 Exploratory committee to order the members of the advisory committee that I see present Stephanie Smith, Kerry Juggair, Nader Hashim, Chris Walsh, Meg Delia, we're missing Jim but we've got enough to get going. So this is the inaugural meeting, thanks for giving us on your calendars and essentially what this committee is designed to do is look at some of the more controversial issues that the legislature asked the board to make recommendations on. I think the initial list that I kind of sent around included debating some of these new and maybe different license types beyond the ones that we've approved. These would include cooperatives, direct to consumer, farm to consumer licenses, the limited space license, that's the kind of like a maybe like a cannabis kiosk in a general store, kind of a store within a store concept. Also looking at issues around concentrates, potency limits, on-site consumption, special event permitting, curbside sales, delivery, and honestly whatever else comes up, I know that all of those issues were debated in the legislature and no one could kind of really come to a consensus on any of those and so they asked the cannabis board to make recommendations and so we're going to turn to our advisory committee to debate some of those issues. For today we're going to have a much more narrowly tailored meeting. We have a report to the legislature due on November 1st and there's really three issues that they've asked us to look at. The first issue, I'll mention them all and then I'm going to ask Kerry if he wouldn't mind kind of walking us through some of the contours of the debate on the three. The first issue is the board needs to make a recommendation as to whether integrated license holders, product manufacturers should be permitted to produce solid concentrate products with greater than 60% THC for the purposes of incorporation into other cannabis products that otherwise comply with the prohibitive product section. So the way that I read this and maybe I'm reading it wrong but the way that I see this is any solid concentrate above 60% is per se illegal. However, there is an argument to be made that a product manufacturer who is not going to be selling a solid concentrate above 60% directly to the public or to a retailer should be allowed to make them and then dilute them later or have a kind of subsequent retail or someone else on the supply chain dilute it. So as long as the final product at the point of sale is below the 60% THC concentrate. That's the way I'm reading that and Kerry, I know you've looked at this language in the past. Kerry, if you can kind of maybe talk us through your thoughts on this and you know you're probably more familiar because of the HEM program than a lot of us about solid concentrates and the product manufacturing. So maybe you can kind of hit on some of the high notes or the high points of the debate. Yeah. Let me just start off by saying it would be almost virtually impossible to create a concentrate that's less than 60% or less right off the bat if any concentrate you make is going to be higher than that. You can't really, whether it's a mechanical extraction or you're extracting Keith, that original product that as soon as it's extracted is going to be above 60%. Whether it's solid or liquid, the original extraction until it's diluted is going to be above 60%. The way that we sort of dealt with higher potency concentrates in the HEM program, is that we can collaborate as well as we can call sort of that original concentrate a process intermediate. So that process intermediate in the HEM program specifically, you'll have a concentrated extract that when the plant started below .3 or .3 or below THC, when you concentrated it's four or five or six percent THC and the point of compliance that we've insisted upon is the point of sale. So you need to bring that down to .3 or below in one of your products. I think the same would hold true with THC. Right now some of the easiest way to formulate a product is from a distillate and those are nearly a hundred percent and you will be the most accurate when adding that to a baked good, baked cartridge or any other concentrated product that's being made. That said, the law as written would make it virtually impossible to make any concentrate or addable other than by an oil infusion where the materials infused in oil, cooking on oil or butter would be the only way that we could make addables under the current law. So solid or liquid concentrates when extracted will by nature be above 60 percent. So as written the laws of the North program. So, Kim Lee, can I just open this up for discussion? I don't want to kind of dominate this. I really want the employee of the South Committee. Stephanie, do you have anything you want to add to this in particular? I just echo what Carrie said is that we've navigated this by requiring that concentrate stream between registrants in the program and just being clear that they're not considered products to be sold to the public because it is impossible. And you're limiting what you can do and you're adding costs like in process and potentially harmful things maybe. I don't know. When you say add potentially harmful things, can you elaborate on that? Well, I think you're by cutting your concentrate possibly. I mean, not maybe not a solid concentrate unless you're further diluting it into something but just, you know, managing what you can actually add to meet the standard which is what you're talking about. Like you have to add things to it. Maybe Carrie or others can comment on what are typically added or what can be seen as an additive? Yeah, I, well, it seems like Nader's got his hand up. Maybe I can go afterwards. Should I just go? I just have a quick question if that's okay. You can. So concentrates aren't really something I know a ton about for this conversation. And so, forgive me if this has already been repeated, but could somebody just summarize for me again one more time why two license holders or two businesses with trade concentrates with each other but not with the public? Yeah, Nader, I'll take a shot at it really quickly. So I'm producing either chocolate bars or brownies or gummies, but I'm not growing anything. I'm a processor and I'm going to buy extract from somebody else. I'm going to have somebody else do that work of extraction and I'm just going to add it to my baked goods and I'm going to need to know how much THC is in that extract and if the processor has to bring it down below 60%, they're going to add something else to it and it makes it less accurate for me to formulate my product. If I know what I'm buying from you as 100%, I can weigh out the exact amount to get a certain amount of milligrams per edible if you will. If it's something other, if it's diluted and brought down below 60%, I need a lab analysis to come with it and I will then have to reformulate my product every time I go to make a new batch. Got it. That's a great explanation. Thank you. Hey, this is Chris Walsh. So, you know, the thing that dawned on me recently after we all kind of chimed in on the manufacturing licenses is it's really a shame that we have this 60% threshold because the two cleanest, safest, healthiest and least dangerous to produce concentrates being ice hash and rosin, which are also the least expensive to make so that tier two manufacturing license. I would imagine that would be a lot of what they would make. I don't know how you can make those products where they come out at less than 60%. And they're solving this so they're really not designed to be diluted. So I just, you know, your two cleanest concentrates would have to be manipulated before they're put on the market. Chris, I agree with you 100%. What we're talking about, that'll be a topic that will have to be brought up separately. The legislature sort of specifically asked about passing concentrates higher than 60% between manufacturers. And I think that has to be a yes in the point of, the point of compliance for the 60% would in fact need to be their point of retail sale. That said, you're absolutely correct and it would be a shame to have to produce a more harmful, less pure product out of your sort of ice hash or rosin. My only thought there is that, you know, we would see some hemp ice hash being added to, but then again, you're just drawing the profile. So I don't exactly know how to do it myself, but agreed. It shouldn't be diluted. That's my point is that you really can't dilute rosin or ice hash unless you bring CBD trichomes into it. So I'm trying to think what the, the unintended consequence from what I'm hearing of this policy that just straight up prohibits at any point in the production chain, a concentrate above 60% is essentially we're either eliminating the edibles market and the vape market altogether, or we're adding some unknown element to those products that will just make the process untenable to make the, you know, you're adding some, you're adding some adultery into the process that who knows what happens when you consume or inhale. So, you know, Before you get too far, it won't eliminate the edibles market. It will just add additional lab analysis to different points of that process because you could easily extract into a butter or coconut oil. But then your, your concentration in that oil is unknown. So we're trying to keep a tight market on how many milligrams can go into an animal. We're making it harder for producers to do that. Well, just, just to add to that, James, you're also discouraging the safest and least expensive and cleanest ways to make concentrates, the solvenous ice hash and the rosin. And, you know, I, if someone goes to that tier two manufacturing license where they aren't going to use fluorocarbons and need to say from all that expense, I don't really know, you know, I don't know what else they're going to make. And I was, I know we're not talking about we're moving that, that language right now. But, yeah, I do believe that folks that want those dabs are just going to buy flour and bring it home and blast it themselves. So we'll be having home butane extractions going on. And I'd like to hear from other folks that they, they believe that would happen. Yeah, I'll speak up again. Yeah, that'll definitely happen. People will make dabs at home and they'll purchase dabs on the unregulated market. Yeah, I would agree with that as well. So this, this 60% concentrate law, actually the unintended consequence, it absolutely does the opposite of what the legislature was intending in that it makes the product, the end product potentially more dangerous and also encouraging, encourages a black market. And what I'd say, it makes it more dangerous is, is what, when the legislature did this is when they were hearing specifically about big cartridges with that we're making people ill. The thought was that vitamin E or lanolin was being used to dilute the extract. Partridges now are pure rosin or pure extract or terpene diluted with a terpene blend, safer to inhale. We're sort of encouraging the innovation value, which we probably should not be doing. So the, the law that was meant to protect people is actually discouraging that pure clean market. That's what I was trying to get at was, I wasn't in the room when this prohibitive product was introduced. It seems to me, like from all that I know about the legislature, that they probably had a concern about children or cannabis induced psychosis with these high concentrates. So I think they were really more concerned about them. And these products not making it into the market, not that, not if there, if there's never any kind of directive THC concentrate, you know, above 60%, they're concerned will never be realized. So, I don't know. I mean, I read, you know, David Silverman's made a comment. I think he was in the room when this, this issue is being debated. And I think his thinking was the same as what I just said, which is that they don't want these products on the shelves. But if they're, if they're ultimately compliant, they shouldn't be per se illegal at every step of the supply chain. Yeah, just wanted to go along with what you're saying or confirm what you were saying is that there certainly was a level of fear about concentrates or products that were at a higher potency level. There's still a lot of really old stigma and mentality towards cannabis. And so, you know, the word psychosis and we're often brought up and, you know, as well as a sphere of children getting a hold of high concentrate cannabis products. So yeah, just just confirming what you were discussing. Yeah. You know, I'm not sure that we need much more debate on this. I mean, because I think I'm hearing at least a majority of folks make do you want to weigh in actually. I tend to agree with Chris. I think it will the unintended consequences will absolutely push people to the illicit market. And, you know, ensuring that products are as safe as possible. I think it just doesn't really make sense to have this ban on the 60% in the manufacturing process. This is Chris. The irony of this is, you know, I'm not even saying to jack the threshold up that much, because most solvent less product concentrate products like hash or rosin come in around 70%. You know, they're not the ultra concentrated like butane or the hydrocarbons where they can come in like 90%. So you're almost there. But, you know, I mean, maybe I'm saying to selfishly because I find these products on a personal level, like very clean and safe. But it's just a shame that the way it is right now, you really couldn't make these pure products without adulterating them. And then the other irony is the most dangerous way to make concentrates is the easiest way to dilute down 60%. So, you know, and it's like you've got the worst of both worlds. Well, Bryn, are you listening in on this? I am. Is it, would it be outside of our purview, certainly outside of our purview? Would it be a bad idea to make a recommendation about solid concentrates more generally alongside this recommendation? I think that this report, the November 1st report is the time to make that recommendation since we were directed to look at this issue in general. I don't think it would be outside the board's purview to make an additional recommendation. Okay. Well, Chris, I think I know your point of view on this and Stephanie and Kerry, you know, I think I've heard, I've heard the kind of contours of the debate. You know, they, you know, you guys, this is a policy decision that the board needs to make, but I think I hear kind of the considerations that we should be making. Nader, do you have a feeling one way or the other, if we should make a recommendation that would allow concentrates to be sold directly to consumers that would be a solid concentrates above 60%. Sorry, James, did you call my name? I was losing reception for a second. Oh, sorry. I just, I was curious if you had a feeling one way or the other, and if you need more time or more research, that's totally acceptable answer. But whether you had a thought about making a recommendation around allowing, I guess, removing solid concentrates above 60% from the prohibited list generally. Yes, I'm in support of that. You know, like I mentioned, this isn't something that's in my wheelhouse. In the conversation we've had in the last 20 minutes, it's been pretty efficient in explaining the situation to me. So, you know, one of my concerns from what I'm hearing are the dilutants that would go into it, which, you know, it would, I think it would be a catch-22 when we'd still be causing harm by putting dilutants into these products to keep them under 60%. So, I'm in support. Meg, did you want to weigh in just more generally about removing the 60% cap on solid concentrates from the prohibited product list? I'm sorry, could you say that again? I don't know why it just cut up. Sorry, I'm in a parking lot, it might be me. Do you have a thought just more generally about the board recommending removing solid concentrates above 60% from the prohibited product list? I would tend to agree. I think just going back to what I think was Carrie initially said, that yes, that people are looking to get those and we'll just push them to the illicit market and it's better to know that those products are being regulated and safe. And Jim, sorry about the technical difficulties. The conversation started with our November 1st report, which is the legislature wanted us to say whether or not between maybe a product manufacturer and a retailer or a wholesaler, as long as the 60% concentrate above 60% concentrate never actually hit the market, the consumer market, whether we shouldn't allow concentrates above 60%, the general consensus is yes, there's a number of policy reasons why it makes sense, a number of public health reasons why it makes sense. The conversation then moved to whether we should just remove the concentrates above 60% from the prohibited product list altogether. And I'm wondering if you had a thought about that. Yeah, I do. AI would absolutely agree that we should remove it from the prohibited products. I agree that we'll just, it's widely used products and I think we'll just push people to the illicit market where things are made with solvents that we won't be able to control. Also, from my point of view as a medical product concentrates above 60%, including things like hashish are key products. We've had witnesses tell us that many times and my concern is that we prohibited as a retail product or at the very least as an ingredient, sub-agreed for retail products, it's going to negatively affect a lot of patients from medical programs. It will become something that is labor intensive and cost prohibitive for businesses to produce. Go ahead, Jerry. Yeah, I just wanted to weigh in on one last time here. And that's from a different perspective, not the regulatory perspective but the marketing perspective. So what is Vermont's market? What will be Vermont's market? And it's going to be the higher end products. Everybody's harvesting their two plants or two or six plants right now. Nobody's necessarily in the market for flower unless it's really high end flower. So the Vermont market will be the boutique, the small scale, high end extracts. Whether that's a live rosin or live resin and we're essentially taking that away from a marketing perspective as well. So we're leaving Massachusetts, Colorado, New York, the surrounding states, the entities that are producing the higher end products, the boutique products that I think are what we should be looking to capture in the state. The flower market saturated will be these higher end, pure, live rosin type concentrates. Lots of terpenes, very pure. Chris, is that a new hand or is that an old hand? That's an old hand so I don't want to see it. Okay, I mean one other just element to this. I know the medical program has been kind of very tightly controlled for a long time. There's probably a lot of folks out there that probably wish they were on the medical registry that harms. And to say that these products can exist on the medical side but not on the adult rec side. I feel like there should be equal access, especially if a patient for some reason doesn't want to pay the $50 a year to be on the medical program, doesn't want to have the kind of relationship with the doctor but still wants access to those products. So I think that's just another angle here. I hear all the comments and all the input and I think we can kind of move on because I think we're all pretty much in agreement here. So the next issue that we have to deal with for November 1st is whether the board should permit hemp or CBD to be converted to Delta 9 THC, how it should be regulated. So Carrie, once again I'm going to ask if you don't mind to kind of walk us through what this conversion is even and maybe some of the finer points of the debate. Okay, very good. And again, Stephanie is just as first in this as I am. And so our thoughts are from the agency, we've let hemp producers know that making Delta 8 or a synthetic cannabinoid was no longer hemp. We didn't want to see those products being sold as hemp. And if it is allowed to convert to hemp, CBD or CBG into a Delta 8, Delta 9 or even Delta 10 product, that's something that should be regulated in a tax and regulate market. I don't believe these products should be able to be sold in a gas station or over the counter without some sort of regulation. Other states have allowed it. I was just down in Texas and he could get Delta 8, 9 or 10 from hemp produced. And, you know, there was no restriction on the sales and they are intoxicating. It just not, I think, not a direction I think we should be heading in. So if we do want to allow these to be synthesized from a hemp extract, I believe the sales should be regulated by the control board. My only concern with allowing this is you're being, you're permitting 1000 square foot grows essentially on your smallest tier. I can grow 100 acres of hemp under a hemp permit, extract all that and produce enough THC to supply the entire state without having to go through the process of getting a, registering with the control board. Terry, can I just ask a question before I open it up? This, to me, kind of harkens back to when we had some challenges around bath salts where we tried as a legislature, tried to prohibit certain combinations of chemicals and the processes were always changing. So they're always one step behind where people are at. If the recommendation is to say that Delta 8 should not be sold or should not be kind of, you know, a consumer product, are we going to just be back every year with some other kind of Delta 9, Delta 10, Delta 11, is that an issue? It might be a dumb question. Well, I'm almost suggesting that CBD is still in a tenuous place federally, but I'm sort of suggesting that all cannabis products fall, all cannabinoid products, not seed or fiber or protein from a hemp plant, but anything with cannabinoids in it almost needs to fall under the purview of the control board. I'm not ready to go there, but essentially I can see that happening in the future because the cannabinoid synthetic or not are certainly why folks are buying these products. And right now CBD, if you will, there's no age limit in most states. They're taking that CBD and converting it into other things, which are largely unknown. Their effect is largely unknown. We do hear that some of those effects are beneficial, right? But I believe the market needs to be controlled, so you do know what you're buying. Nader, do you have a question? Yeah, I was just going to mention, you had me thinking with the bath salts analogy. Instead of trying to focus on what the new or updated chemical name or composition would be, I think that to stay up to speed you could just say that anything that has an impairing effect that hemp could be regulated instead of trying to list all the new and various chemical compositions. Kerry, is there a way where we could require, if this was brought under our jurisdiction, is there a way that we could require kind of like a product registration so that we would know any time a new product is kind of hidden in the shelves, we would have kind of some authority, some discretion to kind of regulate it? Yep, that would be a very good way to do it. You would see a label before the product hit the shelf. And not only products produced in the state, but products produced outside our borders. Chris, do you have any, do you want to weigh in? I mean, full transparency, I own a CBD company and we grow all of our hemp in the state. Delta A, I believe there's already, it's already prohibited in Vermont, isn't that correct? Chris, what Stephanie, I'll let Stephanie address it. She drafted the letter. It's true. We don't, well, it's not, a hemp registrant is unable to produce the product under their hemp license. My understanding of how it's produced is you take a CBD isolate, which is not illegal to be sold to the general public or any manufacturing firm. That is a legal and trade product in the state of Vermont. And so what you can't as a hemp registrant produce Delta A, or synthesize Delta A from CBD. So a little nuance there. We didn't say, we didn't do it, we just said it wasn't hemp. It wasn't hemp. And you can't do it under your license, like you can't be a licensed hemp processor and do it and create that product and call it hemp. Yeah. Well, I mean, you know, processing hemp into CBD oil, I mean, you are at some point in the process also creating above 0.3 THC threshold. And then it sort of gets diluted again. But I don't know, I feel like a lot of this is is bordering on like semantics. So, you know, but I do believe in the separation of church and state when it comes to the hemp program. And the cannabis control board, I mean, they are they are apples and oranges. But I mean, I gotta keep I could talk for a long time about this. But are we you're you're just saying the hemp could potentially manufacture some of the Delta T Delta cannabinoids. But they would have to have us they would have to have us a different license than just that license, right? That's kind of what we're debating. Chris, that that that is a concern to jump in here. That is a question on the table. Should the control board regulate those other deltas in 910? But only only when they're above 0.3 THC threshold. Correct. Right. Yeah. It seems like it would be a conflict any other way. Sorry, that was an old hand. Yeah, I wonder whether the question is the right question because I think of this process as. Something like making ethanol out of corn. It's not, you know, at a time where all of New England is going to come online as a retail market. You know, from my point of view, one of the things that's going to really distinguish Vermont is what distinguishes our food as a product. It's natural. It is relatively unprocessed and it's glory and it's artisan based. And this is cheap THC. So the idea of product A, it is scary that we don't know all of the effects. I agree that we're going to be chasing chemical compound, you know, differentials over the years with things like this. But even more so, it's just not, you know, if I were to want to allow it to be produced, I would want to have it be labeled separately. Not in, you know, cannabis products that natural, you know, sort of stomped on cannabis is going to be used. And so to me, it really lowers, I think, the quality overall of what people, I would hope we're going to expect from Vermont's adult use market. Terry, can I dig in with you just a little bit? And maybe it's not the best time and place to do it. But, you know, if a Delta 8 product, if a Delta 8 product, you know, ended up on a, you know, like a candy aisle in a gas station in Vermont. You know, what would the consequence be? Is it really in a legal gray area right now? I think that has happened, I remember, that the Delta 8 cartridges were showing various gas stations. And yeah, they are intoxicating. It's similar to, it's similar to a lower percentage of the Delta 9 product. It's about 80%, I guess, is what I've heard. I've never experienced the effects of Delta 8 or 10. But yeah, they're essentially the same. It really does undercut the market that you're trying to establish to have this product available at unregulated retail locations. A lot of Vermont hemp growers did produce a lot of Delta 8 and that went to out-of-state markets where hemp is legal. And you know, it's a way around a regulated market, which I don't think we necessarily need to allow. So then I'm trying to wrap my head around what we actually have to report to the legislature. It says whether the board should permit hemp or CBD to be converted to Delta 9 and if so, how should it be regulated? I mean, should we say that it should be under our regulatory authority, but it's temporarily prohibited until we figure out how to regulate it? Is that kind of... You could, just to break in here, you could create another license category of hemp producers that the ultimate intent is for it to enter into the regulated market that you're setting up so that you're capturing a license and it's somehow controlling the production of hemp for ultimate production of THC. I mean, I'm just talking here. I don't necessarily have details, but that's a way of dealing with it. So it's not, because it's not a hemp, you know, it's not a part of the hemp program. I mean, I know people are growing hemp, but it's really the intended market is not a CBD market, for instance. And then, and Carrie did say something about, you know, a future state possibly, but it could be a new license category. I mean, that's one way of thinking of it or not allowing it at all. That could be the other answer, which Jim pointed out, just not permitting it. I like to chime in too, Stephanie. I agree with you. It's the Delta AIDS really not going into CBD products. It's going into these loophole products where you can order them online and get a psychoactive effect very similar to Delta 9. I've tried Delta 8. I haven't tried Delta 10, but Delta 8, you know, 10 milligrams of Delta 9 THC is significantly stronger. But if you take enough Delta 8, it's the exact same psychoactive effect as Delta 9 THC. I've got another just common question. So is Delta 8 naturally occurring or does it have to be manipulated? It's naturally occurring in very, very, very currently very small amounts from hemp land. Correct. I don't, uh, canvas land, not sure. Is it canvas and hemp? It isn't, okay. Yeah, but there's so in hemp that there's less of it, but if it's concentrated. Yeah. But for all intents and purposes here, it is a synthesized. That's what I understand is that the process to create it is converting the CBD to the Delta 8. It's cost prohibitive to try and concentrate the small amount that is actually naturally produced in the plant. So if we were going to try our best to regulate this, or at least maybe have a kind of temporary pause button on this, we could say that any, um, we could just have a product licensure process. And if the process is using a synthesized cannabinoid, then we could put a pause on that until we really figure out more about these products and what their effects are. I mean, yeah. And to answer the legislatures, oh, I'm sorry. Just a quick thought, um, you know, is putting a pause on this? Is that something that could potentially lead to a black market as an unintended consequence? Well, I think, yeah, I mean, any regulated, any like prohibited products, what would that be a black market for, for sure, an illicit market? I would suggest less so, um, because you need a lab to create Delta 8 or 10 ground CBD, and those folks want to mass produce the product and get it on gas station shelves. Right, they want to, this is the cheap THC at cheap pie. Um, if your folks looking to produce products for a black market are going to go for Delta 9, they're not going to go for some of the synthetic cannabinoids. And I wanted to add, James, you have two questions to answer. Um, one is should this be allowed? And I believe that's still up for debate. The other question is if it's allowed, should it fall under the hemp program or the CCB? And I think, um, Stephanie and I are, we haven't really said it out loud, but it isn't hemp. We've said to the public that these synthesized cannabinoids are not hemp and don't fall under the hemp program. So if it's allowed, it should fall under the cannabis control board because they are essentially intoxicating products. Um, I'm just trying to respect the time here. We have about two minutes left. Meg, did you want to have any input on this question? Um, to be honest, I'm not as familiar with these synthetic compounds, but you know, just kind of in hearing about it and knowing the little that I do know. I think whether pausing it or at least finding, I guess, some time to do some additional research and then finding a way to regulate, regulate those products that do think is key because they will just end up in the illicit market. Um, but to be honest, I'd have to do some more research and really get to know kind of what, what the process is behind making those products. Um, any other kind of concluding thoughts? I would just say, I think that we as a board, I think Julie and Kyle have enough input right now to answer these questions. There is one more, and what I would, what I think I'm going to do is kind of get the rough outline of our conversation into a report and then send it around to the full advisory committee for final input. You know, I don't think I'll call a meeting of everyone together, but I'll send it around so that people can have one last shot at kind of providing input. The last question that we have to answer for November 1st is kind of the future makeup and in charge of the marijuana for symptom relief oversight committee. Jim has led a very intensive process to make a recommendation on that. This is essentially the group of folks that oversees the medical program and makes recommendations for improvement to it. And Jim, I don't need to really go into the details of that report. I think, you know, we'll probably, you know, follow the advice that you give us because of the nature of the way you came to those conclusions and the input you got. I think it's a much more robust process than we would be able to do here today. So I appreciate all the work on that. I don't know, there's anything you wanted to add just on that piece of our November report. No, I think you covered it. I mean, I feel really confident in the nature of the deliberative process that we went through. We did not have a board that was necessarily in lockstep with each other. We really did a lot of extensive debate on it and did our best to extend the amount of public input and public comments that we took on the document at the end. So I feel like it both represents both really sound compromised, but also a real positive movement for the Oversight Committee of the Future in terms of a make up that would be patient-based and patient-focused and really represent, you know, down to the low of common denominator. So the vote is done and we have approved recommendations and I think you captured it other than that. Yeah, that's great. Any last concluding comments from the subcommittee members? Exploratory subcommittee members? Okay. Well, again, we'll send, we'll try and push some of these out to you all for one last kind of input opportunity. And if you all are okay with it, we're going to need to call you back together again. We might wait a little while because we don't have to, our next reporting requirement isn't until January. The board has a few other things that we have to do in the, like more immediate in the interim. But I'll work with you all to schedule the follow-up meeting and we can deal with kind of delivery, on-site consumption, special event permitting and cooperative licenses and all the rest of the things we have to talk about for January. So, is there anyone from the public who would like to make a comment? Nope, there's not. Okay. Great. Well, in that case, I will adjourn this meeting. Thank you all for joining. Thanks for the input.