 I'll get started. My name is James Pepper. I'm the chair of the Vermont Cannabis Control Board. Today is December 21st, 2022. It's 1 or 2 p.m. and I call this meeting to order. First things first, I need to update the agenda. We are going to do an executive session. The staff has recommended a social equity denial. And we want to hear the reasoning for that in executive session as well as there. I think is there's a. Applicant who has a disqualifying offense that's seeking a license that we're going to talk about as well. So. We'll do that right after the staff reviews all recommendations and right before the board votes on them. So, this is our last board meeting of 2022. I would have loved to give a poignant year end recap of all of the great accomplishments. Unfortunately, I just woke up from a 3 day long like fever dream. So. The fact that I'm here and not covered in vomit is probably going to have to be enough for today. I will say that this has been a true honor and a privilege to serve Vermont in this capacity and to be supported by hands down the most dynamic team in all of state government. A huge thank you to everyone, all of our licensees and all the members of the public and the advocates and the experts who slogged it out with us through the drudgery of rulemaking and the ups and downs of the legislative process. A complicated licensing process and every other little bump along the road. We did get some exciting news from the tax department about the cannabis tax revenue from October. It looks like the state reported around 2.6 million in total sales for the month of October, which equated to 329,000 in excise tax collected. It's an impressive figure for a number of reasons. You know, we only had a handful of retail locations that were open. The availability of products was limited. You know, also late fall early winter is actually a very much a low point for tourism in the state. So while this is only one month worth of data. You know, I think it's very notable that 329,000 is squarely within the range that our economic model predicted for the kind of early market. And that's important at least to me are significant because, you know, our model diverges pretty significantly from the joint fiscal offices projections, you know, our market projections are larger. So, you know, this early report seems to indicate and it's early again that some of the assumptions that we made with respect to the kind of size of this market might actually be holding true and that we should stay the course with what we're doing. A few administrative points. We have a report due to the legislature on how we intend to regulate hemp drive products. We will be reviewing this report later in this meeting. I know there's questions from hemp producers in the state about how things might change for them in the new year. I'd make a couple of high level points. One, if you are growing hemp, but you're not making hemp drive products, your jurisdiction and your license are with the USDA. Two, if you're making non intoxicating hemp drive products, you need to register with the CCB through an online form that will be available on our website by the end of the year. Three, if you're making intoxicating hemp drive products, you need to apply for an adult use cannabis product manufacturing license. I know there's a lot to unpack in those definitions and our report begins to unpack those. But some of the finer points still need to be worked through. Just like we did with our adult use and medical use programs we intend to listen to and be responsive to the needs of our hemp growers while balancing our general public health and safety mandates. Another administrative point we have to adopt our regular meeting schedule for the new year. We're going to be moving to one board meeting per month. Generally speaking, unless there's a holiday, it will be on the last Monday of each month. In between board meetings, we're going to focus on more interactive Q&A public engagement events on topics that we feel need some additional attention. As a reminder, we are doing one of these live Q&A events next Tuesday, December 27th from 6 to 7pm on the topic of product registration, which can include questions about hemp registration. The link to join that is up on our website in the calendar there. Also, we have a new testing flow chart guide that I think is up on our website. If not, it will be soon. And that should be helpful in navigating some of the kind of workflow questions around testing compliance. Other than that, just need to approve the minutes from our last meeting on December 14th. Do you guys have a chance to look at those? Yep. Is there a motion? Seconded. Okay. Hi. Hi. Great. All right. So, Brynn, would you mind pulling up on the screen? Just our, if you have it available, if not, I can do it. Our regular meeting schedule proposed. Regular meeting schedule for 2023. I do not have that. I hope so. I think the three of you have it and maybe I don't. It will be a surprise. You can get it fast enough. Okay. So, this is a half year. This essentially gets us through the legislative session at which point we can kind of reevaluate whether this once a month is working or whether it needs to be more or less frequent. I think this is a good approach for at least the first half of next year. Is there a motion to approve the regular meeting schedule? So moved. Seconded. Any discussion? No, I think except for the folks wondering at home, why Monday. The legislature meets Tuesday to Friday. So, so we can all be here if there's other obligations. Yep. Great. All right. All in favor. Yeah. Okay. Brent, are you prepared to walk through this another major report? If I am. All right, great. Make sure I can share my screen. There we go. It works today. Good. This report is, I just like to emphasize that this is a draft report to the legislature on as the chair mentioned how the Vermont cannabis control board is recommending that we regulate the hemp industry. So, this is subject to change this report is due on January 15. And so it may change before we submit it to the legislature. Starting with the overview. We've got, we start out with the legislative requirements for the report. We go into some findings and recommendations. The report gives a national overview of where other states are in regulating this process. And then a proposed regulatory structure, some fee and budget recommendations and then at the end, some other recommendations. So this is the legislative language that requires the report found in Act 158. The report is due to, I think, four standing committees and it's covers recommendations on what hemp products the CCB would regulate how those products would be regulated registration fees associated with the regulation. And then any resources that are required by the board to regulate the industry. So we've got some other legislative language that also sets out the board's authority over hemp products. This slide and the next slide. I don't know all of this language, but I will point out that the legislation does give the board the authority to adopt rules to administer its hemp program. And also gives explicitly gives the board the authority to regulate synthetic cannabinoids and hemp derived cannabinoids, including Delta 8 and Delta 10 THC. So I'll move on to some key findings and recommendations. So this set of slides is really intended to provide some background information from education to the legislators for who this from this subject matter area might be new. So we start out with the farm bill, a little back a background about the 2018 farm bill that exempted hemp from the controlled substances act. And when it did that it also expressly preserved the authority to regulate hemp and hemp products. So, so far, only a few hemp derived ingredients have been approved for the safe use and food or dietary supplements. And none of the intoxicating or synthetic cannabinoids that are commonly found in hemp products have been approved for retail sale. So really, despite the FDA's authority to regulate these products, there's only been a handful of enforcement actions, and only when the manufacturers or the businesses were really making pretty egregious claims about their products. So that leads to that lack of enforcement really leads to some consumer confusion because it means that these products are appearing on the shelves next to more natural cannabinoid products, like CBD products. And that can lead to some confusion between what is what and and there is a real lack of education over the different types of effects that these products would have versus the more natural CBD products that are found on the market. So this slide provides an outline of the recommendation for products that the CCB is proposing be limited to the regulated cannabis market. So given that there's a real lack of federal government enforcement. The CCB is proposing that all intoxicating hemp products, which are defined, and this is the same. This is these are the same parameters that were set out in the bulletin that the CCB issued on the hemp to towards the hemp industry in November. So intoxicating hemp products which would be defined as consumable hemp products with a milligram or more of THC per serving or more than 10 milligrams THC per package would be required to be sold through the adult use in medical markets and would be subject to the same regulations that high THC cannabis products would be subject to including product registration. The caveat to this is that full spectrum tinctures capsules and salves with up to one and a half milligrams of THC per serving and a ratio of THC to CBD of one to 20 or greater would be considered non intoxicating and therefore would not be limited to retail sale only in the adult use and medical use cannabis market. So all these products that we are calling intoxicating consumable hemp products would only be allowed to be sold through licensed retail establishments and dispensaries and as I mentioned earlier subject to the same regulations as high THC cannabis products and all manufacturers of these types of products would be required to be licensed manufacturers under the adult user medical program pursuant to board rule one. So we'll get into this in a little bit more detail later on but that's an overview. And for general retail products. So that former slide was products that would be limited to the adult user medical market. Consumable hemp products that would not be limited to that market because of they didn't meet that threshold level of a milligram of THC per serving could continue to be sold through general retail stores or online. And the board would begin requiring the all hemp processors and product manufacturers who are making these types of products would be registered with the board by January 1st of 2023. So registered as hemp processors, which will be a separate process from registering as a product manufacturer under the adult use system. So the board is going to ensure that these hemp processor businesses that we register comply with all the relevant regulations. But we are proposing that additional enforcement may need to be taken by other government agencies and law enforcement to ensure that general retail locations. Only have approved hemp derived products like CBD products on the shelves and aren't offering any intoxicating products as defined in the earlier slide. And hemp cultivators as the chair mentioned in the opening remarks hemp cultivators will be regulated by the USDA and not by the board. So moving on now to the national overview. So again these are some educational slides. This first one is about the federal status of hemp pursuant to the 2018 farm bill. The farm bill is the bill that essentially removed hemp products from the controlled substances act and categorized hemp as an agricultural commodity under the purview of the USDA. And the USDA published a rule effective in March of 21 that provided that regulations for hemp production and removed hemp derived products from schedule one status under the controlled substances act. So essentially what this means is that hemp was removed from the controlled substances act but it wasn't it did not legalize all products that contain hemp derived ingredients. And as we mentioned earlier the farm bill expressly preserved the FDA's authority to regulate these products which is something that the FDA is doing only very minimally. As this slide describes. So the FDA is oversight. Has been fairly minimal removing a substance from the controlled substances act doesn't make it doesn't make that substance eligible to be put into food or dietary supplements or anything else that you can consume. So any consumable products still needs to follow federal product safety rules before it can be legally sold. Federal standards for food safety would require that a hemp derived ingredient be generally recognized as safe or approved as a new dietary ingredient. And so only only a couple of hemp derived ingredients have been determined to meet these criteria and that's hemp seed oil and hold hemp seed oil. So this last paragraph here describes CBD as exhibiting some of the characteristics of products that would be determined to be generally recognized as safe. So intoxicating cannabinoids or synthetically drive cannabinoids would not be have not been approved and really don't fit the profile of the types of products that would be approved. So, given all of that, the popularity of these products has just steadily increased since the farm bill passed. So these are the types of products that have really proliferated in that consumer hemp market. We've got the Delta nine gummies is just a sign showing that Delta eight is being sold at a gas station. So some of these products are really focused on CBD or other naturally drive cannabinoids. And those products are likely safe and provide some health benefits. But these are examples of products that are really focused on intoxicating or synthetically produce cannabinoids that are also really readily available either online or in stores around the state. So another educational slide, just describing how THC and CBD are kind of the most well known cannabinoids within the canvas plants, but there are well over 100 other cannabinoids that are contained in small amounts. And we really know very little about those cannabinoids and natural cannabinoids like Delta nine and CBD have been consumed by people throughout history. But those novel cannabinoids ones that are naturally occurring in small amounts in the cannabis plant can be extracted from the plant now and isolated or manufactured by converting CBD into other minor cannabinoids. And some good examples of that are Delta eight and Delta 10 THC products. And these are the types of products that are infused in food and dietary supplements. And they because they have not been consumed by humans before in history, we really don't know the health impacts that they could have. So because there's a proliferation of these types of hemp products, there is a concern that there is a growing health and safety issue that people have access to these products and are using them. So this slide puts forth that the most pressing problems are that these intoxicating cannabis products are available outside the regulated cannabis market. Where they are not subject to any of the regulatory standards the board imposes so they could be sold to kids. And they are not subject to the testing requirements, etc. Many of these products are created by using unsafe manufacturing processes that can leave residual solvents behind in the finished product. And these types of products that are either dangerous and or intoxicating are found on the shelves right next to other more natural products like CBD. And that can cause confusion. As mentioned earlier, many of these hemp processing businesses are really taking advantage of the fact that hemp is has been removed from the controlled substance act, but it's not being very heavily regulated by the FDA. So a number of these products are available. They're being shipped all over the country. And the FDA has really taken a limited approach to enforcing the regulations that would keep them off the shelves. So this slide sets out some additional concerns with those novel cannabinoids. So there's this is kind of a reiteration of what we talked about in the earlier slides. There's been significant public health concerns that have that are due to these consumable products being available on the shelves. And because of the FDA is limited engagements and enforcing the board is really in a position where we need to take some action. Well, we really have a better understanding of those cannabinoids that are more well known. We really have almost no data on the safety of manufacturing or concentrating these novel cannabinoids. So this slide demonstrates the size of this intoxicating hemp market. So data from Colorado shows that Delta 8 is already a $500 million industry and expected to grow significantly next year. And because there's been kind of recent increases in the availability of these products and also increased reported incidents involving people who've used these products. Both the FDA and the CDC have released health advisory bulletins that address the issue. But Vermont really needs to ensure that we are regulating these products to prevent Vermonters from turning to these unregulated and potentially unsafe products. So this is a map showing how other states are addressing the issue of these intoxicating hemp products. So you can see here that in Oregon, kind of the Oregon, California, Nevada are allowing these products to be sold only at dispensaries. We've got kind of a whole, it runs the gamut how states are dealing with this you can see just by this by this chart that there's not there's not one singular approach to how to deal with these products. Okay, so we're going to move next to the regular regulatory structure slides, starting with the goals that would be achieved by the recommendation for how we would regulate these products. So the first would be to remove any unsafe products from the market. The second would be to limit any intoxicating products to the adult user medical cannabis markets. Another goal is to promote Vermont's local hemp businesses and to give Vermont consumers access to safe regulated products. So this slide talks about our approach to regulating those products that the CCB believes should be limited to the adult use cannabis market. So it's the real recommendation of this report is that these intoxicating products that contain synthetic cannabinoids should only be available in the existing adult use and medical market and not outside of it for the reasons that we've talked about earlier in the report. So all those products would all be required to meet the health and safety regulations that the board has imposed through rule, which we list some of them here. So moving on to how the board would be defining intoxicating. So this is kind of a reiteration of what we described in the beginning of the report. The board is initially going to deem a product intoxicating if it contains more one milligram or more of total THC per serving, or more than 10 milligrams per package. Again, that would be subject to the exception for products that are full spectrum, tinctures, capsules, or salves. And those could go up to one and a half milligrams of THC per serving as long as they are full spectrum and maintain that ratio of THC to CBD that's one to 20 or more. So those are the products that would initially be considered to be non intoxicating and would be allowed to be sold in the regular market. And this calculation may need to be adjusted as time goes on as more research is developed and as as we hear public input as well. So any product that would be deemed intoxicating would only be eligible for production and sales for the adult user medical market. So if you're a manufacturer who wanted to manufacture these types of products, you would need to get a manufacturing license from the board. Or if you wanted to sell these products, you would need a retail license. So this slide provides some information about the definition of synthetic. So the plan is to define synthetic cannabinoid as a cannabinoid light compound that was produced using chemical synthesis, chemical modification or chemical conversion, including in vitro biosynthesis and bio conversion of any method or type except for those produced through the decarboxylation of naturally occurring cannabinoids from their acidic form. So any product with a milligram or more, this says more than one milligram, it should say one milligram or more of a synthetic cannabinoid per serving would only be eligible for production to the adult use market, where it would need to meet all of those manufacturing requirements and be approved by the board through product registration before it was available to consumers. So these products that are hemp derived and deemed intoxicating would need to comply with all of the existing public health and safety regulations. They'd be subject to testing requirements and the age gated sales, all of the labeling and packaging requirements, the limits on total THC per package. And then once they made it through the product registration process, they would be eligible to be sold to consumers. So the plan also is to initially prohibit synthetic cannabinoid products that contain Delta 8, Delta 10 or other novel cannabinoids, for which there is insufficient data to demonstrate that that cannabinoid, that synthetic cannabinoid would be safe for humans to consume. Product registration, this just sets out that just like everything else, these hemp products that the board is deeming would intoxicating would have to be submitted through the product registration process so that we could ensure that it meets all of the requirements of the rule and then be eligible for sale on the adult use market. And they wouldn't be available anywhere else. So this slide covers the approach to products that would be allowed in the general retail market. So those hemp derived products that are not considered intoxicating and that don't contain more than a milligram of synthetically derived cannabinoid would be available for purchase on the regular retail market and online. And as I mentioned earlier, the board will begin registering hemp processors who intend to make these types of products in January of 23. So, as I mentioned earlier, hemp cultivation is going to remain under USDA's regulatory authority. And it's the board's position that the USDA's oversight of the hemp cultivation industry would be sufficient and actually allows more focused resources on consumable hemp. And it also decreases the burden on Vermont and allows Vermont to focus on areas where we have regulatory discretion. So this slide details how enforcement will work. So products that are, as I've mentioned, these intoxicating products that would be required to be sold through the adult use or medical market. Cannabis control board compliance team would enforce those rules for non intoxicating hemp products that are manufactured for the general retail market. The board plans to require registration for these hemp processors, as I mentioned. And we will not have a role in enforcing the rules against those products. Responsibility for enforcement is going to follow the law enforcement and other government agencies. And this last sentence is really directed to the legislature. If the legislature decides that they would like the board to have an additional role in enforcing the rules against hemp derived products that are non intoxicating, then we would need to put forward a proposal for additional funding and staffing. And speaking of funding and staffing, here's our proposed license and registration fees. So for hemp processors that would be required to be registered with the board, these are the folks that would be producing products that are non intoxicating or proposing a $25 application fee and a $1,000 annual registration fee. And for hemp manufacturers that intend to produce products with a milligram or more of THC per serving, those folks would be subject to the existing fees that are set in statute for cannabis product manufacturers. So the proposal that's set out in the report would not require additional staffing at this time. We're proposing to be able to do this type of regulation without additional staff. However, we are proposing instituting a quality assurance program that would require an appropriation for funding for lab equipment and three additional staff to work at the state lab so that we could conduct a compliance and quality control and R&D testing at the state lab, which would really assist us in ensuring that the businesses that we are regulating are in compliance with the testing regulations. And it will also help the Vermont businesses really build their reputations. So there's a request for staff and equipment and that's and but no building space and so that's there's assumption that there's already space for that right right there. There is an existing state lab. We're proposing that our quality assurance program be housed. Okay. Nearly there. So this, this last several slides are about our other recommendations. So this is an endorsement program for main Vermont products. So this is a recommendation that the legislature direct an expansion of the Vermont hemp product and hemp infused product program. So this would direct public health and safety boost local economies and the state would promote this endorsement of Vermont hemp products and hemp infused products. So that could really have the effect of increasing visibility for local Vermont businesses generating demand for products that are from Vermont and are in compliance with the rule. So here is to develop a simple registration process that would result in a state approved endorsement that retailers or product manufacturers could use on their products and would allow consumers to make a more educated decision when they're purchasing their products. So this is more information about the endorsement program. The maple program is really the model here. So program staff could conduct periodic inspections of these hemp producers and hemp products similar to how the maple program runs. And the outcome would really be something similar where Vermont products add an endorsement that could really help with marketing and give consumers a sense of security about what they're consuming. So here are some other programs and other states that are similar to the Vermont maple program. So by Colorado is a program that promotes state companies and the state's reputation reputation. New York has a New York state grown and certified program that makes it easy for people to identify New York products. And Wisconsin has a something special from Wisconsin program administered by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture. So these are all examples of other states that have done something similar. Okay. So the next recommendation is to create a public awareness and educational campaign that would encourage consumers of these types of products to purchase products that have been vetted by the cannabis control board. So really this campaign would about be be about steering people towards the regulated market so that people could be assured that the products that they're using have met all of the regulatory requirements of the cannabis control boards rules. So a proposal to develop outreach and educational programs that's really designed to inform consumers about the difference between these unregulated products, potentially intoxicating products, and then safer products like CBD. And should educate consumers on the dangers of consuming products that are not regulated. And then this is really a recommendation on enforcement to work with other agencies and really properly fund enforcement actions to ensure that non compliant products are not available. So, as we mentioned earlier, lots of hemp producers are making products that are potentially intoxicating, selling them online. And though the board really has limited control over what's sold online, we can control what's sold through our licensees, our license stores. But the board is not going to be in a position to enforce rules against convenience stores on licensed outlets that might be selling these unregulated products. So ensuring that that proper law enforcement is in place to do that regulation is important. And then I think lastly or almost lastly, this is a recommendation to clarify that the tax on e-cigarettes doesn't apply to cannabis products. So the idea here is that because cannabis and tobacco are really significantly different products, the taxation on these products should reflect the different challenges that the state faces in regulating each one. So recommendation that the legislature clarify that cannabis products, including vape cartridges are not subject to the 92% tax rate on e-cigarettes. And this recommendation is being made because cannabis has a robust and untaxed illicit market that still exists. And that significant tax is going to push consumers towards purchasing vape products, cannabis vape products on the illicit market or out of state. And as we've noted in other reports, those unregulated cannabis products that can be found in the illicit market could potentially be harmful for human health. And then I think lastly, Vermont should really encourage federal partners to allow for additional research, particularly on these intoxicating and synthetically derived hemp products. A similar slide here to our push for additional research in the Concentrates report. And there you have it. Thanks, Brian. Thank you. Hey, you're welcome. It's not easy trying to draft two big reports like that simultaneously. But thank you. That's great. I know that that's, you know, I think that map that you showed roughly around slide 25, which just, you know, when it comes to THC, there's kind of a common framework that people at least start from. When it comes to hemp drive products, there's nothing, you know, every state is very struggling intensely with dealing with some of these intoxicating hemp drive isolates. And no one has figured out the best approach. And, you know, this is our first crack at it. I think it's common sense. What we've proposed here, but, you know, we're very open to taking comment and kind of, you know, having our approach evolve. Any questions for brand about the report. No, just, just, you know, piggybacking off of what you just said, Pepper, you know, this is a endeavor embarking on a, I would imagine nine months to 12 month process. This is this public comment session today is not your only opportunity to give us your thoughts. We'll initiate rulemaking sometime in the new year and we can take more substantive written comments at that time if, if you feel like we've missed the mark here. So, Bryn, I know I saw Susanna sign into our executive session. But what would you, what would be your preference be? I mean, I could easily take a break for us to kind of regroup before we look at the staff recommendations. Or we could do our executive session now prior to the staff recommendations. You know, I think that we are good to go to look at your register and then move into executive session after you've seen your register. Okay. Okay. Well, if you're up for that, then let's, let's do it that way. Okay. I'm here. Here's your register for this week. Starting with the medical program. You can see that for over the last couple of weeks, the numbers of new patient applications has dropped somewhat and renewal applications also, but 21 patient cards were issued in the last week. And one caregiver application was approved and one dispensary employee ID card was issued. So moving on to our big wall of numbers here. Here's our adult use license applications as of yesterday. So again, the majority of our new applications are for employee ID cards. Three new cannabis establishment applications in the last week. Two for an indoor cultivation license and one for, I believe a tier two manufacturing license and no new retail application licenses applications this week. And continuing to see that slow down in new establishment applications. Here is your, this is the chart that details the location of retail licensees and applications. This actually has one fewer in the total down here this week, because we actually had one application that was in the process that was dismissed. So we've got one fewer now. So essentially no change to that list, apart from there being one less in the queue. So here is our list of recommendations for a cannabis establishment license this week. And as usual, these are the applications that have demonstrated compliance with all of the requirements for their license both in board rule and in statute. So our list this week is canna cultivators collective that has applied for a mixed tier one cultivation license. Vermont herbal essentials, who's applied for a tier two manufacturing license. Bare mother cannabis applied for a tier two manufacturing license. I bricks cannabis Vermont indoor tier one cultivation license. Very wellness of Vermont applied for a retail license. Mary Jane mountain also a retail license. Hidden door cannabis is applied for an indoor tier one cultivation license. 802 pharmacy has applied for an indoor tier one cultivation license and green union has applied for retail license. So that is your list for this week we've got nine up for approval this week. So here's an update on our license amendments. I think we have a few more in there. And then here's our social equity information. I don't think we've seen any change here in social equity numbers in this last seven days. We do have one recommendation this week for a denial of social equity status. The application for submission number 941 the applicant was determined by staff to not meet the criteria for a social equity business applicant as defined in board rule. And I am requesting that we go into executive session to discuss both this applicant social equity status denial and another applicant who staff is recommending for approval of their license who does ever presumptively disqualifying a fence. Well why don't we do that then I don't you know I've read the memos I'm not sure it'll take all that long. But you know we are generally wrong about that in the past. Is there a motion to go into executive session. I move that the CCB going to executive session to consider confidential attorney client communications made for the purposes of providing professional legal services to the body and that the executive session is required because premature general public knowledge regarding such communications would clearly place the board a substantial disadvantage. I further move to invite Susanna Davis director of the racial and I'm sorry I've forgotten the name of the department racial equity office of racial equity for the state and J. Green also have that office. I will second. All in favor. Hi. Hi. Okay. Can we say come back to 05 15 minutes. I think that should probably do it. Do you disagree. No I agree with that. Okay. Okay. Nellie would you mind just putting up our away message and just indicate that we'll be back to 05. Can do. All right. Thank you. Great. All right. Then let's resume this meeting. It's 159 just got out of executive session. Once again, you know the staff recommended a social equity status denial because well for reasons that we discussed in executive session and then you know there was also a perspective licensee who is up for approval today that had a disqualifying event in their history in their criminal history and we discussed that and we decided that well I guess we'll vote on how we decided we just discussed that event so we've heard all of the staff recommendations. Is there a motion to approve the staff recommendations. I move that the board accept each of the recommendations as presented to us by staff in this meeting. I will second. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Okay. So I think last on our agenda for today if I'm not wrong is public comment. We will do this the same way we always do if you have a public comment please and you join via the video link please just raise your virtual hand. We'll do our best to call on you in the order that you raised your hands. And then we'll move to folks that joined via the phone. Tito. Can you hear me okay. Okay so first I just wanted to bring up the VATACs again through all these recommendations I'm just I'm not even hearing the VATACs come up at all. This is a really serious problem and you know I know it sounds like everybody cares about the health of medical patients and it's this VATACs is just awful. We got to do something about this. Tito it's in both of our reports. I can see it in recommendations in both of them. It's called the tobacco products tax and it's recommended that we remove it for cannabis products in both reports. Oh great. Okay thank you so much I apologize for not seeing that. And next I also commend you on the synthetic cannabis products and banning those those are some really bad products and they also attract really bad players too. I've been in this you know in the in the pipe industry for a really long time and these are all the same people that that brought a spice back in the day. You know all those spice people just turn their their their focus on to all these synthetic cannabinoids and they are definitely bad. And then lastly, I just I just beg you guys to meet before the end of January. Here at Bern we were so close. I was hoping to see an approval today, but it looks like the inspectors really want to see every single last detail finished even finished paint. You know, we don't have the finishing touches which we're putting on right now. But now you know we'll have to wait, you know, five weeks essentially before we can be moved through the process so if there is any way you can meet before that that would be amazing. Thank you guys all so much for your hard work. Tito is that can I just ask you quickly is that our inspectors or is that the kind of local fire safety folks. No, that's your inspectors. Okay. So basically we're we're we're completely ready. The only thing we don't have done is the finishing paint job and the actual stone countertop which we're putting on to our counterwall. But that's it everything else is done you know we have our our state we have our duchy installed and ready to go. And we did have some issues with the front window but it looks like we did we're able to to all agree that that products will not be visible from the street. And, and the counterwall which had to be completed which I understood but you know that wall was is definitely completely done. The inspector that came last really wanted to see every all details completely finished as if we are ready to do business, and we acknowledge that we're not going to be able to start selling cannabis right away. But but just to be approved to just keep moving through the process so that we could just keep things moving and of course there's a lot of stuff we have to do before we can actually open we have a couple weeks of buying and and stuff like that so you know we're so eager to move through this process. I quit blowing glass seven years ago to move on this journey. And, and the finish line is just, I'm like the donkey with the carrot it's just always right in front of me the finish line is right there but it just keeps moving and moving and moving and moving endlessly. And I just would love to see that goal post stop. So we can just move through the next phase. Thanks. Thanks to you. Thank you guys. Keith. Can you hear me now. Thanks. So one quick one is just when can we get these slides that you showed today on the hemp. I don't see them on the way later today. Later today. And then could I ask what, what is the point of having the hemp groups registered by January 1. I mean this, these rules won't be in place so why do that with nine days notice and try to create all that anxiety around the hemp companies getting registered in the state. They will be available by January 1. They're a number of hemp processors that are registered with the agency of agriculture and that's when their jurisdiction expires. So you don't have to apply by January 1. That's when it will be available. Okay. Thank you. That's it. And I would just remind folks that, you know, we are having a Q and a session next Tuesday. 6 to 7pm. You know, this, this public comment period isn't necessarily a place where we can answer questions directly. It's not the purpose of a public comment session. So just a reminder on that. Jason. Good afternoon. Thanks. Appreciate it. Can you hear me? Yes. First off, gratitude towards your work. Brain and team. Focusing on the, you know, important things as we process the net and navigate through this regulatory system as we adjust things. I appreciate that. And keeping us informed. These meetings have been very helpful for not only self, but other licensees and people coming into the market. This is not a criticism. Just just possibly a recommendation as you build specifically for the hemp, but also with cannabis related in the whole. Possibly adjusting the language to be a bit more accurately describing the medicinal effects. Cannabis slash hemp. Derived products to use psychoactive versus intoxicating. Due to the nature of we're talking about small percentages from topicals, which generally are not intoxicating nor psychoactive, whatever term we use. Maybe that's just a recommendation on the building of this. This regulatory adjustment to present to the legislative process. And that's all I have to say for now, and I appreciate your time. And I think we will all miss the weeklies. I hope that it brings a little peace of mind that we're getting a few more steps forward and. Well, you know, I look forward to the monthlies because I think it's been very helpful for a lot of people just to understand language have. You know, face to face the face, if you may. And I appreciate it guys. And James, hope you feel better. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you, Jason. Robert. Hi, just a real quick question. What is the status of the map that has all the locations that is not currently up on the licensed page. Thanks to the question. Again, we don't generally answer questions here, but I think there is a map that was once up that's not up now. I don't know what the status is. Okay, thanks. Yeah, I'm. Hello, you guys and ladies. Once again, thank you very much for listening to what we have to say. You didn't plenty as regular analytics. One comment I have with the monthly meetings that you guys having does that that that means that you're only going to be voting on licenses once a month. Correct. With that said, that puts a lot of, of, of weight on us. Because you say where we are ready to go live one day after you already have met. That means that we have to wait an entire month for you guys to meet again for us to be able to obtain that one license for us. And that is, we're talking about just my payroll is going to be between $35 and $65,000 a month to be able to maintain that. So that means that I have to invest another $65,000 on to the business that's just in payroll, just to wait 30 days for you guys to meet again and and give a judgment on my license. So if you guys could meet, you know, especially in special circumstances, stances for licenses, that will be great. It will help us all, you know, get to, you know, that stage. But thank you guys for listening. Yeah, thanks for the comment. Bobby. Hey, good afternoon. Thanks for having me. I wanted to echo some of these concerns that Tito and your aim just mentioned. You know, I know a number of hopeful licensees that are just at that finish line and number of them have been, you know, dealing with some moving goalposts. You know, ourselves we're waiting on just the installation of two cameras I believe that are literally being put up tomorrow. So five week lead time for approval is it's really rough, especially with the delays we're going to see with packaging approval and product registration and not being able to really accurately start those processes immediately. You know, that's going to have us not having product on shelf until March, April the earliest and that's just, it's quite the fiscal burden on us. So like to encourage you to re reconsider that or at least make some sort of work around. I acknowledge that you all are super understaffed and overworked, but I think there's some equilibrium to be had here. Thank you. Feel better pepper if you want to shoot me your address I'll get you some Jewish penicillin. Thanks for the comment. Marie. Oh, sorry. No, no. You know it's ironic I was just going to say I think a blueberry strain would do you well right now. So look into it. But I also have to comment and say, I love love love love the jumper, or would it be the ugly Christmas sweater the lady in the back had the red little balls hanging off. So, and lastly, I thank you for everything you did this year. It's been a long hell of a ride for all of us. You've done great. Don't listen to any haters. You guys are awesome. And I appreciate what you've done, especially coming from my old stomping grounds in New York I see you're doing and it looks it looks like a headache and a half that I wouldn't want to touch. I love what Vermont's doing. You guys are doing a great job. Happy holidays guys. Thanks Marie. Dave. They all James you sound terrible and you should really not be here today. The real comment though is I mean like you should rest and you know to carry yourself. But the real comment is echoing on on Tito. You know the monthly meetings does cause some pause. I've got a client who's been in resubmit for about a week this morning we got a notice from staff saying a couple of things were missing but those things actually were in the application already and they're there. But there weren't they weren't on but the client didn't make it onto the list today even though they really ought to have and now the client is going to wait a month. And that's very frustrating. You know it's actually going to end up waiting six weeks. And so that's very frustrating and and I hope you guys can figure out something that maybe could speed the process along. You know my view is your staff generally does you know outstanding work they do a lot of work behind the scenes that nobody really sees and so you know we want to recognize and honor that. But sometimes mistakes do get made and when you can't correct out those mistakes quickly I think that's going to lead to just growing frustration. And you know that will spill over in all sorts of ways that none of us want to see. So those are my thoughts. Thank you for listening. Thanks Dave. So anyone who joined by the link please just raise your virtual hand and if you joined by the phone and would like to comment. You can hit star six to unmute yourself. There is no one joined by phone currently. Why don't we give the why don't we give it just a few longer here. I'll close the public comment window. Thank you everyone who joins and again I really truly appreciate everyone who joins these meetings and give us comment feedback you know support from the Vice Council throughout this process 2022 is a big year for Vermont and you know hopefully we can just continue to improve the program in 2023. Any concluding thoughts. Julie or Kyle. I love that it's been a long but productive year. There's dozens of holidays that folks out there are celebrating right now so whatever you're celebrating I hope it brings you joy. I don't have much to add after you know both your statement and your statement pepper 2022 has gone by very quickly at least from my corner of the world I think times an interesting thing. These days but so much has been accomplished in 2022 and look forward to seeing everybody in 2023. Thanks for joining.