 So my name is James Pepper. I'm the chair of the Vermont Cannabis Control Board. It's Wednesday, December 8th. It's 11 a.m. and I will call this meeting to order. So today we are going to continue our discussion of the medical program. As we discussed last week, we have some specific directives and some recommendations in our legislation to align our medical program with our adult use recreational program to the extent that we can and also to ensure that no new rule that we create is more restrictive than the current set of rules. So just a few administrative details. A reminder that our exploratory committee is meeting tomorrow at 11 a.m. to discuss the Board's reporting requirements for our January 15th report. The agenda is posted. We're going to be talking about special license types, delivery licenses and a few other just very kind of specific reporting requirements. And then the Board will meet again on Friday at 11 a.m. and we will post the agenda for that when it's ready. So I would take, has everyone reviewed the minutes from the second? Yeah. Take a motion to approve the minutes from December 2nd. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Sorry, December 3rd. Sorry. And all right, why don't we just move directly to the agenda. So again, today we're going to be talking about the medical program and some specific issues that we need to discuss and decide. And I will turn things over to Bryn. Okay. So I have just a few slides to go through that kind of tease up the different questions that I think that you, the Board needs to make some decisions about where rules one and two that we've prefiled differ from the DPS rule. And as Pepper just mentioned, there's like, there's a statutory requirement, 7VSA 956, that the Board has to adopt rules governing the medical program that are no more restrictive than the existing DPS rule. So that is something to bear in mind as we talk about, as we talk about this. So just at the outset here, some things to keep in mind as we go through these decision points. As I said, medical rule has to be no more restrictive than the DPS rule, and the Board should strive for consistency with rules one and two wherever you can. And so that means that if the DPS rule is less restrictive than what you've decided on in rule one or two, really your choices are either to adopt the DPS language or come up with an alternative that's no more restrictive than what DPS has said. So a couple other points. If the Board decides that a dispensary rule should track either one or two, then what that means is that the dispensary rule is going to follow whatever portion of rule one or two applies to that part of their operations. And if a dispensary is also an integrated licensee, any portion of that operation that's also servicing the adult use market is going to be required to follow that relevant portion of rules one or two, except for if it's the retail portion of that operation and then both the medical rule and the adult use rules are going to apply to the same location if it's servicing both programs. Does that make sense? Okay. So we're going to start with, and also something I just wanted to mention is that I have up here the DPS rule and also rules one or two. So if you guys want to look at a particular portion of any of those, I can quickly pull it up as we go through these. So we talked briefly at the last meeting about the definition of caregiver. That existing statutory definition is scheduled to sunset on March 1st and there's not a replacement in statute. And there's also not a definition of caregiver that's in the DPS rule currently. So if the board decided to adopt the current statutory definition in our rule, it would read as follows at the bottom part of the slide there. A person who's at least 21 has met the qualification requirements as determined by the board in accordance with the rule. And agreed to undertake responsibility for managing the welding of a registered patient with respect to the use of cannabis for symptom relief. So we've heard repeatedly from caregivers and people in the program that they don't want this definition changed. I think the only reason why changing it has even come up is because the symptom relief oversight and the medical subcommittee have both said, we're okay with increasing the caregiver rotation ratio if it only means administering medicine, if it only means going to the dispensary on behalf of a patient. They would support if you bifurcated the definition to an unlimited patient to caregiver ratio, if that's a caregiver meant. You start going to the other responsibilities of a caregiver including designated cultivator. That's where those two groups do not support increasing the ratio. So I honestly think if we're going to make a recommendation to increase the ratio to one to two, one to three, whatever we decide, we just leave this definition alone. I agree. I did think that it was current that caregiver was in the current DPS rule. It is, but it essentially tracks. Okay. Because it says something about that you can't be both a registered, did I misread this perhaps? Like both a registered patient and a caregiver? Does it say that? I don't think that's in the definition. Okay. In this definition. Okay. That may be some other piece that you're thinking of. Yeah. My only thought was that that piece should go away. But you should be, if that's, maybe I was looking at something that's old, but that you should be able to be a registered patient and a registered caregiver. If that's, but again, maybe I was looking at something that was outdated. I'm supportive of keeping it the same enough. Any more discussion on that point? Not on that, but if you could just pull up the hundred best songs. I'd like to know. We can do that after the meeting. So no, I think we'll keep the definition the same. Okay. Okay. So we're going to move on to patient registration process and caregiver registration process. This is set out in section three and four of the DPS rule. And there isn't an analog in the board rules. So is there a reason to deviate from what's set out in the DPS rule? I had a few comments on this. I think the notarized application is probably unnecessary, but it leads me to, which is in 3.1.1. But it leads me to a larger question is I thought that DPS or the VMR, the registry had started a transition to electronic application submission. Is that something that we know the answer to? Maybe it's a question for Kimberly. Lindsay's behind you shaking her head. Or Lindsay. Hi. So is there a, can you join us? Just so you can see your face. Sorry. Our rules are at 8. Thank you for joining us. Welcome. No. No, no. Okay. So we should remove that. It was in statute a few years ago. Gotcha. Yes, they can register online. Okay. It's like an approved, a department approved form. Okay. Gotcha. All right. So yes, then I would suggest that we just eliminate that if it's not, it's kind of an outdated portion of the rule anyway. Okay. And then could we pull up the medical rule? Sure. I was looking specifically at 3.1.1.5. So this idea that you have to choose between cultivating and designating a dispensary. No. Okay. So good. So that apparently is out of date as well. So I would say we eliminate 3.1.1.5. And I think 3.5.2 is similar and 3.5.3 has a similar. Yeah. At least the ones, 11.30, 2015 is the most. I just want to make sure I'm looking at the right thing. Okay. Yeah. They have not been updated to near changes in the statute. Okay. Because, you know, adult use was going to come along at some point. Right. Down here. Can I ask you another question? Yeah. This is a patient. And maybe the law is just silent on this. Which would be my preference. Are they, so they get a grow allowance of two mature, seven immature. And is that in addition to their regular adult use home grow allowance, which is two mature and four immature, that every Vermont juror is allowed to grow? Yeah. It's not clear. It doesn't address that. It's silent on that? Okay. That's, I think that's better. Does it also, if you're a patient and a caregiver, does that increase the limit? Can you grow a certain amount for your, if you're, for your, for, as a caregiver, and then if you're a patient, can you, does it double, has it doubled the amount? Well, so historically now because the possession limit was the possession limit. Okay. Okay. So I think that's all I have for that. Three, five, three, they don't longer have to grow in a single secure indoor facility. The language mirrors the adult use cultivation requirements. Okay. So in closed lock facility. I said two points of clarification. One is on three point five point one. My understanding is you already decided that there's not going to be any designated dispensaries. And just to let you all know my plan is knowing that decision. I'll put that in at the end of the session. Okay. Don't worry about that. And then the second thing, going back, Julie, you were right. There was that sentence. I apologize. I was looking at the wrong document. I thought I was looking at one definition. I was looking at the other one. There was that sentence about not being a patient. We adopt the statutory definition. It won't be. All right. Good. Okay. We're ready to move on. I think so. Yep. So dispensary application procedure. We've got DPS rule section five. And I should start out by saying where the DPS rule and proposed rules one or two cover some, something similar or the same thing. David and I have kind of made a judgment call about whether one is more or less restrictive than the other. That obviously will be open to interpretation under some circumstances. So we've kind of indicated here what, where we're landing on it. Um, and for, and for this one there, you can make an argument that the, um, just the DPS rule, um, the DPS rule, um, you can make an argument that the, um, the DPS rule is really similar in effect to what, um, you've required in rule one. So I've kind of summarized here what dispensary application applicants have to do, um, when they're applying for a license, they've got to address a series of criteria and measures, um, that are summarized here. Business plan, facility information, overall health needs of registered patients, safe and secure communities, and the various measures, um, responsive to those criteria. Um, and the DPS rule also requires that a panel can be convened to evaluate and score each application, and that panel would include a registered patient, registered caregiver, and then staff from the medical program. So let me know if you'd like me to pull up, um, DPS rule section five. Does the number of allowed dispensaries change with this legislation? I think it goes away. Okay. There's no more. You need to reach a certain amount of patients on the registry in order to open up. I mean, Lindsay, you can correct me if I'm wrong. I kind of think about this, I think our application, the way I've read the dispensary application is, it's not as prescriptive as our, as our application, but it's not necessarily as restrictive either. It's just more about you tell us what you want to do versus certain requirements. And then there's a judgment called made by a panel or whatever the case may be. Yeah. And this is only for the initial application. So, um, and we also were, we had open periods when we accepted dispensary applications because there was a limit. So they only could apply when there was a license available. So it'll be a little different too. Yeah. So that like the whole panel thing, um, we, we usually had some sort of outside person on the panel too that wasn't familiar with the program to sort of have an outside perspective. But, um, it's a little bit more of a lift for renewals up here in the whole panel. So I would say yes. I think it should track the, um, what's in role one with perhaps two additional things. There should be a plan for educating their staff, particularly on the level of competency for the type of advice they're providing. And then a plan for patient privacy, which I think we sort of have in some of our roles, but not necessarily as part of the application. So then this just gets me to the, just the original kind of baseline determination that we made on slide one, which is, you know, we're talking about these dispensary applications of the current dispensaries that are likely to seek integrated licenses. And then their retail operation is potentially going to be commingled with their dispensary retail. And they're, certainly their inventory will likely be commingled. Um, so is, if we add what Julie just said, can it apply to the non-integrated licenses that also have a dispensary, or would it just be new dispensaries that are not part of the integrated license? And, you know, with that kind of, no more restrictive than the current DDS rule. Are you applying dispensary just, the term dispensary just to medical, or to any retail? Okay. Just to medical. Sorry, can you, I lost the thread. We can need a repeat. So, um, obviously we can apply our rules to adult rec rules, the integrated licenses, and because they have the ability to commingle their canopy and their retail operations, then we can apply these rules to them, even if they're more restrictive. Um, but if we're talking about a current dispensary that doesn't seek an integrated license, how much more restrictive can we get on education requirements on, you know, how much more specific can we get? And is there a difference between restrictive and specific? Yeah. I mean, that's a good question. I think that, I do think that if you are, uh, putting something in that requires something, somebody to do something that they weren't required to do before, I think most, uh, court, if this were relegated, would likely say that that was more restrictive if you're forcing action that hadn't been required previously. So that's a restricting action. Um, so, and I do think that when you're talking only about dispensary operations for, in that example, where somebody is not also an integrated licensee, then we are. The statute's pretty clear on that. It's a pretty direct command that it simply won't be more restrictive. They sort of have the guidance around as close to rules one and two as you can be, but that's a real command that you cannot be more restrictive. Well then, so I, um, I'm fine with adopting Rule 1 for the dispensary application procedures for folks that are integrated licenses and dispensaries, but, and then leaving the DPS Rule Section 5 for dispensaries that are not going to be integrated licensees. If that makes sense to everyone. I didn't see anything in there that we need to eliminate, for instance, from the DPS Rule. So your vote, or sorry, your suggestion would be to adopt wholesale the DPS Rule for licensing dispensaries? I think so. Okay. I didn't see anything to eliminate there. I mean, that's kind of the idea of no more restricted, right? What can we eliminate? That's right. I mean, I think the choice here is since, um, the gentlemen call here is that they're approximately the same in effect. You could choose either one without being in violation of the statute. Okay. So I think I'm confused. Are you thinking that adding a certain level of training and education is restrictive? Is that? Is there anything existing at all? It's allowed by statute. I've seen that. The DPS is allowed to create education and training standards, but I just wonder if they're current role. It's in Section 6. In Section 6. But the training has to do with emergencies, understanding how to utilize the security system and HIPAA training. They are cannabis training. Okay. I feel like I have a fundamental concern that maybe we can't address right now. Maybe we can't require a certain level of education for people who are dispensing essentially, you know, a medical product. There's no other medical system that does that. And when you pick up a prescription from a pharmacy, they offer you education, you know, and additional information and a huge pamphlet which most people toss, but it's there if you should read it. But perhaps that's something we need to address in legislation instead. Well, we can certainly require it on the adult side. And I think most dispensaries do have this at least informally on the medical side, but it's just not required by the rule. They're required to provide patient educational materials. And I guess that's where it's like you have to provide this material, but there's no requirement that the new staffs... Understand that. Most of them do try to make sure they understand that, and they try not to use the newer staff for the initial consultations. David and Bran, if the direction to us was that Rule 1, and sorry that I missed this, is no more restrictive than Rule 5 for that kind of dispensary application. And I suggest we do Rule 1 for everyone just to make things... Even the dispensaries that are not going to seek agreement. Or if a new dispensary wants to open up. Yeah, I think it's just more consistency. We don't have two procedures for something that we're regulating. If it's in line with the statutory directive, I think that's better. There's actually a couple ways in which we can DPS Section 5. So yeah, I think it balances out. It is reasonable. Okay. What about 3, 5, 3, 1, 4? So that's an example where I think the DPS Rule is now more restrictive. And so it would go to the Adult Use Regulation. Okay. Which is less restrictive than this in terms of placement. So if somebody wanted a new medical loan link, this would apply. It would be the drug-free schools on it would apply. Okay. Makes sense. Any more conversation about that one? So there's a lot of text on this. I'm not going to go through all of it, but this is delivery and transport. So what I've put up on the slide here is the DPS regulations on delivery and transport. What the board came up with in 227 is more prescriptive than what is required by DPS. So I don't know if the board had a chance to review what is required in the DPS Rule. But this is a summary of it here. Just to be clear to everybody listening, we haven't developed delivery, adult use regulations, just transportation. That's right. Understand anywhere? I just had a question that maybe is best directed to Lindsay. Are delivery folks allowed to deliver to multiple patients in a single order? They just can't bring extra swivel. So they have to know what they're going to deliver and it has to be exactly what they do deliver. Well, there has been instances where a patient may not have the money for the whole order so they may have to bring part of the order back. So do we require in our transport a secure locked container for every amount? No. Over 20 pounds? Over 20 pounds. So to me I almost think that the secure locked container which is in 6.2.1 is duplicative 2.13 Yeah, so 6.2.13 says develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure employee safety to provide security sufficient to prevent loss of inventory theft and diversion for the dispensing delivery and storage of cannabis. So it almost seems like requiring a secure locked container in every instance and then also having this catch all I don't think we need both and we certainly aren't going to require a secure locked container for everything on the delivery side or the transport side I should say in the adult use. Anyone feel like we need a secure locked container? Four. I guess I'm getting a little confused because there is delivery and transport and I want to make sure I understand you in your suggestion. 6.2.1 is any transport of cannabis or cannabis refused products must be in a secure locked container and we might not need to get to this level of detail on this but and maybe secure locked container is a good idea. So dispensers no matter what the activity is right now if it's a transport to another dispensary or to a patient or caregiver they have to move the marijuana in a secure locked container. Does that include the trunk or do you need something additional? Additional. Because it's like when they leave the dispensary so to get to the car. Right, we're delivering it right? If you're walking into a building and delivering right so they'd have to carry it in a secure locked if they're delivering it to a patient for example they would have to have it in a secure locked container until it's done. So it seems like for delivery to a patient that you should have to have it in some sort of secure locked container. Okay. We use like big locking bank bags to go to the door. Like I'm thinking if you're going into like an apartment building where you're going to be walking through a hall or could be public space or what have you. Okay. That was the only thing I had flags here. If we're looking at things to kind of eliminate but I'm fine with leaving that one. 20 pounds or less. No locked container languages is to help some of the smaller folks move their stuff through the supply chain not necessarily recognizing they're not necessarily going to be walking to an apartment door. What became problematic was more the secure locked container was with COVID and doing curbside because they were exiting the dispensary so they had to go out of the locked bank bag to unlock it at the door of the car after the financial transaction happened. So was there an interim rule that allowed them to leave without the secure locked container or took for all this time that they had to do the DPS determined they had to use the locked container? I'm less concerned about a locked container in their own parking lot, right? Because there's other security measures there than there are when you go out in the world. I mean we haven't talked to that delivery yet but is this something that we would require for delivery? Are you thinking it's melding conversations but we are supposed to kind of align it to use dispensaries? I mean if you're talking something as simple as locked banking bags which is you know, I don't see why that. That doesn't seem all that prohibitive. Okay. Really the worry is more the cash. Yeah. That's what somebody would try to steal. Alright, well why don't we leave this in and I'm fine with it. I just figured it was really discussing. I'm just sorry. I was just going to say I think we've got some things to figure out on the delivery of delus. We've started things with recognizing that this framework is there if we want to take it. So visitor access DPS rule 6.4 and 6.5 limits access to dispensaries and cultivation and processing areas to limited set of people. Registry card holders unless it's a contractor or a vendor or an owner of the property that's performing services related to operation of the dispensary. Government employee and the performance of their job duties or EMS personnel and the performance of life safety duties or a call. The decisions you made for rule 2 provide for visitor access for cultivation sites and with some specific procedures that have to be in place if visitors do visit a site. I guess my only concern would be the privacy of medical patients and waiting and the whole slew of folks are going on a tour and that's just my only concern. So in the retail section or the actual dispensing section is the part that you're talking about? I guess so. Or how it just looks or feels to a patient potentially that they're doing this because they have a severe medical issue and people are I don't know. That's my only thought. No, I agree. I think if you're talking about tours of cultivation sites that's very different than having patient access and who can see who's in your space. So I would agree with tracking rule 2 with the exception of I think there's already limitations in the current DPS rules, right? So Kyle, the example you're thinking of I'm guessing is where the word dispensary has both cultivation and patient service in the same location. And then you're under the problem of a cultivation tour would still mean that patients could be seen by somebody with a cultivation tour. Yeah, I guess so. And maybe my concern is not founded, I don't know. So you would want to leave the DPS rule in place? I don't necessarily know if that's what I'm saying. I'm just kind of praising it as a praising it for a discussion that an integrated license holder would be allowed to do so but from a dispensary specific perspective. I don't have my mind made up about how that looks or how that feels. If it's only a dispensary, I don't think we need to change this honestly. Maybe we want to think, maybe we can brainstorm about other people that might need to access a dispensary but I just I feel like this is fine. I guess I'm confusing myself a little bit. I'm still thinking in the situation where it is set up where everything is kind of in one building, kind of like an integrated, but let's say an integrated doesn't pursue a dispensary. A dispensary doesn't pursue an integrated license and they're just on the dispensary side of things where they're also cultivating on site. That's the scenario that I'm thinking of. I don't know if that property is a dispensary. So you're thinking there's going to be an exemption for the dispensing area due to the cultivation? I don't know necessarily, I guess. I think I'm confusing everybody. Does that rule to what it applies to? Well I think that's what we're trying to decide. That's what we're trying to decide. I think we would leave the question is would we leave the DPS rule 6.4 and 6.5 or have it track with Rule 2. How do you want to approach visitors at dispensaries? I'm fine with the DPS rule. I mean maybe it's too restrictive but I can't, off the top of my head, think of anyone else that needs to be accessing the medical dispensary other than the patients, the caregivers, the emergency service personnel, government employees, contractors, I can't think of anyone else that needs to be there and honestly the idea is to kind of keep it as sterile as possible and not have a bunch of people touring it for any reason other than in the performance of a specific duty. I think I'm with you. I'm wrong in my thinking. Sure. So I think keep DPS for access. Okay. Alright so the next issue is the criminal history records. So DPS rule addresses criminal history records for registered caregivers and also dispensary officers, board members, employees. So on the left here is what you, is the list of offenses that you identified and 1.11. You remember this is like what would presumptively disqualify you but you also adopted language that would overcome a presumptive disqualification for one of these offenses on a criminal history record. So the DPS rule includes all of these offenses, includes listed crimes on their list of offenses that disqualify a person and it also includes drug related offenses. So there's not a provision within the DPS rule for overcoming a disqualification based on a criminal history record for principal, officers, board members and employees. There is language for caregivers however that would overcome a disqualification. But in the board rule there's that overcoming the presumptive disqualification applies across the board and obviously the list of crimes is more narrow than 1.11. 7-1 you can overcome disqualifiers caregivers but that's more restrictive than 1.11. Lindsay can you just talk very generally, have you seen any problems with caregivers exploiting their patients? Obviously no specifics but yeah. No, it's not frequent. And those are people that have made it through 7.1 and 7.2 and how about on the employee side, have you seen any kind of criminal activity from employees? Yes, but it's not we haven't had large you know product if if any you know they have gotten into their own troubles along the way but separate from their goals. Yeah, okay. I say we go with 1.11 then for caregivers and for employees. Agreed. So moving on to packaging and labeling then. DPS Rule 6.6 governs the packaging and labeling for dispensary products and then Board Rule 229 governs packaging and labeling so the board rule is more restrictive is where David and I landed on this than DPS's rule there's a requirement in 229 that all packaging has to be child resistant and opaque which is not a requirement in DPS rule. There is a requirement that the labeling be fixed on the packaging label has to identify the strain and the weight and the strains have to reflect the properties of the plant and then the label has to contain a statement that the state of Vermont doesn't attest to the medicinal value of cannabis but as you can see these these requirements are not found in the DPS rule and not right I'm finally the DPS rule I mean we can't adopt our rule so I'm finally developing the DPS Yeah and I guess I'd like to hear from I guess through public comment on a proposed rule I can see how two separate lines or supply chains for different labeling might be confusing and costly it might be restricted on words but practically is it more restrictive well there's nothing that would prevent an integrated license holder from adding whatever label as long as it from going above and beyond rule 6.6 and they could in their own volition do 2.2.9 on all of their products Yeah I'm comfortable with it it's one of those things where it might be a little not as on its base it's restrictive but maybe not in practice Yeah I'm just thinking about the legislative intent of not making it more restrictive it's not to say that so I'm just looking at these two columns here but it's not to say that now medical dispensaries could use toys inflatables and movie characters in their packaging right I just want to make sure that that we say that clearly So I don't know what advertising restrictions apply to the medical dispensaries currently but we can look at that Like I'm finally staying with the DPS rule but I don't think the intent was to have a restricted adult use advertising and packaging rule and then have sort of anything on the other side I don't know that it's just an assumption it just seems logical My recollection is that advertising is not allowed by the DPS rule Okay I can confirm that I think the other thing to keep in mind is that this stuff is only going to the labeling is only going to be going to people who have patients and registration cards is a little bit different than any adult walking into the store making a consumer decision Yes and knowing that it's different than any other any other device or you know, regulated prescription that you would get there would be labeling, there would be warnings there would be information that regulated prescriptions are already restricted on what they can use and what they can advertise So there's, I'm just identifying a gap Okay I think we stay with DPS for now Next slide about security requirements So arguably a board rule is less restrictive than DPS rule 6.10 So here's a sort of summary of what's required in the DPS rule So at a minimum there's a requirement for exterior lighting no growth that affects the functionality of any security measures that are required dispensaries are required to implement devices to detect unauthorized intrusion and there's quite a bit of language about that we can look at that language if you like operational security alarm that has specific controls including access control, learning equipment, control panel, fire sensors, panic buttons and perimeter sensors and then video surveillance requirement that is required to monitor all areas that contain cannabis and there's a 30 day storage requirement for that video surveillance and then rule 2 is kind of a synopsis of what's required for the cultivation portion and the retail portion is a locked perimeter security alarms similar video surveillance requirements to what's required in the DPS rule but with a 90 day storage requirement and then employee badges I mean with the cloud and everything I can't see that day storage requirement being more restrictive and that was the one piece where it's sort of the opposite direction but generally I think yeah I mean if existing facilities are operating with more restrictive security requirements it shouldn't be too challenging for them to meet our our security requirements well I mean I don't think we're allowed to do a 90 day if there's 30 day under DPS so I would suggest we use rule 2 and then just change that 90 to 30 for the dispensaries I mean because we are supposed to align the two programs to the extent we can again it'll just make when we're reviewing these applications things a little bit easier if we have one standard you all agree Brandon David that we have to be 30? I think yes if you're really abiding by the requirement that you'd be no more restrictive than I guess my point was is that really restrictive I guess you're paying a little bit more for the cloud each month to keep it for two months longer so yeah it gets to how tight we are with the word restrictive is that restrictive or is that just another nominal payment I don't know if it's nominal I guess that was the same question I asked right before about the education training what is restrictive mean no more restrictive meaning this is one where it doesn't really make much of a difference to me but if we're going to follow strict adherence to restrictive I think we stick with 30 and the other thing to keep in mind is the integrated licensees will be obligated to 90 you're requiring an outside security company I believe we did yes something with expertise in security commercial installation yeah yeah I'm comfortable with that the word restrictive is restrictive I guess and then the last one is the hemp I can bring that up if you'd like to look at it and hemp I mean has changed significantly since 2015 both federally and in the state so I'm wondering how much this rule makes sense anymore I tried to look at it briefly the thought process behind this they look a lot alike yep and if they were growing hemp for symptom relief we didn't want that to be stolen yeah since it would be a dispensary location little Johnny may not know that that's hemp he may think that it's marijuana cannabis I mean in practice how many dispensaries are growing hemp it's just they easier for them to work easier for them to work with other hemp farmers and this was developed before there were hemp rules on file correct yeah I don't know how to totally square that it seems to me like we want any hemp cultivation to follow the agency of agriculture rules not out of good TPS rules yeah there was a thing in the statute well there still isn't March but they don't have to comply with Title 6 Chapter 34 is that it for the dispensaries Title 18 Chapter 86 but what is the what is 6 the hemp yeah it's they don't have to comply with the hemp rule has that been updated since 2015 though it's in statute it's yeah we don't really have to fix this now do we bring nope we don't I do think that the thinking was to give you an opportunity to think about what you would like to do in the medical program rule about hemp if you'd like to keep thinking about that and revisit it on Friday or next week okay why don't we do that I didn't look at that cross-reference I'm trying to think how to square this with no more restrictive than a current TPS rule I mean I certainly think that it leaves yet that changing it to the agriculture rule or significantly reducing the role of this is within your discretion under the statute you could do either of those things if you wanted I don't think you have to decide now that's where I mentioned there's time to focus on some more thought okay well that looks like the last slide that's the end of your list okay is there anything else you want us to discuss while we are in an open meeting not from me okay why don't we move to public comment then and we don't have anyone who joined us so we'll go to people who joined via the link if you'd like to make a public comment please raise your virtual hand we'll call on you on the order that your hands are raised I'm going to start Amelia hi guys I just wanted to agree with the point that Julie made earlier about mandatory education and the dispensaries I think that there needs to be a set program statewide that each dispensary employee has to go through education wise so that everybody is on the same level I don't think it should just be that we require the dispensaries to educate their employees and then just let them figure out how they want to do that I think that's going to create a lot of discrepancies and knowledge so I think that there needs to be one set education program that every medical dispensary employee has to go through thanks Amelia next is THC analytics I just want to reiterate what I really just said we have a program for alcohol when a server gets certified to be to serve alcohol behind a bar he has to go through a alcohol program the state should have something along lines to serve the same way for cannabis so it goes that way with education thank you thank you anyone else who would like to make a public comment please raise your virtual hands Tito burn next hi guys today I just want to bring up the vape tax again I'm just going to be a broken record about this until something happens or at least it becomes part of the conversation I just don't hear anybody talking about this vape tax we have we have two different rules for the exact same product current dispensaries for this vape tax on the same exact item that my vendors do and the products are clearly intended for cannabis not tobacco we just need to keep drawing this line in between cannabis and tobacco and carving the language out to remove cannabis from the language and from all of my dealings with this issue it was never intended for cannabis in the first place this issue was to combat jewel nicotine use in high schools is a terrible thing and if anything cannabis is the answer to have these problems so I just want to point that out we need some language there and get this vape tax in the communications at these meetings I'd love to hear I'd love to see some action on that thank you next is Francis Jenick hi thanks for having me today hang on a second while I get my notes up here I'm going to do one screen at a time first of all S16 allowed patients to be caregivers I did actually lobby for that a while back so I know that was in the bill so I don't know why it's not in the DPS rules and the plant count is not combined or increased per household at any time in any legislation that I had seen I would ask that we do increase the plant count again 10 or 15 would be good for a medical patient for a number of reasons I'm also concerned that the MMJ program administrator is not aware of the large amounts of products that were removed by a principal of Champlain Valley the legislators were informed about this and the DPS was informed as I previously stated these products were accounted for by placing in accounts where patients never came for product and I have direct witness to this and in this thing so I'm concerned that that is not coming up there are some other things that I'll put into writing for you later thank you thanks Fran anyone else for a public comment do we have anyone that joined via phone we have two that have joined via phone if you're on your phone and you like to comment you can unmute yourself by hitting star six hi this is Jesse Lynn are you able to hear me we are sorry both phone let's start with Jesse Lynn hi thanks as always for taking public comment I appreciate it just wanted to mention a few things I'll second what Amelia said I think we really desperately need a standardized mandated education statewide we should not be having adult youth having more standardized and prepped education than we have our medical students please continue to work with that I also wanted to throw out there that if we can consider the conversation around patients being able to shop at adult youth retail dispensaries without paying taxes and if so I would love to see them also be able to do transportation to patients and if that needs to come in a locked bag so be it but I would love to see that based on graphical and environmental protection so that we don't have dispensaries driving all over the place when we have a dispensary right up the road that's adult youth so hopefully patients cannot pay taxes and benefit from delivery service which is so needed for patients especially during the pandemic the other thing I wanted to mention was as far as who should visit dispensaries I would love to see that open to students as we talk about having educational and incubator programs consider having education in the dispensaries for visits I wanted to mention that my understanding of a patient and a caregiver is that you are then if you are registered to be both you are able to grow for flowering and then 14 plants in veg I would love to see that clarified actually as you know I want to see the patient count and plant count increase through legislative session but I know that's nothing you have the power to do Lastly with the use packaging I don't see how that should differ from medical use packaging I don't see any reason or rhyme why we would want that different again I want patients to have better access and more strain options and better geographical locations and be able to shop at adult use so the packaging really should line up or you're looking at just confusing people who will both shop at adult use and shop at the medical dispensary from the scientific, from the educational perspective that just makes sense. I also want to back what Tito is saying that we really do need to look at legislation moving forward for the VAPE tax. I can provide research and articles if you want to understand more why it is much more of a healthy option to VAPE rather than to combust or use flame for inhalation of cannabis. So I wanted to second that as well for him. So thank you guys again, appreciate it. And hopefully I'll take some of this all into consideration. Lastly, just I didn't get clarification, if you guys can let us know, will there be more medical dispensary licenses up for grab or for sale in the future? Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, Jesse Lynn. Is the other person you joined by phone, if you have a public comment, please hit star six. Hey, Doug. Hey. Hi, from Heinz-Greff. I, at the end, the last thing I talked about was how the medical dispensaries are exempt from the Department of Agriculture and Program. I find it interesting Kyle asked the question, why would a medical dispensary wanna grow hemp? The answer is to grow a legal outdoor and greenhouse. So he has evidenced by the peach green incident that happened years ago. And they've been exempt from that hemp program for years now. So, the previous caller just talked about how there's been documented stuff over and over by these guys. I just want to reiterate that comment. Just well advertised or well documented, publications about what happened up there. And I just found it interesting that, Shane Lynn lobbied to be exempt from the hemp program years ago, with the possible intent of doing what he did. I hope you guys can recognize this. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we have back for folks joined on the link again. We have Michelle Chapman. Hi, thank you for taking comments. I just wanted to back up what Jesse Lynn said. It is not fair for a cancer patient who needs a strain that isn't offered at their medical dispensary to have to pay taxes at a recreational dispensary. Unfortunately, a dispensary can't carry every single strain. And as we know, every disease needs a different strain. So I really hope that y'all can include that and medical patients will not have to pay the same tax out of recreational dispensary if they use them. Thank you so much. Thanks, Michelle. And Fran, I do see your hand up. We don't take repeat comments in this forum just because things very quickly turn into conversations between witnesses. But feel free to submit a written comment through our web portal, ccbe.vermont.gov. And you can always email Nellie or the board members as well. So if there aren't any more public comments, then I will adjourn this meeting.