[0:02] You're up and running.
You may have pushed me through some of
[0:06] this. Uh, good evening. Welcome to the
Chester Local Cannabis Control
[0:12] Commission
>> meeting. Um, we have a few things on our
[0:17] agenda. Julie might let me see the copy
of it. Um, the last time we met was a
[0:23] year ago, a little over a year ago. Um
and so we are
[0:28] uh and so no no actions have been taken
in the meantime. Um but we have to
[0:33] reorganize again. So um depending on how
rigid we need to be uh the three of us
[0:40] do represent the officers anyways
as they stood a year ago. Um so are do
[0:47] you guys I'm I'm open to us continuing
in those roles. Um, do we want to go
[0:53] through each step of the way or you do
need you? So, somebody needs to
[0:56] nominate.
>> Oh, sure.
[0:59] » Nominate you as chair.
>> I second that nomination.
[1:05] » Great. Uh, I accept the nomination. All
those in favor of Ariana Knapp as chair
[1:10] say I.
>> I.
[1:13] » All those opposed. Great. I will
continue on as the chair. I nominate Tom
[1:17] as the vice chair.
>> I second.
[1:21] Great. All those in favor of Tom serving
as our vice chair on this commission say
[1:24] I.
>> I. Any opposed?
[1:29] Great. Tom will continue as our vice
chair.
[1:31] » I nominate you as the secretary. That's
the third role as the secretary.
[1:38] » I second that.
>> Great. All those in favor say I.
[1:41] » I.
>> I.
[1:43] » Great. Okay. Perfect. Uh thank you for
your service, your ongoing service, and
[1:50] [clears throat]
um now we can move on to the next uh
[1:54] item on the agenda. We do technically
need to approve the minutes from August
[1:59] 12th. Julie sent those to us a while
ago. Thank you, Julie.
[2:04] Um
I have no comments, notes, or changes.
[2:10] Did any of you guys see anything that
you wanted to have addressed on the
[2:14] minutes from last year?
>> They look good to me.
[2:18] » Great. Um, all those in favor of
approving the previous minutes say I.
[2:22] » I.
>> Are we going to say that Tom made the
[2:24] motion and Charles seconded it?
>> Yes, we are.
[2:27] » That's what I heard.
[2:31] » Thank you, Julie.
>> Um,
[2:35] uh,
now we would go to citizens comments. Is
[2:39] there and Andy, you're separate on the
agenda. So, are there any citizens
[2:43] comments? Has anybody joined us on Zoom?
>> Okay. Um, so I'm going to assume there
[2:49] are not citizens comments. Um, then I'm
going to invite Andy to update us on the
[2:56] industry and on a little bit on down to
the roots here in Chester and how things
[3:00] have gone in the last year. Um,
and I'm just going to skip ahead so we
[3:06] know after we hear from Andy, we're
going to talk a little bit about the
[3:10] nature of this board and what we may or
may not be doing in the next year. So,
[3:14] as Andy updates us, listen to the things
she can share with us about what Mielier
[3:19] is doing or not doing um, as we consider
what our role might be. Uh,
[3:25] » and I think that's it. Do you want to
you can stay right where you are. You
[3:28] can pull the seat up to the table like
the dinner table. Sure, that would be
[3:32] lovely.
>> Andy, what is your last name again?
[3:34] » Goldman. G O L D M.
>> See, I didn't say it because I couldn't
[3:38] remember the Goldman.
>> All Yeah. Yep. Yep. All good. Um, great.
[3:45] Well, thank you for this opportunity.
Um,
[3:50] want to give you a little of the state
of the industry starting in numbers uh
[3:54] for Vermont. And I'm talking about the
legal adult use industry, not the
[3:59] medical, which is separate. Um, today
there are 541 total licenses of all
[4:06] types. Um, that is down from a high of
629 back in March of 2025.
[4:14] Today, there are 110 retail licenses,
94 manufacturers,
[4:21] and 321 growers. of the retail like
there's that many licenses. Do we have
[4:27] any backup on how many of those are
actually operating?
[4:30] » Sure.
>> Thank you for asking that. Uh about a
[4:33] hundred are and I can tell that from
um because I look at tax filings to get
[4:40] the numbers that I'm about to give to
you.
[4:42] » Oh, great.
>> Um
[4:45] uh good question. Um in so since
inception of the adult industry use
[4:51] industry in in in Vermont which started
in October of 22 almost there's been
[4:57] almost 500 million in sales aggregate
sales and we have a 20% tax 14% is
[5:05] excise tax for cannabis the 6% sales
tax. So with that, the state of Vermont
[5:10] has actually collected a hundred million
almost hundred million dollars from our
[5:14] industry um since we started.
>> Um those are numbers you should know
[5:20] that would still consist of being a
small state compared to other states. Um
[5:27] in just 2025,
um I'm talk since it's the last full
[5:32] year. Um there were about $148 million
in adult use sales. that represented a
[5:39] 7% increase over the prior year. Um
before that there was a 28% increase. Um
[5:46] and then before that I think we had just
started so it doesn't
[5:50] not not relevant or the data. Um however
with that 7% increase in sales it was
[5:58] accompanied by a 13% increase in
operating dispensaries. So unfortunately
[6:07] the market is growing by cannibalizing
existing dispensaries
[6:13] and that's a problem. Um
the Vermont industry overall
[6:20] we are now considered a mature state.
We've been open for more than three
[6:24] years. Um unlike let's say New York. Um
so we you know when you first open
[6:30] everybody does really well. there's just
a few of you and then things start to
[6:35] stabilize. Um both Vermont as well as
most other states except for and there's
[6:42] 24 adult use license adult use states
legal uh in the US today. Most of them
[6:49] do not have they're not limited license
states meaning that there's a cap on how
[6:54] many licenses that could be offered of
each type. And that's unfortunate
[6:59] um because Vermont and many other states
have just issued too many licenses,
[7:06] way too many licenses. Um
unlike dispensaries serving more
[7:12] populous areas, specifically Burlington,
um and that whole area, most of us are
[7:17] just trying to survive dayto-day
um and pay rent and make payroll. Um,
[7:23] and I don't mind saying that we are
constantly still putting in personal
[7:29] monies into our business. It's a
problem. Um, it's become apparent that a
[7:34] single standalone
rural dispensary
[7:38] does not it's not a good business model
in Vermont. Um, it's how the the
[7:45] industry was specifically set up. It's
in my opinion kind of like how we're
[7:51] tacked for educational taxes. Really
well intended, really bad consequences.
[7:58] So in most states, if you get a retail
license, you can have up to three
[8:03] dispensaries. In Vermont, it was
specifically made one. Other states,
[8:08] sometimes there's two. But the point is,
when you have more than one, you can get
[8:12] economies of scale when you're
purchasing or doing anything behind the
[8:15] scenes. spread your fixed costs. You
cannot in Vermont. Um, and unfortunately
[8:23] the CCB operates out of Montpielar and
Burlington. There are there are too many
[8:30] there also, but people are have some
nice dispensaries and are surviving and
[8:35] making money. The rest of us are not.
Um, and it's a struggle to get the CCB
[8:42] to
deal with that. Um, there are some
[8:47] statistics about Vermont that might be
helpful for you and I've given it to
[8:51] them over and over again and I'll just
keep doing it. Um, according to the 2023
[8:56] census, they did an analysis
there, 84% of the towns or
[9:02] municipalities, I guess towns, we'll
call them, um, in Vermont are less than
[9:08] 4,000 in population.
64% are less than 2,000.
[9:15] 32% are less than a thousand.
We still have a CCB board member who's
[9:23] advocating for two dispensaries in every
town. We have, I believe, about 274
[9:28] towns. That would be, you do the math,
>> u more than 500 dispensaries in a state
[9:36] of 650,000 people.
Um the reason I know this is because
[9:43] we are in a moratorum right now of new
licenses for dispensaries because there
[9:49] are too many.
>> Um
[9:51] » so Montpillar did respond to the or
>> Montpillar almost was forced by our
[9:57] legislators who we complained to and
said you're killing the industry. Um,
[10:02] and let's go back to almost $und00
million, you know, in tax revenues for
[10:08] the state defers all our property taxes.
Um, you'd be killing the golden goose.
[10:15] Um, and we could be a more of a golden
goose, but unfortunately,
[10:20] um, the illicit market just thrives in
Vermont. We were a legacy state. I could
[10:27] understand why. However, and I approach
this with the CCB, on the one hand, they
[10:32] think, well, that's not our business.
It's like, well, no, yes it is. Um, but
[10:37] unfortunately,
according to the chairman of the CCB,
[10:41] who I speak with one-on-one, I speak to
all the CCB members, um, uh, law
[10:48] enforcement in in Vermont, just has
thrown up their hands and says, "Well,
[10:53] now it's legal." like, no, it's legal
for legal dispensaries. It's legal for
[11:00] someone like us who we have to pay
$10,000 a year. 10,100 because 100 goes
[11:07] to you. um for the right to sell
cannabis legally, for the right to have
[11:13] so many laws, so many restrictions,
advertising,
[11:17] um you know, can't ship through mail, um
can't deliver, um you know, we have to
[11:24] get people into our brickandmortar
store. Um you don't have that in others.
[11:29] People have we've had growers say, "Oh,
we're a free market. It's like an
[11:33] automobile
um dealership." It's like, no, you can
[11:37] have an automobile dealership in every
single town legally. You, as the owner,
[11:43] I'm only allowed to have one. You can
have economies of scale. You can even
[11:47] ship cars across state lines. We can't.
You could take orders online. You can
[11:52] It's It's that we that the CCB even
engages in conversations. I think I've
[11:58] shut that down by now by I do a lot of
public comments at their monthly CCB
[12:05] meetings. Um I I don't think we'll be
hearing too much of that, but they
[12:10] allowed a lot of talk of that during a
retail sighting workshop because they
[12:15] have to now develop laws uh excuse me
rules. Um 7VSA 33881A5F.
[12:24] Don't expect you to write that down.
>> It's recording. I'm not
[12:26] » excellent. [laughter]
states that the CCB must adopt rules
[12:30] concerning retailers, which include
location or sighting requirements that
[12:36] increase the geographic distribution of
new cannabis retail establishments based
[12:41] on population and market need. The CCB
has failed tremendously about market
[12:49] need.
As I mentioned, we're in a current
[12:52] moratorum for new locations. until they
get these rules done and they have
[12:57] started workshops and that's where we
wasted all this time about that we're a
[13:01] free market. The growers are trying to
say this and it is it is the absolute
[13:06] opposite of the definition of a free
market. A free market is supply and
[13:10] demand and the lack of of um government
intervention. This is full government
[13:15] intervention. Um, do the
growers
[13:20] » y
>> want more dispensaries because that
[13:24] gives them more customers? Is there is
there a is there a animosity between the
[13:27] growers and the retailers because the
growers want unlimited retailers because
[13:30] they can just keep selling?
>> Yes.
[13:33] » Okay.
>> Yes, to both.
[13:34] » Great.
>> So, let me and let me go further. They
[13:38] want more retailers. They also want and
the Senate passed this year. Thank
[13:45] goodness the house didn't. The ability
to sell directly and deliver directly to
[13:52] customers,
growers and manufacturers, but not
[13:56] retailers.
They don't want to pay $10,000 for the
[14:01] right to sell. They don't want a
brickandmortar business.
[14:04] » That's like a tasting at a brewer to
again to go back to alcohol at a brewery
[14:08] where they can have a tasting room and
sell direct to customers instead of
[14:10] having to distribute. Well, that would
at least that would at least require
[14:14] brick and mortar. They want they wanted
delivery.
[14:16] » That's correct.
>> Now, no other state has done this.
[14:20] There's out of 24 states I have a whole
I did a whole study in a whole grid and
[14:24] handed in as legislative testimony. Um,
not a single one has done this for
[14:31] obvious reasons. And anytime you've had
delivery, it's by retailers cuz we're
[14:36] the ones that have paid all this money
and have the POSOS system
[14:40] » to handle all of this to h, you know,
growing is very very different from
[14:45] retail and what you need to do. Um
um but worse because of the preference
[14:54] by law for small growers,
the um they were going to give they
[15:01] passed the tier one and tier two, the
two smallest classes of growers and
[15:05] manufacturers. It was going to be a
pilot program, but once you have a
[15:08] pilot, that's next. It's you know the
law is going to stay the same. All the
[15:11] rules would have been the same or they
would have fixed what it was. There were
[15:15] 385
small ret um growers and manufacturers
[15:22] who this law would have given the right
to deliver and sell directly to our
[15:28] customers and the retailers could not do
that at all.
[15:33] » But that's been stopped. Paused or
stopped?
[15:36] » It's been stopped. The Senate actually
passed this
[15:39] » but the House did not. So
>> the House did not. I think they just
[15:43] didn't want delivery at all. But so um
but but what's happening is because
[15:49] there's so many um growers because we
are an a state and I get that and the
[15:55] law does say that for small growers you
should have some you know accommodations
[16:01] but the law also states that the CCB is
supposed to regulate an equitable and
[16:06] fair market. That means no bias.
Instead, the CCB is the is I've had one
[16:13] CCB member member write to me that every
decision they make has to consider small
[16:19] growers. That is absolutely not what the
law is.
[16:23] It is a real problem. And so, but what's
happening is and the growers are they
[16:28] have a paid lobbyist who actually he got
this going or he got this passed in the
[16:35] Senate. I don't think the Senate
committee that listened to him, I know
[16:39] the House committee that listened to him
also, I didn't even know he was just a
[16:43] paid lobbyist and didn't actually have a
license in Vermont.
[16:48] And I will make sure that the
legislature understands this. Um, this
[16:53] is a this is a matter of careful of what
you wish for. Um it is wellestablished
[17:00] in other states throughout the country
too many dispensary licenses or too many
[17:07] grow licenses
hurts the industry
[17:11] price compression. Severe price
compression which we're already
[17:15] experiencing.
And guess who it hurts the worst? Small
[17:19] growers. Because what happens is their
wholesale price gets driven down so much
[17:24] they can't afford to grow it because
they're small and they don't have
[17:27] economies of scale. But nobody's putting
this together. It's a matter of
[17:32] economics. Um so it falls on people like
me in the industry to educate. So I'll
[17:38] be spending a lot of time in Montpillar.
Um and we're having a lot of legislators
[17:42] actually visit our store so that they
could see what we're doing and they
[17:46] could see that we're an homage to
agriculture. if you come in our store
[17:50] and that we so much respect um cannabis
from the growers that you know we've
[17:55] invested in this canrol system which
keeps our cannabis fresh and we hear
[18:00] from people that if they can get the
same cannabis at other stores around
[18:03] here ours is the freshest and that's we
respect our we've invested a lot of
[18:08] money in it but we have respect for our
customers. It's kind of like
[18:11] farmtotable. Right.
>> Well and it goes back to what you guys
[18:14] initially set out in your business model
which was to be the be the example.
[18:17] » Right. Right. and to do it the right
way. Right.
[18:20] » Yes. Um but so while
we've had the moratorum,
[18:27] the CCB was still allowing relocations.
So if you wanted to get out of a busy
[18:33] area and you found a not busy area and
that's great because that's what the law
[18:37] said, geographic distribution and market
need. Well, we have another dispensary
[18:43] coming into Springfield any day now.
you're going to have three within three
[18:48] and a half miles of each other
>> because they're
[18:52] » it makes no sense whatsoever.
>> Um the CCB decided it and the CCB right
[18:58] now allows the CCB can decide and has
sole discretion that there is this
[19:02] market need. They didn't even really
discuss market need. They just looked at
[19:06] the population of Springfield. Well,
guess what? I educated them afterwards
[19:10] that the mean um the average
household income in Springfield is 30%
[19:18] less than the whole state. So they need
30% less dispensaries. It's economics.
[19:24] They didn't know that. They didn't even
ask our local our It's a local um um CCB
[19:33] compliance officer. He does our annual
inspections for each of our licenses. He
[19:38] knows what's going on with each of the
dispensaries. They didn't even ask him
[19:43] his thought if there was market need. I
found this out afterwards. [snorts]
[19:48] » Let's keep moving forward.
>> You got it. So, um, so, so what's
[19:53] happening is they're now doing retail
sighting workshops with us. However,
[19:57] they're they're mostly um attended by
growers and the questions are mostly
[20:03] geared to growers. The growers want more
access, but it's not. So, by the way, in
[20:10] fairness, there are parts of the state
that need dispensaries.
[20:13] Unfortunately, the way we were opt
um in, we're an opt-in state that the
[20:20] state said it's legal, but each town has
to opt in. I've never seen this before.
[20:26] All other states are opt out,
>> right?
[20:29] » It's legal, but you say you don't want
it. So, what that has occurred is that a
[20:33] third of the state or even more than a
third of the state doesn't it in numbers
[20:37] of towns doesn't have a dispensary, but
we all know I don't live here, but I
[20:42] would shop here and you know, um I go to
restaurants here. I'm two towns away. Um
[20:48] you don't need something in every town.
Um but we need to get them we need to
[20:53] sort of incentivize getting them there.
Um as far as we're concerned 110
[20:59] licenses is the maximum. You don't need
anymore.
[21:02] » What are the conditions of lifting the
train?
[21:04] » They need to do these retail sighting
rules.
[21:06] » So it's so it's it's like us redoing our
planning rules like it's meeting after
[21:11] meeting and at some point it's going to
get approved or not.
[21:14] » Right. So there they had rules, they
proposed rules last year and and
[21:22] comments were due February of 25.
They not only had a rebuttable
[21:29] presumption that every town could have
two, if you had more than 4,000, you
[21:34] could have four. If you had more than
8,000, you could have like 10. It was It
[21:38] was so ridiculous. I figured out the
math. And again, it was over, you know,
[21:43] it was between 500 and 600 dispensaries
in the state of 650,000 people. It it
[21:48] makes no sense. And we're talking
including children, right?
[21:51] » Makes no sense.
>> Okay.
[21:52] » Um so they scrapped those because
everybody said no. Then they did the
[21:59] moratorum.
Um now they have to redevelop the rules.
[22:04] It has to go through a formal process
and then has to be the legislature has
[22:08] to say okay
>> that was my question. So the CCB doesn't
[22:12] get to say, "Okay, we finished our
rules. The mortorium's over." Correct.
[22:14] » CCB has to then go to the legislatur.
>> So, well, it's it's a public comment
[22:19] period first, which is great. That's at
least helpful. Unfortunately, our CCB is
[22:23] about, well, I received five comments on
the same topic, so therefore it's a
[22:28] popular topic as opposed to, well, this
is serious, and there's so many more
[22:31] growers than retailers. But the same
growers at these retail sighting shops,
[22:37] they keep asking for direct to consumer,
direct to consumer. But they also say,
[22:40] "I don't want to have to travel two
hours to sell to my store, from um from
[22:46] Essex, from Burlington." Well, you get
to that's what you paid for and that's
[22:52] what your license is about, right?
>> It it is so that there it it this is
[22:57] what you ask what we're up against and
it's [snorts] unbelievable.
[23:03] um fert Oh, and and by the way, within a
25 mile radius, there is one very good
[23:11] proposal where it's it's a catchment
area. You look at where somebody wants
[23:15] to put a new dispensary, either new or
relocated and then you look at the 25
[23:21] miles around it and you consider what's
going on there. So, it's not because
[23:24] town borders are absolutely arbitrary.
>> That does sound bad to look at. So you
[23:29] could if you had two in a town and then
the town line is here and you have two
[23:32] there, you've got four clustered right
there, right? So now they're looking at
[23:36] counties still arbitrary. Now they're
looking at maybe taking a state and
[23:41] saying it's six different places with
equal amounts of people, but you can't
[23:45] compare Burlington's density with
Chester's. They're they're trying to
[23:50] simplify something that's not simple.
Um, but a catchment area of 25 miles,
[23:56] I'm saying either you you now that you
have a hundred operating about and 110
[24:01] licenses, stop it there. Let people
move. But if you want to let people move
[24:07] into an area, if there's an existing
dispensary within the 25 miles, let them
[24:12] have standing at these discussions to
say there is market need or not.
[24:16] Instead, they're only allowing the new
person to decide and the CCB in its sole
[24:21] discretion. It's like there was so much
data you're not asking for and people
[24:26] you're not. So if they did that and gave
us standing, we would have stopped this
[24:30] additional Springfield dispensary. I
will tell you that the only reason we
[24:34] didn't sue the state um is because
there's two there two already there
[24:39] within two and a half miles. When a
third one goes in, which we have been
[24:43] told is within one mile from those, it's
very foreseeable one of those is going
[24:48] out of business.
>> That's right.
[24:49] » Yeah. I did what we could. I tried
meeting after meeting after they decided
[24:53] to get this undone. By the way, I was so
persuasive that they're not doing this
[24:58] right. There's now a moratorum on
relocations.
[25:02] » So that's that's positive.
>> It it is positive. It's bad for those
[25:05] who wanted to relocate to an unserved or
underserved part of state. But the CCB
[25:12] did this to themselves.
>> Um question. Um if someone wants to give
[25:17] up their license, so there's a
moratorum.
[25:19] » Yes. But let's say one of the ones in
Springfield that has a license says
[25:22] we're done. We're out of here. We can't
make it work. Can someone else purchase
[25:25] that license or does it go back into the
pool and go, "Okay, now we have one more
[25:29] available." Or is it a mortorium? Did
they fail?
[25:31] » Great idea.
>> And so we go down.
[25:33] » These are great questions. The one
that's going relocating to Springfield
[25:37] has not been operating since December of
last year.
[25:41] There is no rule about for for giving
back your license if you're not
[25:46] operating, which is absurd. Especially
when you have a moratorum. They did no
[25:51] extra scrutiny. They allowed a change in
ownership. It's a de facto brand new
[25:57] dispensary coming in.
>> So they allowed a change in ownership.
[25:59] » They allowed a change in ownership.
Yeah, you can sell these things, but
[26:02] they've not thought about this.
>> Got it.
[26:05] » And they have I've argued and argued and
I I you know I consult we paid for
[26:10] lawyers, administrative lawyers, not
cannabis lawyers. Um, we had very good
[26:15] arguments to overturn this, but would
have cost me $25,000 and I don't have I
[26:20] got to keep us alive and make payroll.
Um, so there's a lot of issues with it
[26:26] right now. Yes, you could sell license.
You have to get permission on the new
[26:29] license. [clears throat] You have to
make sure that
[26:31] » it aren't multiple. You don't that
someone doesn't own multiple
[26:35] dispensaries. They're only looking at
the people over 10%. I believe the law
[26:39] is you can't don anything in in more
than one dispensary. And I believe this
[26:44] is going on and the CCB is not doing
anything about it and putting their
[26:48] heads in the sand. Okay. Um other
threats to the industry or issues that
[26:54] have been going on, the CCB attempted to
derive what's called product equivalency
[27:00] limit. So good news, it's not all bad
news. Good news. This year the the the
[27:06] purchase limit and possession limit of
legal cannabis in in Vermont went from 1
[27:11] oz to 2 oz, which is great because
Massachusetts just did the same thing
[27:15] and we would have lost people to
Massachusetts. You should know that two
[27:19] uh New York is 3 ounces. Um this is a
great thing for all Vermonters. Um and
[27:23] it's a great thing for the industry. It
lifts all boats. Um but when we say
[27:28] product equivalency is an ounce of
flour, you can weigh it. It's an ounce
[27:32] of flour. So, how do you measure an
edible, a drink, which is an edible,
[27:36] concentrates?
They came, the CCB came up with some
[27:41] cockamy guidance. Um, it was so bad the
industry, everyone in the industry is
[27:49] such an uproar. Within weeks, they took
it back. They're now doing um new work
[27:55] groups with the industry, they're
getting smart to develop new ones. I
[27:59] mean, it went from, you know, like you
could buy eight beverages and that's it
[28:05] the equip,
>> right,
[28:07] » per ounce, right? So, I guess it would
have been 16, but you can buy cases and
[28:10] cases of beer,
>> right?
[28:12] » It was just it didn't make sense. And
then the way they applied things, they
[28:17] hammered drinks, which actually hit you
ear um sooner because it's um
[28:25] nanotechnology.
Um, and so you you get higher sooner and
[28:32] therefore you probably won't reach for
that second gummy that may not hit you
[28:37] for an hour.
>> Yet they made gummies you could buy so
[28:41] many more than the drinks. They had no
science behind it. They didn't study
[28:46] what they did.
>> They consulted with other states because
[28:48] I know
>> I was just about to say they didn't look
[28:51] at what other states
apply algebra. Yeah, it it it's I mean
[28:57] granted some of the things I don't like
about the surrounding states, but they
[29:00] didn't even do that. They they just went
beyond and I have demanded that the CCB
[29:05] needs to apply science and statistics to
their decisions. And by the way, this
[29:10] was guidance that didn't have to go
through the rule process. They could
[29:13] have kept that.
>> So the equivalency rules are suspended
[29:17] at the moment.
>> Yes. So right now it's the equivalent of
[29:20] an ounce is an ounce and whatever is the
same amount of milligrams of gummies and
[29:26] it's a lot but that's what the law's
been and that's what we're under right
[29:30] now they are. But that is one of the
work groups that they're doing right now
[29:34] with the industry to try to develop
things that make sense.
[29:39] Um, let's see. Uh, we talked about the
Vermont Senate passing, um,
[29:45] bias towards a small grower,
overreaching by the CCB. We talked about
[29:50] advertising health and wellness. So, the
law, Vermont law, prohibits in
[29:56] advertising, you cannot claim that
cannabis has any curative effects. I
[30:01] agree with that, of course. Um, instead
the CCB guidelines say you cannot make
[30:09] any claim of any positive health benefit
of cannabis.
[30:16] The science proves otherwise. The FDA
has proved otherwise. Rescheduling,
[30:21] which I should address, of medical has
proved otherwise. Um, and that's not
[30:27] even what the law is in Vermont. You're
limiting what you can say about your
[30:30] product basically
>> about well and manufacturers products
[30:32] and growers products. Meanwhile,
everybody comes in for sleep and pain
[30:36] and anxiety
>> and it's well documented that this helps
[30:40] with that. By the way, for you CBG, you
don't need THC, but CBG may can help
[30:46] with pain if you're having pain issues
for neuralg um that and you and you can
[30:51] get that in straight CBD products. CBG
is one of the becoming a more popular
[30:56] minor ca cannabonoid. Um um so
>> is that being contemplated or is it just
[31:03] that's how the law is written. So is
there is there currently an appetite to
[31:06] change that?
>> Uh I haven't convinced anyone yet but
[31:09] I'm working on it
>> that for me to understand the status is
[31:12] that that is as it was when the law was
enacted the first. Well, no. So again,
[31:17] the laws you can't say curative effects,
but the guy
[31:23] » which is and their de facto making
policy which is against administrative
[31:27] law in the state of Vermont and they've
gone they've overreached and their
[31:32] policy is effective on us and I could
lose my license. It's not effective upon
[31:38] citizens meaning it's it but I can't
lose my license. I mean, this is why we
[31:44] stopped having an expert nurse and
ganier do consultations because they
[31:50] also said that anything that has to do
anything with health belongs in the
[31:55] medical market.
>> There's no law in Vermont that states
[31:58] that and the general counsel who's doing
all this cannot provide me that law and
[32:03] I've asked multiple times.
>> All right.
[32:06] » All right. And then um uh we're getting
the workshops, the raising. Um there are
[32:13] ways to fix this, but again it's it's
the illicit market is a problem. We're
[32:16] losing tax dollars.
>> So I have a couple quick questions and
[32:19] I'm going to I am going to try and keep
it.
[32:21] » Yep.
>> Uh one question is the illicit market.
[32:23] » Yeah.
>> Uh back in 2018,
[32:26] » was law enforcement dealing with the
illicit market? Have they changed again?
[32:31] And I'm only looking for your opinion. I
don't need a whole bunch of backup. But
[32:35] in general, is it thought that in 2018
before cannabis was legal, was there law
[32:39] enforcement dealing?
>> I believe there was more law enforcement
[32:43] then.
>> And then once it became legal, it became
[32:45] easier for the illicit market to
operate.
[32:47] » Yes, I believe that that's the case.
given the nature of the illicit market,
[32:52] it's not like I can point to um but um
but the fact that law enforcement has
[32:59] said it's now legal, so I'm going to
>> I mean, it does make it harder for law
[33:02] enforcement to enforce it because you
find somebody in possession, you don't
[33:06] know where that person got it or
whatever. So,
[33:07] » oh yeah, but we're
>> we're not talking about possession.
[33:10] » And by the way, I don't want to see
anybody in jail. I've been consuming for
[33:13] 50 years. I obviously was a, you know,
member of the illicit markets, right? I
[33:18] I mean but they need fines because
everyone should have come into the legal
[33:23] market right
>> and instead because people are staying
[33:26] in the illicit market and some people
are leaving the legal market and now
[33:31] operating again in the illicit market
don't
[33:35] » right so don't so that that is our
competition
[33:39] » right
>> that is why we don't have the demand
[33:41] that is why we are our market is half of
the original projections of what our
[33:46] market would be and I had known it would
be this, I would not have opened a
[33:50] store. [laughter]
Um, but so yeah, but so we're we're
[33:54] talking about like fines and you we're
robbing the state of all these taxes
[33:59] » and it's not required to be tested, so
it's dangerous. It's a matter of public
[34:03] health,
>> right?
[34:05] » Uh are there being contemplated
increases in uh taxes
[34:12] hitting both consumers and business
operators? Are there are there any
[34:16] contemplated changes in how cannabis is
being taxed in?
[34:21] » We argue that there should be less taxes
because then you would bring more people
[34:25] from the illicit market because as soon
as you walk in my store, the same exact
[34:29] product cost 20% more.
>> Um and and many states have done that.
[34:33] I've not heard anybody talking about
raising the the excise tax uh the 14%.
[34:41] Um,
>> and I know other states have
[34:44] contemplated reducing the tax in order
to again dilute the the the market.
[34:49] » Right. Right.
>> Um,
[34:51] then to keep us focused and come to a
wrap.
[34:54] » Yeah.
>> As is interest to our local cannabis
[34:57] commission. Yeah.
>> Um,
[35:00] what if we are
[35:05] have you heard anything coming out of
Montpielar that would change or
[35:09] contemplates changing the relationship
between the local cannabis control
[35:13] commission and the CCB?
Um
[35:19] the
in the rules that were in the proposed
[35:23] rules about geograph geographic sighting
um
[35:29] there were all those rebuttable
presumptions I put out there. But one of
[35:33] the exceptions was that the local
cannabis commission could override
[35:37] everything. And I will tell you that we
are absolutely against that. And we know
[35:43] you guys are smart. Um but um by nature
you're going to be concerned about
[35:50] Chester,
but you know you can't control what goes
[35:55] on in the town next to you. So for the
very same reason it doesn't make sense
[35:59] to keep it locally, but that could to
have the local CCB have any override
[36:06] provisions on that. That doesn't mean
they can't come back again. And I hear
[36:10] that once in a while that that again
could be an exception. Um, we're all
[36:15] working against that. It doesn't mean
it's interesting.
[36:17] » We don't have the information that they
have about our sales
[36:21] » and what you're contemplating about the
catchment. A local cannabis commission
[36:24] is limited to its local orders, right?
>> And if a catchment is the way to make
[36:28] the business more equitable and
therefore better for the state, right?
[36:31] » Then creating small thieftdoms doesn't
help no look at the entire state as a
[36:39] » industry. So if anything, so you would
have to then, you know, we would argue
[36:43] that if if you were to be given that,
you know, that um that authority, um
[36:49] that you would have to then weigh market
need and that
[36:53] » well and each local each municipality or
each local commission would then be in a
[36:57] position to sit and decide we don't want
one here because we don't want to dilute
[37:01] our business or to say we want more
because we want as many business as we
[37:04] want. So it wouldn't be consistent. It
would be consistent.
[37:08] » Absolutely. Absolutely. And I Yes. And
and the the opt in opt out is how
[37:15] municipalities control this.
>> Anecdotally, are you hearing about
[37:19] communities or Julie, are you hearing
about communities that originally didn't
[37:23] opt in in 23? Are there communities now
choosing to opt in later in the years?
[37:30] » I believe what Yeah. I mean, the answer
is yes. So, uh, not Plymouth, Caendish,
[37:35] I believe, did. too. What's happening is
that all the fear-mongering about, oh,
[37:40] we're going to have crime and
delinquents and people realize that if
[37:46] anything, and by the way, studies show
in Colorado that the safest places to
[37:51] have your neighborhood is around a
dispensary because the cops are there.
[37:54] » I mean, the police in Chester love us
and we love them.
[37:59] » You know, we want to be safe and it's we
have we have more cameras than banks,
[38:03] » right?
>> Okay.
[38:04] » Yeah. So, so the answer is yes.
>> Okay. Um I pushed you through. Is there
[38:10] anything you really wanted to share with
us that we didn't get to?
[38:12] » No. And I just, you know, there's way to
fix these things and we've talked about
[38:15] a bunch of these things and um you know,
I mean, we need the law enforcement. we
[38:21] need some tighter rules or what have
you, but as citizens, I mean, I think
[38:25] that it's we all want to help growers
and other businesses, but we need to
[38:32] you don't kill you don't hurt one
vertical to benefit another. And that's
[38:36] what is they're pushing versus like, you
know, when you raise the purchase limit
[38:41] from 1 ounce to 2 ounces, you're lifting
the whole industry. Lifting the industry
[38:46] helps the public health and helps the
Vermont tax coffers. And I think that,
[38:51] you know, I say this to everyone, not
just the local CCB. And this is
[38:56] important for our legislators to hear
and especially from you guys as a local
[39:01] CCB. You know, we're not looking for a
monopoly. I mean, we're we're looking to
[39:06] Yes, price competition helps bring down
prices for consumers, but the problem is
[39:11] it's bringing it down so much that it's
just putting people out of business and
[39:15] it doesn't make sense. And by the time
once you get so low and all, we are the
[39:19] illicit market again.
It's just not sustainable.
[39:23] » Did you guys have any questions?
>> No, I think it's covered.
[39:29] » Andy, that was really, really good. I
mean that's instead of me spending hours
[39:34] and hours reading the CCG website and
trying to find the notes. So I
[39:37] appreciate
>> I do have if I can just nationally
[39:40] what's happening. So um medical cannabis
has it's not that it's been legalized
[39:48] but it's gone from schedule one to
schedule three on the control substance
[39:51] act. That is unfortunate. It's still
illegal but it's it's involving the DEA.
[39:58] Um um people are holding back. We could
get our medical endorsement. Um but I'm
[40:05] not sure I need to deal with all that.
We're trying to figure out how things
[40:08] are going. However, um they just
finished hearings about adult use also
[40:15] being rescheduled to schedule 3. That
again will not make it legal, but what
[40:21] it will do. So on top of all the other
problems and regulations that we have,
[40:27] we are be because you're if you're on
schedule one or two, we're actually
[40:31] taxed for federal tax purposes at the
gross profit level. So you can imagine
[40:35] our tax bill. If it goes to schedule
three, we no longer will be. However, we
[40:41] don't know if that means we're also then
going to be with the DEA. It's it's a
[40:45] little confusing. Um, but because of all
this and apparently and it looked bad at
[40:50] first because the administrative law
judge for the DEA cut out all these
[40:56] pro-nabis witnesses, so it looked like
this was set up to fail. Um, but uh but
[41:04] instead apparently the testimony is
actually very positive. Um, we'll see
[41:10] what happens, but like anything in the
federal government, it's we got to wait
[41:14] and see. Um, oh, and I I forgot to say
that the other really big hindrance to
[41:23] all legal cannabis is the hemp market.
>> Yes.
[41:28] » And I forgot to mention that. Yeah. So,
the hemp, just let you know, the hemp
[41:32] ban that was supposed to go in place in
November 12th of this year, it it's
[41:37] gotten pushed back a month. However,
they did outlaw um synthetic hemp. I
[41:44] mean, it's stuff that's being sold in in
gas stations, but but I it's, you know,
[41:50] the so the can the legal cannabis
industry is pushing for, you know, if
[41:57] you have hemp products that are a minor
amount of THC, it's not intoxicating,
[42:02] but it gives you the medicinal effects
and you can get CBD with it. And CBD
[42:07] doesn't go to your endocanabonoid
receptors. THC does. So, if you have
[42:12] both together, it can bring the medicine
of CBD, CBG, CBN, and our Anyway, I'm
[42:19] going too far, but um we're lobbying
that you get rid of the intoxicating
[42:25] hemp products, which can be advertised
on Facebook legally right now, which can
[42:29] be shipped through the mail right now,
and we can't fake.
[42:33] » Yes and no. There is there is hemp
products and there's some that is and
[42:37] and it's not required to be tested,
>> right? So, that is another, it's just
[42:41] not in Vermont's control. Um, and
Vermont's a little better about it, but
[42:45] Vermont says anything over one and a
half milligrams of THC is a cannabis
[42:50] product, which by the way, that's that
not that's not accurate, but fine. Um,
[42:56] there's great products that are 2
milligrams, but anyway.
[42:59] » Um, so
>> I think that's it. Of course, and if you
[43:02] think of anything else, I'm always
available. I'm try to stay on top of it
[43:06] because I have to. And if you guys don't
know or didn't remember, I wouldn't
[43:11] expect you to. I also manage an invest a
small investment fund that invests in
[43:16] legal cannabis in the US. So that's why
I'm so
[43:21] educated about laws outside of Vermont.
And we tend to be insiller and I get
[43:26] we're Vermont and we're great, but let's
learn from the lessons from other
[43:29] states. So that's my message. But thank
you guys for what you're doing locally
[43:35] and we appreciate it. and um happy to
you know be of you know a resource for
[43:40] you guys.
>> You have been and and really deep you
[43:43] and Scott and Meredith. [clears throat]
So thank you very much.
[43:45] » My pleasure.
>> Appreciate it.
[43:46] » Great.
>> Thank you.
[43:48] » All right. Um
so I can we just conversational now
[43:53] because it's just the four five of us.
Where are we at?
[43:56] » Uh number five we move on to revise
meeting schedule expectations. So I gave
[44:00] Julie the agenda and then I went and
read our whatever our founding documents
[44:05] or whatever it is that makes us and
there are no meeting expectations.
[44:08] [laughter] So as far as revising the
meeting expectations just
[44:12] conversationally and for the minutes and
for the community I um I would
[44:17] anticipate moving forward with a once
annual and as needed. um we get notified
[44:23] if somebody wants to open a retail uh
dispensary in the town and so we would
[44:29] gather as soon as that we got that
notification. Um the once annual I would
[44:34] be steering us towards immediately after
the March elections because that's when
[44:39] we reorganize and appoint from the
select board. So to get that tied into
[44:43] that, originally I had looked at the
late August, early September, honestly
[44:47] out of respect for the one license we
had to renew every year, but we don't
[44:51] actually have to renew it. So um the
other reality is that the ongoing
[44:55] license that exists in Chester renews
through the state. Um anything we do is
[45:01] is because we want to throw a party or
say something nice, but it just
[45:04] automatically renews. I thought we had
to approve the
[45:08] » I believed we did too and it it was nice
that we did it but but it's not required
[45:13] in any way, shape or form.
>> So if we move the once annual
[45:16] » con idea theory to being shortly after
the March town meeting,
[45:21] » then that lines up more easily with
appointments and any um terms that come
[45:26] up and stuff like that. Um then uh
again as a conversation and I encourage
[45:34] Julie if you have any input and Andy if
you want to join us to my mind knowing
[45:40] what we've learned in the last three
years that we've gathered
[45:43] we've done one thing we we licensed down
to the roots since then we renewed the
[45:49] down to the roots license we've had some
early community discussion and
[45:54] conversation about uh signing manage and
advertising and things like that. But
[45:58] all of that has really come into a a
place where it's working, but it's also
[46:02] directed by Moilia. Having five people
on the commission is hard because we may
[46:09] meet once a year,
>> right?
[46:10] » And we're not engaged in active stuff.
Um I said a year ago that I thought we
[46:15] should be a commission of three. Um the
issue with that is just gee, if
[46:20] something did come up and it was urgent
and we couldn't get three of us in the
[46:22] room, then we couldn't really do
anything. But I'm I would like to go
[46:27] back to the select board again on uh the
16th of September and make the
[46:32] recommendation that the board officially
be three members. In the short term, the
[46:37] three of us that the other two seats
have not been filled. The people chose
[46:40] not to return.
We can operate this way until next
[46:45] March. We don't there's no obligation to
fill those two seats. Okay?
[46:49] » Because we represent a majority. Um it
doesn't mean we have to agree. two out
[46:54] of the three of us become the majority,
but we are a quorum
[46:58] » in some cases. There may be some votes
where you do you would have to have all
[47:02] three of you and I can statutes on that.
>> But again, the thing that this
[47:06] commission
>> correct
[47:07] » would ever have to vote on
>> I would think so
[47:11] » are not like like there's one thing we
vote on [laughter] and that would be if
[47:15] there was a license and even that is a
rubber stamp. So at this point if would
[47:20] you is there anything you'd like to do
you is there a reason you would advocate
[47:23] for us to try and keep it at five or why
we think we need more
[47:27] » three works I think for what we're doing
>> why make it more complicated than it has
[47:32] to be
>> and if crazy things start happening in
[47:36] Milier and they start empowering the
local commission or they start
[47:41] » leaning on the local commission then we
can go to the select board and revise
[47:46] [snorts] and say we think the commission
needs to grow. So, my feeling is taking
[47:51] it to three means we don't sit there
with a hole on our board that looks
[47:54] weird and then if we needed to go back
up, we could go back up. Um, do you guys
[47:59] have any strong feelings about that,
>> Julie?
[48:03] » Andy, I know as a citizen, yeah,
>> the as citizen and actually as a
[48:08] commission that regulates your business.
Yeah, I I'm you know on the you would it
[48:14] is prefuncter in some ways but if we
violated our signage or zoning you could
[48:20] stop our license.
>> Correct.
[48:22] » So but but that is it. Right. It's our
it's our we have to comply with
[48:26] Chester's
>> and if and if you did or if you do the
[48:31] three of us or any three me whatever the
three members are it doesn't have to be
[48:34] us. It could
>> and you get noticed when we're renewing.
[48:38] » Exactly. So I don't see you know I'm
sure the three of you are a majority to
[48:43] a quorum you get like 30 days or
something and yeah if you don't say
[48:47] anything it just goes through.
>> Yeah.
[48:50] » I think if we were handed all of sudden
uh more authority than we currently
[48:58] have. I think there would be pressure
from the community to expand the
[49:03] » and I wouldn't fight it. I would
appreciate that. I but we've sat for
[49:07] three years
asking every opportunity we get well
[49:11] where's our authority what is our role
what can we do and the answer has come
[49:14] back consistently less and less and less
so
[49:16] » until that changes and I bet we'll hear
about it if it's going to change
[49:20] » um and that would give us some time
>> I think Andy made the point that the
[49:23] fear local fear of you know all hell
breaking loose because there's pot in
[49:30] town uh is gone so
>> has has not manifest
[49:35] » Yeah. Yeah, I would agree. Um, so I will
uh with your support make that statement
[49:42] or that recommendation on our behalf as
a commission to the select board in two
[49:46] weeks.
>> Good job.
[49:48] » Great. Thanks. Um,
that brings us to item number seven. Any
[49:53] new business?
Julie, is there any new business for
[49:57] this board commission?
>> Um,
[50:02] barring anything else, I think that
brings us to the end. I'll entertain a
[50:05] motion to adjurnn.
>> Is that a motion to adjourn the meeting?
[50:10] » Second the motion to adjourn the
meeting.
[50:12] » Thank you. The motion is Tom, second is
Charles. All those in favor of
[50:15] adjourning the meeting say I.
>> I.
[50:17] » Excellent. Thank you very much. And
Julie, thank you for being our official
[50:22] notetaker.
>> You're welcome.