Hi, everyone, welcome. I'm gonna go ahead and get started. It doesn't look like we have anyone else hopping on right now. Welcome and thank you for your time. As soon as I say that, today we're going to be my name is Cassidy was I'm the Policy and rules manager that's been working on the rules over the past year to implement the THC Bill legislation. Today we're going to it's workshop two. So we have a series of workshops. And we're going to be talking about a rule changes to two sections of the whack that were affected by the legislative changes.
So I'll go ahead and get started. And I am working on by the way, uploading this PowerPoint to the files for the chat, as well as the agenda and yeah, but I actually while we're at it, let's move on to the agenda. I'm not sure if everyone can see this well as I can, but I'll just go through it briefly. So welcome. I'm gonna go over just the workshop objectives. We had a workshop one that was on the 26th and the 28th of March. And we went over changes to two sections of the rules, the definition section, and then also the medical cannabis enforcement section. And so I'll briefly recap what those changes were, I'll provide a brief overview of the of the bill and the statutory changes what sections they affected, and then we'll just go ahead and dive straight into the material for the workshop two. Today, we're going to be talking about the changes to the cannabis servings and transaction section. And so that's whack 314 55 095. And then also changes to the universal cannabis universal symbol requirement. Section. And so that is blacks 314 55 106. And, and the reason that we're kind of coupling these sections is to definition changes occurred package and unit, as well as THC concentration. And so these are packaging unit are a big part of this. That's primarily the focus today is how they will be implemented. And then there are some THC concentration with that. And the definition also comes into play with these changes, and so what, so after I go through these changes, it will take 45 minutes or so I'll try to be more, I will try to be brief, and also thorough. So after I get through the end of the presentation, I'll just see if there's any questions with regards to spend about five minutes. So if there's questions about what any of the statutory requirements were or mean, or if you have questions about the role, the rule change, we will then take a 10 minute break and then come back. And everyone will be going into breakout rooms where I have a series of questions that will focus on clarity, understanding clarity, the role getting some feedback on how what the impacts will be also understanding how compliance strategies may change and what kind of additional potential additional compliance burden these changes could have. So we'll have oh, here we go. I have the compliance challenges, and then giving you guys also an opportunity for feedback on improvements or alternatives to some of the proposed changes as well as feedback on how we implement the changes. And then after the breakout groups, we will come back together as a group and discuss what everyone discussed in the breakout groups. And I have a couple of poll questions at the end that are also relevant to the discussion topics. And everybody will answer those. And so I think between the breakout discussions and the poll questions, we should have a very in depth and comprehensive discussion. And with that, are there any questions about the workshop before I dive into the material? Okay, great. All right. So just to back up here, why are we doing rulemaking? It is to modify the existing roles in order to align with statutory changes of the THC bill, or in gross second substitute Senate Bill 5367. So we'll just go ahead and start with our four spool. What is your affiliation, and this is the only poll that's not really related to the rules. Here we go. Watch, instant poll, this is my first time doing this, but I'm working on it.
I don't know if I want all of these if all of the questions will come. So I'm going to hold off a second on that. And I have Shane over here, who's going to help me with some of the technological issues. But maybe we'll just come back to this one at the end with our other poll questions. The reason I want to ask this is it's really important for me to know which perspectives we have, so that I'm ensuring that our rules are balanced and beneficial for everyone, for the public interest. And just generally, the workshop series, we're just looking to get reviewed, discuss the proposed changes to all of the rules sections, and these rules of the discussions will be used to finalize the the rules that will be filed with a CR 102. And what what that means is, if the CR one or two is approved by the board, then those rules will officially be the proposed rules, and will enter into a formal comment period. So really, we're just kind of talking about what the proposed rules will look like. So there will be another opportunity for feedback as well.
Excuse me, okay, so we have I updated the workshop series a little bit just to add some more time to each of the workshops. So now we'll have two hours. Now, we can have time for that those more in depth discussions. And then I also separated the, I had a had the quality assurance and quality control testing and cannabinoid additives in the same workshop, and I just think that it's going to be after the first workshop, I thought, You know what he's really deserve their own time and conversation. And then finally, I did a final workshop at the end. So we'll we'll bring it all together, and then review all of the changes kind of that final, before we request the board, approve them for the 102 filing, I will be there's gov deliveries going out, the rules for each workshop will be going out approximately one week ahead of time. And then if you look at our laws and rules Outreach page, so then you'll be able to find the full workshop schedule, we'll also have the sorry, the full workshop schedule, and then also the Microsoft Teams information as well as documents related to the related to each workshop. Okay, so just for workshop to think this might might be able to place but actually, specifically workshop two, we're going to talk about this two sections 095 that cannabis surveys and transactions and 106. And most directly are those definitions that package and unit like I talked about, but again, there's some, I guess, indirect changes that are other changes that are affected by these changes. So I'll just go ahead and spend just a second going through the background of 5367 to lay the groundwork, as you many of you know, or all of you. The 2018 Farm Bill created a loophole indirect inadvertently legalizing cannabis, or delta nine THC. Sorry, cannabis. I'm trying to read my notes and talk that's about it. Yeah, the 2018 Farm Bill lead to the unregulated and potentially intoxicating hemp derived products. So those hit the markets that are widely available in Washington being sold all over the internet. And our response LCD was to introduce the legislation and 2022 to regulate all THC products, regardless of the of the source, whether or not it's from him or cannabis. The ultimate goal is to ensure public safety and prevent youth access. All right, and so some of the changes that we talked about in the not the topics for the workshop, one we're focused on the statutory changes that occurred as a result of the legislation. And then I'm really just dove into the definitions. Making sure that folks knew that they were there and kind of briefly what they meant. And so All this leads into based on just those few definition changes. All of these sections are affected by in one way or another by those changes. And so, like I said, we get the definitions medical cannabis enforcement last workshop. Today we're going to work on the cannabis servings and transaction limits and quality up. That's it. And the 106 cannabis warning symbol down here. Okay, move on, I have another way that this is formatted just for ease of readability. And it's this is specific to what we're going to talk about. Now, this is specific to the entire series. So just briefly, we'll go into the workshop, one recap. So it was I just has to review and discuss some of the proposed changes the definitions and medical cannabis endorsements. I added references to the definition section and whack whack three and 455 010, which does to reference those either new definitions created by the legislation, or amended definitions. And so I have the reasons here. This PowerPoint, like I said, will be uploaded to this chat, but also it is on the current Outreach page. Okay. The changes to the medical cannabis endorsement section was to repeal the language that allowed a special privilege for retailers holding a medical cannabis endorsement. To sell products below or sell giveaway products below point 3% thc. That is no longer a special privilege. Because the definition of THC concentration was amended to include two sorry, the definition of a cannabis product was amended to include in any detectable amount of THC. And so because retailers who sell cannabis products and that definition was amended, this provision was struck out. I will note that Daniel Jacobs, our other rules coordinator is working on another rulemaking specifically related to medical cannabis endorsements, the scope is a little bit different. This language that I have in here, and then also the language that he has, and the rules, which you can find on our web page is exactly the same. So he'll be filing his CR 102. Before. Before I will. And so when, when he does that I'm not, we won't need to actually do any changes to this, I just wanted to point out how this section will does change as a result of. Okay. And then we briefly touched on these discussion questions, I'm just trying to understand what can lead getting an understanding of what folks know about what can legally be sold in the market concerns about how this changes their business? And I will say that with all of these discussion questions, because I know that, especially while we have 51 people in here, that we're not gonna get to everyone's opinions, please do follow up with our rules team, and email us or you can submit comments by mail or fax as well. But we would love to hear from you. I have a series of discussion questions that we'll get towards the end. We have these discussion questions that were for the workshop one. And so just feel free to reach out we'd love to hear from you. Oh, here we go. This, here's the information about how you can submit comments. And then I do have some more information about what we're looking for with comments. If you look at the rulemaking overview page, okay. Oh, a few more things. So they put some we had a few stakeholder questions and a suggestion during the workshop. One of the suggestions which we'll kind of get into a little bit today is consider to consider further defining layers of packaging. So like our package and enter package or just to provide more specificity, and then also with regards to the medical cannabis endorsement change, what what the low basically what the lowest THC concentration of products can be sold at cannabis retailers to ensure that those as low THC or high CBD products can continue to be sold in I FIFO, to stores and then as long as they have a detectable amount of THC. And then also there are some concerns about the statutory definition of synthetic cannabinoid, I'll have to, we'll have to take some time to actually kind of break that down and type it out. So stay tuned. As we go through the workshops, we'll have more questions. And I'll work on providing thorough responses. And I can I can imagine this kind of growing into a giant thing. Okay, so I'll just go ahead and dive into workshop to today's topics. We've talked about the objective, and rulemaking as necessary. So these sessions are affected based on the new statutory definition of package and unit created by the legislation. Also, the amended definition of THC product, sorry, THC concentration, as well as amendments to section or CW six to 953 46. And that section goes over the requirements for retail product labels, that is kind of a implementation. What am I trying to say? Because package changed package is now integrated into this rule set, oh, sorry, the statutory section where it wasn't previously.
Okay. So just briefly to go over the new definitions of package and unit, so we know what we're talking about here. Package means a container, or I'm sorry, I guess package means a container that has a single unit or a group of units. While unit means an individual consumable item within a package of one or more consumable items, and salt, like like gas, or any form intended for human consumption. So we're going to talk about how those definition changes impact the two sections today. And then also the additional statutory change. And outside of the THC concentration is this. Sorry, this amendment to the product label requirements where package start container is replaced with package we'll get into why that's should be just a technical change since now, looking back at the definition of package container means package or package means container. And so with that, unless there any questions about any of that, I'm gonna go ahead and move forward to the proposed the first proposed rule change to implement these definitions. And you can just raise your hand and Terry will unmute you if you do have questions. And I believe the chat is available if anyone wants to pop anything in there as well. All right. So we're going to look at the changes to Oh, yeah, Shane, go ahead.
Cassady just want to note there was a couple questions typed into chat. Oh, there are I'm sorry. I did not see that.
Okay, okay. Well, let's get I may or may not just depending on the context of the questions, answer them now or we may get to him later. Let me just take a look. Okay, yes, if you missed the previous meeting, but you have comments and questions about the proposed rule changes, the definitions or medical cannabis endorsements, then please just follow up with me afterwards. You can or our rules team if you want to submit an email, and we can definitely set up a time to go through those changes with you. I'm always happy to meet and then I'm not really sure what this comment means from Abigail. Think they might be? Oh, sorry, not from Abigail. Yeah, I don't know about that, either. But the one from Chris. Sorry. Oh, how do I how do you plan to address that? The potential complications of interstate commerce and more restrictive laws than the federal point three to 1% thc allowance, especially looking at states like Virginia and other states that are currently litigating him. plan to address these conflicts would be appreciated. Yes. Thank you. That is a excellent point. That is obviously the point of the legislation what we're trying to do here. However, because of how much we have to cover today, I'm not going to get into this Right now, if we have time, at the end, I can talk a little bit about just kind of LCVs authority, how much we can do. And then also just some of the stuff that's going on at the federal level as well. And I think that was it. Of course, yes. You're welcome, Chris. Okay. I'm gonna pop right in here. All right. So um, if we're looking at whack 314 55 095. And I do have the proposals on the website, if anybody doesn't have access to those, we'll figure out how to put them in here, too. And so as you can see, I'll just give everyone a second to look at these changes. And let's reduce it. And let me know if you have questions about just what's going on here. Generally, this is an example of the language because in 095, the language is repeated. Quite a bit. Actually, I do have these rules up here. And so I just provided one of the sections here. everyone to see. I don't know if you can see that. Yeah, so just let me go back to the PowerPoint. All right. Any questions so far? Oh, this is a question. Um.
Okay, so the 67 applies to topicals. I can get into this more later, but the Chava products, so cannabis health and beauty aids are, are, what is the word I'm looking for? excluded? Yes, thank you exempted from the rule. And so and there's a statutory section that goes through what those are, specifically, some of them would be topicals. And just so this, this language, by the way, did didn't change otherwise. So I didn't really want to do anything here. Other than replacing package with container. I don't know if that helps. Okay, and then I'll go through this chat. My question also pertains, oh, I think I missed one. My question also pertains to LCVs authority over him. So if we could cover it up, and specifically regarding the possibility for him being processed to meet the definition of both cannabis product, as well as hemp and how this pertains to him processors or businesses engaged in interstate commerce? You know what, I have really great news, actually, for you, Johnny and Chris. So Trisha Erlich, who is the W USDA cannabis program manager, I believe, she, her and I are going to be doing a whole webinar to talk about what the hemp program does. And the cannabis program or the I'm sorry, how the legislation affects him, how it affects cannabis, what this means for different operators, and kind of the logistics of that stuff. So I'm not gonna get into that. Today, of course, feel free to follow up with me. But we are working on that. And so hopefully, that will answer all of your questions. And you do have more questions or something you'd like us to cover in the webinar. Please send them our way. And I think we have a hand raised. Oh, see, sorry.
Hey, I do have I actually have two questions. So I noticed that you've left the single and you you change a single package,
instead of the number of servings a single package and you left all the verbiage of saying except for in section B. of single serving under for qualifying patients to be it has the word applied, but none of the other sections have that Was that intentional?
that I believe is just straight from the language of the current roles. And I didn't notice that and I was like, Oh, that's weird. Yeah, I don't know if you want to double check, but okay. Yeah, thank you. Let me know if I'm wrong on it. But that's something that we do need them in. I have our lovely doh medical cannabis folks here, and they've been working with me on this language. And so that just Are you know that we're here? And we're kind of working on all this together? So let us know.
Okay. And then my other question was under transaction limits. As for the it says it says 10 Instead of units, it's packages of a cannabis infused product otherwise taken into the body. So how would you measure the packages? 100
milligrams per package? So yeah, it that one does. It's just really more of a language change. And yeah, so just, I don't know. You won't get into I have a little bit more information about with examples of how that changes in just a second. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, Lucas, go ahead.
There we are, Hey, um, so I'm jumping down to, let's say, maximum number of servings, and specifically how the new unit definition will affect the single unit of cannabis concentrate cannot exceed one gram, there has been a allowance for like a dab to one gram units to be combined into one Puck, like one of those all silicon pucks with a divider in it, sorry, sues the landlord.
But, um, anyhow, I'm with the Morse direct language that we're we haven't statute with an individual consumable item within the package, would we still have that same allowance under this new definition? The word because it's less individualized, if it's just a half, like if it's a once going to silicone puck with a divider down the middle? Would that still be permitted under this rule change? Am I describing that well enough?
You know, I think so. Maybe it would be good if you showed me a picture. And I can add this to kind to our little discussion question. document. And so I just do want to point out this a single package of concentrate? Or I'm sorry, a single unit, I should say, a single unit. I may have messed up there. The language about the to the concentration of NO, I'm looking at the wrong thing. What section are you looking at? Because I'm talking about something that I'm not seeing right yet seems
section? So it's 314550951 be the last sentence of one be?
A single package much is not? Oh, no, that's at least that's why it was in the old rules are the max point.
I think you're talking about here. I have the rules in a second. But you know, hold on a second, if you can just hold that question. And no problem. I'll just I want to get through all this stuff. But I think we will have time for this. Okay. Um, oh, okay, one any more questions before I go to the next change? Okay, great. Okay, um, this one is what you were talking about, I believe, Susan, with the packages replacing units. Okay, and just to back up here, or we'll get to this next slide. Unit, the current definition of unit in, in our rules is not at all consistent with the new statutory definition. And so whenever it's, it's just used differently. Also, it's not necessarily used consistently throughout the rules. And so part of all of this change, either whether it's from unit to package or from serving to unit, what is it unit to package? Yeah, or container to package or wrapping, whatever sort of thing to package. It's just to clarify language consistency, because we really are talking about the same thing. And I don't know if it would be helpful for folks, if we did some sort of guidance, where we're kind of providing a visual for what this changes. So it's kind of like it's not really a change, this is a container and a pathogen. Anyway, let us know we're always happy to like provide any further guidance or additional anything else to help with compliance or understanding these changes. Okay, just the policy impact, like I was saying 10 packages is the same as 10 units. So if you have 10 units of cannabis infused products under the current rules, I'm assuming that there are their maximum THC limit of 100 milligrams per package, then you would have 1000 milligrams of THC. And then based on just this technical language change, same thing 10 Pack Could just steal 1000 milligrams of THC maximum, if each package is 100 milligram. Um, all right. Any questions about that? And then we'll go to the next change. Right? Great. Okay, so this one is still a package change related to the definition of package, but it's in the universal warning symbol requirement. And for this one, again, I just replaced container and package wrapping was included here. So that was replaced as well, to be consistent. And then also, just this section does mention outer package and immediate package. And this may be where we want to consider providing additional clarity or more specificity specificity on what the different layers of packaging are. So we will get to everybody will have a chance to kind of discuss this stuff, and then breakout rooms, that we'll be having some around LCB staff just pop in. Make sure that there are no questions and or concerns. Okay, again, language consistency. And then, again, repeating this changing packaging container doesn't substantially impact policy, it's just a technical language change. Alright, any questions about that one, and then we'll go to the next for change. So this one's related to replacing the serving in unit. This one was a struggle, I will say, I think a lot of us internally went back and forth on how to make this change. And you know, whether or not to replace everything with the unit, whether or not to create a definition that would further define that, like, or further clarify that serving and unit are the same? Or do we even want them to say the same and keep it kind of separate and have to, like distinct definitions for them. This is what we landed on, was just just replace it so that the words would be used interchangeably, although we're just gonna say unit not serving anymore, just to be very consistent, and said, This is what that language would look like. And Susan, yes.
Is this something that's going to require packaging to be resubmitted to have the word unit instead of the word serving? As
a very good question, I think that we would definitely want to work out something where the implementation of this could be done over time, so that people wouldn't the cost burden and wouldn't be so burdensome. And that's I want one of the things when we're in the breakout rooms that I would love businesses to talk about is, what does a timeline look like to see to if this change is made? And we decide, let's say we do decide that you have to change, I think we would want to change the unit to survey not committing to anything right now. But if that were a change, and you did have to change your packaging, you know, how long would you need to get rid of your current packaging? Or what would it cost to put it, I don't even know sticker if that's even feasible based on what your packaging looks like. So I'm definitely interested in what folks have to say about this, because it like I said, this is a little bit of a weird, complicated change. I'm reason for the change just to align with the new definition of unit. And this is I included the existing definition here, just so you can compare to see how I'm sorry, the existing definition rule. So okay, um, improve accuracy. Okay. So the policy impact, again, shouldn't be significant, because we're just using the terms interchangeably. However, I think there's some pretty real considerations, like consumer confusion, especially with dosing. They may not get the difference. Yeah, Justin, go ahead.
No, I just had a thought based on those questions that that came up. Something that we may want to consider. Again, we're not committing to any language here today, but we may not need to change serving, we may be able to incorporate it because looking at the definition of unit means an individual consumable within a package and so a serving are serving size still might be a different, you know, parameter than that unit. So if you have a single serving of five milligrams versus 10 milligrams, and that's your serving size, that still might mean something different. So we'll have to explore that. It's an interesting question that was raised. And I thought I would just throw that comment out for folks to consider. Yeah,
that is great. And so the DOH folks, and I spent a little bit of time actually exploring that language. So it would be you can something to the effect of having up to 10 milligrams per serving, you could have maybe multiple servings per unit and multiple units per package. So that it just the language was seen a little messy. I don't know if anyone on the forum do he just wants to just provide a little bit of insight on what our final discussions were on why I didn't separate those. That might be actually good, because I'm not stuck, actually. Either way. Like, it's, it's a real tough one. I don't want to put anybody on the spot. But Johnny or TJ, if you're on a call. I don't think you can unmute yourself. Okay. We can talk about that later. If you Oh, I think you're trying to mute Johnny. That.
That was me unmuting him just in case.
Thank you. Okay, I'll leave if you want to leave them unmuted. They could just raise their hand I don't know. Yeah. Okay, so Yeah, we'll definitely come back to that one. And then just at the top this is very contingent on if the servings and units and how that language is used. I don't even know that this is at all necessary. But just in the spirit of being consistent with the language of unit just in language already currently enrolled that talks about personal possession in that first paragraph. That is why I proposed these I do have some questions at the end on whether or not these changes are relevant and needed so definitely want your feedback on that. We're just trying to be as thorough as possible. And so um, yeah, call us out if we were to throw or not there are enough so this is just what that would look like it's nothing significant just the title first paragraph okay. And then um let's see we have our think this might have the second to last change this is related to the amended definition of unit oh we just went through that I'm sorry unit place replacing serving this one has to do with the THC concentration this is the last change this is also super super tricky one so because the definition of THC concentration was amended to include other THC analytes and not just delta nine here is that definition and then did active THC that came up so as part of this, you know, we look to see where delta nine was included in throughout the wax section. And so in an effort to kind of be consistent and also be accurate with the new definition of THC concentration. This was struck active THC or delta nine. A couple of reasons for this. When generally speaking, when people think active THC, they think Delta nine now that the bill kind of changes things a little bit. There's some serious like concerns with confusion and you know, maybe not putting active THC because consumers are used to seeing is not a very good idea. Like I said the intention here was just to be consistent and to try and address this definition of THC concentration that was expanded. So let us know what you think on that. Oh, and look at I think we're here a single unit of cannabis concentrate cannot exceed one gram. That is was already in the was already in the roll. I just actually moved it up to this section because it was in a weird kind of just in this. I put it with the other unit language. But go ahead
Oh, yeah. And it definitely makes a lot more sense in the updated version. I'm just curious with the new legislative language that we have from statute by adding the individual consumable if that would change any current interpretations of the liquor and cannabis board, and I can paste a photo into the chat, if that'd be helpful. For like an example. Here, give me a second here.
Yeah, and I think this might be something that, like our policy team will want to talk offline about. But I will note, or I'll make sure this gets in our discussion, so everybody can get the answer. And, of course, if you want to follow up with me, we can also talk afterwards.
Yeah, definitely. Yeah, my biggest concern is just trying to find ways to mitigate waste, right. So if we can combine packaging together, then we're reducing packaging. So anyway, I'll follow up with you after the fact. So thank you, of course. Thank you.
All right, um, again, reason for change just to be consistent and align with statute. Okay, so this was a big policy impact, because like I said, other THC analytes are included and not just delta nine. And so previously, when we were talking about, you know, like a product connected cannabis infused product can have up to 10 milligrams of THC per serving. That was delta nine. So now it's, it could be let's say you had fun, or whatever, crazy greeting and you have like five milligrams of thc v, that you were able to like do a half and half THC V and delta nine, that would have to be 10 milligrams, so you couldn't have 10 milligrams of Delta nine. And then also like five milligrams or two, or even one of another THC analyte. And so that is a pretty big change. Are there questions about that?
All right, and then just a couple of the considerations. And I have some more notes on how we got to this conclusion, if anybody is really interested. There's no formal definition of active THC. Obviously, the amended definition of THC concentration and being expanded, I will note, there are some serious labeling considerations associated with this, and how to report THC concentration, I'll let you know a little bit different. And then also, again, the consumer confusion with like, if we just change how THC looks get on labels, I wanted to make sure that they're not confused and have improper dosing. And then also, I do want to teach the Fill survey data that we did that ended I think, on January 31 of this year. That data has some questions about about reporting, THC concentration, and kind of how to work that into the roles and the data is available. I have uploaded that to the current laws and rules page that has all of the information about this role of rulemaking. So I'll put all those links in the chat for everybody. So if you're interested in the results, you can take a look there. Okay, um, oh, good. Okay, we're a little early. So I have eight minutes. Before we're our break time. So I'll just go briefly over the discussion directions. I have questions here that we'll go through, there's 10 questions, or sorry, there's 25 questions. And so we're just gonna, like I said, we'll go into the breakout rooms, I'm gonna while everyone's taking a break, there'll be four to five people in each room, I can't do this math off the top of my head. And I'm trying to and so I'll assign every one of the breakout rooms while we're taking the break, or reg personal break. And then for each question, you'll have two to three minutes. Some of the questions are more in depth than others. So I would kind of take a look at all of them. And some of them won't be applicable to you. And some of them are just kind of like something to think about and not really like we don't need a hard answer. Um, we if you could designate someone in the group to take notes that would be great because afterwards, we will have a representative from the group go around and talk about which what each breakout discussion share that your discussion in your breakout groups and with that, Are there questions? Um yeah, we have eight minutes no other minutes until the great time at 345 and you can go ahead and take a break now if you want. I will just wait until 355
Okay, well, I'm gonna break
You? All right, um, it's four o'clock. So we'll just go ahead and continue. I hope everyone had a nice break. I am going to so a few things I put the agenda and the draft rules that we're talking about in the chat. I'll upload the definitions in a second. And then I'll be adding the breakout room questions. They'll also be sort of on the PowerPoint as well. And then before we begin with that, I wanted to go back to the serving unit or sorry, serving Yeah, serving unit change. Johnny from doh is gonna actually give the explanation now. And then I have one more little the documents recording sign. And then I have one more. Just little clarification to make. Caitlin, thank you for that. I am trying so hard. I will get these uploaded, though. Johnny, tonight, if you don't mind. Can you unmute Johnny, I got it.
So I just went through the chat. And I saw that there was a little chat going on about the distinction between a serving and dosage and I wanted to take some time to just clarify a bit if I could. So in the pharmacology and help medical field, the word dosage has a very specific meaning. And it dose is the amount of the substance that is needed to produce a very specific effect. And so if you take an example, say antibiotics, the dosage is a pretty, it's the amount that it would take for the compound to be active in your blood. And so that is a specific number that depends on your body weight and timing and these other things, but it's a very specific number. When it comes to cannabis. The effects that a person may want may be different depending on the time of day depending on what they have going on or their schedule. And so we can't offer a proper dosage that is applicable to everything. And so we try to offer a standardized unit and that way the person can make the decisions for themselves depending on all the other factors that are going on with them at the moment.
So that's why we're trying to offer this standardized unit.
Hope that helps. Yes, no, that helps. Thank you, Johnny. I'm gonna try to copy and paste this LinkedIn link into the chat and let me know if that works. Okay, just and then to go back there are some questions in the chat about the applicability of this, like with regards to which cannabinoids this like the milligram limit or per product limit per unit per serving, whatever we want to call it per unit applies to and it's just THC. So it wouldn't be other cannabinoids like CBC or yen or CBG or any of those other major cannabinoids or it would be like delta eight if it were naturally derived, for example, that could be in a product or T CV or some other like T H C. That is is naturally derived from cannabis. But any other like non THC cannabinoid is not included in this. I hope that was clear. Yes, it will include THC. So I'm THCA delta, delta 10, I think because natural THCV Delta, a Delta nine, all of them all the naturally derived THCs, not HHC. No, because I have a list. I have a list of actual Linux and limitation. I have a list of cannabinoids that are just like very common ones that are naturally derived that we've seen in a lot of products and show up on CoA is because we did quite a bit of research on what's out there. And so just to give you an idea, that would probably be helpful. Of course, it's it's not like all inclusive. But I think that'll provide a little bit more guidance on which analytes we're talking about, or which cannabinoids? Are there any questions? Besides outside of like any specific cannabinoids, just like generally? Yeah, Jessica, go ahead.
Jessica, you should be able to unmute yourself now.
Alright, we'll just have you.
I now can unmute myself. Sorry.
I'm sorry, I couldn't there for a minute. I'm just asking who is going to own that kind of THC list? And then the math behind the THC list? You know, kind of the, you know, right now, it's point eight, seven times THCA? You know, kind of that component of it?
Oh, the calculation?
Yeah. What you know, because if if we're saying 10 milligrams is the cap, is that something that the WCA lab group is going to own? Or is that LCB? Who's going to kind of own and disseminate that list so that labs know it? And I guess licensees also know kind of what they're playing to?
Sure. And to clarify, we're not there won't be like a specific list of cannabinoids, just as just like to get an idea of the just to get an idea generally of like, what is regular, like, what is regulated? What's not regulated? But yeah, we won't we don't mean I don't, there wasn't a plan to keep a list. We could of course, consider it if there's an interest and it would be something that we would do with W. SDA. We've been working very closely with them on their lab standards to make sure that any changes that we're making to reporting THC concentration is consistent with what they have for their COA requirements. And so I don't does that help?
I think it does. But I think if if the goal is to enforce upon a tee a 10 milligram per nurse, you know, units or being whatever it is that that that there's going to have to be a list that people know in, are held accountable to is my take on it.
Okay, thank you. No, that's, that's helpful. Definitely make a note on that. Are there any other questions? I can? Hold on? Let me see your hands. Okay, just like a mother Jessica.
All right, I don't think there's any more questions. Okay. Thanks. And with that, um, we can go ahead and I'll break everyone out into the breakout rooms. And we have our LCD LCD staff aren't going to be in the groups but they'll
be available to pop in if you'll want to just like put something in the chat and I'll be going around just to check in and see if anyone has questions, but we are here to help. So yeah, any questions before we go into the breakout rooms? Oh, and just again, here the discussion topics. Okay. I will just go ahead, I'll pop these questions all into the chat. also upload this PowerPoint. And yeah, like I said, you have about, say, like 25 minutes or so. And about two to three minutes in question. I definitely would focus on the three minutes for the impact questions. I think everything else should be generally brief. And so a couple questions about compliance, and then also suggestions for how you think that we could improve this these roles. Okay, so let me pop them into the chat here. Let me break y'all out into or tyranny. Do you mind doing that? I think we're gonna have five people in a room. And I'll get these discussion questions for everyone.
I'm unfamiliar with how to divvy people up into other rooms.
I got it. Actually. No worries. I just figured it out. Really. Okay, here we go. I played with this earlier. So, alright, so number of rooms. If we do six, if we do seven rooms, then it'll be four to five people in each room. Okay, I'm gonna create the rooms now and then I'll put these in the chat. And I'll also let y'all know when we have like I'll do like 15 minutes. Yeah, and then 10 Then five minutes left on so everyone has to wrap up All right.
Guys Hello, yeah.
She said that's five of us. Um, do you want to go around and do some introduction
Hi, I'm Doug I work at Painted rooster.
I'm Caitlin I'm the executive director for the cannabis Alliance.
I'm Carol Earhart and owner for 20 friendly in Spokane. And my camera isn't working for some days
Hey, I'm Gregory foster with cannabis observer. I'm gonna probably stay off camera.
My name is Scott wheat. I'm a licensed hip producer in my farms located in eastern Washington, about a half hour west of Spokane. I also am a practicing attorney and represent tribes
and then the cannabis space negotiating cannabis compacts with LCB so I'm kind of wearing two hats during these discussions
Oh, that's fascinating. Scott. Are you which tribes do you usually work with?
On cannabis space Spokane? Okay.
So you probably know Mary Jane Oatman. Perhaps Miss Pierce
No, I don't believe I've met her which is a surprise because it's kind of a small world.
Yeah, she's the executive director for this is not at all what we're supposed to be talking about. The cannabis indigenous organization, and Rennes, a anyway, she does a lot of organizing, and amongst personally Asians and cannabis.
I've heard the name actually now that you mentioned her Okay, so yeah, what happened matter? Do we have
to hear what everybody thinks about this discussion so far? today? I have so many concerns and questions
Yeah, I do also the the the unit, there was an a cover up right up at the the unit situation in the package. And I think it's didn't say 10 packages could be sold. Because a package could have a unit of 10 milligrams. If it was a single serving edible, one package could have a 10 milligram unit. Right.
I think so. So, Gregory, were you following us? I actually almost put in put in the slack a couple of questions. is, are we just replacing the word package with or the word? I'm not entirely sure what was going on here? And I don't do you know of where there are documents that we can reference back to? Are we only working off of her slides?
Let me get the red line for the group Hold on.
They got us in this meeting to answer to discuss questions, but I don't know where the questions are.
I did take a picture of them because I knew we were not going to have them.
The chat has the the rules as they were distributed or the proposed changes or draft changes rather.
And then were a lot of questions that I also took screenshots of Caitlin let me see if I can get those up.
Yeah, do you have concerns about the clarity, scope or applicability of the proposed changes? If so, how can these be addressed? I mean, I sort of feeling like this is already been kind of as clear as mud
but I hate to be like, all of it. All of it needs further clarity, please.
Well, I think correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think they truly understand it, either. It's kind of how it was sounding to me.
Okay, so serving is being changed to unit. And the concept of package is being introduced. Is that a fair statement to make?
That's how I'm understanding it.
My concern with that is that a unit is a single unit that is sold for a certain price when it comes from a producer processor to a retailer. That's the simple nomenclature. A package is a unit. So that's a little convoluted.
Right?
The way I heard it was that you had a package and inside those package were individual units.
Yeah, and I think they're replacing the term container with package in the rules is my understanding. But
But the one said 10 packages, maximum of 10 packages. So as a I'm retail but so if I was purchasing and I was selling to a customer, if the rule is 10 packages, that's not 100 milligrams because that package may not have 10 milligrams in it. Or it could have 100 milligrams, and then it would only be one package.
And missing that. Well, and then to further complicate it, we then had dosing introduced in conversation,
because what I don't understand is I mean, can you have, on the one hand, they're saying a unit is meant anything that's meant to be eaten or swallowed, it can't have more than 10 milligrams, but then you can have a single package that doesn't have a THC concentration of greater than 100 milligrams. So does that mean that you're just limited? Can you have a single package with 100 milligrams? Or? Because then, doesn't that become a unit with 100 milligrams, but if you go to unit, it can't be greater than 10? So I mean, I'm trying to figure out what they're trying to get out here and say, you know, the intent to allow like, you know, selling infused lemonade, bottle 100. That'd be a, an a non compliant unit or compliant package. I see an interplay there. You know, what, you know, what about? If I read the term unit, literally, it means you can't have anything intended for ingestion that's greater than 10 milligrams, but then how does that relate to package unless you're simply saying you have to have 10 units in a package?
Correct. Which then when we get to beverages, like for example, these little guys, right? What happens here? Greg, is that your hand up for here?
Well, then that would also, you would have so speaking of that, historically has been by fluid ounces. It hasn't been by milligrams. So and re I can sell six raise lemonade for 72 fluid ounces. Right? What are you getting rid of the fluid?
They actually can't get rid of the fluid out and staying without, without spending a lot. As we now know. So that's, that's where that just gets confusing. Yeah, the whole, the whole changing of this really doesn't make sense. From any perspective, right? Because if I'm like, if I sell a six pack of my cans, Sundays, that is a unit. If I sell a four pack, that's a unit. But the six pack has six servings, the four pack has four servings. So the existing language isn't flawed. Is is the is the real issue here. When it comes to edible packaging, and liquid packaging.
Well, liquids always been a problem. I mean, you know, I can sell 20 shots. Were six lemonades. Yeah,
or 600 anymore. It's different on low dose now we'll take care of
so looking at the rules, looking at the red line, they it seems like they really just kind of boil it down. Kind of simply, it just says a single unit can exceed 10 milligrams. With the exception of the concentrate can be can't exceed one gram. And then they say the package. A single package can't have a THC concentration greater than 100 milligrams, right. And that's all that they really say about it. There's no changes to the transaction limits, other than saying 10 packages of a cannabis infused product, otherwise taken into the body is true. transaction limit, which is I think, to Carol's point, you know, 10 packages could be st packages containing 10 units, I guess. So. But otherwise it says the same thing just repeats it. Right? That's that's all they're doing is saying a unit is 10 milligrams a package is maximum 100. And I don't see anywhere where it says, you know, there's a maximum number of units per package. That's the thing that's a little confusing to me. So anyways, that's my take, if there's a simple approach to it, maybe that's what they're trying to do. I don't know.
But so then Doug, to your point, the then your four pack and six pack are exactly that. Now from here on in their packages, they're not units. And those packages have four or six units per package.
But my units would only have 2.5 milligrams and not 10.
Right? Instead, there's no minimum. There's only a maximum
which is the way it's Yeah.
Well, that's kind of a crazy result, because you could have really low dose gummies. But you would be limited. Let's say they had, you know, two milligrams of THC, you could only sell packages. It because it would be considered to be a single unit no matter how de minimis Well, I guess, then you sell that in a package. And you can have a bunch of units as long as it didn't combine to exceed 100 milligrams?
Yeah, yeah, I
don't see any, I don't see any restrictions on the total number of units that can be included in a package in these rules.
Yeah.
I guess you put it back on, what if you're selling a bottle of infused lemonade at 100 milligrams? Is that a compliant package or a non compliant unit? Because I remember when beverages first started being sold, you know, the retailers would sell the little shot glasses with the recommended, you know, 1010 milligram dose, you know, a little sip, you know, who knows how many people actually use that as opposed to, you know, drink in the bottle, but it was compliant.
Yeah, and we moved away from that just because of the, you know, the amount of wastes that that cause and so everybody sort of agreed that, you know, and again, at that time, we call them dosing cups, and it was doses but um, you know, so and it also doesn't say that it needs to be partitioned in any particular way. So this is tense This is still meets all the requirements, it's just an you know, one thing okay, just out of curiosity, I was trying to scan the The bill is passed really quickly. What Why are we calling for this particular change of language is that
they need to guarantee their paycheck. It's collapsing the CBD full spectrum CBD market into the 502 market and making products that otherwise wouldn't be subject to the excise tax subject to the excise tax while driving, typically
packaging packaging unit versus serving and whatever. Okay. Yeah,
I mean, I was I don't know about you guys, but I was, you know, involved in testifying before the legislature when this bill was going through. I think the package and unit was didn't seem to me to be the, what everyone was concerned about. It was Oh, my God, packaging problems. Yeah. But this seemed to be kind of secondary to the, you know, the overall purpose. As I saw the legislation was this concern with derivatives isomers and salts of hemp being sold, you know, over the counter, outside of the fiber. To market seemed to be the big push. I didn't really hear anyone at the legislative hearings talk about packaging in units at all, I, you know, maybe this was part of agency requests for some cleanup.
I can't actually answer no, you're talking about Yeah, I'm curious. Yeah. Yeah. So what was the original agency request legislation, have the, it was like, a certain amount of milligrams per unit was the whole thing. Um, and so that's why it was unit, but then because it are the whatever the legislators turned it into, they tried to do zero THC. And then that was like, not, you know, feasible or whatever. And so that's how they ended up making it a detectable amount of THC. But we originally were like, you know, if it's like, less than, I don't even know, like a milligram for you making something up, then. It's a hem consumable. So just to be a little bit more, you know, like, straightforward. And then it just turned into this, this whole thing. So that's why they're saying consistency.
Got it. So just, this was an attempt to clarify what we mean by unit across the things which then required unit to be changed for packaging, you know, etc, as sort of a downstream. Yeah,
it's like not clean. And so yeah, if there are other ways that you think that we can address this or like, not change something, and just like, whatever, we're open, this was just like the most technical and thorough like over that we, you know, to start out, so you can always remove things and take it back whatever.
Cassady Can you confirm that there is no, there's kind of no limit on the number of units that can be within a package? Like that's not defined anywhere?
Yeah, you can have as many as you want, as long as
it's under the maximum THC concentrations. Okay,
exactly. Yeah.
And then we were talking about like, this doesn't change, right. So this is 100 milligrams with so this would be 100 milligram package with 10 units in it, even though they're not partitioned. Right.
Okay. So quickly, from a sales perspective, you know, in the current state, something that I mentioned is, you know, what Caitlin was just holding, that's one saleable unit that contains servings of 10 milligrams of THC. That's the existing language. Yeah. And, as we're selling things, like, you know, that's what that is, a unit is a package. So,
based on like, the current role definition, it did integrate like, all of that together units and serving, it's an it's used the way that the interest, I mean, it's used in the industry and like, in real life, but because of this weird legislative change, it's just like, like I said, if you want to be really technical, this is going to do it. I think that, like I said, originally, we have like, there's so many servings per unit, and then you can have however many units per package. Yeah, like 10 milligrams, or up to 10 milligrams a unit, and then however many units per package as long as you don't have more than 100 milligrams per package. Right. But that made it kind of weird to when we put the language in there. Because again, like when you think of unit, you think of like one bottle or something, you know, I'm putting an actual like us, you know, and so I don't know if there's like, additional guidance that's needed.
Or what system mismatch of like you said, lexicon out in the real world world versus the language that's going into the rules.
Yeah, so like some other options we talked about internally, were in the definition of, or in that section of 095. Instead of changing the term unit serving, just adding like something at the top like for purposes, or not even not even saying that a unit serving but just like something clear at the top that so that we didn't have to get in that funky language. Just to clarify servings are still the same. You can have out however many servings per unit but then I don't know because servings just like not talked about in statute. There's not a formal definition, a lot of formal definitions and other state rules but Um, yeah, so we've talked about that too. Maybe we just like keep them separate and then formally define what is serving is versus a unit. And then, you know, work the rules that way. I'm, I'm open. So whatever. You know, this is just like a culmination of a lot of input from all of our internal meetings. Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, I have to talk with more folks. on instinct alone, though, I think clarifying existing language would be more easily implementable than redefining similar terms differently than what we've read. Yeah,
and if you want to, if you have five, and a couple thoughts on that, but if you have a specific language, feel free to follow up. I'm gonna write this down. I know, I think I know like exactly what you're talking about.
I do want to, while I have you here, I want to touch base on the analytes. thing, if that's alright, with everybody who can kind of skip ahead a little bit. And just a little bit of concern about that. 10 milligrams, and how, just because not all, like the analyze the impact of that concentration is very different. You know, and when I look up what and that's why I was asking for the list, like when we're saying analytes, what exactly, because you said no to H HC, but that includes like Teach CP, right? Teach co Delta ate, like all of those and like Teach CP, for example, is super concentrated, like 10 milligrams of that when? For anybody? Whereas, you know, 10 milligrams of Delta eight, maybe, you know, not so much. Yes.
And so one of the, I have a lot of, maybe we should talk offline, or I should do something else. So I really go into like, why or how we got up to those changes, like pros and cons of just how we, you know, like, we did a pretty thorough analysis. I did, or I did. Anyway, um, yeah. So the wind legislation just reads like it, is that right? It's just like, simple. But it's not simple, like you said, and so one thought I had was, what if we do like a total THC, total THC calculation for each analyte, you know, like to be able to account for the different strengths. But then I was looking into the research, and there's not a lot of a lot of research on it. It was also like, you know, is it complicated? I have people do it. Another thing we thought about is like, if it's over a certain amount, then you didn't include it. So if it's like, a milligram or something, and you have to include it in the count, but if it's less than a milligram, we wouldn't have to include it. But again, that doesn't really like get to the issue of the all not th the analysts are not created equal.
Yeah, I mean, and not just not equal, but like wildly unequal. Like, by orders of magnitude, in some cases.
I'm wondering, just because like, I'm wondering if there's something that we can do where we like, like you're saying a list, but as we know more about like how the equivalencies I guess of the THC, or we can come up with something like that, then we can provide, like further guidance there. I don't know, I'm bouncing ideas, you have a thought
I was just gonna add that. From, I think, a lab perspective and quantifying these things, I think they have to have a list because if you don't test for it, you're not going to get numbers for it. Right? And so if you have like a minimum threshold, it's like, well, if you don't test for it doesn't hit that minimum threshold, right? So I think it's going to come back around to the fact that you got to have a list but then that list has to be flexible, because people are going to identify other THC variants that don't hit that list. Right. It's that whole revolving issue of Whack a Mole game that comes to this sort of stuff.
Yeah, you know, I looked into the history of federal analog act a little bit on this because it's pretty messed up. And anyway, all that to say this legislation makes it really hard not to make some of the same mistakes you know, I think so in this stuff should be fixed and can be fixed and legislation. Like really shouldn't be, but like, this was a whole two year situation trying to just get this in there, you know. Anyway, I'm gonna hop into other groups, like be all feel free to follow up with me After or whatever always. Okay? Good. Bring y'all back in like, two minutes. Okay. Okay.
Okay
well, ouch. So I jump right back in. So the analyte language versus isomer language. Okay. I mean, the the plant doesn't have, eh C O acetate synthetase to make that compound. Why are we doing? Like, that's one example.
Okay, so Dan, can you help me out too? I've asked now a couple of folks, but I haven't asked you and you always have a nice way of explaining things fairly layman. Like, when we say analyte What exactly are we talking about? We're talking about th co th, CP? Delta eight. Right?
Yeah. And and I would call those, you know, I would call those isomers. But an analyte. Is is sure, but it's, you know, analyte is supposed to mean, what you can analyze that is similar or has a similar structure? And, yeah, I mean, I think the synthetic cannabinoid restriction in itself, you know, should eliminate, you know, like, Delta eight happens on accident. But if you want Delta eight, you can make it happen by creating an isomer or creating that analyte. They're not interchangeable terms, but it sounds like they're being used interchangeably here. So that's a little concerning. Yes, so
Well, I mean, okay, and then so things like P and O and others wouldn't ever show up in the concentration of say 10 milligrams without having gone through a synthetic process. Am I hearing that accurately? Yes. So that and that activity is exclusively prohibited outside of just the allowance of volume of concentration. So when we're talking about the allowance of existence in concentration, it's somewhat neither here nor there for most of these things anyways, correct?
Yeah, for most of those things, they shouldn't occur nearly at all. Right?
Okay. Because they just naturally aren't without some, some sort of catalysts to make that happen. That's separate from what the plant does.
Correct. Like, you know, I in order to make delta eight you know, THC from Delta nine, I need to use an acid washed bentonite right, requires a chemical process. So, yeah, there's there's some
kind of sorry, is that weird? I'm trying to avoid also not using other languages, like synthesis and.
Okay.
So then I guess my question is, you know, how much do we worry about, about this piece of it, knowing that there's other pieces that are a bigger deal, that sort of already restrict? Whether or not these things will show up at higher volumes than 10 milligrams? Yeah,
I mean, seeing 10 milligrams of any Okay, and I'm gonna, I'm gonna use like the real real terms here. Yeah, finding the analytes. Like, that's not even the right way to put it. Give me like, three seconds on. Analyzing for isomers of cannabinoids that are not naturally occurring. Those should be illegal anyway. So I don't know why they're an issue in the situation that they are under normal laboratory conditions or under normal growing conditions, et cetera, et cetera. Those isomers should not be occurring in an above 10 milligrams, unless they are being derived directly from a growing plant. So like an example, you know, Scott on his hemp farm, he can grow a high thc v variety that would then be a plant derived thc v. However, I could take a CBG molecule and I summarize it making it illegal but I could create THC be the analytes are, you know, are all of those those are all compounds that are going to be analyzed in the laboratory. Does that help at all? It does.
It does hurt but it does also help in terms of prioritizing what I need to be banging pots and pans about I guess other than just overall this is a mess of a situation
because, yeah,
I am not very good at this. You're gonna need to take some teams training
all right, I think we probably have every one back. Alright, so um, we can just start going around, I hope my delay on I hope the question situation wasn't too hard with getting those apologies. I didn't make sure that you'll have those beforehand. Okay, so I'm going to if it's we'll just start with room one. I know some of you didn't have, like some other people in there. But I spoke with you like Jessica. So if that was the case, just let me know. And I won't, unless you have thoughts for yourself. Don't feel pressured to share for your non existent group. Okay, um, room one. Carrie, I don't know. Did y'all end up getting the questions you and Bridget? And did you have anything you want to share? With regards to any other questions?
Yeah, no, I wasn't able to unmute. We didn't have the questions. But um, so yeah, I think just the was discussed, just, you know, the concerns, how these are gonna get implemented and compliance for the changes. So I think that's probably going to be ongoing conversation through this rulemaking. Workshop Series. Okay, great.
Yeah, I'm gonna take some notes. Just generally, we need to figure that out. Is that kind of like, you know, like, when we get into the nitty gritty like, How is this all gonna look? I'm just trying to recap the lock in you. Okay, well, hopefully I captured that right. And if anybody Okay, does anyone have anything to add to just implementation? feasibility or issues, concerns, suggestions on how strategies? Integrate, just raise your hand? If you could speak for the group for yourself? Caitlin, go ahead.
Mute here? That's right. Thanks. I think we talked a little bit about re exploring the possibility of clarifying existing language as, as we've all been working with it. And maybe adding an another term so that he'll just be easier to implement, using the language as we have been using it, and just tweaking it to come into alignment with the needs of this bill might be a simpler approach.
Yes. And we talked about that a little bit. Specifically, like would it be more about like serving in a unit and packaged stuff?
Yeah, and just in this sense of, you know, also, just how in particular unit how the word unit gets used in sales and sort of some effort of maintaining a streamlined approach there. Might make everybody's job easier in the long run.
Yeah, like practicability. Yeah. Okay, definitely. So
they can all
right, anybody else have anything to add? With implementation. Okay, um, what were those questions? What about just like while we're on it, and I'll just, we won't even go around. And just like a detour, if you're thinking about this, I'll just go through the questions. And if your group talked about it, and you have something to share, just please raise your hand. Okay, so what about any besides Caitlyn? That was great improvements, I think we could definitely explore just making sure that we're not being inconsistent with reality, or making unnecessary changes that may cause confusion. Does anyone have any suggestions or alternative suggestions for any of the changes, not just this unit package? Any of the THC concentration stuff? At all? Or conversations concerns? Questions?
Okay, we have Johnny, go ahead.
Hey, can you hear me okay? Yes. So, ours is a little bit kind of off topic, but I guess sort of related. It's kind of what we discussed in our small group. But it was basically concerning the definition of cannabis products, and how a hemp product can basically meet the definition of a cannabis product, as well as meaning the definition of hemp, and that someone basically engaged in solely interstate transportation, or interstate like commerce not selling within the regulated market in Washington as a processor, they could basically be meeting both the definition of hemp and a hemp processor, while at the same time meeting the definition exactly of a cannabis product. And then by default, basically, that any business engaged in that process and could therefore be manufacturing a cannabis product without a license on the interesting part is that it so anything that's hemp doesn't meet the definition of cannabis. However, if it has any detectable amount of THC, it then would meet the definition of a cannabis product. And then sort of where it gets a little bit more sort of thick, is that our CW 15 140 030 gives the Department of Agriculture's sole regulatory authority over the production of him. And all rules relating to him, including any testing of him are outside of the control and authority of the LCB. And then Senate Bill 5367. Section three C says that this rulemaking authority does not include the authority to enact rules regarding either the production or processing practices of the industry, you know, hemp industry or CBD products are sold and marketed outside of the regulatory framework.
Okay, I'm so sorry. I'm the one who cut you off. But I wanted to tell you that webinar that we're going to be doing with Department of Agriculture, I think will answer some of your questions. And just like as an aside, any of the changes to like cannabis product or hemp consumable, or any of that, like a statutory, so it's outside of the scope of what I can do right now. But definitely, let's make sure that you get somehow we make that webinar, whatever we're going to do accessible to you, because I think it'll answer a lot of your questions. Is that all right, is that good?
Yeah, I mean, I thought the basic sort of outcomes razor for that whole situation would just be amending the definition of the lcbs rules to saying that cannabis products do not include hemp that is not sold in the regulated market.
Um, you know, I'll have to go I'm happy to just like walk through walk through all of the changes and kind of have a side by side on everything. And I think hopefully, it'll clarify some stuff. And I'll make sure that I put that up on the website, too. Okay, and well, let's follow up. I just want to make sure we're getting to other
topics.
Lucas, go ahead.
Thank you, Chelsea. Um, one thing that we brought up in our group, I
am so sorry, go ahead. I'm so sorry. You opened the door for my dog but I'm listening. Sorry.
One thing that we brought up in our group was now the other THC minor cannabinoids will be included in THC concentration for the edible space, at least. Just some concern around how do we create a buffer for overages. One thing I brought up is when we wholesale our distillate. Oftentimes when we sell to someone that's making edibles, there's a really intense concern that there's at least 90% Delta nine And then we usually have four to 5%. Other minor cannabinoids that are, you know, that will come up somewhat, some of it will come up and matrix some of it are not shown on the testing matrix. And the concern is if there's now a need to know exactly how much thc v and, and other tetrahydrocannabinol minor cannabinoids are present, could there be a something put in rule for a limit on 10 on 10 milligrams Delta nine, but then also an allowance for minor overages to accommodate for the slurries. And kind of background behind this is to make sure that we don't make swinging markets and market shifts for people to move away from purchasing distillate and purchasing isolates. Instead, like anhydrous, THC A powder anyway, just something to bring up in this conversation and see if there's any sort of a long answer.
Yeah, so I think the testing when we start talking about the testing stuff, this will answer or address some of some of this in the packaging labeling, too, because obviously, the whole thing is like what consumers knows in their product. And then and how it affects them. And like not all THC is created equal. So like 10 milligrams of you know, one, and it's not the same as another. And anyway, we'll talk about this a little bit before we get a lot more when you get into the testing workshop. So let me know, feel free to like send questions in the meantime, and I can make sure that we address those, then.
Thank you. Yeah, of course.
And then TJ, go ahead.
Hey, I'm going to just basically beat a dead horse a little bit here from the sound of what we were kind of talking about in our group was nothing different really than what's been brought up right now. One thing in terms of like clarity and compliance, when it when it does come to like THC calculations, kind of, like other people have mentioned, you know, if we're going to be including thc v in detectable amounts of THC. And Cassie, I think you mentioned earlier that you wouldn't be able to have, let's say something with 10 milligrams of THC and another five, or even one milligram of thc v, it really kind of circles back into some of this testing and that THC calculation, you know, THC A is, you know, like, like has been brought up, you know, point 877 percent of what's detected based on, you know, this is molecular weight, it's a carboxyl group getting cleanly shaved off. And that 877 is all based on the molecular weight, because now it really is just to see, when we start going into thc v, you know, well, now we've got different, you know, we have varying molecular weights, I actually don't know what's getting cleaved off or not also. And, you know, there's been some studies out that are showing Delta eight being anywhere from like, you know, 25 to 60% as strong as delta, delta nine, but there hasn't really been a whole lot of work into any sort of equivalent integration levels of these other homologues of THC. So kind of put a button or put a bow on this. I think that the date is too far away. I think the sciences too far away to really be incorporating, you know, THC into total THC calculations. I understand it being there to catch, you know, maybe science stuff that is synthetic 100%. But, you know, no.
Sorry, I don't want to cut you off. I hear you. I do hear you there is I mean, just summarize, there's a lot of issues with the THC concentration limits, given the expanded analytes calculating them, they have different molar masses, they have different potency or whatever detoxification effects or what I'm looking for potency, I guess. Anyway, so and even different effects. So I hear you and we will like if anyone wants to follow up with me before then and like I said, having addressed stuff in that testing, let me know or if you just want to chat. I know. TJ you and I have had a lot of conversation Think about this, but um, yeah.
Well, like another
question that we were kind of bringing up. I know that you know, you know, right now there's a point 3% threshold and if far if hemp farmers are growing stuff and it gets tested over point 3% I believe the product needs to you know, the product needs to be destroyed. So if we move to any detectable amount of THC, my question is basically what happens to those hemp producers who get their product tested at one point, you're at point one 5% Or at point 2% thc.
Um, I think I'm following you, but it's about like, No, I may not be following you. I'm
like if if someone is gonna grow some hemp, and it needs to get tested at time of harvest, and that product ends up testing at point 2% THC, which is a detectable level. Current threshold, what happens to their provenance because it all get destroyed?
Yeah, it was also flour, though, is still the point. 3%. It's, this is just on the end product. Okay. Yeah.
So so let me clarify that for for folks. So the way that the statute is drafted, leaves hemp intact, as a hemp product. However, if that product is converted into a consumable at that juncture, where it's being sold to the consumer, if it has any detectable amounts of THC, it'll be categorized as cannabis. So the plants that are testing it, you know, point zero 3% or less at the time of harvest, are still considered hemp, they can be even from my understanding, they'll be able to continue to have some THC levels through transition. And so if you're going to be extracting your CBD, and you extract all of the THC out of that, and that's not ending up in the end product for the consumer. All of that is still falling under the scope of agriculture. But if you make a product that's a consumable that is going on the market with any detectable amount of THC that is then classified as cannabis.
Follow. Thanks, Justin. Thanks. Okay. Can I move on? I think we can talk I'm gonna move on clarity. I think we talked a lot about clarity with just making the hemp cannabis all of the different terminology. Given the way the rules currently are, how big of an impact are y'all didn't even talk about like the impact of what it would have to be to comply with this. And the unintended consequences that could result from the way these rules are written the way they're proposed, right now.
Okay, well with regards to any of the oh, we're over time. So we're, we're over time. Thanks, Justin. So if anyone has any other like, these questions are uploaded in the file. So feel free to send us a written comment or follow up afterwards. Always happy to clarify. And then I'll also just go ahead and put a poll online that gets to some of this stuff so I can get your individual feedback as well just get a good sense. Anyway, sorry again for going over time but I really appreciate a really appreciate it. And I'm looking forward to talking again with everyone soon. Thanks, everybody. Thank you have a good night.
