 I'm going to kick things off. So good afternoon. Thank you in Vermont. I call this meeting of the advisory subcommittee for compliance and enforcement. We're Tom Alaska. I'll take a roll call for our subcommittee members. Mark Orman. They're present. Tim Wessel. Here. Present. Thank you. My bonus. Present. Present. Here. Present. Also, thank you. And within the room in Vermont, see, Kyle, could you give us who's present in the room? Yeah, myself, Julie Holberg, member of cannabis control board, Nellie Marble, our air traffic controller. And then for, and Stephanie Smith with the agency about every culture of new markets. And then we have three members of the public. Great. Thank you very much. And thank you everyone for your attendance greens to all of you. Thank you for making the effort and having interest to attend this subcommittee meeting. Since this is the first subcommittee meeting, I wanted to do brief. And I want to introduce introductions for the subcommittee members. We have a lot to do and a lot to discuss. Again, I'm Tom Nalasko. I'm general counsel for the National Association of Cannabis Businesses, the NACB, where our national trade organization specializes in creating standards and best practices for the cannabis industry. Our goal is to help legitimize and elevate the growing cannabis market place. One of the functions that the NACB provides is to consult with various state legislators and regulators. And we're doing that with this engagement. My background personally is I'm now a 20 plus your attorney practices, mostly commercial business litigation. I've been in the cannabis space for about seven or eight years. I first got involved in it with partnership disputes between license holders. And as with any good startup that led to, you know, legal needs through compliance employment, real estate issues. I've served on panels for the Arizona State Bar where I'm based out of and also through panels across the country on issues like licensing and 280E and social equity. So it's my privilege and the NACB is privileged to help coordinate these various subcommittee meetings and create good policy for the state of Vermont. So before we get into brief introductions for our very knowledgeable and accomplished advisory subcommittee members, I want to introduce another member of the NACB that will help assist me in leading the subcommittee. Mark Gorman. Mark, do you want to say hello and give a brief introduction? Mark commuted. Mark commuted. T-shirt. It's like a Gettysburg address. I'm Mark Gorman and I've been with NACB for about a year and a half. And I'm the executive vice president and chief government relations person for NACB. Prior to that, I've ran government relations for the Distilled Spirits Council, which is another obviously heavily regulated industry, which has some parallel tracks with cannabis. And it was really when I was at the Distilled Spirits Council that I began tracking and studying cannabis as well so I could report to the board of directors about what legalization was all about and how that was likely to affect everybody's market. Hopefully that will be an experience that brings some positive things to this discussion and I look forward to that. Thanks. Hey, it's Mark. Tim Wessel, you want to give your introduction? Hi everyone, I'm Tim Wessel. I'm a member of the Prattleboro Select Board down here in tropical southern Vermont. And I was appointed by the committee on committees from the Senate to look after the needs of municipalities of which there are many and every Vermont resident lives in one. And to sort of be here to advocate for those interests and lend any expertise for those interests. Okay, thanks. Thank you, Tim. Ingrid Jonas? Hi everyone, Ingrid Jonas. I am the Attorney General's designee with a background in public safety. I am a retired state trooper, retired in May after spending 23 years with the Vermont State Police. Thank you Ingrid. Ashley Reynolds? Hi everyone. I've been owning and operating a cannabis company here for a month for five years. I'm a mom so I care really deeply about public safety. I also drive. I'm concerned about that and can bring a lot of my own expertise and experience in that department as well as operating a cannabis company, understanding insurances, banking requirements, public and consumption, all of it. So I had first hand at what it's been like for the last five years. I've previously practiced as a dental hygienist for almost 20 years here in the great state of Vermont. I've grown up here. I was born here, raising my children here. My husband and I both run our business together. He used to be civil engineer for the Vermont Agricultural Department. So we're really good friends with Cary. Hey Cary, it's good to see you. And Stephanie, it's really nice to see you. You guys have been paramount for helping us really define the hemp program here in the state. So excited to be here and be of service. Thank you, Ashley. And Cary, you're here. Cary, you're muted. You would think after a year and a half, I would have this down. Cary, you're the director of the public health and resource management division. It houses the pesticide DT fertilizer nursery hemp vector surveillance program. And with me, I've invited Dave Huber, who's our director of enforcement for the agency, to help the agency develop procedures and processes for enforcement in the agency. And he's been peripheral in discussions about how we would build that for Canada. And has worked with Stephanie's staff in developing the hemp enforcement process. Great. Thank you, Cary. And welcome, David, as well. And I understand that in the Vermont room, we also have members of the public attendance there. And I want to make sure everyone knows that written public comments can also be submitted electronically via the web form on the CCD website and have been since May 2021. I want to ensure everyone that your comments have been received, reviewed and considered by each and every subcommittee member. And we do appreciate your input. And there will be time for public comments and questions towards the end of the hour as it will be at each subcommittee meeting. And in addition, the CCB will be hosting dedicated meetings for public comments, both at Friday board meeting via the public link or at the CCB's public comment evenings, which will also be posted on the CCB website. So your voice will be heard and considered in the support part of this process. We do have pressing deadlines that are honest and critical that we have constructive communications between the board and the subcommittee members to meet those deadlines. So I don't want the hour to be dominated by public comments, although they can and will be made at the end of each meeting and they can also be addressed through those different avenues. So this particular committee has a vast and varied scope and a litany of items within it. The enabling legislation we sent out, reference materials to the advisory subcommittee members, I think everyone knows DAC-62-164. Within this subcommittee for compliance and enforcement, there is a long list of items. So today's meeting, I want a kind of macro overview of all of those. And then I'd like to discuss and build down into priority items in order to make this a more manageable set of tasks and a subcommittee and I'm wary of unintended consequences from drafting the rules prematurely that I've spoken with the board about as well. So the long list of items within this subcommittee includes model local ordinances and fees, seat to sail tracking, indoor cultivation, outdoor cultivation enforcement in general, transportation requirements, building security, product security, banking, cash management, financial transaction regulations, insurance, buffer zones, destruction, disposal of adulterated cannabis, public consumption, age verification, seizure of unlicensed cultivation and adjudication for grievances, parking, traffic safety, employment, facility inspection, records management, and there's even more in addition to that. So it's a long and varied list. The order that I've written is what we've kind of considered are, you know, temporary list of priority items that we'd like to tackle. And I put that list in the reference materials. I'd like you to consider that and to consider the list of items and how we can go about that. But for this meeting, I wanted to talk about towards the top of that list. So we have model local ordinances and fees, seat to sail tracking, cultivation and enforcement. I mean, those are four topics that we can easily take up, you know, more than an hour discussing and how to attack it. But those are the four that I wanted to address at least at the outset here. And I'm happy to take any feedback from the subcommittee members on their thoughts on that list and how we're going to go about tackling this. Okay. Well, let's start with this. And the reason is this comes in towards the top of the list. And obviously, I'll be looking for input from all of you, but particularly from Tim Wessel. In different states, this has been an issue that has driven the success of a lot of the cannabis programs and a lot of the legalization efforts, and we have to look too far across the country to see what's happened in Massachusetts with social equity programs. What's happened even in California with some barriers that have been placed by municipalities. And there is an opportunity to take a look at what has happened in those states and see what we can do more to make this a smoother transition, more equitable and probably understanding for everyone. So what when we're looking at this, I don't have the grasp that the subcommittee members do of the municipalities attitudes towards this legalization and kind of the level of control that's referenced in the act as far as local cannabis permissions and how inviting that is. So, I mean, our first thought was first word of business is to enact some sort of outreach to gather some of that information. And Tim, I'd like to hear from you if and we've had discussions before I know you obviously don't live in every single municipality and county. One, but I'm looking at you just having a pulse on that. That's obviously your interest on this on this committee, but what are your thoughts on the outreach and how to best gather some of that to make sure it's a two way street. I want to know the attitudes and receptiveness what they are towards the legislation what their needs are. But, you know, I also want to educate the municipalities on what level of control the cannabis cannabis board may ultimately have and what might be coming down the pipeline. Okay, well, that's that's a big, big question. But let me just touch on a couple of points that are definitely within my wheelhouse and I'll just alert you to what's not in my house. First of all, just as a heads up, Julie Holbert, I'm pronouncing that right. Yep. Good job. I just never said it out loud. Has really kindly and thoughtfully put together a survey for municipalities and because, as you mentioned, Tom, the municipalities are very varied. The structure of governments very varied and the approaches to how things get out on a democratic level is very different. So that survey is going to be critical in coming back and helping me and Julie and everyone here understand the perspectives of local municipalities. So that's a great tool we're going to have at our disposal fairly soon. From my perspective, I want to just give a little bit short background on the fact that in the legislature in the past year, there was a pretty robust discussion and argument about how the acts themselves should be. Excuse me, designed and taxation and fees was top of the list for municipalities arguing for a portion, a set portion set out for the legislature for local taxation. So a piece of 1% perhaps or a 2% of the overall state taxes going directly to municipalities who will be on the ground, you know, dealing with effects and setting licensing assumedly being local campus commissioners assumedly. I'm saying that word because there's a lot that we don't really know yet. It seems from the existing legislation, but we do assume there's going to be local cannabis commissioners. So from my perspective, we lost that fight on the taxation piece that one or 2%. What it falls back into is an interesting situation where the towns that actually have a 1% local option tax, which does exist in quite a few towns, maybe 13 to 14 by last count. Brattleboro is one of my feathers in my cap is we actually passed a little option tax. So Brattleboro will will benefit directly from two thirds of 1% of all cannabis sales as we do with any kind of retail sales that fall under the umbrella of the local option tax. It's a restricted amount of items, but I won't go into that painful detail. So we're in a better spot as far as the taxation side, but that part of it was voted down. So that's sort of from the municipalities perspective across any menace municipality as far as I understand, we're going to be relying on fees to to help offset the cost of a lot of work, basically from town clerks to, you know, enforcement to traffic problems to police to fire. I don't, you know, the, that's the part where it gets into. I don't know what it's going to look like. So my, my role here is to kind of try to shape that conversation to help towns understand that structure. And I mean, just for just top of mind, I mean, things we have to think about is, is the, is the revenue that towns are getting a fair structure is the fees going to cover the work that towns are doing on the ground to, to bring this literal state revenue in when it comes to that, you know, state taxation. I think towns are generally optimistic and positive about moving forward and I can't give you an up to the minute, you know, what's the opt in number of towns. I know a lot of towns like Brattleboro jumped forward. We on the select board pushed forward for a vote. We sent it to the entire town. It passed overwhelmingly. So there's a lot of excitement down here for that and support for it. Other towns less so, but that's, you know, that's sort of a question for perhaps representatives more than me as far as touching base with other towns and that that survey will shine a lot of light on it. But as far as concerns, you know, the traffic visibilities, you know, things on our main streets, how is it going to affect zoning is a question that I'm not really clear upon. If local towns will have any control over that or not. But generally, the last thing I wanted to say is that if the model is structured after alcohol fees, the way the system is set up in local towns have a matching fee system when it comes to alcohol licensing. And we have sort of an up and down vote on whether we can issue a local alcohol license. But the fees involved are pretty ridiculously low when it comes to covering the cost to municipalities of maintaining records and the question of compliance and effects on communities when it comes to alcohol. I won't break open that can of worms, but you can imagine that there's arguments to be made for towns receiving a fair fee system so that we can at least make up some if not all of the conventions that towns are concerned with around this brand new world. Thank you, Tim. I mean, first and foremost, thank you, Julie for the survey. I think that will be helpful as we go forward. There's obviously a lot of issues we have to deal with when considering the fee structure, some of which will be addressed. The subcommittee before this one was for the market structure, licensing and fees, and that starts with the market analysis that was done by Vincente Settlerberg's strategic group that was just presented. So some of that will be contained in there, but there's not going to be an analysis, Tim, of because you have to make assumptions of what is the true cost to each municipality for implementing the adult use program. There's too many variables there right now that I don't think it fits within that model, but that's certainly what we're tasked with is how does that come to the local fee enforcement, and some of that will be addressed by the other subcommittee. But what we're also considering here goes beyond fees and taxes, and some of it, I'm hoping, will make our task for the subcommittee a little easier because what we're also addressing are things that other small businesses address on the local level as far as, you know, fire safety, building codes, other issues like that, that I don't know the level of local and municipal ordinances that are existing already, and so I look for some guidance on that. It doesn't have to be from you. We can bring in other experts that you know from other towns. But to see how that's structured and set up, I think I had the conversation with Ashley Reynolds about that as a small business owner, what ordinances and laws are you dealing with. And I'll tell you that, you know, this reaches the level, even in our within our sustainability subcommittee earlier today. There are discussions about when they're talking about sustainability, they're talking about environmental concerns, including water issues. And, you know, there's a there's conflict for for license holders and business owners between what what the state regulations are versus what local ordinances regulations are even even on wastewater. So there's a lot of concerns that reach the local level. If you take a look at Act 164, it's pretty comprehensive that it does include, you know, rules and regulations that extend to the cultivation process because there are necessarily a lot of municipal and local ordinances and there is that tension there as well. So when we talk about this issue, it's it's it's fairly comprehensive. It is. If you don't mind, I'll just chime in and sort of add on to your statement. I think it also should be remembered that, unfortunately, there's a huge range of local control with things like enforcements and zoning. Sometimes literally have nothing and just fall back on any kind of state support. And that's because they have three members select boards, no town manager. You know, that kind of thing that kind of structure. We're lucky to have 150 member full time equivalent town staff, a talented town manager and a full fire department and police department. So we have that advantage as far as, you know, having some of those local controls, but the problem is when it does fall into our laps and it's unfunded, then it becomes an extra strain on our police department that's already 10 officers down and should have 27 and we have 17. So it becomes an extra burden. If at the start, local needs are not thought of clearly because a town like Brattleboro does support all of these activities that the state as a whole is going to benefit from with the taxation structure. I'm a little confused on this question of local taxes and fees existing in both subcommittees and I would hope we could kind of flesh that out how that should be, you know, where where my attention and where, you know, the other folks that are interested in in these concerns should put their attention because if they've all the taxes and fees are discussed at the state level with no attention to locals and then we just turned over this. It feels like there won't be the space for the local fees to it is to within the full structure. So I understand the concern and I mean, I just know that a lot of these subcommittees are interconnected, particularly with the market structure licensing and fees subcommittee that's that's kind of the first one that that needs to get their recommendations done first and a lot of it flow. And this is exactly the conversation we had in the sustainability committee is we need to get an idea what what the what the market looks like. And I have had conversations personally with Dan, we're just in the meeting with about how to handle it needs to be handled in both committees, frankly, because they are looking at that market analysis. And the fee structure, which is supposed to sustain obviously items other than local municipal municipal concerns, it's the board itself, right. So they, you know, it's it's somewhat duplicative, but but it needs to be handled in both committees. Yeah, so that there's there's a lot to tackle on just the local ordinances and how they'll be handled. You know, including the fee structure, but also, you know, we need to be cognizant of the actual license holders. We don't want to create additional rules and regs where if they exist on the local level, or they exist on the state level. I don't want the subcommittee to create a third tier that's just specific to cannabis if it doesn't need to be there and then now they have three layers of regs to deal with. That's not that's not our purpose. So I just want us to be cognizant of that of that as well. That's that that's going. Again, I take more that but I want to move what I have next is is cultivation and what we need to to consider the issues surrounding that. If anyone else has any questions or comments on go ahead, Ashley. So, Mark, I know, you know, this is me just kind of getting my bearings and this is one of our first meetings. So I just want to kind of put this into context for myself as someone who's been living in the cannabis space operating in the cannabis space. You were doing this and have been doing this and other states and helping other states navigate through this process. Where do you feel is the biggest area that needs enforcement. And we can speculate about where we need the most rules we need to make sure the labels say this we need to make sure that cameras do that we need to make sure we're checking ideas like we get all of that. But like how are we utilizing these models and other states for Vermont and be like, okay, we know that we're going to have to do X, Y and Z. But this is the area where I see the least amount of enforcement where there needs to be or the other way around but I'm just in your opinion I'm just curious where you feel like enforcement is really needed. Thanks. And that's a great kind of an initial question. We some of this some of the list that we came up with as far as priority is is deadline driven, because what we need to do through the acts is we need to be prepared by early next year for the integrated licensees and the small automated or licensees to be able to be rolled out. So the question was, okay, what do we need to kind of prioritize in order to get that to happen. And I've had discussions with the board to say, listen, what you don't want, as I said before, I'm wary of unintended consequences of developing regulations prematurely. Before we know how this market is going to operate and what it looks like in a lot of states, almost every state I know has had to backtrack on some of the regulations of this wasn't this was just an ill conceived idea because we didn't know how the market was going to roll out. So, so those two things kind of the deadlines. And, you know, some of these, you need to see how the market reacts to really develop good policy on it, that those two things are dictating the flow of this, but a lot of it, you're right actually that that's what I'm hoping if if there are sufficient local rules and regulations for the municipalities that every other small business owner is already following. Then, in a lot of ways, there's nothing unique to the cannabis industry where you can't just say follow the local rules rules and regulations. As Tim was saying, well, that might be different, depending on the level of support organization that town or municipality has. So a lot of it. Yeah, we're hoping we can say, you know, if you if you have the adequate fire and safety, there's there's nothing really from a retail shop or cultivation where we have to develop. You don't need the red zone for those items. But I'm a little bit of a loss to see what the differences are across across each. Is that someone answer your question, Ashley? Yes, no, I mean, I just look at this list and I'm like how on earth, you know, any one of these we could spend an entire three months going down this rabbit hole to really structure it properly. And yeah, I'm sharing in the colossalness of just trying to figure out where to even start and obviously you've done this in other states. I'm just kind of curious like where people even really start on this. I mean, it seems colossal. I mean, part of it just on the macro level is that a lot of states didn't go to this level of detail in their enabling legislation. Vermont did, you know, which is good and and you know, kind of arduous for for subcommittees like us. And frankly, one of the things, yeah, we have to say, you know, that this this isn't ready yet, or it's going to be hard to develop something within this timeframe. But in a lot of states, like Massachusetts, they didn't have the time to do what we're doing, which is, you know, consult some experts and see how to go about it the right way. So legislation comes in different forms across different states and the rollouts have happened differently. But yeah, there are, I mean, things toward the bottom of this list are things where we've decided, you know what, this isn't necessarily something that is unique to Vermont and we don't know why we couldn't borrow from other states or existing regulations. Well, Tom, go ahead, Gary. No, I just trying to get my my bearing straight a little bit. And there's a few pieces of Act 164 that I wanted to mention and sort of get confirmation that my understanding is correct. The one, the one of the things, though, that I think it's difficult to borrow from Massachusetts being a Dellens rule state, they're set up completely differently. And I believe in Act 164, and so I'm looking for confirmation of municipalities were given sort of authority over the retail, but not the other licenses, not the processing or the growers. So, so actually that trims it a little bit, if my understanding is correct. We're local zoning municipal entities are focusing on the retail establishments based on what's in 164. That's how I read it. I'm looking to pile and jewelry that either not or disagree. And then Tom, I just wanted a little bit more. So I have my bearing straight on on your role. Are you facilitating this group? Are you sharing this group? Are you hired consultant by the board? Just so I have a better understanding of how we're operating. Sure, sure. I'll take your last question first that is consultant by the board. My personal role is that I'm involved with all of the subcommittees. I am also heading this particular subcommittee as well. So if you would, if you went to any of the other subcommittee meetings today and I've seen Tim and Ingrid and some of them, I'm the one that that kicked things off to the call to order. But then there were other leads for the other subcommittees. This one, I'll be, I'll be leading with Mark. And then I mean, that was my, that was my reading 164 also was consistent with yours. However, if you look at, I mean, there is a, there is a lengthy cultivation section within model rules and local ordinances within 164 that calls for development of cultivation rules locally. And that can be consistent with what we're developing for cultivation, which we also have to develop on the subcommittee statewide. But I think a lot of it has to be consistent with whatever the municipal ones are on on, you know, additional growths. Tom, I was just going to comment on something that actually just raised what's the one of the most difficult compliance areas. This may not be directly in this subcommittee, but from what I've seen around the country is, is the health claims that many in the cannabis industry, not just medicinal, but in the, you know, regular retail outlets, they have no, there seem to be no barriers. And that will not stand up to regulation in most states or certainly not with the federal government if it ever legalizes cannabis. But it is something that seems to be deeply ingrained in the industry. People are passionate advocates for their products and how they help people and that sort of thing. And I think just the law, the Vermont law is very clear about it. No false statements, no health claims that can't, that aren't supported and so forth. But it's going to be difficult to change the mindset of the culture of the industry in some respects. Okay, thanks Mark. And you know, these, these meetings will go by quickly, particularly when we have so much to cover. But what I also ended at the top of the list, so I have cultivation, seed to sale tracking and then enforcement. So on cultivation, I know we have Stephanie, who's gracious enough to attend this meeting as well. But there are existing cultivation for hemp and within some regulations within the medical program that should give us a basis. But, you know, what we're looking at here is the needs and priorities of a small cultivator. I think the majority of what's happening is indoor cultivation. The NACB does have regulations on that. There are standards for pesticide regulation, quality control, labeling and visits, facility visits that I included in the reference materials. So if you have a chance to look through that this weekend and we can hopefully delve into that more on Monday on whatever your thoughts are on those reference materials, that would be helpful. And seed to sale, that's mostly dictated kind of by the software tracking and tracing systems and programs that we can also discuss. More in depth on Monday, I understand most of what the medical is using right now is trace and we can discuss the different programs out there. But the other kind of large issue that I've also discussed in some of the other subcommittee meetings is the mechanism of who's going to be handling enforcement going forward. And part of the act does address explicitly that the cannabis board will utilize other strategic partnerships with other state agencies. What does that look like? And a lot of that is going to come from not just the other agencies that have reached out and there have been some, but what the board envisions going forward as far as how it will look going forward. And I'm aware of the three-year sunset provision on the board, but I learned from Stephanie in our other subcommittee meeting that the HEM program does have its own licensing and enforcement agencies within its own group. But if you can start thinking about what other agencies have the capabilities, what will, what are their agencies, or is it something that can be created within the CCB as far as enforcement? Those are issues that I want everyone to start thinking about this week and we can have some discussion on that as well. Tom? Yes. I just wanted to relay info to this subcommittee that I mentioned in the sustainability subcommittee. You know, Brian and I have talked with Dave and Carrie about how enforcement's ran at the Agency of Agriculture, typically how that process looks, and, you know, talk very in broad strokes what a relationship would look like if we were to, from a cultivation perspective, you know, do enforcement and compliance through the Agency of Agriculture. I've also talked with the Department of Liquor and Lottery already. I'm sure if this subcommittee wanted to hear from them directly that they would come and do a presentation on how they typically do inspection, enforcement, and random stem operations, I think is what they call them, at, you know, for tobacco and alcohol sales and what it would take to incorporate this program into what they're already doing. Again, where I kind of left, and I know Carrie and David have mentioned that they have the ability to do retail inspections as well. Carrie, I know that we've talked very broadly about, you know, rough numbers, what it would take, so on and so forth. I don't know if you're still working on that, that bit on what you think it would take. I was waiting to see the market analysis and it sounds like Stephanie has it, and Stephanie, Dave, and I will put our heads together early next week and sort of come up with a proposal for the board. Great. That's awesome. And liquor and lottery, I kind of have, again, the theme of I think a lot of the subcommittee meetings, as Tom mentioned today, is we're kind of waiting for the market analysis to kind of guide the rest of the work of every subcommittee. The liquor and lottery quoted me back in the napkin. It usually takes one investigator to cover 60 to 70 license holders. I mean, take that with a grain of salt because that's tobacco and alcohol and they're going to corner stores and breweries and so on and so forth. But we don't know how many license holders we're going to start with, what the size of our market's going to look like. So once that market analysis is further along, it might make sense to loop in liquor and lottery just to, once they have an idea of what we're working with as a market starting point. But just wanted to let folks know, I know that there's, actually there's a lot, lot on the plate. We've tried to get a head start on some of this as a board before these committee meetings have taken place. Yep. Thank you, Colin. And I did have some Zoom conferences with Mark and James Pepper with DLL. And I'm aware they're the licensing portal that they're developing also. I mean, that's outside of enforcement, but yeah, I appreciate that input. I wanted to add just one quick thing. Coming just from the dental background that I was in for 15 years prior to getting the cannabis space. And I feel like this is really pertinent to Vermont is that, you know, we're going to come up with these different enforcements. We're going to talk about laying out what we want for our labs, what quality really means, what price really means, what concentration really means. And I know that a lot of people can come into the industry all at once, a lot of money can come into the industry all at once. And there's going to be a lot of power playing in this pattern. But we still need to remember the consumer and remember the Vermont consumer wants quality to expect about quality and the demand quality. And those that don't adhere to those standards, present those standards or that culture or provide live testing that, you know, it backs up that quality. Like, people are just not going to go there. And I mean, you know, yeah, you know, you can make it shiny and you can make it cheap. But if it's not good and you can't prove it's good, monitors are not going to go there. And so I'll bring it back to the dental model. You know, there's not a lot of oversight in the dental community. I don't know if anybody knows that, but it's just not takes a long time for somebody to ever get put up for any kind of malpractice, let alone enforcement, let alone going to trial for something like that. And this is an industry that we have trusted, these are medical professionals we've trusted for years. And it takes a lot for somebody to be on the chopping block. And I feel like it takes patients, actual patients getting bad care. It takes other practices hearing about bad patient care for this to ever happen. And I feel the same thing is going to happen in the in the cannabis space that, you know, these people may come in now, but they're not going to last and having this like insane level of enforcement by the government to enforce us. The people are going to enforce it themselves. And we just, I know we have to build the industry first, but I think we should rely a lot more on the customer being the one to say, this place is crap or this place is good and this is where you should take your mom or this is where you should go if you eat, you know, health and wellness. So I also want to say, I think, not Tim, not James, maybe Mark, I think Mark, I just want to echo your sentiment about making health claims. You know, I read in public comments, someone said, you know, if we are going to roll this out soon rather than later, we need to have some public safety announcements. I agree with that wholeheartedly. I think that there's a lot of things we know this plant can do, but I think making false claims about it is only hurting us. And so I'm really happy to hear that that sentiment is shared in this group. Ashley, I, Tom, is it all right today? Yeah, I just wanted to be spawned really quickly in providing testimony from the legislature. One of the reasons for rolling out a tax-irrigally program was to create that level of consumer protection that doesn't exist in an illicit market. In order to do that, the compliance and enforcement, it's in place to create a culture of compliance around growing, around pesticide use, around solid extraction and residual solvents, mycotoxins. All those things that I hear very concerned about is that the enforcement and compliance would be there in order to make sure those producers were meeting those provisions. Set force with testing requirements. So the enforcement presence sort of creates the culture of compliance, which reinforces the Vermont brand that you're speaking of. So I think we're all on the same page. Tim, sorry. Tom, lead us. I just wanted to reassure Ashley that that subject of unfounded claims and health claims came up in my other committee, Public Health, this morning with Dr. Levine. So it's definitely being discussed over there as well. We might want to be careful and not discuss every committee's concerns, but that's definitely just to reassure you that's a topic actively being talked about over there. Yep. And what, oh, I just wanted to add one more thing because we, I mean, we have already seen this play out in the medical dispensaries. I mean, this was a few years ago now, but where employees weren't happy with what was going on at Champlain Valley dispensary and the quality of cannabis that was being grown there. And I don't know if there was oversight or not at that time that was even established in the medical world. But I assume there was something that had to have been after that as far as rectifying the quality assurance and that position care. You're saying no, that nothing happened. No, not at all. The medical program in Vermont, the regulations are strictly about diverting cannabis into an illicit market. There's nothing about consumer protection or quality. And think about how quickly you all heard about that story and think about how quickly consumers changed or medical cannabis patients changed which dispensary they wanted to go to after that happened. So again, I'm not saying, you know, we don't need to let's oversight. I'm not saying that we don't, you know, that people are going to be the ones that determine the enforcement. But I just want to make it known like we've seen this play out already. And we, you know, it doesn't go on notice for very long. Yep. And they're important points, but Tim's right. So Mark actually is chairing that public health subcommittee, which is a different committee. I blame Mark for bringing that up in here. But yeah, that is being addressed as well. We are at 1153. Kyle, I wanted to make sure that we had time for any public comments for anyone in the room that had a question. Anybody have any comments? Go for it, Stephanie. Stephanie with Vermont Agency of Agriculture sitting on other subcommittees. While not sitting on this subcommittee, I wanted to talk about the mention of the municipal control. And it's peppered throughout Act 164 relative to the vote that has to happen. And I'm not an attorney, and I'm not making representations as to what this actually says. I'm just highlighting some language within the bill. That it looks like municipalities have the authority to condition the issuance. And I'm reading on page 27. I don't have a section reference. May condition the issuance of a local control license upon compliance with bylaws with zoning regulations. Just to interpret that as outlined in chapter 117 title 24 or the police powers found in title 24. Section 2291. These should be references that sound familiar to some members here on the subcommittee. So it seems like the authority is limited to the regulatory authority that already exists for municipal officials. But it isn't necessarily over and above existing regulations that that municipality applies. So it would just be built in through their system. I'm just saying, but it's limited. Actually, in the police powers of the municipality, it's regulating signs or public nuisances. So it's even more fine grained than just the broad police powers of the select board. So zoning signs and public nuisances seem to be those are the ordinances municipality can adopt to regulate cannabis. And then that local commission can require compliance with those pieces when they issue their license. I'm sorry, that wasn't very succinct, but I wanted to point that out. No, thank you Stephanie. And that was in all the subcommittee reference materials. And obviously, no, but I thank you for highlighting that. Yeah, zoning is obviously a big, big issue and it has been in every other state and continues to be with the local zoning boards. Carrie, right before you go, anybody else have any comments? Okay, Carrie. Yeah, I just want to I feel like Tim, your initial concerns didn't speak to those but I don't feel like I'm the expert. I have a 30 year regulatory background and our sort of sentiment all along is we set fees at levels that are adequate to run the program itself in terms of fees. And I don't know, but is it worth looking into like that there's going to be fees collected on the licenses. And then taxes collected on the sale of the product. Would it, I know you lost the battle sort of in the legislature but a portion of the tax collected on the sale of the product. The recommendation that that go back to the municipality is that work better because I don't feel like the fees collected are here to support the internal program sufficient based on all the testing requirements. I don't want to take too much time but just really quickly obviously the fees don't really support the town's fairly under alcohol. So I would assume that if that same structure is pushed forward that the model would not work towns very well. I have some good friends in the legislature so I can ask them if that would take if we tried to kick back the tax idea. But I'm sort of just trying to work in the world we're existing now and just trying to point out the varying stresses on varying levels of town municipal government. It's somewhere like Brattleboro as I said has that 1% local option that we'll gather some funds to go into general coffers but the majority of towns do not have that having been passed. So they're relying on at this point fees as far as I know. Thank you. I think that's that pointing out. I think that's it in the room. Wait. Later. It's some other subsequent meeting. Okay. Thank you everyone we've got the next subcommittee meeting starting here in two minutes. Kyle I want to make sure that no other public comments. I think we're good. Room. Okay. I'm going to make a motion to adjourn if I can get a second. And then we will see everyone on Monday after you had a time to digest. Thank you everyone. Take care of Tom.