 Good morning, this is the record and self house office of legislative council, and I think all we're working off right now Your bill is introduced. You should have a one paper on topics for discussion I put some of the judiciary issues and then also some issues that were raised in here But that government operations has been working on this week and it's going to finalize a proposal this afternoon And then make recommendations to you on that you can't obviously talk about those But I just want to let you know that they haven't gotten lost somewhere and then you also have Some language that says at the top temporary license for early sales to the public and that's in draft language I have to consider a discussion around whether or not to allow dispensaries to do early sales So Is there a certain order or you just want to take it go down the list? Or do you want to start talking about something in particular first? I would say if you can just right now skip over the special event license. I had I Realize I had a hand out in my folder that might be helpful for you guys to look at Discussions I want to go directly to Maybe we can go to special events and then come back Well, Peggy is making a hand copies of a hand out for you No, I have another hand out Just I thought that you could look at and see what California does with regard to Special event licenses because they're one place that does does do that but About the Trapped at any language for it, but you guys you guys sounded interested in the idea basically of so right now You know, there's no ability. Let's just a little review around the public consumption issue is that if somebody wanted to have Wedding at an event space or something like that They would not be able to allow anyone to consume Because it would fall under public accommodations law Which are the current definition of public places extremely broad and it covers? all public accommodations as well as Any place where using a lighted tobacco product or vaping is is prohibited as well as places like sidewalks and Things like that. So it's extremely broad and the idea of a special event license would be that if somebody wants to hold a special event so I was Just looking at something like the like up in Montreal like a jazz fast and things like that. They allow people to Use cannabis that events like that So if you wanted to allow people to apply for a special license from the board, you could create a system to be able to do that I'm personally not thrilled with the idea of a special event. I see them as kind of That's my feeling so I need to be convinced that we're not going to just If I look at the way that we want to think it's you know Something that somebody arranges just Well, if I can chime in I agree again I was thinking I Know that cafes which I had thought would be the You know the Systematic solution to how do we allow people a legal place? I understand in this bill the idea was to avoid certain flash-point areas that being one of them because in the fall even In some ways a little more deeply in the website testing and how do people drive there and drive away? But when I think about My experience on economic development when we were asked to create master permits for resorts so that they could have trained personnel and then they could Without having to constantly be applying for a special event license They could have the ability to have a fence where they were serving out Or on the ground So it seemed like it it struck a middle ground where it's affiliated with an institution which is a hotel or it's worked and they're Allowed to have their guests on premises in a special place Doing it. I wasn't thinking so much Allowing the general public to just apply for a license so that they could have You know the barn down the road suddenly for a day I Was thinking a more limited special event license that would be sort of like the master program Okay, I'm not as familiar not that familiar with the liquor ones. I but I can certainly look at that And would that be it requires, you know that the people today This would be like an annual permit that they would have rather than kind of an event permit Is this this was I think the idea was similar to something with it with liquor Was that kind of somebody's help holding a party and they're gonna have a bartender being serving it? Sometimes they get these kind of yeah, I don't know what they call them But certain types of licenses from the from the liver control board We've we've we've built it out because you know, frankly, we're Trying to grow our craft brew industry and other things We've built it out so that there's a whole sequence You have to have training you have to have Other things required. I wasn't thinking of going that broad brush here But I was thinking if we if we threw to the board that they would create something Parallel master permit for is that what it's called master? That's what I think of it as I forget what it's called but it was we did it about three or four years ago at the at the request of places like Stowe resort and Is it an annual so that they so essentially would be an exemption for for this so it's like if you know If the Stowe resort wanted to apply for it would be an annual license It would be essentially an exemption from the right public place Consumption and it was built around the idea that they had Extensive grounds that they control so they weren't so it wasn't like the public would be interacting with this it would be only people who were staying at their at their place We're having an event at their place so It was an event license that was on the property of And so we've allowed them things we wouldn't allow other special because Anyway that that was more of my thought than I'm having a party this week I'd like you know That's not at this point where I Because it's not a public It's a private Yeah, if you're renting is if you're if you're if it's a place where you're renting and it falls under the definition of Accommodation where it's offering services Would be yeah, right? I am using the example of somebody was having a wedding and rented a space You know like the round bar or something like that I wanted to apply for like a one-day event permit was the concept, but You use I guess you can eat anywhere So if you ask the board to develop rules Events I Think that it's a good idea to have them look at that and I can tell you I don't think they even need to look at other states Roger Mark who was in here the other day and he was talking about the events that were held up their sheriff Mark And he he said they went off without a hitch and he supports I mean he doesn't support legalization at all But he does support if we're gonna do it this kind of special event No, no, I'm just saying he supports. Yeah, but when you look at other states, you're also looking at failures, right, right? Yeah, okay. Yeah, you could say locally and yeah I think they're gonna be deciding tremendous number of things Then we get to decide whether or not to allow them and what rules would be put in place if we were allowed But we're not let's say that is one of the licenses now we're saying look into the possibility of this as a license So I'll just throw it out there Well identified product I'm going back to the commission the commission was divided on whether or not Second My memory was that and and I wasn't on the committee then so I was getting second hand from Joe and other people joneson Was it the testimony from? Colorado That that was their recommendation that we've not Well, the reason that was because time to develop packaging and other requirements around edibles and a lot of people were using edibles and then I understand that you know not having any impact They'd eat another portion of the edible and then another and then all of a sudden that would hit them So heavy that they frequently lived in the emergency That was the spike The side to that now is that the tax department's estimates I think everything it's the thing most likely to come back to Well, I think that It's very clear here that if even if there are animals there it has to be really well Packaged well labeled quality control everything else. So and that I think was one of the issues in the other states because they didn't They didn't have this deliberative process before they Rolled it out Public place cafes What's the difference between public place and cafe I just the the issue have been raised by a few Just to tag it around whether or not to take another look at the definition of public place and where people can't consume It's an existing law, but it's now reproduced if you look I Page four So it's an existing law what you did when you did the utilization there's the provision in there It says that no person shall come in there. I want it in a public place. There's a Civil violation to the defense Civil penalty for that that is Not changed, but it's also kind of brought into this other new cannabis chapter And kind of put up front there with the definition with something very clear. They are again saying that you can't consume in a public place I think this definition is fine. I don't know if you wanted to put We wouldn't put it in now, but especially if we're gonna allow us something like special Pardon Yeah But right now there is Is that take care of public place The list question about these hermit general somebody raised questions about it That was the health department and their draft report on the commission said that That the smoke the Vermont smoke-free laws didn't apply to cannabis You look Can I go back to Edward I'm sure so I'm looking on page 22 and So there's a prohibition on products are packing a product more appealing to children and I I understand me The idea is to have a brown wrapper or something. That's opaque That's not attractive in that way but I'm guessing that The idea will be to make it taste good, right? So people people are inevitably going to mix it with chocolate So you're gonna have to open your package, and then you're gonna have a chocolate candy one And once the package is open. That's I think when the problem occurs Somebody opens up party. They eat their recommended dose of one piece Now it's open people are at a party. There's a candy bar somebody eats it and That's when we have the spice that Joe was talking about So I I think the packaging provision is good, but I do think It's it's very possible to imagine people who do not want to consume accidentally consume Whereas with a smokable or baked product So that's where my And they had chocolate They did not They had chocolate cookies for patients Yeah, yeah, perhaps you could put One dose per packet or something of that nature rather than a package about those I don't know if that's But you know It looked to me like I would have a cookie with one dose of whatever the product was You do have just I'll just dry your attention to language on page 21 on the rules in subdivision 3 He is Limitations to a specific number of servings for each individual package of edible products So Well, it's this big and it's one serving Policy project so in the states which had had problems Not really problems. They were highlighted incidents where certain people were Consuming without the proper education Those states have subsequently gone back and done a lot of what you've incorporated here And I think we heard from Andrew Friedman. I believe that said there hasn't been issues Since they've gone back done the consumer protection the thing I just want to remind you is that When you're when you're buying an edible product or a consumable product From from a legal It comes with information it comes with information on dosing It with information on safe storage oftentimes it comes in packaging that can be resealed resealable and child proof You can keep it in that, you know so I think in terms of sort of avoiding the harms associated with With somebody consuming inadvertently actually including it Serves a much greater sort of consumer protection purpose than just allowing Edible because that will exist whether they're in this bill or not people will be making them We they will be selling we agree on that the question is should we do single single serve? Serve packaging or should we allow multi serve packages in one a multi serve doses in one package? Yeah, I mean it's hard and certain edible products So for instance, you know, you're thinking in the sort of cookie brownie as a single serving But oftentimes edibles come in in mints or different different types of Laws and just things like that So single serve would be hard just from a practical perspective to do like single serve well Yes, I think so what they did and so for instance in in Las Vegas They limited each single serving within a package to no more than ten milligrams per serving You could do something like that either five or ten milligrams per serving, but there could be ten Servings within that but even she can I visually yeah Yeah, actually in many states they actually and I think it's in your bill you have this like you'll see on a serving It says THC on it or have a symbol to tell you that This contains THC very clearly both on the packaging but also on the individual thing that you're consuming it will say THC as a warning sign So I'm thinking honestly and they call it one size is like Last Sunday at the grocery store. I bought a package of the one size of Snickers Each one is individually packaged But just you know So for instance if you have a limitation on a hundred milligrams per and any type of More consumable product no matter how many there could be ten of them Or there could be 20 or five milligrams even but you can't have more than a hundred milligrams in any fact I'm just picking that that's what Las Vegas That would be helpful to Understand why we would want to prohibit packaging Chocolate I Don't think it's just chocolate here. You're talking about Los Angeles. You're talking about mints talking about brownies or cookies or Any one of those things could be appealing to children. I mean kids By itself but this provision I think is designed to prevent packaging right right right right well What I'm saying though is that any of the products inside of the packaging could be appealing to children So if you have if I have a package of M&Ms And I open it up and eat five of them and then leave it laying around. I mean that's I Don't know how I think that we have to I do Understand but I think that we have to have some faith that People Will be somewhat responsible. They're already people are already using edibles and they're responsible For the most part with them and the fact that Maureen Dowd led her stupid dog eat brownies She herself ate the brown okay, I thought it was her dog She herself ate those brownies. I mean you can't you cannot and you cannot Legislate stupidity for stupidity. Well, so I I'm just concerned that if we go so that we should allow the board But I think that we're we're putting some faith in this board to to promulgate rules around to to make it as as Untracted to children as possible and I think that we can go into the week We can go into the details So much here that we get ourselves all wrapped up in a knot But we should leave a lot of that detail to the board. That's my feeling I will say this If I go to line 20 point three eight 21 product away from children I think it should be minus Because you're still talking about those eight, you know, we could argue about the children. Yeah You're right. I'm still questioning whether we want to leave the word products Can I talk about that from the objectives? I think much more. So if you look on page 22, there's a prohibition Still available page 22 prohibition on My Is that there's a prohibition on products, you're right It's not just packaging products are for packaging that make the product more appealing to children And so remember and this so this isn't this is going to be something that's going to be fleshed out by the board Through the rulemaking process. So I would say that maybe that through the looking at that they may say well, we're not going to ban Chocolate but we're going to put we're going to say if you're doing chocolate has to be done in this particular way Has to be done in these particular servings. Each square has to be stamped with You know contained tea at sea or something like that, you know But maybe they may say a product that is more appealing to children is something like gummy worms And maybe they're going to say we're not going to allow gummy worms You know, which is something that you see a lot on the west coast But the board may say that that we consider that to be a product that is more appealing to children Chocolate is something that's appealing to everybody Um, and they but they may say well, there's a way to do that You know, you can have no more than four servings per package You know Well, you're getting away from the actual Continent word You're talking about the visually appealing Chocolate is going to be appealing in one way or the other. That's the product. It's but I think to michelle's point It's it's getting at a manufacturer who might say um, we'd like to expand our market um, not explicitly but but you know Outside scrutiny, we'd like to expand our marketing to the miners and they like gummy worms Market surveys show that's their favorite candy. So we're going to put out Gummy worms. So that would be a deliberate design to do it. But I think more likely you just Have people that would be looking for cool fun Party-like candy-like ideas and inevitably you're going to go into Different can we then say product design? more packaging I mean product is chocolate Chocolate is appealing right so and that's and that's my point if if there's the word more Prohibition on products that make you know or pack or package. Well, I guess the more appealing is I just suggest that Think about this for a minute, but I wonder how do we ban? you know, I just Instead of gummy worms, how do you ban? Then making the products in the form of a star wars character Or some other thing that might become appealing to kids. That's what you're really looking at. So Joe, that's correct. I'm not sure you're saying Joe We have the lawyer and the professor here on gilgames island I'm trying to figure out products or packaging designed To make the product more appealing. Yes, it makes sense Right, so I would say you have a comment. I don't know who you are. So you identify yourself. I'm just a Vermont citizen No, that's not Oh, I don't care. Carol Daigle. I mean Carol Daigle. Oh, thank you. And I grown down from Colter so this morning um It just a few things You cannot find anything on the legislative website about marijuana if you look for it I look several days for the bill that's involved in this and you can't find it on the website The sergeant at arms could find it for me yesterday when I was here and they sent me down to the select legislative committee or If it's under cannabis it was under cannabis. Well, that's what we call That's what I I understand that but as an independent Person trying to find information. There was no cross-reference To marijuana at the legislative website. So I missed earlier hearings And just happened to hear about this one by your luck yesterday when I was down here for another reason but um Two things that I would just like to comment on Well, one one issue in particular, but the other is a question. I'm not in favor of legalizing Marijuana. We already legalized Pardon? We've already legalized it. We did that last year. I thought the governor didn't sign the bill. No, he did I understood he wasn't going to sign the bill because it wasn't something about being able to test drivers This is what we're doing now is that is a another step where we would test. I think I think somehow the public And you have been misinformed We legalized it last year The governor signed the bill marijuana is legal in Vermont. There's just no way to buy it legally Then that goes to my question and one of the points I would like to make. I heard you discussing earlier about being allowed to scan public places and My husband and I go to the fireworks in brollington and for us they were spoiled because There were people around us smoking. They were doing it illegally They were but how are the police going to police A crowd like that? They give them a ticket. It's not going to happen. Well, I you know There's gonna happen 80s out of there into the random 40,000 people In brahman or regular basis smoke marijuana The police can give them a civil ticket for smoking in a public place. There's Statute already in place that you can't do that If the police chose not to that's You know something that they chose not to do Well, I'm sorry your fireworks Thank you Are these items going to be sold in a specific store that's just strictly marijuana or are they going to be out in mom and pop stores? They'll be in a place that's specifically licensed to sell marijuana And would people be restricted by age to go in the store? Yes They have to be out over 21 Thank you Sorry, you didn't find it. I'm sorry. I'm sorry that an honor didn't know the difference between marijuana and cannabis That there was an oversight. We could have cross referees somehow, but So just so everybody knows is it on our legislative website if you go to where you look for bills All you have to do is put in a keyword and if you put in a keyword marijuana Even though the bill is called The uh relating that relating to regulation of cannabis because the word marijuana appears Numerous times in the bill The bill should pop up. Maybe we should send out a notice to the sergeant at arms about how to use the website Yeah, I could actually show it doesn't provide I did to the circuit or actually yesterday. Okay, can we can we hold this to have a different conversation about how we better Inform the public about bills. I'm sure if you wanted to look up bank property, it might be difficult Okay, so I have looking at page 22 subdivision f little i so looking at saying products or packaging Design to make the product more appealing to children about that So the design to is referring back to products or the packaging Which is I think you want to make sure is what you want Is because it's not just the packaging that's focused on that but it can be products that are specifically designed for that Do you guys want to just take a quick look at what you have I have there and um, and I will speak with david About there, but just going through on page 21 and so there's just pre on the rules concerning product manufacturers Remember, you have all kinds of rules that they have to develop for all of the campus establishments But these are specific to the product manufacturers So it's identification of the amount of thc and cvd that constitute a single serving Limitations to a specific number of servings for each individual package Requirements for opaque child resistant packaging Requirements for labeling products that include the length of time it typically takes for products to take effect An appropriate warning is concerning the potential risk of consuming cannabis and the need to keep the product away from miners Requirements the cannabis product is clearly clearly identifiable with a standard symbol Indicating that it contains cannabis And then the prohibition on products or packaging designed to make the product more appealing to miners The inclusion of nicotine or alcoholic beverages in a product and the production and sale of products that are not Reasonably detectable to consumers including cases powers Michelle, can I ask if you define miners in this bill anywhere? We don't define miners. Um, if you when you're talking about miners, uh, you know, if you are talking I mean when I hear the word minor, I'm Thinking that it's under 18 if you want it to be under 21 then I would I would define that I wonder I'm always a little uncomfortable about using the term minor to mean people under 21 because it's not really You know the so, um, let me think about whether or not instead of here. I can say under 21 without making it too Wordy Um, because that's always my preference. Uh, just to be clear about that is because miners typically does meet under 18 So I had a question about page 22 line 10 Prohibition on the production and sales cannabis products that are not reasonably detectable Including tasteless powders I See what that's trying to do But again, I think the The other than the odor when you smoke it I think The design is going to be to make them Not be detectable because nobody wants to eat an edible That tastes like the medicine You want to eat it and have a taste like chocolate. That's a good point I think I took this from uh, some recommendations of best practices I think from actually David's client so I mean the tasteless powder Is what I think the goal is in terms of creating the mint that we talked about You don't want to have it taste like anything other than that so If it seems like here we would be insisting that these things taste Yeah, I think that I think the One of the concerns is just the application of the Without knowing what it is, but I can get more information on that. Um, it's It was to avoid Having something that's not obviously But I think then we're back to the problem with other most Edmonds generally well with a tasteless powder You can't you can't stamp it with a thing that says thc with it, you know, or you can't Identify it. It's a much more. I think so pretty slow to have something Orderless tasteless powder. Okay. So the the reasonably detectable is including the stamp or the On the actual product. Yeah, yes that if you see if you If you purchase that illegal state Unedible product, you'll see many of them Right on the individual mint or dummy have a symbol or some signifying Thing that indicates that this is thc. Some will have actual dosage on it. So say Five milligrams or you know, whatever it is. So I think with the with the powders and things like that It's harder to but and if I could just one more, what's the difference between the oil So we're going to sell oil that's in a bottle And that bottle is labeled But we're not going to sell a bottle that has the powder So what's the difference in terms of its ability to be detected outside the bottle or outside the bottle? Yeah, um I don't know and I could be wrong. I don't know that That oil is so I I'm not sure. Yeah, yeah the intent though to label A carrier. Yeah, we're not trying to prevent production of the tasteless powder Simply try to make sure that whatever Container has it is properly lit. It is preventive. I think see that that's why I think it just has to be tweaked a little bit Yeah I mean I think We might as well eliminate this sentence because It gets you back to the questions that we've already sort of provisionally answered about animals. Anyway, okay We were it was an attempt to be more conscious But then I then I think somebody could say Edibles fall into that No, but they're labeled if they're sold it was a label attached to them that then you're okay Well, then we're going to pull it Which are also no because the lake the the vial is labeled Well, okay, so then we are now allowing tasteless powder If it's if it's fine, okay Yeah, I mean what I'm pointing to is the contradiction In the bill so If we eliminate it and we're okay with having tasteless powder is sold in a vial and oil sold in a vial then That makes sense. Just so just on to I don't know what you guys decided I would leave it there and cross off including tasteless powders So that it does say that They have to be that you can't sell Prohibited are things that aren't that aren't labeled. That's essentially what we're saying here is that We can't sell I would listening to this debate I would so if you want to take off including tasteless powders fine, but I would change detectable to identifiable. Okay Yeah So just I'm just wondering in double eye Why would you not have other other drugs or something in there at your house since it says You know can't put nicotine in alcohol You are welcome to do that again. It was just looking at some things that had been recommended either by Different groups or other states around Are you talking about other legal drugs or other big? I mean, it would be clearly intermissible if it came fine with like cocaine Well, how about You know some prescription I'm excluding alcohol and nicotine Hey, that was just to go because um, I mean that's good. Those are two things that are Regularly included Well, there are products out there. Yes that do and They're illegal products I think it would be harder to harder to if you were a product manufacturer It would be you'd have to first get a prescription and get the drug and then you'd have to somehow Beat it upwards. I mean alcohol and Tobacco are pretty readily available and So you I don't know how you would put a legal A legal drug in a cannabis Very good my capsule put it in I I suppose you could But it seems to me since you specifically mentioned these two that you'd want to mention Drugs legal drugs because you're saying also if you're going to mention these things I don't know where other prescription drugs or other drugs You might put coffee in The witness yesterday was talking about if you had trouble sleeping you recommended a nine pound hammer So what if you what if you had a company that put some other sleep aid In with it No, that's The reason I saw the brewer somewhere I Was a high incidence of accidents in alcohol and beer, I didn't drink alcohol in beer. And alcohol and marijuana are mixed. I thought that was an excellent test. And what's your testimony? So if you were thinking of an event, can the events serve both alcohol and marijuana that should give up their keys? I don't know. I don't, okay. What, you disagree? No, no, no, on this I'm trying to figure out with Alice how you, you might have somebody to put Valerian in with it, but that's not a, that is a sleep aid, but it's not a prescription drug, or, so I don't know how you would. Can we move on? But my guess is that the board will go into more detail on those later things. I just wanted to think about this stuff. Can we move on? Yeah. We're gonna have a whack-a-mole for a few minutes. So, we're done with public places. I think we're done with public places, edibles, and cafes. And did you talk about cafes? Well, we talked about them, but I think the message that I've got is that it's similar to the public place and that, you know, I think I'll go back to taking things slowly in the state, in which we've always done, and I think we, I hate to sound like the governor, but I think maybe we're better off to wait and see how other states like Las Vegas, like states like Las Vegas, stays like Nevada, handle some of these issues, and try to learn from them before we jump into, at least in this bill, cafes. The House wants to add it, and certainly give it a bait. Massacresence is working on its cafes, cafe rules right now. Well, you know, I think at that time, again, I'm reminded that we have, this is not the end, this is the beginning, and we have at least a year when we get the timeline to discuss that, but we have a minimum of a year before you can even begin a sale. So I don't see how you can even do it before July 2020. So we have another session to go over some of these issues. I think it was, you know, the whole bill would become about cafes, if you add that in here. And finally, we get out. Yeah. The question about that I am just completely spun on is, because I'm not, I mean, I grow, I have a small garden, so I understand how to garden, but I'm not a cultivator, and I don't understand candidate sizes, and that whole issue, is I lost it over yesterday. The guy who talks about life-caring on the 60 grand after he sold his 20 pounds of product. Was he, was he coming, he grows his plants here? Well, no, he was talking about growing the seeds to make a better strain of marijuana, and I, as I understood it, if you go by plant count, you'd rather go by plant count than plot size. Did I miss something? I think we're going to reverse, you want to go by, not candidate size, but split, splitage, and how do you do that? But, but candidate, I don't get the distinction here because the point, do we say 500 square feet is the allowed candidate size for the small ones? I mean, we have that in here someplace, 500 square feet. That is the, what it says here is the bad 500 square feet. Would you direct us to that section until we're talking about? So the board is to be developing tiers for the cultivators. So if you look at page 25, bottom of the page, and so the section we talked about, the types of licenses, and it directs the board to develop tiers for cultivator licenses based on the plant count and the size of the cultivation operation, and. So that was. Plant canopy size clearly says what it means is it's the area that you're growing. It doesn't include your office space or your, that kind of thing. That's what plant canopy size means. If you look at, there's a definition. It's on the definition of page 15, 15. Yeah. So I don't get why people were so upset about the plant canopy size because it just says that's your growing area. That doesn't include your office space. I don't have a comment. Yeah. I just tagged it. I don't know why. I don't really know why, and if somebody here wants to. Yeah. Can you see it? Laura Sue in Vermont Coalition to Regulate Marijuana. I believe that the concern that he was expressing was that to cultivate clones like he wanted to do takes up more space than to cultivate the plants. And so if there was some, he was advocating for some language in there that would make a distinction or allow for more space for that kind of cultivation operation without making a gradient to the next tier. I think that was his point. So does another family hire a license fee for growing clones? Another permit. It is not cultivation, licensing, another consideration that I also don't find. He wanted 2,000 instead of 15. That's true. What he said was that 1,500 was good. And if you're a good grower, that was great. But if you were a lousy grower, that would be really funny. 2,000. If you're a lousy grower, she probably bought it for business. That's what he said. Give those people an opportunity to give them 2,000. So we could direct the board to come up with, in where it says that they can do tiers, we can direct them to come up with some kind of tiers around cultivators that would specifically address breeders. Yes. I attended a hearing back in December in Willisdon. And some of the people that spoke were talking about the cultivation. And I have a question about the bill that you're working on. Does this have anything to do with restrictions on the power or the concentration? Because I'm hearing people talking about the cultivation and creating stronger forms. This is a markup. I just wanna explain. This is a markup of the bill. And the question would have been better directed a couple of months ago. But, you know, when the house takes over the bill, but can you answer that, Michelle? I'm sorry, I'm sorry. What was the question? The question is, does this particular bill deal with the amount of concentration that's gonna be allowed if people cultivate them? Oh, I see why. Yes, it does because it's different. That's the amount of acres or square footage. And also, the towns have the ability to say what will be in their town if they wanna have a vote to not allow cultivation or to allow cultivation. But it also specifies that there has to be a label on it that says what the concentration of GHC is in any product. I think your question is about cultivation. Well, no. Right, it was cultivating for a stronger group. I heard that. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry, this isn't a, I mean, I'm trying to allow the public to enter into the discussion. This is a markup of the bill. It does interest that. I'm getting a little concerned. Folks, can we just, we get a job to do in this markup of this bill. And I appreciate your questions, but you know, unfortunately. Hindsight. Your time is tight and you didn't get on the list to testify about your views and your concerns about the bill. And I'm sorry about that, but I would urge you to put your name in for the house when they take up the bill. And you can talk to each of your representatives and your senators. Well, I emailed my representative. Didn't hear back. Well, that's typical of representatives. I hope so. It's cause we're getting thousands. But. From Colchester? Oh, what you're saying? He doesn't have an email. He doesn't have an email, but we'll let him know you were here. So can we move on? Where we're gonna watch it? Yes. So talking about the community says, I was wondering whether or not you might be able to ask the person in the room who grows over there if there's a suggestion for language to address the other gentleman's issue around the clones. Okay. Yeah. You get into a way. You might have fired yourself. Shane Lin, Executive Director of Shandpile Dispensory. I think the gentleman is kind of looking to mention him yesterday about breeding genetics. He'd like to basically have a nursery. You know, think of a nursery and he'd like to just sell those plants and not be constrained to a flowering canopy. And so he's thinking more like, hey, a nursery, I wanna go in by plants and so have more of those. And so I think we have to be potentially a separate teeter system for those people. So I wouldn't eat it. You wouldn't be telling any. I'm just trying to think about what to do with my language. Maybe consider a small subsection on nursery, the nursery license or something. We can talk afterwards. Okay. Is it okay if I just talk with him about what he was thinking out there? I would, you know, I lost, when he started answering that question, I lost track of what I was saying. Oh, I'm sorry. It'll come back, but it's a sign for a bit. I know. What I was gonna say was if you could work out something that would be more like we did with him, remember when they first drew up we were looking at scientific, you know, or just test plots where you would have a specific rule regarding testing. Not sure. That's more of what he was doing. Just testing product to see if the strain was good or bad or whatever. It's a different process. Just to suggest you, Michelle, but morning 13, instead of cultivator license, you recognize your cultivator licenses such as breeders or flowering licenses. But we're actually ceding to the board in order to say what licenses shall be available. So my thought is just to have the inclusive statement such as something of that. Okay. I agree. I don't know whether there would be different kinds of licenses for wholesalers or anything else on the list. Well, I think what you happen too is that they develop the tiers for the cultivators and may develop tiers for others. So if you look at some places like Mass, it's got like in 10 to 12 tiers for cultivators and you could have different ones in there and you could add something in here. You could have a tier for nurseries that are of a certain size and you could have four others that are based on camp size or something like that. But I'll talk to Shane a little bit to try to understand the issue a little better and see what we're doing. Okay, are we done with camping? Some are. Over four or so hours. It would be a bit in this sense, it's too, but it's kind of a different. Can we jump to kernel history records? Yeah. There was a lot of discussion about that. What page is that on? And we did have recommendation on David Silverman and others on this issue. One of my concerns is that we're not, obviously, has to do with... 24, 24. Page 24. One of my concerns is that when we include minority groups we do not forget that one of the minority groups in Vermont is the abenaculation. Vermont recognizes federal government still hasn't. So I know, I don't know, but as we can look at minorities, I don't think we should forget that that was a minority that was certainly discriminated against by the state of Vermont and the federal government. Do you want to talk about the priorities or about whether or not that is right? I just want to, because it comes in there with the criminal, just unfortunately, abenac, and that community. Yeah, that actually would be, I'm sorry, on page 27. I thought you were talking about applicants' criminal history records. Well, it's both, but it's both because the criminal history record would have to do with the view that many who were arrested during the war on drugs had to do with minority groups or particularly young people. And if you look at the Nixon tapes, or listen to the Nixon tapes, when there was a discussion of, back in, you gave us this history show, back three years ago, where it was taught on tape, Nixon talking about making sure to not lower the schedule on marijuana because he wanted to go after the hippies. Even though his commission that he had appointed the special commission and recommended not having a marijuana rank at that level. So you can look at that. Then when you get to criminal records, what I don't want to do is give a preference to somebody with a criminal record over somebody who got their record expunged. Or never have. Mr. Chair, one of the people who had testified earlier on that question, we spoke yesterday, and she advocated that she hadn't been argued for preference, but rather a lot of the playing field, but understand. So I think it may have been a misunderstanding about where that line of- Well, I'm looking at Boris. At Boris, she submitted a social equity sample language document, I don't know if I think. I would be able to know. I don't, we, on page 28, we already, I mean, we do, it is there on page 28, line 567, right? Well, I think that they would, they had some proponents. We asked them for proponents, do we have those? Yeah, I thought, Peggy, you know the letter that you got this, you said, I will post and make copies. This was this morning. Yep. Can you put that out for everybody? Sorry about that. I thought everybody had it, but I'll post for everybody. Thank you. I was just gonna put them in the files and then you know what I'm looking at today. So I just wanted to post it. There's the issue around working in your priorities and then your discussion around inclusion of communities that have been disproportionately impacted by the drug war. There's that issue. Then also what I found here is criminal history records, which is on when they're doing background checks, which is a separate issue. I just make clear that the expungement issue is gonna be in the House bill overall, looking at expungement rather than doing expungement here and expungement on the police and the what. The House wanted to take the lead on that. So even though we took testimony on the bill that would lead to the fee of the court of the person I have their record expunged, you know, the fee of the state's attorney by all the petition rather than the individual. We'll have the House deal with all of that and then we can add stuff to it, obviously, if we need to. I think can I have one? Oh, sure. Well, you didn't get it. For Michelle, I keep the bill in half, sorry. I took the painting by surprise. I guess you didn't expect me to take the song. Yeah, no, I thought I was gonna go in the folder and have a talk with you today. There's also the one that Silverman sent around the language with the records if you find a point to that, but I don't know. Did you have that one, Peggy? The letter from David, an email from David Silverman. Wasn't that the last? No, this was different. It was different. It was yesterday, but I don't know that. We didn't look at it yesterday. Yeah, it should be in there, gave it to us yesterday. Yeah, yesterday I gave it to you guys. The record did. So I thought the bottom text that's already existed that you can only invest in one. Well, no, they're saying unless the additional license is going to be in equity candidates. What, what? So it's an effective answer. So we're gonna allow some people to invest in more than one, but not other people. Yeah. Why would we do that? That's the fact of the proposal. Why would we do that? Hold on. I think if the main goal is to increase the diversity of the whole group of the licenses, then I would be wanting to do that. So, okay, I'm not sure I'd buy that at all. You're supposed to do it for her. I don't think so. I wouldn't support it because I like the idea that we're starting everybody evenly. And this seems to cut against the idea that we would want to keep everybody to one license. You could wind up with one person aligned with 10 or 15 other people who qualify as equity candidates. And then in essence, have it aligned. Right. One company. I just want you to sit down and like, which I don't know. Yeah, I don't have that idea pretty well. Thank you, you can take mine, our copy. All right, and I do some of the things at the beginning like the outreach and the conducting necessary and the disparity study. Well, I think those are probably good. It's going to delay it for another year. If we want to. What are you looking at? Yes. I mean, if we're going to do a study on how to, I can't. Can I make a pitch, Mr. Chair? I like under rules concerning any campus establishment may, I like the first XX and I would get rid of the colon. Well, okay, keep the colon and then do lowercase I conducting necessary and appropriate outreach to diverse groups that may qualify. And then one of them will six, creating a program promoting a program for technical assistance for every office. If we did those two things, I think that's quite enough extra additional work for that board to be doing. But the others I will pick up on. Hi, creating the program for technical assistance. I think that we could, there's a section in here that talks about working with other boards with expertise or other departments with expertise. Including we're going to add very specifically, or we're going to suggest adding very specifically that working with AG, for example, around testing and quality control. So I would say here we could add something that working with DOL and ACCD, but I don't think the board itself should have responsibility for doing that. I think that they can work with labor and ACCD that both have training programs to try to implement that. That would be my suggestion. So instead of asking the board to do it. Where were you on the little I, I, I? The little, drop it. The little VI. Phil was dropping. I think the proposal was just this. It was right here. It was the due six. Number six, yeah. I was looking for one and six and then the language up top on XX. And. So in other words. Put this one. But I take to that's point. I think that's maybe a better way to do that one. So in that case, I would change my suggestion to the XX language followed by the I language. And then a period after under this chapter and then elsewhere, maybe suggest that program alive with those agencies. Laura. I'm a law school election to regulate marijuana. I am also to Senator White's point, I have collaborated with Silverman, Dave Silverman on some language that is more specific about the things that you're saying. We just didn't have time to pull it together but should have agreed by this afternoon. Or I think you're also likely talking about those types of issues. And we are absolutely fine with what Senator Barude is suggesting right now. I did wanna clarify that the suggestion in this language, in this around a study was not another study of this issue. It was in order to protect the constitutionality of prioritizing certain, the possibility of prioritizing certain communities to have that area have some information and data to support that these were communities harmed by the war on drugs. So I'm not attached to it, but I just wanted you to understand that that was the recommendation and not a, let's study this issue about whether the war of drugs has had a disparate impact on those communities. That's a question, Dick. I just wanna ask a question of Laura. Laura, when you keep saying communities, are you, defined from the communities, are you talking about a group of people that have been disproportionately impacted? Or when you are using communities, are you talking about sometimes communities where someone would have preference to have a place located? I think both. I think that there are, we know that the war on drugs disproportionately impacted poor people of color. And that poor people of color might, you can demonstrate that there are concentrations of poor people of color in certain communities. So I believe that both those individuals and those communities should get some kind of preference for access or benefits from the tax and radius. They shouldn't have the lobby in Broward. No, they won't. They'll all be in Chittenden County. We have a very, very small minority community. So they'll either all be in Chittenden County or the ones in Wynnum County will all be owned by women. Because I mean, although it would include the economic impacts and the economic justice impacts so that if you include people that disproportionately impacted people who can't pay their fees, people who can't get out of the cycle of criminality around low level marijuana convictions because of factors like poverty, it would be much more inclusive of issues beyond just race. Yeah. I think we have to be careful. I agree, we have to be careful. Are we doing the most? I don't know. I don't know. We'll come to work from there and I kind of just want... In regard to Phil's suggestion, I'm wondering, a woman from the North of Erdogan establishments, a major investor. I don't think they're talking about that one. No, actually, Jeanette and I said we didn't like the bottom line. Oh, okay. I thought you wanted to move that above. No, it's just the top around the procedure. Oh, no, I don't want the bottom line. So drop the bottom line. Yeah, okay. The first X-X is what I was talking about. The first X-X is the little Y. And then one and six. Not six. One and what? One. It's just X-X and one. Oh, that's all you're doing. Well, Jeanette had the suggestion of doing six elsewhere with leaning on those conversation statements. Okay, okay, I'm good with X-X and one. Okay, and what is wrong with either the little III requiring each marijuana staff to report on the diversity of this workforce? No. Is there some problem with that? With me? With anybody. Well, I don't know who to be with. Because if you have your establishment in Grafton, Vermont, the chances of you having a diverse workforce are gonna be nil, I mean. But why wouldn't you report that? But what difference does it, what impact is it going to make? I mean, what's the purpose of reporting? I'm just gonna say no one can have one in a place where there aren't any minority groups. No, no, no. So why bother reporting? I'm just wondering, it's a private business establishment granted it has to be licensed, but we don't do that elsewhere in the private sector where we require reporting of diversity information. Well, I can tell you, we ain't very diverse in Bennington either, but we've got a lot of diversity in the program I used to run, in terms of both employees and the clinical home students. Residents, I think it's impressive I wish more people would do that in this report. I mean, that's part of why Vermont has a reputation that it does, because nobody knows the facts. So I think Bennington is a very small minority population, but I have seven of the employees now. And it is a very diverse employee. No, I would argue with you. I don't care, I just see no reasons you were doing it. Report on accomplishing. The ultimate result, to get a report, and it's obvious from the report, there are no minorities employed. Is there a round for kids in Vermont? I don't think so, just to maybe at least know. The only thing that's got me nervous about this whole thing is you are facing front of the board a requirement that Phillips suggested here, you are conducting necessary and appropriate outreach. Does that come before we start ramping licenses because you're delaying the process? You're gonna delay in five months. Well, but I think the point from the social justice equity witnesses that we had was this is an opportunity to start everybody equally, but you don't start equally unless you do some extra work with people who have been disadvantaged. And that includes outreach prior to the licensing process. So I don't think it's too much to ask. I mean, we do this when we put out RFPs, you, or when you're hiring, we call it enriching the pool where you have, when we hire a UVM for instance, we're required to do things to enrich the pool. That is outreach to minority communities that might not otherwise read the chronicle of higher education. And as a result, we have a richer pool, the number of minority candidates higher, it's higher. So when I limited it to the first X, X and one, I think that's not too much work to ask of the board, but it's a necessary bit of work to ask of the board. Is there any cost that's associated with that? Probably, yeah. And who's gonna determine what's necessary and appropriate? Well, that's up to them, to the board. The board. Well, and everything. I guess I'm a little nervous, but I'm not gonna scream while they murder and object to it, but I'm just a little nervous on how they can delay things and cost us and have any real understanding of what the committee's pleasure even better than not having to just do what the board suggested in the first place. Which is what? X, X, I, and that's it. No, I don't know that I like I either. I mean, I don't know because I don't know what it means and I don't know what conducting necessary and appropriate outreach means, and I don't know what it means to diverse groups. Does it mean to the poor farmers in that we're gonna have a concentrated outreach effort to poor farmers in Bell's Fault, or in Rockingham? Or does it mean we're going to outreach to women? Does it mean we're gonna outreach to new Americans? To, it isn't, I think it is really, I don't know how you do that and how they would interpret that. I mean, elsewhere in the bill we have descriptive language that points at communities that have been disproportionately harmed, I think. They don't have super specific definitions there, but I think the board would have sufficient. I think the task that Michelle draft in the redraft that we look at in the near future, like next week, highlight draft and put in X, X, and I. I think I can tweak the language a little bit. You tweak the language a little bit. If they're talking about the outreach to diverse groups that may qualify, I think it's going back to those who have been disproportionately harmed by marijuana prohibition. And so I think I can tie those things together and then you can look at, oh, you can just look at our language and it'll get. Okay. Yeah, your name. Okay. All right, thank you. Okay, then we'll add in our recommendation about working with other boards. Now, you look at the criminal history of the swallow petition line, which you'll note that there is the final, the sentence is not underlined, prior offenses shall not automatically swallow by a candidate. Well, first of all, should we put in based on fact and demonstrate where the apprehensis possesses the threat to public safety, the process of an impregnated mark? So that would be, you look at the criminal history and based on factors in that criminal history, whether the person possesses a pose of threat. So the person applies for a job, has a trafficking in marijuana, 50 pounds or more, and a trafficking in cocaine, and it was all headed down route 89 to 91, headed to Greenfield Mass and Holyoke, and clearly this is something to do with organized crime. So you would disqualify based on that. Even though they have a prior record, but the person has a possession 22 years ago, why would you, or you know, a sale 22 years ago would not, wouldn't be automatically disqualified. You would determine whether they presently pose it, right? Right. Never learned whether they were expunged or not. Well, if they were expunged, it doesn't exist. So you wouldn't know that. No. My question would be, what happens if you add in prior offenses should not automatically disqualify, can't they? Does that mean that if you can't prove it was drug trafficking, they're not disqualified? I'm kind of worried about that sentence and all of those. I think if you say that, then somebody who has a racketeering, you know, commercial fraud, embezzlement, tax evasion, drug trafficking convictions on their record, you still can't, you still have to come up with some basis for why they presently pose a risk to not. And so I think that by saying that prior offenses and being so broad prior offenses shall not automatically disqualify. Do you want the board to be able to look at? I mean, and I mean, what you have in there is that they're gonna develop standards for determining whether or not. And so states have done it differently, but yeah. I don't think that we would strike the lot out of that, not automatically strike the other. I believe it's weak. So you would say nonviolent offenses shall not disqualify. I don't know why you have any of that language. Well, right now the bill says nonviolent drug offenses. Shall not automatically. I'm asking why we have any of that. Because I think we're saying that it shouldn't automatically, just because you have a prior offense to you, it doesn't automatically disqualify you. If there's some other thing that disqualifies you, that the board shouldn't just say, anybody who has a record is disqualified, but it is not what it means. Well, but. Yeah, because a lot would depend on the board if you had a very strict board and they just decided, we don't want anybody who's ever been convicted of anything to have a license. Why? I don't think that's the sense of the committee. Right, what, who is? Because right now for a dispensary license, you can't have prior legal convictions. And so this is a change in policy saying that nonviolent drug offenses should not automatically disqualify and then you would read that in concert with the other ones saying they have to be a president, but this is just kind of a thing to the board. You can't automatically. We would not strike the nonviolent drug. Keep the nonviolent drug. So would you say prior offenses? I would, I would cut the sentences right here. I would start by saying prior offenses shall not automatically disqualify a candidate. The board shall adopt rules and set four stands for determining whether an applicant should be denied because of criminal history based on factors that demonstrate whether the applicant presently poses a threat to public safety and proper function of regular government. I just, my concern there, and I don't know, I think, you know, it's part of the discussion, but is it if you say prior offenses shall not automatically disqualify a candidate? And you have somebody that has been involved in some big operation of financial crimes and the activation of things like that. And it's maybe it's in the past and maybe they've completed their sentence, but do you want to say to the board that they can't say based on that we're gonna consider you that you're presently not? If, well, that's where the question turns, are they presently posing a threat? If they're no longer posing a threat, why would you want to deny them no matter what their previous crime was? Well, what if they were convicted of a RICO offense that did 20 years that shows a history of the sort of behavior of most long-term avoidance, which is, like, not the question. The question again would turn on are they therefore presently a threat? Who has to prove that they're not? The applicant, but who's it on to prove they're not? That's what I get nervous about, Joe. Whose responsibility is to prove that they're not? The establishment owner, the licensee, or the individual? That's where the problem comes in in my view. So this guy, let's say it was an unwell thing, but he's continually embezzled over the last 30 years, and for 10 years he's popped and bezzling. Does that ever say, well, it doesn't automatically disqualify him, but who gets in trouble if they don't hire him? Because they're worried about hiring somebody with a long history of embezzlement that's never been expunged. And I'm sitting there, I'm the owner of this establishment, and I'm making a decision now, am I gonna get sued by this guy for not hiring him because he has a history of, but he hasn't done any embezzlement in the last 10 years, so we should give him a chance behind the cash register. Well, this directive is us telling the board to develop rules over the subject with the burden of proof of establishing one way or the other, or are they currently a threat or not? Is something wrong? I'm gonna turn this on you with what you said about my proposal on the reports. Where else do we require an employer to determine whether or not the person is still, do we say to the employer at the MISA store that get MISA, ask them to determine whether the person... No, I think the entire issue is a legitimate one, but we are giving directive to the board to come up with a schematic. And the direction from us is, we're trying to tell them that first off, the mere existence of a prior criminal record does not automatically disqualify somebody. Secondly, in developing a rule, there should be a determining factor of whether the individual currently poses a threat. You might look back in time and see a record embezzlement and decide that that is a current threat. I don't wanna prevent the board from making that conclusion, but I don't think we disagree. I think we have a similar purpose. I don't know why I didn't hear that. That's my position. The whole thing? The whole thing? The whole thing. That was the last... The second two. Right, if you just went back to them, if you didn't strike nonviolent drug, I'm okay with that. I agree. My reasoning is prior offenses is all inclusive. And there are many things I would think that should be disqualifying. They'd say it, but yeah. In other words, if Ted Bundy walks in and says, somehow I gotta just chill. I wanna start off. I get it back. Attacks the area. He's dead, but it's not. I think that would be bad. That would be pretty hard. Charles Manson. He was born in Vermont. I wanna point out. Did he go to St. Mike Bundy? Burlinton. Yes, he did. At the one health. Should ask by relationship for the history. Anyhow, so are we okay with that compromise? Okay, leaving nonviolent drug in. I'll tweak the other language. So if somebody has, so the board could say anybody that has anything other than a nonviolent drug conviction is automatically eliminated here. Yes, they could. That's what I gotta read. If we say nonviolent drug offenses shall not automatically disqualify. I don't think they will, but they could. They could. They could say. You have to read them in concert with one another. The two things and the standards. And I can work on that language to clarify that. I think the intent with what you, the sponsors originally did was just to make it clear by adding that language about the nonviolent drug offenses is that current state policy is that if you do have drug convictions, you can't participate in the industry. And that there's a policy change and that those drug offenses should not, but that there may be all sorts of different things that may. And, but that. So let me, let me play with a little bit of language. If I had an 1886 conviction for simple assault, because the board had the power to just say that automatically disqualifies the industry. And that's the way I'm reading it. Yeah. That's the way I'm reading it. I'm not sure that that's where we want to go. I understand what you guys want conceptually. So let me just have, take some time and work on some language and so that I can come back to that. Can I make a suggestion that there's now 1025, well, exactly 1020, I suggest we break until 20 minutes of 11 if we have all of us a chance to stretch and think before we come back to the next questions. Okay. We finished with those two things. And so it's on to home delivery. I don't know. What do you think? I mean, I got, you know, we got, I started out, well, even though we don't have the most idea. I'm, I actually think I'm fine without including delivery here. I mean, I don't know. It took a long time for public safety, I think to come up with rules around delivery for the dispensaries. And I think that they probably somehow patterned them after pharmacy deliveries, as far as these can deliver. But I'm a little bit less convinced that we need it for the adult use market. But supposing that South Burlington boats are not allowed, should the residents of South Burlington have to drive to the scheme of hire? Well, Dumberston has no, Dumberston, the town of Dumberston, has no kind of center and they have no retail kinds of establishments. So if somebody wants to buy groceries that lives in Dumberston, they have to drive to a grocery store. Or they have to drive to the bookstore to get a book. They don't. So I don't see any reason why they shouldn't have to drive to Broadway. Well, Amazon can deliver to them. Right, Amazon can deliver to them. Well, we don't like Amazon. Okay. Because it's killing all our retail stores. But anyway. Well, when Amazon can deliver to them and others can deliver to them, you can't have the United States Postal Service delivering their own. I have to say, I'm with Jeanette for slightly different reasons, but I think this was very wisely designed in terms of being going small at the beginning. Small and safe, I would say. And I think to the extent that we, so we're holding off on events, we're holding off on cafes. I see this as falling into that same category of, you know, it increases the battles we're fighting about the law. So deliveries, no. I don't know what you're up to. No, I agree. I used to deliver for pharmaceuticals. 310. Really? I agree with that. 311. No delivery. I think we took care of it. I think everybody agreed on the gifting language. Yeah, I don't know why I had that on the list, but back when we initially talked about it, you said put it on the list and then, I'm sorry, I don't remember why, but I didn't want to get on it in a different language. You didn't like, you didn't especially like the language that you didn't use. I didn't love the language. You didn't love the language and you thought you might have a better language that you might love better. Right. Okay, I'll think about that. I'll should maybe shoot an email over the AG's offices so they can have any thoughts, so let my comment on it. All right, well, so there are basically two huge issues left. One of them is the tax, which is really the government, the finance committee. However, looking at the board and how you structure the board with the plan a lot, which is government operations is going to have recommendations will depend a lot on the tax and they can use the entire excise tax as the general fund revenue or use some of it to support the forward action. So just keep that in mind because of the the legislative council's estimates for the cost of the board, at least in the initial years, is higher than what I was anticipating. So I don't think you could recoup that through fees. So it may have to take some of the excise tax and use it for the board. So it depends on how you, again, I don't think we can discuss that this year, but I'm open to the idea that some of the tax revenue might have to go to the board functions at least initially. And the turn of the, as anybody, one thing we forgot in the tax related is how we do revenue sharing with local government if there is going to be any revenue sharing beyond the 1% local option tax in communities that have adopted. Should we do like Massachusetts and do some revenue sharing? I do think we should prohibit the, I just think it is the extortion. I don't know what they called it, but. Most agreements. Yeah, give us $50,000 or something. We don't want to have any open agreements. Right, but you're just saying, I think we should prohibit it because you could have a local community that says, we're going to stop it. We're going to prohibit it. Yes. That's okay. Also just kind of a little bit related to that. Is to have language that govops is going to review this afternoon around the issue of your concern that a municipality didn't go around the opt out, but basically use their other inherent authority to basically make them ban them. And so we've got some language to take away. But Husky could easily zone them out by say not within a thousand feet of the school, playground, daycare, youth center. Put them in the industrial zone. I mean, they could control that. So if you're second. They could, but I'm saying that Husky, being so small and in the area, could effectively zone them by saying, I can't be within a thousand feet of the school. Remember when we discussed sex offenders? We have some recommended language around how to do that so that a community doesn't say, yes, we'll allow them and they can operate from 3 a.m. to 4 a.m. You don't want them to be able to do that. Right. They can't effectively zone, eliminate them by ordinances or zoning. They have to have an actual opt out vote if they want to eliminate them, or prohibit them, I mean. And is that in the case of other things that they actually have a vote by the people and not by the governing board? Liquor. Doesn't the governing board does liquor? They decide on the licenses. But they decide on the licenses. But if you want to become, if you want to be a dry community, it's the community vote. The local board, I don't know the liquor legend, they actually had this experience when I was on the select board. We had a bar that frequently fights and other things were frequently occurring and the police department were being called to this establishment on a frequent basis so you can't threaten to withdraw their license based on one, they're not getting on your page. Is that the largest around the corner from your shop? No, actually that one wasn't. It was on Main Street. But... Large Johnson's. No. Pirata, I'm not, Reggie Pirata had to buy right across from the local board. Yes. A lot of funny stories about Reggie, but... Was he from Bradford, though? No, from Bennington, but we have a whole family. I'm sure they're all related, but Reggie was a long-term select board member and I'd like to do the select board while he was in jail. Oh, it's like that happens. Minus $1,000. What? Anyway, Reggie was a character. Great friend. So, we good on this? On the host experience? Yeah. But what about revenue sharing? Oh, on revenue sharing. So, I met with Anthea, had sent you some language a little while ago but we hadn't heard back from you so we weren't sure. She would be the person to talk to about the revenue sharing. If you want to talk about that in here, I can text her, see if she can come down and just do a little bit after we've talked about the other issues. Would you like me to do that? Yes, please. I had a brilliant idea. Will you email her and ask her if she can come down and talk about the revenue sharing? But she would also need to send you copies of the language after I'd speak with her. Yeah, the clean language after I'd speak with her. About the revenue sharing? Revenue sharing? Revenue sharing. With the communities? Revenue sharing and the documents. She should know the document, it should be. So, she would send that document to you for copy or copy them or whatever. So, when do you want to come down? She can come, do you want to talk about the dispensaries now? And then, I don't know what her schedule is. So, just see when she could come sometime in the next hour. She wants to know if you want to have her come down. Do you want to talk about the other things first and then have her come down? No, we've covered most of the problems. The question about moving the registry and dispensary sections of the medical, moving registry and dispensary sections to the medical cannabis bill. Taking them out of here. Taking them out of here. So, the issue with that is because the sections that you have in S54 are inherently related to all the other sections in terms of moving the programs over to the board and the adoption of the new structure and stuff. If they're moving independently, I mean they kind of, they don't. But the idea of the medical society is just playing against yesterday or the day before or whatever that day was here. Isn't it yesterday? Is there any problem with moving those? The changes to the medical marijuana program. The statutory changes. I understand. Right. Well, the statutory changes that are all on there contemplate a regulated system under the board, and not under DPS. You know what I'm saying? And then the board doesn't exist in the medical bill. Does that make sense? They all kind of, they all build on one another. So, so, right. So the sections that they're talking about, which they don't. Okay, we'll go to the section on the medical marijuana that we talked about yesterday. And I'm just talking about the requirement of what I was specifically talking about was the requirement of the amount of time in relationship with a professional doctor. And she was saying, you know, it should be three months. So where is that section? I think it's 35. That is, it starts on section nine, starts on page 35. Yeah, remember where that. So all that, I didn't mean to take out. So what I was wondering about, where is that? The three month thing is, it's not in here anymore. Well, it's not in here anymore. It's not in here anymore. And she also objected to page 37, line four. Those two things. Right, so the qualifying condition, and then also having the three month patient health care provider relationship. So you could change as you can have those anyway you want. The initial reason for the change was that this system for the registry, these would take effect after there is a legal market. So let's say person A is a 50 year old woman. She can walk into a retail licensed cannabis establishment and buy an ounce of cannabis or cannabis products under the new system. If she wanted to, she had a qualifying condition, she wanted to go to a licensed dispensary because she wanted to, they had different products or whatever it is, she wanted to be on the registry. The, I think the thinking originally with this bill was that it shouldn't be super hard for her to obtain products from a dispensary if she can buy essentially cannabis legally from any licensed retail store so that there is a lessening of the requirements to become a patient on the registry. But you can decide what those qualifications are, but however you want. Take out C and put it in the legal. C on page 37? Yeah. With that. My suggestion. You mean just go back to the original definition that you don't use that to count? That's going to be like, you're putting a big bullseye on the bill or ampute if we leave this in here. I'd rather have the bullseye on the other bill. OK, so just I'll just go back to the, I'll have to, it's more than just, you know, just tweak it. So I'll go back to existing language for the cough for the, it's not right now it's debilitating medical condition. I'll have to go back and I'll just change it and I'll make it your mom. But take out C, that's all you're doing. I leave the rest of it in and we can argue about that for the house later on. But what I'm saying is just take out C or do you want me to go back to the same? No, no, no, just take out C so that can other disease condition. We've been fighting this for 10 years with Representative Pugh and the Human Services Committee. So that fight should take place in the other medical marijuana bill, not in this bill. Yeah, I agree with you on that one. I have a bit of the same concern about the three month and I understand that the, how it will be so much easier to do it but I think the value of having a relationship with your primary care physician and then having a, so that your primary care physician knows what your issues are and then they say, I think that it would be good for you to, I mean, I think I'm certifying that you should be able to go on that medical marijuana way. If you go to line 15 on page 36 and you have cancer, multiple sclerosis, thousands, thousands, eight, blah, blah, blah. You know, I don't know how long you're going to note. I mean, three months you could be dead. But thanks for the three months. Well, we did do a call line. We did, but it's not in there. Okay, is it totally gone now? It's totally gone. So you don't have to. She was arguing that we need, she wanted to put the three months back in. Yeah. I mean, we did make provisions. I would argue you go to the emerging care they send you the emergency room and you find out you're, you know, you have cancer and you may not have more than three months to live. That's already, you don't have to under the past before that's been taken out. There are a number of reasons you don't have to have a three month relationship, but you've already taken that out. Thank you for telling me that. So this would mean you don't have to have a relationship. Just have one shot, is it? Right. Well, because, as Michelle explained, you don't need a relationship to go into the store and buy it. The only advantage would be then that you, you don't have to pay a tax at your medication. And you hopefully get more than just a product, right, into a dispenser. You get health care advice and that's the value of a dispenser answer question. But anyway. Next controversy, and I don't know if it'll settle it today. Sounded very highly. Allowing dispensaries to sell pearls, which means allowing them to set up shop before the regulated market will be able to take place. I said yesterday, I oppose that. I think the dispensaries should get a license in advance of other people because they've been doing a service to the state. But I think if we allow them advantage in the license and allow them to call it a year's head start on everybody else, I think we're following the fowl of all the things that the equity advocates were talking about all along, which is find ways to start everybody evenly, including making up for handicaps that people were given during the war on drugs among other things. So, when I asked were there any minority-owned dispensaries, I think possibly one is owned by women. Two. Two. Okay, but I would imagine 100% white ownership. Would be my guess. So if we start them a year ahead, we're in effect building into the system an advantage that may be overcome at some point, but may not. So I don't, personally, I don't see why they need to start in advance of anybody else. The main argument is that they would like money, but everybody would like money. I don't think they want the money. I think it would be generating money for the state to put into the infrastructure. No, but I would say anybody would be happy to be the first to go and they would all give the state the money. I don't think it would be more orderly than perhaps be more of a perspective by the authority that starts to have a policy to do that, which will construct this way versus... I don't have any real serious dog in the argument. If you understand why they're set up and running right now, they technically have an advantage that can lead the way, but the valid arguments are on the table as to why that shouldn't be the case because they're giving the jump start on everybody else. Well, I think they shouldn't be able to go first as long as you set it up so that they have a monopoly position when the whole thing starts, but you might do think we're going to need money to operate this sooner rather than later, particularly when you start to look at various issues and appropriations later on as the bill goes through. So I would think that we want to consider something, but I'd also like to consider some way for them to purchase products, not only from their own real operations for people who could get early licenses as well, which would allow at least some small cultivation earlier on. So I think you could structure it so that you could have, well, corporation X would not be able to sell early because they don't have a medical place, but corporation Y could, that wants to cultivate, could develop a relationship as long as the testing is available with the medical dispensary groups and sell their product to them on a wholesale basis, and that way there you'd have the growth started earlier than other might ever last be available. I think you could have, I don't think it needs to necessarily, these people are already in the business, they're already getting hurt by the underground market that we created with the legalization last year. We know their sales are down by 20% or so around the state, I don't know if that's an accurate number of change, but I've heard that this would be a way for them to recruit some of that loss at the same time, providing revenue to the state early on, and look at Massachusetts, they've owned the open for places in two years, and they're all in rural areas, so the biggest problem, if I took it and put words in the mouth of the Great Barrington's network member, this biggest problem was parking, because of all the people that wind up to get into a shop, or not his shop, but a shop in Great Barrington. So one's open in Great Barrington, Northampton, I think, couple of them in the Boston summer, but nothing's open in Boston, nothing's open in a lot of those places. According to the world's story, the black market is thriving in Massachusetts at 75% right now, that's my reason for saying we should set up a system that can allow them to start early, but also to buy some product from others. So there is no way those four dispensaries could ever have a monopoly, they're not big enough to just supply the need, I mean, they're just not. So they are already set up, like Alice said, so we could, I don't know if it's possible or not, but we have a section in here on page 21 that says the board shall consider special, the special needs of people, cultivators under 500 square feet, and maybe that's where you put the ability of those small cultivators to have, clearly the rules will be a little bit different for them and we're saying that they should, to allow them to begin to sell to the dispensaries earlier, which is what Senator Sears just suggested, that they have really small cultivators. The other, I have another issue around kind of ownership, but I'll bring that up later, but I think you could instruct the board to develop some rules that allow them to do that, and they'll never have a monopoly. And so I counted out as three, two or three, three, one, maybe, so I will put it this way. My concern is about structure of inequities that we're building in from the start. So I think if we're gonna go with early roll out for the dispensaries, we could think about balancing that with we've yet to talk about the composition of the board itself, and the advocates for equity have wanted to have one of those five people. We're making recommendations for tomorrow. I think that would be a way of balancing. Yeah, that is there. The list here of the government operating committee, we don't have their report yet, because they're slacking. We've been slacking. That's the nature of our committee. Four years, and it was taking us a long time. We have some members who haven't been out for four years and who'd like to talk. So actually, you guys have language from me on the early roll out. If you wanna take a look at it, I can just walk you through and you can give you a sense for some of the issues and you can tell me the concepts that you'd like and the concepts that you don't like. It's just if you can't instance, temporary license, temporary license, temporary status. Thank you. So this does not contemplate, but it certainly can. This does not contemplate having small cultivators under a new license sell to dispensaries, but we can figure that out. The sticking point with that that I just have to figure out is under what types of rules and regulations, because it just takes a little time to do that. But let me just walk you through this if that's okay and then I'll just explain to you the concepts and you can give me an indication if it's something you like or you want to go in a different direction. So generally what it would do is that for the existing registered medical dispensaries, if they chose to, that they would be able to sell cannabis and cannabis products on a limited basis to the public prior to implementation of the new licensing system. So while the new licensing system, while new rules are being adopted, all stuff, they would operate under their existing system and under this section. It would be, they would basically obtain temporary licenses from the Department of Public Safety who regulates them now. Those licenses would expire basically once the commercial retail is up and running. So it would be a temporary license to be selling to the public and they'd be required to ensure that they could be still meeting the needs of their patients and caregivers that they serve as well at the same time. So you'll see that's kind of language in subsection B, subsection C is basically not withstanding the limitations under their existing statutory guidance around, you know, and you can only sell to these people and such and such. So it would allow them to do it. You'll see on the second page, subsection D, so from August 1st to October 1st of this year, a dispensary could submit a letter to the Department of Public Safety requesting to obtain the temporary license. They have to submit a detailed explanation of how they plan to implement the program for sales to the public while maintaining their obligations to patients and caregivers. And then the department works with a dispensary applicant on meeting the criteria in compliance with existing Chapter 86 and rules adopted that would be relevant to this new duty. So then the department would issue a temporary license no more than 60 days after the letter of intent is received by the department and sales to the public could begin January 1st of next year. And then all those temporary licenses would expire July 1st of 2021. And that's when you, you know, you could have the first retail sales in April that year, so hopefully you would have other stores up and running. And then if a dispensary wanted to then continue selling to the public, they would have to be going through the same process as everybody else to obtain a retail license in addition to their dispensary license. You'll see subdivision D2. So for the opportunity to have that temporary license would be a one-time fee of $75,000. So for each dispensary, the fee would be going into the Cannabis Regulation Fund. The way that you have S54 set up is that that fund is all the fees from everything that funds basically the board and the regulatory structure because you have the taxes going to the general fund. And so this kind of fills the hole that you have right now, which is that you don't have fees coming in until the second fiscal year. And so there's no fees coming into that fund the first year of the board's operation. So you'd have to do a straight-up appropriation. So theoretically, all four. There's five. There's five. There's six. There's five. Five. There's five. So. All five, if they want to participate? A thousand plus. Yep. Plus, what also you would have is that once they start sales, you would have the tax revenue coming in. You could decide if you wanted to and end up on the first year or two until you have the retail sales. Maybe you want to divert some of that tax money into the fund again, to support creating the structure so everybody else can participate. So that's the funding language on D2. You'll see these turning at the bottom of the second page, so section E, the things that they could do and they could cultivate packets of the transport test cannabis, use cannabis and cannabis products to produce products and package and label and test the products and sell the cannabis and cannabis products to the public for consumption off the registered premises. Definition of public, just back on page one, means persons 21 years of age or older who are not patients or caregivers on the registry. We don't have definitions currently, I don't think in Chapter 86 for transport. It's not, I would not consider it to be delivery but if that's something you wanted to look at and define, we can do that. Transporting from their growth facility to their retail facility. I would envision that's one possibility that I don't know if the rest of them would agree on that. I don't think we define transport under the current law, but we could. So you see Subsection F is exempting them from the current cultivation plant limits right now, dispensaries. If you're a patient, you have to designate which dispensary you're gonna go to. You can't just go to any dispensary. So dispensaries, plant limits are tagged in how many dispensaries. Look at that when you add in the other language. About buying from others. Because that may be in conflict with people and it allows model contemplation to start a business. Okay. Subsection G, I just put that in there in the context of contemplating. So how do you, you wanna make sure that the, by selling to the public, they aren't then negatively impacting patients who are currently being certified of program. And something that we've definitely heard from some other jurisdictions is sometimes there is a, there is a supply, a lack of supply, actually to meet demands. And so I just put it in different days. I don't have to make appointments on those days to avoid significance. So the patients can come in and jump ahead of the law. Sure. Okay. But the dispense, so maybe that should be a separate section. Because you're talking, I was confused by it when I first read it. So the dispensary may sell to the public only on Thursday night. And then a new age would be patients. Of the dispensary shall be entitled to make appointments on those days to avoid this. Right, okay. Yeah. So it's clear there's a difference between a member of the public and a patient of that dispensary. Right. So right now, and I don't, you know, I'm sure dispensaries have different days of operation and things like that. But the idea was being that because currently patients are required to make an appointment, the dispensary, they can't just show up. That's not changing. That was still happening. I understand. Okay. The dispensary, I don't know if Thursday Friday is the Saturday, so I don't know. I just think that because Rebecca's doing it that way, but you can take a day to one. I don't care what the day looks like. I'm wondering, I'm back on D1. So the middle of that section says, so they submit a detailed explanation. Then the department shall work with the dispensary on a meeting as criteria and comply with the provisions in 18 BSA Chapter 86 and rules adopted pursuant to the chapter. Does that refer to rules that are already adopted or that they will? No, that are already adopted because the issue here is trying to figure out how can you, because getting a new system takes time and you can only shave so much time off of that, how can you use the existing system and the existing people who are currently regulated and operating under that system to do some sales in order to start funding implementation of the new system? Yeah, I mean, the committee will work its will. I just feel like we're adding a level of, in order to get it going really fast, we're adding this level of, so we're gonna have these guys rolling out on a different timeline with different kind of makeshift rules for the rec market, even as we're going through a deliberate process to create rules for the other market. And I guess I just don't, I don't see the necessity for that other than I understand for the owners of the dispensaries that it will make a lot of sense, but just as how you put together and roll out public policy, it just seems, you know, we've got the board developing rules with theoretically the public process involved with that, and then we've got these going forward under a different system. I don't know, it just doesn't seem to inelibate that to me, but if the idea is really to get it going quickly, I see why this makes sense because it's the only way to do it. Thank you. Just to finish the end lines. So on such an age, single transaction would be a half an ounce of cannabis or equivalent in cannabis products. Is that what you decided? No, this is less than what you have in S54 in the retail. You can make as anything you want, but again, thinking around supply issues. What are you doing in the big building? I don't care about the supply. An ounce. An ounce. You're welcome to, this is somebody else's that I drafted for them and they told me it was okay to share with y'all, so. Well, I don't know why we would live in. That's what you can have legally now, right? His announcement. How many of them paid for it? I'm sorry, who's gonna pay for it? A customer of white walks into the store and brought a bra to make a purchase. I was just gonna pay for a cash, credit card. My smile. I think I would direct that to the dispensaries and how they're doing it now. My understanding is that I think they are accepting some debit or credit cards now, but you wouldn't have to talk to them about how they do that now. Not necessarily credit cards, debit cards for sure, and then there are some credit cards that are sitting on the system basically. You know, if you have a smartphone and you can get certain credit on the application and then you can use that today. I'll figure it out. I'm curious. So I'd like to, in the process of objection, I'd like to do that. So each two is that cannabis and cannabis products sold to patients and caregivers shall be priced at least 10% below the same products that might be sold to the public? They already pay no tax, right? But so that would, it's giving them a double. I'm fine, I'm fine, you're talking about a remedy here as opposed to a... Well, would we do that with other drugs? Well, it seems designed to keep the... I'll go on to the pharmacy to buy my description. Do I get a 10% discount? From what? But 10% below what? This is 10% of below the same product that's available to the public. There isn't an equivalent with a pharmacy. Does that mean they jacked up the price? No, I'm saying that if you walk in with a prescription... I just wondering why we're getting involved with the price. This is a really temporary arrangement for... Yeah, this is just for the 18 month period. Yeah. Okay, why are we getting involved with the price? You don't have to. Well, it seems like, I mean, I won't guess who the request or the drafting was, but the only way it would make sense is if it's to give a competitive advantage to the dispensaries and the direct market. But we should know that there's only a temporary arrangement before the sales take place with the rent of the market. Right, but for these 18 months, there's an advantage to being a patient because you get a no tax and you get a 10% discount. What am I missing? We're still not selling it to the public yet, so we don't know what the public's selling to the public. We're selling it in the same 18 month time period? Yeah. I'll put this all last year. That's what this is. The dispensaries would be open in my public... Yeah, I got you. Not restaurant, store. I think the idea was that, I think the sponsor, folks were concerned they didn't want people to be thinking that by allowing dispensaries to sell to the public during this interim period that it would negatively impact those folks who were currently receiving goods and services. I'm wondering what the hell business is about. I have a hard time with that, with this whole concept, that we're going to determine whether or not. So if I'm the dispensary owner, I'm just going to jack the price up by 10% to the retail, and then I'm selling it at what I was going to sell it at anyway. I don't see why we're involved in pricing. If we're going to get involved in pricing, then we should say they have to sell it 10% although the black market price, on weed.com. Now, I'm serious. So would we do that? Would we require them to sell at 10% below weed.com's report for the week? I've never been to weed.com by the way. I've heard you go there and get a price. I didn't know it existed. No, that's what... I'm not making this up. I'm just going to go to weed.com to figure out the amount of revenue that we would get. By the price on weed.com. So I only pay 10% below the average retail price on weed.com for that area. I'm not serious about that, but I'm serious that that's how... I don't care about the pricing one way or the other. I don't care about the price. It just said we're giving... It didn't tell me anything. It just said we're giving them together an advocacy group. That's all it said. Well, that's all it said? Yeah. Well, I thought they had pricing somewhere. Can I get the wrong website? Coming soon. Huh? Coming soon. Coming soon, okay, but somebody got a price on a website of the average price. Maybe I got the wrong website, but I have to ask Steve Kline, because that's what he did. He went on a website. Wait, and it's a few years ago. You remember? Yep, I do. Okay, I don't care about the price. So I'm verified that he set the revenue based upon the website. Yes, it was wildly varying, depending. It was basically when these consumers just add information and say, oh, I bought weed here for an ounce, or oh, I got a half an ounce for this, so I don't know how scientific it is. All right, so we're taking this out. I'll do whatever you guys want. Remember, this isn't mine, I'm just the messenger. So you get that at me. Really? I'm just telling you. Please take it out. I don't care where I'm going to go. It's not released yet, but you'll see it tomorrow. Okay. Let's see, what else? That's it. I just mean in terms of this proposal. So she is not available. I can pull up some language and put that out, but I cannot promise you an intelligent discussion of tax from me. Well, I'm going to take that chance because we only have a half an hour or two valuable to waste. Sure. Because somebody's not available. Yep. So let me pull that out. Right now, it's that one that's on board. It says, need.com, coming soon. Yeah, that's what it says. But that's all it says. It's coming soon. Imagine that the owner of that neighborhood was holding it out, and I had to bid her a kiss. No, I don't. There's a picture of a very still looking guy. Why would you do that? Let's see. Oh, wait, okay. I'm looking at what was we supposed to do. Oh, jeez. I wouldn't have put that picture up, but. I'd be very welcome to do that, sir. Yeah. It's kind of dark and foreboding. Yeah. How do I get rid of this? I've never looked at that before. Okay, I'm sorry. Thank you. Yeah, I don't want that. Excuse me, priceofweed.com. Oh, price of weed. Price of weed, average weed in the United States. My quality, $232.97 per ounce. Medium quality, 196.88 per ounce. Low quality, I feel bad for these guys. Well, thank you. And where is that price? WashingtonWeedPricesPriceofWeed.com. This is what they don't want to do. Okay. You couldn't. Hopefully I get her answers. Oh, that's your question. Oh, yeah, yeah, no. That was brought up about how to keep monopolies and big corporations from coming here. And the suggestion was that we say that they need to, and I don't even begin to understand what this means really, but that we should prohibit complex corporate structures and allow only closely held or individual corporations. And I, we are suggesting that one of the people that is on the board have some knowledge of corporate structures and finance and all that kind of stuff, but I don't know if we want to send any direction to the board about when they're granting permits, that I don't even remember who this came from, but that it would help maintain that, the small and Vermont-based, as opposed to the high-term wishes. I don't know where it came from, but that was a suggestion that came. I wrote it down. I wanted to get put her down to the legislative intent. The intent? I think she should put her down. Bye. I was thinking of putting it in the commentaries. I think we should follow what you asked. I was talking about this, by the way. We don't have any legislative intent here, so I just wouldn't put it in there. No, I put it in the priorities. Well, maybe if you had a look at the priorities, I guess. It's somehow a key, and I admit that I don't know the language that would go there, but something that you didn't have multi-national corporations getting up all the time. You say that really quickly. Can I say that really quick? I can't even say it slowly. I can't even say it slowly. So anyway, that was just a... Was it Paul? One could make a campaign on that job. I don't remember who said it. Oh, it's the white-haired guy who, when he was Senator, briefly discussing running a presidency. He uses that term very frequently. Does he? Well, then I take it back. Sorry, sorry. It's a form of error, bro. I know who he is now. If he'd said it, I probably wouldn't have taken the chance. Peter Klodow? Peter Klodow. Three of you said multi-national. Before we get it? Sure. Well, she's coming right now. Okay, sure. Okay, close to him. Yeah. Yeah. The idea is how you set up a resident sharing with the community. Communities could use the money to do certain things that are related. Could you pass that to me? We've got an extra one. And are these only the communities that have establishments? Yes. If you have your establishment, you will get a certain amount of the revenue that's generated in your community. And you could use that revenue in the manner that is beneficial to something related to marijuana. You could use it for your schools, too. Prevention. You could use it for traffic safety. You could use it for more parking at the establishment. You could use it whatever but has to be related to the fact that you have this marijuana. So it's an impact. It's called a community, a cannabis community impact account. Is this in addition to the 1% options tax that they could use? Yeah. So they could have a 1% options tax and then we're going to send the money from the state to the town that have an establishment as opposed to the neighboring town that's feeding all the overflow and the crap. Right. Well, maybe the neighboring town would want to establish their own establishment and then they could have a community impact. So if you look at page 9, because we currently have towns can assess a community impact, I'm just saying the town's currently can assess a community impact statement on the development. Well, that's the problem is there that you're running into the host agreement. No, no, no. No, no, no. You can put an impact piece when a developer comes into your town. Yes. Do you want to show you just real quick summarize what's in here and you guys can discuss a little bit. So I would start actually, if you look at page 9, if you look at page 9 and you look at the new sub chapter and the yellow is just Anthea did and then I edited her edits over blues and it's all anything that's colored is new language. So there's a community impact equal to 3% of the gross sales of each cultivator and retailer licensed for so into the new law. So for with regard to gross sales then you have on page 10 just the process so for Honorary for the 15th day of the fiscal quarter based on cultivation retailers submit to the department of tax as a statement containing the name as a business total amount of gross sales subject to the community impact fee requirement for records in subsection C it's going to be these are going to be imposed under the authority and collected by the department of taxes it's going to be deposited into cannabis community impact account that is within the cannabis regulation fund on the quarterly basis of that goes back to like on the first page where you have the amendments to a regulation fund is that you have kind of this sub in the regulation fund used to fund the implementation of the program if you look at page 11 the board is to adopt rules to implement and administer the community impact the account and the application for and distribution of revenues in the account and then there's the things that the rules are supposed to address so procedures for municipalities with either a cultivator or retailer within their boundaries to apply to the board from the account to cover cost related to the cost imposed upon the municipality by the operation of the cultivator retailer criteria for the board to consider distributing revenues from the account to the municipalities accounting and record keeping procedures and procedures for what should happen with revenues in the account of the fiscal year so the board will be doing a little making to basically say this is the process you collect it from the sub account and then municipalities can apply for monies from that account this is my idea okay so the cannabis local option tax seems to me like a very simple way to do this in other words you have an establishment you use the option tax to recover your costs well actually well that's what I mean but having an additional grant program because if they're submitting costs you have to have a bureaucracy to vet these to decide if they're reasonably related and then to issue money so I think the local cannabis option already does this without any of that machinery I guess does this increase the likelihood of federal intervention tell me you're thinking behind it I hadn't thought of that but tell me why the feds seem to take real objection to the idea of the state is collecting money I don't know I just haven't played that in my head but there was a real rabid federal prosecutor who wanted to have been going after a local option tax system I think pretty low going after something that the state is actually constructing a mechanical apparatus to collect money and redistribute I'm just wondering if that's kind of based on that situation I don't think I'm just trying to play out all about taking Phil's comment yes so we didn't talk about this particularly but this sounds to me a lot like a host community agreement I mean they're paying 3% and communities already have the ability to levy impact fees on any kind of development that happens in their town through their zoning bylaws and ordinances so if an establishment came into town that was going to impact the municipal sewer or the fire department or the school in some way they could assess an impact fee on them related to those increased costs but not just because they had the establishment there because just because they have an establishment does not mean they're going to have additional costs it doesn't but if they could show that it had an additional impact on the community they could assess those impact fees right now go to 2% on the local office I feel better about that sorry that people wasted so much paper I didn't expect this response that's better well I would be more I'm trying to look at the centers the communities to host those with options rather than 2% that would be 1% on top of the 1% on top of whatever it's in the bill 1% is in the bill now 2% could be a couple of times not the excise we leave the extra 10% excise taxes it is for the finance committee to figure out obviously the option tax too but as it leaves here it would contain 2% instead of 1% local office I think we need to stop calling it an option tax by the way it would be a local tax 2% would be imposed on them just have it I don't know why a community would not want it aren't there some that just philosophically don't do local option taxes well they don't have to do a local option tax to have a cannabis local option tax they choose not to do it because it's a burden on their businesses that's how people go to the next town to buy just this business it should be one industry which is different it should be required to put it on are you saying that it shouldn't be an option instead of any municipality may collect a local option a municipality shall I don't think we should tell them how do they determine whether they're going to may do it they have a vote the way they do it not one vote they have to go through a charter change in order to do it under the current established what this is doing is establishing a town meeting they can decide if they want to impose a 2% tax and then it's automatic or do they have to go through some kind of we can put it in Michelle we can put it in that section of the options the municipalities the authority we give them we put a couple other things in there under the authority that we give towns to do things because we're a villain state so we can put that in there that they have the right to impose a 2% up to a 2% options tax I think you're already covered here but I'll double back just check with Hunter no we've already contemplated that I think to care about I'll double check though but you would like to go to so I'm presuming we're doing a strike all judiciary amendment and you would like a 2% option to do rather than this conflict system that I developed under your help I kind of sounded like anyone I was talking about then you do what's your name Anthea is that your developer she is a new attorney in our staff and she is doing transportation and some money issues and thank her very much I'll be rejecting many reject but we can't subject her writing of it no so next Wednesday we're going to start at 8 30 so Peggy will remind you on Tuesday that's to accommodate Senator Asher's schedule because I want the after plan the the after challenge the after challenge Ash ASAP Pro Tem challenge for the committee to reduce prison population by 222 so I want to hit the presenters challenge and then that committee can talk about it a little bit but those of you who want to be buckets So we need to start at 8.30 and then Peggy, we're taking up this bill again on Friday next week for a final vote and you can get it draft out to different people and us, head of that. I have a Friday show of people to go over. Great. Could you schedule a little time earlier if you want to vote on Friday a little time earlier that I could walk you through it in the week and that way if you want more changes so you can be ready to go for a little time. Do we have time on Wednesday or Tuesday? I don't, I mean I'm pretty busy. Depends on S37 how long I'm trying to take on that. People don't like it so they want to talk, talk, talk. Medical monitoring. I think on Wednesday and Tuesday how long I'm trying to take on that. Thursday I think it was really busy there. Thursday is the racial bias. Alright, we'll put it on Wednesday at 11. Wednesday at 11. And I'll send it out to everybody beforehand but I just don't want you to come in on Friday and then if there's things you still want changed then it will take some time. I just want to make sure we can be respectful. Alright, Wednesday at 11 and then Friday for a final vote. That's a procedural question. Do you want, we're going to walk through the suggestions that we're making. Do you want them to come in here first or do you want Michelle to put them into the draft and then we talk about them when we talk about the draft? I think the easier way would be to have the, have us know what the government operation committee would have. We can do that on Wednesday. I don't want to, if we get barbed down completely on your proposal. No, they're very simple. Okay. And I think they're going to be finalizing theirs today and so what I will do is make the tweaks that they decide on today. I can email them to all of you and you can have a chance to look at them and have some conversations before then. So we have time tomorrow? Right, I can come in tomorrow morning on GoVox amendments. Okay. We're chasing up Woodside and then we're doing S18s. What is this? What is it? What is it? I guess that's the unconscionable terms. It's just because people don't like them. I mean like unconscionable terms. That's why we have so many witnesses. We don't have time tomorrow, but if you can email them and if we get enough, what are we starting with Woodside? Double time. We have Leslie Wisdom-Country today. Drew Crispick-Sin and Jim Henley. They will take that one. Can you wind up with time? Just call me it. 9.30 on tomorrow. 9.30, 9.45 to 10. Do you want to do S54? Government operations recommendations on S54. Shouldn't take more than 15-20 minutes. Are you assuming you need those? 9.45. And then we still want to take it up also at 11 o'clock next Wednesday. Yes, 11 o'clock next Wednesday at that Friday final vote. Alright. Have a good day.