Good morning everyone. We are going to assess how many people are going to join us. And if there's the ballpark of 2025, we'll go ahead and unmute everybody. If there's more than that in the next couple of minutes. We will stick to this like muted raise your hand unmute to talk model just so that we have a little bit of crowd control when there's that many people on virtual someone inevitably will be off mute on a call. In my experience, we'll give people another minute to join us. I see some more people trickling in. Thanks to everyone who joined us right away.
Oh, great. And chat is on Thank you Tierney. If you want on into the chat to say who you are and the organization you're affiliated with, if you are affiliated with an organization, that would be great. I think it's always nice to see who's in the room. And for others to see who's in the room. Give it one more minute. But so far Tierney it seems like we we might be able to do that unmute everybody strategy, which would be exciting.
Thank you all for writing into the chat. And thanks, Gregory for recording. We were just talking about whether or not we should record and I said I mentioned Gregory will record we don't need a redundant recording. And you do such a good job giving kind of a transcript of of events on the cannabis observer. Welcome Doug and Aaron. Danielle. Welcome everybody. Okay, Tierney, I think we can we can go ahead and unmute everybody, that would be great. Okay, we just didn't know if like 100 people were going to join and then it was just going to be like audio chaos. So we started with a little bit more structure. And while you're doing that, I'll go ahead and jump in. So Tierney is not unmuting. Everybody, she's just giving everybody the capacity to come on video and unmute yourself.
As we get into the discussion, I'm going to give a quick introduction of myself because I recognize not all of you. And I have had a chance to meet. My name is Kristen Haley. I'm the Public Health Education liaison here at the liquor cannabis board. I'm a trained health educator, I've worked in alcohol and other drug prevention and harm reduction for most of my career, and also have worked in social marketing, which is the science of behavior change using marketing tools for behavior change before I came to LCB. We are, do member Vollendroff. Justin, do you want to do an introduction? Do you feel like this this crew needs it? Go ahead?
I'd like to do a quick introduction. So thank you, and welcome, everyone. I'm pleased to have you join us today and excited to have this conversation. One of the things that we're trying to do at the LCB is get ahead of potential legislation that may come at us in this next session, we anticipate that there may be additional legislation coming forward just based on history. We don't have anything specific. But one of the things we're trying to do is gather as much information as possible and be more proactive and reaching out to legislators and asking them if they're in fact planning on dropping legislation related to high THC. And we want to have conversations early on and be a part of their drafting or understand why we shouldn't be a part of their potential proposal. And your input is going to be really critical to that. So thank you very much. I really appreciate your participation today.
Thanks for that member Vollendroff. Justin, do you want to say anything?
Sure. Good morning, everyone. Justin Nordhorn, Director of Policy and external affairs. Just wanted to kind of echo what Jim is saying and further the efforts that Kristin is doing to try to bridge the gap in the stakeholder arena, between public health and the industry. In our conversations, there seems to be a lot of alignment of interest points. The perspectives are still different, but I think we're getting there and these types of open conversations and dialogue is going to help with that. And it helps make informed decisions. So I really appreciate you all taking the time to be here today. Thank you.
Agreed. Um, so by way of agenda today, we will we just kind of this was the welcome. I'm going to give a little bit of level setting some grounding about kind of the bigger picture of how we're trying to go about these conversations, why we're having these conversations, elaborate on what Jim and Justin just said. And then the bulk of today is us sitting back and listening to you all, I have three kinds of overarching questions just to get the ball rolling, get your, your heads in the same space, and, you know, jog ideas from you. But I want this to be a self guided conversation. We're not I know, usually, when when you all come into an LCB space, it's either a board meeting, where you have like three or four minutes to talk or it's a rulemaking process where there's this like jam packed agenda, and we're trying to get your feedback on very specific things and kind of drive conversation in a very structured way. This is going to be totally different than that this is really us like, opening up the space is high THC, and how do we keep people safe and healthy when using the high THC products. And then where you want to go, what you want to share, what you want to talk to one another about in this space is up to you. With that, I think it's also before I jump into the next slide I, for anyone who wasn't here at the very beginning, all of you will be able to unmute yourself. So you can come on camera. Now if you'd like to be part and we can kind of see everybody in the room, you're more than welcome to do that. If you feel comfortable. If you want to raise your hand, and we'll unmute you or you can unmute yourself, when I call on you or you can drop in your thoughts in the chat, we'll be capturing everything. So whatever you feel the most comfortable. And once we get into the discussion, if you want to just come off mute and talk like we're all in the same room around the same table, that's totally fine with me, I just ask that everybody be respectful of one another try not to cut people off. Try not to talk for the rest of the call so that other people have a chance, you know, we all know how to converse in these kinds of settings. Um, I want to give, like I said, a little bit of a level set of the bigger picture. So, um, you know, last session and 2023 2023 and 2024, we had a number of high THC bills, some went through several iterations like 2020 2023. Right. That's the bill that got passed that has content for Department of Health to do a budtender training and signage. And an unfunded request to do a campaign. That bill went through several iterations had things in it at one point like ah, gating, I think there was also some sort of tax piece that lasted a day and then came back out. I mean, if anyone was closely tracking it, it went through a lot of different iterations. And one of the things that was really clear to me and some of our public health partners, and some of our focus internally is during session, we didn't really have the space or capacity to like deep dive, how do we feel about age gating? Like, what is the impact of that? Do we like it? Or is this like, not with worth the risk? Or the the added? The added stress of that on the system? Like, what about a tax system? What what does that look like in a way that doesn't harm the industry doesn't, you know, promote the black market? Like what are we really doing here? And I think session is not a conducive time to have those kinds of deep, thoughtful conversations. And so a number of us, I think, from you all on this call today, internally, and LCB. And then some of the public health partners all have thought maybe we should just have a slow, ongoing conversation in the between time, right now this summer, to think through some of these big ideas and to see where are we in alignment between public health and industry if we are at all? So that was kind of The Spark. We also looked at what other states were doing in particular, one second, Jim, in particular, we looked at California and learn that California has done like an 18 to 24 month long process, where they have a group of folks that they have hand selected to go through this kind of a process that we're trying to do on Washington, and we didn't we liked the idea of what California did. We didn't love the way that they've done it. It was mostly researchers. As an academics, we really wanted to bring together a group of much more diverse disciplines. And so that was kind of what sparked this idea. So we've had meetings with our public health partners, we hope to have several meetings with all of you. And then eventually later this summer, we hope to gather a select group of public health and and industry partners to have a more productive conversation than I think we've been able to have in the past. And the reason we're having these calls separate the public health costs first and the industry calls first is that I have witnessed and others have witnessed that there is, you know, a long history and kind of some, you know, mudslinging, and defensiveness and lack of trust that can happen between public health partners, and you all in the industry. And I think, whenever that exists between two spaces, we need to take a step back, build the trust, build that security between these two partners, and then bring partners together who might feel more comfortable talking with one another. So that's the goal. I'm trying to help us see where we are in alignment. And I want to have this space with our public health partners today so that you all can finish a thought without feeling like you're under attack by preventionists, who, you know, think that cannabis shouldn't even exist on our shelves, right? Like, there, there are some folks who just have such conflicting viewpoints that we don't always get to hear your perspective, from beginning middle to end. So that's really the hope for today is that we'll be able to, to listen to you all, and to eventually get to a space where we can bring partners together. So I'll pause right there. Jim, go ahead. And welcome, Will.
Thank you. I didn't mean to interrupt, I just wanted to follow up when you were done. So thank you for finishing. So what I wanted to just say is that I've been impressed with conversations that I've had with industry around where we can coalesce on coalesce on issues related to prevention, and informing people about safe cannabis use. And the Christian covered much of what I was going to say by saying we had a previous conversation with prevention folks. And one of the things that I specifically said, is that we are not interested in having conversations about prohibition. So we really don't want people to on the prevention side to think that in any way that we are thinking of banning this product or anything like that. So we just really put that out there. And I, in conversations with industry have had conversations around. Actually 100% of the people that I've had conversations with can get around keeping product out of the hands of young people, people not of legal age to consume the product. And so what do we do there? I am super interested in having more conversation around what about people living with psychosis in experiencing psychosis, psychosis? And is there a concern there? I have to say I personally have a concern. That's an area of interest of mine is addressing the issue of young people living with psychosis using high THC concentration products. I think I've had conversations with industry around products that are not legal and are unregulated in the state of Washington, and we can we coalesce around some of those issues. So I'm really interested in figuring out a way as Kristin said, how can we have some more of these deep conversations and find our commonalities recognize that we do have differences, and we're not going to coalesce around every issue? But what can we coalesce around? And what can we advance based on healthy conversations? I mentioned in caucus this week that I just got back from a international drug policy conference in Quebec, Canada, in the province of Quebec. And just it was super interesting. It was interesting to learn what they're doing in that particular province, how that particular province differs from the other provinces, how they're handling things, and I think that we have some opportunities to learn from some of those things. So just wanted to again, put that out there. I also want to say that I am obviously just one board member, I'm not representing the entire board. So my opinions are just my opinions at this particular point. But again, really appreciate your participation today.
Thanks for that. And just, this might be obvious, but I'll say it out loud in case it's not to everyone. The goal of all of this is to get to a shared compiled considerations. And to get the point where we can share compiled considerations with key leaders, not just at LCB. But with industry association leaders, with other state agencies and with folks across the public health system. I would love and I don't know if this is just totally utopian. But I would love if we could get to a point where we all by the end of the summer or early fall are like, Oh, here's all the areas where we overlap. And we have these shared goals together. So that next session, we might be able to move the needle a little bit further. And I want us to just keep our eye on the horizon. You said it so well, Jim, I would broaden it beyond just just miners not having access to these products. I think anyone who's using these products should have a safe and healthy experience when they use these products.
Do you know what the total deposits are for this month?
Oops. Chad? Thanks, Tierney. Um, see, this is my attorneys helping with, um, but I want us to keep our eye on that horizon as we have this conversation really quickly, the purpose and deliverables from this process. So not just today's call. But all of these conversations that we've had and that we will continue to have is to collect and prioritize strategies to mitigate potential harm associated with high THC consumption. And the deliverables within that overall purpose are to identify ways various partners seek to improve public health and safety goals related to high THC and deprioritize recommendations. And that could be for future program modifications, public health education campaigns, rulemaking, or legislation and or legislation. So that's kind of the what? And I want to get us into the question. So go ahead, Jim.
I'm sorry, I have one more thing to say, before we jump into the questions, and that is, again, speaking as one board member, I want you to know, as an individual with a behavioral health background and an individual in recovery, that I support the cannabis industry in this state, and I want the cannabis industry in this state to thrive. I have said this at a walk a conference, and that is when I was vetted to be on this board, it was made very clear to me that the LCB, and the governor's office was not interested in having anybody serve on the board that was coming at it from a prohibition stand. And so just again, to emphasize that we really do support the industry. And within the legal framework that we have here in Washington State, we really do want the industry to thrive. Um, having said that, there are populations that I do have concerns about, and for me, it's youth and young adults and people not of legal age, and that again, I think most of us can agree upon. But there's two other populations that I want to mention. One of them is individuals living with mental illness, and particularly those who are living with psychosis. And the second population that I want to mention is individuals who self identify as being in recovery from a substance use cannabis use diagnosis in particular, I've seen you know, it's a little complicated because I have frankly seen some people who have a primary diagnosis of substance use disorder, alcohol primarily, who've used cannabis as part of their recovery program. And for some people, that's a thing, and that's okay. But for those who self identify as recovery, and who are in recovery, particularly from a cannabis use disorder, I want to make sure how do we make sure we are looking out for them, people in recovery, people living with mental illness in youth and young adults as part of this overall conversation, while making sure that we have a thriving industry in the state to operate center the guidelines that we have.
Thank you, Jim. Okay, with that, I'm gonna get us into our guiding questions. And like I said at the top, these are I compiled these questions just to get the ball rolling. I want to kind of get everybody thinking, if there are things you want to share within this, you know, space of high THC. Please do and if your thoughts aren't captured under one of the umbrellas of these questions, that's totally fine. Like I said, this should be guided and as folks start answering questions, you don't have to go on order 123. If there's a question here that you want to speak to jump right in, if you are listening to someone's wrist Bahnson you want to pile on or you want to disagree? Come off mute, raise your hand, drop something into the chat. And I will try to facilitate to make sure that everyone gets to be heard today. So I'll read the questions for anyone who can't see the screen. The first is what, if anything, do you consider the biggest risk posed by high THC products? And I put if anything there, because I want to give space for anyone who disagrees with the premise of this conversation. And I want to hear from you. If you don't think that high THC products can pose any risk if they're completely harmless. Like, I want to hear your your reasoning and would love if you have research you'd like to share. The next question I see one second, Caitlin, what changes, if any, would you like to see related to regulations of high THC products? What do you hope will stay the same? I think anytime you do a systems change, even if it's a quality assurance change to like an ongoing meeting, you got to figure out what's working so that you don't break the thing that's going just fine. So I want to hear what from your perspective should stay the same and why it should stay the same. So that if we do look to modify the rules or propose legislation that we don't touch the good parts? And then are there other strategies beyond changes to regulations that you consider valuable and potentially effective. And again, keeping our eye on that horizon? The purpose of all of this is to create safer and healthier outcomes for cannabis consumers. With that, I saw your hand go up. Go ahead, Caitlin.
Good morning. So I think I want to maybe guide us and open a little bit of a door to in between that binary. I'm a little I feeling like these sorts of questions already has an assumption underlying that is a little bit problematic. But I think also then hitting the No, everything's fine as the only other option is also challenging. Where I think that there's a lot of room in between. And I think that that's actually where this discussion should be. I you know, we've talked a long time about education is the the space in between. and So bringing us to that little pink box, this safer and healthier outcomes for cannabis consumers. And I don't know that regulating the product is necessarily the answer to that particular wish, but rather, ensuring that people are armed with really good quality, scientifically based information about these products, how to consume them in a way that ensures that people are not over consuming, that people you know, above that age gate are equipped with good information about family history and things that they should be aware of. And then that that younger folks have also good information about why it's important to wait until their brain stem cooking, and you know, all of those, those good things as well. I might have some more specific suggestions, but kind of wanted to just start with that thought.
Yeah, appreciate that. That's why I tried to do that with the if anything, and if any. Yeah, so I think you articulated that better than I did. Thank you, Caitlin. Go ahead, Micah.
Hi, there. So yeah, definitely agree with what Caitlin just said and support that. And I'm. So as far as the biggest risk of this conversation. In my opinion, the biggest risk is to continue the approaches of prohibition and the war on drugs in a new form, under a regulated environment. So I think it's really important that we come into this conversation, acknowledging that that failure was the biggest issue with prohibition was the failure of the state, and its execution of that project. And that the potential harms of that are still there and are still ongoing. And I think the more that we come into this conversation, trying to deconstruct the war on drugs and build something different, is an really important thing to keep in our minds the whole time because the harms of the War on Drugs far outweigh the harms of the drugs themselves. So number one, top of the list for me is is that um, then to kind of reiterate on what what Kailen said, I think education and understanding about these products is is very important. And I think the way that we've gone about defining our product categories and not talking about the difference between extremely processed, manufactured, synthesized, all chemically altered, flavored, all of these additional ingredients that get added into cannabis products, I think are a big concern, and that we don't have the regulatory structure in our product categories to make sure that when we start to regulate and investigate these more complicated manufactured products, that we don't end up in a situation where natural cannabis and natural cannabis products get kind of lumped in to the regulatory structure for these more complicated manufactured products. So I think one thing we can do early on in this process right now is to create different lanes for natural cannabis, and manufactured products and start conceptually separating them. And I think we'll be more effective at creating really good legislation and policy around how to treat those things distinctly. And I think it's been one of the problems that's kept us from really successfully getting into some of those details. So that would be the second thing that just jumps out at me. Right off the bat.
Yeah, that's very helpful. Thank you. Appreciate that. My god. No one else. Lots of you came on camera, which I appreciate. Thank you. I see the LCB folks all the time. Go ahead, Bethany.
I'll chime in. So I guess for me. I think it's important that we also are considerate of psychosis is also something that can happen from alcohol as well. And we don't really have these, like really encompassing conversations about that. And I'm not saying like, we need to do that with alcohol as well, I'm just saying that it's maybe we should consider that people are adults that are coming to the stores and using these products. And they can, they're already deciding the, the you know, the risk factor of using a product. So I just want to make sure that I feel like sometimes it's just my experience, my husband, and we both started in medical. So this is pretty much been my entire career. So I've been in this in this cannabis space for 15 years. And there seems to be this common thought and thread with people who are against cannabis or, you know, anti groups, whatever you want to call them, that think that we're actively selling to underage people or children. And that's never been something that we've focused on doing, I guess so. I feel like it's really important that we left off industry and and us, you know,
oh, shoot, you went off mute pan. Let me see if I can. And you unmute yourself. Oh, there you go. Okay,
So, So you know, the people who are here today, you know, I recognize just pretty much everybody's name here. You know, we're actively having no interest or intention of selling to minors, so a lot of the minors that are getting access to cannabis products and high THCA product or THC products, is actually from the hemp space. And, you know, I have, I have nine nieces and nephews that are all teenagers right now. And so I will get screenshots of them, showing me where they're buying THCA products product at a gas station and saying, you know, this really, you know, gets me high, you know, so it's like, I want to make sure that the regulated THC i 502 industry is not being lumped in with the unregulated hemp industry. Because I feel like a lot of these problems that we're seeing, and like, I'm very active in the legislative session every year and so I see the public comments, and listen to them, and a lot of them were talking about how their teenager got access and, and these things and it's an I just, I don't we're selling to people who are 21 and older. So, you know, I think it's important just to be considered that there are other factors and other industries that are bringing these high potency products to the underage people, you know, that isn't us.
Yeah. Two thoughts on that. It's not lost on me and I tried to read sent to our public health partners all the time that our compliance rates for licensed retail stores is very, very high and something that I think the state should be proud of. And I have been thinking for a while, Bethany about exactly what you just said that I think there's confusion, not only with public health partners, but also with, you know, parents and schools and just the community at large about the fact that there's a difference between like licensed regulated products and these illicit products. We're not talking illicit products like we were 10 years ago, being sold on street corners, or, you know, behind closed doors. And it was from someone's yard, like this is this is stuff being being purchased on the internet, gas stations, like you just mentioned. And I think, drawing that comparison, and that distinction will help us tackle the actual problem of of that growing illicit market. Go ahead, Jim, I see your hand up.
Thank you. And as opposed to coming on, and responding to everybody, I'm just going to periodically come on and make a couple of general comments. So one is I want to acknowledge that the war on drugs was a complete failure and that we are in, I am in no way interested in doing anything that would further position us in a way that would advance the war on drug that failed policy. And so everything that we that I'm interested in, is really around, how do we make sure that consumers are educated and that products that we regulate, are safe. I couldn't agree more. I think so many people, particularly people who come at it, from a perspective of harm, come at this conversation with a lot of baggage and a lot of assumptions and a lot. And I think it's part of our role at the LCB to continuously remind people that As Kristin said, our compliance rates are really high in our retail stores, that the vast majority of people who choose to use this product don't have a problem with this product, we're talking about a very small subset of the population that in fact choose to use who have a problem. So vast majority people don't have a problem, that we haven't seen a huge increase in young people's use as a result of cannabis legalization. I mean, so I think there's a lot of messages that we can get out there. And that we have an obligation to keep repeating as a part of the conversation. So that we're making sure people recognize as we have these types of conversations, it's not because we are pointing a finger or in any way indicating that there's a pervasive problem around the whole cannabis industry. But as regulators, we're interested in conversations across the board. And finally, that comment about the products that are sold at gas stations that are unregulated. Again, I couldn't agree more, I think that there's an opportunity for us to work together during session to address some of those issues.
Thanks, Jim. Who'd like to go next? Go ahead, Bailey. You're still on with me? Yeah.
All right. I'm keeping my camera off because I don't have the best internet connection out here. But just to short, I'm a morning person for sure. Um, I just I'm here today, really, just as a consumer, you guys know, I've been involved in cannabis observer and normal. I don't see myself as someone who's part of the industry, I really try to think about the needs and experience and outcomes of people who are buying these products. And my general thought is that safer and healthier outcomes for cannabis consumers involve keeping them to the degree they choose to buy cannabis in the regulated market. And with products that have been labeled, that have testing that have levels of accountability for their manufacturing and distribution. And so keeping a system that has, whether they're high THC products or not have been products available for adults who choose to use them is I think, the best outcome compared to you know, the argument of prohibition, which is, oh, well, we were making things healthier and safer for him by just not having them be allowed, when in reality, you know, would lead to a lot of other consequences and, you know, negative outcomes. I guess, aside from saying that, we want education question. I think education and information about products and health outcomes is good. But also, you know, setting setting social standards and setting kind of common civic expectations around these products and how there can be used, which is, I think, a little different than just saying, Well, you know, here's some information about, you know, health health problems or mental health challenges. And so having that be a part of the educational landscape for it is something that I feel like hasn't exactly been part of the conversation around this. And I just kind of hope that people would keep that in mind and think about, you know, what, what are ways that the LCB or other state agencies can be part of communicating? What do you know, what does a healthy relationship to these products look like? What you know, what our fair kind of social expectations for how people use them in their homes, anytime they're not in their homes, and no, we don't have bars or events and stuff. But an aspect of this is the socialization of it, and having having people having individuals, I guess, I'm trying to think of the way to phrase this, but basically, having people who will be concerned about consumers and their health outcomes, not in the sense of a legal problem or reporting a crime, but in the sense of, generally having care and compassion. And recognize if you saw someone who was doing nothing but dabbing all the time, that would be exactly as problematic as someone who was drinking at every hour of the day. And that that's not exactly the same thing as calling the cops to report it. But to realize that that's a sign of a problem. And General, you know, sympathy, but also some understanding of, well, what you know, what are some all options, we can offer that person to help them. And so that's just kind of want people to keep in mind, that there's an aspect of education. That's important, but also of communicating social expectations that are healthy around these products. So I hope you guys will be able to keep that in mind.
Yeah, that's great. It actually reminds me of a conversation we had with the public health partners around not demonizing high THC, just as like, an evil thing like that high THC is the problem and that there's so much nuance in that, that some people are able to use high THC products on a regular basis with no negative health outcomes. And that, you know, there's a real stigma that can happen when we talk about kind of certain substances, or people who use those substances, with a demonization lens. And I think that stigma makes it difficult for people to access treatment or to, to talk with people in their lives about their use. And I think that really resonated with our public health partners. I think the light bulb kind of went on for the first time thinking about the harm that's caused when talking about these substances, in ways that they've traditionally been talked about.
I think there's a difference between normalization and casualization. Neither of them are real words. But something being normal does not inherently mean that it's, it's treated casually. Unfortunately, sometimes there are very dangerous things that are treated casually, but for the most part, I think there can be societal, you know, there can be both general expectations and you know, aspects of regulation that try to support or reinforce that. And so I hope that's things that the LCB can can find as they're looking into this.
Yeah, thank you. And I love making up words, let's welcome in any space who wants to go next.
And if you're not comfortable coming off, mute, please drop in a note in the chat. I also meant to say this at the top of the call if folks just aren't comfortable in large spaces like this, I've been offering this to our public health partners as well, I'm happy to have one on one conversations or small group conversations with you as well, you can always reach out to me over email and we can set something up. That's kind of the beauty in this not being part of a structured rulemaking process, we can do whatever we want. There are like, rules on how we need to meet.
And I'd just like to offer the same thing, and I've had some conversations with some of you here on the session today. But I would also be welcome and actually would not just offer but I would welcome a conversation individually around this topic or any other topic that you're interested in discussing with a board member. So that's available as well.
I have Bethany.
So I just had a question, really, is there legislations, particularly that you guys are hoping and aiming for to build out of these conversations, or, I mean, for me, it's just kind of, I operate in other states, and Washington already has a lot of really excellent guardrails in place. One of them being that you can like only buy one gram at a time. You know, in Oklahoma, for instance, they have what they call baller jars, where you can get up to like, seven grams, or even 14 grams at a time of product. And so, you know, and I feel like that kind of feeds into like, the potentially, you know, overconsumption you know, rhetoric or or suggestion, I guess. So, I feel like in Washington, you know, we're already the highest tax pretty much. We've got, you know, a lot of rules in place, as far as you know, obviously, the retail stores are doing an excellent job making sure that they're only selling to people who are 21 years and older. You know, I think there's a lot of things that we're doing right in Washington State, and of all the different states I'm involved with, and I'm also involved in, even in Europe, this is Washington's, I would definitely say it's the most stable market, the most consistent and the most functional for us, you know, small-to-medium sized business, like myself. So, for me, it's hard when we are seeing, like, you know, what changes do we need to see, when in my opinion, we're really quite functional now. You know, I don't think we're going to ever save every single person who potentially develop psychosis, you know, and my opinion is, did the chicken come before the egg kind of argument with psychosis, but just like, we aren't going to save every single person who develops, you know, severe alcohol, alcoholism from, you know, consuming alcohol, right. So we can't ban something for the few amount of people who, you know, potentially abuse something. And I feel like, you know, last year that the age gate thing, I think, will just create a huge black market for, for cannabis. So I don't think that's a solution. Raising taxes is not a solution, because we're already the highest tax, I don't really know. The only solution that I really see is just more regulation around, you know, THCA, and these chemically converted CBD products out of the hemp industry to really help, you know, manage this minor exposure. But other than that, I just feel like, honestly, I think we're doing a really good job. And I think the system is fairly functional. So I just for me, I'm just kind of curious, like, are you guys wanting to bring new, you know, new bill to the legislative session this year in regards to this? Or is this just kind of exploring everyone's thoughts, I guess,
exploring everyone's thoughts so that we can see what what kind of a bill would make the most sense of anything? Yeah, I like what you just shared was exactly what we want to be hearing on today's call. Justin, I saw your hand up and then Caitlin.
Yeah, just do that. Excuse me, just to address the question on the legislative piece. We're not in the process. As right now drafting any agency request legislation around this, that doesn't mean that we wouldn't be open to looking at other solutions because our processes, this time of year get started, we have to submit all of our agency request ideas to the governor's office by September. But currently, we're not drafting anything towards the high THC area, I think the purpose of these types of conversations for us is to become very well informed of the issues and the ideas and the perspectives so that when legislation is introduced, that we can respond appropriately. This has been a topic over the last couple of years. And so we want to make sure that when folks are coming to us and asking questions, particularly legislative members, and their staff that we have, you know, well informed information, so we can we can provide, you know, reasonable response respond to them.
Yeah
if I could just add to that quickly, Caitlin, I see your hand too. But it's kind of related to what Justin just said. So, yeah, no agency request legislation to the best of my knowledge is being put together related to this. For me personally, what I'm trying to do is help us become less reactive, and more proactive in the conversations seems like a many times we go into sessions, and we've got legislators who have ideas. And as opposed to engaging with us before this session, so that we can be a part of the conversation and understand where they're coming from. And see if we align. And if we don't align, help them understand why we don't align. I'm trying to get to the point where they're coming to us before session saying, Hey, I'm thinking about dropping a bill on X. And we can then say, Oh, we've had conversations with industry, we've had conversations with prevention we've had so just really trying to get ahead of things to the degree we possibly can. And then I appreciate your comments a lot around how well we're doing in the state, because I do think we do really well in this state by and large. I think that there are some differences of opinions around age gating. I personally am open to the conversation, I'm open to the conversation about is that a possible solution? I know that's not popular on the industry side of things. But anyway, I'm open to that conversation. I think in terms of taxes, I completely agree that to just increase the tax on high THC concentration products is not the solution. But I think overall conversation about taxes might be something that I would think could potentially yield some outcomes. I'm not sure. But anyway, so just wanted to throw those quick comments out.
Thank you. Thanks, Caitlin.
And I'm glad you jumped into because I think it's a segue into this, I think what I'm observing, you know about this conversation is that while we're here and not under attack, there's not a whole lot of feedback, I think we've, you know, as an industry have been really willing and wanting to walk down this road of getting good information and finding ways to ensure that consumers have what they need to make, you know, good choices. And I think where we start to, you know, fall off of that path is, you know, when when attacks start to come. And so when we're not in a defensive posture, I think we're open to a lot of potential options. And, you know, Christina, and I got to chat a little bit yesterday. And, you know, we talked about things like, you know, some additional packaging changes, possibly, that could benefit industry, but then also, things like retaining the CR functionality on packaging, instead of having two sets of packaging on edibles, you know, things like that, that make a lot of sense all the way around. I think, you know, that age heating conversation is an interesting one. But you know, when we start talking about then the practicality of how that works out in terms of you know, you've got a car of friends, two of them are 22, one of them's 21, and, you know, 25 year old, and they all go into the store together, how are we then ensuring without sort of criminalizing somebody in there that that, that you're actually reaching the goal that you want to reach, which is, you know, only certain product types to a certain age? And I think until we solve that problem, that's a really challenging conversation. To be honest, I'm trying to think of some of the other things I would love to engage in a really comprehensive approach to education. You know, as a parent myself, I would love to see something that gives parents language to talk to their kids about making safe choices. There's some good guidelines for safe storage, ways that within your family you can talk about identifying, you know, edibles in particular, I know that's a big concern to folks is, you know, mixing up edibles and, you know, just actually giving people really super practical tools, because I think a lot of parents are afraid to talk to their kids about it, because they don't want to back to you know, Bailey was talking about normalization and, you know, making things casual, I think people are afraid of that, if they talk about it, then that's going to somehow give their kids the idea that it's okay, or, you know, something along those lines. Whereas I think if we weren't able to arm parents with, you know, here's how you can have this conversation in a successful way with your kids would be really useful as you're moving forward. And I have to say, if we can have more conversations like this, that aren't about defending ourselves against accusations of predatory behavior, I'm actually really excited about what we can develop. I'm really glad, Bethany, that you asked that question about legislation. I am sort of curious, because we have already heard that there is planned legislation, from some folks at ADAI to continue along sort of some prohibitionist attitudes. And, you know, that's concerning. And when we have these conversations in the hearing room, it does get contentious, because it's sort of this, you know, passive aggressive, your three minutes, your three minutes. And so I look forward to having more of these and sort of curious if you think that there is room to really make an impact towards some of these other initiatives that are more education based?
Yeah, I'm gonna respond to that really quick mica just because of my short term memory. Um, I wanted to say, because I've heard this come up a couple of times, I want to, as much as I'm able to quell any concerns or nerves around prohibition being on the table, I've had now probably five or six hours of conversations with various partners across the field, and no one is talking about, like banning all high THC products, or, or completely restricting them, or I think 10 years ago, in conversations I used to hear all the time, even just out of like a flip statement made as an aside things like, Oh, well, you should just like go back to when it's not legal, and like, you know, shut down the stores and all of that, like that kind of thing used to have, like, come up out of frustration, and in prevention and public health spaces. 10 years ago, it doesn't ever come up anymore. Like I, I can't speak I'm not in every room talking to every person. But I, by and large, the partners that are at the table with me right now, are not even considering anything like that. So I just want you all to know, I don't think that that's going to be a prominent topic of conversation moving forward. I think partners also recognize in order to have their programs, state revenue must be generated to to fund these programs. So like I think like, and also that it has given the ability to have youth education campaigns and community coalition's and you know, some of these tools that we've now come to rely on in our state, that do create healthier and safer communities. So I think that by and large, people are totally on the same page with what you just described, Caitlin. And I, I do not hear people talking about prohibition in that way anymore. Again, I'm not in every room talking to every person. So I can't speak for all of the people. But I just, that's just not on my radar at all. You just call it a piece. And that is the short term memory. Go ahead.
I'm sorry. Just quickly to add to that, I am in rooms where I've heard prohibition come up, and we shut it down, I shut it down. It's it's not it's a non starter. So let's not even go there. And it's fewer and fewer. And I think it's partly because people understand where we're coming from. And so I really appreciate the ability to just have this type of conversation and again, recognize that we're not going to align on everything. I think education is a really important part of where we can align. I was having a conversation with somebody around and it's kind of a convoluted way around like recipes and like when you're making a recipe and how you don't use too much of one thing and so I'll use it to high THC. I mean, you use like we equated it to vinegar, for example, like too much vinegar and a salad dressings, not very good. And so you kind of mix it and maybe you put less vinegar and you use this other thing, or like people who want to partake but they aren't any Experience users. So how do you educate them to maybe start with a little bit less and so those kinds of conversations I think can go a long way towards getting us where we want to be.
And that reminded me the other thing I was gonna say, Caitlin, to your point about this space, and having this like shared area where we're folks aren't on the defense is the vision. I would love it we're kind of kicking this off with high THC, I would love to have conversations with just industry folks. More often, like let's and we can do a choose your own adventure kind of conversations and just unpack some of these topics. More in the future. I don't know if that's a quarterly cadence, or if maybe I join association meetings or whatever that looks like. But I hope this is the first of several conversations over the next several months and years where we get to do this. I think it's really important. Okay, Micah, you've been super patient. Go ahead.
Hey, thanks. Two things jumped out to the dump of tomato head. The first thing is, I want to emphasize I think this kind of theme of developing policies that help for better understanding about cannabis will be really important in this because I think one of the things that has frustrated me about this conversation over the years is like, as somebody who cultivates cannabis and like tries pretty hard to understand like what it is as a plant and what it's trying to do, I understand that it's like actually an incredibly powerful thing that has a lot of capacity to, you know, affect us. And that it's important to approach that in a way that is respectful, because, yeah, powerful things can have powerful effects. And so I think having that understanding has been helpful in for me in these conversations. And it has been frustrating that that understanding is not like part of what we're trying to cultivate into a larger audience. Because I think if a lot of people in the world of prevention had kind of come to us five or six years ago, and these problems started to pop up. And you know, said to us, as people that do understand cannabis and what its potentials are and its capacities are, they would have been armed with better understanding about how to actually move forward on all of this and be meaningful and effective and really deal with like the reality of the situation. So I want to say that I think anything we can do, that's going to help people have a better understanding of cannabis be it being able to go to farms, having more places to use cannabis together. Because that's an incredibly powerful way to learn about something is to actually be in community with people that are really invested in it. And as I'm sure you guys know, when you show up at a place where there's cannabis plants around cannabis farmers, they're going to talk to you forever about every aspect of it. And that's helpful for people to start to see what's really going on and make good decisions about what they're buying and what they're supporting. So that's the first thing. And then the second thing I want to say is like, we are still locking up young people in prison for cannabis today in Washington State. We are doing that right now. We have not stopped doing that. When we legalized, the disparities between black youth and white youth getting arrested increased fivefold. So we are still in an era of prohibition. We are actively doing that today as a state. And I do think it's important that we acknowledge that we need to stop doing that to those children and start approaching it in a different way. Because that's still a big problem in our state. There's kids in juvenile detention facilities for cannabis offenses. today.
It's interesting Micah, I will just say, by and large public health and prevention partners are up in arms and angry about that as well. So that's another area that I think there's 1,000% overlap.
I'm very glad to hear that. Yeah.
Go ahead, Bailey. Oh, wait, there's one other hand for you, but I can't find the person. Oh, sorry. Lara has been patiently waiting. And then you'd be like.
Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to just talk a little bit about that education piece again. We have suggested for many, many years that you know, education obviously is incredibly important, but very well, curated education that's based in science and under Standing is, is the most powerful like, young people know when they're being lied to. And so the more honest we can be, and the more factual we can be, is always going to be helpful with that message to young people. And the suggestion has long been creating in collaboration, educational campaigns with prevention, and industry might be the most powerful way to go about it. Because if we can come up with messaging that we're all standing behind, then I think that that's going to be the most powerful thing. Typically, what happens is these education, things go out. And to make this point, like we're not consulted, like, Is this accurate? Do you find this to be true? Is this a good statement? Do you think it's going to land? Well, you know, it doesn't. Very rarely do we get involved, are invited into those conversations. And so if there's any opportunity to collaborate on any sort of educational campaign, or messaging, or because I do think we all have the same goal, at the end of the day, we want to reduce harm, we want people to make sure that they're understanding what they're consuming, and doing so in a healthy way. making good choices, we all want the same thing. So if we can come together and actually collaborate on a campaign, where it's clear, that's what's happened, I think that message is going to land a lot better with the communities that we're trying to reach. So I just wanted to put that out there.
Appreciate that. Okay, Bailey, go ahead.
Yeah, I mean, just kind of piling on what we mean, or what at least, I mean, when we say education, it is, you know, the best facts and figures and most accurate information still won't save us, if it's not presented in a way that people want to talk about, and to share and to, I guess, make go viral. And so as you're kind of moving towards what sort of content there should be, as far as communicating health risks, communicating expectations about moderation, or, or trade tation or titration. You know, just thinking who's the most famous Washingtonian, you can get to talk about this, or who's the, the most charming and outgoing person who can communicate on this for 10 minutes on on a video or something like that. And I appreciate that that's not regulation, and that the other problem tends to be cost of getting these people's, you know, time and the production value to put out something that's that's polished versus me in front of a webcam and probably being more wooden than I need to be. But I do think that that's a valid part of when we talk about, well, we want these good standards, and we want them to catch on with people. That that, you know, communicating science is somewhat of a different skill than simply conducting research or doing science in some ways. And so I hope you guys will kind of keep that in mind, that it's not just about what is the educational curriculum or the educational outcome, but how are you going to commit to strategies to communicating that to the populations that you want to reach?
Thank you. Good advice. I want to acknowledge a chat thread that's been going on around the 2320. And I realized I had a typo 2023. In the earlier slide, sorry about that, if that caused confusion, Justin was clarifying that it is set to be effective December 31, of this year, and doh is working on that they've had a bit of a snag because some of their staff have had family emergencies. But their hope is to coordinate with LCB to then kind of use us both as partners as a table, but also to reach all of you and bring industry folks to the table for that conversation of what should be on that side. And what's reasonable for a sign. Even just like basic logistics of like, how big of a sign are we talking like there's very little guidance given in the bill. And so that is on their radar, they hope by late summer early fall to coordinate with partners. I'm super interested in more research and data to correlate the health harms of high THC to consider and determine your question During the biggest risks posed by high THC products, under 25, and impacts education and more awareness would be helpful. Thank you for that comment. And I want to just call out, we talked a lot about the need for more research in the public health conversation. So I'm curious. This is the first time this has been brought up in this conversation today. But when you all think about more research, what does that look like to you? What sorts of research questions should be explored?
Go ahead. Oh, you're on mute.
Okay, so
I'm sorry. Oh, go ahead. That's fine. Sorry,
I stepped into this a little late. But I think if what we're talking about is harm reduction, then we need to think about rather, what sort of methods of intake are, for instance, in that question, people under 25 using are they different? Most of the people I know who use cannabis are old people. And I would think that would be something to know what the if there's different methods of intake, that could go to a lot of other issues. And I would think that that would be something that I would want to know more about in order to form good remedies for any harms out there. Okay.
So, John, just to clarify, so that was in response to Christian Christians question about what kind of research questions would you have?
I would want to know, are there differences in age groups, or are at risk users for methods of intake? And I'll tell you one thing that stuck out at me when, you know, I don't go into 502 stores often, and usually, I'm on some sort of assignment. But I was struck that if I go in, and I asked for something, that's medical cannabis, frequently, the only thing they had was some sort of portable vaporizer. And I thought, Okay, well, who uses these, these seem like a casual, more of a casual use device, but I don't know, because I'm not really in that culture. But and I know patients use different you know, they tend to have their heating rigs on all the time. And so they can sort of microdose throughout the day. And I and I would think, knowing how people are taking in cannabis, especially if it's a concentrates. That would tell us a lot about how they're using it, it might suggest avenues for, I don't know, mitigating the harms. That's that, that, that seems like it goes to if somebody owns a dab rig, they're using it in a different way than so me and my, my dry flour vaporizer. Right. That's, that's a whole different kind of use. And I, I guess, I wonder, if considering regulations or considering user habits or, you know, what sort of products are being maybe need to be considered would all go to how those products are being taken in? I think you can gain a lot of other information just from knowing that, you know, really, what's their method of intake?
Yeah, I think that's a super interesting research, question and opportunity. And when we talk about education, we want our education opportunities to be things like, you know, if you're going to use, you know, I had a whole conversation about what's the safest route of administration, and there's different thoughts about what's the safest way to use cannabis. And it'd be interesting to be able to have those kinds of conversations and then have whatever the findings are that we agree upon, used to help educate particularly new users. So I appreciate your comment.
And I captured Caitlin's note in the chat as well. Um, go ahead and see. I hope I'm saying your name right. Oh, wait, you're on mute, though. Be here. May I go? Yeah.
Okay. Basically, it was just barely addressing. If were to post, just back to that, the DOH poster that there'll be or the warning that they'll be sending out just so we can educate others if we're going to have a warning sign saying people under 25. And these are the risks, being able to educate ourselves and others the why behind that. That warning?
Ah, that's a great point. Yeah, I can relate that to the DOH partners. And maybe that can be a topic of conversation when they reach out to, to focus. Yeah,
and I realize how that's any overlap, because it's partly DOH. But also if we're going to be posting it in stores by LCB. Also being forced that we're supposed to have that up just just more of the why behind that. And why they go ahead. I was just gonna say we understand why the House bill was in what it was passed, but just more just along focusing more on the education piece.
Yeah, that's great. And I want to clarify, someone asked about funding. So DOH does have funding allocated for separately targeting youth and adults for cannabis prevention and education messaging, but they don't it's not a large amount of money for how many audiences are part of that. And then when the 2320 was passed the language and the bill did not. They said, like Doa should should do a campaign, not that they had to. And then they didn't add anything to the fiscal note for that campaign. So they're actually going to take funding out of other buckets to do the high THC component. And I say that because I think, you know, in terms of some of the things that have been listed today, for what an ideal education effort would look like, that's a much bigger dollar amount than do Atrus currently allocated. So I think that's something to be really mindful as a barrier to implementing that vision. And LCB doesn't have campaign funding allocated to us as an agency. Bethany, and then Mica.
I just wanted to address what John mentioned. So as far as, so when we started, we were in medical, and then we got into the rec market. So there was a time where we were exclusively selling to MediCal patients, and I was our budtender, probably 80% of the time. So why people like having something that's simple. You know, like these, these portable vape cartridges, and then the 10, cards, things like that. It's because they can microdose really easily. So, you know, on the surface, it looks like something that you can use casually. And sure. I mean, a lot of people do use it casually, but it gives them to where they have access. And the thing that I think a lot of people that don't use cannabis don't understand about cannabis is they say, Well, why don't you eat it, you know, inhaling it, you know, can potentially cause health concerns, etc. It's because it's so difficult to titrate your dose with edibles. I personally, I don't really enjoy edibles, even even edibles that you know, you're very confident that there is only 10 milligrams and it's very scientifically done. If you eat a mango, it changes if you eat on an empty stomach, if you have twice as much water in your body than you did yesterday from drinking more water, those all impact how much the edible effects and you know, the high in your, you know, head right so it's really hard to you know, use medical cannabis exclusively with edibles and so that's why I think there's a lot of people that do inhale it through vaporizing or smoking it. And then I guess for for me personally research topics. I think it's really important that, you know, psychosis has been brought up a lot. I would really like to see a study that is psychosis based but is looking at how much does alcohol cause potential psychosis issues and how much cannabis does because I think overall as as a society we're very accepting of like all the things that alcohol does to to you know, we don't really have these kind of conversations, even though you guys LCB your your you have a part of your you know, oversight is alcohol, right? But I don't really feel like you guys are having conversations about like, should we age gate beer because there's a potential for it to cause psychosis right? So I think it's important to be considerate of, again, that we're all adults that are using this and that we don't need babysat to a point of age gating. If it's not really applicable, as far as like, if it's not 100 times, or some crazy amount of times more than alcohol, I just don't really feel like it's appropriate for the state to step in and say, You're just not quite old enough, in our opinion. So I think it's important to have when we are doing the psychosis research to have it also encompass alcohol in some way. So that would have a better understanding overall, of of the reality of how it is impacting people. And then the other research topic that I think is really an important one that I haven't really heard ever talked about, is actually heat and how high of a temperature you're using these vaporizing pens or, or devices, because there is a certain temperature, like a lot of these temperatures are like 400 degrees, that you're inhaling this stuff at that. And people use different amounts from 200 to 450. I've seen all kinds of different temperatures that people prefer to consume at. But what we don't know is the additives like Micah has mentioned, what at what level are those potentially carcinogenic, at what a temperatures, we don't really have that information. And so, you know, it's something that we're all inhaling these flavors and these different things that are being added to cannabis. But do we know that you know, let's say strawberry extract at 350 degrees is actually incredibly carcinogenic and really problematic. But none of us know that. So I think it's just important to just literally a study on just like heat itself and what temperatures cause certain potential outcomes is maybe something that should be looked into.
Yeah. Thank you for that. Okay, there's a stack of hands now. So and I know we only we're coming to the end of the meeting. So I'm going to hopefully get through everybody. Go ahead, Micah.
Um, so my question was around the sign also that brought up a question for me, is there a plan to engage with the Attorney General's Office on the legality of a sign that is saying something may have a problem? Because, I mean, if we look at the language in the statute, it's a rather speculative, seeming. And so I just wonder if there's going to be a conversation about like, is that a legally valid instruction, given the sort of uncertainty of the research around that topic?
I'm not privy to that. I think that would be a good question for doh as the leads on that. I suspect, because the language is pretty clear in the legislation of what should be on that sign. Their hands might be tied to what they have to do. But yeah, you should ask them. Thanks for that Mica. Okay, Bailey.
Yeah, just real quick, a couple of research things either for conducting or things to look for. The difference between a newer, infrequent user and then a regular casual cannabis consumer. I feel like we've seen evidence that there's different impacts on you know, the psychoactive level, and other, you know, differences in how these people are responding to these substances. And I think that is a valid distinction to be communicating and education, that first time or novice or very occasional users are going to be having different experiences and need different amounts of products than someone who uses them any, you know, with regularity. I'd also love to see a little more research on older consumers. And that's one of the ones where I think it was probably four or five, maybe even six years ago because time flies, but it was a report saying among those buying legal cannabis, the greatest growth market had been people it was like 60 years or older. And so frequently, we're focused on impacts on youth that I feel like that's a growth segment of the consumer market that really hasn't been looked at and has you know, some unique health needs or health considerations that are worth keeping in mind if you're conducting research. And then the differences on products because concentrates are high THC, you know, it can mean everything from some types of concentrates like key for hash, which are going to be in the 30s or 40s. You know, maybe mid 40%, THC, and then products that could be, you know, 8590 or over 90% THC. And that those are both in how they're produced. And I think in some of their impacts on people, really different products and just kind of using the word concentrates to mean anything over 30. Or even worse, anything over 10% THC, which sometimes that's, you know, how people are using that distinction is something to keep in mind.
Yeah. All really good. Points. Thank you, Bailey. All right, I see Douglas, and then John, to go ahead, Douglas.
Hello, Doug, is just fine. formality. Doug Henderson from painted rooster cannabis, I wanted to readdress the psychosis issue, and also consider that self medication, you know, with different substances, including alcohol is well established, I think, you know, most of the people DOH in the public health world would understand that. I think that understanding that as a metric, and as a consideration, as we're assessing, you know, the outcomes here is going to be really important. You know, a lot of people turn to cannabis for medical reasons, you know, having mental health issues is one of those. So being sure that we clearly define that and do not skew outcomes based on you know, call it genetic predisposition, call it environmental impact, etc, I would just want to be sure that those were included inside the research construct. And then second, I want to jump in on something that Bethany said, you know, temperature dependency of consumption of consumption of cannabinoid products, especially as mica said, with adulterants, and other additives to those products, I think they're gonna be very important. I know that we've all you know, recognized the example of like, one butyl as a pesticide, where, you know, like, Levulan, in itself, not ideal, but not so bad. But once you light it on fire, it does become cyanide. Right. So there is a lot to the, you know, the temperature of consumption and the modality there, but I think should certainly be considered.
That's great. Thank you. Okay, go ahead, John. And then Caitlin.
So I think if we start from the premise that good public policy is dependent upon good science. Then I I want to comment on that piece after the ADA AI symposium. Last year, I spent an immense amount of time going through all the studies and I ordered the the lancet package and what one, one thing that came up over and over again, that I have no clarity on is there seem to be a conflation of psychosis and schizophrenia. So, as a layperson, I can say that I've been high enough that I meet the that I've met the DSM criteria for psychosis. When I was younger, I probably was drunk enough to do that. But that's quite a different thing from schizophrenia, which I understand to be more of a chronic condition other than an psychosis can just be an episode. Well, the approaches in public policy to those two things would obviously be very different. Right. Schizophrenia is, you know, a lifelong problem after a point. And I guess what I'm seeing out of the messages, particularly out of Adi and some of these other studies is there's a there's a failure to to separate. What is episodic psychosis from what is schizophrenia? It seems like there's a conflation there I mean, they meet at the point of psychosis, but it's it's hard for me to make rhyme or reason out of the all the research I've read where that isn't teased out right. And it would be very, very helpful, I think, for my understanding probably the understanding of others and towards making understandable research and proper messaging. If, if there could be more delineation between what What is episodic psychosis or one time psychosis or three times psychosis versus what schizophrenia? Because I see too much conflation of the two things, when I'm not sure. That's what the case is. Does that make sense?
Yeah. Okay. I appreciate that observation. It makes me want to check in with some of the ADAI folks and some other researchers and see if maybe that's a messaging piece when when relaying their data out, I know what you mean, I think often, it's like talked about like psychosis, calm us, schizophrenia, and then like the findings, and there's not a lot of differentiation. Even for myself as a trained health educator with a science degree, it's hard to interpret some of those findings. So I can imagine, it causes confusion. I appreciate that. Go ahead, Caitlin. And then I think this will be our last comment. All right, yes.
Yeah, no, it's all right. Um, I just wanted to put a little caution out there, of trying to draw too much of a one to one comparison between cannabis and alcohol. I understand the impulse in that, you know, it's mood altering, and it has an impact. But but really, you know, even according to the federal government, cannabis has a medical application. There are beneficial uses. We don't have those for alcohol, except for maybe disinfecting, I don't know. But these two are two very, very different substances that work very differently in the body. And we want to ensure that as we're asking good research questions, we're asking them from a place of an understanding that these two things actually are very different. And we want to approach our investigation of them differently.
Yeah, appreciate that. Nuance. Thank you, Caitlin. All right. Well, with that, I will I'll stop sharing for a moment and just say to everyone how much I appreciate you taking an hour and a half out of your morning today to come with us. I know, some of you probably came kind of hesitant, like, what's, what's this Christian person trying to achieve here? What's this gonna be like? I hope that this was a productive use of your time, I found it incredibly valuable. I really appreciate your willingness to share your ideas and your to push back on on some of the questions that I posed. And to have dialogue among one another, I found this very engaging and beneficial. And I'm curious, just quick pulse check. If we hosted another meeting like this is there more to be said on the topic of high THC, would you want to attend another meeting, you can react or drop your emojis or whatever into the chat. And I can get that set up. If that's of interest, I also want to be mindful of your time. So I will, I will leave that up to you, I'm not seeing anything. So that is totally fine with me, I will kind of keep my eye out. I'll reach out to some of the folks on this call and see who might be interested in participating in a hybrid call with public health. Okay, so there, it was just lagged on my end, okay. So I can set up another call, maybe an hour, hour and a half at some point in early July so we can continue this conversation. And then like I said, at the beginning of today's call, I'd love to do this for other topics. I'd love to be invited to your, you know, association meetings or other industry meetings y'all are having. If you have conferences, I'd love to come and participate. I'm just giving you enough lead time so we can prep and make that meaningful for everyone. And yeah, be on the lookout for future calls like this. I really appreciate you all. Take care and have a great rest of your week. Thank you.
