 Dr. Clifton. Hello everybody. Good. Doc, you can call the order if you want. Oh, sure. We'll call. And we are, we're still to some other way than the other Dr. Dr. Levy, but I don't think we should be expecting him today. Yeah, I don't think we're expecting him today, so I am going to start the recording. Okay. We'll call the meeting to order, and I think someone has to second that, is that right? No, just go ahead. Oh, okay. We have to approve the minutes, and somebody has to second that. Right. Okay. Meg, Deely, she didn't receive those, so I think we're just sending those to her. Yeah, I just got them from Jim, thanks. Oh, sorry about that, Meg. No worries. I probably have an email in my inbox from a different bag, instead of why are these on my channel? I don't recognize the folks in the Ramon process, or what I presume to be the Ramon process. Sure. Why don't we take both first, and then Bryn will be able to tell you who's in that room. Okay. All right, I can do that. Dr. Clifton is here, Meg Delia, Jim Romanoff, all present, and we also have Bryn here, and it looks like Sharon James Pepper, and then Bryn, could you tell us who else is in the room? Sure. We have four members of the public, and we also have Melissa Anderson from DPS. Great, thank you. Oh, marvelous. We'll have some time for public commentary after. And then, Doctor, if you want to get approval for the minutes? Oh, sure. Can I get a week and one for the minutes? I'm someone. And I think Meg's still reviewed it. I'll make a motion to approve it. I reviewed it. Jim, I don't know if you've got a chance, or had any comments on it. You did, Jim. A second. A second. Okay. Those are approved. Do you want to proceed with the agenda, Dr. Clifton? All right, sure. Thank you so much. I think, let's see, I'm putting up the agenda now. I feel like we've really moved along beautifully here, and we probably can, you know, maybe the last meeting unless something comes up today. Oh, shoot. I just pulled up the minutes rather than the agenda. Let me see if I can get the agenda pulled up. Okay. So for today, we wanted to review maybe the, and potentially finalize the possession caregivers and homegrown and do some assigning tasks. And of course, public comment. So I wanted to get cooking then specifically on possession. And just as a review, we were talking at our past meeting about the possession issue being, you know, somewhat tied in with any possession issues that can come up from recreational in terms of amount that people are allowed to carry. But we also worried that in some cases with medicinal patients they would have, they would pick up a 90-day supply at a time in which case they might have to have the opportunity to have a higher level of possession. And then we also, of course, have to make room from medicinal patients who are using concentrates like RSOs or DABS or something. So I just wanted to make sure that the subcommittee felt comfortable with possession limits that were consistent with a 90-day supply recommendation either by the patient's pharmacist or doctor or a care provider. And have that be our subcommittee recommendation? I would not agree with that. I think that's putting more on us on some sort of health care professional to determine what the patient needs, which is more involvement than those of us who are here at the subcommittee have to date. I am still in support of aligning with adult use possession limits. I would agree. I think that the Synchromole Abversight Committee had recommended an increase to three ounces in a 30-day period, which really isn't exactly possession, but it was a purchase of three ounces of medical cannabis in a 30-day period. And then in terms of a move that said the same thing, to make sure that it is pegged to at least adult use so that medical patients are analyzed for less if they're carried too much, but potentially more. But I would agree that putting the illness on health care providers to decide that the amount won't be going a lot further than we are now. Okay. My concern is that a patient might need more than three ounces and might find themselves transporting more than three ounces if they go to purchase a 90-day supply at a time. And then if they have four ounces and they're using it medically, they could be in a sticky situation. That's where I'm worried about the alignment with recreational. Jim, what do you think about that? Or Megan, what do you think about that? I just am not sure how many patients, how many ounces the average patient is using and if we're only at three ounces, are we covering for patients who are using concentrates at higher amounts or like seizure patients, people that are using larger amounts? The current law has had two ounces for a 30-day period and concentrates are considered as their actual weight factory as that amount of medical cannabis. So if it's one gram of concentrate, it's only one gram of medical cannabis. So that's really not an issue under the current laws. And we had proposed an increase to three ounces, which the prevailing opinion was that would cover, for the most part, most patients would cover all. I'm sure somebody will not be covered and be left out, but I think the risk to having a situation where medical providers would be pushed way beyond where they're at now to balance an increase to three ounces would be good, maybe not perfect, but better than putting it all in the hands of the medical providers. Oh, no, I was thinking about maybe some verbiage. Would it make sense to have verbiage of three ounces for an amount that could be overwritten by a medical provider or a treating pharmacist if the patient required a higher amount? So currently pharmacists are not involved in the program at all in that sense. So I think we can kind of just do away with that component. As far as a healthcare provider may be signing a waiver or saying a patient needs more, I think it's hard to really form an opinion based on that when we don't know what the adult possession limits will look like. Are people going to be able to walk into an adult use dispensary and purchase an ounce at a time as frequently as they would like? Or is that going to be limited to maybe three times a month? Whatever it may be, because we don't know that, I think it's difficult to say, okay, we want to align with the adult use possession limits, but here's a workaround for people who need more. Since we don't know what those limits are, I think three ounces could be a good minimum. Patients are allowed at least that, and then if adult use allows for more, then looking to those adult use recommendations. Ultimately, I think providers are not as involved with the actual purchasing process as much as they are just verifying. Okay, okay. I just don't want to put any firm on patients in a position where they're transporting some product and they're getting in trouble, getting pulled over and getting in trouble because they have a little bit more than they should have, especially for people who are high consumers. So I'm just trying to think of a way to make that as safe as possible for those medical patients. Okay. All right, then we can make a recommendation of three ounces as a possession, but then in the home we talked about really knowing inside the amount of possession in the home. But in terms of transporting back and forth a limit of three ounces. And then I think there's another thing you guys said we had thought about was caregivers. We were worried about how many people a caregiver should be allowed to see as a caregiver in different states have different recommendations. They are varying anywhere from one to 15. I feel like following in Vermont's, you know, sort of the way that I perceive the state of Vermont as being, you know, small farms and small businesses and neighbors helping neighbors. I think that a larger number of people for caregivers would probably be valuable and consistent with state goals and ideals. What is everybody else? Well, that's good. The advantage, lastly, in a caregiver situation, you know, we just need to be careful about the definitions. Right now, as it's defined, and I don't have it exactly, but as it's defined in the medical cannabis law, patients allow only one caregiver. And that we have tried to correct because it is unreasonable just from a practical point of view, you know, somebody needs 24 hours of care if they might have two caregivers. And both of those caregivers might be the ones that need to handle, carry, or pick up and purchase the medical cannabis. And right now, the patients are only allowed to sign one. But the issue in other states, and I'm afraid here, is often a little mixed up because the term caregiver is also used to apply to growers who are growing for patients. So I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea. Growers, small growers growing for patients, but calling them caregivers and including it under those, you know, laws just seems confusing and silly. So, you know, going forward, the recommendation from the oversight committee had been to increase the number of caregivers for patients because practically speaking was necessary, medically speaking, it might be. But also, the definition has been under some debate, but having an include growers probably would not be the direction. I would agree. I think when you start going down that path where you have one person growing for a number of medical patients, it then introduces, okay, well, at what point should we be getting some lab testing done? Where are there kind of these safety elements that we have required at the dispensary that a small grower is growing for multiple patients? You know, why aren't they subject to that? And so I would agree that the definition does need to be reviewed and that it should be made clear kind of that separation as Jim was alluding to. And I definitely am not saying that small growers should definitely not be growing for patients. I agree with that. There's all issues of testing and what standards things are going to be done to, but it's really just a matter of separating language. So it's not confusing, you know, a grower would be a grower. Caregivers are taking care of somebody medically speaking. And they'll handle their marijuana in New York. So they need to be more than one. Okay, so grower might be somebody who is doing a, I mean, we would just define them as a small private grower and then a caregiver would be something more of like a coach that would help to assist. You know, that's what I believe the definition, the medical practitioners on our oversight committee, you know, have expressed their desire for caretakers, you know, to be defined in that, you know, more medically and health care accepted way of taking care of medical health care needs as an aide or a nurse might do and administering or carrying the medication might be necessary, more than one caregiver might be necessary for the patient. But the idea, you know, the main law keeps getting drawn up. People are enthusiastic about it and I would just say, you know, suggest addressing it and labeling it in a different way and under, you know, licensing for growers and a grower for one medication but not confused with the idea of a caregiver. So someone can end up, you know, without somebody to take care of it in another way. So really there's no reason to limit caregivers at all. I mean, if somebody wants to be a caregiver, why couldn't they take care of 15 people a day? I, you know, that's not for me to determine I'm not a professional in the area of caregivers but I think the question really is whether each caregiver, you know, is a person who can grow for a patient and I know that's an issue that people are eager to address perhaps through the term caregiver because individuals can grow at home so a caregiver should be able to do it at home for a patient as well but maybe they should become a grower and it's a different thing. Yeah, so I mean, do we want to differentiate caregivers from growers and then talk more about home grow and I guess, do we want to do that or do we want to talk about caregivers as small growers? I'm sorry, I don't interrupt. I'll let Jim answer and then go ahead. Well, I think that, you know, the way that we've talked about it would be oversight committee. We should be using the language of caregiver to reflect an aide or somebody taking care of a person and self-care needs and handling the medication might be necessary. Growing it for one person spreads it into a different area and I think that's what people keep bringing up with the main law or caregiver. It can be a grower and it's just confusing. So I would suggest, I think the idea of a grower being able to grow for a small group of patients or one patient is an appropriate idea. I just think it shouldn't be bound together with the term caregiver. So I would say yes, addressing separately, you know, under how licensing is done for growers so that they can grow for an individual. Yeah, so I understand that. So I think we're in agreement that we need to make a distinction between caregiver and grower. But what I don't understand is because there will be different tiers of cultivators and cultivator licenses. And one of the terms of art within the licensing will be small cultivator, right? That's not what you're discussing. Heroin will be enveloped under that. But also, there's a separate product safety committee and testing is going to be mandated for all those levels of licensing. Are you proposing a different tier of licensing for small growers that just serve medical patients? No, I think what I'm saying is you would include in those small cultivators the ability for them to grow for a medical patient with the appropriate testing and guidelines, but just as they would grow for another small client. And I don't think you need a different cultivator necessarily. I agree. A small cultivator can grow for whoever the consumer is, including the medical patients. I don't know if you need to make any distinction at all on that end, right? Well, right now, caretakers are allowed to grow for a patient. And I think the question is going to be as any individual is allowed to grow and I could grow for an adult in my house under the law, you know, to do the work. And so, you know, I think the question is is when we talk earlier about home grow, I'm supportive of the idea of patients growing their own medicine and being connected to it. And yet I believe it's very difficult a patient who has disability in many ways to be very unlikely to be able to handle the physical burden of growing for a gigantic seven-foot plants outdoors or, you know, big plants inside. And it is risky. They can die, all those things I've mentioned. But the idea of having to grow or grow a specific strain or a variety for you makes sense to me. And where it gets confusing is right now a caretaker can grow for a patient. And there's a question of the language of a patient only being allowed to have one caretaker. And if it were a medical caretaker and a healthcare caretaker, not a grower, you would not say that about somebody you wanted to take care of. You would say they might need two parents. You know, depending on their needs they might need round-the-clock caretakers. So I'm saying split it apart and a patient can specify another person to grow for them, hopefully a cultivator or an adult who's not the, you know, isn't already growing for themselves and has the legal right to grow. Is that clear? Go ahead, Megan, I'm sorry. My concern with kind of separating these definitions of caregivers that it, although there are definitely a number of caregivers who are as gemizolidated to the medical caregivers, there are also a number of caregivers who are a patient's spouse. So I am a little weary of completely changing that definition because I think for a lot of the patients and caregivers we see they want it to remain fairly simple, which is they designate their spouse a caregiver, their spouse can grow cannabis for them as a medical patient. So I think if we kind of get into tweaking this definition of a caregiver, we do run the risk of kind of taking away that simplicity for so many of the people who are using it just like that. And I do worry that if medical patients could go to a small craft grower and designate them as a grower that it's it's just diluting further the patient population that, you know, currently we've discussed all of these barriers to access to increase participation in the program. So I do worry, you know, we saw when home grow was added a couple years ago, we saw a drastic decline in the program. So I do worry that if we kind of expand the home grow options in that sense, you know, let a patient go to a small craft grower that we're only going to further dilute the program and then essentially be back to square one because we don't have enough support for the dispensaries. I'm worried about these patients that, you know, they just have the money and, you know, where dispensaries are really just not an option for them because of the much higher cost compared to doing your own home grow. I mean, I'm worried about I'm worried about any negative impacts on home grow because I feel like in the cases of so many people with disabilities, you know, I mean, medical medical bills are the number one reason for bankruptcy in this country. So a lot of these people are really struggling already and if we hamper home grow, you know, then we may take a patient who let's just say, you know, designated their wife. Their wife is only allowed to grow for one patient. They have, you know, three, they're allowed three plants that are able to go in maturity. They've got two growth cycles and then that'll give them enough medicine but one of their plants gets a fungus, you know, then they don't have enough, you know, medicine and they don't really have an option of going and getting insurance-covered product from a dispensary or they don't have any for a dispensary, you know. From a disabled from a disabled patient point of view with limited resources I'm really worried about limitations on home grow. I just want to quickly add I don't disagree that a parent, a husband a wife should also be able to be a caretaker in that same way and I think what I'm, the intention of what I'm saying is to not have the term caretaker, you know, sort of diverted into really being about how many patients at first you can grow for you know, to be able to grow let's use that term and say they can grow for more people it's just confusing and people use it as a workaround and so I'm poor grower growing for a patient and I'm for more people, you know and I believe the oversight committee it has discussed this in a few ways for people to have a caretaker at least the term, not be as confused now that being said, I have to say I disagree with the premise on the home grow that it's necessarily cheaper or a better idea it's not, I do it here, we don't have two grow cycles, we have three quarters of a grow cycle and if you're like my house I don't have some in the backyard if I didn't work here I couldn't move the plants on expensive wheels all day long to get enough sun to grow enough product that I agree with you that we have to support and preserve home grow as an option but it is more realistic to think that then I understand the next point of view about having growers who is providing the medical product but that makes more sense to me than thinking that somebody with a disability will, I know, or many of them using medical cannabis would have a difficult time moving the plants without handling it it's just not, I don't think realistic I would agree I have to say that I don't necessarily feel that the home grow option is automatically the less expensive I also think if you want prices of the dispensaries to decrease they're just simply needs to be more participation in the program and I think it's the dispensaries hope that when adult use rolls out and they can purchase from small craft growers they'll have a broader selection of products as well as lower prices because they are given that opportunity to also participate in adult use yeah correct me if I'm wrong some of this is academic right no one's saying take away or reduce the home grow option that's already there that is there yeah I don't deal with that just to bring this back to the focus what we need to take care of is the fact that it can't be one-on-one for caretakers and we can eliminate that as the recommendation correct I guess I would be curious to hear your thoughts on why it can't remain a one-on-one I think Jim expressed those I'll try and summarize it unless Jim you want to well I'm not sure I'm not saying it can't be more what I'm concerned about is the push to move in a direction as many great ideas as there are in Maine the idea of bargaining with a group of patients doesn't seem like the way the Vermont Medical Cannabis program has worked and doesn't contain the kind of controls that we would look for I don't think so that's what I'm trying to avoid caregiver being confused with lots of growers and there's a push to have multiple caregivers because you might need more than one person besides growing cannabis to take care of a patient for anything and so you just need to clean up that term if caregiver is just the term being used for a grower which is probably the designated grower or something maybe as they could be in the family they could be somebody else you know and then I think the question of the reverse of caregivers all of a sudden being people who can grow for five people and you know isn't a definition under the medical program but it's a cultivator definition and I wonder if there's an economy of scale if we have a concept that a caregiver can be a caregiver to 15 people and they're good at growing cannabis then they could have a home grow that could potentially aid in the support of 15 people rather than just one person that's where I'm trying to get to the same place Jim one minute there's someone's hand up in the room for about a minute or so now so we have Lindsay Wells here is in the room and she'd like to make a comment I was wondering what would happen to those caregivers of loved ones like the husband caring for his wife with cancer or the mother of the child with seizures because a lot of our caregivers I would say the vast majority 90% of them are not growing for a patient they're caring for their loved one it's almost like it's two different categories in a way not that I would want to prevent a mother or a spouse from growing but there's definitely two different concepts and I just haven't heard you talk about when you speak about caregivers about the mother with the infant with seizures or the husband with the wife going through chemo yeah I would agree with Lindsay here the majority of these caregivers are just as she described and so this notion that maybe one person could grow for 15 I think that's exactly what Jim was saying we don't want to go towards that it's a lot like the main model and we've both stated that we do not agree with that model for Vermont at current and that's Jim I don't know I agree with what you're saying and I agree and want to confirm I agree with what Lindsay's saying but you know that as I corrected myself before a caregiver or a spouse or a child epilepsy or cancer or something but the notion of caregiver or growers shouldn't get in the way of that those are the people taking care of their loved ones and might they be the person that's the grower? Yes but that doesn't mean we need to define a person who's a caregiver and a professional they might be a grower too and I think their desire is to say well I can grow for five people in the same way I can take care of five people but that gets under cultivation and we should just leave it cultivation licensing take care of that perhaps for the sake of simplicity we leave the caregiver definition as is and add in an additional caregiver an additional caregiver option but that is not to grow as Jim said maybe it's a medical caregiver maybe it's a second parent who's administered during the medication you know I think that's something that we would definitely feel comfortable with expanding how many patients a caregiver can grow for I don't think is the right route at least that's not what I'm hearing it should be reflected in the cultivator clause that they can grow for patients it just impedes what a caregiver needs Tom do you feel like like we haven't updated or write a recommendation from the subcommittee based on this discussion yeah that I guess I need a clarity on what Meg just said Meg you're not against expanding one on one caregivers as long as it's for medical professional purposes yeah because I think Jim is correct you know if you have 24-7 care it's unlikely that one person is doing that all the time and so I think it makes sense to add a second medical caregiver that might be a parent yeah it might be a parent it could be a child it could be anyone but to do so specifically as a caretaker and not somebody who can also grow for that patient I think one grower is fine okay yeah I understand now and I would just add to that that it would be great for it to be addressed under licensing how small growers it just and I understand Meg's point of view on that and I know what I'm saying is different it's just I don't think it should be addressed here yeah I agree okay okay I think that probably needs us to our final discussion about home grow and where we should where we should place that oh I'm sorry yeah Mary if I could backtrack on caregiving because Meg recommendations you also had um you also had a recommendation or suggestion that we discard with kind of verification or fingerprinting for caregivers um I think if there's only caregiver per patient then I don't see I think it's a just another barrier to the program to have that fingerprinting um also there's one in adult use I mean it just seems onerous that you don't fingerprint a lot of pharmacies so I don't see why you would think it's raining has just become such a commonplace thing it just you know and you juice every time you leave the country you end up having to put your palm on on the little stand for your fingerprints and for doctors you know to see patients in nursing homes or to see patients in hospitals you had to start getting fingerprinted you know as far back as 10 years so fingerprinting doesn't seem like a big deal to me or if you want to license in a new state all the states require your fingerprints but you know it's also well it's different and it's similar I guess I can see the point because you know I because I have a you know controlled substance license and so they want to be able to just have all the data that they would need if I were to be prescribing inappropriately so I would think that that would be the concept behind getting fingerprints but if caregivers are different from you know growers and they're just handling the product you know I don't have I certainly don't have a problem when we need the fingerprinting issue I think we have to hand up again in the room for public comment so the caregivers the spouse the mother the sibling who's helping take care of their loved one I think there's going to be some issues with fingerprinting process here in Vermont because they're not going to be able to bill individuals through the Department of Public Safety I don't believe because they're billed out for the charge of running the to be able to give some information as well they're billed out for the cost of running the fingerprint supported background check and to set up everybody as a vendor in the system but if you were going to create a different category for these like small businesses that were going to be providing a service that may be that you guys would consider separately I think since we I'd correct me if I'm wrong Jim but I think without expanding the number of patients that a caregiver can care for and or grow for I don't see it I don't think it's reasonable to have your spouse or whoever may be your caretaker fingerprinted if it is just that definition that we currently have the one on one I think you know what you were saying Dr. Clifton that is absolutely an aspect of your profession that I think yes you may expect but when our caregivers come in and they're just really trying to be there for their loved one or whatever it may be that fingerprinting process can really seem daunting and we haven't had it up until last year so unless there are any issues without having it I don't see a reason to keep that I think it would be a great thing to remove I mean in addition to just the hassle and the fear and all of the negative stuff associated with getting fingerprinted it's just harder and harder to get you used to be able to get in the UPS stores and now a lot of them have stopped doing that you have to go to the police station and then the right police officer has to be available so I'm with you guys outside and avoid fingerprinting for caregivers that would be marvelous I think okay any other comment anything else I don't want to move this along too quickly okay how about home grow if people have had some time to think about what kind of restrictions we would like to place on home grow I would say the Lother's Act Committee had recommended an increased number of plants that's where we stand for home grow no restrictions the increase somebody is going to do it they definitely need to be able to have more plants to ensure success so you know I mean it varies across the country I pulled up that sheet that I created last week but that was more on possession rather than on home grow but I mean anywhere from you know three flowering and three to you know six flowering 12 in mature and unlimited seedlings and I would lean in that direction again Jim because of what you said you've got a three quarter three quarters of one season in Vermont coming from Michigan I understand you have to be like some kind of wizard to be able to have a successful out garden and does that seem reasonable for us in Vermont for home grows and I'm sure there are people also growing imagine it's a majority of people doing it but decreasing the number of plants I think the risk is is the attention of limitation of plants is to A. limit the amount that an individual is possessing whether they're a medical patient or not you know as chairman Petra pointed out last week there's no specific limitation of what you have in your home and in your house but I would argue if there's a medical patient who's going to process eight or 12 plants after they harvest you know that's a lot of work and just doing three or four plants is a lot of work so you know increasing the number of plants I would say it's got to be right now it should be double and it could be up to 12 but I don't see you know for one patient it's going to influence that much what they're spending is going to be because there's a unless you're running a professional operation which is what they're not doing there's just a but you can't it's just not that and you're not ending up with there's going to be plants there's going to be plants that if you're making it into an oil or all a lot of work so more the numbers you recommended again Mary? we're six mature 12 immature and unlimited seedlings and that would you know I mean for somebody who likes to grow I mean I don't grow any of my own food I don't can or any of that but I mean I love to cook for sure but for people you know for my cousins who love to grow they have massive gardens so I'm thinking that supporting those who do grow you know so that they don't get in again into some sort of restriction or some sort of issue with with legal you know that offering just a very reasonable and generous number of plants that have a duty of restrictions that would okay guys correct me if I'm wrong but what I didn't see in the adult use legislation was discussion of homegrown so I mean it's interesting there's no kind of guidance it's there already you know statutes have just passed the numbers are there and I don't believe that those are sunset in the newer laws so do you know the numbers from the the original I don't want to say exactly because I'll say it it's too mature too mature or too mature yeah I thought you guys were 3 and 3 or 2 and 2 but I didn't have it I might think you're too tired that's a good use for medical I believe it's too mature and 7 mature is that right Lyndy? it's 2 and 7 for patients too too mature 7 and mature and then Dr. Clifton you're saying 6 and 12 yeah okay I would say the only concern I have with that is that that's a pretty large jump and so I'm not sure where we could go to get this information but I don't know how comfortable the legislature would be with such an increase to just my 2 cents I don't know if anyone has thoughts on that Dr. are your numbers based on other states? yeah I was basing it on Maine and just looking across the country at what would be the most permissive and thinking that Maine is probably doing that and thinking about Vermont not only the limited duration that grows can be functional but also because of the terrain and you know like Jim was saying that you can't you know you've got the trees in the backyard and thin soil with rocky bases so I was just thinking about ways to make it and because of such a finicky plant because of the fungal issues and things we'll get more numbers to be able to see that from Connecticut and some other states as well great thank you and then Dr. I'm not sure what I had two other things that were contained within Maine's list and they're both more compliance issues but I think maybe you were talking about the buffer zones and doing away with that it's more in another subcommittee geographic location yeah so right now we have a 1,000 foot zone as we're calling it and that is measured as the crow flies so there have been concerns raised by patients in the past that really affects the access because it's very unlikely that we're going to be having medical dispensaries in like a city downtown where there are absolutely going to be schools nearby or places where children congregate and so my recommendation was that we just re-evaluate that distance maybe reduce it to 500 feet and clarify that it's walking versus at the crow flies yeah and certainly I don't think there's any debate that the method of measurement needs to be clarified and then we can talk about the difference between 500 and 1,000 I'll just tell you also that in the market structure committee there's discussion of a potential license limited sale with existing businesses and that's going to present some challenges with whatever buffer zone as well so that's going to be developed by other committees the other concern you brought up was the limitation on how many can be served currently which is three which again I imagine that's going to be modified through adult use and then we can peg it to whatever use one other question was that it was my understanding that the future medical oversight committee advisory panel was to be addressed and I'm not sure if that's a agenda I was going to bring that up as well I mean we're on a timeline of this cannabis control board the November deadline to notify the legislature the oversight committee's goal has been by the beginning of October to deliver the recommendation to the cannabis control board and I would understand that it would go through this committee we are next Wednesday and we'll have a public comment period after that there are a few areas left that board members are still talking about but this committee would be able to look at and begin to discuss those recommendations next week and then wait until the public comment is also incorporated at some point in October to make a final consideration early in October and pass it to I would imagine Bryn to the cannabis control board to consider and the entire advisory board any preview Jim, are there a couple items on the board? some active debate among the board members as to who's going to sit on the board but I would say that the recommendations are leaning towards it being very patient and caregiver centric you know with the majority of the seats being going to patients, caregivers and then a smaller amount to medical healthcare practitioners whether it's a doctor or naturopath there's practitioner boards there's debate right now about including a cultivator on the oversight committee that's split right now discussions over and the questions being you know I think a lot of the board members feel it's really appropriate the cultivator being the medicine grower in this case at this point in the growth in life processing of medical programs all over the country the cultivator is the person most in touch with the medicine so there's a lot of debate and that hasn't fully decided yet and that is where we're headed perhaps also including some administrative temporary board membership perhaps public safety as they pass things over to mechanical control board but that will be discussed next Wednesday so that's where we're at I can share during this next week the draft document that we're working with for you all to consider and take a look at and we should be finished up with it I would say within 10 days Thanks that would be great and I do want to make sure we get some ample time for public comment but I just want to remind everyone again one of the priorities that I had when we were starting was to ensure what we discussed was forming that kind of baseline layer for products in each of the retail and I think we're going to start to reach out to some of the dispensaries if we could continue along and maybe even have one of them at one of these meetings so we can develop that you know that's going to be part of our recommendation of the board okay so I do want to make sure the folks in the room if there's any other public comment Dr. Clifton do you have any any other closing no I was just thinking I was actually thinking about how politicized mammograms have become and how mammograms are covered by every insurance company because breast cancer is such a highly political thing and I wonder if we should just put some comment in here that insurance company should be required to pay for medicinal cannabis or that we would strongly encourage them to do so in the state of Vermont and just you know start to open that discussion with insurance companies people who are relying on it for the medicine and if we have people who can't home grow and then they find themselves you know really trapped I think that would be really great to put in here somehow or in a separate memo but yeah that's something we can definitely discuss next next meeting Brinus does anyone have public comments yep we do have a couple of people who'd like to give a public comment you know here from Meg is what's best for her profit dispensary I hear very little talk about what is best for the patients I hear this criticism of the main program but in the meantime I wonder how are main patients being cared for I'm going to guess pretty well and if a caregiver means switching the definition of a caregiver to a parent or guardian so what does that mean for the patient it feels like it's all being so the patient is forced to go to the dispensary to get their product and that's just not what's best for the patients and also the Marama for Symptom Relief Oversight Committee that Jim is the chair of I've been sitting on those meetings for quite some time and it seems that they want to change the definition especially Amy Quingler and Dr. Joe seem to really want to change the definition of what a caregiver means to a parent or guardian because by the way the law is written there has to be a certain amount of seeds dedicated to caregivers so it seems convenient let's change the definition of caregiver and now now the growers don't get a seed it happens just like that the point of this whole medical program is to give the patients the best care possible but all it feels like is the point is just to prop up main dispensary the point is to give the highest quality product that's the whole point of this and growers have been here all along in many cases amazing product for their patients and I bet if you were to actually talk to many patients you would see all the time that they love the relationship with their personal grower because a dispensary is going to sell flower that is best for their bottom line not what's best for the patient just bottom line so that's kind of what I'm going to say right now about that but just my main point that growers need to have a seed here they're the ones who know about the plant there's all these boards I sit in it's amazing how little knowledge there is about the actual plant itself and what it's like to grow I think for that reason alone you need to have a grower on these boards but just to move on to a whole different subject there's also a crippling bait tax in the state of Vermont it's 92% bait tax it started off as the intentions were great the intentions were to stop the problem with jewel nicotine products in high schools and I think everybody can agree that it's an awful problem and it needs to be solved but what the legislature did is use language that was so broad that it affects every single product that has the word bait and so there's literally products that are arguably the best the healthiest way to consume cannabis and many of these companies won't even sell to Vermont anymore the 92% tax essentially just filled the whole program and you know so again just bringing it back to patients because that's what the medical program is about I think you all agree with that I think it needs to come back to that and make that the point not just insulating our dispensary and its profits from from a more expansive medical program thank you do you mind identifying yourself? sorry my name is Adam Grose everyone calls me Tida, thank you thank you Adam thank you Adam for that input thank you I agree that especially in the subcommittee we have to stay super patient focused thank you we had another public comment yep Vermont Growers Association Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition I'm also a state registered caregiver in our Vermont marijuana industry I have been since the first year it's been operational 2006 2007 thank you for this conversation I'm heartened to hear you guys address home grow and also possession limits I want to actually stop for a moment and bring up two points of clarity so our organization tracks some of the national trends across the in each state and I just want to say that the average national average for home grow the plant count is 6.5 to 7 so that's the average national across all of the states we've been fixed at two mature plans for about two decades now so just some context to keep you guys aware of that also a second point of clarity before I move on to my comment caregiver allowances heartened to hear you guys talk about that that's something that we support I appreciate you guys getting ahead of that the caregiver allowances that was stated have been identified as 1 through 15 that's not true there are a couple states that have unlimited caregiver allowances so please consider that why is one of them I just want to be clear and accurate with some of those points that you guys had raised earlier and I wanted to bring that up I do want to say you know just stepping back and reminding ourselves in tongue you just did this a moment ago about what we're doing here and the purpose of this subcommittee we're here to address the objectives that we're outlining where not just continuity of services and products and ensuring them to the current customer base or patient base but really addressing the other issues that are in the current medical program which are affordability and access affordability and access I cannot urge you guys enough to avoid bifurcating our medical program and its licensing that would further complicate this program these are unique sensitive individuals, Vermonters who are sick to engage this program it should not be without red tape or appropriate regulation but we should not be and I urge you strongly to avoid creating further layers of bureaucracy and licensing that an individual needs to navigate to provide medication to patients that is a game-stopper for those that wish to participate in this program we are urging and you guys will see this in our language a five patient allowance for each patient and an increase of 10 mature plans disregarding immature plans these numbers come from Maine and a couple other states that have similar plan counts and regulations in their medical program so we are asking you guys to adopt something that is already proven successful in other states and so thank you and I'm just leaving it at that I appreciate it can you repeat your name? I'm sorry my name is Jeffrey Pizzatella from the Vermonters Association and the Vermonters Equity Coalition thanks the Vermonters Association and the Vermonters Equity Coalition thank you great do we have any other no public comments no that's it okay thank you I know we're out of time I'm going to go ahead and lead you to adjourn unless anyone has anything else before Monday's meeting I can second that one okay thank you everyone thank you for the public comments