 I want to do some follow up on that. I assume that agreement that we should waive the employment requirement. We should be focusing on the raw material, raw inventory side of it, which makes sense to me. Yeah, so I think we have reached out to the directors of the last year's event with regard to getting the top ten list of excellent products. And the question that I was given back to, are we interested in seeing the top, call it five to ten products in terms of unit sold or in terms of revenue from those? Because for example, you know, you might not have six dollars. I'm not sure, I don't know whether either I know enough about the production and manufacturing, you know, or what the production scheduling is at the different dispensaries, including figure as to know the idea that you can have the biomass frozen or whatever or oils, the produce the product. You know, I don't know that that would be different than it is now. When the production now needs to go into a product, there is no adult use to compete with it, and there will be adult use to compete with it. You know, that being said, I do appreciate the, you know, the commitment that Shane certainly seems to be making. And, you know, I think it becomes a matter of taking everybody at their word that if there's a, you know, a product, a medical product, you know, that everybody will prioritize that. And I'm guessing, you know, it just sort of feels like we have to accept that that will be the case. I think it's a reasonable interim, you know, approach to take. But I would say, you know, there have been supply issues that I think Shane did a great job of explaining a lot of why they happened. But it does concern me a little bit that, you know, we don't know what the future looks like. You know, all the seeds that are being planted, we don't know what's going to grow. And it could be something, you know, that I think is unforeseen but really imaginable that would make it possible that I think the medical program could not be prioritized. I apologize for the dog. Anyway, that's my concern. I don't know if there's something you can feel about it. I feel that, you know, we have to go into it for some reason. Well, yeah, I mean, I think, you know, from the first meeting, I think we all expressed and shared that that is that is a big concern. And I think it is a big problem, especially when you see what's happening in some other states. And the issue is how do we prevent that from happening? And we said, well, let's develop the baseline of products that the dispensaries have to keep. Now, to get there, what I need to understand in order to be able to articulate to a recommendation of the board is when Shane's saying, well, focus on doing reserves for the raw material or raw inventory or product, what does that mean? And so how does that break down? And then how do we develop a reserve from that? And then before we even get there, I mean, what I'd also like to know is from the other three license holders, if they would recommend the same measures or if it's easier for those dispensaries to focus on products rather than the raw material. So, Magor, Jim, do you have contacts with the other license holders just so it doesn't need to be another formal appearance, but if you just get some maybe just interview and get some feedback and we can work towards making that that recommendation because that's that's one of the big ones is just to develop be able to inform the board on what that's going to look like as far as if we're going to recommend reserve baselines for the raw inventory. I just need to know what kind of what we're talking about and everyone's on the same page with that. And hopefully there's a cooperative and willing to change is to support the medical program in that regard. You know, if I were to understand the idea of the biomass reserve, you know, basically flower, let's say it is 50-50 the demand and flower is half of it and there will be a supply of flower that would be the same for an adult use market. It would be the concentrate product that would be in slightly different formulations of a thick or potentially a product that doesn't exist at all in the adult use market that would be at issue. And those would be made my understanding of what would be reserved would be dismalance, oils, frozen, you know, flower, plant materials that can be processed into the oils or dismalance that are needed to make those concentrate based products, those other different events. And, you know, so to me the question is, is there a production capacity that would allow those products to freely make it to the market in a way that's equal or better to what happens now, which is easy, but, you know, has its ups and downs, which I think are understandable. So I think that's the question. Honestly, it's not, besides the word, it's not much more than where we started because it isn't an agreement to set the product aside. It's just basically we have the raw material to make it. And I'm not sure whether they're promising the immediate production capacity to get those products made. I think that's being prioritized, but again, it's sort of good faith. I think that we have to take that. And the last thing I'll say is that in the future, when this starts up in the spring of 2022 or in January, when it takes over the registry, you know, it's my hope that there are the future oversight committee that exists and will work with the PCP will be in a position to, you know, work with the dispensary in a different way than we ever happen. You know, now be more informed and be able to step in and say, you know, here's what we see happening. What can you do? And again, you know, it seems better to proceed with constructive, you know, optimism than to assume the worst, which I would want to do that it just, we won't be prioritized. Well, but, but yeah, I mean, I want to do what we can to try and protect the medical patients. And certainly there will be a probationary period when they have a better understanding of what the demand looks like from the adult use market and what, you know, what these dispensaries can sustain ultimately as far as their set asides of reserves for the medical patients. But the more we can, the more we can recommend to make that protection that the better off medical program is going to be ultimately if I'm willing to listen more on that. But for now, you know, if we could get some input from the other license holders about that, I think that'd be helpful. The other thing I had my notes that James mentioning, and we don't have to tackle it now, because I think it might be might be more of a ultimately a compliance issue. But I went ahead and said, Hey, is there anything else that's not working? And what he seemed to say was more of an kind of an inventory issue on how things are counted or stacked against you. Do you remember that part of the conversation? What did you think of his suggestion there? Did you know enough about that that issue because that was that was new to me and I wanted to at least bring it up, raise it and see if we need to deal with it or not. I want to be sure I'm referring to the same issue you're bringing up now. So that was when she was discussing rather than dividing medical and adult use from all the way from seat to sale together until you get to the essentially when you're creating actual products. Yeah, right. Your guys thoughts on that I didn't. I wasn't as well informed on that at the time. I thought about his recommendations per or not. So I wanted to get your input. That makes sense to me just gives them as a business person more flexibility to apply product to either or without having to distinguish where it came from. Those are my feelings as well. I think in the interest of sustaining the medical program, you know, allowing kind of these efficiencies seems like the obvious choice to me. I think determining that early on in the process, which is going to be medical or which is going to be adult use could potentially, you know, not be beneficial to medical, which is ultimately what we don't want. And what is really the difference between the two? How would you separate them out and why would this be for one population and that for another brand? Those are my questions. So what is a lot more difficult for Shane? I think to answer the math question, I think you really wouldn't separate them until you get to that product phase because that's only where you're going to see the differences in the higher concentrations of THC or maybe some specifically formulated products. But other than that, I would agree. I don't see a long line where they would be different until that kind of final stage. And that gives a flexibility if you have a whole bunch of one thing and a little less of another and you can put them together for different concoctions. I did just want to make one, just if we can go back just for a second time around the register to purchase and I'll just sort of say from the prevention perspective that to eliminate that would be increasing access to a young adult population. Not really because it'll be sort of a one hurdle that may or may not reduce. So if access is a risk factor which it is for any substance misuse, then that's the kind of place where like you don't want too many outlets around schools. You don't, you know, these types of questions of access. It's one of the primary ways to reduce misuses by reducing access. So I'd like to put that in the notes but at the same time recognize that most businesses don't have to register their clients, you know, or their shoppers before they come in. And if it is, you know, if they're looking, if their product is medically safe and their advice is right then, you know, it's, I just want to sort of make the point that access is a significant factor in prevention. Maybe that's not the, maybe that's a bottleneck for a short period but not for a long period. And I mean, they're going to get through, they're going to register, they're going to purchase. Either way they're going to purchase but sometimes it's just going to be less access. I don't really see that really changing but I just want to make that point. No, thank you. And after we wrap up discussion of Shane, I didn't want to get to Jim and just the update from the meeting they had last week that we didn't get to last Thursday and we can bring up those points in the second map. But Jim, did you have more to add on that? Yeah, what I was saying is, you know, I do think that I absolutely agree wherever the efficiencies that can, you know, financially help the medical programs stay strong, I think that's important to have the dispensaries have the ability to do that. The only thing that I can see that could be a difference could be testing based, you know, the testing standard for adult use is the same from start to finish as it is for medical medical matter, you know, if there are additional medical testing that's being done, you know, and also I would say that I hope one of the things Shane talked about is the number of strains available in a broad spectrum of treatment which is popular in medical cannabis circles and so there might be flower that is specifically, you know, grown for medical reasons, either because, you know, that's terpene profile or the different kinds of PHC versus the different, you know, types of CBD, CBN, all these different things, the profile might be different. And the one last thing I would say is there are cannabis strains that are being bred that are incredibly high in PHC and some of those are being shown to have certain, you know, specific profiles to them that could in the future prove to be effective in a medical program. So I would hate to set up a situation that doesn't allow for a higher PHC flower than is allowed, something like that. So it's just to be the double magic there. You know, understood. And so, yeah, there are going to be some challenges to crafting this baseline reserve that we keep discussing. Yeah, that's another issue. Okay, well, I think, are we in agreement that the seed to sale tracking should be generic until whatever point in time that it's going to be processed. And at that point, they can make the distinction between medical and recreational. I would agree. I would agree. Okay. All right, I'll put that down on another editorial list of recommendations. With respect to the testing, I don't know why it would be different. I mean, does anyone know the reason why you'd have distinct testing between the medical and the adult use products? Well, you might be testing for a lot of components in a medical product. You know, the number of chemical components, the types of PHC, types of CBD, CBN, all these various components, my limited understanding of testing admittedly shows results where you get eight parameters, 10 parameters, and it's different. Different testing is different. And I could see potentially for medical you might be looking at more of the chemical profile than is necessary for adult use. That's the only reason I can think that testing would be different as perhaps done to a different degree. But my chemical profile, Jim, are you talking about to check for the presence of different types of THC or CBD or CBN or for different pesticides just for safety for medical patients? Well, I would think the pesticides would be the same for anybody. They would be the same for consumption. But what would be unique to the medical patients would be the psychoactive chemical profile, the THC, the CBD, that, you know, for instance, when somebody says we heard, I forget when it might have been Jettlin, Dolan said this about how much she likes using a one-to-one CBD, THC blend. You know, those are the kinds of things that we can't foresee as medical research begins on cannabis, what types of testing we might need to see in terms, I think a medical patient will be interested in seeing more than adult use would need to. And from a prevention perspective, there would be more about the potency and the amount of THC being assessed and patients or others being informed of that just so you don't get that youth who's had two joints or something and has no real resilience and then all of a sudden does this massive THC level and then goes into a psychotic break. So it's really from a prevention perspective. It's mostly about the measure of THC, potency and transparency about what it is. But I think in terms of the lab testing for contaminants, it's not going to be different between medical and adult use. But even with what Jim was saying, and we have a number of NACP members that are lab testing facilities, so I'm going to check with them as well, but from what you were describing, just the ratios one-to-one, CBD or THC or MAT, what you were saying as far as potency, when the testing is going to be, they're going to need to test for that regardless of it's adult use or medical. Yeah, you haven't sang that across the board. Yeah, so I'm trying to figure out, and maybe Jim, if a certain medical patient is looking for, I don't know, maybe specific things across the spectrum that an adult use test wouldn't cover, but I think it still would. But I'll look into that a little more. That seems like a company product line question. You know what I mean? It's really like, hey, we can offer you this type and that type, and we put it together and we get this type. I think that that has, you've already gotten to the place of your different primary components and you just sort of putting together mixes for the market, whether it be for the adult use or the medical. The relevance is what you were getting to before, Jim. If there is different testing, then is that going to require different CPCL tracking then with the chains recommended? Yeah, I mean, like I said, I don't know the answer, but I do know the question because as a consumer, I can go, I believe it's more than, it could be a product labeling, I think as Matt suggested, you could have a product label that is formulated, but it could be a flower as well that somebody wants to vaporize or turn into an animal or something themselves. And it, you know, I think I'm getting into the fine details of this, but my understanding is that, you know, you don't necessarily test for every single, you know, you might have THC levels, but people on our next looking for THC A-levels, you know, it might not be necessary to elicit. So I'm just, I'm leaving open the possibility in a way that allows for the most efficacy of the cannabis for our medical patient. Understood. Jim, go ahead. Do you have your question? Hi, so our lab testing protocols, are that subcommittee should have some decisions made relatively soon that maybe it would be worth waiting to see what the adult REC side lab standards and testing protocols are going to be before we decide whether or not we need to go over and above that for the medical side? I think a question that I would like to have answered by this subcommittee is whether we're going to require third-party testing for the medical dispensaries because they are going to be integrated license holders, so they will have a testing license and whether they can test their own product or not should be, I think, something that I'd like to see a recommendation on. Sir, I mean, my recommendation is third-party. Jim, Meg, Matt, did you have any other opinions? I guess I was in a cannabis conference recently and the one big thing from Colorado that said was get it state tested because it's the way that will be most consistent and it doesn't leave you open to sort of wanting to alter the test, not that that would happen. Well, we'll see what the lab testing subcommittee comes up with, but I don't think there's a state testing lab that's going to be recommended. Right. I'm not sure why they were so emphatic about that except for maybe there was some... I think the only concern with relying on third parties is simply a timing issue. You know, if there's only a handful of third-party labs in the state, I think I would be a little bit worried with how quickly they could turn around specifically medical product, but definitely open to exploring that. I would say that on the oversight committee, we have a lot of feedback on the need for having third-party testing. And I'm saying that in some objective ways. I don't actually look at the test results and I'm not sure, you know, there's a lot of things that have been said about how testing has been done and the idea of whether, you know, you can test yourself. Self-testing is, you know, reliable. I would say there's a large group of at least vocal... a vocal group of medical patients who feel like you cannot have testing that you do yourself. You need a third party to do it, whether you're having another dispensary to it or, you know, a state lab or a private lab. I think that if that isn't the case, it's going to be always a... talk about issue ongoing. I think you're right, Meg. That's the big concern is the delay and that's what you've seen across cannabis and the hemp industries, frankly. But I don't know, it seems to me just a fundamental issue. If you're testing your own stuff, that's a big inherent conflict. So I don't know how you get around that. It's even just for appearances like you were saying, Jim, or just, I mean, I think you're asking for trouble. So I mean, even if it's from the perspective of if you have the existing four or five license holders testing each other's product, because if they're going to all be integrated licenses, they should all be up and running with their own testing just as quickly as they would for self-tests but have them test each other, but don't set it up for that same testing would be my recommendation. We don't have to take a vote on that now, but think about it, because I would like to take a vote on that in the next meeting. But that's a good segue. Jim, if you could, you sent me an email. Was it last week that you had the meeting or the week before? The update from the registry or the, sorry, I'm trying to put up your, pull up your email now. Are you talking about the oversight committee proposal? Yeah. Right. So, yeah, basically the update I can give you is that we are at the point where the oversight committee has created a draft document that it is agreed upon, the board members, and we have posted it and put it out for a public comment period that will end next Wednesday with a meeting where my intention is for it to be mostly public comment for that next board meeting. And we have passed the document along to all the various stakeholders. You know, I think that Bryn just, you know, sent back to me that it seemed like we're on schedule to be able to review this in our subcommittee and then pass it through in time for the board to be able to make their recommendation on time to the legislature. You know, so I would imagine besides the public comment we'll get, there'll be, you know, some decent amount of discussion in our subcommittee as well. And so that's the document I forwarded to everybody and we can begin a discussion of that at any point. Yeah, you just want to give us the, can you give us the highlight of how the committee is comprised? Yeah, hold on a second. We just hold this up for a second and I don't have a printed comment. Does it help if I be next to me? Does it help if I screen share it? Would that help you, Jim? Sure, that would be great. I mean, it's good to take me once back and otherwise to pull it up. Actually the easiest way for me to do it will be from the document I sent. You guys. Yeah, I've got it here. Your terms begin in February. Yeah, yeah. So this is all based on the current statute as it exists and the primary changes have really gone into this first paragraph really where we talk about the establishment of the committee. You know, it's getting much more of a definition here than it did in the past. In the past, you know, we're recommending here that not only it have a more of a physical location but a strong digital presence that will basically create an ongoing back and forth capability between the public, the oversight committee, and the cannabis control board. We recommend in here as well for a budget for oversight which we have not had in the past, you know, and I think the desire there is to really thief up and strongly be able to take on the role of advising the cannabis control board as much as possible. So we want to be in a position to have a committee in the future that can spend the money to bring in witnesses, do research surveys when necessary. And then we did not have German as actually prior to this recommendation. So, you know, that was something that was unanimously agreed upon by the current board members. And we, you know, at this point, the Department of Public Safety has been the oversight board home and has given us our administrative support, so to speak, and this is imagining, assuming that the cannabis control board will do this in the future. And then the makeup of the committee is really quite different than it was in the past. The committee in the past had members appointed from each of the different dispensaries, and with really no instruction other than they be appointed, there really was not any guidance in the rules at all about what they were going to do or how long they would be there. And then a decent amount of the board were members that were really, I would say, from a different time period. The oversight committee was created in part, my understanding is in response to the cold memo during the Obama administration, and it gives seats on the oversight committee to the League of Cities and Towns, the Chief of Police Association, Sheriff's Association. There was a lot of focus, to be frank, on protecting the public from the medical program, which I think really speaks more to what the time was. And so we have made a recommendation that this board is going to primarily be made up of patients. And I know that a lot of the language we put in here in terms of chosen by lottery and randomly and whatnot is going to be, I think, heavily debated how we do this. But we very consciously debated and decided that it would be best to base these register patients out of the registry itself, for the caregivers rather than recommended by a dispensary. This seems like it randomizes it a bit more, which was a concern a lot of the board members had. We also wanted to make sure that there are healthcare professionals on the board so that we can be researching and advising on the healthcare science and medical matters as well. And try to put in a broad definition of the types of people that can be in there, can be doctors or practitioners, naturopaths, osteopaths. We really tried to not define it because there are so many healthcare practitioners, I think, that would be suitable to recommend patients the program and understand also the use of cannabis as a medicine. And then the next item we have in there was pretty highly debated on whether or not to have a cultivator on the committee that has not been the case in the past. And I think this discussion went hand in hand with the questions about caregivers being cultivators and the board in part being very concerned that we separate the idea of at least professional cultivating on a broad scale from being a designated grower for a medical patient. And I think those issues, we've moved them forward quite a bit. But the idea, we did get just barely a positive vote on a cultivator. There were board members opposed to this and who just couldn't see why you would have a cultivator talking about medical cannabis. But I think a really large, you know, the other group felt pretty strongly that, you know, this is a plant-based medicine and at this point, especially where the science and research is limited, that the cultivators definitely offer a lot of connection and insight to the plant itself. And I think it's also a good balance to the dispensary, being the only provider of the medicine itself and getting another voice in there. So we did decide to go ahead and make that recommendation that we include a grower in there and that is the... Yeah, well, you know, we were going to, you know, yeah, this was debated to a third degree. There was a vote about leaving public safety in medical, but it really seems like it's being covered elsewhere, you know, in the adult use program. And that's the burden of safety, you know, is primarily going to fall at least public safety just in a broader umbrella that we didn't feel like it needed to be specifically addressed within the medical oversight itself. So in the end, we had talked about a transitional period to have a member from the Department of Public Safety sitting on the board, but that was really less from a public safety perspective than a, you know, sort of bureaucratic perspective. The Department of Public Safety has been running the program, and we felt there was a lot of knowledge and experience there that might benefit the oversight. But, you know, we also discussed that and felt like it's going to occur naturally between the cannabis control board and the Department of Public Safety. And so it wasn't necessary to build that in to the committee itself. We, in the past, the oversight committee only really was obligated to meet once a year, and it was really for the purpose of putting together a report to get to the legislature to try to incrementally change the laws as necessary. And, you know, obviously, you know, I don't think that that was the oversight committee was not really set up in a way that allowed for ongoing oversight issues to be looked at, you know, other than what might be reported to the Department of Public Safety and the registry. So, you know, given that there is going to be an ongoing report of relationship, advisory relationship with the Cannabis Control Board, we debated four to six times a year and ended up leaving it in six times a year for meetings. And then I would imagine, you know, we're looking to have a coordinator in an ongoing way that will keep communication with the public and the dispensaries and Cannabis Control Board ongoing, which is really, I think, necessary for the medical program. And that is the recommendation. You know, we have rules that govern the committee that are basically, you know, perform on-type rules that are not specific to medical cannabis specifically. And so we didn't really address those, you know, Robert Wohl's plus kind of thing. This was the main part of the statute. The other part of the statute that existed really were what set up the registry within the Department of Public Safety. And that was something we didn't need to address since work either. So there you have it. Thank you, Jim. And so to your earlier point from a preventionist perspective, even though it might be somewhat academic, but the registry isn't going anywhere. So it sounds like, Jim, this committee will be set up and it'll be under the auspices of one of the CCB members and they will meet with the CCB six times a year at least really to see how good of a job we did in setting up one of the recommendations we can give to the board and how they're continuing the medical program. So that's good to see on the phone that it is actually six times a year. What I would say is that, you know, I think that it isn't completely clear from how the wording is in this proposed draft statute in terms of whether it's meeting with the Cannabis Control Board six times a year or the Oversight Committee is. And I think the reporting function of how the Cannabis Control Board hears from the Oversight Committee, whereas I didn't get debated much through the board, my understanding was that the way the advisory committee is structured, because you're going to have the chairman of the Oversight Committee work in the Cannabis Control Board's advisory committee, you will have a natural influx of information, you know, coming through in that way. But I think also, you know, day-to-day ongoing concerns that people have about the medical program, which, you know, I think patients would like to know that they're being expressed more frequently. I think the mechanism for getting those to the CCD will be, I think, more, you know, bureaucratic within the offices, but perhaps it needs to be written into this statute. Very good. Other than the manner in which the meetings will take place, what other issues does this subcommittee need to take into account from the draft proposal, do you think? Well, you know, I really do think the main issues are going to be budgetary. You know, how much the Cannabis Control Board is able to get in terms of being able to fund this or how that will work. And I think the makeup of the members themselves will be, you know, I think are discriminating. Again, my apologies. My dog hears me talking. It makes dinner time always. And I think that also the mechanism of appointment, you know, this is the Cannabis Control Board itself pretty strongly that this was the mechanisms we recommend are lottery in some places and then selected by the Cannabis Control Board. You know, I would imagine those are we looking at as well in a practical way to, with input from Chairman Pepper and other board members as to what's practical and makes sense. We decided not to include the governor or the legislature in picking any of these oversight members because there really was no expertise in any of those areas. And the controlling bodies for the oversight committee will have been, you know, reviewed by the legislature governor. So I think that, you know, we should touch on all those issues, whether people agree on the makeup, you know, I think, you know, we can make some changes if necessary should the CPD feel, you know, they want the mechanism to be different if that matters in our recommendation. Sure. And I'll comment down on a second. Jim, I just wanted to see if we had public comments. No public comment in the room. Okay. And I want to hear from Meg Matt and Jim and Brynn, but the makeup of the committee at least from the three items I have to look at it. So how to meet with the board, the budget and the appointment committee. It makes a lot of sense to me. I like that there's a majority of caregivers. I don't mind a representative from the VGA. I don't mind, you know, the exclusion of public safety or the legislature, the governor, but I don't mind the lottery selection process either. Those are my initial impressions. Meg or Matt, did you have any items for discussion at least on the makeup of the committee right now? We can discuss it more in the next meeting, but those are my thoughts when I looked at it when you sent it, Jim. Oh, I think you're muted. You want to go first, please? Uh, sure.