical program. Period. I don't know about saying its benefits at this point because as much as I know what they are and experience them, that's scientifically up for debate still and probably just won't open. Separately, I do hope that the dispensaries are able to, you know, up the way they're able to disseminate studies and information and whatnot and they're restricted to a certain degree now. And I think that's a change, but I think the intention we were looking for here was people, we need to help people know the medical programs there. Yeah. Do you agree with Jim? Yep. So I'm removing benefits and I should include that in the first place for my absence. Does it increase awareness? Yeah. So I'll period it and increase awareness and then in addition to the HCPs I'll add, blow HCPs in, I don't know, license holders or licensees to disseminate information. Well, you know, I don't think, I think the things with healthcare providers at this point I'm not sure why we would say it because we need to let the healthcare providers know it's through the medical program. Yeah, I think healthcare providers with licensees and the state, really, I mean, that's, the licensees are currently the ones really promoting the program to the healthcare providers at the moment. I think if anything, we want to increase that and allow that to also help. Yeah. Okay. After that, one more question here is I'm not sure, what would we mean by collecting on DMR access on number 12? Yeah. Meg, I think that was from your Yeah, I think that was based on essentially wanting to look at who is currently a part of the program to determine if there are any demographics that aren't being reached. As of right now, we just don't have any data that would allow the dispensaries to say, okay, we need to maybe be more present in this community or that community to get the word out there. So just getting some basic data on who's using the program, how they're finding the program, et cetera, I think would be incredibly useful. That's not that information as in the applications now. I don't think. I don't think you say, you know, beyond your birthday. Right. And my understanding the dispensaries don't have access to any of the applications because that is private. So there once a patient determines which dispensary they're using, the only information provided to that dispensary is whatever the patient opts to provide. So they may not even entirely provide the reason that they're utilizing the medical dispensary. So just collecting as basic information as that and then at least being able to share some of that with the dispensaries I think is what the intention of this is. So the goal is again to be able to strengthen the five building program by using information in any appropriate way to be able to understand what the potential market is. So how do you want to respond to that? I just worry if we don't say yeah, yeah, collection are you looking for a name? I guess, I mean I can Yeah, you mean you don't, doesn't it? No. Private that you want to sort of block the demographic. Right. Ideally there are health conditions as well but making sure it's specific enough that it's meaningful data but vague enough that it was you know, really a full definition of privacy. So let me... Yeah, I think about that. Discussion to have with Lindsay I think as well would have a good idea of what data captured, you know, I think it's okay to have a discussion about it and then step back and go okay, now here's the HIPAA realities or here's the you know, whatever but I think it's important enough and ongoing I think the intention with the registry of being able to have a dialogue with patients and communicate, you know, hopefully we'll make for a better data set about who's talking to who and what's that and obviously also Exactly, it's what's working for people I think it would be great for patients where it would be okay I have, you know, this option because I know that X percent of medical patients in Vermont are utilizing cannabis for this, I think that would be very meaningful. Sharon, Jim, did you say Lindsay was...is she there or is there someone from the registry there? She's here, yes. Jim Romero, did you want to... Well, I think I'm just saying that Lindsay would be, you know, she's she's in thick with all the data and everything about the registry she's got the keeper of the information so I just think in terms of formulating what's what's appropriate and, you know, what would be useful in the future is something that she's going to have a good idea about I just, I don't know whether at this, you know, point I'm not sure including in the recommendations without more detail about what we want what the point of it is whereas in, you know by even next spring or next year when the registry has a new home and it, you know chills how it's functioning I think then, you know it would make sense to put this request out there I I honestly think right now just saying in the subcommittee meeting and Lindsay here is it and Pepper here that we all you know want to strengthen the viability of the medical program from the point of view of the businesses and life's holders and the patients of the medical program here in Vermont that's got a long history so we want to grow and move forward but I think I just don't see putting it in now until we know what the data is so it looks like there's no data that we can know about anything I understood and if you wanted to comment we're all ears otherwise I can move on to another question was there, did we also discuss currently do you have to as a patient you have to designate one dispensary that's correct and so we've got to get we've got to get rid of that too right we voted on that yeah I thought that was number two it is yeah any other additional questions Jim or Meg that you had or I did have one I'll defer to Meg and Jim first of course the only last comment I have is that I still have a little puzzle to fix allowing to help everybody to determine which disease and conditions that they qualify to participate this is a bit of a radical yes but we decided it's just because I feel like every time I see this step I'm like well right now the doctors decide I thought we talked about the idea of adding in a vague language that wouldn't necessarily make some feel like they haven't decided but would allow them the latitude to you know like or chronic conditions that you know right now the language that's been put in is intractable and intractable pain is very anything that comes that is left open to the healthcare provider to decide what that is but I fear that this language that says that we're going to you know allow them to determine which diseases and conditions pull back we've let the legislature determine that up until now correct my understanding was that this language came from S117 that was approved on it in 2019 that was the discussion we had with not by the yeah I think that could have been that they didn't take it up because of the pandemic well my comment was related to this as well if this were to replace the list I have a concern that you might actually have less access than more because there are a number of medical professionals healthcare providers that are not willing to recommend cannabis because they don't know enough about it there are no kind of longitudinal studies in the United States about its effectiveness it's not really and if you get rid of the list and again the healthcare provider is only attesting that you have one of those conditions they're not actually recommending cannabis then you might actually see the patient count decrease so if this wasn't going to be a recommendation I would want it as kind of a catch-all or any or at the eight healthcare professionals discretion just again as kind of a devil's advocate on this because I've seen this discussion play out before is if you have that catch-all and you eliminate the three month relationship then does that open the door for the doctor shopping slash shops everyone kind of just gives a 15-minute consultation and gets a medical card and you might say what's wrong with that but I think it really does dilute the access to the people that are most vulnerable from getting the products and so I have a problem with including both of those potentially both whatever a doctor prescribes and getting rid of the three month and so what I would like to see also is if this at the doctor's discretion language does go down legislatively which it will be a legislative decision I would like some alternatives on the board to expand the list of qualifying conditions and the ones that come to mind for me are if a doctor is going to prescribe an opiate they should also be allowed to prescribe or they should be you should have access to the registry or if a person has opiate use disorder potentially is another one I wouldn't support that because I do see what you're saying whereas if we just take away the list it almost takes away the guidelines and makes it a little more intimidating perhaps for a doctor does that make sense for it to be I'll make it additive to the list and I would also support what Chair Pepper has suggested in adding that if somebody is going to be prescribed opioids that they have access to medical cannabis I would also suggest that another option would include anxiety and sleep disorders so yeah those are so heavily part of gerontology approaches with cannabis I think that's that's really important I would say I'm not sure I agree about the three month requirement in terms of doctrine and opiate if it puts a burden on a patient in terms of using the cannabis program there's no three month requirement to go to the doctor and have them prescribe a bottle of vitamin on the same day so I just feel like the three month relationship is extra managed things Chair let me clarify I don't mind getting rid of that I just mean in combination with whatever a doctor prescribes because the two of those are together because if a doctor is prescribing after a 15 minute consultation on a regular basis then they will get investigated well that makes sense to me I would say the flip side of it as much as I think that it is a valid thing obviously to be looking at opiate the option of the cannabis registry I've got to say that you know again there's some study of MAHD in Philanicole I think politically it would work I think people would be enthusiastic about it but it sort of flouts the idea of where the science has said I think there's some strong science I wonder about that linkage of putting that in there whether that's something that is just any doctor would be anything if you told me we're going to prescribe cardboard for people to chew on and it will eat them up opiate they might do it but I know what their states have done they sort of slippery their studies approach just to I'm sorry I don't want to cut you off but Chairman Jim is there anyone that want to public comment is there a public comment in the room no no public comment in the room okay I think I did send around the written public comments that were sent in a question I don't know Meg Virginia had a chance to read that about I have to discuss that now but I did want you to make sure that you read that and we can discuss that next time okay sorry do you need to continue with your comment I might just have a comment I made some sort of a broader picture comment than a specific one and it's really just it's clear that every one of these will assist the dispensary do their job and provide patients medicine but the bigger thing that concerns me is the lack of research about what works and so that's I just I think that to Mr. Scott Madison about proper documentation is risky and just as variations of potency that are declared is risky I know that this is I'm not suggesting making any changes I'm just sort of saying that I think that we're getting into the weeds on this and kind of ignoring one of the biggest questions thank you Matt I would appreciate that there is a it raises a much bigger question research which is I think someone falls under the auspices of this suddenly but I think everyone would be in agreement that continued research for example in Oregon to advance that the university actually do all the certification because of their all resources they've developed into the research for the plant I mean maybe I'm wrong but Jim mega I assume you'd be supportive of continued research for the plant and universities in order to advance what Matt's saying in the documentation and the research for that but yeah that doesn't raise a much bigger issue I mean the dispensaries are taking on actually a pretty significant risk if they're not doing that research you know or if they're not labeling potency someone has a second frame you know so it's it is an issue that should be looked at at some point in the process yeah and the potency is that it goes more towards the testing that we were talking about earlier but as far as you know dedicated research towards it you know federally that's been a battle for more than five years but certainly state research is possible if you guys want to think about making that recommendation we can certainly take that under advisement I think part of the spirit of the oversight committee recommending for funding and infrastructure for its operation was in the spirit of research someone along the lines of what I think they was looking for in terms of the viability of the medical program but I think Dr. McCherry our vice chair was thinking of it in terms of being able to do some of our own research you know certainly the data set would be big enough at easy things and I think our intention of being able to call witnesses in the oversight committee was also not just in a defensive pose for oversight but also to make sure that we are looking at the possibilities of the science that is out there and when we are at a critical mass of studies being done that we know about it and are able to bring in the right people to hear about it from and then go make our case the board and through that to the legislature so that definitely is a part of the interest and I think a strong medical program will help that the states do it credibly on a state level I hope that is what we are going to do yeah attention to state labs to reduce the states Jim Jim is that Dr. has he explored partnerships or connections with any of the Vermont universities to advance their research at all or you know if that has been looked at I can talk with him Dr. McHenry you know certainly has the five of various groups in Vermont about medical candidates he is a neurologist he is interested in so I would have I can follow up and have him to one of our meetings and talk about in the state he would be a person who might know of what is being done it's limited if anything but there is a program at UVM right now through the nursing program I believe maybe teaching cannabis medicine and so you know I would imagine that the university would always want to back up one of the work they are doing with the research the opportunity for that has got to be got to be there and I think it would be one of those things that would increase awareness of the medical program in nothing but a good way I believe I mean the dispensaries are of course in support of research and I believe that there was legislation passed that allowed the dispensaries to give cannabis to UVM for research but because of federal law UVM wasn't able to partake hopefully they need to learn some of the creative ways that the business is being done elsewhere to skirt the barriers that's not just the U.S. research either it could just start with a really good research on all this okay good I will disseminate and revise lists including these we've got four new editions we're going to take a look at if there's anything else to add before we adjourn can I get a motion to adjourn I'll form back in much to thank you