 Yeah. Right. Welcome back to Senate government operations committee Thursday, March 11. We're going to have a discussion with Michelle child's legislative council about some of the proposed changes that committee is considering to the cannabis bill. Cannabis bill is S 25, if I remember correctly, right. So again, Michelle, just take us to actually make sure we got the, the paper. I just emailed it. Sorry. I got it. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and do that earlier. I. Y'all are my fifth committee today. So I'm. Sometimes I get a little confused about what I've sent where. You've saved the best for last. Yes. And Gail, can I share my screen? We can look at it here. If you've emailed it to us. We can just look at whatever your preferences. Yeah, we like just looking at our iPads. Okay. Well, that's with me. So, so I'm going to take you through this and you'll see, you know, it's not quite done as I had mentioned to you a little earlier. I had drafted it. And then I had sent it to. Senator white yesterday, but, you know, because she's six, she wasn't able to take a look at it. So I'll, I'll clarify for you the areas where I still need some input. Folks. So you should have a. You know, this is, I should have updated the header, which I didn't, but what it says right now is draft 1.1. Which I might. I'll connect with you because you probably have the 1.1 on the website. Now for me, it's only names that draft number, but I'll correct it with you after we finish up. Okay. That sounds good. I've been having problems with the headers, not automatically updating. Okay. So we're looking at, and I just put it in the form of an instance of amendment. Obviously it's not an amendment because you don't have jurisdiction of the bill, but the first instance of amendment is we've already talked about that. And I don't think we need to go over that, but that's your, your bit about the, um, if the towns don't vote by a certain date, um, then, uh, uh, then they need to, then if they're going to be considered an opt in for retail sales. Um, I did talk with judiciary, uh, this morning a little bit about the amendments that you had already agreed to, and I did talk to them about this. And I'll probably make a little tweak to this. They brought up the, um, A concern that it sounds as though if the town. Doesn't vote exactly on March 8th. The, that that would apply. And the intention is that if they haven't, uh, voted on or before, and so I'll just make a small, a little technical tweak to that. Sure. Sure. The instance of amendment, um, is on page, uh, two. Michelle answers that question. Um, so it's usually, oh, so I see you're giving a little leeway after town meeting because town meeting that year will be on the first. Of March. Is it, I, you know, it might, it might be that that's what it was. I think I would have looked it up version was on. That town meeting is always the first Tuesday of. Of the, uh, right. Of March. So I guess, you know, Tucker had Tucker had done this language. And so, uh, it might have been, and I wasn't part, I wasn't in committee at that time when we all were just, and so it might have been that you decided that you wanted a little time after, so I'll just put. Yeah. I'll tweak it. Thank you for, thank you for pointing that out. And, um, and because. That's a good thing though, right? We want it to be a little after town meeting. I don't know if that's the intention. I mean, I'm happy. I think it's fine to be a little after I just, if it's town meeting town meeting is on the first. Great. And I'll, I'll just, I know what your intent is. So I'll just, I'll think. And. Take care of it. So don't worry. I'll. I'm sorry. Yeah. I think you're incorrect. I have the 20, 23 calendar open. Yeah. They is on March 7th. In 2023. So that's probably why he has the eight. There. Okay. So. I knew we couldn't be wrong because I knew we talked about it. Yeah. So I would probably say something like, you know, like prior, you know, if they don't do, but I got, I'll, I'll look at it and I'll, I'll clarify. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you, Brian. I was just getting around to clarifying. The date. So frustrating to not find it. Okay. Let's move forward. So the section to again, this is a language that you've already looked at and, and said you're okay with. So it's requiring the. It's moving the. The board members from the advisory committee members from 12 to 13. The board members from 12 to 13. The board members from 12 to 13 with the addition of the representative from the dispensaries. That's in subsection H and then right up above there in subdivision. C4 is that the member could be removed for cause by either the remaining two members of the board or by a two thirds vote of the advisory committee. Yeah. Also on this section on page four. So we're going to move forward. And then we're going to move forward. And then we're going to move forward. And then we're going to move forward. May, the advisory committee is supposed to be seated by, by May 1st of this year. And you guys have. Signed to put it at April 1st. So we don't have a board yet, but we may have an advisory board. So the third instance of amendment. Is tweaking the section that is in. As 25 is introduced. But this portion only has the fee. Bit in it because I've done some additional sections that are dealing with the, with the business development fund. So you'll see here is just that the. The second instance of amendment. The third instance of amendment. The final board is to propose a plan for reducing or eliminating license fees. And I highlighted this language because. I know this is a difficult one. For everybody, but the language that's in there now is used because. That's the phrase that's used. Currently in the law with regard to. And a number of different places around technical training and. In the law. In the law. Whatever you want, but I wanted to get here from you. Specifically how you want that language to read, because I felt like I kind of got a lot of pieces, but I wasn't entirely when I went to kind of put. Pencil to paper. I wasn't entirely clear on the scope of what you wanted this to be. I can come back. I can just walk you through the whole thing. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So then moving on to the fourth instance of amendment. This is creating a new chapter. Chapter 39 in title seven. So right after your, you have a few other cannabis chapters now in title seven. And that's where you have, you have a general one for cannabis development. You have a general one for cannabis development. You have a general one for cannabis development. You have another for the medical program and dispensaries. And so this would be adding one for social equity programs. And so we start out with a definition section. These weren't absolutely necessary to put that in there, but we're going to have to add on to the nation. So I wanted to hold the place from a statutory standpoint. Because we're going to have to add definitions like social equity applicants in there. And so it's establishing the cannabis business development fund. The C subsection B line for the fund is comprised of 3% of gross sales made by integrated licensees prior to October 15th, 2022. I chose that date because the retailers are begin. To get licensed on October 1st. And so I thought that kind of is that. So the intention there from my understanding was that. When it's the period prior to the other retail stores coming online and selling. And so I just picked that date, but you can make that date, whatever you want. With a maximum contribution of $50,000 per integrated licensee. So there are, as you know, five current dispensary licenses. So there could be a maximum of five integrated licenses. And so you could potentially see $250,000 going into that fund. From existing dispensaries. And then the second one is just monies allocated to the fund by the general assembly. And so Senator White. Had discussed an appropriation. And again, that's one of the things I wanted to talk about. She had thrown around a variety of numbers and. And I realized that no matter what number you pick, it's going to appropriations and. They'll pick their own number. So, but. Would that keep it from crossover though. No, no, it just has to be out of committee of jurisdiction. That's right. That's right. To be out of Senate judiciary tomorrow and then it'll go to finance and then it'll go to appropriations. Right. Okay. I shouldn't remember that. That's okay. Okay. So the C C subsection C on line nine. So the fund is to be used for the following purposes to provide low interest rate loans and grants to social equity applicants to pay for ordinary and necessary expenses to start and operate a licensed cannabis establishment. And two, to pay for outreach. This hasn't been edited. Just a little FYI. So don't worry too much on the typos. Okay. So the C subsection C is to be used for the following purposes. To attract and support equity applicants. And then three necessary costs incurred in administering the fund. And so I'm using this term, social equity applicants. And then there's obviously the question. What's who's a social equity applicant. And there's not a definition in there, but this goes to a section. I'll get to in a moment where you're, you're tasking the advisory committee with coming up for the criteria. And what they'll do is they'll recommend back to you. And then that'll get incorporated into this definition section in here. I have a question. I'm sorry. Great. When you talk about providing. Pay for ordinary necessary expenses to start and operate a licensed cannabis establishment. When I hear the word establishment, I think of a store. Retail store. But great mind. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Good. This also include a grower, the cultivator, those kinds of things. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the word establishment does not mean that. But when I see that word, I think of a store. I had the same question. It means any of the licensees and it is. And in the, in the cannabis chapter. All right. That's what I thought. I figured you know what you were doing. I try. Yeah. Yeah. So. So section nine 88. So as we discussed earlier in the week, a CCD is to establish a program using funds from the canvas to business development fund for the purpose of providing financial assistance. Loans and technical assistance to social equity applicants. So again, it's, it's just kind of the framework for it because. You're kind of like, well, let's just kind of ask a CCD to establish the program. We don't need to come up with all the bells and whistles and all details. At this point. And so this is, this can obviously be expanded at any time. If they start to, if they would like. Section five, this is where the. You're directing the advisory committee and consultation with the board to develop criteria for social equity applicants. For a purpose of obtaining the loans and grants. And the question I had was when do you want the board. Reporting back to the general assembly. For this. So, you know, this just is. One of the many kind of questions we have about a lot of the stuff around the cannabis thing is, is. There's a lot of reporting back to the legislature, but we don't know how long y'all are going to be around this year. So. Yes. Yeah, I don't know what to say. I don't know what to say. That's two of us. So I'll keep, I'll keep going and we can circle back. Okay. But Michelle, this in number. You're in. On line seven, right? Yes. So it's, it is it. It looks like it says the advisory committee, not the board. Is it the board? The board reporting to you rather than the advisory. You know, they're not state employee. I just. Right. Right. I, I, I missed that piece. You know, the. Yeah, it's a good question is, and, you know, when are we expecting people to take it up and do anything with it? That's, I think the question. I mean, you want the report before any. Debate and discussion and action might be possible. So. Yeah, I think that's a question mark still. Can we receive reports if the legislature is not in session? Oh, we do all the time. You can. You just start in session to be within an act. The legislation that you would need. You know, you could put that it's that they do that. You know, they report to you in the fall. And then when I think about if you, because people. I'm just trying to think about if they're, if they're applying, nobody's going to be applying until the spring of next year. So if you did. Receive the information you needed in the fall. You know, and just kind of right out of the gate in January. And then, you know, I think that you know, I think that you know, added in the criteria for. The social equity applicants on, you know, budget adjustment or whatever's moving early on. Then. You know, you could have that. In place. Other than that, I just don't really, it's just really just like throw in a dart, you know, you're just so busy when you're out in the spring. Will you be here in. Well, or September or, I think there are two things in play here. One is when we might be able to take action on it and be, when we think with a cannabis control board and advisory board, that I haven't even met yet, haven't even been appointed yet. When they can actually be effectively up and running enough to do this work. So I think actually the later. gives us an opportunity. And often the legislature committee, particularly in a non-election year, will meet in preparation before the session, and they could actually take action on stuff before the session starts. So... I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. No, I was just saying if you make it late enough so like, you know, November 1st, the committee of jurisdiction might be able to meet and actually take some action on it. But I think, Kevin, they haven't even formed themselves to do any of the stuff that they're supposed to do, and they have a lot of stuff they have to do before they get to this. I would say late October or November 1. Yeah, I was actually gonna, I agree with everything you just said, and I was gonna actually say December, because that's when people are beginning to think about returning to the state house or to the legislature. So, December, yeah. If you get a report in July or August, it's like you're at the beach, you know, and like you don't really read the report that closely. And by the time December rolls around, you're thinking more about what your priorities are, what you're gonna do when you get back to the state house and whatnot. So I would actually say sometime as late as, could be December 1st or December 15th or something like that. Also, I think whatever we put in, the bill's gonna move through the house again and all that. So there'll be time to change these dates. We might have a better idea when we're gonna be around, you know, once May comes around. Then let's go for your idea. Let's go with December 1st. Well, I just, go ahead. Brian. Yeah, I thought, and maybe I've missed it, that we talked about revolving loans, but that's not in here anywhere. We did, you're right. Right, I can add that. And I'm, because I'm not your economic development person, I don't know if I would just say a revolving loan fund or if there's certain language I use for revolving loan fund, but I can check. Okay. Thank you. Or you can come back to me. Keisha. I mean, I just feel like prices right rules are better to start with where you kind of do it before you might need it rather than wait and give people mentally a lot of time and then go, oh my gosh, we are gonna be back in August or September, and we really could have acted on that otherwise. I know we're shortening their timeframe to consider it, but I don't know, I just feel like we're losing a lot of time with December. So you're saying if we were gonna be here in August, we should have them do it in August as an example. Yeah, like, and maybe we start with it on the early end so they start mentally thinking, well, I don't know, just could we get together for a day if we think it's really critical for the rest of this work to happen that we receive the report and make some decision? I don't know. Yeah, but Michelle can speak to the amount of work that once they are even established and have met. I mean, it is unclear they will even have met before mid-April or May at the earliest. I mean, they have a lot of rules to set in place, right? I mean, Michelle, they have a ton of work to do to get going. And so- The board certainly does. And you kind of looped in the advisory committee working with them. And there is a really heavy lift, but I certainly understand what's in our rounds talking about. And I mean, I would say that if you did do, if you did do like a fall date, and then as we, let's say it's May, and the decision is to adjourn and come back in August and be here in August and September, there's certainly nothing that prevents you. I mean, there's gonna be a constant dialogue between the general assembly and the board because there's got to be. There's so many moving parts on all of this stuff that you guys are gonna have to work in partnership a lot. There's nothing that keeps you from saying, hey, we didn't think we were gonna be here in September, but we are. Can you guys move that a little bit up on your to-do list and get us something so we can enact it for you in September and do that? I mean, because it's gonna be in their interest, they're gonna want the clarity on it. So I mean, that's an option. So you don't kind of hamstring them saying, well, get it done by, you know, May 15th when we don't really know, you know, which is a pretty Herculean task, especially because with the delay in the board, remember the board, then once the board is seated, they still have to hire staff. So there's, you know, there's a whole thing. So I don't know whether or not that holds any appeal is if you picked a fall date, you know, but, you know, you have lines of communication and if it did look that you were gonna be back here in the fall that you could see whether or not they'd be willing to present you with that information earlier, but. I think it's a shot in the dark anyway. So why don't we just say October 15th? I mean, you know, I don't know. It's so arbitrary right now. They have so much work to do before they can even get to this. Did you say October? Yeah. I mean, October 15th is a good round date after taxes are due, right? Okay. For those of us who extend often. Okay. So is that October 15th? Sure. It changes anyway. Plus me. Okay. Oh, it has to go over to the house and they'll be like, why'd they set that date? We can go tell them, we picked it out of a hat. And just so you know, so staff prefers those earlier dates. We don't love getting reports in December because people don't read them right away. And then they do, and then they put in their draft and requests and it's the holidays and we have a hard time getting ahold of people and all the other kind of stuff. So we like to not push things to, you know, ideally I try to avoid never writing something that I know is coming back to me to write up after November, because it's, you know, we start, especially the second year of the biennium where you have earlier drafting deadlines and folks have to, you know, kind of hit the ground running in January. We like to kind of get things teed up a little earlier. Okay. Okay. Sorry, my screen's frozen a little bit. Can you still see the draft? Yeah. It's not allowing me to scroll. Let me get out of it and then do it again and see if that'll help. My screen is frozen. Sorry about that. Your mouse wasn't, but like, you can't. All right, I'm looking on it. Yeah, it just won't, it won't. Oh, I guess I can just do that. Okay. So I think we're on 988. So, all right, it's my mouse that's not working. I think we have it on our emails anyway, Michelle. Okay, here we go. We have it right here. All right, great. We're in the last thing. And it's all right. So we already did section five. So appropriation. I hope I didn't, a big mistake here, but I didn't know, I didn't know how much money to put in there. So maybe I probably should have gone lower and then you could bumped me up, but I, there were lots of numbers that were kind of tossed out there by the chair at different points. I don't, and so I, I don't know what you want to do in terms of the appropriation. You could wait and have Senate appropriation, Senate appropriations at that section, or you could put this in. You could with a number knowing that they're going to change it. I would leave it there and see what, you know, see what Jeanette thinks. And again, it's, particularly if it's a revolving fund, it's slightly different than if it's a set fund, if it's a one-time expense or an ongoing, I think that it's unclear what should be put in there. So why don't we leave it for the moment? I mean, unless everybody has an idea. I agree with Senator Clarkson. Kind of a crapshoot. Okay. So section seven is the transfer of the medical program to the board from DPS several months earlier than is provided in current law. So it's those programs are supposed to shift over to the board, March 1st of next year. And at that time there are, there's a whole new, there's two new chapters that are regulating the registry and the dispensaries. And those take effect March 1st. And then as long as the board can catch up with the timeline, then they should have the rules completed by that time as well. And so March 1st is when the program will start, start operating under the new statutes and rules, but you can move them over earlier. It just means that when you move them, they're still gonna operate under the existing old statutes and rules that were adopted by the Department of Public Safety, even though they're now will be gumbered by the board, if that makes sense. But I'm guessing you guys have had experience doing this and go ops before. This is the first time I've ever done something like that. But my understanding is you guys have done this a few times, so. So they would continue to operate under the old rules until the new rules are written though. Exactly. Yeah. Yep. Yeah, we've done that a little bit. Yep. So. We're gonna add two, yeah. Yep. Yep. And so I just have a placeholder there on the positions because I was waiting to hear from JFO. My understanding is that there's three positions that are dedicated to the medical marijuana program, but I just need, I just need a little information from them about that. And so I'll add that in. So just for reference, Michelle, the latest bill where we're moving positions from the Department of Health to the Department of Public Safety and the Division of the Department of Public Safety in the Division of Fire Safety is in our Rental Health and Safety Bill in Senate Economic Development, S79. So if you wanted to have David constructed that. Oh, sure. That's great. That's the most current language on moving people from a department to another department. That is great, right? We do. We're always checking all the other attorneys to see who's doing it. Because no one, no sense reinventing the wheel. Absolutely not. So David can give you that. Okay. That's good. I've been, a lot of this stuff obviously is kind of stuff. David works on more, but I know how busy everybody is. So I've been a little reluctant to be asking my colleagues to review my work here. But so subsection B is just what we talked about, which is the registries just gonna continue to be governed by chapter 86 and title 18 until those other statutes take effect on March 1st. And hopefully the new rules as well. Go ahead. And then this repeal is there are two sections in Act 164 that talk about moving the program over on March 1st. And so I had to repeal those. Okay. So I think I have all the issues in here. And you think of anything that you discussed that you wanted in here that I might have missed? I think this is great. And if we come up with others, we have the house to lobby. But wasn't there something, I agree, but wasn't there something that we skipped over a couple of minutes ago? The date, the positions. I thought there was something that we just nodded our heads and said, well, we'll come back to it later. Now I'm not sure. Oh yeah. I was gonna come back to the highlighted stuff. I was just wondering if there was a, I don't know an issue or something that I didn't include in here that you thought maybe I, No, I don't think so. I think this is good. I think this is great. Okay. Thank you. So I think, so yeah, so going back to section three and the language that's online's 12 and 13 is there for consistency with the current act, but it doesn't necessarily have to be the same as what's in there. And I know that probably what's gonna be happening over the next couple of years certainly is kind of an evolution of some of these, the identification of certain communities or individuals with respect to this program. And so you can say, for reducing or eliminating license fees and then putting in there, whomever you want, the language that's just in there is just because that's what's already used. Where is it used? It is used in providing, I have to do a little search in there, but it's used around I think preferences and licensing. Although, you know what, let me actually, let me see if I can pull up, let me pull up. I don't wanna show you that. I'm gonna stop share just so you don't see all the other senators secrets. When you share my video freezes up, so that's why I close the video. You can't see my screen right now, right? No, we're looking at the draft on your email that you sent us. Yeah, that's why I don't need it to be shared. So that language is already in other sections of the same bill. Yeah, I'm having a little trouble with my program. So it's not really, it's not being very cooperative. It's difficult to let me do it. Well, I don't know if it's like a thing floating and I can just say what is like my contention with it. It seems, so one thing I'm confused about is it said individuals who have historically been impacted. So I thought we were trying to say individuals who come from groups that have historically been marginalized or impacted. Cause I'm wondering if we actually mean they themselves, you know, had to have been impacted and then what do we mean by impacted? I understand there's difference if they are someone who's been incarcerated versus somebody who, you know, might have, who's black, who might have grown up in a community that was constantly depleted by the over-incarceration of people related to cannabis, prohibition, illegalization, and criminalization, I should say. So I'm just, if this language exists elsewhere, I think I have a problem with it there too. I just, anyone could say they've been impacted by cannabis prohibition. So I don't know where the intent was behind how we define that. That's what I'm struggling with. But I think in the end, it almost has to have something to do with that individual or it doesn't make any sense. I don't know. Yeah, but I think what I hear you saying, I think, is that not necessarily like this person was impacted and went to jail, but this person is from a community that has been impacted, which from which people may have gone to jail and justly and whatnot. So it's really like they should be coming from licensing fees for individuals, from communities who have historically been disproportionately impacted. Something like that, broadening it out a little bit. So it's not, I don't have to have been arrested. Exactly. Unfairly, because also the way it's written, you could argue, let's say I was not in this case, but let's say I have been arrested unjustly. I could qualify, although clearly not from a disadvantaged community. Right, yeah, we had talked about, we're trying to say people who've been incarcerated and have struggled to make up for that economically and or people who come from BIPOC communities where we know there was a vastly disproportionate and sort of institutionalized discrimination and criminalization in those communities. That's what I thought our intent was, and I just, this still feels really broad or just really confusing. Yeah, I think you're right. I think if you said, just what Kasia said, for individuals of communities that have historically been disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition, because the thing is, is that, and I'm guessing or that at some point, either the sometime soon, either the legislature or the board is gonna recommend to you kind of a flushing out of what this means. I mean, the board's gonna have to figure this term out anyway. And I always thought that this term, because it's used in the existing law, was something that the board was going to detail out in rule and be part of the process. But you can have, I think if you add, for individuals of communities who have historically been disproportionately impacted, and then I'll pull up, for some reason I can't pull it up right now, just technical issue, but I'll pull it up where it is exist in other places and act 164 and I'll email it to you. And then that way, especially for Senator Rahm, if you are interested in just adding that of communities to places in existing law, to make that consistent with this, then I drop those in as an additional amendment, either as an individual or as part of the committee's recommendation. I think you're correct is that, I mean, the issue is that I think some people do have concerns saying, talking about individuals who themselves have been impacted. The people who may not or they're, you know, maybe, weren't incarcerated or arrested for something or something, but there's obviously impacts on them because it's literally their community or it's their family or they're part of a racial group or whoever it is that is impacted. So I get what you're saying there and I realize it's a tricky issue because everybody's wanting to do the right thing and be inclusive, but not be so broad that nobody knows what we're talking about. So just to add for now, so that it would read for individuals of communities who have historically been disproportionately impacted, does that work for you? Yeah, I mean, so that gets that more of the communities of color. It doesn't get at the individual who was incarcerated and may have been set back in life, who is white or some of, you know. So I don't know. So I can say individuals or individuals of communities. So I can have both. Could you say or people who were previously incarcerated with a cannabis charge? Conviction. Okay, conviction. I think individuals from that category and groups of people where we know their entire community was harmed and lost resources and lost access to these kinds of legal opportunities to engage in this market because of racial discrimination. That's, I think there's, so one is a very individual. Yes, this person didn't suffer from institutionalized discrimination, but they were set back in life because they were incarcerated because of marijuana. And these were folks who were set back as a community because of the racialized nature of incarceration. Yeah, so you could have the community piece and then you could say something about individuals who are directly impacted or something like that and just focus on the individuals. Okay, so you can't say who were previously incarcerated. You, I don't know. There's something about that that makes me feel like you, by being that specific without going through and thinking of all the circumstances, you know. I think that makes it a little bit too narrow. It might be too narrow. I don't know, but it makes me a little uncomfortable that maybe you're unintentionally keeping somebody out that you want to be considered. I thought we were trying to use like the Benning rule where it was like one thing to be arrested and another thing to be incarcerated or something. That was kind of the example that is, you know, some people have been able, a lot of young people get arrested for this. And if they have different legal representation, there's a really big difference between who goes to jail and who has the sort of means to carry on with their lives. What you don't need to say have been incarcerated, but you could say convicted, previously convicted of a, I would believe it more general. I would not go down that road. I would say negatively impacted or something like that. Unjustly, negatively impacted. I wouldn't be too specific. Yeah, I do think you should at this point without, you know, this is such a big discussion. I think you should be a little more general just at this point. I think it's gonna, for a time, it's gonna get refined. But my concern is thinking about, and again, just like what Keisha was talking about is, so, you know, two people get arrested for the same crime and they have different backgrounds, different resources, different, you know, let's say it's a young person, different parental involvement, things like that. It might not be that it, you know, you could take the conviction out of it and my kid is gonna, I'm all over that, right? I'm a lawyer, I know the criminal justice system, I'm hiring a lawyer, I'm getting my kid out of that. You have another child who maybe doesn't have the parental support at home. They don't have financial resources. They don't show up for the arraignment then there's a arrest warrant put out for them. Then they get conditions of release set because they didn't show up for the arraignments and then they violate the conditions of release. And then I mean, I don't need to explain the whole criminal justice system to you, but, you know, you have circumstances like that where somebody may get in a whole lot of mess that really is hard and disadvantages them, but maybe there's not ever any conviction but the, you know, the failure to appear and the violation of the conditions and all that other kind of stuff winds up having a significant impact on them. So I think you just want to give some room there for the board to be able to flesh that out a little more. Well, we have this discussion and I feel like this captures some of the intent of what, you know, I haven't been here for past intent conversations. So what you just named Michelle is exactly what I'm intending that there's just a really big difference between how people are treated in the judicial system as a result of, you know, vastly different. Right. And also just so you know, is that in terms of cannabis possession, nobody gets incarcerated in Vermont for that. And haven't for several years. Right. I mean, you know, maybe somebody has been or is now, but it's, you know, there's other charges. Maybe somebody, they found cannabis on someone when they were arresting them for a violation of an APO. Right. And so the misdemeanor possession gets tacked on, but that's not really the reason they're incarcerated. And so, you know, I haven't checked lately, but I have pretty consistently over the last few years checked with the crime. And I kind of remember their changing name, a crime research group that kind of helps us with data. And each time I've checked over the last several years, there's been no one incarcerated for cannabis possession. You know, like a standalone charge or like the reason why they are there is because of this possession. I never, what I didn't, I get that. What I didn't think we were doing was making it specific to Vermont in any way that they could have been set back by this kind of discrimination in all the country, which has been vastly different, you know, depending on which state. I know that's a good point. I wasn't thinking of that. I don't think anywhere in the bill we say it had to be related to Vermont, you know, because a lot of people come here because they're like, wow, people are nicer here, you know, and less likely to convict you of this kind of charge if they had a bad experience somewhere else. Right, right. Okay, so I'll tweak that stuff and I'll email, you know, I'll think about the ways to, because I won't be able to see you before Senate judiciary takes this stuff up. I think what I'll do is, I don't know what I'll do. If you, just do any of the drafting changes we've talked about and send it to Jeanette, she'll be the one presenting it with you tomorrow when you send it to judiciary. Do you think she's gonna be back tomorrow? You know what? Well, Alison thinks so. Let me just give her a ring and see how she's feeling. Oh, I'll put myself on mute and see how she's doing. But Michelle, if Jeanette's not here tomorrow, can you just present it to the committee? Sure, yeah. We don't need to be there. No, no, but I mean, the only issue there is when I was telling them about some of the other things that you had already decided on, you know, so why did they do that or why do they wanna do that? And I can explain, you know, from my perspective what I heard from you, but I don't, you know. Well, I trust you. I think that'd be fine. Okay. I mean, it's just because the bill had, they have to vote it out tomorrow, right? They do and they are, you know, waiting to get your recommendations and then Senate AG is working on some stuff too and they're gonna have me back tomorrow morning to work on some recommendations for Senate judiciary as well, so. It's been all cannabis all day for me and Brian. Oh, right. I forgot. Because we sit on egg. Right, I wasn't with you guys this morning. I was at this morning, she's a crow. I know, I know my days just completely blend together lately, so. Okay, so I was just trying to go back to the highlighted. I think so we've got that taken care of and then the day you decided on October 15th and the positions is just again, something I'll take a look at what Allison said with respect to S79 and I'll get the information from JFO about just confirmation that it is three, I think classified full-time positions, but I'm not sure and then I'll add that language and then what I'll do is then send that off to y'all as soon as I can get that drafted up and I'll send it to the whole committee and then I'm happy to present it tomorrow if Jeanette's not back. Yeah, she's still pretty wiped out. I spoke to Bill. She is, so I would just suggest you send it to her, whatever you get and just let her know what our plan is and then she's up to it. You guys will do it together and if not, you're gonna go for it. Sure. Yep, and I think as you've said many times here, this bill's still got a lot of places to go and there's a long road, so there's lots of places you can tweak it as a, you know, while it's still in the Senate. Yep. And yeah, thank you. Before we wrap up, I don't know if we're, Virginia Renfrew's been sitting patiently listening to this. I have no idea if you have any comments you wanna make, Virginia. No, thanks for the invite. I think it all looks great. Okay. All right, if there's no more questions or comments, I'm more than willing to adjourn the meeting. Don't move. Okay. I think that, thank you.