How LEVEL Delivers Effects-Based Cannabis Tablets ft. Chris Emerson

Listen Now

Chris Emerson: People might try our product. They might not like our product for whatever reason. But when a consumer takes our product, every single time they take it, they are going to get the same experience. Bryan Fields: What's up, guys? Welcome back to another episode of The Dime. I'm Bryan Fields. With me as always is Kellan Finney, and this week we've got a very special guest, Chris Emerson, founder of Level. Chris, thanks for taking the time. How are you doing today? Chris Emerson: I'm doing great, Bryan, Kellan. I appreciate you guys taking the time to have this conversation. Bryan Fields: I'm excited to have you here. Kellan, how are you doing? Kellan Finney: Doing really well, excited to talk to Chris. It's been a long time — I think the first time we met was about nine years ago at an ACS conference in San Diego, so excited to reconnect. How are you doing, Bryan? Bryan Fields: Yeah, I'm stoked. I can only imagine they herded all the scientists into a tiny corner in the back and said, 'We're going to keep these guys because we need science down the road.' I'm really excited to talk about some of my favorite products — the edibles I enjoy the most — and Chris, no shame in the game, yours is one of my favorites. I think what I've enjoyed most is the formulation process, the science behind it, and how results-driven it is. Before we get into the fun stuff, for our listeners, give a quick background on yourself and how you found your way into the cannabis space. Chris Emerson: Sure, that's a great place to start. I have a PhD in small molecule chemistry, so the traditional career track is either go discover or make drugs, or go train the next generation of chemists. I was doing a postdoc at Stanford and I was disillusioned with bench science — I wasn't going to go into pharma, and I didn't want to be a professor. I was living in San Francisco in early 2012, and the city was on fire — Facebook going public, Lyft, Uber, Airbnb all coming off the ground. I'd always wanted to be an entrepreneur but didn't understand how to reconcile hard science with where the tech and entrepreneurship world seemed to be moving. So I quit my postdoc at Stanford, and through a series of serendipitous events I ended up on a medical cannabis farm in Mendocino. I slept in a tent next to a tributary for three months and got a very fast, thorough indoctrination into where the cannabis industry was at the time. I'd been an occasional cannabis user, but that time on the farm completely inspired me — I was watching this plant grow and thinking, 'All these compounds, what do we know about them, how could we use them?' That's what pushed me to start looking at what was possible with cannabis based on what we knew. That's where I developed my thesis of effects-based, or targeted-effects, cannabis — using cannabinoid formulations not accessible from the plant alone, like acidic cannabinoids, neutrals, and enzymatic byproducts. This was 2012, so when I started talking to people about it, everyone was like, 'What are you saying? This is dumb.' Fast forward — I got a job as a chief chemist working on some real science-fiction-level chemistry, and I was trying to launch a cannabis company out of my kitchen in San Francisco for a few years. I founded Level in 2015 on that same thesis of effects-based, targeted-effects cannabis, and here we are ten years later. That's the story. Kellan Finney: So what's the first product? When you got the inspiration to say, 'All right, I'm going to try to make something' — was there a specific effect you were chasing, or was it more like, 'Let me just get in the kitchen and see what I can cook up and where we end up'? Chris Emerson: It was the latter. I thought, let's use a whole-plant, full-spectrum extract and find the right delivery format. I didn't want to do traditional ingestibles, and inhalables are good, but that wasn't my wheelhouse. So I started making sublingual sprays — about 5 milligrams of THC, basically like an RSO spray. Tasted awful, but very effective. That was the first foray. Then I started thinking, the market's not ready for this, nobody wants this, I don't know how I'm going to scale it. So I thought, if we want to use isolated or highly purified cannabinoids in standardized formulations, tablets are the best way to do it — sublingual and oral tablets. That's really where it started, and it took four or five years to fully develop. Bryan Fields: Was there one specific effect you were chasing right away, where you thought, 'I'm trying to replicate this'? Chris Emerson: Not at first. By the time I actually founded the company in 2012–2013, I was looking at things like THCV — could we get our hands on CBN, what interesting things could we do? At that time, the medical market in California was strong under Prop 215, and everyone thought adult-use legalization was coming in the next couple of years, so the question was how to bring more people into the tent. Our thinking was that we needed differentiated products, because people who weren't already in cannabis culture had probably tried it once and didn't come back — either it made them paranoid, made them hungry and they ate and fell asleep, or they just didn't see how to use it in their life. A lot of that comes down to dosing, form factor, and route of administration. I was thinking about how to address the main reasons people want to use cannabis — pain, stress, anxiety, sleep, energy, and socialization. So I looked at cannabinoids we thought would be interesting based on empirical and peer-reviewed data, figured out how to get our hands on them, and started experimenting. That built the momentum that got us to where we are. Kellan Finney: What's been the hardest part of maintaining consistency with strain variability while using a full-spectrum extract? Chris Emerson: In the early days, this was a huge challenge, especially since most of what we did in 2015–2017 — whether ethanol or hydrocarbon extraction — got us good cannabinoid profiles, purified, but if we wanted to drive a specific effect, that's another dimension entirely. We learned that if we tell someone a product is a sativa but it puts them to sleep and gives them couch-lock, we haven't done our job. So we had different inputs — a distillate here with no terpenes — and we needed good terpene formulations to actually drive the effects we said we were formulating for. To answer your question, Kellan: we had to identify vendors aligned with our vision, people fractionating out really good terpenoid layers we could recombine, and we developed better analytics on them. We realized we couldn't trust the upstream supply chain at that point, so we decided to deconstruct it and build it ourselves. We started that right out of the gate — lots of challenges, but we built on it from there. Supply chain now is so much more mature that it's pretty easy by comparison. In the early days it was a full-time job just finding good operators you could trust and who were consistent. Your failure point wasn't necessarily the formulation — it could just be that a vendor didn't have a product that met spec that week, and you're stuck trying to do copy-exact replication of a formula when one input variable isn't consistent, which changes the end product and the effect. That's also why we made an early decision not to be a strain-specific company. We built a sativa, a hybrid, and an indica so we weren't completely reliant on any one upstream vendor — if something fell through, we could source elsewhere rather than being stuck because we couldn't get a specific strain that week and had packaging that already named it. That decision guided our product development and formulation toward consistency: if you pick up a Pro Tab and it says sativa, we're going to give you a sativa experience within roughly the first standard deviation of what most people would consider a sativa experience. It's a blended sativa, because not everyone likes the same specific strains — we give people our interpretation of what that experience should be, and that's worked out really well for us. Bryan Fields: That actually sounds like a better guiding principle than what happens now, where someone says, 'I had a sativa but it made me fall into the couch.' It sounds like you oriented around a North Star — this is our understanding of what a sativa is, and one standard deviation away is close enough because you're anchored to that North Star. So how many iterations does it take to land on a formulation that works for something like 'energize'? Chris Emerson: That's a good question. The sativa side was less challenging than actually getting to a product — a tablet — that was ready for market: durable, shelf-stable, and doing what we said it would do. When we started getting into emerging cannabinoids like THCV, there was a lot more exploration. We built an internal model, like a Venn diagram, weighing all the empirical data available — peer-reviewed studies, down to in vitro data — against our own internal experience, and went after it from there. There was a ton of trial and error in the lab figuring out what worked. THCV on its own isn't that interesting — you really need to combine it with other cannabinoids to get a solid product. Figuring out those ratios and which other cannabinoids brought out what we wanted took a year and a half to two years just to get started. But that wasn't even the tricky part — the tricky part was taking it to market and educating people in an industry paradigm where you're telling someone, 'This product will give you energy and focus, but it's not a sativa.' People would take it and say, 'I don't know, I washed my car, did laundry, gardened, but I didn't get high,' and I'd say, 'That's exactly the experience you wanted.' But people were looking for that sativa high, that head-band creativity feeling. That took us years to get much better at education and messaging. Kellan Finney: What's your internal dialogue from an R&D perspective about incorporating ingredients from outside the plant — adding something like caffeine? Walk us through that conversation and how you land on those decisions. Chris Emerson: Excellent question. We're a cannabinoid company — that's our North Star, that's it. I think there's a place for other functional ingredients, whether it's vitamins or compounds from mushrooms — the natural world has an amazing amount of potential compounds we could use. But we still don't feel we have full mastery over just cannabinoids themselves, plus terpenoids and flavonoids, so that's our North Star: we don't include or add any ingredients outside of what the cannabis plant itself produces. Bryan Fields: Going back to the formulation process — with THCV and understanding the ratios, at some point you have to actually take the product yourself, see how you feel, and adjust the ratio. I'm assuming there had to be some human trials to find the right balance. Chris Emerson: A ton of it. At first it was, let's formulate this, then test consumption — and a lot of that started with vaping, because it became the fastest way to get quick feedback with minimal time commitment. We couldn't be eating edibles all day and be done for the day — we needed to test a few times throughout the day, so vapes were our cheat code for that. It was a ton of internal testing in the early days, and still some now, though not nearly as much, because we've built up such an expansive amount of internal knowledge that we can leverage now. Bryan Fields: I can imagine — if you've taken eight pills and cleaned every car on the block, you've delivered exactly what needed to happen. [laughs] Chris Emerson: Totally. Bryan Fields: So take us through a formulation you were chasing early on — one where you thought it'd be easy but it ended up being much harder in reality, and why. Chris Emerson: That's a great question. I think trying to get to what I'd call a 'socialize' formulation — the sweet spot where someone's going out to hang with friends, needs a little energy, wants to feel loose and engaged — took us a long time to nail. You want aspects of a lot of different moods to be engaged at once, and that's challenging with cannabis because everyone's endocannabinoid system is slightly different, and formulation affects people differently. We're still working on that one — we haven't felt confident enough to put it on the market in a way where we're sure a large majority of people will agree with the effect we say we're delivering. Kellan Finney: I can see how that's challenging, since everyone internalizes 'social' differently — some people are cautious when they go out, some get anxious after one glass of wine, others feel totally fine. That's the interesting part of putting the word 'socialize' behind an effect. Given how far you've come, is it difficult watching other players in the space use effects-based marketing to compete with you, even without the same formulation science behind their products? Chris Emerson: We talked internally back in 2015 that we had to move fast because everyone was going to jump on this. It ended up taking much longer than we expected before other companies started putting out ratioed products. That was good in some ways, because it cemented us as the brand that pioneered this space and pushed the category. But it was also hard, because we were a smaller brand doing a ton of education on a niche product — though we're still a top-five edibles brand in California, and we don't even make a gummy. But now that more ingestible companies — gummies, beverages — have entered this space, overall it's a good thing. We could sit back and say they don't really know what they're doing, but ultimately it helps push the entire category forward and move people away from purely canonical sativa/indica/hybrid thinking. There's so much more blue sky available, and educating consumers that there are other effects available from cannabis is a great thing. Kellan Finney: How do you balance not just flooding the market with a huge number of different products — since you could theoretically create ten different cannabinoid ratios that all produce a similar feeling? Chris Emerson: A lot of that balance has been driven by regulatory challenges and how hard it is to operate in this space. Around 2017–2018, there was a company doing customized 3D printing for different active ingredients — essentially printing little wafers. We got connected with them thinking a sublingual 3D-printed product fit right in our wheelhouse, because ever since founding the company we'd dreamed of consumers going to our website, saying how they want to feel and what dose they want, and getting a customized, personalized cannabis matrix — a 30-day supply to dial themselves in. Of course, the technology didn't deliver as promised. But in regulated markets, there are natural barriers to flooding the market with products anyway — buyers have to bring products on, you have to sell for shelf space, so those limiting factors have actually helped rein us in, because otherwise I could see us running away with launching a hundred different products. Bryan Fields: Especially once you dive deep — you could do 'energize' for one hour, two hours, eight hours, and suddenly you're taking on the Adderall market, where someone thinks they need to take an Adderall every morning when maybe they don't. Chris Emerson: Absolutely — I'm glad you brought that up, Bryan. Our unofficial way of marketing Boost, our high-THCV product — and in California we've released a 10-milligram version now called Energy — is that it's like weed and Adderall had a kid. For people who are skeptical whether that's real, I get it — the first time I heard that I wasn't sure, but after trying it, I felt like it filled an itch, and I was blown away by how locked-in and focused I became. When people hear that and try it themselves, they'll recognize there are alternative ways to get that same feeling, and cannabinoids can deliver it. In a world of short attention spans, constant scrolling, and people chasing the next viral dopamine hit, the way to really keep pushing this forward is to show up every day, block and tackle, do the basic things — your products have to be consistent and standardized, and they have to deliver every single time on what you say they'll do. There's also a natural consumer cycle — people try a product, go try others, and come back to it later. One of the challenging things about operating in this space is that we want to iterate quickly because we feel like we haven't even scratched the surface of the really cool stuff yet, but the market has its own tempo. Bryan Fields: It would be silly of me not to ask — what's on the roadmap? If you could develop anything you wanted, what would it be? Chris Emerson: I wouldn't say it's on the roadmap right now, but I've always dreamed the coolest possible product would be an 11-hydroxy-THC sublingual — onset in about five minutes, giving you that big edible-like feeling a lot of people love, with offset complete in an hour to an hour and a half. Part of the challenge — and I'll be the first to admit it, we make 100-milligram products that sell like crazy — is that in some markets there's a lot of overdosing, not medical-emergency-level, but people consuming way more cannabis than they need because of how the product is delivered. That's part of why I've always been drawn to the sublingual route — you can use much lower doses and still hit the targeted state someone's looking for. We explored an 11-hydroxy product a lot of different ways, including enzymatically, but never found a great source for it. Still something on my personal roadmap. Bryan Fields: You're in California — how difficult was it to expand into new states while ensuring the consistency piece, so a customer who loved the product in California could have that same experience in New York? Chris Emerson: It actually wasn't too challenging, because by the time we expanded — our first state being Nevada at the end of 2022, then New York even before the injunction, then another full state last year — most of the supply chains were already mature. At the end of the day, most people can make good distillate, and most other markets have mature supply chains for emergent cannabinoids, and most allow sourcing from the hemp space — so the consistency is already there in the input material, which made expansion less of an issue for us. Kellan Finney: From a QA/QC perspective, does it usually take a few runs to get a product up to par when you enter a new state, or is it pretty straightforward based on requirements? Chris Emerson: Never simple in this industry. We hold a couple of patents on this product, and we'd done it so many times in California over so many years that we understood our own manufacturing process incredibly well — we carry our own analytical equipment and run inline process control through the whole process, testing three separate times before a product even ships. We validate the labs our partners use before we go into a state. We spend a lot of time preparing so that once we're on-site, it's dialed in and we move forward. Kellan Finney: Can you explain what inline process control actually means? Chris Emerson: It's not truly inline in the sense of running IR on a flow stream in real time, but we test the powder at every stage. We take the raw inputs, make an infused particle of a specific size, test that for potency, add it to other excipients, know what the potency should be at that point, then it goes to tableting, and when it comes off the tablet press it gets tested again before it even goes to the third-party lab. Bryan Fields: My question would be — why would you do that? You don't have to do that. And it's expensive. Chris Emerson: I don't know that I'd agree we don't have to do it, Bryan — otherwise I don't think our products would pass. You have different inputs with different potencies, we know where they should land, and we're constantly making adjustments. We definitely couldn't run our expansion process without running our own analytics through the entire pipeline. Bryan Fields: How big of an advantage is it having your background in traditional pharmaceutical chemistry, knowing there's a systematic way these processes get executed to maintain quality — let alone building the systems to actually run those tests? Chris Emerson: It wouldn't be possible without it. I don't think this would have even been attempted — I would have never made tablets. Kellan Finney: What's your overall take on this hybrid approach to making cannabis products — you have a true-pharma approach on one end, companies like yours following pharmaceutical guidelines, and on the other end almost 'garage chemistry.' Where do you see the industry heading, from recreational to medicinal to manufacturing? Chris Emerson: Unfortunately, on the recreational-to-medical axis, the medical side is largely destroyed. No state with a regulated adult-use program has managed to keep both intact — we've seen it in every market: it starts medical, goes adult-use, and the medical market essentially evaporates. It doesn't make financial sense to maintain that supply chain and vertical alongside adult-use, and unfortunately we lose a lot of products people really need — some patients need high-THC products for real medical reasons. That decline in the medical side has been tough to watch alongside the growth of recreational. In the early days there were a lot of 'garage chemists' — people who'd read something and smoked weed forever and thought they understood it — but the nuance and background knowledge required to really understand what's happening biosynthetically, molecularly, and at the interface between the chemical and human biology is incredibly complex, and that gets glossed over. The regulated market has gotten much better through consolidation — a lot of operators aren't around anymore, and the companies still standing have had to get good at what they do to survive, with regulations providing a lot of that impetus. That garage-chemistry mentality has mostly gone away in the regulated market, but it's alive and well in the online hemp market. Bryan Fields: The reason I brought up inline analytics, Chris, is that you have a consistent product, and the only way to have a consistent product when your input material is variable is to build checkpoints throughout the process — from step zero to step one, here's our benchmark for success, and if we don't hit it, we adjust before moving forward. I think that's underappreciated, because consumers expect a consistent, repeatable product, but the only way to actually deliver that is by using the same rigorous tools other industries use to build products. Chris Emerson: Absolutely. We have very tight tolerances in our specifications, and to hit them you need advanced analytics at every phase — to ensure there's no contamination, that the product is safe, and that every single time a customer takes it, they get exactly the experience they expected. I've said this since day one: people might try our product and not like it for whatever reason, but every single time a consumer takes our product, they're going to get the same experience. That's how we've built the company, and it's how we've established ourselves as the brand we are. Bryan Fields: And when you send a batch off to a lab, it's essentially a regulatory box-check rather than a nervous 'let's hope it comes back where we need it to be' — you already know with certainty. I can only imagine, without those internal steps, the surprises you'd get back from the lab — an entire batch, and everything invested in it, wasted. But you built that infrastructure from day one specifically to avoid those surprises. Chris Emerson: That's absolutely true. It's also not just about a single tablet — if someone buys a ten-pack and two tablets contain 80% of the cannabinoids, that's a very different experience from the rest of the pack. Making sure there's homogeneity throughout the mixing process involves a lot of complexity, and doing that both at our facility in Santa Rosa and out on the road adds another layer. Not everyone considers that until they learn the hard lesson — failing compliance, or losing homogeneity and losing consumer trust. Bryan Fields: In those situations, teams often say implementing that is expensive — my response would be, it's a lot more expensive to throw out your entire product run and then figure out how to prevent the same problem from happening again. Chris Emerson: Absolutely. The first piece of equipment I bought when I founded the company was an old HPLC. Bryan Fields: Oh, that's how it goes. Do you guys have a human QA/QC step too — someone eating the first pill off the line to make sure it's good? [laughs] Chris Emerson: [laughs] Yeah, there's a whole bunch of dev tabs that go into waste, but you get some skinnies and some fats. Bryan Fields: Totally — that falls off the truck here in New York. I know somebody. Chris Emerson: Yeah, well, in line with that, we've gotten more sophisticated. It used to be just HPLC — we also run GC-MS at HQ for various terpenoids and residual solvents. Then we introduced FT-NIR, which is amazing because it's super fast — you drop a sample in and get a reading in seconds, no more setting up an HPLC every time. We're now integrating that into our out-of-state operations too. We're constantly iterating for efficiency and to optimize our in-process controls to make a better product. So when people say, 'That's expensive, why would you do that?' — yes, these things aren't cheap, but they make the product that much more reliable and the process that much better, which ultimately saves us more money. Kellan Finney: How do you justify that ROI — spending, say, a hundred thousand dollars on equipment, when the return isn't as direct as 'we'll sell more'? Chris Emerson: For our out-of-state operations, it's things like cutting production time by a day to a day and a half, and removing the need for an individual with LC expertise — we can train someone just to measure out powder at a certain weight, put it on the optic, and get a potency reading in ten seconds. It simplifies things so anyone competent in manufacturing can run the process without needing to be a scientific expert or instrumentation specialist. Bryan Fields: I love it. Let's get back to some non-nerdy stuff — are the tablets stackable? For example, if I wanted to socialize but also wanted a little more of a boost, could I take a Socialize and an Energize together? Chris Emerson: Totally — a lot of people do that. We have people who love taking half an indica and a Boost, because it puts them in a certain place, or a Boost THCV with a hash tab, or a Pro Tab with half a rosin tab. Once people understand the nuance between rosin, hash, and distillate — which we use in the Pro Tab — they start mixing and matching and have a lot of fun with it. Bryan Fields: What are the potencies — can you give us a ballpark? Tens, twenties? Chris Emerson: In California we have a 10-milligram, a 25-milligram, and a 100-milligram tablet. In most other states we have either a 20- or 25-milligram tablet, and 100 milligrams where allowed — we can do 100 milligrams in California, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. Bryan Fields: For a new consumer looking for an effects-based product for the first time, how would you recommend they get comfortable trying it without feeling like they're going to end up hiding in a closet? Chris Emerson: At minimum, if someone's unsure, split it in half — the tablets are easy to split into quarters too. In California and New Jersey we have a 10-milligram tablet, and we'll be releasing lower-dose SKUs in New York in the next couple months as well, since we've always been known as a high-dose company, but that's changing given how big the market is for lower doses right now. Funny story that's happened countless times: I'll hand someone a 10-milligram tablet, they'll say their normal dose is 10 milligrams, and I'll tell them to split it in half. They'll say, 'Really? I won't feel anything.' I'll say, 'I guarantee you, don't take a whole one if your normal dose is 10.' Six months later I'll run into them and they'll say, 'You know how you told me to split it in half? I couldn't do it — it seemed too small, so I ate the whole thing. I was high for a day.' [laughs] So — you tried to warn them. Kellan Finney: Talk to us about the hemp dynamic — strategically, with the recent news, how do you balance the time, investment, and attention across regulated cannabis and hemp, knowing they're competing for the same resources? Chris Emerson: Our approach to hemp is a bit different. A lot of companies in the regulated market hedge their bets by building out gummies or beverages in hemp, but because of our form factor, we're limited to about a milligram to a milligram and a half of THC per tablet to stay compliant with the old Farm Bill definitions. What we really do in hemp is bring to market the formulations we know work well but had to deprecate, or never launched in the regulated market because it won't support a very therapeutic product — very low or no THCA at all, just supporting the overall formulation with CBDA, CBD, CBG, CBC, THCV — really building products around pain, sleep, anxiety, stress, and socialization, both as blended-effect formulas and as single, isolated cannabinoids for people who specifically want something with no THC at all. We already have the infrastructure to build all these products, and packaging is actually easier because we can automate the whole process. The real work is building awareness through direct-to-consumer channels or identifying wholesale distributors, which is time-intensive, especially considering what's happening right now with the proposed ban. But as long as supply houses stay around and I can still source cannabinoids from them, I think we have a strong opportunity to navigate even a restrictive hemp environment, because there's a cohort of people with real medical needs that these products genuinely help. Kellan Finney: Any thought of going the full medical route — clinical trials, the traditional pharma pathway? Chris Emerson: [laughs] Not necessarily pursuing an FDA monograph, given the expense involved, but I do think there's a ton of value in generating validated clinical or real-world data. We ran a study a couple years ago internally on CBG's impact on veterans, mainly for sleep — a fully decentralized, IRB-approved, triple-blinded, randomized pilot study, which is about to be published. We also did a study with MoreBetter and the University of Michigan looking at some of our products for various pain modalities, and we're doing a sleep study with MoreBetter right now. I love putting our products into validated, real-world data-collection studies, because it's one thing for me to tell you we know what we're doing, but I want to put our money where our mouth is and actually do the work. If a study comes back showing something didn't do what we wanted, great — I want to know that, and we want to be transparent about it. It's made us a better company, and I want to keep pushing the frontier of what we understand about these formulations and human health. Kellan Finney: With that research focus, are there any under-the-radar cannabinoids you think people will be talking about in two to five years? Chris Emerson: The varin class as a whole really captivates me — we've mostly only played with THCV and a little with CBDV. The topology of these molecules is almost identical to their counterparts except for something like a pentyl versus a propyl chain, yet it has a profound impact on effect. The varin class is something I keep pushing on. The other area is acidic cannabinoids in general — qualitatively, I think they're incredibly effective therapeutically, more so than people give them credit for. We usually talk about cannabinoids in their neutral, decarboxylated forms, but there's a whole other set of acidic compounds worth exploring, and I'd love to see how that develops over the next few years. Bryan Fields: Last question — what question do you wish more people asked you? Chris Emerson: [laughs] Man, you might have stumped me on that one. I don't know — usually I get more generic questions, like what's my favorite color. Bryan Fields: Favorite dinosaur? Chris Emerson: [laughs] Yeah, man, you've got me on that one too — there's no right answer. I guess a question I'd want people to ask is what's the most popular product. Right now in California it's Boost and Lights Out — our high-THCV and high-CBN products — which has really proven out our thesis that people want specific effects. In New York, it's Sativa and Boost — people there are a bit more full-on. Bryan Fields: What's the most underrated product? Chris Emerson: Our rosin tab. I don't think people fully appreciate it — it's our most flower-forward product, the rosin quality you can get in California is amazing, and the effect is really lovely. Bryan Fields: For our listeners who want to get in touch, learn more, and buy Level products, where can they find you? Chris Emerson: You can go to levelexperience.com and use the store finder — we're in California, Nevada, Pennsylvania (for medical patients), New York, and New Jersey. You can also go to levelexperience.shop to check out our therapeutic, entourage, hemp-derived product lines. Bryan Fields: Awesome, we'll link it up in the show notes. Thanks for taking the time — this was a lot of fun. Chris Emerson: Yeah, thanks Bryan, thanks Kellan, appreciate it guys.