Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Copy of the amendment that I could look at. You're ready.

[Speaker 1]: And we are live. Great. Welcome back to Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs. And we're gonna turn to cannabis minnows. Yeah. And

[Speaker 2]: So you

[Speaker 0]: said what?

[Speaker 1]: And Scott has what? Yes. But somebody else has not. No. It's just It's it's just this.

[Speaker 3]: It's this this economic development that old.

[Speaker 1]: It's No. It's gonna be It's February. Here. It's this.

[Speaker 2]: I

[Speaker 3]: am sure you're somewhere in my mind. I'm sorry for my reheat. Sorry.

[Speaker 1]: I'm taking a pun at the bottom of the problem because it was Is it at the bottom of the? It might be at the bottom of today's file. Oh. Anyway, here, I'm going to first.

[Speaker 3]: I read it. So, yeah,

[Speaker 1]: I'm so crazy. It is So, Scott, welcome. Senator senator back, welcome. It is lovely to have you in our committee. There you are.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah.

[Speaker 1]: And if you get another copy, I'd love one.

[Speaker 3]: You can you can have it back. I I

[Speaker 1]: we have entertained a number of cannabis amendments, and we are delighted to add you to our list. So please share with us what your amendment does, and then talk to Tom.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. For the record, senator Scott back, Caledonia District. I have one amendment to senate bill two seventy eight. What this amendment does, basically, right now in the delivery permit area, the hot area of the bill, the delivery permit, they're 15 annually, and they can be applied for by tier one and tier two cultivators or manufacturers. The change I would like to make is to narrow that down to tier one and tier two manufacturers and cultivators that do not have a retail license. I think that's my understanding is

[Speaker 4]: the intent here is to give those people that

[Speaker 0]: are not retailers the opportunity to sell their product at retail prices instead of having to sell all of their product at wholesale prices. And so the retailers already have the place to sell retail. This would give those tier one and tier twos the ability to sell at retail prices. So that's what that bill does. Mhmm.

[Speaker 5]: But the

[Speaker 1]: amendment is certainly Right. And do you represent a tier one, two that is that are not retailers, or are you just

[Speaker 0]: I have some tier one and tier twos in my district that are not I think we probably all do.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah. Yeah. I'm sure.

[Speaker 3]: Right.

[Speaker 2]: You said the what? What's the why? Why do you want what you want to make just?

[Speaker 0]: Well, I think I since it's only since it's limited to 15, I think that it would be more appropriate to give the tier one or tier twos that do not have a retail, they don't have any way to selling right now other than to a retailer to prioritize them getting that delivery license.

[Speaker 2]: Do I pay?

[Speaker 1]: Yes, Thomas.

[Speaker 2]: So I hear your point. Would you be just as comfortable as long as

[Speaker 0]: like half of those are at least allocated to these as opposed to I think there's probably a middle ground maybe. I'd certainly be open if the committee wanted to propose a friendly event that earns.

[Speaker 1]: But no more than half, have Maybe.

[Speaker 2]: You don't have an objection to with retailers getting the delivery fee. You just wanna make sure that some of the without retailers also get

[Speaker 5]: Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Just like to make sure the tier one and tier twos

[Speaker 4]: Right.

[Speaker 0]: That there's something for that. Yeah. But they're because they're they're really, I mean, they're selling it wholesale. They don't have the ability to sell it retail.

[Speaker 1]: Tier one This would be their one opportunity.

[Speaker 0]: This would be their one opportunity. That's right. Tier one, somebody that's a tier one, tier two, and a retail license, they have the opportunity right now to sell it at retail prices. It says tier one

[Speaker 1]: and tier twos don't have to be a license that are No, I appreciate that. How would you select who would get the license if you had a compromised position which happened or not.

[Speaker 0]: Well, I think it's, as I read the bill, right now it sounds to me like it's a lottery process.

[Speaker 1]: I think we need pepper on that because they are gonna be creating it from whole plot. So they may, for example, have a deadline date for application, at which point they could then wait all the applications and could, in fact, consider half maybe who had reached out and half ago. So it is I think that's a piece of how the pilot they're gonna be creating how the pilot works and what

[Speaker 0]: I think the one and and maybe the the chair of the cannabis control board can speak to this.

[Speaker 1]: Just I'm just we're just trying to

[Speaker 3]: get that.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. He's familiar with this. I I bounced this off of him. Think the one thing when you maybe when you pick that number up, whether it's half, he says, or I don't know what it would be. He would know, like, how many tier one and tier twos do we have that don't have a retail license, and how many do we have in Vermont that do not have a general. I see. He I think he told me the numbers actually, but I don't wanna repeat them because I'm not entirely sure I remember exactly when he said it.

[Speaker 1]: And unlike well, I'm Thank you. I'm just hoping Pepper might weigh in with us while you're here. And

[Speaker 2]: You'd be amenable to some sort of language that just makes it so that if there's more demand for the licenses, then there are the valid permitability to be allocated that at least half of be considered for just tier one

[Speaker 0]: tier two.

[Speaker 1]: Would you mean

[Speaker 0]: a friendly amendment that makes sense to both the members aren't sure. Okay.

[Speaker 2]: I'm just worried about completely cutting out the retailers. It makes sense to try that in the pilot.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Mean, there's other, I mean, I'm open to that.

[Speaker 1]: No, your intent is to create an avenue for people who don't also have a retail asset. I appreciate it.

[Speaker 0]: Give them a little bit of pressure. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]: No. I think we all appreciate that.

[Speaker 2]: You're get into the business, start delivering me? No.

[Speaker 0]: I I was on, Ways and Means when this bill got all done. Mean, to be honest, perfectly honest, I'm a business person. I looked at it. But you're a teacher. I am. I own a business at Bookstore. And Oh, right. You have a bookstore. I I looked at this, I tried to figure out, okay. If I was gonna do this, how would I make money doing it? And I thought it would be very challenging at

[Speaker 6]: this rate.

[Speaker 1]: Well, particularly if you're an outdoor cultivator.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. So no. But not a no. Yeah. Well, I'm glad you could work.

[Speaker 1]: We are glad you are laughing. So I think thank you. Committee, what is your as we as we think about this, what are you interested in? We're on deck today. We could weigh this and see what Pepper has to say. We are at the third reading tomorrow. So we don't need to act on it.

[Speaker 0]: That's right. You didn't get to the. No.

[Speaker 1]: We are gonna do We're gonna do do the alarming increase in teenage addiction to nicotine today. That's that's $1.98. And we're also gonna do cannabis today. That's $2.78.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. Well, yeah, let me know. Certainly, to work with the community.

[Speaker 1]: Great. Thank you. Appreciate that.

[Speaker 3]: Thank you for bringing it to

[Speaker 1]: us, Scott. Much appreciated. Tucker? Good morning. Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel, at your disposal. Good morning. Good morning. It's good to see you. And it's good that you got notified yesterday that we weren't, because we went a bit later, but not endlessly. I think I would I'd love to have Pepper Ray on this without our flying too in the dark, but I would entertain the notion of not narrowing it completely, but having just half that the the CCB would as they considered that they would do maybe half and half half tier one and tier two with licenses with retail licenses and half without. What do you think, Thomas?

[Speaker 2]: Do you see a creative way based on I I feel like we've done this before in the legislation that even if there aren't five, just tier one, tier two cultivators, that those five would necessarily be reserved or or lost, so to speak, and that they

[Speaker 1]: They just do up too. Couldn't they just do up too? Yeah.

[Speaker 6]: So there are a few ways to approach this. If you're going to do the not more than half, one thing that

[Speaker 0]: I would like to you

[Speaker 6]: is that this is a per head, 50 is currently the maximum. So not more than half defaults to seven not more than seven. Right? So, you could install that first right in the authorization stating that provided that not more than half of the permits issued by the cannabis control board shall be issued to cultivators and manufacturers, or otherwise, holder retailer license for Section nine zero seven is titled. The other way that you could attack this is in the permitting selection sense. So, under the procedure adoption authority that you've given to the Cannabis Control Board, you grant them the authority to create the permitting selection process. In the other pilot program permit you established, you gave guidance on, as part of that process, they have to select geographic dispersion, or no, license type dispersion as part of that process, trying to get as many different types of licensees as possible involved in the program. Do the same thing requiring that for those portion of the procedures that the Campus Mutual Board prioritize granting delivery permits to manufacturers and cultivators who do not hold retailer licenses.

[Speaker 2]: I I could go any way on this. I I do, like, prioritize, because that way, you trust their judgment, so to speak, based on the applicants to sort of allocate spreads. So there's a pilot, maybe try different types of

[Speaker 1]: But I would even if they prioritize them, I would love to not have it be for the Nano. So, I would propose that we think about waiting to hear what, the designer of the program might, if if, the CCB has thoughts, but just think that that would be useful.

[Speaker 3]: Mean, I just What hear are your thoughts, Kesha? I'd hear more toward the, what I think was the second option of saying in the guidance that they might give preference to those without retail licenses. I think that was our intent and their intent, but I think everyone also recognizes that the retailers have the security systems in place already. And correct me if I so here's actually something else for me to try and understood. This might be a pepper question, but we could give It's not yet. We could give an entity a delivery license in partnership with a tier one or two,

[Speaker 1]: cultivator. Without one, without a retail license?

[Speaker 3]: Well, they could that could be their only license, is delivery. As long as they were.

[Speaker 6]: The way that the permit program is structured currently in the bill it is issued to a current licensee. They would already have all the Yeah, would already have Correct.

[Speaker 3]: I was trying to make sure I understood that. And, it's

[Speaker 6]: tied to, specifically, the licensed location for a tier one producer, manufacturer, or cultivator. The cannabis that is being delivered through the permit is sold from whatever the location is. Right.

[Speaker 3]: His point is that if they hold the cultivator or manufacturer license and also have a retail license. Right. He would like to He doesn't want them included. I think everyone's intent was to give non retailers preference, but not to shut out retailers because they already know how to build a secure system, and this will take those who don't have a retail license a little

[Speaker 1]: bit of time to figure out how they'll work with this issue.

[Speaker 2]: Something like the pilot permits shall be allocated within about mix of, retailers, tier one cultivators, tier two cultivators, at the cannabis control board's discretion based on application interest.

[Speaker 1]: I think that, if we're making it a little more complicated than it needs to be. Maybe I'm wrong. It's not open to straight retailers, is it? It's not open It's to only open to tier one, tier two.

[Speaker 6]: Way to approach this would be to add a clarifying term, which I always recommend you define these by standalone licenses. You have standalone third class licenses. Title VII, those are bars and restaurants. They only serve spirits. They don't serve all beverages or Viners beverages. You call them standalones and then giving municipalities the authority to directly collect those license fees so you have like a separate definition and a privilege that is attached to it somewhere. Mhmm. Could do the same thing here by calling out stand alone tier one and two manufacturers and cultivators. Mhmm. And then, either giving preference under the permitting selection process, or just having a cap on the number of licenses that can be issued to those that are not standards.

[Speaker 3]: I think a preference indicates more than half without tying their hand. Yeah, I'd

[Speaker 1]: love to leave it flexible. It's up high, but after all, so they're gonna create again, creating this out of home. So it's But stand alone is a good addition. Stand alone would be a good thing to consider, and I have no input from. No, nothing. So, would propose that we weigh in with Pepper before we make a decision. Or is

[Speaker 3]: the decision with us? Scott, Scott's gonna Yeah,

[Speaker 1]: I Scott

[Speaker 6]: will do that for the end. Whatever the collective discussion and decision is that the direction on the language of the amendment has to come from the sponsor of the Senate. Right. I think Unless you're gonna do your own thing, which states

[Speaker 1]: I think he was open to our refining it in some measure. So just as long as we don't exclude tier one, tier two or strictly cultivators and not also don't also. I think we heard him, and I think he's willing to have us work on this. Mhmm. I'd really love to have Pepper Ray in.

[Speaker 3]: Can so I encouraged senator Biotoski to come over here in the next couple of minutes because she is working on an amendment.

[Speaker 1]: Oh god. That's good.

[Speaker 3]: Thank you. I didn't know if it was, like I was I said I you know, we gotta do it before second reading just so there's maybe two days to to confirm it.

[Speaker 1]: Right. So Well,

[Speaker 3]: I'll take her here.

[Speaker 1]: Do want me to text her?

[Speaker 3]: No. No. She's she said ten minutes about ten minutes ago.

[Speaker 1]: So I just say we await you.

[Speaker 3]: I know that I we're proud. I don't know it's

[Speaker 1]: you know? I assume you've spoken to Tucker if she's in the process of drafting this with Tucker. I'm not sure because yesterday was so busy for everyone.

[Speaker 3]: We can't confirm or deny.

[Speaker 6]: Correct. Alomar responds, I can either confirm or deny the existence of a treatment request. I would help you.

[Speaker 1]: Just asking her to come on over to talk about her cannabis amendment.

[Speaker 2]: We're still sitting here. The only pause I have on, at least half is just if if there isn't going to be Right. A lot of tier one, tier two, tier cultivators. That's where I think it's worth thinking of some sort of

[Speaker 1]: I don't know. Caveat language. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Insufficient. Allows if there's not an interest that saturates the seven or whatever now, that the higher tiers use all of the activities.

[Speaker 1]: Right. No, I think that it's a giving priority is probably the better way to go. To K. Tanya is coming in, and and she just responded to me. So I think Tuesday is when they would prefer. So we have an answer on Taiwan. I think they would prefer Tuesday. And Tanya is, I can be there in a few minutes, but she said that a while ago. So we'll see. And we we can wait. Anything else we should be expecting from our any other murmurings we've heard on additional amendments given that we've just had two additional ones brought up in

[Speaker 0]: the last twelve hours? Give me the confirmed. Yep.

[Speaker 1]: Okay. Part of the amendments. I think the bill here will be easier to understand. Yeah. And in bigger types so that we can actually read it. I think I will say that if I get one more congressionally directed spending grant request letter, I think I think well, I mean, they're are they coming in fast and furious to all of you as well? Yeah. Yeah. But with a little bleed time, I had one that arrived yesterday that was due today. So, they're all, they also have different kind of dates. Gun

[Speaker 0]: bills. Avalanche. It comes. Of the house. Stuck in this area, not moving. But everybody's excited.

[Speaker 1]: Belt that's coming from the house on gun guns.

[Speaker 0]: This is not the house bill, it's the Senate It's a judiciary. Everybody's all excited. Gotta push you. Gotta push you. Well, the only way they

[Speaker 1]: can push it is if it's attached to something coming from the house. Or maybe some other creative thing. What is the bill? 67. Five. No. Was that my sole weapon? That's my bill.

[Speaker 0]: I've been so excited. Well, I was

[Speaker 1]: excited about it too, except daughter told me it wasn't gonna take a nap.

[Speaker 3]: Well, I don't we don't know that that's the bill. Right?

[Speaker 1]: I'm pretty sure it is. Is. Oh, no. No.

[Speaker 3]: I remember my bill numbers. But it hasn't moved out of

[Speaker 1]: here, so how are they doing this? Right. Counselor and proposer, unite. Come join us, Tanya Vijewski. Senator Vijewski, we are discussing cannabis amendments, and we would appreciate, given he couldn't say anything without you. We we would love to have you share with us what your thoughts are on a possible amendment you might have for us. Yes.

[Speaker 3]: So the possible Who are you? Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Chittenden, etcetera. I am still sort of exploring the contours, but one thing I know I would like to do is it's very similar to what we did in 2020 when we legalized possession of certain amounts of cannabis, what we also did was instruct the judiciary to automatically expunge records of people who might have a record for possessing that amount previously. And with this bill, it raises that threshold to two ounces, and so I'm proposing that we do the same thing, and so for people who have a previous record of possessing up to two ounces, we automatically expunge records because that is no longer a crime as proposed in the bill. Right. Do we know how many people that might have been? We don't, because I have not yet been able to connect with the judiciary, but I will ask them. We may even I haven't asked the chair of judiciary. We might even have them come in and tell us on the record.

[Speaker 1]: We've given that we're moving this bill today, and we'll have second reading today, third reading Friday.

[Speaker 3]: Yes. We My hope is to have those numbers answered today, and Judge Zonia is usually very responsive, so I imagine I will have those answers today. Right. If they are available. I suspect it is probably not many, and that is because when we did the automatic expungement, it was very, because of the way the laws were written, was sort of difficult to suss out one ounce versus two ounces, so most people were, if they got their conviction prior to, I think, January 2021, would have been expunged under that law. So it would really just be people who had been convicted of possessing up to two ounce, between one and two ounces after So 20 it should be a fairly small number. I just feel like

[Speaker 1]: Now that's sort of an that's a fair The

[Speaker 3]: other thing I am exploring, and I may not may I haven't decided yet, would be and I don't know if it was I think it's in a Is it in a judiciary bill? The public Being able to consume cannabis anywhere one can smoke cigarettes.

[Speaker 1]: That is a big discussion. Just saying. I mean, just being realistic given our time frame. Totally. That's a big discussion. I would encourage us to have that in the house. Okay. Think it's, I think it's an important discussion. But I do think it's bigger than an event. I mean Okay. I Anyway, that's my opinion.

[Speaker 3]: Given that we have a couple days to think about it, I wonder I I think

[Speaker 1]: We don't. Okay. We have today and tomorrow, and we have a full schedule. So

[Speaker 3]: But I Yeah. No. That's Yeah. That's a couple. So I'm not saying we try to do that whole cloth, but there have been other efforts, essentially ensuring that people aren't operating illegally in their own home when they are a renter by not having a specific prohibition, by by ensuring that if there is no specific prohibition against smoke less cannabis, that it not be just lumped in as a prohibited substance.

[Speaker 1]: Question

[Speaker 3]: peril. It does. I I actually have language to that. Yeah. It is

[Speaker 1]: on the law. So renters right now, are renters allowed to smoke cigarettes in their apartments?

[Speaker 2]: Leases can say just smoking.

[Speaker 1]: Leases can say just So it's individual lease leaseholders.

[Speaker 3]: My understanding with cannabis is that if it is silent, it is prohibited. That the the the lease rider or the landlord needs to give grant permission, but I may be wrong. Tucker's making a face.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah. It's You may not have

[Speaker 6]: to That sounds familiar from when 54 passed initially. I can't answer these questions offhand.

[Speaker 1]: I didn't think so. You know, you've talking this. I But

[Speaker 6]: in places where smoking tobacco products specifically names common areas where cigarettes cannot be smoked. And I also can't remember if in those infrequent places that are prohibited if it includes apartments. But I do know that it can be within the four corners smoking cigarettes.

[Speaker 1]: It cannot be smoked. Ten years. And I think, anyways,

[Speaker 3]: the other issue here is that cannabis consumption is a term that captures everything. So if one says, you know, cannabis We don't differentiate if I'm sitting on my couch and having a cannabis coffee versus if I'm smoking a joint. We would also want to be able to differentiate that landlords could absolutely say, like, no smoking. Right. And that would include smoking cannabis, but that does not include sitting on

[Speaker 1]: our town streets having a cannabis pouch. Or vaping.

[Speaker 3]: Or perhaps vaping. And and again, I have a bill on the wall in judiciary that does much of much of these things, so I'm happy to ask the chair of judiciary if he might be willing to take some testimony on. Okay. And I did so earlier when we're talking about consumption of all kinds, recognizing it's it's always fallen through the cracks between the two committees, and The chair did indicate that he would be okay if we took that issue on. We didn't have the time to take the full issue of public consumption on, but this is legalizing private consumption everywhere someone who's a homeowner would be able to privately consume. Currently, Rutgers can't really be able to use cannabis.

[Speaker 1]: Tanya, we're over time, but if you can narrowly craft that with Tucker Okay. I think we might be willing to entertain that tomorrow before any

[Speaker 3]: Expungement and being able to consume cannabis in a senior home if you are a renter.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah. And you'd need some testimony from judiciary. I will speak to not her. Great. I appreciate I've obtained that conversation just to

[Speaker 3]: It's a

[Speaker 1]: narrow conversation.

[Speaker 3]: Otherwise, they and always doing it illegally.

[Speaker 1]: And then I think the how the the the bigger conversation is public consumption for cigarettes or

[Speaker 3]: Well, as we have established, we have

[Speaker 1]: no control over the house.

[Speaker 3]: Thanks. I love the big thing you can like on that. Try it.

[Speaker 1]: There's an amendment you can work on. How how that how that works. Okay.

[Speaker 3]: Great. He needs the constitution. I don't know. You didn't have no legislature. That's how he picks it.

[Speaker 1]: Senator Dnubbsky, thank you very much for being so flexible and coming on over and doing this. That was very helpful. Thank Can I just interject something? Yeah. Yeah. I'm uncomfortable about passing something that has a degree of controversy without sufficient time to at least offer testimony from those on both sides of the issue. And rushing this through tomorrow is not appropriate of it.

[Speaker 3]: Well, okay. I have a thought.

[Speaker 1]: This is why I had suggested that we have that whole conversation in the house, but I think we can at least discuss a narrower proposal. We may not have come to get agreement on it. Can start to discuss it. But I think we could discuss it, and we have some time tomorrow.

[Speaker 3]: I would and and it is actually very related to our landlord tenant conversation that has just arrived

[Speaker 1]: on Which we are about to have.

[Speaker 3]: So we are likely, I don't know, we're likely to have landlords, know, people or tenants or people who could simply talk about, you know, right now we've created a legal market, but everything we're doing from this today, you know, outward instead of receiving things, is about trying to make sure that people have their legal avenues to consume if we're saying it's legal. So, I think it's good to have the discussion now, even if we don't reach consensus on something because we have a landlord tenant bill and all issue always falls through the cracks between all of those various. And we

[Speaker 1]: could actually on fuller conversation. Thank you. Gonna turn to our next bill, but thank you, Tanya, and thank you, Tucker. And we have Rick I have Rick having my bag, which is always useful. Okay. Todd, come join us. Sure. We are going to shift gears to whenever Bridget's in the room, I know what we're shifting to. We are shifting to H 639. We have heard had a walk through of this. We finished the walk through on this. Correct? Right. And, given that the AD has been this is a consumer protection issue. And, we actually, one of our most important consumer protection issues, I would say that protecting our genetic our own selves and our genetic composition and who we share that with and not share with is one of the most important things we can be doing this year protecting providers. So with that, counselor Dale, we welcome you.

[Speaker 4]: Thank you. For the record, Dale's assistant attorney general. Thank you for the great lead in to this bill. I am gonna quickly walk through. I recognize there's a limited amount of time. I don't wanna

[Speaker 1]: No. You actually have a whole twenty five minutes.

[Speaker 4]: Yeah. But I feel like that's great. So I I listened to the testimony of the walk through. I listened to a number of the questions you all had during that walk through. I'm more than happy to address those, but I wanted to kinda set the table Yeah. If I may, with a quick presentation, if I can get Sharon.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you very much. Okay.

[Speaker 5]: Great. Yeah.

[Speaker 4]: And I will send it to you, along with this.

[Speaker 2]: Okay.

[Speaker 4]: So as the senator said that the chair, genetic information is one the most important pieces of information we have, and I know this committee has dealt with data privacy, has passed a bill that is sitting in the house right now that broadly addresses data privacy, and I'm sure will come up again later in session as the house works on it. And so I I won't walk through the the basic details of genetic data privacy or data privacy generally, but I do wanna say, right, in the digital age, what we're really dealing with is data and information has a different nature, and When data gets out there, it's permanently out there. It can be duplicated now not even with the stroke of a key. Right? Algorithms are doing it automatically. We know that it's very simple, and it's very easy to transfer. And so what this bill really focuses on, and I think Rick walked through it very clearly last week, it focuses on predominantly consumer information. Right? It's about informing the consumer what's the product you're buying, what does this product do, and what are you agreeing to allow to happen with the results of the services you're purchasing. But again, I wanna just caveat that when we talk about consumer data, we're really here talking about immutable characteristics, right? This is not your social security number, it's not where you lived in sixth grade, it's not your driving record,

[Speaker 2]: so those

[Speaker 4]: are other elements of data. We really view these immutable characteristics, your genetic data, as being, extremely more important than that quote there at the bottom of the slide, right? It's not about people, it is people, and that's why we're taking a really specific look at genetic data.

[Speaker 1]: So

[Speaker 4]: by way of background, this came out of, and this legislation came out of, Rick highlighted this, his testimony, the 23andMe bankruptcy. There are really three actors in this field, and I just wanna say at the outset, they're good partners. These are thoughtful companies, these major three players. I'm sure Bridget will bring refined ancestry in. I think they're fantastic. And I mean that very sincerely. I think you'll hear from them, but they spearheaded best practices in this field before the data breach here that that led to this legislative push. And most of their best practices are enshrined in June. And they'll highlight the areas of difference, but I I wanna be really clear. We support an industry that's largely supported. They'll tell you, take my word for it, most of where this bill is going. So getting back to where it came from, 23andMe, they have a data breach. It's about 14,000 accounts that were breached, but what's really important is the nature of these companies and the services people want from them links a lot of different people. And so what you end up having is almost 7,000,000,000 potential individuals whose information is out there through this data breach. And there were no meaningful protections for Vermont consumers. California had a bill that's largely what this is based on, but once twenty three and me had the cyber attack and then moved towards bankruptcy, the attorneys general across The United States said, hey, wait a minute. There's no protection. If this data gets transferred, some other company who has less scrupulous data practices could take this data, could use it for other things. And again, this is not data we can change.

[Speaker 1]: Which is very interesting to have a bankruptcy issue affected by who it impacts Yeah. Other than just the finances of the company.

[Speaker 4]: It's a great point because if you think about, right, creditors, I mean, to what extent are consumers whose data is being held as an asset of the company creditors? And that's where the state's attorneys general stepped in. We issued a consumer alert. Rep Shy, who is the main sponsor of the house version of this bill, I'll say that senator Harrison and senator Plunkett have a similar version sitting with the senate, also supportive of this initiative. But Rev Shai reached out to our office last year and said, what's you know, what can we do? How can we address these issues? And that's largely where this push came from, but we provided steps for people to delete their account, a lot of consumer information, and understandably, you got 70,000,000 potential people impacted. The systems at at 23, they couldn't handle it. So they worked hard at it, good faith efforts, but there were real challenges following through with that level of requests for deletion and and alteration.

[Speaker 1]: Were they even able to supply you with the number of Vermonters and who the Vermonters were who had, who worked with them, whose data they had?

[Speaker 4]: I am not sure what level of sensitivity So to inform we we put out a consumer alert alert at that little. It was a broad consumer alert. We had information on our web page, and then we would respond. But there was no to my knowledge, no direct outreach to to invest.

[Speaker 1]: So at any point, has 23 and me identified Vermonters who might have been impacted?

[Speaker 4]: I believe so. But there's still an ongoing matter, so I'm not sure. I have to be a little thoughtful about what to say on the record. Okay. We're aware of the scope and scale of the challenge, and as I walk through this, you'll see why I'm not Right. Essentially, what happened is we objected to the way the bankruptcy was moving because there was no control on where this data was gonna go. If somebody, anybody was able to buy it, we objected sort of, as we said, right, if it's stolen or misused, it cannot be changed or replaced. This is not the kind of data. It's not aggregation by data brokers. In general sense, it's very specific and very meaningful data for people. And, you know, part of the reason that we were really concerned about it, and there was a consumer ombudsman who was hired by the court to look into privacy issues, right, two eleven page report, one of the things that professor flagged was that the hacking here was intentionally hacking to find genetic data and ethnicity data and ancestral data about people, right? So if you look, there were issues about people with Ashkenazi Jew heritage, other kinds of genetic testing that were, people were really concerned about getting out there. That's the level of data we're talking about and the real concerns around how and why that data might be as if it got out. So we sought to prevent the sale of 23andMe under the bankruptcy without their protections, essentially saying, right, it's not just any assets transferred here through a bankruptcy proceeding, it's the unauthorized transfer of people's genetic information. Objected Again, who they are. Yeah, exactly. We objected, and at the same time, the states began negotiating with a potential purchaser, and I will say that went well. The states established an agreement with that purchaser that provided a good level of protections we felt for the data. And and so we reached this voluntary kind of outside the bankruptcy agreement with the potential successor to 2380, which was good because the court rejected our objections and said, no. There's nothing to prevent this data from being sold and transferred.

[Speaker 3]: Oh my.

[Speaker 4]: And I will say, again, California had a law on the book of service. There's I want to get to the questions about patchwork, you know, and how patchwork might work in this space. I'll get to that at the end, but at the end of the day, the court said go ahead and transfer it to anyone. They permitted the sale to the buyer, and it was the buyer that we had already negotiated with. So the punchline is, yes, the protections existed, but they didn't exist because of the legal law process or a court's decision, they existed because we negotiated an agreement with a good faith, I won't say purchaser, but successor in interest, and that seems to still be protecting, you know, because we settled an interest in the remaining assets of the company, we're still involved in the case, but the takeaway is there was a hole, right? There's a statutory hole here, and that's what age 39 looks to respond. You've been walked through the bill. I won't take your time on it, but, know, Rep Olson, when he was reporting it to you and Rick, when he was walking through it, It's really a lot about here's what this service does. Do you agree with this? Do you agree with this? Do you want us to be able to transfer your data? Do you want us to be able to share it with another company? That's the goal. Right? It's not to say you absolutely can. It's to say a consumer has to have clear conspicuous notice and affirmatively consent to it. And then, you know, they're engaging. It's a it's an arm's length transaction between a consumer and a service provider.

[Speaker 1]: Well, an intentional agreement. So what to me is important is it's really encouraging for monitors to be intentional about the most important thing they could share or that they love is their genetic composition, who they are. So I think that is what it's kind of what we tried to get to with data broker, our initial data broker bill for this committee. And it is what I want us to all stay cognizant about, which is the intentionality here and how we make it easier for Vermonters to be clear about what they're intending to share or have shared or keep private.

[Speaker 4]: And and I think it's important. I think there were some questions in the walkthrough about where data can get shared, who might have access to the data, how the data, you know, there were questions, I think,

[Speaker 1]: around healthcare testing

[Speaker 4]: and how this may interact with that. What this bill really focuses on is is those direct consumer testing companies that are you're willingly going to them and saying, who am I related to? It's generally what it is. And ancestry, I think, tell you what their product can do, 23andB similarly. That's a different scenario than your doctor saying, you should get tested for this. That is carved out of this bill. That is not covered by this bill. There are other privacy protections like HIPAA that cover that, etcetera. So happy to answer questions on it, but I really want to draw that distinction. This is really about I'm gonna get, I'm gonna pay a company to assess my genetic material. Right? I'm on a gay fund.

[Speaker 1]: It's a big bottle of genetic data.

[Speaker 4]: Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: I'm not touching that. I don't know what

[Speaker 1]: this is, but there we are.

[Speaker 0]: I I hear hear what's being said. I just want, in the process of this bill matures, just like hospitals or the medical society, just saying the same thing just to make sure that everyone's comfortable contents in relation to the medical services. And not to step into

[Speaker 4]: the chair. I'm happy to ask to get if written testimony is sufficient or same with law enforcement. I know that was another concern. We ask this board getting our best one.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah.

[Speaker 4]: So again

[Speaker 1]: Well, and we have sorry. Just wanna just add on to law enforcement. I I can't remember that conversation. Can't remember when you Biometric information. Yeah, yeah, because law enforcement already collects some of that and needs charged with protecting it, so that's the line that's important.

[Speaker 5]: And

[Speaker 0]: the concept there is simply again just to have them tell us that this bill doesn't step on their previous

[Speaker 2]: accomplishments. Understood. And I'm happy to get you through that too.

[Speaker 1]: That would be great and identify, us identify maybe, Well, we have also who the house spoke to, and they have that witness list too. So, did you have something else? No. Okay. Tom. Just

[Speaker 4]: rolling on, right, express consent, express consent, express consent, and simple revocation. I think Rick walked through those, but again, that's about consumer involvement within their transaction with this service company. You know, again, looking at 23andMe, '23 guidance, didn't change the slide, it's not six twenty six, that's a very different bill. 639. Thank you. Yeah. Sorry about that. What I was talking Caught that header. 639. Yeah, 639

[Speaker 5]: is what it is.

[Speaker 1]: This is 630.

[Speaker 4]: But hopefully it doesn't get into the system. Okay. Reasonable practices, this was about data protection and ensuring that, like a lot of these companies, the front facing is not the folks who do the actual, you know, I can't remember eleventh grade biology, but they don't do the titration and the separating of the leaves, whatever happens, they're sending that out to a lab. They have a contract with that lab and this bill would require them to ensure the same safeguards, which I think they already have, but it would require them to have the same safeguards. The lab would have to hold the data equally securely and would have to destroy the data once and the materials once the consumer requests that. That's pretty straightforward, and I think the industry beginning to talk to.

[Speaker 1]: I think that's a heavy lift. I'm not sure that's already happening. I agree. There

[Speaker 4]: was some question too around the anti discrimination language that occurs in this bill and sort of, you know, essentially the bill says is if somebody says, I'm not gonna let you hold my data in a foreign country, I'm not gonna let you transfer my data to an ad company to bring targeted ads to me, that exercise of rights under the bill doesn't mean that the company can then say, well, then we're gonna charge you more, or we're not gonna give you access to a standard element of the platform. Now they can of course say, oh, you want the gold level, well that's gonna cost you x dollars more, but they can't say, we'll give you the gold level for free if you agree to let us sell your daemon.

[Speaker 1]: Got it.

[Speaker 4]: That's, in a nutshell, the kind of discrimination thing, and I will say other provisions of this are similar to an existing federal law. I know there was, the real answer to the patchwork, and I think you already hit on this as well, congressional action in this space providing a federal framework would simplify it, but

[Speaker 1]: Yes, with many of the laws we're having to do state by state, it would be much simpler if the feds just did it.

[Speaker 4]: And so there is a federal act on this, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, Gina, but that's really just in the employment space, think it's the largest spot where that exists. Your employer can discriminate against you based on your genetic information. It's not that straightforward, but that's the gist of it here, right, denying goods and services, charging different prices to provide at different levels based on your exercise of rights. There was some question upstairs, I didn't hear it as much here about the health insurance tie in and the life insurance tie in. The way I describe it is I may contract with this company, whatever it's called, to do my genetic testing. That's a contractual relationship. I may also contract with a life insurance company to give me life insurance coverage. That's a contractual relationship. What the bill says is there can't be a relationship between my genetic testing company and my life insurance company. The life insurance company could say, have you ever had a genetic test? Please provide us with the information. Right? That could be part of their engagement with the consumer in the same way that they want your medical records to understand before they write you a term policy or whatever it may be. So just making that clear, this doesn't prohibit or prevent an insurance company from requesting that. From requesting it. But They can't request it from your genetic

[Speaker 1]: They can't request it from a genetic company, a genetic testing company. Right, right.

[Speaker 4]: And that's health insurance, that insurance, it's all laid out. So I think one of the main issues that this committee will address is enforcement. And so I will say there's a very straightforward crossover reference to the consumer protection act. It's very similar to what you pass in kids code Yeah.

[Speaker 1]: Each program. It's almost identical.

[Speaker 4]: Think the language is very close. Rick would know better than I, but very close. Right.

[Speaker 1]: And again It's the same.

[Speaker 4]: Yeah. So similar to the language, right, believing that kids' health and well-being is really important and therefore we wanna provide the broadest protections, I would argue the same is true. This is core information about us as humans. It can't be changed, and it has an incredibly detrimental effect if it gets out.

[Speaker 5]: Absolutely. So that's

[Speaker 4]: the end of my slideshow, I'm happy to answer questions or Well,

[Speaker 3]: you mentioned Pitts code, and there's been a major decision in terms of the addictive properties of, social media and liability. Are you able to provide us any update on what actions that might

[Speaker 1]: How this might that those

[Speaker 3]: promote here on on in our attorney general's office? I

[Speaker 4]: absolutely can give you the twenty four hour hold thoughts on that. I one of those decisions came out a little earlier, but I think it's very positive in terms of the actions this body took around recognizing the addictive nature of these platforms. Think Kids Code does address that. We are in the process of rulemaking around Kids Code, which was required by the Kids Code law. One of the elements of rulemaking, there's age gating, which I think you know all about, and then there's the addictive nature. And I think we are looking at both the jury instructions, not to get too lawyerly about it, but, right, that's what guides the decision, and the law sort of falls to the jury instructions. Now it's always important, and the lawyer's always gonna type this, it's gonna be appealed. Mhmm. And so there's more to come, but we certainly look at it as, look, when you got 12, turned out to be 10 of the 12, but when you've got 12 citizens looking at a case, they're ruling in favor of the harms done to the humans. And, again, right, this is an individual who brought an individual case for individual harm. And it's hard not to press the point

[Speaker 1]: that

[Speaker 4]: that kind of direct democracy suggests where we think this type of regulation should go. It's very tricky in the mental health space, so I'm happy to go into it further, but I will say, right, genetic data, this is, know, I have no biology memory anymore, but it's AAT. Great, come on, do remember what the connections are in the protein links of DNA? Some may know some kind of Right. G, there's G, this is so embarrassing.

[Speaker 2]: I shouldn't have thought it was funny.

[Speaker 4]: Point B, it's straightforward data. There's, right, the genome and the phenotype, how your genome actually presents for other people to see, or how it presents, and how do you live and exist as a human. That data is straightforward, right, the linkage is there. And so we there we go. AGTC. Thank you. The nutrigenous basics of Dan and

[Speaker 1]: Goldhouse problem.

[Speaker 2]: I have three questions.

[Speaker 1]: Not where I thought we were gonna be. Yeah. Okay. We're all set. Oh yeah. So

[Speaker 2]: when we move this bill on the box here, one question I raised is, what is it Vermonter of Vermonter that is protected for this? Do they need to have registered with a broad address when they negotiated with the contracting company or by simply moving here, do they, would they then be covered by this protections?

[Speaker 4]: So it's a great question in terms of the bill covers you as a consumer when you're a Vermont resident.

[Speaker 2]: So if you start this in California but then move here, then those protections then apply to the company? Let's if

[Speaker 4]: I can change the hypothetical a little, you started in New Hampshire and then moved here. Right? Because New Hampshire does have a similar right. Just because California's been largely it's California and Virginia that kind of put together this bill. You know, I think that would be an issue that the well, let me say, first and foremost, I think for the most part, the big companies that operate in this space are largely compliant with what this bill requires. So it would move with you, and I will let them speak to that. Meaning, whether you're in California, Arkansas, or New Hampshire, Vermont, you're largely getting the same protections because they're gonna provide the sort of maximum level required because anybody else's fault under the whoever has set up the ceiling statutorily. That said, I you know, it would be litigation around when the contract form works for you under what law should the contract be received? I think you would be arguing here, I have consumer rights and remedies. I want most of it would be, like, the big my account. Right? And I think you would argue, I'm a Vermont consumer now, so I'm taking advantage of Vermont's protections to delete my account, to remove my information.

[Speaker 2]: But we're not putting a mandate on the companies that actively scan for residency to them to comply with that because that's next to impossible items. Right.

[Speaker 4]: And I will say, I think they generally are

[Speaker 1]: They are already already doing it.

[Speaker 5]: Second question? Yes. Have three. Do I have

[Speaker 2]: similar or same protections with the for a company to destroy the records in my account at my request and now with somebody I engage with in the third party consumer context, also with the health care context or even the employment context. Do I can I call up people and say, listen? I I know I had something with you, but delete it all. Yeah. I want you to do what you have about me.

[Speaker 4]: Super. That was an excellent question. Still. Yeah. Don't do that. Go to next. I think depending on what happens with h two eleven, which is the data broker bill that will likely be coming here, that's gonna be a robust policy to bank around. What are the parameters for deletion of information? Where is it appropriate for a consumer to say, I didn't want I don't want this information out there. I don't want it sold. And where is it an important part of commerce to say, hey. You skipped out on all your utility bills. That's part of your credit report. We need that to run your credit. Right? Does that make sense? There's a of parameters around that. Healthcare, I didn't have a chance to actually dig into it, but your medical records, they fall under the penumbra of HIPAA, which is a very robust privacy law. I believe, and it's embarrassing given my previous employment that I don't remember this, but I think the records do belong to you.

[Speaker 1]: So that's an interesting case because every time we get tested because we there's often genetic testing with Right. A disease that you might have, and the hospitals that's whatever genetic whatever lab is doing that there. We actually probably wouldn't know where that was because it's gone through the doctor or through the hospital. And so I don't even know how you get at that to say I'd like to have that all. Once you've dealt with whatever you're dealing with. I'd like to have that destroyed.

[Speaker 4]: And and that's part of the reason that those medical tests are carved out of this bill because here we were really saying this is the direct I think

[Speaker 1]: This is the intentional again, to go to the intentional piece. This is what you have asked for, this is what you are contracting to get received. This is what you're paying for.

[Speaker 4]: But it's a valid comparison, and it's an important area to understand sort of, you know, where do those genetic samples go when they go to the Mayo Clinic or a member.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah. Well, that's why we need to it'd be good to go to David's concern about a line that we should hear what happens to this.

[Speaker 4]: And and our interest, again, just to be clear, in this bill is really those direct consumer interactions. Yep.

[Speaker 0]: With

[Speaker 5]: I get that in commerce based.

[Speaker 2]: So I guess I'd be more comfortable if we just had a main retention period rather than consumer demand for deletion of requests leading into my last question. And I know we could go through a thousand different hypotheticals, but let's say I'm Tom Chittenden and I wanna find other people unrelated to buy, maybe I was adopted, whatever. I wanna submit my DNA and I put it out there and I just want to see where that triggers. If other people do the same, then maybe I've got distant cousins in Australia and they might post me if I go down there. Okay?

[Speaker 4]: But now let's find something. But let's

[Speaker 2]: say I make that public and I think this has happened and law enforcement then find a map between a a crime, an event with my DNA. Right now, I'm pretty sure that I'm related to somebody that did something really, really bad. And I now maybe I have no idea who it is, but I maybe I maybe it is somebody I care about and I'm thinking that it might be that person. I want my records deleted. I want that to go away so that it can't be used in a court of law purge it. Would that company have any legal obligation to keep those genetic markers because it was initially publicly available for these matching things. So that's why I think a retention in an archival time period might make more sense in these extreme contexts.

[Speaker 1]: Like limit it, like you could hold it for a year and then it would be destroyed?

[Speaker 2]: A good time period that's consistent with what HIPAA does. I'm guessing for others contacts, there's a period of

[Speaker 1]: So that's a good question for the medical labs too, because

[Speaker 2]: they they may can't all that data because I don't want it to be used in a court of law to go after somebody I care from.

[Speaker 4]: Totally. It's a great hypothetical. It's a very nuanced hypothetical, so let me try and pick at it bit by bit. You know, first I would say it's interesting to read about, in part just because it's interesting, but also it's very germane here, right? The tracking and identification of the alleged Golden State killer, right, is directly tied to and there's one even more germane, the Bear Brook murders that happened in New Hampshire.

[Speaker 1]: Oh, there are countless Yeah. Examples.

[Speaker 4]: That's all public information done through private sharing, not the companies. I mean, again, I wanna defer to the companies to talk about how they operate. They are very protective of this data. And so their, you know, House Commerce was interested in even adding that warrant exception. Again, I would ask that question of the service providers here about how they interact with law enforcement. This bill now has avenue for law enforcement within a corporate judicial warrant with prosecutor cause to access that data. You know, I think from where we sit, I again, there's an operational question about a deletion period versus just a request, you know, do you put the request in, and then is it a year from the time that that may be just harder for them to operationalize, and leave that to them, but from a policy standpoint where we sit, you know, I think as a law enforcement agency, I think we sit in a place of saying this is something that an individual has engaged with a project company. If you want more questions, Rev Lutland has great questions about this bill.

[Speaker 1]: On genetic data, like,

[Speaker 4]: I, you know, I would have to think a little bit about a retention period, but I would be interested in the technological sort of structural challenges of it. I think a law enforcement avenue here, if it's really about identifying the perpetrator or potential perpetrator of a crime, and again, I do not operate in the criminal justice space, but I would say you're not gonna get a chain of custody that holds up in court based on the sample that's being held by this private company. Right? So I don't think law enforcement's gonna rely on the genetic material that's being held. What they may do is say, look. This chart demonstrates that it's probably this T Shittenden guy, and we should get a warrant and get a sample from him.

[Speaker 7]: Right. Right? That's what they're

[Speaker 1]: going would then get the so this I'm very this this this is also critically important for court and law cases too, but they would then have to get a warrant, get additional genetic material from. So we're gonna continue to discuss this bill. It's just we're just beginning. Todd, that was very helpful. Did you finish everything you wanted to share with us? Or more will come up, obviously. Let me just look

[Speaker 4]: at feel like there's one more question.

[Speaker 1]: And you'll get your presentation to care. Please answer me. I absolutely will.

[Speaker 4]: That that was I think I got we touched on the ones that I heard last week, but I'm No. Just

[Speaker 1]: I think this is one of our most important consumer protection bills we'll deal with this planning.

[Speaker 5]: More than happy.

[Speaker 1]: Protecting ourselves. So self interested. Thank you. Tom, that was great. I think I'm gonna retain a copy of everything I delete before I do before I delete it. That's just something I'm interested

[Speaker 4]: in seeing your pilot

[Speaker 1]: evidence center. Excuse Michael, would you be kind of coming short? Absolutely. Thank you, Todd. That was great.

[Speaker 0]: You're welcome.

[Speaker 5]: Thank you.

[Speaker 4]: Chiara, I will send you in then.

[Speaker 3]: Perfect. Thank you so much.

[Speaker 1]: Well, Greg, present at the booth, and welcome. Well, thank you. It is good to have you. I appreciate it. And you did sister state as well. Yes. Okay. Great. This bill is near and dear to our hearts, and so we are interested in what the house did with it. So this is our sister state, Bill. Mhmm. Age six seven four. Yes. I

[Speaker 3]: mean, we're all due in different places given the

[Speaker 1]: Are you

[Speaker 3]: testing by on something else? I was going to try and

[Speaker 1]: be helpful at natural resources. Okay. Great. We will miss you. Okay. We'll expect you to weigh in, but he are you needed there as well?

[Speaker 3]: I think it's I think if he has a potential amendment, it's even more important that he's there.

[Speaker 7]: Okay. Around just one year.

[Speaker 1]: But if you I wanna hear about sister's day.

[Speaker 3]: Right.

[Speaker 1]: I'm Okay. No. I just wanna be clear about why we're We're we're doing good job.

[Speaker 0]: I appreciate it.

[Speaker 3]: I just thought, okay. We have

[Speaker 1]: a lot of interest.

[Speaker 7]: You go in there, I probably will appreciate you guys going. Thank

[Speaker 1]: you, Bridget. Okay. We're looking forward to next week. Michael, welcome. Sister Very important. Because we just did the Taiwan resolution. We have a sister state rep relationship with Taiwan, and so we're very interested in how we run this program and how we have consistency in this program going forward.

[Speaker 7]: Yes. So Michael Lutland, Mary City representative. So in 2024, legislature passed Act 132, which created the committee to research the creation of a sister state program. The bill, the bill, six seventy four, was the product of that study. The bill's purpose statement is the perfect summation of this bill, and I'm just gonna read the statement, which is, the purpose of the program is to strengthen Vermont's international engagement to foster mutually beneficial relationships with national and sub national governments abroad with a goal of promoting cultural exchange, economic development, educational cooperation. And originally, it was diplomatic development. However, there was an amendment, and I did put that into my little notes here, so I do apologize. But in short, the bill is is one of those feel good bills. Right? It it has such there's there's positives so many positives to it. Creating relationships with nationals and subnational entities abroad to bring their cultural perspective on things and and possible economic advantages that we can have with with this bill. Those relationships are great to have. And like you said, Taiwan, we have a great relationship with Taiwan. And this bill creates a pathway for us to have more relationships like that. Another part of the bill was a modification to the Ireland Trade Commission. Just firmed up the money part of that to make sure that there was

[Speaker 1]: I thought this bill initially got rid of it. It did. And Connor Casey was very effective in reinserting us.

[Speaker 7]: I can't remember how I voted on that.

[Speaker 1]: Okay. But this bill was designed our work, actually, was designed to create a consistent way that we want, reviewed, and made decisions about where and who who we develop relationships with. Correct. And it still does that.

[Speaker 0]: It does.

[Speaker 1]: Although there seems to be a carve out for the Ireland. It was a carve out. It it was a carve

[Speaker 7]: out to make sure that we don't upset a current moving cars.

[Speaker 1]: Well, except for grandfathered it, I think. Yes. That's right.

[Speaker 7]: Thank you. Thank you. You're much more diplomatic than I am.

[Speaker 1]: No. I would pretty cross, but I think that that was fair. So you grandfathered it.

[Speaker 7]: So we technically we did, but we the most important thing that we did with that is we put some guardrails on the funds, which I think is extremely important as we as we move that forward. Good. I was supportive of repealing it because I felt that, and there were some on our committee that were supportive of that, but overall, we felt that it was important as a committee to support the work that had already gone into the Higher Than Trade Commission, but we did wanna make sure that we made sure that the funds that were being deposited there were accurately accounted for and had some sort of guidance on how they should be spent versus just being there to be sent. But the Sisters Day program is is just a great way for us to engage in our in our global community. And as you guys go through it, I'm sure you'll probably make some amendments. Although, I firmly believe that everything that I support that comes out of the house should just automatically be passed by the senate.

[Speaker 1]: No question. Rubber stamp. Absolutely. Absolutely. A 100%, and so should the governor. Right. Exactly. Well, you've it continues the sister tape program committee that would be the just like our judicial nominating committee or any of our other committees that we delegate the work of filtering out Yeah. Appropriate relationships that we wanna foster. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]: We're gonna do a brother's day too?

[Speaker 7]: We could. You know, that's not a bad idea. That's not a bad idea.

[Speaker 1]: But sisters are so much more productive.

[Speaker 7]: They are. They really are.

[Speaker 1]: They truly are. Is it? You know, this sings song. That is the term of our sister. So doing that train last time. Wait a second. Oh. Sisters are doing it all herself. Keep her Brian Collamore will have the answer to this.

[Speaker 2]: Sings Sisters Soul Over by Train.

[Speaker 1]: Soul oh, so is it Soul Train? We'll find out. It's soul comes from

[Speaker 7]: it comes first wives loves. First wives love. And it's sisters doing it all themselves, something like that, if you remember. So

[Speaker 5]: theaters is creating a

[Speaker 1]: new one. Is We have a bunch of sisters day already. That makes sense.

[Speaker 7]: But this is a brand new Okay. This is program. It it provides that. What it does is it provides a very, let me rephrase that. It provides the vessel to create a structured process. Right. We didn't have

[Speaker 1]: a structured, it was sort of higgledy Yes. So whoever just sort of like the Ireland one. Whoever was wanting to promote it and push it got it. But we've had sister states from Bernie. Bernie developed a whole sister state with Petro Slotsky in Russia. I mean, we have we have a bunch of different sister we have one with that the National Guard has, but this would make it consistent and have a consistent filter for all these requests. Yeah. And and And a process for consideration.

[Speaker 7]: Yeah. It's it's a a place where we can go to find out the information, an agency that's gonna be able to to help out and put themselves in.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah. Correct. It's like I said, it's one of those feel good bills that Well, that's helpful and helps helps in all sorts of ways. Thank you, Michael, very

[Speaker 0]: much. And,

[Speaker 1]: Rick, if you come and we can go through the bill. And if we can finish at about quarter of of twelve. Do you want me to stick around? Or Unless you want to. I assume you have a committee. You do. So we would liberate you to your committee. I just wanna say that to Pepper, who has just arrived, we had additional discussion to the amendment. He seems to be okay with it, but we wanted to thank you, Michael, very much. Yep. Could you stick at at Randy at 11:45, Randy and Tom and I can fill you in on that conversation. Happy to. Okay. Great. Rick. Good morning. Good morning.

[Speaker 5]: Rick Sable with the office of the Munster Council. And so, yeah, Rev Booting today. Fantastic job setting up the stage for x h six seventy four. I can share my screen. It's loading up Zoom here. So he did mention the act, I January that created a working group, and they issued their final report over the summer of the Sisters Day working group. This bill is largely a reflection of that working group's final report. So the way I'll do this is the first page talks about the creation purpose, which think Raghu did a good job explaining. So I'll skip ahead to release subsection B on page one, the program oversight. So this program will live under ACC, and there's gonna be some management that ACC will do, but the committee really runs the program. So the creation of the program is gonna be managed by the Sister State Committee. In subsection B on page one, you see who's gonna make up the committee, and includes the secretary of ACCD for the resume, a member of the house appointed by the speaker, a member of the senate appointed by the committee committees, the chair of the board of trustees of the Vermont Council on World Affairs, the Vermont Adjutant General or designee.

[Speaker 1]: Yes, because some of those sister states there are just national guardians. Right, you mentioned earlier there's already some Macedonia. Abnormal sister

[Speaker 5]: The chair of the Board of Trustees, the Vermont Arts Council, three members as follows: one that has experience in cultural exchange or in peace cooperation, appointed by the governor one member representing a private institution of higher education appointed by the committee and committees and one member representing a public institution of higher ed appointed by the speaker. Members will serve two year terms, but those last three will get three year terms to establish staggered terms, so you don't have turnover every two years. Members can be reappointed if their appointed authority wants to reappoint them. What's their

[Speaker 1]: term of August? Two years. First? The line committee is

[Speaker 5]: elects a chair and a vice chair. That will also serve a two year term. On the next page, page three, the meetings. Meetings called by the chair, but if they don't have a chair, like this first meeting, there'll be no chair, so the secretary at the ACC will call the first meeting. They shall meet at least quarterly for the following reasons: either to evaluate a current program agreement, to propose new program agreements, to prepare its annual report, or to discuss any other matter they do relevant. They may also meet to review and score an eligible program application not later than thirty days after the committee receives an application from the agency. Okay, Subsection D on page three, this is kind of a timeline of the way this is going to work. That's how I, when I graduated, that's how I thought about it. Right. It may help you all to-

[Speaker 1]: How does it happen? Right. It happens with an application. It begins with a nomination.

[Speaker 5]: Even before that, the development of this whole application process is done by the agency in consultation with the committee. So to develop A, an official application to be in the program, what that looks like. B, a confidential internal review procedure to be used by the agency to review applicants for sensitive political, legal, ethical, and strategic factors. Minimum eligibility requirements. A fixed scoring system, including a rubric to be uniformly applied by the committee to evaluate all applicants, and an MOU to be used and signed by the state and an approved program partner that shall include a termination date, And then any other parameters, including the length of time for partner agreement to be in effect. So you have that first process where the agency develops this application time thing. And then two, when a program applicant application has been received by the agency, the agency shall verify that the application meets the program's minimum eligibility requirements, and they conduct a confidential internal review of the applicant. So the committee at this point is not met to review it. It goes to the agency, kind of the gatekeeper. B, at the bottom of page four, not later than ten days after completion of that initial review, the agency shall send the committee a copy of the application along with a summary of the applicant's The confidential internal review conducted, along with any and all documents reviewed here in that process shall be exempt from public inspection and copying. There could be some sensitive things discussed during that internal review that the working group recommended not to be subject to public inspection. Subdivision three. So at this point, the committee now has the application, the sister state committee. They shall meet to review the application not later than thirty days after receipt from the agency. If the committee recommends that an application be approved, they shall submit its recommendation to the governor along with a copy of the application within thirty days. The committee shall not send to the governor an application that the committee does not recommend be approved. So the committee has that authority to say, we don't think this is a recommended applicant, and they will close the process or invalidate it. Four, governor's review. The governor shall have the sole authority to issue final approval or disapproval of an applicant that the committee recommended be approved. The governor shall send written notice of their decision to the agency within ten days. If the governor disapproves, there should be a written explanation of why the governor disapproved to the agency, or to the committee. Upon the agency's receipt of the governor's decision, the agency shall notify the applicant of the decision within thirty days. If it's approved by the governor, the agency shall finalize an MOU between the state and the sister state for him out of consent. Committee, subject to five termination, the committee shall have the sole authority to terminate an active program partnership upon majority vote of committee members at a committee meeting. Reporting. The committee shall submit an annual report on or before January 15 of each year to this committee and the House of Commerce Committee, right? And includes the following, a summary of their key development and outcomes of the year, a description of their activities, updates of program, a description of stakeholder engagement, a financial overview, and an outlook for the program. Subsection F, the compensation reimbursement is the standard per diem reimbursement and expenses for up to eight meetings per year. And that is the sister state committee program part of the bill. Any questions about that, Larry?

[Speaker 1]: No. I I think this is great. This is just what we were missing, is a organized, thoughtful process by which we can nominate, review, recommend, and act on potential sister stakes that we wanna create that relationship with. I think this is great. Thank

[Speaker 5]: you. Section two on page eight of the Vermont Ireland Great Commission's amendments. The carve out. So a few changes I'm gonna highlight here. This commission actually takes effect 07/01/2026. So even though it was passed last year, there was a one year delay. So they haven't officially begun working. However, there have been some unofficial preparation to get started on

[Speaker 1]: July They had another trip this summer.

[Speaker 5]: So, of course, that'd be unofficial, right? Since the effective date is July 2006. So the commission would be increased from seven members to nine, and we're adding those last two you see on the page, the Commissioner of Economic Development, or designee, and the President of UVM, or designee.

[Speaker 1]: Why that?

[Speaker 5]: Those were requests from representatives Mark Cottey Grant. They had an amendment that appropriations took into consideration.

[Speaker 1]: Okay. I think so. Five to give ACCD. I understand the Commissioner of Economic Development, that makes sense. I don't kind of understand. I mean, have so many academics on this sister state thing that Perhaps the educational

[Speaker 5]: But operation is my

[Speaker 1]: maybe we didn't put the Ireland one as being grandfathered.

[Speaker 5]: So at the bottom of page eight and nine, top of page nine, these are just technical changes to reflect the addition of those two members. Right. Nothing substantial there. However, the second half of page nine is where the F? Yeah, subsection F. So there was a agreement to really kind of put more structure to their expenses and how they can be reimbursed. So on line 11, on page nine, the commission in coordination with the state treasurer's office because they manage the fund, so when their reporting is done, they must have state treasurer help them with that report. Submission two is due. In this report, it shall include detailed accounting from the State Treasurer's Office of the administrative expenses that have been paid with funds raised by the commission, And on page 10, funds raised and donations, grants, and requests received through the commission, including the name, country of residence, and amount donated of each interviewer. So this commission can't accept gifts. That was part of the It can accept. Right, because they don't, it's a revenue,

[Speaker 1]: there's no cost There's no revenue, this fund can accept. Right.

[Speaker 5]: And this was added to increased transparency for who's giving money to this fund. Subdivision two, there's some changes there. So this is the subsection that discussed the raising of funds. I'm gonna start on line 13. Any monies withdrawn from this account shall not be used for any purpose other than the payment of administrative expenses incurred pursuant to this section, and shall be itemized and tracked for reporting purposes by the State Treasurer's The State Treasurer shall include the balance of the account in the annual reporting. Okay, bottom of page 10, for the purpose of this section, administrative expenses do not include any, A, expenses related to campaign or election activity, or food or beverages provided at official commission meetings, or expenses related to any other expense that is not specific to the natural functions of the condition. Trying to narrow down what can be used as an interim expenses. H, members shall not receive any compensation or be entitled to for reimbursement of expenses by the state or from the Fund Management and State Treasury. Was there a question, Madam Bears?

[Speaker 1]: Yeah, I mean, mean, I think if there gap and then it's a little micromanaging to say they can't use a food beverages when they're all eating. Right? Sounds petty. It does. It sounds petty. I I have a big question on that because that's exactly what I you think that they might use it for getting for those gatherings. Right? We'll discuss it when we take it off because we need to pivot to pepper.

[Speaker 5]: So one minute. I think I have one or two minutes.

[Speaker 1]: We

[Speaker 5]: have two minutes. Section two a. This is the Vermont Island Trade Commission has already set to sunset 07/01/2030. So this adds section law requiring a report due that December before they are repealed. So on a report is in reversed, the commission shall submit a report to this committee and the House of Commerce Committee summarizing their accomplishments, a detailed analysis as to how the commission has served its purposes.

[Speaker 1]: And is that consistent with what we're requiring for the sister state relationships too? Well, they're not set to be repealed. No, no, they're not, but they are required to kind of report on their success. Right. Okay. Right.

[Speaker 5]: So this is really more of a reminder to the general assembly that, Hey, this commission is up for repeal. This is a decision point. Do you want to extend the repeal, do you want to? And then three, finally, an accounting on funds raised, and details on gifts received pursuant

[Speaker 0]: to

[Speaker 2]: the fund that they have applied.

[Speaker 1]: I think this is a great start. I mean, I think this they did good work. This task force that we put in play in 2024 really did good work. And, thank you for that, Boris, whoever you may be. Did Bruce serve on it? I can't remember.

[Speaker 5]: I know Rick Graney did. I'm not sure if he's Anyway, done it or

[Speaker 1]: thank you. And Rick, that's great. And we will take it up for further consideration, but this is a great walk through. Have any any questions for Rick before we pivot to Pepper? I like pivot. To Pepper. It's very exciting. It's not a good alliteration. I did let Kesha and David know that we were taking this up. And oh, thank you, Rick, very much. Pepper, would you be kind of come join us? I love this response. We should hold these tunes, this response, on everything when they're not in the room. One, I think I'm fine with whatever you do. Two, I can support a cannabis event in any of the scenarios heard this morning. Wow. How do you like that? That's pretty good. Don't you think, Tom or Randy? Give us a

[Speaker 5]: little David's response.

[Speaker 1]: That was David. That was David. Could support a cannabis amendment in any of the scenarios I heard this morning. So, Pepper, we had two amendments this morning that we discussed. One you saw was the back amendment. The back

[Speaker 2]: amendment. Right.

[Speaker 1]: And the concern there is obvious, I think, to you. You had no I don't think you have any of that. Sorry if I was disruptive earlier, but

[Speaker 4]: I feel like I have

[Speaker 6]: a meritous rights to do.

[Speaker 1]: Well, you are disrupting at the moment, but your presence is never unwelcome. We welcome to the committee, deputy I was walking by match.

[Speaker 5]: And I said, are they still working?

[Speaker 6]: They just switched to cannabis. Was like, interesting.

[Speaker 5]: Switched that about Clarkson.

[Speaker 1]: We pivoted to Pepper. Him, Ash, thank you. Is this this is self explanatory. There's a card. Oh, there's a card. Well, I've been busy. I haven't read it yet. There's a card. You can open that card. Thank you. I will. But I'm Read it a lot. It's good proof. It's not like I will except where our time is so limited. Sorry. But it's great to see you. Thank you. Bye

[Speaker 2]: bye.

[Speaker 1]: Bye. More to follow. Thank you. Okay. Pepper, back to this. We the committee, as you may or may not heard, felt that we want that we wanted to support some of Scott's amendment, but that we also didn't want to exclude some that may have retail license. Some of the tier one, tier two established cultivators that might already have a retail license. Right. So we wanted to prioritize. So correct me if I'm wrong team, but I think what we wanted to do was prioritize tier one, tier two cultivators who did not have a license. And so do we do that with language of prioritizing? How do we do that? That's question number one.

[Speaker 2]: So senator Beck's amendment would come in and say it would only go to standard church cultivators, and we ended up exploring why. He just wanna make sure they weren't cut out of it. He didn't necessarily he didn't not want those with the retailer license to also be able to do it. So, we seemed amenable to just giving, empowering you to some extent, half of them to just the standalone seems to be of interest to the committee. I see value in just making sure that you feel like you can try it with both stand alone pure cultivators as well as the

[Speaker 1]: I think that we mostly landed on prioritizing it. But, you know, however you whatever you would support, we and you sounded okay with which would you prefer? So that's question one. And question two is Tanya, senator Dulhosky came in with a two two pieces to an amendment. One would be if we're taking him out up to two ounces, expunging people who had a record with two ounces, one for two ounce convictions. That was number one. Okay. Okay? It's not written yet, but you can touch base with Tucker because she has publicly presented it here. Right? And the second is, I believe, a very narrow public consumption, which is in if you're a renter, publicly consuming I mean, consuming cannabis products in your apartment if you're a renter that you could maybe not smoke, but you could consume cannabis products, edibles, you know, in your rental apartment. Doing public consumption is just too big for this committee at this point in our process, but I think we are willing to discuss edible, you know, some cannabis consumption in rental or in in apartments. But right now, unclear about that.

[Speaker 7]: So those are

[Speaker 5]: the Alright.

[Speaker 1]: Those are the three things that's being discussed. And as you know, it's on second reading today on the floor, third reading tomorrow, so we need to land on this by tomorrow.

[Speaker 5]: Okay. Alright. Well, for the record, James Pepper, chair of the Cannabis Control Board. The my understanding of the Beck amendment isn't very different from what you said. I didn't I didn't have a chance to watch the testimony from this morning where Senator Beck presented it, but we have a growing number of retailers that are vertically integrated. Why they have a cultivation, a manufacturing license, and a retail license, or some combination with this. And what I heard throughout, and I think what Senator Beck has heard from his constituent, is the point of the delivery license was to offer direct to consumer opportunities for folks that don't have that car. Correct. And so to allow a retailer, just incidentally also has a cannabis called small cultivation license for a manufacturing license, to get a retail license contravenes that fundamental intent, the underlying intent of the retail pilot, which is to offer market access to people, direct market access

[Speaker 1]: to people that don't currently have to. Well, right, which is what he's asking for.

[Speaker 5]: Right, and so

[Speaker 1]: that's But that's the point of the image.

[Speaker 5]: So if you wanna say for us to prioritize this, the folks that don't have a retail license We're already Then we need to, the board will do that, but it may not look exactly how you might think. I mean, the way that I see this playing out anyway is to hold some sort of a lottery for people that are interested in this and meet certain criteria.

[Speaker 1]: Or have application deadline date, then you can Right. A

[Speaker 5]: lot of states run into this exact problem with how you, you know, because a lot of states have cap licenses, cap number of licenses. So how do you distribute those in a way that's not the board picking and choosing winners, losers, it's not prioritizing folks that have CPAs, lawyers that can craft the perfect application to get first in bombing. So a lot of states rely on the lottery as just an objective, fair way to issue these. Now, if you wanted us to prioritize, I'm not saying that that's what we would do here, but that's what immediately comes to mind from other states. If you wanted us to prioritize tier one and tier two cultivators manufacturers over the

[Speaker 1]: tier one and

[Speaker 5]: tier two cultivators that also have a retail license, We could give the ones that don't have a retail license multiple entries as a lottery, whereas the ones with the retail, like once, there's a greater chance of us getting. That's one way to do it, but There's probably other ways to prioritize. We could have a competitive application process and just set aside a certain number of these licenses.

[Speaker 1]: Well, so we one suggestion was to Yeah. Not more than half or something would be

[Speaker 2]: But what if we went to 20 licenses, 10 being for tier one cultivators, tier two without the retail license, and 10 for the others? Is that an easier way to just

[Speaker 1]: That might just be easiest.

[Speaker 5]: Might might be easiest. They do just want to

[Speaker 1]: It's a lot of work. Think that the

[Speaker 3]: Yes, whole new pilot

[Speaker 5]: is we're getting off the point that we may not issue all of these licenses. And we have to issue some and see how it goes and then issue more if we find out that it's working well, which I assume that it will work well, but again, this is a new thing and it's moving the retail sale, consumer sale out of a fixed location to a, to any.

[Speaker 1]: So, the thing that's concerning me here is we designed this for exactly the crowd Scott's concerned about.

[Speaker 5]: The people without a reason.

[Speaker 1]: Correct. So, what's wrong with the bill as it stands? I guess I'm having a little problem with that.

[Speaker 5]: Well, it was just in Senate Finance you raised the point that

[Speaker 1]: I didn't raise it, I'm not making Senate Finance.

[Speaker 5]: No, no, he did. Senate Finance,

[Speaker 1]: they were looking at this amendment,

[Speaker 5]: you know, you could have a retailer that A, can already get a delivery license for medical patients and B, you know, it already has direct access to the

[Speaker 1]: market to consumers. So why are we giving

[Speaker 5]: this delivery license to those folks? But we're not,

[Speaker 1]: we were giving it to tier one and tier two cultivators.

[Speaker 5]: Right. But we're, a growing number of our retailers also have one

[Speaker 1]: of those cultivators. So I see. So we, that opened the door to people who were cultivators and all these other things. Yeah, right. The whole integrated license.

[Speaker 4]: Right,

[Speaker 1]: the whole vertical integration. Okay. So further qualifying it is helpful. Further qualifying it just means that you're, the only people that are gonna get one

[Speaker 5]: of these licenses are people without a retail license. There are only these tier one and tier two main factors. That's the bad amendment from my understanding.

[Speaker 1]: Right. And we thought excuse me. We thought that was maybe a little extreme for that for that maybe should be some people with immigrant.

[Speaker 5]: I hate to say this phrase, but this is a policy choice for you all.

[Speaker 1]: We I didn't do

[Speaker 5]: mean, if you

[Speaker 1]: tell us to prioritize, we'll have to figure out internally. I kind of then like Thomas's idea of going to Set aside a certain number. Yeah, and we did it with the events. Why not just be consistent? It's fine. 10 of 10. Underlying questions. Why should we or why shouldn't we?

[Speaker 5]: Even if we do each 10 of each other.

[Speaker 2]: You don't need to deploy them all for them. Right. So it's up to 10 of each.

[Speaker 5]: Right? Exactly. Okay.

[Speaker 1]: I could live with that. Graham is gonna answer why.

[Speaker 8]: Graham, you know, it's strictly not policy director of Vermont.

[Speaker 4]: I mean, I think our whole

[Speaker 8]: coalition is probably in alignment with sounds like what James James is saying, which is the intention of this is to is to pilot direct sales, people who do not have retail licenses and who have been systemically marginalized in this market, which are tier one producers, tier two producers, that's manufacturers and cultivators. Vertically integrated folks are the folks we are hearing about who have disproportionate market power already.

[Speaker 1]: So you're you would propose supporting the Beck amendment as it originally came to us.

[Speaker 8]: I hadn't seen this amendment until I just popped up here today. I'm just hearing you

[Speaker 1]: just And do that. No. You wanna see that? Sure. Thank you. Here. Got my notes on it. So so what so that's helpful, Graham and Pepper. Thank you. I think our original intent was that and which is why I said, well, it was in the bill. Why is why aren't we just okay with it? But the point in finance that I had not appreciated was that further discussion, I would then support with what Graham and Pepper are saying. I would actually support Scott Beck's amendment as draft. It works? Yeah. I think it's fine. Because that is our intent

[Speaker 5]: and keep it at 15. It's easier for us than trying to find what we mean by prioritizing, trying to

[Speaker 6]: find do it then?

[Speaker 5]: But but we will do it. There is a way to do it or they shouldn't even

[Speaker 1]: We can get you another company.

[Speaker 5]: Also works, setting aside a certain number.

[Speaker 1]: So let's just do it. Okay. Alright. That makes it easy for us. And I think David and Kesha are okay with that. Can we pivot to Tanya's more complicated amendments and and it's I think I think in many ways, I'd love to have the house actually spend more time on this because these are big the consumption pieces publicly are a big conversation. I have less I think I'm less concerned about people who are able to consume in their own homes, I. E. Their own apartments. And

[Speaker 6]: How

[Speaker 1]: do you know, John Rogers, stop in when we're discussing cannabis medicines?

[Speaker 2]: I can smell it.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah. You can. It is true. You have a nose. Okay.

[Speaker 5]: So can I start with the expungement piece? Because I know I'm much more familiar

[Speaker 1]: How many yes. So we didn't even know how many this might impact.

[Speaker 5]: Right. And I was very much involved in the judiciary committees when in 2018 with a

[Speaker 1]: Graham, may I have my sheet back? Because I missed my notes. Sorry. No. No. It's okay. Did she get here and get you a new copy? Yes. Great. Sure.

[Speaker 5]: When you legalize possession up to an ounce and and you've asked the judiciary to automatically not automatically, but without a without a petition from the person with conviction to just erase all those records. And if I recall correctly, there was 17,000 of them, and it took them three people three years to do it.

[Speaker 1]: It took a long time.

[Speaker 5]: Right. But that's not but it's a very important piece. I mean, what you're saying is this plan is legal and maybe should have never been illegal to begin with. So the people that got caught up in it, especially simple possession really should never have been criminalized. Again, that's just, so the same rationale would apply if you're going up to two Correct, that's her point. Right. The problem with it, that the House will need to unwind, is there's no law specific, there's no criminal law specific to possession of two ounces. It's between two and eight ounces, is the next tier up. So, in order to determine who would be eligible for possession, like conviction between one and two ounces, That's not how expungement works. They look at the criminal code that you were convicted under.

[Speaker 1]: And the criminal code is two to eight. Two to eight. Would you be kind enough to check-in with Tanya then about that? I'm happy to. But we're

[Speaker 5]: could say just up to me. You could say anyone who's been simple possession, to me,

[Speaker 1]: and I see.

[Speaker 5]: You could expunge those. I don't know the numbers or what the resources are.

[Speaker 1]: No, I would suggest we need to consider this tomorrow. Okay. If you and Tanya Tucker could unite on this and get together so that we can have a proposal tomorrow Yes. That would be great. And if you can't, let us know. Yeah.

[Speaker 5]: Well, I'll try and find I know you guys have a long day on floors.

[Speaker 1]: Sure. Have a good Second piece, the consumption and rental spaces of of just consumables. You okay with that? Or I mean, we will could so I guess my question is we're not gonna make a decision right now, you're good to go. Although we've just lost oh, wait. Doesn't it?

[Speaker 2]: I I don't really have any concerns from your Yeah.

[Speaker 1]: But I don't

[Speaker 2]: think it's

[Speaker 1]: Right. About that. So the second piece is consumables in in in rental apartments. Right. And the so that would be edibles, vaping, whatever, I mean things that aren't smoking because obviously landlords can affect smoking affects the, you know, landlords are able to identify what they want in their apartments and smoke has a bigger impact on the apartment than edible. Right, so, vaping. Vaping, you can vape, and smoke that out. But it doesn't have a, it's not a smoke, it doesn't affect the paint or the paintings or the, Well, think the odor helps. That paper talking about, what I was talking about is seeps out into the hall and it affects others. Does vaping have that big an odor? I don't know. Anyway, perhaps we just start with consumables because that's about what we have time for tomorrow morning. Right. Yep. So Would you and Tucker and Panic connect on this? Yes. Thank you.

[Speaker 5]: Yes. That's fine. Yep. And yeah, I think I know where to direct them

[Speaker 1]: in order to get this appropriate. I think, I think, so, think that's great. So let's leave that there for them. Let's go off live. We'll see you all tomorrow. And