 Good afternoon. You are with the Vermont house government operations committee. We are meeting this afternoon for a little while with our new chair of the cannabis control board, James Pepper and welcome James. We have before us a bill as 25 that has come over with some changes to our cannabis laws. Some of them are some of them are are urgent and time sensitive and and really need to move forward and then there are a few others that you know that folks on the other side of the general assembly thought were important and so we will be doing our due diligence on the bill. Over the next several days to make sure that we get it moving on its way before we get to adjournment. And so I thought it was really helpful. We have looked through the bill with legislative council, but I thought it would be very helpful for us to hear from the perspective of one member of the cannabis control board and just hearing you know what is what is critical and time sensitive what is what are the aspects of 25 that are most important from the perspective of the regulatory body. And so we would love to have some time with you for questions afterward but I would like to turn it over right now and welcome James Pepper to share with us some thoughts on the bill. Hey, well thank you very much for inviting me and for the record it's James Pepper with cannabis control board. I thought that I might just give the committee a very brief update on where things stand with the board. I can talk very much just as you laid out about S 25 and my reactions to it and then and then of course take any questions that committee members may have. With respect to the board I should really just start by thanking the governor, the Attorney General, Secretary young secretaries pastiji Quinn, Fitch, the director of racial equity and all of their employees who've been incredible in anticipating the needs of the board starting building this infrastructure and working very quickly to try to make up some of the time that's been lost since we started. So just a quick update on the board. We have all of our account codes and our payrolls in place we have computers, email addresses, access to shared point and we are working on a website and getting our phones established. We have our office space picked out, and we've been to surplus to get some furniture. We worked with talent acquisition manager at the Department of Human Resources to post our executive director position and a number of kind of creative ways and outlets, and we have some very capable people that are interested in the job. We are working on posting our administrative support position. We've developed a rough perspective meeting schedule to start holding regular meetings to get to work on the board's work, and that will likely begin later this month, and we'll have kind of a consistent meeting schedule. To be in mind, we still have not been confirmed by the Senate, we don't have our executive director, and we don't have our advisory committee in place yet. So I just want to keep the expectations where I think they should be based on, you know, us getting started and delivering some of the kind of timelines and milestones. If I can turn to S-25, I just want to pause there and see if there's any questions that folks may have regarding kind of the startup of the board. All right. I think you're good to go. Thank you. Okay, well, as you indicated, Madam Chair, that there are certain aspects of the bill that I think should pass if or must pass if you want the board to be able to meet any of the FY22, and 23 deadlines that are in Act 164. There are certain amendments that should be in the bill. If you really want a well-functioning board and advisory committee, as well as a well-functioning medical use program, and then there's everything else that's in the bill, and I won't be commenting on those aspects of the bill unless asked. So turning first the things that must pass if you want us to meet our FY22 and 23 deadlines. I think Section 4A relates to it shifts the approval authority for the cannabis control boards proposed fee structure from the General Assembly to the Joint Fiscal Committee. Of course, getting that approval for our fee structure is the first domino that needs to fall before we can start the process of accepting applications, granting cultivator licenses, establishing the testing facilities, and eventually opening retail shops. So without that change, I really think that this committee and others should rethink the whole Act 164 timeline. If we don't see that change and we have to wait until next year for legislative approval of our fee structure. So that's Section 4A. The next section that I think has to pass once again if we're going to meet our timelines is the advertising plan. This is Sections 5 through 9 of the bill. So if you recall Act 164, the Cannabis Control Board and the Attorney General were supposed to work together and to submit to the General Assembly a plan for advertising by April 1 of this year. And of course, we haven't done that. And it's my understanding that the plan that you see in Sections 5 through 9 was developed by the Attorney General. And I believe that it's my understanding that it essentially is as restrictive as the advertising plans for tobacco, which is essentially a ceiling on limiting commercial speech. Now, I know that there was some conversation about maybe having an outright ban on advertising. We would certainly be breaking new grounds if we decided or if the legislature decided to outright ban advertising in this industry. I think that there's certainly an argument that could be made that, you know, given the federal status of cannabis that perhaps an outright ban would be legally defensible. As far as I'm concerned, this is probably the most restrictive advertising plan that is currently constitutionally allowed. So those are the two pieces of the bill that I think must pass if we're to meet our October 1 2022 deadline and some of the earlier deadlines. Okay, the next kind of segment of my testimony is about certain amendments to the bill to ensure kind of a well functioning board and a well functioning advisory committee and a well functioning medical use program. So section two of the bill deals with the advisory committee and it makes some changes. I would deal with those, you know, I would leave it to the committee to work out the ask from the cannabis board is with respect to the makeup of the advisory panel. I've met with the chair of the marijuana for symptom relief oversight committee, which oversees the medical use program and is very patient centric and focused. I think it would make sense in order to ensure that patients voices are very are well represented in the advisory committee that the chair or a designate of the marijuana for symptom relief oversight committee be added to the advisory committee. And one of the, I don't know if it was an oversight or not but that committee is actually set to sunset based on some of the language and act 164 and that sunset is on March 1 2022. We would ask that that be extended at least to the end of the session next year to see if there's any changes to the makeup of that board or it's enabling statute that might be necessary. The section 15 of the bill is relates to accelerating the transfer of the medical program to the cannabis control board. It's currently by statute set to transfer March 1 2022. And this section would accelerate that transfer to July 1 of 2021. In speaking with the program director at the medical program it seems like that transfer could happen on July 1. However, given where the board is as of today, and given the need for continuity of services and products to the patients on the cannabis cannabis registry. I'm not sure that July 1 makes the most sense. So, you know, my feeling is that the cannabis board will be in a much more stable position in March of next year, but that, you know, if there is a need or a desire to accelerate that transfer. You know, I think a date of possibly October 1 of this year, or maybe January 1 of next year would make more sense. But again, if it's, if it's July 1, we'll take it on. But, you know, just given some of the continuity of services pieces, I don't know if it makes sense to stick with that or to move it up. So another piece with respect to a well functioning board Act 164 had a number of recommendations that the board was supposed to make on April 1. You know, we were not seated at that point. We have not made those recommendations, but one of them was to submit to the General Assembly and organizational plan that included the resources necessary for the implementation of this act for fiscal years 22 and 23, including new positions and funding. So we've not done this work, of course, quite yet, but we have in the very limited amount of time that we have been established identified some needs and I've anticipated a few others, just looking at some of the other boards regulatory boards in the state and of course the 11 other states that have regulatory commissions. So one piece that we would ask for is one additional administrative support position. The three purposes that are one administrative assistant to be more of a business manager. And we need essentially, you know, an Andrea to help us with getting our meetings live streamed recorded and managing just some of the technical interplay between the public and the board in this remote setting. So we're looking for a general council position to help manage some of the litigation that we anticipate and serve as an appellate officer for some of the grievances that are filed against the board, managing public records contracting. So just looking at some of the other, again, some of the other regulatory commissions in the state, it seems that the general council has more than enough to keep them busy. So once the board starts making decisions. So, of course, some of the other boards are the other cannabis control commissions around the state have some version of the following positions. The Office of Diversity and Inclusion Office of data in business and analysis or research Office of compliance and enforcement. And very mindful of how our budgeting mechanism works, and that every dollar that we spend has to be recouped and fees and potentially some revenue. So we're trying our best to keep our footprint as small as possible. But I think both of these positions that I've laid out the administrative support and a general counselor necessary, and we'll actually save the state money in the long run. So I'd like to move on unless there's any questions about those. So I'd like to talk a little bit about the development fund that's in as 25 and social equity, generally speaking in the cannabis world. And just start by saying no amount of cannabis policy alone is going to undo some of the damage that's been done by the decades long war on drugs or selective policing or the use of criminal history records. And that correcting those harms is going to take a coordinated and sustained effort from all aspects of state government. There's certain things that the board can do using the power that it's been granted to break down the barriers of entry and encourage license ownership by people who have been disproportionately harmed by the war on drugs. The typical approach used by other states has been to reduce or waive application fees and license fees for social equity applicants to expedite social equity applications to create business training and management opportunities. And also just to fundamentally change the way we think about and use criminal history records in this in this space. And also just to define having a solid definition of social equity applicant, more fundamentally to ensure that the people that were most directly harmed by prohibition actually get to participate in this market. Those are the things that the board boards in Massachusetts Illinois, Oakland and others have done to push more equity in this space. The results have been mixed at best. You know, I think Massachusetts has all of these in place, and their license ownership is 70% white and male, and it's not much better in Nevada or Illinois. So there's certain things that we can do I think there's certain things that the legislature can do. You know, some of the bigger things would be to create a cannabis equity task force to help advise the board. You've done some work in Act 164 some good work I think first in the nation work on on preventing corporate consolidation and curbing some of the predatory lending practices. One other thing that you know you should be doing. And maybe it's not for this committee, but is to take a very broad view of community reinvestment when it comes to cannabis general generated revenue. We've got all of the second and third order effects of prohibition and the impact that those criminal history records have had on employment and education and housing and healthcare, and just general economic opportunities. Any investment with the revenue to correct those harms would be supporting social equity, but probably the most effective thing that you can do right now is to is to create a low or no interest revolving development fund. And this is contemplated in S 25 in sections 12 through 14. I'm sure it's not lost on this committee who's done so much work on cannabis policy that because cannabis is still a schedule one controlled substance federally. Businesses operating in this field have to abide by very complex rules, especially when it comes to banking. You can't get traditional loans to start up a business from a federally insured bank. You can't write off your business expenses. And you need to purchase supplemental insurance, which is very expensive. And I'm, and well, and you also don't have federal bankruptcy protections. So these are just a number of the artificial barriers to entry into this market that benefit well financed applicants that have a track record of success in other states, or the ones that are just willing to fund finance social equity and small cultivator applicants and potentially use predatory lending and contracting practices. So to me, I think the social development fund or the cannabis development fund is not going to be a silver bullet, but it is going to be the thing that might set us apart from some of the other states that haven't seen the results that they anticipate and that were promised when the when the original legislation was being passed. So I've touched on the areas that I think are important and be happy to take any questions. Thank you so much for being with us today and I want to say that I really do appreciate that you have a fully fleshed out understanding of what other states have done around equity and around writing the wrongs of past prohibition. And so it makes me feel very heartened that you're the right person for the job here. And I appreciate that that you are listing the development fund as a very important component of this bill. Representative representative Bihowski has a question. So thank you Mr Pepper and I want to echo that I'm really the chair and that I'm really pleased to hear your support of the social equity fund I want to go back to the community. To the board you were talking about the equity board and I'm, I am wondering if you would support something. In H414, which is on the house side there's a board proposed a community social equity program board that's really finally laid out to sort of hit on all the points that you talk about the impacts of incarceration and the impacts on health and I wonder if that is a structure that you think would be helpful in as as the board you're talking about here to really look at those social equity pieces. Can you just remind me the place where I could find the makeup of that in the enabling statue. If so it's a bill in the house right now but I can actually tell you who is on that board I'm looking at it right now so the lieutenant governor or designee. I'm the general the secretary of commerce and community development, the commissioner of health, the commissioner of corrections, the commissioner of public safety. The commissioner of human resources secretary of human services, a member of the Senate designated by the committee on committees, a member of the House of Representative designated by the speaker, a member of the Senate designated by the minority a member of the House of Representatives designated by the minority leader and then the following members would be two municipal officials from jurisdictions that include community social equity program areas to community based providers or community development organizations, one woman who has been incarcerated and is older than 24 to individuals who have previously been incarcerated and are between the ages of 17 and 24. And that so that's sort of the layout of that board. Yes, I mean that that is the kind of lived experience that we need that we're missing from the advisory committee. And, you know, as far as let's just set aside the kind of legislators and state employees because we do have ability to interface with them a little bit more easily but yes. I think that that is the kind of lived experience that we're looking for and they kind of hearing the actual impacts of and and how far they touch and how deep they reach of criminal history records and how they prevented. I mean it's and it's not just criminal history records obviously but that's kind of the, you know they say I've heard the phrase you know the cannabis is a gateway drug well what I've heard is cannabis convictions or the gateway convictions. And so, yeah, I think that that that would be an important those those are the kind of voices that we absolutely need to hear. Thank you so much. My other question for you is about the current the current board, the so the cannabis control board and I have particular concern about the appointment of someone involved in criminal justice reform by the attorney general and I wonder if you have an opinion on if that would be a better suited appointment by the ACLU. So yes I want someone involved in that but I'm wondering who should be appointing it sorry my question was not clear. Um, you know I I don't really have a strong opinion on that. I know that our current Attorney General has been deeply committed to criminal justice reform but that that position is elected and it can change. So, but I don't I don't feel strongly I feel confident that our current Attorney General will appoint someone with a good experience in that but Thank you representative Anthony. Thank you very much and thank you for helping us get on our, our legs with this and figure out what what has to come first. I wanted to follow up on two issues, one that probably is is so obvious. And, and, and you've articulated it and that is to be absolutely certain that any operations as we go through the iterations of licensing are fully adequately capitalized working capital, as well as if you will insurance capital. And at least we can manage with the full face and credit of the state, for sure. What I'm wondering is what kind of consulting help assistance on call for the soon to be selected licensees. Those folks are, if you will, eligible through the language of sort of assistance, given the social equity initiative. It's not clear to me that those any of those licensees could hit the ground running. And so where's the technical assistance the the sort of support network that it doesn't seem to me the Canada's board per se is equipped or empowered to to create or made of it make available. As you pointed out, there's no bankruptcy protection there's no access to creditor pecking orders in the bankruptcy court. So the best way to cure that problem is avoid bankruptcies. So my previous comment is, let's make sure every licensee succeeds. One of the things that we could do however, and every business has to face this is wrap around insurance for its activities. Unfortunately, the state has been very good at creating captive insurance agent industry, and I don't see why on the face of it. There couldn't be a captive insurance institutions set up that would purposely cover the apparatus of the cannabis control licensure recipients, and therefore remove that obstacle as it were. So I think they're, I'm just thinking out loud of business support systems that would be required or would be very helpful. Once the licensees are selected to make sure that we avoid creditor debtor squabbles and bankruptcy and bad loans etc etc. Thank you. Thank you for the questions and the kind of thinking out loud because it is helpful and you know we are going to be relying on the expertise of almost every official and state government to get this right. I mean, it's an odd sort of thing that this, you know, plant is, you know, somehow touches upon almost every aspect of state government, certainly the agency of agriculture tax department department of financial regulation. I don't know the name a few, but yeah so the, the to answer your first question act 164 did have a piece in it about the agency of commerce and community development, developing a business and technical assistance program to help essentially train Vermont applicants and specifically calls out Vermont applicants in how to run a cannabis business and some of the management and training techniques so I think that that work. I think is due by September 1 of this year to get that program up and running so we, you know, I haven't reached out to secretary curly just yet but I do, I did mention in actually one of my interviews with her that she's going to be very essential in getting this business, getting Vermont ready for this for this industry. And certainly, other states have dealt with this as well I know Massachusetts has a very similar training program, where if you go through the training program, you get an expedited application review process you get essentially move to the front of the line. And certainly something we could consider at the board as well. And then again, any advice that we can get I know on former commissioner Donigan put together a paper on some of the insurance opportunities that and banking opportunities that existed. The paper started looking at cannabis tax and regulate back in 2015 2016. So there's, there's, there's people that are much smarter than I am that have been trying to work out some of these issues for a number of years now and we'll be picking up on that work where they left off. Thank you for that representative Colston. Thank you Madam Chair, and thank you Mr pepper for this update, and welcome aboard. Thank you. Sure. So I want to follow the line of questioning of a representative. Who was exploring. But what I feel is, is, you know, how do we, how do we collaborate with other state entities to achieve these social equity goals. I agree with you. The board shouldn't be the silver bullet for making all this happen. But do you have any specific thoughts about how that might come about in terms of collaborating with entities that can help us get to this goal. So that we're, we're very fortunate that a lot of the, I mean we're a state that passed cannabis tax and regulate, legislatively, you know, we don't really have a binding ballot initiative process in Vermont. And so a lot of other states, almost all of them started with a ballot initiative. And they had people writing into their ballot initiatives because of the federal status, they had written into their ballot initiatives that they need to help other states as you know we move to and prohibition in our states and move to a tax and regulate system. So what I've found as I've reached out to the liquor and cannabis control board in Washington, and the Department of Revenue in Colorado, that these, that these states, these state agencies are opening their playbooks to us and just saying take what you like take what's Massachusetts has a whole division of research and analysis so we know precisely how many people of color BIPOC, our license holders in Massachusetts, they're keeping you know very good data and records to help guide other states. And I was just watching a panel on social equity 2.0, and it was with Shalene title who is the equity commissioner in Massachusetts, and the new cannabis control chair in New Jersey, and the cannabis commissioner in Illinois all talking about social equity and they really kind of say you need to take the kind of umbrella approach which is not just, you know getting licenses in the hands of people have been disproportionately impacted but also really focus on how you're spending the revenue, and really try and use that revenue source to correct historic abuses and again to think very broadly about all of the second and third order impacts of prohibition is had. So it's not a perfect answer to your question but there really is not a one size fits all approach and in my opinion and in my history with this. I didn't get this right, they really do want to help, and you know I've only, I've only been welcomed with open arms by any, any state that I've reached out to. So, we're going to continue to do that. We're allowed to also hire a consultant pursuant to the legislation. I remember it's kind of a small world with respect to consultants on cannabis policy because it's mostly former regulators that you know get picked up by these consulting firms where they start their own. And you know there aren't that many former regulators. So, but we are looking into a number of consulting firms that just have the kind of depth of knowledge and I also, you know, again I reached out to Bo Kilmer, when I first got appointed he was the first person I called and he's the lead search researcher at Rand on cannabis policy. And he once again, you know, gave me an advanced copy I'm probably not supposed to say that of a new, you know, in depth article looking at all of the social equity programs across the state and how effective they've been. And so, you know, and he said that you know he'd be very willing to come to Vermont, I mean zoom over to a cannabis meeting. He said he's probably too expensive for for us to hire but he'd be more than willing kind of on a maybe small limited, you know, appearance to walk us through some of those aspects of the social equity 2.0 and what's been actually working. That sounds great. Thank you. Representative Higley. Thank you, James. I've got a couple of questions. One is on the section of the bill. It's actually section one talking about that March 8 of 2023 deadline for municipalities to sign off on approval for for permitting operations. If not after that time. They're deemed if they don't have that vote they're, they're deemed to be allowing for cannabis retailers and licensures. I have a concern around that I'm just wondering if you were the board has had any opportunity yet to talk about that provision. So, you know, I come to you as the chair of the board. We, the board has really been focused on just the technical aspects of getting our board up and running and we're going to start actually dealing with the business of the board in an open meeting, open meeting setting. We've spoken about this piece explicitly as a board, but I can tell you that I divide the bill as 25 into things that must pass and things that could wait. And this falls squarely into something that could wait until next year to talk about, you know, I think what do we have 21 towns that have put this on their ballot and approved cannabis retail sales. You know, for the most part very well geographically proportioned. So I'm not worried about there being a lack of opportunity. When we open up retail shops or when we're looking at licensures, but certainly this is a question that is not does not fall in the category of it has to pass this year. So, you know, that's just, I mean, other people may feel differently, but that's where I'm at. Well, thanks for that. And then the other thing is, I'm sure the board hasn't had an opportunity to talk about this but I think it's going to be a concern in some regards and, you know, the whole issue of certain CBD producers producing delta eight. You know, they pushed the envelope my understanding is a lot of those CBD producers wanted to get in, you know, on the ground level to eventually get into the cannabis market as well. Any any concerns around folks that have that have pushed that envelope early on and whether or not, you know what the consequences are for getting marijuana growing licenses and that sort of thing. You know, I'm, I'm, I don't have a specific answer to that, you know, the hemp program is not going to move under the auspices of the cannabis board. And so some of these questions are going to take some nuance to see whether they're under our jurisdiction or under the hemp programs jurisdiction and but I just I'm sorry I don't have a good answer on that. No, that's fine James I appreciate that but again, you know if they're producing a, you know, a THC product or a chemical process, I'm sure that you know the past are going to cross at some point I would think does something to think about I believe. Thank you. Yep. Representative Gannon. Thank you. And thank you James for testifying today. So, sort of follow up on representative Higley's question but you know a number of individuals and coalitions have come forward with a number of ideas about how to amend S 25. And I just wanted to get your thoughts on, you know, whether we should move forward with some of these ideas in S 25 or because there are must pass sections of S 125 that we want to make certain. And if they're passed into law, they can either wait or be studied by the board down the road. So, for example, what one group thinks that outdoor cultivation should not be in an enclosed lock facility. What are your thoughts on that. I'm getting kind of into the business of the board now. I'm happy to just talk about that in particular, or more generally I should say which is that there's, I don't see us as a cannabis board, delivering a kind of fully mature cannabis regulatory on October 1 2022. You know, I think there's certain aspects that we will definitely have in place, whether you know the kind of youth prevention and the expert and a lot of the environmental and energy standards and groundwater standards but it's, you know, it's hard to think about kind of having just, you know, treating cannabis which is still a federally controlled substance schedule one controlled substance, you know just treating it the exact same as a tomato or a cucumber we just can't do that yet. And it's just not, it's just not something that, you know, it's just not, it doesn't jive with the values of Act 164, and what some of the other states have been doing certainly outdoor grow has a much smaller environmental footprint than, than an indoor grow. And certainly when you're thinking about trying to break down some of the barriers to entry that having, you know, extensive fencing or green, putting up greenhouses or having you know security cameras or locked doors isn't is an added cost. But I think Vermont we've gone slow on cannabis legalization and tax and regulate. And I think that we need to continue to move at the pace that Vermonters want on this so that's, I know that's not a direct answer to your question, but you know I think that it's just the way that we're going to have to kind of think about this and recognizing also that we're about four months behind schedule. And we don't have an executive director in place quite yet or an advisory committee in place quite yet to help us make some of these decisions. Yeah, that's a fair response, especially given what you just said and you don't have all your staff in place. You don't have the advisory committee in place. I mean, there's still a lot of basic things that need to happen. Just one follow up question. There's other things that the board or the legislature considered could should consider about how to help small cultivators especially outdoor cultivators have a fair chance in this industry. Well, the development funds certainly is one of the keys I mean a well financed applicant, you know, is going to have certain advantages that a small cultivator does not and they'll have the ability to make investments and not need to see a return on their investments the way and so anything that we can do to help support the small cultivators in their startup costs and breaking down barriers and ensuring that the local fees aren't excessive and you know anything that we can do on that front to break barriers to entry. And then you know we need to get creative, I think, as a board with our licensing structures and find ways to take some of the more expensive costs and socialize them or democratize them, you know I'm thinking of, you know, testing the facilities and access to those and packaging and, you know, all of the in branding and all the things that that could be acted as artificial barriers to this industry that I think we need to ensure that, you know, people, especially our cultivators have early access to. And then of course, you know, again, I don't see any difference between, well, I see some difference but I think that some of the social equity pieces that we've talked about, you know fee waivers, like for applications or you know reduced licensing fees should apply to small cultivators as well. And because one of the driving principles of this bill and the reason for doing it is to try our best to eliminate or reduce the black and gray markets and try to move as many of the people that are growing illicitly right now into a regulated market. Thank you. Representative Colston. I'm chair. So Mr Pepper, what is happening at the federal level to advance banking in the cannabis industry. Well, so it's interesting it's a changing. It's a changing dynamic, seemingly daily I think, and it's moving very quickly. I think the house has passed a bill that would change the banking aspect alone it would. I don't know the specifics of the bill but it would fix essentially the fact that cannabis is seen as a schedule one drug for the purposes of federally insured banks. So any profits are seen as kind of profits from from drug trafficking. And Senator Schumer majority leader has indicated his support for banking fix. And I know that Senators Leahy and Sanders have been champions of this and I think, I mean listen there's 40 I think it's 43 or 46% of Americans live in jurisdictions that where cannabis sales are legal. So how much longer can we really go with with not fixing the at least at the minimum the banking side of this. Thank you. Representative Anthony. So we're going back to your discussion about a sort of assisting in common business expenses by I think your praise was socializing or democratizing those amongst the new licensees. Another example in Vermont of serious heavy duty market participation is of course the liquor and lottery board and, and commission. Do you sense that either the legislation or the cooperation you might expect through the executive branch would allow you to to or allow licensees to somehow partner because some of the expenses that you just ticked off the liquor and lottery folks have to essentially cope with deal with sign contracts on produce themselves whether it's advertising to transport a container. And packaging, you know all that they have to deal with so I'm just wondering if they aren't a suitable advisor slash partner for some of the licensees as they mature and I guess the question is, is there any obstacle, or anything the commissioner should do to make sure that that expertise and those, if you will, joint needs of businesses could be pulled between the now cannabis market and the liquor market. I had thought about that. And, but I don't know enough about it really and it's funny you should mention them because I'm meeting with Commissioner Delaney tomorrow tomorrow morning to talk about that very issue. So, I guess, stay tuned, we will certainly rely on the infrastructure that the agency of agriculture has put into place in their cannabis quality program. I believe that they've kind of slowly been building up testing facility or testing capacity for the industrial hemp program. So we will be relying on our partners at liquor and lottery and just the expertise in our various agencies. Every turn every step of the way. So yes, I mean, thank you so much for being with us this afternoon committee. We are going to continue our work on this bill over the next couple of days. And it was, it was with intention for us to be able to move fairly swiftly on this that I asked the question about what parts of this bill are going to be passed versus things that we could come back to or accomplish in a different way. And so I guess I would welcome you to ask any other questions that you might have of the incoming chair of the cannabis control board now, because we will hear from a number of other witnesses tomorrow and Thursday. But make sure that that you've had a chance to ask the guy who's going to be right at the center of all of this as it moves forward, because we may not spend much more time with him unless unless there are particular issues that come up. It looks like you have answered everyone's questions so I appreciate you being with us this afternoon, and you will be able to follow along if you'd like and you're welcome to request a zoom invite if there's anything that you would like to come back and and speak with us. I don't know what you're talking about the current operations about, but we know that you also have a lot of other tasks to complete in order to get the, the cannabis control board up and running so certainly don't need to expect you to hang with us the entire time. Well, I just would thank this committee in particular for all the thoughtful work you've done on this bill or that this bill. I think it's a very good product that's built upon years of thinking from legislators and other states so thank you for that and look forward to getting to work with the cannabis board later this month. Excellent. Well, best of luck to you. Thank you.