 It is absolutely the final vote on a cleanup document, so we'll just make that transmission in the next five minutes. Very good. And maybe you terminated a letter you received from the dispensaries. It just goes back to our conversation last time regarding whether or not we want to recommend that dispensaries put aside a specific baseline in products or biomass. The dispensaries still feel strongly that it's better that we recommend biomass rather than products with the uncertainty in the rules of not knowing what the product packaging or labeling requirements or testing even for that matter might entail. You know, it could add additional cost to some products that dispensaries are already losing money on and there is some concern that they would be, you know, just basically be a threat to the bottom line. I did go back and I asked the dispensaries in general, you know, how much biomass is finished product, how much is work in progress and really they all vary so much depending on the product and the shelf stability of the product that I also, I understand the desire to commit to biomass rather than products because some of those products aren't shelf stable beyond, you know, a few weeks or something like that. So I do see those difficulties. So I think that's number 14 in our recommendations. Yeah, and I'm having difficulties in the share screen. So I'll just, I'll read from Meg obtained from the Ramon Cannabis Trade Association. For reasons listed below the minutes, the dispensaries asked that we commit to a three month supply of biomass based on the average in the previous three month sales. Commitment to biomass will provide flexibility. The dispensaries need to capitalize on efficiencies that support our ongoing businesses. Commitment to biomass based on previous month sales will ensure that dispensaries are reserving an appropriate amount of product based on real data. And if the medical program expands all the amount of reserve biomass. So it's a, it's that will be rolling number based on based on sales. And then the medical program will have new rules that will likely influence testing, packaging, etc. And certain products already made a loss. Committing to producing certain items in your requirements. Resulting to be greater financial loss. So that's the reasoning behind the biomass. Then just as a reference point, there's no surprise that it was the top selling product categories. Like confections, baked goods that includes the cookies, brownies, gummies, candies, flower and free rolls, baked cartridges, team chairs and topicals. So we will certainly pass that along to the board as well with respect to our number 14. And then the rest of the time we'll spend discussing and finalizing the robotics list. I'm sure still some discussion points on it. And then from there, I think we're ready. I will have a more formalized recommendation report that everyone can, we can begin working off of. But depending on how today goes, I think this might be our final in person meeting before we start working on the document. Okay, go ahead. Yeah, you know, again, I have a comment on the document perpetrated association. I mean, I, again, I'm saying this without necessarily a pathway for how to pursue from this. You know, I have to say the bullet point number three is both honest and also expresses my deep concern about this whole, you know, issue here. That in fact, you know, there are going to be new rules and it is going to be a different world. But what this doesn't say, there's also going to be a whole new market and different economics for the entire business, not just the medical part of it. That the dispensaries are getting integrated licenses because of their prior to this program. So, you know, when we get to the bulleted item number three, it's very honest. If you commit to these products, it is possible that you'll lose money or not make the money that is potentially made by not prioritizing a medical product over a adult use product when the time comes. So, you know, I appreciate the honesty of it, but it still concerns me and I don't see really much of, you know, I feel like we're in a position that is somewhat perilous for the medical firm. There are so many unknowns and I just, I don't see any language that even really in here talks about prioritizing, you know. And that type of commitment and I think if we're not going to really, you know, I'm curious that there's a list of products that are top selling. If they're not money making, you know, products, what the problem is, I would assume if they're top selling and not money making that it's something to be looked at. But I just, I wonder whether there's a way that we can, you know, put in some language to go on record that, you know, commits to prioritizing things so that we don't get in a situation where, you know, just as you wouldn't want to go to a doctor's office or a pharmacy and, you know, say, I need the medication that I've been taking for so long and somebody says, well, we'll have two weeks. You know, it's not going to be a good situation. Now, I understand that we're probably not going to move, you know, very far to a complete guarantee of all these things. But to me, this language, you know, tells me to worry. So I would like to at least go on record. As having said that, I appreciate the intent that's gone into this and think that if there's any way to put it towards at least the commitment to prioritize, then, you know, I think that we might be moving things in a better direction. And obviously, they'll just have to be, you know, it's a good thing we'll have no overtaking in the spring, but I'll just leave it at that. I understand where they're coming from. So, Jim, I do agree because I do understand the anxiety around it. And I think the dispensaries in general aren't necessarily saying with that third bullet point that they would cease making those products by any means. Just that if they were told, you know, you have to have X amount on hand between the cost associated. And I just to be clear, my understanding is that the top product categories do not. Those aren't necessarily the products that aren't making any money there. You know, those are just for our reference for that baseline of products. But yeah, with regards to that third bullet point, my understanding is they don't intend to stop making those. They just don't want to be held to having us, you know, a certain amount of those know that maybe that doesn't sell or whatever it may be. Yeah, my guess is that the products that aren't making money are potentially the very high potency products within one of those categories. Maybe it's a very high potency edible, but just doesn't have for whatever reason the demand right now or just isn't cost effective for them. But so the commitment is to three months of biomass based on the sales. And yeah, the trick here, Jim, is, and I know you said you didn't have the resolution to it, but yeah, that's the challenge. What do we put in the recommendation to the board in order to kind of secure what you're saying is prior prioritization? Because clearly they don't want the dispensaries don't want to be pigeonholed with numbers and products. But if what you're saying is in the vein of suggestions and prioritization, I mean, that's the language that we're going to have to strike and find. So I don't have it either right now, but that's what we need to develop for number 14. Yeah, I did ask, you know, the dispensaries about if, you know, would it be a list of the top products or, you know, how could you come up with that? And one of the things I heard was kind of how frequently that list changes. And it's certainly something that was very subject to change throughout the pandemic. There was a shift in what people were purchasing, you know, less of the higher concentration more volume. I think that's also where some of the concern comes with saying, okay, we're going to have XYZ when those items very really could change. It's hard without really knowing the details that comment on it because I mean, during the pandemic everybody got scared of big fans because of news, you know, that was all kinds of stories that were going around. I couldn't say or particular necessarily to the time period or what. And I get all that, which is why, you know, I understand that I want to be pigeonholed, you know, but I think the language at the very least needs to reflect more of the desire from, you know, medical oversight from medical patients from the cannabis control board to feel that the medical programs, products, channels are reliable and that the patient can count on a treatment that is suitable for a medical patient as opposed to suitable for a recreational customer. And so those are intent about intent and commitment. And this is a great internal document. And perhaps though we just need language for the recommendation that like I'm just trying to do just goes off record says, you know, it's about a commitment to put a medical patient first when money is coming at you. And also to be fair, things like this, new regulations, new requirements. But that's part of what the business that we're, I think, in here. So, you know, I think what I'm talking about is realistic and pragmatic, but looking for just the language to express that intent. Meg, can I ask briefly just the three month supply? Was that just what was the decision process behind that? So currently that's roughly what the dispensaries have on hand that is a balance. Let me just pull up five Excel spreadsheet here with all of the specifics. But depending on the product, you know, we may have a back stock of a month or two all the way up to three to six, it really just depends on what the product is. So the three months is really an average of kind of all of that between the work in progress, finished goods. And that has been effective until now that three months. And you know, it's uncommon, at least in my understanding, but there's specific products that there's been a shortage. I do realize there's a lack of diversity with different flower strains. But in terms of products, my understanding is the three months has kind of kept a steady supply. Okay. Yeah, I just the reason I ask is because a lot of the other recommendations from this committee, the 14 points or so really open up the mark. The kind of medical patient kind of the very narrow eye hole that like regulates the patient registry. And so I'm wondering if in all, I'm singularly focused on ensuring that the current patients have access to the things that they've grown to rely upon. And so if we're talking about reciprocity, if we're talking about, you know, adding conditions, if we're talking about expanding the number of people. We just have to make sure that the current patients are kept whole or unharmed by this change. So I'm just wondering if those dynamics suggest that we should wait to expand the patient. You know, some of these things that we're talking about reciprocity and the three month relationship with a healthcare provider until after this transition to adult use happens. Just that the current patients are not. I would say if anything growing the program now, ideally will result in being able to make some of these products at volume, which will ultimately, you know, benefit the dispensaries financially. And in the end, ensure that those products are still there. I would have to agree that I think to it's a fine balance right now because I think to create any more situation where it's not easy to access the registry or I should put it another way to not loosen up the challenges I think to becoming a medical patient. And that especially things like a three month relationship and whatnot that really are a challenge. It's already, you know, nothing like states where you go and get a medical card. It's way more complicated, more paperwork, more days involved. So, you know, and I think the other side is my gut feeling. And I know that we've heard this from I think either Meg or Virginia that it's likely that it's the possibility of patients dropping off precipitously with adult use because there's a certain class of patients who's going to be like, you know, I'm using cannabis in this way. And if I can get it through adult use, I don't really need to, you know, go through this process. So I'm a little concerned if we don't, you know, move ahead with some of those things at least like that three month relationship that aren't going to, you know, something that's going to make it easier for people to get into the prayer. I just, I just think that if you double the amount of patients overnight because you've really expanded the access point, whether that three months is actually one and a half months supply, or if you allow a one ounce per visit, you know, purchase cap versus one ounce per month, whether that three month supply is actually a lot less, you know, in the end, functionally a lot less. I mean, we saw 2018, the drastic drop in participation. And prior to that, I think we were still following that same guideline of roughly three months. And we've never experienced some like massive shortage in any way. And I just, I would agree with Jim, I would be nervous to not increase the program. I think we've waited a long time and we, the more participation we can get is ultimately going to benefit all of the patients in it. One thing that I would add to that though is that I think in almost every burgeoning adult use market, we've seen shortages and we've seen supply run very thin. Now, it might be a slightly different here in New England, given the, you know, multitude of states that have gone adult use at the same time at the, you know, ease of going over to another state by the customer or the patient. You know, so I, but I think it is possible that, you know, again, that speaks to prioritizing. And I think it does make the question that Pepper's asking about the three month supply. When I think about it, that's what does make me nervous. You know, that right here at the beginning, it just isn't unknown. We don't, we really don't know the patient can't be the, you know, getting big on it. So, you know, the one thing I also want to add in is that even though there's never been a situation where probably the products themselves aren't there. There isn't a patch or concentrate. They're often, or I should say many times, haven't been a basic two different strains. So, Sativa dominant versus Indica. And I think that for a lot of medical patients, that's a major, major consideration. We just lost the board member from one dispensary to another because of that particular Indica versus Sativa need. That is something I would hope that with the, you know, large canopy, the no limitations for the integrated license holders in terms of plant count that we can ensure that there'll be, you know, both of those basics. But that has been where it's been a little more than just the variety, but somebody like me, I don't have an Indica won't help me. So it can be a challenge. Yeah, I think that's a good point. One of the other items I wanted to bring up was, I think it's, let's see, point number, maybe along with point number 13. I think also to ensure no shortage of product, we should remove the four ounces of usable cannabis that is in the existing section three a cultivate and possess at any one time and then they go down to list what the dispensaries are able to have. And I think we should remove that four ounce limit. Also, I think just going back to our previous discussion with product commitment, we should look at the Massachusetts law. I know that there is something in there about their commitment to serving medical patients first. And I think that language may assist in finding what it is we're looking at. Okay. Thanks. I'm just going to dive down the board documents that have now come like a bit less than. Okay. Yeah, I think it was a good point. Here are my suggestions because I think what is right. We're trying to avoid is not maybe short changing ourselves, given the growth in the market that may happen with the transition. So my suggestions are to we can write in the recommendation to revisit revisit that three month biomass time limit within a certain by a certain date. I mean, the second part of it is when we're talking about collection of data on VMR access. I mean, I think it's a separate point created like another point 13 and collect to recommend the integrated license. Continue collection of data on medical consumption to help us calculate whether or not to increase that at three months timeframe. And those might help kind of alleviate some of your concerns. Chairman Pepper without delaying the action of the other items that we have on here. Yeah, that's good. Yeah, to be clear, I don't want to delay them at all. It's really just this idea that the folks that have come to depend on these medicines and their processes to get them should be the most protected. And, you know, if that means holding back some of these things for a little while, that makes sense to me, but I really don't want to. I think that everything that this committee has talked about our common sense. And especially when you think about how restrictive the program has been or the last decade, you know, it's it's more than time to rethink it. But, you know, I just I have that focus on the current patients, just like, you know, I know you do Mag and Jim as well. Sure. I think also if we were to delay, if anything, I think, giving the current integrated licenses to have these few months to focus on really getting the medical program to a place that everybody is satisfied with prior to adult use will be really beneficial. I would I think I would rather see that versus having adult use and this kind of newly this new the new rules for the medical program roll out at the same time. Okay. May I get other points you wanted to go through on the revised graph recommendation. No, that's it. I mean, just I did notice one thing it might be a type of item number six. The list of qualifications and medical registry should include anxiety and sickness disorders. I got that actually from the minutes because I lost my napkin note from from last time. I think you had a sleep. Yeah, I think it's sleep disorders. That's what I saw. Okay. Yeah, okay. Got it. Other suggestions recommendations. Okay. Well, let me let me work on making this a more formalized recommendation list. If I'm sorry, I'm just looking back at number six. I thought we were also adding opiate use disorder or the or opioid prescription. I think. Yeah, we did talk about that. Okay. The other suggestion was the idea of the medical program being recommended upon an initial prescription of opioids was was maybe the direction we were talking about. Happy to take public comments now. Anyone in the room has a has a comment or question in Vermont. I don't think anyone's here. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. I will I will work on formalizing this recommendation and sending it off to you folks for a week to start the red light process. That sounds good. Great. And if anyone's going to be out in Las Vegas for MJ business week, we've got a booth and I'll be on a panel and meet up at an after party or whatever. Just send me a note. Okay. Thanks, Tom. All right. Thanks everyone. Thank you. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye.