I, in general, I support this, but it gets into questions about what the government wants to pay for. One of the decisions that we've put off that Michelle hasn't crafted yet, and will if we decide to go in that direction, was the issue raised by John Holler of the dispensaries going first, being able to start retail sales before on temporary licenses or some format. I'm going to go get my folder. I have it down here. I'm some method by the cannabis control board, so I told Michelle I wasn't sure there were three votes for it in here. So I thought, while we're waiting for copies, we could discuss that. Okay. What are the reasons not to? Well, the entire city of Boston, Martin Wolf, the mayor, signed nine licenses. The entire state of Vermont would start out with ten licenses, given the five satellites and the five regular licenses. And would those create a monopoly? Would there be room for, if the city of Boston has nine, is there room for two in Bennington? Is there room for two in Brattleboro or other communities where you already have these dispensaries? So I kind of worried about creating a monopoly. That's my reason to not support it. The reason to support it would be that there would be money coming in earlier that you would have kind of a trial and error type of thing. If you solve problems with the rules that the board was proposing, they could change them. They would see what the problems were. I mean, there's a lot of reasons to do it, which I think there's some good reasons not to. So it's kind of a decision that the community needs to make. I don't worry so much that it would create a monopoly, because I think we've got some other things that we're committing against that. But I do think it would create a substantial advantage for one sort of licensee. The other thing I would say is we're, you know, I think the Senate has been very successful from the get-go in talking about the Senate tax and regulate as secure, if I may speak to say. And not just secure, but that we're not. I welcome you all here, but there is not room for us to have a committee discussion. Excuse me. You need to get up. I'm surprised. You know, this is a public meeting, so you're all welcome, but there's obviously not enough room. You can squeeze in over here. And I don't know what to do about that. What is the group? I don't know. There's some group here today, I guess, and they're all under the U.S. event. And these people are all interested in the bill. And so they wanted to show the credit risk as well. The problem is I don't have space. I understand. You can't sit down here. I'm fine. You're fine. Stand up. Thank you. So this is the new draft? I should launch the draft for where we were. Okay, so the other thing is I think if we allow this early start for the dispensaries, we're doing it in advance of the rulemaking and in advance of all the decisions that we toss to the control board. If the only reason we're doing it is to get a early stream of money, I don't think that that makes a lot of sense. I think we should be deliberate and correct in how we roll it out. Add to that the social justice advocates that are concerned that everybody be on an equal playing field. I think if we start existing licensees who don't tend to fall into that category, we're beginning with a substantial advantage for one kind of person and not another. I support it going, letting the dispensaries go first. I think that to have a smooth roll out, they're the best ones to have the opportunity to do it. Quite frankly, I worry that the board's not going to be up to speed enough. And therefore they could learn from the experience of the dispensaries. There's a tremendous amount for the board to learn and do from everything we've said in here. I'm a little worried about them not being able to know everything and therefore this would give them a chance to see where the floor is at, if there are any. But where the good parts are that they should work on get in place. I support it. I'll go home with Alice. You'd like to get a revenue stream moving as quickly as possible for all the things we're expecting to happen on this. I'm not sure how much of an advantage they would be placed in, especially if the town decides to pop out for whatever reason. But if anything, these entities have demonstrated that they can survive in the town and not have all of the horror stories associated with them as predicted early on. This is a continuation of that. They did their best to control and make sure that their public image is up to snuff and will give us some impetus for moving forward without too much flack down on the line. If you were to do this, where would the product come from? Their own growers? I don't think there's any issue about a monopoly because we're talking about 10 places here, right? All 10 may not necessarily do it. In a state, the size is clearly going to have more than 10 grows and 10 retail outlets. The one issue that I do have is about allowing them earlier to buy from other growers, which means there have to be all the rules set up around the small growers to allow them to buy because that was a suggestion. I think it's going to have to come from their own supply and we're going to have to allow them to increase their production in order to do it. That's the only way I can think of it because we can't set up rules for small growers that only can sell there as opposed to small growers who can sell someplace else. Am I confusing you? No, I'm not. You're not confusing me. I personally don't think it's the right thing to do. I do think that it will send a clear signal that I don't mind having a preference when everybody's on an equal footing but I don't think everybody will be on an equal footing unless the license is clear. If I were doing it, we had to do it earlier. I would only allow five of them in their central location, not the satellites because you're really taking it. I don't agree with Bill. I don't think, I was thinking about it, that Budweiser and Coors were allowed to go first after prohibition. I mean, that's what we got now in this country is basically two major fear and we've got all the smaller ones struggling. I'm really concerned about setting up and I don't know how somebody else would get in once they've established their thing and I don't know what prices they'd be selling at. If they're selling at the prices that they currently charge in the dispensary they're not really going to compete with the black market at all. I do have concerns about having them go forward because there aren't any rules established yet. The conclusion today is to have Michelle go forward with drafting some stuff. I told her to hold off on drafting to wait and see if we had three members of the committee who would even support going forward. I wasn't sure. I would say we go forward with the drafting and see what you come up with. Can I ask you about the draft that I had? I was looking for the one that I watched you through last week along with my notes and I can't find that with him though. I remember you heated the idea of price controls. That was in the grant. The manager just counted? Yes, for the medical. But I was wondering about in terms of looking at the draft that I watched you through. Yes. If there's more guidance you want to give me on that, we don't have to do it now. I can start on the larger amendment if you like. The issue of the small growers, I understand is there and there's some interest. I don't know if it's more palatable to you to be able to think about if you did that by bringing small growers in. I think there's some ways that we could work that to maybe have them operate under the cultivate, see if we can, whether or not they might be able to meet the cultivation requirements under the rules. Now the dispensaries have to do, so it has to be in a closed-locked facility, it has to be secure, it has to be certain things. But whether we can kind of weigh some things but make it work for small growers. The thing that I haven't really figured out is that because the way that the dispensaries are organized now, as you know, they're vertically integrated. So they don't need things like seed-to-sale tracking because they put the seed in and then they grow it and then they sell the product from one. So the thing that isn't contemplated by the current statutory scheme or the rules are when you have two different licensees and it's the product going from one place to another. And I think as you know, there's not a lot either in statute or rule right now with regard to testing or things like that. And the dispensaries are doing a lot of that kind of on their own. But if they're buying, if they're not the ones that they know exactly where it's coming from. So it's those kinds of things. So I think there's some ways to do it but there's a few stumbling blocks. And I don't know if it, I mean certainly the cleanest way is because you already have these certain licensees that are already regulated and already doing it. And I think this proposal with whatever policy you tweet, tweets you want, works logistically and brings the revenue in. If you want, if it's important to you to try to figure out whether you can get other growers in. And it's, you know, I think Senator White identified a clear which is like to contemplate really having these new small cultivators that you don't want to over-regulate but you want to make sure that you're tracking product and you're making sure certain pesticides aren't being used and you need oversight and you need the lab to be able to spot test things like that. That requires a certain amount of kind of gearing up and rulemaking. And you could try to maybe shoehorn them into the existing system. But the existing system is made for a vertically integrated organization. So it's a, it's just a little, it's a little tough. So I don't want to, you know. I would also fear that perhaps the board may be looking at if the dispensaries start early. The board then looks at if they can figure out some rules for that. The board may then say these are the same kinds of rules we should adopt for the adult use market. And that, I don't think we want that. No, I mean, the reason why this works is because it has DPS operating under, I mean, I'm sorry, dispensaries operating under DPS without having to get all the new tools. I would rather talk about this issue later after you've drafted something that would include the ability to track scene to sale. Include the ability, all the ability, if we're going to do it, at least to track scene to sale, it needs to not be necessarily vertically integrated. There shouldn't be somebody else to produce the product. I don't think that supports. I'm not sure. I can make a list of the issues and how can I identify those? This issue has come up at the last minute. Thank you very much, dispensaries. And I think that my support for the bill is waning if we don't do this right and we don't give other people a chance. I'm serious. I'm dead serious. I'm not going to support a bill just like I don't want to support a bill that has certain things in it. I don't want to support a bill that I don't do. It has a section. This to me is a critical issue of how they're going to, you know, figure it's going to be vertically integrated. They get the first crack at all the people in 10 places in the state of Vermont. The wines will be just like Northampton.  I think it just, it will discourage other growers and other people from getting into the system. I think we have to be very careful. When to do this, we have to be very careful of how we do this to make sure that there's more than just a extension of the dispensaries. I think it's a lot more complicated than to do it. It's rarely complicated because it means the board is going to have to write some rules around the dispensaries, right? I mean, they can't just say, OK, now you can open it up to retail sales. That wouldn't... The draft that I gave you before has been operating under their existing rules, waving a few and then allowing them to use their existing system. And so they don't have it. That's why you can have sales in January 2020 and get the revenue coming in is because you wouldn't be building a new system. And they would operate under the new, under the old system with some allowances. And then that would be a temporary permit while they're building the new system and then it expires and everybody operates under the same system. I mean, that's what they did in Oregon. Yeah. But they had to do it that way. Because, right? Because they did it by referendum. They didn't have to do it. Well, but they had to bring it online because the voters pushed it. But they didn't have to do it that way. Well, we had testimony that they had to get a system up and running within a year. So, so that's what we're going to do. When we see what Michelle can come up with, then it's a better opportunity to decide whether we want to support it or not. And then this is really a straw vote to see whether or not you want to go forward. The ruling committee is three or two to look at it more. And we would take a final vote when we see what we're looking at really. Right now we're speculating. Okay. But some of us would like to see the ability at least for small growers to be able to enter into the system early. But I also, but some of us would like to see some kind of seed sale that we don't have currently in the dispensary system. So just so you know, is that drafting something like that, because it would be session law, because it would only be temporary, I can isolate it in the sense that this can continue to move along its way.  Why don't you start on a big 60 page thing here that we're going to have to go over? Yep. So, and again, I didn't identify myself to the record Michelle Childs legislative council for the team. And we're going to add draft 1.6. Strengths all committee amendments to the 54. So I've highlighted the language for you. And so I'm just going to take you through the highlights. If that's okay. Yes. Some time perspective. And a lot of these you've already seen before because they were recommendations from the German operations committee that you've already discussed. And so the first one is on page four, and that's the constitution of the board. So constitution of the board with regard to one of the governor appointees and the treasurer. And then you also identified that some day appointees would have expertise in certain areas. Page seven. You'll see at the top of the page, subsection of each, just that the board may establish an advisory committee comprised of members with expertise and knowledge relevant to the board's mission. So again, kind of looking at Massachusetts and some other places where you could have a bunch of different people. Maybe they're experts in public health. Should it be committee or committees? Well, we said advisory committee, an overall advisory committee. You could have subcommittee. Yes.  There's nothing in here. I think we talked about it a little bit inside the gun box and they decided not to set up for dams or things like that in here at this time. Certainly that the executive director is coming back to you next January with a whole host of things to report back on and recommend fees, things like that. And I guess that they want to be doing that and they want to be, you know, asking for teams and things like that. They could propose it at that time. Yeah, okay. And speaking of reports. So if you look at page 10 of the adding a new section and session law, and here's where we start the list of things. Subcommittee Park, I'm coming back and talking to you about the fees. The list of things that the board can come back to in January with regard to. We already talked about subdivision A1, which is starting on line 18, which is resources necessary for implementation of the act for FY 21. And the board is to consider utilization of current expertise and resources within state government in cooperation with other state departments and agencies where there might be an overlap. So, you know, again, the perfect example of that is the use of the state ag lab, right? It doesn't make any sense at all to look forward to not be using the ag lab for doing the compliance testing. They wouldn't be doing that in FY 20, at least the beginning, or FY 20 because you don't have them licensed yet. So they would come in and talk to you about how they want to utilize existing state resources and whether or not they want to shift positions, things like that. So subdivision A2, top of page 11, they're going to discuss a proposal to work with DOL, commerce and DOC to develop outreach training and employment programs both focused on providing economic opportunities to individuals who historically have been disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition or who are reintegrating into the community following a period of incarceration or supervised community sentence. And that was something we again discussed in the government operations. And then the last... Can I ask where that came from? The conversation kind of started in here about working with more agencies, being more specific about working with agencies around things, and particularly the agency of agriculture. And then there was a suggestion that there might be, that some places are doing some grants to people who are disproportionately affected. The Department of Labor could set up some training programs. It started... There was a big handout proposal about equity stuff and they got kind of boiled down. And then, getting down to line five, I know we had that conversation. The remaining phrase there takes us kind of off in another direction. When regards to reintegration? Do you want to project the image that we are... We can leave that off and just say they should work with the Department of Labor, ACCDN Corrections. And just cross offline 67 so that it doesn't... Because you're not necessarily focusing on people who have been disproportionately affected at that point. You may be talking about a whole different population. Well, they may be in prison because they were disproportionately affected, but we can take that off. I don't think we're wedded to that. Is your proposal to... I think you could put a period after where the prohibition of line five. Yeah. So just so you know, there is another point where this phrase is used and I'll show you... And that was on the priorities and I'll identify it there. This came from government object. Well, it came from here and there. We both talked about it. But this language didn't come from us. This language didn't come from us. No, the concept wasn't started in here. This was the... Remember there was a big proposal and then y'all kind of punted to GovOps and they said they were going to work on paring it down. I didn't... What did any of you know about it? Well, just take out the lines six and seven and the rest of five and just take those lines off and say they have to work with different agencies. How do you work with anybody coming up? No, no, no. What they're supposed to... What we're telling them to do is to work with different agencies to use their resources to help implement this program. That's what we're doing. So y'all are okay on line five, putting period at the prohibition? Aye. Subdivision three. So this is information and best practices regarding consumption of cannabis by adult screen years of age and older in places that are now prohibited. So this is to encompass a few different things. One, I've put on their consumption of cannabis in public place as to find a current law. So kind of looking at that issue around best practices, you might... I don't know if you'll talk about it tomorrow, but you'll hear from the gentleman who's ahead of the regulatory agency for come back. No, we're not going to hear from them. I don't have time. Okay. Well, one of the things we're talking about is in Montreal, they're having this debate around because they're public health ministers so it's actually not best practices to have a ban on public... So this is... They would kind of come back to you with information about whether or not having the kind of blanket ban is the best idea and options. I did these three things. I'm... Excuse me, but if you want to direct the board to report back and consider these things, that's one thing, but to have it the way it's written here is a big red flag that we're automatically in this bill considering cannabis in public places, special events, and social consumption licenses. And the job of this board is to get the tax-regulated system up and running. And I really think you're taking away from that, so I think you need to restructure that. If you want them to study that after they've got the system, I think this is really going to create... I can see you being a big problem when we get to the floor. You just told me how you wanted... When you guys decided you didn't want to do anything like that, you said you wanted to have the board back to you. Well, I would like to have a study. You can do a study by anybody. You don't have to have the board do it, but we can study these issues and have somebody report back. But I'm not sure I want... The board has got all these other functions to get this tax-regulated system up and running. And now we're asking them to look at these issues. I think it needs more thought before we have the board doing the study. Was this bill ops recommendation? No, it wasn't. But I think that the two, B and C, are not... It's not a study. It's a recommendation about whether they think there should be these special licenses. That's... I mean, we could pare it down and say that they should come back with a recommendation for potential other license categories or something like that and not... I thought you decided that some of these issues... Since you won't even have a tax-regulated system until April of 2021, that some of these issues would be decided later. So I don't know why they're in here. Well, because I don't know that they need to be decided later. A special event license could be part of their... when they're setting up their categories of licenses. No, this was... I'm sorry, I thought when you guys had the discussion about these special event licenses and all this stuff that you decided not at this time, but you wanted to put something in the bill to recognize it and come back to it. And so I just put that there, but it didn't work or not look like anything you want. I think what I hear the chair saying is that as it's set up now, they're to come back with recommendations to do these things, which in effect puts the car before the horse. If we somehow have it be something that are among their considerations in rulemaking and they would make the decision. But here we're kind of leading them down the path to giving us a way to do it. And I agree where it comes to consumption of cannabis in a public place. If I was opposed to the bill, I would jump on that immediately if it appears in this bill. So I put, rather than recommendations about what to do it, I tried to make it more... No, I would have somebody else... Okay. Somebody else can study this. We don't even need to... Tax the board is going to be very busy on other things. Okay. I mean, you don't need this at all. I can just take out three. Well, I think the committee wants to have some study of this. So let's... Not a study. I don't want to have a study. What I thought we were doing here with our conversation, and this was from this committee, is talk about what the... they should come back with an interim report of what's happening, right? The executive director. And in that interim report, should we consider a special license, event license, and should we consider a new category of social consumption licenses? So those were things that we talked about in here. And I thought we asked them, the executive director, to come back with not a study or a report, but just saying, we think there needs to be a special license for events, or we need to have a special license for social consumption. But if we don't want to put that in here, we can just tell them to do it without putting it in here. That's... Okay. I mean, we should take it out. I'm making motion that we take it out, get through this thing. I'm fine with that. And we should just... We'll just tell them to do it. Okay. Striking lines 8 through 17. Yeah. Yeah. All in favor say, aye. Aye. Most. Take it out. Okay. Next changes on page 16, on regulation by the local government. You've seen this language a number of times. It's just tweaked. It's reorganized. I don't know if we can go through each subsection again. I don't know if maybe something is right. Is there anything in particular you wanted to... I'd go right to... I don't think that... We've talked about that before. Okay. You're on page 16. And we've already gone through that. Yeah. Yeah, we have. I will draw your attention to the fact that something that is new that you've discussed in here is that starting in the bottom of page 17, so this edition of the Municipality shall not, and here's kind of some felt and suspenders language, because they can't go beyond their authority to which you've granted them anyway, the Dillon State, but you have the first one basically trying to effectively ban them by zoning them out. They can't do that. They can't execute a host agreement with cannabis establishment. I had initially put in there that you can't require a cannabis establishment to enter into and Seneca Vox's, let's just not even let them do it upon agreement. Is there a definition of host agreement? There is not. Because it seems like somewhere along the line they might ask for some sort of completely acceptable agreement. You know what I mean? Because if you're starting a business you have to agree to abide by various things. You don't have the authority to do it, though. The issue is they only have the authority that the legislature grants them, like inherently, and that's like what you have in subdivision three, which again is kind of stating current law, which is, you know, as a, and I'm learning a lot of this name because it typically don't work on the municipal issues, which is that unless the legislature specifically has granted a municipality certain authority they can't do it. So I look at these things that are in here as stating the current law, which actually provides an income for them. So they could require a letter from the fire department. They could require a letter from their SOAR capacity. If that's within their inherent authority to regulate nuisance or things like that with regard to, yes, that is currently... Right, but I guess my point is just would it hurt if we send how a host agreement differs from those? I can do it. I looked at it. It wasn't like there's that. Because we don't have host agreements, it's not necessarily like there's an easy definition, but I could try to crack something if we can go like that. If that would be like that. A side agreement? I mean, just... If you only need to offer bribes, that's all it is. Perfect. Other than that, it looks good to me. I don't know that.  I think a host agreement is anything that is outside of their ability to regulate and they're not allowed to do that anyway. VLCT said we didn't need any of this because they can't do it anyway. We just thought it was important to specify it and make it very, very, very good. It's a challenge. So then you added... There's a few different places. Anywhere the term children was used to. They just don't have one place on a warning where it just didn't seem but you can let me know. Generally, I've replaced the word children with persons under 21 years of age and various places that are there. And you'll see the one place where I did leave it is up on the top page 19 the minimum requirements on warnings and advertising around that for use by adults in years of age or older, keep out of the reach of children and I thought to say again keep out of the reach of persons under 21.  That's fine. Page 21. Page 21. And so this is on making with regard to all cannabis establishments and the additional requirement policies and procedures for conducting outreach and promoting participation in the regulated cannabis market by diverse groups of individuals including those who have been disproportionately harmed by cannabis prohibition. Okay, to keep going. Next changes are for product manufacturers. This is on page 22 and this is where we got in and talking about the serving size and packaging and labeling and you asked me to work with David Mickenburg on the language so he had offered some suggestions here and looking at other states and what they're doing. I'm sorry. The bottom page 22 in lines 19 and 20 does this include health products or does it not? How would you distinguish between a topical preparation that's used and sold today without regulation and a product that's regulated? So the way that we use it is that in the definition section for all of this, on page 22 you have a definition for cannabis product. It means a concentrated cannabis and a product that is composed of cannabis and you define cannabis to not include hemp. So I know that things are getting super messy and confusing around hemp and cannabis but we're trying to use the definition here of cannabis that when we refer to cannabis in this it does not include hemp. It can be excluded so if you are talking about a product that is derived from hemp it's not considered a cannabis product for purposes of these chapters. But I get it. It's very and I think it's until there is an evolution with regard to the rules at the federal level and what are state programs. Could a store sell both? Could a store? But eventually you get to a retail store where they're selling topical products and then on one shelf the cannabis and the other shelf is empty. Is that possible? What is that? Let's remember that this is a consumer protection bill and so if we could think of some to make sure that that's clearly you want to retail stores so I want to make sure that it's distinguished carefully. I think the issue is that right now we have no idea what the rules at the federal level or the state program what the hemp ones are going to be. The agency of agriculture does some of the testing right of the hemp. Yes, but not you know it's I want to all I want to do is you have something that tastes like beer but has no alcohol content. That's on a different shelf than the beer alcoholic content usually. So you know if you're buying one and not the other and I just want that clearly just something in there that would clearly distinguish one during the other. I don't know if it's the same issue but I don't want to prevent anybody from selling it. Maybe I'll circle back around and touch base with you on that. I just see it as a place where you could have a lot of consumer confusion number one in place for games. In terms of what's required in the testing and the rules and the labels all of this stuff contemplates something that is much more comprehensive and than anything remotely we've got on the helm. I understand that maybe it's my concern is not that you don't be able to sell both. My concern is that it be clearly labeled which one has the is the control substance let's use that word or is it the uncontrolled substance? I mean the label and everything says this is a controlled substance. All the labels have to have a marker on them that say this is a cannabis product they also have to have the intensity or something that I understand the thing but what's happening right now so you have requirements that if it's going to have cannabis it has to be marked and you have a lot of stuff here. But in regard to the hemp what the feds are saying is that now the FDA controls that and you're not supposed to be selling those things period until we have a state approved program and we don't know what the rules are going to be at the federal level so we don't have. I can put something in here that says if a retail facility because this doesn't conflict that these product manufacturers under this licensing scheme this is regulating them making products from cannabis not from hemp they might be making who knows what is going to go on with the hemp program they might be making hemp products too and have to identify those under some yet to be seen hemp program that doesn't exist yet but I can put something in here that just clarifies that for I guess we were thinking from a retail perspective of a retailer also sells products that are made from hemp that they are clearly identified and distinguished from cannabis products. Okay. That is worried about this from being clearly identified and worried about the hemp product being clearly identified. I don't think we can tell them how to product because there aren't any regulations about that yet. We can't tell retailers how to identify that. If you buy if you go to I don't think we can because this is cannabis and that's him. Well I understand he's saying that for a licensed retailer under this scheme if you are selling a hemp product it must be clearly identified and distinguished from a cannabis product. For the retailer. Well you don't have to go into a lot of detail about how that's done you can leave them to the board to identify the ways in which you do that. I think he's just saying for the purposes of a licensed cannabis retailer under this scheme not talking about the herb shop down the street coffee shop or anybody else but if you're licensed under here you can sell a hemp drive product but it has to be clearly identified and distinguishable from a cannabis product. I understand that I just would hate for us to start I just would hate for us to start listening to say if you're going to if you're going to sell a hemp CBD product if you're going to sell a CBD product that you have to on each of those no I think it could just be that this is this case over here okay that's okay I'm going to be labeling whatever I'm going to do a very general language to get at some of the things concerned that I think you can do it to make sure that the retailers distinguish and say it could be this glass case has things derived from hemp all of these glass cases are derived from cannabis okay that's as far as we can go I'm to page 23 I'll be very sure line 17 and 18 I have typo there's that you remember we were talking about edibles and I was saying I wasn't really comfortable with them I guess this makes me feel better this language and I'll just check with the committee that I'm reading it the same way everyone else says I think this gives the board the ability going forward just the way the liquor control board has the ability to examine and vote on products that come on the market so if somebody puts forward you know multi-milk ball candies that have cannabis in them I view this as giving the board the right to say this cannot be sold or this can be sold so they would enforce the prohibition and make the decisions about whether a product as well as the packaging is designed to appeal to young people yes make sense I'm going to run do you want me to go back to the language that we had started talking about so I have reached 22 so three A and B so requirements that products are labeled in a manner which states the number of servings THC measured in servings of a maximum of 10 milligrams per serving and then the exception to that is like topicals or things that the product manufacturer may be developing certain products that are sold in a retail cannabis establishment other products that are being sold in a dispensary which the dispensary may be able to sell a higher THC content product and then on B a single package of a cannabis product shall not contain more than 100 milligrams of THC so what's for everybody I have no idea that's the right number but I'll take their word for it so page 25 this is on criminal background checks and you'll see this language in a few different places and this is on the new language so basically the board does record checks on everybody from the applicants for the licenses to people who are working either in cannabis establishments or in medical dispensaries and so they do background check up there the language that the nonviolent drug offenses don't automatically disqualify someone and then saying that the criminal history record they're looking at it based on factors that demonstrate whether the applicant presently is a threat to public safety or the proper functioning of a regulated candidate um page 27 this is on licenses and so you have the existing provision in regard to the the board is going to be developing the various tiers within licenses mostly we tend to think of that in terms of the cultivators but it could be for other types of licenses as well there's one gentleman that was talking about that can't be sized couldn't work for him and the issue was that he works for a breeding stock and it's per plant so it's not canopy even though you could make it work for canopy so I just added or couldn't count for breeding stock um page 28 I think we talked about this in here the last time and so I don't think there's any changes and this is just public records act exemptions with regard to records for applicants and then also once there's their licensees and so things that would be confidential application would be related to security public safety, transportation or trade secrets remember one of the things that you have to do as an applicant is you have to literally have a site plan be like here's where my locked doors are here's where we keep the plants here's where the money is here's how we're bringing our our bags of money to the tax department to pay our taxes or you know it's going to have things like that that you don't really want to do in the public and so that would apply to any applications or licenses in there bottom of page 29 is priority so the boards adopting the rules and system of priorities shall require consideration of the following and so you already had in there whether the applicants or majority principals and those holding majority control are residents of Vermont and then I had the board members of the Apanaki community was something that was important to some of your series why would we put that there instead of under a farther down you can put it there I was just I wasn't sure quite where to put it I have to say I wouldn't put it up there I would put it down here because that's where we're talking about communities that have been disproportionately impacted quite frankly I'm worried about specifying Apanaki there Indian communities in the state that aren't Apanaki should have the I wasn't sure about that so Senator Scherzer mentioned Apanaki I went on the website for the commission for the Vermont commission for Native American affairs and there were just four recognized and they were all Apanaki so I use that term I'm happy to use whatever term you want me to use but I don't there was a lot of stress and anxiety when we were doing some of those resolutions previously because there was just mention of the Apanaki we should talk to him about that because I think that it's covered I would have thought it was but I know it was important for him to identify specifically so you guys let me know I'm happy to work on that with whoever so on line 8 we talked about that language and the eliminated elsewhere just with regard to reintegration yes but my other question is the way it reads now it seems to suggest there should be a preference for minority or women-owned businesses or a non-minority-owned business that comes forward with a plan to recruit hire and implement a development matter from your it's true so are you saying they should be like if not the same okay I get what you're saying I can make that happen just for the record I like bright lines and I don't I don't like this part in one on the top of page 30 that says whether the applicants from the majority are holding majority control or residents of Vermont either we say hey you be a Vermont resident or not or whatever but I don't like this is so judgmental many of most of these things are just a judgment call do you mean the part about the members of the Apanaki or Vermont resident if you I would say limited to Vermont residents this is sort of bushy because it just has to be a majority yeah and just it's do we want it to be Vermont residents or not well I think the problem there that anybody can be a resident by just moving in we dealt with this with liquor too the intention is to keep it Vermont-owned you know we're a capital poor state and so somebody needs $100,000 or $200,000 to work the business so they've got access to capital in Connecticut if we say that 100% of the ownership has to be Vermont-owned then they are at a disadvantage getting that capital so I think that's where the majority it is this was actually something that was recommended by the governor's commission around residency as they said they because of the reasons you stated was that they didn't want to they wanted to build economically to be Vermont businesses as much as possible but they didn't want to hamstring people and so they said use it as a factor in consideration right now there's no limitation on the number of licenses issued but the board can decide they're going to limit a certain number or they're going to do whatever so if they're going to go through lists of priorities they're going to look at residency as a factor and consider that and doing that I will also I don't care for all I'm not saying it should be just for monitors I'm just saying this is sort of mush when you don't you let it go wide open or narrow it right down I don't know I think you either you can require it which a number of states do do but I will always remind you we haven't had these discussions in a long time and we don't know how it will work out but there are questions around the German Commerce Clause issues around like if we're talking about an otherwise legal product that wasn't federally banned you couldn't be isolationist and protectionist in this way only Vermonters get to have licenses you couldn't do that but we're talking about cannabis so it's kind of like so you can there's plenty of states that do require applicants to be residents and you could go that direction and I think because of the small because Vermont is a small state I think they're looking to make to encourage Vermonters but to allow Vermonters to partner perhaps with other people who might have expertise in other states that are doing it that can assist Vermonters in starting businesses or capitalize I think you could separate it so that the applicant has to be a Vermont resident but that that the majority that there can be capital from other places we have to distinguish between financiers before and you could have that didn't that come up the last time we did that you want to separate it out between who's the applicant and where's your money coming from it starts to get a little complicated on the corporate structure not to discourage you but I would need to probably bring something to call in or somebody else to kind of look at if you're going to start to separate things out that's why we suggested that the person appointed by the treasurer have some background in business management corporate structures if we have a priority for Vermont residents that hopefully that person will have some be able to have some input into how we structure that so that it really does apply to I mean that was our thinking there by having that person I would like to add one more priority here what did you guys decide okay I just wanted to just does not have to be limited to Vermonters in my eyes you're using this as one of the criteria to consider so if you have two applicants one's a Vermonter one's not you would expect that they would go with the Vermonters because that's one of the things you're supposed to be considering if you have no applicants that are Vermonters what do you do then you don't want to exclude happening simply because somebody has not stepped forward I mean yes you don't want to give priority to that Vermonter if they have a lousy plan with the other person well I think the board is going to be adopting rules on how they factor these things in I think this is a place to kind of park issues that are important to you who you'd like to see in the regulated market and to identify that but to say we're not going to require because we don't really know who's going to show up with their applications we're not setting the rules we're actually and the rules will be a public process and people can comment on that so this will be an act you're going to discuss with Sears I think we should I don't think we should let me know what it can do I don't think we should I'll talk about that with him I don't think we should make any decision right now I would like to add another priority and it should mirror the board appointed by somebody that we decided here that the center committee and committees that someone who has experience in the horticulture, agriculture, or plant science and the reason for that is because one of the things that we're trying to do here I believe is to bring in those people who are currently in the gray market or whatever we want to call it the parallel market and bring them in and if we don't give any priority to those applicants I think we need to give some priority to those applicants and it's really hard to say we're going to give priority to people who've been illegally growing and selling but that's why we put that in there they have some experience it was some background in agriculture, horticulture, or plant science experience in that because that sends a message that if you're going to give a permit to somebody as a cultivator maybe they should have had some experience in being a cultivator instead of some great farmer instead of being there maybe many of them are great farmers right but I think we should give a priority to those that's all I'm saying that should be one of our kind of applies to any license because it applies for any license or do you want to be focused on the cultivator focus on the cultivator just have that for consideration okay we're going to have to quit too