August 5, 2024 — Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:02] We are, live. Okay, cool let's go ahead and read, welcome to the august 5th city of Boulder cannabis, Licensing and Advisory Board. Let's go ahead and start with the virtual meeting. Yes, good afternoon. This is for public participation at the beverage, licensing authority and cannabis, licensing advisory board meetings. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives. More about this vision and the project's community engagement process can be found on the website displayed.

[1:08] The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised Code, and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. participants are required to sign up to speak. using the name they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. The Q. And a function should only be used for technical questions to staff and should not be used for public comment.

[2:01] Okay. Thank you, and we have a new board member to be sworn in. Welcome. Dell Greiser. Hi! Everyone. Hi, Joe, thank you for being here today and welcome to Clab. Go ahead and get you sworn in. So the oath of office is located on page 14 of your packet. I'm going to go ahead and pull it up here on the screen as well. So Dell, if you could please raise your right hand perfect! And then, if you could go ahead and just read that oath of office for us. I, dell Kreiser, do solemnly swear. affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and of the State of Colorado and the charter and ordinances of the City of Boulder, and faithfully perform the duties of the office of a member of the Cannabis Licensing and Advisory board

[3:03] which I am about to enter. Perfect. Thank you. Welcome to the board. Thank you. Dell, do you want to give just a 2 liner background, or 3 liner, or whatever for those that don't know you. Sure. My name's Dale Kreiser. I'm a boulder resident. I moved here from the East coast back in 2,000 for the past 15 years I've worked in the licensed cannabis industry in a variety of roles. early my career, I worked for 3 different local, vertically integrated companies. as a general manager. For the past 9 years I worked at a analytical testing laboratory in Denver, Colorado. You welcome alright. Next on the agenda member roll call.

[4:00] Thank you. Member Foster. Here. Vice chair, Keegan. Present. Member, Kreiser. Here. Chair Kuntzman. Present. Member, noble. Present. Ex officio member, Decalo. you. And that is what I have. I did receive an email from Member Green that she will not be on until about 5 or so unexpectedly and ex-official member, Thompson will not be available, due to a power outage that is unresolving at this time. Yep. You have a quorum. And just to make it obvious, we still have one seat open. Correct. Just checking. Okay, so now we have minutes from May 6, 2024. Are there any comments, corrections, suggestions?

[5:08] If none, I'll entertain a motion to approve. I move to approve those minutes. Second on that. Brian Seconds Robin's Motion. And Kristen, are you okay with just a hand vote for any of you want? Do? Or do you want a hand vote, or do you want abstention. It needs it. It needs to be some type of verbal for those that are visually impaired. Okay, why don't we do Handbook? Then all in favor. I. I. I but. Everyone voted. Hi. It's the. I'm hearing. I'm sorry I'm hearing all eyes, and no nays. Is that correct? Yes, everyone's hand was up, too. Thank you. Yeah, I'm typing and looking at the screen both times. So I may not always capture. So

[6:04] a hand vote sometimes isn't as effective for me as I would like. I appreciate that, though. Okay, we're ready to move on to general public comments for the Board. Agenda. Item number 2 general public comments to the board. Public comments will be limited to 3 min per speaker. A video display of the timer will be presented if anyone is here wishing to speak as to the general public comment. please raise your hand using the raise hand feature. I'm not seeing any callers. So I'm seeing that we have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. At this time. We'll begin with the 1st one. Let me get my screen displayed. So before you start. Kristen, Adam, do you want to? Do you wanna raise your suggestion that you raised me?

[7:02] We we see who is all in the list of potential speakers. I do? They're they're I, I believe. is someone who who wanted to comment. Dr. Adam. who is an addiction psychiatrist and wanted to offer some comments, and I I did want to see if the chair might be willing, in the exercise of his discretion, to give Dr. Adonoff a a couple extra minutes in addition to the standard 3 min. If if Dr. Adonov needs that he's been an addiction researcher for about 30 years now, and has some points to make that, I think are going to be relevant to our discussion. But I'm I'm not sure if he's going to be able to get through it in in 3 min. So

[8:00] not to confuse, because then we have 2 Brian's. We're talking about Brian Keegan and I had a short conversation beforehand rather than decide unilaterally. I asked Brian Keegan what he thought. and I'm wondering if I'm trying to make it fair. And one suggestion to make it fair might be to give the petitioner who are submitted the policy suggestion form 5 min. Also. Robin. Okay, I just initially my gut on. This would be that if we were to give everybody 3 min to make a statement, which is, I think, the expectation of people who've joined the call, because that's what's out there. And then, if we have follow ups for any of the people who

[9:01] join. Then we could follow up, and that's sort of a best practice I've seen at the Capitol in hearings that everybody does get the same amount of time. But if you have follow up questions, we can board. Members can ask a follow up question, and not necessarily, as these people speak, but in follow up after we hear from everyone. That's my suggestion. Thank you. How does that sound to you at Boston? you know I I kind of preferred the idea of of. If the proponent of the suggestion form would like 5 min to giving that individual the the same amount of time. The the reason is just flow of the comments. You know, someone gets to talk for 3 min. and then they have to go back to the end of the line, and then we're waiting to see what they have to say after the discussion has progressed. Then we have to try to remember what they were saying. However, many speakers before. And you know, I I think the flow is gonna gonna work better. If you know, we just grant a couple of those people 5 min, but certainly given the same amount of time to the proponent of the the suggestion would be just fine with me.

[10:16] Brian Keegan. What do you think. I'm a fan of equity and simplicity. So where I sit in this moment, I would be a fan of yeah, the 5 min to the of the the form submission, and then 5 min for Dr. Adna. Okay. But let's bear in mind that the people who are on to speak may be prepared for the expectation of 3 min. So to some degree. That's a little bit of a disadvantage. If we're thinking about it as advantages or disadvantages. it's not easy to prepare remarks for 3 min. When you have a lot of things that you want to say. And our petitioner, you know, did did present some written things. So we we have that as well.

[11:11] Well, Anna, Anna doesn't necessarily have to. She may receive questions, and therefore it may go on 5 min. which we've done before. Also, too. Chair. Kunstman, if I may. I would like to remind the attendees in the wait in the room that the chat, as noted previously, is to be used for technical items only. We will not be responding to any questions, comments, or other items. It is only for technical issues. Should you be having trouble with the Zoom Meeting. Thank you. Dr. Dell, you want to write weigh in?

[12:00] Oh, you're mute. I'm sorry not at this time. I'm just want to get my feet wet first.st I'm fine with whatever the board she drives it through. Zach. I'm open to equal opportunity. I think that's fair to hear both sides with the I could see it, you know, getting a little prolonged with the rebuttal and questions. But I'll I'll let the voting members vote if that's what's needed. Robin. Oh. when you're retracting your hand. Well, I just got a text. There's a person on Mila who's hoping she can speak earlier because of a work commitment. She has coming up. So I don't know, Kristen, how you order people, but for what it's worth. That person is asking for an opportunity to speak within the next 30 min. So they are. Yes, they are put in order by automatically by the system, by how they raise their hands, unless I received a direction, else wise.

[13:03] Okay, and I believe a few people joined after you gave the raise, you know. Raise your hand, request. If you're interested in making general public comment as it stands now. With normal procedures. However, there we are in discussion that there is a 3 min Google timer that will be displayed if you are interested in speaking during general public comment, please use the raise hand function at the bottom of your screen. And Mila doesn't. Now I'm seeing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 speakers. Still a hand is not up yet. No, it is not. Be glad to let her go first, st unless there it is. Okay. Robin, do you think that she would prefer to go first? st Or do you think Anna would like to go first.st I think I I'm not sure but I know Mila's work. Commitment is after about 30 min. So for what that's worth, Tom, I'll let you.

[14:06] How about we take it? Anna Brian! And then Mila. That sounds good. Okay. Okay. Anna. To allow her to speak 1.st One moment. And I apologize that I didn't give you a heads up that you were. Gonna have more time if you wanted but probably just overheard the discussion. You're you're allowed up to 5 min that could include questions for you. If that's okay. Can I go now? I'm going. I'm just in the I'm working on sharing my screen. One moment, please. The timer.

[15:01] You may begin. It's a bit. Good afternoon and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. Today I'm a parent of a child who has been impacted by Thc. Concentrates. I am here to speak about concerns that I and many other parents have about the ready and legal availability of Thc concentrate products that have not been tested nor determined to be safe for human consumption. When Colorado voters legalized recreational medical marijuana sales, there were no restrictions on Thc potency because concentrates were largely unknown and untested at the time. Voters such as myself believed they were legalizing flower products which many of us know and have used. However, there's been a massive bait and switch, as all products in any way derived from marijuana plants are now legal, including concentrates that can have up to 99%. Thc, this is like legalizing the coca leaf for its many recognized medicinal purposes, and being told afterwards that legalization also covers crack cocaine. The little research that has been done on Thc concentrates has identified a concerning correlation between potency, frequency of use, age of users, and serious, non-reversible mental health conditions, such as psychosis and schizophrenia.

[16:08] A 2019 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry found that 12 to 50% of cases of 1st psychosis could be prevented if high potency cannabis were no longer available. Why do we knowingly allow the sale of a product which is essentially a game of Russian roulette, where a significant percentage of users will develop serious, non reversible mental health conditions. Thc, concentrates are having an outside negative impact on Colorado youth, particularly boys. This year, when my son arrived for treatment at elements, wilderness therapy, a substance abuse treatment program for boys in Utah. 5 of the 8 patients in his group were from Colorado front range and Thc concentrates were the drug of choice for all of them that should really raise concerns. That. Given that, this is a program that takes patients from across the United States, and 2 thirds of the patients were from this area and addicted to Thc concentrates.

[17:04] Lynn Smith, licensed clinical social worker and founder of the program told me he remembers when Thc concentrates 1st appeared on the market. Previously, he said, kids, he saw use. Marijuana usually had issues with motivation. After the advent of concentrates, he said, marijuana users began to present like patients with addictions to other hard drugs like meth and cocaine, exhibiting anger, violence, and aggression. Furthermore, laboratory research on the processing of cannabis oils using distillation, other concentration methods determined that, in addition to concentrating Thc, these methods also concentrate pesticides. fungal mycotoxins, bacterial toxins, and harmful microbial metabolites and heavy metals from plants. The current Colorado strategy of legalizing all potencies of Thc. While trying to educate teens about the risks of failure. Teenagers are naturally curious and prone to experimenting kids who might be apprehensive about experiment with illegal street drugs like Lsd Fentanyl cocaine, or meth believe that Thc concentrates are safe to use and experiment precisely because they are legally sold in Colorado.

[18:11] And conversely, they believed that if Thc concentrates were dangerous, the State wouldn't knowingly allow the sale. How, furthermore, heavy heavy marketing communicates the message that not only are concentrates safe and legal, but they're healthy for you with medicinal value. Therefore education campaigns on concentrates are the equivalent of talking out of both sides of your head. No wonder these campaigns have 0 impact and credibility? Do I have to stop or. One moment. Sorry. Okay. As Colorado parents, we are the ones dealing with the collateral damage of the State's decision to legalize any and all Thc products without potency. Since you can't die from marijuana, there's no detox program available, only short-term residential programs. However, since Colorado

[19:00] also has a law that the age of 15 teenagers can make their own medical decisions. Impacted teens can immediately check themselves out of treatment. As a result, parents must pay exorbitant fees to send their kids out of state, or watch helplessly, as their kids continue to deteriorate in front of their eyes, some cases ending in suicide. As I understand it, the Clab Mission includes the protection of public health. What is Clab going to do about the sale of concentrates which have not been tested for safety on for human consumption and serious non reversible effects on a significant number of users. Thank you. Thank you, Anna, any questions for Anna. The board. The board. Anna, thank you so much. Thank you. Forward. What's appreciated. I know it's hard. Thank you. Thank you. Well, thank you. Okay. Dr. Adenov.

[20:09] Can you hear me? Yes, one moment, please. I'm having some screen share issues. One moment. Okay, Mr. Adenoff. Your time begins now. Thank you. Chairs, kuntsman and committee members. My name is Brian Adnol. I'm an addiction psychiatrist, neuroscientist and advocate. I'm here representing doctors for drug policy reform or D, 4, Dpr, it's an international group of several 100 physicians and other medical professionals who support Colorado's regulation and legalization of cannabis, not as prohibition at all levels of potency. We are not affiliated with cannabis industry prior to moving to Colorado in 2,018, upon retirement from full-time Academia. I was a distinguished professor of alcohol and drug Abuse research at the University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

[21:07] and for over 30 years I was positioned in the Department of Veterans Affairs. I've published and spoken widely on the biological effects and treatment of addictive disorders, and a meditor in chief of the American Journal of Drug and alcohol abuse. I'm also a clinical professor at Cu Anschutes medical campus. When we see that something concerns us. Many people react instinctively with fear, and believe that banning whatever concerns us will be helpful. This belief persists, even if decades of experience tell us that prohibition doesn't help, and it's, in fact, harmful. And even if there are much safer, inexpensive, and less controversial ways to protect our communities, our families, and ourselves, I will quickly present 5 reasons why d. 4 Dpr. Poses a potency cap. First, st it is important to recognize psychosis is typically transient and self limiting schizophrenia. A long term disabling illness evidenced by persistent psychosis is a different thing altogether.

[22:06] However, most of the relevant scientific literature is about cannabis, potency, and psychosis, not schizophrenia second while rates of schizophrenia have gone up 50% over the past several decades. The potency of cannabis has gone up 10 to 20 fold. If cannabis potency is causing schizophrenia. Then why aren't rates of schizophrenia going up as well? And I want to add that the arguments that we just heard are the same arguments I heard about cannabis growing up in the sixties, and have heard for 50 years. Now. 3, rd the association between cannabis, potency and schizophrenia has not been shown to be plausible. Quite the opposite. Scientists have observed that developing schizophrenia is 80% predicted by one's genetic makeup. and the same genes that increase the likelihood of schizophrenia.

[23:00] Schizophrenia also increase the likelihood of heavy cannabis. These genes are tightly linked together. 4, th in a discussion about capping potency there is a near silence for the rational on what cap is proposed. If you explore the scientific literature on high versus low potency, you'll see that high, low, high versus low potency. Distinction is variously described as concentrates versus the cannabis plant. or high, more than 15 or 19% or 25%. Thc versus low potency, 10 or 8 or 6%. In fact, the scientific literature frequently identifies high potency. Thc, is what is now considered low potency. So suggesting that a potency cap, let's say 30% Thc is meaningless from an evidence based perspective because there is no broad consistence in literature about the definition of high potency.

[24:01] 5, th and finally, drug prohibition is drug prohibition, and leads to all the problems associated for decades with prohibition, illegal and unregulated markets, disproportion, arrest of people of color, contaminated products of unknown potency and origin of the result. This is why most juridictions in the Us. Are now moving away, or have moved away from fighting a war against prohibition. The harms associated with criminalizing cannabis ended up being worse than the risk associated with the regulated market. These risks are most effectively addressed through evidence based education. Thank you for the time and the extra time. Thank you, Dr. Adnoff. Any questions from the Board for Dr. Adnoff. Robert. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Adenov. I just wonder if you seem potentially unaware of some of the work that your colleagues have done at Colorado School of Public Health. And then the subsequent recommendations that they've made these recommendations were not necessarily about outlawing certain things, but they were about

[25:19] changing the trajectory of how much high potency Thc. Is available and protecting particularly vulnerable populations. I'm just wondering if you're aware of that groups. It's the cannabis research and policy project team. I'm very aware I've read it carefully. I've tried to correspond with them about it, but I haven't heard back. It's interesting that the Legislature had previously received a report from Public Health and Environment Department that did not make such conclusions. So this time around the bill specifically requested that the public policy from Cu do it. What this report did was say specifically, we can make make no evidence based.

[26:09] Conclusions. But since there's a chance that there may be a concern. We need to go ahead and do something about it and and do this, do everything they're doing now. And so, in fact, they said, we don't know. The research is still out. We can't make conclusions. But just in case we need to go ahead and and put on this big public display that there's dangers when in fact, we don't know. I think there is always danger in that and saying, and and this is why why kids don't believe so much of what is told to them about drugs. I grew up during the don't say just say no during dare, where all these things that were not true were stated, and they were eventually dismissed by the kids

[27:02] because we didn't. We didn't have evidence to support what we were saying. I fear that we are in exactly the same place now. Okay. And I really appreciate those thoughts and remarks. But I would clarify that the precautionary approach that this particular group put forward is based on the fact that there is a lot of emerging evidence that is concerning. And so is it exactly proof or causal? No, but there has been a lot of scientific research that has emerged since these concentrated products have hit the market that show harms to people in different vulnerable positions, like pregnant and nursing mothers, nursing babies, young people who are in the middle of brain development, and people who have mental health problems. So for what it's worth, I don't think, they concluded, there's no evidence. But we should be careful. I think the precautionary approach that they recommend is based on the fact that there is evidence.

[28:09] even though it's not as exactly conclusive as we would all like for it to be in one direction or another. Thank you. Other questions from Dr. Adenov. Okay, then I'm gonna let Mila go next. Alright! Alright! Mila! Okay, can you guys hear me? I can. However, you don't have your last name. I do need your last name for the record, if you please. Sure. Yeah. My name is Mila Long, LONG. LON. I'm sorry LONT as in Tom. Gee! Like the word long. Yeah, perfect.

[29:01] Thank you. All right. Okay. Your time being. I know. Okay, I am in the car, so I'm going to do my best. I didn't prepare, but my name is Mila, and I am 1st of all, person in recovery from substance, use, disorder as well as an addiction, specialist. substance, abuse, counselor, registered psychotherapist and trauma therapist. I work specifically with teens and young adults. I want to just say that there has not been enough research when it comes to the concentrates. They have not been tested for safety. In humans. There are a lot of additional chemicals, we know are added to these products. Psychosis is becoming more and more prevalent. The amount of teenagers and young adults that I've worked with that are struggling with because specifically of their use of concentrates is enormous. Obviously, we know that these these people may have some predisposition. That is not a reason to say that, you know. We, we should just allow everyone to consume concentrates when we're seeing such high numbers of psychosis, schizophrenia, and things like that increasing

[30:05] I know teens who are now in institutions that will never be functional or independent ever again in life, and the only thing we can point to is their cannabis and concentrate use. I've worked in this field a long time, and I never saw these problems with addiction to cannabis. Like we do today. Now that the concentrates have been on the market and the potency has been increasing. we're also seeing a lot of poly substance use. You know, we've always said beat is a gateway drug, right? But we're seeing that even more so. Now I will say that I am in all of the Boulder Valley School district schools and high schools, as well as other Schoolsville, Denver County schools and presenting to teenagers and the amount of teams that we get coming up to us after our presentations, or writing anonymous questions and comments sharing about their experience with Thc, their negative experience is incredible.

[31:00] we're seeing that, you know. A lot of the teenagers coming up and talking to us are telling us about their help. Their mental health has gotten worse since using Thc. Their anxiety depression as a counselor working with teens. I'm seeing this become very prevalent. We know that drugs and alcohol and thc, right? It changes the brain and stunts the brain development, which is also a huge issue, and I believe we are seeing more evidence of that with the concentrates as well. I also work for the craft program working with parents, and pretty much every single parent we have come into that program to learn how to help their kids is there because their child is using thc, you can say that these are helicopter parents, right? Or that they're just, you know, freaked out over nothing. But that is not true. The signs and symptoms of cannabis use disorder, align with my signs and symptoms of someone who was in a heroin addict. Right? These people, when they are stopping Thc. They are having incredible withdrawal symptoms. They're experiencing psychosis. They are.

[32:04] you know, in a very, very poor place, mentally, emotionally and physically. And we can't. Just we can't say that Thc. Has nothing but benefits when we are seeing, you know, this enormous outpour of real evidence showing the negative and harmful effects of the concentrates. So thank you so much. Right. Thank you, Mila. As customers. Anyone have any questions for Mila. Apologies. I lost her. Oh, that's true! Does look like that! No, I'm I'm getting her back one moment. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Any board members, with any questions. I just want to also say, I appreciate you, Mila. I know you do really important work with young people in our community, and I appreciate you for speaking up. Thank you.

[33:02] Yes, thank you. Great. Let's take them in the order you have them, Kristen. Now. All right. Next up is Becca Venturella. Yes. Okay. Time begins, now. Alright. Good afternoon. My name is Becca Venturella. I am a program and advocacy director for blue Rising. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Today. I'm here to address the serious concerns about the widespread availability of high potency Thc concentrates and their impact on public health. particularly for vulnerable populations like new mothers and individuals with anxiety. Colorado's legalization of marijuana has resulted in a market that includes products with extremely high Thc levels. These concentrates can reach potency levels that pose significant risks which many consumers may not fully understand. As someone who has experienced the negative effects of these products. 1st hand, I can attest to their potential dangers. Several years ago, after experiencing postpartum symptoms, I sought help and was directed to a marijuana dispensary. There I encountered staff, who, despite having no medical qualifications, offered me what amounted to medical advice.

[34:19] They recommended and sold me various high potency items, including sublingual oils, powders, and edibles of different potencies, even suggesting their use while I was breastfeeding. The outcome was devastating, resulting in my anxiety, skyrocketing, and leading to severe consequences for my overall wellbeing research on the effects of high potency. Cannabis products, shows concerning trends. A Canadian study found emergency room visits for cannabis use linked to 3 times higher risk of anxiety, disorder, diagnosis. Within 3 years young users 10 to 24, and males were highest at risk, with 9 times higher likelihood for future anxiety, related healthcare visits.

[35:00] Recently the Cdc. Has issued a statement saying, chemicals from marijuana can pass from a mother to her infant through breast milk. This includes marijuana in any form, such as edibles, oils, and other concentrates. The chemicals can potentially affect a newborn's brain development and result in hyperactivity. Poor cognitive function and other long-term consequences. Our current strategy of allowing unrestricted sale of high potency products while attempting to educate about the risks is inadequate. Many consumers, especially younger ones, perceive these products as safe precisely because they're legally sold. We are not. We are asking for your help. This is a real problem, especially to those who are most vulnerable, including new mothers, individuals with mental health concerns, and our youth. Thank you for your time and consideration on this critical issue. Rebecca. Is there are there any questions for Becca

[36:03] that customer. Next on our list is Avani Dilger, and I do apologize if I mispronounced. You did. Great, thank you. All right. Your time begins now. Thank you. Thank you so much for having me. My name is Avani Dilger, and I have lived in the city of Boulder for the last 27 years, and have in the last 25 years worked as a substance abuse counselor. I also run the nonprofit natural highs, healthy alternatives to drugs and alcohol, and we work with over 2,000 teens and families every year, including in Boulder Valley schools. We are funded by the city of boulders, substance, abuse, education, and awareness, grant, and by the health equity grant, so that we can provide healthy alternatives to substances to all of the city of boulders residents. So I have worked as a substance abuse counselor in this community now for over 25 years, and I have to say I have never seen the high number of incidences of psychosis and cannabis hyperemesis syndrome that really started with the availability of high Thc products.

[37:19] The problem is, and this is why so many people are not aware of it that there's so much stigma around psychosis and specifically cannabis hyperemesis syndrome that people are not coming forward with it. People suffer in the shadows by themselves. Parents suffer without speaking up, and don't know how to get help. You know we go into classrooms in the city of Boulder, and we teach about psychosis and symptoms to watch for. And sometimes we have classrooms where more than half of the students raise their hand. If we ask them if they experience psychosis like symptoms, you know, like paranoia and symptoms like that. You know, we have an idea of where the line could be drawn. So, for example, in the Netherlands, they have drawn the line as 16% where anything under 16% thc. Potency is not getting prosecuted. Everything above 16% is treated as a hard drug and prosecuted

[38:19] high Thc products can also be connected to violence, to the increase in violence. And I'm surprised by the addiction psychiatrist and his opinions because I work with an addiction psychiatrist, Dr. Libby Stout, who's retired now and is, has now made it her mission to nationwide warn people of the effects of high Thc products specifically how they relate to violence. And so, for example, that most of the mass shooters that are now shootings that are now happening in the Us. The shooter is actually using high Thc cannabis. So the other big concern I have is that most young people we work with. They are actually vaping high Thc products. So up to 99% Thc, and the misconception is that vaping would be the healthiest version of using Thc or cannabis, you know, and that's where we see now the biggest concern that both parents and teens are not aware.

[39:21] Apologies. One moment sorry. Yeah, so that people are not aware at all. And in our community presentations, you know, when we teach people about the potency, the fact, for example, that before legalization the average potency was under 5%, people just don't know about the increase in potency and what that could mean in terms of mental health, fallout, psychosis, cannabis, hyperemesis, all these new developments that we really haven't seen before the onset of high Thc products.

[40:01] Thank you, Avani. Any questions from the board probably. Thank you and thank you, Afane. And I appreciate all the incredible work you're doing in the community on the ground. I wondered if you could tell us just a little bit about what a family that's in crisis, what kind of treatment options they have locally. So that's probably one of the biggest obstacles we're running into now, because I can think about one case, and of course, because of confidentiality. I have to keep it vague, but we had a case of a young man. So he was about 20 years old. in such an acute state of high risk for violence that we really went, you know, and tried to find a treatment center for him. And then eventually, we found a treatment center who was willing to take him, but they discharged him immediately because they couldn't handle the violence that came with his withdrawal. The next step was, he was put on a mental health hold because he was deemed violent.

[41:02] and the hospital that did the mental health hold. They discharged him immediately because they couldn't handle the withdrawal symptoms that he had because he was so dangerous. So this is now the issue we're seeing. And again, right? You can imagine there's so much stigma. Nobody talks about that. No family would say. You know, we are actually scared of our child being violent or being psychotic. People are left to their own devices, and we to be honest right now, I don't know a treatment center in Colorado where we could send people, because treatment centers cannot handle the withdrawal symptoms of high Thc. Cannabis. Soon ready to move on. Certainly. Next on our list is Ryan Pole.

[42:05] Hello! Hello, Mr. Polk, your time begins. Now. Hi! My name is Ryan Paul. I am your director for Eclipse Cannabis Company. We're a single licensed recreational dispensary, located and founded right here in Boulder in 2,018 we are the type of business that Boulder claims. They support a small, independent mom, and Pop, who does the right things compliantly and pays their taxes on time. But the impact that the policy proposal today to ban sale concentrates in boulder would have on our business and our boulder customers would be catastrophic. Concentrates as a category make up over 50% of our sales. Concentrates are a majority of what adults in boulder want to buy. It would be financially impossible to operate without losing a product category that is responsible for that much of our revenue. Aside from the overwhelming harm this would do if actually passed, the policy wouldn't accomplish anything. Safety related.

[43:00] Losing a category of that size would only send customers to make their purchases in neighboring areas, taking tax money away from our city, while assuredly forcing our small business to close. Since our inception we have been sought out by boulder residents because we have focused our business around providing the highest quality concentrates not all medicinal cannabis users seek out a medical card, and they come to us for a compliant and safe experience to learn about and purchase concentrates responsibly. We talked to them about in concentrates, higher concentrations of terpenes can have different effects. We talked to them about how vaporizing concentrates can be more beneficial to reducing the harm on one's lungs and throat in comparison to combustion smoking. We talked to them about the different effects these various categories provide, and how they can be consumed responsibly, and how certain categories provide different levels of relief in different ways. And we have these conversations with customers daily, despite us being a quote, recreational marijuana business. an outright ban would only push customers into seeking concentrates out through the illicit market, where dangerous untested products cause incredible amounts of harm rather than providing them with a regulated and compliant independent store like ours, where we continue to educate on the advancements in technology, testing

[44:16] and holistic benefits surrounding cannabis. Thank you for your time, and we look forward to continuing to serve the boulder community. Students in the Barton. Robert. Gosh, I'm sorry to dominate, but I do have questions. I really appreciate you, Mr. Poll, for coming forward. And it really sounds like you guys have invested a lot of time into educating people who come into your business and want to buy your products and use them safely. And I really commend you for that. I had 2 questions. I wonder if you think that that's the kind of thing that's happening throughout the boulder cannabis community. And then, secondly, I just wonder what you tell your customers about. Maybe just an example. What do you tell them about cannabis, hyperemesis, syndrome.

[45:17] in regards to the 1st question, as a community? I can't speak to the community at large. I have work worked for another company and Mso with multiple locations across the State which does focus on compliance and public policy. I know that you know a lot of these companies do take their employees through training programs where they talk about how to speak to cannabis without making the hard medicinal claims. I know that there are a number of companies that go through safe serve training similar to you know, bartenders and serving alcohol as well. So I I as a as a member of this community? I like to uphold, and hopefully, you know. See that everybody else is

[46:09] you know, uploading that same standard. But I can't speak for everybody on that topic. in terms of speaking to ces that is something that I don't believe comes up a lot in our conversations. As a recreational dispensary. It's a lot of introductory conversations and topics when it comes to what a concentrate is how concentrates are utilized. The differences amongst categories there. When customers start talking about symptoms in that sense. There we do refer them to talk to a medical professional in that sense. There. Our team is coached specifically that they are recreational. You know, marijuana suppliers. So medicinal claims are definitely something that we are against here personally. So

[47:04] we can't, you know, make anything out of sense. Now. Okay, understood. Thank you. So. Thank you, Ryan. Are you familiar with the educational handout that I, as I understand it, is going to be mandated to be handed out with the sale of concentrate starting August 7.th Yes, we've also been, you know, previously providing a What is it? The yeah. There's a service, you know. There's a serving size, recommendation. And there is a pamphlet that talks about. The psychosis effects of canvas. That's been something we've been handing out and providing for our customers since last year.

[48:01] So it's a it's a 4 pager. Is that right? I don't know if it has. Everybody seen that. Yes. How do you feel? I mean, just, I'm curious about your comments, about the effectiveness of how that will work. In order to be honest. See, I don't know if there is a major effect in terms of that. A lot of consumers that come in seeking concentrates. They, you know, they look at that, and they see it as information. you know the serving side is is is a recommendation serving size, but I feel like consumers. you know, in terms of alcohol as well. You can recommend a 1 ounce poor or one ounce shot, but that doesn't necessarily stop somebody from either overdoing it or under doing it.

[49:00] it provides a good level of education, but I still think that there can be advancements in terms of that. I feel like it's a lot of warning. But I don't know if there's a lot of education in terms of it? If that makes sense. Thank you and other questions from the board. Okay, I think we're ready for Truman. Hello! Can you hear me? Sir. Mr. Bradley, your time begins. Now. Good afternoon, members of the Collab. My name is Truman Bradley. I'm the executive director of the Marijuana Industry Group, the Trade Association for licensed Colorado cannabis businesses. I grew up in Boulder attending Southern hills, Middle School, Fairview High School, and then cu both for undergrad as well as an Mba. I'm providing comment as someone who has participated in boulders cannabis policy matters for nearly 15 years.

[50:05] I'm also testifying as someone who has 2 young children living in my home while well intentioned. The proposal to limit Thc. Purity in boulder is a truly terrible policy idea. The support is primarily anecdotal rather than based in hard science. Since prohibition ended, youth use of marijuana has gone down, not up. The Cdphe. Healthy kids survey shows this here in Colorado, and studies nationally show the same thing right now. Youth use of cannabis is the lowest ever in Colorado since they started tracking it 18 years ago. Before rec legalization, 22% of high schoolers said they had tried marijuana in the last 30 days. Now we're down to 12.8%. That's a 41.8% drop in youth use. There's a lot more work to be done, but I promise you that restricting Thc limits in dispensaries will not reduce will not reduce youth use it will increase it. Restricting Thc levels will make kids less safe because it takes marijuana products out of the hands of the regulated market where they are tested, sold in child resistant containers, where ids are checked twice at every sale, and where every inch of dispensaries must have video surveillance for at least 30 days.

[51:17] Last year Colorado sold about 600 million dollars in marijuana, concentrates a prohibition on a product of this magnitude would overnight create a massive illicit market here in Boulder. Why would you take the most popular marijuana product category? Remove it from an industry that has a 99% compliance rate on underage, sting operations, and gift, wrap it for an illicit market that cares nothing for the safety of our children. The question before you isn't whether there should be high purity products in boulder concentrates were here when I graduated high school in 1,999, and they'll be here regardless of what you do with this proposal. The real question is whether you want concentrates sold in dispensaries where kids cannot get access, or whether you want them to be sold behind the school to your kids and mine.

[52:05] There are numerous other arguments against prohibition which I don't have time to get into, including unfairly targeting people of color, increasing the risks for all marijuana consumers and incentivizing home hash production. Remember, when people were doing this in their garages and blowing themselves up the better path forward is to build on what's working fund evidence-based education for youth partner with industry on public service, announcements to make sure that adults who use cannabis are locking it up in the home focus on the unregulated market for hemp derived intoxicants. The 1st function of the clab is to support economic development while protecting public health and safety. This Thc limit proposal does the exact opposite. If I can, I just want to point out that we are not allowed to give medical advice so the commenter from the boulder dispensary. None of those folks are allowed to give medical advice. Mr. Kuntzman.

[53:06] Thank you. Chairman. Questions. Adam. Thank you. Truman. Could could you say a few brief words about the educational materials that license cannabis stores are required to provide to adults right now, and what is changing on Wednesday, August 7.th Yeah, sure, happily so. legislation was passed prior to this session that required that cdphe and med decide on a tangible educational resource for the sale to be provided for the sale of all concentrates. This, as Mr. Kuntzman pointed out, is a 4 page document that includes, among other things, a serving size as well as some statements that Cdphe

[54:05] wanted to be included in there around some of the potential risks of using concentrates. The only thing that's changing this year is that instead of providing the tangible educational resource, now, dispensaries will be required to physically affix it. I anticipate there will be rulemaking around that. But that's the only change. This is already provided by all dispensaries. And the Med does sting operations around this? compliance around this issue. Other questions for Truman. So, Sherman, thanks for your comments. I guess I have a question. If we were. what what would you say is the you have. You have 2 underage people in your home. You said.

[55:02] Some most effective way for us to keep. concentrate out of their hands. Well, I hope you know what that is from my testimony, but if it's not let me be explicit. Keep these products in the regulated market, where the footage of every single sale is there for 30 days, where ids are checked. This is a big deal the 8 year, old boy living in my home has no impulse control. He has frontal lobe dysfunction. I do not want him being able to find a dealer who doesn't care at all about his health doesn't care at all about his age. If there are issues around concentrates, they are better dealt with in the regulated market. The concentrate market statewide is 600 million dollars a year. How many people in the illicit market would love to get a piece of that? That's what you guys will be doing if you ban it.

[56:05] This one I want. Scares me honestly. It literally scares the hell out of me. Like right now, according to the 2021 youth risk behavioral survey in our think that the the data is from a local population 8.8% of teenagers under the age of 18 are already using concentrate. So the system's not working now for 18 8.8% teenagers. I agree with you that the goal is 0. I don't think that Banning concentrates is going to get you a lower number. You have to be real with yourself about this. We all want it to be 0. But is it ever going to be? I would argue that any rational person any parent is going to say there's going to be some. So how do we get that number down as low as possible? I'm with you that we don't want to see it in the hands of kids at all. But think about it. If you ban this, what's going to happen? Are people in boulder gonna stop consuming these products? Of course not. That's not going to happen. You guys.

[57:11] Oh, we need to move on so thank you for your comments. and got 4 more folks on the list. Yes, next will be Liz Zukowski. Yes. All right, Miss Lukowski. Your time begins now or not. Can you hear me now? Yes, your time begins. Now. Okay, thank you so much. And thank you. Club members, for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Liz Zukowski. I'm the director of public affairs for native roots. We have 2 store locations in Boulder, one medical and one recreational

[58:03] and I'm speaking against the submitted policy proposal to ban concentrated products and require the additional warning statements I wanted to share about a partnership that native roots has with the Cu change lab at Cu boulder. We've been in this partnership for over 3 years. and I'm sure you all know about this lab. But it conducts medical research assessing physical and mental impact of cannabis on users. Study participants can purchase their products that are used in these studies from our pearl street location. And then the researchers can measure the impacts of regulated market grade products and assess the real effects of these products on the public. They recently just began a new study that is looking to enhance methods of detecting cannabis impairment

[59:01] and an integral part of the study is having participants use cannabis concentrates, and a ban on these products would hinder this study and others to follow. Per the State constitution. Cannabis is supposed to be regulated like alcohol kids and people under 21 should not be using any amount of cannabis unless it's under the care of a medical provider or alcohol. Pregnant and breastfeeding. Women should not be using any amount of cannabis unless under the care of a medical provider or alcohol. And it's the responsibility of our State and local governments to create and message science based education campaigns that teach these populations why these substances are not recommended for these groups rather than just banning these products outright. The warning statement that is also recommend or proposed is duplicative and unnecessary.

[60:00] 30% is an arbitrary number that is not based in scientific research. I believe that was mentioned by the second Speaker today as well. This Cu School of Public Health Scientific Review Council conducted a thorough review of all scientific research on cannabis and found that there's no common definition for high potency cannabis. So labeling products with 30% would not be aligned with the research that they found, and we discourage Clab from moving this proposal forward, or spending time debating issues that have already been addressed at the State level by the Marijuana Enforcement division and the State Legislature. Thank you. Questions for Liz.

[61:01] Okay. God. Hi, there! Can you hear me? I didn't know I was called okay. Hi! Begins, now. Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Today. My name is Dawn Reinfeld, and I am a long time Boulder resident. and the executive Director of Blue Rising. We work on issues that limit opportunity and cut live shorts for teens and young adults. One of our most concerning and pressing issues is the harm being caused by high potency. Thc products. When we began working on this issue, I was struck by how similar the stories of harm from impacted youth and their parents. Most parents have no idea how much the potency of marijuana has changed, and how the increases in potency has become a disaster for the developing brain. Despite what Dr. Adenov claimed, recent research shows that using cannabis raises the risk of teenagers developing a psychotic disorder

[62:11] by 11 times compared to those who don't report using the drug and research out of Denmark shows that the increase in potency has contributed to a fourfold increase in cases of cannabis induced schizophrenia. This is schizophrenia that would not normally be occurring. in fact, because of the way the language that was used in legalization. The State of Colorado has lied to a generation of kids about high potency. Thc. we have told them that it's medicine that it's good for you. It will help with anxiety, depression. but time and again it has been linked to actually causing anxiety, suicidality, and depression. In fact, according to Cdphe's own data. 43% of Colorado's 15 to 19 year old. Teens that die by suicide have marijuana in their systems. At the time of death.

[63:10] This gaslighting has been done on marijuana so extensively that even dispensaries, licenses are called medical wellness centers. You may be thinking, and some people have said on this already that the healthy kids survey says that marijuana use is very low amongst our teens. We have real data collection problem with that survey. Teens don't believe it is anonymous, and the Journal of American Academy of Child and adolescent Psychiatrists. Research shows that teens under report their substance use as compared to their hair samples between 30 and 60%. In fact, the superintendent of Bdsd schools, rob Anderson has said, and I quote high potency, marijuana is a nightmare for our schools. This is a huge problem.

[64:00] and we know that the clab has a responsibility to protect the public health and safety. And we would like you to investigate this policy suggestion on capping potency, and at the very least move to ban the sale of concentrates for those with a developing brain under 25. Happy to answer questions. Chair. Kuntzman, you're muted. Questions for Dawn and Don, you threw in that last point so quickly. I didn't even something about under the age of 25. Right. Well, I was trying to get my whole statement in. So I was reading like an auctioneer. Sorry? Basically. The other thing that we would like if a Po, if capping potency is not possible. At this time, we would also like, as actually the State of Washington, their Public Health Department has recommended banning the sale of concentrates to anyone with a developing brain under the age of 25,

[65:21] and that is really the area of most concern and what the data and research shows. Again, despite what Dr. Adenoff said, that that that is the area of most concern for psychosis, schizophrenia, suicidality. That's the most concerning time. And, Robin, you had your hand up. I was going to ask Don to elaborate a little bit, which she just did, and I appreciate. And I really appreciate the advocacy work you do, Don. You've become an expert in many of these issues, and you're a person that parents trust. And and that's why you're hearing so many of those stories. So I really appreciate the work you do. Thanks.

[66:05] Thank you, Robin. I just want to add also something that the doctor mentioned, and that was a big issue that was brought up when we did legalize, which was that the cartels would grow if that the black market will get worse. And right now, 1st of all, the cartels have never been more powerful in the Us. And so that what that claim did not pan out to be accurate. and the other, the other issue is that is that kids are getting products that are dispensary made products. Now, so that's a problem. It's not like these aren't black market products. They're getting them from either the dispensary or someone buying them in the dispensary and reselling them. Okay. Thanks. Don

[67:02] Evan Gallagher. Good afternoon, members of the Cloud. My name is Kevin Gallagher. I'm the Director of Compliance. Apologies. Mr. Gallagher. Your time starts now. Thank you. I'm the director of Compliance and Regulatory affairs for apothecary farms, a vertically integrated company in Colorado. I am also a parent. We are opposed to any ban or additional labeling for concentrates. First, st we need to be careful of cherry pick data and outlandish claims like mass shooters are using concentrates and causing monstrosities, or that 43% under the age of 25 have cannabis in their system at the time of death, which is using a poly use data set. while only 9.3% actually had cannabis only during the time of death as terrible as some of the traumatic stories concentrates in other substances or activities not meant for children have nothing to do with the root cause of the problem, which is mental health.

[68:00] When we look at the data like the healthy kids Survey, which has been explained well by Truman, we can see that 30 day cannabis use has gone down, and in fact, concentrate use has also fell from 8.8% in 2,021 to 7.9% in 2,023, and that is, out of the small fraction of minors that do engage in cannabis. Furthermore, it is critical to understand the American Medical Association conducted the most extensive study of its kind of 63 million people and found and I quote, there are no statistically significant difference in the rates of psychosis related diagnosis or prescribed antipsychotics in states, with medical or recreational cannabis policies compared with states with no such policy. this goes against the narrative that cannabis or certain cannabis products causes psychosis. Lastly, the Cdphe's post mortem toxicology data found that cannabis was attributed to only a fraction of emergency discharges in 2,021

[69:01] which only point 5% experience a cannabis only code compared to 6.1% with alcohol which we have not banned and possesses a fraction of the regulations that the cannabis industry is required to abide. Even state data has found there is no epidemic adversely impacting public health. As we can see, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Furthermore, the 1st speaker even made a valid argument why we should continue to regulate cannabis, including concentrates, concentrates, and other products in Colorado's regulated market must pass testing, including microbial pesticides, heavy metals and potency which is actually more testing than the food that you consume undergoes. Regardless the real issues, the flow and access of intoxicating hemp products which do not undergo extensive analytical testing that regulated marijuana products. Experience which can be delivered to children's doors, especially from states that have not taken the responsible measures that Colorado have taken.

[70:02] The previous speakers are talking like children, can walk into dispensaries and purchase cannabis products. This is not the case, especially as cannabis has better compliance sales rates at 99% than alcohol. Lastly, well, I guess my time is run, so I'll just yield. Thank you. Questions for Mr. Gallagher. Robin. Okay, Mr. Gallagher, thank you very much for your comments. I want to address one thing specifically. The there has been no code, for example for cannabis hyperemesis syndrome in our emergency rooms. Colorado Department of Health and Environment has advocated for the last few years and recently had some success. And I'm really happy to share that. In January of this year it looks like Lake will have an Icm 10 code to track cannabis, hyperemesis syndrome, so to say that there's, you know, a very low percentage of

[71:05] cannabis instances in the emergency department is with respect, sir, misleading because we have not had the codes to do the tracking. And then, secondly. I think we have to be careful when we tell people who are in the middle of crisis, who have similar situations who tell the same story of very, very serious health and mental health harms happening to their children, that that they are potentially imagining something, or that they're wrong about what's happening for their kids. I guess I would welcome everybody to listen, and if you disagree with the proposal, I think that's fine. But this is no, nothing! Burger. May I respond. Yeah, and I'll just complete by saying, I respectfully submit that this is not a nothing, Burger, and that these folks are experiencing very significant situations in their lives.

[72:10] And I appreciate the follow up comments. I would say there was nothing in my testimony that stated that these traumatic experiences were made up, or that they are experiencing nothing. In fact, right? My whole point is that the root cause right is mental health. It's not concentrates, it's not alcohol. It's not prescription pills. right? It's mental health, and what we have to do, not only as a committee, but as a a community and as a state to actually not make mental health in seeking treatment. Taboo right? The more that we can provide youth, education. and youth access to mental health services, the more that we can mitigate the harms that these individuals are causing to themselves, their families and the community. Thank you.

[73:02] Just one more. Follow up chair. If you don't mind, I will say, from my own personal experience, and this is probably. I would say, well, Robin, I would say, there, there's some things we should say for for discussion. Fair enough. Bordering or bordering. We went over the border. Thank you. Adam. Thank you. Chair. I I guess I'd just echo that thought. I would encourage all the Board members to be using the time for questions to to ask questions rather than to offer positive or negative comments on the the speakers, comments. Okay, I think we have Alicia Scott. I mean, before we go to Alicia Scott. I know there's a couple of other people that maybe 2, including one of our former panel members maybe 3 actually.

[74:00] that are listed. If there's anybody else that wants to speak. Better put your hand up, now right. All right, Miss Scott. your time begins now. Okay, thanks. Can you all hear me? I'm assuming great. Yeah, thanks for having me. This is great. I love the Forum and I love that we're able to speak in this forum you know I didn't come here today with any speech prepared. I don't have a teleprompter. I don't have statistics. All I can speak about is my experience as a resident of Boulder County and I'm gonna try not to get emotional. But this is all very real and and raw for me. Last fall. my son, who is 17, went from a star football player a 3 point O. Gpa. On a path to go to college. He was doing really well. Shortly after Thanksgiving he got involved in High Thc marijuana and

[75:00] began skipping class began turning into a completely different person. His aggression was through the roof. Fact, I thought maybe he was using steroids because of the way his aggression had turned, and I was just completely shocked, started going through his room and found some stuff. I went to the cops. They said, Nope, yep, this is just this is dabbing. It's like 90%. Thc. well, on and on this went, you know, tried to mitigate it as best I could at home. I locked out his phone. I took away all his access to his money, and it just kept continuing long story short, he had a suicide attempt. Last April this, past April of 2024 took him to Children's Hospital. Again. They tested him for every drug on earth. They only found Thc in his system. They don't actually do extensive lab testing there, so they couldn't tell like how much Thc. Was in his system. All they said was, Yeah, it's just Thc, nothing else. Again. I was still shocked. I grew up in an environment of like, it's okay to smoke weed. It's a flower blah blah, you know it's died and had no idea you know, what was really going on.

[76:06] He was admitted into psychiatric care for one week, and due to a shortage of beds in Colorado as one of the other persons on the call mentioned. We're spending thousands of dollars to transport our kids across State lines ended up finding a place in New Hampshire that accepted my insurance, hired a transport team to pick him up from psychiatric care in Highlands Ranch to take him to New Hampshire. where he received intensive inpatient treatment for about 6 weeks, and he's doing great now. He just got his 90 day chip. Very, very happy that these programs are out there. But what I wanted to say is, as a concerned parent. Yeah, I'm very concerned about of use these products and how easily that these kids are able to get these products. So yeah, thank you for your time. Thank you, Alicia, and I,

[77:00] my, I thank you to all the parents that spoke, and also to you, Robin. for the experiences that you've all gone through questions for Alicia. I guess I have one, Alicia, your your son. as somebody at one of the previous speakers mentioned. It's it was legal product, it was bought in a dispensary. Do you have any any idea how he acquired. That's correct. Later on he had told the Residential Treatment Center in New Hampshire that he was obtaining that through a friend of his, whose older brother was buying it for them legally at a dispensary in Boulder. Do you think that raising the age of acquisition to age 25 would have made any difference.

[78:00] Definitely not not in this case. You know, I, personally, just as a second thought would just like to see the State go back to just selling flour. But you know I understand. That may not be possible. But I really think capping availability of concentrates would would greatly help but acquiring it. No, I don't think the age thing would matter. but. Thank you. Any other questions. Okay. I believe there's no new speakers. I do not see any chair, Kunsman, and I'm not sure if Mr. Gallagher's hand was still raised, or if he raised it again. But he only gets one chance. Oh, okay, it it came down. Okay. okay, so it's 4 20. We can either take a break now and think about mull over that for a moment before we

[79:04] discuss things. or we can launch right in. Let me get a sense of the room. I'd appreciate 5 if we could do it. Anyone opposed. Suggestion. Okay, let's take that. I'm gonna expand on that 5. Let's let's take 8. I always choose a weird number, you know. So that would be 4, 29. Okay. Alright. See you all back here in a moment. Okay. as people are returning here.

[80:00] Pages 24, through 27 of a packet was that written by the policy app. And our person wrote the policy. That's what I assumed. It's okay. Just wanted to make sure. Are you talking? Page 24. Yeah. Yes. Okay. we don't have any. We don't have a staff response at this point for sure. So are you talking about the proposed changes? For once the new policy suggestion form goes into place. No, just about this policy suggestion. No, that comes when the new policy suggestion, form is enacted. Just asking. I I have no comments. Okay. is everybody back now?

[81:05] Okay. Del, I was gonna ask, did you have any input for some of the comments that were made about testing? Were those all accurate and. There was an earlier comment where the person said that when you make a concentrate, that it also concentrates pesticides, heavy metals, etc. That would only be if those concentrate, or those contaminants were found within the the material to begin with. So marijuana in its flower form, is 1st tested for potency, pesticides, heavy metals, microbials, when it changes the product type into concentrates, is then tested again. so before it gets to market, it would be tested a second time to make sure there are no contaminants. Okay.

[82:05] alright. So how would you like to do this? Folks. May I ask a clarifying question? Chair kinsman. Sure, of course. Are we moving agenda items, then, as to the policy, suggestion, form. Oh, let me look there! And then. You're right. This matters from the commit. I'm I apologize. I missed number 3. Do we have the Enforcement officer here, or do we just go and read. No! She was unable to be here. However, there was a small written I bit of information. Yeah, that she did. Provide. Page, something. That is page 19.

[83:03] There it is 2 successful rounds of underage, compliance checks. or what's dui drugs, drugs. abuse. Think it's possibly driving under the influence of. Okay, you're right. Rest for the past 2 months. Is that all ages? I'm sorry. Enforcement officer. Gignac did not provide more information than that. I mean, the 1st point is about underage. The second point is not about underage that fair. I would not know. I would not presume to know whether or not those were of age or under age. Arrests. I'm curious if they would say minor in possession as well.

[84:02] Probably. except they might not have been in possession. True, true. But I guess it doesn't matter. Okay any other questions. Not not that there's anybody that here's to answer it necessarily. But any questions about that. Okay. no. Agenda. Item 4. Are there any new policy suggestions from. No, these were the. This was the only policy suggestion form received for scheduling. It did come in, and was anticipated for June, however, where there was no quorum for June, so the meeting was cancelled. and the July meeting had already been previously cancelled. For lack of a quorum. Therefore Miss seger was notified that this would be heard at the next available cloud meeting, which is this august meeting.

[85:06] Right. so I'm sure everybody in the room has an opinion on this topic. or at least one, if not 2 or 3, and you may want to go first.st I'd be happy to start. So some ideas that I got up it kind of resonated with me. I think the biggest one is the illicit market and black market and customers going outside of Boulder. I think that's a huge thing that we need to consider in keeping concentrated sales available in boulder and then a huge thing. I think we should focus on. More than this is the safety and education and harm reduction with these concentrates. And definitely, you know.

[86:02] I mean, when I went to Bvsd and and even in middle school at Southern Hills, we talked about all types of drugs, not just cannabis, but but most of them. And we had a police officer come in and teach us proper harm. Reduction at. you know, age 1314 and I I think it was very helpful, because it's it's a similar thing that's happened with alcohol is, you know. people used to see a lot more cases of underage drinking and underage people in the hospital. I think that's declined over the years with the increase in education and harm. Reduction from alcohol. And the same thing can happen with cannabis. We just have to advocate for that and make sure that parents are are telling that to their children as well. and I and I also see it in a similar way, where in Europe, you know, completely different approach to alcohol. But it's taught in moderation, and it's taught from a younger age that you know this is acceptable. This is something in society that's happening. So you know, teaching moderation and teaching proper substance use and letting kids know that. You know there are the higher thc options. But these are meant for people. You know, who who possibly have a higher tolerance or something like that.

[87:17] Just creating more education around it is huge. yeah, I think those are the 2 main takeaways. I took. Kristen, how do you? How do you suggest that we, not everybody, has seen Kate's comments? How how would you suggest? Should I read them? Or do you want to read them, or. I'm sorry. And some comments, and. Certainly I am. I would defer to Attorney Ramirez. As to this matter. Because I have not yet been in a meeting where written comments from an ex officio member

[88:01] were provided, due to their inability to attend, and then read into the record. Good afternoon, everyone. As long as there is a consensus from the group to accept it. Tom, you can certainly read that into the record. Anyone in objection to me reading Kate's comments that she submitted. Today. Okay, I'll start from the top start with the with the social part a big welcome to Dell. I worked with Dell back in the farm days, and I look forward to him. Being part of this board, he offers a different stakeholder perspective that we have not had present on the board since the map days. Switching gears regarding the suggestion form about high potency concentrates. I appreciate the suggestion form, and it is definitely an important topic we need to discuss.

[89:00] I support additional warning language. If the Board prefers that, I think it would be worth discussing what the exact language could be. There are a few other states that have adopted similar language, such as quote, this is a high potency product and may increase your risk for mental health issues, including psychosis unquote. I discourage limiting the Thc percentage in products for various for various reasons. I think that's various. Here are a few high level notes. We will just be encouraging those users to find product in unregulated channels. Adults should have the ability to choose it is more concerning to me of what producers are putting back into the product to limit Thc. and 3rd point in that the bullet point is more, education is needed, not prohibitions. And then, lastly, I was. This isn't about this topic, but regarding the matters from the board I sent through scheduling info for for the last meeting

[90:06] lot of great articles here. I wish I could have been part of the discussions. The current cannabis marketplace. Powerpoint was awesome. Thank you for sharing, and I'm sorry to miss the discussion about its content. That's the essence of Kate's comments ever to get that. Okay. Adam. You're unmuted. I think. Oh, thanks, I I did have some comments. If this is a a good time for it, for that. I guess one thing I would. I just wanted to throw something out front. Is that. you know, some of the some of you are new, at least 3 of you. I see. So when we talked for a while, what 2 plus years about cannabis, hospitality suites

[91:01] we came up with, if I remember correctly, a list of 18 suggestions or 18 Clarifiers slash recommendations, and then we pass it on to city Council and put it in the lap of city council. They so far have chosen not to deliberate on that, but that. you know this suggestion form has in some ways already gone on the City council, because there was a meeting with the mayor. and so at least one, if not all, of them, are aware. This policy suggestion form. So one idea or one avenue to approach this is. do we make a Rec. Make our own recommendations and send it forward? Do we mix it, do we? What do we do? And so in light of that, go ahead, Adam. Sure. Yeah, thank you. So so my view and and recommendation is that this

[92:06] policy suggestion should not move forward should not be considered further by the the board. and the reason for that is when we when we start with the warning label suggestion that's duplicative of the educational brochure that starting on Wednesday must be provided in tangible form a paper copy with every sale of a of a concentrate. So that's a statewide requirement. It's already in place, and this would be duplicative of that statewide requirement. and, in my view, would be contrary to the goal of achieving congruence between local ordinances and and State law. Moving on to the second part, and and presumably the warning label would only be relevant if if the ban was not enacted right

[93:00] if the ban was enacted, there would be no legal products sold in the in the county to, or pardon me in the city to affix a warning label to you. So as we move on to the ban, I I think the discussion should be read in light of Boulder Code section 2, 3, 25, that governs the clab, and it states that key objectives include evaluating the impact of cannabis regulations. Brief quote quote on public health and safety while supporting economic development and congruence between local ordinances and State laws. Close quote. So I wanted to talk briefly about each of those things in turn as far as public health and safety as noted, and and the survey a link to the healthy kids. Colorado Survey is included in the meeting packet, but it it hasn't shown an increase in teen cannabis use overall, nor has it shown any significant increase in teen concentrate use, and and that really is the best data that we have for for the levels of teen use in the State.

[94:10] Now, we talked about the Cu public health report right that Dr. Samet authored, and and of course folks will remember he was here with the board at the at the May meeting, and offered comments there too. But I I want to point out this. March 27, th 2,024 cu. Public health report at page 3. Noted that the evidence was judged too uncertain to be conclusive as to the health effects of high concentration cannabis products. Close quote. At page 4 it noted, quote the inadequacy of scientific literature as a basis for policy formulation, close quote. So what what the CEO health report found was that the data was inconclusive. Now. when you look at House Bill 1,317 right, which is what created the report and tasked the Cu. Department of of Public Health

[95:07] with authoring that report. It did task them with making recommendations for for potential regulations. So you'll see recommendations in the report. and it says the evidence was inconclusive. Now, what Dr. Samut told us when he spoke on at the May meeting is from a public health perspective, though you really need to consider the global impacts of any policy. Right? So if a policy would potentially increase crime or drive activity underground. Or you know the the literature that indicates that in regulated markets. People use less alcohol, fewer opiates, fewer benzodiazepines. You, you need to consider the global impact of any changes on public safety as a whole. And I I don't think that this proposal meets that that test

[96:06] so briefly on on the testing question. And here I'm talking about product testing. I did want to point out. Concentrates definitely are tested for pesticides, microbial contaminants, heavy metals and potency so to the extent. And and I I wasn't sure if there were commentators claiming that the that the products weren't tested, or or what they were saying about testing that the products definitely are tested extensively. but and and I I apologize for jumping around here a little bit. But what we're really talking about is is regulating a molecule right? Delta 9 thc. And how much Delta 9 Thc. Can be present in in certain products, various classes of products. And, as Dr. Samut told us, it's the same molecule and flour in an edible in a concentrate, and there's no evidence that it acts in some fundamentally different way. That Delta 9 from a concentrate affects the brain or the body in some fundamentally

[97:10] different way than Delta 9 from a from an edible or from low potency flour. It's it's the same molecule. There's more of it in a concentrate. But again, with any of these products, the consumer has to decide how much to use. Right? You can smoke a whole lot of flour or you can smoke, you know, 1 1 puff from a from a vape pen. So it's the same as you know, beer. hard liquor, alcohol. When we're looking at at regulating marijuana like alcohol, which is what amendment 64 said to do. There's a wide variety of alcohol products that are available. There's a wide variety of cannabis products that are available that's entirely consistent with what the voters approved when they voted for amendment 64. So I I really don't think that the proposed ban would benefit public health if it was enacted at any level of of government, whether that's national, state, or local.

[98:08] And it's because banning cannabis concentrates would not eliminate the production and sale of those products like, remember, when we were fighting the war on drugs on cannabis, it was readily available. Right? Plenty of people were using marijuana way back when it was way back, when it was illegal, and we were when we were locking people up for simple possession, and it really had very little effect on use. But what it did do is drive all of that activity into an underground and unregulated market, and I think that the ban would bring us back to fighting. The failed drug war against cannabis and the failed war on drugs was really a war on people that caused far more public health. harm, and far more harm to public safety than it ever solved, and it disproportionately harmed poor people and people of color so doubling down and trying to refight the failed war on drugs is bad policy at any level of of government.

[99:10] so you know, the the other question is, I mean, we're we're looking at limited public safety resources. So I mean, how how much, how much funding and and police time should really be diverted from fighting meth. or opiates, or fentanyl, or human trafficking right? Any of these other bigger problems that that law enforcement needs to deal with what? What amount of that funding should really go to fighting a drug war against cannabis. My suggestion is 0. So when we look at congruence with State law, and I'll I'll be rapid now and thank you for your patience. But when we look at congruence with State law again, the premise of Amendment 64 was to regulate cannabis like alcohol. That's what we're doing. Right now. We have a system where concentrates are tested, where they're age gated when they're sold at stores.

[100:04] and congruence with State law involves allowing products that are legal under State law to be sold in boulder. Lastly, on the economic development point. A local band would be terrible for economic development. Statewide sales of regulated cannabis are down to about 25%. That's industry wide. Since the height of sales during the pandemic if you look at the total statewide market, concentrates, make up about 40% of all sales statewide. So if you have a local band in Boulder, you're taking businesses that are already struggling and just knocking 40% off of their revenue. And the predictable consequence would be basically putting the stores that are licensed in boulder out of business, depriving the city of that tax revenue and having absolutely no effect on the amount of concentrates that people are using because they could simply go to all of the other local communities that have license cannabis stores and buy the concentrates there. So a local band would harm economic development by depriving the city of boulder of the tax revenue, killing license cannabis stores in boulder, doing away with those jobs for essentially no appreciable benefit of any kind. For all of those reasons, I am going to vote against advancing this policy recommendation.

[101:28] Thank you for your your patience and your consideration of those comments. You're muted. Who would like to go next. or I might have some questions, for Adam must have been ready to go. Brian, you. I guess I'll take a stand alright. So 1st I want to thank all of our speakers who came out during public comment to share all their experiences, perspectives, and expertise. I especially want to recognize the pain and trauma that was like shared by many of the families and the people who testified they completely deserve our understanding and support. Both emotional and at a policy level.

[102:17] I also want to like, emphasize that I categorically reject any suggestions that we heard. That cannabis somehow causes suicide, or somehow causes mass shootings. I think those kinds of suggestions are beyond the pale. So I just want to kind of also demarcate that as well. I don't think we would attribute water use or consumption to mass shootings or suicide and that it has the same sort of logical failing there as well. I think that across a wide variety of different kinds of data sources. Whether we look at the Cdc's youth risk behavior survey data shows that mental health problems among children has been increasing nationwide while substance use is decreasing in Colorado. The healthy kids survey shows that they're stable decline use of cannabis substances.

[103:03] So I'm not moved by arguments that somehow there's like been an explosion of like youth. Use of these substances that is driving a mental health crisis here. Across diverse kinds of these data sources. You know, we see declining uses declining youth use of these substances at a national level and within Colorado there are really significant gaps as the Colorado Public Health report alluded to around our scientific understanding of this fundamental chicken and egg problem, or like whether or not mental health, it causes concentrate consumption or concentrate consumption is causing mental health challenges. It's not going to be monocausal. It's not going to be monodirectional. Both of those things can be true. I believe that people might be self medicating. To use these kinds of substances to deal with anxiety, depression, other kinds of reasons, and that might be exposing or unlocking different kinds of mental health underlying conditions there as well, and it could also certainly be the case that concentrated consumptions, high potency consumptions

[104:09] could be causing or exaggerating some of these underlying challenges as well. I do know that there are really profound differences. This is work from again, Dr. Bidwell and her group at the C reach center, that there are very profound differences in how cannabinoids are metabolized and people titrate their tolerance or tolerances in very different ways. So a 5 milligram dose of Thc. For one person might be extremely intoxicating for another person who has a different kind of physiology or tolerance that might not have any real impact on their ability to operate. And so for that reason, like people require different amounts and levels of consumption, and that if we were to move forward with a concentrate band, we would be effectively requiring people to move into less healthy modes of consumption, that, if they required, say, just making up a number 50 milligrams

[105:05] of Thc. To have some sort of therapeutic effect like asking them to consume that in flour would be supposing a huge kind of health risk compared to a concentrate consumption. and, like, as other arguments have said here, like Banning or capping concentrates at a local level for me as a nonstarter, because disparate impacts it would have on local businesses, and it would have no meaningful impact on access or consumption by youth or other, or how, or getting that into their hands of minors. And so I I continue to emphasize and and request that we have, like a greater focus on, like, how we can invest more resources as a city, as a county, as a State. and investing in mental health services to diagnose people, get them support invest in these kinds of psychiatric bed sorts of services. Refocusing on education at a youth level. Are all, I think, much more effective. Sorry approaches to

[106:04] reducing the very real risks and harms of youth consumption which we should 100% be focused on on reducing as much as possible. But for this policy suggestion form, I would recommend that we not proceed with a recommendation to ban or limit concentrates at this stage. Right. Who would like to go next. I guess I'll speak up. Thanks, everybody. I am so appreciative of this group of parents that took some initiative to come forward. You know these. These are people who are who buckled their kids into their car seats every single day when they were little and got to a place with their teenagers, where a drug came into their life that demarcated something for them. And this is something you consistently hear from families. It was a point of demarcation and their

[107:18] asking for help. We heard from Mila Long, who works with kids on the ground she described kind of the before and after of seeing high potency of the high potency products and what she's seeing in some of the high schools. Avani talked about how there's really no treatment options. Locally. we heard from Don, who had an interesting idea about keeping the drugs away from people 25 and under. We heard from Dr. Adenov in the beginning. who said that some of the arguments he's hearing about wanting to put some regulations on these products are similar to what he's heard forever.

[108:06] But, to be perfectly frank. What he had to say was a very similar argument to what I've heard for a very, very long time, which is. you know, we have to just completely deregulate these. And I think, as a parent who had an experience with these products and his over the last few years, gotten to see many sides of this issue, I think what I've come down to is we? We are not acknowledging one another and working together. and I actually don't think that putting trying to make concentrates illegal in boulder is a practical idea. I mean, I really appreciate that it does not have the support of the different board members. For many reasons. I I actually don't support moving the policy suggestion form per se forward. But I do want to pursue something that says.

[109:04] yes, there are some people who are having experiences that are incredibly concerning. Yes, we have products on the market that are not proven safe. And no, we're not looking exactly at how to deal with those things. Right? I mean. 11 years after a legalization. And we're finally going to look at cannabis hyperemesis in emergency departments and actually document that for somebody whose kid was impacted by that that is so unacceptable and and frustrating, I'm glad it's happening. But to to gaslight these parents sometimes about the problems they're having. Really, there's no proof. And there's nothing conclusive. And the healthy kids data. Well, the healthy kids data says that 8 point something percent of kids are using concentrates that's really, really concerning.

[110:00] And I would love to see somebody like Truman, who I really appreciated the things he said, about the the downsides of not having of only having these products in an unregulated space. But I want the industry to speak with a clearer voice to acknowledge that there are issues to talk to parents directly about what what potentially could happen, and you know, to produce some educational materials from the industry. not just from public health, but to start those conversations with families as well responsible use, etc. I think Don's idea of potentially putting some limitations on the purchase of these products for 25 and unders is worth exploring. But I think we do have to find a middle ground, because we have seen extreme losses in the industry, and part of that, I think, is that the legislation in 2,021 closed the medical card loophole, which many in the industry knew well that people were using that loophole to purchase drugs that they were reselling in our high schools, and I think closing that loophole has really caused some serious financial losses in the

[111:21] industry, but I do think that not acknowledging in a very forthright way that for some people cannabis can cause tremendous harm. that that the industry ignores that at its peril and doesn't speak up about it. Rocky. Sorry guys doesn't speak clearly with, you know I have never heard the industry talk about cannabis, hyperemesis syndrome, never, not once. I can't find any singular communication that says, Yeah, this is a problem. You start vomiting. Stop using marijuana.

[112:00] Maybe it's out there. I've looked. I've never found it. You have to go through a process. The 1st part of the process says you don't know that can't be. That's not being caused there. Oh, hmm, interesting. Okay, we've got. You guys need to get the data. But these products are out there. So the onus becomes on the impacted person, not on the person who's making money. And it, you know, it is interesting that the that the people with the financial interest. Well, I guess how many parents are we going to tell that? Tell that they don't know what they're talking about. or that they're wrong, or that the data doesn't prove out what they're actually experiencing. These are boulderites. These are people in our community. This is our superintendent who's saying these products have made our high schools a nightmare. I was at that meeting when he said that. So again, I I'm not going to propose that we move this particular policy suggestion, form forward. But I do appreciate the conversation, and I appreciate

[113:11] those of you who I mean. I guess I would really underscore Kate and and Brian and Jock. Well, all of you for having the conversation. I think we have to be careful to not listen to a family story, and then tell them they're wrong, based on the data. There is something there. There is a there there, and yes, the Colorado School of Public Health said that the data were inconclusive because they were forced to look at one element of the market, and the definitions were tough to come by. But they did not say that there were no problems. and their their suggestions for policy, yes, is based on the precautionary principle, but it is based on

[114:01] actualities taking place on the ground. again, I would really encourage our industry, which is members of our community. And I appreciated Mr. Poll, who came on to talk about his dispensary's focus on talking to people about how they use these products safely. That's great. But the products are being diverted to to kids. And even if it's a small number. As Truman said, any number is too many. And these are problems we have to keep working on. And we don't make progress until we acknowledge what's actually happening. Thank you. Alright Dell or Jacques, you wanna. And before you start, Kristen, do you think? States he'll be joining us.

[115:06] and we'll see. Yes, chair. She did state that she would try and be on around 5, if possible. Okay. An unexpected. You're gonna watch out for her, and I am just checking. Darling. You're unmuted. Yeah, I can go. Thank you. yeah, thank you. To everyone that spoke. It was great to hear everyone's experiences in the you know their you know their thoughts. It was, you know, you know, heart wrenching to hear the families talk about their kids and what they what they're experiencing. you know that said, you know I don't, you know, support, you know this? I mean this poly suggestion moving forward. Yeah, Adam and and Brian both said, you know I echo their sentiments. I think

[116:02] this won't stop the problem by by banning these products. What it will do. It will affect all the businesses in Boulder. They will go out of business. About 30 miles down the road is a dispensary. There are dispensaries outside of Boulder County. People will just go there and buy the products elsewhere. So I don't think the problems will stop. I do agree that there needs to be additional education. We need to give educational materials or or presentations or resources to, you know, the schools and families so they. So they are aware of these products. And so they can, you know, have real conversations with their their kids about them. And and you know their potential effects. So. Yeah, that's all I have to say. I don't really anymore. I mean. you know the atomy, you know you. You spoke very eloquently on it.

[117:01] Doc, you want to comment, or you want me to go. Just furthering on the the next steps that we should focus on is education and harm reduction. And just making sure more people are aware of these issues, so we can continue to educate and have those numbers continue to drop. It's so. really I was hoping Stacy would get on, too, but got what we got so I guess I would wonder of the 6 of you. 6, 1, 2, 3, 60, 7, 6, including me. Is there anyone believes that concentrates over the level of 90% are completely safe and serve no regulation

[118:00] whatsoever, you know, never have any consequences. Significance. Is there anyone who believes that I'm gonna I'm gonna come back to comment. You made Adam. and and like everyone else, I would. thank all the speakers that joined us. Sorry we didn't get a chance to hear from. Everyone would love to get a few more points of view. But back to one of your comments when you were discussing John Samuz testimony, and you know, same molecule. whether it's flour or concentrate. But it's all much higher concentration. I mean 1 1. Things in medicine that we do like. Say, somebody is admitted to the intensive care unit with them a rip, roaring infection that could take their life

[119:01] and we need to get the highest level of concentration of antibiotics into their system. So they actually do antibiotic concentrations to like take it to the maximum that's allowable. That is known not to cost complications. So concentration. I mean, yes, it's the same molecule. But concentration is important. and and it appears to be, you know, some data suggests that that higher concentration and lower age leads to more complications. I don't know if everybody agrees on that. But alright think everybody does so to some degree. and and so like Robin. I'm also. I've always been a report like, even when we talked about hospitality suites, that if we could

[120:02] keep it out of the hands of people who could be at more risk. And by that I mean, under the age of 25. Nothing else. I think if we made it 25, and up. which I don't think would be too hard to police and would not destroy people's bottom line. Terms of you know, the industries ability to continue selling concentrates to adults above the age of 25. But I do think it would probably make it a little more challenging for those 8.8% of teenagers that are now using concentrates for them to get it. And I'm going to go back to the other point that you another point you made out, Adam, is the global impact of our policy. I mean, one global impact is, if boulder

[121:00] yes, they can go down the you know, up up the diagonal, they can go down 36, they can go in any which direction. But if Boulder made a statement like this, it's a statement. It's a big statement. I mean, we're not the only on making statements like this. Think, she quoted. Uruguay has rules about this. I mean, boulder is supposedly a leader in health should be one statement that we could make if we so choose. Now I I would be as opposed to others that don't think it should go forward up. I would like to see it go forward with our recommendations, which could be, you know the vote in terms of how many supported different versions. Yes.

[122:00] policy suggestions. In other words, going back to what Robin said. I would strongly suggest that we not even consider what was originally proposed, but maybe something to cut it off at 8, or, you know. reduce sales above the age of 25. See. I was I was thinking about with. With respect to that handout. you know that it's gonna be mandated as of Wednesday. I'd almost like to do a little study if you had a recycling bin outside the the places that are selling concentrates. How many, how quickly the recycle bins would be filled up with those 4 pages of handouts. I would I would venture to guess pretty quickly. Okay, Adam's got his hand up, and Stacey did join us.

[123:02] You want to know what we talked about so far. I won't make you do that. Why don't you keep going? And I can catch up when it's appropriate. Adam's Adam's gonna summarize for you after he responds to my points. Well, I I guess I just wanted to point out, you know, a couple of things. Briefly, the the 1st is. I don't know what is completely safe. Right? Food's not completely safe. We have plenty of regulations for food. you know, can't I? I don't know that many people are claiming that cannabis is completely safe. But I think what what I know I am claiming is in a regulated market with testing, and all of the protections that we have. that it's safer than an unregulated market. and that on the balance we're better off

[124:02] than trying to refight the war on drugs. which was a losing proposition and and was a disaster. I would point on on the issue of of some age limit potentially higher than 21. I would point folks to the link in the packet the publication by doctors for drug policy reform. What is the optimal age to allow legal cannabis use? They do a deep dive into that literature, and you know, really find that that some limit age limit higher than 21 is not justified by the by the medical literature, and and folks can kind of check that out for for themselves. So You know, I I think better. Education is is good. And and you know we should have better evidence based education. But I just really would would want to emphasize that. I I think it should be based on

[125:02] evidence. Because just just trying to scare kids, I I feel like that's the the drug education that I got in the eighties and nineties under the deer program. And it was. It was just a bunch of scare tactics and worst case scenarios. And it, you know, when I was going to high school at Chatfield High School, down in Littleton, and in the early nineties it was the height of the drug war people's lives were getting ruined left and right. You know, they were getting locked up for cannabis. It was readily available. It was. It was easier for high school kids to get their hands on than alcohol, and I believe that at that time we were done a huge disservice by the education that we received. Because, you know when when people started using cannabis and weren't seeing all of these worst case scenarios manifest that we've been taught would would definitely happen. I think kind of the the baby went out in the bath water or with the bath water in the sense of

[126:01] well, now, you don't really know what's what's safe, and what's not safe, because you've been indoctrinated with with information that you're now finding doesn't fit what you're seeing out there, and I don't think it gave us what the scare tactics that we were exposed to in the eighties and nineties did not give us a good tool set to evaluate evidence and make our own decisions. And so I think education is really important. I I really do feel sympathy for the for the for the parents who spoke up. I I also don't believe that a band's the right solution. I do think evidence based education is important, but I think it. It needs to do something more than just try to scare kids. It needs to arm them with ways to try to evaluate their own choices and and make their own decisions. Thank you. Do you think that telling someone under the age of 25 that your risk is higher is a scare tactic.

[127:00] Yes, based on the doctors for drug policy reform article I just mentioned, I think under the age of 25 is is not necessary. And I do think that would be a scare tactic. I think that telling, you know, kids under the age of 18 that they should wait to do. Any drug that's not prescribed by their doctor is is a good idea. I'm I'm fully in support of that. Did, I would I would question all the age limits, I mean, when I was growing up 18 was the alcohol limit, and people drove to Colorado so they could have 3.2% beer and then everything changed, you know, as we know now, across the country. It's age 21, but I would say the science behind that is rather limited. Also, I mean, maybe alcohol should be 25. I don't know. I mean I I at some point I'm I don't know when Stacey is going to be ready to talk, but I would love to hear her, input but Brian has his hand up so.

[128:06] I I guess. Yeah. I don't mean to step on Stacey if she was tending to participate in this part of this conversation, but I guess I just wanted to kind of bring this to a close and present a motion that. I intend to vote no on, but just to kind of put a point on our discussion that should the so my motion would be the clab should move forward and move. This policy suggestion for forward and ask for licensing and Cao analysis. That's true. Thank you for that idea. we can have to. If we have a second, we can still have further discussion. Right. Roberto. you're muted. Good afternoon. So, as you may recall, we have changed the

[129:05] the way that this process works. Chris and Teague. Any chance that you can put up on the screen where we are. So we are currently in step 2. This is in your packets on page 35. And if we can go down a little bit further into 3, so if you do want this to to go further, Then one of the things that you might want to consider is, getting a committee of 2 members.

[130:04] Which is going to prepare this this written summary. So if if I was understanding the motion correctly, it it was to call the question, I guess, right on whether to move from step 2, 2 step 3 was, was that the the question. Not yet. And in fact. Intent. Yes, to sort of. I want to give the member of the public who submitted this policy suggestion form some closure. After all this productive discussion about whether or not this Board is going to take action. So yes, I'm trying to call the question about whether or not this Policy Suggestion Board is going to move forward under this process. We've established.

[131:04] So just a point of Robert's rules of order. After seconding of of a proposal. we can still discuss it further. Roberto, right. Correct. You wanna restate your proposal. My motion is, I would like to the clab to consider these changes further pursuant to our policies for public policy. Suggestion forms. And second on that. I I would second bringing the matter to A to a vote. I I'm going to vote. No, on the motion, but I would second calling the question and bringing it to a vote.

[132:08] Can there be friendly amendments to the motion? See your head going up and down. Can certainly suggest a friendly amendment. We've got a question from our hand from Stacey. Let's hear from Stacey before before. Procedural. So I'm just reading, you know this document that you have on the screen. And I just want to make sure. I understand, because if I'm maybe just not understanding what it says. I guess I'm not clear. If 2 people, 2 members of Cloud decide to go forward with it. Does it matter if we vote like? Do you see what I'm saying? It says something about 2 members would then prepare something, so do. Is it requiring us to have a majority vote for this, to move forward, and then for that to happen? Or what am I missing here?

[133:05] That's a good question, because it doesn't really say that. Right? So it's it's written in the permissive language in Section 3. So if you do want further analysis before you decide whether or not. You want to go to city council. With this you may prepare a written summary by a committee of 2 members. Well, I see that. But what I'm not understanding is, if there is a requirement for a majority vote like right now to Brian's motion say, right? Do we have to vote as a majority to move forward, or, regardless of our vote? Can 2 members prepare this statement as. That's right. I see what you're saying. So. Yeah, sure. totally fair question. Nothing prevents 2 members getting together and doing independent research, regardless of what the vote is.

[134:03] Right. So my question then becomes, why are we voting now? What are? Why do we need to be voting? Is, are there 2 members who wish to move forward with this, because if so, they can do that, anyway, if I'm understanding this document correctly. But we haven't voted yet. That's actually a separate issue, because now there has been a motion and a second to the motion which either needs deliberation on the motion, the friendly amendment, or a vote. Regardless. Let's say we go one way or another. Now that there is this motion that wouldn't necessarily have been required for this next analysis step to happen. 2 members could still do that. Is that true? 2 member correct, 2 members can still do that, regardless of the vote. Okay, okay, thank you. That was where I was trying to get clear

[135:03] my 2 cents. Otherwise, I know, Tom, you were kind of asking on the idea. I mean, there is a part of me that feels strongly in support of what this, what the member of the public Miss Seger is explaining. I think there's a lot of concerns that we share as a community, whether that's public health, medical parents, whatever it might be. what I've also come to realize serving on. You know, boards as this is, it's not always the right answer to do what we're discussing to, you know. Change the age 25. Because the question really in my mind is, is that going to actually change the reality on the ground? Or are we miss allocating our resources like now we would be, you know, resting and focusing our enforcement on places who are serving under 25

[136:01] and there's a lot that we would be focusing on, in my opinion, and I agree. As Adam had said. that we've kind of tried that technique in past couple of decades, and it really failed. And it's funny, because I was just driving back from the mountains with my 17 year old, who actually mocked the idea of Dare and all that stuff as like dinosaur stuff from my generation. And she's right. I mean it failed. And in fact, I would say it failed miserably. And what this feels like is an extension of that mentality, not because the priorities aren't appropriate. They are like, we do need to do something about this. This is a problem 100. But I don't believe changing the licensing. To move to 25 is really the solution. As you guys know, when we've talked hospitality, I was in favor of that idea for the hospitality establishments. I could still make a case for that. But as far as trying to ban concentrates, I don't think that's the solution boulder it has

[137:11] surrounded by other towns. There's plenty of access for the same people we would be removing. My concern is that now they're going to be going other places, making shady deals. That is not in my opinion. I don't want my teams involved in that. I don't want them going to dispensary and getting concentrates, or someone buying it for them. But I don't see this as a solution. I think education is absolutely essential here and there's ways we could approach that that are unique as the city of Boulder. That would highlight our priorities. You know, health, wellness, all those things cutting edge. And this wouldn't be that. And so, you know, I get it. There's a part of me who feels like, Yeah, let's do that. That would solve it but it but it won't. I don't think it will, and so I don't. I would not

[138:02] vote for that if we're not at that point I realize, but that right now would not be how I could vote. I feel like we were just misplacing our concerns and overlooking what we really need to do to address this real problem that we're having. We were to go out on a limb with your teenager, representing all of adolescence in Boulder. What would they propose to to keep the keep it out. Keep concentrates out of the hands of 8.8%. I I think we have a unique ability to reach kids that age unlike in the past, right? We know what they're all doing. They're all staring at their devices. So as far as I'm concerned, education through that means that we know we have their attention right? It's just a matter of appropriately getting that information to them. I don't think kids really get or appreciate the concerns. I think the more we ban it and do that kind of stuff it's like, Dare. It's like they try to freak you out about it. But you end up wanting to do it, anyway. And so it's that's not it like the decision needs to come from an educated place for these young adults, because then they're going to know why they're not doing it, not because the city banned it, and they have to now drive to Lafayette, or wherever right like.

[139:23] It's more to it. We need to reach them in a different way. I don't have all the answers. Clearly, I agree that we have a problem. I do not see this knowing. You know we have limited resources in general would be the best way to go about this problem or solving this problem. That's something. Brian, seconded by Ed. By Adams. have a motion. Do you want to call the vote. Sounds like, according to Roberto, and

[140:03] whoever else is speaking up, that it doesn't really matter what the vote comes out at. Yeah, as long as there is no other deliberation you are ready to vote. We're still 2 area. All it would take is 2 people to get together. And where is it that's or written somewhere. See a hand from Robin. Thank you, Brian. You know I appreciate the motion. I, for many reasons, don't support moving forward with this particular policy suggestion form. But I also don't support the status quo of us telling all these parents we need more education, but there's really no resources to do it, and there has to be something in the middle where the industry can come together and empower and give more funding to people like Avani and other folks who are doing effective education in the community.

[141:03] So I don't want to let this go at nothing. I'm not exactly sure what a two-person committee could work on with. Some of these advocates. but we have to come up with something else, because the status quo is just not acceptable at this point. But you know, for the reasons of practicality and driving some of these products underground. I can't support the the form as it came in, but I want to underscore the value of the conversation and trying to do something practical. Moving forward. Basic. Thanks, Robin. I couldn't have said that better. I think that highlights the whole idea in my mind as well. What's interesting is, we had talked a long time about hospitality and clubs, etc, and in in some ways I felt like that. Was this unique opportunity to have unmatched venue for education.

[142:02] and we could have required whatever we wanted. And so you would then have a captive audience. That, you know, is the right one, at least in some cases, maybe it could be extended. But you know, when we kind of went away from that for other concerns, it was a bummer in my mind because we did lose all that. Because I agree, Robin, right now, just like telling people, we have to do more education than doing nothing isn't really getting us very far. So that I mean, the question is, how do we do it? And you know what is our role as this board and in that And so it it seems an important item to talk about. I just don't fully know where we sit as a board, what our abilities are are not, etc.

[143:01] I don't. Thank you. So I I guess what I'd suggest, you know, would be to we. We do have a pending motion. I'd suggest that we go ahead and vote on it. And then my understanding is we have this proposal process where a member of the club or a member of the public can fill out the policy suggestion form. And and you know, then we go through that process. So I guess I would just say. let's vote on this proposal now and then. If there's a different proposal, then I would just suggest that we start with that different proposal. you know, and go through whatever the process looks like for that proposal. So that it's kind of clear what specifically we're discussing. And we get an appropriate amount of process that fits each separate proposal.

[144:01] So one idea. And us. Stacy, you missed my 1st when we started off on this discussion after the public commenters. I I talked about the hospitality suites, and how we sent forward a list of think. It was 18 qualifiers or descriptors that went forward to City council. So in light of that there could be a vote for this policy suggestion as made. but then amended, amended. we could vote on amended versions. and if you remember what happened before is that the the vote counts went forward to the city council too.

[145:03] That see to to me personally, that seems really messy. I'd I'd like to have an up or down vote on this proposal, and then, if there's a different proposal, I I think we should consider that in in due course. 1. 1 of the proponents of the policy suggestion did propose the age 25. Unless I'm reading the room. And I would prepare totally differently for an H. 25. Discussion, which was not part of this proposal, was not mentioned in this proposal. You know again, if it's a completely different proposal which I would view a 25 age limit as a completely different proposal. I'd want to think that through and be ready for a meeting to discuss that with proper notice, and and all the bells and whistles that procedurally help us come to a good outcome.

[146:03] So you know, as far as saying, Well, let's amend this proposal and make it totally different to me. That's just a totally different proposal. So so. Personally, I would not support that. Well, okay, looking at the what's on our screens right now. It would fit under the hmm. 1st cloud meeting, second cloud meeting. I mean it could be discussed at a future meeting. Right. And I think that just like building on Adam's comment, that a committee of one person, a committee of 2 people, could get together they could fill out a policy suggestion form. I'd be absolutely interested, considering an under 25 discussion. But for the current motion current proposal, should there be a concentrated ban. I'm ready to take a vote on that. Okay. is there any further discussion?

[147:02] And then, just to clarify Kristen? I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I'm just putting it out there. Dell is a voting member. Jock is not. Correct. So they know and everybody else knows. Okay? And. And I I think when we're voting, just just so I understand how to vote, or or what I'm voting on. would yes, be for the proposal to move it forward, and no would be to not move the proposal forward at at this time. That is my intent. Okay. Can I get a clarification, then, on the motion? Because the motion, as I have written is. should the cloud consider changes further from the policy suggestion form. That's that's the only that's the way the motion reads. Currently. Right. Say what you just said again.

[148:00] Shall the cloud consider changes to further the policy, suggestion, form. so if we modify it. So my motion would be something to the effect of Should the cloud consider further changes to this policy, suggestion, form further action. Should the cloud consider further changes or action on this policy, suggestion, form. I just wanna make sure I'm getting it correct. Should the cloud consider further, I'm sorry. Action or changes on this policy. Form. Makes it that makes it more confusing. Brian. how about is your motion, maybe should be. should be, should go forward as written. When you add changes. Then that's what we're talking about. Potentially. But again, other policy suggestion forms can come in. They can be in a similar topic. They could be considered. But we're not sort of categorically excluding this, we're just taking a vote on this policy suggestion form.

[149:09] So does everybody know what they're voting for now. Except for I still don't. I'm I'm still not clear on what the motion is. Should the clab consider further changes on this policy suggestion, form. Roberto. I can. So and I apologize. Can you just state it as a motion? I move that Clab X, okay? And that way that. Lab. It'll be very clear. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. I move that clad. Consider further changes to the policy suggestion, form. Oh, gosh, okay, sorry folks. So to to me

[150:00] again, a change to this policy suggestion form would be slightly different language on a warning label. it'd be 35% instead of 30% on on the on the concentration. This policy suggestion form doesn't say anything about any limit on on age. I think that's a completely different policy. I think we're voting on apples right now, and and that the 25 age limit is oranges. So I I know anyone can make a vote. but but to me, like a really clear motion would be should we move forward with this policy suggestion form that would not prevent anyone at some point in the future from suggesting a different policy, a new policy. But I haven't heard any specific amendments of any kind suggested to this policy suggestion form. And and so

[151:01] I'd I'd really like us to have before we start discussing something different, just an up or down vote on this form, whether to move forward be because otherwise, like, you know, should we have changes to it? Well, well, what kind of changes I mean, that just begs the question. Okay, I will strike. The word changes. I move at the club act on the submitted policy suggestion form. Second. Sorry who second, who seconded I was typing. Thank you. Foster seconded. Does everybody know what they're voting for now? And this is this form on page 21 of our packet. Correct. Do we move forward with this form or not at at this time? Yeah. Okay. Kristen. I think we're ready.

[152:01] Okay. Would you like me to do the roll? Call? Vote. Yes, please. Okay. one moment. Member Foster. No. Member Green. No. Vice chair, Keegan. No. Member, cruiser. No. Chair Kuntzman. I'm gonna vote. Yes, and. Member, noble. Respectfully, no. Alright. The noes have it with chair. Kuntzman being the sole abstention the sole. Yes, vote motion does not the the motion does not pass.

[153:00] What is next on the agenda. Officially. All right, one moment. Let me scroll back down. Matters. Well, I don't. You want to discuss whether a group of 2. I'm starting to hit my limit. So I I would welcome tabling that kind of discussion at future meetings, and. Okay, well, we don't have to group of 2, can. It? Sounds like part of Roberto can just get together and. Yeah, we don't need to sit here and discuss that. If 2 people wish to proceed with that, it sounds like they're welcome to do that. If I'm understanding that document. That is, that is correct, and and the reason for that is you have to remember you are the only board in within the city that has the authority to independently make suggestions to to city council. So if 2 of you

[154:04] want to get together as long as all of you are not discussing it, or more than 2 are not discussing it. Then. That's fine. Good point. Not 3. Okay, then the next thing on my agenda is matter. You can stay right on the on the screen. There matters from the city attorney. Nothing new from the city attorney's office. Thank you. Matters from the regulatory licensing office. Yes, thank you. Chair Kunstman. So as you can see, the sheet with the link for the sales. Tax revenue report is included in the clab packet, as well as the cannabis business licenses list as of the date of public, of providing the packet to you. The next item that we normally speak of under this section is ideas for future meeting. Agenda items.

[155:04] Can you go back to on on page 30, where you were just telling us about the list? Are these new or these are existing? These are in. So are there anything? Is there anything new you would like to provide that is not currently there. So I know, like, previously we had a suggestion that maybe cannabis come and talk to us, but we know that they weren't going to be back in until the fall. That kind of thing. The list that you provided about the The businesses are these new businesses are there change they're offering, or they're asking for some change or. No. The the list we provide is a list of currently licensed marijuana businesses within the city of Boulder. Occasionally you may see some fluctuation in the numbers or the names, but we do not specifically enumerate which ones are new and which ones are not.

[156:05] So 14 Year Gardens is on there 4 times, and even including twice as a recreational grow. That's because they have different locations. Right? Okay. So you're gonna see occasional repeat names. And it's because they have more than one license or one license type. Okay. If that helps clarify. Yeah. I'm just curious. I was confused. No problem. Okay. And then you said we were going on to future topics. Ideas for future meeting. Agenda items. Yes. Folks. I've included some materials at the back, just around, rescheduling again for us as a board with within our statutory authority. There's not a whole lot for us to be done about what the Dea is gonna do.

[157:11] But if there were issues, I just want to open this to the board. If there's conversations around rescheduling that folks think would be helpful for either the community. for the industry, for other stakeholders. around rescheduling, I would welcome that kind of feedback. Is there any proposed experts to address that? I do think. Again. I think it's a little bit premature. I think that until the actual rule is released. Or like, in a more final draft. Probably more appropriate to have that kind of discussion. But again open to feedback.

[158:01] I'd be really interested in that conversation, just learning more. And then hearing from stakeholders locally what they they think or anticipate in terms of impact. Generally speaking, I think we could probably put together a nice round table, but I agree that it might. The timing might need to be a little closer to what's anticipated I don't know. I think the next election, if it goes one way or the other, is really gonna impact that, and it may be frozen until then. The the other, if I may. Another idea for a future meeting. I heard a lot of the folks who came on today. Talk about the healthy kids, Colorado survey, both really trusting that data and other people who were distrustful of the data, or or at least had some questions around how kids respond to it. And I think that could be a nice round table to give context to the healthy kids, survey data and let these folks speak up about what they

[159:07] think are the limitations. I mean, I'll tell you that when my kid was in high school he went to a high school that was a little smaller and had a lot of kids who had struggled in different areas, and they weren't surveyed. And that was a big miss in my mind, because these were some of the kids, were, you know, more involved in drug use, and probably should have been surveyed. So there's limitations like that. And I think just having some context on that survey would be helpful to all of us versus just taking the numbers as they come. So. I would love to have that conversation at a future meeting. Kristen. Yes, thank you. Robin. I just wanna make sure I'm capturing your thoughts correctly when you say hosting around having a round table.

[160:01] for both. Not only these rescheduling, but also round table. Regarding the healthy kids. data. Are you talking about clab hosting a separate roundtable. or are you talking about as a a presentation from health? I just need. I need a little bit of clarification, if you don't mind, please. No, you're exactly right. I I was just using that term roundtable. But the thought was just a few experts from different backgrounds who might be able to speak, and I know the Cdphe folks on the healthy kids survey will gladly come and talk to us about the data, and then maybe we can find one or 2 other people who either have questions about the data or you know, I know Don Reinfeld was on earlier, and she mentioned healthy kids and some of the concerns she's had, and that the superintendent sounds like he had. I'm not sure I don't want to quote that. But I just think that could be an interesting conversation.

[161:06] But but no, not a separate thing. Kristen. Just a presentation. Thank you. I I appreciate that. Thank you. As always. If there's a consensus, and then there's presenters you'd like me to see, please, email, the presenter, their organization and their contact information to us. If there's a consensus of the Board to move forward with something like that. Anyone opposed on either of those 2 items. If we do end up talking about the age 25, and how it might apply. I've been told that there's a psychiatrists down at entrance that is a national international expert on that topic.

[162:00] but I have not been able to speak with her. Her name is Paula Riggs. She she talks that when when they have conferences down, and the medical school public health she gets on from California, although I guess she is a faculty member at Anschutz, but is living in California. Sorry on the on the healthy kids. Colorado proposal, would it would it just be to invite the the author of the way that we invited Dr. Sant to come, speak, or or was the proposal be because that sounds great to me? But I I wasn't sure if that was the specific proposal, or if it was something different. Thanks, Adam, I think what I was hoping for was a conversation with the people who do the healthy kids survey data from Cdphe, and then maybe some representation from either Blue Rising or some of these other groups who have questions on the the data and and maybe would want to pose some

[163:16] questions, or they could certainly do that through me or another board member. But yeah. Okay, yeah, I I would, you know, be interested in hearing from the the person who authored that. survey, or or you know the folks who are compiling that data in in my personal view, you know, hearing from advocates who are pro cannabis or anti cannabis, would probably be less informative than than hearing from the folks who compile the data and and author. The survey. Right. Thank you. Yeah. I I support all the inviting. The Cdphe healthy kids folks out for a presentation.

[164:04] my other thought that just popped out of my head. Well, this is embarrassing. All right. Come back to me. Sorry. Is anyone opposed to us trying to get testimony, or, you know. get some presentation from this person. Paula Riggs. I love that idea, Tom. I think that would be great, especially since there did seem to be some interest in that particular policy possibility. Is that what you were? That's how are you again. I like the idea of poly rigs coming and talking as well. My idea to pop back in my head and just recognizing that we've got an expert like Dell on the board as well would maybe be around a theme of

[165:02] testing and inflation. I know that there so inflation in this context being that the pressures that labs are under to sort of report certain kinds of numbers. It's like, what could we do as a regulatory response to ensure that testing results that are coming out of analytical labs are well calibrated and accurate for what's actually in the product. but I will alley-oop that over to Dell if he's got something smarter, or sort of more calibrated to say around that. I I don't know if I have anything smarter to say at this time, but I'd be happy to help. Is is testing is testing or currently adequate. Yeah, I think so. yeah, the the framework's been in place for a number of years. So everyone has to test and depending on the product type.

[166:04] in in terms of our labs under pressure to. you know, produce favorable results for their customers. I don't think so in this state. I know it happens in other States. California is a big one right now. That's you know, they just a lab got suspended or they lost their license due to Yeah. bad results. But yes, coming from the lab industry. I I never really saw that in our industry, you know, in the labs here in the State. you know the there's frequent audits. Yeah, there's audits several times a year by the Cdphe and the Med. Comes in as well. Yeah. So I think I would just be happy to learn more about what the that looks like, and maybe get a a panel together on that as well. So just like a panel around like testing and sort of like, what? How is that run or concerns what are safeguards.

[167:02] Yeah. Could help put that together. So, Brian, is it premature to have a conversation. an early conversation about anything to do with natural medicine? If we're on the agenda. Item 7, I could sort of broach that as well. But I'll refer to the chair when where we are on the agenda. We have an expert on our board who's looking down right now. He's mute. No. Anyway. So I guess just building on top Tom's comment here. So city council did have a meeting last week around reviewing a set of recommendations for natural medicines. I, in my personal capacity, wrote a message to so council. Member Adams kind of raised the question of

[168:03] was any of the kind of this presentation given to Council? Reflect any input from the boards and commissions? And the answer to that was, no you all are familiar with my interest in ensuring that the expertise on this board can inform all of the different kinds of policy matters around these psychoactive substances for efficacy, for health, safety, all these kinds of concerns. so I wrote again in my personal capacity and email, the council kind of expressing my frustration that they received a presentation that didn't reflect the full breadth of expertise that was present on this board because of a. in my opinion, a narrow statutory reading of our authority only being the cannabis But it is my hope that we could again provide input on that in a way that abides by

[169:00] city policy and charter, and all that good stuff. Anybody have any questions about that. You know. I I think if if it would be helpful to counsel, I'd I would be very interested in helping them. with that, you know. I I don't know if they want feedback from from this board, but if if they did, you know, I certainly would be happy to work on that. Well, that can be for future discussion. Not so not next meeting. But we have local experts. many of them.

[170:00] Okay. Anything else from regulatory licensing office. So I do have some clarifications, because the the topic was, the the discussion was really great. But I didn't really exactly hear anything definitive. So I have down here that with the dea, with the rescheduling round table or discussion timing but closer impacts. Beside, there was no specific direction to put that down yet. Paula Riggs. Yes, but no idea of of kind of like when or anything like that trying to and then, of course, topic discussed about having experts on the board, about testing and and things like that. And then, of course, it it moved on to to discussing natural medicine and city council. So can I get a little bit more direction, please.

[171:04] Let's go back to the 1st one you've got that that was I'm trying to remember. No, during being. So that was, that was vice chair Keegan on the Dea, and rescheduling of cannabis. So. But then there was some discussion that you know, the the election might have impacts. It's going to be a little bit later on down the line. So do you want to just hold that off until you guys get a better timeline. So nothing to put on the list right now. Well, I think we could put it on the list, but for future going bright. I mean. So just to respond concretely to Kristen. I think that and I don't want to impose on Dell too much just in this 1st meeting out of the gate. But if we wanted to line up like a conversation around testing for September, does that, how quickly would we need to get you information for that.

[172:02] You're asking, Dell. Are you asking Kristen. Asking Kristen so like speakers. So September at the Clab meeting would fall on Labor Day. So that's 1 of the items we need to talk about in the next set of these. I'm just currently working in the future meeting agenda items. What I can do is just put down that there's interest in the rescheduling there's interest in Paula Riggs from see you, Anschutz, but I need to get some community. Some contacts and information sent to me for that, so that staff have those, for when it's time to possibly reschedule. And then, of course, there would be a testing or or additional stuff that could come maybe from our internal cloud members. But I would need to kind of know what how you wanted, wanted, that phrased. And when.

[173:00] So do you have the topic for Paula Riggs? Did you write down. All I just had is age 25. Yeah. Expert on topic. Developing brain and the effects of drugs on those under the age of 20. Yeah. Since. Do you have her contact information? Tom? I do, but she's not very. She doesn't respond. Very well, then, my John Samut is the best way to reach her. Okay. Well, if you want to, just kind of shoot me an email with what you like, I can add that. I'll send you that. Perfect. Thank you. And then Robin brought up a topic in between those. June. About that. Right? the healthy kids survey distrust and and trust of the data experts from different backgrounds. So some, I'm I. What I heard was some parents as well as other entities, School Board and blue rising.

[174:01] As to such is that correct member, noble. Yeah, I mean, I I to Adam's point. Maybe we have the people who author the survey here just to give us an overview, and we can ask some questions about that. I I don't want to set up a debate between everybody. But I do think it's it's worth it to get more information on how the study is conducted, and then, if any of you are in contact with advocates who are concerned about how the data's come together or distrusted. I think we should be ready to ask those questions and understand limitations of the data and bigger context on it. How does that sound to everybody? I I think that makes sense. I, Robin, I thank you. I think you hit my concern on the head that you know, having the healthy kids. Colorado Survey folks come, speak, I I think, would be very informative but then I think if we're either lining up other speakers who tend to be, you know, cannabis proponents or opponents, then I think it might muddy the waters a little bit on that core. Super interesting issue of the the public health data. So that's that's correct. Thank you. And and I would support the comment that or the suggestion that Robin had that, you know people can come prepared with

[175:22] with questions that they might want to ask the the folks who compiled the survey. Remember, Noble, would you be able to shoot me an email with who you'd like me to contact? There? Please. You bet I will follow up. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you. Okay, so I have those down. and then a discussion was kicked back over to Dell as far as some, some testing, some opportunity to provide a a presentation on testing.

[176:00] Is that correct? Or did I hear that right. I mean, I would be interested in collaborating with Dell and pulling the other panel. But that doesn't have to be for September. But yes, like a a panel on testing in Colorado. And what that looks like. You might have to be more specific. I'm just suggesting, because cinnamon and her colleagues are working on roadside testing. Oh, sorry. Yeah. My intent is analytical testing. So contaminants yeast mold concentration. Which, by the way, would be another interesting topic. It's not ready for prime time, but

[177:01] but that's a study they're working on. So Kristen's Kristen just got a phone call, too. okay, any other. What? What about for next? Well, I believe she was probably gonna talk about whether we're having a meeting next month. So I do apologize. They, the cleaning crew, is in the building and they're vacuuming, and they propped all the doors to our workspace open, and so I couldn't really hear anything. So I had to go shut the doors. But I believe Christian Changeris is going to take over from this point. Thanks, Kristen. So we have received an application for a new medical marijuana dispensary. And so we need to talk through future meetings, and when we might have that scheduled for a public hearing. If you all recall this Board did vote to switch to quarterly hybrid meetings. So originally we were planning to have our next meeting in November based on that schedule as a hybrid meeting in the Brenton Building. Now that we've received a new application. We wanted to check in with the Board to see if you would like to hold that public hearing at the November

[178:21] meeting, or if you'd like to schedule something a little sooner, perhaps in October. To have that hearing before November. So that is the question that we wanted to pose to this board for direction. I I would support scheduling a little earlier. I just. you know. don't think I'd I'd prefer not to make them wait 3 months, you know, for a result, if if we don't need to. So I'd I'd certainly be available earlier. Oh, Brian. Oh, yeah, just echoing Adam. I I would support having an earlier action on this my availability in early October may be very poor. We're expecting our second baby so in late September, so

[179:10] I may or may not be available in early October, but absent, that I would support this board acting before November on an application. Second one that raised Brian. Come on nothing to I I'm not sure I understood you 100%, Chris, and see that we need to be in person to do this, or we do not need to be in person, or it doesn't really matter or. Yeah, that's a good question. So it can be a hybrid or a virtual hearing. We can accommodate either one. So I guess there's 2 questions for the Board number one. Would you like to have this hearing in November at the next scheduled meeting or schedule a meeting sooner in October, and then number 2, would you like that meeting to be virtual or hybrid?

[180:16] Oops. So I cover for the is everybody in agreement on October for the application review. Okay, I see. Thumbs up all thumbs up. It's up to Stacey Great. And then, which one was, there? Was there an issue about even having the meeting in September, or reading between the lines? There. So so a couple of things the board voted to switch to Quarterly, which would put our next meeting in November. Not. We weren't planning to have a September meeting because of the quarterly schedule that the Board decided on in addition to that, the 1st Monday of September is Labor Day. So if you did have a September meeting, it would need to be moved anyways.

[181:15] and then as far as the public hearing goes, that is not enough time for Staff to prepare this application for hearing so the soonest that we could do the public hearing is going to be October. So I think what I'm hearing is maybe no meeting in September. Prepare and do the application review October in November. whether they're at the library whatever. Not kill everybody. We have a meeting in November. As of right now. The next scheduled regular meeting is in November, and this board, you know you can

[182:01] decide if you, if you want to keep that meeting or reschedule. If because you're meeting in October, whatever whatever the Board decides, is appropriate. How about we just plan one at a time. plus, we need to know. I'd be fun with October right. That's how about. unless anyone's pose? We meet in October, we do the application review right. And I didn't catch was that hybrid or virtual. About Brian, but I would love to meet in person

[183:05] Adam. I I was gonna support that just because I I think hybrid, you know, the virtual option is available. And then then folks who are able to attend in person and want to have that option too. So I I think I'd go hybrid. But I'm comfortable either way. More work to do it. Hybrid. See? I'm I'm so sorry I'm having a hard time hearing you. Did you ask if it's more work to do a hybrid meeting. Is hybrid, too much more work. We can accommodate. Whatever this board prefers, either one is is fine for staff. Anyone opposed to hybrid offering.

[184:00] Okay. let's do a hybrid. Okay, what else do you need to know. Those are all the questions that I had. So we will schedule that public hearing for Monday, October 7.th It will be a hybrid meeting likely in the Brenton Building, where you've met in the past. But we'll send out more details to come prior to that meeting. So thank you. I appreciate it right? And I just have a clarifying. So if that is October first, st any materials for the clab packet would need to come in on apologies. The 16th of September. On October 7.th Yeah, I was. Gonna say, the 1st is a Tuesday Kristen.

[185:00] Oh, I'm sorry! That's okay. October 7.th You're right. I apologize. Wrong, calendar. Then it's the 23rd of of September. That cloud. But any cloud materials would be due. Thanks. Kristen. I did not have anything else. From the regulatory licensing office. Kristen, was there anything else you wanted to add? No, we we handled everything. That I had down for that. Yep, I'm good to go. Madison chair, or I'm so far. Brian, did I steal your thunder. A little bit, but we got to it. It's all out there. Thank you.

[186:00] Anyone. And then there's a number of articles which are great article. Any other comments. questions, concerns Stacy we established before 1 1 second. Now there's still one opening on the board. Do we have any applicants? We are sending out a I don't know a notice. So they are not currently in recruiting mode. Or not. No. Okay, Adam, did you had your hand up. Oh, thanks! I I just wanted to say welcome to Dell, and and that I'm very glad to have him joining the board. Yeah, thank you. Everyone. I I guess I should disclose that Dell is my neighbor 2 doors down, by the way. so if I if I yell really loud. You can probably hear me right now.

[187:01] But or not I don't know. So anyways. Hmm. okay, well, thanks everybody, and thank you, Staff. and thanks to all the attendees who are now left us. So to all the speakers that spoke alright. Thanks, Sarah! Bye, bye. You chair. Thank you, Steph. I need a motion. Oh, wait! Move, move to adjourn. Oh, there's that. That Adam. Yeah, move to adjourn. I, second. Oh, Dell, hitting the ground, running. Anyone opposed or abstaining? It's unanimous. Okay. Alright. Thank you, Staff. Thank you. Chair. Thank you. Board members.