PUTNEY — In recent weeks, the state Senate voted to pass S.241, a bill that would allow legalization and regulation of marijuana. Here are some of the reasons I sponsored and voted for the bill, some of the highlights, and an explanation of what the bill is and what it isn't.
For many years, I have felt that our policy of prohibition has not worked - not for youth, not for law enforcement, not for the citizens who have become criminals as a result.
In 2014, the Rand Group was commissioned to report on the potential for legalization in Vermont. In 2015, the Government Operations committee, which I chair, took testimony on the report and on how legalization should be done in Vermont if it is to be done.
We heard from everyone who had something to say - no one was denied a voice. From those hearings, Senator Joe Benning (who also sits on the committee) and I cosponsored the bill.
In January, the bill went to the Judiciary Committee, where testimony was also taken. At the beginning of the session, the chair of that committee, Senator Dick Sears Jr., stated that there was no way he would vote for legalization.
But after hearing all the testimony and the facts, Sears changed his mind and became a strong supporter of legalization and regulation. As happens with all bills, it ended up different from what it was as introduced.
* * *
My main reasons for support:
• We heard from kids that if they want to get alcohol, they must find someone older than 21 willing to buy it for them; yet, if they wanted marijuana, they only had to go to the bathroom in their school. So if regulation makes it harder for youth to obtain these drugs, let's regulate.
• We also heard that dealers usually have more than marijuana and are not at all concerned about selling other substances to youth.
• We heard from people who have criminal records because they choose marijuana, unlike their neighbors who drink alcohol. (The state has criminalized one substance and actually sells you the other one.)
• While many professional organizations oppose legalizing marijuana, we did hear from individual law-enforcement officers, pediatricians, medical doctors, and substance-abuse counselors who believe that legalization is the right thing to do, because our current policy doesn't work.
It is hard to summarize all the information and research into a short explanation, but I am willing to talk with anyone who would like more information.
I should point out the report from the Rocky Mountain High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, a federal, state, and local drug task force, which purports to give statistics from Colorado. We spoke to the Colorado officials, and they told us that this group that sounds like it might be objective is actually an arm of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, and its statistics are questionable.
* * *
So, what is in the bill?
• This legislation would license and regulate the cultivation and retail of marijuana for adult use. This means that the product will be tested and taxed (currently with a 25-percent sales tax). Only those with licenses will be allowed to grow or sell. The regulation will be under the Department of Public Safety and the Agency of Agriculture.
• It will not change the medical marijuana program.
• There will be no edibles (though such products will still be available in the dispensaries for medical patients). There will be no lounges, nor will use be allowed on public properties. Landlords and employers can restrict, just as they can tobacco and alcohol. Local communities can vote to be “dry,” just as they can with alcohol. Even if towns do not prohibit all use in this way, they can still regulate time, place, and manner of permitted use.
• For youth (younger than 21), use will be prohibited, just as it is for alcohol. Providing marijuana to a youth will have the same consequences as providing alcohol, and those who provide to someone younger than 18 will face a double penalty. The bill directs $350,000 to the Department of Health to immediately begin an education/prevention program.
* * *
Several major concerns with the bill are home grow and what is seen as the corporate model.
• Home grow is not allowed in this bill. Doing so is illegal now, and it will remain so - it will not become more illegal.
But the bill establishes a committee that will return next year with a report on home grow. The other states that have legalized marijuana did not start with home grow; some are now going there.
So with this bill there is the possibility of home grow in the future; without it, there is not that possibility. I know some felt that it is better to have no bill, but I do not agree. If this bill becomes law, it is a huge leap toward ending prohibition and instituting more rational regulation. And I believe this really is our only chance of passage for at least the next four to six years.
• Any money generated through the tax will be divided evenly among prevention/education, treatment, and the justice system, including courts and law enforcement.
Some suggest that the additional money for law enforcement will intensify efforts against home growers. I do not think this prediction is accurate. We have issues with trafficking, especially other drugs, and impaired driving in general - these problems will be the target of that money.
• Another issue is the corporate model. The bill contains a number of provisions aimed at keeping it from becoming a monopoly or open only to the wealthy: Only Vermonters can own an establishment, only Vermonters can invest, no one can have an interest in more than one establishment, and there is a cap on the size of cultivators.
In the first year there would be 27 cultivators, 10 up to 1,000 sq. ft., four up to 2,500, 10 up to 5,000, and three up to 10,000 - none larger. The second year would double those numbers. (Our original bill had many more cultivators but these limitations represent a compromise.) There will be 15 retailers the first year and double that number the second year.
* * *
The bill now goes to the House. Members there are talking about it going to five committees, so it sounds as if they are looking to defeat it without having a vote.
In the Senate, it officially went to three committees, and five more suggested changes. The chairs of three of those opposed the bill but chose not to let it die in their committees.
I hope the House will do the same and not let it just die because each committee feels the need to officially “take the bill.” If it makes it out of the House, there will be a conference committee, and then it moves on to the governor.
My belief is that this bill will limit access for youth (and make it safer for those who do try it). It will undercut the black market, it will not create criminals out of citizens who use it, and it will lead to more rational drug laws.
The bill is not ideal, but it is a huge leap in the right direction. And I believe it is the right thing to do. We can make changes.
But without it, we remain where we are.