Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: He has a a meeting. He will be back with us at eleven. Great. Welcome back, everybody, to Southern Economic Development Housing and General Affairs. It's good to have you. And we are now picking up our cannabis bill discussion. And for that, we are gonna return to our incredibly able legislative council who has who had begun going through the bill in-depth. And we're going to I think given where we are and the time frame we're in, we're going to have them go through it again because we only got through the first two sections, as I recall. And we're going to go through it, and we're really going to talk about what each section entails. And at a fairly high level, we've now heard quite a bit on each of these sections and opportunities. And I think we we also have I want everyone in the room to appreciate we have very limited time on a big subject that we have not necessarily had enough time on to make thoughtful positions on. So there may be things that we just have to pump to the house for further conversation. I apologize, but that is just the way we it's probably gonna be.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Can I ask a question that was related in my mind at least? Are we getting out the tobacco bill?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. We're doing that tomorrow. Okay. And we have a new draft and it's great. Okay. Okay.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Jen, So as we're done. Morning, Anderson. Welcome. Legislative Council, incredibly able, but apparently not incredible. So, we're gonna be working through draft 1.1 of the committee strike all amendment to s two seventy eight. The chair has requested that I start all the way back at the beginning. Last time the committee visited the amendment, we made it through three sections. So I'll recap those three sections and then do a high level overview of the other sections of the bill, and await your instruction on how I am to proceed with preparing the next version of this amendment. Section one, high level. This relates to the concentration cap for liquid concentrate cannabis products, and it raises that percentage limit from 60% to 70%.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Do you want commentary as we go on these points then, Karen?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Absolutely. If people are clear on how they're feeling at the moment, I would, happily welcome any any thoughts because we're gonna be making decisions in the next two days.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I would not say I'm clear on this thinking, but what I will say, I I will put this out there to have others educate and inform me on this topic is, I I personally am comfortable with removing or raising the potency caps on the flower buds because I don't want people having to smoke twice as much in order to get as high. And I also under the impression that the illicit market there is this buds these buds are available practically anywhere. On the liquid side, I like regional consistency. And if this is just contemplating going 60 to 70% and that's what our neighbors do, I'm also comfortable with that. But I could be persuaded otherwise, but that's going early. But I will look for medical professionals to tell me why that's a terrible opinion to have.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So you are supportive of raising the publicity cap to 70%?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Correct. Supportive is a strong word. I will say I'm ambivalent, and I am not against it. I am worried that the if the governor has strong opinions on this, that this is gonna be veto based, but maybe that's not a factor in our consideration and conversations at this point.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I think we'll know more about that as the process goes along. And I don't think it's a good idea for anyone to try and articulate that on the record right now. But I I my sense is that nothing right now is is a deal breaker for the administration. They're

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I'm just like saying the quiet parts

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: out loud. Yeah. No. Sure. I mean, know what I do too, but

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think there are things that in all fairness, there are things the administration holds its nose at. There are things that outright dislikes and would veto.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: They are watching things they are and delivery. Yeah. But they nothing has become a deal breaker.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: What was the first word? What is Apps. Balance.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Captain delivery. Love to hear your thoughts on that. Okay. Could be the basis.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Hope and see, you're you're I'm fine. You're fine. And, David, thoughts on your thoughts?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: What you what I don't think you mentioned. I'm not sure it's in this section, but the edible. Oh, yeah.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: We're not raising edibles at all. Those are not concussion as well.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Not not.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: That

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: was Our life is a child. Five to 10.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: But on the squirt, the big edibles should be stronger from

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: here. Sugar

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Should we get our little graph out? Because it is, like Up a little graph. I'm sympathetic

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: about us.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: We're yeah. To wherever we are.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So I thought I made back my opinion on that previously, I'm just one vote, but I do not support making edibles more, powerful than affecting judgment because they're sugarized, commercialized products that kids could and I like the fact that they are low with dog density, so I think they can meter out there high, especially when there's some of late aspects. I'll also say that this before, if I had been here when this was passed, I don't know if I could have supported legalized, commercialized edibles. We just I don't have other products like that, but I'm not advocating to take edibles off the market at this point. I just have serious concerns about them. Okay.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But let's let's make sure we are having each conversation separately because Okay. There I think there's a there was a proposal related to more edibles in one package that didn't make it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That's yeah, we're not talking, it's- Rectinolon.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So this is just the potency of the cultivated cannabis.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. Lampus. Lampus. This section is just about liquid concentrate Oh, is liquid. Have not, within the four corners of either the bill as introduced or this amendment so far, touched upon edibles or solid concentrate products. Well, it does say solid and liquid con solid.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. I'm sorry. I I was looking at this handout, and this says

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That was from a witness. Oh,

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: okay. Maybe I got I thought section it looked like section one was was striking the cap for the flower. But

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I I don't know who that's from because I don't have that in front of

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So I think what Tom is saying is do that, strike the cap for

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the flour. I think he's fine with the flour, and I think he's fine with the liquid. It's the edible.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But the flour is no longer in the bill for some reason.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: The cap. It it's solid liquid concentrates right here.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: It you they used to have a lifting of the cap on the flour, and that's what Tom is saying is he'd be open to lifting the cap on the flour as opposed to the concentrate.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Well, the rationale to be consistent regionally and to not have people find legally have smoke more more carcinogens or whatever in their lungs in order to get them high.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And this is challenging, that's true, because I I don't know when the flower cap got taken out. Like, I'm not I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: have never this is the best ones we've gotten. So

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is the amendment that the committee put together, and part of what the committee heard about the bills introduced, is that the current amendment associated with cannabis flower is essentially the biological upper limit of what that can be grown. So I see heads shaky, but that's what the committee heard, so Right. If there's different testimony, fantastic.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So there is no. The limit is what you can biologically grow.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I am not a cannabis scientist, so I so cannot offer any testimony on what I don't think there

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: is yeah. It's it's limited to what the what the plant produce, so I don't think there is a limit.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Are we talking about the THC limit of the flower? So what So We have an

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: expert here. Pepper, can you fill us in?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Is there a limit on flour right here? There is. Okay.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: It's 30% THC on flour. There's a 60% THC cap on solid concentrates. So what I understand is bill eliminates or raises the 60% on solid concentrates to 70% and does not touch the 30% flour.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. So the flour is sort of a whole separate animal. We have not had any testimony on that. That will have to leave to the house because we do not have time for more testimony on that.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. I we had a big discussion about it because We do. Don't have a debate

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: but Connecticut. Haven't actually discussed.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: How did Tom get all this information?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: This is what I was receiving. So I thought we were

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: talking about the power

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: side, Steve.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: But I if the house wants to take it on, then I'm Pepper.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: You provided this. That's right. You share with us what this includes.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: That is just a number of policy areas that I heard discussed throughout the course of this bill being debated. I gave you a regional breakdown of how, in New England, those states deal with those various policy issues.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. And

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: we had a whole discussion about a dilution process related to how much THC content is in the flour and how you have to dilute that to get a concentrate of the level we're requiring. Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Given that we have not had a full we have really focused our conversation on liquid and solid, which is in this bill at the moment. I think that the flower discussion, quite honestly, we do not have the time to pick up a new subject right now. It wasn't new. It it it is new. We have not really had a full discussion of that unless people feel My impression is we've been dealing with section one as as it has come to us. And so what I think I hear Thomas saying is he is fine with section one.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Sure. Yeah. And I would just I could babble some more, I would say where I'm hearing the most concerns, the hallways is on potency caps, so maybe leaving this for the house to take on or flower might

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: be otherwise. Including the flowers.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Section. So the potency caps have been a huge subject of the emails that we've gotten, and I know it's a concern. David and Randy, you have fairly strong feelings on the potency cap.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: I'm concerned about it. Again, medical testimony that we've got, that's probably one of the biggest conflicts that we're seeing between proponents for the bill and what we're getting from the health community, difficulties and this for us and some concerns.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Which potency cap are you saying you're worried about? The concentrate?

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: The concentrate probably more than anything else.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And the sort of liquid and salt? Yeah, well. Okay, section one is what? Your So Yeah, Thomas?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So I would share that concern. From what I understand, the concentrate is used in vapes, so that's a faster delivery mechanism. So I didn't know that the flour had been removed, but I would say I'm more comfortable with raising the caps in the flour than I am on the concentrate. But where does that leave us in this conversation?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: You know, because we haven't really discussed the flour in full depth, and I think that the flower it's a very I I don't see a I don't know what the proposal was for the flower to take it from 30 to what? To not have an artificial cap.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Which many other states have.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: To to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: no cap. To no

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: cap because you're asking them to engineer the THC content of a plant before it's then processed into other things.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So there is one other state, Connecticut, which is consistent with us on on both caps. Connecticut has a 30% cap and a 60% cap.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: But they may I ask a question to mister Tucker? Is there any conversate that you know of with Connecticut? Are they looking similarly at of addressing these caps anyway?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: I would assume just like in Vermont, this conversation comes up every year, but I don't know that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Especially their proximity to New York. Well, we have sort of both of us have close proximity to New York. Right. Okay. So we have at the moment, my understanding is we have only three options on the table. One is to pull the potency section altogether and leave it to the house to have this further conversation, including the flower. Second is to to rule in a in a in a yes fashion to raising the cap on solid concentrate, which is in section one. And the third is, I guess, do the those are the things that are supposed to pull those sections or to

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I'd like to propose we lift the cap on the flower and leave the other caps in place if we Because this is where it's challenging for our very small growers and our You know, it's like there's a lot of requirements placed on them for testing and things, but it is a plan. So I would say, I would propose that we lift the cap on flower and

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: we leave it everywhere else if we're not ready to have that discussion.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: I'd love to hear Senator Lee. Yeah, so I'd actually opt for first option simply because I don't feel comfortable with the whole gap conversation with the exception of edibles and my understanding of flour, the experts in room can help us out. The flour is very different than it was thirty, forty years ago because we bioengineer for maximum effect, etcetera, etcetera. So there is there may not be there may be a plant limit right now, But removing any cap on the flower, it could potentially change five, ten years from now.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: That's bioengineer. That's kind of senator Chittenden's point, which is then you can you can smoke less and have the THC impact that you desire.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Ask a question. In these buds, flowers that are sold, does it state do we require that they state THC content levels on them really clear so people know the strength of these things? Yes. Yeah. All of ours currently say 30%.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Or less.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Indoor yes. I mean, percent or less. Yes. Yes.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: 30% or less.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: 30% or less. Yes.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Who's just Can can we let the growers speak? Actually, Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We could wait. Haven't heard a lot

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: about that.

[Jeffrey Pizzutillo (Executive Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: Briefly, for the record, Jeffrey Pistelo from Growers Association. So first of all, I just want a point of clarity. We are dealing with a plant. It is not a widget. So what that means is it is impossible to predict and anticipate THC levels. It can vary per branch. It's not a witch, okay? It is is a plant, so that's important to keep in mind. Second of all, there is no sort of biological limit for cannabis. It it doesn't reach a 100%. It has thresholds, but the plant itself is not a site stack free, and there's no ceiling for THC levels. And I will keep in mind, I'll conclude by saying that, first of all, our neighboring states, we do hear from retailers, oh, they see a a a 32% of something that's not available in our state. Vermonters do travel out of state to get that product. The frequency to be determined or, you know, asked about that, but lastly, doesn't include perhaps something that's not really being talked about in this discussion is, believe it or not, the emphasis at the state level on THC actually creates greater awareness of it, and people shop for THC level when there's a THC cap because there's, the state is saying that, wait a minute, this is important. It is an intoxicating element of the plant, even though it's not the only intoxicating compound, and that it's actually bringing that awareness to consumers, and it's having the counter effect, if that makes any sense, and it's enabling individuals to shop more by THC level as opposed to maybe choosing products below THC percentage. It's having the reverse impact for consumers. Jeffrey,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: in states that have removed the cap altogether, which are most of the states around us, Do they make available in retail shops or do they make available THC at lower concentrates for people who are not interested, you know, who might Yes. I mean, just like we have alcohol at different concentrates. Exactly. Do they also provide, I mean, they provide flour at different kinds of nutrients?

[Jeffrey Pizzutillo (Executive Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: They do, they do. That's when you want to have a discussion with your bartender or your budtender. And honestly, if that takes place, then they direct people to form moderator. It's really you know, we wanna remove the emphasis, the over scrutinization of THC. It's it's really having the the opposite effect of the state

[David Mickenberg (Lobbyist for cannabis establishments)]: of that. So I'm sure

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: that No. I appreciate that. And we've had other testimony to support that as well.

[Graham Unangst-Ratha (Policy Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: Sure. Let me confirm.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Randy.

[Graham Unangst-Ratha (Policy Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: Randy, I'm your name, Supernant, policy director of Vermont. I just wanted to clarify, I think in the first draft of this bill, which you all didn't get a chance to look at in committee, the flower caps were removed or raised. That's just maybe a point of confusion I just wanted to address because some people feel like it wasn't in bill, was in the bill and now it's not. Yeah. So that's why think

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It was in the original proposal but not in the bill as introduced.

[Graham Unangst-Ratha (Policy Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: I think it was in It's bill as not in version 1.1. And the other point I just wanted to make is this whole THC thing we've heard a lot from producers who are producing flour at a much lower THC level, that they are not able to market that flour because retailers will not buy it. They are trying to buy high THC flours, there's going be another argument for direct markets. You are not going to see people smoking lower THC flower or trying other products until they can go against those producers themselves and they can explain why this is a effective product even though it's lower in THC.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. We did have this conversation now at Ledge Councils we went through with Matt, so that decision to pull that was there. So I just want to remind us, we did make that decision together. Thomas, do you have a thought?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I appreciate your comments, Henry. So I guess where I would be of the options that you outlined is either pull the potencies, just to let the house deal with this, or I I actually am much more comfortable with this conversation with, raising them for the flowers. And as for the concentrate, I had you have more concerns. So if we do move forward to concentrate to the floor and and speak to constituents, it'll be harder for me to defend it. But when with raising the constantly of flowers, I think that is a reasonable thing. Most of my constituents will say, yeah. It makes sense to just take that. So that's right. Either to pick it all out or just do the bottles.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And then then the understanding is that in retail shops, they're marketed by potency level. Are they sold by potency level?

[David Mickenberg (Lobbyist for cannabis establishments)]: Maybe, Jeff.

[Jeffrey Pizzutillo (Executive Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: That is the option that is up to the retailer.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay.

[Jeffrey Pizzutillo (Executive Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: We we encourage retailers to not advertise explicitly case to to not promote that sort of behavior, to have more of a conversation about wire on a more moderate levels or or

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: or But it's label, isn't it? On on the actual package,

[Jeffrey Pizzutillo (Executive Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: which is different than being, like, on on the display case, so we're outwardly grouped in advertising in the store.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah, just like we look at alcohol and you can the see the alcohol consumer has the opportunity to see the THC content. When they have the packaging, Absolutely. Right. Okay. What, Sorry, did Go ahead. Okay. Thanks.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: What I think is being said is that often people are still making their own consumer decision. Things like micro dosing would be equivalent to low alcohol by volume. People are choosing kombucha and low ABV cocktails that we've supported, just like people have a range of decisions they're making about how much of an effect they wanna have on their body. So I just wanna remind us this is like the exact same conversation as alcohol in many ways. You know, we are concerned about binge drinking, we're concerned about someone, you know, drinking 30 beers or a whole bottle of spirits, but most people use this information to just decide what kind of experience they want to have and not to have substance misuse occur.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. I would suggest that we let this sit for us for a moment and keep going through the bill, and then we will come back. We are gonna need to make decisions on this. So I'm really before we leave section one, I think we have I do think we have

[David Mickenberg (Lobbyist for cannabis establishments)]: to be

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: improving. Flour, no cap. Liquid and solid, raising it up or not. And the third is to let all the potency options go for this pill and let the house deal with it. So I think those are our three options that we have at the moment on that section. Section two, let's just focus on this and what this accomplishes.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section two goes hand in hand with section one. It raises the age to 25 for those products that are increasing in potential potency from 60% to substance.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Is there any other state on that? I'm okay with that. If we do go with the potency increases, let's raise these.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay, so. That was the partnership. David.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Mr. Chair, David Weeks,

[David Mickenberg (Lobbyist for cannabis establishments)]: on behalf of a variety of campus establishments. The one caveat on this piece is that if you do that, that would mean that which which is currently separated out or babes, which was in the original bill has passed, it would seem that that would indicate that that would raise the purchase age to 25 for vape cartridges. I don't know if that's intended or not,

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: but it's a consideration that you

[David Mickenberg (Lobbyist for cannabis establishments)]: should have. So are you using I would suggest leaving it at 21 for vape cartridges, which have been included in the bill since the beginning as an exception to the cap on salt on the But we don't want

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: increased vaping for people, both either for tobacco or for cannabis.

[David Mickenberg (Lobbyist for cannabis establishments)]: Understood. But I don't think that tobacco, the age is 25.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Right. So

[David Mickenberg (Lobbyist for cannabis establishments)]: it'd be just be 21. So consistency for the way that adults, 21 or over, consume, some would like to not have combustible cannabis. That's their choice. I just make wanna make it clear that if you do this, this would now do something different than what we've done all along in this market, which is raise the age on vapes to 25. And that's a pretty major policy decision to make. That's been in there since the bill was originally passed.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I just wanted to point that out. Oh, you mean the original

[David Mickenberg (Lobbyist for cannabis establishments)]: The original cannabis bill has passed, allowed for people to consume through vapes, 20 adults to consume 21 or older through vape cartridges and so or vape product, whatever. And so this would be a change from that original intent of the legislature to say now if you wanna buy increase potencies. But it's not it's not a potency issue. It's separate than that. So vape cartridges are their own thing in the cannabis market. They have potency levels that are allowed, and this would say that vape cartridges, which are now allowed to be purchased at the age of 21, would be required that they be people 25 or older for that specific form factor. So I just wanna be clear. That's a pretty big policy change

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: with that language. I I appreciate that. It does say that it's for the apheresis potency, not for the 21 and under I mean, 20 Yeah. 21 and on and over could still purchase THC based. They just can't purchase anything that would be 70%.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I recommend Mr. McMurk, though, that if that age limit actually gets this thing out of committee, then you can fix it in the house.

[Graham Unangst-Ratha (Policy Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: But I mean, if it

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: makes us more comfortable raising the potency limits, knowing that it would also only apply to 25 year olds, we can maybe carve out an exception later down the pike in this discussion.

[David Mickenberg (Lobbyist for cannabis establishments)]: Yeah, because the language says cannabis products, not solid cannabis products, that's a distinction. So the potency limits that you're talking about raising, if you just insert, you know, if you decide to do that and we distinguish out the the vape cartridges, which have always been separate as separate categories.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I would I would point out that this goes back to senator Chittenden's original point. Many states still regulate edibles differently because that is the thing that is someone's I mean, the last time I assumed THC was college when someone was like, here's pesto pasta, you know, that that gets people high at a very different level depending on the THC content and can make people extremely sick. And when you're consuming something that you think is like a meal or a chocolate or a gummy, you, you know, you're having a very different experience with that product, and it's very hard to, to absorb it the same way, person to person. So a child could really injure themselves, a young person could really injure Right,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: this is not edibles. This is

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: What I'm saying is, I think Senator Chittenden made a very good point that most of the states we're looking at have very different limits for edibles than they do everything else.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Okay, so.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And, Tyler,

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: just briefly respond to some of the issues that were just raised. The last time you looked at this, the committee had already given the instruction that if this moves forward, you wanted clarification around the cannabis products that are covered by this, and the instruction was liquid with solid concentrated cannabis products, not getting tired, behind the universe of cannabis products.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Right. But that's all to say, if we if we mess with the age, etcetera, I don't think it's addressing people's direct concern. I think people are getting confused about the cons consumption methods. And I don't think like, vapes are kind of an out of the box thing. I think vapes are a concern. It's tobacco, other chemicals that come from China. Where I heard the most concern about young people over consuming something was edibles.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. So we aren't addressing edibles in this bill as far as I could tell except in packaging. So the what I think we are I hear is should we limit this just to vapes in section two? Do we even the language doesn't limit it to to vapes.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: If I'm not mistaken, I believe Tucker has an answer that addresses mister Vickeber's concern.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. It may, in fact, not address the concern, but it was the point of clarification you asked for last time, which was that draft 1.1 used the term cannabis products, which is a wide definition, and the request was to make sure that this pairs specifically Section one, covering solid or liquid concentrate cannabis products, and the raised age would apply only to those products that contains between 6070% Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And, Pepper, do you have votes on?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Great. Yes. For the record, James Pepper, Damage Control, I don't think I ever said that, but this, the committee the reason why there's a distinction between solid and liquid liquid concentrates to begin with is a result of a crisis that happened across the country where people were dying from smoking illegal cannabis babes. That was determined by the CDC. That's not something that I'm substituting my judgment for. And you guys that's why you have a distinction because you wanted to allow this. What you're saying you wanted to allow vapes so you're not pushing people towards alternative markets purchasing these things online. What you're gonna say here is we raise the age on vapes is that people age 21 to 25 are gonna just purchase these things online and God knows what's in them frankly, you know, but that's that's the I mean, so for the same reason the cannabis board has written three reports saying you shouldn't have potency caps because there are robust alternative markets that operate in parallel to this market, you really shouldn't be raising the age on this stuff. And the conversation originally around putting this new age restriction was if you're going to increase the potency of the solid concentrates, you may want to consider heightened age restrictions for solid concentrates or enhanced labeling requirements or enhanced blood tender education. Those are the types of things that you would want for higher potency products. You want consumers to know what they're kind of getting.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: The most important thing we have to remember is that people are most in danger on the illicit market. They're most in danger when someone puts some THC butter in some food or, you know, they don't have a package that tells them exactly what they're eating.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Did I just hear mister Pepper say three times you've written reports that recommend removing the potency caps?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. Right.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: I have. And and we don't try and tell you guys what to do on policy choices, but you guys have this debate has raged from the

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: beginning. Rage.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes. I

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: mean, we haven't even gotten to section three of the bill because sipping

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: so smart.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: You know? But I'm just saying that this this I've we you've asked us. You you know, the senate has removed the cabs. The house put them back in for three years now, and every time the compromises, cannabis board write a report about the efficacy of these calves.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you, but And you know, time had recommended we remove the calves.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Right. And that and that is based upon stakeholder input. That's great. You know, we had we had a 14 member advisory committee, including the commissioner of health at the time that was part of the drafting of that report. They didn't vote on it, but yes, he did. He was on the committee.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yes, he was. Yes. He didn't recommend revoke the CCAPs.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Fluence does not work. Well, no, abstinence doesn't work. Well, some things it does. Maybe less chocolate. Maybe it has that, that's positive. But think, Jill, would you wanna hear something?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah, so Jill's a top here and I represent Vermont Parent Society and we have definitely been part of this conversation since 2019, since the creation of this law. Going back to this idea of the potency caps. When we first put this law into place, we were saying, let's have public health be part of our regulated market. And so 60% THC is a very high level already. And what we're trying to do is indicate to people that you need to have caution here. So there's definitely, with the edibles, we have accidental ingestions that have gone up exponentially. But we also have a body of evidence that's growing. When you say exponentially.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I don't think that's actually the fact. Mean, we've heard actually for the contrary that the edible problems have gone down. I believe that's what Pepper testified to.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: We have an ER a toxicologist that gave you testimony they didn't forget to testify. Was that the vet person? No, UBM. Who's talking about what they're seeing in the ER. Then I gave you data But that's likely to be illicit. No, that's edibles that kids are getting into age zero to six. We never saw that. Haven't. Mean, it's illicit if a child is eating edibles anyway, but. And I have data too from the toxicology folks that I gave you last Right. And so, but we were talking about the high potency concentrates as well. What we're seeing is this body of evidence that shows with regular use of high potency cannabis there are serious public health impacts which include psychosis, schizophrenia,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: and this cannabis. And we have to fight the FDA to support that. That's regular use, that means sort of almost like addictive behavior.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, we haven't heard regular use defined. Yes, so regular use defined from a public health perspective is using it within thirty days, like regularly. So, thirty days. Thirty

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: days, I mean, if you use it every day, that would

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: be regular use. But it's the way that public health defines it, right? They're trying to distinguish between you saying, yeah, I used it once and this happened because obviously that would not be causation. So they're saying regular users. So I can get you the definition of how they define that, but the problem also is that the normalization, we already have the highest use rate of cannabis among our youth already. Of the country? Of the country, yes. Vermont. Yes, and then we have forty eight percent of our eighteen to twenty five year olds use cannabis. And I'm not saying that that's, I'm not saying that they're getting it Did it go out since

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: we

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: legalized? Yes. How much?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Did you sell alcohol? A lot not available. So, Pepper, you also gave us testimony on this, that the edible analysis had gone down.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Yes. I mean, I what I sent you is just the New England Poison Control cannabis exposures by broken out by year and by New England state. So there's a I'm looking at data right now. I have this in my previous testimony.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It's on

[Graham Unangst-Ratha (Policy Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: It's on the website. So

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: we had a high watermark in 2023 of forty seven out of all age demographic In Vermont. In Vermont, and in 2024, it was 28, and in 2025, it was 34. Notably, the numbers between ages zero to 12 are going down.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay, yeah. Okay, Randy had a comment and then we need to talk.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Well, that's needing to move on. We to make decisions. We have to make a decision on this bill today or tomorrow. Exactly. There's a limited amount of time, and we've got, and among the things that we've heard probably about this more than anything else we've heard about, during all the things that we've looked at this year is that there's a great divide between the producing community and the medical community. And I still haven't gotten a whole lot of clarity on which side I should move to. My information though is that medical evidence, which we heard relatively little of early in these discussions, have had an increasing impact. And I gather there are increasing documents and studies and so on that support the view that we are having increasing problems. I'm very reluctant to increase potency or anything else with cannabis right now until I get a better resolution of the competing sides and a better resolution of the issue of the medical problems that seem to be associated with increasing concentration of content. I'm particularly disturbed about what I'm hearing about the medical aspects of medicals, for example, which I hadn't heard much about at all before this testicle or anything that's been heard today.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. And so As we're not to

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: a result, I am not inclined to do much of anything that increases concentrations at all in anything right now until we have more testimony, more information, more documents, and more evidence to side on.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We have a limited time for that. That's correct. David, did you have a punt?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Punt. Punt the THC levels. Let the house deal with it. It's gonna come back to us. We have another pass at it.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: And we'll have some more evidence in the meantime. We

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: can continue working Thomas? On

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So similarly, I would say, since we know the crossover deadline, what might make the most sense is extract, remove these sections, and know that we have that seen before where we could continue to take testimony next Tuesday, Wednesday when we're breathing easier, then we wanna bring a floor amendment before this comes forward, then that gives us more time to hear from it. I am more persuaded that we should look at this issue, and I do think this is the toughest issue. That's why we're spending the

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: most time on it. I

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: But the fact that they keep telling us that we should remove these calves, and I do respect their opinion, tells me that this is where we should be focusing our time. Maybe if we have more breathing room next week, consider more testimony. I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: would entertain that and then entertain that with that. With three people suggesting that, I would then suggest we, at the moment, for the next draft, strike sections one and two. We are have yet to talk about sections three, and then, we can continue that conversation. We could absolutely have a floor amendment, and we could have testimony on Tuesday, or Wednesday. So on that, let's move to section three.

[David Mickenberg (Lobbyist for cannabis establishments)]: Section three, we made it. Sorry. It's okay.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section three, increasing the package from one hundred milligrams of THC to two. But now

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: This is not edibles, and this is not on the medicines themselves, just the amount of edibles in the bag. Is that correct? The edible is bad potent that you use by

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the This is not increasing potency. This is increasing volume.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The term that is used is cannabis product. Not sure if it's further narrowed in the preceding subdivisions that follow it, but we're talking about packages of cannabis products, which is the broad definition within item seven. Which includes edibles? Yes.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: The idea here being you

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: you think you're just buying whole packaging. The the plus of this, as we heard, I think the most compelling testament was for people who have to travel distances to to because we have such a desert in so many parts of the state for our future cannabis that people it would be it would make it much easier for people if

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: they But there's no limit of number of packages you can walk away. A serving it's a container.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: There is. I think there is a little bit.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Lizards. That's the next section. I'm talking to you.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: They'd leave the store and go back in, buy it more, but I think they can only believe was so much.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: So how many so to frame it in the form of question, if we're talking about edibles, a hundred milligrams, how many what's he put in ounces?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, deal with sec two ounces in the next section, which I I see what you're trying to figure out is how Yeah,

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: so how many 100 THC boxes available can a guy walk away with or a lady walk away with in Vermont Right.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Do you want me to answer that? Is that all right?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yep.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Okay, so the current transaction limit, and there's, this is a Colorado paper that's also part of my testimony about how you make an equivalency, is 8,400, so you could walk away with 84 packages of one hundred milligrams. So you cut that in half. That should do it. This just reduces the amount of packaging. Like this is really about just can you buy an 12 pack or only a six pack?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. Well, is the the combination of recycling time and effort for people to get to these places. I think that's what this is. Is that am I right with that?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: I mean, this this section right here really is just are you gonna permit people to sell the equivalent of a 12 pack or or are you gonna be stuck with buying six multiple six packs?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Fine with the section. I'm fine with

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: section. What is your appointment with the section? You're fine with the increasing 200 milligrams? Not a chance.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. I'm just looking at Yeah. No. No. Hi.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: But are you? I'm in bed with it. I don't think it makes any difference. They can walk away with 84 of them down. Now they can walk away with what?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: 40, you know, 42. So maybe then let's look at it in pairing with section four, which is a single transaction. Tucker, would you do section We

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: can actually look at sections four, five, and six altogether. Right. Section four increases the single transaction limit from one ounce to two ounces of cannabis, or the equivalent in cannabis products, and you've heard some testimony about the difficulty of applying that analysis, and sections five and six, the You have to go down, right. For civil and criminal penalties, or civil penalties, are increased. Of course.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So given the range here in our part of the world, I would I would I am reasonably okay with these set with sections four, five, and six.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Are we closing sections out of the codes? I'm fine. That's why we didn't send transportation bill. So we basically say, yes. This section's fine. Then we just come back to those that we want.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: You're gonna fix the transaction amount, you would then have to do the the the other the sections five and six, as far as I understand, we need. Is that pepper? Is that my understanding? Yes. Exactly.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Well, you don't wanna be able to sell people enough to turn them into, you know Right. A criminal, essentially.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. Exactly. So you have to deep yeah. You have to change the criminal Criminal thresholds. Yeah.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: We ask Gittenden's control board what their opinion is on these particular sections. Absolutely.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Because Gabe has given us a very good memo on this.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Right. We do have a memo, and I would defer to that. I mean,

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: this It is so much been a couple weeks.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Yeah. No. This is purely a policy choice for you. I mean, you know, it's just how much cannabis do you want people to be purchasing in a single transaction. That's it. I mean, it's it's So you're available. Is the argument that you heard earlier from the folks that live far away or prefer to just buy them all.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yes. Just wondering, our cannabis control board hasn't been injured.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: No, this is purely just policy work for you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Here, I would lead you to to Gabe's comments here. Sections one through six focus on inhalable products but preserve ingestible product paths. So what's interesting about that, and I don't fully understand, is we're talking about solid and liquid

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: paths, and ingestible is a solid. So we sorry. Sorry. My oh. Some lessons learned from this parts of the title Saturday Cannabis, your shoulders against alcoholic beverages. This entire conversation has gotten a bit confusing because these terms are actually not defined at all for purposes of the cannabis. However, generally accepted that solid, concentrated cannabis products are In liquid form. They are not viscous. They are in a more solid form than and any are contact heated typically and then

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So they are when you talk

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: about solids, it does not include that. I I would use some terms Mhmm. From the fields, but I don't know if you would know what, for example, shatter is. Shatter is an example Yes. Of a

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: What is is that an inhalable? Yes. Okay. So the the helpful distinction is inhale because the vape is also inhalable.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. They are.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So those are edibles are a very different thing. That's what I was trying to say earlier. Right. So this preserves Most states treat those very differently because it's like a candy or it's like a meal. Right. Exactly. And and if it's descheduled, we might see THC that riches.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Got it. So what Gabe said, to go to David's question, is in respect to section four, and of this amendment, the the existing statutory language or the equivalent in in cannabis products has been problematic to operationalize because it's not possible to commute compute mathematical equivalence between drug products that use different modes of administration. If more enforcement transaction limit if a more enforceable transaction limit on cannabis products is desired, consider specifying the statute of the THC milligram limit, which is what we do in section three. Right?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Not exactly. But this is what it this is a really complicated area of the law and probably not something that there's gonna be much agreement about in the next two days. I have a memo that explains this in great detail because when Colorado was first asked to create a product equivalency to one ounce of cannabis

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That's right.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Difference. There's about four or five different ways you could calculate that based upon the different modes of administration and how it's absorbed in the body and the the onset of the investigation. So, you know, if you wanna do equivalency in the statute, you can,

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: but I

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: can tell

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: you give me a comment there. I think we do need you to weigh in on on because my understanding is that you are you would that the CCB supports sections three, four, five, and six.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Four, five, and six.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: I mean, listen. A person can walk into the cannabis store currently, buy one ounce of cannabis, walk out of the door, come back in and buy another ice. So this is just trying to accommodate the people that live far away or don't want to do that or kind of walk and do that kind of dance. So it's not really changing much policy.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: So I'll, I'll available about sections three through six. I could go with it. It doesn't matter. It's like buying a case or buying a six month. Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That's sort of where I land. So I feel that we're good to go on sections three through six.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We're on page five. We're on page five. Good. The event permit establishes a pilot program for the cannabis control board to get you up to 10 of these permits per year, two year period.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And given that we supported this last year, I think it's consistent on our part to support this again. I think this would give us good information about how we wanna roll out the events. Bob?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Pick up on what I said last time this came up.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Don't know if

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: you drafted any provisions, I'm assuming this will go to your Senate Finance where I if this stays in, of course, Senator Brock, I do think that there's merit in looking at scale and size of events or a differentiated structure of these. So that's where I don't think you really got that language yet, but it's gonna be a top of my head from this makes it out of this community.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: The one thing I think we also need to look at in this, because I do support events, the pilot of these events and seeing how they work, the section nine reports back on them. The question that we did not I mean, what we did not include last year was the consuming aspect. And the question is, do we want to that is the, I think, the key difference on this one from last year, and that's the one thing that I also think needs discussion.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So if we're gonna look at this from a economic perspective and give guidance then to the finance committee, then what I would say is that one of the proposals that have been made to us is that we look at the tier one and two cultivators and retailers because those are our kind of craft producers that we, you know, we got into the whole, and you have to do this and you have to do that. But the idea being that you are trying to give preference to our in state cultivators and retailers in some way, and that was one idea of how to do it that was put on the table. And then I think that would give the finance committee guidance that we might be looking at a lower fee amount similar to what other small cultivators and businesses have to pay for something versus like, of course, if you have a multi state retailer or something, you wanna charge more, but maybe we don't even give them that option

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: of help.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Am I wrong in thinking that there's likely to be some huge events with large draws and then also smaller events, which would be more out

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: in the countryside and rural areas? It's certainly concept I mean, there's no restriction on that in this. There's no restriction natural restriction in the fact that our staff, we have seven compliance officers. You know, these things are likely gonna be on the weekends. Like, we don't it's we're gonna have to limit the size and scope of them just based upon our resources. So it's

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: on you to design the the how we go forward with events. I would hope we could go forward with them ASAP, like, this beginning of summer. You think you can get your thoughts together for an initial set of permits?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: I when we were contemplating this last year, we wrote the language such that we do refer a lot to the towns to set correctly, you know, if there's gotta be an EMT on-site or if there's gotta be a deputy sheriff that's on call or if there needs to be certain time, place, manner restrictions, the town has complete control of that in this. We have a secondary, I mean, control over it, but the towns can say you know, they we can essentially outsource

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And the towns do consumer, not consume?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: I I forget if you've added this in here.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: This this was added this year. We did not have consumed last year as I recall. Yes. The Farmers Market thing? Right. Did not have consumed in that. Did we?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Don't think we did.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Consumption is not specifically called out to the local control subdivision, which I will point you to. There's Subdivision B 1 concerning the eligibility on page five, and it requires written approval from local cannabis control commissions or the Select Board. No commission exists, including conditions and limitations appropriate to protect the public, manage traffic, and abate nuisances. So the local control commissioners are involved in the approval process. Here, the CCB is granted broad discretion to implement all of this through, initially, procedures. It doesn't have to go through formal rulemaking. Can be adopted in central Right. Which is what we did last year. Given them the authority to have the force of law there. It could be further narrowed or there could be additional clarification of what the local conditions are that have to be approved by the control commission.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So this gets at two conversations that we I think we've had in-depth, but Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We have. Myself. But number

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: one, that we we have not addressed that you can consume cannabis anywhere you can consume tobacco. So wherever you have a smoke product of cannabis and and frankly, actually, there's this means you have limitations on smokeless or other inhaled products. But we this has been a judiciary matter, and and senator Hashim said he was fine with us putting in our bill something that addressed the incongruency about where you can consume tobacco because otherwise, we would then be looking at what we what we do with alcohol potentially, which is having an on-site permit, not just an event permit where you can purchase a a bottle of something or a or a jar of something, but that you would have it it would be an on-site consumption purpose. That's what would actually get to what I think we're envisioning, which is weddings or little festivals or something where people can consume legally and safely.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So it sounds like we have a provision for that in this language. There's quite a

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: bit of language on this. Yes. So which is a subdivision read about that. B six, do you contemplate on-site consumption, specifically that the board is allowed to, as part of the eligibility standards, prescribe The board

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: may select board or the control board in The

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: board's control board. Oh, the CCP, okay, May prescribe a particular event or location limits on attendees or types of products that may be consumed at the event site. So that language corresponds with some concepts members of the committee have likely heard about, that there's a difference between those events that may take place, for example, outside at a festival grounds versus those products that might be consumed at an indoor space such as wedding venue.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. I'm fine I'm fine with this section. I'm fine with giving CCB this this this role, and I think it builds on what we really tried to do, and it's bigger than what we tried to do last year with our farmers markets. Grant, you have thought.

[Graham Unangst-Ratha (Policy Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: Yeah. Grant, you didn't interrupt. I would say some aspects of this are really concerning. The fact that there's no public rule making process as well as I've heard of the CCB is very concerning for our community, given especially the level of degree of trust right now with producers in that entity. The difference to municipalities is really concerned. Like, this is a statewide program.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Graham Unangst-Ratha (Policy Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: And so I'm just trying to place this on our heads. So someone applies for this. There's no instruction in this about what the application looks like. Is it gonna be a lottery such that there's an equitable process that's that's ignorant to your size, scale type of license you have? And then if so, is that lottery person gonna have to work with their local kiddos control board if there is one to get allowance except this way too like, what does that look like? I just wanna name a couple of things. There's no clarity of who gets the license or how that happens, as I said. And then there's lack of thinner consumption and deferring the CCV on prescribing limits and attendees types of products trade to consume at the event. We don't even have public consumption yet. There should be no allowance for consumption at an event until people have clarity on ability to consume publicly as they come to tobacco. In case that's about

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's an even bigger conversation. But we can't but

[Graham Unangst-Ratha (Policy Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: from our perspective, it's it's it's entirely inevitable. We have producers right now living in Section 8 housing. They are growing cannabis. They are selling cannabis. They can't consume it legally anywhere. But you're saying they could go to an event, one of 10 health per year in the state, and have a Okay. Eventually legally consume, like, the degree of equity there is extremely

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I may we may well, Thomas, you

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: You raised valid points. I would just say in the plan of this process, we those are all things that if this stays in the bill, think the house would love to probably dive deeper into it to address those concerns. I I don't know if there's enough time to

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: If if I could come back with a redraft of this tomorrow to propose as an amendment, that would be great. These are things I've raised. They're things I've talked to judiciary about. I'm sorry. I don't know where that got lost in the process, but they this that does create a much more cohesive market experience, and I don't think we should send this stuff finance without without acknowledging that that's we haven't put enough policy guidance on what we mean by event permits.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Sure. I'm just advised the chair of public language as is, but if they wanna try to revise it this week

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'm fine with the language as is too. But, Pepper, if you and if we could, we're mean, we're we're not voting this out today. So if Kesha wanted to work on this, I I don't think you can quite honestly, I will say, if you do not have time to look at consuming statewide open consumption, that's a big difference.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So it's not open So what order

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: to back those Doesn't matter. I think that that's I think that it's gonna be a challenge. I think that we really have to stick it to events. And I think we if you wanna come up with some new language around events, checking in with Pepper and Tucker and Graham and Jeffrey. G squared over there. G squared. I think it is. Aren't you both g g?

[Graham Unangst-Ratha (Policy Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: We are g.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I know.

[Graham Unangst-Ratha (Policy Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: This is Chittenden.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: The g squared community. I think that would be great, and we could look at that. But I I don't think that we can entertain at the moment conversation about a statewide consumption in in public places, but or that will really be a bigger much bigger issue that that I think that will be a challenge. But I think that in in light of events I mean, I'm very supportive of doing events. I'm very supportive of our Laurinesis pilots because we desperately need to be able to

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: All I'm saying is when we legalized cannabis, we didn't give people a safe and legal place to consume it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Then we need to create those places. But I also think many of us having the experience of New York State next door have no interest in the repeating what New York State just had to go through. I don't know what that means. That means if you walk on a New York City street, you could get eyes just breathing air.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I'm back at this.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So I I think that creating safe and legal places to consume is great. I think that that's what we're trying to do in in the events. And I would support I I think that we would all be interested in seeing an event that could address that. Although, I think this does a lot of that and pepper, I think, if you could Kesha and Jeff G Squared come up with some new language, that'd be fine. Just for

[Jeffrey Pizzutillo (Executive Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: a brief second, I don't want to belabor this, I want to move on to other sections, but I'm just recalling past sessions and focus fixed location seemed to be a broader, more longer conversation with multiple stakeholders versus because you're you need to think about traffic safety, departing from that event versus allowing people to consume around their homes in different areas and not feeling the pressure of having to consume in a fixed time and then and then go home. So I I'm just recalling past conversations in session. I just wanna remind the committee of that. And also So

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'm gonna let you four come up with let's come up with an amendment that we are willing to entertain. I would include Tucker, obviously, that needs to

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: be drafted. For which topic? For the event permits?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: For the event purpose. But I think I'm hoping this committee is consistently willing to support event permits because we voted them out and supported them last year. Okay? Right.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Moving on. Section nine or is section eight. Section eight. Page eight is delivery permit.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think I have less how are we all feeling? But I would suggest that this is a discussion that needs to be in the house as well. We don't have time to take this up. It's a big discussion. The event permits we have discussed in this committee with the same group of people, but I don't believe we have the same consensus around or agree.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Agree, doctor.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thomas?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So I I definitely want to hear from Senator Brock in a weeks. I I I don't know what we're trying to accomplish with this. I'm I'm not against honestly for. I I have hesitations for delivery and all the rules that were raised in the last conversation. So, if we do want to keep this in, I'd want to dive very deeply into what the implications of this would be and maybe revisit what the cannabis control board has set up this topic, whether or it's a border against.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Paige said that the biggest bottleneck is that's I mean, we we keep saying we have a crisis where we have too many cannabis producers and they're all going out of business, but we haven't allowed them to access most of the state, basically. We have a concentration of retailers in the lesser number of municipalities that are left for retail. Those retailers don't have to take products from small consumers. So this is an area where to me, it relates exactly to the question of how are we gonna help our in state cultivators Correct. Manufacturers because that that's what's coming, is retailers are gonna be able to take if it's descheduled and things can cross state lines, especially, they're gonna be able to take, you know, the best of the best from around the country, whatever that means. But we have a really we have a quality brand in Vermont, and that quality brand is at risk if it's unclear to peep if it starts to become more and more clear to people what was made in the state, what was comes from their local farmer. I mean, that's our whole scheme. Was to be

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I would just remind us. I know, Graham,

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: you have your hand, but

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I just wanna instead of is a pilot. Again, this is a pilot. This it's only 10 permits, and it would I I I think I'm this would and is it the concern, I think, for some people is whether this would just be for retailers to do this or all

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: growers or cultivators. Cannabis establishments, which again is the broadest definition of the license.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So it's licensees, cultivator licensees? All of them. All licenses. Anyone who's licensed to either grow or sell Yes. Could reap, could deliver. But they would have to, in this pilot pilot, in this pilot,

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: they would have to go through there would be 10 permits for the first year. Is that for is it the two year or one year pilot? It's a two year pilot. It's not heating. That's for and not more than 10 are issued at a given year.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So this is where you could limit it to tier one and two.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes. Rowers and manufacturing. I would support them. Ram, sorry. I just, we had to sort of clarify that then.

[Graham Unangst-Ratha (Policy Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: No, I mean, think what you said at the beginning is there's a lot of unpacking of importance. This and the social economic component is the most important part of this bill from our coalition's perspective, and I think we are most representative coalition stakeholders in this room on this issue. I pushed back a little bit at the medical society's the other day. At the joint hearing y'all had, there were two producers. There were four or five medical people. Like, so producers are the underrepresented people here, and I think this is this is a great case in point. All of the CCB's research, one person, this is what people want. We've lost literally almost 200 people from this marketplace since it started. It is quite frankly, we feel it's a right for producers if you wanna sell that thing. It's not a a fee permit. It's quite insulting. As someone who takes time to as a farmer, you produce a product. You are a town town, and they have to take that product, give it to somebody else who will then make money off that. Well, they are barely able to pay their bills. Lastly, we we would not support either of these pilot programs. We didn't support the event license last year. This is not a legitimate pilot program. 10 licensees, like, we still don't understand how it should be administered. Who would have access? What kind of data is 10 licenses gonna give you? The CCB has more than a capacity to use or any capacity to administer. In this bill, you reduce the excise tax by 4%. That money No.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Can gotten to that section.

[Graham Unangst-Ratha (Policy Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: But you have but if you don't reduce the excise tax, that money goes to CCB. It could also go to the LAOB. That's the Goes to prevention. It already goes to Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Dave.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: No. I just wanted to say that I fully sympathize with the need for direct sales. Okay, I get that, but I That's don't think just permits. That's correct. That's why I'm trying to deconflict the delivery permit, which is the section we're in right now. From my perspective, it's a different concept. I think if you want to address direct sales, there needs to be some direct sales language in here. That that's one.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So let me work on this section too.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Pepper, I just want Pepper to weigh in on this.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: I mean, on this section, I can let Jay's memo speak for the board, but I I mean, this this section raises questions for us at

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the board.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Does. Penn sales, can you deliver anywhere? Can you deliver to a college dorm room? I mean, there's no authorization. There's no prohibition on that, and there's no direction to us to prohibit the types of addresses that could be delivered to. Medical program delivering the medical program operates very differently than this. Is it an opt in

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I imagine you would wanna limit that. You know? I mean, it

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: But there's no authorization for us to do that as far as I can tell.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. So we can just rewrite the language.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Right. Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So I would entertain if you're gonna do this, but this is Tucker's time too. So Tucker's got it. I mean, I if you can rewrite this simply and, Graham, I would say to you that you know, you also need to bring people along. So a pilot enables the legislature to be brought along because not everybody's in the same place. Well,

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I don't let's look at let's look at maybe maybe like, a pilot is different than 10 permits. A pilot could say it starts with this tier of grower.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I also think that the grouping has to administer it has to also own it too. So I think that between those those three with Tucker drafting it, I think I'm happy to tweak this in a way that makes it work better for CCB because as I know the CCB has some issues with this. If if there's any way to make it easier for the CCB and, Graham, I I hear you, but I also know this body, and

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I know we have to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: be brought along. So if a pilot in two years gives you good data, require that we collect better data. But I think that we also have to be being comfortable with things too. So, I mean, the the political reality is doesn't all happen overnight, Jeffrey.

[Jeffrey Pizzutillo (Executive Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: I I just wanna reinforce some of the statements that that my colleague, Graham, made that this section, believe it or not, what we're hearing from licensees is potentially the most important section Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: In the I entire industry. I agree.

[Jeffrey Pizzutillo (Executive Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: And and I just would urge this this committee to recall the Damien Fagan's previous testimony that you all had. I believe he was in this committee twice. Yeah. Sequencing is important here when it comes to the formation of a market such that if you wanna capture the customers, right now, we're capturing maybe 30, maybe 40% of the customer base in this state because many customers would rather shop directly with their producer, and then that producer would then send the customer to the retail shop. So what we know is that enabling some sort of well regulated fair direct sales for small producers, even if it's through a pilot program, which we would urge you to reconsider with, not just delivery, but also on-site as an option, which we believe would make it more politically feasible. It's not just purely delivery. Give producers that option. And and and we are we are losing our talent. It's really you all know. We we are losing artisans on a weekly basis in the state because of that inability to directly connect with customers, and we hope you all consider that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. So It's really important. Yes. So to go to David's question, delivery and direct sales, needless to say, but fine line, CCB

[David Mickenberg (Lobbyist for cannabis establishments)]: and

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: direct sales is a different kettle of fish from delivery, but delivery is sort of a direct sale. Can you help us to go to David's concern? How do we what's

[David Mickenberg (Lobbyist for cannabis establishments)]: was it

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: a difference without a distinction? I mean, it

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: a distinction without a different reserve? I mean, if we flip a switch and have the 400 or so cultivators and product manufacturers in the state immediately start having direct sales. That's just a huge number of new retail locations, which I think is where a lot of the concern around selling to youth or having product recalls for tax collection or, transaction limits or any other kind of aspects of the kind of regulatory framework that we put into place over the last five years. That's where a lot of the kind of concerns come to, you know, members of the public walking in to burst the cannabis. So I I just you have to be comfortable with a certain amount of tax avoidance and sales to youth. I mean, it it you just Hold on. You just have to be okay with that because it happens in the alcoholic context. It happens, you know, it's just we we can do it, but we need we need as an agency if we want the same level of scrutiny that we're providing to the current retail outlets. We just need more resources if you want that same level of oversight.

[Jeffrey Pizzutillo (Executive Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: If if I make sure.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Mhmm. What yeah. Okay. Jeffrey and then Thomas.

[Jeffrey Pizzutillo (Executive Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: What what I'm hearing is perhaps and and we know that the agency has delivered just like how they've delivered numerous reports about THC caps. We know that they have also delivered numerous reports supporting direct sales, including this past active six reports that you have. But what I'm also hearing is support for that, but maybe the way that it's it's it's provided to them to manage. So maybe, like, a a pilot program would be acceptable and and and doable for them. That's what I'm hearing. The importance is there, but make sure that we can actually operate something. So maybe that's a good approach there.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And it has to be designed so that you could actually, with your staff, manage.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Right. I think that part of if we do events, that is piloting direct to consumer sales. That's how I see that. There's nothing in this language that requires this to run through a retail license. A cultivator could get an event permit and have a direct to consumer sale that we can manage, and then we can write a report as to did anything go wrong? Are all the concerns that we've raised around age restrictions or tax avoidance or anything else? Did they were they realized? Do we need additional staff for direct to consumer signals? The answer may be no, but we but I think that

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think delivery needs a a bigger conversation that as a result. Grant, I Grant, you have a phone.

[Graham Unangst-Ratha (Policy Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: Well, I I just wanna bring up. I watched you all debate this most of it a few weeks ago, so a little bit. And it really made me realize you all need farmers in the room talking to this talking to you about this. Like, we're quite frankly coming here year after year and we're gaslit by things like Pepper just said. Like, we're gonna see more used sales. Mhmm. We're gonna see tax avoidance. Here's where? Where is the data supporting that? We have intensive tracking systems. We have the person who founded Track and Traces as a member of our coalition. There is no indication that people are able to get around the Track and Traces. They'd be they're currently driving cannabis products all around the state, making fewer sales, giving out free samples, driving all around for a whole day, maybe making no sense. We have a system in place, and quite frankly, we could come in here. We could articulate exactly all these things. The proper place for that is rule making. We have proposed a clear rule making process for the CCB in every the last five years around this issue. So it's it's quite frankly frustrating to me as representative agricultural community watching people lose their shirts, being regulated by an agency which comes to our cultivator meetings every summer, came twice this year, and said they would support direct sales. Here they are speaking against it and insinuating these people are gonna avoid tax, sell to underage people. We don't have any evidence of this to people. It's it's just incredibly frustrating.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I hear what everybody's saying, but

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: I just heard CCB say that that this section 70 event on Internet is a classic example of a small scale pilot to test direct sales. So why not? Why not give it Yes, a

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the event sales. I mean, think we're going see a new draft on that. I think I'm I'm hopeful we'll move the events. The question is the difference, the question is the delivery pilot, and it's a pilot.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So in section eight, Luke's conversation along where I currently am is I I'd only feel comfortable with pilot of sorts, and I'm also only gonna feel comfortable if the CCB who I do trust, comes forward saying the language is something that they need to work with. So that's where I so I'd like to then have a language that, seems like I can work with it.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So let me work on it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Tomorrow. We need this the language tomorrow. A pepper, acacia, g squared. You up to this? Yeah.

[Jeffrey Pizzutillo (Executive Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: And I just wanna stress that The problem. We're conflating Okay. Well, that makes it So that's with delivery, and what we're hearing is producer would favor delivery, changing that section to more meet their needs from a direct sales point. We feel like that's closer already. So yes. Absolutely.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And and Tucker. Right? So we'll figure out that Tucker.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you. All all four of you all five of you. Talk to me. 9, effective nine is the piece of cake.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Encapsulate the words on the page and perhaps some of the legal reasons involved in those two sections. Section seven, the event permit was made sufficiently broad if the discretion was granted to CCB and permitted the pilot to cover all sorts of events, including direct sentence. It was the committee's attempt to have a pilot program that covered everything from catering to special events to direct sales, limited to 10 of those permits issued a year with guidelines from the CCP. Section eight, the delivery permit language, is verbatim how this is established for alcoholic companies. Right. Specifically, the retail licensees in the alcoholic beverage space. This is what they are allowed to do and the exact requirements in statute for what they deliver directly to a consumer. There is a separate part of alcoholic beverages regulation where very specific manufacturers, beer and wine, are allowed to sell directly to consumers, either at their manufacturing space or through common carriers. But the common carriers' language was not incorporated as part of the delivery permit because there's not high level of legal certainty that any of those common barriers would be willing to ship even in

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: the city. Right. I mean, and just to be fair, they have on-site consumption and all the, you know, like, there's just a whole another world that they could go to.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So on both events and delivery, we will entertain new language tomorrow. Section nine contains the CCD rules in force to reorient you to this. This is a report on how the pilot program carried out, and then rule making authority with the rules to take effect at the end of the pilot. And the concept here is that based on how the pilot turns out and the recommendations from the CCB, there would be statutory changes aligned with rules filed by the CCB for both of these

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: programs. Right. So I without further comment, think we're probably gonna find a section.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 10, advertising. Sections ten and eleven deal with advertising. Yes.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And I would boldly propose we do not have the time to deal with the advertising piece, and and I would I I think it's a much bigger I think it's a big conversation. It deserves serious consideration, and we do not have the time for it. If we could settle the key pieces we still have yet to settle, I think advertising is something that we are gonna have to give to the house to do further exploration on. I know I know there's a

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: lot of interest in solving this problem. To look at these pieces. I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: our time. We have not the time here in this committee to take But do you

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: have their commitment to look at these sections?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think we have commitment for them to look at all the work, then we can and I will have that conversation with them.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Could you have that conversation with him? Because a you know, there was a expensive lawsuit around this topic. We have we have I mean, this is where I think we got the most compelling testimony that other states are advertising in our state, and they are facing not the same playing field. This is one that if if cannabis gets rescheduled by November 2026, have major concerns about just letting this go. And I don't know where we're com like, I don't know where this is coming from. I didn't hear that this section was controversial to anyone. Because we have full page advertising for cannabis in our newspapers right now. It's just not from Vermonters.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, I just didn't felt that we did not get enough chance on advertising, but I don't know how does the rest of the page. I mean, this Tucker, why don't you just remind us what this section actually does? And because I am just probably in

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: in the. I don't know where that comes

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: from because Okay. Doctor, would you

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: First in this section, cannabis establishments, there's a prohibition that they shall not advertise their products via any means unless the licensee can demonstrate that not more than 15% of the audience is reasonably expected to be 21. The language shifts that so they can establish establishments shall not place a paid advertisement in third party media unless the licensee can show that not more than 30% of the audience is reasonably expected to be undertook us.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So the the the key fix here is out of state advertising. Does this actually fix that, Pepper? I mean, would because I know advertising is a challenge for you. I mean, you have to review all these things. And tell us how you are I heard you weighing in on this section.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: I think the only way to truly fix the disparity between out of state people advertising in our state in ways that Vermonters can't is to just copy and paste New York's statutes on advertising, because then we would be on the same playing field as them. I have had this conversation with New Jersey and Connecticut, about their experience, the exact same problems. New Yorkers are advertising in Massachusetts, folks are advertising in Connecticut. In New York, they've got these shared media markets in New York City, in New Jersey, I should say. They're dealing with the same issue. In Connecticut, they have a line in their advertising laws that say only cannabis licensed cannabis establishments shall be allowed to advertise in this state. They've never enforced it because they don't, I mean essentially they'd be enforcing it against the local newspapers that are advertising. Know, you're not necessarily going to go after the cannabis licensee from Massachusetts who's advertising. You're gonna be the person who actually violated the law, which is the, you know, news the local newspaper,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the local billboard. You know, don't have billboards here yet.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: So they've never really tested this out. They're but our neighbors are experiencing the same problem. And the only way to really solve it is to put all of New England on an equal playing field with respect to advertising.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Which I would love to have doing that on an equal playing field, period. Just and then we're gonna chat about that in a minute in terms of getting a compact

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: I have the comparison to get these scheduled. You have the comparison chart. The the longest section is around advertising. You can see that all New England states have this audience composition requirement. Some are more restrictive, some are less restrictive. Now, the fact that you're shipping this to paid advertisements, to me, it just kind of blows the lid on social media, and just the fact that the general demographics in Vermont are about 21% under the age 21, Just means that everyone cannabis advertisements can will be able to appear in most forum and most for, you know, So you just have to make a policy decision on whether that's okay. I mean, honestly, we'll implement the law however it's

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: written. Thomas.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I don't wanna penalize local papers and local media unless we need to support them and prop them up in this day and age. So my question, though, do you support this language? Do you have an opinion that the Kansas Control Board support what is in front of us?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Again, I don't wanna just this is a purely a policy decision. Do you want cannabis advertising more broadly or not?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I mean, that's that's what this But, also, this language doesn't incorporate does this language that we're looking at incorporate the New York State language? It's

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Not that not that I'm aware of. I mean, I'm happy to provide Tucker or Member just the the the specific statutes and the regulations behind them. I mean, I I did that work to create that that chart, so I have it. And

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: but, again, I would say that if we did that, that in and of itself would require a lot more conversation than we probably have time for at the moment. I think that Gabe's emailed Gabe's memo to us said that they do not support striking a prepublication review process even though it's, I think, quite onerous, isn't it?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: So I do we do have some data on that. I'm not sure if it's in Gabe's thing, but since the lawsuit was settled, we have added an extra day of advertising review. So the average time between submission and approval or response is two point five days. It takes about seven hours worth of staff time a week, so I mean it's not incredibly onerous. We catch a lot of little things that, you know, that would then turn into advertising actions. You know? If if we you take away preapproval and we see what's an illegal advertisement for a somewhat minor issue, we have to hit them with a letter of warning or some kind of enforcement action. You know? So I, you know, I

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. But right now, you have businesses in New York that are that are frankly advertising things that we would consider illegal. Right? Like, win a par if you keep buying cannabis or whatever it is. And we can't even, in the same way, use our rules to just create a level playing field or or say you can't advertise that kind of thing in Vermont. Right? So we are completely disadvantaging our local folks. And there was something else you said in there. What I thought the CCB was willing to accept was what happens under Department of Labor and Laboratories. It's a complaint driven system. They get a preview of the advertising. If it doesn't violate their standards, it's a simple, you know, no news is good news. That's how liquor and lottery operate.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: They and they have preapproval?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: They have the option to exercise preapproval because they get several days to look at it before it's allowed to be published. How

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: would you be if we kept preapproval? We strike it in this bill. It sounds like you

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But it's not an affirmative preapproval in DLL.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Is it, Tucker? No. That's exact. I I asked Tucker to draft this, like, DLL.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. There is not an express preapproval process for alcohol beverage advertising. In Of course, alcohol beverage advertising, I will reorient the committee. It is largely covered by tax and trade bureau regulation at the federal level, not at the state level. In fact, the only advertising provision that exists under Title VII for alcoholic beverages is a prohibition on stating in advertisements what the alcohol by volume of content is for a particular beverage or comparing beverages, making a statement that the alcohol by volume content of your beverage is higher than your competitors. That language is brought into the bill that you have in front of you. It replaces the preapproval language with a prohibition nonstating the THC content of the products that may be addressed. I

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: think omitting this section is really letting New Hampshire and New York and Massachusetts eat our lunch in a way that we don't even believe is is right. So I have really strong feelings about this one.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Well, I'm just looking at the comparison. You advertised between Vermont and New York because they're so close. I'm not sure how they're getting under the wire or not.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: This is more because they don't I mean, first of all, I don't know how you can advertise to get a car in New York, frankly, but they're doing it here. That intimidated. Being offered

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: as a prohibition, but I am seeing the audience as being relatively close to 5%. So

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: You're not supposed to offer product. Like, you're not supposed to that's considered what is that, Pepper? You're you're not supposed to say you could win a car.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: I know that there is

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: a Reduce it. Thank you, Chittenden. So we don't even have the ability to say to our papers in the state, you should not be publishing an advertisement that offers an inducement if it's from New York.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: So is the rub that they're offering for or that they're advertising our paper one hour?

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The rubbing advertising their cannabis. So how

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: would they how would again, given that the audience polls are nearly I

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: mean, this is when CCB said right now they don't feel like they have the tools to go after that. While they go after that, I'd also like to harmonize advertising with what's required of liquor and lottery Because otherwise, it's a lengthy pre approval.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Well, I feel to understand it. Why why Vermont's CCB can't can't send a warning letter to a New York advertiser who's paid to have an advertising that Vermont paid

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: for.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We have no law that doesn't allow them to advertise in our papers. Is that correct?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: That that's right. I mean, and the person who's actually doing the advertising is the newspaper, and the letter would go to them. It would go to seven So

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: then they would then, in effect, inform their right? Whoever paid for that advertising.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I I do, like, bring it back to destigmatize the industry, and if liquor can advertise papers, I think the pot stores should be able advertise papers.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Liquor's limited in how I can advertise.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Liquor's limited now. Can advertise.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But liquor and lottery doesn't. They they trust a lot of Vermont establishments to follow the rules that are set out in our statute.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So but they also have preapproval. They just have a longer stretch of time.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: No. They just they don't have a preapproval process. They have a complaint driven or they have the ability to opt in to pulling an ad before Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And I'm not sure they're the same. So I I think we are a much younger industry. I think that I don't mind the preapproval of the of the CCB. I do agree with you. I think we have to be able to have equity in our ability to advertise.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: The only people that's preapproving are in our state, and if we're saying we're not preapproving people from out our state, we have a non level playing field.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: To clarify some of this preapproval stuff with ELL, Just recall that the Department of Liquor and Lottery is the sole business Yes. That's allowed to sell certain types of alcohol beverages to the state, and what we might be referring to is the advertisements that are placed by those agents of the department, aka the, you know, Two Spirits locations, and the advertisements they're allowed to put out. The actual manufacturers are not or it's obligated to that same thing.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But the on-site locations are also heavily regulated. They can't put they can't say, you know, a car, if you drink a whole kick of beer, they can't say

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Those are all in DLL rules. Right. They cover things like happy hours and Yeah. Daily discounts. Okay. To get through the rest of the bill,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Pepper and Kesha, how do we wanna move this forward? Because I I mean, I I appreciate the sentiment behind some of this, but I also, appreciate the fact that we're we also have to make it work.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I just always spend significant time on this for good reason because it's a really important way to level the play.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Gotcha. Appreciate that, but I'm also appreciating how little time we actually have, which is why I thought if we could get it you know, with their result. Didn't know if it's we could get out of this. We Today. Sure. We'll set up

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: here for

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: On this one, I'm sure. I'm I'm fine with taking that or leaving it in. I feel like leaving it in will force the conversation in the house. There will be more of that. I don't have any concerns with the language that's currently presented, I'd love to hear from Senator Brock, Senator Weeks, where they are on this.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: I'm gonna call you to leave it in. At the same time, though, I think about advertising. I don't know enough about how the ads are placed and what limits, if any, there are in ads that are directed specifically to Revon's. Do they appear solely in publications that are distributed to Revon? Do they appear elsewhere outside of Revon's? How do you measure the intent of what the the advertiser has? Well, I put this in this paper that goes on both sides of the border because I'm and and my New

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: York authority, how do you prevent that? I don't I

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: don't sports betting is advertising on Netflix, you know, then we could have this conversation about all of the bikes that how they're advertised. But I'm

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: just not sure that this is a a fruitful conversation because I don't know how you limit it.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I guess what I'm saying is let's just harmonize it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'm happy to harmonize it, but my my concern is my concern is that I that I you know, we are partners with the CCB in large measure, we're partners with our growers, and we're partners with a lot of people in this industry. I are you wanting if we go forward with this, would you still want us to keep in e and one and two?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Preapprovals? You want us to keep preapproved? Okay.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: The preapproval to me is useful for a useful tool for us right now. I mean, that's I'll just put it that way. It's just if we spend seven hours a week doing it versus if you get rid

[Graham Unangst-Ratha (Policy Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: of it and we have to

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: convert all of our advertising complaints into notices of violation that include appellate rights and Much easier to preapprove.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So at the very least, though, Pepper, you're saying you have no control over a New York business advertising in seven days with an inducement that you would edit out of us.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: So you actually got so we should take inducement out because you guys repealed the the prohibition on inducements in 2023.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We were show us where that is

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in this

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: It's in title seven because you did this two years ago.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So it's not here? No. So if if

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: a cannabis business advertised and said, well, you can enter to win a car, you would allow for that in Vermont?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: If it was otherwise compliant, that is that is a legal appetite. Yes. You know? Alright. I should also just say that we've deemed that all newspapers ate the audience composition at 85% because people 21 generally aren't reading newspapers anymore.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So That's not completely true. It it They might read the back lesser

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: degree than the general population.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So And

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: we keep a running list of all the media, the fora that are have been met the audience composition already.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So I I think I'd like to ask what would make you more comfortable with this section because I think I hear that the committee would be is willing to move forward with it. What pepper would you be willing to take out or add back in? Only things are struck here. Well, and maybe you can think about that and get back to us. Yeah. Is that okay? Will will do, yes. Okay, great. Section 11. You can move

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: through section 11 because it's a corresponding amendment relating to advertising.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah, okay, excise tax.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Lowering excise tax from 14% to 10%.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. This, you can, Ted Barnett left, but he has already given us a memo on this. My concern with this is less money for from prevention. I think that the this is a real hard line. I think I believe for the governor. The only way the governor signed this bill was that there was a lot of money for prevention. And I think lowering this, I believe, is a real really important for us to maintain the amount of money that's going into prevention, that's going into the LAOB, that's going into all the places that need it to go. Maybe also to other places you're thinking about it going, like the legal center so that they could do some advice and counsel on the panelists. But I don't think lowering it, and I appreciate that it's a price challenge. It's less tax than other states. I don't feel like this is we we need to do this. And I think there's a big loss that we had.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: There's a couple there's a couple comments I would make. Number one, I hear you because it took a long time for us to lower the tax on spirits. It was extremely high on fill paper saying we're basically priced out of the market with with the tax on spirits, and then we did lower it. So I hear you that it may not, in its current form, be ready for prime time this year. My request would be that we take it from 14 to 13, recognizing that it is helpful for local communities who are now gonna have more time, place, manner regulation over cannabis to institute a 1% local option tax when they do that, and so that we do not simply compound the tax burden on consumers or the Excise taxes are not hard. I mean, I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: think that that are more just local option tax and excise tax.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean, it's it they pay a that's because they pay an excise tax, the sales tax, have a local option tax. Like, they pay all the taxes. That's why what we did with spirits. That's why Yeah. It's a lot of taxes.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. I really think that this we you know, I I I think that we have many other good provisions in this bill. I think that this is one that I I'm not supporting at the moment, and I think that's partly because of where the money goes to and local option taxes. I mean, you look at the tax chart, and you're I just don't feel compelled to do this also knowing that the key piece for the governor is prevention.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So because it's the year to have this conversation. So Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So and the house couldn't take it down if they are so compelled to to do so. Municipal authority. Yes.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The next two sections deal with the local government provisions in title seven. The first allows municipalities to add any ordinance or bylaw condition on issuance of the local permit. And then further on in that section and the language has not been updated since senator Chittenden raised some concerns about the clarity in subsection b, but that language will reflect that prohibition on the adoption of certain types of ordinances and bylaws gives a prohibition on expressly and totally prohibiting the operation of the cannabis establishment.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Throughout whole city. Throughout the whole city. I can still pick time, place, and banner, district, and area.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Why their bylaws is

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: should we be limiting this just to read them?

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is cannabis establishments probably. This amendment is, yes, limits just to retail.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: A lot of it might have a manufacturing operation at the back of the retail. It

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is a cannabis establishment that is receiving a license through the CCB under current law too that is subject to the conditions on the insurance rule. So that's cannabis establishments.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I It's empowering municipalities that opt in, so this makes sense to me.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh. Yeah. Think we So section of got that 13. Section four. I'm okay with 13. Section 14.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is compelling any municipality that has not held their opt in vote to hold an opt in vote at the general election. Right. I I I think it's David. I'm gonna channel David Weeks for

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: a moment, which it says, this is not an important something for towns to to do at the moment. They can they can call petition they can get a petition up to I've watched several of my towns do this, and they they've had to do it once or twice to get the town to opt in, but it is not a burdensome process to go through a petition to have a town vote on voting on his end. I I think it would be a big challenge to do the other. And I and but so I I don't know how

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: many people do, but I'm on a big where they have to opt in.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right now they have to opt in. They have to vote to opt in.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Right, So there's no challenge right now. Mean they want

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: to opt in, they opt in. Right, what you see- So it

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: does change it to requiring Yes. Them to opt Right, so that's where I-

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It it doesn't it's not it's not like the system. It requires the municipalities to vote

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: on the issue. It it just calls the question. Yes.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So you're saying you support calling the question?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: No. I think

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: what I heard David Weeks say is that he did done that he felt at the moment a town could easily pull together. It's not onerous.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Tinfei Town decided they wanted an establishment in their jurisdiction. They hold a vote and they opt in. That's the current law right? Right. I'm okay with that. I don't think everybody every town needs to analyze or hold a vote on whether to opt in or opt out. I mean before it's opt in and then vote to opt out. I don't think that exercise is necessary. That's all. Jeffrey, I

[Jeffrey Pizzutillo (Executive Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: will say, my apologies. Doctor, no, you were. You know, as an organization, we have worked very closely with townspeople, licensees, and those who wish to see retail sales in their town. And I will say what we hear from them is and not the municipality's perspective, but just the residents' perspective, and we have training and education sessions on how to enact. It is a burden. It is a burden. Is a challenge. It should be a burden. No. Point. No. I agree. And and I think as a result, we're now three years in, and we if we look at what we have, we have about 30% of the towns, to 247 localities that have opted in. And I think that that that demonstrates that hurdle, with with respect. I would demonstrate. It's a couple

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: different strategies. You demonstrate a burden. You demonstrate a desire to help them opt out. And

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: These are the this is another bottleneck in my mind for, especially the farmers. If we say you can't you can't get to the front of line for delivery, you, you know, you have huge rural swaths of the state that have no cannabis retailer, and people would have to travel, you know, tens of, if not, petro miles or more to get to a cannabis retailer, then there's no for most communities, there's sort of there's no benefit to opting in. So why would they? But saying, hey. You have to allow you have to give your citizens the opportunity to either affirmatively opt in or out.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Every citizen has the opportunity to petition for this power to opt in. What's the difference? Yeah.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I'm not necessarily supportive of just forcing this on the ballot this fall. I I would be would be it's not this fall. I think it's this fall.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Which are we? Yeah. Yeah.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Whatever.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, maybe you start.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I I would be interested. I know this is your expertise, your realm as right now, Vermont is the does the law allow where 50 citizens of a town can force this to be on a ballot?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Usually, a percent.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. I think so. Because the select board ultimately had the choice to Right.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So direct democracy at the local level is determined by specific procedures related to issues. There's no broadly available right to petition, and it is up to the local legislative body to determine what gets put on the ballot. Yeah. Could 50 citizens get together, sign a petition, submit it to the legislative body, and use that as leverage against the legislative body to put this on ballot? Absolutely. But there is no ballot no finding ballot initiative related to

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: And I know this rebel fight in South Burlington. But here's my next question is, is there such a standard where I could support is maybe enabling that so that if 50 citizens or a portion of the which we do have that, we have a percentage of the registered voters. If they sign a petition that could force ordinances and so on.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I think GovOps would have problem with that because that would be, like, allowing ballot items.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Well, this might be a gov ops.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: That's good. Support ballot items.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. And Well, gov ops would have to put caps. Could

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: be forced on with a percentage. It's present.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. There there is rescission, both. It can be a rescission.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: That's right. In this particular situation, you would not have anything on a ballot at all if not a group of citizens or some population has asked it to be put on a ballot. If those things have been put on a ballot Vermont, have any of them ever failed? Not, if so, many compared

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: to the total? Sure they have. That's not represent quite a number of counties that have failed.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Because what that does is it gives us an indication of public sentiment in a variety of municipalities on a yes or no basis. I think it's important for us to know that before we go to next

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I support punting Mr. Govops, and I have to go.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I can't No. Support punting Mr. Govops.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Can I make the suggestions that we look at moving the date by which they have to have a vote out to 2030?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: We should all get reelected have this debate again next year, but I gotta run.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I agree. So I I appreciate you're

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: gonna ask the question that I asked regarding how many of these failed out of the vote.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I actually don't know how

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: many Pepper might know. Pepper probably.

[Jeffrey Pizzutillo (Executive Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: Was it, like, 10 maybe? I don't know. Under 10. But what's not captured in that also are efforts that didn't reach the ballot. And there's there's more of those attempts.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But also, we we have towns, Randy, that voted no initially, and then on the second vote voted yes. Like, Sharon's the latest example of that. Sure. It's a huge burden.

[Jeffrey Pizzutillo (Executive Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: And I think it even lost by one or two people to even get on the ballot. And and two of those people are like, oh, if I saw you, I wouldn't. So it's it's a little miss. Right.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: The stigma prevails in this context. The

[Jeffrey Pizzutillo (Executive Director, Vermont Growers Association)]: industry industry is supportive.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Think we're going to have to take things up again. Thank you, everybody. We're moving slowly. You and Pepper Jeffrey, can we, become you and Pepper in case you could come up with conson

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Yep.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So they

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: in the liver language. Sure. And maybe on this too.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: What yeah. What about three to 03:30? Yeah.