##VIDEO ID:bb41Nn0UV-U## you too spending you our best in this hard during this hard time okay so I think we've officially started I'm supposed to open the meeting aren't I yes thank you chair chair woman um so we will officially start the meeting on January 9th at 5:02 p.m. um I am supposed to go around and just say everyone's name who is attending you don't have to acknowledge so um in this meeting is myself Risha hus Jack Prema Betsy and Dia and Dia every time I am not sure I'm pronouncing it right can you tell me one more time it's okay sorry um so let me pull up the agenda I think usually the first thing to do is to see if anybody had any comments on the minutes from last month which were the December 5th did anyone have any concerns or comments or additions to those going to take that as a no um so if not does someone move to approve them I'll move great and a second y I'll second great thanks Prima um so Jack I or nay yeah I'm um I'm having problems getting my documents together here I'm sorry um yes uh approve okay Betsy may not be able to turn off the the the mute at the moment do can I just ask a procedural question if the people who say they wanted to they like they motion and second do they have to also then vote it always feels repetitive I think is it possible just to say all in favor I or any opposed and just have people put their hands up versus having to call on everyone like that I've seen other meetings do it that way pra did you have a suggestion uh no only that that's how we did it with the last board but that doesn't mean it was correct and needed to have all of us uh to say I even the ones who uh proposed well I'll say I can you hear me yes thank you okay so uh if I'm going to say then that everyone has said I I say I um and they are approved and I'll maybe see if I can figure out a more efficient way of taking votes in the future yeah I think I think there's no right way to do it as long as everyone's vote is counted that's what's most important so I think we can make it easier on ourselves okay it always just feels so silly to ask the people who have already said yes yeah um all right so we are moving to public comment um it looks like we might have some people here I think I see person um I can allow them to talk if they would like to so we see there's one attendee Andrew Parker and Andrew if you'd like to make a comment we're going to unmute you you should be able to say something I think I'm all said thank you very much though oh okay all right you're just listening in yes I am thank you okay thanks for joining us we get so few listeners we don't know what to do with you but you're welcome um great well the next uh items are the past business um and we'll start off Kiko with you on the public hearing for tobacco regulations okay great so um we as we discussed at the last meeting we are moving ahead with plans for a public hearing on February 6th 2025 um which is the time of the board meeting so we agreed in the last meeting that and this was in the minutes that you all just approved that we would have a brief Board of Health meeting from 4:30 to 5 with any necessary covering any necessary items and then the public hearing would start at 5 o'clock so we are still moving ahead with that plan um and I will give more details about how the public hearing Works where where we're going to hold it that's all going to go in a minute um but I wanted in in preparation for the meeting I really just wanted to be as long it's it's a lot of work to prepare for a public hearing and we do have to put um you know send letters out to all of the retailers who sell tobacco products informing them of the hearing informing on them of informing them of the changes to the regulations that will be discussed at the hearing and so I just wanted to make sure that our tobacco regulations were ship shape and so I went through them with a fine- toothed comb I know we've talked about them quite a bit in this group and I'm not trying to rehash anything I just noticed a couple of things that I think we might have overlooked that are worthy of discussion um that the board may have overlooked and just one or two items that I wanted to bring to everyone's attention so I have Mahin had sent the the model regulations so the state or actually it's it's mahb the Massachusetts Association of Health boards which is sort of an independent entity develops these model RS and they their attorneys actually update them periodically like consistently throughout the year and so there is a newest the newest newest um iteration is from is dated 2025 and that is not the one that we have looked at together as a group so that I looked at it mahen and I looked at it thank you mahen for all your hard work comparing this latest iteration of the model with our most recent draft and there were just a couple of things that were different that we wanted to discuss with you all so in the packet is that model regg and there are lots of highlights in that document but the ones that are red type highlighted in yellow are the things that are in the model RS that are not in our draft that we thought were worthy of a discussion today so that's where I'm going to kind of start the conversation and then in going through the RS I found one or two things that I think are slight mistakes that we should correct again in the interest of having a perfect not perfect but the best document that we can present to the community in February I thought it' be worth taking some time to talk about that as a group today so unless there are any questions I'm going to move ahead then to go through that model document that mahen had marked up does that sound like a plan yep okay so um so moving through um under the statement of her purp there are three new pieces of evidence that are primarily about n oral nicotine pouches that we didn't have in our draft so those are in red lettering highlighted in yellow about spitless tobacco including oral nicotine pouches how the sales have increased um basically about the damage that nicotine can do to the developing adolescent brain and then um how inexpensive these pouches are so I was actually told by the mhb folks that this kind of stuff which doesn't substant substantively change the regulation we can always add into our regs without actually having a board meeting to discuss um but since we're all here I just wanted to draw people's attention to it and also because I didn't realize until just recently that we actually do have language in these most recent regs about oral nicotine pouches that the regs that we all that you all approved as a board um do restrict the sale of oral nicotine pouches to adult only establishments which is a change from what we used to have in our reg so given that that is something that this group had already voted on whether we called it out explicitly or not it was in the version that you all approved I feel like it's important to have the corresponding evidence listed in the beginning section so that's the first item to to talk about any thoughts concerns questions about those three pieces of evidence oh there's a kitty joining us nothing from my side I would just say you know as you said it seems like non-substantive it's not a policy it's just the evidence we can add it in at any point I have no issue adding it in at this point great I also have no issue adding in at this point okay so if there are any concerns then I'm just going to keep moving through this document um the next piece is on uh under C definitions and it's a simple sentence about the entrance to the establishment being secure so that access to the establishment is restricted to employees and to those 21 years or older for adult only retail tobacco stores and for some reason that sentence was not in the ammer version of the regulations I don't know if it got overlooked or if this is a piece that was added later it was kind wasn't indicated that it was a new piece but um Mahi noticed it so we wanted to bring it to your attention it's again you know just sort of fine-tuning the definitions not a policy change but just better language any concerns objections questions is that true now that that the entrances have to be secure um I don't well I I guess if it did then it would be in our regulations wouldn't it I think our regulations say I'm not looking at them side by side so someone can correct me but um I mean they are they cannot share an entrance with another establishment and they have to be 21 and over only so I think I don't necessarily have any issue with the the language but I I think it's sort of implied I'm not sure what secure means and and I you know I don't want Gates or dead bolts or something if so I just I I worry a little bit about that word secure but um conceptually I think we agree that it you know it should be an entrance that not a bunch of there's no other reason to enter and therefore no one would enter other than people who are allowed to be in the shop that was the question that was the question mark in my mind to the statement of must be secure so it almost implies like card access or as as you said being into the store so I'm not sure how that work yeah I think that's an excellent point I mean our regulations currently read an establishment that does not share space with another business that has a separate entrance not used by any other retailer that does not sell food beverages or alcohol blah blah blah blah blah so it's fairly clear that it must have a separate entrance not used by any other retailer um you know and in which the entry of persons under the age of 21 is prohibited at all times so I think it's a good point that secure is sort of a tricky word you know does it does imply badge access or a key or something like that and maybe it's Overkill and not needed which is fine if that's what the board thinks uh Kiko I I'm lost on which document uh we're looking at okay and I'm I'm sorry I'm so sorry that's okay you said you were having trouble finding all your documents it is a lot of different material and lots of different versions I don't know what document we're looking at to tell you truth we are looking at the document that is titled at the very the on the very first page it says in capitals FY 2025 sample regulations restricting the sale of nicotine products and it has a bunch of highlights in it yeah I'm looking for what's the name of the of the file model it's called Model State regs I believe model model yeah Ma model tobacco sale regulations all right and you put the yellow highlight on there yes the the red the red font and yellow highlight was added by by us okay so and I don't go ahead yeah sorry I think we're saying the same thing I don't think that there's page numbers on it but um I'm on the fourth page currently yeah it's we're looking at under definitions which is subsection C got it the definition of adult only retail tobacco store um I I would like to comment on the secure aspect um I think this word is also used in restriction or regulation of um cannabis retail and in that context to my knowledge there's like card access the equivalent of a bouncer at the door trying checking IDs and so on I think it might be potentially an Overkill here um but then again if the goal is to eventually phase uh to consider phasing out tobacco um then perhaps this might help in some way I don't know it it feels like a change a substantive change in intention around what we thought we were requiring so um G given the everyone's context of the word safe so it does feel like that's not something we had considered previously and we certainly could consider it now but it is not just adding a few words without changing meaning I'm I'm personally not particularly um excited to add in the security feature it doesn't feel like a I I obviously it like any bouncer at a um at a bar there is an added level of you know okay let's make sure people who aren't intended to be in here aren't in here but you know how many people are trying to it's not a social spot you don't stay there and smoke in the place I don't think I think it might be good then just to omit the word um or to perhaps to restructure the sentence so that it's clear that we should check IDs but not so we need to dead bolt to and there there's ID checking in other parts so this is really just about the as you enter bit and I think the the alternative would just be not to add this sentence um and keep ours as they are but I'm interested in what others think around this idea uh do we have an example of of this type of store in Town there's one behind um oh God what I always forget who has moved into those spaces sort of in that parking lot with CVS there's some stores back there um and there's one there's one adult only tobacco retailer there yeah in fact it's lazy lungs is the name of that store um and it has two it's two separate entrances one is for the adult only part of The Establishment and the other is for the all ages section um so and there's a wall between the two and it's you can't go you can only enter only staff can enter both if as a consumer if you want to go into the adult only place you have to go through the specific entrance for the adult only and there was a lot of conversation with the inspections department and whatnot when they were setting up the store to make sure that it was in compliance I have a a question about this line um that we're discussing it's mentioned specifically employees and those 21 years uh or older I'm not sure I haven't read very I haven't um comb through this but I'm wondering if employees um being over 21 is mentioned elsewhere I know we had the conversation about employees selling tobacco don't have to be I keep closing it by accident um don't have to be over the age of 21 but I I have to double check whether that goes for adult only also or because most of the places that sell tobacco are gas stations right like convenient stores and so um you don't have to be over the age of 21 to sell tobacco in that case or to work there maybe you do to actually sell I'll have to re anyone else recall that off the top of their head um I'm I'm trying to find it in the regs right now um while Kiko is looking just from like empirical observation I've definitely seen people who are under 21 selling tobacco to older folks I guess if that line is um supposed to be regulatory in some way that's something to consider otherwise I'm happy to admit it I don't know about that um I think so we have I mean this is in our version under definition is that the establishment shall not allow anyone under the age of 21 to work at The Establishment under the definition of adult only retail okay okay great yeah so I think that that is the way it needs to be for other for gas stations it doesn't matter but for adult only smoke shops it nobody can be under 21 who's working there so it's a little bit redundant to say employees and those yeah I me I'm feeling like what based on what you all are saying the sense I'm getting is that that sentence is not necessary and and we fully conveying the important stuff with the way it's currently written that's my take but I'm I'm open to other opinions on this are we ready and I think just as sorry as a matter for of process we probably won't vote on each of these individually um so we'll vote at the very end uh making all the recommendations sounds right should we move on then yeah okay um so next is there's just a few more okay so this is again in the definition section under manufacturer documentation so um these are the letters that come from manufacturers that certify that their products are not flavored since flavored any kind of flavored nicotine product is is illegal in the state of Massachusetts so whenever anybody comes out with a new product they have to submit a letter that says this is not a flavored product um so then this just adds so everything that you see here up to the yellow is what's currently in the ammer rags under the definition of manufacturer determination but then these are additional qualifiers that were put in that were suggested um so again it's sort of more detail about what this letter should have in it and most of the letters that I that I've seen I've seen one came across my desk fairly recently for a new product it's Newport which used to be a menthol and they have a new product which looks different and they're saying it's not a mentholated product and this is why it's not a flavored product and so it's a letter that kind of hits all of these things as far as I know anyway I would be in favor of keeping these in sorry I know we're not voting I just wanted to mention it's okay there's no way to talk about it without sort of saying that we an opinion yeah right yeah I don't think I have any objection either no I I don't either just number one is really sort of a redundant if you change our excuse me what's written in our RS as a written document from the manufacturer as opposed to a manufacturer then number one is covered and I don't have any problems with the others yeah good point now is is there a document that you have provided uh Kiko that cross references this like what prla was just mentioning where um so I'm just I I'm really like just not familiar with these as much as you know as being I think it's because I'm a newbie maybe I'm not sure I'm sorry I can't contribute more but um this is it's right above the Highlight manufacturer documentation it says that sentence so it's it's in the material we were given oh so the same um okay I'm just trying to cross reference the our bylaw with with this we just have one document open right now is that what we're talking about yeah and Kiko had mentioned that that first uh paragraph that precedes the Highlight is exactly word for word what's in ours now okay like I wouldn't be able to find that in our current in without like so throwing something on a shared screen or something like that but yeah so I'm trying to help out because I've got it the hard copy here I have what you have on my screen and I have the hard copy in front of me so that's why I said what I see in our hard copy is everything up to the Highlight in our cop yeah I'm just saying maybe a shared screen wouldn't be a horrible idea although I I am following along at this point but yeah I mean I guess there's no reason why we can't share screen here um in the meeting if that would be helpful um I I can't show two documents at once though you can only show one I would find it helpful because I'm working on a phone and can't uh can't get to that other document okay so then I guess what I can do is I can share what I'm looking is it one PDF and one in word uh yes would think you'd be able to switch back and forth I I don't know that we need to as a group switch back and forth I think um you know those of us who have the other one open can just of say what the the differences are because it's not a I mean I think the entire idea here is that someone has already done the work of comparing word for word and the highlighted bits are the parts that aren't in ours okay otherwise we're pretty aligned with what's in the non-h highlighted Parts having said that we have a different structure than the regs so it's not actually that easy to find where all these things are um yeah um I I think am I sharing something right now do you see anything yeah y so you see the highlights that we're talking about right now under the manufacturer documentation and just thinking about Betsy being on a phone if you could maybe zoom in a bit thank you actually I can see this the old eyes are still working enough yay um and I'm my old brain can't figure out how to zoom so if it's okay I'm just going to keep going is that okay that you can see it all right okay um because I can't see how it looks to you I only see you all and then it's on a separate screen for me so um okay so then the next thing um that we're looking at is retail establishment the definition of a retail establishment this is very basic we refer to retail establishment in our regs but we don't have a definition for it so that's seems like a we just that's an oversight feels like that should go in yep okay um scrolling scrolling [Music] scrolling next ah okay this is the last thing I was surprised right mahen we you look you R over this really with a fine tooth comb and I also looked as well and there's no language in our regulations about this number eight A and B so and maybe it's because we you all decided not to put it in because the first one is that the permit can be suspended revoked or not renewed if the person applying for the or the entity applying for the permit um has violated any provision of state or local laws and or regulations there was no discussion about this that that I was part of so either offline or during the um during the meetings um so I suspect either it is a new part of the regul of the model or it was overlooked um I I don't think it was an intentional we don't like it what what section in our bylaws would this pertain to um so that's where what like what Risha said they're not sort of yeah it took it took me a long time to find it when I was trying to figure out what we said um but it is in there hold on um I think it would be under um section c in our regulations it would be under section c number three which is tobacco product sales permits it's talks about the conditions by which permits are issued and need to be displayed and there wasn't any language in there about this revocation for fraud or violating state or local laws okay yeah I found it a bit um funny in the in the way that we have it and also what's in the the model is that they um so it's not just fines in the previous paragraphs it's fines and suspensions and then it says in addition to the fines above you can also be suspended but there's already suspensions in there um so I did find it a little sort of tricky to um it it feels like it's an additional suspension not um because those already come with potential suspensions right it's suspension for reasons not related to behavior that is Rel you know connected to the tobacco selling of tobacco it's it's revocation for other non-tobacco related reasons as I read it but I guess the part that confused me is the in addition to the find stated above and all of the findes stated above are about those kinds of violations yeah um so may for Simplicity sake if we wanted to keep it conceptually I might re rewrite that first sentence to just say in addition to the above and not the f above um I would it also just says you cannot serve suspensions concurrently and um I think that's relevant because if you had a fine and a suspension from an earlier thing and then you're adding a suspension to it it would be additional um yeah I would agree if we did end up including this which I I think we we probably should um then rewriting 7 would be would be good point agree so I'm just trying to make sure because 7's not highlighted by mahim you're right in there but maybe I'm wrong because I don't no it it is in there I guess I just I find it confusing you're right that's not really the point that we're trying to make here yeah right right the point is do you want to include that the permit can be revoked for these other reasons fraud Etc I guess um okay where I was headed in my thinking was is there o like obviously if they have fraud there are other policies that um that presumably would impact things but I guess maybe they wouldn't specifically impact the tobacco license and so this is needed in addition to anything else um yeah I I don't have an issue I don't think with um with having an option to suspend for fraud and and or other violations because that's the key word it's May it's not shall so it is an option doesn't have to happen that's the way it's working and it's not unrelated right I mean it's fraud in connection with an application for a permit so it's not like hey you've you know defrauded the IRS we're going to revoke your your your tobacco license it's it is related to the tobacco license itself yeah I mean that seems if you discover that someone who's applying for a permit is is fraudulently misrepresenting is misrepresenting themselves in that permit would you wouldn't that be a problem that's what it's essentially saying right yeah I I think a is a bit more broad B you're right is related to the application for the permit a is about violation of any provision of state or local laws so I think it's a question of how you know how punitive does the board want to be with respect to revoking tobacco licenses if other things are happening I guess to me the key word there would be the May um I certainly wouldn't want to by default say that if you violated another law you lose your license um your your tobacco license on the other hand you know trying to think through all possible scenarios is not something I'm good at at this moment but I I can imagine a scenario where it's just gotten fairly egregious so that there's a violation of tobacco and they've done I don't know Fair labor laws or some such thing and I don't know it's hard to think of an example where where you would actually want to put this on top but it it's putting it in the policies gives us an option but doesn't make us have to um yeah I would concur here I think this um I think the inclusion of the word many is sort of critical but I do think we should include the full sort of maybe suspended revoked or not renewed um and for the reasons brought as they may be and we don't need to Envision the scenarios like all possible scenarios thankfully um but um I think this protects us for the future um in in in ways that could allow us some more broad overview if you will yeah I I agree with Dia the word may uh is very comforting in terms of what what we may or may not do it feels like it's there for a worst case scenario and we hope there isn't a worst case scenario and maybe we can't even envion the worst case scenario but it gives us an extra tool if something that we can't quite imagine happens happens okay good discussion I think that's the last item that we noticed that was different um I have two other things I wanted to bring to your attention ition one is looking at our version of the RS um under the retail density section no wait gosh let me make sure I'm finding it sorry it's under under regulation specific to adult only retail tobacco stores so this is in our regulations it's on page nine it's um Five Section e sorry these are so long let me just make sure I'm directing it to the right place yeah it's under regulation so section five and then it's letter e and maybe my brain is not working entirely possible but what sort of draw drew my attention was um number three a tobacco sales permit for an adult only retail tobacco store shall not be issued to an applicant for a retail location within 50 feet of an existing retailer with a valid tobacco product sales permit so if you're 75 feet away you can have a store then you'd have two adult only stores in close proximity to each other I think that's an error 50 that should be a bigger number right thank you die for noing your head wait am I reading this wrong but doesn't wouldn't that ban the what we have because it's not two adult only it's an adult only and a regular tobacco oh I see what you're saying but we still have to consider that situation where you have two two separate adult wait why would we care I guess that's density so wait Risha what are you saying about wouldn't that so the I I I always forget the name of it but the the adult only store that we have in town is right next to as you said the another tobacco permitted place it's all one permit it's all one permit it's one store one permit it's not two permits issued next to each other it's lazy lungs and they have two do they sell tobacco product in the other half of the store they sell you know stuff paraphernalia smoking paraphanalia things like that but maybe not okay I I guess I had read this to be for those kinds of situations where you've got a in all ages tobacco permit they can't have so they must only have an adult only tobacco permit and then the other half doesn't actually sell tobacco it just sells paraphernalia and they don't need to have that license there no I'm trying to remember I think that's correct yeah I think they have one permit to sell tobacco in an adult only setting which is their store that's separated from the other one and the other one has paraphernalia t-shirts you know bongs things like that that so not tobacco products all the tobacco stuff is on the other side because they have the Vapes with the higher concentration that can only be sold in adult only stores and all of those things are in the adult so their permit is an adult only permit and the other store you're right is not permitted to sell tobacco products so but with this currently written the way it's written as I read it someone could set up a little Shack 100 feet away and have it be another adult retailer tobacco retailer and so it's it's creating more density instead of less density the way this is written so I don't think it's written to accommodate something we already have unless I'm completely wrong it's instead written incorrectly to F to to Foster density instead of discourage it because the way we've written the retail density about um the density about or the provision about not having a tobacco retailer near a school is that it must be you know it can't be within 500 ft or maybe it should be within 2,000t you're allowed to say that so the farther away the better yeah I suspect a zero got dropped here that's what I thought too and so it was surpr it's surpris man I wanted to bring it to your attention I'm trying to look at what what else we end we landed on on the density I know we had the whole conversation about it okay so the regular density is 500t from a school right just the school no yeah that's all that's the only so there is actually no no Provisions in our regulations for two non-adult tobacco licenses if they're not near school or you know one of those special places you could have them side by side as I'm scanning this I see no other reference to a density yeah I feel like that's some seems to me that that's an oversight I mean I kind of remember us talking about retail density and how it was a little bit complicated and maybe there were some questions because in the model RS um on under e tobacco product sales permit oh I'm sharing right I'm still sharing you can see what I'm looking at there's this whole section on retail density sorry it's a little hard to read because it has this highlight but it says you know you can't issue a new applicant for a retail um location within 500 feet of a public school and then it says a new tobacco product sales permit should not be issued to any new applicant for retail location within X number of feet of an existing retailer with a tobacco product sales permit I don't think we have that language in our RS did you notice that M when you were looking through because under retail density we only what I'm seeing is we only have the statement about schools and then later on when it comes to adult only we have the statement that's with the wrong number 50 but there's nothing else that I see yeah I didn't notti notice anything either so that seems like a problem I am not so sure that the the 50 I I I'm not I'm not not sure I'm just not convinced that the the 50 is the problem I think the overarching problem is that there isn't because that that is actually supposed to be about adult only right um and so I think it made sense well I don't know why it's there at all but at some point we had a density I think akin to what was in that you just read that you have to be number of feet from an existing venue and so if that was always the case then the adult one is just a something specific to adult and I don't know if that's trying to take into account a situation sort of like what we have if the other half was a all ages tobacco permit so you could have sort of a side by-side adult only in all ages um and just trying to make the doors not at absolutely next to each other so I agree that I think we are we are missing a general density statement um and I I suspect it got dropped in our efforts to clarify something else and it we didn't realize we had completely taken it out I think I would be in favor of um putting into the the new regulations so what we're we're looking at 8B adding 8B into our regulations correct I can't read the thing that you're yeah can you see my cursor anyway it's just so gr that I get yeah kind of easier if you zoom in but um okay there's a little zoom button like right near the time like all the way down on the right do you see that little Plus on the side um the right panel over here yeah oh yeah yeah yeah thank you is that better not really how's that better yes that's good so I'm looking at our previous 2020 past regulations and they have 50 um so that hasn't changed since the last version for adult retailers okay and I do not see any it was never in there we never had a density restriction that I can find I mean I'm I'm doing searching on terms so if it's phrased completely differently but yeah that's really interesting do we have any sort of restrictions on N or total number for the town is that a thing I know it's disc said it's going down but we're not capping the number we we have in these regulations there's a cap 14 yeah 14 our number so that's consistent with the liquor stores and cannabis yeah in terms of having a limit yeah yeah yeah so I'm looking at the back I have searched the words density within and feet um in the old 2020 RS and all I find are the restrictions away from schools there used to be a restriction in healthc care settings and we just combined those into one so now it's just one paragraph right and then it was always the 50 ft there was nothing actually specifying that they should be 500 feet or whatever that would be um from another licensed establishment I agree that 50 feet does seem excuse me very small and yeah you know and theoretically at least could lead to increased density theoretically I think it's unlikely to come to pass but still it's important to be thoughtful about how these are written um so okay so I so Dia you said you think that 8B which we're looking at should go back in there should be something there should be some provision about retail density in our regs do others agree with [Music] that I could maybe provide some reasoning as to why I think it might it could be in there if that's helpful sure um I think in alignment with the goals of the town of amoris Master Plan um I think having fewer locations is certainly achievable and if we have uh if we include provisions on density we also saw the problem of uh having less stores um it's like if everyone wants to do it in downtown emmer then I think we're we're probably not um addressing the issue um at any rate I think it's a Mone to some extent because we have a c number that's right yeah so maybe that's why it was taken out because because not all municipalities decide to cap the number um that's something that we decided to do here so maybe it doesn't need to go in thank you for pointing that out and we don't need to go ahead create more work for ourselves is what I was going to say go ahead well looking doing Search terms on all of these there's a bunch of evidence that I think is even in ours about the fact that density increases use um so it does feel like an over I mean two things one is it does seem like we have evidence in our document that density is an issue and then nothing addressing that um and second our our second Point under retail density is that the purchaser of a business with a valid business tobacco permit the new location s shall be subject to the retail density requirements within this regulation and there aren't any if I look at the model it's actually referring back to you know well I guess there is one which is the school and healthc Care stuff but mhm um yeah it there there is a bunch of in our references there there's quite a there see 14 15 16 17 are all evidence pieces on retailer density um and why it is a problem and then we don't actually address it so doesn't make sense to have it as citations if we're not using it right I understand and think as you're talking I was thinking so the people who hold valid tobacco sales permits now I don't know if those are tied to a specific address or if so if I have I have a business on Pleasant I have a ter a permit I'm going to move my business someplace else I still own the permit can I take the permit with me to the other business that's down the street next to another tobacco store perhaps if if the permit is not tied to the address then this retail density would would be important to put in um if it is tied to the address then it's more of a moot point so um it seems to me I don't know the answer to that I could find out um but maybe it's just safer to put this in there to your point Risha because there's evidence about it and maybe things could change to the point where it would apply um so why not have it in there I guess is the question I would agree with that I think we should absolutely put it in there especially if down the road we poten float the idea of a nicotine free generation for the town of ammer and that doesn't pass for whatever reason it would also work in our favor to have both the cap and the density I have no objection to putting it in we do have an additional decision to make which is what is the number the amount of feet that we want them to be a part and then the the ongoing question of this 50 um so we we require 500 feet from schools Healthcare Etc um the suggested in the the model Rags is 1,000 2,000 3,000 or more um I'm notoriously bad at imagining what a number of feet looks like um so understanding what that actually is what I wonder what we have for liquor stores in the Cannabis uh as a frame of reference I don't know I should know that was on the planning board [Laughter] but I think we're you know I think um more is still more here I think if we have far um uh real locations farther away it still serves the purpose of reducing density um and uh the problem that might be to might be necessary to consider is say you have 3,000 feet and all of a sudden you have lazy lungs for example is the uh tobacco permit for downtown emmer which has a more dense population so you have more people who rely on one particular um location so I know I don't know if competition is a sort of the right term here but to think of that is potentially important but I still think more is more I think um reducing the density problem means increasing the number of feet and I'm in favor of doing uh at least 500t I am trying to look up the the alcohol and nothing comes up immediately I see very old complaints uh that they were within 500 fet but not able to quickly answer that while we talk well the state recommendations begin with a thousand I'm not sure you know uh I'm assuming there was considerable thought that went into that but perhaps not um so I have a thought mahen I don't know if you could um while we're in this conversation if you could Google maybe the Northampton tobacco regulations and see what they have for retail density if it's a thousand or 500 feet or some other town around here just to see what somebody else is doing I mean Northampton is a denser City Center than Amis but still it's some a point of reference um and then maybe we can come back to this before we end the conversation just so you don't have to be searching reisha while you're trying to participate in this conversation um does that sound okay then we can come back to just so we've it sounds like you all have agreed to put this in um and we just have to figure out the number and we're maybe mahen can help with that while we're continuing to talk um and then for the 50-foot situation I mean I don't know whether a zero got dropped off or whether that was put in there because there's something about lazy lungs to accommodate that particular situation that I'm not really thinking thoroughly about um I I don't really know it seems a a little bit moot if we've got this other um you know unless it's an exception to that rule it would seem like you could not you know so you certainly couldn't have two regular tobacco licenses is this saying that if it if one was an adult that they could be closer um and really what that is is one business with two separate areas yeah um yep well I think uh I I would go with the lower number I mean I mentioned 500 I think that's if you got to put a number in there that's bigger than 50 um that sounds kind of in the right ballpark I mean I think just I if it's not an error and I can't you know this is pre-2020 that this was put in so I don't know at what point this was put in or or can't surmise if it might have been an error but it strikes me that it it is likely to try to sort of allow an adult only and a all ages to be side by side and to say that their doors must be not a bet a but um each other it that's how I am interpreting this and I suspect other things got taken out in the meantime and now it doesn't make any sense but um do we not want to allow that and we should probably check what the actual licensing is in this case to make sure we're not causing a problem for an existing business that wasn't a problem earlier yeah so what I'm trying to think about is um just I'm Al I'm conscious of time thinking about the other things we want to get done in the meeting knowing that we want to have a final version of this so we can Reed with our plans to do the hearing in a month's time um I feel like I'm trying and I I don't have all the history because I haven't been here for that long and I I do know that where lazy lungs when I came into this job there were conversations about the setup at Lazy lungs so Laz lungs did not exist when this 20 when the 2020 regulations were written um there was another business there called I can't remember but there was a tobacco retailer there I don't know whether they were also in the same situation of being an adult only place or what have you but this was this can't have been written for lazy lungs the way it's currently set up and I think that lazy that whole construction of that side of the store is something that's fairly recent because I remember the inspectors talking about counter height and that kind of thing since I've been here so I'm feeling like I appreciate what you're saying Risha that we don't want to put anything in here that's going to jeopardize local businesses and the way I read this it sounds like it would have to be two buildings with sales tobacco two different sales permits and there's only one permit for that location so unless I'm missing something it's not an exact match to the current lazy lung situation this particular provision so I guess I'm trying you know do we do I need to do some more research before you all decide whether take this out or put it in in which case we wouldn't be able to have a final version today or is there some other way that we can solve this and have a final version today is my question to you I'm going to just leave it the way it is the truth if it's been in there yeah because you said Risha this is what it looked like in the 2020 version right that's the premise that we're operating off so I mean it's it's not it's not really going to have much relevance I think most likely so maybe we just don't touch it is Jack's suggestion yeah I think if we put in an overarching density requirement then this one becomes less urgent of a an issue but ahead of hand allor right and does this um what does this mean for the 50 ft rule are we is this so I think I think what we're suggesting is adding in the new paragraph that would um that would set a a minimum between any two license holders and then leaving the paragraph with the 50 for adult only stores as is are folks comfortable with that there's only one the other yeah the other two issues are just to revisit the oral nicotine pouches I sent you a bunch of info and then just have a discussion about the nicotine free generation uh policies which she brought up a couple times Dia so it seems like that's a good solution what you suggested Risha any objections no we still need to have a have a number to put in that paragraph around the general but we can come back to that later in this meeting okay and hope but I think we should try to come back to it while we're still on this agenda item so I don't know mahen if you're making any progress she's nodding her head I'll let you keep working okay so then um so then and and I also just wanted to reassure folks you know in trying to be diligent going back to the top here this um checklist for policy decisions that was on this 2025 model I did go through all of these just to make sure and we have now addressed all of them with the exception of this last one which is um under oral nicotine pouches um sales restricted to adult only retailers that is in what is in this current version that was recently you know the November version that you all voted on at that meeting um the other option is to prohibit more than six milligrams of nicotine per pouch I don't think we discuss that as a group um we put in the language about restricting to adult only retailers um but I just wanted to make sure that everybody knew that that is something that could be put in there I sent you some links um about about that option for some places I think there was one town that did opt to do that um but from my review of various things it seems like most towns that have put something about oral nicotine pouches and it's not all towns in the Commonwealth but many towns it's about so you know restricting them to adult only retailers um so I did again I sent you some links it was just yesterday I don't know if people sounds like Jack had a chance to look at some of that stuff but any comments about that where on the checklist is this I I'm not being find it still seeing my screen it's number nine number nine thanks thanks okay y my my thought about this is that it's a lot more difficult and Nuance to enforce a different line oh uh anyway I think that it's sort of simpler to say these things can only be sold in certain places makes it easier to kind of make to just say take them off off the shelves across the board except in these adult only places and and then if you were but if you were restricting to a certain amount you'd have to go in and look at all the things that are there and making sure that they're under the certain amount so I think my guess is that's why most folks who've adopted some language about this have chosen to do the more blanket restrict to adult retailers which is what is in our current regulations most recent version I would agree with that approach to restrict to adults only thanks Betsy I admit that I am um swayed by the fact that it feels like a full discussion and a and digging in and understanding the research and da um and so I'm I'm swayed by the easier way which is to keep it as adult only um and not dig into the amount per package um but that is where I'm headed for for the wrong reasons that is where I'm headed I agree um I don't I think this is um I think any amount of nicotine is bad I think it's really bad for the brain the developing brain especially um so I would be I would be comfortable keeping it at Ault only okay any other thoughts okay so Mah I'm gonna check in with you have you found anything about not yet um not okay about retail density yeah I feel like they didn't mention um any specific like feet or anything oh okay well um I mean I think there were two other suggestions on the table which was from Jack to go for 500 and from Prema a th000 because that's the minimum that the state recommends or puts in their model so and and I had understood Jack's comment to be related to the adult only changing the 50 to 500 um so maybe worth just reiterating what people's suggestions were I'm I'm kind of flopping around here I'm sorry I didn't uh I Dia suggested the 500 and then you you had some words uh that rishia that I thought were uh like you know leaving it alone sort of thing um yeah on the 50 yes yeah keeping at 50 so I'm leaning more like to the 50 versus doing anything different with it because I I don't know that I'd like to have a basis for making it different from you know from a planning side and I don't feel comfortable doing that because I don't have enough information and choosing another number yeah and so I think that there are there are two things that are getting confused I think in multiple people here the first is the adult only it's already in our RS it has been since the last version and that is restricting the door of an adult only establishment 50 feet from the door of another licensed establishment the that one we we are making a recommendation and haven't voted on it still up up for a debate but the recommendation on the table is to just keep that one as is and not uh get into that what seems to be missing from the overall Rags is a general density recommendation that is or policy uh that is from any two um tobacco licenses from each other and so that is in model RS that is generally you know it's in their checklist of things you should have in and that's the one where their checklists suggests 1,000 2,000 3,000 or more so their their minimum suggestion is a thousand we would like to add something in and we just haven't come to that number um and I don't have any additional insight into what those numbers would be from you know other rules of thumb or anything like that I think the um 1,000 ft as suggested um is as the minimum should be kept as a minimum simply because it's stated as a minimum um not a good reason but that's why they do it so we'll default to that um I'm also just thinking suddenly it popped into my head about unintended consequences of changes and just thinking about our current situation I don't know if there are any tobacco retailers right now that are within 500 feet of each other a th000 feet of each other again a thousand feet how far is that I'm trying to think it's really really small I looked it up you did so because I can't I I can I I don't have any sense of of distance so uh it's like 0.13 of a mile yeah three Block it's about three blocks yeah okay and we don't really have many blocks in ammer to tell you the truth but yeah there's not a great measurement in this town I'm thinking my hometown uh most of our vendors are gas stations is that correct and then like a CVS type Place yeah Cumberland Farms gas stations um there's a there are a couple of places on liquor stores sell cigarettes um and I'm trying to think about there's there are a bunch of them that are actually not too far apart from each other um right so um are you thinking of um um Dia help me out because you're nodding your head too know on College Street thank you there's a liquor store and then not three blocks away but closer there is a Cumberland Farms yeah so um so here's what's hard is that we don't have the history right I'm I'm new most of you are new if there's no retail density paragraph in our regulations it might be because there are already folks with existing permits that are legit you know of the 14 that we've allotted that are closer together and so if we were to put this in here that would be a problem [Music] is there like a grandfather clause that is implied somewhere in our bylaws um well I was looking up the wording because I think it is it is a new tobacco product sales permit shall not be issued great that's great but again we're not issuing new ones maybe that's why we took it out yeah if if we're not issuing any new ones we don't need to specify how far apart new ones will be yeah the only exception to this is if you've bought the ven the the place and the sale issue yeah right so if Cumberland Farm sold and it was within a th000 feet of a liquor store that was licensed to sell tobacco we would not be able to issue them A Renewed license at that location what that would right the only situation that would apply I personally don't see a problem with that um I found I don't think oh sorry great go ahead please um I found some information that said South Hadley um mentioned 25 feet and then AAL mentioned 500 feet and is that adult only or all adult only okay interesting I saw but can't site a th000 feet for Northampton say that again okay I saw but cannot provide a citation for a th000 feet in Northampton you saw that just like a from a Google search but you couldn't find it in the regs okay I I feel like that we're probably debating something that will never happen um because we don't issue new tobacco permits however I can see both sides of keeping it in there right you you put it in there we don't issue new tobacco permits in a very wild scenario like the one I just said where if Cumberland Farms and and it's already too close we would not be able to issue that maybe that's good maybe that's you know get gets us towards the intents that we want on the other hand if it's not there it doesn't really change anything we're not we're not increasing the number of of permits eventually they will all grandfather or they will all be lost um so I I'm not sure it's a super substantive issue and yet I I can see both sides of keeping it or yeah keeping it as as is or adding it in just in the business of um imagining scenarios that are egregious and and all the possible scenarios I think it would be good to include it um even if it may not be directly relevant in the extreme situation where someone sells it might be helpful toward moving toward our other goals the other thing is this is open for public comment um we if we do it like we did last year there will be a summary of substantive changes this would be part of that it would be flagged if an if a business realizes that they would be subject to this um they they would have a chance to tell us this is Betsy quick question if um if a business is sold presumably it's not sold with its licensed correct that's correct if the business is sold then the the per permit does not transfer right so I mean although maybe none of the businesses look like they're planning to leave imminently I think when you write regulations can imagine that um you know some businesses some of the 14 businesses in some time frame before we rewrite the regulations uh you know we'll sell so may make sense to just keep it in with the idea that we're talking about new licenses cap sorry I'm not sure that that was totally correct Kiko I just want to I know we had conversations about it and I'm trying to remember where we landed 14 the cap is at 14 but the seller of a business holding a valid tobacco sales permit May transfer said permit to a Bonafide purchaser for the value of the business subject to the approval of the Board of Health the purchaser will apply for the transfer 60 days no less no later than 60 days so if you buy a business with an active license you can buy that uh you can transfer that permit right and this came up with the last with the purchase of the liquor store on University Drive I believe they had applied for it post 60 days after 60 days and and that you know and came to the board about it and we said no that's right right okay I remember that I remember hearing about that yeah I guess that's what it is it's I think I yeah you're right I got it wrong that's I'm thank you for clarifying that it's if you don't if you don't sell the business but you decide to give you give up the permit it doesn't go back into the pool someone else can't have access to it goes away so there you go yeah okay so then all that said it sounds like what I'm hearing is you want to stick with the retail density put in the retail density clause for either a th000 or 500 I think you're still trying to decide on that number right and then leave the adult only one language as you've said before the way it is just leave it in there um but it's going to go before the public so we'll see what happens so then 500 1,000 thoughts about that I I'd vote for a thousand um again because it's the minimum on the state r that's really all I've got to go for yeah we followed most other things thanks Prema in the Rex so that that seems like a reasonable suggestion I'm not the only vote though so feel free to speak up if someone I know Jack do you have anything to say no I'm I I'm yeah I'm I guess you know I'm fine with that thousand I was fine with with zero or nothing I don't have strong feelings on this so I kind of I and I I don't think it's likely to be an issue again because there's such a small thing that it could apply to and it's the sale of a in the same location that's already too close right agreed okay so I've made notes of all these things that everyone has sort of agreed on yeah do you want to I mean it's all captured in the minutes and we've do you what do you want to do at this point Risha do you want to take a vote of the group on all of the sort of consensus decisions that we've reached now that this would be the final version even though we don't have it right in front of us because these changes need to be made yes I I think let's list summarize the the decisions we've suggested and and take a vote okay so I'm going to take a stab at that and then tell me if I forgot anything so because it is a few things um and mahen feel free to jump in if you've been tracking on this as well so we we had the group did agree to add those evidence statements that we looked at about nicotine pouches that are in the first section of the regulations we agreed to add the definition of the retail establishment because it's referred to in the regulations but we didn't have it in the definition section we um decided not to include that language about secure access for a 20 for 21 and older in an adult word secure the extra sentence the board decided not to add that um you all decided to yes add the additional details about the manufacturers letter which you all thought would be helpful with the exception of that first one that said should be written by the board the manufacturer because that was redundant to what was in the paragraph ahead of it I'm making sense you also did agree to add the two sentences about the revocation of the permit if there was fraudulent activity related to the permanent application or um any violation of state laws on on behalf of the person applying for the permit um and we just agreed to add the retail density section with a th000 feet to leave the 50 Foot for the adult retailers and then finally to be um satisfied with the current language about restricting nicotine pouches to only adult only retailers and not to put in language about the amount of six prohibiting more than six milligrams of nicotine per pouch you did not need luck that was really well summarized yes thank you Fab okay there you have it um so can I motion can a chair motion sure yeah so I so motion that everything Kiko said um gets adopted into the the tobacco regulations I second I agree all in favor then I I and any oppose no okay all right great thank you everyone for that I know that took a little more time maybe than we thought but I think we're in good shape it's not the time it's the brain man it's it's a lot so I'm gonna punt it to you in a second Risha I think you have a plan for how to approach the body regulations from here but before I do that I just wanted to say that I did send to all of you some information about the public hearing you know how it goes um um you know what the role of the chair is there's even a suggested script for the board of Health's chair and you an introductory statement those kinds of things and Risha obviously you and I will be talking separately beforehand to kind of prepare for this there are certain things that we will as staff bring to the hearing you know relevant information you know handouts stuff like that that we can have we have decided to do this as an in-person meeting um the the regulations are policy require that it be physically accessible so in a building that's accessible the bang Center is accessible we have a room reserved for February 6th at 5m or earlier actually at 4M because we'll all gather earlier so it'll be in person the hybrid situation in the town room is very difficult to manage and would require a dedicated it person to be with us that evening which I was not able to secure so that's why we just thought we'll do in person we'll meet in person as a board first for for half an hour or so we can talk about that before we finish today and then the hearing would start at 5: and is open to the public and and I'll be learning more about you know how where people sit and how we manage all of that but one other thing that staff here will be doing is sending out a letter to retailers about with a copy of the new regs and pointing out specifically I sent you a sample of this all the changes that are going to be discussed at the hearing um and we'll be putting a notice public notice in the newspaper and posting it on the website so there's a lot of kind of clerical stuff that we have to manage three weeks beforehand um and then we'll be good we'll have some conversations Risha you and I about how to prepare but I think for the rest of the board it's just a question of coming and being able to answer questions that people might pose about why decisions were made any questions about that okay no thank you for all that uh information well that was useful to read over okay so onward to body art did you want to talk about nicotine fore generation oh God thank you yes I did and Dia you brought it a couple times and I think there's been a lot of conversation about it so since we met last belur town did pass nicotine free generation laws I think we had all agreed last time and I had mentioned to you that Northampton also is sort of on the same path of there's a lot happening we want to get our regulations covering many of the things that we talked about today in shape and the nicotine free generation thing might kind of jeopardize some of that stuff so let's have more conversations as a board about what it would mean for amoris to implement a nicotine regeneration policy is that something that people are in favor of I thought we could have sort of a mini conversation about it right now just to kind of hear from people about what your initial thoughts are and if there's anything that we should be doing in the next little while to prepare for further discussions have someone come in and talk about it you know what is it that you as a board would need to feel well informed to make a decision about this in you know the next year or so because I think this is going to start moving quickly yeah I guess I can start since I was perhaps vocally vocally um in favor of this I think you know we really this is an opportunity to align our actions with our values I think as a town I think it would be really transformative for generations to come and I think we have the opportunity to um set a standard for Hampshire County potentially beside belr Town who has recently done this but um I think I think it would only make sense for us to pursue this I'm trying to look at each of you but you don't know I'm looking at you does anyone else have any got reactions or questions or concerns as a health care provider it makes sense to me or I I would support it I guess I would say it's just from a health perspective yeah as a non-healthcare person I I'm trying to understand it more because you know here we have just the Cannabis you know laws went in effect so there is like promoting one type of smoking not promoting it but allowing it um so with the tobacco the main problem is the nicotine but there's also tar and so I'm trying to separate are we you know are we trying to separate smoking or is it just the nicotine part of the cigarettes because you know smoking is kind of a Pastime it you know if it can be done safely it's that's you know in moderation that's you know I don't know that we want to limit that freedom of for people uh sort of thing so I'm trying to understand what is the health impact there so I guess I need to be educated on what this is geared toward and what's you know what's specifically about the the cigarettes and um if you are smoking some other product that's not tobacco that's not cannabis do those things exist do that I think there is I think there's other stuff you can smoke that's not tobacco so I don't know what that is but um I mean I will I I I'm speaking out loud and thinking out loud I don't have a um an opinion but I guess I am surprised that my gut reaction is not more supportive of this and just talking through why that is um one is that I looked I tried to click on all the evidence in what you you sent through Kiko a lot of the links were broken which is really frustrating the CDC you know data is not there anymore uh when I went into the mass ett's data our smoking rates particularly um under 18 but but all over are quite low and some of the lowest in the country and so it it's sort of you know I feel like this would be a lot of political Capital we would definitely be sued there would be cost to the town to defend it um and to what end right I mean we're we're sort of already at a fairly end stage of um you know 14 capped retailers um and so I'm I'm not quite sure it's the battle I want personally to to put the town into um if the state did it I wouldn't be opposed to it necessarily but in terms of where I'm looking at what our town is dealing with in terms of education and Roads and all the other things and saying like you know do we need to have a lawsuit right now that we have to fight in K lawyers for on this uh because it will um I would I would not expect people to just accept it um and then I guess I do have a question about outright Banning something um it it didn't work with alcohol very well um I'm not sure it's the best public health model here either um certainly support restrictions and and um and would like people to stop smoking altogether but um I'm just not sure that this is the one for me yeah I guess I can um there's a couple points I'm just thinking about um I really appreciate Ria you mentioning specifically the push back that might occur I think um Jack to your point about this being there are being sort of healthier options of smoking no amount of smoking to my understanding is healthy or ever can be um I think there's a particular challenge with nicotine uh with adolescence with developing brains and I think if we're fighting the battles of education and making amorus more familyfriendly we also have to seriously consider how nicotine can impact um our youth and our communities um that said I do think we should think about this more deeply and perhaps we're not going to solve this right now but I I do think it's important to consider Prema or Betsy to either of you no pressure but if you wanted to weigh in go ahead I I this is Betsy I have seen thoughts I I really um had as my instincts very much what um what Risha said um I'm I feel like one of the things I don't know is how how much having a ban um just gets someone else to do the buying for the Youth as opposed to actually changing smoking Behavior so I think it seems to me like if it were a state ban that would be effective but I'm not sure on a Town Bytown basis that it it's helpful I I agree that um you know there will probably be lawsuits I I heard some withering um criticism of the beler town uh move and well I think smoking you know does does not have anything good about it I'm not sure that's the battle that I would choose right now I actually think uh the heavy cannabis uh legal you know impact on youth by the legalization is seems to me from a behavioral health point of view you know really quite worrisome for you so I'm not sure that's the battle I would go on my sword on at this point but I haven't thought deeply about it I haven't looked at the research and I would certainly want to do that before um you know before um before going down that that road because I think it will be contentious and it would be spending a lot of political Capital yeah I think Risha and Betsy made very good points um you know about whether this is the hill we want to die on um so yeah further discussion after doing more research yeah no I'm really glad that everyone got a chance to say their piece I think it's really important just to sort of set the stage or begin to explore how people might feel I just wanted to say a couple things which is that when I first heard about it sorry I have something in my throat I had the same reaction as you did I thought wow that seems like a VI and you Jack that sort of seems like a violation of human rights in a way to take away a sub access to a substance and you know can't people make their own choices if they're well informed and you know prohibition didn't work and all those kinds of things and I've read a little bit more about it and there have been and I'm starting to shift a little bit there and I'm still I still think it's worthy of a lot of exploration I think it's always good not to be the first I'm glad that beler toown stepped up good for them um I think Northampton is also kind of way it carefully and sort of waiting in the wings to see there's definitely a lot of um talk about how the the current restrictions that we have in Massachusetts about tobacco use really came because local M municipalities passed laws and those kind of trickled up and then the state did something broader and so people are saying the same thing could happen here if these nicotin free generation policies get passed locally that could put pressure on the state to do something Statewide so do we want to be part of that political situation or not that is I think a good question and every town is different like Bel toown politics are different from Amor politics so we all we have to weigh all those kinds of things in terms of making a decision but a couple things that sort of made me think about it more differently is that um uh some folks had said what's good about this is that it allows people who are are it's not prohibition across the board it allows people who are using nicotine to continue to use it because as we know it's a highly addictive substance so to suddenly say sorry you can't have access to that it's going to be really problem problematic for people who are already smokers and who are addicted um and instead what it does is it restricts access to young people and I think the eventual goal of it I mean sure I've had the same questions oh you can just cross state lines or get someone to go to Connecticut and buy your stuff if you can't get in Massachusetts but eventually what will happen if this is sort of if the ability for young people to get these things and yes youth smoking rates are down that is true I think what's problematic is that vaping and access to nicotine in other forms is up and those nicotine pouches are inexpensive and very concentrated so young people are actually getting more nicotine and using those so those would also be not accessible to young people um but that it would be eventually something that young people just don't track on like I heard a hilarious story the other day about how someone had an intern that they had to teach how to use a desk phone CU she didn't know what that was she only had a cell phone and so that's a generational shift young people don't use stamps or even have good handwriting because nobody writes letters anymore so I sort of imagined that this would be the beginning of changing what is a cultural norm and what is acceptable stuff for people to do in a in a given generation I think that's kind of how people are thinking about it so and then one other thing that I heard somebody say was well at what age exactly would you like your child to begin smoking and that this is is something that would just not allow that to happen so I like you I'm not 100% convinced but I I'm listening to the evidence I'm thinking about it and I feel like it's something that we as a board or you all as a board can contemplate in a thoughtful way as we see how things unfold in the next year or so thank you Kiko I would also like to offer up just um collecting evidence um from neuroscientists on the impact of nicotine on the brain there have been suggestions that it's as addictive as cocaine or heroin or perhaps more um so I can pull together some resources but thank you for your summary yeah sure I mean I think that is important that nicotine that all drugs are not created equal and some are more addictive than others and cannabis is not as addictive as nicotine and Betsy as you've also pointed out I've Heard lots of stories just from a friend of mine who's a nurse about these syndromes that they're seeing in people who are heavy cannabis users hyperemesis lots of you know not being able to function because they're just nauseous all the time so there that's excessive use but still it's it's there are there there are many problems I guess that we could be thinking about from a public health perspective so it does warrant more consideration but thank you for for considering it with me this evening okay so now we'll now I'm gonna pass it back to you Leisha for the plan for body art regulations and I hope that any reporters who watch this later are thoughtful about the fact that none of us are stating strong opinions uh that one way or or the other and that it's a discussion and sort of trying to surface ideas and quote any of us for or against any of this at this point as we try to make up our minds it's a complicated issue it's not something that you can simply say without thinking yes or no I think so thank you for that Risha thank you now recognizing that we get quoted when people watch these later yeah um so ious of time um I did not intend to spend much time on this so I don't think that that will be uh too difficult we're not going to get into the the details of the the body art regulations um what I wanted to do was sort of propose a Way Forward which ultimately I'm would like to see if there's a volunteer of someone who's willing let me back up I think what I learned by going through the body art the the tobacco regulation process is that it is very hard to make group decisions only on these calls um each of us has to do the thinking and then we're not sure and uh there's always more information that we want to get and so it just drags out out out out out um and then as we're finding now by the time we get to the end a whole new set of things have come in to to be considered and so we can sort of Never End um so what I'd like to suggest with the body art is that um I'm happy to do it if someone else would volunteer to work with me is to tackle the uh remaining issues and come back with a set of recommendations that we then can all discuss hopefully in a in a shorter time because some of the more um detailed thinking will have already sort of happened in um it can only be one person because we can't have three people from a board speak on an issue uh outside of a meeting um but I I'm H the other thing I'd like to do briefly is just make sure that nobody had any thoughts and you know hadn't um particularly if they're not volunteering to work with me on this and that we hear any any sort of further considerations that we should make before we go in and and start to try to make some recommendations that you guys can then all vote on and debate um so I guess the first question is um did anyone have anything we have outstanding issues on um still that training around the anatomy and physiology requirement a whole thing on apprenticeships a whole thing on guest artists um and then genital piercing um and so I guess the the question is you know has anyone done any leg work found out new information that we should all have um had any thoughts that they want to make sure whoever is going to work on this is considering I guess I have a question about the save each life or the course recommended for the piercers um I know there was talk about um potentially taking one of the tests and seeing if the Ariel is yeah I don't know if that's still on the table Yeah they I reached out to them and they would not share the test with me um I would have to pay and have it done um they you know referred and and I said I was on the the Board of Health and that this was to to understand if it would meet our requirements um but they were not willing to share that so the option would be to pay to do it yeah um and I also did reach out to our contacts in Northampton I didn't manage to get in touch with anybody in California that was a little bit more of a project but I can still do that um but I did um want to ask them about how they determined that save each life was a course that they felt met the requirements and also they had said there was another course which I couldn't find so but I haven't heard back from I think post holidays everyone's in a catch-up mode and it's hard to you know I didn't want to pester them but I I can follow up again about that so I mean and and I will contribute obviously Risha to your group of two that's working on this um the other thing that's coming up is that we have a meeting with the Hadley Board of Health Betsy and Risha Betsy because it was a colleague of yours a friend of yours who is on the board or works for Hadley there's I have a I have a friend who's a nurse practitioner who's on the Hadley Board of Health so I asked her what she had done and she said oh we've just revised our stuff and and uh we'd be happy to talk to you about it so that's how that that's next week yeah that's next week I was gonna say I would be delighted to work with Risha um I guess we should see if anyone else does but um I'm just happy to have a volunteer thought it might be a long ask yeah I mean I'm happy if somebody else wants to do it too but I'd be more than happy to work with you which I'm not that sounds like a good team it's helpful I think Betsy since you're a physician and there's you know their Anatomy questions that come up I mean Prema you could also I'm certainly do it the job but it's great that Betsy is volunteering um although Risha gets all the issues right away anyhow yeah oh there was one other thing I was oh um and and mahen looked at the Hadley regs today and they don't have references to guest artists or um Apprentice right yeah so I'm curious to ask them because Risha that was something you wondered about like maybe it's too complicated and it shouldn't be allowed at all but we so we can talk with them about that next week why that's not there great yeah I the more I get into this the more I'm I'm sort of convinced we have added a I think I think what's happened is that we had a document and we just kept adding to it um and so now it's you know spelling everything out and when I look at others they're much Slimmer and and much more sort of streamlined in what they're trying to to regulate and so that's sort of I'm interested to see but I can't figure out how to cut things easily but it it it does feel like we might have sort of things from the past that are no longer as relevant as they should be but the issue of um of um guest artist uh I believe originated from um a local request that's we look at it right [Music] so that's correct and and another thing that I want to do as part of you know working on this is to go and talk with Stephen getting his last name but who's the owner of wandless tattoo in the only body art practitioner in amoris because it did come from them you're right Prem it was their request so to understand more about what the needs are and because I think really it is is about how you had so many questions Risha about if you're a guest artist how often do you get how how long before you get to work on someone without somebody watching you like those kinds of stipulations weren't spelled out in the regulations and should they be and and how how would that go so I mean talking with a practitioner might be able to shed some light or answer some of those questions and help us figure out how to proceed great so did anyone else have any thoughts they wanted to make sure I guess are everyone okay with Betsy being the other person to join me anyone really really wanted to do this all right um so I thought that was probably not gonna happen but who knows um so anybody else have anything that they want to make sure that we consider obviously we're not making any decisions we're just going to come back with some recommendations okay I won't commit us to a timeline but we'll try to move as quickly as we can and thank you bety thank you Betsy bye bye oh are you leaving us we still still we have a few more items okay I'm in my car no problem okay good I'm glad um okay so then I think we're definitely overtime I'm just going to quickly give you a couple of updates States um let's see um I think so in terms of respiratory illness I had told you all that the Wastewater surveillance which we really depend on to help us gauge how much covid infection is in the community was offline for a while and now it's back online but just once a week samples but we are beginning to see there was really not a lot happening as evidenced by what I heard about National Trends in November but then starting in December it's begun to creep up so now it's creeping up it's an upward Trend and it will probably continue to go up the Wastewater levels so um you know we have all of our usual tests PP here for people we're advertising that you know spread the word we have lots of tests for people to come especially those who don't have resources to purchase them and we have masks and gloves as well um we're going to plan one final Clinic uh I believe it will be on February 5th so the day before our public hearing here at the bangs um really want to T really want to involve you know encourage people who haven't yet gotten a CO and or flew vaccine to come and also young people I had recently found out that the pharmacies which is where we are often referring a lot of people and where pediatricians are referring sometimes their families for with with children um for vaccines is that children on Mass health Can't Always Get vaccinated at thees there are a lot of complicated situations and I found out about this because I was there getting my shingles vaccine and a nurse was telling me how she sometimes has to turn away families on medic Med on Mass Health with small kids because the minute clinic can't do their vaccines very complicated all that to say we really want to be able to offer this service to children we did have quite a lot of families with young kids coming to the two clinics that we did have so just in the interest of boosting Community immunity we're hoping to get more families and other folks who just haven't gotten around to getting their shot yet to come and get vaccinated in February so that's on the agenda go ahead would it make sense to share that with the um the superintendent's office to put into their school absolutely yes we will do that yeah yeah that's really important um and then I also wanted to say that we did have an update from the State Department of Health this week about h5n1 about Avan flu so things have kind of ticked up to a more serious level at this point um no cases no human-to-human transmission cases have been documented but there are there was a death of somebody in Louisiana died from Aven flu this was somebody who had a backyard chicken flock he was a person who was over 65 and had underlying medical conditions um but it is still concerning that we have now our first death from h5n1 in the country so I I feel like there's some level of kind of conversation and amplification of concern that we want to start to spread without causing undue Panic um the main issue at this point is what was focused on in the call and if this is is this information that you all already have because I won't bore you if you know this already I'll keep talking you tell cut me off if I'm becoming boring um so backyard chickens are definitely a concern people who have blocks ACC according to the state they're not requiring that people use PPE but I happen to know many people who own chickens and they do use gloves and masks when they're cleaning up chicken poops and whatnot it's probably a good precaution at this point the virus has been found in some cats domestic cats and feral cats and cats don't do well with this it's I think it's a 50% mortality rate for cats so there is the recommendation that um people not feed if it's an indoor cat it's probably not at risk unless you feed that cat raw food raw milk raw meat you know Kibbles that are made with raw meat that could have poultry that has Aven flu in it so that's not recommended um at this stage the primary prevention tactic is to keep the virus in the animal population and to prevent it from getting into people's homes and into domestic animals because it could begin to mutate and jump from domestic animals domesticated animals I guess especially pigs can are very concerning because the virus can mutate in pigs and then become um more likely to cross over to humans so that has not happened yet um it is and uh but we're really want telling people to be cautious about cats and what you're feeding cats also not consuming raw milk humans or animals should be should not be consuming raw milk because that's potentially a source there are dairy herds many herds in California that have been infected with Aven flu and some people who have gotten Aven flu have gotten it from milk con uh contact it has showed up as a mild conjunctivitis so not a respiratory Illness but with any of these viruses you always worry that they can mutate and change and become more powerful respiratory vir uses and become ones that can transmit from humans to humans in Massachusetts we've been really diligent about testing Dairy herds and there have not been any cases of herds here in Massachusetts that have h5n1 no cows have tested positive I think we've done a really good job there so the advice right now from dph is you know about saying proper protection if you have backyard chickens um watch worrying about your cats if you have outdoor cats and their contact with bird feces with chickens um and then feeding of raw milk and Raw Feed to domestic animals cats and dogs don't seem to be as susceptible to the virus as cats but still um it's a you want to try to keep it out of the canine population as well so I think it's you know of course I get a little panicky when I think about a virus and you know always we've been through it with covid nobody wants another Mass pandemic hopefully we can be smart about this and you know people can follow these recommendations um I think if it escalates to the point where it's going to be required for people with chickens to wear PPE the state will be giving us that recommendation and it's actually mdar the Mass Department of Agriculture that is interfacing with farmers and whatnot who keep birds um to make sure that people are aware so it's not really our responsibility as a health department to do that work it's an agricultural responsibility but it's important for us to be aware and we will be putting some information about this on our website just so everybody in the community understands um no need for panic but you know let's be cautious and let's be aware of what's going on with this virus so um I think those are really the main things I I wasn't sure if I told people last time that we do have a free Sharps disposal kiosk in the bank center now so if people have Sharps that they're using at home for whatever reason they can get a free container whenever we're open between 8 and for this building from the kiosk on the ground floor use it for sharps and then bring it back here to the kiosk and dispose of it there without charge and without having to come to the health department we used to charge some money for it and had to have people sell at a form but now we have this free kiosk which is great so it's been really well used it gets filled up quite quickly so we're happy to be providing that service to the community um and then I think the last thing was just in terms of our next meeting so the Board of Health the hearing to tobacco regulations hearing will be starting at 5:00 as I said in person here in the bangs we talked about having a very short Board of Health meeting beforehand starting I think at 4:30 can work we do have one agenda item that is of some urgency which is um for Craigs doors the shelter in town um they in the past have had a variance that they have to come to the Board of Health to request um I think it got overlooked last year which is why they didn't come to us last year but the year before they did because they are currently in the Emanuel Lutheran Church is where the Craigs store shelter is and there is not a shower there there are a bathrooms toilets sinks but not a shower and so they have other arrangements where they have a shower offsite that people can use um but that's it's housing code you know there's a provision in housing code that any place where people are sleeping staying must have a shower so we obviously do not want to do anything to jeopardize the operation of Craig stor especially given this cold winter weather that we're having but we do as a board need to hear um have this hearing and and issue this variance based on what you all hear from them um in order to keep in order to you know follow code essentially so Susan Malone did an inspection just at the end of last month to look at this so that's I'm telling you this because this is going to be an agenda item and I think it's going to be the most important agenda item other things you know body art regulation I think the work group will go on for some time so it doesn't need to be on the agenda on the 6th but this item will be so just putting that out there for folks any questions about that so so my thought is really just hopefully if there's something else pressing that we need to hear as a board um we'll add that but at this point it will just be that item and then just you know check the usual sort of checking in approval of minutes public comment whatnot um and then we'll move to have the hearing at five o'clock does that sound okay okay and then finally um we just wanted to I think we can talk more at our next sort of substantive meeting which will be in March about how we want to structure the rest of the year what things we want to talk about more nicotine free Generation Well regulations um you know the body art stuff coming in and out do we have a Target date by when you all would like to finish that those kinds of things we can discuss in March um but what mahen and I wanted to ask was um we were going to try to send out the zoom invitation as a recurring meeting so instead of getting a zoom meeting every time every month there would just be one I think that would go out with all the dates in it but maybe there'd be a reminder that Zoom would generate I'm not exactly sure but we also wanted to know some of you may use Outlook and some of you may not but would it be valuable to for us to send out a calendar invitation in Outlook that would then block the time on your calendars and issue a reminder to you you about the upcoming meeting in addition to the zoom email that comes with the link just trying to make it easy for you all um so but no longer use out don't do it for my sake don't do it for your sake okay any other thoughts about that I think a Google Calendar would be helpful um but I I currently think the the current strategy is working okay okay I I'm just looking at the invitation we got for this one and it has an option to add to a Google Outlook or Yahoo calendar um so probably the way you're sending it now would be each of us could figure out how to add it to the calendars we use okay maybe I can send it to all three like Yahoo Outlook and Gmail I mean the way it came through today has the option to do any of those on our own it just is a button we click so I don't know that you have to do something separate for that sounds like the best way to proceed then I didn't realize that you could do that because I get a different invite as a host I think than what you all get so it sounds like you're able individually to choose from that email whether to add it to an Outlook Yahoo or Google Calendar is that right da are you seeing that as well okay yeah I had forgotten about it thank you for bringing up okay that seems better because I think it wouldn't make sense for us to generate an Outlook invo if Betsy and others are maybe not going to see it or use it so okay I think we're good anything else no I think we need someone to motion to end the meeting though so motion second and a thank you um any objections to ending the meeting uh I look forward to seeing you guys all in person uh meeting some of you for the first time in person um and have a greator thank you everyone take care good evening thanks bye bye bye