 Okay, our first order of business is the minutes from our last new meeting. May 14th. I seem to have dropped it. I don't seem to have an email with agenda or minutes. Did I, I was looking for that. Came into separate, yeah, emails. Date? I think it was Friday. Was it Friday, July that you sent it? It was Friday. Yeah. Yep, I got it. Yeah, the first of the two. Okay. The one, the one I have is about tobacco and supporting evidence. So it's not that one, which I already. No, there's one right before that. Or in my. It's June 15th, I think. On the fifth. Want me to forward it to you? Well, I just, let me just look here. It was Friday, June 5th, right? Weird. I only have one email from Julie that day. So either deleted it by mistake or, so sure forward it to me. Don't know what happened to that one. Let me just make sure I got the right one. Okay. It's really strange. Should be on the way. Yeah. I mean, it's not in my trash and it's not in my inbox. That's weird. Okay. Anyway, here we go. No problem. You said you just sent it to me. Got sent? Yep, got it. Okay. Oh, Julie sent it to UMass, not the Comcast. That's the problem. Okay. I'm sorry. Yeah, I get a mixture and I try to keep this on Comcast, not UMass. Okay. Got it. That's not Comcast, I'm sorry. Yeah, got it. No problem. So as long as there's this little pause while John's bringing that up, that's great what Steve just said about getting a recording of the meeting. I was also gonna suggest that maybe you wanna identify one of you is taking minutes and then the, and someone else as working on the changes in the document. You know, cause in some ways, some of the minutes, like I don't think we have to, you have to capture all the discussion around it, just kind of the salient points. So I don't know if that makes sense. It makes a lot of sense to me. That's why I asked Sean because I thought if I ended up doing both, it's gonna be tough. So I think that's a very good idea. Yeah. So does someone wanna volunteer to do one or the other? I mean, I've been doing the minutes so I'm happy, but either one, either one. I can do the stab at the, document. Okay. Good. That would be great. Now that I'm, I'm all muddled reading all of them today. Yeah. And doing the webinar. Right, that added a few things to the mix. And I did the second half of the webinar. Mark was driving to Boston cause we're here cause he's having knee surgery tomorrow. Oh my. I was doing it on my iPhone and there was some blank spots for the iPhone through Palmer. All right. So you're gonna review the minutes. Okay. Minutes. They looked fine to me. Anybody else comments on it? Look good to me. Make a motion to accept the minutes as written. Second. Second. I'll second the motion. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstain. Okay. So all eyes. Thank you. Now we get to move on to the tobacco regulations. And I want to make another suggestion there too. Okay. I sent, I sent, you know, three different documents and then Maureen and Nancy sent some things and maybe you did also. And I know it's a lot. I sent it out to you to kind of refresh your minds about it all. I think I wanted to suggest that, so some of the harm happening for many months was partly around the fact that will the June 1st regs be the state ones be challenged and they weren't. So they passed. So I would, I think maybe going into this, you might want to come up with a plan of how you want to do this. I have had a couple ideas, but it's up to you all to decide your process. So one could be that you could work on the things that are kind of low hanging fruit. You've had a lot of discussion. You kind of know, yes, we're going to put this in there. And then as you come to the more bumpier things where maybe there's disagreement or you don't know yet, you put that in a parking lot so that some pieces of it can get done. Because what's happened in a lot of meetings, I think is it sort of gets circular because there's so many pieces to it. But I don't know what ideas you all have for how to do this in kind of a linear productive manner. I think there are just two really substantive things. We've mentioned them before, the cap and the exclusion zone. Those are really the only decisions. I think we've made all of it. We're going to allow 25.35% at the convenience stores and so on. So I think that's the only thing other than just making everything consistent, which is a big job. Another substantive thing, I don't see any mention of smoking bars being prohibited, but I think they are. So that has to be added. But other than that, I think it's just a lot of language. We've prohibited smoking bars in the 2015 regulation. Well, they're not in. No, we didn't. It's not mentioned there. I think they're prohibited on the basis of the fact that no smoking is allowed in any indoor space. Oh yeah, that's right. And that was the way it was limited. But I think from that webinar today, they did mention saying it specifically because it might imply that vaping is possible in such a space. Right. So I think that's a decision to make. So let's make those three decisions. And we really, I think we can make it quite quickly. And then the issue is, are we aiming for basically going through the hole and at least getting a sense of which language needs to be changed today? So then it's just a question of somebody putting it together and then having another review of the final thing. But I think if we do the three things, that's really all we have to decide. The rest of it is consistency, I think. In my review, there's a lot of language that's in the Massachusetts Association of Health Boards that seems useful and more clear than some of the language that we have. So I don't think it's substantive, but I think it's helpful. So. I agree with you, Maureen, especially. I looked at them, I did the webinar, then I came here and I looked at them again and my head is going wow, wow, wow. And I kept going back to the draft, the newest draft from Cheryl. And it made it easier for me looking at that. So do you want to start with the three decisions? Or you start over again? Yes. So I'd like to bring up prohibiting smoking bars. Why are people's thoughts? My thoughts is why not? Yeah. Gautchen? The argument against them is that even though it's not a bad idea to congregate people who wish to do that to themselves all in one place, there has to be other staff there that are going to be exposed. Is that correct? Correct. That's a good argument against it. Timothy, what do you think? I think it's the same argument that it has more denser smoking areas. It has some health effects too for themselves, but I think we are not worried about that now, but it's for the employees there. So I agree and I think it has to be restricted. And I also wondered about the work of monitoring and inspecting those institutions. And I found it interesting today, but I think I left those notes in the car. I was taking notes as we were driving that Sheryl said that there were 26 smoking bars in Massachusetts, 12 are in Springfield, six are in Worcester. We know one is in Akawham and the rest are all over. So just leave them where they are. So remember, what you could do with these different topics is kind of do a little thumbs up, thumbs down, because if you're all thumbs up, you're for it, you don't have to have conversation. That's sometimes where the process gets bogged down. I've found that helpful in groups where, and if people aren't sure, you go sideways and then you can have discussion. So thumbs up, no bars, thumbs down, and for the bar or however you wanna do it. And that way, then you have the discussion if you need it, because you've all thought about this for a long time. What if I just make a motion that we do not allow smoking bars in Amherst? All in favor? Somebody's gotta second it first. Oh yeah, someone has to second it. I can second it. Can I ask one question? This is just an informational question. I'm in favor of it, but we were discussing. For those places that have smoking bars, do they have something in there to protect employees? No, no. I mean, it's much like the place like in California where people can smoke weed inside and stuff. They try to make these ventilation systems and things, but they're really not effective. It's just like when they were looking at banning smoking restaurants, they really weren't, and people didn't wanna do that. They really wanted to come up with something that would make that safe. Right, so somehow there's some rationality that you can have a smoking bar with an employee, but you can't have second hand smoke in a bar. I mean, it's irrational. Well, maybe it's because by definition, you know exactly what this business is and you're only gonna work there if you're a smoker. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I realized, but we don't regulate all hazards according to someone deciding to take on the hazard or not, right? So in this case, yeah, anyway, I'm for it. Let's ban the things. More discussion. Wanna vote? So we've moved and seconded that Amherst does not have any smoking bars. All in favor. Aye. All opposed? Any abstentia? Okay, so five votes, no smoking bars in Amherst. Okay, take care of that one. Exclusion zone, next. Exclusion zone, okay. Remember the idea there- Educate me. Yeah, so the idea is I believe that someone with an existing tobacco license could divide their store, let's say a convenience store and they wanna have it both ways and so they just put a barrier down the middle of the store and make a adult only on one side and a non-age restricted on the other. And that's free enterprise, I suppose, but it seems like it's maybe not a good idea to allow that to happen routinely and easily. And so if you put even 25 feet or 50 feet between the necessary distance between them, you prohibit that. And is that done in other regulations? Have you seen that? It's done in this case for the MEHB, they recommend it. They say anywhere between 25 and 500 feet. Between an adult and or any two established- No, no, between an existing adult and any other tobacco. No, that's good. Yeah, is it an existing adult? I think it's between any two actually. Any two. Either adult or not adult What's, by the way, what is the, formerly everybody agrees on term for convenience store to sell cigarettes? That's a non-age restricted. Non-age restricted, sounds good. Okay, non-age restricted. Retail establishment. Retail establishment, yeah. The language is no, as of the date of the regulation, no new adult only retail tobacco store shall be located within X number of feet of a retailer with a tobacco product sales permit. So it's no new adult within 50 feet of any other existing one. Yeah. So if you made the amount of feet small, you're not really impacting the fact that maybe somebody next door wants to have a regular tobacco license. You're really just addressing somebody trying to divide up their store, which is what DJ had recommended. Yes. Then there's that whole issue of new permits, which makes some of this discussion like crazy to me because if we're not gonna allow new licenses, like increase the number, the only way you can like change the number, like take, have to get an existing license from an existing. Yeah, this is why it's confusing to me too. I think that the reason they're recommending it is that they're concerned that there's a loophole that someone would be able to take that one license and say, well, I got this room next door and that's gonna be, I'm gonna be adult only here and that's gonna be regular. I don't know. I frankly, I didn't get to understand enough from DJ about that, but since they're recommending it and they're putting it in there, I think if we keep it not too big, because I know you had talked about having concerns about, if it was 500 feet, would it hurt a business next door or something? Well, if you added 500 feet or even 300 feet, you basically eliminate the possibility altogether because of the limited commercial zones in Amherst. Right, right. That's an underhanded way of doing this. If you did that, it would be an underhanded way of making it impossible in my opinion. So better to use a lower, like 25 or 50 feet. Yeah, so let's stick with the, not the cap, but the exclusion zone. Yeah, we're talking about the exclusion zone would say, a tobacco product sales permit shall not be issued to any new applicant for a retail location within X or 500 feet of a retailer with a valid tobacco product sales permit. As measured in a straight line. Not 500. 25 or 50, which one do you want to do? 50. Yeah. 50. So should we have a motion? Yes. I'll move it. Okay. Second? I can second it. Okay, all in favor of having an exclusionary zone, so it will read, a tobacco product sales permit shall not be issued to any new applicant for a retail location within 50 feet of a retailer with a valid tobacco product sales permit as measured by a straight line. Okay. It's E in the state draft and Cheryl's draft. Do we have that? Do we have that? When you say Cheryl's draft, I mean, I assume what we were sent as drafts were written by us or you guys. There's also MAHB ones. The MAHB. Not also the MAHB one, that's the sample. So there's three different ones. There's ours unmarked up. There's ours marked up with a million colors and then MAHB, but... Which email did the MAHB, just for my information? I think the first one, the one with the minutes. The last attachment of the first. Oh, okay. That's why I hadn't noticed it. Okay, got it. Thank you. And it's number E in that. Yeah. Okay. One question that came up and it's sort of related to the prior thing we talked about, but does, can a non-age restricted retailer switch to adult only license? Can you change that? Would that discussion come up under the cap or does that? Yeah, that's a different discussion, I think. We can get to that. No. Okay, that's a different one for me, but... Well, I just didn't know. We just talked about a new adult retail. And I didn't know if that, if changing from... When people were asking about that and you're saying it wasn't necessary, I was wondering if a retail can switch to adult, which would make it a new and thus the thing we just passed would apply to it. That's all. I think it has to do with the capping. Okay. Well, yeah, the capping would influence whatever I'm asking about. Yes, it's interrelated. Yeah, right. It's very tricky to think about this for me. So, so did you guys vote within 50 feet of another license or more discussion? Or... I wanted to add that question. So is there more discussion? I thought we voted on the sales. I think we did. We did. I thought we did. So then we have the 50 feet are in. Okay. Did we not vote? I thought we did. We did not vote on it. Oh, we didn't vote? We did not vote. You asked a question. Oh, okay. All right. Wait a motion. Fast and second. There was a motion and a second. Any further discussion? No. Okay. So we are now voting on having the 50 feet exclusionary zone. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? In any abstention? No. So we have five ayes. Okay. Now, the cap, which that baffles my brain. If we wanted to let people do what they want to do, we would obviously not have a cap because supply and demand would work out if we need more adult only or not. However, I think the subtext is we want to have any type of way we can to prevent people from doing what they want to do. And so in that case, you'd make a cap that restricts people's ability to let supply and demand work it all out. And I totally agree with that when it comes to youth access or secondhand, whatever. But I am very skeptical about doing it when you have adults who are not institutionalized and under a diminished capacity. It seems to me, let it work out. That would be my idea. And plus, the cap is, this new cap, this extra cap is only for the adult only stores, which to me seem much preferable because they cannot get to the youth. They used to have no access. So I don't see why it would be bad if you had a few more of the adult only ones. There are different ways of doing the cap. One might be an overall cap on the number of licenses. We have that. We have that. In the town. The other way would say a certain number of non-age restricted licenses and a certain number of adult only licenses, right? And so there are different ways of having a cap. There are, but in the sample regs, the ones that we were sent from the MAHB from February, the only one that is listed there is to restrict the number of the adult only stores. No, that actually has both options in the text. And it says it's a very confusing cap limit on the total number of tobacco establishments in our regulation. So I guess the way I'd interpreted it was, do you want to look at that number and have a cap on the number that are adult only? So right now, Julie, we have 18 in town, correct? Two of which are adult only. So we have 16 of convenience stores, liquor stores, and two adult only. Now, what do we do with those numbers? You could do nothing. And as Steve said, the market figured it out a little bit. Is there a value in having fewer adult only, adult only retail outlets? And maybe there is, and young people can't even walk in the door. That's a value to having more. Right, that's what I'm saying. That's what I'm saying. If it swings in that direction, that might be a good thing. It does allow the sale of the higher dose vaping, which would increase perhaps the supply in town, via adults moving it on to younger people. So it's hard to know what the benefits and the harms are. So one of the concerns... I think that might be with you and just seeing what the market does with this. Yeah, so one of the concerns for the market is, the market tends to locate some of those establishments in areas where there is high minorities, and also very closer to youth establishments. And so that is one of the concerns in literature, saying that having the markets dictate, have a spatial configuration towards undesirable areas. So that is the only concern I have. How would this address that? I mean, I don't see how that would even affect it. I think a cap would do anything. Well, let's assume the... So we have two, right now two numbers. Let's let the markets dictate, and then all the establishments will go into 18 or something. And all the 18 are some sort of a clustered somewhere, which is, we don't want that to happen. And which is primarily in low income minority, that type of establishments. No, but all the licenses are used, the 18, they're out there, they're all in the community already. Yeah, that's the thing that I... Well, I think the two of these point. So you could look at, where are the other tobacco licenses located? Are some of them near low income neighborhoods? And would someone want to flip over to an adult use establishment in any of those neighborhoods? But that might benefit, that might decrease the amount of the youth as opposed to... Well, it's interesting, actually, when I think about it. So for instance, if you look at Cumberland Farms, which is located, well, okay, the Cumberland Farms that's near Colonial Village, some of the other apartment complexes there, what if for some reason they said they wanted to flip over to an adult use? It's interesting, because actually in some ways that would probably increase access for youth because it would be over 21. That's not increasing our cap, that's keeping our cap at 18 and allowing someone to flip. Yeah, let me explain. So let me explain, because that's what we're talking about. So long ago, we capped the number of tobacco establishments in Amherst. I can't imagine that you're gonna undo that and say, oh, let's have 20 instead. So what we're talking about is like R&P Lickers and Big Guy Lickers and Cumbies and Hess, which isn't Hess anymore, they all have a regular tobacco license. But what we're talking about is, suppose any one of those places said, I've got this tobacco license, but now you've said you will allow six adult licenses in town out of the 18 or whatever. So I want to change my, this is the only way I can see this happening. I wanna change my license to be an adult only and I'm not gonna sell any of the other stuff. I'm gonna be an adult only store. So I believe this is what we're talking about. We're not talking about adding more. Thank you. Okay. I mean, that's my read on it. How do we get to more than a cap of 18? On the total, we have a cap of 18 right now. Someone could convert their existing license to an adult only. How do we get the wording for that? Why not? I don't think you do. Or could we say that we have an existing cap of 18 and we will not allow more than five adults retail? Yes, we can do that, but why would we? Why would we? I don't understand. But yeah, you have to do that. So the question is, do you wanna keep you, if you've got two now, then what you could do is you could cap it at two. You say, I don't want anything to change. Or you could say no cap. And if over time any of these various entities want to open, switch over, get rid of all their other product and become an adult only store, they would be able to do that. Or you could say, we don't want too many of them, so we're gonna choose maybe four can do that. If you do nothing, then as some people have said, that just allows the market to dictate. And I think one of the things to notice here is that the market has just hugely changed because an incredible amount of money was being made off of fate. So even the two stores that we have now, they will struggle to keep going. I mean, I don't think the market is going to be there. I don't think for a lot of adult only. And the other thing, and that's the other thing, is if you don't feel like there's a way to make this decision, you just leave it as is, no cap. And then two or three years from now, when people see, oh, well, it turns out, then that can be done then. So we just keep it at the cap at 18 total, whether it's adult or convenience store and see what happens. Just leave it as is. I would be in favor of that person. Question on the, just I don't remember, do we have the situation where if someone gives up their license, we decrease the total number? Or do we have the, I just don't remember, which. That's what we've been there, they have 60 days. So for example, Triangle Street by the high school applied for his new tobacco permit in like November or something, because they expire in December. And then when all the vaping stuff was going on, he closed, because he's like, that's what I sell. And so various people kept contacting me, including the owner of the building and him and then potential buyers. And I kept explaining, you know, as long as once the business is sold, that person applies within 60 days, they're gonna get the permit. I mean, there's really the only reason you don't get that permit if someone sells their businesses, if they had any unpaid fines or anything like that. So someone did indeed buy the business. The buyer gets to get the permit. The buyer of the business. Yes, not the landlord. Cause it was really confusing. The landlord was like, well, can I have that permit? And so I had to go back over this a million times. And it was like, no, it's actually the business that owns it. Okay. Yeah. So the buyer of the business. Right. So we still have that. Is there a buyer of that business yet? Yes, he bought it. He applied for the license within the 60 days. He got his DOI. The only thing you really have to do is get your department of revenue license, fill out the application and make sure that you're gonna go by all the details. And he did not speak English well at all. So I worked with the tobacco person who does all the permitting over in town hall. Cause he was saying, Julie, I'm not sure he understands. I said, okay, tell him we're gonna give him the permit, but that what you wanna do is have someone who speaks his language, get on the phone and learn, and also speaks English and learn what the responsibility is here. Cause I didn't want him to be taking on this responsibility and not really understanding, though that's what they were doing. So that's all been completed, I believe. But I also, I wanna get back to Timothy's point, which is that the research very much reflects what he is saying. I think it often applies more in urban areas. Because here, for example, if I think about, like for instance, the Hess that's not called Hess, maybe it's a Cumbies now that's on. Maybe. What? Come on, see, something like that. Give us a location, Julie. It says South Amherst. One more time. One corner of right-hand-vision Cantina. Speedway. Speedway, thank you, Speedway. So Speedway, for example, there are a lot of low-income folks who live in Pomeray Court and in other parts around there who go there and use that as a grocery store when they have to. But if it changed to an adult-only tobacco store, I'm not sure it would get the same type of traffic. I mean, if it's not, yeah. What convenience store is gonna change from an adult-only, I mean, their business? Well, I actually, I mean, why would they do that? Well, it's a very good point. So the mom and pops, right? So the one that is Amherst Market, which is down near mom's house on College Street. You know that one? Mm-hmm. So he, I've had a lot of conversations with him. He makes most of his money off of his, the babe he was selling and everything. The cucumber stuff underneath. Huh? He's the one who had the cucumber stuff underneath when my students went in. There you go. Yeah. And he, back in the day, people used to say they made a lot of money on their tobacco. Well, now they say we don't make much money on tobacco on cigarettes, but we make bank on vape. So, you know, that ship is essentially sailed. So the mom and pops like that. And same thing on Triangle Street. Like, even though he sells snacks to the kids and stuff, he was really making his money on vape. So. What about the pizza place near the university? The, yes. So they'd be willing to give up their food establishment to just be an adult retailer? Well, for instance, Sunset Bar, not bar, Sunset Pizza Grill by UMass, she was totally into it. She felt like that's where she could make her money. So, now I don't know really. So she would switch to an adult only. She kind of wanted to figure out how she could do both. She wanted to rent another room in the building. Yeah, well, she's got her 50 feet. So I really think that many places would try to convert. I don't think so. I think that the two that are here, I've been to them recently, you know, I, they both sell a lot of glass and bongs and paraphernalia for smoking weed, which I think is probably cheaper at their stores than if you go to the fancy pot store. So maybe that's how they'll continue to make money, but I don't even necessarily feel like two are going to be very easily supported in town. So anyway, it. Well, and one thing in the town is they're very limited retail areas, as Steve was pointing out. So things can't just go into East Hadley Road, for example, or other places where there are lots of apartments and right. So when I think about where the apartment complexes are, or in North Amherst, Olympia, Oaks, you know, yeah, the ones that come to mind are sort of Cumbies and Speedway. And that, it's kind of it. It used to be the one at Triangle that could get Village Park and Olympia Oaks, but. Right. Well, there's something up in North Amherst, right? There's this. There's a, well, there has been in North Amherst. I have no idea what. Yes. No, you're right. So there's all. Because we find them when I remember finding. You're right. Yes. Armpit liquors. What's Probus? Huh? What's Probus? What's Probus does not have a tobacco permit anymore? Well, it's in that group of stores there. Yeah. That's Armpit liquors. The guy, yeah. In the post office. Right. The post office. Is an R&P down in South Amherst? No, it's not R&P. It's a guy liquors. What's big guy? Is that the one that's in that, in that strip? Okay. Yes. That rings a bell. Yeah. It seems like they're primary, have stronger primary businesses mostly, except a few smaller mom and pop places. Yeah, exactly. Liquor businesses, bigger chains like the Cumbies and Speedway, and then a few smaller ones. Cousins market. Cousins. Mm-hmm. There's 18 places in Amherst that sell tobacco. Yeah. Yeah. I have wolves, but I think I'm left out. Counting supermarkets. Yeah, how many liquor license do we have? Supermarkets can't sell if they have a pharmacy in them. Right. The supermarkets. Big Y does have one. They sell near their service desk. They do. Oh, right. Really? A shop that has a pharmacy. Yeah. That's in Amherst. I don't know how many liquor premises. That's in Amherst. The big Y, that's the piece that's in Amherst. Right, but a stop and shop is in head. A stop and shop is in head. Right. Sorry. Thank you very much. OK, I would personally be in favor of just keeping the total cap, but not discussing the distribution personally. I sort of agree with John. Does someone want to make any more discussion? Does someone want to make a motion? How about if we move to make the cap, a cap, and then we'll have a negative vote? That'd be amazing. We never have a negative vote. This would be so good. I'm going to move that we institute a separate cap for adult-only stores in Amherst. Need a second? Come on, second. You're really doing this just to have a negative vote. It's the same. It's the same. All right, I'll second it. OK, any more discussion? All in favor of having a separate cap for adult-only tobacco retail, say aye. I can die. Oh, good. Yes, Tim. Yes. And nays, nays. Three nays. Two ayes. Two ayes. Four ayes. Oh, no, one eye and four nays. That was the vote. I thought, Maureen, did you say aye or nay? Oh, sorry. Oh, OK. Two nays and three ayes. Got it. No. No. Listen, the vote was to have a cap. The vote was to have a cap. The motion is to have a cap. Tim voted no. One person. Yes, to have a cap. Yes, excuse me. He voted yes to have a cap. Anybody else vote yes to have a cap? No. No, I did not vote yes. So one aye, four nays. Thank you. I would suggest that the wording of these caps and how licenses are transferred, and it seems very confusing about being a new applicant. I almost should just say it only applies when someone is transferring a business, because there really is no other way unless I'm missing something. So I think looking at that language will be important. And Massachusetts Associates of Health Board confused me completely on that section. Well, this is very exciting. You've made three decisions. Yes. What document are we working on from a wordsmithing perspective? Are we not there yet? Well, I think now you want to start your wordsmithing, right? Which one? I really think it's Marines, because I know it is. It does have the highlighting and everything, but it has so many good changes from the March version that we're going to have to go through one by one. Well, say March. But mine says Maureen 5820. On the filename. On the filename. On the filename. Wait a minute. You didn't change the highlights. What? My highlights were green. Mine are yellow. They show up yellow on my computer. Yeah, they show up yellow ones. They're green ones, and they're blue ones. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't look deeper. They're multiple colors. Oh, boy. But this is the most recent thing we have. Is this correct? Steve had taken a pass through. I took a pass through adopting some of the things that Nancy had made suggestions about and some of the naming. And then also looked at MAHB and added a few things. And even left sections side by side so we could look at them side by side, because I was getting very confused. I know it makes a confusing document. It took me like a six and a half an hour to figure out where you are and what you're talking about. But we can do it. So what do you think, Julie, because the unannotated one is definitely easier to read, for sure. But that doesn't include Maureen's recent head. No, no, unfortunately not. Yeah. Well, why don't we go with the one that's got colors? If it's the most recent. Well, it's not the most recent. Yeah, it's the one that has the most combined suggestions in it. So maybe you do want to go with that. I mean, why not? We have to start somewhere. Yeah. And what's not in there is the supporting evidence that Nancy read did. Oh, I had a couple of typos on that. That's in a separate document. Yeah, I had some typos on that. So, so confused here. I can't figure out which is which. And I have my iPad, my computer, and some printed out things. And I don't have a color printer. So OK, so there's a lot. OK, in the second email, Julie sent out, there's tobacco regs draft 3.0 and tobacco sales regs draft 5.0. Which one is it? I think it's the sun. So you don't mean, Maureen, you sent yours separately. Well, I did. I think Julie sent it out in that as well. I think I just sent out separately the supporting documents. Let me just double check. So I mean, if I were to take the three documents that came in these combined emails. One is tobacco sales regs draft 0.3, 0.6, 2020 plain text. Then there's tobacco sales regs draft 0.3, 0.6, 2020 annotated. I'm reading the file names now. And then there's tobacco sales regs draft 0.5, 0.8, 2020 Maureen. That's the one. I'm not seeing the, I can't find, I just, OK. Does someone want to forward it to Nancy? Yeah, forward it to me so that I. All right, it's the middle one of Julie's second email. OK, that's what I thought. OK. Thank you. And separately, we could talk about the supporting evidence if you want. Yeah, I wouldn't leave that for last, maybe, you know, because that's just. That's just Samantha and while I was. And I did want to say that Amherst has like the most robust and long regulations for everything, always. So all of us supporting evidence and whereas it's wonderful. It demonstrates all the research, but it's probably not where you want to spend all your energy. And so ours is that shorter one. It's shorter than MAHBs, actually. It's much shorter and it has the most recent that we could find. OK, good. Much shorter. Parting evidence. You're talking about the supporting evidence. Yeah, it's a different format. It's a little shorter than MAHB. Who's going to keep the. Or who's going to edit something, whatever we're going to edit. All right, so I'm going to try and do that. So do we want to do we want to do we want to do these stupid I mean these definitions or do we want to go to the context first? I think we can start at the beginning. Yes, just start at the beginning and work your way down. So we have the statement of the purpose. Can I make a suggestion? Maybe someone could share the document to everyone. So we are all on the same page. Yeah, I can do that if you want, yeah. Good idea. Yeah, let's share that literally on the same page. Yeah, good. OK, just a sec here. Let me just get into good suggestion. And I'm going to get rid of this one. How's that? Can you see? Looks good. Yeah, and that's yeah, that's marine annotated. So this is the one. Just trying to make it a little smaller so I can still look at the other things that I have on the screen. Don't know. I'm not doing that. Yeah, I get who's doing the edits. Nancy. I'll throw this is a typo. Number one, under the purpose. Yes. Reduce the number of youth who use tobacco and delete the S and not uses but use. Well, I can't do anything with this. Got it. I'm just doing it on paper and pen. That's right, that's good. You have it printed out? I have it printed out. You're going to do it paper and pen. I'm a paper person. Yeah, we, yes. All. I think if I'm not the oldest, I'm close to the oldest. Paper and pen. Yeah, not the competition. I'm also a visual person and all. And then the whole supporting evidence thing is going to be replaced by the other document, right? No, just some additions, I think. Oh, it was a replacement. Because it has, though. It was a replacement. Oh, OK. I had a few little typos on that. I don't know who I should be, if you want to deal with those. Just give them to me. Said that, yeah, say email them to Nancy. All right, I will. Can I do that? Yeah, I guess. Yeah. OK. So we're not going to discuss the supporting evidence, because we're not reading the document. Yeah, that has too many changes. Right, so authority. OK, so John, you'll send me the edits to the supporting documents. They're just typos. Just tiny typos that are separate. So now we're on the authority. I mean, that's just plain. Yeah, I don't think we have to do anything right now. No. OK, definitions. Don't only retell stores. So then it's just a storage space to know the business effect. This is really where we should be looking at the MAHB. Yeah, I was. Yeah, side by side. I can do that extra sentence at the end of that that says, as of the date effective, no new adult shall be located within a certain number of feet of retailer with a tobacco product sales. Yes. But what definition. Yeah, but that is a bad idea. OK, I don't I can't believe these people are lawyers. I mean, this is a definition. Yeah, that regulation. So that has to be put separately under these in the section that applies to the adult only story. Yeah, yeah. Good point. I agree. That's weird. So the MA the one has that one. Well, yeah, it does. Yeah. Seems dumb. Other than that, I think we basically do want to go with the MAHB language, you know, unless there's a good reason not to because. Yeah, sure. They have they have they have a try to do exactly what we want to do. That is conform to the state regs. And so, OK. So we're going to do the MAHB. Well, unless there's a reason not to, like there was a reason for that very. Like establish it should not allow anyone under the age of 21 to work there. And I think that comes up in the regulations. Yes. Yes. So do we want to stress that twice or just leave it under under? It's not a definition of an adult only store. I don't think it's like no, it's a separate thing. Well, it's a blunt, blunt rap. That's are these largely from the mass? I haven't read about it. And if they're if they're not highlighted, they're from our current regulations. Yeah, right. We agree with this other mass thing, too. OK, so we don't only retail tobacco store. But not have the establishment shall not allow anyone under 21 to work. And we don't want the feet in here. We want the feet in the exclusion later on. Yeah, just go with what we have right now. It looks good. What's up there in yellow and turquoise? Yeah. So you have a printout of this thing that has colors in it, right, Nancy? That's what you're editing, right? Yes. So it must be shaded on your printout. Yeah, it's just gray because I don't have a color. Right. But you can see the strike screws, right? Of course. Yeah, yeah. OK, so it's that that's the one where nobody's suggesting to edit to what's there now. Yeah, one of the things very minor in terms of editing is I had put in bolded text whenever there was a definition in the definitions. But it's obtrusive and people didn't want it. So if you see bolding, I think you want to get rid of. Unbolded. Yeah, unless people feel differently. But at the time it was like tobacco products was bolded 100 times throughout the text. It was distracting. Because that was our new language a million iterations ago. OK, blunt wrap. These are all just from before. It's all from before. It's a characterizing flavor. And it's distinguishable. I'm looking at the I'm going to call the mass. And may be I'm going to call that one Cheryl's. So this is where we no longer exclude. So that so that's the same as the one in Cheryl's. Yes, it is. It should be. And then child resistance packaging, because that was said we needed to have that. It is it is now in the it is now. So it ignore my comment there, because it's needed. It is mentioned down below. I didn't see it in that order. But yeah, I'm quite sure it's in down near the end. Call it something else. No, it was it was in the part about liquid nicotine sales. But let's leave that definition there. Yeah, it doesn't hurt to leave it there anyway. OK, cigar. That that the Cheryl's thing has a longer definition of I think it has. Yeah, it's slightly. It adds that is readily usable in a readily usable state immediately when removed from its packaging without modification, preparation or assembly required as in a kit or roll your own package. And it's not otherwise defined as a cigarette. And then she and the tobacco leaf then it won't last for the purpose of this regulation. Yeah, which definition should we go with? No objection to the more to the longer one. I just thought it didn't seem necessary, but there's probably a reason for it. So put the longer one in. OK. Remember, if it's not bolded or highlighted, it's it's our current regulations that is consistent with the MAHP. Oh, so it's OK. So the coupon is identical. Well, that's a cigarette. And I'm just looking at it. So we have a cigarette and then we have electronic nicotine delivery system. Yeah, I think maybe the MAHP didn't need the secret because it is mentioned in the other one. Right. So. So it's OK to admit it as far as I'm concerned. I don't know. Would I love your last man, that e-cigarette. We don't need to define a cigarette because it's part of something else. Oh, it's a part of a nicotine delivery product. Yes. OK. Electronic cigarette. Yeah, electronic cigarettes, electronic cigars, electronic cigarette rolls. The big discussion early on was that some public health people did not like ends because when they when people see it, they look at it as a cigarette substitute, quitting cigarette smoking. And that's why there was, you know, so almost two years ago, there was all this discussion on using ends versus e-cigarette. So just leave the electronic nicotine delivery system. Yeah, and remove the e-cigarette. OK. I just moved education. Yeah, because it was the wrong order. What? The alphabetical. I can't believe you have to define the work meanings of certain words in here. We really have to define employee and employer. Isn't there? And it's totally circular. You know, it's completely circular definitions. That is strange. But you know, universally accepted definitions of employee and employer. Wow. So they defined in all the food regs, too, and all that. That's a good point. I don't know. It seems weird to define employee. Same thing with distinguishable. Isn't that in the dictionary? I think in legal documents, they would like to define how we are conceptualizing it. So how are we using that employee? You know, are we using definition from some other place? Or how are we? I mean, that's what they want to define it. Right. Right. But I guess my point is, it seems like there's. Yeah. What's meant by individual? What's meant by human? What's meant by. Tobacco. It's meant by. I guess. The fabric product didn't change. The flavor product. Healthcare institution. Why is that yellowed? That was an addition to in the current MAHB that wasn't in our regulations from 2015 or whatever. But why? Why it's there? I don't really know. Keep it or get rid of it. Keep it. Yeah. Keep it. Liquid nicotine container. Is this in the state bags? State one. Cheryl's, as you say. It is in there. Makes sense to use it then. And I think that in one of the earlier things that came from the state, it said we had to have that in it. Mm-hmm. Well, this is a non-discount problem. That's right from the, the, Cheryl's, I assume. Sounds fine. Yeah, that. Where are we? Minimum legal age that we're taking out because it's 21 all over. Town and state. Mm-hmm. Okay, nicotine delivery product. That's not in MAHB and it seems to be covered. Tobacco product. Whatever. No, or tobacco product. It's in tobacco products. So I agree with you, Maureen. Get rid of it. Get rid of it. Okay. So there's electronic nicotine delivery system, and then there's nicotine delivery product we had in the past, but it's covered by tobacco product. Right. Yeah. Got it. Product containing or made of drive from tobacco or nicotine that is intended for human consumption. Okay. Get to the adult check that. Yeah, I'm reading the state one here. Yeah. So we don't need the non-adult only because we have. Restricted. Or age restricted. Yep. Okay, to move on then. Okay. Mm-hmm. All right. So these are just, these next few are not changed. And either, they're basically what was in our 2015 and no change in the MAHB. Oops. When it, what, when it, go back to say, I'm just check schools, public or private, go back up there. Yep. Schools, public or private, not disappears. So I had to leave it in. It's just pretty obvious and it's, but there's a mention of preschools somewhere in the document, but I don't know. Yeah. It's not in the definition here at MAHB, but. Yeah. Is it, oh, it's been taken out of MAHB. Like how far away they need to be from. Do you think we need to put preschools in there? There might be some ambiguity about daycare and so on, but. In 2015, we had that same discussion. It put good memory. Well, remember there was things that kept getting bounced around. Do you remember that, Julie? You know, I'm, I'm getting it confused with all the marijuana discussions I had about. Well, the marijuana discussions were very similar to the discussions about the preschool. They were like, okay. Yeah. People like. Well, I think, let's see. So, so, for example, with, what was the idea? So preschool, if you look at that speed mart, Montessori has a preschool down there, but it's far enough away. Yeah. I don't know. I don't feel like you need preschools. Okay. Myself. I mean, we're talking about keeping youth from smoking. You're not going to walk over to the store. When we have that, when we had that discussion back then, it was the advertisement, but now advertisement is being a little more restricted. That's right. The advertiser. We didn't want even preschool children to see the ads in the pictures because that an image in their mind. Yeah. Discussion in 2015. Yeah. So the word schools is used somewhere where this definition matters, obviously, later on. Well, it's the definition actually, the word schools appears in the regulations. Yes. And also with this definition, right there in the regulations. Just this definition. It doesn't go into, you know, the state. I just have to deal with this. So there isn't any use of the word preschool per se. It's early education and care facilities. EEC, it's the Department of Early Education and Care Facilities, Early Education and Care. So I don't know whether you want to mention anything. Excuse me. Smoke constituent, is that the next one? Yeah. Well, that's no change. Yeah, no changes. No one wants to change it in there. It's just what we already have. I mean, he has a longer definition of smoking bar. I sure do. And you might want to include that. Do you want to read it? Or you can go off to read it. I could read it. Smoking bar and establishment that one exclusively occupies an enclosed indoor space and is primarily engaged in the retail sale of tobacco products for consumption by customers on its premises. Two, derives revenue from the sale of food, alcohol or other beverages that is incidental to the sale of tobacco product and prohibits entry to a person under 21 years of age. Three, prohibits food or beverage not sold directly by the establishment from being consumed on the premises. Four, maintains a valid permit for the retail sale of tobacco product as required to be issued by the town of Amherst. And five, maintains a valid permit issued by the Department of Revenue to operate a smoking bar. Smoking bar shall include but not be limited to those establishments that are commonly known as cigar bars and hookah bars. Sounds pretty, pretty clear. I guess if we're going to ban them, we should probably divine them. Yes. I think it would be helpful. I mean, I definitely get two or three calls a year for people asking about wanting to open a hookah bar or a smoking bar. And so it just, it might be good. It's very closer, yeah. Definitely. Somebody decided it needed all those definitions, so. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Might as well include it. Back on enhancers, same as the states now. Well, Carol. Right. Now, this morning, whenever it was today, Nancy, did I hear them say that at the tobacco conference that tomorrow they were going to post some more information on the tobacco website? I wrote down which website. And there might be some more language for flavor enhancer. I think so. I think so, Julie. I left those notes in the car. Well, I remember that. You do? Yeah, so I'll check tomorrow. Oh, awesome. OK, and then you can always, if it looks good, you could add it. And then they said later that it might not be out tomorrow. So keep your. OK. All right. And then tobacco products. Do we have the whole state definition there? I think with that addition of the turquoise part, we do. Yeah, I think it's the same. Sounds good. Oh, excuse me. And then vanishing. And then so we're set on the definitions. Yeah. Now ours goes completely different from. Yes. You're on in. And this is where I was just getting. Yeah, remember, we made the decision early on supposedly for clarity to separate three categories. All stores, just adult only, and just nine marks. We made that March a year ago, 2019. Right. Particularly went through it. Yeah. My thought was that's first statement was so confusing that we could simplify it. It could be simplified because after all, there's plenty of explanation down below about what goes on in those stores and can one can and can't go on. So I think this shorter one is good. The green one highlighted in my text. So. So just. So the seed says, or in capital letters, the town of Amherst permits tobacco sales, use that shorter one sentence. And the preamble. It's fine. Yeah. A preamble and just use that one sentence. Yeah, I agree. Nine age restricted and adult. That's good. Because now those those those names really do describe it whereas before it was really confusing. Yeah, I agree. No, I don't. I don't have that on my document here. So you're looking at Boreans. Yeah, I don't have that on the printed out one here. Let me just copy it. The town of Amherst permit. Then you're not working on the printed out one that we've been talking about. I have up until here, but it's just. Well, was there any other? I don't know. So I can email you that after the meeting if you want to. I mean, the only previous green Nancy was educational institution. Just keep going. I'm just too confused right now. Just keep going. Everything else was the same until this right here on this document that I have. You sure? What is the document is the one that says Marine annotated? The one that's. I don't know. I don't know. I printed this out at home. What's at the top of your page, Nancy? It probably just was Steve's thing. I just keep going. Just keep going. I'm too confused right now. You want me to keep track of this from here? Just keep going. I'm fine. OK, I'm going to snail mail. I'm going to put in the mail to you or in your. Are you going to be? I'm going to put in your mailbox at home, a color coded Maureen copy. OK. So you can use that to compare to the notes you've taken tonight. OK. Well, a simple answer, Nancy, in the next line. The regulation that applies both. Both. Yeah, that's exactly the same thing. What does it say exactly? Non-age restricted retail. As it says, regulations that apply to both non-age. OK, you got it. Yeah. OK. That's weird. That's straight up. I think I did those all at the same time. They follow for God's sake. Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. It's just because I'm going between different documents. Oh, God. OK, just put it in my mailbox, Julie. I've just hit such confusion here. OK. Nancy, do you want me to keep track of what we're changing? I'm not. OK, I'm up here. It's a triangle. OK. No, I have something completely different now. I don't know. Maybe you mixed up some of your pages. I kind of have. Do you want to take a break and Maureen do a section now? Yeah. OK, it's hard. It's hard. It's really hard. Yeah, and as I said, I'm in this hotel room. Yeah, you're not at all so optimally set up. So that section is the same. Famer G1. I don't know. That part would be, but it's the green highlighting that seems to be different, but so I don't know. Maureen will take over. I'll give you a color copy. We've got the recording. We have a whole month to get this tightened up. Great work so far, everybody. OK. And the next one is just the name again. So I have the minimum age is straightforward now. The turquoise and yellow. Yeah. And then B is to be deleted altogether. Right. Got that. OK, now sale of tobacco, products is prohibited. Flavor. You wish. Flavor. Flavor. OK, I have that. And then it says no person shall sell or distribute because to be sold blah, blah, blah. OK. Yeah, an applicant got that. OK, got that. Yeah, it's all the same. I don't know. There are too many changes in this section. Right. So C, you've got a bit of a change there, right? African DBS to provide evidence that a legitimate business transfer or business person just has taken place. Yeah, got that. Accept that change. And then a tobacco product. We have age of 21 with crossed out minimum sales. Got that. Wait a minute now. Times. Oh, here we go, yeah. Yeah, so that's a simple change. Now the signage stuff. There was all that new signage stuff in that presentation today. Well, yeah. And that is, I think, in A. But then we also have our B and C, which come from older versions, I think. It's really confusing. And part of the signage of the cigar signage, I think that's a local regulation, not a state regulation, but I'm not sure. No. We've never done any that were like our own. It always came from the state. Well, that's why I couldn't tell. As far back as that. You know, is through the current signage regulations requirements, don't mention cigars at all. And does that mean we don't need those or are those in some other law that we should be paying attention to still? Oh. And in MAHB, it seems like the cigars are more of a locally controlled thing, the pricing and all of that of those cigars. Because it doesn't fall under the fines, like the $1,000, $3,000, $5,000 structure. It just seems like it's not in the same ballpark. Yeah. So that section is much different in carols than ours. Well, the A is, I think, from carols. A is the same. Well, you know, it's interesting. So the cigar stuff, it definitely came from the state. You know, that's where we got the language from. That's why it's in there. Today at the conference, there was something about how I felt like there was this moment where somehow it felt like they were referring to, oh, I know what it is. So the state law, for instance, doesn't really say anything about cigars, the new state vaping law. And I feel like the MAHB sample just doesn't really deal with the cigar stuff. They talk about it a little somewhere. I can't remember. Well, if they do, yeah. It's under the local regulations. So there's a section under, like when it talks about the penalties and things. And it's a separate thing. And you can't sell cheap cigars, singly, or too late a time or something. Yeah. You know, we could leave the signage part for now. And we could double check with Cheryl Sabara. OK. So I have those notes. And the slides, remember? They pointed out, but as I said, my notes are in the car. She had this sign, this sign, this sign, this sign. And that you can all get it from the Clearing House. Yeah, I kind of glazed over that. There's no cigar sign in the Clearing House at the present time. Oh, really? Did you go to the Clearing House? I thought I did. Oh, good for you. That's a really good question. I could double check that. It was a while ago that I was looking for the sign. Yeah. I can email Cheryl. There were five or six points. And it was like sensation. It was da, da, da, da, da, da. I took notes. I took notes, but as I said, my notes are. Yeah, no, I got bored of the signage. I was like, oh my god. Well, partly because since we're part of a tobacco control coalition, it's the inspectors. They get all that signage. They deliver it. They make sure everybody's got it all up. So I don't pay that much attention to it. I felt like that part was kind of pointing. There were a lot of tobacco inspectors on that call. And I was kind of pointed towards them. But I will email Cheryl tomorrow and ask her specifically about that. OK. OK. And I'll get the notes out of my car in the morning. At 5 a.m. when I bring my husband to the hospital. 5 o'clock in the morning. Honey, I think I have to focus on yourself tomorrow. Which hospital? He's having it done at the Faulkner, which is part of the Brigham. But it's a robotic, heavy knee replacement. And he gets discharged in the afternoon. He has to be there at 5 30. Oh my god. Yeah, that's why we're here today. A J job for the knee. Wow. Yeah, mine was close to that knee. So and they just do part of it. So I drop them. And then I'll work on this and then I'll pick them up. OK. Wow. OK. OK, now. So one is we go to buyer identification. Right? Yep. Are we there already? What's four? I think I missed that. Four is signage. Oh, sorry. Current number. OK, five is buyer identification. OK, signage. All right, I'm with you. That makes sense to me. Yeah, we're going to see a number of cases where smoking bars is struck out. And I would just point out that nowhere in this draft is there a statement that smoking bars are not allowed. Yeah, we have to find a where to put that. Yeah. So we still shouldn't strike it. There's no reason to put it there. It should definitely be struck out. But we also have to say that we're not going to have them. Maybe in that those general statements that follow these separate begs? I think it probably should be under the part that says, you know, the regulations that apply to all types of stores. Well, or the townwide or something. There's something. It may be down to the bottom. Yeah, let's see. And is that or have it after the preamble and before? Both non-adults and. Yeah, it could go in there. Yeah. So that it would be a statement B after the preamble under the regulations. Smoking bars are not permitted in the town of Amherst. And then. It would go under B, right? Regulations. Well, I don't know. It's not in the preamble, maybe. The thing is a preamble, you know, is supposed to be like an interjection of text that is not a rule or anything. Well, that's why I'd say make it B under before we get to the others just make a statement that. Oh, OK, OK. It would be A and B and then B becomes C. OK, fair enough, yeah. Well, isn't a smoking bar by definition adult only? I'm just wondering if it fits. It would be if it were a lot. It would be if it, yeah. Right, right. Right. All right. Does that have some place where it says smoking bars are not permitted in Amherst? That's what's missing right now. That's I think right at the top, there is a good place. Right. So then we go into the other two that are permitted. OK, good. And tobacco handlers. Now, this this should all be deleted, the part that's from before, because you, Maureen, you put in some stuff here that were applicable, right? Yeah, I put in Nancy's revision of tobacco. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, good. So just. We do have this later on in the section D, regulation specific and outsize to adult only, but we're going to change that to non-age restricted. Is that correct? I mean age restricted. Adult only became age restricted, right? No, adult only be still as adult only. Adult only. OK, it's non-age restricted and adult only. Yeah. OK, which by definition is age restricted. Adult only is age restricted. I wouldn't call it that, but. So, I mean, you could put the smoking bar thing under that section. Oh, wait a minute, wait a minute, where are we? Can you just back up a team? But I'm moving all these things around, but now I'm confused again. That doesn't really apply there. Now, this all seems good about the tobacco handlers, except the one thing is to put a note in here under regulations that is unusual in the document. Just, it's all true, but we could put a lot of notes in about why we do things. I changed that in something else I sent out, but now I can't find what we find. Yeah, I don't know that I kept up with that. I changed it when we get out. Yeah, the note might not make sense. It makes sense, but I mean, we could get everywhere in the last thing I sent out. Yeah, I have that. What you did is you put three. Yeah. The tobacco sales permit holder must keep on file a copy of each employee's signed tobacco handlers quiz. And then you did an A, the purpose of the tobacco handlers quiz is to, one, promote knowledge of town and state tobacco regulations, two, prevent illegal tobacco product sales, and three, increase compliance with the regulations, restricting youth access and exposure to tobacco and nicotine delivery products that's distributed, increasing potential violations and penalties. And I sent this out to you guys, or Nancy did. I can't remember which way, in an email that was called Nancy's Suggestions. Yeah, I think I missed that chain. That's not a change. That's just the same thing. It's the same thing, but it's under tobacco handlers. The note becomes three, and it says tobacco sales permit holder must keep on file a quiz. And then it says A, the purpose of the tobacco handlers quiz is to, and the note is one, two, three. The word note is not you. The note is taken away. I guess most of the thing of the purpose is in the first paragraph, or the first page. Do we want to add this here? Well, it's so that they know what the quiz. Yeah. You can size the quiz. Why are we taking the quiz? You can say that about every statement in this document. You know, why are we doing it? What's the rationale? So I'm just saying it's perfectly valid, but it is unusual. Yeah, that's true. You don't necessarily have the purpose. It could just be, must keep on file a copy. What I could do is put it in the quiz so that when they read it. Yeah. I'll put it. Good, good. That's an idea. And I'll have to redo the quiz because we have new stuff. Yeah, there was a couple of things about the quiz that I questioned, like one of the penalty questions. Yeah, because I did that. I did the quiz way back in February. OK, that's where I'll put it. That when people take the quiz. And I tried to model the quiz out of the David Alphalors Woodstove quiz. So it's really an educational piece. Yeah, you did a nice job with that. Yeah, so I guess remember last year that guy who came in and said, well, I have a new person and he's not familiar. So new people should be familiar before they start selling with the regulations. Remember the Long and Dance last year? Yes, was that with R&P Lickers? Did I just lose everybody here on? Right. Can you hear us? I can hear you, but I don't think I'm seeing the right thing anymore. Oh. Everybody's over the right on my computer. Same scene. I can see the document. Not his screen. You can't see the document anymore, Maureen? No. Oh. Did you change to? I didn't think I did anything. I did move my trackpad around a little bit, which might have. Oh, that did it. Probably. You shouldn't have lost it. I do have this copy, so I can kind of keep up with this. If you go on the right top corner, there is a toggle between swap, ShadScreen with video. Maybe you can bring it back to ShadScreen. Oh, I think maybe I got it here. Now I have to just figure out. There's you. No, that's not it. Should be on the top right corner. There are two icons. One on the left is the toggle. This is beyond my zooming capacity here. I think I'm getting there. I just need to enlarge this window. Just shrink to nothing. But I'm seeing it. I'm seeing it. I just, like I said, I need to stretch it out a little here. Why do we keep going? I'll be fine. OK. So free distribution. That is all the same, right? Yeah. No person shall. Yeah, that is the same. Out of package sales is the same. Incorporates attorney general. That came from Cheryl, right? But it's not new, particularly. And this next part is just the rename the convenience stores and then says that they can sell electronic nicotine delivery systems with low nicotine content. Regulations specific to non-age restricted retail establishment, right? Yep. So we've got a change we need to make. So no non-age restricted retail service may sell a distributor Cosby sold or distributed one e-cigarettes as defined here in. Didn't we just delete the definition of e-cigarettes? The ends one. What? Or should we just put the? Well, that list is being replaced by no non-age restricted retail establishment shall sell an electronic nicotine delivery system with nicotine content greater than 35 milligrams per milliliter. Yes, it says replace it. So that. Oh, I got a question post here so we would see them. OK, OK, OK, I always hate to get rid of stuff because I forget what I why I was doing. Yeah, OK, well, you can just do strikeouts. But I've just figured that out later in the process. OK, so that was the only thing under nine minute adult. Is there anything else that goes there? I didn't think of anything. Restricted entry. OK, so the most of the regulations do apply to both kinds of stores. But this is the short part that distinguishes where there really is a difference between the two stores. Yeah, we don't own restricted entry required sign. This is right from Cheryl. There's not a new part. Yeah. And then liquid nitrogen nicotine sales. This is where in the next sections where child resistant packaging is meant. In the liquid nicotine sales, now these fines are different. These came from an earlier, I think last November's, you know, the act, whatever the one of the last acts were from the state on tobacco or nicotine. I have all that stuff at home, but it said you needed to include this. Do you remember that? Maybe it was last spring that something came out. So early 2019, something had come out, and I pulled it right out of whatever the state said back then they had to have. But I have all those documents at home. Is that been updated in the MAHB? Let me see if I can find liquid. Are you talking about liquid nicotine sales? Yeah. It just said, actually, the MAHB says, now, permit holders who sell liquid nicotine containers must comply with provision 310, I guess, blah, blah, blah. I don't think it has a separate fine structure. I think it might have changed, Nancy, just because. With the new then. OK. But that was in one of the older pieces. Gotcha. I guess there it just, in the MAHB, it comes under out-of-package sales, and it includes a statement about liquid nicotine sales. Oh, I see. You might need to look at that a little more closely. Yeah, well, we should look under 301. I mean, 310, 30. And just move it and use the one that comes from the new Cheryl. Yes. Yeah, just go with her. There are L out-of-package sales. Yeah. Somehow I missed that. When I tried to compare these two, but I kind of missed that difference. Now, there are all out-of-package sales. I'm lost here. Mine can be, oh, OK. They don't list any longer a separate heading for liquid nicotine sales. But include some of this information in under out-of-package sales. Right. So should we just use their out-of-package sales? Let me. I might, you know, because even the enforcement, I don't know if that's changed, either, that Amherst. Yeah, so we'll just use theirs, L. Yeah. OK. I'm going to do a check-in. It's 7 o'clock. What do you all feel about being able to get through the whole thing? Or I'm reaching my limit right now. And there's some. Yeah, it's quite a bit. The violations are complicated. Violations are also tricky, I think. Well, what we should do is look at the violations under the new thing, because that's all new. This 1,000, this, do we want to keep it? They talked about you could keep this 100, 500, and whatever, for anything except selling to youth, is that what came out in the webinar today? It actually, I think, distinguished between the things mandated by the state and versus the things that are separately done for the town. Right. And so that's where that divide is, like for. And I really can't do that tonight. No, I think this is pretty good. Yeah. This is fantastic, because what you could do is, you could get it all clean and fresh and confirmed for the first X amount of pages. You made those three difficult decisions, so that's fantastic. And what would happen is, by the time the next meeting rolled around, questions could be asked of show. And then also, they are going to be posting something, and often you write. They say it's tomorrow, but it's a little longer than that. And then apply fresh mind to the rest of it. Maureen, I'll work on all of this, and I'll put mine in just blue print and send it to you. Not highlighted or anything. Blue, instead of using black, I'll use blue, so you know which one is mine. OK. No highlight, just. And I'll try to go through it and prove I'm not the best. I'm not a great proofreader. I see what I want to see. I know, especially because we've been dealing with this for so long. Well, yeah, longer than I have. But yeah, if you put that out to all of us, we can take a look at it. OK. And then that way, so maybe some goals for the next meeting is there would be one marked up document, and it could have just one color, maybe. Yeah, one color, because a lot of the things you've accepted, so it doesn't really matter who's whose. It could all just be whatever. I'm going to do it in blue font, not highlighted or anything. Does that make sense, instead of black font? Or it just has the date. Or the date. OK, I'll just do the date. OK. We should be OK. Now, once you print it, then you don't know. This is true. Let's put it on the top somewhere. OK. Put it in the title. Maybe circulate it. You know, I'll work on it before the meeting, and people could just get back to either Nancy or Maureen with typos, maybe. Yeah, and John, you're going to send the typo correction to me for the reporting evidence. And if anything is sent to everyone, if you don't know how to use the BCC, that prevents inadvertent round robins. People could only reply to the sender that way. That's a great idea, because things don't have to go through me. The whole concept is just that you can't be having discussion. That's all. That's a good idea. Yeah, I'd like to end. So if you're done with this topic, I could tell you that Nancy Gilbert and John Tobiason have agreed to stay on the board. We could be appointed for a period of time. The town manager really wanted there to be some kind of continuity, because I'll be leaving September 1st. And so a new director will come on, and there could be continuity. And yeah, and so I appreciate both of you. And John, you know, I have tried to find someone to take his place. But boy, oh boy, it's pretty hard to find someone, John. Yeah, that's great. Although civil engineers are very serious or whatever, I cannot find them. We'll work on it. We'll keep working on it. Yeah, so I really appreciate both of you for that. That'll be great. And other than that, coronavirus, you can see that we're reopening and that the town, you know, we're doing a lot of work on how to open the things that the governor is saying can be opened, but do them safely. So for example, a lot of work is going into Puffer's pond and the pool. It was decided not to do the municipal camps, because it was kind of like camp without fun. And also the amount of staff you'd need for like 10 children to not have fun didn't seem worth it. So even putting those staff to work to monitor the pools and Puffer's pond and then hopefully the spray park at Gough Park will be done sometime in July. And then monitor that too, because that will be a really nice free place for people to go and get wet and that kind of thing. And then folks, especially at inspection services, are working really hard on safe ways to have outdoor dining. So there's just so much going on. Whereas meanwhile, I watch 26 states who've already reopened to have these hospitalizations. So it kind of skits them for me, because I'm supposed to weigh in on things and yet, and I know that we have to help people return to work and keep their businesses. But it's really difficult. It's going to happen. Yeah. It's going to go up. Yeah. Yeah, I don't know which flavor or pleasure you're at in this, Tim, but as a department head right now, I'm being asked to consider a ton of scenarios, possible scenarios for the fall for UMass. And it's not so. I mean, anything other than all here or all remote really gets crazy. And that's where we are in between. Like who, what distance, which thing, how do you do this, what do you do, how do you manage that? So Julie, I'm curious of your take on this. I mean, mine embraces a month ago, but I feel like I like the governor's presentations and the data from Mass Department Public Health is amazing, is quite good. Then they made adjustments that I think made sense. It was not long after I asked you. The train was a dashboard. OK, you did notice that. Yeah, I was like, whoa. I thought it happened. Yeah, I take no credit. I'm sure there's a lot of, I'm glad they had it. But what I find a little disheartening is the statements about testing capacity or ramping up or doing this. But actually, the numbers of tests conducted either are going down or stayed the same. And that doesn't jive. Those two things don't jive. So I think the governor's being disingenuous. And I wouldn't find some place to say, hey, how come we're doing the same tests we did six months, six weeks ago, same number per day? Well, it's very interesting. In the mishmash of all the calls and emails and everything, some of that has been chalked up to the fact that as we reopen, and people are, it's such a psychological thing. Like really, nothing has changed with the virus, but we are reopening all these things. So psychologically, people are not as interested in getting testing. So it's only folks. You think they'd be more interested in getting it. I know I am. Well, it's interesting. I think you're interested. We want to know your position to the rest of the team. People are just like, I am done with this. And at the same time as the protests are happening, which are so important, the news has sort of gone like this. And there's really very little in the news, relatively speaking, about COVID. So and it's summertime. And everybody's saying, OK, it's fine. Go to the beach. Go to the pool. So I think that this is what I've heard, is that people are just, they're actually not interested. What people still always want is the antibody testing, the serology testing, which is, I just keep telling people, well, it's really not going to give you any information. Because we don't know the quality of the antibody tests. We don't know, if you do have antibodies, how much it protects you or for how long. Yeah. So antibody testing will become important. And of course, all testing is important. But so that's what I've heard. Now, right now, if I wanted to get tested, I've no real good reason to do that. But if I just wanted to, would I be able to be tested? I think you can go to CVS. You can sign up online. And I think there's not much criteria, and you can get tested. You have to. Yeah, a friend of mine just did this. You have to say you got some kind of symptom. So tell him you got a cough. That's what I would do. And you can get tested. I don't want to do this. I'm just wondering how it works. Well, I think you have to, you do have to say, but you don't need a doctor's order. You can go to CVS in Northampton and get tested, lie a little bit about a symptom, and you get tested for free. And I heard Hanley, that urgent Karen Hanley I heard is testing. And Mark, because he's having the surgery, had to be tested. Yeah. Is the center for extended care situation stable or improving? It is stable. We have not had any new cases in over a week. It's still being monitored closely by the state, because it's a cluster. And so while there are people who are recovered and are pulled off of that unit and go on to a regular unit, it's really hard in that setting to make that determination how you decide this person is 100% recovered. But the last I had looked, we had kind of the deaths had leveled off and no new cases. And there are people who are recovering. So that's a really good thing. Yeah. Any other clusters in the MRS? No. No. We did have maybe one or two in some of the group homes that we have in MRS. We do have group homes for folks who are developmentally disabled or folks who are mentally ill. But none of those really rose to more than two people. That's pretty good. Yeah. Yeah, it is really good. So I know what you're saying about maybe a mentality, but going back to what the disconnect I see is, I want to be seeing more tests conducted and they need to be required tests, and not based on symptom, but based on your job and exposing yourself to individuals and just confirming that you're negative. Confirming that you're negative from a, and not serology, but from a COVID-19 perspective. Right. And it's interesting because we're seeing that happen on these sports teams where they're bringing people in and then they're saying, oh, all these kids tested positive or whatever. But what it really is, is they tested everyone. So of course, they had like three or four. I don't know if you've seen this in the paper, not locally, but kind of around the country, different, probably schools that were bringing back kids to do pre-sports or whatever. And, but if you look at it, like none of them were sick. They were all asymptomatic and they had some positives. And then that's what you want to find out. Exactly. Yeah, yeah. So it's true that if you do big batch testing like that and find the asymptomatic positives, that's really great because by the time people have symptoms, there's been a lot of exposure. Are there things like programs like with the nursing homes, are they testing the employees on a regular basis or anything like that? Well, it's really interesting. They're all doing different things. There are not necessarily routine testing in place. So initially, for example, in Massachusetts, nursing homes could get a whole bunch of tests and then administer them when they wanted to. And I remember the governor being really frustrated because people requested the tests and then they were kind of like hoarding them. They were waiting to test people because you could only get them like one time or something. So I know things have changed now. But yeah, as far as I know, there isn't a requirement for folks who work in nursing homes, for example, to get routinely tested. And I think some of that is, of course, testing just shows if right now you're sick. So if there really was enough, then maybe you could do routine testing once a week or something. A friend mentioned that her husband works in a nursing home and was testing. They were testing him once a week. Oh, really? Yeah. Yeah. I don't know where, actually. And he's around in Massachusetts, but I don't know where. So did your mama request that and required that in New York? Yeah, I don't know. This was more local, but obviously it's not a universal plan. Not that I know of. No, because, for example, I don't think they're doing that at Center for Extended Care or Arbor's. It's more based on symptoms and things like that, even of staff. You must have COVID fatigue, too. No, in some ways I don't. In some ways, I'm like, this is the marathon. And I feel pretty committed to it. And there's nothing like knowing you're retiring to have renewed it because there's a light at the end of the tunnel. I can do this. Yeah, no, exactly. That's how I feel. I can do this. Yeah. It's great. Yeah. Unprecedented times, that's for sure. I'm on sort of a pet peeve, but anyway, I'm promoting the use of the following. And I don't know if you've been following this, but sort of banning the use of social distancing term, which is the stupidest term that ever came out. We do not want to be socially distant. You want to be physically distant. So physical distance is what should be used. And that's what epidemiologists, a lot of universities are taking on. And it's really come up this week. And as soon as someone says it and you think about it, you go, yeah. That was in my mind a couple weeks ago. And it's all out the other side. That's really good. I like that. It would be nice to switch over to that, wouldn't it? Some people, when they say social distancing, they mean a distance and a mask. But let's just make it clear, a physical distance and mask. The social part just to be connected with people. Right. Yeah. It's funny. I'm not connecting a little more now because a lot of us are using Zoom and FaceTime. We're on the phone more. I mean, sometimes, in some ways, I feel like with some people who are further away that I don't get to see that much anyway, I feel more connected because we're all in it together. Yeah, in a certain way. Well, there you are. Your wife is still on the other side of the country, right? Yep. She's taking Greg out for a walk once enough I can talk. So I said in a little bit. Good, good, good. Yeah. Again, back on the testing, there's a lot of planning and operations and stuff that uses the word testing as a basis for monitoring and making decisions about actions. And I just see a disconnect between actually doing that and saying you're doing it. So just the kind of thing you're talking about. So it'll be very interesting to see. Because I don't know. You have a pretty strong negative opinion about serological testing. And I'm not sure that's held by everybody. And I tend to more agree with you on that. I don't know. And there's things being worked on at UMass. But even if you have a really robust test for the presence of antibodies, do we know what it means? No, I don't know. I mean, there are a couple problems with that because the actual positive rate is so low that it's very hard to have a test good enough to really say it's a true positive, even if you know what positive means. So it's just tough. Yeah, harder than finding the actual, say, doing two or three tests with different proteins from the COVID virus. Then you say, yeah, I've got two. And I've got an envelope protein. And this protein, yeah, you have the virus. Whereas the antibody side is to say you had it and these were produced. Yeah, it's a much higher bar. Merkier. Merkier, Merkier. Yeah. So I think that's all I have on it. Second Thursday in July, maybe. Excuse me? Are we meeting in July? Yes, yes. Because sometimes we have it, but I don't think there's any reason not to. We should, basically. No, I mean, I think that it would be great to keep meeting this summer until the reg's done, you know? Yeah. Yeah. Definitely. Yeah. I mean, I ain't going anywhere, so. No. Especially if we meet this way. I hope to be somewhere across the country trying to. July 9th. Fetch my wife, but I can do it remotely from wherever. Are you going to drive out? Possibly. It depends on a couple of things. A couple of things. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, July 9th. Does that work for everyone? Yes. Yep. Okay. You know, you're talking about being more connected. In fact, there's a board that I used to serve on that I'm being asked to serve again in a certain capacity. And I've written back, I said, if that board would stop being so old and conservative and will meet remotely and not travel, yeah, I'll participate because I don't have the money to travel. It's all business people, mostly. Yeah. They, you know, I don't have a business, you know, I don't have the money to travel and I don't have the time to travel, but I have the time to remotely get together and it tends to make people focus too. Oh, yeah. You know, we're meeting all day. So you got this agenda. Instead, you're meeting for two hours. Get the work done. Get it done. Yeah. No, I didn't. It's an interesting, I think it's going to make a lot of that kind of stuff. Okay. Why are we spending $1,000 or $2,000 each for these 20 people to get together once a year or twice a year? Right. Is it really that much benefit? Yeah. I don't think so. No, I agree. I mean, because the travel time is not fun or productive. Right. We're safe now. We're safe. Right. Exactly. Yeah. So there's that. Yeah. I think the physical distancing came up with a link. I got it. I forget. Bluezone, something I read. It was an epidemiologist in the middle of the country at a university who really had a good assessment of, you know, the logical stuff about, you know, transmission, you know, exposure, duration, intensity, all the things that are just completely logical. Right. Right. And he said, and the social distancing thing is nuts. It's physical distancing. Yeah. That's when the light bulb hit me. It was like Tuesday or Wednesday. It was like, really? And then I was on a call nationally, not a civil engineering department. And somebody else, somebody else brought it up and I, and a bunch of us chimed in. Yes. That's the term to be used. Yeah. All right. I don't know if I'll, if I'll. It'll be the change. We'll start doing it. Badger the chancellor to that effect or not. I don't know. We'll see. Well, especially good in a university, I think. Because I'll be in social and it's like, yeah, as I'm looking through tables of buildings and rooms and square footage and dividing by 113 square feet, which is the area of a six foot radius circle to come up with numbers of people. It's physical distancing. No question about that. Or trying to get back in labs, right, Tim? I'm, I'm on the reviewing side of the, of, of a lot of those. That's hard. Well, Nancy, good luck to Mark. Okay. I'm sure it'll be fine. Day surgery. Out and home. Yeah. What about the ice and the pain meds? I hope. Okay. Some of that. Okay. All right. So see you in July. Okay. Thanks everyone. Be safe. Be healthy. Yeah. Bye bye. Bye bye.