[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.

Local Cannabis Control Commission 9/3/26

Transcript