 If that's largely made up of small cultivators, the resources that would be required to make sure that we can adequately have a good compliance and enforcement program as part of our larger consumer protection program, I think once we kind of get a better ballpark on the market size and of what we're expecting, Kara can take that even more into consideration when he's looking to get us recommendations from our resource perspective, but it's certainly part of the conversation. Great. Yeah, I just want to like the staffing up of that to me seems like, you know, it could be another kind of another big hurdle that we have to overcome. And, you know, as long as everyone's on the same page and we all recognize those, I think it's it's tough because, you know, he's not in the market structure subcommittee, so which is kind of, you know, the compliance enforcement is the other side of that. Yeah. One of the other, you know, questions that I've posed to that subcommittee is, I think I said this last week at our Friday kind of wrap up overview of the week. You know, right now the hemp the hemp program tries to do random inspections of 20% of their license holders is that and I asked this subcommittee from an adult youth perspective, understanding we have lab testing and hopefully a culture of compliance. What's what's a good number from from that perspective to aim for? And again, that just that lends itself to your point on making sure we have an adequate, you know, compliance team and making sure that we have the resources that we need to do this effectively. Yeah. Great. Anything else on this on these two subcommittees? Any direction for Kyle that we need? No. Okay. I will say, I will say, we just just sorry, Friday morning after a long week, trying to just remember everything. One of the other things we did discuss in the sustainability subcommittee is active 50 jurisdiction. It's something the board's aware of and wants to make sure that we have a good understanding of because this is technically a commercial product, what triggers there would be for growers at various different tiering or sizing of an operation. So we've done a lot of outreach to other agency partners to kind of get an understanding and we're hopeful that the board can to the best that we're able to with active 50 jurisdiction anticipate where triggers might happen. Julie, just do you mind and I don't want to put you on the spot, but I think it does intersect with our work next week on compliance enforcement. Just thinking about the municipal survey that you did. Do you want to give just a really brief update on where things stand with that and what you did? Sure. So I sent out a municipal survey with questions that went from, you know, do you intend to put this on your ballot at the next meeting day? Have you already voted on it? And then what types of, you know, resources that municipalities think they'll need in order to license and have establishments in their town. We have almost 50 respondents out of 246 incorporated towns that we sent it to. I'm hoping to get a few more before the survey closes on Saturday. And then the next step in that process is to pull together a group of respondents for a roundtable. And I'm hoping that some of the early work that happens on Monday of next week in market structure, I think in particular is going to talk about some local issues. We'll sort of inform that roundtable and give us something to present to that group of people and provide some sort of feedback on to just kind of get a sense of where municipalities are at and what their concerns are. Awesome. That's great. Yeah. And bouncing off of that, you know, and the compliance compliance and enforcement committee local local or model ordinances and fees is a part of that committee as well. Our subcommittee member with that expertise had family emergencies and was able to unable to join us next or last this week. But next week, at least from a model ordinance perspective, that should be on our radar as a subcommittee. We've asked NACV to to help comb through various other model ordinances in Dillon states around the country with a with a cannabis marketplace for for that subcommittee to happen. It's kind of a starting point. Yeah. Yeah. Great. Well, if there's nothing else on those two, Julie, would you mind giving us an update on the social equity subcommittee and then the public health subcommittee? Sure. If it's okay, I'll talk about public health first. A lot presented in this particular subcommittee this week, they reviewed standard symbols and warnings from other states and some samples for Vermont, one that was developed with ISO standards in mind. Next week, they'll look at those on products, like sample products to see so that the committee can conceptualize what those might look like and whether or not they stand out, they'll talk about the placement on the product, how large the font is and the type of font and that type of thing next week. So I think they're pretty close to making some decisions to send back to us. In that regard, they also talked about kind of connecting to the sustainability, the packaging issue that you brought up in the last meeting Kyle actually came up in public comment as well. So the the subcommittee moderators made a note of that to discuss ongoing in the future. So that's the and they also reviewed some some of the language that's used in other states for warnings and information that's given out at the POS systems. And then also talked about doing a one pager for establishment so that they understand what the marketing and advertising requirements are and have some sort of flyer that they can look at that's easy to understand. They talked about it in terms of a roadmap. So you froze up a little bit, I'm sorry about that. Sorry. Do you feel like do you feel like as a board member who's sitting in on those that the advisory committee members have sufficient, you know, evidence and the information they need to make an informed decision or recommendation for public health? Absolutely. I think they do. Yeah, they're looking at a variety of different samples. They're looking at language from other states. Yes. Great. And then for social equity, there is a lot of progress in this group as well. So they continue to review the language that was proposed in H414 as sort of the base for social equity applicant definition. They reviewed incarceration rates and traffic stop rates. They discussed the impact and harm of cannabis prohibition. And then ultimately began to draft NACB anyway began to draft a definition for social equity applicant that includes living in an opportunity zone as defined by the census. Someone who is black, indigenous or a person of color impacted by cannabis prohibition, meaning they themselves were impacted or a family member. And there was some discussion, I think still to be had about what qualifies as a family member. There was discussion about relationships and then in local parenthesis kind of relationships as well. And then they talked about lived in Vermont for one year as one of the one of the qualifications. And they also began a discussion about what types of documentation would be required as part of a social equity application. And I think there's more to be discussed with that. I think there's some thought that some documentation might be available that just simply might not. So for folks who have been in the foster care system, for example, they may or may not have access to very accurate documentation. And that's not a fault of Department of Children and families, they work with the information that they're given, right? So I think there's more discussion to be had on that. Their next steps, in addition to sort of finalizing that draft language for social equity applicant is to consider the fee initiatives and how to use the business development fund. So those are the next things that they're going to be discussing. So on those kind of criteria, it sounds to me like those are either or, or, you know, there's a list of criteria. Are you thinking about them being kind of weighted differently? Or is that part of the conversation? So I think just getting those points down was the last conversation. I unfortunately don't have the slide from yesterday, so I'm not clear on whether or not those are and or ors. And that's something I'll need to ask. Do you have? In the slide, it was an oral conjunction. Okay. So I'm sure that that could be up for discussion, but it was an oral conjunction on the slide. Yeah. Okay. Well, I would like to just hear that committee discuss whether certain criteria should be weighted more heavily than other, you know, and what that should look like. I just I don't know the answer to that. And I don't know what other states are doing, but that that is something I'd be curious to hear as we're kind of reviewing them and determining. But then again, you know, if we have unlimited licensure, I don't know if that's the case just to be clear, but it might not matter if they're weighted differently. Right. I'll be happy to bring that up. I agree. And is there any discussion? Has there been a kind of social equity cooperative model? At the very end of the meeting, Gina touched on that, but not enough for me to report back on it at this point. I think that's going to come up in a future conversation. Yeah, I believe delivery came up to curier license types for specifically allowing certain groups of folks early access to licensing types came up at the very end. This particular meeting was really focused on the definition. Yeah, it was exciting to see some a definition on on paper. It was very recognizing that that might be not be its final form, but yeah, it was I sat in on that committee. It was it was great. Yeah, that is very helpful to have something to dig into. Yeah, I just be curious to see how things move progress in that. Of course, you know, as we have heard as a board over and over again, you know, access to land access to capital are the biggest barriers for everyone. And mostly the folks that have been disproportionately impacted by prohibition. And so, you know, the delivery license type to me seems like an obvious path, low barriers to entry there. The cannabis cooperative social equity cooperative seems like a possibility. I know Massachusetts has a cooperative license type, but I don't think they've actually started any cooperatives yet. I think that's they have the ability and they have some applicants, but they haven't issued one. So, you know, maybe you can direct Gina to that model or talk to Jen. Jen Flanigan about it. Absolutely. All right. Anything else on social equity? Nope. All right. I'll give an update on the market structure. I'll start with market structure and pause and then I can move to medicinal. And so market structure has met twice since our last Friday meeting. On Monday, we really dug into the rough estimates for the total demand. And that demand is made up of kind of our in-state, our Vermont resident demand, our bordering state, the people that would kind of travel to Vermont to purchase from kind of our neighboring states, and then just tourist demand, the people that are coming here for other reasons that might purchase here. And essentially the demand was there kind of a rough back then napkin poundage was calculated during that meeting based upon the kind of 350 to 400 square feet of canopy. And it translated essentially into a little bit more than 55,000 pounds of cannabis annual. We did, when that calculation was made during our public comment, got some concerns from members of the public that this actually underestimated the demand. And that also that 400,000 square feet of canopy would actually produce in excess of 55,000 pounds. But we really that on that Monday meeting dug into with our consultants in the subcommittee, the questions that are specific to the cultivator licenses. And that really is, should we be setting tiers based on square feet of canopy, or should we be doing plant count or some sort of hybrid of both? Whether we should allow cultivators to apply for any tier of cultivation, or whether you have to start with a smaller tier and then graduate to larger tiers, whether we should have a provisional license. And this would be kind of we as a board would grant a cultivator a provisional or some sort of conditional license based upon basic information, like a business plan. And then once we've granted that that would enable a cultivator to go out and secure a location, start getting their local permits in order, their statewide permits in order, get their finances set up. And then they could then come back to return to the board with a kind of full application, and we could convert their provisional license into a full license and they would pay the kind of fee. You know, I think there's a lot of the subcommittee, I think all of them thought that this was a good idea. They saw the benefits at least. It really helps test what's being referred to, of course, is the entrepreneurial demands. You know, if we really want to rely on small and craft cultivators, are there going to be enough of them out there to meet this kind of 400,000 target of canopy? And it also would allow us to kind of get some of the stuff that takes a little bit longer on our end, the review of applications, the background checks, you know, we could get all that stuff in order. So it would be kind of a staggering of some of the more administrative processes around approval of licenses. And of course, it benefits small cultivators that, you know, might or small and craft cultivators that might, you know, not want to start paying rent at a location, for instance, if they're not sure that they're actually going to qualify for a license. So it might kind of help set that, you know, get people kind of the assurances that they need that, you know, that they will inevitably get a license if they can get their kind of ducks in a row, essentially. So I think there was, I don't know if there was a specific vote, I'd have to go back and check the minutes on whether or not to make this recommendation. But I think I saw at least, you know, the three subcommittee members interested in this. On Thursday, I think that was it on Monday, but I could be wrong. But on Thursday, though, the kind of moderators looked at some of the other types of licenses, the retailers, the product manufacturers, laboratory, wholesaler and integrated. And they were based on some of the public comments they've been receiving. They tried to, they're trying to get creative with some of the tiering of those. They didn't speak about specific, you know, canopy sizes or plan counts for kind of you know, the ones above small cultivator. But they did think about how, or they did think about how we could get creative with our tiering of retail licenses. For instance, you know, they, you know, obviously when most people think about retail, they think about a brick and mortar store that's exclusive to cannabis. We see in Massachusetts and Colorado. But, you know, they were thinking, you know, we might want to also consider a different tier of, for instance, a nursery license that sells seeds and clones. They talked about potentially having a limited location retailer. And this is really kind of, you have a broader store, like a general store, and it has a section within that store that you know, would be kind of shielded from view of kind of youth. It would be a separate portion of a general store that could retail cannabis and cannabis products. They talked about a direct to consumer, you know, kind of the craft cultivator, small cultivator direct to consumer sales, potentially a farmer's market sale. And then they talked also about non store front delivery, either the kind of courier service, or there's a lot of different models on delivery. But, you know, they thought that this could be potentially shoehorned into a kind of creative retail license, a specific retail license. And of course, I think a few members brought up that this has an intersection with social equity as well. And then they also talked that there could be a tier of retail licensing that would be for special events, like a temporary sales permit for special events. With respect to these retail ideas, these tiers, there was it was a mixed bag, honestly, from our from our subcommittee members. I think that, you know, until you have these kind of enforcement and compliance issues worked out, you know, a lot of our subcommittee members have experience in the alcohol industry and alcohol regulations. And there are a lot to think about when you have kind of direct consumer sales or special event permits. And so well, I don't think that they actually took a formal vote on any of these issues. I think they did want to kind of hear more about what the security and the compliance and testing and enforcement committees are going to come back with before they wanted to really dig into whether or not we should have these. But that being said, we're required as a board to make recommendations on at the very least delivery and special event. And so and I think direct to consumer, I can't quite remember. So I kind of directed them to whether, you know, let's put the compliance and enforcement aside, what would this look like and what should the fee structure be for these things? Because I think, you know, unless our recommendation out of the gate is just no, don't do this. I think we need to it's incumbent upon us to kind of, you know, phase out for the legislature what this could look like and what the fees might be for them. Anyone should we pause there for a sec? Any questions? I think I think that all sounds great. I'm glad that folks are getting creative from a from a retail licensing tier perspective and trying to take, you know, what Vermont values and how Vermont functions and trying to come up with license types that kind of reflect that, especially for some more rural areas and rural participants in this marketplace. I should I should mention and sorry, I didn't when I was overviewing the compliance and enforcement committee. We had talked about elevating security as a priority because I heard that from the the market structure committee. I think I have, I don't know if farm gate sales or direct to consumer is is statutorily, you know, we have to give a statutory recommendation on it. But I'm interested in it for sure. But I want to see what, you know, the compliance and enforcement subcommittee would say about security and how that could be handled, you know, with with consumer protection in mind. But overall, it sounds great. I have a question about the limited location license or limited. That wouldn't just be limited in terms of the amount that sold, but it would also be potentially what sold, right? So it could be limited like topical products only versus consumable products. Is that right? Is that that concept? I think that's right. I don't I, you know, I think that the the concern that came in is whether if we have this license type, you know, whether whether this should be a subcategory of a retailer license, I think the concern that we heard was that why would anyone have a more traditional storefront, the brick and mortar if this was available? And I think that, you know, part of what the consultants are trying to do is ensure that there is economic viability to all of our license types. And so, you know, I think that they were thinking that there would be some sort of limited capacity on the storage and sales if there was going to be this kind of limited license retail option. But I think that this was really just they've heard a lot of folks and I don't know from who, but they've heard a lot of people in their outreach. I think we have to as well that, you know, we it's not going to be viable for a lot of people to kind of upfront the cost of putting a brick and mortar store, you know, in every town. So we got to get creative here. And this is one way to kind of reduce the upfront costs. But I don't know if they've really dug into the to your question, Julie. I guess when I'm thinking about it, I think about the traditional brick and mortar cannabis only stores tend to have a lot of product knowledge and the people in those stores tend to have a lot of product knowledge. So maybe on the compliance and enforcement side, if there is a limited capacity in a general store, for example, how do we then also communicate that same level of product knowledge to somebody who's maybe purchasing for the first time. It's a good point. Yeah. Yeah, again, another intersection between the multiple committees. And so that's why I think it's going to be helpful for us to really tie all this together when we have our recommendations with the full advisory committee and amongst ourselves. So there is they also discussed having tiers of licenses for the product manufacturer. You know, the three that they talked about is having one product manufacturer that does solve them basic extraction, which has potentially a more costly slash public public safety impacts, one separate product manufacturer that doesn't have that there might be a kind of less expensive tier. And then one specific to small cultivators that would be somewhat limited for like pre-rolls, they said. But I guess one of the big takeaways and this is through no fault of our consultants, because we haven't really fully fleshed out our own kind of operating expenses, but there's no recommendation at this time around what this basic fee structure is going to look like. And I think that there's going to have to be on that a menu of options for us because it really depends on a lot of other collateral or corollary issues to be tied into it. So any any questions on that before I move to medical? I have a question on the production side. Is there any discussion about like cottage level licenses in that structure that you were just talking about? Something that people can do on a limited basis, perhaps out of their homes. On the product manufacturing side. I all I heard was the kind of small cultivator license that would be really somewhat limited. I think that we could get creative there with that. So any direction for this committee that you want to hear? Do you want them just to keep chugging along? I like I like how you phrased things earlier. I know that that committee wants to hear more about compliance, enforcement, security, some of the maybe even some of the issues that Julie just raised. But to just go ahead and try and make a recommendation recognized from a license type fee perspective. And just, you know, making sure that we have that box checked while we decide if it's something that can work in practicality from a security perspective, I think is a smart approach. Yeah, that's great. Oh, yeah. This is where, of course, we need to like try and tie these two committees together. And there there's not a ton of overlap on, you know, amongst the subcommittee members on this, but yeah, I think our consultants can do the work of kind of like bridging these two committees and the work they're doing. On the medical side, I think this committee seems to be somewhat wrapping up. I mean, they've they've talked a lot about purchase caps. I think currently it's two ounces within a 30 day window. I think that, you know, there's some division about essentially, listen, in the adult rec side, I don't think we would have that purchase cap. Maybe we would. But I think, you know, that's kind of a low purchase cap, especially when you're talking about people's medicine. And so increasing that, you know, I think there is a kind of a question about whether you set it at a kind of 90 day supply, whether you set it just increase it to like three ounces or whether you tie it to the rec market. You know, my advice to them or it was kind of tie it to the rec market, but also think about what's legal and illegal to possess on your person at any one time, because I don't want any patients to have to be detained and try and prove that they're a medical patient just because they have, you know, three ounces or four ounces of cannabis on their person at a given time. So I just to me, I suggested you should either set it to whatever we do for the adult use or set it to what the kind of the two ounce limit, the personal possession limit. And again, that personal possession limit does not include what you have stored at your house in a locked container. It's really just what you have on your person or in your vehicle. So, you know, anyway, we'll see what they come back with. I think they landed on. I know Meg Deely wanted to tie it to the adult use rec program, whatever we decide there. And I think Jim Romanoff, the medical for syndrome relief oversight wanted to do increased to three ounces. But anyway, they talked about increasing plant counts for for patients and caregivers. I think they landed on six mature 12 immature they talked about eliminating the three month relationship that you need to have with your health care provider before that person can kind of qualify you for the program. They talked about expanding the qualifying conditions to whatever a physician feels like is appropriate. That to me has a little bit of a complication just in the way that the program is set up, because right now physicians aren't actually recommending cannabis. They are a testing that you have one of the qualifying conditions. So, you know, if you have PTSD that's they are verifying that you have PTSD or they're verifying that you have terminal cancer. So they're not actually if you change it to whatever a doctor thinks is OK. They're actually putting a doctor in a position that they're not currently in. But I think there's certainly ways around that. But anyway, that's the kind of the conversation there. There's a lot of discussion around around reciprocity with other states. So if you have a medical card in Maine, can currently you're not allowed to come to Vermont and purchase. And there's a question about the patients having to designate a dispensary. And to me, I thought these are kind of easy questions. Just allow reciprocity. It kind of the dispensaries have bank accounts product. And so from a supply side, there might be concerns around reciprocity and not having designated dispensaries. But I think once we have an adult use system that I think those probably can go by the wayside. Well, but so there is a lot of rest evers and so caregiver is somewhat of an umbrella term in the medical worlds. And it means it's it's people who can be designated growers and kind of go to the dispensary on a patient's behalf and purchase and administer. And so when we say so a lot of discussion was involved with the do we expand the patient to caregiver ratio, which is currently set at one to one. And the two advisory committee members said absolutely expand it for the administering and purchasing of purchasing the administering and purchasing the kind of like caregiving aspects, but don't expand it for the growing the designated growing. So I know that we've had very strong recommendations from some of the other folks in the medical world about expanding that designated grower. You know, my thinking on this is I actually don't have a problem with that, but I really do think that we start to run into potential quality control issues if you had, you know, say a one to five ratio for the designated grower. You know, at what point do we need some sort of third party testing, you know, because currently what it is, I think there's four hundred or give or take caregivers and the vast, vast majority of them are nuclear family members or very close friends. You know, there's a there's a relationship there. But if you when you start to kind of attenuate that relationship, do we as a board need to start thinking about quality control measures for the patients for the benefit of the patients? So anyway, there is I don't know if they came up with a final recommendation on either of those issues, but I do think that that whatever they decide, we need to really kind of like dig into all of those issues. And then, you know, for me, I just I don't think the elephant in the room for me on this, which has not been fully kind of confronted is that when you have kind of a profit motive and you have a huge market for adult use and you have a very limited market with some very specialized products that are prohibited in the adult use world that are expensive to create, are the patients going to get the kind of attention that they deserve? And so that to me, what is the essentially comes down to what's the long term viability of the medical program? And of course, the easy thing to do would be allow patients to just purchase tax free at the adult use markets. But that doesn't that doesn't really address the concern that if someone needs a specialized product that's prohibited in the adult use market, how are they going to get that how they get that product? So I think that's the question that I need answered and think about most often with this subcommittee, but you know, I think they did have a lot of work on the kind of the specific recommendations they needed to make. So anyway, that's that's where that committee is at. I think from what I understood, they might have kind of some final recommendations for the board or for the full advisory committee relatively soon. And and maybe they can just turn to that secondary question. Any thoughts on that one? I'm not sure I caught all of what you said. So I apologize that you cut in and out a little bit. But on the caregiver piece, I am concerned about the the subcommittee's conversation there. I think one to one is not necessarily realistic. And, you know, if if you're caring for one parent and then the other parent, especially if we're expanding the qualifications and the conditions that are allowed, it's possible that one person might have two parents or two people in their family in that nuclear family that you're talking about that are providing for or growing. I hear the concern about at a certain point, there needs to be some sort of testing and quality control. But I think one to one is is not realistic. And I'd like to hear the subcommittee talk about that more. OK, I agree with I agree with Julie. I think we again, I agree with you to Mr. Chairperson, if we go too high on plan count, what does that mean from a from a quality or excuse me from a from a patient count? What does that mean from a quality control perspective? And maybe that's a conversation we have down the road. But I would like to see the subcommittee consider the public comments that we hear from caregivers and growers and dig in a little bit more into what's the real concern about raising that or elevating that patient count, because it's something that I'm interested in. Great. Yeah, I'm with you on that. Just because I'm cutting in and out, I feel like Julie, would you mind managing the public comment period? Yeah. I have one other thing on the medical as well. I think among employers, what types of employee employment protections are available to people who who have medical cannabis cards is confusing? And if there's a recommendation from the subcommittee on that, as it relates to, you know, reasonable accommodations or anything like that, I think that would be helpful if if we're able to provide guidance to employers. Did we lose him altogether? Did we lose you pepper? Why don't we move on to the next the next item on our agenda then, which is comment from the executive director and general counsel. I really just have one thing to add to the conversation, which is a reminder that we have about most of our subcommittees are meeting about four more times before the date that our report is due. So we've been obviously doing a whole lot of work up until this point, but I would just encourage members of the public to tune in, especially these next couple of weeks, because decision points are going to be happening probably at every meeting. So now is the time to go on to our website and lodge your public comment or come to the meeting, the subcommittee meetings, if you can, or make a public comment at the board meeting, because things are going to start happening even more quickly over the next couple of weeks. All I have. I don't have anything for there to add. All right. Public comment. So I think the way that we've been doing this is if you want to raise your virtual hand, we'll take the folks who have their virtual hand raised first and then folks on the phone and then folks in the room. Is that how we've been doing it? Sure. We've been doing folks in the room first. So I apologize. Would you like to make a public comment? Sure. My name is Nicholas Shoreman. I'm with Vermont Normal. I'm going to talk about something that I mean, I got here a little late for that. It wasn't discussed while I was here talking about caps on THC for for medical products, both concentrates and for flower. So I just came back from a two week long trip in California and in Oregon and in Nevada, three people in very robust markets. And while I was there, I visited dispensaries in each of the states. And I really spoke to the people who were selling the candidates who are at the forefront of this market, you know, not those fulfilling the orders, but really those who are talking to people at their at the moment of decision when they're right. So how are they deciding what to buy and what is kind of the deciding factor? And it always comes down to THC percentage, whether or not that's a good thing for the market. That is the main deciding factor when people lie because I mean, due to COVID, you're limited to the available to how much you can smell it, how much you can look at the product. So really the one factor that people are buying off of is that one number, which, you know, you can argue is hard to compare across multiple products, but that is what people are buying on. So I think that's something important for the board to consider that these caps are very restrictive for a lot of these craft growers because it sets a it sets a ceiling for the level of the level of expression that is able to be, you know, expressed by these growers really and like to be able to separate the really good ones from the mid-tier ones. And it was fascinating to see that that was the number one factor across all board, no matter where I went, no matter who I talked to, it doesn't matter color, what it looks like, what it tastes like, what it smells like, it always comes down to the THC percentage and the price, but mostly it's that number of 30%, whether it's 17%, 31%, and I think that's something to just keep in mind and consider moving forward. Thank you. Thank you. And then I can't see who to pass. Dave Silverman is first. Dave Silverman. Thanks. I'm really excited by the by the progress being made by the, especially the Market Structure Committee. The discussion on retail tiers is great stuff and really glad to hear it. A word of caution on the discussion on medical. You know, you discussed sort of, James discussed three different things that I think in combination could create an unintended consequence. So if you eliminate the three month relationship and expand the qualified conditions to anything, which are things that I support and you allow dispensary, allow patients to buy tax-free at adult use shops, you couldn't inadvertently create a situation like what we saw early in the pandemic in Massachusetts when mass closed its rec shops, but kept open its medical dispensaries. And so a bunch of consumers who are adult use consumers are not really medical patients went and got medical cards so that they could continue to buy during the shutdown. But as a result they now the rec shops open back up, now they're buying tax-free. And I don't think that's the kind of subsidy that anybody really intends here, nor do I think it's going to be particularly necessary if in Vermont what happens is the same as happened as has happened everywhere else where prices begin to come down once the regulated market is fully matured. So I'm just wanting you to keep an eye on that and the potential for tax revenues to be too low if all of those things come together. And when I say too low I mean just that you're unnecessarily subsidizing the purchase by some people versus others as to just whether or not they were able to go and find somebody to write them a recommendation without a true relationship. So just to keep that in mind thank you. Thank you. Thank you Dave. Tito. Hello today I would just like to talk about the medical program. I believe that the most intimate and effective relationship a patient can have is with their personal caregiving grower. And on the marijuana for symptom relief oversight committee meetings it feels as though that group would like to end the relationship that caregiving growers have with patients. And it's also my belief that interpreting the law that's saying that the marijuana for symptom relief oversight committee has to have three seats dedicated to caregivers. It feels as though they're trying to change the definition of caregiver just so that those three seats are not filled by caregiving growers. And so I'd like to reach out to anybody listening to this right now. If you are a caregiver please please take an hour and a half out of your day on Wednesday and attend this meeting. The marijuana for symptom relief oversight committee it's at one o'clock on Wednesday. They do make it hard sometimes by not posting the agenda or links. If you have trouble finding it or getting on there please reach out to me or Jeff from Vermont growers or Jesse Lynn and we can help you get on there. And please have your voice heard and let's keep the medical program alive because it feels like it's on the doorstep of being over. So that's it and thank you all. Thank you. Catherine Breyers. Hi thank you guys. I'm a regional planner with the Bennington County Regional Commission down in Southwest Vermont. And board member Halberg mentioned that there's a municipal survey out and I wasn't sure if I understood that is that going to be closing this Saturday or next Saturday? It closes this Saturday. And I can connect with you about who in Brattleboro has completed it. Okay yeah because I was just wondering sometimes when we email our member towns we can help give a boost to responses but but with it closing tomorrow that that wouldn't be that helpful. But if there's a way you know if it weren't closing until next week we could potentially try and push it out if there's a low response rate in Bennington County. Okay thank you. Thanks. Any other public comment? There's two phones and it's star six to unmute. Yes it's star six on mute. If there's folks on the phone that want to make a public comment it's star six to unmute. Okay. It looks like pepper's back. Yeah I apologize for that. I hope I wasn't too jumbled. But if there's no other public comment I would entertain a motion to adjourn. I'll move to adjourn. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay so we're back at it on Monday with subcommittees. Thank you.