SmartTranscript of Lieutenant Governor's Cannabis Roundtable-2025-02-19-8:30AM

[Chair John Rogers]: And they can make deals with retailers and say, oh, if you carry all our products, we'll give you a discount, which takes space on the shelf from the small craft growers, which is the the folks that I want to succeed in the business. Right now, it is very hard to get shelf space because there is a overproduction. And the amount that those tier three, four, and five indoor grow operations can produce is just unbelievable, and it's it's flooding the market. If we're going to let them continue to operate, they need to be charged much more for their licenses. In talks with House Ways and Means last year and with chair Pepper, I thought we were doing a study last summer, and we were gonna propose different fee schedule for licenses. Right now, my outdoor tier four license is eighty five hundred dollars and a tier a good tier one grower indoor can grow the same amount of value that I can. And I can't remember what a tier one is right now. Is it a a thousand? So they pay a thousand [James Pepper]: Okay. A dollar number? Yeah. Per license. Seven fifty. [Chair John Rogers]: Seven fifty. So they pay seven hundred and fifty. I pay eighty five hundred dollars. Now from my perspective, as a state that claims to care about the climate, we should be incentivizing outdoor growing. I'm growing organically in living soil, rotating my crops. I'm doing all the right things for the planet. And my product is less valuable than indoor grown product, so why are outdoor growers being charged so much more? So the license structure really needs to be addressed. Testing, aspergillus, the aspergillus test should be dropped, completely. The only folks that, are affected by aspergillus are folks with autoimmune issues, and they really shouldn't be smoking. Aspergillus is everywhere. And so you can literally harvest, your cannabis, and it doesn't have aspergillus. And somewhere in transportation or drying, it could still get it. The stuff is everywhere. And, this is, I think, all board stuff, but the pesticide and pathogen test, the cost of testing for operations, has gotten excessive. And it used to be we could compost, which means we could take pieces from plants all around the field, mix them together, and have one pathogen and one pesticide test. If there's pathogens or pesticide in your field, they're gonna be in your field. And so those of us who grow several strains are really getting hammered by the cost of testing, which affects smaller growers, same as the registration fee. If you're a giant operation and you're gonna make millions of gummies, you pay fifty bucks for your registration fee. If you're a tiny little operation and you're gonna make a thousand joints, you pay fifty dollars for the registration fee. So just trying to figure out some of the ways that we can get the cost down. I'm gonna just briefly mention packaging. That's a board thing. What's happening in packaging right now is the majority of us are using glass shipped here from China. And, you know, I know we're worried about the environment, but glass shipped here from China, I don't think has a small carbon footprint. And I think plastic from New Jersey probably has a smaller carbon footprint than glass from China. Not that I love plastic, but we really we really need to, look at options. So thank you all. Yes. [Chair Matthew Birong]: Before you depart, I just and before we launch into your witnesses, I'd just like to make sure we all get introduced so that people know who they're talking. [Chair John Rogers]: That's a good idea. And I should have introduced myself. I'm the lieutenant governor John Rogers. But, yes, everybody, please introduce yourself, and I'll bring up the first guest. [Senator Tom Chittenden]: And, mister lieutenant governor, I think it would also help if you named your business just so that if people are following along [James Pepper]: Yeah. Right. [Senator Tom Chittenden]: Wanna know that, you know, this is something you do privately that informs your work, they at least know how to look up your [James Pepper]: Yes. [Chair John Rogers]: And our our business name is Farmers Underground. [Speaker 4 ]: Okay. [Speaker 5 ]: Farmers Underground. [Chair Matthew Birong]: Oh, great. So we have two committees here and of the cannabis control board. So if that I thought it would be helpful if we all at least introduce ourselves. Tom, you want to start? [Senator Dave Leagues]: I'm Tom Chittenden. I serve in the senate representing the southeast area of Chittenden County. [James Pepper]: Good morning. Senator Dave Leagues representing Redland County. Senator Randy Brock representing Franklin County and Northern Grand Isle County. Representative Coffin representing Windsor District two's Cavendish, Wethersfield, and Baltimore. [Representative Kate Husepp]: Representative Kate Husepp representing a part of South Burlington. [Representative Lucy Boyden]: Representative Lucy Boyden represent Cambridge and Waterville, Lemoyo three. [James Pepper]: Representative Matt Byerong, Addison three, Newark, Addison County. [Chair Matthew Birong]: Allison Clarkson representing the Windsor District in the senate and chair of senate economic development housing and general affairs, which along with house government operations has the jurisdiction of cannabis. [Senator Tom Chittenden]: Senator Acacia Ram Pinstell Chittenden, southeast, senate majority leader. I think it's important to say, and I might have to leave early, when I served as chair last biennium and representative Bayron was vice chair, our committees took over jurisdiction of, cannabis market regulation. It was no longer a judicial matter, of regulating a illicit substance. It became regulating a commercial market. I have certainly felt that these committees are underqualified to oversee the cultivation side of this equation and advocated for it to go to agriculture on our side. And I'd love if you could address you know, I don't know if it's up to us to divest that authority and up to agriculture to accept it, but, you know, it is Yeah. Perhaps a missing link that they're not here to to receive that message. Yes. We we are particularly underqualified to to talk about cultivating a crop, that just happens to be excluded from agricultural definitions. [Chair John Rogers]: You're I agree with that, and I invited the senate ag committee, and they declined. I think it would have been important for them to be here. I think every I think the majority of the legislators are underqualified. I think they're just as underqualified as you because this is something new to most people, and it is different, to most people, but I I did invite. [Chair Matthew Birong]: Right. Thanks. So [Tito Verne]: Kyle Harris with the cannabis control board. [James Pepper]: James Pepper with cannabis control board. Thank you all for being here. It's all my guests. [Chair Matthew Birong]: June, help her. Can I just control [Senator Dave Leagues]: I'll just chuck her because I am very unqualified? [Tito Verne]: I'm not unqualified folks here. [James Pepper]: Tito, would you like to help me off? Right. [Tito Verne]: Hi. My name's Tito Verne, and I am the cofounder of, BIRM Legacy and BIRM Gallery, and it's a we have a tier two cultivation license, tier two manufacturing license, and then a retail store right in downtown Burlington. And so first, I just wanna talk about the aspergillus testing. Aspergillus is everywhere. We are breathing it right now. When you go into the supermarket, all of the food is covered in it. So the testing for this just doesn't make sense. If you have a jar of cannabis out that tests negative for aspergillus, you could have it right here in front of us. You could open the lid. One second later, you could shut it, and now it it could test positive. So with the same logic, it doesn't doesn't make sense. It's like everybody should test every single bowl before they smoke it. They say that's not gonna happen. So it just doesn't make sense. And this was really created by these, testing and remediation companies in other states. They, by using, by using manufactured science, they, create fear and hysterisis hysteria. This is something we all need to be very concerned about. And and then other states just adopt these these rules sometimes because, you know, we had to create these rules so quickly, and sometimes it's just easier to just adopt what another another state is doing. So it just kept compounding. And, also, it's notable that Aspergillus is not, it's not required for any other crop. So this is just one special thing that was just plucked out of thin air for cannabis. Also, it's unequitable and expensive. So the first test is a hundred and twenty six dollars if that tests positive. It's just like a random sniper. It could just happen to anybody because that as it's just in the air everywhere. If that test positive, then you have to do it two more times. So and both of those need to be test negative to for your product to clear. So now you're out three hundred seventy eight dollars on something that didn't even make sense in the first place, and it just seems so unnecessary. And and furthermore, then if if you do test positive through this process now and the rule change, it's saying that the product has to carry this label along with it, but, like, a badge of dishonor that it's now, you know, tested positive. And and for small companies, I mean, this can be devastating to to try to to work out of. And and also notable is that really, as per Jill, is the fear of of contaminated cannabis. It's it's it's really for, like, the the the most extreme immunocompromised people. It's lung infections, chemotherapy, this type of thing. Arguably, these people, you know, shouldn't really be smoking anything at the you know, if you're that far far into it, especially when there's other ways to do it, like tinctures and edibles. And so if we really wanna test for the dangers of it, the aspergillus releases a toxin called mycotoxin in some in some scenarios. That's what's really dangerous. If you if you were to smoke that, then that that could hurt you. So it feels like it would be best to just reserve that for the medical program. You know, let's just remove the aspergillus altogether since it doesn't make sense anywhere, and then just move this mycotoxin over to the to the medical program, and that seems like it would then be effective. Also, lastly, current medical dispensaries right now don't have to test for anything. So that just seems totally backwards. I just I I don't understand that. [James Pepper]: Okay. I think we have a question. Yes. Oh, I was just gonna make a comment that the dose testing is a is a regulation. It's not required by law. You know? So I just we're we're having a rules hearing tomorrow, where where, you know, our rules are open. Anything about them can change. We're taking public comment actively on all of our rules. You have a lot of lawmakers in the room that can make statutory changes. I just, I mean, it's important for us to hear, but unless you guys unless you want them to fan that credulous testing and statute, I think, you know, it it may just be a better use of your time to focus on. [Tito Verne]: Okay. That's I appreciate that. And I apologize. I don't know sometimes who decides what, but it does feel like maybe banning banning it altogether is the answer. [Speaker 5 ]: Oh, they're the ones who have [James Pepper]: to make that decision. Gotcha. [Tito Verne]: So I apologize for an understanding the process. No. [James Pepper]: No. No. That's right. That's right. There's a there's a lot that's done with rule. There's a lot, you know, that's done with statute. And one of the things we try to do is we're a part time legislature. We're only here handful of months is give guidance with some of the statute that we structure. [Chair Matthew Birong]: That's it. [James Pepper]: If they're rulemaking in a certain direction, knowing that they have to make these calls more over the course of a year without us being here to actually move words in one of the in in title. Gotcha. [Tito Verne]: So But [Speaker 4 ]: I did learn something new. Excellent. [Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah. No. We all have. [Tito Verne]: Well Okay. Good. [James Pepper]: That's one of the reasons I wanna do all here because I knew some of the stuff was gonna have frost. So it is it's all valuable at the end patient. Right. [Tito Verne]: Okay. So just so I'm sorry. Another okay. So, next, I just wanna talk about the fear of cannabis, in the in the rulemaking, this idea that, that the that cannabis products cannot even be seen by someone who's under twenty one. It just we need to just dial this down. You know, cannabis has never killed anybody. And and we can all walk in all fifty states in the country. We can walk right up any restaurant and bar and see this glorious liquor display, which kills people all the time. And and so it just feels like we need to just not be held at more rigorous standards than everything else. And, the advertising I have so many thoughts about the advertising, but, you know, some of my colleagues are going deeper into that. And so I just wanna talk about retail and the the density of of of of stores. It's getting real crowded, Burlington, Morrisville, some of these places, because we shouldn't have chosen this opt in structure. It should have been opt out for these towns. So what I'm proposing is that we close all licenses for a period of time, allow you know, switch it so that it's opt out, not opt in, and then allow the current dispensaries to diffuse into these other markets. I'm sure that some Burlington dispensaries would love to open to be the first place in Williston or South Burlington or Charlotte or Shelburne, all these places that no doubt, many of them would have, not, opted out if it was switched the other way. And so give a little period of time. Let these department, licensees diffuse into these places, and, give us all a chance. It's, the crowdedness has certainly made things difficult. And, and lastly, just that, you know, for decades, I've heard about keeping young people in the state. How do we do it? How do we do it? Cannabis is one of the answers. It's it's exciting. It's invigorating. Young people are excited by it, and it can be part of the answer. Thank you. [Chair Matthew Birong]: Thank you. [James Pepper]: Thank you. Yes. [Representative Kate Husepp]: Good morning. Thanks for having me here today. My name is Jessie Lynn Dolan. I'm a registered nurse. I'm a mother. I'm a medical cannabis patient myself. I'm a cannabis caregiver for my son instead of putting him on opioids, as well as a former tier two outdoor cultivator. I'm the immediate past president of the American Nurses Association here in Vermont for the last four years through COVID. Very happy to step brains. I'm a former director of the American Cannabis Nurse Association. I founded the Vermont Cannabis Nurse Association in twenty seventeen. I'm cofounder of the Green Mountain Patients Alliance and member of the Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition, which you've often heard testify and speak before. I've been an advocate for many years with a focus on patients and consumer safety. I will a couple things Tito mentioned, just recognizing that the medical program has never had testing for Aspergillus up until this point. And as a mom of four, it's ironic my seventeen year old did mention just the other day how it's a little more enticing thinking about cannabis when you can't see it and all the stores are covered up. So it just happened the other day that he brought that up. So when I advocate or anyone advocates for the medical program and patient's interest, we're really advocating for all individuals who consume cannabis medicinally for symptom relief, choosing cannabis over pharmaceuticals, over alcohol, or illegal substances, which is substantial number similar to the number of registered medical cannabis patients when you compare it in the state. As of July twenty twenty five, we're gonna have a medical use endorsement license. This will be available to adult use retailers to serve the patients. This will mandate enhanced training and educational requirements for any of the employees who interact with these consumers, these patients. The Vermont Medical Society suggested UVM as the the science and medicine course, which I have taken years ago, to satisfy the educational requirements for this medical use endorsement. I disagree due to the prerequisites, the time commitment, and the prohibitive cost to Vermonters. I do feel there needs to be an annual, not every two years, minimum of eight hour educational course as well as continuing education paid for by the cannabis excise tax and free to all Vermont employees. There are several dozen retail owners and hundreds of employees that I've trained who will attest to the need and the desire for educational with greater depth. Patients, consumers, especially older adults and staff all need credible education and resources so that they can understand cannabis medicinally and find answers to their many questions. From the adult use exception until the end of twenty twenty four, my son, because I feel it's really important to include the younger folks, and I were both cannabis control board approved vendor educators. We educated hundreds of Vermont budtenders. Education has not been programmatically prioritized since the adult use program inception, left me with much disappointment for adult use and even more concern as the medical endorsement becomes a reality. From the start of the adult use in twenty twenty two, Vermont had a free cannabis hotline staffed with the nurses to help educate and support patients. In a recent seven days I'm sorry, about a year ago, seven days article, Chair Pepper was quoted saying, quote, the fastest growing demographic of people who are using cannabis for the first time are people fifty years old or older, and yet there's no good source of reliable information. So the cannabis nurse hotline is stepping in to fill that gap, unquote. Approximately seventy five to ninety percent of callers were over sixty five on multiple pharmaceuticals, did not wanna get high, but wanted symptom relief, and had no medical person to talk to. One study shows that sixty five percent of doctors report being unable to answer their patients' questions about cannabis with polypharmacy. The hotline shut down April twenty twenty four, and current CCB guidance and public statements make it so medical professionals are not comfortable and are unable to work with or therefore provide education to these adult use retailers who will be serving patients with medical endorsement come July and need enhanced training. We would we request this guidance to be repealed altogether or exclude the medical use endorsement licenses. In the CCB's legislative recommendations for the medical program, please read if you haven't, and that's more to some of the other folks in the room. The CCB proposes CANify, a fifteen question online standardized quiz and app. GMPA, the Green Mountain Patients Alliance, does not support this recommendation with valid concern for an unregulated app with spotty service in Vermont and the number one consumer being older and least likely to use apps. An app does not seem to be enough. An app paired with a person, a medical professional on the phone provides an individual unmatched level of support. Patients and Vermonters deserve that. GMPA agrees with the Vermont Medical Society's concerns of Kanafy's product bias and commercial influence based on the extremely specific product recommendations and lack of transparent algorithms. GMPA supports the CCB's recommendation to to move the administration of eligible conditions and oversight under the CCB through reestablishing an oversight advisory panel that we had before adult use inception to help administer and manage eligibility as well as many other aspects. GMPA provides specific board structure recommendations in that medical report as well. We have a medical cannabis program that has no medical professionals, no feedback, and no way of allowing patients and caregivers to have voices either. GMPA continues to advocate that anyone given a prescription of opioids automatically qualifies for a medical card. Other states are doing this. We asked to increase medical plant count from six to twelve in flower as well as allow caregivers to care for three patients and patients to have three caregivers. Whoever have the time and you're interested, I would love to break down the numbers so you understand why we're asking for a higher plant count. There's a lot of things that can go wrong from the plant not growing well to burning the brownies. We also ask to raise adult use plant to medical count because many people do use medicinally, just don't wanna sign up for a medical card and can't get that medical card for one reason or another. We seek employment and roadside testing protections for patients. We work person compensation for medical cannabis and health insurance, which I know is a big ask. We ask to reestablish the medical cannabis fund for this and to bring medical cannabis transactions to a standard wholesale pricing structure for affordability. GMPA supports the policy position and recommendations of the Vermont cannabis Equity Coalition ag related policy to allow on and off farm direct sales of cultivate cultivation tiers one and two and believe direct sales is the best way for patients to get the most affordable cannabis instead of more affordable alcohol and opioids. We ask to allow public consumption anywhere lit tobacco is allowed. Vulnerable Vermonters and patients need to legally consume their legally allowed cannabis and legally prescribed or verified medicine without risk. Most of the cannabis workforce are bud tenders who rent and have no legal and safe right to consume. We ask legislators to direct one million of the cannabis excise tax to the cannabis business development fund and request twenty five percent of that to the land access and opportunity board as recommended by the CCB in its act one sixty six, section fifteen a, legislative report. We also ask for complete expungement of all cannabis charges and not to recriminalize the plant. We ask a lot. The adult's use market is operational, but much work remains to make it equitable, viable, especially the medical program. I strongly feel we need separate meetings and bills carved out just for medical rather than squeezing medical into adult use meet meetings and bills as well as medical professionals and patients weighing into the policy making process. I'm grateful for the time to speak today and also privileged that I can be here safely as a white person as recent events leave some of my colleagues, people of color, unable to be here and feel safe. I would ask to have members from the Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition, which includes, Racial Justice Alliance, Rural Vermont, NOFA, Vermont Growers Association, and the Green Mountain Patients Alliance, as well as representatives of the LAOB, the Land Access Opportunity Board. As part of these meetings moving forward, I'm a former license holder and am amongst current license holders. Please consider including former licensees in the conversation as well as they're the ones who know all too well what needs to change to make it viable for them. Thanks for having me. I do have a printout with these recommendations and contact information as well. So thank you. [Chair Matthew Birong]: Thank you so much. I I have a question for our lieutenant governor. Are you collecting everybody's testimony and will then give it to us as a package? How are we doing that? For everybody. Yep. For everybody's testimony. Yep. Okay. Great. [Representative Kate Husepp]: And I have a trying to figure [Chair Matthew Birong]: out how we [James Pepper]: We will make sure that if you wanna have further testimony, you can contact them to have them into the committee. [Representative Kate Husepp]: I've got just the medical. [Tito Verne]: Any of [James Pepper]: that stuff that you're, like, reading off and we're referring to, if you could email it to the committee assistant so they can post it on our page, that'd [Chair Matthew Birong]: be great. [Representative Kate Husepp]: Thank you so much. [Chair Matthew Birong]: Thank you. [Nick Smith]: How you doing? Good. Hi. My name is Nick Smith. I'm the co owner of Emerald Visions Sure. Tier two tier two indoor cultivation operation in the islands up in Alberg. And I wanted to talk to you about just several things, but, one of them is just different opportunities for additional tax revenue for the cannabis industry in the state. So one of the things that we're really missing the missing opportunity for additional tax revenue on is a canvas delivery for patients and for also, for just anyone in the rec market. We could really expand the footprint and how much money could be drawn in for for tax revenue by allowing for delivery for dispensaries and possibly even for tier one, tier two cultivators directly to the consumer. One thing that I think that is a pretty easy thing to do would be to align Vermont's cannabis possession laws from one ounce to four ounces. That way, there's really just no no reason that we shouldn't just have it at one ounce. It doesn't there's no real harm in having more than one ounce on you, and it makes so the consumer won't have to drive back to the dispensary. Right now, if you buy one ounce of flour, you can't buy even one pre roll. So if we expand it to four ounces like the state of New York's already done and proven for there to be no problems, that's additional tax revenue for the state. And there's just really no no victim in expanding it from tier or from, one ounce to four ounces. We're talking just additional tax revenue and just more equity for the general public and maybe less demonization of the plant. So that's one thing that I think would be a very easy that's just expand our possession limits. And another thing that's impacting our community and the industry a lot is just the oversaturation. So right now, there's tier there's five tiers of in, cultivation licenses. And, tier fives indoors specifically can allow for up to fifteen thousand square foot of canopy, which is just far too much for the state. Probably, it was done in the best of interest for the state to try to make sure we didn't have a shortage, but in hindsight, I think that every cultivator that exists can most people would say that beyond tier two is probably it was too much for the state, and it's just threatening to put [James Pepper]: a lot of small independently owned mom and pops farmers out of business. So my suggestion is [Nick Smith]: that and pops farmers out of business. So my suggestion proposal would be to expand from five tiers to ten tiers. So right now, we have up to fifteen thousand square foot of canopy. Even the tier five licensee, the one that we have for indoor is not even using the full amount, but the potential that they could use it could be very it could be even more damaging. So saying maybe we should put on the brakes before we crash into the wall. Don't allow them to fully utilize that tier five. And beyond that, the beyond tier threes through five licensees, they pay hardly anything for their license. So I think that they should cost more for these tier through three through five indoor licenses. Like, thirty five thousand dollars is how much the largest license cost in the state for indoor licensee, and that person flies back and forth from Idaho sending the profits from their business to another state. So I think we can all agree that we don't want the largest beneficiary in cultivation to be sending our profits to another state. We're not we just so yeah. Like, expanding from five to ten tiers, we'd break it down from having them double in size to just increasing by one thousand square foot increments, but the price increasing by two hundred fifty percent per tier increase. So that would make it so people that have the larger tier licenses are paying more what they should and not just so they're taking up a disproportionate share and basically allowing them to cut the mark undercut the market through having a lower cost of operations where it should be costing more if you want to take a larger piece of the pie. [James Pepper]: And some [Nick Smith]: other things like removing the opt in requirement that would increase tax revenue for the whole state, and it would also alleviate the retail density issue. I don't think that we should really be closing retail in general. I've been personally working for the past year and a half on our retail location. We've been going through back to fifty process, so that would not be good for a lot of people to be closing the retail licensing further than right now, we have just, like, a pause on it, which is a good idea, but until we address it. Increasing flower caps would be a great idea, and it's it's a really restrictive number. Like, it's thirty percent for flower, but it hardly keeps any flower off the market. So I don't even know where this thirty percent came from, but it makes the consumer think that thirty percent is something that they should really go for. It's making the consumer go for the higher testing THC flour versus something that actually has more medicinal properties. So I don't know why we chose thirty percent, but really it should thirty six, forty on a it's not already not helping anything. And then for concentrates other than sixty percent, if you could boost it up to around seventy, that would help a lot for, getting more products to market, not gonna have to be retested, reformulated when you can already have vape carts that are ninety percent THC. So if we're worried about high THC products, you already have something that's near a hundred percent that's allowed. So I think that the baby cartridge is near a hundred percent potency for THC. It can be in the nineties, typically. So, also, like, farmers market style events would be great with or without public consumption. That'd be very good for the industry. And, maybe a tiered retail system where you could have tier one and tier two retail where you could have tier one be of farmers having their just directly just their own product, but with a much lower licensing fee. And if anyone has any questions or any [James Pepper]: We're gonna pull questions to the head as we start. Yeah. Okay. I think we'd be better served just caring for everybody to utilize the time better than digest everything. Because actually you're ready for. Hi. How are you? [Tito Verne]: I'm good. Welcome. [Speaker 4 ]: Thanks. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for putting this roundtable on. And thank you for inviting me to share my thoughts on the adult use market. And, also, I just wanna say thank you for acknowledging that cannabis is not your thing, so you don't necessarily know so much about it. I very much [Chair Matthew Birong]: two of us who are experts. Definitely not experts. Your experts are right. And Of course. You. [Speaker 4 ]: Yes. So thank you for all the policymakers that took the time today to speak with us, and thank you to the board for also for taking the time. I know your time is very limited, and you guys are all very busy. [Chair Matthew Birong]: Actually, our time is much more limited than their time. All time. [James Pepper]: Thank you, Senator. [Chair Matthew Birong]: Well, then [Speaker 4 ]: thank you very, very much. My name is Ashley Sorrentino. And so I am one of the owners of New England Cannabis Partners. I'm also a member of the VGA, and I hold the seat on the VGA's retails working group. We are a vertical integrated company up in Saint Albans. We have a dispensary and a tier two manufacturing, and our tier two outdoor cultivation is out in Johnson. One of the things I first wanted to touch on is the equity funding and industry and community reinvestment. I wanna out at least state that I stand with the VGA and the Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition in wanting at least one million of the cannabis excise revenue to go to the cannabis business development fund for financial and technical assistance for the industry. And for twenty five percent of the cannabis excise tax to the land access and opportunity board for community reinvestment. Recommendations that the CCB has already supported in their Act one hundred and sixty six secondtion fifteen a legislative report. And personally, as a mother of two young kids who are in grade school, I would love to see a percentage of the cannabis tax excise or the campus tax revenue go directly back into the public school systems. And even more that's earmarked already. There are such programs as after school and summer camps that could be reinstated worldwide. And the social and the economic, what that could do to families in Vermont would be, like, it's, like, monumentous. Right? As a single mom having to pay for day care, because there is no after school programs while I still have to work, it is a true burden. So if some of that revenue could go back into the public schools, it would be truly great for the whole state. Something else that I did wanna talk on that I believe it is important is that cannabis should be treated like tobacco for consumption. Currently, in Vermont, it is illegal to consume cannabis in any public space, which leaves non homeowners and anyone who does not own their property, renters, and all tourists who are coming in the state for short term rentals and hotels in Airbnb, they must seek permission from their landlord or property owner before consuming or growing in their home that even includes registered medical cannabis patients or caregivers. Cannabis consumption in Vermont is defined as every form of consumption, including smoking, vaping, and eating edibles, which all are prohibited in public places and all subject to excuse me, to subject to civil penalties. Meanwhile, if we look over into New York, it is legal to consume cannabis in any public place where tobacco is allowed. And non homeowners such as renters may consume and grow medical cannabis in their homes, which allows for their medicine to be able to be grown and then not be penalized for using something and choosing that medicine over a pharmaceutical, which is so important. Lawmakers in New York state have already placed a burden on the landlord to comply with cannabis consumption law, while lawmakers in Vermont have placed separate and onto the renter. Vermont law currently limits cannabis consumptions to the private residents of homeowners, and renters, again, have to explicitly obtain permission from the landlord. If you look at the census data in Vermont ownership, the rates for blacks are under twenty two percent. And if you do that in comparison for whites, we're over seventy two. So there is a vast difference in who owns land in Vermont. This data shows that black, indigenous, and people of color communities are least likely to own homes in this state. And under this law, it does not protect cannabis consumers who are purchasing cannabis legally. On top of low ownership rates in the BIPOC communities in Vermont and despite legalizing cannabis in two thousand eighteen, the ACLU reports law enforcement in Vermont disproportionately arrest black people over cannabis related charges more than whites despite similar user rates, Providing a legal space for all Vermont's residents to commute to consume cannabis is an urgent public safety issue. This also would eliminate people purposely breaking the law because they don't have any other option. Tourists and those visiting Vermont are also impacted by this law. Public consumption is prohibited, and short term rentals, hotels, Airbnbs legally require explicit permission. With over thirteen million annual visitors in tourism, it's a significant industry for the state. If adults visiting Vermont can responsibly and legally enjoy tobacco, they should be able to legally enjoy cannabis just the same. Legal cannabis users, including medical patients, have almost nowhere to can move to consume legally. In the rental housing or public housing, they face discrimination. Allowing Vermonters to purchase legally for providing no legal place to consume is a true disservice to all Vermonters, especially our medical patients. An equitable place for consumption laws to ensure safety and fairness just like tobacco regulations, is something that we would wish for. And the last time I checked, there wasn't such a thing as a medical nicotine card. And I just put that in there to just distinguish that we do have these places in Vermont where tobacco is legal to smoke, and it has no medicinal purposes. But then we have people who actually use this plant for true medicinal purposes, and they have nowhere legal to consume. Another very important issue that I'd like to touch on briefly is direct to consumer sales and why it's crucial for small farmers this year. Vermont's adult use market is a not viable ecosystem for small growers and manufacturers. Nearly three years into the formulate the formation of this regulated market, they need a lifeline, and they need it from policymakers this legislation season. They need to be able to sell their products directly to the public. In two thousand twenty four, the CCB worked with the Tuck the Tuck Business School at Dartmouth to survey tier one cultivators and to assess their needs and challenges, and their number one priority returned by licensees was implementing direct sales. And I repeat, the CCP's own survey of small brewers returned put their number one priority as having their ability to directly sell in a regulated manner to the general public. In twenty five of January, the New York General Assembly enacted a farmer's market concept for regulated cannabis in the market to allow for direct sales for producers. Also, in January twenty five, the CCB delivered a legislative report on equity that recommends implementing direct sales for small producers. I strongly support that. Five key issues that are causing these small producers to close shop, and each can be dragged to market structures as some of my colleagues have already talked about, that right now there is an oversaturation, and the stores that already are, the shelf space is already taken for. So anyone new that is coming into the market or anyone that is smaller, they do have nowhere right now currently to sell their product. Five of the small key issues that are causing small producers to close shop can be tracked back to the market structure, in the absence of the ability for small producers to sell their product directly to the public. Price volatility, producers must then wholesale their products, so they already take a loss selling it to stores. They have the outside leverage from intermediaries. Retailers can dictate the price and variety, and I'm a retailer, so I can tell you that that is true. The lack of geographical distribution of retail between opt in and opt out, so something is bottlenecking the chain. You know, I would love to see more of a policy where every state is every town and city is already opt in, and then they don't have to opt out in particular instead of so to reverse that. We'd be able to hopefully ease up on the bottlenecking of the supply chain. Each of the drive critical issues also places an excess burden on local retailers to try to compensate for these market shortcomings. When small producers can't sell product directly to the public, every license type in the supply chain gets a disadvantage, including the customer. If policymakers do not make a supply do not supply lifelines for small farms and businesses this year, they will continue to struggle. And next year, we will see a lot of these small tier ones exit the market. And all of these unique qualities and some of the best weed grown in Vermont by these smaller tier ones, they will be unfortunately, they will be out of the market by the end of next year if for they do not get a lifeline this year through the legislation process. And I know time is limited, and there is a printout, so I urge everyone to read it afterwards. I won't go through everything. But I did just want to briefly touch on the THC caps, and I'm just gonna give an example on why the caps are hurting the market. And I know this goes more into the rules, but I did just want to, from a business perspective, just give a one quick example of why the cap, which at the end of the day is just a theorized equation in a number and how it could harm a small tier one. If you have a concentrate currently that is under the cap, say, at sixty five point nine percent, that is legal to sell. But it has a total active cannabinoids of eighty one point two. That product is by far going to be stronger than something that comes in at sixty six point two but has a total THC of seventy two. But one product that is sixty six point one is now considered illegal, but the one that came in at sixty five point nine is not. So it does not keep the public safe. The only thing it does then is turn that small tier one sixty six point two percent rosin into carts, which then now puts two hundred, China made carts into our marketplaces, two hundred more lithium batteries needed for those carts, and a Hash Verizon cart does not sell nearly as quickly as a concentrate. So now you're putting [James Pepper]: to give you a McDonald's book. [Chair Matthew Birong]: Can you wrap it [Speaker 4 ]: up? Yeah. Yeah. I'm almost done. And so by just putting that quickly in that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Not a lot. But just to put that in perspective, is it how something so small and so trivial could either put a small farmer out of business that quickly? [Chair Matthew Birong]: Right. And [Speaker 4 ]: I appreciate your time. Thanks, Ben. [Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The senators have to leave at nine thirty, and so we have time for one one more Saturday from Nine thirty? Yeah. We we are done. [James Pepper]: Okay. I I picked up the outlines. What I was gonna try to say here, I'll [Speaker 5 ]: try to be as quick as possible. My name is Ben Wilcox. I'm a licensed tier one cultivator, and thank you for allowing me to speak today. Thank you for your time. Thank pretty sure I'm the only tier one cultivator here today. And, I wanna say that I'm here in solidarity with everybody else too and and tier one cultivators from around the state. I I tried to speak to as many as I could ahead of this meeting, and get their feedback. And I've also I'm constantly speaking with people, you know, all year long. I've been a licensed cultivator since the start for three years, so I've gotten to know people in the industry just through networking. And and this is something that we talk about all the time, of course. Where are [Chair Matthew Birong]: you based? [Speaker 5 ]: I'm from Sutton, which is in Caledonia County. Unfortunately, no Northeast Kingdom representatives, I don't think, here today, but that's where I'm that's where I'm from. And so two things that I would like to see change. One, that I think it would be fairly both both things I'm gonna mention, I think, would disproportionately help the smallest growers in the state, and that's really what I wanna be here to represent. I myself as a tier one grower, small grower, and, you know, it's hard to start a small business, and especially in rural parts of the state, you know, cultivation is something that you can do anywhere. You know, you don't have to be near major cities or towns necessarily to do it. So Sutton, where I live, is a very small town, and I'm able to try I'm trying to make a living doing it, on my land. One so the first thing, senator or, lieutenant governor Rogers already mentioned that, we have to get ID cards for workers to legally work on our farm. And, you know, I know we're not considered agriculture legally, but, you know, essentially, what I do is I put seeds in the ground and grow plants and harvest the plants, in the fall. And when the weather turns in the fall, you have to harvest plants very quickly sometimes, and that requires us, a larger labor force than you I would need the rest of the year, and these are temporary people. I was also a CBD grower for years before I was THC grower. And for CBD, there was no regulation on workers, and I used to have my family and friends come and help me during harvest time. And my, you know, my sister and my mom, and it was it was kind of it was fun. Now, if I wanna have my sister come help work for, like, three days, I need to get her this ID card. And you can get a temporary one, but then, you know, there needs to be a background check. There's a fee involved. And, you know, my sister is somebody who I've known since she was born. So I've known her for, like, thirty six years or something. And I can vouch for her as I I trust her. And I feel like this this I go through this license process. I get a background check. I pay a lot of fees. The state vets me very hard before they issue a license. And I feel like the state trusts me in that process to grow this cannabis and do it so responsibly and follow the laws. And it would be nice if the state would also trust me to vet my own workers and not have to ask permission to have my sister, for example, help me during harvest time. So eliminating the ID card requirement for seasonal and temporary workers for outdoor farmers, I think, would be, helpful for for all cultivators and especially small small cultivators who often rely on family members and and friends to help. And then the the second thing, is and this was this was really would disproportionately help the smallest start up cultivators more so than anybody, is, I think, some some form of direct to consumer sales. When I was in the CBD growing business, the first year I grew, I I was kinda head of head of the market a little bit, and I was able to sell my crop for a for a profitable price. And that encouraged me to do it the next year. And then the next year was when nationwide, large farms across the country started growing at massive scale beyond I mean, I grew a half an acre, and I was competing with farms that were growing ten thousand acres all over the country. So the price tanked dramatically, and I there there was no way I could sell my crop at a profitable price. I mean, it was so far below my profit margin that I would rather compost it. It was more valuable to turn into compost for me, obviously. However, the retail price of CBD products remained fairly high. And if I had some of my crop turned into CBD oil and sold it through my website, which I made myself, godaddy dot com, I could get a a fair retail price for that product that was grown on my farm and transformed into a usable product. And that was the only way I was able to really continue on was selling directly to consumers. And throughout the years, I did that for four years, and I started I had pick your own hemp on my farm where I put up, like, a roadside sign during harvest season, and I had people come down to my farm and bought and purchased whole plants, kind of like Christmas tree farm. And that was a way for me to get a a fair price for the plant. And people also, when they came, it was it was a wonderful experience for me as a grower to meet these consumers, interact with them directly, and and hear their stories about what they were using this plant for. And for CBD purposes, they were all using it for symptom relief of some sort. And so they were using it medicinally. They were taking it home, making their own CBD medicine with it, and getting it at a cheap price grown by me locally. And these were all local people in the, you know, Lindenville, Sutton, Burke area where I live. So that was a great experience, interacting with the consumers and hearing their stories. And, you know, to tie in with how we can help medical patients, you know, it was a it was a way for for people using it medically to get it for cheaper than if they had to go to a a dispensary to buy it. And I and I just wanna bring up maybe some ideas about direct to consumer too that, you know, I don't I don't see see it as being a farm stand with a cash box, necessarily. I know that's not realistic, and I don't I wouldn't wanna do that myself. But there's ways to do it where, you know, you could we could have similar to where the way meat is sold, I also raise pigs and sell pigs, and I sell whole animals to people. That the animal is slaughtered on the farm, and the people take the whole animal, they take it home and butcher it themselves. And that meat is not to be resold. They have to fill out a form, sign their name to it, that they will not resell this meat. But they get really good quality meat that's organically raised locally. They fill their freezer, feed their family for the whole year. It's their year's supply. So I think of having done that for years with pigs, I'm wondering if there's a way we could do that with cannabis, where somebody could maybe purchase a wholesale amount of of of, untrimmed cannabis flower that they would legally not be able to resell, but they would be it would be for their own personal use. This could be for medical patients who can't grow their own or don't have the access to I mean, it's a lot of work to grow cannabis, just for those of you who don't know. So it's labor intensive, and not everybody can do it. You know, I figured out ways to do it on my property. I do a lot of it. You know, I'm still I'm tier one, but that's still you know, I grow one hundred and twenty five plants. And if I could sell a plant here and there to local people, it would help buffer against the the the price collapse that we're hearing about. [Chair Matthew Birong]: We apologize, but we sadly need to go. But but we will listen to the rest of it and read all the testimony. [James Pepper]: Right. And then [Chair Matthew Birong]: LG is the [James Pepper]: bill starting on the house side anyway. So we're doing, like [Chair Matthew Birong]: This is prep for us because it will be coming to us. [James Pepper]: Alright. Well, thank you for your time. [Chair Matthew Birong]: For coming to the [James Pepper]: But, no. No. You you go. We're staying. Oh, okay. That was why. Yeah. [Speaker 5 ]: I thought it was [James Pepper]: in Yeah. We're the origin point for the Okay. Gotcha. So they can be able to get it later. Okay. [Speaker 5 ]: So anyways, in conclusion, the ID card thing, I think, would help. And, you know, right now, the only way for anybody to sell their crop is to a retailer, a wholesaler, or a product manufacturer. You can't sell it directly to a consumer. There's a retail value for your crop. The best possible the most I can capture of that retail value is forty percent as a grower. That's that's if I get a fair price from a retailer. Most retailers are doubling up when they buy it from you, and the state takes twenty percent tax. So out of this hundred percent value, you know, if it was a hundred dollars, the state would get twenty, the retailer would get forty, the grower would get forty under the best possible scenario. And that's if you involve a wholesaler, if you involve a manufacturer, it's less than that for the grower. So [James Pepper]: being able to get [Speaker 5 ]: the full retail price would help the smallest grower from home. [James Pepper]: Got oops. [Tito Verne]: Here her print off of what I'll be speaking about. [Sam Bellavance]: Awesome. So my name is Sam Bellavance. My family has a dairy farm in Alberg in South Huron, Vermont in twenty eighteen. I started growing hemp on our farm, created the company Sunset Lake CBD. In twenty twenty two, I received an outdoor cultivation license from the Vermont cannabis control board. I'm currently an outdoor cultivator as well as operating a retail shop in South Europe. So I wanna stick to two really specific, issues here because I know you've already received a lot of comments. The first is on product registration. So for folks who aren't aware, all cannabis products in the state of Vermont need to be approved and registered by the Vermont Cannabis Control Board before they can be sold to the public. This is a great system, but there is a problem in that there are currently four thousand seven hundred and forty six registered products, each of which are going to need a one year annual review and reapproval. This, when combined with the constant influx of new products being added to the market, is creating a dilemma where there are more products that can be reasonably reviewed and approved at any given time. It puts an undue burden on the cannabis control board, which is trying its best to do due diligence and make sure these products are safe for consumers, and it also puts an undue burden on licensees. We're often having to reregister and reapprove the same exact product, sometimes from the same batch over and over again. So there's a really simple solution to this, and that would be for the legislature to amend seven VSA nine ten to allow for biannual product registration rather than annual product registration. This is a really simple legislative fix that would benefit every single licensee in the market because we all whether we're retailers, whether we're cultivators, whether we're manufacturers, we all have to interact with this system. So this will provide a sweeping benefit, and it's a very simple legislative fix. It's also something that will help create efficiencies with the cannabis control board, and it's something, you know, I'm open to receiving any more of their thoughts on as well. But I think it's something we can work together and create a real win win simple legislative change for that issue. Similarly, employee ID cards, they're currently required to be renewed once per year. This is also a bit of a burden because most employees are working at the same company for more than one year. So having people need to go through that approval process and forcing the compliance agents to have to review the same employee ID card again and again and again, it takes them away from the valuable work of license application, inspections, things that will improve product safety and consumer safety. The Department of Motor Vehicles, the Agency of Agriculture, the Department of Education, all of these agencies have multiyear license options. It makes a lot of sense for the cannabis industry to have that as well. I know I might get some pushback from, members of legislature saying, well, wouldn't that reduce fee revenue? It might, but let's keep in mind the cannabis industry in Vermont is currently, by best estimates, employing over a thousand Vermonters. It's generating over thirty million dollars in excise tax revenue. So that's something if there is a small change that may result in slightly less fee revenue, I think it's a very good trade off if you can protect this industry that's doing so much for the economic benefit of Vermont. We do a lot of other things for other industries, you know, dairy, apples. We we help them out because we know that they have a strong economic impact, and I think this is something that could happen with cannabis as well. Second issue I'd like to talk about is the retail and cultivation oversaturation and licensure. This is a very hot topic in the cannabis industry. Lots of people have different thoughts on it. I just wanna give my perspective right now. You're seeing lots of retailers, specifically in towns like Morrisville, Montpelier, Brattleboro, where there are a lot of stores. Things are getting very competitive, and it's very hard for individuals who might invest their life savings into opening a store only to have six more approved in their town. You might say, well, that's the free market. We should be able to issue as many retail cultivation manufacturer licenses as we deem fit. The problem with that, and from my life experience, I've seen in the dairy industry, I've seen in the hemp industry, I've seen in other agricultural commodities, When there is a complete, limitless approach to supply, producers will oversupply, prices will crash, the smaller producers will be negatively impacted the most, and the market will consolidate. So I think we have a really unique opportunity here where we have a trained, qualified cannabis control board that has the ability to make those decisions on license, issuance. I'm strongly opposed to the idea of a legislative moratorium on moratorium on licensure. The legislature is not qualified to make that decision, whereas we have a cannabis control board that is. So I think any decisions around issuing new licenses or restricting the issuance of new licenses should be made at the board level through the rules making process, not through a legislative moratorium because we don't know what will happen in the future. You know, if a town like South Burlington that currently isn't opted in to the cannabis market, if they decide to opt in, it would make no sense to have a law in place that would restrict South Burlington getting a dispensary. And I think if we're concerned about that retail concentration, a couple folks have mentioned the opt out versus opt in. I would just encourage members of the legislature to look at VSA eight sixty three and switch that to opt out rather than opt in, because right now, Burlington has probably more dispensaries than a lot of folks would like to see, but that's partly because South Burlington, Williston, Colchester don't. So if we can spread things around, I think that'll improve the market for everyone, and that's another thing that the legislature can take on. I am in support of a lot of the other issues talked about today, such as the equity funding proposal from the Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition, and then some of the other thoughts on testing and agricultural classification. But I think I'll stop my comments there. I wanna make sure the other folks have time to speak. So thank you very much for your time, and [James Pepper]: feel free to reach out with any questions. Thanks, Sam. You. Hey, everybody. How are you doing? I'm well. [Senator Dave Leagues]: My name is Nathan Liberty. I'm co owner of Green Mountain Scientific. Just got a couple points here to to speak on, hopefully. Thank you all for being here. The first point I'd like to touch on is the current licensing timelines, of the the current such current way it's set up is for annual renewal. I'm proposing that it be moved to more of a every two year scenario. There's a lot of reasons for that, primarily, especially for us, like my company, we have multiple licenses. We I own a farm in Saint Albans. We're a tier three cultivation, and we're also a tier three manufacturer out of Hardwick. A lot of times renewal times don't actually align with both licenses. We feel we're actually in a renewal process for half a year, every year. But, you know, typically, we look at three month timeline for renewal. I'm spending about six months out of the year renewing licenses. And I understand that's the way it currently is, and, you know, it was set up the way it was for, you know, I'm sure many reasons. But as Vermont continues to develop its regulatory framework, it I feel it's it's vital to implement changes that reduce unnecessary administrative burdens By moving to a two year renewal process, we significantly reduced the frequency of paperwork and regulatory oversight for both the CCB and cannabis businesses. This allows business to concentrate more on operations, customer service, ultimately enhancing the consumer experience. A longer renewal cycle can save valuable resources for both the state and cannabis businesses. Fewer renewals mean decreased administrative costs, lower fees associated with the renewal process, which is particularly beneficial for small business. Aligning the two year renewal period with other businesses compliance requirements in Vermont streamlines regulatory environment for cannabis retailers, cultivators and manufacturers, making it easier for them to navigate their obligations. Along the renewal period also brings greater stability and predictability to cannabis businesses, thus encouraging investment and growth within the industry, which ultimately benefits the economy. We'd extend the renewal timeline for all cannabis licenses every two years beginning with the next renewal cycle. If enacted, we maintain the annual fee structure as needed, ensuring compliance while state laws while continuing regular inspections and audits to hold safety and quality standards. The structure of the program would involve members of the CCB along with, you know, the the business owners meeting still on an annual basis, having annual inspections, things of that nature, but the actual licensing the hard licensing with the paperwork and everything else being more of a every two year process. The other other point I'd like to touch on is more for the retail side. Now I'm not the retail owner. The reason I'm bringing this particular situation up is my mother has mobility issues. One thing I would love to see with the retailers in the state is to allow curbside service for cannabis retailers. Essentially, curbside delivery not only enhances consumer convenience, but it also directly addresses the needs of various demographics in our community. For those with mobility challenges like my mother, for busy parents or individuals simply seeking privacy or have questions, they only feel comfortable asking in a more private setting. The ability to complete transactions directly from their vehicle makes a significant difference in their shopping experience. Moreover, public health and safety are paramount, you know, considering COVID, flu season, things of that nature. You know, there's a lot of preventative aspects there. And we just kinda I just feel, you know, it's such a huge part of the service industry. We see it with restaurants. I think we're even seeing it with certain levels of alcohol during COVID anyway. I I think there's a lot of ways to safely implement a service where someone orders online or over the phone and essentially, you know, doesn't pick up in the parking lot. To everyone else's point today, I agree with everybody that's been up here as well and did it into their points. And, yeah, that's pretty much it. Thank you. [Chair Matthew Birong]: Hello. Thank you for y'all's time today. Thank you guys as well. I am Michelle Chapman. [Representative Lucy Boyden]: I am from Highly Rooted, and we are a tier two manufacturer. I also run a program that helps cancer patients. What I'd like to speak with you guys today about is the process that we have to add qualifying conditions currently. As you know, you guys have to do it, and it's a very long process, and it takes a very long time. And, you know, you guys might not be given all of the information on why this specific disease or condition should be able to get it, whereas the CCB and other people do have that implication. Another issue is getting people med cards when they have qualifying conditions, but their doctors won't sign the diagnostic diagnostic paperwork confirming that. Typically, it's because they're worried about the legal repercussions, or one of the newest things we're hearing is why do you need a medical card when there's recreational cannabis? But there are lots of products like suppositories and patches that are not allowed in the recreational market but are very good in the medical market. My husband is a two time cancer survivor. He had three different oncologists, one at Dana Farber in Boston and two in Vermont. Between those three, we could not get him a medical cannabis card. They all refused to sign it. Dana Farber refused because they received so much federal funding. He just you know, they were he just wasn't even having it. The oncologist the oncologist looked us straight in the face and said, we've received federal funding. I can't risk it. Okay. So we tried the two in debt, two in Vermont. Both of them would not sign it. There was a why is he why aren't they signing it? Why isn't Dana Farber signing it? Why isn't your primary signing it? And he had a twenty percent chance to live. They were saving his life. We weren't gonna argue with them. Dana Farber, you can be kicked out of the program for anything. If you miss an appointment, anything. So the last thing we were gonna do was be like, no. You have to sign this legally or whatever. We just, you know, took it. Thankfully, because recreational cannabis was legal, we weren't allowed to buy it. We were able to grow our plants at home, and he was able to get most of what he needed. However, most people don't have that luxury. Creating a medical advisory well, excuse me, reestablishing the medical advisory panel to handle both of these situations, in my opinion, would be the best case scenario. Allow people that have a hands on experience with these patients and what they're going through, and then allow them to look at someone's medical records. So, like, my husband, he could have submitted his medical records to this advisory panel and seen cancer, cancer, cancer, qualifying condition, done. He gets a med card. But instead, he went without because they were all refusing to. We weren't gonna doctor shop when we're talking cancer. Maybe, you know, epilepsy or something else as someone with epilepsy, but you don't doctor shop oncologists. Once you find one that's saving your life, you're sick, though. Thank you guys so much for your time today. [Michelle Chapman]: Hi. I'm Bailey Evans, and I am the owner of Higher Elevation, which is a cannabis retail shop out of Morris Ville, Vermont. I also am a two year sponsor of the Vermont Tourism Summer and a member of the SOARIA Association, and why that matters is I am here to talk about just the public consumption law and how it's affecting cannabis tourism in Burma. So just like any other form of tourism, be it like we have a really thriving craft beer tourism market in Burma and alcohol. Cannabis tourism has the exact same thing available. So the problem is public consumption law is incredibly strict for Vermont. This includes Airbnbs, hotels, inside of your private vehicle so you cannot smoke or consume, and it includes edibles. So it's everything. It's all encompassing. Possible cannabis tourism is negatively affected by such restrictive statewide public consumption laws that not only deter possible tourists, but also deter businesses that would be interested in bringing this unique consumer base to the state. Why is this a problem? It makes private sector spaces more hesitant to allow safe spaces and inclusive language for cannabis tourists. This includes hotels, resorts, travel agency, and private rentals and event spaces. They are afraid they may get in trouble somehow for allowing it. I've been to the Vermont Tourism Summit, and they very much the hotels and Airbnbs are like, well, you're not legally allowed to consume anywhere, so, like, can we even invite people who wanna smoke or consume cannabis? I'm like, yes. You need to specifically state it, but there's all these misconceptions already and people afraid, like, well, I don't wanna do that because I don't wanna get in trouble with the state. Vermont is missing out on major tourism revenue stream by allowing such strict public consumption laws. This is more than allowing event licensing, though this is a start. This is about making the cannabis market look more like the Vermont craft alcohol market that Vermont has been pushing to tourists for years. Alpha reported in twenty twenty three the global cannabis tourism market side was estimated at ten point twenty three billion with the US accounting for the largest revenue share of over fifty percent. Canada's tourism is more than just selling product to out of towners. It's farm tours, events, cannabis friendly activities, lodging, and more. This is a huge revenue maker for the state and residents, not just cannabis retailers. This policy makes us less desirable to the state to be visited by younger demographics, and I know Tito said, you know, make, you know, younger people stay in Vermont. Well, you can also make younger tourists come to Vermont. In twenty twenty three, among adults nineteen to thirty years old, approximately forty two percent reported cannabis use in the past year, twenty nine percent in the past month, and ten percent daily use. This is from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Someone who, let's say, smokes daily is less likely to spend their vacation somewhere where they feel like they will be in trouble for consuming something that is part of their everyday life. This also includes people who are medical patients. You're not gonna go somewhere where you can't consume your medicine, but also if it's, you know, something you do recreationally, you're probably not going to go somewhere that's like, well, I could get fined or in trouble. You're not going to go there. You're going to pick somewhere else. Other bordering states with more lax public consumption laws like New York are more desirable for cannabis tourists and more lax advertising rules allow them to steal even Vermont consumers away from the state. Possible solutions we can alleviate a lot of these problems by making rules on the public consumption of cannabis the same as alcohol or tobacco. This can be by bringing cannabis down to tobacco or alcohol standards or bringing them up to cannabis. In my opinion, it would be easier to drop cannabis down to alcohol or tobacco instead of trying to bring those two up to higher standards. Public consumption law for cannabis is hurting Vermont's most vulnerable populations. They talked about that with renters. I also have it in the beginning of this document. I feel like we've already talked about it enough. Vermont is losing out a millions of dollars in revenue by allowing public consumption laws to discourage cannabis tourism. By lessing the public consumption laws to something similar to alcohol consumption, Vermont would see more tourism, less oversaturation of the cannabis market, and less strain on medical and low income consumers. [James Pepper]: Thank you, Dylan. Oh, I have to run. I'm actually speaking at recovery day across the street next, so I'm not gonna stay. But if you guys want a few minutes, you got a resource here. If you wanna ask questions, I'd just like to thank the board and take a meeting for this opportunity. Please reach out. I'm in [Chair John Rogers]: the building every day when [James Pepper]: you're taking testimony. I'm happy to be a resource, but we got some great resources all around the room. What we're really hoping for is that opposed to what's happened over the last few years where we make one or two little small changes that we can actually address a whole bunch of things that we see that would really help the industry. So thank you. Yeah. Thanks for organizing this. [Chair Matthew Birong]: Thank you. Cover his other [James Pepper]: You're welcome. I hang up here. Thank you, Mall. [Chair Matthew Birong]: Thanks. I'll talk [James Pepper]: to you. So before we, like, officially wrap things up here, I just wanna thank everybody for coming in. I know [Chair John Rogers]: I've spoken with a lot of [James Pepper]: you individuals, but you are new faces. We are starting work on the miscellaneous cannabis bill this week. The the draft is just that. It is just a draft. It's a starting point. I don't think all of these things are etched in stone as where we're heading. We honestly just needed to get the conversation going with the product. So, you know, we'll be in touch. Represent Boyden and I are the leads on this. She is the primary point of contact for you folks so we can work together on how to build language. And just governors, Roger Steffman, resource, and obviously working in collaboration with these fine folks around this side of the table. We do, however, have to get this through back up to our committee room because we have elections bill that we need to start working on. So I just wanted to thank everybody for coming in, and, you know, we look forward to trying to help you folks, you know, get some changes within statute and structure or provide rulemaking authority that can help make your lives a better place. The whole goal is to continue to dial in this dial in and keep this market stable for everyone's success. [Chair Matthew Birong]: So Please consider a separate method, though, as well. [James Pepper]: That's gonna be a conversation. Thank you. Yep. So with that, that's all I

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of Lieutenant Governor's Cannabis Roundtable-2025-02-19-8:30AM

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: