 This is Tuesday, March 9th, 2021 Senate Judiciary Committee taking up S-25, an act relating to miscellaneous issues regarding cannabis. In preparing for today's meeting, I thought we would go over some of the recommendations from various folks who have spoken and who were witnesses to the committee, but also start by going through the bill and what we want it to do. I will say from the outset that the agriculture issues within this bill do not belong in this committee. And that includes those suggested, you know, for example, I think this should be in the purview of the finance committee and the agriculture committee. So I've asked Michelle to draft a note along with the proposals that are in this bill that have to do with finance and have to do with agriculture and to ask the agriculture committee to look at those issues. I just, I don't, I really appreciate the growers association and Graham and rural Vermont and other groups and their suggestions and just, I'm not used to talking about current use and other things that are involved. I just don't think it's within the purview of the Senate Judiciary Committee. So, social equity issues I think are within our purview. Government operations will have, I think, suggestions for us today or hopefully by Thursday. Well, we have some today that we've talked about, and I think agreed on, and then we'll have we're continuing the discussion. We'll have them by tomorrow, I believe. All right. So let's get started. Starting to go through the bill. Starting on page two, regulation by local government, that's your committee, Senator White. Yes. And what we've done is we have, we heard that it, do you want the details of what we've. No, I think if you're not going to be ready. I mean, I think it would put it together. I think we're ready with this one. Do you have a, is there ability to put a copy on that? I can, I can send your amendment to Peggy right now and she can put it up if you want to talk about that. I wasn't sure that I wasn't, I didn't realize that Senate Gov Opposite already signed off on those. So, but I'll send it to Peggy right now. Do you want me to do that? Sure. Okay. Peggy, I'm wondering where the copy of the bill would be on the website. Yeah, it's not under today's documents. No, if you go to the website. Yep. Actually, let me show you guys how to do this. You already did. This bills and no. Hold on. What happened there? I don't know. It's not working. It's under bills in the committee. Yeah, if you go to the committee page. Yep. And you go under documents and handouts. Yep. And then you go under bill. Okay, got it. And then you go to S 25. Thank you. And then drafts amendments and legal documents. It will be there. And so will the RAM amendment be there. Okay, thanks so much. No problem. So, so right now though, we're working off of the bill is introduced. Is that correct? So far, yeah. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Now, Senator whites got an amendment. Already the second. Well, do you want us to. All the amendments at the same time. I can give you just the, the background of what this is. The VLCT felt that. 2022 was way too soon because they won't even have. The rules defined by then. So what we did is changed it and just said that. That's a good idea. And it doesn't give any language that you have to use. Before you're on your vote. It just says that if you haven't, if a town hasn't voted on it by March 2023, it'll be considered an opt in town. That's essentially what it says. That sounds like a good idea. And it doesn't give any language that you have to use. For your on your vote. It just says that you, if you haven't done it, you're an opt in. It doesn't give any language to everyone, to the committee. And also to Peggy. So Peggy can. Can post it, but it'll get it. This is not the way I want to go through a bill. Okay. It's almost impossible. Okay. I'll look at this is the amendment that. Senator white just talked about. This is one of them. Yeah. Okay. On March 8, 2023, we're fine with that, right? Yeah. Okay. This is just the retail portion. What about those that have asked for integrated licenses? It did. It said, it says it on there. It's the retail portion of the integrated license. Oh, thank you. Okay. Second amendment is a new section too. That's the cannabis control board duties and members. Yeah. And what we did is put. We took this out of the information that was given to us by. I believe Gregory. I mean, Jeffrey, I don't, I always want to call him Gregory, but it's Jeffrey. And what we did is. The process that the. The. A member can be removed by two members of the board or by. A two thirds vote of the advisory committee. We then requested that the advisory committee. Be seated. Be appointed by April 1st. And that by April 15th, they are. Be appointed by April 15th. Because if they're going to be an advisory board, they need to be seated before the cannabis control board gives us the reports. Otherwise they're not advising on anything. Jeanette, can I ask a question? Senator Sears. Can I ask a question? Is there any other board in existence that has this. Kind of arrangement. I don't know. I don't know. PUC. Was that what it was, Michelle? Oh, Joe, what, what. With respect to what aspect are you talking about? What kind of arrangement. Where there is no ability by the administration, for instance, to come in and say, we're going to remove this person. Yeah, the green mountain care board. That's what it was. Okay. I don't know. I just want to reiterate, but I know you guys are, are well aware of my office's position is that what you did. In act one 64 with regard to the, the structure and removal process we feel is completely constitutional. Well within your authority to do that. And that is, we differ from the administration's position that. You know, they have consistently said that you can't do that, but we've, you know, we've had that battle with them a few times, but just so you know, we feel as though everything there's, it's completely fine the way it is. If you want to add something here with regards to, if you want to change the thing, you can certainly do that, but that's a policy choice and not a legal one as far as we're concerned. Well, I think we've had this discussion before. And I know the committee doesn't want to design a bill based on whether the governor's going to sign a board or not. But I do know this provision and the opt. In provision. Our sticking points for the administration and. I'm just throwing that out there because it's something that I know. I appreciate it. We got the letter from Monica Hutt. But this is the recommendation of the government operations committee. So I'm inclined to go along with them. Personally, we don't all have to. But I think that if you wanted to have the governor be able to remove it, it would have to be for cause. Many of the governor's appoint the governor's appointees, he can just remove. But if it would have to be for cause, it would be for cause. So I think we can just have it at the whim of the, of the administration. Yeah, I agree. Next, we have section two is integrated licenses. So we can we accept that? Part of the strike off will be the government operations. Rafa 1.1. Well, the integrate. Michelle, does this include all of the things that we're going to talk about this afternoon. Yeah. Yeah. All the other issues you wanted, you were going to discuss and then decide on, and then I would draft and incorporate. Okay. So. So Dick. So Dick, you're back on as 25 is introduced and looking at that section. Section two. Yeah. Government operations going to have. Suggestions on that. On the integrated licenses. Yeah. No, except that. We are. We are looking this afternoon at the. Suggestion that came from in representative Chinas about the cannabis business development fund. And the develop the. Starting that up. And that was what Phillip, that was what I suggested we take a one time advance and put in there. And so we were going to take up that issue this afternoon. The dispensaries have suggested that they take. Three. Into that fund would go 3% of their. Sales up to $50,000 for the first six months. To. Put into that. Fund. And so we were going to take up that issue this afternoon, the development of the fund and then the. Money from the. The integrated licenses. All right. The only thing I care is. This was something the governor mentioned that I've mentioned. And we changed the board. Shall to may. I don't know if. Virginia run through has any comments on that or anybody else in the audience who would like to comment. So I'm, I'm getting lost because the draft keeps disappearing from the screen. This is no longer the draft. The bill understood that the second half of my confusion is. We have, we have. We're talking about discussions that have yet to happen. And then some drafts that have come in in partial form. So I'm, I'm getting. I'm getting confused about what we're adding to the bill. Because it seems a little. This is not, this was actually in the bill. Okay. Section two had to do. The original section two of the bill. Yeah. That's 25 has to do with the integrated license. And the change is there shall be not more. Not as a change. Then five total. And the other changes the board may issue rather than shallish. That's the first. Yeah. Integrated license to the app. Virginia run through is representing the. The dispensaries, medical dispensaries. I didn't know if she wanted to comment on that change. And then I was going to offer an opportunity for anybody else who wants to. It was one of the things the governor raised. In his non-signing. And I think that was a great message. And the concern was expressed by some of the witnesses. That integrated licenses could lead to big. Big cannabis. And that, that's what has happened in other states. And it's something that. I think we've all agreed we want. Does that, I mean, I'm going back to the bill now. The senator whites finished with her. Yeah. Yeah. We, we're, we haven't looked at set section two at all. We're not going to. I'm just wondering, I have. From the show in my inbox. I have this amendment. Is that what we're talking about? Or are we talking? No, we're talking about the bill is introduced page five. Okay. At the line. Two. I think that changes actually line two and three, change the shelf. The idea there as we introduced it, Michelle can explain what the background is for that. Again, going back to the governor's non-signing letter. So. I think that's what we're talking about. I think that's what we're talking about. The first year's is right. It's just changing it. So that the board has discretion to issue the integrated rather than. That they're required to issue the integrated. If they meet all the criteria. One thing that's just important to note is that. You can't, if it's, if it's discretionary and you don't know how many, if any, that they will. Issue, then. That's what we're talking about. So that's what we're talking about. And that's that's what we're talking about. That's why we're talking about the. That's why we eliminate the early roll out of sales because they're the ones that start selling in the spring. As opposed to the retailers in the fall. So you wouldn't have any, if you, if you did that, and then the board doesn't issue the integrated. You could potentially just wind up with no. Tax revenue coming in. Until. of that year and so you don't have an early rollout in that situation so you have to think about how that affects your finances. It also means that the small cultivators that are licensed at the same time in the spring won't be able to sell to integrated because there won't be any integrated so it does change the dynamic of the rollout and how and how fast any cannabis or cannabis products get to market. Is that clear? So it's a policy decision. Mm hmm. And I'm Virginia and Jeffrey from my Barrelers Association would like to speak. Is that okay or do you have further questions? Senator. I did have one quick question for Michelle. Yeah. You said it would change the timeline. Is it fair to say it could change the timeline because you could still have. It's discretionary. So right now the way that it is is that if the dispensary, if a dispensary applies and they meet all of the criteria for everything that then the board would issue them the license. It just changes it to discretionary so they can or they can't. So we don't, it's possible it could go on and I don't know how many would go apply but it could roll out like originally intended as past last year or it could be fewer than anticipated or it could be none because it's discretionary. And there's no basis. There's no standard in there for deciding whether or not to grant it. It's just you can. That would be my question. So could the control board say we think there should be fewer integrated licenses. So we're only going to take the first two that apply. Would that be in their purview to. Yeah, there's no basis for them accepting or denying it. If they meet all the criteria so they can do what they want. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. All right. Just want to make clear this was the governor's recommendation. Senator Benning and the other sponsors the bill put it into doesn't mean we have to keep it. What would you like with the numbers from JFO before if you if. I'd really rather hear from Virginia and Jeffrey and then anybody else on the call would like Virginia. Good morning senators thank you very much for having me here. It's good to see you all. Virginia Renfer I represent the Vermont cannabis trade association which consists of the five medical cannabis dispensaries. And, you know, we would prefer that the shell remains. We, you know, the dispensaries would love to, you know, be a partner with the state and be able to roll this program out sooner than later. By leaving the word shell in there, it gives the dispensaries the ability to know that they will be licensed and start to, you know, increase their production as they get closer to being licensed for this. And I think also the fact of for the small growers. The dispensaries, you know, definitely want to partner with the small growers they support the language and as 25 around the 25%. And, you know, to be able to start, you know, obviously the timeline here has changed but you know if they could start selling, you know, it will be bringing revenue into the state to help to pay for this. And I think it's important to know that none of the dispensaries want to be a monopoly within the state of Vermont, you know, they want to be part of this. They recognize that in order for really the medical program to continue to survive that they need to be in the tax and regulation field. And so, you know, we, we definitely would prefer that you keep the word shell we understand, you know, the governor was concerned about that, but we think it would actually benefit the state. Questions for Virginia. Jeffrey. Thank you for being here. Hey everybody. Thank you again for this opportunity. Thank you, Senator Benning and others for bringing up these amendments and and trying to meet the governor in his concerns that he expressed last year. As you guys know, Vermont Growers Association, I'm the executive director and we're kind of a larger coalition. Some of my colleagues are on the call right now I see Mark and Graham from world Vermont. I would like to help make sure that these inequities get addressed this year, specific to the shell and licensees. My question was, and it may have been answered through Michelle of Ledge Council, but and others who had commented, but we were really wondering to speak from the small business, the farmer, and the entrepreneur aspect of this industry. Which Vermont Growers Association represents. What, what do you guys anticipate materially changing for us. If this were to become law. And I say that with some context and that is, I understand Senator Sears and thank you chairman for bringing up the fact that our ag amendments are not appropriate for this committee. But I do want to mention to speak to the governor's concerns which you raise as intent for this is clause is we see the matter as a licensing issue. And so that is why we do propose licensing reforms what we call equitable licensing. So whether or not this is the committee to be considering that, please note, that is how we address those concerns that we're trying to meet now. So I did want to mention that. And very briefly since Virginia brought up the notion of small businesses being able to sell to these integrated license holders that isn't the law. What we do from our own constituency, think that there may be some for Monters, who will do that, who are in that position to be doing that at that time, but we think a majority of the small businesses and the illicit actors will not be interested in lending their craft, their hard work product to be sold on the shelves, even if it's just three months a couple months. And in one of these stores that, you know, to be frank, can be can be visited elsewhere. A lot of these large retailers and that's fine there's a place for them in this business. They have stores in Massachusetts they have stores and made it elsewhere. So we're looking for Vermont brand. We're trying to transition Vermonters into this market. So I want to remind the committee of the realities of contract growing, and how that did not work out so well for brewers in the 1990s. So, we think it's a, not a, not a problem to be transitional, but don't don't rely on that for, for any sort of robust involvement from small businesses. Thank you. Can I just add something so to it. If you, before you add anything, I'm a little confused. Can I ask Jeffrey question? Of course. Thank you. What you're looking for is the licensing regulations and including that was section two of this amendment, small regarding the small growers licensing market equity and scale appropriation regulation. Correct. For instance, one of them would be an integrated license for farmers themselves. Okay. You'd like more than just, you'd like a lot, you'd like more than five integrated licenses. There are different types of licenses. We, we so so not entirely. We suggest defining other licenses as S54 or back 164 does suggest for instance craft delivery and whatnot and it does allude to the CCB developing these licenses. What we're suggesting as an organization as a broader coalition is we've defined them now. And this, this will meet the inequity and equality concerns that the governor addressed. So now would be the time to take it up. We've gone through the research in the study of examining other states and determining what we think is best for Vermont. And so that's what's in our proposal. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that that the, the small cultivators that would be the under 164 if you don't have so as Jeff Jeffrey was saying that you doesn't think that many would sell to an integrated licensee or a dispensary as provided an act 164 so that is that those people that wouldn't would have to wait to the retailers are licensed after October 1. So the cultivators, the small cultivators that you granted an early access to licensing. If they're not going to do that then they're not going to. I mean I guess they can go ahead and get licensed but they're not going to be able to sell product until the fall. I think I understand that. I mean I'm looking at his licensing market equity and scale appropriate regulation. One of which is to allow outdoor cultivation. Caps on production craft license, etc. Senator Sears. I'm like, we can ask a question about that. My understanding is that we can put a lot of detail in here or we can tell the cannabis control board that they should be looking at craft licenses and I actually prefer a CSA model. So that a farmer can grow and sell to a limited they wouldn't need to have a retail license because they're only selling to people who've signed up with them like a CSA. But I guess my concern is that if we put too much detail. I don't know how much detail we should be putting in here in terms of the licenses and what they mean and when they're when they're granted, or if we should put that the intent is that we can enter the small farm and the small growers in Vermont and leave that to the board and the advisory committee. Well, I think we should put something in here that the very least. Unless you're doing the licensing park. We weren't going to. We put something in here that allows them to grow outside. I don't think we should have all operations. Oh, I, I agree with that I thought you were going to send that to to egg. Well, you know, so they're allowed to grow outside. Yeah. Now, under current law, they can grow outside. So the idea here I think was that anything that's grown outside is because be considered an agricultural product. And I'm not sure that I, that I necessarily think that's a good idea because that means there's no zoning no, no restrictions on it. So, but they can grow outside. Yeah. Yeah. And there's a suggestion here that the caps that there be caps, but at different caps for outside growing and inside growing and mixed light. Well, that's what I need agriculture committee to look at. Okay, thank you. I also just, I just wanted to direct y'all to there is a provision in Act 164 that specifically directs the board to report to you next January. Recommendations as to whether the general assembly should consider adding additional types of license cannabis licenses including a craft cooperative license delivery license special event license or others. You guys did because you had been talking about those other types of licenses the previous few years, and you chose not to do it in Act 164 but you did ask the board to consider the potential expanding of additional licenses and so they're supposed to report to you on that already. And I'm into a Graham you have a comment. Sorry, I missed your hand earlier. No, that's okay. I appreciate it. I'm here just trying to feed my daughter and listen at the same time. So, I just wanted to find a little clarity and speak to what Senator White just said as well. So it's just specifically you know the licensing. If you felt like you weren't able or didn't have the time or ability to want to put in all the details that we suggest here. And I agree. We would love to see this in agriculture. Hopefully we can get it there and we can have a more nuanced conversation about some of these details. You know, if, if ultimately none of that turned out to be possible, you know, one possibility is going in a direction I believe of what Senator White said and more be more specific about what we direct the CCB to do. So it would say that we could say something to similarly to the extent of the CCB shell create a licensing structure which differentiates between defines and differentiates between indoor outdoor and mix light which differentiates different scales with different populations associated with them in different costs associated with them, which, you know, has production caps for all scales of production in all types of business. In that way, they wouldn't just be sort of left a while we can do it if we want but they'd be directed and said, you all have to take your details. You have to create these sort of equitable playing field that involves scale. It involves indoor outdoor mix light involves differentiation of fee and differentiation of other types of regulation. I really appreciate the idea of on a CSA model you brought up Senator White. I think that's exactly sort of what we're talking about from the fall small farm perspective is the reality of a lot of small farms is we don't rely. We can't make a living on our wholesale prices and especially in this market we've seen other states the commodification of cannabis really affect the ability of small people to exist in the market. So what ways are there for small producers to have a direct relationship with the consumer which we currently all rely on for selling vegetables in my case beef, etc. So I just wanted to quickly comment on that and just give you an idea of that other. You did mention the integrated license that we we suggested Senator Sears and all that is essentially something similar to what Senator White is talking about where and where as it allows out for cultivation processing product manufacturing in retail sales only on farm and only from product produced on farm, which is essentially what farmers are currently allowed to do for things they produce on their farm. And we understand that there's concerns around nuisance and around security and stuff and that's hopefully what we could all talk about in committee when it gets to the committee as well but I just wanted to comment there and I think I'll leave. I'm going to leave it to Senator White if you want to put this in on. Okay, we could, we could. I actually think that the language that Graham was just using about the direction instead of trying to be specific about the, the production caps and the everything is being specific to the cannabis control board that they need to look at this. And they need to look at all these things in conjunction with it so if you want us to do that this afternoon we can do that. I appreciate that. Okay, I would just say there's a difference between what Jeanette just said and what Graham said in that I heard him say he wanted us to say that the control board shall create the structure. I think Senator White just said that we would direct them to talk about it. I'm more comfortable directing a discussion and a decision from the control board, because we haven't taken enough testimony for me to vote, knowledgeably on a shall create this structure personally. They have to come to us anyway right. Yeah, afterwards yeah. Well your committee will decide whether to recommend a show. Okay, I'm writing that down. Graham, did you want to comment again. I saw your hand up and I don't know. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, Senator Bruce is correct that, you know, my, my point was, it would be directing the campus control board to specifically make those changes and again, it wouldn't say that they have to look like this or they have to look like why but it says you have to based on scale based on these definitions of indoor outdoor mix light. And the reason we prefer that as opposed to what the alternative just saying you must discuss this is because we really would prefer to have these conversations with an elected body about the details, if they're not going to be. We're not going to have to have to create these structures. We just think it's going to be much harder for us to have a conversation, you know, with a three member board, as opposed to in committee with books and this is Juniper who's providing testimony as well. He heard her. I agree with what she said. favor. She's supporting everything I'm saying she's very infatic about it. We say that something passes without objection that's clearly an objection. Okay. So, I'm, I'm good with leaving this to government operations to give us something. Okay, as well as where they're not should be a man. Okay. Oh, I mean, well the issue is, there's two issues in this section to one is the word not, there should be not more than five. And the other issue is, should it be a shower made it's a made and it doesn't have to happen. Or you could have it both you could no limit on integrated licenses, which would set us up. But I'll leave that to your committee center. All right. Thank you for the volunteering. But I do. So section three. Actually, I wanted to talk about section. Jump to page six, where we know August 1 and October 1, 2020, 25% of canvas flowers sold by integrated license. So that would be one of the things that we're going to be looking at. We're going to be looking at that from a license. You want to look at that too as part of. We, we, we can. We thought that the only thing that might need to change there is if available. Yeah, but it. That would be also the egg. Once we got something a shell here. I hope the egg committee was looking at it. That's tied into the integrated. So if they're. Yeah, so they do kind of go together. The next is the social equity, which is section three. I think. Mark can correct me if I'm wrong. I think one of the recommendation was to have no licensing fee. Rather than reduced. And that's in the section three a. And then in B, and then we come to. Representative. Senator. Memories dealing with. Nice question on a, are you, are leaving a. No, no, I'm, I'm asking a question. Which is, which a in section three. Yeah. I'm just wondering with regard to the line who historically have been disproportionately impact by cannabis prohibition. So does this include persons who resided out of state during that. Period of time. Or are these people supposedly impacted in Vermont or can they be impacted in another state and come in and started. I'm just going to start here. As I read this, they could. There's, there's no. Go ahead, Michelle. I was just going to say, so this is the term that's used a few times and act 164 and that, but there is not a definition of that. And so the way that it's currently structured, it is up to the board. Probably through rulemaking that they would be identifying how they determine individuals who have historically been disproportionately impacted by cannabis. There's not a specific statutory definition of that. So, so I guess I'm thinking about the board and all these pieces they have to address. I mean, like they not miss that. It seems like it should be a little more specific, but I think Jeanette had said at one point that Illinois had something, some guideline. No, what I said is that Illinois had good. And Michigan also I believe in Massachusetts had good language, but their roll out in the implementation. What I've heard was not ideal. And I think that this is, I think this is something that the board really has to grapple with and I was reading. If you read representative Chinas proposed draft, the, the impacted area is all of Vermont, actually. But it doesn't, it isn't just Vermont, it's anywhere in the, in the world, as it looks like. Because it says any as determined by the United States Census Bureau, so it could be anywhere in the country and then he has members of any impacted family are considered disproportionately affected. And that means anybody who had a parent guardian child spouse or dependent, who was arrested for or convicted. I have to tell you, I know a lot of people who were arrested for marijuana in the 60s and 70s who are not disproportionately impacted individuals. They came from wealthy families. They, there is no way they should be considered there so I think that the board has to really look at much more detail around what this means. That's my, my thought. I mean I would certainly think so too because it looks like what what is proposed here will be wiped out perhaps by others who aren't the intended but Well, I want to consider I want to actually revise it so that I'll listen to mark on the, but it should not be just reduce these there may be people who can't afford a fee, who would be better off. I don't think it should be just be considering no fee there in the board's recommendations. Mark. You have your hand up Mark Hughes. Good morning. Morning. Thanks for the invite. Peggy and Mr chairman and good morning committee and other guests and colleagues from the coalition. I think that where I wanted to start with the, just the observation that I have here is just a, just a thought is is I am a little. Uncertain on how to straddle these committees to get the work done but I appreciate the invitation of both committees and and I appreciate you Senator white for the work that you've done on this so far. And the, the other thought the other thought that I had is is that there's, there was a significant recommendation that was put forward by the working group of the social equity caucus and I was wondering if the committee had taken testimony and are considering any of that. And then, regarding the recommendations for amendment that were put forward on my last visit to you. They were just that, I think, Senator Benning, you asked emphatically, are these recommendations for amendment or are these recommendations for. I would say a, a introduction of a bill and I replied that it was both. So it is now age 414 have it in front of me right now. And these recommendations are to Senator on it because point directly reflective of the language of Illinois, much of the policy of Illinois that really sought to address the racial and social equity aspects of the policy. I think that when I left the committee last, I was expecting that there would be all or some of the recommendations that were put forward that are contained here in age 414. At least for record for amendment. Or at least submit them on the appropriate place on the website to indicate such but I haven't seen any of that. So, as far as the definitions are concerned about the identifying you know who would be considered disproportionately impacted and otherwise. Yes, there are areas that are identified. There are also family members that are identified as being impacted as well. And there are an array of different other definitions that refer to. But would be considered a qualified social equity applicant and I think that at the end of the day. That might be at the heart of what we're looking for is is who is a qualified social equity applicant. So there are an array again of definitions that I sought to bring to your attention for I for consideration for implementation. Amendment implementation to clarify some of this confusion that goes with who is qualified. And I think that beyond that I think just in practicality and just in acknowledgement of what some of us believe to be in existence. This thing called systemic racism. I just want to just flag that. That in, you know, how we how we have approached this is is that we've sought to identify folks as being impacted. Not solely because they were incarcerated. But what we know and understand and this is the appropriate place to have that conversation in Senate judiciary is is that the impact of the a an encounter with the so called criminal justice system creates concentric circles, not just across a person's life but across the person's family and sometimes in perpetuity and then even generationally. And that crosses state boundaries. Hard stop. So I know that is hard. It's, it's easy to create policy in a vacuum but we can't do that when we do it. When we're having conversations about how systemic racism has impacted. And I think that's the whole of color this is just from our from my perspective from our perspective as an organization, because the vast majority of us come here from other states. So, I'm that would also hold true in our health system which was designed not to deliver health care in a consistent or fair manner. But still, we bear the burden of caring for the people of the state of Vermont, no matter where they come from. And I think that we could say the same thing about housing and education and employment in across all other sectors. And one thing hold true. And look at it is is that. Go ahead. I was just, I was just, I thought you're going to say something I wanted to things that we have to look at is is simply that this state is 94.5% white, and it used to be more white. So these policies, if we view these policies in a manner in which we're taking into consideration. Who has come from out of the state. I think we're doing a lot of folks a disservice. In fact, vast majority of you didn't come from Vermont. So, when we go to the policy itself. I want to just go back a little bit. Mr chairman is in talk a little bit about the additional responsibility that the that the committee that the cannabis control board rather has concerning the the work of equity. And in that there's a responsibility that again as we go back to this language historically individuals who have historically been disproportionately impacted page one line, line 131415. The responsibility that's being placed again on the cannabis control board and I think this really echoes the concern of some of the folks who are communicating, you know, this these ag issues is that there's an awful lot that we've, you know, placed on the cannabis control board and I realized that this is tough policy put together. There was some, there's quite a bit that the cannabis control board is going to have to carry when it comes to equity. That's when it gets challenging. And if it's a matter of process, I can understand wanting to offload or, for lack of, I should say a better term would be to delegate with the responsibility to report back. Some of these very important responsibilities. But when it comes to equity. Those responsibilities, I believe should rise to a level that we address them as early out of the gate, legislatively, as possible, because what we see and what we know is is the more discretion. What one has in these areas, the more difficult it is to achieve equity. So I implore you, if it's possible to Senator Beirut, I see your hand I'll yield. Mr Chairman, if I might. I agree with you, Mark. And that's why when we talked about this the last time you were with the committee. It seemed to me that the language and representative China's bill could inadvertently produce a result where the great majority of people who are helped by the language were not the community you're referring to. But instead, you know, other people who had been maybe narrowly impacted by the war on drugs but not as directly. And that that goes to the fact that the language in representative China's original bill didn't refer to race. It referred to people who had been socio economically impacted within a certain geographic area. And it seems to me that if we don't want to repeat the experience and states that Senator White mentioned that we should be more directive about what we mean. Otherwise, you know, it's possible to imagine 94.5% of the money and the resources going to white Vermonters, who may be part of a far flung network of people who were impacted by the war. Who were impacted by the war on drugs, but we wouldn't be addressing systemic racism as you're talking about it. So, can you, can you help us in that way to, because I think one of the issues we're coming up with is specificity. And I remember Skyler Nash and his testimony urged us to speak directly to the, to the, to the issue of race. How, how should we do that. But could I throw something in here for Mark to also consider when he's talking about this. One thing to consider I better start writing. So, I analysis center and it has question about if this would be from any, any place and I think that it's clear. If I understand remember it from Act 164 that you have to be a Vermont resident. Remember to get a license. That doesn't mean that you couldn't have come from someplace else and been impacted there but you currently have to be a Vermont resident as I remember it. Okay. No, that's so disagreeing. That was unconstitutional I think. I do want to make it pretty clear then that in my opinion, and maybe Mark you can think about this also is, are we going to give preference to people who are who have no, no ties to Vermont at all but just see that they can get a reduced fee or a loan here, because they have no ties as opposed to people who actually are here and I don't know how, how you do that if it's unconstitutional so, but that is something. No, no, I think, I think what we determined was beyond constitutional to say that nobody from another state to get a license. Yeah. I don't know that it would be unconstitutional to provide certain benefits to Vermonters that are available to non Vermonters. And you do you do do that in 164. That's what I thought you provide technical I think yeah we could we could provide a benefit to Vermonters for marginalized communities. It's how you define marginalized community that is my worry looking over age 414 and I, I will be honest I don't know that we have the. I mean I don't this. Unfortunately this year a lot of bills have come late and you know, deal with it seven days believe me. So, Mark, I believe that the question. The question from Senator white has been answered. Yeah, I think the question is how best to define a marginalized community or community member without without. I guess that's the question without insulting anybody. Right, right. I appreciate that. Mr chairman and before I speak. About him I should go ahead and acknowledge him. Senator Benning is trying to get in the car. Mark you used the word emphatic about my, my last conversation and I think you were kind. I was exasperated actually because this is a heavy issue, trying to deal with it under what could be considered an arbitrary date called crossover is very difficult but I want to give you. My thoughts in hearing what Phillips offered direction was. I personally was arrested in 1975 at a time when I had long hair and I played guitar and a rock and roll band. I didn't smoke marijuana. My band members did and they targeted the house that we were playing at in order to rate it and make a demonstration in my town. I don't think looking back although I had some severe problems at the time. In fact, I did manage to get into law school and passed the bar so I came out okay I don't think that I would fit the definition of anybody's intent here, having some socio economic disadvantage. I know a Vermonter who was a on the path to being a 30 year employee of the United States, and three years before his retirement was popped on a marijuana charge and as a result, they not only fired him they deprived him of his pension. Now he's a white guy. And I think he would have at least the way I had understood this he would have an argument to make that he should fall into the definition of having a socio economic impact. So I'm wrestling with how do you do this and not have people becoming upset because they've been deprived of at least making that argument. And I don't I haven't read. I think you said it was age for 14. But it seems to me that this discussion is a lengthy one. And my frustration is I'm not sure how this committee is going to be able to resolve it in the limited amount of time that we have left. And so, I want you to know that what you described kindly as being emphatic still comes back to my exasperation. It is a conversation that should be had decision should be made. But I don't want to leave people at the end of the day who might have a valid argument to make being deprived of making the argument to the CDC. And I think that's just because of the color of their skin. That would disturb me greatly, unless we are taking this as solely an issue of systemic racism and eliminating everything else from the equation. I think that's where Philip wants to go if I'm hearing him correctly, but it would be hard for me to support that concept, knowing that Vermont's population was so heavily dominated by white folks. And at the same time. I have had a socio economic impact in some situations. I don't understand why they would be deprived of making the argument that we're trying to advance here. You've got an awful lot that people have thrown at you and I believe. Give us some thoughts. Maybe the house can correct it all. That's why we're in that's why we're in serious judiciary because here you can fix everything. So as long as I'm long as I'm here, you know, we will before I leave this will all be resolved. In fact, so will so will world hunger. So I want to, I want to go back briefly to a senator. Last statement, because I think it's really important. Before we get to be within it all interconnects. And I think some of it some of this, you know, quite frankly and respectfully is is education. It is. I think I think there's some. There's a couple blind spots that that we all wrestle with. You know, and yeah, you know, you can talk about systemic racism. And you can talk about correcting it in ways that don't necessarily specifically point out race. I think we. In other ways, you can do it where it points out race in addition to other things. I think Senator Benning, you know, that and I am in agreement with Blaine and Skyler from last week as far as what we should try to do, but we would have a different argument if that were the case, you know, it may be from another demographic and maybe from books, but we'd have a different argument. What the United States has been able to do governmentally and skillfully and probably starting as recent as Nixon and master by Reagan is just to talk about race without talking about race. The other thing, and also to create discriminatory practices that that that that hold people back without necessarily talking about race. I think we all know and understand that we also know and understand that as recent as Fisher versus Texas, that the 14th Amendment will, you know, create some problems in this conversation. I think nobody knows this better than Senator Benny. When we start having conversations and, you know, we do know when we start looking at what happened down there in Texas is we do know that race can be considered as one of some of the criteria that one can consider in making a decision like this. So there's no, there's nothing wrong with us in doing so. But, but what we, but what we also know and understand and this is what the courts will support is is when we start doing this work. When somebody comes into sideways and tries to to peel this thing apart, you know, we got to have something to stand on. And I think that because we know what systemic racism has created in this nation we know that most black people are poor. We also know that most poor people are white. So, there's, there are descriptors in here that gets that gets at the problem and yes I do think we should, we definitely need to add, you know, an additional descriptor that speaks to, you know, American descendants of slavery and, and also the further group of black and black people in, in other people of color as one of the criteria in, in, in this policy, in this policy. But yeah, I think that the language is here. The definitions are here and I think before we went down this road, what I was really trying to state more than anything is is that it is important that we try to do as much of this work in providing clarifying language in terms of definitions and also identifying objectives in terms of racial equity on the upfront, legislatively, as opposed to deferring to a, a, a three panel, a three person group of folks appointed by the governor. Later on down the road to make some of these really heavy decisions and this also pertains to act as well. So when we're talking about, you know, who's making decisions on qualifications who's making decisions on access. And I think we're almost there I guess is what I'm telling you and I, and I see this arbitrary deadline here on the 12th coming up. I don't know if there's any money in this maybe it's the 19, but, but I see that coming up but I think we have everything that we need in front of us to make some of these decisions I see that Mr Chairman that there, there's a, there's an opportunity for us to incorporate some language surrounding definitions. There's an opportunity for us to incorporate in this policy, some programmatic language that came out of Illinois as Senator Nick had referred to as well, to be able to get some of this work done on the upfront. Maybe we can leave some latitude for the CCB to potentially modify some of this work at the recommendation of the advisors later on down the road. But I think we have the structure in place. At this stage in the game, we I think we have the language to insert in this bill to make sure you know that we can that we can meet the governor on this and that we can get some work done legislatively that will, that will satisfy these, these equity, these equity desires that that this committee and in those of us who are in our commit our constituency share. And so I will you know spare you from going back through this policy because we've been through this policy before and in Senator Sears it indicated that he hadn't seen the h414 but we actually the majority of it and Michelle would have to correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe that h414 is was largely the draft policy that we reviewed last time I was here. Senator White. I just this has gotten me more and more confused because when I read the definitions that were in and I don't I don't have for 14 so I don't know how it's changed but in the draft that I had the definitions the impacted area is is really all of Vermont. It's, if you look at the five different criteria for an impacted area, and that really probably only leaves out the hill in Burlington, every, every place else is really part of one of these areas. And then if you look at member of impacted family and and the criteria for I just, can I just find that first. So you see that the on the draft on the draft it's on page the five is the impacted area, page five and on the draft, the page four is page three and four. So, if you look at the qualified equity applicant, it means somebody that's resided in one of these areas, and who is a member of an impacted family or has been arrested for or convicted of an expungible crime. That means that Joe Benning would be considered one of these impact one of these social equity applicants or his daughter would be because he lives. My guess is that the same Linden bill is either a Vermont opportunity zone, or 75% of the children are in federal lunch program, or 20% of the residents get food stamps, and he has been he was arrested for an expungible crime. So he would be eligible as would his daughter, or his wife, to be considered a social equity applicant. And I know plenty of people who fit into that category of having been arrested, maybe not even convicted, but they were arrested for an expungible crime. And they live in one of these areas, but they in no way should they be considered a social equity applicant so how do we get this down so that we're really. And this is what I think one of the problems was in Illinois is that they had the language but they didn't it wasn't tight enough that they had all these people who qualified. So how do we get this tight enough so that, and I don't think it should be just race, I think race should be one of the, one of the components, but there are plenty of poor white kids from Vermont who were arrested and who have been impacted dramatically. So, how do we do this without allowing, and I'm not picking on Joe or his daughter but because I, I don't feel comfortable meeting other people, but I think that I've given a lot of thought to this, tried to not get too afraid of what I'm about to say, but I think what we're really talking about, and what you're talking about Senator are racial and cultural minorities. People, you know, I'm thinking of some of the towns that I represent. They're very without identifying the community. There was an industry in that community that resulted in a number of trailer parks in the community, and people moved into those homes, and then when the industry left the parks were still there and very low income people some of them were people that were racial minorities, some of them were certainly considered racial minorities. I don't know how you define that, but I think that's what you're looking at. And I realized I may be using terms that are old fashioned or whatever, but really, when you talk about it gets to making sure that we're not defining. I think you have to use those terms. Without without using racial term. What minority I don't think you I think you can say race is one of the components that's you can do that the second part is how do you make sure that these folks were disproportionately impacted by cannabis. How do you define who those people are because they primarily were poor kids, rural poor kids. Right. Or kids from St. Alton, because if you read whatever that book was that I can't. Yeah, I mean if you a bunch of those kids were certainly impacted. And so how do you how do you define who those people are without saying some poor kids, some find themselves. I mean certainly some could define themselves I can think of a former member of the House of Representatives who is a Rutland County person who was picked up in that Paul Lawrence scandal and it was a major, major deal of them who were Right. I meant how do you define it so that you keep out those other people like Joe and his daughter. People that I'm referring to. I mean, that's the struggle. Do we let people self define. I mean, how are you going to sort this out. I don't know. I'm asking the things that Mark said very directly to put in Mark must be frustrating. Well, I'm getting used to it. I've been at this for a little bit, but I think that I'm, but I think it's a, it's a good conversation it's being broadcasted it's being recorded and there's a, there's a lot of stuff that my my senators are unpacking here and I think I think that's important and I'm starting to learn that some of this is part of the process. The process is, is, is, is, is important. I thought I'd never say that, but here we are. I think that the, you know, this is a teachable moment though I do think, you know, I think that you know when we go into our prisons and we see that our prisons are 11% you know black folks. When there was 1.4% black folks in the state and with the high conviction rate or the, the, the, the technical, you know, getting hit on technicals with with marijuana, historically, not just now but over time. And then if you look at the nation because again we're not just talking about Vermont we're talking about the nation because we just already established that people come here from all over the place. We talk about what marijuana has historically and is continuing to do to black and brown folks across the United States you know we've got to contextualize this conversation. And, you know, I said earlier that most black people are poor and most poor people are are white but you have to, you know, you have to think about what the term disproportionate means. You know it's very important you know to have that conversation, you know we can always find find something that's anomalous. And if you're ever been in with all due respect you are anomalous, the situation that you encountered as a, as a state senator, as a qualified and competent attorney, having encountered what you encounter you are, you are in your, that is an anomaly. I have a rich brother, he's an anomaly. Quite frankly, you know we spend too much time in these conversations talking about anomalous circumstances, you know when we ought to be talking about, you know what is his with his historically disproportionate. You know, and if we can, we can't sit here and forget about 1865, you know we can't sit here and forget about who we are as a nation, and what the so called justice system has done to people of color, and how marijuana has played a role in that. So yes, I do. Again, I'll go back to the point I was making I think it is important that we do include race in in these definitions. And it is one of the criteria and who knows, maybe some white people might slip in this because they've also been disproportionately impacted. This is not an exercise of trying to figure out how to keep white people out. This is not an exercise of trying to make sure that we address those who are disproportionately impacted. And yes, our target is those folks who are American descendants of slaves and folks who are black indigenous and other people of color. Why, because that is what the system has historically disproportionately impacted. Those are the facts. That's what this policy is designed for. I think that, you know, if, if you were to say, by looking at this policy that the entire state, if you were to say and I were to agree that this that this policy addresses the entire state, then I would, you know, if we were to re on that then I would say good one down 49 to go. So, and here's the here's the other fact is is that, you know, that criteria is, you know, must be held in combination with other criterias, and we must look very closely at how that criteria how that definition is used in this policy, because it's not used throughout this policy as the criteria to qualify anyone for anything. Okay, it is a criteria. So I think we need to look closely at the policy, and let's be careful not to explain the policy away before we do the deep analysis is necessary if we if we don't have time to do the deep analysis now to Senator bidding's point. And then let's continue to do the deep analysis. Let's take responsibility for it but let's not put it on there. Let's not put it on the control board because we're going to get a, what I believe is a, a poor outcome. If we kick this one, if we put this right. Okay, so historically is a key word disproportionately impacted as a keyword. So, I think we need to come up with better wording. I'm going back to section three in the bill. Okay. I'm in. And as introduced in the bill as introduced. It has the term historically been have been disproportionately impacted by canvas prohibition. And it has that twice. And obviously those who seek to just straighten the regulated cannabis market. So, I think, okay, and Michelle as we play with the wording here. I think we need to have race be a part of that definition. racial, however you want to put it out. We already have seen it before. But I think we're also talking about people, other individuals who may socioeconomic, whatever, and also disproportionately impacted by canvas prohibition. Yep. Am I off? Did I go off the resident? Did I go off here? That's what we're talking about. What, what if we, I mean, I think there's going to be some confusion here about. We're putting something in and then H 14 is going through the house and they're going to come up with some definitions. I can't deal with what, what the house does. I know. So, I can't call them any names, but I know what they do. So, my, well, you can, but only I get into it. I realize that son of a gun. I don't know if this makes any sense or not, but can we expand this just a little bit to include race in here. And socio economic status. And then, and then tell the board more specifically to work with, and we can name groups that they need to work with to come up with clear definitions and criteria, because if we just say those things, that sets the direction for them. And then we define certain groups that they need to work with in a subcommittee to come up with some more detail around it. I don't know if that makes sense or not. Yeah. Okay, so if I was wording three section three, I would have whatever we come up with and I think it's better to move on from this now and try to come up with some wording. The next time we take the bill up, but right now I'd like to consider reduced or reduced licensing fees and low, low or no interest loans. These groups, so that's in B. And then I want to discuss the idea of a certain amount of the revenue, up to $10 million going into. I know some of you didn't like that idea from Senator rounds bill but I. Mr chair. Yes. I'll. I would say as a general idea when, when the bill passed and the governor allowed it to become law. It committed a couple of streams of revenue, one to substance abuse treatment and one to after school programs. I would support both of those. I think they're both worthy. I wish the process hadn't pre committed those streams because I think to the extent possible. It makes. Oops, sorry. Sorry about that. Oh, I, it was my phone going through my headphones. To the extent possible. It makes sense to have one coherent discussion about where the money should go. As we do in the money committees where you're, you're able to judge things against one another and make a coherent decision. If having committed two revenue streams, we in this bill commit another one. What we're doing is piece by piece. We're, we're leaving less and less to have that important discussion about the, the big needs we have in the state. I understand. Not to downplay this need, but to say it should take place in the context and sit beside other needs. Okay, but I would say that we already crossed that Rubicon, when we passed the bill with money in it for substance misuse and the after school one, blah, blah, blah. And seems to me that signaling 20% or $10 million. Either in the way, you know, the way it is in page two of Senator Rob's proposal or any other proposal, but 20% of the revenues and I was going to say up to $10 million. In the criminal justice council in conjunction with racial justice alliance migrant justice and NAACP municipalities in Vermont to engage in community based process for police and public safety prioritizing for communities that seek to reduce their police force of transition funding away from policing was that the personal and programming that needed in a word. But it would go to dealing with some of these significant problems that we discussed. That was my idea. That would be see, you know, that's not popular with the rest. I disagree with that. I agree with Phillip that we should not be specifying more funds. And if we do put some funds into it, what this committee is looking this afternoon at the, what was suggested by in representative China's proposal, which is a cannabis business development fund that would go for technical assistance and small and loans. That would be for the technical advice business advice and loans to people. That's very different than money for communities who want to transition away from policing. And I think that I don't say transition away from policing. That's what the amendment says. That's what her amendment says. Well, not what I would have in mind. So anyway, we are, I, I do not think that we should. I'm fine with doing an upfront amount into the business loan, a business fund, whatever we want to call it for loans and grants and to individuals but not to communities but to individuals who are the some of the impacted individuals. That's where I would think we need to look. Jeanette, can I ask where you would get that money from. Well, we're suggesting an upfront and I think I suggested that before just an upfront appropriation this year to get it to set up the fund and get it started so that people can begin to get technical assistance and loans and grants. And then there was a suggestion that a percentage of the sales from the dispensaries go into that fund up to a certain amount. So we're looking at that that was in both proposals. And then ongoing it would be come through the appropriations process just as funds for how much we put into loan forgiveness for nurses comes through the appropriations process and so there would be an appropriation that would be put in there and it could even at some point be a revolving loan fund for those people who find that they can pay it back. Or it could be grants, if that's what needed. Thank you for that I just, yeah, I guess I've got to say dick I'm very uncomfortable trying to add any revenue streams from what we're trying to set up here. Beyond what we've already sold the bill on, which was pretty specific, and it is difficult for me to especially knowing how few towns have voted to actually have something established. It's difficult for me to go back to the folks that I've argued this bill should pass and say we're going to dilute from those law enforcement and therapeutic or prevention efforts that were the selling points for the bill in the first place. So I'm going to have to agree with you now on that. Well, I think if a certain percent I will argue again certain percentage went towards embedding social workers and community leasing efforts would make a huge difference. I mean, we go, we never intended to defund police I do have always intended to make sure that the money is going and being used in looking at different ways like social workers and others. But that isn't what the amendment says. Okay, thank you. I have a comment and then listen to Philip I'm sorry Phil, Senator Baruch first and then Mark. Yeah. If just briefly. I'm not prejudging the merits of what you're talking about Mr chair. It could be that in a in a larger discussion that rises to the top. I'm just suggesting that there should be a plan for a larger discussion before we commit more piecemeal. And that's a good question I think for, you know, we have three members here who are also on appropriations. We have the chair of government operations. There, there should be a plan that we can all agree to when we have this conversation. I'm not tired. One of the things that happened when the governor and the state police talked about having a social worker embedded in every district. The last state of the state address or budget address. The police departments contacted me saying they would love to have the ability to get grants to start funding that in their police departments. So that's what I'm not going to show whatever. Just to surface my own preference there. I, I've been contacted by hundreds of people around the state college system who are hoping that that will be a lifeline going forward for them. So we childcare watch a dedicated fund the pensions want a dedicated funds state college want a dedicated fund. No, where does that leave, where does that leave this. Well, it, it should leave it in my, in my opinion, in, in what I said we should, we should create a moment purposefully with the right mix of committees to, to take a look at this problem what, what should happen with this revenue stream. Mark. I'm sorry. No, that's, that's about it. Mark. You know, it's, it's pretty frustrating. It's pretty frustrating to, to be having this conversation right now, given the history of where we've come from, not just historically, but even as we even as we work to put this bill together. This last year. Couldn't seem to get a word in edge wise. There wasn't a word about systemic racism or racial equity in any of those three reports that were produced that informed as 54 at the last session. And it was very difficult to, to get anyone's attention. There was a, you know, a lot of commitment to getting this done for reasons that we understand, you know, because of, you know, where this, this process has come from also because of many of the folks who are either big cannabis or folks who are dispensaries or folks affiliated. And it was just a lot of power and we saw a lot of vitriol that came from folks that sought to oppose what we were putting forward this last year. So we waited. And the governor was, you know, teetering and, and he also agreed. And now we're at a conversation about now. I must frame what I'm about to say because what underpins systemic racism is is a differential on political and economic power. And now we're seeing and we're having a conversation about what we're going to pay for it. And this really comes down to priorities. We were trying to, we were hoping that this would have been figured out last year and the reason why you have placeholders for other things that you are paying for this is because you prioritized it over racial equity in this process. So this is much larger than, you know, our experience in the criminal justice system. It's, it's, you know, the disparities that exist across all systems of state government to the extent that the median wealth of a black family is one 13th out of a white family and diminishing us, but yet we have this conversation, you know, I think that again, I think most of this work should be done now. I think the system was not designed to accommodate it because there is a vacillating between who actually is responsible for this because I think that our wider government operations just indicated and said earlier that we would be talking about this and her committee later. This is, this is, this is that that whole that piece that goes into the work that would be done with the integrated licensing, licensing rather in the, that equity program. This is the same conversation is the same conversation. This is how do you fund, you know, how do you fund social equity grants how do you fund the cannabis business development fund. These are the same conversations. One's going to be in government office this afternoon, or having one now, a little while ago and I said it at the top of our, my open statement. I told you that there's, I have confusion with that. And the reason why this is this this this system wasn't designed to accommodate a conversation on systemic racism. You know, I want to, again, urge the committee to to take a close look at it keeps being referred to as Brian chinas language but it's called h414 and we proposed it. So there is a policy. It does have the language that suggests how to go about paying for this it does talk speak of transfer and 200 $200,000 into the cannabis registration fee fund. It speaks of 10% of revenues raised by the cannabis excise tax, not to exceed $2 million. It goes into, you know, the work that Senator white was going to be going to be taken up in her committee this afternoon on integrated licenses, it talks about those fees that will go into that. So there are ways that are established whereby we can pay for this work. And yes, I'm representing a, you know, American descendants of slavery and and and BIPOC communities. It would be at most advantages for us for to have have these monies being, you know, routed into our communities for our economic development. You know, that we're nobody's talking about anything else except for you know this, the ability to advance economically this is just a market this is one market and this is one that's emerging. And now is the time to be able to find the money to be able to create those programs and I think that there is a framework that's right here in front of us in h414 that establishes that so I hope that you take a closer look at that, and and consider it. And I will be in testimony this afternoon to talk more about it as well if that's what I need to do. Thank you, Mark. Moving on anxiously await what happens in government operations. Section five of the bill has to do with the criminal justice. My criminal justice council that the ARI program. That's just a report. Okay. Yeah. Section six repeals the section. And it's replaced with section seven, the substance misuse prevention funding and this is just that put a fence around the funding so it doesn't go to other place. Language of believe came from joint fiscal. I'm not mistaken and Michelle working together on this. So it doesn't change anything substantively from. No, it just says that they have to carry forward ability so they don't spend 10 million in one year they, and they have to, they only spend a that got 2 million left they can spend 12 the next year. Okay. Right. It also codifies the language at 164 it was session law so we put that codified that and the is actually the one that works on the money provisions on the cannabis stuff for us and back and forth with with Senator Sears a bit on trying to figure out you know there's issues around you as you well know you can't bind a future legislature. And so the governor had said he wanted it to be in a special fund but the legislature did not want to do a special fund. So this is just trying to clarify to codify it and also clarify that if there's any revenues left over that it that it carries forward and it can't be kind of or shouldn't be pilfered. But it, it could be not withstood in the future. And so I imagine so I think you'd want to talk to one of the money team attorneys like and the, because I typically that's not what I do day in and day out, but I do know obviously the general rule, but even a special fun can be able to have a special fund for the marijuana, but the medical marijuana. And this administration took that money. Yeah. So I, I don't think there's even if you made a special fund it doesn't mean it can't be. Yeah. Can I ask you a question on another on page six. This is page six section three, the additional. Sentence between August 1 and October 22. What I'm interested in there is sold by an integrated licensee shall be obtained from a license small cultivator. That went along with section two. Yes, I'm just wondering though can that small cultivator be from out of state if there isn't enough being grown in Vermont. Or should it say from a Vermont license small cultivator. The, the this only there's no, there's no buying cannabis in another state and crossing state lines though nothing in the whole system contemplates that it's only it's all when we talk about license. Cannabis establishments this is talking it's always just talking about Vermont license cannabis establishment. All right, I think that would probably be federally illegal. Yeah, I mean someone wouldn't do it. Well, it'd be a violation of both state and federal law. Okay. Nobody would ever do that. Right. I wish I had a gavel and say that completes the orders. You can say it. I'm sorry somebody say something. Mark. Yeah, go ahead, Mark. I was, I was wondering just briefly, I know you're getting ready to get out of here but I didn't, I didn't feel resolved in on the social equity thing. Can we can we just kick that entire conversations of gov ops with the senator's permission and come back and with how we fleshed that out this section three in conjunction with the other work that we're doing with the committee. If it's okay with Senator. Senator, why is that fine with you? Sure. Well, okay, I'll see you this afternoon. I, I've marked frame that in a way I just want to clarify. Gov ups could bring back language to us, but it would then be for discussion and. Yeah, vote in here. Well, I understand that I appreciate the clarification. And, you know, this. I appreciate the process. I'll leave it there. Okay. As far as, as far as the memo to agriculture, Michelle, just the sections that we just identified that are agriculture as well as the issues that were raised by the growers association and by rural Vermont, we would ask them to look at those. And I, you know, we need to put this bill's got to go to finance. So appropriations. Thank you.